Understanding Prehistoric Land Use through
Spatial Distribution of Latte Stones in
Northern Guam, Mariana Islands
Tatsuya Shimasaki*
Based on empirical observation, it is traditionally recognized that the prehistoric settlement pattern in the northern part of Guam consists of permanently inhabited villages along the coast and sporadically occupied sites inland. This hypothesis must be confirmed by analysis of substantive archaeological data in order to reconstruct land use patterns of prehistoric society in Guam. In this paper, the spatial distribution of latte stones at different geographical settings in northern Guam is quantified and compared. The latte stone is selected as an analysis target because this distinctive stone’s features might well reflect adherence to a particular place that people chose to utilize intensively during Latte Period (800/1000– 1700CE). As a result, it is shown that latte stones are clustered along the coastal lowlands in contrast to inland, where latte stones are dispersed over a large area. Coastal sites are covered with numerous latte sets at a given site, in contrast to inland sites, which have fewer numbers of latte stones. Thus, the distribution pattern of latte sets is established by its proximity to the shoreline, especially along sandy beaches. This result corresponds with the traditional view of settlement patterns. However, since there are numerous inland sites with latte stones, their functions need to be understood. The results can then be compared with distribution of environmental variables to clarify how the site locations were selected.
Keywords: Guam, Mariana Islands, latte stone, Latte Period, archaeology, water source, site distribution, land use, settlement pattern
1. Introduction
In the Mariana Islands, the archaeological sites dating to the Latte Period (ca. 800/1000– 1700CE) are numerous and can be easily observed due to the unique stone structures called latte stones, as well as other distinctive artifacts, particularly pottery. Archaeological study of settlement pattern is accepted in Oceania, aimed at identifying behavioral patterns of social and political activities from archaeological remains (Green, 1970: 13). However, the precise settlement pattern
* Department of Archaeology and Ethnology, Keio University, Tokyo, Japan,
Iyo City Board of Education, Ehime, Japan. [e-mail: [email protected]]
of the Latte Period on an island-wide scale remains unexplained. Still, in the Mariana Islands, many researchers are concerned with the way land was used in prehistory. As humans interact with the natural environment, their behavior seems to display some patterns in relation to those in the natural environment (Jochim, 1981: 3). Hypothesizing that access to a certain resource was an important driving force for human activities of the past society, people of the Latte Period must have had a tendency to inhabit places where the preferred resources were easily available, and such behavior should be reflected in archaeology. This hypothesis could be tested through a comparison of spatial distributions of both archaeological sites and various resources. The northern half of Guam is ideal for this land use study as the area is an uplifted coral island where potential resources are unevenly distributed.
The aim of this paper is to verify the traditional view of the site distribution pattern in northern Guam, permanently inhabited village sites on the coast, and sporadically utilized sites on the plateau by spatial distribution of the visualized and quantified archaeological data in order to understand how land was used during the Latte Period. Thus, the latte stones have been selected as the analysis target to clarify the distribution of Latte Period sites.
2. Environment of Northern Guam
The island of Guam is the largest and southernmost of the Mariana Islands in Western Micronesia, with an area of ca. 550 km2. The geology of the island is roughly divided into 2
Figure 1. Location and Geology of the Island of Guam (based on Gingerich, 2003)
63 domains separated across the middle of the island by the Pago-Adelup fault (Figure 1). The northern half of the island, northern Guam, is karst terrain composed of uplifted coralline reef, while the southern half is an older volcanic landmass. Most of northern Guam forms a flat limestone plateau bordered by sheer cliffs along the coast. A series of narrow coastal lowlands stretch below the cliff line. These are either low-raised coastal terraces composed of limestone substrate or sand flats composed of unconsolidated calcareous bioclasts. In some locations, middle terraces were formed between the upper plateau and the coastal lowlands. Due to porous limestone substrate, there is no perennial surface stream on the plateau. On the other hand, the southern end of the plateau near the Pago-Adelup fault is an intricately dissected area composed of an argillaceous member of the Mariana limestone with several drainage systems and wetlands (Randall and Holloman, 1974; Taborosi et al., 2004; Tracey et al., 1964).
3. Previous Studies on the Distribution of Archaeological Sites in Northern Guam
By the time of European contact in the 16th and 17th centuries, most islands of the Mariana
archipelago had been inhabited by the Chamorro. According to historical documents written by the Jesuits, 180 villages were located in Guam at both coast and inland (Levesque, 1995). At the end of the Latte Period, around 1700CE, northern Guam had been largely depopulated as a result of Spanish relocation policies (Section 4.3). In 1819, Freycinet (2003: 69, 81–82) witnessed numerous stone mortars scattered over the plateau, but the absence of a water source nearby made him believe that these had not been signs of prehistoric human activities. Thus, site distribution and environment in northern Guam has been a longstanding concern of researchers as reviewed below.
Based on result of Hans G. Hornbostel’s survey in the 1920s, Thompson (1940) estimated that there were about 270 “latte sites” in Guam. The sites were more abundant in the lowlands, in well-watered coves, as well as in the central part of Guam, while they were fewer in number on the northern plateau (Thompson, 1932: 15–16). After the devastating ground battle in 1944 followed by the post-war development, Osborne (n.d., 1947) and Reed (1952) plotted archaeological sites on Guam as they had witnessed many sites being disturbed. While Hornbostel and Osborne located several large inland sites, Reed negated large inland sites reported by the former.
Between July 1965 and June 1966, Reinman (1968, 1977) had conducted an island-wide survey primarily aimed at understanding the relationship between the various sites and their locations, especially the coast, river valleys, and interior regions (Reinman, 1977: viii). Reinman (1966) reported archaeological sites in nearly all of the surveyed coastal areas and southern interior, with highest density at sandy beaches. However, the northern interior was not surveyed in detail (Reinman, 1968: 42–43). Still, Reinman’s map continues to be the most extensively plotted
site distribution map on Guam. He implied that freshwater regions were favored for settlement (Reinman, 1966: 47).
As the development of Guam intensified in the 1980s, the largely ignored northern interior was surveyed little by little (e.g. Cordy and Allen, 1986; Haun, 1988; Kurashina and McGrath, 1987; Kurashina and Sinoto, 1984). As a result, many researchers tried to correlate the distribution pattern of prehistoric sites with that of natural resources. Kurashina and McGrath (1987) pointed out the contrast between coastal areas and interior areas with regard to the environment, natural resources, and archaeological sites. While there are numerous latte stones and midden deposits on coastal sites, they are scarce inland. They concluded that ecologically, the prehistoric land use was marginal on the northern interior plateau where water is not available.
