Prehistory of Polynesia

Archaeology of the Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia
Oxford Handbooks Online

Archaeology of the Eastern Caroline Islands,
Micronesia
J. Stephen Athens
The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania
Edited by Ethan E. Cochrane and Terry L. Hunt
Print Publication Date: May 2018 Subject: Archaeology, Archaeology of Oceania

Online Publication Date: Nov 2014 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199925070.013.013
Abstract and Keywords
A great deal of archaeology has been conducted in the Eastern Caroline Islands during
the last thirty-five years. This chapter provides an overview of these investigations and
accomplishments. The discussion is framed in terms of the ethnographic present (what is
known about traditional societies) to contextualize the archaeological findings. The focus
is primarily on the two high islands of Pohnpei and Kosrae, though other islands/
archipelagos are touched upon as relevant. Major themes are initial settlement of the
islands, cultural florescence as represented by megalithic architecture, and the so-called
breadfruit revolution. Review of these topics touches upon many aspects of prehistoric
studies, including the paleoenvironment, linguistics, artifacts, subsistence, sourcing of
basalt, oral history, botany, and others.
Keywords: Pohnpei archaeology, Kosrae archaeology, early settlement, megalithic sites, breadfruit
Introduction
THE archaeology of Eastern Micronesia is remarkable by any standard. In the midst of a
vast tropical ocean sprinkled with isolated atolls, there are the rugged and verdant high
volcanic islands of Pohnpei and Kosrae with their impressive prehistoric megalithic ruins.
Although these ruins, called Nan Madol on Pohnpei and Leluh on Kosrae (Figures 13.1
and 13.2), are not large by world standards, they nevertheless inspire awe for their
architectural sophistication and the amount of labor required for building their imposing
structures. What this implies about prehistoric social organization is an issue that has
intrigued archaeologists and others since accounts by explorers, beachcombers, traders,
whalers, and missionaries began appearing in the early nineteenth century. There have
Page 1 of 37
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

been some interesting and surprising developments concerning our ideas about social
organization in Micronesia in recent years, in which breadfruit plays a major role, as will
be discussed in the concluding section of this chapter.
There is much more to the archaeology of Eastern Micronesia than its megalithic ruins.
Some themes of recent archaeological research include the study of settlement patterns
and variation in artifact types, especially concerning stone and shell adzes, pottery,
fishing lures, and other remains. Artifact analyses are important not only for
understanding the daily activities and resource procurement strategies of prehistoric
islanders but also for understanding possible interactions and connections with distant
islands. Indeed, a major research question concerns the issue of where the initial settlers
of Pohnpei, Kosrae, and the other islands came from, and when did they arrive on these
islands? There have also been studies of prehistoric landscape change, including sea-level
changes due to the mid-Holocene highstand, and also vegetation changes (p. 273) (p. 272)
(p. 274) occurring as a result of impacts, direct and indirect, from human settlement
activities. Another major area of research has been the study of prehistoric agriculture,
including the identification of prehistoric cultigens and the prehistoric introduction of
both plants and animals. Being islands, the study of the use of marine resources also has
been important for understanding how the prehistoric people adapted to their highly
circumscribed island environments. Finally, the investigation of prehistoric population
size has been an important research concern as it relates to a host of other issues,
including island carrying capacity, agriculture, and social organization (Athens 2007a).
Click to view larger

Figure 13.2 Map of Leluh, Kosrae, prepared by Paul
Hambruch in 1910 and published in Sarfert (1919).
The edge of FinolPoro hill is to the right. This
volcanic hill rises to an elevation of 110.6 m. North is
to the top.
Page 2 of 37

Islands have long been

regarded as laboratories
for the study of adaptation
and evolution of natural
biota because they
constitute small, relatively
simple, and relatively
bounded systems. In
Click to view larger recent years, this
Figure 13.1 Map of Nan Madol, Pohnpei, prepared ecosystem perspective has
by Paul Hambruch in 1910 (1936: 20). Although his
previously published map (Hambruch 1911) provides become prominent in
greater accuracy and detail, this posthumously Pacific island archaeology
published map is used here because the islets are
(e.g., Kirch 1997). For
marked with his original numbering system. Thus,
islets mentioned in the text can be readily identified eastern Micronesia, this
on this version of the map. For scale, the walls of perspective is basically
islet #50 (Dorong), which has a pond (reef hole) in
the center, are approximately 100 m except for the one that asks “what
northwest wall, which is 91 m. The site abuts happens during the course
Temwen Island at top.
of several millennia when
a small founding
prehistoric population of horticulturalists arrives on an isolated tropical high island
previously untouched by humans?” In other words, how do island societies adapt and
evolve after initial colonization? What are the commonalities and differences we see in
the different island societies, past and present, and can these similarities and differences
be explained by constraints imposed by the physical and social environments of particular
islands, or are there other factors? Such questions provide a framework for this chapter,
which will primarily focus on the high islands of Pohnpei and Kosrae, where a substantial
amount of archaeological research has been undertaken during the past thirty-five years.
However, mention also will be made of investigations on Chuuk, the isolated atolls south
of Pohnpei and Kosrae (often referred to as Polynesian outliers, see Feinberg and
Scaglion 2012), and the many atolls comprising the Marshall Islands and Kiribati of far
eastern Micronesia.
The Geographical Setting

