BOOK REVIEWS

Archaeological Investigations on Chek Lap Kok Island. William Meacham. HongKong: Hong Kong Archaeological Society, 1994. Pp. 806; illus.

Reviewed by YUN KUEN LEE, California, Fullerton State University

This volume is a professional report on theresults of the salvage archaeological projecton Chek Lap Kok Island in Hong Kong,occasioned by plans to construct a newairport. The Hong Kong ArchaeologicalSociety, chaired by William Meacham, wascommissioned to conduct a salvage archae­ological operation over a period of aboutone year: the largest archaeological under­taking ever carried out in Hong Kong.During the project a total of seven prehis­toric and historic sites were extensivelyexcavated. This volume is accompanied bya small bilingual booklet, Archaeological Dis­covery on Chek Lap Kok, a project summaryfor the general public.

Chek Lap Kok is a small island whosehistory spans the entire period of humanoccupation in the Hong Kong area, fromthe earliest inhabitants of the Middle Neo­lithic around 4000 B.C. to the recent floodof immigrants from mainland China. It thusconstitutes a microcosm of Hong Kong'spast (p. 270). Until recently, our knowl­edge of Hong Kong prehistory was sketchyand fragmentary. The Chek Lap Kok proj­ect yields invaluable information on thereconstruction of a local cultural sequence.With reference to other discoveries in HongKong, Meacham presents a pottery sequenceof prehistoric Hong Kong comparable tothat of neighboring Guangdong provinceand the South China coastal region. Thisconfirms the link of Hong Kong to themainland in the prehistoric period.

As;an Ptrspurivtr, Vol. 35, No. I, © 1996 by University of

Hawai'j Press.

The Chek Lap Kok project also providesa series of 12 radiocarbon dates obtainedfrom prehistoric charcoal samples. By com­bining these with the recently obtainedradiocarbon dates from other prehistoricsites in Hong Kong, a solid chronology ofHong Kong prehistory can be established.This chronology has great reference valuefor the prehistory of the region. Among theseveral absolute dates, those of the BronzeAge are most intriguing. These dates firmlyplace the Bronze Age occupation at ChekLap Kok between 1300 and 1000 B.C. TheBronze Age occupation also yielded threepairs of bivalve axe molds. These finds areunique in the region and indicate that theprehistoric people of Chek Lap Kok mayhave developed advanced knowledge ofmetallurgy. These results support a recentlydeveloped notion that the Bronze Age cul­tures of South China may have developedvery early and independently of NorthChina.

The historic occupation of Chek LapKok is representative of the history ofHong Kong. Artifacts diagnostic of allmajor Chinese dynasties except the Mingwere recovered from Chek Lap Kok. Onlyfour Han sherds were found. For HongKong as a whole, Han artifacts are rare,and Ming objects are even rarer-ail indi­cation that Hong Kong was barely inhab­ited in these periods. The most intriguingrecoveries of the historic period are thetwo kiln complexes, each comprising 13kilns. One complex obviously consisted oflime kilns, while the function of the othercomplex has yet to be identified, though it

100 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 35(1) . SPRING 1996

may have been used for smelting iron. Al­though the analysis of kilns in this volumeis brief, there are adequate descriptions, dia­grams, and pictures for readers who areinterested in them.

The Chek Lap Kok archaeological proj­ect involved several experts from other dis­ciplines, which made possible an in-depthstudy of the archaeological materials. Theproject thus sets an example for archaeolo­gical fieldwork in this region. However, thelevel of the expert reports in this volumevaries. The lithic analysis is by far the mostdetailed. The ceramic study is disappoint­ing because it is limited to the identifi­cation of ceramic types without furtheranalysis. The pollen analysis has yet to becompleted with interpretive statements onthe evolution of palaeo-environment. Im­provement can be made, I think, with astrong emphasis by the project director onthe goals and requirements of these studies.

The deficiency in organization is alsoseen in the editing of this volume, espe­cially in the lack of a unified list of refer­ences. Some references are presented at theends of sections, while others are listed atthe end of the volume. This arrangementis sure to confuse some readers. In addi­tion, the citations have not been carefullychecked, and there are several sources thatcannot be found in the references. Forinstance, Ling 1963 (p. 40) is absent fromthe references. The volume lacks an index,which makes it difficult to locate and usethe material. There are several discrepan­cies in the text. For example, it is said that"there were, however, two pottery typeswhich have not been seen before locally,though they are found in Guangdong. Thefirst is a very finely burnished brown ware"(p. 77). The second pottery type is nevermentioned in the following paragraphs.

These editorial shortcomings could easilyhave been rectified by a competent manu­script editor.

