Version classiqueVersion mobile

Encyclopédie des historiographies : Afriques, Amériques, Asies

 | 
Nathalie Kouamé
, 
Éric P. Meyer
, 
Anne Viguier

P

Petroglyphs of the Society Islands within the Polynesian Rock Art Repertoire

Pétroglyphes des îles de la Société au sein du répertoire rupestre polynésien

Sidsel Millerstrom et Heidy Baumgartner Lesage

Résumé

Nous ne disposons pas d’un inventaire complet des sites archéologiques des îles de la Société et, jusqu’à présent, personne n’a tenté de synthèse avec les données rupestres recueillies. Cependant, à la fin des années 1980, le département d’archéologie du Centre polynésien des sciences humaines, aujourd’hui appelé le Service de la culture et du patrimoine (désormais SCP), à Tahiti, a mené une enquête sur l’art rupestre à Ra’iatea, Bora Bora et Huahine. 45 sites comptant 288 images individuelles ont été recensés. Plus tard, des données furent recueillies également à Tahiti et Mo’orea. De manière surprenante, peu de pétroglyphes ont été trouvés à Tahiti, la plus grande île de l’archipel de la Société. Cette notice examine l’art rupestre des îles de Tahiti, Mo’orea, Ra’iatea, Bora Bora et Huahine. Nous replaçons les images dans leur contexte archéologique (distribution spatiale, architecturale, environnement) et nous étudions leurs relations avec l’art rupestre de l’archipel des Marquises, situé à 1500 km au nord‑est de Tahiti.

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Kenneth P. Emory, the eminent American archaeologist and ethnologist, undermined the study of rock art in the Society Islands when he stated in his publication Stone Remains in the Society Islands:

  • 1 Emory, 1933, p. 177.

I would say of the petroglyphs in the Society Islands that some of them may have been carved with the idea of embellishment and some probably as symbols, but that in the main they are simply the records of rudimentary artistic impulses.1

2We intend to demonstrate that the petroglyphs or the incised and pecked figures on stones, boulder and outcrops were neither a form of “embellishment” nor “rudimentary artistic impulses”, but symbolic expressions of a specific cultural belief system, many with meaning we will never understand. Moreover, these figures were not randomly placed. Given that the Society Islands petroglyph repertoire is relatively repetitive and homogeneous, the images record expressed past Polynesian ideology and, most likely, represented the total sum of the decorative system. Tattoo motifs and carved material objects collected and described by the early European explorers and missionaries soon after the islands were first visited in 1767 revealed remarkable similarities in the decorative systems. Many of the same images seen in petroglyphs are found in tattoos and material objects. This suggests that the fundamental principles regarding the symbolic order remained relatively unchanged until the historic period. The same situation occurs in other Polynesian islands or island groups, as for instance, in the Marquesas Islands, Hawai’i, and Rapa Nui (Easter Island). It is furthermore clear, as Roger C. Green (1979) already pointed out in “Early Lapita Art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in Ceramic, Bark cloth, and Tattoo Decoration,” that the Polynesian art system is pervasive.

3Regarding changes in the symbolic expressions over time, it is useful to examine the imagery within a theoretical framework that Waren R. DeBoer (1991) has glossed as pervasive versus partitive decorative organization. The two opposing art systems derived from DeBoer’s work among the Shipibo (located in the tropical forest of the central Ucayali basin in the Peruvian Amazon), and the Chachi (located in the northernmost coast of Ecuador) in South America. A pervasive decorative style exhibits distinct attributes in most media, which in the Shipibo case was emphasized in pottery, textiles, face and body painting, calabashes, house posts, canoes, canoe paddles, and so forth. A decorative style expressed on the surface of different media identifies and furthermore may represent the ideology of a specific culture or group of people. A society agrees on the ideology by unconsciously participating in it. A pervasive art system changes slowly.

4Partitive art systems, on the other hand, display no uniform decorative organization in the different media. Instead they have a number of decorative modes, each of which is exhibited in different material objects. Waren DeBoer argued that the partitive decorative organization:

  • 2 DeBoer,1991, p. 57.

[...] experience a much higher rate of change.” [Because the] “[...] decorative organization displays weak linkages across various artifactual media, any one medium is freer to change without threatening massive, across-the-board readjustments. »2

5Among some social groups the distinction between the two decorative styles is overlapped or blurred. A group that features a partitive decorative organization may also have some features that are pervasive. DeBoer’s theoretical perspective has important implications regarding changes in the art system in the Society Islands and how these changes reflect social transformation.

6In this entry, we examine the documented images of Tahiti, Mo’orea, Ra’iatea, Bora Bora, and Huahine islands. We will discuss the images’ archaeological context, e.g., frequency, spatial distribution, architectural and environmental association, and examine their relationship to the rock images of the Marquesas Archipelago, specifically the western section of Hatiheu Valley, on the island of Nuku Hiva.

