Content uploaded by Joel Klenck
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joel Klenck on Jun 27, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Samoa Conference III: Opportunities and Challenges for a Sustainable Cultural and Natural Environment
August 25-29, 2014
National University of Samoa, Apia, Samoa
New Discoveries of Archaeological Sites with Polynesian Plainware Ceramics on Tutuila Island,
American Samoa.
Joel D. Klenck
1
& Epifania Suafo’a-Taua’i
2
Following Federal and local statutes, archaeologists from the American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office and American Samoa Power Authority excavated three sites on Tutuila Island in American
Samoa. At these locales: Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, archaeologists retrieved Polynesian
Plainware ceramic sherds, adzes, adze pre-forms, volcanic glass, lunate-shaped lithic artifacts,
blades, scrapers, and other artifacts. The retrieval of ceramic artifacts at these sites indicates ceramic
utilization was more widespread than previously recorded in archaeological literature. Further,
artifacts from Maloata and Fagamalo suggest the possibility of ceramic manufacturing locales.
Introduction
Archaeologists from the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office (“ASHPO”) and American Samoa
Power Authority (“ASPA”) excavated and analysed cultural assemblages from three sites: Maloata,
Fagamalo, and Leone, on Tutuila Island, in American Samoa.
All sites were excavated to comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (“NHPA”), as
amended. The Act requires all federally funded projects to record and mitigate damage to historic sites,
usually greater than fifty (50) years of age. The ASPA Archaeology Department (“AAD”) and ASHPO also
requires construction crews to follow the American Samoa Coastal Management Act of 1990 (“ASCMA”)
and adhere to the provisions of the Samoan Project Notification and Review System (“PNRS”), which
further protects historic sites.
To fulfil the requirements of the NHPA, archaeologists completed Phase I, II, and III mitigation activities
at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, sites on or near the western coastline of Tutuila Island. Archaeological
methods at these locales comprised pedestrian surveys, mitigation of shovel-test pits, excavation of square-
metre excavation units, and dry sieving using quarter-inch mesh screens.
Archaeologists retrieved an array of artifacts including Polynesian Plainware ceramic sherds, adzes, adze
pre-forms, volcanic glass, lunate-shaped lithic artifacts, debitage, a lithic denticulate, fire-cracked rocks,
clays annealing to basaltic cinders, clays of various colours, and circular stone features. The retrieval of
ceramic artifacts at these sites indicates ceramic utilization was more widespread than previously recorded
and the potential presence of pottery making facilities at Fagamalo and Maloata.
Background
Archaeological research in the Pacific documented a rich and varied record of human occupation in Samoa
between 2900 and 2700 cal BP (Addison & Matisoo-Smith 2010; Rieth & Hunt 2008). However, some
1
Principal Investigator, Senior Advisor, President, PRC, Inc. (Contract Archaeology Firm); Former Territorial
Archaeologist, American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, 6800 Bird Road, Ste. #381, Miami, Florida, 33155;
Telephone: (904) 444-1576.
2
Principal Investigator, Senior Advisor, Director, Archaeology Department, American Samoa Power Authority,
P.O. Box 2175, Leone Village, Pago Pago, American Samoa; Telephone: (684) 699-2316.
2
dates suggest an earlier chronology, for the initial occupation of Tutuila, between 3400 and 2750 cal BP
(Rieth et al. 2014). The first published archaeological field study was by Jack Golson (1969; 1972). Later
archaeological research included several large projects in both Western and American Samoa (Green &
Davidson 1965; Green & Davidson 1969; Green & Davidson 1972; Kirch & Hunt 1993).
The Samoan archipelago has been of great interest to Pacific researchers, especially after the retrieval of
ancient ceramics by Golson (1969) and later by Green and Davidson (1972; see Figure 1). It was not until
Green’s work that a more complete sequence of Samoan ceramics began to emerge (Green 1974). Green
proposed a ceramic sequence for Upolu that was quickly embraced by Oceanic archaeologists and now
stands as the conventional culture-historical reconstruction for the entire archipelago (Bellwood 1979;
Davidson 1987; Kirch 1986; Kirch & Hunt 1993).
Figure 1: The Samoan Archipelago showing the location of Tutuila Island.
