Secondary applications of rock art at coastal sites of Easter Island (Rapa Nui)

              ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM153
 ICDIGITAL Separata 46-47/10
ALMOGAREN
46-47/2015-2016
 IC             	
 
    
154MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
 ICDIGITAL
Eine PDF-Serie des Institutum Canarium
herausgegeben von
Hans-Joachim Ulbrich
Technische Hinweise für den Leser:
Die vorliegende Datei ist die digitale Version eines im Jahrbuch "Almogaren" ge-druckten
Aufsatzes. Aus technischen Gründen konnte – nur bei Aufsätzen vor 1990
– der originale Zeilenfall nicht beibehalten werden. Das bedeutet, dass Zeilen-nummern
hier nicht unbedingt jenen im Original entsprechen. Nach wie vor un-verändert
ist jedoch der Text pro Seite, so dass Zitate von Textstellen in der ge-druckten
wie in der digitalen Version identisch sind, d.h. gleiche Seitenzahlen (Pa-ginierung)
aufweisen. Der im Aufsatzkopf erwähnte Erscheinungsort kann vom
Sitz der Gesellschaft abweichen, wenn die Publikation nicht im Selbstverlag er-schienen
ist (z.B. Vereinssitz = Hallein, Verlagsort = Graz wie bei Almogaren III).
Die deutsche Rechtschreibung wurde – mit Ausnahme von Literaturzitaten – den
aktuellen Regeln angepasst. Englischsprachige Keywords wurden zum Teil nach-träglich
ergänzt. PDF-Dokumente des IC lassen sich mit dem kostenlosen Adobe
Acrobat Reader (Version 7.0 oder höher) lesen.
Für den Inhalt der Aufsätze sind allein die Autoren verantwortlich.
Dunkelrot gefärbter Text kennzeichnet spätere Einfügungen der Redaktion.
Alle Vervielfältigungs- und Medien-Rechte dieses Beitrags liegen beim
Institutum Canarium
Hauslabgasse 31/6
A-1050 Wien
IC-Separata werden für den privaten bzw. wissenschaftlichen Bereich kostenlos
zur Verfügung gestellt. Digitale oder gedruckte Kopien von diesen PDFs herzu-stellen
und gegen Gebühr zu verbreiten, ist jedoch strengstens untersagt und be-deutet
eine schwerwiegende Verletzung der Urheberrechte.
Weitere Informationen und Kontaktmöglichkeiten:
institutum-canarium.org
almogaren.org
Abbildung Titelseite: Original-Umschlag des gedruckten Jahrbuches.
  Institutum Canarium 1969-2016 für alle seine Logos, Services und Internetinhalte
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM155
Inhaltsverzeichnis
(der kompletten Print-Version)
Franz Trost
Erzählungen der Twareg am nächtlichen Lagerfeuer ................................. 7
Alain Rodrigue, Francis Auvray, Jean-Pierre Levallois & Mado Villet
New rock engravings at Imaoun (Morocco) .................................................. 45
Enrique Gozalbes Cravioto & Helena Gozalbes García
Nuevos datos sobre el círculo megalítico de Mezora (Marruecos) ................ 55
Hans-Joachim Ulbrich
Script mixing on ancient Fuerteventura and Lanzarote ................................ 69
Andoni Sáenz de Buruaga & Mark Milburn
Documentation of burial practices around the
Tingefuf E-1 goulet (Dougaj, West Sahara) .................................................. 87
Pablo Martín-Ramos, Jesús Martín-Gil, María del Carmen Ramos-Sánchez,
María Teresa Periáñez-Ramos & Francisco Javier Martín-Gil
Sobre las puntas de flecha procedentes del noroeste
del Sáhara (especialmente, aterienses y neolíticas) ..................................... 101
Marcos Sarmiento Pérez
Las investigaciones de Richard Greeff en Lanzarote en 1866-1867 ............ 113
Susan Searight-Martinet
Nomenclature of engravings of axes in Moroccan protohistoric rock art .....131
Hans-Joachim Ulbrich
Canarian "pyramids" revisited – are they pre-Hispanic or recent? .............. 139
Georgia Lee, Paul Horley, Paul Bahn, Sonia Haoa Cardinali,
Lilian González Nualart & Ninoska Cuadros Hucke
Secondary applications of rock art at coastal sites
of Easter Island (Rapa Nui) ........................................................................ 157
Hartwig-E. Steiner
Eine Kult-Höhle auf der Osterinsel
am Kratersee ›Rano Aroi  / Rapa Nui, Polynesien ...................................... 211
•
156MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Lee, Georgia; Horley, Paul; Bahn, Paul; Haoa Cardinali, Sonia; González Nualart,
Lilian; Cuadros Hucke, Ninoska (2016): Secondary applications of rock art at
coastal sites of Easter Island (Rapa Nui).- Almogaren 46-47 / 2015-2016 (Institutum
Canarium), Wien, 157-209
Zitieren Sie bitte diesen Aufsatz folgendermaßen / Please cite this article as follows:
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM157
Almogaren 46-47 Wien 2016 157 - 209
Georgia Lee, Paul Horley, Paul Bahn, Sonia Haoa Cardinali,
Lilian González Nualart & Ninoska Cuadros Hucke
Secondary applications of rock art at
coastal sites of Easter Island (Rapa Nui)
Keywords: Easter Island, Rapa Nui, rock art, secondary carvings
Abstract
The change from ancestor worship to birdman cult on Rapa Nui was accompanied by
large-scale actions aimed at the erasure and replacement of old ideological symbols with
new ones. As a result, the toppled statues and       were carved with secondary petro-glyphs.
Apart from simple cupules, the second most frequent carving motif at coastal
sites depicts a stylized canoe, which is sometimes developed into a double outline boat.
The same motifs were carved on the red scoria facia of the  	  at Vinapū, Akahanga and

One Makihi, suggesting contemporaneity with the carvings appearing on toppled      .
These secondary canoe petroglyphs may possibly have been connected with visiting ships
and their life-boats that reached the coast. The study of the original drawing by Duché de
Vancy suggests that the canoe carvings adorned the facia of the  	  with standing statues,
that is, when the ancestor worship cult was still alive. The case of      Paro with a ship
carved on its abdomen when the statue was standing supports this observation.
Zusammenfassung
Der Wandel von der Ahnenverehrung zum Vogelmann-Kult auf Rapa Nui (Osterinsel)
wurde von umfangreichen Handlungen begleitet, die auf Auslöschung und Ersatz alter
ideologischer Symbole durch neue abzielten. Aufgrund dessen wurden die umgestürzten
Statuen und 
     (Hut/Haarknoten) mit nachträglichen Petroglyphen graviert. Neben
einfachen Näpfchen stellt das zweithäufigste Gravur-Motiv an küstennahen Stätten ein
stilisiertes Kanu dar, welches manchmal auch als Auslegerboot gestaltet wurde. Die glei-chen
Motive wurden auf die roten Schlacke-Steinblöcke auf den Ahus (Plattformen/Kult-stätten)
bei Vinapū, Akahanga und 
One Mahiki graviert und legen Gleichzeitigkeit mit
den Gravuren nahe, die auf umgestürzten 
     auftauchen. Diese nachträglichen Kanu-
Petroglyphen könnten möglicherweise mit dem Besuch von Schiffen und ihren Landungs-booten,
die die Küste erreichten, in Zusammenhang stehen. Die Untersuchung der ur-sprünglichen
Zeichnung von Duché de Vancy legt nahe, dass die Kanu-Gravuren die Stein-blöcke
der Ahus mit stehenden Statuen verzierten, das heißt, als der Kult der Ahnen-verehrung
noch am Leben war. Der Fall des      Paro, dem ein Schiff auf den Bauch
graviert wurde, als die Statue stand, stützt diese Beobachtung.
158MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
On Rapa Nui (Easter Island), artistic creativity reached a truly monumental
scale with the famous      statues produced in their hundreds in the quarries
of the extinct volcano of Rano Raraku, which were transported around the
island and installed on carefully built ceremonial platforms,  	 . At a later
stage, these figures – which most possibly represented venerated ancestors –
were adorned with red scoria cylinders,      , that represented either stained
hair or headgear of high-ranking individuals. The monumental sculptures
Resumen
El cambio de la veneración de los ancestros al culto de hombre-pájaro en Rapa Nui fue
acompañado con los acciones de gran escala intentando de borrar y reemplazar los
símbolos ideológicos anteriores con los nuevos. Debido a esto, las estatuas y los      
tumbados fueron adornados con los petroglifos secundarios. Adicionalmente a las cúpulas,
el diseño más frecuente observado en las zonas costeras de la Isla representa una canoa
estilizada, el cuál fue desarrollado en el diseño hasta una lancha de doble contorno. Los
diseños similares fueron grabados sobre la facia de escoria roja de los  	  en Vinapū,
Akahanga y 
One Makihi, sugiriendo que estas decoraciones son contemporáneas con los
grabados sobre los       tumbados. Los petroglifos secundarios de las canoas pudieron
haber sido conectados con los navíos que han visitado la Isla y con sus lanchas que llegaron
a la costa. Los estudios del dibujo original de Duché de Vancy sugiere que los grabados de
canoas existían sobre las fachadas del  	  con las estatuas erigidas, o sea, cuando el culto
de veneración de los ancestros fue todavía activo. El caso del      Paro con el barco
grabado en su abdomen cuando la estatua fue todavía parada confirma esta observación.
