MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์
Publication Cover
Journal

MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์.ทดลองเล่นเกมยิงปลา

Latest Articles

MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์,

,

ibet889,

Abstract

Angle-hafted bone tattoo combs are found on many Pacific islands occupied by people speaking languages of the Oceanic sub-group of the Austronesian linguistic family, with the most elaborate bone tattoo tools restricted to Polynesia. A critical problem in understanding the development of an Oceanic tattooing tradition based on hafted bone combs is their conspicuous absence from nearly all early sites in the region. Did tattooing with bone combs arrive in the Pacific with early Neolithic dispersals around 3,000 years ago, or was it an innovation that developed in West Polynesia that was later diffused to other parts of the Pacific? AMS dating and traceological examination of four bone combs from a site in Tonga indicate they are the oldest multi-toothed tattooing implements in the Pacific and confirm the existence of the angle-hafted bone comb technology in Polynesia ~2,700 years ago. The basic tattooing toolkit represented by narrow bone combs from the TO.1 site appear to have been remarkably stable over millennia and we suggest that the angle-hafted bone comb probably dispersed from West Polynesia to other parts of Oceania.

Introduction

The earliest indisputable evidence for tattooing—the practice of permanently marking skin by inserting pigment into the dermis layer via punctures or cuts—are mummified human remains. Such evidence demonstrates that this form of body modification was present in many parts of the world by 5,300–3,000 years ago (e.g., Deter-Wolf et al. 2016 Deter-Wolf, A., B. Robitaille, L. Krutak, and S. Galliot. 2016. The world’s oldest tattoos. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:1924.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]; Friedman et al. 2018 Friedman, R., D. Antoine, S. Talamo, P. J. Reimer, J. H. Taylor, B. Wills, and M. A. Mannino. 2018. Natural mummies from Predynastic Egypt reveal the world’s earliest figural tattoos. Journal of Archaeological Science 92:116125.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; Pieri and Antoine 2014 Pieri, A., and D. Antoine. 2014. A tattooed trio at HK27C. Nekhen News 26:2829.?[Google Scholar]; Shishlina et al. 2013 Shishlina, N. I., E. V. Belkevich, and A. N. Usachuk. 2013. Bronze Age tattoos: Sympathetic magic or decoration? In Tattoos and Body Modifications in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Sessions at the Annual Meetings of the European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague and Oslo, 2010/11. Zurich Studies in Archaeology (P. Phillippe Della Casa and C. Witt, eds.):9:6774. Zurich: Chronos-Verlag.?[Google Scholar]). In the Pacific Islands, where ancient mummified human remains are rare, there are different hypotheses about the origin and antiquity of distinct types of tattooing technology, particularly the multi-toothed bone comb that is central to recent Oceanic tattooing traditions (Ambrose 2012 Ambrose, W. 2012. Oceanic tattooing and the implied Lapita ceramic connection. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(1):121.?[Google Scholar]). Here, bone tattoo combs were angle-hafted and after the comb was dipped in a container filled with a soluble pigment, the haft handle was struck with a light mallet to drive the comb points into the dermis, making a permanent design in the skin. The presence of bone combs in the archaeological record is a key proxy for the prehistoric tattooist's kit (predominantly made in perishable material), and can reveal the existence of craft specialists (e.g., Kr?mer 1995 Kr?mer, A. 1995. The Samoa Islands, Vol. II: Material Culture. Trans. T. Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?[Google Scholar]:72), along with the use of tattoos in creating social identity in prehistory (Deter-Wolf and Nicole Clark 2017 Clark, G. 2017. Violence and early maritime encounters in the Pacific. In Frontiers of Colonialism (C. Beaule, ed.):208235. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]; Gates St-Pierre 2017 Gates St-Pierre, C. 2017. Needles and bodies: A microwear analysis of experimental bone tattooing instruments. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.027.?[Google Scholar]; Gell 1993 Gell, A. 1993. Wrapping in Images: Tattooing in Polynesia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.?[Google Scholar]).

Angle-hafted bone tattoo combs are found on many Pacific islands occupied by people speaking languages of the Oceanic sub-group of the Austronesian linguistic family with the most elaborate bone tattoo tools restricted to Polynesia. Robitaille (2007 Robitaille, B. 2007. A preliminary typology of perpendicularly hafted bone tipped tattooing instruments: Toward a technological history of Oceanic tattooing. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):159174. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Oxbow.?[Google Scholar]:168) concluded that the ethnographic and archaeological distribution of the bone comb meant it was probably "known to the immediate ancestors of the groups which went on to colonize both Polynesia and Micronesia". Pottery vessels and ceramic human faces marked with multi-toothed tools also suggest that a comb-tool technology—which might have included bone tattooing combs (Green 1979 Green, R. 1979. Early Lapita art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in ceramic, barkcloth and tattoo decoration. In Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania (S. M. Mead, ed.):1331. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?[Google Scholar]; Kirch 1997 Kirch, P. V. 1997. The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.?[Google Scholar]; Torrence and White 2001 Torrence, R., and J. P. White. 2001. Tattooed faces from Boduna Island, Papua New Guinea. In The Archaeology of Lapita Dispersal in Oceania (G. R. Clark, A. J. Anderson, and T. Vunidilo, eds.):135140. Terra Australis 17. Canberra: Pandanus Press.?[Google Scholar])—was introduced to Oceania ~3,200 years ago during the migration of Lapita people (Posth et al. 2018 Posth, C., K. N?gele, H. Colleran, F. Valentin, S. Bedford, K. W. Kami, M. Walworth, et al. 2018. Waves of history in Remote Oceania: Language continuity despite population replacement in Vanuatu. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:731740.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; Skoglund et al. 2016 Skoglund, P., C. Posth, K. Sirak, M. Spriggs, F. Valentin, S. Bedford, G. R. Clark, et al. 2016. Ancient genomics and the peopling of the Southwest Pacific. Nature 538(7626):510513. doi:10.1038/nature19844.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]). An alternative is that tattooing combs were an innovation that developed in the Western Polynesian archipelagos of Samoa and Tonga (along with 'Uvea and Futuna) after Lapita colonization, and that they were subsequently dispersed by migration and interaction to the Pacific (Ambrose 2012 Ambrose, W. 2012. Oceanic tattooing and the implied Lapita ceramic connection. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(1):121.?[Google Scholar]:16; Smith 2002 Smith, A. 2002. An Archaeology of West Polynesian Prehistory. Terra Australis 18. Canberra: Pandanus Books, Australian National University.?[Google Scholar]). Lastly, researchers have identified developments in the use of single pointed obsidian tattooing tools in island Melanesia from technological, use wear, and residue studies. In insular New Guinea, obsidian flakes with unretouched points were used by indigenous people ~3,500 years ago for scarification/tattooing prior to Lapita arrival (Kononenko and Torrence 2009 Kononenko, N., and R. Torrence. 2009. Tattooing in Melanesia: Local invention or Lapita introduction? Antiquity Project Gallery 83. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kononenko/.?[Google Scholar]; Kononenko et al. 2016 Kononenko, N., R. Torrence, and P. Sheppard. 2016. Detecting early tattooing in the Pacific region through experimental use wear and residue analyses of obsidian tools. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8:147163.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]). Similar flakes, and a new and distinctive flake tool with a point made using alternating retouch, have also been found in Lapita sites (~3200–2800?BP) from Papua New Guinea through the south Solomon Islands to Vanuatu and New Caledonia. A lengthy West Pacific tradition of using obsidian tools—inline and hand held—to create tattoos indirectly supports a view that hafted bone combs were not introduced to Oceania during Lapita colonization, but instead came at a later time.