Early work in American Samoa was limited and focused mostly on regional scale settlement patterns and
chronology. Notable works include the archaeological survey of surface artifacts by Kikuchi (1964) and
test excavations by Janet Frost (1978). Subsequently, studies of Polynesian occupations began at Manu’a
(Hunt 1987; Kirch & Hunt 1993; Clark & Michlovic 1996) and the western end of Tutuila (Ayres & Eisler
1987) including the archaeological excavations at the Tataga-Matau Adze Quarry (Leach & Witter 1990).
Evidence for early settlement and human occupation in Samoa, dating between ca. 3,000 to 2,000 years
ago, comes from the Mulifanua Ceramic Site or Ferry Berth Site, which is approximately 800 metres from
the western side of Upolu Island (Green & Davidson 1972; Green 1974; Leach & Green 1989). In eastern
Tutuila, early occupation sites include the Aoa Valley Site (Clark 1989; Clark & Herdrich 1988, Clark &
3
Herdrich 1993, Clark & Michlovic 1996). Also excavated was the To’aga Site that is located on a relatively
narrow coastal flat on Ofu Island in the Manu’a Group (Kirch & Hunt 1993; Kirch et al. 1989; Kirch et al.
1990). These sites yielded early ceramics, including decorated Lapita pottery, from Mulifanua Village, and
Polynesian Plainware. The term Polynesian Plainware was proposed by Green (1974), and later became
popular term used by Hunt (1987), Clark and Michlovic (1996), and in later studies (Eckert 2006). Several
sites on Upolu, Manono and Apolima islands in Western Samoa also date to this early Polynesian Plainware
period (Clark, Sheppard, & Jones 1997; Clark, Wright, & Herdrich 1997).
The general academic consensus is that Polynesian Plainware ceramic sites ended sometime around 1700
BP (Kirch 1986; Addison et al. 2006; Addison et al. 2008). This disappearance or decline of ceramics in
American Samoa is documented at the To’aga Site (Kirch & Hunt 1993) and at Aoa (Clark & Michlovic
1996). Potential causes for the cessation of ceramic use in Samoa include transitions in function; the
development of new technology, especially umu ovens that did not require ceramic material; the influx of
new populations into American Samoa; cultural transitions that lessened the availability of ceramic
specialists; or a combination of aforementioned factors.
From 2011 to 2013, excavations at the Vaota Lodge Site on Ofu Island exhibited complete ceramic pots
shaped like ‘ava bowls (Clark 2013). During the 2013 season, excavators retrieved a complete but
deteriorated ceramic vessel with eight basaltic ‘umu rocks with the remains of a black sea urchin inside the
container. Recent discoveries of Polynesian Plainware sherds at western sites on Tutuila Island, specifically
at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, evidence the island-wide distribution of ceramics (Suafo’a-Taua’i &
Klenck. 2013; Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck. 2014; and Klenck & Suafo’a-Taua’i 2014).
Archaeological Methods
At Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, on Tutuila Island, in American Samoa, archaeologists employed
standard archaeological methods to ensure cultural material was properly acquired (see Figure 2). These
methods included pedestrian surveys (Phase I), shovel test pits (Phase II), and one-metre square excavation
units (Phase III). All excavated areas were mapped using a global positioning satellite (“GPS”) device,
compass, and measuring tape, and were plotted to scale on a map. Photographs were taken of excavation
units and archaeological features. Archaeologists recorded level and feature forms, stratigraphic profiles,
and feature drawings during the excavation of each unit. Plan views and profiles were drawn to scale of
each cultural or natural subsurface feature. Depths were recorded as centimetres below the datum (“cbd”).
Archaeology teams screened all excavated soil through quarter-inch mesh.
The size of the archaeological crews differed with each excavation: five at Maloata, six at Fagamalo, and
nine at Leone. At each site, excavations of features were led and conducted by archaeologists having
between thirty-three and nine years of archaeological experience.
The number of one-metre square excavated units at each locale varied: four at Maloata, eight at Fagamalo,
and nine at Leone. At each site, crews excavated between 30 to 183 centimetres below the datum (“cbd”)
until no cultural remains or archaeological features were visible or retrieved from screened debris. At Leone
the datum was positioned in the southeast corner of the excavation units. At Fagamalo the datum was
positioned in the northwest corner because of the severely sloping ground. Similarly, at Maloata, because
of the differing elevations of the excavation units on the side of the road, archaeologists established two
datum points on the northwest and northeast corners of the excavation units.
Surface reconnaissance was extended from fifty to one-hundred metres surrounding the excavation units.
