This article was downloaded by: [University of Notre Dame Australia]On: 11 May 2013, At: 22:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uica20

Evidence for a Shorter Chronology onRapa Nui (Easter Island)Terry L. Hunt a & Carl P. Lipo ba Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i-Manoa,Honolulu, Hawai’i, USAb Department of Anthropology and IIRMES, California StateUniversity Long Beach, Long Beach, California, USAPublished online: 21 May 2008.

To cite this article: Terry L. Hunt & Carl P. Lipo (2008): Evidence for a Shorter Chronology onRapa Nui (Easter Island), The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 3:1, 140-148

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890801990797

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever causedarising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 3:140–148, 2008Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI:10.1080/15564890801990797

Evidence for a ShorterChronology on Rapa Nui(Easter Island)Terry L. Hunt1 and Carl P. Lipo2

1Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i-Manoa, Honolulu,

Hawai’i, USA2Department of Anthropology and IIRMES, California State University Long

Beach, Long Beach, California, USA

ABSTRACT

Archaeologists have long accepted a colonization date of betweenAD 400 and 800 for Rapa Nui based on few radiocarbon dates,lake-core results, and assumptions from historical linguistics. Anew suite of radiocarbon dates from stratigraphic excavationsat Anakena and “chronometric hygiene” analysis of earlierradiocarbon determinations reveals little reliable evidence fora longer chronology. In this paper we present additional lines ofevidence in support of a shorter chronology: lake-core evidencefor vegetation change and fire history, stratigraphic studies ofdeforestation and soil erosion, the results of obsidian hydrationdating, and considerations of East Polynesian chronologies. Thecurrent evidence is best explained by a colonization date forRapa Nui of about AD 1200. We briefly outline implications ofthe shorter chronology.

Keywords colonization, environmental change, chronometric hygiene, Rapa Nui,Polynesia

Archaeologists have long acceptedan early colonization date for Rapa Nui(Easter Island; Figure 1) dating to ca.AD 400 or 800. This “long chronol-ogy” posits that Polynesian colonists

Received 17 January 2008; accepted 15 February 2008.Address correspondence to Terry L. Hunt, Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i-Manoa,Honolulu, HI, 96822-2223, USA. E-mail: thunt@hawaii.edu

arrived about 1000 years before Euro-pean contact (in AD 1722) and slowlygrew in numbers until the infamous“collapse” occurred in AD 1680 (e.g.,Diamond 2005; Flenley and Bahn 2002).

140

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Shorter Chronology on Rapa Nui

Figure 1. Rapa Nui (Easter Island) showing places mentioned in the text.

Recently, a suite of radiocarbon datesfrom excavations at Anakena has estab-lished a chronology beginning aroundAD 1200 (Hunt and Lipo 2006). Analysisof earlier radiocarbon determinationsfrom throughout the island shows littlereliable evidence for a longer chronol-ogy. The radiocarbon dates from ourexcavations at Anakena and our analysisof the corpus of early (pre-AD 1200uncalibrated) dates following a minimal(i.e., inclusive) chronometric hygieneprotocol have been published elsewhere(Hunt and Lipo 2006). We have alsoconsidered the ecological history and

its relation to the Rapa Nui chronology(Hunt 2007; Hunt and Lipo 2007). In thispaper we present six lines of evidencein support of the shorter chronology(ca. AD 1200) for the first humancolonization of Rapa Nui. Finally, weoutline some of the implications for ourunderstanding of the prehistory of thisfamous island (Table 1).

ANAKENA EXCAVATIONS

Renewed excavations of the stratifieddune deposits at Anakena Beach have

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 141

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Terry L. Hunt and Carl P. Lipo

Table 1. Six lines of evidence for a shorter chronology for Rapa Nui.

Lines of Evidence Description Results

Anakena excavations New excavations at Anakena, long

thought to be the earliest

occupation on the island.

Stratigraphic layers with earliest

dates at ca. AD 1200.

Dates from excavated

contexts and

rat-gnawed palm nuts

Analysis of existing radiocarbon dates

using standard “chronometric

hygiene” procedures and those

from rat-gnawed palm nuts.

No reliable dates earlier than ca.

AD 1200.

Lake-core dates Evaluation of lake-core dates used to

argue age of earliest occupation.

Substantial mixing of material

creating poor reliability in

association of dates.