Several projects that surveyed large areas from the shore to the plateau in the 1990s expanded our knowledge of site distribution patterns (e.g. Dilli et al., 1998; Henry and Haun, 1993; Highness and Haun , 1992; Liston, 1996; Olmo et al., 2000). Assuming that most of the sites in the northern interior dated back to the Latte Period, Highness et al. (1991) pointed out that on the plateau, sites are clustered near the fault zones where fertile soil and water is available. Kurashina (1991) discussed prehistoric settlement patterns based on the environmental context to view human adaptive strategy. This study shows island-wide diachronic distribution of sites dating back to the Latte and Pre-Latte Periods by mapping and overlapping distributions of archaeological sites and available freshwater sources in order to show how they are interrelated. However, since most of the plotted archaeological sites are the ones reported by Reinman, the sites in the northern interior were mostly ignored.
Meanwhile, in southern Guam, as the sites in the interior uplands have been extensively mapped, numerous prehistoric sites mostly dating to the Latte Period have been reported (e.g. Hunter-Anderson, 1994). Haun and Workman (1993) have compiled data on site distribution along several river systems and reservoirs to conclude that many of the sites in southern Guam are located close to water and arable soil. As a result of these efforts, the general pattern of site distribution on Guam and the Mariana Islands indicate larger sites in coastal areas and smaller sites in the interior (e.g. Russell, 1998: 110).
By the 2000s, as the site distribution pattern became clearer in northern Guam, many attempted to interpret the distribution pattern of sites in northern Guam, including the plateau. Olmo et al. (2000) discussed site distribution in northern Guam, focusing on the interior sites by reviewing 35 surveys that had been conducted since 1981, pointing out that previous researchers had underrated the northern plateau and hypothesizing that the northern plateau had served as a resource reservoir to exploit forest species and arable soil. Moore et al. (2007a: 38) recognized that most of the sites on the northern plateau are dated at the later part of the Latte Period, and
65 interpreted that climatic factors and increased population along the coastal lowlands led to the need for utilizing inland soil for farming. Based on site distribution in the northern end of Guam, Dixon et al. (2010) hypothesized that as large coastal villages developed in late prehistory, the demand for resources on the plateau increased. They believed that inland sites had been small fields for swidden farming, agricultural base camps, a few habitations with latte stones, and trails that connected them. Dixon and Schaefer (2014) showed a rough distribution map of latte sites in northern Guam to reconstruct the hypothetical catchment areas of the villages in the Latte Period by ethnological analogies from other Micronesian islands. They showed a hypothetical catchment area that ran from the shore to the center of the plateau, with each catchment area including various sources such as arable soils, forest products, animal habitats, and freshwater, as well as landmarks of spiritual value. They interpreted that the isolated latte stones in the northern interior were symbolic boundary markers, as were those in southern Guam. Carson (2012) recognized that the Latte Period sites were spread all over Guam, whereas the distribution was unknown. Recently, Carson (2016) discussed diachronic patterns of site distribution on the Mariana Islands, with the aim of showing the general pattern using only major sites that yield “useful information.” Carson (2017) recognized that at the northern tip of the island, village sites were located on the coast, but the surrounding terrains, including the plateau, were also components of a culturally inhabited landscape with low-impact strategies for informal gardens and managed forests on the plateau.
4. Aim of the Study and Related Issues
4.1 Issues in Previous StudiesAfter Reinman’s island-wide survey, a number of less extensive archaeological surveys dramatically increased our knowledge of site locations in Guam, as reviewed above. As a result, many researchers have arrived at 2 general agreements, or hypotheses, about the site distribution pattern in northern Guam:
Hypothesis 1. Larger sites, thought to be permanently inhabited villages, are located along the coast, while sites on the plateau are smaller and presumably used sporadically as camp sites or agricultural fields.
Hypothesis 2. Site distribution might be explained by the distribution of environmental variables such as arable soil, marine resources, vegetation, and freshwater.
In other words, it appears that environmental constraints affected how prehistoric people chose where and how they lived, and such behavior might be reflected in various archaeological remains
including site distribution patterns. Since the type of subsistence base that supported the populations is often concerned when settlement pattern of an island society is discussed (cf. Lepofsky, 1988: 33), there are many references to environmental variables in the Mariana Islands’ archaeology. Apparently, Reinman’s survey result influenced many researchers who try to correlate freshwater and human activities in the Mariana Islands because distributions of both sites and freshwater are overlapped along the coast in Northern Guam (e.g. Mink, 1976; Stephenson, 1979). However, after Reinman’s work, there have been very few studies that showed precise site distributions on an island-wide scale in Guam despite new findings in the northern interior. In order to clarify how distributions of archaeological sites relate to various resources, we first need to understand the precise and thorough spatial distribution of archaeological sites. Also, in the long prehistory of the Mariana Islands that spans at least 3000 years, it is necessary to see diachronic patterns of archaeological sites if we are to reconstruct precise settlement patterns (cf. Carson, 2016; Kurashina, 1991).
As reviewed in previous sections, many researchers focused on the functions of archaeological sites, such as villages, campsites, and fields. Although archaeological sites in the Mariana Islands are numerous and diverse and are composed of various components (Kurashina et al., 1990: 38–39; Reinman, 1977; Russell, 1998: 110–111), there are few studies that show detailed and rigid definitions of site function, resulting in ambiguous categorizations of archaeological sites. Therefore, to understand precise settlement patterns from archaeological evidences, it is inevitable that conceptual site functions are set aside, and that focus on distributions of temporally distinctive archaeological remains at the regional scale.
4.2 Aim of this Paper
The aim of this paper is to verify the traditional view of settlement patterns in northern Guam by testing Hypothesis 1 using temporally diagnostic archaeological material. In this paper, the Latte Period has been selected to test Hypothesis 1 because this period is the ideal cultural phase for this study due to the presence of distinctive and numerous stone features. The available archaeological information is also extensive as most of the prehistoric sites reported on Guam and the Mariana Islands are dated as late prehistory or Latte Period (Carson, 2012; Hunter-Anderson and Butler, 1995).
As explained in the previous section, instead of classifying sites into different site functions, it is necessary to extract a specific archaeological remain that represents the Latte Period and its functions. Therefore, the latte stone has been selected as an analysis target.
67
4.3 Latte Period and Latte Stone
The Latte Period (ca. 800/1000–1700CE) is the newest phase of the Mariana Islands’ prehistory. A terminus of this cultural period was marked at the time of Reduccíon, the relocation of native Chamorro from traditional villages to new settlements, forced by the Jesuits at the end of the 17th century. As a result of this relocation, traditional villages were abandoned and the archipelago
was largely depopulated, except for Rota and southern Guam.
Archaeological sites of the Latte Period—hereinafter called Latte Period site(s)—are complex both stratigraphically and horizontally (Hunter-Anderson and Butler, 1995: 39). The diversity suggests a varied and irregular settlement, structural styles, and village proxemics (Peterson, 2012: 199–200). However, their functions are not clear at a majority of the Latte Period sites (Carson, 2012: 32–33). Thus, the use of the latte stone as an analysis target is inevitable in studying this complex cultural period.