Micronesia, a geographical area originally defined in 1832 by the French explorer
Dumont d’Urville by its lack of unifying cultural traits (for a full discussion, see Hanlon
2009: 93‒94), stretches for a distance of nearly 5,000 km, from the western high island
groups of Palau, Yap, and the Mariana Islands (see Fitzpatrick essay), to the eastern atolls
of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati. The Caroline Islands are between these extremes,
and the great majority are atolls, having formed on top of ancient volcanic edifices.
Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae are the exceptions, being high volcanic islands that owe their
origin to more recent hot-spot volcanism (Keating et al. 1984). Showing a progression of
Page 3 of 37

age from east to west, Kosrae formed about one million years ago, Pohnpei about six
million years ago, and Chuuk about 11 million years ago. The significantly greater age of
Chuuk is also suggested by its almost completely sunken volcanic edifice, leaving its
eleven major volcanic islands—former mountain peaks—scattered within its 2,130 sq. km
lagoon.
The Eastern Caroline Islands tend to be quite isolated from one another. The
(p. 275)
nearest high islands to Pohnpei are Kosrae, about 550 km to the east, and Chuuk, about
710 km to the west. Geographically, Pohnpei has a land area of 355 sq. km, compared to
Kosrae’s 109 sq. km and Chuuk’s 127.4 sq. km (divided among its eleven major lagoon
islands). Both Pohnpei and Kosrae have steep, thickly forested mountainous interiors,
though the interior of Kosrae tends to be even more rugged.
An agroforest comprising primarily breadfruit, banana, and coconut covers most of the
lower elevations of both islands (MacLean et al. 1986; Whitesell et al. 1986). On Kosrae,
as compared to Pohnpei, there is an emphasis on taro cultivation, especially of the giant
swamp taro, Cyrtosperma chamissonis, in the swampy landward edges of the mangroves.
However, like Pohnpei, breadfruit is the most important cultigen in terms of diet, which is
available most of the year (Hunter-Anderson 1991).
Annual rainfall on Pohnpei ranges from about 4,000 mm at the driest coastal locations to
about 8,200 mm at the highest elevations (Landers and Khosrowpanah 2004: 5,13). On
Kosrae mean annual rainfall is 5,232 mm (standard deviation of 1,270 mm, recorded from
a near-coastal location). Humidity is high throughout the year. Both islands have tropical
environments in every sense.
Pohnpei and Kosrae are in a core El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) region and
experience markedly drier conditions in the year following an ENSO event along with an
increase in the threat of typhoons during an ENSO year (Landers and Khosrowpanah
2004: 29). In Pohnpei these drier years have an annual total rainfall roughly 10 to 20%
less than the annual average (Landers and Khosrowpanah 2004: 32). While there may be
a string of very dry months in strong ENSO years, intermittent rainfall, nevertheless, is
sufficient to provide adequate moisture for sustaining the agroforest, though extreme dry
spells may result in people having to switch to less convenient water sources for drinking,
cooking, washing, and bathing.
The mid-Holocene highstand has important implications for island archaeology at many
Pacific locations (see Dickinson essay) as it relates to both coastal settlement processes
and the preservation of coastal archaeological remains (e.g., Dickinson and Athens 2007).
The mid-Holocene highstand, initiated between roughly 5,000 and 4,000 years B.P.,
raised sea levels on Pohnpei and Kosrae an estimated 1.4 m (Dickinson 2009). Drawdown
occurred rapidly and was completed by about 2,200 years B.P. in the Caroline Islands, and
either a little earlier or a little later in other parts of the Pacific (Dickinson 2009: 7).
Page 4 of 37

Language and Cultural Connections

Linguistic studies are clear in their association of Pohnpei and Kosrae with a founding
Austronesian population, speaking a subgroup of Oceanic languages, called Nuclear
Micronesian (Bender and Wang 1985). Nuclear Micronesian is inferred to have derived
from the initial breakup of Proto Oceanic, the Austronesian language group associated
with the eastward expansion of Austronesian speakers from island Southeast Asia
(p. 276)
into the Pacific (Kirch 2010:139, citing Bender and Wang 1985). The linguistic evidence
suggests that Proto Oceanic speakers from the Solomons-Vanuatu region spread to the
north into what is now central and eastern Micronesia at the time of the Proto Oceanic
breakup. This northward spread, however, occurred almost 1,500 years after the initial
eastern Austronesian expansion into Near Oceania from island Southeast Asia. The
distinct historical linguistic separation between eastern and western Micronesia, coupled
with the temporal disjuncture as confirmed by archaeological research (Kirch 2010: 39),
makes it clear that western and eastern Micronesia were settled by founding
Austronesian populations with likely different origins in island Southeast Asia and Near
Oceania, respectively. This linguistic divide also suggests that later prehistoric
interactions between these distant regions must have been minimal in most cases, though
not nonexistent. The present languages of Eastern Micronesia, including Chuukese,
Pohnpeian, Kosraean, and Marshallese, although derived from Nuclear Micronesian, are
entirely distinct and not mutually intelligible. This suggests that their founding
populations came from different locations in the vast Near Oceania region.
Traditional Societies: The Ethnographic Record
Page 5 of 37

Pohnpei
The Russian exploration vessel, the Senyavin, arrived in Pohnpei on January 15, 1828.
This was the first documented sustained western contact, albeit it only lasted four days
due to the overly enthusiastic welcome by a large population. As there were overtones
suggesting the potential for violence, it proved impossible to gather scientific data
(Hanlon 1988: 31‒36). There were to be no other early western contacts with Pohnpei by
ships dedicated to exploration and the acquisition of knowledge. Rather, information
about traditional Pohnpeian society comes from a variety of historical sources and
ethnographic records, including a wealth of information from Pohnpeian oral accounts.
The essential feature of traditional Pohnpeian society is its complexity, which can only be
touched upon here. Traditional Pohnpean society was highly stratified (Bascom 1965;
Hanlon 1988; Riesenberg 1968) with three main tiers largely dictated by clan and sub-
clan affiliation. At the top are the nobility, who belong to different ruling sub-clans, one
led by the Nahnmwark and the other by the Nahnken. Ideally, these sub-clans
intermarried exclusively, thereby preserving the highest ranking of these sub-clans and
the respective titles. At the intermediate level are those who inherit noble blood from only
one parent. The lowest tier is occupied by the common people, though like everyone in
Pohnpeian society, even they have inherited rank based on sub-clan or matrilineage
(p. 277) membership and birth order (Bascom 1965: 30‒31). As Hanlon (1988: 211)
explains, “these subclans and matrilineages controlled land, titles, and other resources.”
At the time of initial western contact in the 1820s, Pohnpei was divided into four
autonomous political units, called wehi. A fifth wehi was formed in 1874. Wehi, in turn,
were divided into much smaller territorial units, called kousapwm, with the sub-clan
chiefs acting as stewards for partitioning the land and granting usufruct rights. Warfare
and feuding between wehi were common, though it rarely resulted in the acquisition or
loss of lands (Hanlon 1988: 44‒45; Zelenietz and Kravitz 1974: 242). Ethnographically,
yam (genus Dioscorea) growing has been a major element of prestige competition within
wehi, with giant yams presented to chiefs at feasts (Bascom 1948; Riesenberg 1968: 99).
Kosrae
While a great deal of ethnographic information about traditional Pohnpeian society has
come from both historical and ethnographic sources, and there is also a wealth of
information preserved in oral accounts, information about traditional Kosraean society is
substantially grounded in the accounts left by two early exploration ships. The French
and Russian exploration ships La Coquille and the Senyavin visited Kosrae in 1824 and
1827, respectively, marking the earliest two known western contacts with the island
(Ritter and Ritter 1982). La Coquille remained at Kosrae for ten days, while the Senyavin
was in Kosrae for three weeks. Within a few years of the Senyavin’s visit, whalers began
making regular stops in Kosrae for rest and replenishment of supplies. With exposure to
Page 6 of 37