  • 3 Edwards, 1988; Millerstrom, 1997, 2003, 2017, Mo’orea (Millerstrom & Baumgartner, 1998).
  • 4 Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française, 1989.

7No complete systematic rock art survey and scientifically documentation has taken place on any of the islands in French Polynesia. Thus, our knowledge is limited. However, in the 1980s archaeologists with SCP, Tahiti, documented rock art in the Marquesas,3 Bora Bora, Huahine, and Ra’iatea.4

  • 5 Hinano Cauchois, personal communication, April 4, 2017.

8Kenneth Emory noted petroglyphs on Maupiti but they have not been scientifically recorded. One site with six boulders depicting a total of 27 individual petroglyphs, mostly turtles, was photographed by Heidy Baumgartner Lesage, the second author of this paper (Figure 1). On the same island Hinano Cauchois, also an archaeologist with SCP, remember seeing anthropomorphic faces on marae stones “far up in the mountain”. However, they were only visible in certain lights and were not documented.5

Figure 1. Heidy Baumgartner‑Lesage with a turtle petroglyph boulder on Maupiti Island in 2009

Figure 1. Heidy Baumgartner‑Lesage with a turtle petroglyph boulder on Maupiti Island in 2009

Unfortunately, the figure has been previously outlined with chalk or a rock. This method of making the figures more visible is destructive to the petroglyphs and the authors do not subscribe to the practice.

© Baumgartner Lesage.

9Despite this inventory, cultural and social context is generally lacking for the rock art of the Society Islands. For instance, their spatial distribution, temporality, archaeological, and environmental association, among other factors, have not been considered.

The Rock Art of the Marquesas Island

  • 6 Generally anthropomorphic sculptures are referred to as tiki in the Marquesas, while in the Societ (...)
  • 7 e.g., Edwards, 1988; Millerstrom, 1997, 2003, 2017; Millerstrom & Edwards, 1998; Millerstrom & All (...)

10Here, we compare the rock art of the Society Islands with data on rock art research in the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia) where both authors have completed extensive archaeological field surveys. Between 1984 and 1989 more than 6000 individual figures, located in 41 valleys on the six presently inhabited islands were recorded. In addition, numerous associated structures and features (e.g., anthropomorphic sculptures or tiki/ti’i) were mapped6. This was part of the Marquesan Rock Art Project instigated by Maeva Navarro, a previous director of Département Archéologie du Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines. Edmundo Edwards, then the chief archaeologist with the department, headed the project. The project progressed through several stages during the subsequent five years. Our initial aim was to establish an inventory of petroglyphs and stone sculptures, to estimate the extent of rock art sites in the archipelago, and to assess the carvings’ state of preservation. Interpretation naturally followed.7

11The petroglyphs and pictographs motifs of the Marquesas Islands are both numerous and repetitive. Most often the rock art sites are associated with tribal ceremonial plazas (tohua), different types of shrines (me’ae/ahu), prominent narrow ridges, and water (springs, rivers or the sea). However, the petroglyph spatial context has only been closely examined in the western section of Hatiheu Valley, Nuku Hiva Island. Between 1992 and 1997 field survey included extensive reconnaissance, systematic survey, mapping, recording and test excavation. This took place between two major watercourses, the Vaiu’ua and Puhi’oho. Two distinct settlement patterns were identified 1) an elite settlement with megalithic household architecture and tribal ceremonial plazas and 2) an agricultural section with small household units. The majority of petroglyphs are linked to the megalithic household structures, and tribal ceremonial plazas all sites that are situated in the central section of the study area. Most of the petroglyphs are found, not only on or around the tohua, but associated with elite architecture probably occupied by chiefs, priests, warriors, and their extended families. Only a couple of boulders with petroglyphs were found in the agricultural area where the rest of the tribe members resided. Most of the surface architecture in the western section of Hatiheu Valley probably dates from the time before initial contact in 1595 to the early historic period around 1770. The age of the petroglyphs is uncertain.

  • 8 Kirch, 2017.

12In the Marquesas, the chiefdoms were stratified but it was a highly fluid society in which status was both prescribed and achieved. In contrast, the chiefdoms of the Society Islands, similar to Tonga and the Hawaiian Islands, were highly stratified.8 In these more complex chiefdoms, hereditary chiefs descended from the gods and thus, they were considered sacred (tapu) and divine. Rank and status among the tribal members depended on their genealogical relationship to the chiefs. The chief’s divine rule was part of the natural order of their world.

