Content uploaded by Seth J. Quintus
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Seth J. Quintus on Jul 20, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
Radiocarbon, Vol 00, Nr 00, 2020, p 1–21 DOI:10.1017/RDC.2020.60
© 2020 by the Arizona Board of Regents on behalf of the University of Arizona
TEMPO AND TRAJECTORY OF THE BUILT LANDSCAPE ON TA‘¯
U ISLAND,
MANU‘A GROUP, AMERICAN S ¯
AMOA: INTEGRATING EXTENSIVE
RADIOCARBON DATING WITH JOINT POSTERIOR MODELING
Seth Quintus1*•Jennifer Huebert2•Stephanie Day3•Noa Lincoln4•
Kyungsoo Yoo5•Tiffany Lee1•Darby Filimoehala6•Dolly Autufuga4
1Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai‘iatM¯anoa, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
2Sunrise Archaeology, Akaroa, New Zealand 7520
3Department of Geoscience, North Dakota State University, 1340 Bolley Drive, Fargo, ND 58102, USA
4Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Hawai‘iatM¯anoa, 3190 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI
96822, USA
5Department of Soil, Water, and Climate, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, 1991 Upper Buford Circle, Saint Paul,
MN 55108, USA
6International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., 2081 Young St., Honolulu, HI 96826, USA
ABSTRACT.Stone and earthen architecture is nearly ubiquitous in the archaeological record of Pacific islands. The
construction of this architecture is tied to a range of socio-political processes, and the temporal patterning of these
features is useful for understanding the rate at which populations grew, innovation occurred, and social inequality
emerged. Unfortunately, this temporal patterning is poorly understood for many areas of the region, including
the S¯amoan archipelago. Here, we describe a project directed toward establishing a robust chronology for the
construction of these earthen and stone terraces and linear mounds on Ta‘¯u Island. Using recent methodological
improvements, we highlight the tempo at which different architectural types were constructed on the island and the
implications for understanding demographic expansion and changing land tenure practices in the last 1500 years.
This research suggests the construction of architecture was largely confined to the 2nd millennium AD with a
small number of terraces plausibly built in the 1st millennium AD. This temporal patterning suggests that a
reconfiguration of settlement patterns occurred within West Polynesia as people there moved into other regions of
Oceania.
KEYWORDS: Bayesian modeling, landscape engineering, Oceania, settlement change.
INTRODUCTION
The remnants of human activity are inscribed across many Pacific islands in the form of built
landscapes, defined as durable earthen and stone architecture. These constructed landscapes
speak to the extent and nature of land use in the past. The acquisition and analysis of lidar
(light detection and ranging) datasets has provided a clearer image of the scale of landscape
alteration and built environment, particularly of tropical environments that rapidly revert
to dense forested ecosystems (McCoy et al. 2011; Quintus et al. 2015a, 2017; Freeland
et al. 2016; Bedford et al. 2018; Cochrane and Mills 2018; Jackmond et al. 2018,2019; Comer
et al. 2019). In each case of application, the magnitude of land use documented has exceeded
that which was once thought. While lidar has been influential for illustrating the magnitude
of landscape construction, it supports only coarse-grained temporal analysis at best.
The temporal patterning of landscape construction can address a variety of questions
beyond how populations organized themselves spatially. The construction and expansion of
built landscapes are markers of population expansion and political change, as the increased
presence of architecture is dependent on increased labor expenditures that result from
demographic needs (e.g., houses or agricultural expansion) and social pressures (e.g.,
monumental architecture). Furthermore, the construction of built landscapes defines
movement into new environmental settings that have novel selective pressures. Inland
settlement on volcanic slopes often required the construction of terracing (e.g., Lepofsky
1994) and agriculture in leeward areas was facilitated by the construction of walls or
embankments that block prevailing winds (Ladefoged et al. 2003). Earthen and stone
*Corresponding author. Email: squintus@hawaii.edu
use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of
architecture is nearly ubiquitous across Oceania, and resolving their chronologies is key to
elucidating changing land use patterns and social relationships.
Robust knowledge of the chronological development of built landscapes is limited for many
locations in Oceania. One of these places is the S ¯amoan archipelago (see Carson 2014 for
summary). Located at the boundary between the eastern and western Pacific, the
archipelago is conventionally viewed as part of the homeland from which populations
would settle East Polynesia (Kirch and Green 2001). The lack of temporal information
related to population expansion, political change, and general ecological engineering for
S¯amoa hampers the investigation of the context within which populations were migrating
outside the region (see Carson 2006). Recent archaeological research on the island of Ta‘¯u
in the Manu‘a Group of American S¯amoa adds important data to this discussion. We
employ 35 AMS radiocarbon determinations from the northeast side of the island to model
the construction ages of 25 terraces and linear mounds. From these 25 features, we
generate tempo plots to assess the timing and trajectory of landscape engineering across
our project area.
The Chronology of Built Landscapes in S ¯amoa
The S¯amoan archipelago lies in the central Pacific within the cultural area of West Polynesia
(Figure 1). The archipelago is presently split into two geopolitical units: the independent state
of S¯amoa in the west and the U.S. territory of American S ¯amoa in the east. The former includes
the largest islands of the archipelago, ‘Upolu and Savai‘i, along with the smaller islands of
Manono and Apolima. American S ¯amoa is constituted by the islands of Tutuila, Aunu‘u,
Ofu, Olosega, and Ta‘¯u. The latter three islands define the eastern boundary of the
archipelago and form the Manu‘a Group, roughly 100 km away from Tutuila.
The various islands of S¯amoa were settled between 2500–2800 years ago by populations
moving into West Polynesia from the west (e.g., Melanesia) (Petchey 2001; Cochrane et al.
2013; Clark et al. 2016; Petchey and Kirch 2019), and the most visible components of the
archaeological record are earthen and stone structures1. The morphology of this durable
architecture2is variable across the archipelago. In the western islands, mounds, stone walls,
raised-rim depressions, and ditches dominate the landscape, along with terraces on the
hillslopes of valleys (Davidson 1974a; Holmer 1980; Martinsson-Wallin 2016; Sand et al.
2018; Jackmond et al. 2019). In the eastern islands, terracing is common in the interior
uplands with more limited distributions of stone walls, ditching, earthen depressions, and
few mounds (Clark and Herdrich 1993; Pearl 2004; Quintus 2011,2015; Quintus et al.
2017). The intensive labor required for the construction of at least some of these structures
is thought to signify the presence of increasingly centralized political systems (Holmer 1980;
Jennings et al. 1982; Clark 1996; Martinsson-Wallin 2016; Quintus et al. 2016) and the
transition to the S¯amoan cultural context of the historic period (Green 2002).
The construction of durable architecture may have begun as early as the middle of the 1st
millennium AD. Dated charcoal samples collected from under some mounds raise the
possibility of 1st-millennium AD construction, but the relationship between the dated
material and the construction of architecture is ambiguous (Hewitt 1980: 41). Terraces may
1House outlines and platforms that are slightly raised off the surface are not discussed at length here, though they could
be considered forms of the built landscape.
2In contrast to nondurable forms of architecture constructed of materials like wood.