introduced diseases, Kosrae’s population rapidly declined during the most intensive years
of whaling activity, from the 1840s to the 1860s. By 1873 it had reached a low of just 300
people (Cordy 1985: 257, 1993). Traditional social organization collapsed as a result,
leaving scarcely any vestige of traditional practices and customs or remembered history
or legends (i.e., oral accounts—see Cordy 1993, for a comprehensive discussion of
historical records).
The early exploration ships described Kosrae as politically unified with a population of no
more than 3,000 people divided into four distinct social strata (Cordy 1993: 11‒12; Ritter
1980). At the top was the paramount chief, called Tokosra, who was both the secular and
sacred head of Kosraean society, and who held ultimate title to all land (cf. Graves 1986:
481). Under the Tokosra were about ten high chiefs, usually male relatives that were
appointed by him. The high chiefs, who were obligated to live in Leluh with the
paramount, controlled about fifty named land units, called facl, which ran from the high
mountains to the reef. Below the high chiefs were forty or fifty low chiefs, who were the
land managers or overseers of the facl and who resided on the land for which they were
responsible. Agricultural production was primarily the responsibility of the commoners,
who occupied the lowest social strata. Low chiefs saw to it that needed food, labor, and
tribute were provided to the paramount and high chiefs. Commoners evidently held use
rights to the land.
Leluh was both the sacred and political center of Kosrae. Covering about 40 ha,
(p. 278)
Leluh had about a hundred walled compounds, including dwellings, several royal burial
compounds, and seventeen sacred compounds. These were connected by an internal
canal and a paved network of streets. Cordy (1985: 256) estimates that about 1,200 to
1,700 people lived in Leluh (though the figure provided in one of the La Coquille accounts
was much less, about 500 to 600 people [Ritter and Ritter 1982]). The dwelling
compounds of the chiefs were distinguished by massive stone walls up to 6 m high and
contained multiple structures within, including a feast house. Also, there were numerous
food pounding and seka (Piper methysticum) pounding stones. The compounds of
commoners were demarcated by very low walls and often had several habitation
structures.
Observations recorded by La Coquille’s crew (Ritter and Ritter 1982: 45‒46) leave little
doubt about the establishment of an agroforest over much of the island (presumably with
the exception of the rugged interior) and of the importance of breadfruit. Accounts of the
Senyavin document the presence of both Alocasia macrorrhiza and Cyrtosperma
chamissonis types of taro (further discussion in Athens 1995: 17‒20).
Comment
While it may be tempting to assume commonalities in the social histories of Pohnpei and
Kosrae, with information from one location more or less filling information gaps at the
other location, this only should be done with great care. Each island presumably has had
Page 7 of 37

a unique history since it was first settled. As Kosrae is a far smaller island than Pohnpei,
there may be differences as to how these societies adapted and evolved in their particular
settings. Nevertheless, as is evident from the above descriptions, there should also be
some congruities given the tropical nature of each of the high islands and the shared
Austronesian heritage of the earliest settlers. Identifying the similarities and differences
in the evolutionary histories of these island societies, and how and why they adapted and
evolved as they did is a major concern of archaeological research.
One further point should be noted regarding the ethnographic baseline of Pohnpei and
Kosrae, and this is that oceangoing outrigger canoes were not present on either island at
contact as far as is known. Also, in the case of Pohnpei, there are no traditions of deep
ocean sailing, or trading expeditions to other islands. This does not mean that Pohnpei
and Kosrae could not have been visited by distant atoll dwellers, who would have had
such watercraft (that they did so is known for Pohnpei from oral accounts—Bernart 1977:
47, 61‒62, 104‒105). In this regard, Davidson (2012: 1) notes that “in the 1870s, the
German ethnographer, Kubary, recorded traditionally remembered canoe arrivals [to
Nukuoro] from some 17 different islands stretching from Yap to Rotuma.” Clearly, there
was some degree of open ocean sailing within the Caroline Islands using traditional canoe
technology, which likely extended back into prehistoric times. However, the high
islanders themselves do not seem to have initiated such voyages, and lacked interest in
open sea voyages, judging from available accounts. As best that can be (p. 279)
determined from present information, both Pohnpei and Kosrae were highly insular
societies, and contacts with outsiders following their initial settlement presumably were
fairly minimal, perhaps only occurring at irregular intervals.
Initial Island Settlement