Overview of the Rock Image Repertoire of the Islands of Tahiti, Mo’orea, Ra’atea, Huahine, and Bora Bora

Tahiti Island

  • 9 Plate 19b, Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

13Table 1 shows the distribution of sites, boulders, the number of images, and their relationship to the land surface. As Table 1 illustrates there is no correlation between the number of images and land area. Tahiti, the largest island in the Society group and the nearby small island of Mo’orea have approximately the same number of sites and individual images. However, on Tahiti there are more boulders. On Tahiti, most of the petroglyphs lack context. Some boulders have been uncovered by chance during building and road constructions others were removed from their original locations and placed in Te Fare Manaha/Musée de Tahiti et des îles, or at the entrance of government buildings. Anthropomorphic faces and figures, turtles, and concentric circles, a common repertoire in the islands or island groups that make up part of French Polynesia, occur at Faa’a, Papeno’o, Tipaeru’i, and Arue, Tahiti. Some unusual images, depicting “mourning masks’ with “breast plates” are found at Vaiote, Tautira. These types of images have also been found at Fare Hape, Papeno’o, and Tevaitoa on Ra’iatea. It is believed that the “masks”, unique to Tahiti and Ra’iatea, represented traditional mourning costume headdresses related to burial ceremonies of important people. In Vaiote Valley, near the ocean and along a river that runs through the valley, seven mourning masks some with breast plates are pecked on two boulders (Figure 2). Human bones were uncovered in a nearby cave. A banyan tree, considered sacred, is growing in the area. Remains of house sites and ritual places (marae) are found along the river further inland. It is likely that, in the past, this was a necropolis referred to as fare tupapau or ghost house. At Tevaitoa, Ra’iatea, a mourning headdress is depicted on a corner stone, identified by archaeologists as a chief’s house platform9.

Table 1. The relationship between the islands, numbers of sites, boulders, individual images, and land area.

Islands

Sites

Boulders

Number of individual images

Area in square km*

Tahiti

12

23

133

1 040

Mo’orea

12

12

128

134

Bora Bora

3

10

41

29,3

Huahine

3

5

30

74.8

Ra’iatea

7

29

217

167,7

Total

37

79

549

*Data retrieved from en.m.wikipedia.org

Figure 2. Vaiote Valley, Tautira, Tahiti. A mourning headdress and breastplate

Figure 2. Vaiote Valley, Tautira, Tahiti. A mourning headdress and breastplate

© Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française, 1989

  • 10 Ancient Tahiti written by Teuira Henry (1847‑1915) was based on material collected by Rev. J. M. O (...)
  • 11 Plate 50, Barrow, 1979, p. 48.
  • 12 Plates 48 and 51.

14Rev. J. M. Orsmond (1784[?]‑1856), of the London Missionary Society, who resided in the Society Islands from 1817 to 1856, described the priests’ mourning costume in detail10. Shiny pearl shell made up the mask and the breastplate while the top of the headdress consisted of a ray of white, red-tipped tail-feathers from the tropicbird. A costumed chief mourner drawn by William Hodges, the artist on Captain Cook’s second Pacific voyage11, was portrayed in a headdress/mask similar to those at Vaiote. In 1966, when the British Museum dismantled a Tahitian mourning dress collected by Captain Cook (perhaps the same costume drawn by W. Hodges) for cleaning, a Tahitian wooden anthropomorphic image was found inside the head section12.

15At the death of an important chief the body of the deceased was wrapped in bark cloth and placed on an elevated wooden platform in a fare tupapau. A priest, in full mourner’s costume, inhabited by the deceased’s spirit, would perform the appropriate rites.

  • 13 Emory, 1933, p. 167.
  • 14 Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.
  • 15 Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

16In Vaiati Valley, Bora Bora, petroglyphs on a large image boulder of volcanic tuff commonly referred to in Tahitian as “Ofa’i Honu,” or turtle stone/boulder. Associated with an important legend the turtle boulder “… is [considered] the mythical parent of the island and the island’s chiefs”.13 The figures depict two headdresses, eight turtles, and a concentric circle14. These headdresses differ from those previously discussed (Figure 3). Consider the image’s relationship to the sacredness of the chiefs of Bora Bora, the headdresses may symbolically represent important chiefs. All the figures were made with the same technique15. Without archaeological excavation at the site dating the figures is challenging. Thus, the age of the petroglyphs remains unknown.

Figure 3. Vaiati Valley, Bora Bora (BOB 3a)

Figure 3. Vaiati Valley, Bora Bora (BOB 3a)

A rock image panel with 4 turtles and a headdress. The boulder is referred to as ’Ofai  honu or turtle rock.

© Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française, 1989

  • 16 Figure 3‑12.

17The majority of the petroglyphs on Tahiti, 86 individual figures or 64.7 percent, depicts circular geometric figures. Anthropomorphs make up 27 figures or 20.3 percent (Table 2). Human images as well as geometric figures were also depicted on other material. For instance, some 2‑2.5 m tall carved and red painted wooden boards (unu-marae) or marae carvings, depicting gods and various figures were placed on the marae. In a drawing by W. Bligh in 1788 at Marae Taputapuatea, Ra’iatea, carved or painted figures can be seen.16 According to Teuira Henry, they served as holders on which to attach the property of gods. Red pigment, the colour red considered sacred in Polynesia, were used on both stone and wood carvings as well as circular red, white, and black body paintings during the mourning of a chief.