Dates of deforestation Evaluation of radiocarbon dates

associated with loss of the

prehistoric palm forest.

Significant forest loss appears

only after about AD 1250.

Obsidian hydration dates Analysis of obsidian hydration dates

for Rapa Nui.

Obsidian hydration date

distribution points to initial

occupation beginning ca. AD

1200.

Colonization of East

Polynesia

Comparison of colonization dates for

islands across East Polynesia.

Timing of island colonization in

southern latitudes consistent

with AD 1200.

yielded significant evidence for thechronology of the island’s colonization(Hunt and Lipo 2006; also see onlinesupplemental material). At Anakena, cul-tural deposits extend down to a nat-ural clay substrate with a palaeosolcontaining abundant cultural materials(e.g., obsidian artifacts, introduced ratbones, charcoal, etc.) embedded in itsuppermost 5–10 cm and below this, thestratum is riddled with the root moldsof the extinct palm (Jubaea sp.). Thisstratigraphic context preserves what islikely the earliest known evidence ofhuman presence at Anakena based onthe well-stratified deposits with consis-tent and secure radiocarbon dates. Theabundance of rat bones in the earliestlevels points to a time when the Pacificrat (Rattus exulans) was introduced as

it is likely their numbers would increaserapidly and then quickly spread acrossthe island in a matter of months ratherthan years. This evidence points to initialhuman presence on the island even ifsettlement occurred elsewhere at initialcolonization. While other areas on theisland may yet yield early evidence,the multiple radiocarbon dates from thebasal layers of Anakena and the sanddune above show a consistently orderedchronology beginning around AD 1200(see Hunt and Lipo 2006).

RADIOCARBON DATES FROMARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTEXTS

Following standard protocol or “chrono-metric hygiene” (e.g., see Spriggs and

142 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Shorter Chronology on Rapa Nui

Anderson 1993), we evaluated pub-lished radiocarbon dates reported asolder than AD 1200 (uncalibrated) forRapa Nui (Hunt and Lipo 2006). Weexcluded dates in the published poolon three criteria: 1) those measuredon unacceptable materials such as ma-rine or other bone lacking corrections;these samples can be grossly affectedby incorporation of old carbon fromthe marine reservoir; 2) samples ofmixed materials, and thus mixed iso-topic fractionation (e.g., charcoal andsoil combined); and 3) single radiocar-bon dates not replicated by another withoverlap at two standard deviations fromthe same archaeological context, herebroadly defined. We use fewer criteriathan Spriggs and Anderson (1993), soour sample of dates is more inclusive,thus subject to erring on the side ofaccepting dates that are erroneously oldin estimating human colonization of theisland. Using these criteria, we have asample of 11 radiocarbon dates of AD1200 or older: two from our excavations,six from earlier work at Anakena, andthree described as representing samplesfrom “agricultural features” (see Huntand Lipo 2006; Martinsson-Wallin andCrockford 2002). The calibrated proba-bility distributions of these radiocarbonranges center around cal AD 1200, alloverlap at two standard deviations, withonly a single determination (T-6679)yielding a long flat calibrated range oflow probabilities from cal AD 660 to1180 (2σ ). Some analysts would removefrom consideration a date with such alarge standard error (e.g., Rieth and Huntin press; Smith 2002), as it is a poormeasure of a discrete event (radiocarbonor “cultural”). The assemblage of 11calibrated dates are age probabilities thatwhen aggregated, estimate a cumulativeprobability for the target event of thefirst human colonization about AD 1200(see Hunt and Lipo 2006).