A leading archaeological issue has been that of putting a date on the initial settlement of
the high islands of eastern Micronesia. In the 1980s, it quickly became apparent that the
earliest sites in the Central and Eastern Caroline Islands were coastal and underwater. A
submerged coastal deposit with pottery was documented on Chuuk (Shutler 1984b). This
was quickly followed by the discovery of early pottery-bearing deposits at the Nan Madol
site on Pohnpei, and these also extended well below the low tide water level (Athens
1980a, 1990a). Based on these findings, it was suspected that early pottery, if it existed,
might also be found in an underwater coastal setting on Kosrae. This, in fact, proved to be
the case as verified by subsequent excavations (Athens 1990b, 1995). Other coastal/
submerged pottery sites in Pohnpei have been reported by Ayres and Haun (1980) and
Galipaud (2000). No pottery has been documented on the atolls of eastern Micronesia,
presumably because these low islands do not have clay sources for the manufacture of
pottery.
Page 8 of 37

A listing of the earliest radiocarbon dates for eastern Micronesia, between Chuuk and the
Kiribati Islands is provided in Table 13.1, and the two sigma calibrated age ranges of
these dates are shown graphically in Figure 13.3. There are several earlier dates from
Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands (Streck 1990). However, as noted by Weisler, Yamano,
and Hua (2012: 121), these dates are earlier than the likely date of atoll formation (see
also Dickinson 2009: 7) and could not possibly be correct; the dates presumably resulted
from the burning of old driftwood by the earliest prehistoric inhabitants. The Weisler,
Yamano, and Hua (2012: 121) geoarchaeological investigations solidly place the
formation of habitable land on two of the Marshall Island atolls between about 2,750 and
2,400 cal. B.P. It is reasonable to conclude that other atolls in this area must have formed
about this same time, with human occupation following ca. 500 to 700 years later once
sufficient island growth had occurred as a result of geological processes. Although
Dickinson (2009: 7) argues that atolls were generally not occupied earlier than about
1,000 to 1,500 years ago, the data from the Marshall Islands and Kiribati clearly
demonstrate otherwise for at least these groups.
As the Figure 13.3 graph demonstrates, all of the eastern part of Micronesia between the
high island of Chuuk and the atoll archipelagos of the Marshall Islands and Kiribati began
to be occupied virtually at a single point in time, between about 1,800 and 2,000 years
ago. Such a pulse of settlement expansion throughout the enormous area of central and
eastern Micronesia seems too extraordinary to be coincidental, and Anderson et al. (2006:
2) have drawn attention to data suggesting (p. 280) (p. 282) (p. 281) (p. 283) that “initial
colonization across previously uninhabited regions of Remote Oceania was strongly
episodic at a millennial scale.” Including Micronesia in their analysis, they argue that this
periodicity must be tied to some kind of external forcing mechanism, suggesting that
periods of heightened ENSO conditions provided the wind reversals needed to reach
these distant islands with the sailing technology of the time (see also Anderson essay).
With respect to both central and eastern Micronesia, it also may be no accident that this
timing coincides with the formation of habitable atolls following drawdown of the mid-
Holocene highstand (Dickinson 2009: 5‒7).
Page 9 of 37

Click to view larger

Figure 13.3 Graph of the two sigma calibrated
ranges of the earliest archaeological radiocarbon
determinations in eastern Micronesia. They
collectively suggest that initial settlement over the
entire region occurred between about 1,800 and
2,000 cal. B.P.
Page 10 of 37

Table 13.1 Selected radiocarbon dates from the earliest archaeological sites, Central and Eastern Caroline Islands, Marshall Islands,
and Kiribati
Cat. No. Lab. No. Provenien Weight g/ Age b.p. 13C/12C ‰ Conventio Calibrated Calibrated
ce material nal Age Age B.P.b Age A.D.b
B.P.a
1Chuuk N-2845 TKFE-1, —charcoal 1,930 ± 75 — — 1,699– 146 B.C.–

TP-1, Layer 2,095 A.D. 251
V, 145 cm
b.d.
1Chuuk N-2887 TKFE-1, —charred 2,020 ± 85 1,740– 351B.C.–

TP3, Layer coconut 2,300 A.D. 210
IV, 115‒ shell
125 cm
b.d.
2Pohnpei Beta-6107 Nan 47.4charco 1,770 ± 90 — — 1,421– A.D. 35–

Madol, al 1,915 529
Dapahu,
TP-1, Layer
II, Level 9,
95–105 cm
b.d.
Page 11 of 37
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an
individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

2Pohnpei Beta-9911 Nan 20.4charco 1,920 ± 50 −28.27 1,870 ± 50 1,698– A.D. 25–
Madol, al 1,925 252
Dapahu,
TP-2, Layer
II, 210–222
cm b.d.
3Pohnpei Beta-13513 Ipwal, —charcoal 1,720 ± 70 −25.0 1,720 ± 70 1,419– A.D. 130–
2 TP-3, Level 1,820 531
11, 130 cm
b.s.
4Kosrae Beta-30787 Leluh, 27.7charco 1,870 ± 70 −20.8 1,940 ± 70 1,712– 105 B.C.–
Katem, al 2,054 A.D. 238
TP-10,
Layer VI,
Level 7,
190–210
cm b.d.

Katem, al 1,987 A.D. 242
TP-10,
Layer VI,
Level 8,
Page 12 of 37

210–230
cm b.d.
Katem, al 2,111 A.D. 209
TP-10,
Layer VI,
Level 9,
230–262
cm b.d.
5Marshall Beta-22016 Kwajalein —charcoal 1,860 ± 60 −28.9 1,800 ± 60 1,569– A.D. 81–
Islands Atoll; 1,869 381
GU-8,9,
Layer III
5Marshall Beta-21310 Kwajalein 6.4charcoa 1,950 ± 90 −26.9 1,920 ± 90 1,625– 162 B.C.–
Islands Atoll; ST-5, l 2,111 A.D. 325
Layer IV;
prob. earth
oven
feature
6Marshall ISGS-669 Majuro —charcoal — −24.8 1,890 ± 75 1,624– 47B.C.