2S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
also have been built during the 1st millennium AD in Falefa valley on ‘Upolu (Davidson
1974a: 229; Ishizuki 1974) and on Tutuila (Ayres and Eisler 1987: 72; Carson 2006), but
these dates are from charcoal either within the terrace or below structural features
and, thus, represent maximum ages for construction (Carson 2005: 216–217). More
expansive terracing has been dated to the 2nd millennium AD from the uplands of Tutuila
and Manu‘a (Best et al. 1989; Clark 1993; Quintus 2015), with extensive but undated
distributions of these features known throughout American S ¯amoa (Quintus et al. 2015,
2017; Cochrane and Mills 2018). Similarly, dates clearly associated with earthen and stone
mounds or platforms indicate construction of these features in the 2nd millennium AD
(Jennings and Holmer 1980; Martinsson-Wallin 2016). Durable architecture becomes more
elaborate over time with larger mounds and more specialized features (i.e., star mounds)
apparent after the 15th century AD (Green 1969,2002; Green and Davidson 1974: 218;
Davidson 1974b: 155–156; Jennings and Holmer 1980: 5; Jennings et al. 1982; Clark 1996;
Martinsson-Wallin and Wehlin 2010).
These results highlight minimal earthen and stone construction until at least the late 1st
millennium AD. This would seem to suggest that the population and labor necessary to
engineer these landscapes and, by extension, the organizational apparatus to manage said
labor, did not emerge until the last millennia in the S¯amoan archipelago. This temporal
patterning is reasonably consistent with data from other areas of West Polynesia, namely
Tonga, Futuna, and ‘Uvea, where the built environment dates to the 2nd millennium AD
(Burley 1998; Kirch 1988,1994; Sand 1998; Freeland 2018). These data seem to suggest a
region-wide pattern of population growth and changes in political organization.
Figure 1 The S ¯amoan archipelago and other named locations in the Fiji-West Polynesia region. The Southern
Cook Islands represent the geographical beginning of East Polynesia.
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 3
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
However, several authors have noted problems associated with available chronological data from
S¯amoa (Rieth and Hunt 2008; Wallin et al. 2007). Wallin et al. (2007), for instance, note that
researchers in Samoa have tended to date activity that occurred on the surface of architecture
rather than the construction of that architecture. Even when radiocarbon dates from material
that was underneath architectural features are available, providing a maximum rather than
minimum age of construction, few features have been dated within a site or landscape. This
limits the ability of archaeologists to explore changing tempos of construction in any
systematic way. Finally, a large corpus of dates may be erroneous due to their association
with the Gakushuin Laboratory. As noted by Spriggs (1989), some of these dates are
presumed to be accurate but it is unclear which are and which are not. The Gakushuin
Laboratory dates used extensively by Green and Davidson (1974)on‘Upolu and Savai‘i
create chronological uncertainty for other forms of architecture as well, in particular a ditch
embankment associated with a fortification dated to the 1st millennium AD (Green and
Davidson 1974: 215). The chronology of these sites remains uncertain until they can be redated.
This problem is not unique to S ¯amoa. The construction of architecture can rarely be dated
directly in Oceania, except for U/Th coral dates on construction material (Sharp et al.
2010). Often, what archaeologists depend upon are dates from before or after such
construction events, with an unknown amount of time elapsing between the dated events
and the construction of the feature, or vice versa. This creates some level of ambiguity
when interpreting dates from architectural contexts. Recent theoretical discussion and
methodological improvements in the dating of archaeological sequences generally have
sought to reduce this ambiguity and archaeologists have developed ways to analyze the
temporal trends within classes of architecture more systematically. Several researchers
have demonstrated the need to collect and date material from contexts that can be
stratigraphically compared to the architecture of interest (Kahn 2005; Wallin et al. 2007;
Allen 2009;Dye2011). Ideally, material can be dated from contexts that stratigraphically
bound the archaeological manifestation of construction. An age of construction can then be
estimated by incorporating these constraints into Bayesian models. The usefulness of these
Bayesian models can be limited by the fact that some features are associated with either
TAQ (Terminus ante quem) or TPQ (Terminus post quem) dates, but not both. In these
cases, posterior probability age estimates of construction exhibit long tails on either the left
or right side of their HPD (highest posterior density) estimates.
Fortunately, the results of Bayesian calibration for each architectural feature can be input
into software to model the joint posterior distributions of feature construction (Dye 2016;
Marsh et al. 2017; Banks et al. 2019; DiNapoli et al. 2020). The calculation of joint
posterior distributions aims to assess the number of events that have occurred before some
date by querying valid chronological estimates of feature construction that are produced
through MCMC (Markov chain Monte Carlo) routines at the heart of Bayesian calibration.
In doing so, these methods create a product (i.e., tempo plot) that estimates the cumulative
number of archaeological events as a group rather than considering each instance of
feature construction separately.
If we are to understand the rise of labor cooperation and changing political systems in a more
nuanced way, accurate chronologies of surface architecture should be developed to track the
timing and tempo of landscape modification using these recent methodological advances. Data
generated from Ta‘¯u remedy this situation by intensively dating a suite of surface architecture
that speaks to the timing and tempo of construction on the island.
4S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Ta‘¯u Island and the Project Area
Ta‘¯u is the largest island of the Manu‘a group (36 km2) and is also the geologically youngest
(McDougall 2010). The island is constituted by a narrow coastal plain with limited reef
development separated from the interior uplands by remnant sea cliffs. The coastal plains
were the locus of early settlement, which began on Ta‘¯u no later than 2300 calBP
(Hunt and Kirch 1988) and most likely in line with Ofu around 2600–2700 calBP (Kirch
1993; Clark et al. 2016; Petchey and Kirch 2019). Gentle slopes lie directly inland of these
remnant sea cliffs in some locations, ranging between 5–20°. It is in these areas that pre-
contact surface architecture has been recorded (Hunt and Kirch 1988; Clark 1990; Klenck
2016; Quintus et al. 2017; Motu 2018) and is apparent in lidar-derived imagery.
The data described and analyzed in this paper derives from research undertaken in the northern
half of Ta‘¯u inland of Fitiuta on the east side of the island in what is referred to as the Luatele
site (Quintus et al. 2017; Motu 2018) (Figure 2). The goal of the project was to address the
timing and tempo of the construction of surface architecture in the interior stretches of the
island. Surface architecture in the location consists primarily of stone-faced earthen terraces
along with stone and earthen linear mounds or walls. More unique, and less common,
features identified included stone mounds, depressions, and enclosures.
The Luatele site, which covers ~200 hectare (ha) in the northeast quadrant of the island, is
bounded by remnant sea cliffs to the north, dissected stream beds on the east and west, and
by two volcanic craters to the south. The project discussed herein examined the distribution
and temporal development of surface architecture across ~130 ha downslope of these
Figure 2 Ta‘¯u Island with the location of Luatele labelled. Contour lines are drawn in 20 m intervals.
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 5
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
craters wherein a dense concentration of terracing and stone linear mounds/walls are located.
Three hundred and twelve terraces have been recorded through pedestrian survey, most
intensively within four survey transects (Figure 3). Most of these terraces were constructed
of earthen fill with a stone boulder or cobble facing. Rounded to sub-angular basalt
cobbles and gravel were found on the majority of these features but preserved formal floor
pavings are relatively rare as are house outlines/platforms. The clear presence of house
outlines and floor pavings on some, however, does indicate residential activities. The degree
of labor invested in the construction of other large terraces at lower elevations and slopes
seems also to speak to a residential function based on the labor required for construction.
