Artifacts Associated with Mortuary Contexts

Thousands of artifacts have been recovered from mortuary contexts on Pohnpei, primarily at Nan Madol. Artifacts associated with these contexts include shell beads (Conus and Spondylus), Conus rings, Spondylus pendants, Conus armbands, pearl shell fishing-lure shanks, and shell adzes (Tridacna and Terebra) amongst other items. Most of the recovered artifacts were uncovered in excavations undertaken at Nan Madol in the 19th and early 20th centuries for museums and collectors in Europe. Many of the artifacts recovered during this period did not complete the trip back to Europe (Spoehr 1963) or were lost in the bombing of Germany in World War II. F.W. Christian’s collection is one of the few to survive. Even though relatively few of the artifacts can be located today, some sketches and documentation of these early collections gives an idea of what was recovered. This information will be outlined below.

Collections from two expeditions exist in various museums in the United Kingdom and the Smithsonian. The F.W. Christian collection is divided between a number of museums and private collections in the United Kingdom, although most of the items are now held in the Pitt Rivers Museum, the British Museum, and the National Museum of Scotland. Museum records provide a listing of the items which can be compared to Christian’s published accounts. The Smithsonian collection is the only intact collection from Nan Madol, but a full report of the 1963 expedition was never completed (Ayres pers. comm.). A listing of artifacts recovered from the Nahndauwas burial structures is not currently available in the museum catalogs. The information in the accessible museum records and publications is reviewed here in order of

136 |

collection date. Where collections were lost I am required rely on artifact identifications made by the collectors.

Kubary travelled to Micronesia under the auspices of the Goddefroy Museum in the 1870s (Spoehr 1963). His hypotheses regarding the use and construction of Nan Madol laid the foundations for more recent research, and were progressive compared to some of his contemporaries (see Section 3.3 in Chapter 3). Most of Kubary’s collections from Nan Madol did not survive the trip to the Godeffroy Museum (Spoehr 1963) or World War II, but he published his observations about the site and some notes relating to items he recovered from several of the tombs (Kubary 1874). Little of Kubary’s published material has been translated from the original German, which means details cannot be included in this discussion, but pertinent information was published in his 1874 article. Kubary (1874) noted 13 burial platforms at Nan Madol with stone cysts demarcating individual bone groupings. He

excavated an unknown number of tombs, but he identifies Nahndauwas, Karian, Sapwuhtik B, Lukepenkarian, and Angeir in the list of islets where he located mortuary structures. Each crypt he excavated was filled with coral rubble, fragmentary human remains, and other artifacts, of which stone and shell discs and shell pendants were common (Kubary 1874). Kubary (1874) claimed that the stone discs associated with the burial contexts were used as currency as well as ornamentation and he was the first to suggest that grave goods at Nan Madol were indicative of status differentiation.

The benefit of F.W. Christian’s collection is that it survived nearly intact although spread among four museums in the United Kingdom and the material is also documented in his publications (Table 5.1). Christian also recounted his discussions with Kubary about the site and the collection once he returned from Micronesia (Christian 1899a, b). Accession records show that on his return to Britain in 1899, Christian divided his collection and sold pieces off to different museums and private collections. By cross-referencing museum records and notes from Christian’s publications (1899a, b) it is possible to reconstruct how much of the

137 |

Table 5.1 Estimate of the artifacts recovered by F.W. Christian based on his published accounts.

collection resides in these institutions. It also allows the provenance information to be

confirmed. Christian excavated all three lolong on Nahndauwas, and shifted his interest to the “Chokalai” burial ground in Kiti when the Nahnmwarki of Madolenihmw forced him to cease work at Nan Madol (Christian 1899a, b). Christian’s exploration of the Kiti site was the first documented excavation to take place outside Nan Madol. In his accounts (1899a, b), Christian did not publish the exact number or in some cases the type of artifacts he recovered from Nan Madol. Though he recorded most of what he excavated from the central and northern lolong in general terms, Christian only noted that he found a few artifacts of unspecified type in the

138 |

southern lolong (1899a). There are inconsistencies between Christian’s publications and the museum accession records. Some of these discrepancies are accounted for by Christian’s gift of some items from Nahndauwas to the captain of the Quiros, who docked in Madolenihmw Harbor while Christian was working at Nan Madol (Christian 1899a). Museum records do not contain the 12 shell needles nor the single obsidian fragment listed in Christian’s accounts from Nan Madol, which means they either were part of the gift to the captain, were part of a private collection, or were confused with other specimens. The numbers of each type of artifact are not consistent across both sets of records, which is not surprising since Christian was not diligent in recording them. For example, Christian (1899a, b) notes 80 pearl shell fishing-lure shanks were recovered from the central tomb at Nahndauwas, but only 51 are listed in museum records. As with the other missing artifacts, these items were likely gifted or sold to private collectors or acquaintances. The only other artifacts from Christian’s