Islands Atoll, “appeared” 1,996 A.D.326
MiMLM- to be
j-1, TP-3, burned
Feat. 1
Page 13 of 37

(earth coconut
oven), shell
Layer III,
72 cm b.s.
6Marshall ISGS-671 Majuro —charcoal — −25.3 1,970 ± 1,626– 351B.C.A.

Islands Atoll, “appeared” 110 2,300 D.324
MiMLM- to be
j-1, TP-5, burned
Feat. 1 coconut
(earth shell
oven, 80–
87 cm b.s.
7Marshall *Beta-1039 Utrök Atoll, 0.256charc 1,880 ± 60 −25.9 1,860 ± 60 1,624– A.D. 20–
Islands 03 Ut-1-TP10, oal 1,930 326
Layer III,
79–111 cm
b.s.
7Marshall *Beta-1039 Utrök Atoll, 1.034pand 1,750 ± 60 −26.1 1,730 ± 60 1,527– A.D.136–
Islands 04 Ut-1-TP12, anus drupe 1,814 423
Layer II,
141 cm
b.s., oven
feature
Page 14 of 37

8Marshall *Beta Maloelap < — — 1,910 ± 70 1,634– 84 B.C.–

Islands 79576 Atoll, 0.1charcoa 2,033 A.D. 316
Kaven l
Islet, Atoll;
TP-22,
Layer III,
105 cm b.s.
9Kiribati Beta-89960 Nikunau —charred — −25 2,050 ± 90 1,822– 358B.C.–

Island, Te pandanus 2,307 A.D.128
Bakoa, drups
TP-1,Layer
VII, oven
feature, ca.
130–140
cm b.s.
9Kiribati Beta-89961 Nikunau —charred — −25 1,860 ± 1,542– 84B.C.–

Island, Te pandanus 100 2,033 A.D.408
Bakoa, drups
TP-2,Layer
VII, oven
feature, ca.
130–140
cm b.s.
Page 15 of 37

(a) The Chuuk dates are based on a half-life of 5,568 years, which is the norm by international convention. However, no 13C/12C
isotopic correction is provided for these dates, indicating uncertainty as to whether they are “conventional” radiocarbon dates. For
these dates and the single Pohnpei date lacking 13C/12C isotopic correction, the calibration was based on radiocarbon years. The
resulting calibration error is likely negligible and of little consequence for present purposes.
(b) Calibration from Calib Rev. 5.0 computer program (Stuiver and Reimer 1993); all dates have a 2 sigma age range. Calibrated date
ranges based on short-lived plant parts having minimal in-built age are bolded. Unfortunately, much of the dating was done at a time
before the significance of the in-built age problem was recognized in Pacific archaeology (Rieth and Athens 2013). The overall
pattern of the dates and their association with pottery, however, suggests that this problem was likely not significant for this series.
The bolded age ranges indicate determinations obtained from short-lived plant parts.
Sources: 1, Shutler 1984a; 2, Athens 1990a and unpublished laboratory reports; 3, Galipaud 2000; 4, Athens 1995; 5, Beardsley 1994
and Shun and Athens 1990; 6, Riley 1987: 242–243; 7, Weisler 2001; 8, Weisler 1999; 9, Di Piazza 1999.
Page 16 of 37

It appears that settlement of the Polynesian outliers southwest of Pohnpei occurred much
later than the high islands of Eastern Micronesian, or the atolls of the Marshall Islands
and Kiribati. Davidson (1971, 1992) dates the initial occupation of Nukuoro atoll, 500 km
southwest of Pohnpei, to about 1,200 years ago. Investigations on Kapingamarangi, an
atoll 225 km further southwest suggest that initial settlement dates back to only about
750 years ago (Leach and Ward 1981).
(p. 284) Prehistoric Pottery
Prehistoric pottery is of particular interest because it can sometimes suggest cultural

affiliations or relationships by virtue of its technical and/or design attributes. On Pohnpei,
calcareous sand temper pottery predominates early in the sequence, eventually being
mostly replaced by primarily grog (crushed sherd fragments) tempered pottery (Athens
1990a). A very small percentage of non-calcareous sand tempered rim sherds displayed
decorative rim notching, and even more rarely, punctation (Athens 1980a, 1990a:23;
Ayers 1990: 192‒193). In contrast, calcareous sand tempered pottery predominates on
Chuuk and Kosrae throughout the sequence (Athens 1995: 254; Dickinson 1995) and
plastic decoration is not found on these sherds. Evidence of use of an anvil for pottery
manufacture was observed on sherds from Chuuk (Shutler 1984b: 48), while the Pohnpei
pottery suggested use of a pinch-molding technique (Athens 1990a: 26). None of the
Kosrae sherds, however, showed evidence for manufacturing technique, perhaps due to
the small sample size of the collection. Some of the Chuuk sherds appeared to be finished
with a red slip (Shutler 1984b: 50), though there was no evidence for a slip on the
Pohnpei or Kosrae pottery.
Kosrae pottery has very little in common with the pottery of Pohnpei, which in turn has
little in common with Chuuk pottery (Athens 1995: 266‒268). However, all of the Eastern
Micronesian pottery has general characteristics that fall within the Late Lapita Plain
Ware ceramic tradition as described by Green (1979) and others. It cannot be related to
the pre-Latte Period pottery of the Mariana Islands (cf. Moore 2002), or the pottery of
Palau (cf. Desilets, Liston, and Tuggle 2007; Osborne 1966). One of the intriguing
characteristics of these three different assemblages is that they have significantly
different rim forms (Athens 1995: 258‒260), and average vessel thickness was
substantially different for the Pohnpei collection compared to the Kosrae, Chuuk, and Yap
pottery. This variation suggests that the origins of pottery on these different islands lie
within different parts of the Lapita homeland (Kirch 1987), which includes the area from
the Bismarck Archipelago and east to Samoa. Linguistic evidence, however, appears to
narrow the breadth of the area to between southeast Melanesia and Fiji-West Polynesia
(Shutler and Marck 1975; Athens 1990a: 29; Ayres 1990: 203). These differences imply
that an island hopping mode of initial settlement in Micronesia, as some investigators
have proposed, is unlikely, and that canoes of exploration and colonization set out to the
north from a number of different points within the Lapita homeland (Athens 1990a: 29‒
30; 1995: 267‒268).
Page 17 of 37