Smaller terraces on higher slopes may have served as either structural foundations for
short-term field shelters or as spaces for cultivation. Ninety-three stone and earthen linear
mound segments have been recorded amongst these terraces that range in length from less
than 10 m to over 1.6 km. Most of these features run perpendicular to the slope and seem
to create boundaries around and between terraces. Multiple segments of eight of these
Figure 3 Distribution of field-recorded terraces and linear mounds in Luatele. Contour lines are in 20 m
intervals. The majority of these features were recorded within four transects (roman numerals). Field recorded
features are a sample of features in Luatele.
6S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
features running perpendicular to the slope have been recorded in the intensive survey transects
running from near the cliff edge on the downslope boundary of the site to near one of the
two craters at the upslope. The result of this configuration is a pie-like pattern centering at
the two craters. These features were constructed by the mounding or coarse stacking of
boulders and cobbles in most cases. Formal stacking was documented for some of these
features, though this was generally regarded as evidence of modern rejuvenation or recent
construction (this is confirmed with radiocarbon dates for at least one feature). In a small
number of cases, two linear mounds run parallel and may have served to define paths; the
longest linear mound feature in the site is one such double-walled feature.
METHODS
Methods were directed toward collecting charcoal from positions that would provide
chronological information related to the construction of the associated structure (following
methods in Allen 2009; Field et al. 2010;Dye2011). Excavations employed two strategies:
test pits and controlled excavations (Figure 4). Test pits (30 cm ×30 cm, 50 cm ×50 cm)
were dug directly into the facing of terraces or through the side of linear mounds. We
chose to deconstruct excavated features in most cases (Figure 4c). Deconstruction of a
feature allows the researcher to more directly observe datable material gathered from
beneath intact architecture rather than from below wall fall or from otherwise disturbed
Figure 4 The different methods of excavation used in Luatele: digging adjacent to a feature and then horizontally
under a features (a., Wall 93), controlled unit excavation (b., Terrace 98), and test pit deconstruction (c., Terrace
311). Note the boulder foundation of Terrace 98 (b.). It was from the interface between this boulder foundation and
the overlying terrace fill that charcoal was sampled for dating. We interpret this radiocarbon determination to date
the construction of the feature given this context.
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 7
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
contexts. Datable material from beneath a feature may also be obtained by excavating adjacent
to the feature and then, subsequently, digging horizontally underneath the feature. A small
number of features were excavated in this way when deconstruction would adversely
impact the integrity of the entire feature (Figure 4a). The goal of test pit excavations was
to acquire datable material beneath terrace retaining walls and beneath the basal stones of
linear mounds, and these test pits were terminated after the collection of charcoal from
contexts clearly below the associated structure. Controlled excavations (1 m ×1m,2m×1m)
were dug within 10 features (eight terraces and two linear mound segments). These controlled
units were excavated in natural strata using 10 cm arbitrary levels and were terminated only
after reaching a sterile substratum or bedrock (Figure 4b). Charcoal collected for dating was
from stratigraphic positions below terrace construction fill or retaining walls and from sub-
surface combustion features associated with the use of terraces. Bioturbation caused by tree
growth and earthworm activity was noted during test pit excavation of linear mounds and
terrace retaining walls, requiring careful selection of charcoal sampling from in situ contexts
below such horizons. The focus of sampling was, therefore, charcoal from clearly in situ soils,
though the presence of some post-bomb (modern) dates might suggest otherwise in a few
instances. All excavated features were field mapped prior to excavation.
Charcoal samples (n =35) were dated using AMS at the University of Arizona Accelerator
Mass Spectrometry Lab (AA) and the University of Georgia Center for Applied Isotope
Studies (UGAMS). Each determination was classified as a TPQ or a TAQ based on their
stratigraphic association with structures. Dates on samples from below a terrace retaining
wall or linear mound were classified as TPQ because they are older than the event of
terrace construction on stratigraphic grounds. In contrast, determinations from combustion
features on terrace surfaces were classified as TAQ because the construction of features
(e.g., hearths) was dependent on the presence of the terrace; therefore, the terrace had to
have been built prior to the use of the combustion feature. TAQ determinations were not
available for linear mounds. A justification for date assignments is included in Table 1.All
charcoal was identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible. Short-lived taxa were sought
for dating (see Allen and Huebert 2014), but material that may have some inbuilt age was
dated in TPQ contexts when short-lived material was unavailable. Dated charcoal from
TPQ contexts provide at best a maximum age of construction and inbuilt age does not
change that fact. Short-lived (niu,Cocos nucifera endocarp) or medium-lived (e.g., fau,
Hibiscus tiliaceus) material was dated from TAQ contexts.
Construction ages of individual terraces and linear mounds were estimated by a series of
Bayesian models in OxCal 4.3 (Bronk Ramsey 2017) using the IntCal13 calibration curve
(Reimer et al. 2013). While the S ¯amoan archipelago is in the Southern Hemisphere, its
position in the Intertropical Convergence Zone allows the use of the Northern Hemisphere
calibration curve (Petchey and Addison 2008). Each feature was modeled as a separate
sequence with multiple phases and boundaries in order to estimate the timing of each
construction event. All feature sequences included start boundaries that marked the
beginning of cultural deposition at that location. This was followed by a pre-architecture
phase, within which was placed TPQ determinations associated with that structure. The
boundary command was then used to model the construction of the feature, which was
constrained by a post-construction phase that included all TAQ determinations. An upper
constraint of AD 1900 ±5 was imposed on all sequences as this date corresponds with the
work of Augustin Krämer who listed all settlements on the island but did not document
habitation or activity in Luatele (Krämer 1902–1903). His only reference to inland
8S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Table 1 Radiocarbon dates from Luatele.
Lab number Feature # Unit type
Feature
type Context Material (longevity) Δ13C
Uncalibrated
age Cal AD/BC (2 σ) Comments on context
UGAMS-43807 Wall 2 single
segment
TP Wall TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–25.1 70 ±20 AD 1695–1728,
1812–1854, 1867–1919
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound in the middle of the
A-horizon.
AA-113188 Wall 2 TP Double
Wall
TPQ Hibiscus tiliaceus
wood
–25.9 131 ±20 AD 1679–1765,
1800–1892, 1908–1940
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound on the downslope
side of the feature.
AA-112172 Wall 2 TP Double
Wall
TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–25.9 1.248 ±0.003
(pMC)
post-bomb Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound on the upslope side
of the feature. This charcoal
likely washed into this
location from upslope.
UGAMS-43806 Wall 92 TP Double
Wall
TPQ Glochidion cf.
ramiflorum wood
–28.6 160 ±20 AD 1666–1696,
1726–1784, 1836–1745,
1851–1877, 1917–
Sample taken from the inner
side of this double linear
mound feature below the
basal boulders at the A/B-
horizon transition.
AA-112178 Terrace 110 XU Terrace TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–22.9 388 ±23 AD 1442–1522,
1576–1584,
1590–1622
Sample taken from
immediately beneath the
basal boulders of retaining
wall.
UGAMS-43805 Terrace 117 XU Terrace TAQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–23.5 920 ±20 AD 1039–1161 Sample taken from an earth
oven dug from the living
surface of the terrace.
UGAMS-46233 Terrace 117 XU Terrace TPQ Diospyros sp. wood –26.3 1870 ±20 AD 80–215 Sample taken from the stratum
beneath terrace fill and atop
bedrock.
UGAMS-43804 Terrace 120 XU Terrace TPQ Tarenna sambucina
wood
–29.0 1230 ±20 AD 693–747, 763–781,
787–878
Sample taken beneath a
boulder in a stratum beneath
terrace fill.