A critical problem in understanding the development of an Oceanic tattooing tradition based on hafted bone combs is their conspicuous absence from all early sites in Western Micronesia (Palau, Yap, Marianas) and the more than 200 Lapita sites—with one exception—from southern New Guinea to Samoa that date to the initial period of Neolithic expansion from 3200 to 2700?BP (Ambrose 2012 Ambrose, W. 2012. Oceanic tattooing and the implied Lapita ceramic connection. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(1):121.?[Google Scholar]; Furey 2017 Furey, L. 2017. Archaeological evidence for tattooing in Polynesia and Micronesia. In Ancient Ink: The archaeology of tattooing (L. Krutak and A. Deter-Wolf, eds.):159184. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.?[Google Scholar]). This situation is unexpected as bone combs are relatively common in the archaeological record of East Polynesia which was colonized 1,000–700 years ago (Wilmshurst et al. 2011 Wilmshurst, J. M., T. L. Hunt, C. P. Lipo, and A. J. Anderson. 2011. High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 108(5):18151820. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015876108.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]), and the tools must have been present prior to the diaspora that encompassed the islands of the Polynesian triangle (Figure 1). The sole exception is four bone combs excavated from a Lapita site in Tonga during the 1960s. The age of these Tongan combs is unclear and several researchers have suspected that they were intrusive, dating to ~500?BP (Furey 2017 Furey, L. 2017. Archaeological evidence for tattooing in Polynesia and Micronesia. In Ancient Ink: The archaeology of tattooing (L. Krutak and A. Deter-Wolf, eds.):159184. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.?[Google Scholar]; Smith 2002 Smith, A. 2002. An Archaeology of West Polynesian Prehistory. Terra Australis 18. Canberra: Pandanus Books, Australian National University.?[Google Scholar]:213). Here, we present new trace evidence and age determinations for these tools that confirm they date to ~2,700 years ago, making them the oldest confirmed bone tattooing combs in Oceania. The tools demonstrate that tattooing has been an important cultural practice in Polynesia for almost 3,000 years, and that there is remarkable continuity in the basic elements of ancient and ethnographic tattooing toolkits. The data also suggests that Tonga and Samoa have been tattooing innovation zones for a considerable period, and indicate that techniques of marking the body diverged during Lapita migration (e.g., Torrence et al. 2018 Torrence, R., N. Kononenko, P. Sheppard, M. S. Allen, S. Bedford, P. V. Kirch, and M. Spriggs. 2018. Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex. Archaeology in Oceania 53:5873.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]).

Figure 1. Distribution of tattooing comb types in Oceania (adapted from Robitaille 2007 Robitaille, B. 2007. A preliminary typology of perpendicularly hafted bone tipped tattooing instruments: Toward a technological history of Oceanic tattooing. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):159174. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Oxbow.?[Google Scholar]). In the Marianas that were settled ~3250?cal. BP there is no evidence for bone combs and tattooing in the prehistoric and ethnographic records suggesting that tattooing was not universal among the Neolithic groups who colonized the Pacific. Note the innovations in comb technology in the Polynesian triangle. Ambrose (2012) demonstrates that composite combs were not used in New Zealand (see Robitaille 2007 Robitaille, B. 2007. A preliminary typology of perpendicularly hafted bone tipped tattooing instruments: Toward a technological history of Oceanic tattooing. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):159174. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Oxbow.?[Google Scholar]). The Society Islands “bell-shaped” composite tool differs from the rare square-rectangular composites of Hawai'i.

Archaeological Context and AMS Dating

The four bone combs (Figure 2) were found in 1963–1964 during excavation of the TO.1 site on Tongatapu Island by Jens Poulsen (1987 Poulsen, J. 1987. Early Tongan Prehistory, Vols. I–II. Terra Australis 12. Canberra: The Australian National University.?[Google Scholar] I and II). The site is a low-lying shell midden in the grounds of the Pea Public School ~450 m from the current lagoon that contained ceramics decorated with dentate-stamping, stone tools, and shell ornaments typical of the colonizing Lapita culture and related Polynesian Plainwares (Burley 1998 Burley, D. V. 1998. Archaeology and the Tonga past, 2850-150 B.P. Journal of World Prehistory 12:337392.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; Burley et al. 2018 Burley, D. V., S. P. Connaughton, and G. Clark. 2018. Early cessation of ceramic production for ancestral Polynesian society in Tonga. PLOS ONE 13(2):e0193166. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193166.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]). The TO.1 shell midden covers 4,300 m2 and the bone combs were recovered from a small area of 1–2 m2 in Trench 1 (38 m2). Three of the combs were recovered from the lowest part of the shell midden (Horizon I) in an undisturbed area called Square 82/58, while the fourth was found in the adjacent Square 83/57 that had been disturbed by a post-Lapita pit.

Figure 2. Dorsal and ventral views of the TO.1 tattoo combs excavated by Jens Poulsen. Combs 1 and 3 are on bird bone and Combs 2 and 4 are probably on human bone. Note the avian pneumatic bone structure in Comb 3 (Side A) and exposed blood vessels in Comb 2 (Side B). (Photographs courtesy of W. Ambrose).