A latte stone is a stone pillar (haligi/halege) with a capstone (tasa) placed on top and is unique to the Mariana Islands. Usually, 8, 10, or 12 pillars lined in 2 rows (4, 5, or 6 pairs) form a single set (a grouping of latte stones identified with individual structures) (Thompson, 1940). Based on associated midden deposits and artifacts, they are hypothesized to have appeared as early as 1000– 1100CE (Graves, 1986) or earlier (Spoehr, 1957). From both historical accounts (e.g. Levesque, 1994 ) and archaeological evidence, latte stones are recognized as remains of buildings associated with burials and various domestic activities, with considerable variation in their size, shape, and composition (Bayman et al., 2012; Carson, 2016: 225; Dixon et al., 2006; Graves, 1986; Thompson, 1932: 17, 1940). In addition, some inland latte stones in southern Guam were reported as symbolic markers necessary in a semi-mobile settlement system (Hunter-Anderson, 1994, 2010). Regardless of its function, it is expected that the presence of latte stones reflects adherence to a particular place that people chose to utilize intensively. Carson (2017: 157–158) hypothesized that latte stones are a local expression of formalized material signatures seen everywhere in Pacific regions that resulted from the effort to formalize social identity in a landscape reflecting the growth of population after 1000CE. If such monuments are the result of a claim to certain types of resources, geographic patterns of latte stones might be explained by resource availability as tested in the other regions of Oceania (cf. DiNapoli et al., 2019).
5. Methodology
In this paper, a latte stone can be defined as a stone structure also referred to as a latte set, as has been reported in various reports and literatures. I focus on 2 attributes of the analysis target (latte stones), namely the locations and the number. It is difficult to evaluate whether these latte sets
are all contemporaneous, though the number of latte sets left on archaeological sites is an important criterion in assessing how people utilize different places. Since building a house with latte stones requires considerable energy expenditure (Graves, 1986: 149), the energy expended on latte stones may reflect the intensiveness of the use of a particular place. It is assumed that the more favorable the location is, the more latte sets must have been left at a site as a result of either intensive use in a short period of time or sporadic use over a long period of time, assuming stone materials were not reused for newer sets. Thus, it is not only locations but also the number of reported latte sets that need to be counted.
In this paper, first, archival work is performed to compile data on the sites with latte stones and prepare a list. Second, the information is illustrated by creating a distribution map of the sites with the latte stones. Third, both site density and the density of latte stones are calculated. Finally, the results are discussed to unveil a portion of the site distribution pattern in the Latte Period. Since Hypothesis 1 emphasizes the importance of near-shore locations for permanent habitations, the expected results include a larger number and greater density of latte stones found along the coast than those found inland.
6. Results of Data Aggregation Illustrated on a Map
In archival works, numerous archaeological reports are the most informative sources of information. Some literatures report disturbed latte stones with uncertainty, using words such as “possible” and “probable.” While the use of such uncertain information might be problematic in an academic paper, the aim of this paper is to reconstruct the overall distribution pattern of latte stones on a regional scale, so it is necessary to use all kinds of available information while classifying the differential reliability of that information. Sites 16, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, and 42 are thus included as sites with uncertain latte stone elements. Another uncertain source of information is the oral interviews with local residents and landowners as reported by archaeologists. This is an important source of information, especially when a land had been disturbed at the time the archaeological survey was conducted, as sites in northern Guam were largely disturbed for development after World War II (Section 3). This type of information is also informative as it helps take into account the latte stones in unsurveyed areas. Sites 26, 36, 50, 55, and 57 are thus included. The other type of uncertain information that is useful to our purpose is the result of the pre-war surveys conducted by Hornbostel. Although details of his survey have not been published, Thompson (1940; Figure 1) published the map that shows the approximate locations and density of latte stones represented by 2 shaded areas (Figure 2).
69
by the post-war surveys mentioned above, it is noted that these 2 site distribution patterns are different as there are patches of dense distribution of latte stones in the interior regions that have not been relocated during the post-war surveys. Although some writers are suspicious of this dense distribution of latte stones in the northern interior (e.g. Reed, 1952), it is notable that Thompson’s map shows a concentration of latte stones along the western coast and portions of the eastern coast of northern Guam that overlap well with the results of post-war surveys. Therefore, it is likely that Thompson’s map is accurate enough to reflect the loss of latte stones on disturbed or unsurveyed areas in the northern interior. Sites 19, 25, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 52 are thus selected and listed.1
In total, I confirmed 58 archaeological sites with latte stones—hereinafter called site(s)—in the project area (Table 1). One site located on the “upland” (site 58) has been completely excluded from the following discussion since its exact location is unknown. In order to analyze the distribution pattern of these sites and latte stones, it is each site must be plotted on a map. At the same time, for the protection of archaeological sites, their precise locations must be obscured.2
Figure 2. Results of Hornbostel’s Unpublished Survey Plotted on Modern Topographical Map Based on Publications by Thompson (1940; Figure 1) and Reed (1952; Map 1)
1 Two coastal locations, central to the north parts of Sasajyan bay (site 19) and in the vicinity of the mouth
of Agana river (site 25), are listed because archaeological surveys that have taken place there have clarified cultural deposits or artifacts dating to the Latte Period, despite the absence of information on
latte stones (e.g. Henry and Haun, 1993; Holsen and Welch, 1992).
2 Due to Federal Law (Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470hh—Confidentiality of information concerning nature and location of archaeological resources). Another is the concern for protection of sites from vandalism. In this study, these concerns must be taken into account.
These 2 contradicting demands must both be fulfilled in this study. To visualize the differentiated number and reliability of latte sets in each site,3 3 types of icons representing the number of latte
sets are used. Unnecessarily large icons are plotted to show only the approximate location of the sites, and some of them are intentionally moved from their precise locations in order to protect the locations from being discerned and the sites put at risk. Still, the whole distribution pattern remains clear (Figure 3).
Figure 3 shows that latte stones are located all over northern Guam. However, it is recognized that the sites are clustered along the coast. In order to prove this empirical observation, the data must be quantified and analyzed.
3 Generally, a minimum number of the reported number is shown on Table 1 to represent each site.
However, it is difficult to determine the number of latte sets that represents each site, especially when a site has been reported repeatedly by different researchers. Therefore, it must be noted that the number shown in Figure 3 is arbitrary in some cases.