Figure 1. Map of Easter Island showing the sites
discussed in this paper (image courtesy of M. Mulrooney).
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM159
captured the attention and imagination of many generations world-wide,
starting with Jacob Roggeveen and his crew who discovered the island for the
Old World in 1722 and continuing up to today, with thousands of tourists
visiting the Island. The rock art of Rapa Nui, though not as visually prominent
as the colossi of volcanic tuff, is truly overwhelming in both quantity and
quality. With several thousand designs (Lee 1992: 4) that vary greatly in themes
and mastery of execution, it is the most diverse and elaborate in the whole of
Polynesia (Lee and Stasack 1999: 161-69). The preferred surfaces for rock
carvings were fine-grained lava flows or     , offering the carvers enough
space to apply their skills by creating complicated petroglyph compositions. It
can be said for sure that many such carvings were associated with myths or
legends, some of which are still remembered today (Lee and Ika 1999). Other
petroglyphs might have served as markers, signs of power, delimiters of clan
territory,      markers, and so on.
The times of peaceful production of the statues and construction of
ceremonial platforms all around the island did not last forever. At a certain
moment, the culture of Easter Island underwent a most dramatic change.
Multiple theories have been suggested regarding the possible causes that were
capable of causing the disruption of social order on such a large scale; the
most frequently cited are overuse of resources, disappearance of the forest,
prolonged drought, overpopulation, and also stress induced by contact with
the first European visitors. It is unclear whether a single cause was sufficient
to bring about the observed cultural changes, or perhaps it was an accumulated
effect of several causes. It seems that the power of the traditional king was no
longer sufficient to enforce order, bringing the population into inter-tribal
warfare, and channelling power to the fierce warrior leaders or       
 . Under
these conditions, it is understandable that the large statues proudly standing
on their platforms were an obvious target for the attacks of the conquerors.
The statues were brought down and broken to destroy their magical power,
    , cutting off the place and the related villagers from the spiritual support
of their ancestors. Such actions naturally produced heartfelt anger and cries
for revenge, so that in several decades all the statues were toppled, the only
exceptions being the      standing in the quarries of Rano Raraku, half-buried
in accumulated silt. The expedition reports of the European visitors, from
Roggeveen in 1722 to Du Petit Thouars in 1838, clearly illustrate the dimin-ishing
numbers of standing statues from one visit to another (Heyerdahl 1961:
45-67; Bahn and Flenley 2011: 243-44), until all of them were finally toppled.
The new order brought in new art – the motifs of the birdman             
and face masks of the god Makemake – that appears in great profusion on the
160MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
rocks of the sacred precinct of Mata Ngarahu at 
Ōrongo, the ceremonial village
that was the centre of the annual ceremonies aimed at electing the sacred
birdman (Routledge 1919: 254-66). This competition involved climbing down
the cliff of Rano Kau from 
Ōrongo to the foamy surf, and swimming to the
islet of Motu Nui, where the migrating seabirds were nesting, in search of the
first egg of the sooty tern or         . In the early period of the birdman rites,
the competitors possibly performed all actions by themselves. In the later
period, the candidates nominated their proxies or hopu to do the job. The
winning hopu returned to 
Ōrongo with the sacred egg and passed it to his
employer, who would thus become the sacred birdman for a year.
The change in the social order on the island was also reflected in the re-use
of the     ,       and slabs of the  	 , which was a logical manifestation of a
new ideology striving to erase or disable the monuments of the previous ideology.
At 27 sites island-wide, petroglyphs as secondary applications were recorded.
Remarkably, the red scoria objects were one of the primary targets for secondary
carvings – in part due to the softer material that permitted faster carving with
less effort, and also due to the pronounced ritual connotations of the colour red
(Lee 1992: 126). The distribution of the secondary carvings around the island is
not uniform, suggesting that certain sites were more important for manifestations
of the new art. We are sure that these carvings were made at a later date because
the orientation of the motifs matches the present position of the desecrated
objects. In some cases, the topknots and stone slabs of the  	  were further
manipulated after the carving. The secondary petroglyphs were also reported
on top of the heads and on bases of the toppled statues at Hanga Roa (Heyerdahl
and Ferdon 1961: Pl. 67c), Huri a Urenga (Mulloy 1997: 51) and Ahu Akivi
(Mulloy and Figueroa 1978: 163, Fig. 5), as well as on       blanks at Puna Pau
and some statues at the quarries of Rano Raraku and in-transit      located in
the vicinity thereof (Lee 1992: 104-07, 122-26).
We performed a detailed study of the archive material from the expeditions
of La Pérouse, Palmer and Thomson (who visited Rapa Nui in 1786, 1868 and
1886, respectively), analyzing them together with the data and photographs
produced in the framework of the Rapa Nui Petroglyph Documentation Project
carried out in the 1980s (Lee 1986, 1992). New documentation techniques such
as photogrammetric reconstruction of archaeological objects from a set of di-gital
photographs (Kersten and Lidstaedt 2012) were also used. For 3D model-ling
and visualization we used Agisoft Photoscan and MeshLab from Visual
Computing Lab – ISTI – CNR. Each 3D model contained about 2 million faces.
The dimensions of the       and facia slabs were obtained from site maps and
drawings (Mulloy 1961: Fig. 133; Smith 1961: 186, Fig. 50; Lee 1992: 125, Fig.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM161
4.133; Van Tilburg 1994: 80, Fig. 62) or calculated relative to the size of the
nearby      (Shepardson 2009). To make the carving stand out from shadows
and lichens, we rendered the models in isometric projection without any
texture. Further improvement was achieved by applying the method of ambient
occlusion that was originally developed to enhance image quality in motion
pictures (Landis 2002). We used the ambient occlusion filter implemented in
MeshLab. The calculated intensity assigns a brighter tone to the points located
at the surface that can collect light from different directions. Points located at
the bottom of cavities are rendered darker as they are reachable only by a few
light rays. This approach is beneficial for the study of deep carvings in red
scoria due to the softness and porosity of the material. In the case of thin
shallow contours corresponding to incised designs this technique may be not
so efficient. In this paper, we focus on secondary petroglyphs and paintings
applied to     ,       and facia of the  	  located in the coastal area (Fig. 1).
For convenience, the sites are described in a counter-clockwise direction from
Vinapū to Te Pito Kura. Individual statues and topknots are referenced in
accordance with the online databases (Shepardson 2009; Lipo and Hunt 2009).
The ceremonial centre of Vinapū is special in many ways. It features two
remarkable  	 , one of which – Ahu Tahiri – is definitely a masterpiece of
Easter Island masonry with its carefully fitted and smoothed basaltic slabs.
The fragment of the first known      eye inlay was excavated at Vinapū in
1955-56. However, being a fragment representing less than half of an entire
eye, it was misidentified as part of a coral bowl (Mulloy 1961: Fig. 46). Due to
its proximity to Rano Kau and Hanga Roa, Vinapū was frequently sighted
from the ships circumnavigating the island and described in the reports of
several early explorers. The site was in good condition in 1774, according to
the account of Johann Reinhold Forster and his son Georg Forster:
"We reached the east side of the island, near a range of seven pillars or
statues, of which only four remained standing, and one of them had lost its
cap. They stood on a common pedestal, like those which we had seen on the
other side, and its stones were square and fitted exactly in the same manner.
Though the stone of which the statue itself is formed seems to be soft enough,
being nothing but the red tufa which covers the whole island, yet it was in-comprehensible
to me how such great masses could be formed by a set of
people among whom we saw no tools; or raised and erected by them without
machinery. The general appellation of this range was Hanga Tebòw; hanga
being the word which they prefix to every range. The names of the statues
were Ko-Tomoaï, Ko-Tomoèeree, Ko-Hòo-oo, Morahèena, Oomarèeva,
Weenâboo, Weenapè" (Forster 1968: 336).
162MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
The name Hanga te Pau corresponds to the bay that faces Vinapū valley.