Table 2. The relationship between image types and percentages on the Windward Islands of Tahiti and Mo’orea

Image types

Islands, number of images, and percentage

Total number of images and percentage

Tahiti

Mo’orea

Anthropomorph

27/20.3

17/13.3

44/16.9

Turtle

4/3.0

26/20.3

30/11.5

Canoe

3/2.3

0/0

3/1.2

Fish

0/0

3/2,3

3/1,2

Funeral mask

12/9.0

0/0

12/4.6

Compass rose

1/0.8

0/0

1/0.4

Geometric

86/64.7

80/62.5

166/63.6

Unidentified

0/0

2/1.6

2/1.6

Total

133/100

128/100

261/100

  • 17 Quoted from Oliver., 1974, Ancient Tahitian Society, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, Vol (...)

18The marae of the Society Islands was a ritual place, serving similar function as the tohua/me’ae in the Marquesas. Carved anthropomorphic figures (tiki/ti’i) in stone, wood, and coral were placed on ritual sites on Tahiti, Mo’orea, and other windward sections. Ti’i contained spirits that interacted with humans and perform services for them mainly “as agents for sorcerers or diviners, or as protectors of their human associates”.17 In addition, Tahiti ti’i may have served as boundary markers. While coral and stone ti’i were found next to marae, they were also found in agricultural areas perhaps defining property of chiefs or districts. In Papara, twenty figures were found in a 1 km2 agricultural area. These figures could have functioned to promote fertility and crop growth. It is also possible that when Christianity took hold people would bury the ti’i. Ti’i could also have served as a boundary marker for areas that were tapu or sacred and thus spiritual restricted to the general population.

19Pyrographs of mourning masks, along with anthropomorphs and geometrics occurred on Tahitian bamboo quiver for arrows. Carved ti’i were also placed as prow figures on canoes and flywhisk handles. Polynesian motif types such as geometric figures and anthropomorphs were, furthermore, depicted on less durable material, e.g., tapa or bark cloth, and human skin.

20While the Vaiote, Tevaitoa, and Fare Hape, Papenoo figures were perhaps a realistic rendering of mourning headdresses, symbolically the images were interwoven with the concept of tapu ‑ related to the sacredness of the heads of the chiefly class. This included the notion of ancestral spirits, genealogy, lineage, and fertility all-important cultural feature in Polynesian prehistory.

21Double outlined anthropomorphs with a forked tail, frequently referred to as “lizard men”, in local newspaper publication occur in Tahiti and Ra’iatea, as well as in the Marquesas. An unusually fine example with two faces is depicted on a large smooth boulder from Tipaeru’i Valley, Tahiti. It is presently housed in the garden of Te Fare Manaha/Musée de Tahiti et des îles.

Figure 4. Boulder from Tipaeru’i Valley, Tahiti with double outlined anthropomorphs and one with a forked tail

Figure 4. Boulder from Tipaeru’i Valley, Tahiti with double outlined anthropomorphs and one with a forked tail

The petroglyph boulder is presently located in the courtyard of the Musée de Tahiti et des Îles, Tahiti

© Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française 1989

  • 18 Edwards, 1988.

22Papeno’o Valley, the largest valley on Tahiti, is located in an ancient caldera in the interior of the island. Considering the extensive settlement, albeit late in time, it is surprising that only four boulders were discovered in the latter part of the 1980s during a large‑scale survey. A large boulder, sitting in a temporary watercourse, is associated with several marae, shrines, a council platform, and a fare tupapau, bears petroglyphs that depict various anthropomorphs, geometric figures, and mourning “mask.” All except the mourning mask resemble general Polynesian motifs (Figure 5). Despite the link to sacred sites, chiefly architecture, and mourning, “mask” no turtles are depicted. The interior was first occupied in the sixteenth or seventeenth century.18

Figure 5. Petroglyph boulder in Papeno’o Valley, Tahiti. After scale drawing by Edmundo Edwards (1988)

Figure 5. Petroglyph boulder in Papeno’o Valley, Tahiti. After scale drawing by Edmundo Edwards (1988)

© Edwards 1988

Mo’orea

  • 19 Green, Green, Rappaport, Rappaport & Davidson, 1967 ; Lepofsky, 1994.
  • 20 Kahn, 2010, p. 103‑110.