UGAMS-46234 Terrace 120 XU Terrace TAQ Glochidion cf.
ramiflorum wood
–28.1 590 ±20 AD 1304–1365,
1384–1409
Sample taken from a charcoal
concentration within a floor
paving.
AA-113187 Terrace 163 TP Terrace TPQ Hibiscus tiliaceus
wood
–25.8 90 ±19 AD 1693–1728,
1812–1919
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the terrace
retaining wall.
AA-112176 Terrace 210 TP Terrace TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–24.5 104 ±37 AD 1680–1764,
1801–1939
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the
retaining wall and below a
root zone.
(Continued)
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 9
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Table 1 (Continued )
Lab number Feature # Unit type
Feature
type Context Material (longevity) Δ13C
Uncalibrated
age Cal AD/BC (2 σ) Comments on context
UGAMS-43798 Terrace 238 XU Terrace TPQ Unidentified Twig –28.5 830 ±20 AD 1169–1256 Sample taken below a buried
retaining wall. This may
relate to an earlier terrace
later expanded into its
present form.
UGAMS-43801 Terrace 252 XU Terrace TAQ Tarenna sambucina
wood
–28.3 170 ±20 AD 1665–1693,
1727–1785,
1793–1813, 1919–
Sample taken from below a
curbing alignment in a
stratum above terrace fill.
UGAMS-43800 Terrace 252 XU Terrace TPQ Myristica intuilis
wood
–26.3 160 ±20 AD 1666–1696, 1726–
1784,
1836–1745, 1851–1877,
1917–
Sample taken from a stratum
below terrace fill.
UGAMS46236 Terrace 282 XU Terrace TPQ Bischofia javanica
wood
–25.7 1110 ±20 AD 891–985 Sample taken from a stratum
below terrace fill.
UGAMS46237 Terrace 282 XU Terrace TAQ Tarenna sambucina
wood
–26.7 620 ±20 AD 1294–1330,
1339–1397
Sample taken from a charcoal
concentration associated
with a floor paving.
UGAMS-43796 Terrace 311 TP Terrace TPQ Tarenna sambucina
wood
–28.1 360 ±20 AD 1456–1524,
1558–1631
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders and cobbles
of the retaining wall.
AA-112175 Terrace 48 TP Terrace TPQ Unidentified Twig –26.9 379 ±25 AD 1446–1523,
1572–1630
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the
retaining wall in the middle
of the A-horizon.
AA-113191 Terrace 76 TP Terrace TPQ Morinda citrifolia
wood
–27.1 1.2412 ±
0.0029
(pMC)
post-bomb Sample taken from below the
basal cobbles of the
retaining wall and just above
bedrock. Date indicates a
recent origin for or
rejuvenation of the feature.
UGAMS-43799 Terrace 8 XU Terrace TPQ Glochidion cf.
ramiflorum wood
–29.2 490 ±20 AD 1412–1444 Sample taken from the stratum
beneath terrace fill and atop
bedrock.
UGAMS-43802 Terrace 8 XU Terrace TAQ Hibiscus tiliaceus
wood
–27.7 370 ±20 AD 1451–1523,
1572–1630
Sample taken from an earth
oven dug from the living
surface of the terrace.
(Continued)
10 S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Table 1 (Continued )
Lab number Feature # Unit type
Feature
type Context Material (longevity) Δ13C
Uncalibrated
age Cal AD/BC (2 σ) Comments on context
UGAMS-43803 Terrace 98 XU Terrace Construction cf. Cananga
odorata wood
–24.4 590 ±20 AD 1304–1365,
1384–1409
Sample taken from between
the foundation boulders of
the terrace and terrace fill.
Both components were laid
down during construction of
the feature.
UGAMS-46235 Terrace 98 XU Terrace TAQ Tarenna sambucina
wood
–27.6 150 ±20 AD 1667–1699,
1721–1783, 1832–1880,
1915–1949
Sample taken from above a
floor paving.
AA-113190 Terrace 68 TP Terrace TPQ Hibiscus tiliaceus
wood
–27.7 97 ±20 AD 1691–1730,
1810–1924
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders and cobbles
of the retaining wall as well
as beneath a root layer.
AA-112171 Terrace 320 TP Terrace TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–24.4 696 ±26 AD 1265–1306,
1363–1385
Sample was taken from below
the basal boulders of the
retaining wall and beneath a
root layer.
UGAMS-43809 Terrace 164 TP Terrace TAQ Plant epidermis
(1 mm thick;
indeterminate
type)
–27.7 102.06 ±0.26
(pMC)
Post-bomb Sample taken from below basal
cobbles within an A-horizon.
Indicates a recent origin or
rejuvenation of the feature.
AA-113193 Terrace 321 TP Terrace TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–23.2 253 ±32 AD 1520–1593,
1619–1679, 1764–1800,
1939–
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the
feature’s retaining wall in the
lower A-horizon.
UGAMS-43808 Wall 93 TP Wall TPQ Glochidion cf.
ramiflorum wood
–28.4 100 ±20 AD 1691–1730,
1810–1925
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the cross-
slope wall.
AA-112173 Wall 33 TP Wall TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–23.5 146 ±25 AD 1668–1707,
1719–1782, 1797–1826,
1832–1886, 1913–1947
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound.
AA-112177 Wall 36 XU Wall TPQ Aleurites moluccana
endocarp
–24.3 367 ±29 AD 1448–1528,
1553–1634
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound.
(Continued)
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 11
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Table 1 (Continued )
Lab number Feature # Unit type
Feature
type Context Material (longevity) Δ13C
Uncalibrated
age Cal AD/BC (2 σ) Comments on context
AA-113192 Wall 46 TP Wall TPQ Glochidion cf.
ramiflorum wood
–28.2 56 ±19 AD 1696–1725,
1814–1835, 1877–1919
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound at the A/B-horizon
transition.
UGAMS-43797 Wall 78 TP Wall TPQ Syzygium sp. wood –27.9 190 ±20 AD 1661–1683,
1735–1806, 1930–1950
Sample taken from below the
basal boulder of the cross-
slope wall.
AA-112174 Wall 91 TP Wall TPQ Unidentified Twig –28.2 1.252 ±0.004
(pMC)
post-bomb Sample from under basal
boulders of stacked wall.
Indicative of the recent
origin or rejuvenation of this
feature.
AA-113186 Wall 89 TP Wall TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–24.0 934 ±21 AD 1034–1155 Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound in the lower
A-horizon.
AA-113189 Wall 86 TP Wall TPQ Cocos nucifera
endocarp
–24.5 129 ±20 AD 1680–1764,
1801–1893, 1907–1939
Sample taken from below the
basal boulders of the linear
mound in the lower
A-horizon.
12 S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
settlements is to abandoned settlements inland of Ta‘¯u Village. Therefore, it is assumed the site
was largely abandoned by the time he undertook his work. The general form of each
construction sequence is as follows:
Pre-Feature Start (Boundary)>Pre-Feature TPQ (Phase)>Feature Construction (Boundary)>
Post-Feature TAQ (Phase)>AD 1900 (Before [C_Date ±5])
The results of Bayesian modeling were used to develop tempo plots. Tempo plots were
generated of feature construction using the ArchaeoPhase package (Philippe et al. 2020)
in R software (R Core Team 2020) with the raw MCMC output of each “Feature Construction
(Boundary)”from the Bayesian models as input. All OxCal models and R code are available in
the Supporting Information.