Pottery manufacture eventually ceased during prehistoric times on Chuuk, Pohnpei, and
Kosrae. There is no information on the date of its termination on Chuuk, but on Pohnpei
pottery was definitely not produced after A.D. 1100 (Athens 1990a: 21). For Kosrae,
pottery ceased to be made sometime before A.D. 500, and quite possibly several hundred
years earlier (Athens 1990b: 182; 1995: 253). Why pottery ceased to be made on these
islands and other Pacific islands in prehistoric times (e.g., Samoa) is an interesting issue
that has been addressed by a number of investigators (Athens 1990b; Leach 1982;
Rainbird 1999). The fact that prehistoric pottery loss occurred repeatedly over a broad
(p. 285) area of the Pacific suggests that a systemic process is involved, though finding
out what this is with any certainty has proved elusive.
Early Settlement
All known early sites on Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae are coastal, and except for one of
the sites in Chuuk, all pottery-bearing deposits were over a meter underwater (Shutler
1984b: 46). For Pohnpei, the Nan Madol pottery deposits extended about one meter
below the low tide water level (Athens 1990a: 21); at Leluh, Kosrae, they extended to
about 1.5 meters below the low tide water level. Given that the highstand drawdown had
reached approximately modern levels by 2,200 B.P. (or 2,000 B.P. at the latest), and that
tectonic subsidence was apparently quite minimal (based on figures from Dickinson 2001:
210), accounting for the deeply submerged archaeological deposits is of interest. If
tectonic subsidence was not a factor (in submerging deposits that were initially above sea
level), it must be concluded that the earliest inhabitants could not have been living on dry
land. The best model appears to be one in which the earliest settlers lived in stilt houses
over water on the near-shore areas of protected reef flats. There is no direct
archaeological evidence for this other than the deeply submerged deposits, but there is
precedent as documented by the archaeological record in Mussau and some of the Arawe
Islands (Kirch 2000: 107), which are within the presumed Late Lapita homeland area.
Kirch (2000: 108), following Green and Pawley (1998) also posits an interesting linguistic
argument for this type of settlement, indicating that the Proto Oceanic term for raised
stilt houses was *Rumaq, “a term found throughout island Southeast Asia and that
persists in Near Oceania as well as in Micronesia” (emphasis added). This term was
dropped as Lapita people “moved eastward into Remote Oceania,” whereupon the term
*halay was adopted for open-sided houses built on the ground (Kirch 2000: 109).
Page 18 of 37

Early Subsistence
The Kosrae investigations of Athens (1995) provide the most detailed information
concerning subsistence of initial settlers. Regarding agricultural remains, charcoal
identification of samples from the earliest Leluh archaeological deposits indicates the
presence of breadfruit (Artocarpus atilis), Alocasia taro, and coconut (Murakami 1995).
The former two were definitely introduced to Kosrae by the earliest settlers. However,
coconut (Cocos nucifera) was naturally present on Kosrae, as has proven to be the case
for Pohnpei (Athens and Stevenson 2012: 41). The earliest Kosrae settlers may also have
introduced Thespesia populnea, Cordyline fruticosa, and possibly Morinda citrifolia,
which were all present in the early Leluh charcoal collections. Pollen analysis of cores
and soils collected from archaeological excavations in Kosrae also indicated the presence
of both Colocasia esculenta, an introduction, and Cyrtosperma chamissonis taro, a likely
native plant given its prehuman presence on Pohnpei (Athens and Stevenson (p. 286)
2012: 41). The initial Kosrae settlers clearly had an agricultural background and arrived
with most of the major cultigens grown by traditional Pacific societies (in addition to the
previously mentioned cultivars, bananas, yams, and sugarcane were reported on Kosrae
at the time of historic contact—Ritter and Ritter 1982: 64).
There is next to no archaeological or paleoenvironmental coring information regarding

cultigens used during prehistoric times on Chuuk and Pohnpei, though it is likely that the
findings on Kosrae are representative for these islands. Further to the east, in atolls of
the Marshall Islands, Weisler (1999) has documented aroid pit agriculture for
Cyrtosperma cultivation dating from 1,634 to 2,033 cal. B.P. (2 sigma), which is at or close
to the time of initial settlement.
Clearly, for coastal dwellers, exploitation of the shallow reefs flats was important for
protein-rich foods. The early Kosrae data indicates that a wide variety of near-shore fish
were taken along with some turtle; there is almost no indication for pelagic fishing
(Athens 1995: 97). This pattern continues throughout prehistory (e.g., for Pohnpei, see
Leach, Davidson, and Athens 1996). Shellfish were also a part of the early island diet, and
at least on Kosrae, bivalve harvesting prevailed over gastropods during the early period
(Athens 1995: 86‒93). Dogs were brought to Chuuk and Pohnpei by the earliest settlers
(Athens 1990a: 29), and they may have been used, at least in part, for food. While the
earliest prehistoric dog on Kosrae is not documented until about 1,000 years ago, this
may be a sampling problem (Athens 1995: 99‒100). Whether the Pacific rat (Rattus
exulans) and chickens (Gallus gallus) were transported to eastern Micronesia during
prehistoric times is uncertain from the archaeological evidence, though oral accounts
suggest chickens were on Pohnpei in prehistoric times (Bernart 1977: 25; Fischer,
Riesenberg, and Whiting 1977: 37, 44).
Artifacts
Page 19 of 37