In addition, the crews excavated two and four shovel-test pits (“STPs”) at Maloata and Fagamalo,
respectively. At Leone, archaeologists transitioned from Phase I reconnaissance surveys to a Phase III
4
excavation because the midden layer, the floor from a prehistoric fale, was visible from a natural profile
caused by tidal activity.
Figure 2: Location of Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone archaeological sites reported or excavated during 2012.
All cultural materials were placed in plastic bags noting their provenience, locus, stratum, depth
measurements, date, and excavators. In addition, the location and presence of major artifacts were recorded
in field books. At the conclusion of the excavation, field crews transported all artifacts to the ASPA
laboratory or ASHPO. Here, the artifacts were washed, sorted, measured, photographed, and analysed.
In addition, soil samples and charred materials (retrieved in tinfoil) were collected from each stratum and
transported to the two offices. Charred samples were sent to laboratories at the University of Georgia or
Beta Labs in Miami, Florida, for radioisotope analysis.
The three sites of Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone represent a range of typologies: a disturbed cultural
assemblage impacted by modern construction efforts, a multi-purpose utilitarian site, and a fale or
habitation, respectively.
Maloata
The goal of the archaeological survey and excavations at Maloata was to mitigate the loss of archaeological
assemblages caused by a water pipe installation project. The project was partially funded by the Federal
government and was therefore subject to Section 106 requirements of the NHPA.
5
The cultural assemblage at Maloata represented the remains of artifacts heavily impacted by natural
precipitation, water runoff, and modern construction. No archaeological features or cultural strata were
identified or preserved. Also, the site remains undated: A possible charred artifact displayed contamination
from modern carbon.
The first archaeological work performed in Maloata village was carried out Ayres and Eisler (1987). There,
archaeologists conducted surface surveys and excavated seven test units, at twenty-metre intervals, in an
east-to-west direction. In December, 2005, preliminary survey and field work at Maloata was conducted by
Suafo’a-Taua’i and Tautala Asaua. In August, 2006, the ASHPO recommended monitoring and Phase III
mitigation at the nearby Fish Farm site because a modern pipeline project would affect the area (Suafo’a-
Taua’i 2007). The report for this archaeological assemblage at Maloata was submitted to the ASHPO in
December of 2013 (Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck 2013).
In September, 2011, ASPA archaeologist monitoring construction efforts identified three (3) pottery sherds
of Polynesian Plainware. Excavators retrieved another sherd from an excavation unit. Archaeologists halted
the construction work and contacted the ASHPO, who recommended that archaeologists excavate four (4)
square-metre units along the north side of the dirt road, west of Maloata Stream (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Location of the archaeological assemblage at Maloata, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
The surface reconnaissance at Maloata was extended another fifty (50) metres outside the excavated area.
In addition, the crew excavated four (4) shovel-test pits (“STPs”). These efforts revealed no additional
cultural remains.
6
Artifact Type
Total Count
Ceramic Non-Rim Sherds
4
Retouched / Total Basaltic Flakes
55 / 2,322
Adze Preforms
22
Complete or Broken Adzes
20
Basaltic Scraper
1
Table 1: Artifacts Retrieved from the Maloata Waterline Site.
Despite the heavily disturbed nature of the archaeological assemblage, the retrieved remains were
noteworthy (See Table 1). From Maloata, archaeology crew retrieved four (4) ceramic sherds of Polynesian
Plainware, twenty-two (22) basaltic adze preforms, twenty (20) complete or broken adzes, and one (1)
basaltic scraper. The lithic debitage consisted of 2,322 basaltic flakes. Fifty-five (55) specimens from this
total indicated re-touched flakes (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Lithic adzes and Polynesian Plainware sherds from Maloata.
In addition, archaeologists recognized two types of unique artifacts in the excavation units. First,
archaeologists retrieved lunate-shaped debitage or untreated lithic material. Second, excavators collected
sixteen (16) basaltic cinders and two bags of other times of cinders with hardened clay material annealed
to the artifacts (Figure 5). These types of artifacts were collected due to an intuition by Suafo’a-Taua’i that
7
they might be of cultural significance. These artifacts were subsequently observed during the Fagamalo
excavation.
Figure 5: Cinders with hardened clay material annealed to the surface and lunate-shaped debitage.
Although cultural features of the Maloata site were most likely destroyed by modern construction, the
excavation at Maloata represented the first discovery of Polynesian Plainware ceramics in western Tutuila.