23Roger C. Green’s pioneering settlement pattern archaeology carried out in ’Opunohu Valley in the early 1960s was followed by Danna S. Lepofsky’s work on prehistoric agricultural intensification in the same valley.19 Jennifer Kahn’s extensive fieldwork in the valley has emphasized micro‑scale analysis of households within Green’s study area.20 However, few systematic archaeological survey has been undertaken on Mo’orea. Except for Kahn’s multi‑year research and numerous publications, generally, archaeological inquiry has been limited to documentation and analysis of visible ritual architecture.

  • 21 Eddowes, 1991.

24While restoring Marae Nu’urua, the largest coastal marae on Mo’orea, three turtle motifs and a pair of eyes were discovered on a trapezoidal shaped upright stone near the ahu or alter.21 As upright stones linked to a marae represented deities, Mark Eddowes speculated that each of the three turtles may represented one of the lineages that are known to have resided on the marae in the past (Personal communication June 1992). Warren D. Sharp et al (2010) used 230 Thorium dating method on coral architectural elements or offerings from within the three largest costal marae and 19 marae in the inland ’Opunohu Valley. In contrast to other dating methods burdened with problems, coral dating is more precise and have a mean uncertain of only plus or minus nine years. The results of the dates indicate that temple architecture on Mo’orea developed quickly over a period of some 140 years (1620‑1760). Marae Nu’urua was constructed immediately before first contact by Europeans explorers in 1767.

  • 22 Millerstrom & Baumgartner, 1998.

25In collaboration with SCP the first research with a focus on petroglyphs began on Mo’orea in 1989.22 In addition to Marae Nu’urua, sites with geometrics, anthropomorphs, and turtles were documented in Tefa’arahi and Paopao Valleyes. In Paopao Valley the only petroglyph boulder is situated in the valley bottom near a river (Figure 6). Agricultural terraces are located in the same area. In contrast to the well‑watered Paopao Valley, several petroglyph sites are located on and around agricultural terraces and house sites in the dry upper part of Tefa’arahi Valley. Lepofsky who recorded the agricultural sites estimated that the sites also dated from the late prehistoric or early historic era.

Figure 6. Paopao Valley, Mo’orea. Petroglyph turtles, an anthropomorphic stick figure, and an unidentified figure pecked on a horizontal boulder

Figure 6. Paopao Valley, Mo’orea. Petroglyph turtles, an anthropomorphic stick figure, and an unidentified figure pecked on a horizontal boulder

© Millerstrom

  • 23 Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie française, 2016. Tahiti data set; Hinanui Cauchois, personal (...)

26Hinanui Cauchois has worked extensively in the big valley of Papetoai. While she has not found any images that can be called petroglyphs she found one sacred place where there is a natural boulder that is shaped like the back of a turtle. She tentatively links this to the sacred sites that are often mentioned in oral traditions ofa’i honu23. Twenty‑six turtle petroglyphs representing 20.3 percent were recorded on Moorea. Similar to petroglyph data for Tahiti, geometric figures, a total of 80 petroglyphs or 62.5 percent dominate. While a total of 17 petroglyphs or 13.3 percent represent anthropomorphic figures (see Table 2).

Ra’iatea, Huahine, and Bora Bora

27Abstract geometric motifs are also prevalent on Ra’iatea, Huahine, and Bora Bora. Of a total of a 288 individual petroglyphs, 94 figures or 32.6 percent are circular figures; few geometric figures are linear. Some circles occurred on Bora Bora and Huahine. Most of the oblong circles probably represent incomplete or eroded turtle figures.

Figure 7. Opoa, Ha’apapara Valley, Rai’atea (REP 23). Boulder with turtles, anthropomorphs and a “lizard man” with forked tail

Figure 7. Opoa, Ha’apapara Valley, Rai’atea (REP 23). Boulder with turtles, anthropomorphs and a “lizard man” with forked tail

© Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française 1989

28Except for Tahiti turtles are part of the image repertoire of the Society Islands where rock art occurs, although usually sparsely distributed. On Ra’iatea, Bora Bora and Huahine, however, turtle images occur in large numbers.

  • 24 From Oliver, 1974..

29Of 288 images, 160 figures or 55.6 percent represent turtles (Table 3). This can, perhaps, be explained by early historic socio‑political situation on Ra’iatea were conflicts between the chiefs of the Leeway and the Windward Islands occurred. The highest ranking “red feather chief” based on descent from the gods, belonged to Ra’iatea, the same island on which ’Oro, the most important of the gods, had been born.24 ’Oro was both a fertility god and a god of war. The ‘Oro cult replaced earlier deities of chiefly lineages to become the primary god of the ruling chief and it was associated with religious rituals including human sacrifices. Turtle figures on Ra’iatea, often depicted with anthropomorphs and geometric figures, were placed on individual boulders not associated with any visible architecture.