It is difficult to assess the results of thesurvey and excavation because the projectstrategies and procedures are not explicitlyoutlined in the text. Although it is said thata complete survey was conducted in the firststage of the fieldwork (p. 2), we cannotevaluate its "completeness." We do notknow the intensity of the survey and thesurface visibility. We also do not knowwhether core drilling and shovel testingwere applied. However, this volume pro­vides an appreciable number of qualityillustrations that allow me to make someconjecture concerning the excavation pro­cedures. It seems that the excavated unitswere intuitively selected and that no sam­pling technique was employed. The exca­vation tools included shovels, spades, picks,and hoes for horizontal stripping of theoccupation floors. More meticulous tools,such as trowels, brushes, and dental picks,were used when excavating features andcomplete or relatively complete artifacts.No screen is seen in any of the excavationpictures. It is encouraging, nevertheless,that the project accounted for the forma­tion processes of archaeological deposits inseveral instances, although the mechanismsof deposition were not identified. All thesefactors should be considered when usingthe material presented in this volume.

Overall, when the constraints of a salvageproject are taken into account, the archaeo­logical operation at Chek Lap Kok appearsto have been adequate. This volume notonly sketches a profile of Hong Kong'spast, it also provides important informationfor the study of the archaeology of coastalSouth China and Southeast Asia.

BOOK REVIEWS 101

The Lelu Stone Ruins (Kosrae, Micronesia): 1978-81 Historical and ArchaeologicalResearch. Ross Cordy. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No. 10, Social ScienceResearch Institute. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i, 1993. Pp. xv + 454; 179figures, 62 tables. '.

Reviewed by J. STEPHEN ATHENS,

International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

This volume presents archaeological andhistorical research carried out by RossCordy between 1978 and 1981 on themegalithic Lelu Ruins of Kosrae in theEastern Caroline Islands of Micronesia. TheLelu research was funded by the HistoricPreservation Program of the U.S. TrustTerritory of the Pacific Islands in Saipan,where Cordy worked as staff archaeolo­gist. The aim of Cordy's project was toprovide modern baseline documentation ofthe Lelu Ruins, a remarkable 27 ha (Athens1995: 37) prehistoric architectural complexof stone-walled compounds, paved path­ways, large tombs, and canals, built on arti­ficial fill on the reef next to a small lagoonisland. As Cordy explains (p. xii), his inves­tigations involved two interrelated com­ponents: archaeological research (a total ofthree months of fieldwork) and a histori­cal reconstruction of traditional Kosraeansociety based on documentary sources.

Although the project is described as ajoint Bishop Museum-Trust Territory His­toric Preservation Office Study, it is notclear what the museum's role was in thiswork or the meaning of its "longstandingaim to study the Lelu Ruins" (p. xi). Thefact that the volume is simultaneouslyoriented to both Kosraeans and profes­sional scholars gives rise to occasional awk­ward passages. Although it is commendableto write for both audiences, the two stylesdo not mix very well. In the end, theweight of the volume, with its detailed doc­umentation and warranting arguments forthe many interpretations, is heavily skewedto address the interests of the professional.

As explained in an epilogue, several sea­sons of investigations continued at the Lelu

A,i.n Pmp"';v", Vol. 35, No. I, © 1996 by Univmiry of

Hawai'. Press.

Ruins after the volume was completed in1981, and there have also been severalmajor archaeological projects on Kosrae'smain island since that time. The results ofthis new work, unfortunately, are onlysummarized and referenced in the epilo­gue. No effort was made to integrate thenewer work or the more recent research ofothers in Micronesia-much of this worknow ten years old or more-into the bodyof the monograph. For a study whose pub­lication has been so long delayed, this isperhaps understandable, though unfortu­nate. Despite this problem, Cordy's re­search represents a very substantial achieve­ment not only for Micronesian archaeologybut also for Micronesian history and ethno­history.

The Lelu Stone Ruins is divided intoeight chapters, followed by a brief com­ment on Lelu's future, the epilogue, andfive appendixes. All 179 figures-includingphotographs, maps, and line drawings-aregrouped after the appendices, and refer­ences follow the figures. The volume'swealth of illustrations, not at all excessivefor the basic level of empirical documenta­tion it seeks to provide, is one of the mostuseful aspects of this study (though morecare in the editing process might have re­moved Figure 34, the Cordy map of theLelu Ruins, which is a duplicate of Figure8).

Chapter 1 provides an overview ofKosraean geography and contact-era cul­ture (first recorded Western contact was on5 June 1824), the nature of the Lelu Ruins,and prior research efforts. Cordy acceptsas "fact, but couched in fiction" the cele­brated legends of Isokelekel's exploits onPohnpei and of Sowukachaw's feat onChuuk (both figures from Kosrae). Hewould have done better, however, to have

102 ASIAN PERSPECTIVES . 35(1) . SPRING 1996

left open the question of the historical accu­racy of these stories. Goodenough (1986)later provided an alternative perspectivethat may be closer to the mark.