Table 1. Sites with Latte Stones in Northern Guam (Site Numbers Correspond to Figure 3) Site
No. Major Topography The No. of Latte Sets Shown on Figure 3 References Coastal Lowland
1 Behind the Beach 2 Thompson, 1932; Olmo et al., 1999
2 Behind the Beach 5 Osborne, n.d.; Reinman, n.d.; Thompson, 1932; Graves and Moore, 1985; Davis et al., 1992 3 Behind the Beach 12 Osborne, n.d.; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Kurashina et al., 1987; Burtchard, 1991 4 Behind the Beach 8 Reinman, n.d., 1968; Haun et al., 1990
5 Behind the Beach 8 Reinman n.d., 1968; Workman and Haun, 1993
6 Behind the Beach 20 Osborne, n.d.; Reinman, n.d.,1968; Reed, 1952; Olmo et al., 2000 7 Behind the Beach 16 Osborne, n.d.; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Olmo et al., 2000 8 Behind the Beach 1 Osborne, n.d.?; Olmo et al., 2000
9 Behind the Beach 1 Reinman, n.d., 1968
10 Behind the Beach 6 Osborne, n.d.; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Thompson, 1932; Streck, 1986 11 Behind the Beach 9 Reed, 1952; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Streck, 1986; Shimasaki, 2015 12 Behind the Beach 5 Osborne, n.d.; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Kurashina et al., 1990; Bayman et al., 2012 13 Behind the Beach 20 Reinman, n.d., 1968; Carson, 2017
14 Behind the Beach 3 Osborne, n.d., 1947; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Athens, 1986; Yoklavich et al., 1996; Yee et al., 2004 15 Behind the Beach 9 Reinman, n.d., 1968; Kurashina et al., 1981; Athens, 1986; Liston, 1996 16 Low-Middle Terraces Uncertain Latte Reinman, n.d.; Liston, 1996
17 Terrace with Beach 3 Osborne, n.d.; Reed, 1952; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Shimasaki, 2014 18 Terrace 13 Reed, 1952?; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Craib, 1986; GDPR, 1976 19 Terrace Pre-war Thompson, 1940; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Henry and Haun, 1993 20 Terrace Uncertain Latte Reinman, n.d.
71
21 Terrace with Beach 20 Reinman, n.d.; Moore et al., 1988; Dilli et al., 1998 22 Terrace Uncertain Latte Reinman, n.d.; Highness et al., 1992
23 Behind the Beach Uncertain Latte Reinman, n.d.; Henry et al., 1991 24 Behind the Beach Uncertain Latte Reinman, n.d.; Moore et al., 2007b
25 Estuary Pre-war Thompson, 1940
26 Estuary Oral Interview Cordy and Allen, 1986 Plateau
27 Terrace 50-60 m High Uncertain Latte Reed, 1952?; Reinman, n.d., 1968; GDPR, 1976
28 Plateau 1 Workman and Haun, 1995
29 Plateau 1 Hunter-Anderson and Moore, 2003
30 Volcanic Inlier 4 Osborne n.d., Reinman, n.d., 1968; Russell and Hendricks, 1991
31 Plateau 1 Dixon et al., 2009
32 Plateau 1 McCarty and Birkedal, 2016
33 Plateau 2 Osborne, n.d., 1947
34 Plateau 1 Osborne, n.d., 1947
35 Plateau 1 Amesbury and Moore, 1989
36 Plateau Oral Interview Kurashina and Sinoto, 1984 37 Volcanic Inlier Pre-war Thompson, 1940
38 Plateau Pre-war Thompson, 1940
39 Plateau Pre-war Thompson, 1940
40 Plateau Pre-war Thompson, 1940
41 Plateau Pre-war Thompson, 1940
42 Plateau Uncertain Latte Welch, 2010 AMML
43 Bottom of Hill 1 Osborne, n.d., 1947
44 Hilltop 1 Osborne, n.d., 1947
45 Slope 1 Goodman and Kaschko, 1992
46 Rolling Hills 4 Reed, 1952
47 - Several Cordy and Allen, 1986, Hunter-Anderson and Moore, 2006: 10 48 Ridge above Drainage 1 Hunter-Anderson and Moore, 2006
49 Plateau-like Area 3 Cordy and Allen, 1986; Hunter-Anderson and Moore, 2006 50 Hill Oral Interview Cordy and Allen, 1986
51 Dissected Ridge 1 Hunter-Anderson, 2003
52 - Pre-war Thompson, 1940
53 Slope 2 Brown et al., 1990
54 Embankment 1 Brown et al., 1990
55 - Oral Interview Amesbury and Moore, 1989: 37
56 Plateau-like Area 3 Osborne, n.d.; Reed, 1952; Reinman, n.d., 1968; Cordy and Allen, 1986; Amesbury and Prasad, 1992 57 Marshy Area Oral Interview Osborne, n.d.
-58 Upland 1 Osborne, n.d.
Site
7. Analyses
7.1 Number and Density of Sites at Three Different Topographies
In this section, the locations, number, and density of latte sets (instead of “latte stones” that constitute a set) at different geographical settings are analyzed to prove that the area along the coast is the most favored for human activities associated with latte stones. The project area is divided into coastal lowland4 and interior, with the interior further subdivided into plateau5 and area of argillaceous
member of the Mariana limestone,6 hereinafter called AMML (Figure 4). When locations of 57 sites
are classified into the 3 geographical settings, site density differs greatly as sites are 7.9 times more intensively distributed in coastal lowlands than in an inland setting (Table 2).
Figure 3. Location of Sites with Latte Stones in Northern Guam (Site Numbers Correspond to Table 1)
4 Area below 30.5 m (100 ft) contour line that includes all back-beach environment including the whole
Oca point.
5 Area over 30.5 m contour line that includes steep cliffs and middle terraces except for AMML. Areas of
volcanic inliers are included in this plateau to simplify the analysis.
6 Inland and southern-most area of the project area composed of limestone, dissected by river valleys.
Alluvium soils at the bottom of valleys are included in AMML to simplify the analysis. Lowlands below 30.5 m contour along Pago bay is included except for the narrow area of beach deposit (Siegrist et al., 2007).
73
7.2 Density of latte Sets at Three Different Topographies
Next, 21 sites with uncertain or no information on the number of latte sets are excluded to analyze how sites with different numbers of latte sets are distributed. In total, 191 latte sets have been reported at 36 sites in northern Guam. Among them, 84.3% (161 sets) are located in 18 coastal sites (Table 3). From Table 1, it is obvious that the number of latte sets at each site differ greatly, and Figure 3 shows that sites with multiple latte stones are not distributed evenly, but are clustered along the coast.
When the size of the 36 sites are arbitrarily categorized based on the number of latte sets and plotted on the map, the average number of latte sets at a site is greatest along the shore (Figure 3). All the large-sized sites with more than 7 sets of latte stones (n=10) are located along the coast. As for the middle-sized sites with 3 to 6 sets (n=9), 55.6% of them are located along the coast, while the other 44.4% are located inland. On the contrary, small-sized sites with only 1 or 2 latte sets (n=17) are rare in the coastal lowlands. Small-sized sites are greater in number on the plateau and AMML, comprising 87.5% and 70% of the total sites each.