Table 3. The relationship between of image types and percentages on the Leeward Islands of Huahine, Ra’iatea, and Bora Bora

Image types

Islands, number of petroglyphs and percentage

Total numbers of images and percentage

Huahine

Ra’iatea

Bora Bora

Anthropomorph

0/0

15/6.9

0/0

15/5.2

Turtle

11/36.7

117/53.9

32/78.1

160/55.6

Fish

0/0

4/1,8

0/0

4/1,4

Canoe

3/10.0

6/2.8

0/0

9/3.1

Headdress

0/0

1/0.5

2/4.9

3/1.0

Geometric

14/46.7

74/34.1

6/14.6

94/32.6

Unidentified

2/6.7

0/0

1/2.4

3/1.0

Total

30/100

217/100

41/100

288/100

  • 25 Rolett, 1986, p. 78‑87.
  • 26 Inventaire archeologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

30Archaeologist B.V. Rolett, relying largely on publications from the 1930s and 1940s, argued that in the Society Islands (and Easter Island), turtle motifs were most commonly placed on stones that formed part of the exterior wall of marae or elite structures or on boulders associated with structures of religious importance25. Field research, conducted by archaeologists from the Département d’Archéologie, Tahiti, has provided important new data about the petroglyph sites. Quantitative data from Ra’iatea, Bora Bora, and Huahine demonstrate that 37 of the total 44 boulders recorded contained turtles26. Ten of the stones were linked with marae; the remaining 3 boulders were not associated with any visible structures. However, there are several references to the importance of turtles in these island groups. Since the island group consists of many small islands (motu) female turtles frequently came to lay their eggs on the beaches. The ancient name of Bora Bora is Vavau, the first‑born, thus the symbol of Bora Bora is Te ofa’i honu, the turtle stone (already discussed) symbolizing the birth of the island.

  • 27 Kirch, 1994, p. 255‑298.
  • 28 Emory, 1975.

31While on Mo’orea turtles are found associated with agricultural terraces, turtle images have no clear archaeological association on some of the other Society Islands. T. Henry wrote that turtles were thought to be the shadow of the gods of the ocean. Turtles were, furthermore, considered sacred and important in ritual context. Historically turtles were surrounded by tapu or taboo and their consumption was restricted to persons of high rank P. V. Kirch opines that ceremonial cooking and consumption of turtles, a regular part of Futuna (Western Polynesia) dry‑season ritual, was also a key aspect of ritual practices in Eastern Polynesia.27 In religious ceremonies, turtles were frequently substituted for human offerings. Kenneth P. Emory described turtle feasts in the Tuamotu Islands and found a large number of turtle bones, especially skulls, on most of the ceremonial complexes; both wood and coral turtle effigies were collected from several Tuamotuan marae.28

  • 29 Valeri, 1985.

32As turtles have the ability to travel on land as well as in the sea, V. Valeri suggested that they serve as a “metaphor for the relation between the dead and the living.”29 Following a similar line of reasoning, Rolett, who interpreted the turtle images within the framework of ethnohistoric and ethnographic sources, argued that turtles, because of their ability to travel between the physical (land) and the spiritual (sea) worlds, served as a conduit between priests and the other world.

Discussion

  • 30 Quoted from Emory, 1933, p. 177.
  • 31 Ellis, 1969 [1831].
  • 32 Millerstrom, 2003, 2017.

33Geometric motifs dominate in the Tahitian and Mo’orean inventory. The figures consist in large part of single and concentric circles. This probably relates to the practice of tattooing, which was extensively practiced in the Societies. However, little is known of Tahitian tattoos. A 1797 painting by James Wilson, a member of the London Missionary Society, shows “distinguished natives at Matavai, Tahiti” where one person had a tattoo on the hip depicting three concentric circles with a dotted outer circle.30 These figures also occurred on bark cloth. Concentric circles are a common petroglyph throughout the region. With the missionary came religious activities, conversion and social changes; within some twenty years one of the most influential chief and his followers had converted to Christianity. The practice of tattooing evolved to include Western objects such as muskets, ship’s anchors, and goats among others. William Ellis (1794‑1872), an English missionary who lived in Polynesia from 1817 to 1825, wrote that tattoos on men in Tahiti consisted mainly of stars, circles, lozenges, and naturalistic motifs such as coconut trees, breadfruit trees, animals, men engaged in battle, etc.31 Teuira Henry’s narration (1928) mostly echoed Ellis. One of the words for tattooing, naonao, translates to checkered, suggesting that geometric tattoo motifs were used in the Societies. Young mourners displayed body painting in red, white, and black circular figures after the death of a chief. The numerical part of the data set is consistent with that of Hatiheu Valley. In Hatiheu Valley, Nuku Hiva, 61.3 percent or 1,953 of the total 3,186 images represent circular geometric motifs. Anthropomorphic figures are depicted in 973 images or 30.6 percent. Anthropomorphic faces and eyes, probably ancestor figures, represent 8.3 percent.32