The Australian National University (ANU) archaeological storage facility holding the TO.1 material was destroyed by a bushfire in 2003 and the tattooing tools were assumed to have been lost. In 2008, however, a box containing several TO.1 artifacts including the four combs was found in another storage facility. Their rediscovery allowed for both the direct AMS dating of two detached fragments, undertaken at the Waikato Dating Laboratory (New Zealand), and the traceological examination of the pieces. The AMS results obtained for two of the combs (Table 1) were calibrated with Calib 7.10 using the SH13 Atmosphere and SH13 Atmosphere/Marine curves and fall within the well-known “Hallstatt Plateau” which spans ~2380–2700?cal BP (Hamilton et al. 2015). Two age ranges are included for Comb 3, made on bird bone that was unable to be identified to species. In ethnographic accounts, tattooing tools could be made from the limb bones of large seabirds such as albatross, frigatebirds, and gannets (Ambrose 2012) as well as smaller species such as ducks (Martin 1991:396). As a result, the calibrated ranges were made with a marine contribution set at 50% and 80% respectively. The beginning of the Lapita chronology in Tonga is dated to 2850?cal BP with the transition to Polynesian Plainwares at ~2650?cal BP (Burley et al. 2015). The proportion of decorated Lapita pottery at TO.1 and absence of a discreet Plainware assemblage (Burley et al. 2018; Poulsen 1987 II:23) suggests the deposit probably dates to ~2750–2650?cal BP, at the older end of the calibrated age ranges.

Table 1. AMS results on Tongan tattoo combs.

Traceological Analysis

Early accounts of tattooing in the Pacific rarely mention details of the tattooists’ equipment, including what raw materials the implements were made from, how the tools were shaped, sharpened, and refurbished over their use life, nor how tool size and tine number relate to different design application (but see Best 1904 Best, E. 1904. The Uhi-Maori, or native tattooing instruments. Journal of the Polynesian Society 12:166172.?[Google Scholar]; Buck 1930 Buck, P. H. 1930. Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 75. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.?[Google Scholar]; Kr?mer 1995 Kr?mer, A. 1995. The Samoa Islands, Vol. II: Material Culture. Trans. T. Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?[Google Scholar]). Such information is important for examining variability in the manufacture and maintenance of tattooing tools, which might reflect material constraints and differing cultural traditions. For example, ethnographic records show that bone combs in many parts of Polynesia and Micronesia were made from bird bone (e.g., New Zealand/Aotearoa, Easter Island/Rapa Nui, Hawai'i, Marquesas, Society Islands, Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Tikopia, Marshall Islands, Caroline Islands, Palau, and Yap). One significant exception is Samoa where combs were traditionally made from the pelvic bone of enemies and pig tusks (Friedlaender 1899 Friedlaender, B. 1899. Notizen über Samoa. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 31:155.?[Google Scholar]; Handy and Handy 1924 Handy, E. S. C. and W. C. Handy. 1924. Samoan House Building, Cooking, and Tattooing. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 15. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.?[Google Scholar]; Kr?mer 1995 Kr?mer, A. 1995. The Samoa Islands, Vol. II: Material Culture. Trans. T. Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?[Google Scholar]). The latter were worn as prestige male ornaments (Bedford 2018 Bedford, D. 2018. Modified canines: Circular pig’s tusks in Vanuatu and the wider Pacific. In The Archaeology of Portable Art: Southeast Asia, Pacific, and Australian Perspectives (M. C. Langley, M. Litster, D. Wright, and S. May, eds.):125141. Oxon: Routledge.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]), suggesting that hereditary Samoan tattoo experts (tufunga tatatau) may have preferred combs made from materials associated with warfare and high-male status.

In this section, we describe the Tongatapu tattooing implements and their traceological evidence to determine the manufacturing sequence of these tools, alongside probable pigment residues that confirm their status as tattooing tools. Analysis of the artifacts proceeded as follows: photography of each piece with a Canon digital SLR as well as a desktop scanner (Epson V600). The surfaces were then examined using a Zeiss 2000-C stereomicroscope fitted with an AxioCam MRc5 camera. Taxonomic identification of the parent bone was made through comparison with osteology reference collections including those held in the Archaeology and Natural History Department (ANU), while the identification of taphonomic and anthropogenic alterations were based on published works (e.g., Bradfield and Brand 2015 Bradfield, J. and T. Brand. 2015. Results of utilitarian and, accidental breakage experiments on bone points. Archaeological and Anthropological Science 7:2738.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; Buc 2011 Buc, N. 2011. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:546557.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; Buc and Loponte 2007 Buc, N., and D. Loponte. 2007. Bone tool types and micro wear patterns: Some examples from the Pampa Region, South America. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):143157. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress.?[Google Scholar]; Gates St-Pierre 2007 Gates St-Pierre, C. 2007. Bone awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: A micro wear analysis. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. M. Walker, eds.):107118. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress.?[Google Scholar]; Langley et al. 2016 Langley, M. C., S. O’Connor, and K. Aplin. 2016. A >46,000-year-old macropod bone implement from Carpenter’s Gap 1: Challenging past perspectives of Pleistocene Australia. Quaternary Science Reviews 154:199213.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]; Legrand and Sidéra 2007 Legrand, A., and I. Sidéra. 2007. Methods, means, and results when studying European bone industries. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):6779. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress.?[Google Scholar]).

Bone microstructure indicates that two of the tattooing combs were likely made on human bone (Combs 2 and 4) based on the spacing and size of blood vessels on the exterior surface, and morphology of the interior surface, of the bone. In the Lapita era there were no large land mammals other than humans in Tonga and the distinctive bone structure of marine mammals and turtles is not consistent with the macroscopic appearance of these two Tongatapu combs. For the two combs identified as made on bird bone, there is clear evidence for an avian pneumatic bone structure (Comb 1 and 3). Measurements on three of the combs (one is too fragmentary for comparison) indicate little size variation, and when complete, the tools had an approximate length of 30–35?mm, including 6–8 tines (Table 2).

Table 2. Dimensions of Tongan tattoo combs.

Micro-trace evidence suggests comb manufacture involved a four-step process. Step one was to obtain the bone blanks from the parent bone. Cut marks observed on the sides of Comb 4 indicate that this removal was achieved by sawing out rectangular pieces roughly of the desired size. Each tool exhibits a rectangular cross-section, except for Comb 3, which is plano-convex—preserving the natural curvature of the bird bone. Step two involved the reduction of these blanks to the required form by grinding the surfaces, with particular attention to create a beveled extremity at the tine-end. Step 3 required a file with a narrow “V-shaped” crossed-section, which was used to create the tines by filing at increments on one side only (Figure 3e). On Combs 2 and 4 the incisions were filed into the exterior bone surface, while on Comb 3 the incisions originate from the interior surface. Examination of Comb 2 found that each of the seven incisions were scored with the same tool edge, as indicated by the size, angle, and striations found on the groove walls (Figure 3e). This process created tine ends with a blunt trapezoid cross-section. Once the tines were separated at the tool extremity, a V-shaped file was positioned at a ~45 degree angle so that the wider sides of the file could successively reduce the left and right side of adjacent tines. Using the file on the ventral bone surface increased tine length and further sharpened the tines.

