Two factors may explain these differences. Firstly, the smaller size of the TT1 assemblage must call into doubt the reliability of MNI derived from it Grayson Secondly, even with comparably sized samples, variations of this order would occur. Our observation during excavation and test pitting was that both shellfish and bone midden density and composition varied horizontally within the same stratum.
Although we cannot equate the THK midden stratigraphically with TT1, comparison of their similarly sized bone assemblages provides a numeric example of just such variation. Finally, we note that observed variations in midden contents between TT1 upper shell and PPT layer 3 make only a limited difference to the relative - importance of species when they are considered as sources of food.
Meat weight values for the TT1 fauna were calculated by Smith , Table 30 , and the same procedures have been employed here to derive values for PPT Table 6.
Archaeology of New Zealand - Wikipedia
In the latter case, no figures could be calculated for shellfish because their total abundance in the deposit was not measured. Table 6 shows that the relative contributions of fish, birds and dogs were very similar in the two assemblages, and that, in each case, their combined contribution was only about one-quarter of total meat weight. The only notable differences are in the values for seals and moas, which reverse their relative positions in the two assemblages.
However, meat weight values for large animals such as these are particularly susceptible to the variations in MNI induced by small sample size Grayson , suggesting that the observed difference in Table 6 is unlikely to be significant. Indeed, we note that the addition of just one moderately sized fur seal to the TT1 assemblage would produce values almost identical to those from PPT. The significant point that we take from these calculations is that in both assemblages big-game animals contributed about three-quarters of total meat weight.
The major limitation of the faunal evidence recovered during our excavations is that it did not include any material from the lower cultural layer, thus precluding a quantitative assessment of the faunal changes hypothesised by previous investigators. As indicated above, we have no reason to doubt the general trends that they identified, although, as our meat weight data show, big game still dominated the diet in the upper layer despite the abundance of fish, small birds and shellfish.
However, the point with which we do take issue is whether these changes necessarily took place over an extended period of time. Resolution of this question rests not with the faunal remains themselves, but with other evidence for the length of occupation at the site. Only 69 artefacts were found. Forty-seven stone flakes were recovered from PPT layer 3;20 of argillite, probably from Southland sources, of which five have the colour and texture of the Riverton source.
A waterworn cortex was observed on four flakes and two had signs of hammer-dressing. All are probably debris from adze manufacture. There were 13 porcellanite flakes, five of which showed signs of use, and 12 silcrete flakes, three of which had minor use-damage. There was one flake of rock crystal and one of chert. Of 11 flakes from THK, eight were porcellanite, two argillite and one chalcedony. A hammerstone Fig. It had been heavily used. There were also five polished fragments of Southland argillite adzes e. Two small pieces of polished nephrite were recovered from PPT.
Why join EliteSingles?
One Fig. The stone source is either south Westland or Otago, whereas the other fragment is from south Westland, according to Hooker personal communication. The point appears to be the reworked point leg of a one-piece hook.
It retains the basal notch as in other one-piece hooks e. The attachment facet is bevelled from both sides into a chisel form type B in Gumbley No comparable pieces are illustrated by either Lockerbie or Hjarno The final piece Fig. One of these has broken. The form suggests no obvious function, though it might once have been a hook. In summary, there is nothing typologically distinctive about the artefacts and they offer no evidence of long-term or especially early occupation. Three charcoal samples were submitted for radiocarbon dating.
Finding a dating agency – why EliteSingles is the smart choice
Two were from THK layer 5, the black lower cultural layer in the main site area. Sample THK 1 WK , from the top of this layer, was selected from a much larger sample of totara and matai charcoal. It consisted of 28 pieces The 25 pieces The third sample was from the PPT layer 3 midden. These are good samples in that they consist of pieces from relatively short-lived species, but if there is any doubt about the identification of twig wood, as in other cases Anderson: in press , then they might still exhibit some significant in-built age from the predominance of manuka, as well as from the small quantities of beech and bark.
However, we can still accept the results as maximum estimates of age. The results Table 7 show almost identical ages for the two samples from the lower layer at THK, and one only slightly younger for the upper layer at PPT. When compared with the less reliable dates from previous investigations Table 1 , our data suggest that the lower black layer in the main site area is much younger than was earlier thought, although the upper layer remains - about the same age.