LAKE-CORE DATES FOR VEGETATIONCHANGE AND FIRE HISTORY

Flenley (1993; Flenley and Bahn 2007)and some of his associates have pointedto early dates (e.g., ca. AD 1000 orolder) from lake-core samples as evi-dence for the timing of widespread,even complete deforestation, with theinference that human colonization oc-curred centuries earlier. However, thesequence of dates published over theyears from Rano Kao bulk sediment,plant fragments, and pollen samplesvary significantly and unreliably. Forexample, three dates from samples takenfrom the same uppermost core depthsof Rano Kao 2 vary by more than600 years (Butler et al. 2004:400). Inadjacent core depths from Rano Kao2, bulk sediment, plant fragments, andpollen samples returned ages rangingfrom more than 5700 years in age(at only 1.29–1.31 m depth) to thosebelow in the same core dating tobetween ca. AD 1050 (11.35–11.45m), ca. 250 BC (13.40–13.42 m), andca. AD 350 (14.85–14.95 m) (Butleret al. 2004:400).1 Regarding the RanoKao lake-core chronology, Butler et al.(2004:395) conclude that “both old andyoung organic components in the sed-iment are deposited contiguously andthat the depositional history of earlycolonization of the island for thesecores is more complex than previouslyknown.” These lake-core estimations forearly colonization based on dates fromsediment samples can no longer becited in support of a long chronology.Additional analyses may help to resolvethese problems (see Gossen [2007], butalso Addison [in press] for new dates insupport of a shorter chronology).

Recent lake-core research from RanoRaraku documents major changes in veg-etation (pollen) and fire history basedprimarily on charcoal particle influx that

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 143

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Terry L. Hunt and Carl P. Lipo

began around AD 1200 (Mann et al.2003, 2008). This lake-core sedimen-tary record provides evidence consis-tent with other lines of evidence suchas stratigraphic studies of deforestation(see below) and supports the shorterchronology outlined here. As elsewherein the Pacific, changes in vegetationand/or fire history provide indicationsfor initial human presence on islandsmany times larger than Rapa Nui (e.g.,Athens et al. 2002; Burney and Burney2003).

DATES FROM STRATIGRAPHIC STUDIESOF DEFORESTATION

Three independent research teams (e.g.,Mann et al. 2003, 2008; Mieth and Bork2004; Orliac 2000, 2003) working onevery part of the island, and publish-ing more than 54 radiocarbon dates,including some (n = 12) directly onpalm endocarps, establish a chronologyfor initial deforestation that consistentlybegins after AD 1250–1300 (see Hunt2007). Published dates from rat-gnawedpalm nuts (Hunt 2007) also point to ca.AD 1200 as the approximate earliest oc-cupation by humans (and rats), compara-ble to evidence documented from NewZealand (Wilmshurst and Higham 2004).The presence of introduced rats (Rattusexulans) indicated by their bones andgnawed palm nuts provides a reliablesurrogate for initial human colonization,as in other Pacific Islands (e.g., Athenset al. 2002; Wilmshurst and Higham2004). Rats would rapidly expand overthe island and create an abundant recordof their presence. No rat-gnawed palmnuts or signs of human-induced eco-logical changes date prior to AD 1200,offering independent evidence for theisland’s colonization.

OBSIDIAN HYDRATION DATES

Stevenson (1984) and Wozniak (2003)reported about 2400 obsidian hydrationdates for Rapa Nui archaeology (Figure2). Vargas and colleagues (2006) usedpart of these data to infer chronol-ogy, settlement pattern, and populationtrends for the island’s prehistory. Out ofthis available set of 2399 obsidian hydra-tion dates, only 16 (0.6%) date before anestimated AD 1100, an observation thatled Stevenson (1988:93) to speculate onthe reasons. The “early dates” in thisdataset likely represent measurementoutliers. Given measurement error, weexpect to find a string of values forminga “tail” of the overall distribution, andbecause younger samples approach zeroas a measure of the hydration rind, thedistribution should be left-skewed, thusbiased toward older estimates. Despitethe problems with obsidian hydrationas an accurate absolute dating method(see Anovitz et al. 1999), the abundantobsidian hydration values are consistentwith the short chronology developedby the better established method ofradiocarbon. Indeed, seen in this light,the hydration dates of obsidian artifactsmay accurately date much of the island’schronology, notwithstanding issues inestablishing the hydration rate(s) (seethe extensive research by Stevenson(e.g., 1988, 2000; Stevenson et al. 2001).