According to Forster, four statues were still upright, most possibly on Ahu
Tahiri (Ahu Vinapū 1), three of them still with      . No statues standing on
the  	  survived past the mid-19th century. John Linton Palmer, who visited
Vinapū in 1886, reported that an improvised shelter was constructed under
three toppled      of Ahu Tahiri (Fig. 2). Palmer produced several water-colours
of the shelter's interiors (Figs. 2 and 3), documenting crescent shapes
on the chest of the central statue and on the flank of the rightmost statue
forming the ceiling of the shelter; both designs still survive today. The crescent
shape painted with red earth on the chest of      02-210-02 is a simple stylized
canoe. The complex painting on the flank of statue 02-210-03 represented a
red-and-white canoe with a white anthropomorph on board. At present, only a
white canoe shape can be clearly seen, with some smudges of white in the
place where Palmer's anthropomorph once stood. A roughly rectangular red
shape is seen to the left of the boat's centre (Fig. 3). It is worth noting in partic-ular
that the paintings were made on the ceiling slabs of the shelter, which
happened to be toppled statues. Therefore, they cannot be considered to be
part of an original painting pattern applied to     , as conjectured by
Lavachery (1939: Fig. 424). Indeed, the canoe painted on the chest of the statue
02-210-02 would appear upside-down on the standing     . However, some
parts of the statues in a few sheltered locations around the island do preserve
traces of pigment, from which one can deduce that at least some      standing
on the  	  were painted in the past (Bahn and Flenley 2011: 236-38).
The neighbouring platform, Ahu Vinapū 2, was partially excavated by
Mulloy (1961: 115-19), revealing several red scoria slabs that once formed the
facia along the front wall of the  	 . Some of red scoria objects associated
with the ahu have secondary carvings. Topknot  5 (Fig. 4, top) features a canoe
carving, an outline that can be tentatively interpreted as a phallic symbol (?),
and a shape that was previously identified as a sitting anthropomorph (Van
Tilburg and Lee 1987: 142, the 5th petroglyph for Ahu Vinapū 2 illustrated in
the table). The latter identification is not completely evident from the 3D model
(Fig. 4, bottom). However, the curve marking the spine of the would-be an-thropomorph
looks quite similar to a canoe design carved at an angle. This
petroglyph may suggest that topknot  5 did not land with its base flat to the
ground, but rather spent some time lying on its side. During this period, a
canoe carving was added to it. Later, the topknot was moved to its present
position marking the corner of the ahu ramp (Mulloy 1961: Fig. 133), and new
motifs were added to it. To counteract the tilted appearance of the first canoe
carving, the design was expanded with new curves. One of ahu facia slabs is
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM163
carved with an elegant canoe motif (Fig. 5, top). In front of the platform, there
is a rectangular paved area associated with a half-buried topknot (Fig. 5,
bottom). The sunken concavity originally intended to embrace the top of the
statue's head, was deepened to 31 cm (Mulloy 1961: Fig. 35), turning the
topknot into a kind of ceremonial basin. Palmer compared this topknot to a
similar structure at Ahu Akahanga (Palmer 1870: 179). The side surface of
topknot  4 is completely covered with large cupules and over 20 interlacing
canoes (Figs. 6 and 7). The rollout tracing of the entire side surface of this
topknot has been published elsewhere (Van Tilburg and Lee 1987: 145, Fig. 7).
The orientation of the canoes matches the present orientation of the      ,
proving that they were not part of the original embellishment of the topknot
crowning a statue.
Excavations at Ahu Vinapū 2 in the 1950s revealed two petroglyphs incised
on the sea wall slabs. These are still visible today, but the details of the carving
are difficult to discern due to the shallowness of the incisions. For this reason,
we accompany the photographs with the corresponding tracings (Figs. 8, 9),
drawn with reference to photographic documentation made by the Norwegian
Archaeological Expedition (Mulloy 1961: Pl. 12b, a). The first carving repre-sents
a crescent-shape canoe with a long curved appendage. The canoe's hull
has sufficient width and depth to be visible from a distance under favourable
illumination. The appendage is incised with a very fine double outline that is
really hard to see. We were lucky to document the slab when the sun was
practically in zenith, revealing another faint contour reminiscent of a crescent-shaped
canoe on the same slab, overlooked by Mulloy. This design is shown
by a dashed line in Fig. 8. The second incised motif (Fig. 9) depicts a historical
vessel with a square sail and a crescent-shaped hull. The design is so faint that
it would be really complicated to find it in the field without a priori knowledge
about its location (Mulloy 1961: Pl. 12a).
Ahu Hanga Te
e (Vaihū) has a large circular area in front of the platform
(Fig. 10, top) that was used for paina ceremonies dedicated to the memory of
a dead parent. As the central attribute of the ceremony, a large anthropomorphic
figure was constructed: "Tapa cloth was sewn onto the conical framework
and painted. The head was made separately, and consisted of a framework of
wood and reed covered with tapa cloth. The mouth was left open so that the
man who climbed into the figure could see and speak ... He passed his head
through the mouth of the paina and delivered a long speech to the crowd
thronged in front of the  	 . He spoke of the dead, exalting his virtues and
praising his memory" (Métraux 1940: 344-45). The eight statues of Ahu Vaihū
were toppled forward; some of them, in addition to breakage due to the fall,
164MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
bear the traces of further mutilation. A remarkable example of this is      06-
255-02, featuring deep gashes at the bottom of its body, covering the area where
the hands and the loincloth or hami are situated. For some reason, these wounds
were filled with irregular pieces of red scoria (Fig. 10, bottom)
The topknots that once crowned the statues are scattered in front of the  	 ,
some of them having ended up in the nearby bay of Hanga Te
e (Fig. 11, top).
They might have arrived there either by free rolling after the fall or as a result
of deliberate manipulation. The latter is a more feasible scenario, as one of
these topknots features carvings on the side that was below the water surface.
Heyerdahl cites these "topknots in water of a prepared channel" (Heyerdahl
and Ferdon 1961: Pl. 62) as a possible evidence for using boats in      
transportation. However, the relatively short distance from Puna Pau offers
convenient dry land access to Ahu Vaihū. Topknots  18 and  19 were recovered
from the shallow bay in 1986, offering a complete view of        18 and its
complex composition of curvilinear contours (Fig. 11, bottom). It is difficult
to disentangle individual motifs when looking at the photograph of the topknot
as it stands on the shore. However, the archival photographs illustrating this
topknot half-submerged allow the tentative identification of several carvings
as crescent-shaped canoes.
Akahanga is one of the most prominent sites on the south coast, comprising
several platforms merging into a ceremonial construction with over a dozen
associated     . Not all of them were standing at the same time – there is
evidence that the smaller statues of the leftmost platform (all without topknots)
were already toppled when the statues on the central and rightmost platforms
were upright, all wearing their       (Van Tilburg 1994: 79-81). Akahanga is
frequently mentioned in island lore as the place where the first king Hotu
Matu
a was buried (Routledge 1919: 280), and where one of the last kings,
Ngā
ara, was held captive for five years with his son Kai Mako
i and grandson
Maurata (Routledge 1919: 246).The remains of a large settlement and a
modified cave shelter in front of the  	  provide the evidence supporting the
site's high status.
The central and the rightmost platforms of Ahu Akahanga have red scoria
facia, many slabs of which still survive today. Seven of these are embellished
with carvings; they are denoted in the literature with capital letters A-G in
succession, starting from the right side of the  	  (Van Tilburg 1994: 80, Fig.
62). The decorated slabs are clustered in two groups (Fig. 12): slabs D-G are
located around three toppled      on the central platform, and slabs A-C
belong to the right side of the platform. 3D models rendered with ambient
occlusion filter are a great help in discerning multiple boat motifs carved into
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM165
soft scoria (Figs. 13-16). Slabs G, F, and D have a considerable number of
cupules. Facia slab D, located to the left of      07-584-04, is remarkable. It
was documented by the USS Mohican Expedition of 1886 (Fig. 14). The carving
seemingly depicts a marine creature – with possible interpretations ranging
from crustaceans to squids. The slab is considerably eroded, so that the
photographic record is insufficient for detecting all the contours as published
by Thomson (1891: 510, Fig. 19). The 3D model rendered with ambient
occlusion clearly highlights the majority of the outlines, including the dorsal
and caudal fins. At the same time, one can clearly see that the entire motif was
constructed from intersecting canoe motifs – the deeply carved canoe with
curved extremities that defines the contour of the belly and the caudal fin, and
a conjoined canoe of similar size but far shallower, corresponding to a long
antenna/tentacle attached to the creature's head.
Facia slab C illustrates the limitations of the 3D modelling technique when
it comes to distinguishing traces of shallow carvings on a very large object.
The slab is decorated with two curved canoes and a faint eye mask between
them (Van Tilburg and Lee 1987: 144, Fig. 5). The face is discernible in
photographs and on the textured model, but its grooves are too shallow to be
seen clearly in the image rendered with the ambient occlusion filter (Fig. 15).
The same is true to a certain degree of a rectangular sail placed above the
rightmost canoe, which is clearly seen in the textured model but is barely dis-cernible
in the ambient occlusion rendering. In contrast, every cupule on this
slab is significantly highlighted in the textureless image. The rightmost canoe
shape appearing on slab B has its extremities extended to a degree that almost
turns it into a circle (Fig. 16, top). The adjacent slab A is tilted from its original
position (Fig. 12, bottom), with the carved surface pointing practically down-ward.