RESULTS
All radiocarbon dates obtained from Luatele were associated with surface architecture. Four of
these determinations provided post-bomb age determinations. In one instance, this was
expected and confirms the recent construction of some of the architecture (AA-112174). It
is possible that the material dated was intrusive or that modern rejuvenation of pre-contact
features has introduced modern charcoal under features in the other cases (i.e., AA-112172;
AA-113191). Certainly, this small number of post-bomb dates is not surprising given
modern land use dating from the 1980s and the number of earthworms in the site. The 31
remaining determinations are from 25 distinct features: 15 terraces and 10 linear mounds.
All dates associated with linear mounds are TPQ dates (n =10). Six determinations
associated with terraces are TAQ dates, 14 determinations are TPQs, and one determination
appears to date the construction of the feature directly (T98 [UGAMS-43803]).
Only three unmodeled determinations (10% of all dates, excluding post-bomb) possess ranges
that are within or extend into the 1st millennium AD. All these dates are TPQ dates associated
with terraces. Fifteen unmodeled determinations (50% of those associated with architecture,
excluding post-bomb) have probability distributions that extend into the proto-historic (cal
AD 1722) and historic (cal AD 1830) period. Eight of these are from contexts associated
with linear mounds (80% of dates associated with linear mounds, excluding post bomb).
Most of the artifacts recovered through excavation would suggest the construction of most
features within the pre-contact portions of these distributions. With this said, at least one
non-dated terrace was built during the historic period as an historical artifact was found
within the retaining wall of the feature—a piece of late 18th to early 19th-century ceramic
(blue and white “Willow”pattern transfer printed pearlware).
Construction Estimates and the Tempo of Change
Upper and lower chronological constraints were obtained from five features and one feature is
dated directly by a determination (Table 1). The remaining 19 features are constrained by either
a TPQ or a TAQ and estimates for the construction of these features exhibit tails on one side of
the associated 95.4% HPD distribution. Based on modeled 95.4% HPD construction dates at
Luatele, three terraces were plausibly built before the 11th century (20%) and a total of 10
terraces were plausibly built before the 16th century AD (67%). The remaining five were
built after. The distribution of modeled dates of linear mound construction are markedly
different. Of the nine linear mounds for which the age of construction was modeled, only
two plausibly date before the 17th century AD (22%).
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 13
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
The calculation of tempo plots clarifies temporal patterns by synthesizing the results of
Bayesian calibration (Figures 5and 6). The tempo plot of terrace construction in Luatele
illustrates that terrace construction began by the 9th century AD though it may be as early
as the 4th century AD. The earliest date is a TPQ from T117. The position of this date
underneath the terrace, the potential of inbuilt age in the taxa being dated, and the large
difference between the TAQ and TPQ dates from this terrace all suggest the presence of
temporal lag between the TPQ and the date of terrace construction. Because of this,
we favor a date of first construction closer to the 9th century than the 4th century AD.
The rate of construction in Luatele increased in and after the 13th century (Figure 5). The
shape of the tempo plot implies continuous construction through the beginning of the
historic period. While the shape of the linear mound tempo plot is similar, the chronology
is quite distinct. Linear mound construction may have begun as early as the 12th century,
but it appears to be limited until the 17th and 18th centuries, after which a rapid increase
in the rate of construction occurred (Figure 6). Unlike the tempo of terrace construction,
the shape of the linear mound tempo plot indicates a single late peak for construction.
Figure 5 Tempo plot of terrace construction at Luatele. The y-axis is the cumulative number of
terrace construction events. The x-axis is in calendar years AD.
14 S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Land use and architectural construction (and possibly remodeling) continued into the historic
period. Not only is this apparent in the tempo plots, but artifacts collected from within a terrace
retaining wall, notably an early 19th century AD English ceramic sherd, provide a definitive
indication of a level of continuity in land use between the pre- and post-contact cultural periods
in Luatele. Renewed land use has continued to extend and otherwise modify the built landscape
as indicated by modern infrastructure and post-bomb radiocarbon dates.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Teasing out the temporal and spatial patterning embedded in palimpsest landscapes has been a
perennial problem in Oceania (Field et al. 2011), including in S¯amoa (Wallin et al. 2007). A
focus on acquiring data to constrain the chronology of events of construction, rather than
trying to date the construction directly, is effective when paired with Bayesian models and
other computational methods (Dye 2016). Such techniques allow for the development of
chronological models at the landscape scale, which is important for understanding when
Figure 6 The tempo of linear mound construction at Luatele. The y-axis is the cumulative number of
linear mound construction events. The x-axis is in Calendar years AD.
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 15
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
construction took place and the relationships between features when analyzed at larger spatial
scales. The use of these techniques here allows for the assessment of changing land use and
modification on Ta‘¯u Island.
A single radiocarbon date indicates commencement of activity in Luatele by the beginning of
the 1st millennium AD, though the sparseness of evidence dating to this time hints that activity
was relatively limited. While the radiocarbon date represents a TPQ for terrace construction,
the context of this early date, specifically its proximity to bedrock and the long-lived nature of
the taxa dated, suggests some temporal lag between this date and the construction of the
terrace. The corpus of data from Luatele supports the earliest construction of earthen and
stone structures by the 8th to 10th centuries AD, roughly 1600–1800 years after the initial
settlement of Manu‘a. The construction of architecture demonstrates more intensive and
permanent use of the interior landscape by the late 1st millennium and into the 2nd
millennium AD. The tempo of terrace construction events from Luatele suggests a
continuous but incremental process of infrastructural, and presumably population, growth
in the site through the 2nd millennium AD. No clear surge in construction is especially
evident at any time.
There are marked differences between the tempo of construction of terraces and linear mounds.
It is conceivable that both feature types began to be constructed at the beginning of the 2nd
millennium AD but the rate of construction of linear mounds increased drastically in the 17th
and 18th centuries AD. The spatial configuration and morphology of these features indicate
their use as boundary markers (see analogy in Ladefoged et al. 2003; Kirch 1994), and the rapid
construction of these boundary markers hints at relatively rapid changes to land tenure in the
site. The construction of these linear mounds following centuries of terrace construction
appears to be a response to a progressively more nucleated and dense settlement landscape
by the 17th and 18th centuries AD. That many of these linear mounds extend across large
areas of the site, either horizontally or vertically, is indicative of a level of community
coordination not necessary for the construction of more spatially limited terracing dispersed
across Luatele in earlier times.
Temporal patterns of landscape modification in the interior uplands of Ta‘¯u overlap with those
of the expansion of habitation on the north coast of the island. TPQ dates for house outlines
and foundations on the north coast suggest construction in the late 1st millennium AD and the
2nd millennium AD, indicating both the use of a recent geomorphic landform and the
expansion of populations (Cleghorn and Shapiro 2000). Habitation on the coastal plain
continues through the rest of the cultural sequence. These data indicate that the expansion
of population activities visible through the built landscapes in the interior uplands was part
of a larger process of demographic expansion that included the coastline. This seems to
contrast with the situation on the adjacent island of Ofu. There, the construction of
terracing in the interior uplands, which occurs also at the end of the 1st millennium AD or
beginning of the 2nd millennium AD, was met by what appears to be the more dispersed
use of the coastal plains (Quintus et al. 2015b).