Conclusion

34Rock images recorded in the Society Islands are similar to images found elsewhere in Polynesia. As discussed above, the Polynesian data set is repetitive and homogeneous. The images of the Society Islands are culturally and stylistically linked to those of Eastern Polynesia, especially the petroglyphs of the Marquesas and in large part those of the Hawaiian Islands. Although local variations exist, for instance, the astonishing number of turtles on Ra’iatea, unusual headdresses and masks of Tahiti, Bora Bora, and Ra’iatea, anthropomorphic faces and eyes in the Marquesas, and the triangular anthropomorphs of the Hawaiian Islands, the repertoire is similar and the images are pervasive. These images were an important part of the cultural decorative system and occurred in other media. The same image types, such as the concentric circles and the anthropomorphic figures, appear in woodcarvings, bamboo quiver, bark cloth or tapa, and tattoos, documented from the early historic period. Some of the petroglyphs figures, e.g., the headdresses, occur in mortuary context linked to chiefs. Geometric images, birds and humans were depicted on red unu boards set up in the religious ceremonial places. The stylized birds were regarded as messengers of the gods.

35However, while the petroglyphs are stylistically similar to those of the Marquesas Islands and specifically to Hatiheu Valley, the distribution and association of the Society Islands data set do not fit the Hatiheu model. Whereas the petroglyphs in the western section of Hatiheu Valley are mostly associated with the households of the ruling class, the petroglyphs of the Society Islands are most often directly linked to chiefly sacred complexes (marae) and funeral sites (fare tupapau) of important chiefs. We believe, they served in part as a powerful tool to legitimize and validate the ruling chief’s elevated and sacred position within the tribe. This may be related to the complex and highly stratified social chiefdom system in the Society Islands.

36The next step in interpreting the petroglyphs of the Society Islands, and to place them in a cultural and spatial context is archaeological excavation at some of the sites where the images occur. This seems a worthwhile archaeological investigation but one that is rarely considered.

37Acknowledgment

38We would like to thank Anne Viguier for accepting this manuscript and for her editorial comments and help. We are especially grateful to Teddy Tehei, the previous director of Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, for his cooperation and permission to use the data set from Tahiti. Thank you Belona Mou, Hinanui Cauchois and the archaeological staff for helping us gather the data. We wish to acknowledge Maeva Navarro, the former director of Département Archéologie du Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines, who initiated several of the rock art projects, and our colleague Edmundo Edwards who organized some the fieldwork. We appreciate the help of the islands’ residents that willingly helped us locate the sites and provided information.

Bibliographie

Books

Barrow Terence, 1979, The Art of Tahiti, Blacker Calmann Cooper Ltd, London, 96 p. [9780500060070]

Eddowes Mark, 1991, Marae Nu’urua; Partial Restoration of the Marae Complex, Département d’Archéologie, Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines Te Anavaharau, Tahiti.

Edwards Edmundo, 1988, Archaeological Survey of Tahinu River, Papeno’o Valley, Département d’Archéologie, Centre Polynésien des Sciences Humaines, Te Anavaharau, Tahiti.

Emory Kenneth P., 1933, Stone Remains in the Society Islands, Bishop Museum Press, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 116, Honolulu, 182 p.

Henry Teuira, 1928, Ancient Tahiti. Based on material recorded by J. M. Orsmond, B. P. Bishop Museum, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 48, Honolulu. 651 p.

Kirch Patrick Vinton, 2017, On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact, University of California Press, Berkeley, 408 p. [9780520292819]

Millerstrom Sidsel, 2003, Gravures rupestres et archéologie de l’habitat de Hatiheu à Nuku Hiva, Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Ministère de la Culture de Polynésie française, Tahiti, 149 p.

Millerstrom Sidsel, 2017, Te Henua Enana; Images and Settlement Patterns in the Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia, University of California, eScholarship, Contributions of the Archaeological Research Facility, 67, Berkeley, URL,

https://www.escholarship.org/c/item/9v38fozt

Papers and Contributions to Books

DeBoer Waren R., 1991, “The Decorative Burden: Design, Medium, and Change”, in Longacre William A., 2016, (ed.), Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology, The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Green Roger C., 1979, “Early Lapita Art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in Ceramic, Barkcloth, and Tattoo Decoration”, in Mead Sidney M. (ed.), Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania, The University Press of Hawai’i, Honolulu.

Millerstrom Sidsel, 1997, “Carved and painted rock images in the Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia”, Archaeology of Oceania, vol. 32, n3, p. 181‑196.

Millerstrom Sidsel & Baumgartner Heidy, 1998, “Archaeological Art on Mo’orea, French Polynesia: An Overview”, Rapa Nui Journal, vol. 12, n2, p. 35‑39.

Millerstrom Sidsel & Edwards Edmundo, 1998, “Stone Sculptures of the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia)”, in Stevenson Christopher M., Lee Georgia & Morin F. J. (eds.), Easter Island in Pacific Context, South Seas Symposium, University of New Mexico, Easter Island Foundation, Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Easter Island and East Polynesia, Albuquerque, p. 55‑62.