excavations that have not been accounted for are a stone knife and shell chisel from the Kiti excavations. Christian (1899a) noted that there was very little at the site, but attributed the lack of artifacts to the character of the deceased’s relatives. In fact, the Kiti excavations demonstrate the same preservation concerns as those noted in relation to the PoB7-44 excavations in Awak (see Chapter 6). All the archaeological material from Christian has been provenanced to Nan Madol by the UK museums. It is possible that the Kiti artifacts never made it into the museum collections, but it is also possible that these items were given an incorrect provenance. Regardless of the issues with the history of the collection, Christian’s finds are overall representative of burial deposits at Nan Madol. The obsidian item uncovered in the central lolong at Nahndauwas is of particular interest because it does not naturally occur on Pohnpei and it is a rare find, as noted by Ayres et al. (n.d.b.) regarding a similar find on Usendau. The presence of exotic material in mortuary contexts suggests that it may have been a prestige material rather than a functional item as obsidian does not occur on Pohnpei and the nearest sources are the Admiralty Islands and Fergusson Island several thousand km away (International Assoc. for Obsidian Studies).

139 |

141 |

The majority of the other artifacts excavated by Christian in 1896 can also be classified as personal ornaments or prestige items.

The collection from Nan Madol posthumously donated to the Leipzig Museum by German Governor Berg was lost or destroyed during WWII. Sarfert (1911/12), an associate at the Leipzig Museum, published a list of the artifacts received along with what little

provenance information was attached to the shipping crates. Berg’s excavations were not systematic and all his notes relating to Nan Madol and his collections were lost (Sarfert 1911/12). The loss of his notes means confusion remains regarding some of the place-names he listed on the shipping crates. Hambruch (1936a:56) was the first to attempt to rectify artifact provenance during the German South Seas Expedition, and additional discussion on the topic has occurred more recently (Ayres pers. comm.). What are likely to be the proper names for the islets he visited are presented alongside his identifications (see Table 5.2). It is apparent, from Sarfert (1911/12) that Berg visited at least 11 different islets and excavated 15 tombs or burial structures. Unlike his predecessors, he collected all fragmentary skeletal material and crania in addition to artifacts. Overall, he recovered 822 bone fragments, three molars, at least two human skulls, and 266 artifacts. The types of artifacts he uncovered include Tridacna shell adzes, shell pendants, pearl shell fishhooks, Conus rings, unworked shell, and the occasional worked basalt stone (see Figure 5.4 for examples). In his concluding notes, Sarfert (1911/12) suggests many of the ornaments and fishhooks may have been used as currency, and he notes that much of Berg’s material is comparable to that reported by Christian and Kubary.

Hambruch managed to accomplish an astonishing amount of work at Nan Madol in the 12 days he spent at the site. In addition to completing the first site survey and mapping project for the entirety of Nan Madol, he also conducted a number of excavations. These excavations (n=21) on 18 separate islets produced approximately 2,000 artifacts (Hambruch 1911). The majority of items recovered were interpreted as feast or grave goods, with only 40 from non-burial contexts (Hambruch 1936a:39).

142 |

Table 5.3 Listing of Hambruch’s published finds.

Hambruch’s (1936a) records do not list specific artifact counts from many islets (see Table 5.3). Seven burial contexts on four islets yielded hundreds of shell beads, pendants, rings, and bracelets. Other items collected from these contexts include shell adzes, pearl shell fishing- lure shanks, and unworked shell. A few uncommon artifacts identified by Hambruch include a Tridacna canoe adze from Pohndauwas, and from Nahndauwas, fragments of a sperm whale tooth, a “nepheline” basalt knife, and a fishhook made of human bone (Hambruch 1936a). The majority of these artifacts were from mortuary sites, and were thought to be personal ornaments and valuables. These grave goods probably reflected the status of those interred within a specific tomb or platform (e.g. Binford 1971; Carr 1995; Saxe 1970). The absence of these valued artifact types in Hambruch’s non-burial excavations supports the use of ornaments and other types of items as distinguishing social status at death.

143 |

Figure 5.4 Sketches of shell bracelet fragments, shell pendants, shell beads, and shell rings recovered from mortuary contexts from Sarfert 1911/12.