Figure 3. Traces of manufacture and use on the Tongatapu tattooing combs: a) Rounding and chipping visible on tines of Comb 1; b) Detail of oblique tines on Comb 1; c-d, e-h) Ink residue on Comb 4. The entry point of the ink into the blood vessels is clearly seen in image (g); f) rounding and polish on proximal (hafted) extremity of Comb 4; e) V-shaped incisions made by a single tool on Comb 2. Scale bar = 1?mm.

Comb 1, on bird bone, is severely damaged, but differences in its morphology nevertheless remain clear. The tines on this artifact were produced by incising both the exterior and interior surfaces of the bone tab, before using a narrow file transversely over the last 2–3?mm to point the tine ends (Figure 3b). The resulting tines—some 10–11?mm in length—thus have their widest edge orientated opposite to those on Combs 2–4.

Evidence for use appears in two forms: use wear and residue. The proximal end of the combs exhibited rounding and polishing consistent with wear accrued through hafting (Figure 3f), while the intact tines displayed chipping and rounding congruous with repeated light impacts into human skin (Figure 3b). This is consistent with experimental work using bone-tipped tools to tattoo pig and human skin that found point rounding, flattening of bone fibers, smoothing of longitudinal manufacturing marks and low-level polish on the last 2–3?mm of the tool point (Deter-Wolf and Nicole Clark 2017 Clark, G. 2017. Violence and early maritime encounters in the Pacific. In Frontiers of Colonialism (C. Beaule, ed.):208235. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]; Deter-Wolf and Peres 2013 Deter-Wolf, A. and T. M. Peres. 2013. Flint, Bone, and Thorns: Using Ethnohistorical Data, Experimental Archaeology, and Microscopy to Examine Ancient Tattooing in Eastern North America. In Tattoos and Body Modifications in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Sessions at the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague and Oslo, 2010/11. Zurich Studies in Archaeology (P. Philippe Della Casa and C. Witt, eds.):35–45. Zurich: Chronos-Verlag.?[Google Scholar]2013; Gates St-Pierre 2017 Gates St-Pierre, C. 2017. Needles and bodies: A microwear analysis of experimental bone tattooing instruments. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.027.?[Google Scholar]). Evidence for the breakage of tines in use is also present on Combs 3 and 4. Additionally, the distal extremity of Comb 2 has been ground back, perhaps in preparation for rejuvenation of this comb.

The combs all have a blue/black residue which is concentrated on the tined extremity and which continue up the left and right sides of each comb. The two combs made on human bone retain the largest quantities of this residue, which has impregnated the bone structure through the blood vessel system (Figure 3c–d, g–h). Based on the fact that the residue is concentrated on the extremity of tines, is dark in color, and has experienced repeated and prolonged contact with the bone tools, it is reasonable to conclude that this residue is probably the remnants of tattooing ink.

Discussion

Anthropomorphic art suggests that piercing and cutting designs on the skin, with or without pigment, may have originated as early as the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe (Kind et al. 2014 Kind, C.-J., N. Ebinger-Rist, S. Wolf, T. Beutelspacher, and K. Wehrberger. 2014. The smile of the Lion Man. Recent excavations in Staled Cave (Baden-Württemberg, south-western Germany) and the restoration of the famous Upper Palaeolithic Figurine. Quat?r 61:129–145.?[Google Scholar]). Simple pointed implements dating back to the Magdalenian (21,000–14,000?cal BP) may constitute single and inline tattooing tools (e.g., Péquart and Péquart 1962 Péquart, M. and J. Péquart. 1962. Grotte du Mas d’Azil (Ariége), Une nouvelle galerie Magdalénienne. Annales de Paléontologie 48:197243.?[Google Scholar]:244), while Middle Stone Age bone points in South Africa are also suggested to perhaps have been utilized in such a function (Deter-Wolf 2013 Deter-Wolf, A. 2013. The material culture and Middle Stone Age origins of ancient tattooing. In Tattoos and Body Modifications in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Sessions at the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague and Oslo, 2010/11. Zurich Studies in Archaeology (P. Philippe Della Casa and C. Witt, eds.):1526. Zurich: Chronos-Verlag.?[Google Scholar]), though as yet no detailed work has been undertaken and their identification as tattooing implements is ambiguous. Tassie (2003 Tassie, G. J. 2003. Identifying the practice of tattooing in ancient Egypt and Nubia. Papers Institute Archaeology 14:85101.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]) found that evidence for early multi-toothed tools in Egypt and Nubia, and Zidarov (2009, 2017) in the Balkan Copper Age, was inconclusive and that confirmation required trace evidence to identify use wear, blood, and pigment.

Similarly, when comb tattooing (compare scarification/skin scratching) first began in the Pacific is unknown, particularly whether or not it arrived during the maritime migration of Lapita culture that extended from southern New Guinea through to Tonga and Samoa in the east ~3200–2850?cal BP. A connection between comb tattooing implements and Lapita ceramics decorated with intricate and complex designs made with toothed stamps appears unlikely given the presence of single pointed obsidian tattooing tools, hand-held and inline (some with charcoal residues), in several western Lapita sites (Torrence et al. 2018 Torrence, R., N. Kononenko, P. Sheppard, M. S. Allen, S. Bedford, P. V. Kirch, and M. Spriggs. 2018. Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex. Archaeology in Oceania 53:5873.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]). Historical linguistics identifies a bone needle (hau)—often made from the wing bone of the flying fox—as an ancient Polynesian tattooing tool (Figure 4a; Kirch and Green 2001 Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green. 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]:189). However, multiple types of skin and body modification often exist together in the Pacific as in Tonga where in late prehistory chiefly funerals involved participants cutting/piercing the skin with spears, clubs, bamboo “knives” and sharpened shells, burning the skin to make scar patterns, and the amputation of finger joints with a stone tool (Anderson in Beaglehole 1967 Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.). 1967. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his Voyages of Discovery. The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780, Vol. III, Part Two. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society.?[Google Scholar]:930–931; Martin 1991:349–350). Tattooing with a shark tooth implement was also recorded in Tonga (Roth 1906 Roth, H. L. 1906. Tonga Islanders’ skin-marking. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 6:69.?[Google Scholar]:8), but might refer to a surgical/wood carving tool (Martin 1991:361; Robitaille 2007 Robitaille, B. 2007. A preliminary typology of perpendicularly hafted bone tipped tattooing instruments: Toward a technological history of Oceanic tattooing. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):159174. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Oxbow.?[Google Scholar]:161). Bone needles and modified fish spines from Lapita and post-Lapita sites should be examined for use wear and traces of pigment to see whether they may have been used in tattooing. In east Fiji, Best (1984 Best, S. 1984. Lakeba: The Prehistory of a Fijian Island. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auckland: University of Auckland.?[Google Scholar]:465–466) records bone needles made in bird, human, and fish bone in both Lapita and post-Lapita contexts.