Fagamalo
Similar to Maloata, the objective of archaeological survey and excavations at Fagamalo was to mitigate the
loss of archaeological assemblages impacted by the emplacement of a water storage facility. The project
was partially funded by the Federal government and was therefore subject to Section 106 requirements of
the NHPA.
Closest to Fagamalo were the excavations at Maloata Village by Ayres and Eisler (1987), the fish farm at
Maloata Village by Suafo’a-Taua’i (2007), and the salvage excavation at Maloata in this report (Suafo’a-
Taua’i & Klenck 2013). Of note is that Suafo’a-Taua’i and two other archaeologists excavated Fagamalo
seven months after Maloata and were cognizant of material assemblage from the latter locale. The report
for the Fagamalo site was submitted to the ASHPO in January of 2014 (Suafo’a-Taua’i & Klenck 2014).
During a pedestrian survey in May, 2012, archaeology crews discovered six ceramic sherds on the slope of
a hill with basaltic debitage, fire-cracked rocks, an adze preform, a broken adze, and a grinding stone.
Subsequently, archaeologists excavated eight one-square-metre units to cover the area where the ceramic
material was found, on the slope of a hill (Figure 6). The excavation of the material was accomplished
during four weekends in June, 2012. The crew excavated a minimum of forty (40) centimetres and a
maximum of 175 centimetres below datum.
8
The excavations revealed features comprising circular stone features over a pavement of stones (Figure 7).
Within the circular features were clays of different colours (Figure 8), ceramic sherds in various states of
firing (Figure 9), and hardened clay material annealed to cinders (Figure 10).
Figure 6: Location of the archaeological assemblage at Fagamalo, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
Archaeologists also retrieved lunate-shaped lithic material (Figure 11), adzes of different types (Figures 12
and 13), a lithic denticulate (Figure 14), fire-cracked rocks, ash, charred remains, and other artifacts (Table
2).
The archaeological features at Fagamalo were divided in four square-metre quadrants. In Units 1, 2, 7, and
8, the features comprised an upper level (Phase 1) characterized by large stones covered with grey clay and
associated with lithic and ceramic material. These large boulders were purposefully covered with the grey
clay because the soil surrounding the large stones comprised silt-sand loam and clays of a variety of colours.
9
Figure 7 (Left): Circular stone feature at Fagamalo.
Figure 8 (Right): Clays of different colours surrounding circular stone features at Fagamalo.
Figure 9 (Left): Polynesian Plainware sherds at Fagamalo.
Figure 10 (Right): Clay material annealed to surface of cinder at Fagamalo.
Figure 11: Lunate-shaped lithic at Fagamalo.
10
Figures 12-14 (Left to right): Adzes of different types and a lithic denticulate.
The lower level (Phase 2) comprised a circular stone feature on a platform of flat stones. This platform
included ma’avai or smoothed stones from ocean or riverine contexts. The ceramic sherds within these
structures exhibited different stages of firing. The colours of these pottery materials ranged in colour: bright
orange, red, brown, and black (caused by charring). Archaeologists retrieved ceramic specimens that appear
to have been retreated or burnt during re-firing processes perhaps to mend apertures in ceramic vessels.
In addition, charred material was present in an around the archaeological features and artifacts at Fagamalo.
Two samples, 15172 and 15173, were sent to the radiometric facilities at the University of Georgia and
exhibited dates of 2400+/-25 BP and 2240+/-25 BP, respectively. The excavation at Fagamalo represented
the second discovery of Polynesian Plainware ceramics in western Tutuila.
We suggest the Fagamalo represents a multi-purpose utilitarian site. Twenty-one metres west of the
excavated area, archaeologists identified three grinding stones near a small stream. In addition, we believe
the materials at the excavation site at Fagamalo suggest a ceramic manufacturing locale, either a kiln, part
of a kiln, or another area involved with pottery making. The archaeological materials at Fagamalo included
clays of different colours, ceramic sherds in various states of firing, hardened clay material annealed to
cinders, fire-cracked rocks, ash, and charred remains. Moreover, the features at Fagamalo: circular stone
features surmounted on pavements of stones were small, not exceeding 1.5 metres in length, and did not
resemble the larger circular or semi-circular structures of a Polynesian habitation or fale (Figure 7).