COLONIZATION OF EAST POLYNESIA

As with Rapa Nui, careful scrutiny ofexisting radiocarbon chronologies, newfield research, and additional “re-dating”of the earliest deposits in Polynesiahave consistently demonstrated ages forisland colonization centuries youngerthan originally assumed (e.g., Anderson1991; Anderson and Sinoto 2002). The

144 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Shorter Chronology on Rapa Nui

Figure 2. Compilation of obsidian hydration dates for Rapa Nui archaeology (after Stevenson 1984and Wozniak 2003) showing the small number of values falling before AD 1200.

erroneously long chronologies in placessuch as Hawai‘i, Marquesas, Cook Is-lands, and New Zealand resulted fromaccepting problematic radiocarbon re-sults from archaeological and palaeo-ecological contexts. The earliest reli-able dates now emerging show thatarchipelagos such as the Cooks, Soci-eties, Marquesas, and Hawai‘i were firstcolonized between AD 800 and 1000.The islands of the Austral, Gambier, andNew Zealand archipelagos fall withina few centuries later, AD 1100–1200.An approximate AD 1200 chronologyfor remote Rapa Nui fits well with theevidence for East Polynesia in general.The long chronologies (AD 400–800)assumed for Rapa Nui call for Polyne-sian colonists to bypass several largearchipelagos in an apparent rush toreach this most remote southeasternlandfall. Such an assumption is difficultto explain in the regional archaeologyand prehistory of colonization.

IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Arguments for a longer chronology forRapa Nui must rely on accepting iso-lated and problematic radiocarbon datesbolstered by special claims of “missingevidence” in the archaeological recordfrom a long, cryptic human presenceon this diminutive island (Table 2).Long chronologists must also assumethat humans and invasive rats had novisible presence or environmental im-pacts for at least 400 to 800 years;that human population growth wasremarkably slow for centuries despitethe demonstrated risk of demographicextinction (e.g., McArthur 1982; see alsoBirdsell 1957); and that subsistence com-prised a 400- to 800-year cryptic, even“pre-agricultural” phase ignoring thatcultigens were carried by Polynesiancolonists. The assumptions required foraccepting a long chronology, upon crit-ical reflection, lack archaeological and

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Terry L. Hunt and Carl P. Lipo

Table 2. Considerations for long and short chronologies for Rapa Nui (see Anderson 1995who considers similar dimensions for East Polynesia in general).

Dimension“Long Chronology”

(AD 400–800)“Short Chronology”

(ca. AD 1200) References

Colonization Skip other archipelagos

en route to Rapa Nui

Closely simultaneous with

southeastern Pacific

Anderson et al. 2006;

Kennett et al. 2006

Archaeological

visibility

Cryptic, “missing

sites/deposits”

Visible, deposits present Anderson 1995; Hunt and

Lipo 2006, 2007

Direct/visible

ecological

impacts

800–400 years after

colonization

ca. 50–100 years after

colonization

Hunt 2007; Mann et al.

2003, 2008; Mieth &

Bork 2004

Indirect ecological

impacts (rats)

800–400 years after

colonization

Immediate; visibility is a

function of the

resolution of the

record

Athens et al. 2002; Hunt

2007; Towns et al.

2006; Wilmshurst and

Higham 2004

Human population

growth rate

Slow (∼ 1%) Fast (∼ 3%) Birdsell 1957; Hunt and

Lipo 2007

Subsistence Cryptic,

“pre-agricultural”

Visible, opportunistic

foraging, agriculture

Anderson 1995; Hunt and

Lipo 2007

palaeo-environmental evidence and re-main untenable in ecological, de-mographic, and evolutionary dimen-sions.

A shorter chronology suggests thatresearchers have long misinterpretedpatterns of linguistic variation in the re-gion, potentially conflating historic andgeographic dimensions of comparativemodels where the effects of isolationare taken to represent a greater timedepth (Hunt and Lipo 2007). Moreover,a shorter chronology evokes a parsi-monious explanation for long-distancedispersals such as the sweet potato(Green 2005; see also McLaughlin 2007),a plant likely established in central east-ern Polynesia before the colonizationof Rapa Nui (Hather and Kirch 1991),and introduced there by the initialcolonists. Thus its “late” dispersal is notcontradicted by the evidence for RapaNui’s deep isolation following coloniza-tion (e.g., Barnes et al. 2006). Finally,

while not comprising primary evidence,a shorter chronology is consistent withgenealogies collected by Routledge andMetraux listing 30 “kings” (ariki-mau)or an estimated 30 generations fromHotu Matu‘a to historic times (Metraux1940:88–89).