Figure 4. Project Area Divided into Three Topographies (based on Siegrist et al., 2007) Table 2. Site Density at the Three Topographies
Areas Sites Density of Sites
Coastal Lowland 25.30 km2 9.6% 26 1 site / 0.97 km2
Plateau 203.22 km2 77.3% 16 1 site / 12.70 km2 1 site / 7.66 km2 AMML 34.26 km2 13.0% 15 1 site / 2.28 km2 Plateau 2km Coastal lowlands Mataguac hill Tarague Bay Oca Point Hagatña Bay Volcanic inliers Pago Bay N AMML (Argillaceous Member of Mariana Limestone)
7.3 Geographical Settings of Latte Stones
As environment settings are different from place to place, even within each of the 3 topographies, the locations of sites are categorized into several topographical settings based on the descriptions in archaeological reports, aerial photographs, geological maps, and the authors’ observations to see which type of topography is the most favored for activities associated with latte stones (Table 1). In the coastal lowlands, it is evident that many of the sites coincide with sandy beaches. Along the northwestern coast of Guam, from Hagatña Bay to Tarague Bay, all of the sites are located either on sand flats or on low limestone terraces right behind linear sandy beaches. Among the 10 large-sized sites, all but 2 (sites 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, and 15) are located behind sandy beaches along the northwest coast. On the other hand, along the northeast coast characterized by the poor development of sandy beaches, the sites are located on low limestone terraces with small embayments with beaches (sites 17, 21, and 22). Site 21 is one of the largest sites with 20 sets of
latte stones located behind a small embayment. Meanwhile, on rocky limestone terrace without a
beach, site 18 is an exceptionally large site with at least 13 sets of latte stones. In the southernmost parts of the project area, coastal sites are located along Hagatña Bay and Pago Bay near the mouths of rivers (sites 23 to 26). However, the number of latte sets is unknown due to heavy disturbance.
As for the plateau, sites are located on relatively flat terrain with the exception of 2 (sites 30 and 37). Both sites are located in the vicinity of volcanic inliers where the basement rock beneath the limestone substrate is partially exposed. It is notable that site 30 is the largest site on the plateau reported so far, with at least 4 sets of latte stones. Among the small-sized sites on the plateau, except for site 33, all 6 sites (sites 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35) have only a single latte set each.
Finally, AMML is an unusual environment setting in the project area because of dissected terrains and the development of drainages due to the argillaceous nature of limestone substrate. Therefore, the topography is complex with varying site locations such as a plateau-like topography, the top of a ridge/hill, a slope, the bottoms of hills, and marsh. Although precise locations are intentionally obscured in Figure 3, some sites are located on highlands above drainages and tributaries (sites 48, 53, and 54).
Table 3. Average Number of Latte Sets Per Site and Density of the Latte Sets N=191 Density Average Number andStandard Deviation Coastal Lowland (N=161) 84.3% 6.36 sets / 1 km2 8.94 sets / 1 site (18 sites) 6.36
Plateau (N=12) 6.3% 0.06 sets / 1 km2 1.50 sets / 1 site (8 sites) 1.00
75
8. Discussion
8.1 Comparison between Coast and InlandThe result of the archival work demonstrates that activities associated with latte stones are spread over a large area from shore to inland (Figure 3). However, the distribution pattern was uneven when the data was quantified. Based on Figure 3 and the results of the analyses in Section 7, the relevance of the latte stones and coastal settings must be discussed.
The results of all the analyses demonstrate the concentration of latte stones along the shore. Around 45.6% of sites and 84.3% of latte sets are clustered on small coastal lowlands, which make up only 9.6% of northern Guam. Meanwhile, 54.4% of sites and 15.7% of latte sets are dispersed in the large interior region, which makes up 90.4% of northern Guam. Thus, it is verified that site density is the largest along the coastal lowlands (Section 7.1). The density ratio of latte sets at the 3 topographical settings is 92: 1:8 and the average number of latte sets at a site on a coastal lowland is 6 times as many as those on an inland site (Section 7.2). Based on the analyses, it is assumed that proximity to the shore determines both the number and density of sites and latte sets.
8.2 Variation of the Number of Latte Sets along the Coast
As for the northeastern corner of the island, it is probable that a lack of both habitable coastal lowlands and archaeological research is responsible for the absence of latte stones. In other words, sites are located along most of the habitable coastal lowlands. The occurrence of the sites with multiple latte stones along the coast (Section 7.2) defines the extent to which builders of latte stones were drawn to the coastal environments. However, the number of latte sets on coastal sites differs greatly from site to site with substantial variation, while inland sites are uniformly small with less variation (Table 3). Coastal lowlands along the beaches are where most of the large-sized sites are found (Section 7.3). Therefore, it is determined that sandy beaches are the most strongly favored environmental variables for activities associated with latte stones, despite the exception of site 18.
8.3 Variation of the Interior Sites
Integrating all available information verifies that inland latte stones are not rare, but rather numerous. However, the distribution pattern is not simple. Half of the 31 inland sites (n=15) have been located on the dissected southern part of the project area where the argillaceous member of Mariana limestone is exposed. Site density there is 5.6 times higher than the plateau (Section 7.1). Inland latte stones are different from those on coastal lowlands as most of the interior sites have only 1 or 2 sets (Section 7.2), with the exception of multiple latte sets at site 30. Although there is no large-sized site, 3 of the 4 inland middle-sized sites are located on AMML. These analyses verify
that AMML was a relatively favored inland setting for activities associated with latte stones, while the plateau was the least favored.
These results imply that some latte stones were built in association with activities related to interior environments, irrelevant of coastal settings. As many sites on AMML are located in highlands, above drainages, it is assumed that the site distribution pattern on AMML is similar to the one in the interior of southern Guam where sites are found on ridges or terraces along streams (Reinman, 1977). In the interior of southern Guam, argillaceous limestone is a favored geographical setting for a wide range of activities (Hunter-Anderson, 1994: 2.27–2.28). Therefore, it is probable that on AMML in northern Guam, there are some environmental elements other than the coastal environment that are favored for activities associated with latte stones (cf. Goodman and Kaschko, 1992: 28). On the plateau, there is only 1 middle-sized site associated with rare volcanic inlier. Thus, sites in the interior might be unevenly distributed under the influence of rare environment settings (cf. Reinman, 1966: 13).