Regional Considerations
The chronology of durable architecture on Ta‘¯u is consistent with that of the built landscapes
identified across S¯amoa at a broad temporal scale. It is increasingly clear that the construction
of architecture occurred across the archipelago by the late 1st millennium and the beginning of
16 S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
the 2nd millennium AD (Carson 2014). Terrace construction is now evident in Manu‘a by this
time on multiple islands (Quintus 2015; this paper) and terracing may date slightly earlier than
other forms of construction overall (Davidson 1974a; Carson 2006,2014). Carson (2014) has
argued that earthen terrace construction declined in the last 1000 years, but our results indicate
continuous and, likely, increasing rates of construction since the 13th century AD. While this
may not apply to the rest of the archipelago, there are two reasons it may. First, few terraces
have been dated in the archipelago even though they were extensively built (Cochrane and
Mills 2018;Day2018), and second, at least some terracing is known to have been
constructed on Tutuila into the 2nd millennium AD (Best et al. 1989). The earliest earthen
and stone mounds were constructed at the turn of the 1st and 2nd millennium AD on
‘Upolu and Savai‘i (Hewitt 1980; Holmer 1980; Wallin et al. 2007), with subsequent
construction, modification, and use of these features occurring until historic contact (Wallin
et al. 2007).
A late 1st millennium or early 2nd millennium AD origin for earthen and stone architecture
elsewhere in West Polynesia, most notably Tonga (Burley 1998; Kirch 1988; Clark et al. 2008;
Clark and Reepmeyer 2014; Freeland 2018), Futuna (Kirch 1994), and ‘Uvea (Sand 1998), has
also been noted. That there is such regional patterning suggests shared processes of population
growth as well as social influence and interaction (Kirch 1988; Sand 1998). The latter is perhaps
best documented in the construction of monumental architecture during the 14th and 15th
centuries AD as a mechanism of hegemonic expansion by Tongans (Burley 1996; Kirch
1988), while the former is represented well by the spread of burial mounds throughout
Tongatapu and the construction of house mounds, platforms, and terraces across many
S¯amoan landscapes.
These trajectories seem to mark demographic changes that began at the archipelago- and
region-wide scale at the turn of the 2nd millennium AD. This archaeological evidence is
supported by recent genetic reconstruction of population structural history in S¯amoa
(Harris et al. 2020), suggesting substantial population growth in S¯amoa at this time. This is
roughly consistent with other lines of evidence suggesting population reconfiguration in
West Polynesia during the late 1st millennium and early 2nd millennium AD (Addison and
Matisoo-Smith 2010). These initial demographic changes in West Polynesia are roughly
contemporaneous with the settlement of East Polynesia (Rieth and Cochrane 2018),
presumably from the wider West Polynesia region. Sear et al. (2020) have proposed a
correlation between the settlement of some East Polynesian islands and a prolonged
regional drought in the late 1st millennium AD. We propose that this drought could have
had an influence on the settlement reconfigurations we document on Ta‘¯u. Coastal regions
would be at greater risk in drought conditions, given the orographically-driven rainfall of
the island. A movement into the interior at this time would have helped to mitigate the
immediate effects of the drought.
The tempo of terrace construction on Ta‘¯u makes clear that infrastructure was not built all at
once and that community growth through the last millennium was continuous if not
exponential. Our data do not support a singular event of population increase (demographic
explosion). Simply, populations and political hierarchies grew at a faster rate toward the
end of the 1st millennium AD than during the first two millennia of West Polynesian
history. The temporal associations demonstrated here illustrate the complexity of human
movement during this period, with both intra- and inter-island reconfigurations of
settlement occurring. The outcome of these processes was a highly engineered landscape.
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 17
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank the people of Fitiuta, especially Eseta Kese and Pastor Fred Scanlan, for hosting us
during our research. We thank Logoleo Feagai Logoleo for permission to work in Luatele. We
wish also to recognize the contributions of Malone Ieti, Princecharles Faleagafulu, Christina
Fu‘afu‘a, Tafa Fuafua, Paulo Paulo, Oceana Te‘i, Arthur Sega, Fafeta‘i Lauofo, Joshua
Fu‘afu‘a, Falani Masunu, Visa Vaivai Tiapusua, Brian Vivao, Fa‘afutai Lauofo, Fauato
Aukuso, Taumakai Atautia, Jonathon Mauga, Leonard Vivao, Lawrence Fautua, Robert
Mauga, J.J. Tanielu, and Achilles Tevasea to the success of this research. We appreciate
the helpful comments of David Addison, Tom Dye, Tim Rieth, Robert DiNapoli, and two
anonymous reviewers on a previous draft of this manuscript. Finally, we thank the
American Samoa Historic Preservation Office, specifically Letitia Peau-Folau, Teleai
Christian Ausage, and Lancelot Leutu‘utuofiti Te‘i, for archaeological and logistical
support. Logistical assistance was provided by the National Park of American Samoa
under permit NPSA-2019-SCI-0001. This research is based upon work supported by the
National Science Foundation under Grant No. NSF BCS-1732360.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.
2020.60
REFERENCES
Addison DJ, Matisoo-Smith E. 2010. Rethinking
Polynesian origins: A West-Polynesia triple-I
model. Archaeology in Oceania 45:1–12.
Allen MS. 2009. Morphological variability and
temporal patterning in Marquesan domestic
architecture: Anaho Valley in regional context.
Asian Perspectives 48:342–382.
Allen MS, Huebert JM. 2014. Short-lived plant
materials, long-lived trees, and Polynesian
14C dating: considerations for 14C sample
selection and documentation. Radiocarbon 56:
257–276.
Ayres WS, Eisler D. 1987. Archaeological survey in
western Tutuila: a report on archaeological site
survey and excavations, 85-2. Report on file at
the American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office. Pago Pago, American Samoa.
Banks WE, Bertran P, Ducasse S, Klaric L, Lanos P,
Renard C, Mesa M. 2019. An application of
hierarchical Bayesian modeling to better
constrain the chronologies of Upper Paleolithic
archaeological cultures in France between ca.
32,000–21,000 calibrated years before present.
Quaternary Science Reviews 220:188–214.
Bedford S, Siméoni P, Lebot V. 2018. The
anthropogenic transformation of an island
landscape: evidence for agricultural development
revealed by LiDAR on the island of Efate,
Central Vanuatu, South-West Pacific.
Archaeology in Oceania 53:1–14.
Best S, Leach H, Witter D. 1989. Report on the
second phase of fieldwork at the Tataga-matau
site, American Samoa, July-August 1988.
Report on file at the American Samoa Historic
Preservation Office.
Bronk Ramsey C. 2017. OxCal Project, Version 4.3.
Burley DV. 1996. Sports, status, and field monuments
in the Polynesian chiefdom of Tonga: The pigeon
snaring mounds of northern Ha‘apai. Journal of
Field Archaeology 23:421–435.
Burley DV. 1998. Tongan archaeology and the
Tongan past, 2850–150 B.P. Journal of World
Prehistory 12:337–392.
Carson MT. 2005. Archaeological data recovery for
the American Samoa Power Authority sewer
collection system in Tualauta County, Tutuila
Island, American Samoa. Draft report submitted
to the American Samoa Power Authority, Pago
Pago, American Samoa
Carson MT. 2006. Samoan cultivation practices in
archaeological perspective. People and Culture
in Oceania 22:1–29.