The photographic documentation was performed standing in front of
the  	 , resulting in a very acute angle between the line of view and the carved
surface of the slab. Nevertheless, the photogrammetric reconstruction was
successful (Fig.16, centre), clearly showing three canoes joined by their curved
extremities (the possible fourth canoe on the left side of the slab was blocked
from view by vegetation). Remarkably, every canoe is associated with a deep
furrow extending from the edge of the slab. Taking into account the uniformity
of these furrows (in both length and spacing), it seems plausible to assume
that the furrows were carved first (or are remainders of stone-cutting activities)
and the canoe designs were added afterwards, curving around the existing
structural formations.
There are numerous       and red scoria fragments scattered landward
and seaward from Ahu Akahanga. The best preserved topknots display elab-
166MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
orations on cylinder-and-knob geometry (Fig. 16, bottom). Topknot  34 was
described by Palmer (1870: 179) as a pillar holding two skulls on its top and
looking towards the platform. Among the       associated with the site, the
most remarkable are topknots  35 and  36 located on a precipitous ledge to
the right of the  	 . Both are decorated with carvings of birds, which are among
the most elaborate of all secondary petroglyphs seen on red scoria objects
island-wide. These topknots are probably those referred to by Englert (1948:
111): "some of the crowns were marked with figures, made in low relief, the
so-called 
rona , with preference for the figures of a 
bird-man " (translation
from Spanish by the authors). Indeed,       petroglyphs were enthusiastically
commented upon by 19th-century scholars as being possibly related to
           writing: "on the large cylindrical head-dress of the stone idols of
Rapa-Nui are carved quite similar figures as those which are found incised on
the tablets" (Miklouho-Maclay 1872: 80). Also, "Palmer (1875: 286) likens
topknot signs more to the 
1770 signatures  [of the islanders on the Spanish
proclamation by Felipe González y Haedo] than to RR [          ]; it is
uncertain what he means here, especially as       
inscriptions  have yet to
be published" (Fischer 1993: 180). In his monumental book on           ,
Fischer explicitly addresses topknot  36: "Some petroglyphs on the       are
indeed            glyphs. Perhaps the best example of this is the toppled
      at  	  Akahanga. It is possible that such glyphs were pecked into the
fallen       by tangata tā or            experts, in the first half of the
nineteenth century" (Fischer 1997: 548). If we are looking for a petroglyph
group in which multiple elements have a strong similarity to           
glyphs, the carvings on Akahanga topknot  36 can be rivalled only by the
richly adorned panel in the neru cave of 
Ana o Keke on the Pōike peninsula
(Steiner 2008: Pls. 17-24).
The base of topknot  36 rests solidly on the ground; the carvings are added
to the landward side of the      . As one can see in Figure 17, one of the heads
of the two-headed bird is carved on a horizontal surface beside the knob that
would be invisible to a ground-based beholder when the       was balanced
on the statue's head. Therefore, it is completely safe to conclude that two headed
bird and anthropomorphic motif carved on the knob itself were made only
after the       was toppled. The remaining bird carving could be technically
visible completely when the topknot was on the statue. However, as it is carved
at the same level as the two-headed bird, it seems reasonable to consider that
both birds date from the same epoch. At a certain moment after carving, the
topknot underwent considerable modification – a large piece of scoria was
removed, erasing half of the bird design, and a deep furrow was cut through
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM167
the knob, possibly in preparation for splitting the       following the method
apparently used for the neighbouring topknot  35. Remarkably, all carvings
adorning topknot  36 are known from surviving            tablets (Fig. 17,
bottom). A two-headed frigate bird is recorded in the inscriptions of Tahua,
Mamari, Echancrée, Keiti, the Large and Small Santiago tablets, the Santiago
Staff, the Large and Small St. Petersburg tablets, as well as the Small Was-hington
tablet. The sitting man with a loop-shaped head occurs in line 7 on
side "a" of tablet Tahua, Aa7 in Barthel's nomenclature (1958: 45). The head
loop of the character incised on the tablet has radiating lines invoking feathered
headgear. These are absent in the petroglyph; however, the porous scoria may
have discouraged the carver's attempts to depict finer details. In two instances
the text of the tablet Tahua shows a two-headed bird in close association with
the sign depicting a         . The first fragment is in the third line of side "a",
Aa3 in Barthel's notation (Fig. 17). The bird in this context holds a pointed
object. As the corresponding part of the       is damaged, it is impossible to
confirm the exactness of the match.
The remaining parallel with line 4 of side "b" of tablet Tahua requires a
brief additional explanation. The            script is notorious for multiple
structured sequences occurring on different scales. There are inscriptions
obeying in their entirety certain patterning rules (Fischer 1997: 456-57), there
are lengthy lists separated by certain "delimiters" – fixed glyphic groups (Bar-thel
1958: 304-13), and there are short structured sequences in which the same
sign intercalates the fragment (Horley 2013: 52-60). In the latter contexts, the
glyphs forming the structured sequence are most possibly devoid of phonetic
value. Outside of such structured sequences, these glyphs most likely have a
definite reading. The exact role of highly-repetitive glyphs is unknown; they
may be a kind of marker assigning a certain property to the glyphic passage –
possibly informing the reader that the sign group corresponds to a personal
name, place name, taboo word, etc. Taking into account these particularities,
the illustrated fragment from Ab4 represents an item in a list delimited with
the well-known bigram of a stick sign and an abstract glyph drawn as three
vertical lines. These delimiters are marked with brackets above the line. The
list item by itself is a structured sequence intercalated with a glyph that
seemingly represents a plant. Omitting the repetitive signs as potential
inscription markers, one arrives at the sequence of three glyphs: double headed
bird – bird – bird. Two initial signs match the sequence of petroglyphs on
Akahanga's topknot  36. This possible match is especially remarkable because
the illustrated glyphic sequence from line Ab4 represents an item in the fre-quent
structured list that, in addition to Tahua, is also attested on several other
168MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
tablets –Mamari, Keiti, the Small Santiago tablet, the London tablet, the Small
Vienna tablet and the Large Washington tablet (Fischer 1997: 554). The indivi-dual
list items can be found on other tablets as well, strongly suggesting that
they represent fixed word combinations in the Rapanui language, as one might
expect of personal names (Harrison 1873: 380) or place names. Thus, the
secondary petroglyphs on topknot  36 have the best chance – in comparison
to all other petroglyphs resembling            signs – of comprising a short
inscription that appears on surviving            artifacts. The      's
location at Ahu Akahanga may also be meaningful: king Ngā
ara, held captive
at Akahanga, was a prominent            expert (Routledge 1919: 245-46),
so that it may be not too far-fetched to speculate that he might have been related
in a certain way to the creation of these petroglyphs.
The orientation of the          motif carved on the nearby topknot frag-ment
 35 (Fig. 18) also suggests carving on a toppled      . The seaward
surface, to a large extent facing downward, features a one-of-a-kind complex
design of multiple intertwined contours. The rough upper surface is the product
of rough blow-assisted splitting of the topknot, possibly along a pre-formed
groove similar to that carved beside the          motif. After splitting, the
half-cylinder       fragment rocked on its round side to reach equilibrium,
hiding the once easy-to-access surface with a carving. After this, the         
motif was carved on the landward side of the topknot. Despite good protection
from the elements, the carving on the seaward side is very difficult to interpret
due to the heavy mixture of contours (Van Tilburg and Lee 1987: 142, Table 2).
3D modelling considerably helped the new attempt to analyze this petroglyph,
because the thickness and depth of the contour lines revealed with the ambient
occlusion filter made it possible to disentangle individual motifs, illustrated
in the upper panels of Figure 19. The first contour carved on the topknot was
that of a statue shown in profile, carefully delineated with a thin shallow
contour. The profile view is unusual, as numerous mini-     documented
island-wide are always shown in a frontal position (Lee 1992: 54-57). The other
motif, carved with a deep and rough contour, depicts a stylized bird inside an
oval, perhaps a chicken inside an egg. This iconography is known from
painting – a similar image showing a          inside a red oval once existed
at 
Ana Kai Tangata (Lee and Horley 2013: 24). It may be that chicken carving
was added to "rewrite" the      carving, possibly even making a graphical
pun on the Rapanui word pair moa – moai (chicken – statue). The most
surprising result, however, comes from analysis of the direct surroundings of
the topknot  35 (Fig. 19, bottom): the profile of the toppled statue 07-584-01
lying just beside it is remarkably similar to that appearing in the petroglyph.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM169
Thus, the carving on the seaward side of the topknot may be a "portrait" of a
real-life statue – a unique example in Rapa Nui rock art.
Another site of importance, Ahu 
One Makihi, is located close to the Hotu
Iti plains. The  	  is associated with several      and a red scoria upright  44
standing at the platform (Fig. 20). Many of the red scoria slabs forming the
facia of the  	  are covered with carvings of canoes (Figs. 20, 21). Some of the
slabs feature series of cupules. The nearby site of Hanga Tu
u Hata is
remarkable for its incised carvings of historic ships (Fig. 22; for a tracing of
this design, please see Lee 1992: 113, Fig. 4.111). The hull of the upper ship is
densely covered with stylized depictions of female genitalia or komari. A
stylized anthropomorph (with legs carved in a way similar to that seen in
           tablets) stands on-board in front of a mast with a triangular sail.