Other than pottery, the inventory of artifacts documented from early deposits on Pohnpei
and Kosrae is rather limited. For Kosrae there is a basalt adze, several fragmentary shell
adornments (possibly bracelets), a bead, and several fragmentary shell hinge adzes
(Favreau 1995). On Pohnpei a distinctive trapezoidal stone adze was found in lagoon
dredge spoils, suggestive of an early date (Athens 1981a). Ayers and Mauricio (1987)
documented additional stone adzes from Pohnpei, and Athens (unpublished) collected
another five stone adzes from Nan Madol, including several with the trapezoidal shape.
However, the dating of these adzes remains unclear. A shell trolling lure was also
recovered from relatively early deposits at the Nan Madol site (Athens, unpublished). This
lure, which dates to 925‒1,056 cal. B.P., has a resemblance to Melanesian shell lures.
Intoh (1999: 415‒416) believes such lures indicate a Melanesian derivation. She notes
similar specimens have been reported from Kosrae, the Marshall Islands, and Fais in
western Micronesia, in addition to another one found at Nan Madol.
(p. 287) Paleoenvironment
With respect to Kosrae, wetland cores and other sampling excavations document
transformation of a native lowland forest to that of an agroforest about 1,500 years ago
(A.D. 450; Athens et al. 1996). Thus, within scarcely 500 years, the earliest settlers had
converted much of the habitable and farmable lands of Kosrae to a managed landscape.
Fire seems to have been an important element of this transformation as attested by both
the micro-charcoal particle counts in pollen cores, and macro-charcoal densities in
stratigraphic columns. Unfortunately, the only detailed paleoenvironmental records for
Pohnpei failed to provide information about the native forest (other than mangroves),
prehistoric agriculture, or the local charcoal record (Athens and Stevenson 2012).
Prehistoric Cultural Florescence

Primarily during the 1980s, a wealth of archaeological studies was undertaken in Pohnpei
and Kosrae. Much of this work included detailed mapping focused on the megalithic ruins
of Nan Madol and Leluh (Figures 13.1 and 13.2), though substantial systematic surveys
and test excavations were also conducted throughout the two islands. Many of these
investigations continued over a number of field seasons, resulting in a relatively thorough
treatment of at least parts of the archaeological record. Archaeological investigations, of
course, continued after the 1980s, but the pace has been much reduced.
Page 20 of 37

Nan Madol: Pohnpei
Nan Madol consists of about ninety artificial islets built upon the fringing reef of Temwen
Island, a small volcanic island in the lagoon close to Pohnpei’s east coast. The site covers
about 80 ha, with the named islets, separated by narrow waterways, comprising about 30
ha of dry land (islet names are followed by Hambruch’s [1936] assigned number [#] so
that they may be easily located on his map [Figure 13.1]—this number system remains in
common usage). The islets, built up from the shallow fringing reef flat using coralline reef
rubble, are rectilinear, ranging in size from tiny Dekehtik (#45) at 20 × 27 m, to
Pahnkadira (#33) and Dorong (#50), which are both almost 100 m on a side. The layout
of Nan Madol suggests that it was largely a planned complex.
The distinctiveness of Nan Madol has much to do with the use of columnar basalt for
construction of many of the islet and compound walls. This basalt was obtained from
multiple mainland quarries (five are named in oral accounts, Hambruch 1936). Many of
these columns are 3 to over 5 m long and weigh several tons or more. The famous burial
monument, Nandauwas (#113), is a stunning architectural achievement, with its outer
enclosure walls standing 5.5 to 7.5 m above the islet surface, and its interior enclosure
(p. 288) walls standing 3 to 4.2 m high (Morgan 1988). The roof of its central tomb is
covered by slender 5.0 m long basalt columns (the longest is 5.35 m). Basalt boulders
were also often used in wall sections, or commonly, to retain the coralline rubble fill of
the smaller islets (where small basalt columns were either minimally used, or not used at
all). The largest boulders reach ca. 50 tons or more. Also, an entire sea wall,
Nanmwoluhsei (#119), was constructed of huge boulders on the edge of Nahkapw harbor
to shield the Nandauwas islet complex from the erosive effect of tidal surges and storm
waves. Obviously the labor needed to transport the columns and boulders to build the
walls was enormous. Ayres, Goles, and Beardsley (1997: 64) estimate that over 750,000
tons of basalt stone was brought to Nan Madol from diverse locations. The coral rubble
fill of the islets tends to be 1 to 2 m thick and occasionally much greater (e.g., Pahnwi,
#9).
Oral accounts identify Nan Madol as the center of a polity ruled by a paramount chief
who bore the title of Saudeleur, which translates as “Lord of Deleur,” Deleur being the
ancient name of the area immediately surrounding Nan Madol (Hanlon 1988: 9; see also
Bernart 1977; Hambruch 1936). Nan Madol was not a town or an urban area in the sense
of a nucleated settlement, but primarily a place for elite residences and ritual/religious
activity. Its physical isolation from the mainstream of Pohnpeian society was certainly no
accident, indicating the sacredness of activities there and the great power and authority
of the Saudeleur.
Idehd (#43) had a central role in the ritual/religious justification of the Saudeleur social
order (Hadley 1981: 13‒18; Hanlon 1988: 14‒15). Fortunately for archaeology, this islet
contains a 2.63 m high rubble mound consisting of the residue of expended coral oven
stones from the ritual cooking of turtle as described by the oral accounts (Athens 2007a).
Page 21 of 37