Carson MT. 2014. De-coding the archaeological
landscape of Samoa: Austronesian origins and
Polynesian culture. Journal of Austronesian
Studies 5:1–41.
Clark G, Reepmeyer C. 2014. Stone architecture,
monumentality and the rise of the early Tongan
chiefdom. Antiquity 88:1244–1260.
Clark G, Burley D, Murray T. 2008. Monumentality
and the development of the Tongan maritime
chiefdom. Antiquity 82:994–1008.
Clark JT. 1990. The Ta‘u road archaeological project:
Phase I survey and test excavation. Report on file
18 S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
at the American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office. Pago Pago, American Samoa.
Clark JT. 1993. Prehistory of Alega, Tutuila Island,
American Samoa: A small residential and
basalt-industrial valley. New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology 15:67–86.
Clark JT. 1996. Samoan prehistory in review. In:
Davidson JM et al., editors. Oceanic culture
history: Essays in honour of Roger Green.
Dunedin: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology
Special Publication. p. 445–460.
Clark JT, Quintus S, Weisler M, St Pierre E,
Nothdurft L, Feng Y. 2016. Refining the
chronology for West Polynesian colonization:
New data from the Samoan Archipelago.
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports
6:266–274.
Clark JT, Herdrich DJ. 1993. Prehistoric settlement
system in Eastern Tutuila, American Samoa.
Journal of the Polynesian Society 102:147–185.
Cleghorn PL, Shapiro W. 2000. Archaeological data
recovery report for the proposed Ta‘u road
reconstruction, at Fag¯a and Fitituta, Ta‘u
Island, Manu‘a, American Samoa. Pago Pago:
American Samoa Historic Preservation Office.
Cochrane EE, Mills J. 2018. LiDAR imagery
confirms extensive interior land-use on Tutuila,
American Samoa. Journal of Pacific Archaeology
9:70–78.
Cochrane EE, Rieth TM, Dickinson WR. 2013.
Plainware ceramics from S¯amoa: insights into
ceramic chronology, cultural transmission,
and selection among colonizing populations.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:
499–510.
Comer DC, Comer JA, Dumitru IA, Ayres WA,
Levin MJ, Seikel KA, White DA, Harrower
MJ. 2019. Airborne LiDAR reveals a vast
archaeological landscape at the Nan Madol
World Heritage Site. Remote Sensing 11:2152.
Davidson JM. 1974a. Samoan structural remains and
settlement patterns. In: Green RC, Davidson JM,
editors. Archaeology in Western Samoa. Vol. II.
Auckland: Auckland Institute and Museum
Bulletin 7:225–244.
Davidson JM. 1974b. Upper Falefa Valley project:
summaries and conclusions. In: Green RC,
Davidson JM, editors. Archaeology in Western
Samoa. Vol. II. Auckland: Auckland Institute
and Museum Bulletin 7:155–162.
Day SS. 2018. Using unsupervised classification
techniques and the hypsometric index to
identify anthropogenic landscapes throughout
American Samoa. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 127:55–72.
DiNapoli RJ, Rieth TM, Lipo CM, Hunt TL. 2020.
A model-based approach to the tempo of
“collapse”: The case of Rapa Nui (Easter
Island). Journal of Archaeological Science. doi:
10.1016/j.jas.2020.105094.
Dye TS. 2011. Traditional Hawaiian surface
architecture. In: Dye TS, editor. Research design
for Hawaiian archaeology. Honolulu: Society for
Hawaiian Archaeology. p. 93–155.
Dye TS. 2016. Long-term rhythms in the development
of Hawaiian social stratification. Journal of
Archaeological Science 71:1–9.
Field JS, Kirch PV, Kawelu K, Ladefoged TN. 2010.
Households and hierarchy: domestic models of
production in Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i Island.
Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 5:
52–85.
Field JS, Ladefoged TN, Kirch PV. 2011. Residential
chronology, household subsistence, and the
emergence of socioeconomic territories in
Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i Island. Radiocarbon
53:605–627.
Freeland T. 2018. Monumental architecture and
landscape history of the Tongan classical
chiefdom [PhD thesis]. Vancouver: Simon Fraser
University.
Freeland T, Heung B, Burley DV, Clark G, Knudby
A. 2016. Automated feature extraction for
prospection and analysis of monumental
earthworks from aerial LiDAR in the Kingdom
of Tonga. Journal of Archaeological Science
69:64–74.
Green RC. 1969. Excavations at SU-Va 2. In: Green
RC, Davidson JM, editors. Archaeology in
Western Samoa. Vol. I. Auckland Institute and
Museum Bulletin 6: Auckland. p. 138–151.
Green RC, Davidson JM. 1974. Archaeology in
Western Samoa. Vol. II. Auckland: Auckland
Institute and Museum Bulletin 7.
Green RC. 2002. A retrospective view of settlement
pattern studies in Samoa. In: Ladefoged TN,
Graves M, editors. Pacific landscapes:
Archaeological approaches. Los Osos: Easter
Island Foundation. p. 125–152.
Harris DN, Kessler MD, Shetty AC, Weeks DE,
Minster RL, Browning S, Cochrane EE, Deka R,
Hawley NL, Reupena MS, Naseri T, TOPMed
Consortium, TOPMed Population Genetics
Working Group, McGarvey ST, O’Connor TD.
2020. Evolutionary history of modern Samoans.
PNAS. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1913157117.
Hewitt NJ. 1980. Cog mound complex. In: Jennings
JD, Holmer RN, editors. Archaeological
excavations in Western Samoa. Honolulu:
Pacific Anthropological Records 32:55–61.
Holmer RN. 1980. Mt. Olo settlement pattern
interpretation. In: Jennings JD, Holmer RN,
editors. Archaeological excavations in Western
Samoa. Honolulu: Pacific Anthropological
Records 32:93–103.
Hunt TL, Kirch PV. 1988. An archaeological survey
of the Manu‘a Islands, American Samoa. Journal
of the Polynesian Society 97:153–183.
Ishizuki K. 1974. Excavation of site SU-Fo-1 at
Folasa-a-Lalo. In: Green RC, Davidson JM,
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 19
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
editors. Archaeology in Western Samoa. Vol. II.
Auckland: Auckland Institute and Museum
Bulletin 6:36–57.
Jackmond G, Fonoti D, Tautunu MM. 2018.
S¯amoa’s hidden past: LiDAR confirms inland
settlement and suggests larger populations in
pre-contact Samoa. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 127:73–90.
Jackmond G, Fonoti D, Tautunu MM. 2019. Did
Samoa have intensive agriculture in the past?
New findings from LiDAR. Journal of the
Polynesian Society 128:225–243.
Jennings JD, Holmer RN. 1980. Chronology.
In: Jennings JD, Holmer RN, editors.
Archaeological excavation in Western Samoa.
Honolulu: Pacific Anthropological Records
32:5–10.
Jennings JD, Holmer RN, Jackmond G. 1982.
Samoan village patterns: four examples. Journal
of the Polynesian Society 91:81–102.
Kahn JG. 2005. Household and community
organization in the late prehistoric Society
Island chiefdoms (French Polynesia) [unpublished
PhD dissertation]. Department of Anthropology,
University of California, Berkeley.
Kirch PV. 1988. Niuatoputapu: The prehistory of
a Polynesian chiefdom. Seattle: Thomas
Burke Memorial Washington State Museum
Monograph 5.