Figure 4. Tattoo implements mentioned in text (not to scale). Top row (4a-d). Potential precursors to the Oceanic bone comb. 4a) bone needle; 4b) thorn, 4c) tanged horn blade from Arku Cave; 4d) obsidian flake with retouched point. Middle row (4e-g) narrow bone comb; 4f) wide bone comb; 4g) composite bone “bell-shaped” tool. Bottom row (4h-j). Single and composite bone combs on turtle shell plate. Images redrawn from Ambrose (2012), Poulsen (1987 Poulsen, J. 1987. Early Tongan Prehistory, Vols. I–II. Terra Australis 12. Canberra: The Australian National University.?[Google Scholar]), Thiel (1986-1987), Torrence et al. (2018 Torrence, R., N. Kononenko, P. Sheppard, M. S. Allen, S. Bedford, P. V. Kirch, and M. Spriggs. 2018. Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex. Archaeology in Oceania 53:5873.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]).

The technological sequence leading to hafted bone combs is difficult to determine as in many parts of insular Asia and the Western Pacific ethnographic tattooing employed natural spike tools (Figure 4b) that are unlikely to preserve in the archaeological record (Ambrose 2012). Possible tattooing combs made from “horn” were found at Arku Cave in the Philippines with 14C ages spanning 1,730–3,550?cal BP (Thiel 1986–1987), but the tools have a well-defined hafting tang that is not seen in Oceanic bone combs (Figure 4c), and Ambrose (2012:122) suspects the Arku tools were instead used in pottery decoration.

The presence of bone tattooing combs in Tonga ~2,700 years ago is consistent with a Lapita origin, possibly a late Lapita innovation in West Polynesia from single pointed tattooing tools made in bone and stone. A distinctive obsidian flake tool with a small point made by alternating retouch to tattoo the skin (Figure 4d) is associated with Lapita sites from island New Guinea to Vanuatu and New Caledonia (Sheppard 2010 Sheppard, P. J. 2010. Lapita stone tool technology. In Lapita: Ancestres Oceaniens/Oceanic Ancestors (C. Sand, S. Bedford, and C. Chambonniere, eds.):240250. Paris: Somogy.?[Google Scholar]; Torrence et al. 2018 Torrence, R., N. Kononenko, P. Sheppard, M. S. Allen, S. Bedford, P. V. Kirch, and M. Spriggs. 2018. Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex. Archaeology in Oceania 53:5873.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]). The distribution is intriguing as the sea gaps between these island groups do not exceed ~350?km in comparison with the 800?km voyage to reach Fiji-West Polynesia whose three main island groups have a combined land area less than half that of the Solomons, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu. Only small amounts of high-quality obsidian from western sources (Bismarck Archipelago) reached Fiji and the local volcanic glass from Samoa and northern Tonga is described as being vesicular/rich in phenocrysts which results in lower quality tools (Burley et al. 2011 Burley, D. V., P. J. Sheppard, and M. Simonin. 2011. Tongan and Samoan volcanic glass: pXRF analysis and implications for constructs of ancestral Polynesian society. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:26252632.[Crossref], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; Reepmeyer et al. 2012 Reepmeyer, C., G. Clark, and P. Sheppard. 2012. Obsidian source use in Tongan prehistory: New results and implications. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7(2):255271.[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]). Thus, the relative isolation of east Lapita groups from people in the large and often intervisible islands of the west Pacific combined with reduced access to high-quality obsidian may have stimulated the development of angle-hafted bone tattooing combs in Tonga and Samoa.

Regardless of the technological sequence, the one-piece narrow bone comb and associated tattooing implements and materials (haft, mallet, carbon pigment, mortar, pestle, and ink-holding vessel) were in use ~2,700 years ago in West Polynesia. Interestingly, the undisturbed excavation square that produced three of the Tongan tattoo combs also contained a small ceramic “cup” (now lost), that the excavator thought could have been a pigment pestle/ink holder (Poulsen 1987 I:207). A remarkably similar technology was recorded by European visitors to Tonga more than two millennia later:

This [tattooing] is done by what we might call puncturation or ingraining with a little flat bone instrument cut full of fine teeth & fix'd in a handle. It is dipt into the staining mixture, which is prepared from the soot of the Dooedooe [Tongan tuitui, Candlenut, Aleurites moluccanus] and struck into the skin with a bit of stick untill the blood sometimes follows, and by that means leaves such indelible marks that time cannot efface them. (Anderson in Beaglehole 1967 Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.). 1967. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his Voyages of Discovery. The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780, Vol. III, Part Two. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society.?[Google Scholar]:930)

The absence of the bone comb in the western part of the Lapita distribution (Ambrose 2012) contrasts with its presence in distant Polynesian Outliers like Nukuoro and Tikopia and remote islands in Western Micronesia such as Tobi (Figure 1) where male tattoo designs indicate a shared tradition and contact with the central Caroline Islands (Intoh 2008 Intoh, M. 2008. Historical significance of the Southwest Islands of Palau. In Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes (G. R. Clark, F. Leach, and S. O'Connor, eds.):325338. Terra Australis 29. Canberra: ANU E Press.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]:331). The transfer of bone comb tattooing from West Polynesia to other parts of Oceania is plausible since stone tools from Samoa are found over a linear distance of 5,700?km from Pohnpei in Micronesia to Mangaia in the Cook Islands (Clark et al. 2014 Clark, G., C. Reepmeyer, N. Melekiola, J. Woodhead, W. R. Dickinson, and H. Martinsson-Wallin. 2014. Stone tools from the ancient Tongan state reveal prehistoric interaction centres in the Central Pacific. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 111(29):1049110496.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]; see Clark 2017 Clark, G. 2017. Violence and early maritime encounters in the Pacific. In Frontiers of Colonialism (C. Beaule, ed.):208235. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar] for an assessment of the geographic knowledge of Pacific Islanders at European contact).