The bottom ship clearly shows three masts and square rigging. Tallies of faint
notches are incised to the right of the upper ship (in three series containing at
least 18, 4, and 9 notches, respectively) and to the left of the bottom ship (a
single tally of at least 11 notches). The meaning of these marks is unclear. A
more widely known petroglyph of a historical ship with square sails and short
notches carved along the gunwale, possibly representing sailors, was
discovered on the chest of      RR-049 excavated by Skjølsvold in 1955-56
(Fig. 23). Secondary canoe carvings also decorate in profusion the statues
standing in the exterior and interior Rano Raraku quarries (Van Tilburg and
Arévalo Pakarati 2012).
Ahu Heki
i with its 5 m tall sea wall (Smith 1961: 184) and a huge landward
ramp is located on the north coast at Hanga o Hōnu (the metathesis spelling
Hanga Ho'onu is also popular in the literature). The principal  	  and sur-rounding
structures were studied in detail by several research teams (Smith
1961: 184-89; Stevenson and Haoa 1998; Martinsson-Wallin and Wallin 2000;
Mulrooney et al. 2009). According to the maps and drawings from the 1770
González Expedition to Easter Island, the Spaniards, anchoring off the north
coast, spotted standing statues with       at the location corresponding to Ahu
Heki
i (Mellén Blanco 1990: 131). This observation (in addition to the orientation
of the carvings) confirms that numerous ship petroglyphs appearing on      
and      partially buried in  	  mantles definitely represent secondary rock
art applications made after the toppling of the statues at some moment after
1770 (Figs. 24, 25). The pronounced manipulation of red scoria objects is noted:
       61 has a long furrow carved on its lateral surface, possibly preparing it
for splitting in line with techniques observed at Akahanga;        59 features
large ovoid cavities with much material removed from the area around the knob
(Fig. 24, bottom). The lateral surface of this topknot has some awkward carvings
170MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
approaching crescent-shaped canoe motifs. 
      57 is carved with double-outline
life-boats on its underside, including one motif in a sunken area designed
to embrace the top of the     's head. Remarkably, boat carvings appear upside-down,
suggesting that        57 was rolled after the secondary carvings were
completed (Fig. 25, top). The hip area of statue 31-999-07 was carved with a boat
motif, clearly marked in double outline (Fig. 25, bottom). One of the site's
interesting features is the red scoria upright  58 (Fig. 26), possibly part of a
     , situated on the ramp of the  	  in a way that resembles the red scoria
upright  44 of Ahu 
One Makihi (Fig. 20). The specimen from Ahu Heki
i is
notorious for having two deep cupules carved on its landward face, creating an
impression of two eyes staring from the  	 . The top surface of the upright is
covered with lichens that mask a large cupule carved on its top. Two smaller
cupules appear above the "eyes" (Fig. 26). Their purpose is unknown; however,
it is possible to speculate that these cupules may have had a role similar to the
cup-shaped depressions on the foreheads of skull-shaped cave stones, reportedly
used for keeping powdered human bone (Heyerdahl 1975: Pls. 195-200).
The nearby Ahu Te Pito Kura holds the record for the largest      (Paro)
ever successfully erected on Easter Island's  	 . The height of the statue is
about 9.8 m (Smith 1961: 202), and, crowned with a topknot 1.7 m tall (Smith
1961: 203), it must have been a truly magnificent monument. According to
folklore,      Paro was the last statue to be overthrown (Routledge 1919: 197).
In this case, it seems that the size (and weight) of the moai really mattered. It
was too heavy to be pushed from the pedestal at ground level, and for toppling
by pulling a rope fixed around the statue's neck, it should be remembered that
Paro's shoulders were over six metres above the platform – a fact that consid-erably
complicated the task of the vandals. Also, to bring down a standing
colossus like this, it would be necessary to use long thick rope, which im-mediately
increases the effort required to fix it high enough on the statue, not
to mention the high number of pullers needed to achieve the toppling. It
becomes clear that, in contrast to the sites that have smaller      – such as
those of Ahu Naunau – the task of bringing down Paro could not have been
accomplished in a small night raid by a few warriors; it must have been a large
and well-planned military operation that required many people spending a
considerable time on the site. But eventually all these conditions were met and
     Paro ended up face-down on the ground, broken in half. A small shelter
was formed under the toppled statue, with a wall of loosely-laid stones
constructed for protection. Numerous cupules were made in both statue and
topknot (Fig. 27). Smith (1961: Fig. 57) documented a petroglyph of a two-masted
vessel almost a metre wide, carved on the statue's abdomen in such a
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM171
way that one of the masts passes through the navel of      Paro. Judging from
the orientation of this carving, it was completed when the statue was still
standing. If planned exclusively as decoration for the shelter ceiling, the
petroglyph should have been carved the other way up.
It is important to mention that the red scoria facia of Ahu Naunau at 
Ana-kena,
the residence of the traditional king 
ariki mau, is devoid of secondary
carvings. This might be due to the forward toppling of Naunau's      that
reduced access to the facia. The ever-advancing sands of 
Anakena (eventually
covering the entire  	 ) may also have contributed to keeping the facia in
pristine condition. The other possible explanation can be sought in the nature
of the ideological change in society – the secondary carvings appear on sites
as a consequence of the abandonment of old traditions, the change that
accompanied a considerable weakening of the king's powers. Thus, it is logical
to expect that the king with his loyal men would do their best to safeguard the
royal  	  from desecration.
Remarkably, some boat-shaped carvings were recorded by the early visitors.
Here we would like to discuss the famous etching "Insulaires et monumens de
l'Île de Pâque" based on the material gathered by the La Pérouse expedition
(Milet-Mureau 1797: Pl. 11; Milet Mureau 1798: Pl. between pp. 70-71). The
engraving was made by Godefroy after the field sketch of Duché de Vancy,
who joined De Langle's reconnaissance party that ventured inland to study
the houses, fields and monuments of the islanders, while La Pérouse's party
studied the surroundings of their landing place, Hanga Roa. Godefroy's etching
depicts the members of the ships' crew communicating with the islanders and
measuring a statue standing on an  	  (Fig. 28). It is worth noting that the
foreground      has a clearly depicted eye with an iris, in contrast to the
empty eye socket of the background statue. It is possible to interpret this detail
as "extended artistic licence" by the engraver. Or conversely it may be the first
historic depiction of a statue with eye inlays set in place. None of the sketches
produced by other early expeditions, to the best of the authors' knowledge,
shows the irises of statue eyes. The sketch from the second Cook expedition of
1774 shows empty black eye sockets with no hint of inlays (Van Tilburg 1994:
125, Fig. 97; Bahn and Flenley 2011: 172, Fig. 47). The foreground statue in
Fig. 28 correctly depicts a       projecting over the statue's forehead, with a
narrower cylindrical knob on top. However, the clearly-marked realistic
eyebrow starting at a distance from the nose bridge is highly uncharacteristic
of classical      iconography. The elongated ear is shown as a bar-like object
with two round "plugs" that have the potential to give the completely wrong
impression that the ear was hewn from a separate piece of rock that was
172MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
fastened to the finished statue. The bottom part of the      body is drawn
rectangular in cross-section (which is also in contrast to the classical statue
shape), and no arms are shown. Finally, the ceremonial platform is depicted as
a staircase of large blocks, projecting enough to offer a seat for the person
with a quill pen in his hand.
The original sketch by Duché de Vancy is preserved in the Musée de la
Marine (Chauvet 1935: Pl. 3, Fig. 5; see also Esen-Baur and Forment 1990: 64;
Orliac and Orliac 1995: 18). The main contours and hatching are made with
pencil; the watercolour shades were added to provide richer halftones and
depict the clouds. The image details of the sketch are more natural (Fig. 29):
note the posture of the man reaching for the hat from the back of the     , the
shadow of the man cast onto the     's chest, and the rich texture of the topknot
crowning the statue with crevices and pits, in full accordance with the rough
surface of the red scoria. Side-by-side analysis of the etching and the sketch
(Figs. 28, 29) reveal several important details. The naturalistic eyebrow of the
foreground statue in the etching is a consequence of misinterpretation; in the
sketch, the eyebrow ridge extends over the statue's nose, casting a dense
shadow over the statue's face. The eye socket is deeply outlined, with a clearly-marked
lunate curve inside it that may indeed represent the iris. The statue in
the background is depicted with less detail, but its eye socket is definitely
empty. The lips of both statues are thinner in the sketch, which is more faithful
to the original      design. The shapes of statues' ears are also more natural
in the sketch. First of all, the intensity of the hatching clearly shows that the
ear forms part of the statue. The upper circular contour is smaller, which is
completely in line with the stylized depiction of the ear structure seen in     .