Millerstrom Sidsel & Allen Tricia., 2006, “Carved Images and Punctured Skins: Rock Carvings and Tattoos in the Marquesas Islands”, American Indian Rock Art, IRAC Proceedings, Rock Art World Heritage, American Rock Art Association, vol. 21, p. 131‑138.

Sharp Warren D., Kahn Jennifer G., Polito Christina M., Kirch Patrick V., 2010, “Rapid evolution of ritual architecture in central Polynesia indicated by precise 230Th/U coral dating”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 107, n30, p. 13234-13239, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1005063107, retrieved August 2011.en.m.wikipedia.org Geographic data retrieved April 20, 2017.

Notes

1 Emory, 1933, p. 177.

2 DeBoer,1991, p. 57.

3 Edwards, 1988; Millerstrom, 1997, 2003, 2017, Mo’orea (Millerstrom & Baumgartner, 1998).

4 Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française, 1989.

5 Hinano Cauchois, personal communication, April 4, 2017.

6 Generally anthropomorphic sculptures are referred to as tiki in the Marquesas, while in the Society Islands they use the term ti’i.

7 e.g., Edwards, 1988; Millerstrom, 1997, 2003, 2017; Millerstrom & Edwards, 1998; Millerstrom & Allen, 2006.

8 Kirch, 2017.

9 Plate 19b, Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

10 Ancient Tahiti written by Teuira Henry (1847‑1915) was based on material collected by Rev. J. M. Orsmond. The book was published in 1928 by B. P. Bishop Museum, Bulletin 48. Honolulu, Hawaii.

11 Plate 50, Barrow, 1979, p. 48.

12 Plates 48 and 51.

13 Emory, 1933, p. 167.

14 Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

15 Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

16 Figure 3‑12.

17 Quoted from Oliver., 1974, Ancient Tahitian Society, Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii, Vol. 1 p 71.

18 Edwards, 1988.

19 Green, Green, Rappaport, Rappaport & Davidson, 1967 ; Lepofsky, 1994.

20 Kahn, 2010, p. 103‑110.

21 Eddowes, 1991.

22 Millerstrom & Baumgartner, 1998.

23 Inventaire Archéologique de Polynésie française, 2016. Tahiti data set; Hinanui Cauchois, personal communication, April 4, 2017.

24 From Oliver, 1974..

25 Rolett, 1986, p. 78‑87.

26 Inventaire archeologique de Polynésie Française, 1989.

27 Kirch, 1994, p. 255‑298.

28 Emory, 1975.

29 Valeri, 1985.

30 Quoted from Emory, 1933, p. 177.

31 Ellis, 1969 [1831].

32 Millerstrom, 2003, 2017.

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. Heidy Baumgartner‑Lesage with a turtle petroglyph boulder on Maupiti Island in 2009
Légende Unfortunately, the figure has been previously outlined with chalk or a rock. This method of making the figures more visible is destructive to the petroglyphs and the authors do not subscribe to the practice.
Crédits © Baumgartner Lesage.
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 4,1M
Titre Figure 2. Vaiote Valley, Tautira, Tahiti. A mourning headdress and breastplate
Crédits © Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française, 1989
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 132k
Titre Figure 3. Vaiati Valley, Bora Bora (BOB 3a)
Légende A rock image panel with 4 turtles and a headdress. The boulder is referred to as ’Ofai  honu or turtle rock.
Crédits © Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française, 1989
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 57k
Titre Figure 4. Boulder from Tipaeru’i Valley, Tahiti with double outlined anthropomorphs and one with a forked tail
Légende The petroglyph boulder is presently located in the courtyard of the Musée de Tahiti et des Îles, Tahiti
Crédits © Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française 1989
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 96k
Titre Figure 5. Petroglyph boulder in Papeno’o Valley, Tahiti. After scale drawing by Edmundo Edwards (1988)
Crédits © Edwards 1988
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 180k
Titre Figure 6. Paopao Valley, Mo’orea. Petroglyph turtles, an anthropomorphic stick figure, and an unidentified figure pecked on a horizontal boulder
Crédits © Millerstrom
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-6.png
Fichier image/png, 34k
Titre Figure 7. Opoa, Ha’apapara Valley, Rai’atea (REP 23). Boulder with turtles, anthropomorphs and a “lizard man” with forked tail
Crédits © Inventaire archéologique de Polynésie française 1989
URL http://books.openedition.org/pressesinalco/docannexe/image/27985/img-7.png
Fichier image/png, 33k

Auteurs

Freelance at Service de la Culture et du Patrimoine, Tahiti, French Polynesia

Le texte et les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont sous Licence OpenEdition Books, sauf mention contraire.

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search