There is little to suggest that contact in late prehistory was sustained or regular over such distances, and instead patterns of human migration and the transfer of tattooing technology varied with major dispersals to uninhabited East Polynesia mediated by climate events (Goodwin et al. 2014 Goodwin, I. D., S. A. Browning, and A. J. Anderson. 2014. Climate windows for Polynesian voyaging to New Zealand and Easter Island. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 111(41):1471614721.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]), and episodic movements of small groups—as a result of raiding, trade and exchange, involuntary voyaging, and “push” factors (e.g., Dening 1962 Dening, G. M. 1962. The geographical knowledge of the Polynesians and the nature of inter-island contact. In Polynesian Navigation. A Symposium on Andrew Sharp's Theory of Accidental Voyages (J. Golson, ed.):103153. Wellington: A.H. and A.W. Reed.?[Google Scholar])—to already occupied islands in the west. An alternative suggested by recent aDNA results is that post-Lapita migration of Papuan people erased much of the Lapita “East Asian” genetic signature (Posth et al. 2018 Posth, C., K. N?gele, H. Colleran, F. Valentin, S. Bedford, K. W. Kami, M. Walworth, et al. 2018. Waves of history in Remote Oceania: Language continuity despite population replacement in Vanuatu. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:731740.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®]?,?[Google Scholar]) along with parts of the material culture inventory, including bone tattooing combs. The ease with which aspects of tattooing can be influenced by long-distance contact is exemplified by the growing popularity of tattooing in Europe from early voyages to the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific. The return of tattooed sailors, beachcombers, and indigenous people to Europe began with William Dampier's display of “Prince Jeoly (Giolo)” from Indonesia in 1691 (Barnes 2006 Barnes, G. 2006. Curiosity, wonder, and William Dampier's painted prince. Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 6(1):3150.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]), and interest in “native” tattooing continued during, and after, the voyages of Cook and others to the Pacific during the Enlightenment (Fleming 1997 Fleming, J. 1997. The Renaissance tattoo. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 31:3452.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]; Gell 1993 Gell, A. 1993. Wrapping in Images: Tattooing in Polynesia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.?[Google Scholar]:10; Thomas et al. 2005 Thomas, N., A. Cole, and B. Douglas (eds.). 2005. Tattoo: Bodies, Art, and Exchange in the Pacific and the West. London: Reaktion Books.?[Google Scholar]).

Conclusion

Early archaeological tattooing implements are exceedingly rare and the bone combs from Tonga dating to ~2,700 years ago are the oldest confirmed multi-toothed tattooing tools in Polynesia, and to our knowledge, the world. Identification of the combs as tattooing tools is supported by their morphology, similarity to bone tools recorded ethnographically, and presence of ink residues. These tools strengthen the hypothesis of Kirch and Green (2001 Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green. 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]:189) that the tattooing traditions of Polynesia date to ~2,500 years ago with the formation of an Ancestral Polynesian Society in Samoa and Tonga. In terms of shape, the narrow Tongan combs with fine teeth are likely to have been used to tattoo fine lines and small detailed patterns (Kr?mer 1995 Kr?mer, A. 1995. The Samoa Islands, Vol. II: Material Culture. Trans. T. Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?[Google Scholar]:80). Survey of ethnographic and archaeological bone tattooing combs by Robitaille (2007 Robitaille, B. 2007. A preliminary typology of perpendicularly hafted bone tipped tattooing instruments: Toward a technological history of Oceanic tattooing. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):159174. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Oxbow.?[Google Scholar]) and Ambrose (2012) suggests the most complex tools developed in Polynesia from the “Oceanic” one-piece narrow bone comb. One-piece “wide” bone combs are so far confined to East Polynesia (except Easter Island/Rapa Nui), wider composite tools made of 2–4 bone combs to the Society Islands (“bell” form) and Hawai'i (rectangular form), and single and multiple bone combs attached to a plate of turtle shell are only known from Tonga and Samoa (Figure 1 and Figure 4e–j). The turtle shell plate acted as a shock absorber for the combs, and extended the distance between the haft and the comb teeth which gave the tattooist a better view of the area being marked, enhancing accuracy and neatness. The increasing number of teeth in composite tattooing tools is probably related to infilling broad areas in male tattoos (Buck 1930 Buck, P. H. 1930. Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 75. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.?[Google Scholar]:638, 658; Kr?mer 1995 Kr?mer, A. 1995. The Samoa Islands, Vol. II: Material Culture. Trans. T. Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?[Google Scholar]:80). Thus, the Tongan bone tools suggest a technological sequence from narrow bone blades to wide blades that were taken by peoples to East Polynesia ~1,000 years ago, to bone composites (with and without a turtle shell plate). All point to the growing importance of tattooing in several Polynesian societies. In the Society Islands, Joseph Banks (1997 Banks, J. 1997. The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph Banks, 1768-1771. A digital text sponsored by State Library of NSW. Sydney: University of Sydney Library.?[Google Scholar]:195) noted, "It [tattooing] was done between the ages of 14 and 18 and so essential it is that I have never seen one single person of years of maturity without it."

West Polynesia is clearly a long-standing region of tattooing innovation and changes in bone comb technology (Figure 1 and Figure 4e–j) represent the increasing complexity and density of designs in addition to the growing importance of tattoos among the population, particularly adult males. In Tonga, men were ridiculed if they were not tattooed (Waldegrave 1833 Waldegrave, W. 1833. Extracts from a private journal kept on board H.M.S. Seringapatam, in the Pacific, 1830. The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 3:168196.[Crossref]?,?[Google Scholar]:194), and after the practice was outlawed in 1839, Tongan men went to Samoa to receive traditional tattoos (Suren 2009 Suren, P. 2009. Tongan tattooing. In Essays on the History of Tonga (P. Suren, ed.):116132. Nuku?alofa: Friendly Islands Bookshop.?[Google Scholar]), where "personal status, and the approbation of men and women were the incentives to undergoing the operation" (Buck 1930 Buck, P. H. 1930. Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 75. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.?[Google Scholar]:661). Unique and varied traditions of body marking developed in the Pacific, yet the basic tattooing technology represented by the narrow bone combs from the TO.1 site appear to have been remarkably stable, and we suggest that the angle-hafted bone comb may have dispersed from West Polynesia to many other parts of Oceania.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mirani Litster, Stuart Bedford, and Wal Ambrose (The Australian National University) for assistance with queries about the distribution of tattooing tools and Fiona Petchey (Waikato University) for advice on radiocarbon dating. The research was supported by Australian Research Council funding to Clark (FT0990591).