The bottom circle is considerably larger; the dark outlines create an impression
of a circular cavity containing a slightly protruding inlay. If so, then Duché de
Vancy's sketch was the first to document the earlobe inlays of the     . The
former existence of these adornments can be conjectured from well-marked
sockets in the lower part of statues' earlobes at Ahu Tongariki (Fig. 30).
Another important observation concerns the shape of the ceremonial
platform. Godefroy's stair-like structure comes from an erroneous interpre-tation
of the sketch. In the original documentation, the rectangular platform is
formed by two vertical tiers of slabs. Only the lowest third tier has a frontal
projection. The person with a quill in his hand is not sitting on a step, but
rather in the space offered by the missing/broken slab from the upper tier.
Most remarkably, the facia of the  	  is adorned with crescent-shape designs,
which appear on three blocks of the upper tier, and on one block of the middle
tier. In the survey drawings by Bernizet (Milet-Mureau 1797: Pl. 12, Fig. 9),
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM173
the carvings on  	  facia are shown in a completely different way, as stick
figures turned sideways. The description is as follows: "on several of the stones
of which these platforms are composed, we remarked skeletons rudely
sketched, and discovered holes closed up with stones, which, as we conject-ured,
lead to caverns containing the remains of the dead" (Milet Mureau 1798:
80). However, the previously overlooked details of Duché de Vancy's sketch
have nothing to do with stick figures; instead, they prominently match the
crescent-shaped canoe petroglyphs known from the facia of Ahu Vinapū 2,
Ahu Akanahga and Ahu 
One Makihi.
Which platform was documented in Duché de Vancy's sketch? If we believe
that the drawing is 100% accurate, then the  	  in question should have several
     with topknots and a red scoria facia decorated with canoes, which
essentially narrows the choice to Vinapū. We know that the reconnaissance
party was there from the map showing the route (Fig. 31) and from the
description of a large earthen enclosure "384 feet length by 324 broad" (Milet
Mureau 1798: 80), which matches the enclosure in front of Ahu Vinapū 2
(Heyerdahl 1961: 64; Mulloy 1961: 115-35). On the other hand, it may be too
naïve to think that the entire sketch was drawn in situ – the reconnaissance
party had a hard day of walking the rough terrain covering a considerable
distance, visiting seven platforms and climbing Rano Kau all the way up to
the crater – and one person, Father Receveur, even climbed down to the crater
swamp and up the hill again (Milet Mureau 1798:81).
Which other sites they might have seen? A possible hint can be derived
from De Langle's description of a paina figure: "We found near the last of
them [the  	  visited] a kind of layman or effigy of reeds, representing a man
ten feet high, and covered with a white manufacture of the country; the head
of a natural size, the body thin, the legs pretty exactly proportionate, and a net
hanging to its neck in the shape of a basket covered with white cloths, and
apparently containing grass. By the side of this sack was the figure of a child
two feet long, with the arms crossed and the legs hanging down. This layman,
which could not have stood there many years, was perhaps the model from
which statues are now erecting to the chiefs of their country" (Milet Mureau
1798: 80). De Langle continues with the mention of the earthen enclosure "by
the side of this same platform", suggesting that a paina figure was also standing
at Vinapū. However, there is a slim possibility that they saw the paina figure
at Ahu Vaihū, which still has its paina circle clearly marked (Fig. 10, top).
Indeed, comparing the La Pérouse map (Fig. 31) with the modern map (Fig. 1),
one can see that the route of the reconnaissance party was to a terrain limited
by a round cape on the south coast. This may be either cape Tarakiu west of
174MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Hanga Te
e, or, alternatively, cape Puku Auke to the east of it. In the latter
case, De Langle might have seen Ahu Vaihū as well, which fits the description
of the "the last platform" in the sense of "the visited platform located furthest
from the landing place".
To summarize, it is important to highlight the following. The petroglyph
orientations on the       and      definitely show that these were secondary
applications of rock art, completed after the toppling of the statues. However,
many of these statues were reported standing by the visitors of the late 18th –
early 19th centuries, thus placing the carving of the secondary petroglyph in
the 19th century. In line with the change of emphasis from ancestor worship to
the cult of the birdman, one would expect to find a profusion of the images of
the new cult – the eye masks of Makemake, profile views of              and
bird motifs. In a few cases this expectation is fulfilled: there are bird carvings
on        35 and  36 at Ahu Akahanga, as well as on       blank  83 at
Puna Pau. Several eye masks are known to be carved on the bases/heads of
     at Huri a Urenga and Ahu Akivi; there are a few secondary birdman
carvings as well. However, in the majority of cases the canoe is the motif of
choice for secondary petroglyphs. With a simple crescent shape these motifs
may represent any type of watercraft, but the time-frame of their carving after
the toppling of the      strongly suggests that these petroglyphs are most
possibly related to European vessels and their life-boats rather than to the few
leaking sewn-plank canoes of the islanders, as described in the reports of the
early visitors. In some cases – as in the Akahanga facia slab C (Fig. 15) – the
addition of a rectangle above the canoe shape might have been considered
sufficient to identify the carving with a historic ship. In places such as Rano
Raraku and Hanga Tu
u Hata, the designs clearly show masts and rigging
(Figs. 22, 23). Importantly, many of the secondary petroglyphs appear on red
scoria objects located either in places visited by early expeditions or in places
with a direct view of anchored ships.
Another interesting insight follows from the drawing of Duché de Vancy:
at the time of the La Pérouse visit the canoe carvings on  	  facia seemingly
coexisted with standing statues wearing their topknots. The supporting
evidence for this is also the case of the      Paro, carved with a two-masted
ship on his lower abdomen when the statue was standing. A possible
explanation for the practice of making secondary carvings of canoes on still-functional
ceremonial sites of ancestor worship can be suggested, by con-sidering
the reaction to the first European visitors elsewhere in Polynesia:
"Petroglyphs of Polynesian canoes ... are reasonably familiar design elements
for the Hawaiian petroglyph maker. The ship, a vehicle for transportation, the
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM175
conveyance of power and the bringing to the island of new technology
undoubtedly possessed      in the eyes of the islanders; it was seen as a

floating island . A petroglyph of a sailing vessel or gun ship may have been an
effort to simply make a record or, perhaps, to tap into its power ... The impact
of Cook's arrival by ship with sails reminiscent of the tapa hung from a wooden
cross, symbol of the god Lono ... would be consistent with the veneration
Hawaiians held for the ali
i [hereditary king]. Recalling the many women who
directed their men folk to place piko stumps [umbilical cord of newborns] into
cracks and crevices of Cook's ships, it is clear that Hawaiians believed the
     of a man-god could be extended to his possessions ... Thus a sailing vessel
was a suitable subject for the petroglyph, fulfilling one of its most sacred
functions: to succor and gain the favor of the gods" (Lee and Stasack 1999: 66).
Therefore, adorning the red scoria facia of an  	  or a standing statue with
canoe motifs may have been considered as an act increasing the      of the
ceremonial site by absorbing and/or channelling the      of the visiting ships.
With the toppling of the      in the course of tribal warfare, the tradition of
carving canoe motifs persisted (in line with the increasing number of contacts
with the outside world), applying the secondary petroglyphs to fallen statues,
topknots, and red scoria facia at coastal sites.
Conclusions
We have illustrated a successful use of photogrammetric reconstruction as
a non-intrusive method allowing detailed 3D documentation of Easter Island
rock art. Ambient occlusion filter offers high-contrast rendering of petro-glyphs,
which is especially beneficial for the study of deep petroglyph grooves
made in soft scoraceous material. The information about petroglyph contour
depth has a potential for helping to discern overlapping motifs, allowing the
identification of individual carvings composing a complex design on one of
the topknots at Akahanga.
Analysis of historical records, photographs and 3D models has brought forth
new results about the iconography associated with the changes of social order on
Rapa Nui in the late historical period overlapping with the times when the island
started to receive frequent visits from the outside world. The pronounced shift in
ideology from ancestor worship to birdman cult is clearly seen through numerous
secondary petroglyphs "overwriting" the monuments of the old iconography, such
as once-sacred statues and their topknots. Surprisingly, the dominant secondary
motif represents a crescent-shaped canoe, which appears in profusion as carvings
and paintings at the coastal sites of Vinapū, Hanga Te
e (Vaihū), Ahu Akahanga,
Ahu 
One Makihi, Ahu Heki
i and Ahu Te Pito Kura. Secondary canoe petro-
176MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
glyphs are also known from statues in Rano Raraku and topknots of Puna Pau.
Many of these petroglyphs may date from the late 18th to the early 19th century,
because the statues wearing these topknots were reported standing by the early
visitors (e.g. Forster 1968: 336). The late carving date points to an iconographic
association of the secondary canoe petroglyphs with visiting ships and their life-boats.