In sum, a shorter chronology forRapa Nui colonization has significant im-plications for understanding the island’sextraordinary cultural and environmen-tal history.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Sergio Rapu, Rapa NuiHeritage Foundation, Francisco TorresHochstetter, P. Sebastian Englert Mu-seum for their collaboration and gener-ous support. We also thank David Addi-son, Bruce Masse, and two anonymousreviewers for their comments on our pa-per. Finally, we thank the many students

146 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Shorter Chronology on Rapa Nui

from the University of Hawai’i andCalifornia State University Long BeachArchaeological Field Schools for theircontributions and hard work in the fieldaspects of this project.

END NOTE

1. Dates from lake-core samples were initiallypresented as uncorrected, uncalibrated datesin BP (before present) and have been con-verted to BC/AD for consistency.

REFERENCES

Addison, D. 2008. Divergent depositional pro-cesses for terrigenous vs. organic material atRano Kau: Do the pollen core dates support thelate colonization model?. Rapa Nui Journal (inpress)

Anderson, A. 1991. The chronology of coloniza-tion in New Zealand. Antiquity 65:767–795.

Anderson, A. 1995. Current approaches in EastPolynesian colonisation research. Journal ofthe Polynesian Society 104(1):110–132.

Anderson, A., J. Chappell, M. Gagan, and R.Grove. 2006. Prehistoric maritime migrationin the Pacific Islands: an hypothesis of ENSOforcing. The Holocene 16(1):1–6.

Anderson, A. and Y. Sinoto. 2002. New radiocar-bon ages of colonization sites in East Polynesia.Asian Perspectives 41:242–257.

Anovitz, L. M., J. M. Elam, L. R. Riciputi, andD. R. Cole. 1999. The failure of obsidian hy-dration dating: Sources, implications, and newdirections. Journal of Archaeological Science26:735–752.

Athens, J. S., H. D. Tuggle, J. V. Ward, and D. J.Welch. 2002. Avifaunal extinctions, vegetationchange, and Polynesian impacts in prehistoricHawai‘i. Archaeology in Oceania 37:57–78.

Barnes, S. S., E. Matisoo-Smith, and T. L. Hunt.2006. Ancient DNA of the Pacific rat (Rattusexulans) from Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Jour-nal of Archaeological Science 33:1536–1540.

Birdsell, J. B. 1957. Some population problems in-volving Pleistocene man. Cold Spring HarborSymposia on Quantitative Biology 22:47–69.

Burney, L. P. and D. A. Burney. 2003. Charcoalstratigraphies for Kaua‘i and the timing ofhuman arrival. Pacific Science 57(2):211–226.

Butler, K., C. A. Prior, and J. Flenley. 2004.Anomalous radiocarbon dates from Easter Is-land. Radiocarbon 46(1):395–405.

Diamond, J. 2005. Collapse: How SocietiesChoose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.

Flenley, J. R. 1993. The palaeoecology of RapaNui, and its ecological disaster. In EasterIsland Studies. Contributions to the Historyof Rapanui in Memory of William T. Mulloy(S. R. Fischer, ed.):27–45. Oxford: OxfordBooks.

Flenley, J. R. and P. Bahn. 2002. The Enigmas ofEaster Island.. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Flenley, J. R. and P. Bahn. 2007. Conflicting viewsof Easter Island. Rapa Nui Journal 21(1):11–13.

Gossen, C. 2007. Report: The mystery lies in theScirpus. Rapa Nui Journal 21(2):105–110.

Green, R. C. 2005. Sweet potato transfers inPolynesian prehistory. In The Sweet Potato inOceania: A Reappraisal (C. Ballard, P. Brown,M. Bourke, and T. Hardwood, eds.):43–62. Eth-nology Monographs 19. Pittsburgh: Universityof Pittsburgh Press.

Hather, J. and P. V. Kirch. 1991. Prehistoricsweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) from MangaiaIsland, central Polynesia. Antiquity 65:887–893.

Hunt, T. L. 2007. Rethinking Easter Island’s eco-logical catastrophe. Journal of ArcheologicalScience 34:485–502.

Hunt, T. L. and C. P. Lipo. 2006. Late colonizationof Easter Island. Science 311:1603–1606.

Hunt, T. L. and C. P. Lipo. 2007. Chronology,deforestation, and “collapse”: Evidence vs. faithin Rapa Nui prehistory. Rapa Nui Journal21(2):85–97.

Kennett, D., A. Anderson, M. Prebble, E. Conte,and J. Southon. 2006. Prehistoric human im-pacts on Rapa, French Polynesia. Antiquity80:1–15.