Also, the lithics at Fagamalo were unique: adzes with angled edges and a denticulate perhaps used to shape
and incise ceramic vessels (Figures 13 & 14). Other artifacts had an unknown function including boulders
covered with grey clay and lunate-shaped lithic fragments. For the latter, Lorena Sciusco, of the National
University of Samoa, suggested these lunate-shaped lithic materials were possibly employed to prop up the
ceramic vessels during the firing process—allowing heat to circulate over the entirety of the ceramic vessel.
Lastly, the ceramic sherds exhibited different stages of firing. Some fragments were totally charred, which
might associate with the re-firing or retreating process to mend cracks in ceramic vessels. Other fragments
were partially fired, with layers of clay flaking off sherds at the touch. The suggestion that the Fagamalo
site represents pottery manufacturing is tentatively made. The features and material culture at Fagamalo
does not detract from our hypothesis and yet we have no archaeological analogues in Polynesian prehistory
for comparison.
11
Artifact Type
Total Count
Ceramic Non-Rim Sherds
52
Ceramic Rim Sherds
6
Retreated Sherds
101
Adze Preforms
6
Adze Fragments
6
Complete Adzes
2
Denticulate Lithic Tool
1
Volcanic Glass
8
Ma’avai / Waterworn Stones
6
Basaltic Flakes
1,607
Cinders
617
Fire Cracked Rocks
1,309
Ash Rocks
308
Lithic Scrapers
3
Table 2: Artifacts Retrieved from the Fagamalo Site.
Also, the lithics at Fagamalo were unique: adzes with angled edges and a denticulate perhaps used to shape
and incise ceramic vessels (Figures 13 & 14). Other artifacts had an unknown function including boulders
covered with grey clay and lunate-shaped lithic fragments. For the latter, Lorena Sciusco, of the National
University of Samoa, suggested these lunate-shaped lithic materials were possibly employed to prop up the
ceramic vessels during the firing process—allowing heat to circulate over the entirety of the ceramic vessel.
Lastly, the ceramic sherds exhibited different stages of firing. Some fragments were totally charred, which
might associate with the re-firing or retreating process to mend cracks in ceramic vessels. Other fragments
were partially fired, with layers of clay flaking off sherds at the touch. The suggestion that the Fagamalo
site represents pottery manufacturing is tentatively made. The features and material culture at Fagamalo
does not detract from our hypothesis and yet we have no archaeological analogues in Polynesian prehistory
for comparison.
Leone
The objectives of the archaeological excavation at Leone were two-fold. First, the salvage excavation was
conducted to accommodate American Samoa legislation regarding the protection of cultural property.
Second, archaeologists conducted mitigation at this locale to follow Section 106 requirements of the NHPA
because Federal aid was used to partially fund the road revetment project.
This Leone site was located between a modern road, a shoreline heavily affected by tidal activity, and
planned road-revetment construction. During the initial survey, an array of surficial artifacts appeared from
a narrow colluvial channel running through the site: retouched debitage, scrapers, adze preforms, and a
single Polynesian Plainware sherd.
The first archaeological work performed in Leone was carried out at Tataga-Matau, a prehistoric adze
quarry in the hills overlooking Leone on tribal land (Leach & Witter n.d.; 1987; 1990). The late
archaeologist David Kennedy conducted a survey in 2010 for the road revetment project but did not identify
the prehistoric site in this report. In 2011, David Addison and an archaeology crew surveyed an area around
a bridge, south of the prehistoric site in this report. Here, his archaeology crew discovered the concrete
12
foundations of a historic property. The final report for the Leone site will be submitted to the ASHPO in
several months (Klenck & Suafo’a-Taua’i 2014).
In May, 2012, Joel Klenck identified the prehistoric artifacts from the colluvial depression during an
inspection of the road revetment project area near the shoreline. The area was cordoned off and
archaeologists from ASHPO, ASPA, and local volunteers excavated the site during August, 2012. Also, the
midden layer of the site was visible from a profile caused by the tidal activity.
Nine one-metre square units were excavated to a depth of 183 centimetres below datum revealing a
pavement-like surface consisting of coral, basalt, and other flat stones (Figure 15).
Figure 15: Archaeological assemblage at Leone, Tutuila Island, American Samoa.
The archaeological remains on and in the midden layer comprised two non-rim sherds of Polynesian
Plainware pottery (Figure 16) and mostly basaltic lithic debitage and tools (Figure 17).
Also, found in the midden layer were adze preforms, broken adzes, a scraper, charred organic remains, and
other artifacts (Table 3). The Leone site remains undated: A single charred sample indicated contamination
from modern carbon.