At several sites (including Hanga Tu
u Hata and Rano Raraku), the carvings
explicitly show the square rigging of European vessels. The prominence of the
boat motif used in secondary carving emphasizes the need for further detailed
study of the cultural impact of early European visitors (in particular those of the
18th century) on Rapanui culture, especially in light of the evidence suggesting
that some of the canoe carvings were applied to the functional sacred objects of
the ceremonial sites, that is, before the toppling of the statues.
Acknowledgements
The authors greatly appreciate the kind invitation of Hans-Joachim Ulbrich
and Hartwig-E. Steiner (Institutum Canarium, Vienna) to prepare the present
paper for Almogaren. We are grateful to Olivia Hey Riroroko (Ilustre Munici-palidad
de Isla de Pascua, Hanga Roa), Ramón Martínez Tepihe, Graciela
Campbell Riroroko (Rano Raraku Park Rangers) and Melinka Cuadros Hucke
(CONAF Rapa Nui) for their kind help with documentation of the sites. Spe-cial
thanks to Joy Wheeler and Jamie Owen (Royal Geographical Society with
the Institute of British Geographers, London), Daisy Njoku and Gina Rappa-port
(National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washing-ton
D.C.), Reidar Solsvik (Kon-Tiki Museum, Oslo), Mara Mulrooney (Bernice
P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu) and Mark Oliver (Rapa Nui Petroglyph
Documentation Project) for their kind help with archive materials, photographs
and maps of Easter Island and permission to use the corresponding images in
the paper. We also acknowledge with deep gratitude the software packages
that were instrumental in this research: Agisoft PhotoScan by Agisoft LLC
and MeshLab by Visual Computing Lab, ISTI and CNR.
Contributors to this paper and their fields of work:
• Georgia Lee, Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos, Califonia, USA
• Paul Horley, CIMAV Campus Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo León, México
• Paul Bahn, archaeologist, writer and broadcaster, Hull, United Kingdom
• Sonia Haoa Cardinali, Mata Ki Te Rangi Foundation, Hanga Roa, Rapa Nui,
Chile
• Lilian González Nualart, Mata Ki Te Rangi Foundation, Hanga Roa, Rapa
Nui, Chile
• Ninoska Cuadros Hucke, CONAF Rapa Nui, Hanga Roa, Rapa Nui, Chile
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM177
References
Bahn, Paul & Flenley, John (2011): Easter Island, Earth Island. Third edition.- Rapa
Nui Press, Santiago
Barthel, Thomas S. (1958): Grundlagen zur Entzifferung der Osterinselschrift.-
Cram, de Gruyter & Co., Hamburg
Chauvet, Stephen (1935): L'Île de Pâques et Ses Mystères.- Éditions "TEL", Paris
Englert, Sebastián (1948): La Tierra de Hotu Matu'a.- Padre Las Casas, Santiago
Esen-Baur, Heide-Margaret & Forment, Francina (1990): L'Île de Pâques: une
énigme?- Museés royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Bruxelles
Fischer, Steven Roger (1993): A Provisional Inventory of the Inscribed Artifacts in
the Three Rapanui Scripts.- in Easter Island Studies: Contributions to the His-tory
of Rapanui in Memory of William T. Mulloy, S.R. Fischer (Ed.), Oxbow
Books, Oxford. pp. 177-181
Fischer, Steven Roger (1997): Rongorongo, the Easter Island Script: History, Tradi-tions,
Texts.- Clarendon Press, Oxford
Forster, Georg (1968): Werke: sämtliche Schriften, Tagebücher, Briefe.- Akademie-
Verlag, Berlin
Harrison, J. Park (1873): The Hieroglyphics of Easter Island.- in Journal of Anthro-pological
Institute, Vol. 3, London, pp. 370-382
Heyerdahl, Thor (1961): An Introduction to Easter Island.- in Archaeology of Easter
Island: Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island
and East Pacific, Heyerdahl, Thor & Ferdon, Edwin Jr., Eds., Monograph of the
School of American Research and the Museum of New Mexico, Number 24,
Vol. 1.- New Mexico, Santa Fe, pp. 21-90.
Heyerdahl, Thor (1975): The Art of Easter Island.- Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
New York
Heyerdahl, Thor & Ferdon, Edwin Jr., Eds. (1961): Archaeology of Easter Island:
Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island and East
Pacific, Monograph of the School of American Research and the Museum of
New Mexico, Number 24, Vol. 1.- Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Horley, Paul (2013): The Large rongorongo Tablet from the Collections of the
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.- in Rapa Nui Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1.
Los Osos CA, USA, pp. 37-61
Kersten, Thomas & Lidstaedt, Maren (2012): Generierung von 3D-Punktwolken
durch kamera-basierte low-cost Systeme.- Workflow und praktische Beispiele.
Terrestrisches Laserscanning 2012 (TLS2012), Schriftenreihe des DVW, Band
69, Beiträge zum 121. DVW-Seminar am 13. und 14. Dezember 2012 in Fulda,
Wißner-Verlag, Augsburg, pp. 25-46
Landis, Hayden (2002): Production-Ready Global Illumination. Course 16 notes,
SIGGRAPH 2002 (http://renderman.pixar.com/view/production-ready-global-illumination)
Lavachery, Henri (1939): Les Pétroglyphes de l'Ile de Pâques.- De Sikkel, Anvers
Lee, Georgia (1986): Easter Island Rock Art: Ideological Symbols as Evidence of
178MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Socio-Political Change.- Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles
Lee, Georgia (1992): The Rock Art of Easter Island: Symbols of Power, Prayers to
the Gods. Monumenta Archaeologica 17.- The Institute of Archaeology,
University of California, Los Angeles
Lee, Georgia & Ika, Keremo (1999): Petroglyphs and Legends of Rapa Nui.- in
Rapa Nui Journal, Vol. 13, No. 3. Los Osos CA, USA. pp. 114-118
Lee, Georgia & Horley, Paul (2013): The Paintings of Ana Kai Tangata Cave, Easter
Island (Rapa Nui).- in Rapa Nui Journal, Vol. 27, No. 2. Los Osos CA, USA. pp.
11-32
Lee, Georgia & Stasack, Edward (1999): Spirit of Place: Petroglyphs of Hawai'i.-
Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos
Lipo, Carl P. & Hunt, Terry L. (2009): Rapa Nui Pukao. Geo-referenced image data-base
(http://www.terevaka.net/dc/databases/lipo_and_hunt_2009/Pukao.html)
Martinsson-Wallin, Helene & Wallin, Paul. (2000): Ahu and Settlement: Archae-ological
Excavations at 'Anakena and La Pérouse.- in Easter Island Archaeology:
Research on Early Rapanui Culture, Stevenson, Christopher M. & Ayres,
William S., Eds.- Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos. pp. 27-43.
Mellén Blanco, Francisco (1990): Cartografía Histórica de la Isla de Pascua en el
Siglo XVIII, Acompañada de Algunos Datos Etnológicos y Arqueológicos.- in
State and Perspectives of Scientific Research in Easter Island Culture, Esen-
Baur, Heide-Margaret, Ed.- Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt
am Main, pp. 123-137
Métraux, Alfred (1940): Ethnology of Easter Island. Bernice P. Bishop Museum
Bulletin 160.- Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu
Milet-Mureau, M.L.A., Ed. (1797): Voyage de La Pérouse Autour du Monde. 4
Volumes and Atlas.- L'Imprimerie de la République, Paris
Milet Mureau, M.L.A., Ed. (1798): The Voyage of La Pérouse Round the World, in
the Years 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788, with the Nautical Tables. 2 Volumes.- John
Stockdale, Piccadilly, London
Miklouho-Maclay, Nikolai N. (1872): Ueber die "Kohau rogo rogo" oder die Holz-tafeln
von Rapa-Nui.- in Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin,
Vol. 7. Berlin, Germany, pp. 79-81
Mulloy, William (1961): The Ceremonial Center of Vinapu.- in Archaeology of
Easter Island: Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expedition to Easter
Island and East Pacific, Heyerdahl, Thor & Ferdon, Edwin Jr., Eds., Monograph
of the School of American Research and the Museum of New Mexico, Nr. 24,
Vol. 1.- New Mexico, Santa Fe, pp. 93-180.