Archaeology of New Zealand
Many more radiocarbon results would be needed before we could be confident about that conclusion for the site as a whole, but a hypothesis of younger, shorter occupation is clearly indicated. Earlier interpretations of the archaeological evidence at Papatowai proposed a general model for the site, the Catlins and, indeed, for cultural change in southern New Zealand as a whole. The basis of the model was a uniform sequence of stratigraphy which was regarded as the result of lengthy occupation.
That argument was supported by evidence of changes in fauna and material culture, and by a series of radiocarbon dates. We have argued that the stratigraphic model is not actually supported by evidence derived from earlier excavations. The pattern of change in frequency of faunal remains with stratigraphy was observed as a decline in big game and a rise in fish, shellfish and small birds, but, even in the relatively restricted part of the site where this was evident, it does not follow that the explanation requires an extended passage of time.
- .
- Dating Service Auckland and Wellington | Dating Agency | Introduction Agency.
- Journal of the Polynesian Society: Dating New Zealand's Prehistory, By J. Golson, P .
- .
- dating site on in Thames New Zeland;
- dating Petone New Zeland;
The argument that there were significant changes in material culture assemblages correlated with stratigraphy cannot be substantiated by the data, and the radiocarbon dates which supported this general model do not withstand modern scrutiny. Our excavations disclosed only two cultural layers. There were variations in contents within each layer and between the excavation areas. It is possible that this stratigraphy reflects two phases of occupation, but, since the lower layer clearly results from cooking activities without much dumping and the upper from dumping of food and other refuse without much cooking, or at least construction of large umu , it is more likely that they represent simply two activities of a single occupation.
Nor would this interpretation be inconsistent with the radiocarbon dates from our excavations, which showed that the two layers were almost identical in age. Even if a two-phase interpretation were preferred, our data indicate that little time could have separated the occupations.
- A Serious Online Dating Site.
- west dating Richmond New Zeland;
- Online Dating with EliteSingles.
- EliteSingles | A cut above other NZ dating sites.
Importantly, it is apparent that big game are highly predominant in the estimated meat weight from the upper layer, and might be even more so if the moa bone was not so fragmented. Our interpretation of Papatowai, therefore, is that it was a large camp, - rather than a village, that was occupied over a few years, perhaps a generation, and probably discontinuosly, at which butchery and consumption of moas and seals was the main subsistence activity throughout.
These revisions clearly impact on thinking about the course and causes of economic change in southern New Zealand, including the extinction of moas Lockerbie ; Anderson , and, therefore, on Maori palaeoeconomics as a whole, but those are issues beyond the scope of this paper. It is sufficient to note here that the basic trend, from a relatively greater emphasis on big game to greater reliance on small game including fish and shellfish, must still exist in southern prehistory.
What should change, we argue, is the belief that this process took place over an extended period of time at sites such as Papatowai. The excavation and analysis were funded by the University of Otago, to which we are grateful. Calibration of charcoal dates after Stuiver and Reimer with offset of 30 radiocarbon years Stuiver and Pearson , and of shell dates according to Stuiver, Pearson and Braziunas with geographic offset Delta-R set at 0 radiocarbon years and conventional ages shifted by radiocarbon years McFadgen and Manning Previous Next. Figure 1. It incorporated a black layer representing moa hunting with [sic] a varied kit of adzes, many of them massive and skilfully flaked, unbarbed fish hooks, large silcrete blades and ulu-type knives … an intermediate layer with an ashy matrix showing a decline in moa hunting and changes in the proportions of artefact types; and a top.
Figure 2. Previous investigations at Papatowai after Hamel Fig. If most artifacts were deposited during the period of the Working Floor component, they could have been trampled into the upper parts of the black layer, and in other areas scuffed up into the base of the single ashy-shelly layer which Teviotdale recognized above the black layer. Figure 3. Location of the excavations. Figure 4. Figure 5. PPT - stratigraphic profiles. Location of sections shown in Figure 6.