Kirch PV. 1993. Radiocarbon chronology of the
To‘aga Site. In: Kirch PV, Hunt TL, editors.
The To‘aga site: Three millennia of Polynesian
occupation in the Manu‘a Islands, American
Samoa. Berkeley: Contributions of the
University of California Archaeological Research
Facility 51:85–92.
Kirch PV. 1994. The wet and the dry: Irrigation and
agricultural intensification in Polynesia. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Kirch PV, Green RC. 2001. Hawaiki, ancestral
Polynesia: An essay in historical anthropology.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Klenck JD. 2016. Report for the Manu‘a
archaeological survey, Luatele or Judds Crater,
island of Ta‘u, American Samoa. Report on file
at the American Samoa Historic Preservation
Office.
Krämer A. 1902–1903. Die Samoa-Inseln. 2 Vol. E.
Nagele, Stuttgart (1978 translation by T.E.
Verhaaren, Palo Alto).
Ladefoged TN, Graves MW, McCoy MD. 2003.
Archaeological evidence for agricultural
development in Kohala, Island of Hawai‘i.
Journal of Archaeological Science 30:
923–940.
Lepofsky DS. 1994. Prehistoric agricultural
intensification in the Society Islands, French
Polynesia [unpublished PhD dissertation].
Department of Anthropology, University of
California at Berkeley.
Marsh EJ, Kidd R, Ogburn D, Durán V. 2017.
Dating the expansion of the Inca Empire:
Bayesian models from Ecuador and Argentina.
Radiocarbon 59:117–140.
Martinsson-Wallin H. 2016. Samoan archaeology
and cultural heritage: Monuments and people,
memory and history. Oxford: Archaeopress
Archaeology.
Martinsson-Wallin H, Wehlin J. 2010. Archaeological
investigations of a stone platform at the Malaefono
plantation, ‘Upolu, Samoa. In: Wallin P,
Martinsson-Wallin H, editors. The Gotland
paper: Selected papers from the VII International
Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific.
Gotland: Gotland University Press 11:327–337.
McCoy MD, Asner GP, Graves MW. 2011. Airborne
lidar survey of irrigated agricultural landscapes:
an application of the slope contrast method.
Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2141–2154.
McDougall I. 2010. Age of volcanism and its
migration in the Samoa Islands. Geological
Magazine 147:705–717.
Motu N. 2018. Light detection and ranging (lidar)
technology in archaeology and the human-
environment interaction: the case of Ta‘u
Island, Manu‘a, American Samoa [unpublished
MA thesis]. Department of Anthropology,
North Dakota State University.
Pearl F. 2004. The chronology of mountain
settlements on Tutuila, American Samoa. The
Journal of the Polynesian Society 113:331–348.
Petchey FJ. 2001. Radiocarbon determinations from
the Mulifanua Lapita site, ‘Upolu, Western
Samoa. Radiocarbon 43:63–68.
Petchey FJ, Addison DJ. 2008. Radiocarbon dating
marine shell in Samoa—a review. In: Addison
DJ, Sand C, editors. Recent advances in the
archaeology of the Fiji/West-Polynesia region.
Dunedin: University of Otago Studies in
Prehistoric Anthropology 21:79–86.
Petchey FJ, Kirch PV. 2019. The importance of shell:
Redating of the To‘aga site (Ofu Island, Manu‘a)
and a revised chronology for the Lapita to
Polynesian Plainware transition in Tonga and
S¯amoa. PLoS One 14:e0211990.
Philippe A, Vibet M, Dye TS. 2020. ArchaeoPhases:
post-processing of the Markov Chain simulated
by ‘ChronoModel’,‘Oxcal’or ‘BCal’.
Quintus S. 2011. Land use and the human-
environment interaction on Olosega Island,
Manu‘a, American Samoa [unpublished M.S.
thesis]. Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, North Dakota State University
Quintus S. 2015. Dynamics of agricultural development
in prehistoric Samoa: The case of Ofu Island [PhD
thesis]. Auckland: The University of Auckland.
Quintus S, Clark JT, Day SS, Schwert DP. 2015a.
Investigating regional patterning in
archaeological remains by pairing extensive
survey with a Lidar dataset: The case of the
20 S Quintus et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Manu‘a Group, American Samoa. Journal of
Archaeological Science: Reports 2:677–687.
Quintus S, Clark JT, Day SS, Schwert DP. 2015b.
Landscape evolution and human settlement
patterns on Ofu Island, Manu‘a Group,
American Samoa. Asian Perspectives 54:208–237.
Quintus S, Allen MS, Ladefoged TN. 2016. In surplus
and in scarcity: agricultural development, risk
management, and political economy, Ofu
Island, American Samoa. American Antiquity
81:273–293.
Quintus S, Day SS, Smith NJ. 2017. The efficacy and
analytical importance of manual feature
extraction using lidar datasets. Advances in
Archaeological Practice 5:351–364.
R Core Team. 2020. R: a language and environment
for statistical computing. R Foundation for
Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria.
Reimer PJ, Bard E, Bayliss A, Beck JW, Blackwell
PG, Bronk Ramsey C, Buck CE, Cheng H,
Edwards RL, Friedrich M, Grootes PM,
Guilderson TP, Haflidason H, Hajdas I, Hatté C,
Heaton TJ, Hoffmann DL, Hogg AG, Hughen
KA, Kaiser KF, Kromer B, Manning SW,
Niu M, Reimer RW, Richards DA, Scott EM,
Southon JR, Staff RA, Turney CSM, van der
Plicht J. 2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon
age calibration curves 0–50,000 years cal BP.
Radiocarbon 55:1869–1887.
Rieth TM, Cochrane EE. 2018. The chronology of
colonization in Remote Oceania. In: Cochrane
EE, Hunt TL, editors. The Oxford handbook
of prehistoric Oceania. New York: Oxford
University Press. p. 133–161.
Rieth TM, Hunt TL. 2008. A radiocarbon
chronology for Samoan prehistory. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35:1901–1927.
Sand C. 1998. Archaeological research on ‘Uvea
Island, Western Polynesia. New Zealand
Journal of Archaeology 18:91–123.
Sand C, Baret D, Bole J, Ouetcho A, Sahib M. 2018.
Samoan settlement pattern and star mounds of
Manono Island. Journal of the Polynesian
Society 127:91–109.
Sear DA, Allen MS, Hassall JD, Maloney AE,
Langdon PG, Morrison AE, Henderson ACG,
Mackay H, Croudace IW, Clarke C, Sachs JP,
Macdonald G, Chiverrell RC, Leng MJ,
Cisneros-Dozal LM, Fonville T. 2020. Human
settlement of East Polynesia earlier, incremental,
and coincident with prolonged South Pacific
drought. PNAS. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1920975117
Sharp WD, Kahn JG, Polito CM, Kirch PV. 2010.
Rapid evolution of ritual architecture in central
Polynesia indicated by precise 230Th/U coral
dating. PNAS 107:13234–13239.
Spriggs M. 1989. The dating of the Island Southeast
Asian Neolithic: an attempt at chronometric
hygiene and linguistic correlation. Antiquity
63:587–613.
Wallin P, Martinsson-Wallin H, Clark G. 2007.
A radiocarbon sequence for Samoan prehistory
and the Pulemelei Mound. Archaeology in
Oceania 42 Supplement:71–82.
Tempo and Trajectory of the Built Landscape 21
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 128.171.118.187, on 20 Jul 2020 at 18:38:19, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