In chapter 2, "The Historic Baseline,"Cordy hits his stride and shows his con­siderable scholarly skills to best advantage.No other study comes close to the level ofdocumentation and integration of disparateand often hard-to-obtain foreign-languagesources that Cordy provides to develop aholistic picture of both traditional Kosraeansociety and the physical aspect of Lelu atthe time of contact. The details are numer­ous: This chapter reads like an ethnography,which is basically what it is, though onewritten with the archaeologist in mind.The Lelu Ruins served as the social andhierarchical center of Kosraean society atcontact; it was also the place where theearliest visitors were taken to meet andinteract with the paramount "king" (Cordyalways uses this term, in keeping withmuch of the historical literature) and highchiefs. Thus, the value of meticulous anddetailed historical investigation is obvious.This chapter, indeed, sets the stage for thearchaeological documentation and interpre­tation of the site.

Chapter 3 presents the surface archaeolo­gical data. This is a long (117 pages) andencyclopedic chapter providing site and in­dividual compound maps and data on theroughly 90-100 compounds that make upthe ruins, surface artifacts and features, wallattributes, specialized sectors, and so forth.Included are various analyses: houses andhouse types, activity areas, interpretationsof the individual compounds, social rankingrepresented by the compounds, populationsize, burials, and other details. Although intime some of the analyses and underlyingassumptions will almost certainly be ques­tioned and refinements and new types ofanalyses will take their place, Cordy mustbe credited for focusing research on impor­tant processual questions and for attempt­ing to provide answers. This chapter willbe a rich source of data and ideas for futureMicronesian archaeologists.

Chapter 4 basically deals with chronol­ogy. In all, 18 test pits were excavated and

12 radiocarbon dates obtained. Althoughthe excavations and number of dates areboth quite limited considering the size ofthe ruins, they fill what heretofore hasbeen an almost complete void in the litera­ture for this important site. Cordy goes tosome length to integrate his wall-buildingsequence with the absolute dates, arrivingat a convincing chronological model forthe growth of Lelu and the developmentof a complex chiefdom social organizationon Kosrae. A series of maps graphicallydepicts this model. The method of wallconstruction and changes in architecturalstyle, specialized sectors, population size,social organization, material culture, andburial practices are briefly discussed.

Chapter 5 concerns the question of whobuilt Lelu (the Kosraeans themselves) andpresents a review of the various hypothesesformulated by early visitors and investiga­tors. The latter topic is primarily of histor­ical interest.

Chapter 6 is largely an interpretive sum­mary of Cordy's findings. Beginning fromsome undesignated time before A.D. 1250,the beaches and small coastal flats aroundLelu Island were occupied by householdsor small household clusters. By 1250 settle­ment expanded onto the reef flat with thefirst use of artificial fIll to build habitationcompounds. There were two social strataat this time, consisting of a local chief andcommoners. Between 1250 and 1400,Cordy postulates (p. 258) that there were"a few district-sized societies [on Kosrae]with three strata (ruler, local chiefs, andcommoners)." By 1400 construction signif­icantly expanded on the Lelu Island reef flatand compounds with megalithic architec­ture appeared, along with specialized sec­tors and large tombs. Cordy equates thesechanges with the emergence of four socialstrata. Social organization conforms closelyto the ethnographic contact-period model,in which Kosrae was unified under a singleparamount, with an administrative hierar­chy of high and low chiefs under this para­mount, and with tribute in the form offood and services produced by commonersflowing into Lelu from administered landsaround the island of Kosrae.

BOOK REVIEWS r03

Chapters 7 and 8 concern, respectively,Lelu's relations with the superficially simi­lar Nan Madol site on Pohnpei and a verybrief review of archaeological evidencesuggesting a relationship between Kosraeand Chuuk (basically a similarity in food­pounder styles).

Although the volume is basically descrip­tive and empirical, it is permeated by expli­cit theoretical and methodological con­cerns. There is substantial information forreaders at any of several levels. The volumeshould be thought-provoking and shouldstimulate much discussion with new anal­yses and research. The main objection tothe work is that many of the argumentsregarding the character of Kosraean socialcomplexity appear circular or subjective:for example, social and political organiza­tion inferred to have existed at contact mustbe the same in the archaeological record,and vice versa. In essence, Cordy's strengthis at once his weakness. His continual refer­ence to feudal-type social organization is asymptom of this problem (see Graves 1986).

For Micronesian archaeologists and eth­nologists, this volume is essential reading.It provides a basic set of data concerningtraditional historic and prehistoric social

complexity at an interesting site for a pre­viously little known high island. Minorediting problems and typographic errorsare present, but these really do not detractfrom the fundamental scientific value ofCordy's study. We must hope that Cordy'snext Lelu monograph, documenting hislater investigations, will not be so long incoming.

REFERENCES

Athens, J. Stephen1995 lAndscape Archaeology: Prehistoric Settle­

ment, Subsistence, and Environment rifKosrae, Eastern Caroline Islands, Micro­nesia. Report prepared for the Kos­rae State Government. Honolulu:F.S.M. International ArchaeologicalResearch Institute.

Goodenough, Ward H.1986 Sky world and this world: The place

of Kachaw in Micronesian cosmol­ogy. American Anthropologist 88: 551­568.

Graves, Michael W.1986 Late prehistoric complexity on Lelu:

Alternatives to Cordy's model. jour­nal of Polynesian Society 95(4): 479­489.