Mulloy, William (1997): The Easter Island Bulletins of William Mulloy.- World
Monuments Fund and Easter Island Foundation, New York
Mulloy, William & Figueroa, Gonzalo (1978): The A Kivi – Vai Teka Complex and
its Relationship to Easter Island Architectural Prehistory. Asian and Pacific
Archaeology Studies No. 8.- The Social Science Research Institute, University
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM179
of Hawaii, Honolulu
Mulrooney, Mara; Ladefoged, Thegn; Stevenson, Christopher M. & Haoa, Sonia
(2009): The Myth of A.D. 1680: New Evidence from Hanga Ho'onu, Rapa Nui
(Easter Island).- in Rapa Nui Journal, Vol. 23. Los Osos CA, USA. pp. 94-105
Orliac, Catherine & Orliac, Michel (1995): Easter Island, Mystery of the Stone
Giants.- Harry N. Abrams, New York
Palmer, John Linton (1870): Visit to Easter Island, or Rapa Nui, in 1868.- in Journal
of the Royal Geographical Society of London, Vol. 40. London, UK. pp. 167-181
Palmer, John Linton (1875): Davis or Easter Island.- in Proceedings of the Literary
and Philosophical Society of Liverpool, Vol. 29. Liverpool, UK. pp. 275-297
Routledge, Katherine (1919): The Mystery of Easter Island.- Hazell, Watson and
Viney, London
Shepardson, Britton (2009): Moai of Rapa Nui (Easter Island, Chile). Geo-referenced
image database (http://www.terevaka.net/dc/databases/shepardson_
2009/Moai_pt1.html)
Smith, Carlyle S. (1961): A Temporal Sequence Derived from Certain Ahu.- in
Archaeology of Easter Island: Reports of the Norwegian Archaeological Expe-dition
to Easter Island and East Pacific, Heyerdahl, Thor & Ferdon, Edwin Jr.,
Eds., Monograph of the School of American Research and the Museum of New
Mexico, Number 24, Vol. 1.- New Mexico, Santa Fe, pp. 181-219.
Steiner, Hartwig-E. (2008): Die Jungfrauen-Höhle auf der Osterinsel "Ana O Keke"
auf Poike / Rapa Nui, Polynesien.- in Almogaren, Vol. 39. Wien, Österreich, pp.
253-320
Stevenson, Christopher & Haoa, Sonia (1998): Prehistoric Gardening Systems and
Agricultural Intensification in the La Pérouse Area of Easter Island.- in Easter
Island in Pacific Context: South Seas Symposium, Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Easter Island and East Polynesia. Stevenson,
Christopher; Lee, Georgia & Morin, Francis, Eds.- Easter Island Foundation,
Los Osos. pp. 205-213
Thomson, William J. (1891): Te Pito te Henua or Easter Island.- in Report of the
U.S. National Museum for the Year Ending June 30, 1889.- U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington. pp. 447-552
Van Tilburg, Jo Anne (1994): Easter Island: Archaeology, Ecology and Culture.-
British Museum Press, London
Van Tilburg, Jo Anne & Arévalo Pakarati, Cristino (2012): Rano Raraku: a brief
overview of six seasons of excavations, three seasons of conservation
interventions, and a heritage management program, 2010-2012.- in Rapa Nui
Journal, Vol. 26, No. 2. Los Osos CA, USA. pp. 75-81
Van Tilburg, Jo Anne & Lee, Georgia (1987): Symbolic Stratigraphy: Rock Art and
the Monolithic Statues of Easter Island.- in World Archaeology, Vol. 19, No. 2.
pp. 133-149.
Figs. 2-31 ➝
180MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 2. Ahu Tahiri (Ahu Vinapū 1). Top: shelter constructed under the toppled
statues. Bottom: 1868 watercolour by J.L. Palmer (image T02995 courtesy of the
Royal Geographical Society with IBG) showing crescent-shaped canoe painted
on the moai 02-210-02.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM181
Figure 3. Ahu Tahiri (Ahu Vinapū 1). Top: 1868 watercolour by J.L. Palmer (image
T02998 courtesy of the Royal Geographical Society with IBG) showing a ship
with a white anthropomorph on board. Bottom: modern view of moai 02-210-03
(photo D-18.4 by G. Lee, 1986).
182MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 4. Ahu Vinapū 2. Topknot  5 positioned at the corner of ahu ramp,
featuring carvings of canoes and a possible phallic symbol.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM183
Figure 5. Ahu Vinapū 2. Top: canoe petroglyph on a fragment of red scoria facia
between the moai 02-209-05 and 02-209-04. Bottom: topknot  4 associated with
a paved area in front of the ahu.
184MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 6. Ahu Vinapū 2. Three principal views of topknot  4 with interlaced
canoe carvings.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM185
Figure 7. Ahu Vinapū 2. Top view and fourth principal view of the topknot  4.
186MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 8. Ahu Vinapū 2. Canoe with a wavy appendage incised on the ninth slab
from the right extremity of the sea wall. The tracing was made consulting the
historical image (Mulloy 1961: Pl. 12b). A possible canoe design overlooked
by Mulloy is shown with a dashed line.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM187
Figure 9. Ahu Vinapū 2. Historic ship with a square sail incised on the second
slab from the right extremity of the sea wall. The tracing was made by consulting
the historical photograph of the slab taken after the 1955-56 excavations (Mulloy
1961: Pl. 12a).
188MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 10. Ahu Hanga Te
e (Vaihū). Top: landward view showing paina circle in
the foreground. Bottom: moai 06-255-02 with hami area mutilated by deep
gashes filled with red scoria fragments.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM189
Figure 11. Ahu Hanga Te
e (Vaihū). Top: view of the carvings exposed over the
water surface of topknot  18 (photo D-24.1 by G. Lee, 1986). Bottom: the same
topknot placed on dry land.
190MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 12. Ahu Akahanga. Top: general landward view. Centre and bottom:
location of red scoria facia slabs embellished with secondary carvings.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM191
Figure 13. Ahu Akahanga. Slabs G, F, and E (from top to bottom) featuring
cupules and numerous canoe motifs.
192MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 14. Ahu Akahanga. The facia slab D with a "marine creature". Top: as docu-mented
by Ayasse (Thomson 1891: Fig.19, courtesy of National Anthropological
Archives, Smithsonian Institution). Middle: photographic record, 2013. Bottom:
3D model showing that the complex motif includes several canoe carvings.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM193
Figure 15. Ahu Akahanga. The facia slab C with two canoes and a face mask. The
latter carving, due to the shallowness of its grooves, is almost invisible in the 3D
model rendered with ambient occlusion. However, it can be clearly seen in the
textured 3D model. The slab is shown sideways to improve the presentation.
194MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 16. Ahu Akahanga. Top: slabs B and A adorned with interlaced canoe
carvings. Bottom: topknots  34 and  38 of Akahanga feature rather complex
variations of the basic knobbed shape.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM195
Figure 17. Ahu Akahanga. Top: Pukao  36 with carvings of anthropomorph, two-headed
frigate bird and a manutara. Bottom: similar sign groups on rongorongo
tablet Tahua.
196MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 18. Ahu Akahanga. Two views of topknot  35 with a manutara carving on
its landward side and a composite motif on its seaward side. Wide dark channels
were apparently cut for splitting pukao into several parts.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM197
Figure 19. Ahu Akahanga. Top: decomposition of the interlaced carvings on
topknot  35 into a bird inside the egg and a supine moai. Bottom: topknot  35
in foreground with statue 07-584-01 similar to the petroglyph image lying just
beside re.
198MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 20. Ahu 
One Makihi. Top: general view of the ahu with red scoria
upright  44. Centre and bottom: two facia slabs from left side of the platform
feature cupules and canoes.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM199
Figure 21. Ahu 
One Makihi. Three facia slabs from the right side of the platform
are profusely adorned with canoe carvings.
200MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 22. Hanga Tu
u Hata. Historical ships incised on a vertical rock panel
(photo D-27-14 by M. Oliver, 1986).
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM201
Figure 23. Rano Raraku. Historical ship as secondary petroglyph on moai RR-049.
202MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 24. Ahu Heki
i. Topknots adorned with multiple canoe carvings.
Top: pukao  61. Bottom: pukao  59.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM203
Figure 25. Ahu Heki
i. Top: boat carvings on the underside of pukao  57, which
was rolled after the carving was done. Bottom: boat carved on the flank of moai
31-999-07, half-buried under the mantle of stones.
204MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 26. Ahu Heki
i. Red scoria upright  58 with two deep cupules possibly
representing eyes on its landward side. The seaward side (upper left view of
3D model) is smooth.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM205
Figure 27. Ahu Te Pito Kura. Top: moai Paro 30-997-01 and topknot  73 covered
with cupules. Bottom: boat carved on statue's abdomen (Smith 1961: Fig.57,
courtesy of the Kon-Tiki Museum).
206MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 28. Close-up of Godefroy's etching (Milet-Mureau 1797: Pl. 11) showing
two moai standing on a platform. The foreground statue is documented with
eye inlays installed.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016MM207
Figure 29. Close-up of the drawing by Duché de Vancy (Chauvet 1935: Pl. 3,
Fig. 5) on which Godefroy's etching was based. Note that the ahu facia
slabs are adorned with canoe carvings.
208MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016
Figure 30. Moai of Ahu Tongariki with round sockets carved in the lower part
of their earlobes, possibly intended to receive decorative inlays.
ALMOGAREN 46-47/ 2015-2016MM209
Figure 31. Map from Atlas du Voyage de La Pérouse (Milet-Mureau 1797:
Pl. 10) showing the route of the reconnaissance party led by De Langle and
the ahu visited.
210MMALMOGAREN 46-47/2015-2016