    References

  • Ambrose, W. 2012. Oceanic tattooing and the implied Lapita ceramic connection. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(1):121.?
  • Banks, J. 1997. The Endeavour Journal of Sir Joseph Banks, 1768-1771. A digital text sponsored by State Library of NSW. Sydney: University of Sydney Library.?
  • Barnes, G. 2006. Curiosity, wonder, and William Dampier's painted prince. Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies 6(1):3150.?
  • Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.). 1967. The Journals of Captain James Cook on his Voyages of Discovery. The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780, Vol. III, Part Two. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Hakluyt Society.?
  • Bedford, D. 2018. Modified canines: Circular pig’s tusks in Vanuatu and the wider Pacific. In The Archaeology of Portable Art: Southeast Asia, Pacific, and Australian Perspectives (M. C. Langley, M. Litster, D. Wright, and S. May, eds.):125141. Oxon: Routledge.?
  • Best, E. 1904. The Uhi-Maori, or native tattooing instruments. Journal of the Polynesian Society 12:166172.?
  • Best, S. 1984. Lakeba: The Prehistory of a Fijian Island. Ph.D. Dissertation. Auckland: University of Auckland.?
  • Bradfield, J. and T. Brand. 2015. Results of utilitarian and, accidental breakage experiments on bone points. Archaeological and Anthropological Science 7:2738.?
  • Buc, N. 2011. Experimental series and use-wear in bone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:546557.?
  • Buc, N., and D. Loponte. 2007. Bone tool types and micro wear patterns: Some examples from the Pampa Region, South America. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):143157. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress.?
  • Buck, P. H. 1930. Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 75. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.?
  • Burley, D. V. 1998. Archaeology and the Tonga past, 2850-150 B.P. Journal of World Prehistory 12:337392.?
  • Burley, D. V., S. P. Connaughton, and G. Clark. 2018. Early cessation of ceramic production for ancestral Polynesian society in Tonga. PLOS ONE 13(2):e0193166. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0193166.?
  • Burley D. V., K. Edinborough, M. Weisler, and J.-X, Zhao. 2015. Bayesian modeling and chronological precision for Polynesian settlement of Tonga. PLOS ONE 10(3):e0120795.?
  • Burley, D. V., P. J. Sheppard, and M. Simonin. 2011. Tongan and Samoan volcanic glass: pXRF analysis and implications for constructs of ancestral Polynesian society. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:26252632.?
  • Clark, G. 2017. Violence and early maritime encounters in the Pacific. In Frontiers of Colonialism (C. Beaule, ed.):208235. Gainesville: University of Florida Press.?
  • Clark, G., C. Reepmeyer, N. Melekiola, J. Woodhead, W. R. Dickinson, and H. Martinsson-Wallin. 2014. Stone tools from the ancient Tongan state reveal prehistoric interaction centres in the Central Pacific. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 111(29):1049110496.?
  • Dening, G. M. 1962. The geographical knowledge of the Polynesians and the nature of inter-island contact. In Polynesian Navigation. A Symposium on Andrew Sharp's Theory of Accidental Voyages (J. Golson, ed.):103153. Wellington: A.H. and A.W. Reed.?
  • Deter-Wolf, A. 2013. The material culture and Middle Stone Age origins of ancient tattooing. In Tattoos and Body Modifications in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Sessions at the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague and Oslo, 2010/11. Zurich Studies in Archaeology (P. Philippe Della Casa and C. Witt, eds.):1526. Zurich: Chronos-Verlag.?
  • Deter-Wolf, A. and T. M. Peres. 2013. Flint, Bone, and Thorns: Using Ethnohistorical Data, Experimental Archaeology, and Microscopy to Examine Ancient Tattooing in Eastern North America. In Tattoos and Body Modifications in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Sessions at the Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague and Oslo, 2010/11. Zurich Studies in Archaeology (P. Philippe Della Casa and C. Witt, eds.):35–45. Zurich: Chronos-Verlag.?
  • Deter-Wolf, A., and T. Nicole Clark. 2017. Further evaluation of tattooing use-wear on bone tools. In Ancient Ink: The Archaeology of Tattooing (L. Krutak and A. Deter-Wolf, eds.):231242. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.?
  • Deter-Wolf, A., B. Robitaille, L. Krutak, and S. Galliot. 2016. The world’s oldest tattoos. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 5:1924.?
  • Fleming, J. 1997. The Renaissance tattoo. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 31:3452.?
  • Friedlaender, B. 1899. Notizen über Samoa. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie 31:155.?
  • Friedman, R., D. Antoine, S. Talamo, P. J. Reimer, J. H. Taylor, B. Wills, and M. A. Mannino. 2018. Natural mummies from Predynastic Egypt reveal the world’s earliest figural tattoos. Journal of Archaeological Science 92:116125.?
  • Furey, L. 2017. Archaeological evidence for tattooing in Polynesia and Micronesia. In Ancient Ink: The archaeology of tattooing (L. Krutak and A. Deter-Wolf, eds.):159184. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.?
  • Gates St-Pierre, C. 2007. Bone awls of the St. Lawrence Iroquoians: A micro wear analysis. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. M. Walker, eds.):107118. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress.?
  • Gates St-Pierre, C. 2017. Needles and bodies: A microwear analysis of experimental bone tattooing instruments. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2017.10.027.?
  • Gell, A. 1993. Wrapping in Images: Tattooing in Polynesia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.?
  • Goodwin, I. D., S. A. Browning, and A. J. Anderson. 2014. Climate windows for Polynesian voyaging to New Zealand and Easter Island. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 111(41):1471614721.?
  • Green, R. 1979. Early Lapita art from Polynesia and Island Melanesia: Continuities in ceramic, barkcloth and tattoo decoration. In Exploring the Visual Art of Oceania (S. M. Mead, ed.):1331. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?
  • Hamilton, W. D., C. Haselgrove, and C. Gosden. 2015. The impact of Bayesian chronologies on the British Iron Age. World Archaeology 47:642660.?