13
Figure 16 (Left): Polynesian Plainware sherds at Leone.
Figure 17 (Right): Lithic retouched flake, scrapers, and blade at Leone.
Artifact Type
Total Count
Ceramic Non-Rim Sherds
2
Retouched / Total Basaltic Flakes
58 / 412
Adze Preforms
11
Broken Adzes
10
Basalt Blades
2
Basalt Scrapers
3
Table 3: Artifacts Retrieved from the Leone Site.
The circular shape of the floor stones, adze preforms, adzes, and other lithic tools and debitage on (an in)
the midden floor is typical of prehistoric fale at other locales in Polynesia. A fale is usually a domestic
dwelling but may serve as a place for the temporary housing of visitors from other tribes and occasionally
a site for inter-tribal meetings and ceremonies. Also, the local inhabitants at Leone expressed the excavated
area was the site of an ancient fale. This factor inspired villagers to volunteer for the Leone excavation.
Discussion
Although temper and clay analysis has not been performed on the ceramic sherds in this report, other studies
in Tonga and Samoa indicate “Lapita and ‘Lapitoid’ (Polynesian Plainware) were “manufactured near their
collecting sites using locally available temper sands” (Dickinson et al. 1996:87). In Western Samoa, Lapita
sherds from Mulifanua on Upolu evidence local temper sands from Upolu (Petchey 1995). With the
exception of several petrographically exotic tempers such as temper from New Caledonia in a ceramic
fragment from Vanuatu, the academic consensus is that most pottery was manufactured at nearby locales
(Dickinson 1971). Conversely, adzes were routinely transported throughout Polynesia over considerable
distances (McAlister et al. 2013:259).
The three sites in this report contain two types of Polynesian Plainware. First, thin, fine-tempered wares
comprise several sherds at Fagamalo and a single fragment at Leone. The second and most dominant type
of Plainware at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone, is a thick, coarse-tempered ware. These two ceramic types
are also present at other sites in American Samoa including the To’aga site on Ofu Island and Vainu’u on
Tutuila (Kirch et al. 1990:7; Eckert & Welch 2013:15). Questions remain; however, as to the composition
14
and material assemblage of Polynesian kilns. To date, we found no articles that note the discovery or
potential discovery of kilns from Polynesian prehistory.
As Maloata and Leone are near shorelines and sea levels continue to rise, this study indicates the importance
of conducting historic preservation efforts in coastal areas to ensure prehistoric and historic sites are
surveyed and excavated before heightened tidal activity and beach erosion.
Also, the discovery of three ceramic assemblages in western Tutuila, in a twelve month period, evidences
the importance of Federal, territorial, and locale historic preservation statutes. The archaeological
assemblages at Maloata, Fagamalo, and Leone are now available because statutes were in place to ensure
archaeologists searched for and retrieved cultural assemblages prior to modern construction efforts.
The discoveries in this report create new questions: sources of clay and temper materials, cultural position
and gender of the manufacturers of ceramic vessels, vessel functions, reasons behind the halt of pottery
manufacturing in Samoa around 1700 cal BP, and the relationship between early Lapita ceramics and later
Polynesian Plainware. Further, we do not have definitive knowledge of the composition, architecture, or
artifactual assemblages pertaining to prehistoric Polynesian kilns.
The discovery of Polynesian Plainware in diverse geographical locales, on the coast or further inland, with
different site types, a habitation and multi-purpose utilitarian site, indicates the distribution of ceramics
throughout Tutuila Island was more expansive than previously published. Further, these diverse locales
might support the notion that ceramic manufacturing in Tutuila was a more ordinary undertaking as opposed
to a specialization directed by a tribal authority.
Finally, the carbon dates from the charred samples at Fagamalo do not conflict with the consensus view
that ceramic materials appeared on Tutuila by 2700 cal BP and declined (or halted) around 1700 cal BP.
Acknowledgements
We extend our appreciation to Director David Herdrich of the American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office; Professor Lorena Sciusco of the National University of Samoa; Professor David Addison of the
Samoan Studies Institute; Professor Jeffrey Clark of North Dakota State University; and the executives and
managers of the American Samoa Power Authority, especially Mr. Utu Abe Malae, Mr. Joachim Fong, and
Mr. Fa’i Mareko. Lastly, we thank the volunteers that participated in the excavations, particularly the
helpful, numerous, and enthusiastic volunteers from Leone.