Mann, D., J. Chase, J. Edwards, R. Beck, R. Re-anier, and M. Mass. 2003. Prehistoric destruc-tion of the primeval soils and vegetation of RapaNui (Isla de Pascua, Easter Island). In EasterIsland: Scientific Exploration in the World’sEnvironmental Problems in Microcosm (J.Loret and J. T. Tanacredi, eds.):133–153. NewYork: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.

Mann, D., J. Edwards, J. Chase, W. Beck, R.Reanier, M. Mass, B. Finney, and J. Loret.2008. Drought, vegetation change, and humanhistory on Rapa Nui (Isla de Pascua, EasterIsland). Quaternary Research 69:16–28.

Martinsson-Wallin, H. and S. J. Crockford. 2002.Early settlement of Rapa Nui (Easter Island).Asian Perspectives 40(2):244–278.

McArthur, N. 1982. Isolated populations in en-claves or on small islands. In Melanesia:

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013

Terry L. Hunt and Carl P. Lipo

Beyond Diversity (R. J. May and H. Nelson,eds.):27–32. Canberra: Research School of Pa-cific Studies, Australia National University.

McLaughlin, S. 2007. The implications of thesweet potato’s re-appraisal. Rapa Nui Journal21(2):130–135.

Metraux, A. 1940. Ethnology of Easter Island..Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Mieth, A. and H. Bork. 2004. Easter Island—RapaNui: Scientific Pathways to Secrets of thePast. Man and Environment 1.. Kiel, Germany:Department of Ecotechnology and Ecosys-tem Development, Ecology Center, Christian-Albrechts-Universitat zu Kiel.

Orliac, C. 2000. The woody vegetation of EasterIsland between the early 14th and the mid-17th Centuries A.D. In Easter Island Archaeol-ogy: Research on Early Rapanui Culture (C.Stevenson and W. Ayres, eds.):199–207. LosOsos: Easter Island Foundation.

Orliac, C. 2003. Ligneux et palmiers de l’ıle dePaques du XIeme au XVIIeme siecle de notreere. In Archeologie en Oceanie Insulaire:Peuplement, Societes et Paysages (C. Orliac,ed.):184–199. Paris: Editions Artcom.

Rieth, T. M. and T. L. Hunt. 2008. A radiocarbonchronology for Samoan prehistory. Journal ofArchaeological Science(in press).

Smith, A. 2002. An Archaeology of West Polyne-sian Prehistory. Terra Australis 18. Canberra:Pandanus Books.

Spriggs, M. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late coloni-sation of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200–217.

Stevenson, C. 1984. Corporate Descent GroupStructure in Easter Island Prehistory. Ph.D.Dissertation.. University Park, PA: PennsylvaniaState University.

Stevenson, C. 1988. The hydration dating ofEaster Island obsidians. Clava 4:83–94.

Stevenson, C. 2000. Estimating Easter Island ob-sidian hydration rates from glass composition.In Easter Island Archaeology: Research onEarly Rapanui Culture (C. M. Stevenson andW. S. Ayres, eds.):205–210. Los Osos: EasterIsland Foundation.

Stevenson, C. M., I. M. Abdelrehim, and S. W.Novak. 2001. Infra-red photoacoustic and sec-ondary ion mass spectrometry measurementsof obsidian hydration rims. Journal of Archae-ological Science 28:109–115.

Towns, D. R., I. A. E. Atkinson, and C. H.Daugherty. 2006. Have the harmful effects ofintroduced rats on islands been exaggerated?.Biological Invasions 8:863–891.

Vargas, P., C. Cristino, and R. Izaurieta. 2006.1000 Anos en Rapa Nui. Arqueologıa delAsentamiento.. Santiago de Chile: EditorialUniversitaria.

Wilmshurst, J. M. and T. F. G. Higham. 2004.Using rat-gnawed seeds to independently datethe arrival of Pacific rats and humans in NewZealand. The Holocene 14(6):801–806.

Wozniak, J. 2003. Exploring Landscapes onEaster Island (Rapa Nui) with Geoarchaeo-logical Studies: Settlement, subsistence, andenvironmental changes. Ph.D. Dissertation..Eugene: University of Oregon.

148 VOLUME 3 • ISSUE 1 • 2008

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

otre

Dam

e A

ustr

alia

] at

22:

02 1

1 M

ay 2

013