Other formats

    TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Nelson Historical Society Journal, Volume 3, Issue 4, September 1978

Stratigraphy and Periodization

Stratigraphy and Periodization

The stratigraphy (a history of deposition) at Rotokura has been the subject of some discussion (Butts, n.d.). Millar's three period interpretation of the site has been followed. Layer 2, the most recent cultural deposition was divided into layers 2A and 2B. Though these may have been consistently applied in the recovery of artefactual material, this was not the case in the recovery of midden material. From artefactual recovery, layers 6, 4 and 2B are Archaic, and 2A is Classic. The prehistoric economics of the Maori are now viewed as a continuum. Millar has suggested that layer 6 (which is page 9represented by little faunal material) may be an internal feature of layer 4. Thus the analysis of the faunal material presented below is concerned largely with comparing and contrasting two periods of occupation represented by layers 2 and 4. There is no attempt to compare Archaic and Classic material as such. A single date of 625±70 BP (AD 1335±70) is available from a charcoal sample recovered by archaeological excavation from layer 4, while layer 2 has both prehistoric and European contact material thus suggesting it was rather late. It should be noted that layers 1, 3 and 5 are sterile (that is, are not the result of cultural activity), probably representing periods when the site was abandoned.

The remainder of this paper is devoted to a comparison of the faunal materials identified from layers 4 and 2, with some comment on layer 6. This will involve discussion of the wetfish species, bird and sea mammal material. The dog and human remains will be briefly discussed at the end of the paper.