8.4 Short Consideration of Settlement and Freshwater in Northern Guam
Since it is necessary to figure out a cause for the 2 exceptionally large sites 18 and 30, Hypothesis 2 is brought to attention. As reviewed in Section 3, many researchers consider that prehistoric settlement pattern was under the influence of freshwater. The presence of freshwater might well be a persuasive explanation for these 2 anomalous clusters of latte stones as site 18 is located near a cave with a freshwater pool, while site 30 coincides with the presence of a rare inland spring associated with the volcanic inlier. The analyses in this paper also support this correlation of sites and freshwater. In northern Guam excluding AMML, groundwater is the only freshwater source available year-round, and it is discharged or exposed only at coastal lowlands in a natural state. Since it has been proven that latte stones are intensively built along coastal lowlands and AMML (Section 7), latte stones and freshwater might be correlated. However, this observation needs to be confirmed through careful comparison of sites and freshwater. Although distribution of groundwater has been well studied in northern Guam (cf. WERI and IREI, n.d.), a simple compilation of results of hydrogeological studies is not enough in this study. Since archaeology is the study of past human behaviors, distribution of freshwater in Guam must be discussed from the viewpoint of prehistoric use as “water source,” for example, accessibility for dairy use, water quality, presence of disappeared or underrated water sources, analogy from historical accounts, and possible use of artificial wells. Further, it is also necessary to analyze influences of other elements such as soil and reef developments.
77
9. Conclusion
The analyses of archaeological data confirm that the distribution of latte in northern Guam is clearly uneven and distributed intensively along the coast. The latte stones located inland are certainly numerous but scarce when it comes to density. It is clear that the distribution pattern of
latte sets is controlled by proximity to the shoreline, especially along sandy beaches. Since coastal
sites are characterized with numerous latte sets in contrast with inland sites with fewer numbers of latte sets, it is recognized that in general, land use in this period associated with latte was more intensive along the northern coast while limited in the northern interior. Thus, the results of this paper support Hypothesis 1.
However, the distribution pattern of latte stones cannot be explained by a simple numerical comparison of coast and inland area as there are some inland settings where latte stones concentrate. Since this paper focused only on the number and locations of latte stones, it must be noted that the analyses in this paper do not test whether an intensive cluster of latte stones along the coast represents a permanently inhabited village. As for the functions of the inland latte stones, they should be discussed in association with other inland Latte Period sites without latte stones. Therefore, a reconstruction of the settlement pattern in the Latte Period remains necessary. When the settlement pattern in northern Guam is clarified, the results can be compared with spatial distribution of environmental variables in order to clarify how the site locations were selected and used during the Latte Period.
Acknowledgements
This paper is partially based on the author’s unpublished Master’s thesis submitted to Keio University in the fiscal year of 2013. I appreciate academic advisor Dr. Toru Yamaguchi (Keio University), who provided valuable instruction. Dr. David T. Sugimoto, Mr. Takao Sato, Mr. Hiromichi Ando, Mr. Takehiko Watanabe, and Dr. Kentaro Shimoda provided helpful opinions through seminars held at Keio University. In archival work, Mr. Lon Bulgrin (Cultural Resources Manager, NAVFAC Marianas), Mr. John Mark Joseph (State Archaeologist), and the staff of Guam Historic Resources Division assisted me greatly. I would like to thank Mr. Richard K. Olmo (Andersen Air Force Base Archaeologist) who has inspired me and supported the study for years.
References
Amesbury, J. R., and D. R. Moore (1989) Draft Final, Archaeological Survey of Portions of Routes
4 and 15 and Dairy Road, Guam. Mangilao: Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.
Amesbury, J. R., and U. K. Prasad (1992) Archaeological Survey of the Extension of Chalan Canton
Tutujan to Route 7, Agana Heights, Guam. Mangilao: Micronesian Archaeological Research
Services.
Athens, S. J. (1986) Archaeological Investigations at Tarague Beach, Guam. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Bayman, J. M., H. Kurashina, M. T. Carson, J. A. Peterson, D. J. Doig, and J. Drengson (2012)
Latte household economic organization at Ritidian, Guam National Wildlife Refuge, Mariana
Islands. Micronesica 42 (1/2): 258–273.
Brown, R. S., B. J. Dilli, and A. E. Haun (1990) Archaeological Inventory Survey, Ordot
Development Parcel (Lot 34481-R1-NEW), Chalan Pago Ordot Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Burtchard, G. C. (1991) An Archaeological Inventory of the Gun Beach-Fafai Wastewater Corridor
Gognga Cove through Harmon Annex, Guam. Honolulu: International Archaeological
Research Institute, Inc.
Carson, M. T. (2012) An overview of latte period archaeology. Micronesica 42 (1/2): 1–79.
Carson, M. T. (2016) Archaeological Landscape Evolution: The Mariana Islands in the
Asia-Pacific Region. Heidelberg : Springer International Publishing.
Carson, M. T. (2017) Rediscovering Heritage through Artefacts, Sites, and Landscapes: Translating
a 3500-year Record at Ritidian, Guam. Oxford: Archaeopress Publishing Ltd.
Cordy, R., and J. Allen (1986) Archaeological Investigations of the Agana and Fonte River Basins,
Guam. Honolulu: J. Stephen Athens, Archaeological Consultant.
Craib, J. L. (1986) Casas de los Antiguos, social differentiation in protohistoric Chamorro society, Mariana Islands. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Sydney University.
Davis, B. D., M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle, and S. Wickler (1992) Archaeological Investigations at the
Leo Palace Hotel Site, Naton Beach, Tumon Bay, Guam, Volume I: Archaeological Data Recovery, Burial Recovery, and Monitoring. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research
Institute, Inc.
Dilli, B. J., A. E. Haun, S. T. Goodfellow, and B. Deroo (1998) Archaeological Mitigation
Program, Mangilao Golf Course Project Area, Volume I: Introduction, Research Design, and Data Recovery Results, Mangilao Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H.
79 DiNapoli, R. J., C. P. Lipo, T. Brosnan, T. L. Hunt, S. Hixon, A. E. Morrison, and M. Becker (2019)
Rapa Nui (Easter Island) monument (ahu) locations explained by freshwater sources. PLoS
ONE 14(1): e0210409.
Dixon, B., T. Mangieri, E. McDowell, K. Paraso, and T. Rieth (2006) Prehistoric Chamorro household activities and refuse disposal patterns on the Micronesian island of Tinian, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Micronesica 39: 55–71.
Dixon, B., S. Walker, and M. T. Carson (2009) Cultural resources investigations conducted in the Territory of Guam supporting the Joint Guam Build-up Environmental Impact Statement: Draft archaeological surveys on Guam 2008–2009. ?? : NAVFAC.
Dixon, B., R. Schaefer, and T. McCurdy (2010) Traditional Chamorro farming innovations during the Spanish and Philippine contact period on northern Guam. Philippine Quarterly Culture
and Society 38(4): 291–321.