References
Addison, D.J., and E. Matisoo-Smith. 2010. Rethinking Polynesians origins: a West-Polynesia Triple-I
model. Archaeology in Oceania 45:1-12.
Addison, D.J., T. Tago, J. Toloa, and E. Pearthree. 2006. Ceramic deposit below AD 5th-6th century
volcanic ash fall at Pava'ia'i, Tutuila Island, American Samoa: preliminary results. New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology 27:5-18.
Addison, D.J., J. Toloa, T. Tago, and S. Vaueli. 2008. Samoan Plain Ware ceramics of Tutuila Island,
American Samoa: Some thoughts on their spatial and chronological distribution. Recent Advances in the
Archaeology of the Fiji / West-Polynesia Region. D.J. Addison and C. Sand (eds.):97-115. Dunedin: Dept.
of Anthropology, Gender and Sociology, University of Otago.
15
Ayres, W.S. and D. Eisler. 1987. Archaeological survey in western Tutuila: A report on archaeological site
survey and excavations (85-2). Report on file, Historic Preservation Office, American Samoa Government,
Pago Pago.
Ayres, W., J. Wozniak, G. Robbins, and E. Suafo’a. 2001. Archaeology in American Samoa; Maloata,
Malaeimi, and Malaeloa. In Archaeology of Easter Island Pacific and the Pacific, edited by Christopher
Stevenson, Geogia, Lee and F.J. Morin,
Bellwood, P.S. 1987. The Polynesians: Prehistory of an Island People. London: Thames and Hudson.
Clark, J.T. 1989. The eastern Tutuila archaeological project: 1988 final report. Report on file, Historic
Preservation Office, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago.
Clark, J. T. and D.J. Herdrich. 1988. The eastern Tutuila Archaeological project: 1986 final report. Report
on file, Historic Preservation Office, American Samoa Government, Pago Pago.
Clark, J.T. and D.J. Herdrich. 1993. Prehistoric settlement system in eastern Tutuila, American Samoa.
Journal of the Polynesian Society 102(2):147-85.
Clark, J.T. and M.G. Michlovic. 1996. An Early Settlement in the Polynesian Homeland: Excavations at
'Aoa Valley, Tutuila Island, American Samoa. Journal of Field Archaeology 23:151-167.
Clark, J.T., P. Sheppard, and M. Jones. 1997. Late Ceramics in Samoa: A Test Using Hydration-Rim
Measurements. Current Anthropology 38(5):898-904.
Clark, J.T., E. Wright, and D.J. Herdrich. 1997. Interactions within and Beyond the Samoan Archipelago:
Evidence from Basaltic Rock Geochemistry. In Prehistoric Long-distance Interaction in Oceania: An
Interdisciplinary Approach. Edited by Marshall I.Wiesler. New Zealand Archaeological Association
Monograph.
Clark, J.T. 2013. Personal Communication in July of 2013.
Davidson, J. 1987. The prehistory of New Zealand. Auckland: Longman Paul.
Dickinson, W.R. 1971. Temper sands in Lapita-style pot-sherds on Malo. Journal of the Polynesian Society
80:244-246.
Dickinson, W.R., R. Shutler, Jr., R. Shortland, D.V. Burley, and T.S. Dye. 1996. Sand tempers in
indigenous Lapita and Lapitoid Polynesian Plainware and imported protohistoric Fijian pottery of Ha’apai
(Tonga) and the question of Lapita tradeware. Archaeology in Oceania 31:87-98.
Eckert, S.L. 2006. Report on Analysis of Polynesian Plain Ware from the Ulu Tree Site, on the island of
Tutuila, American Samoa. Submitted to David Addison, American Samoa Power Authority, file in ASPA
Lab/Office, Aitulagi Bldg, Tafuna Village.
16
Eckert, S.L. and D.R. Welch. 2013. A commanding view of the Pacific: highland land use as viewed from
Vainu’u, a multi-component site on Tutuila Island, American Samoa. Archaeology in Oceania 48:13-25.
Frost, J.O. 1978. Archaeological Investigations on Tutuila, American Samoa. Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Oregon, Eugene. Report on file, Historic Preservation Office, American Samoa
Government, Pago Pago.
Golson, J. 1969. Preliminary Research: Archaeology in Western Samoa, 1957. In Archaeology in Western
Samoa. Volume I. R.C. Green and J.M. Davidson (eds), Auckland: Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and
Museum 6:14-20.