  • Handy, E. S. C. and W. C. Handy. 1924. Samoan House Building, Cooking, and Tattooing. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 15. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.?
  • Intoh, M. 2008. Historical significance of the Southwest Islands of Palau. In Islands of Inquiry: Colonisation, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes (G. R. Clark, F. Leach, and S. O'Connor, eds.):325338. Terra Australis 29. Canberra: ANU E Press.?
  • Kind, C.-J., N. Ebinger-Rist, S. Wolf, T. Beutelspacher, and K. Wehrberger. 2014. The smile of the Lion Man. Recent excavations in Staled Cave (Baden-Württemberg, south-western Germany) and the restoration of the famous Upper Palaeolithic Figurine. Quat?r 61:129–145.?
  • Kirch, P. V. 1997. The Lapita Peoples: Ancestors of the Oceanic World. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.?
  • Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green. 2001. Hawaiki, Ancestral Polynesia. An Essay in Historical Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.?
  • Kononenko, N., and R. Torrence. 2009. Tattooing in Melanesia: Local invention or Lapita introduction? Antiquity Project Gallery 83. http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/kononenko/.?
  • Kononenko, N., R. Torrence, and P. Sheppard. 2016. Detecting early tattooing in the Pacific region through experimental use wear and residue analyses of obsidian tools. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 8:147163.?
  • Kr?mer, A. 1995. The Samoa Islands, Vol. II: Material Culture. Trans. T. Verhaaren. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.?
  • Langley, M. C., S. O’Connor, and K. Aplin. 2016. A >46,000-year-old macropod bone implement from Carpenter’s Gap 1: Challenging past perspectives of Pleistocene Australia. Quaternary Science Reviews 154:199213.?
  • Legrand, A., and I. Sidéra. 2007. Methods, means, and results when studying European bone industries. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):6779. BAR International Series 1622. Oxford: Archaeopress.?
  • Martin, J. 1991. Tonga Islands. William Mariner's Account, 5th ed., Vols. I–II. Nuku?alofa: Vava'u Press.?
  • Péquart, M. and J. Péquart. 1962. Grotte du Mas d’Azil (Ariége), Une nouvelle galerie Magdalénienne. Annales de Paléontologie 48:197243.?
  • Pieri, A., and D. Antoine. 2014. A tattooed trio at HK27C. Nekhen News 26:2829.?
  • Posth, C., K. N?gele, H. Colleran, F. Valentin, S. Bedford, K. W. Kami, M. Walworth, et al. 2018. Waves of history in Remote Oceania: Language continuity despite population replacement in Vanuatu. Nature Ecology & Evolution 2:731740.?
  • Poulsen, J. 1987. Early Tongan Prehistory, Vols. I–II. Terra Australis 12. Canberra: The Australian National University.?
  • Reepmeyer, C., G. Clark, and P. Sheppard. 2012. Obsidian source use in Tongan prehistory: New results and implications. Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 7(2):255271.?
  • Robitaille, B. 2007. A preliminary typology of perpendicularly hafted bone tipped tattooing instruments: Toward a technological history of Oceanic tattooing. In Bones as Tools: Current Methods and Interpretations in Worked Bone Studies (C. Gates St-Pierre and R. B. Walker, eds.):159174. British Archaeological Reports International Series 1622. Oxford: Oxbow.?
  • Roth, H. L. 1906. Tonga Islanders’ skin-marking. Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 6:69.?
  • Sheppard, P. J. 2010. Lapita stone tool technology. In Lapita: Ancestres Oceaniens/Oceanic Ancestors (C. Sand, S. Bedford, and C. Chambonniere, eds.):240250. Paris: Somogy.?
  • Shishlina, N. I., E. V. Belkevich, and A. N. Usachuk. 2013. Bronze Age tattoos: Sympathetic magic or decoration? In Tattoos and Body Modifications in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Sessions at the Annual Meetings of the European Association of Archaeologists in The Hague and Oslo, 2010/11. Zurich Studies in Archaeology (P. Phillippe Della Casa and C. Witt, eds.):9:6774. Zurich: Chronos-Verlag.?
  • Skoglund, P., C. Posth, K. Sirak, M. Spriggs, F. Valentin, S. Bedford, G. R. Clark, et al. 2016. Ancient genomics and the peopling of the Southwest Pacific. Nature 538(7626):510513. doi:10.1038/nature19844.?
  • Smith, A. 2002. An Archaeology of West Polynesian Prehistory. Terra Australis 18. Canberra: Pandanus Books, Australian National University.?
  • Suren, P. 2009. Tongan tattooing. In Essays on the History of Tonga (P. Suren, ed.):116132. Nuku?alofa: Friendly Islands Bookshop.?
  • Tassie, G. J. 2003. Identifying the practice of tattooing in ancient Egypt and Nubia. Papers Institute Archaeology 14:85101.?
  • Thiel, B. 1986–1987. Excavations at Arku Cave, Northeast Luzon, Philippines. Asian Perspectives 28:229264.?
  • Thomas, N., A. Cole, and B. Douglas (eds.). 2005. Tattoo: Bodies, Art, and Exchange in the Pacific and the West. London: Reaktion Books.?
  • Torrence, R., N. Kononenko, P. Sheppard, M. S. Allen, S. Bedford, P. V. Kirch, and M. Spriggs. 2018. Tattooing tools and the Lapita cultural complex. Archaeology in Oceania 53:5873.?
  • Torrence, R., and J. P. White. 2001. Tattooed faces from Boduna Island, Papua New Guinea. In The Archaeology of Lapita Dispersal in Oceania (G. R. Clark, A. J. Anderson, and T. Vunidilo, eds.):135140. Terra Australis 17. Canberra: Pandanus Press.?
  • Waldegrave, W. 1833. Extracts from a private journal kept on board H.M.S. Seringapatam, in the Pacific, 1830. The Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 3:168196.?
  • Wilmshurst, J. M., T. L. Hunt, C. P. Lipo, and A. J. Anderson. 2011. High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 108(5):18151820. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015876108.?
  • Zidarov, P. 2009. Tattooing in the Balkan Copper Age: Bone needles and mineral pigments from Pietrele, Romania. In Saxa Loquuntur: Essays in Honour of Nikolay Sirakov on his 65th Birthday (I. Gatsov, ed.):327330. Sofia: Avalon.?
  • Zidarov, P. 2017. The antiquity of tattooing in Southwestern Europe. In Ancient Ink: The Archaeology of Tattooing (L. Krutak and A. Deter-Wolf, eds.):137149. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.?
 

People also read

MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์
mibet Casino777 k8wap link vao m88
MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์
MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์ MAXBET สมัครแทงบอลออนไลน์ - MAXBET บนมือถือ แทงบอลออนไลน์
sitemap