Dixon, B., and R. Schaefer (2014) Reconstructing cultural landscapes for the Latte Period settlement of Ritidian: A hypothetical model in northern Guam. In M. T. Carson (ed.), Guam’s
Hidden Gem: Archaeological and Historical Studies at Ritidian (BAR International Series
2663), pp. 64–73. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Freycinet, L. C. de (2003) An Account of the Corvette l’Uraine’s Sojourn at the Mariana Islands,
1819. Supplemented with the Journal of Rose de Freycinet (Occasional Historical Papers
No.13) (translated and prefaced by Glynn Barratt). Saipan: CNMI Division of Historic Preservation.
Gingerich, S. B. (2003) Hydrologic Resources of Guam, Water-Resources Investigation Report
03-4126. ??: United States Geological Survey.
Goodman, W. L., and M. W. Kaschko (1992) Archaeological Phase I: Reconnaissance Survey and
Historical Documents and Literature Research, Lot #3405 in Conga of Chalan Pago, Sinajana Municipality, Guam. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Graves, M. W. (1986) Organization and differentiation within late prehistoric ranked social units, Mariana Islands, Western Pacific. Journal of Field Archaeology 13(2): 139–154.
Graves, M. W., and D. R. Moore (1985) Tumon Bay Area Overview: Cultural and Historical
Resources. Mangilao: Micronesian Area Research Center and Department of Anthropology,
University of Guam.
Green, R. C. (1970) Settlement archaeology in Polynesia. In R. C. Green and M. Kelley (eds.),
Studies in Oceanic Culture History Vol. 1, pp. 13–32. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Guam Department of Parks and Recreation (GDPR) (1976) Guam Historic Preservation Plan (Report prepared by Bernice P. Bishop Museum and Belt, Collins and Associates Ltd. for the Parks Division). Agana: Department of Parks and Recreation, Government of Guam.
Haun, A. E. (1988) Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Field Inspections of Relocatable
Over-the-Horizon Radar Site on Guam, Mariana Islands, Micronesia. Hilo: Paul H.
Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Haun, A. E., R. S. Brown, A. Dixon, and B. J. Dilli (1990) Archaeological Subsurface Testing Fafai
Beach Resort: Tumon, Tamuning Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl,
Ph.D., Inc.
Haun, A. E., and L. W. Workman (1993) Archaeological Resources Assessment, Feasibility Study
for Surface Water Development on Guam. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Henry, J. D., and A. E. Haun (1993) Sohbu Resort Project Area Archaeological Mitigation
Program, Findings and Supplemental Mitigation Plans, Mangilao Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Henry, J. D., R. S. Brown, A. E. Haun, and A. R. Dixon (1991) Archaeological Inventory Survey,
Pago Bay 60-Unit Condominium Site. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Highness, D. E., R. S. Brown, A. E. Haun, and A. P. Harrison (1991) Archaeological Mitigation
Program, Phase II: Archaeological Data Recovery, Guam International Country Club, Dededo Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Highness, D. E., R. S. Brown, and A. E. Haun (1992) Archaeological Inventory Survey, InterPacific
Hotel and Country Club, Fadian, Mangilao Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H.
Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Holsen, R. M., and D. J. Welch (1992) Archaeological Phase I: Surface Testing of the Guam
Legislature Building Property, Agana, Territory of Guam. Honolulu: International
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Hunter-Anderson, R. L. (Ed.) (1994) Final Report, Archaeology in Manenggon Hills, Yona, Guam
Vol. IV, Synthesis of Interpretative Findings, Implications for Future Design. Mangilao:
Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.
Hunter-Anderson, R. L. (2003) Archaeological Investigations at Ngachang, Ordot-Chalan Pago
Municipality, Guam. Mangilao: Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.
Hunter-Anderson, R. L. (2010) Cultural responses to a Late Holocene climatic oscillation in the Mariana Islands, Micronesia: Lessons from the past. Human Ecology Review 17(2): 148–159. Hunter-Anderson, R. L., and B. M. Butler (1995) An Overview of Northern Marianas Prehistory
(Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report 31). Mangilao: Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.
Hunter-Anderson, R., and D. R. Moore (2003) Cultural Resources, Snake Barrier Concept,
81 Hunter-Anderson, R., and D. R. Moore (2006) Pedonglisong Latte Site, Sinajana, Guam. Mangilao:
Micronesian Archaeological Research Services .
Jochim, M. A. (1981) Strategies for Survival: Cultural Behavior in an Ecological Context. New York: Academic Press.
Kurashina, H. (1991) Prehistoric settlement patterns on Guam. Journal of the Pacific Society 14(2): 141–158.
Kurashina, H., D. R. Moore, O. Kataoka, R. Clayshulte, and E. Ray (1981) Prehistoric and protohistoric cultural occurrences at Tarague, Guam. Asian Perspectives 24(1): 58–68.
Kurashina, H., and A. Sinoto (1984) Archaeological Survey of the Loran-C Station at Barrigada,
Guam. Honolulu : Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Kurashina, H., and T. McGrath (1987) Archaeological Survey of Areas 1, 2, 1-A, and 2-A at
Northwest Field, Andersen Air Force Base and Naval Communication Area Master Station Western Pacific, Finegayan, Guam, Mariana Islands. Honolulu : Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Kurashina, H., J. T. Simons, and P. Wells (1987) Nikko Hotel at Gun Beach. Mangilao: Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.
Kurashina, H., J. A. Simons, J. A. Toenjes, J. Allen, S. S. Amesbury, G. M. Heathcote, R. H. Randall, B. D. Smith, R. A. Stephenson, and E. F. Wells (1990) Archaeological Investigations
at the Naval Facility (NAVFAC), Ritidian Point, Guam, Mariana Islands. Mangilao:
Micronesia Area Research Center, University of Guam.
Lepofsky, D. (1988) The environmental context of Lapita settlement locations. In P. V. Kirch and T. L. Hunt (eds.), Archaeology of the Lapita Cultural Complex: A Critical Review, pp. 33–47. Seattle: Burke Museum.
Levesque, R. (Ed.) (1994 ) Prelude to Conquest 1561-1595 (History of Micronesia: A Collection of Source Documents 2). Gatineau: Les Éditions Lévesque .
Levesque, R. (Ed.) (1995) Religious Conquest 1638-1670 (History of Micronesia: A Collection of Source Documents 4). Gatineau: Les Éditions Lévesque.
Liston, J. (1996) The Legacy of Tarague Embayment and its Inhabitants, Andersen AFB, Guam,
Vol. I: Archaeology. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
McCarty, D. L., and T. Birkedal (2016) The NCS Latte Site, A Small Latte Site in Northern Guam,
Marianas Islands (with archaeological shell analysis by Frieda Osborne-Wray).