Golson, J. (ed). 1972. Polynesian navigation: a symposium on Andrew Sharp’s theory of accidental
voyages. Wellington: Polynesian Society by A.H. & A.W. Reed.
Green, R.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1965. Radiocarbon Dates for Western Samoa. The Journal of the
Polynesian Society 74(1):63-69.
Green, R.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1969. Archaeology in Western Samoa Vol. I. Auckland: Bulletin of the
Auckland Institute & Museum.
Green, R.C. and J.M. Davidson. 1972. Archaeology in Western Samoa Vol. II. Auckland: Bulletin of the
Auckland Institute & Museum.
Green, R.C. 1974. A Review of Portable Artifacts from Western Samoa. Auckland: Auckland Institute and
Museum.
Hunt, T.L. 1987. Archaeological Survey and Assessment of the Proposed Fiti'uta Site, Ta'u Island, Manu'a
Group, American Samoa. Prepared for the American Samoa Government Department of Public Works. On
file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Johnson, P., Q. Winterhoff, and T. Currey. 2008. Results On The Archaeological Monitoring Of The 2008
Septic Tank Installation Project, Tutuila Island, American Samoa, January-December 2008. On file at the
American Samoa Power Authority archaeology laboratory.
Johnson, P., Q. Winterhoff, and T. Currey. 2009. Results On The Archaeological Monitoring Of The 2009
Septic Tank Installation Project, Tutuila Island, American Samoa, January-December 2009. On file at the
American Samoa Power Authority archaeology laboratory.
Kikuchi, W. 1964. Petroglyphs in American Samoa. Journal of the Polynesian Society 73:163-166.
Kirch, P.V. 1986. Rethinking East Polynesian Prehistory. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 95:9-40.
Kirch, P.V. and T.L. Hunt. 1993. The To'aga Site: Three Millennia of Polynesian Occupation in the Manu'a
Islands, American Samoa. No. 51. Berkeley: Contributions to the University of California Archaeological
Research Facility.
Kirch, P. V., Hunt, T. L, Nagaoka, L and Tyler, J. 1990. An ancestral Polynesian occupation site at To'aga,
Ofu Island, American Samoa. Archaeology in Oceania 25(1):1-15.
17
Kirch, P. V, Hunt, T. L and Tyler, J. 1989 A radiocarbon sequence from the To'aga site, Ofu Island,
American Samoa. Radiocarbon 31(1): 7-13.
Klenck, J.D. and E. Suafo’a-Taua’i. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Site of Leone Village,
American Samoa. To be stored on file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Leach, H. M. and R.G. Green. 1989. New information for the Ferry Berth site, Mulifanua, Western Samoa.
Journal of the Polynesian Society 98:319-329.
Leach, H.M. and D.C. Witter. n.d. Final Project Report on the Survey of the Tataga-Matau Fortified Quarry
Complex, near Leone, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Leach, H.M. and D.C. Witter. 1987. Tataga-Matao “Rediscovered.” New Zealand Journal of Archaeology
9:33-54.
Leach, H.M. and D.C. Witter. 1990. Further investigations at the Tataga-matau site,
American Samoa. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 12:51-83.
McAlister, A., P.J. Sheppard, and M.S. Allen. 2013. The Identification of a Marquesan Adze in the Cook
Islands. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 122:3:257-274.
Petchey, F.J. 1995. The Archaeology of Kudon: Archaeological Analysis of Lapita Ceramics from
Mulifanua, Samoa and Sigatoka, Fiji. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University
of Auckland.
Rieth, T.M. and T.L. Hunt. 2008. A radiocarbon chronology for Samoan prehistory. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35:1901-1927.
Rieth, T.M., A.E. Morrison, and D.J. Addison. 2008. The Temporal and Spatial Patterning of the Initial
Settlement of Sāmoa, The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 3:2:214-239.
Suafo’a, E., 1994. Post-Field Summary Report: Archaeological Investigations of Site T-15 Tafuna Plain
Sewer Project, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Suafo’a-Taua’i, E. 2007. Maloata Fish Farm: Monitoring and Evaluating for Cultural Material Remains.
On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Suafo’a-Taua’i, E. and J.D. Klenck. 2013. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Site of Maloata
Village, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Suafo’a-Taua’i, E. and J.D. Klenck. 2014. Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Site of Fagamalo
Village, American Samoa. On file at the American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