Published records from the Japanese excavations at Nan Madol are typically published in Japanese (see Chapter 3), which limits access to excavation details. The primary source of items recovered from Pohnpei by the Japanese archaeological expeditions during the Mandate Period is Intoh’s (1998) inventory of museum holdings in Japan. Between 1915 and 1932, the Japanese collected items from the tombs of Nan Madol (Intoh 1998). The surviving collections are held in the Tokyo University Museum and the National Museum of Ethnology (see Table 5.4). Though the majority of these artifacts were collected by Hasebe or Yawata (ethnologists/archaeologists) others were collected by members of the Japanese Navy (Intoh 1998). These collections are provenanced to two of the tombs at Nahndauwas (Central and

144 |

Northern), the tomb on Sapwuhtik, and one of the tombs on Pahnwi. Intoh (1998) also notes various unprovenanced surface finds, likely from one of the islets listed above. The artifacts are all consistent with items recovered by previous collectors. The majority of items are personal ornaments or artifacts that may have been used as currency (e.g. pearl shell fishing- lure shanks). Conus shell ornaments and pearl shell fishing-lure shanks are the most common items in the Japanese collections. One of the more unusual artifacts recovered is a fragment of a Tridacna shell ring, because Tridacna shell tends to be more commonly associated with adze manufacture than ornaments on Pohnpei.

Table 5.4 Listing of artifacts recovered from Nan Madol during the Japanese Mandate (see Intoh 1998).

Stratigraphic excavations became the standard on Pohnpei by the 1960s. A number of burial excavations have produced artifacts, though only a few can be discussed due to gaps in reporting. In general the artifacts recovered from these excavations are consistent with those discussed above. What follows is a brief review and interpretation of the artifactual evidence from a set of mortuary sites at Nan Madol that were stratigraphically excavated.

In 1984, Ayres and colleagues mapped Pahnwi islet and completed six excavations (Seikel 2011). A recent analysis of the material recovered from these excavations was undertaken for comparative purposes. This analysis (Seikel 2011) of the artifacts recovered from the Pahnwi excavations (Table 5.5) demonstrates that there is a significant difference

145 |

between non-burial, lolong, platform burial, and sub-surface burial artifacts. The largest difference occurred between the burial and non-burial contexts, which is partly due to differences in the overall numbers of artifacts recovered from each context. Excavated burial contexts not associated with architectural features tend to have smaller artifact counts than burial platforms or lolong. Taphonomic processes cannot account for the discrepancies in artifact numbers, so variations in artifact frequencies can be attributed to status differences in burial types. The inclusion of more individuals in lolong or isolated platforms might also contribute to artifact number, since the Pahnwi lolong (Feature 30) excavation recovered more individuals than all the other burial contexts on the islet combined. Lolong were associated with greater numbers of prestige pieces (i.e. shell beads and ornaments) than isolated platform and sub-surface burials. Sub-surface burials typically have more utilitarian artifacts (e.g. shell adze fragments and stone flakes) than their architectural counterparts. Even with the potential impact of larger numbers of occupants in mortuary structures, the results of the artifact analysis indicate hierarchical differences within burial types (Seikel 2011).

Table 5.5 Overview of artifacts recovered from Pahnwi by Ayres in the 1980s.

All the artifact collections reviewed in this section originated from Nan Madol. Three of the collections are no longer extant, but the records and publications of the collections and their recovery provide information on mortuary goods. The expeditions to Nan Madol tended to focus on a few burial sites (e.g. Nahndauwas) and provide us with listing of a wide range of

146 |

burial goods and estimates of the quantity of specific classes of artifacts deposited in these structures over their use-life.

The incorporation of ornaments and personal items within burials is ubiquitous at Nan Madol and was likely a standard component of mortuary practices on Pohnpei. The data discussed here demonstrates the extraordinary quantity of material deposited in lolong, and the smaller quantities of items deposited in other burial contexts at Nan Madol. The Pahnwi data collected by Ayres demonstrates the added investment in artifacts accompanying lolong burials when compared to platform or sub-surface burials. Variables which potentially impacted upon artifact quantity include the duration a burial site was in use, the number of individuals interred, and the status associated with the individuals or group interred. This will be examined further in relation to burial demographics later in this chapter. Based on the wide distribution of lolong and other burial architecture on the island, it would be logical to hypothesize that other burial contexts have similar artifact signatures (i.e. type, quantity, etc.) to their cohorts at Nan Madol.

The majority of the artifacts found in association with burials and/or mortuary structures are not utilitarian items. The high proportion of shell ornaments and worked shell pieces suggest that mortuary practices were one arena where individual and group status manifested through the conspicuous display and sacrificial offering of prestige goods during the funerary ritual. Many of the artifacts recovered would have been personal items worn by the deceased or prestige items deposited as offerings. The pendants, rings and bracelets were likely placed on the deceased as jewelry while the beads were probably incorporated into jewelry or fastened to clothing or other textiles (e.g. woven belts, capes, etc.). Items like the pearl shell fishing lure shanks, shell and stone tools, and faunal remains were more likely to have been cached as offerings or grave goods. Even though some artifacts took the form of a utilitarian artifact type they may not have functioned like their counter-parts (e.g. fishing lure shanks), and rather held symbolic meaning beyond their function as prestige goods.

147 |

relative status of the deceased, but also are indicative of the wealth and status of the clan or group associated with a burial structure.