Mink, J. F. (1976) Groundwater Resources of Guam: Occurrence and Development (Water and Environment Research Institute, Technical Report No. 1). Mangilao: Water and Energy Research Institute of the Western Pacific, University of Guam.
Moore, D. R., J. R. Amesbury, and R. L. Hunter-Anderson (1988) Draft Final Report, Archaeological
Survey of the Huchunao Area on the East Coast of Guam. Mangilao: Micronesian
Archaeological Research Services.
Moore, D. R., R. L. Hunter-Anderson, J. R. Amesbury, and E. F. Wells (2007a) Inventory Survey
of Perez Bros. Inc. Project Area at Sabanon Pagat, Yigo, Guam. Mangilao: Micronesian
Archaeological Research Services.
Moore, D. R., J. R. Amesbury, L. E. Bulrgin, R. L. Hunter-Anderson, G. Murakami, T. Ramirez, and E. F. Wells (2007b) Latte Period and Spanish Period Archaeology at Old Pago, Guam. Mangilao: Micronesian Archaeological Research Services.
National Park Service, Archaeological Resources Protection Act as amended. (n.d.) Available from: https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_ArchRsrcsProt.pdf (Accessed 5 October 2019) Olmo, R. K., R. Ikehara-Quebral, and G. M. Murakami (1999) Archaeological Investigations at
the Calvo East Hagatna Bay Office Building, Guam. Honolulu: International Archaeological
Research Institute, Inc.
Olmo, R. K., T. Mangieri, D. J. Welch, and T. S. Dye (2000) Phase II Archaeological Survey and
Detailed Recording at Commander, U.S. Naval Forces Marianas (COMNAVMARIANAS) Communications Annex (Formerly Naval Computer and Telecommunications Area Master Station, Western Pacific [NCTAMS WESTPAC]), Territory of Guam, Mariana Islands.
Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Osborne, D. (n.d.) Chamorro Archaeology. Unpublished manuscript on file, University of Guam. Osborne, D. (1947) Archaeology on Guam: A progress report. American Anthropologist, New Series
49(3): 518–524.
Peterson, J. A. (2012) Latte villages in Guam and the Marianas: Monumentality or monumenterity?
Micronesica 42(1/2): 183–208.
Randall, R. H., and J. Holloman (1974) Coastal Survey of Guam, Final Report (Technical Report No. 14). Mangilao: Marine Laboratory, University of Guam.
Reed, E. K. (1952) General Report on Archaeology and History of Guam (Report prepared for the Honorable Carlton Skinner, Governor of Guam). Santa Fe: National Park Service.
Reinman, F. M. (n.d.) Archaeological Site Records, Guam, Mariana Islands. Mangilao: Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.
Reinman, F. M. (1966) Notes on an Archaeological Survey of Guam, Mariana Islands, 1965–66. Mangilao: Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.
Reinman, F. M. (1968) Guam prehistory: A preliminary field report. In I. Yawata and Y. H. Sinoto (eds.), Prehistoric Culture in Oceania, pp. 41–50. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum Press.
83 Reinman, F. M. (1977) An Archaeological Survey and Preliminary Test Excavations on the Island
of Guam, Mariana Islands, 1965–1966 (Miscellaneous Publications No. 1). Mangilao:
Micronesian Area Research Center, University of Guam.
Russell, S. C. (1998) Tiempon I Manmofo’na: Ancient Chamorro Culture and History of the
Northern Mariana Islands (Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report Series 32). Saipan:
Division of Historic Preservation.
Russell, S. C., and N. Hendricks (1991) A Report of an Archaeological Survey of the Proposed
Gentry Homes Project Site: Mataguac, Municipality of Yigo, Territory of Guam, U.S.A. Hilo:
Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Shimasaki, T. (2014) The distribution survey of archaeological features within latte sites and topographical survey of possible shallow hand-dug wells on sandy beaches. Annual Report of
Takanashi Foundation for Arts and Archaeology in Fiscal Year of 2013: 49–56. (in Japanese)
Shimasaki, T. (2015) Final Report for Hydrogeological and Archaeological Surveys at Uruno
Beach Site, Guam Historic Properties Inventory Number 66-08-0011, Urunao, Dededo, Island of Guam. Report submitted to Guam Historic Resource Division.
Siegrist, H. G., M. K. Reagan, R. H. Randall, J. W. Jenson, and L. Masonic (2007) Geologic map of Ritidian point quadrangle, Guam. Revisions partially funded by Water & Environmental Research Institute at the University of Guam through the Guam Hydrologic Survey Program. Spoehr, A. (1957) Marianas Prehistory, Archaeological Survey and Excavations on Saipan, Tinian,
and Rota. ?? : Chicago Natural History Museum.
Stephenson, R. A. (Ed.) (1979) Freshwater Use Customs on Guam: An Exploratory Study (University of Guam Water Resource Research Center, Technical report No. 8). Mangilao: Water Resource Research Center, University of Guam.
Streck, C. F., Jr. (1986) Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Clean-up of Military
Debris at Urunao Point, Territory of Guam. Ft. Shafter: U.S. Army Engineer Division.
Taborosi, D., J. W. Jenson, and J. E. Mylroie (2004) Karst Features of Guam, Mariana Islands (Technical Report 104). ?? : Water and Environmental Research Institute, University of Guam. Thompson, L. M. (1932) Archaeology of the Mariana Islands (Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin
100). Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Thompson, L. M. (1940) The function of latte in the Marianas. The Journal of the Polynesian
Society 49: 447–465.
Tracey, J. I., S. O. Schlanger, J. T. Stark, D. B. Doan, and H. G. May (1964) General Geology of
Water and Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific (WERI) and Island Research & Education Initiative (IREI) (n.d.) Digital Atlas of Northern Guam. Available from:
http://north.hydroguam.net/index.php (Accessed 5 October 2019)
Welch, D. J. (2010) Archaeological Surveys and Cultural Resources Studies Conducted in 2007 on
the Island of Guam in Support of the Joint Guam Build-up Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. II, Site Descriptions. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
Workman, L. W., and A. E. Haun (1993) Archaeological Inventory Survey Tanguisson Power Plant
Oil Barrier Project, Tamuning Municipality, Territory of Guam. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl,
Ph.D., Inc.
Workman, L. W., and A. E. Haun (1995) Prefinal Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey and
Limited Subsurface Testing of Selected Portions of U.S. Naval Air Station, Agana. Hilo: Paul
H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.
Yee, S. L., D. J. Welch, and J. Allen (2004) Archaeological Overview Survey Report for Andersen
Air Force Base, Guam. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Yoklavich, A. K., J. L. Craib, P. Drolet, and A. J. Schilz (1996) Final Report, Cultural Resource
Management Overview Survey, Andersen Air Force Base, Mariana Islands, Territory of Guam.