Determining the beginning and end points for the accumulation of this rubble pile,
therefore, could indicate the approximate start and end dates of the Saudeleur reign, and
hence of Nan Madol as a megalithic site supporting the Saudeleur. Basal dates of the
mound, which rests on the islet’s original coralline fill surface, were in the range of A.D.
1200 to 1300. The latest radiocarbon date, at the top of the coral rubble (and below a
thick A-horizon soil cap), had an age range of A.D. 1468‒1631 (1 sigma).
It appears, therefore, that Nan Madol, as a centralized administrative and religious seat
of the Saudeleur polity with hegemony (in some sense—e.g., Bath and Athens 1990) over
the entire island of Pohnpei, flourished between the A.D. 1200s and the 1500s or early
1600s, roughly at least 300 years, and possibly as much as 400 years. As confirmed by
excavations on other islets, this is the time during which megalithic construction
occurred and Nan Madol took on the architectural form seen today.
The political system represented by the Saudeleur appears to have come to a rather
abrupt end prehistorically as suggested by oral accounts, perhaps due to the overbearing
demands of the Saudeleur upon the populace for tribute and labor (Bath and Athens
1990; Bernart 1977). The change resulted in a decentralization of political authority with
ramifications for the entire society. The resulting Nahnmwarki system is described
ethnographically and ethnohistorically, as noted earlier in this chapter. Although Nan
Madol was mostly abandoned, it continued to be the residence of the Nahnmwarki of
(p. 289) the Madolenihmw wehi for a while, and perhaps a few others continued to live
there as well, as indicated by archaeological investigations. However, Nan Madol seems

to have been completely abandoned by the time of historic contact in the early nineteenth
century. But interestingly, there is documentation by missionaries of a yearly sacred eel
ceremony at Idehd continuing into the middle of the nineteenth century (Athens 1984:
134‒135; 2007a).
Nan Madol artifacts associated with the megalithic ruins, mostly shell adzes, shell
adornments, and sakau (kava) pounding stones, grinding stones, and others are described
and illustrated in Athens (1980b) and Ayres (1990); also see Hambruch (1936), Christian
(1899), and Schmeltz and Krause (1881) for earlier collections of artifacts. The large
beaked adzes made of Tridacna gigas, found side by side in the Idehd mound, are
especially notable (Athens 2007a). Artifacts from the large tomb vaults of Nandauwas
(#113) were first collected in 1840 (Athens 1981b: 3; for a marvelous sketch of a ship’s
party removing the artifacts, see Ward 1967: 6:135), and then there were repeated
excavations in the late nineteenth century and first part of the twentieth century. These
tombs contained a large number of artifacts, including especially shell beads and other
shell adornments (for a listing of the different excavations and findings, see Athens
1980b: 25‒30). Rainbird (2007) provides an interpretation of shell fish lure shanks that
had been collected mostly from Nandauwas.
Recent archaeological investigations at Nan Madol include instrument maps and feature
descriptions for twenty-five islets, and twenty-one excavations on fourteen islets by
Athens (unpublished). Ayres and his team (Ayres, Haun, and Mauricio 1983; Ayres 1993)
Page 22 of 37

have also mapped a number of islets and conducted numerous excavations, including at
the important islets of Pahnwi (#9) and Pahnkadira (#33). The investigations at Pahnwi
involved excavations at a tomb surrounded by a basalt column enclosure; the remains of
six adults and two children were recovered, along with approximately 10,000 artifacts
(Tasa 1988). The research of Athens (unpublished) also shows that human burial remains
are very common at Nan Madol, and many of these are secondary interments clustered in
special basalt “paving” features (for discussion of burials, see also Seikel 2011).
Subsistence at Nan Madol has been documented by Leach, Davidson, and Athens (1996)
and Kataoka (1991), and basalt column sourcing analysis has been undertaken by Ayres,
Goles, and Beardsley (1997) and McCoy and Athens (2012).
Regarding archaeological research on Pohnpei’s main island, Ayres (1990) summarized

architectural forms and settlement patterns as revealed by several extensive surveys (see
also Davidson 1967). Ayres (1990: 201) identified a bimodal size gradient in residential
structures, either > 35 sq. m or < 35 sq. m, with the sizes corresponding to social status
differences as inferred from ethnography, oral history, and comparative studies (e.g.,
Falgout 1987). Prehistoric residences often consist of complexes of stone walls, pavings,
and house platforms. They may also have meeting houses, cook houses, stone burial
vaults, breadfruit storage pits, and other structural remains. In addition to residential
complexes, large inland, upland chiefly religious centers at Sehnpehn and Sapwtakai
have been recorded by Bath (1984) and Davidson (1967). As indicated by (p. 290) these
archaeological studies and the oral histories that accompany some of the sites, the social
and political fabric of prehistoric Pohnpei was very complex.
Leluh: Kosrae
Prehistoric Leluh was built on the fringing reef adjacent to a small volcanic island in
Leluh harbor. The similarity of prehistoric Leluh’s geographical setting with Nan Madol is
unmistakable. The Leluh ruins occupy an area of about 27 ha (Figure 13.2), only slightly
smaller than the land area of Nan Madol’s islets. The ruins are divided into about a
hundred compounds. Although several “canals” run through Leluh, the different
compounds tend not to be divided by the waterways, but by walls, which can be massive
for the highest ranking chiefs (Sarfert 1919; Hambruch 1919; Cordy 1985, 1993).
The paramount chiefs, Tokosra, were not buried in their compounds, but in tombs located
within special high-walled enclosures, which are named Insruun, Insru 2, Inol 1, and Inol
2. Here there are five rectilinear stacked coral rock tombs (Cordy 1993: 196‒198; see
perspective drawings and photographs in Morgan 1988: 102‒106). A crypt is accessed
from the top. Excavations by Hambruch (1919), and later Japanese excavations (Hasebe
1915; Yawata 1930, 1932a, 1932b), documented worked Spondylus shells, a Spondylus
pendant, several other types of shell valuables, and small post-cranial skeletal fragments
(Cordy 1993: 196‒197). Cordy’s (1985: 261) subsequent work “uncovered numerous
beads and pendants of several types (far outnumbering the German and Japanese
Page 23 of 37

collections) and small skeletal fragments (toes, fingers, etc.).” Chronologically, the central
Insru tombs seem to be the earliest, dating to the A.D. 1400s, with the Inol-1 tomb dating
to the late 1700s and early 1800s (Cordy 1985: 261). As Cordy notes, interment in the
tombs was only temporary as the remains of the paramount chiefs were eventually
gathered and deposited in a deep reef hole to the north (near Yenasr islet).
One of the goals of Cordy’s (1985, 1993: 228‒233) investigations was to document the
Leluh construction sequence. He confirmed that the entire west side of Leluh Island
(below the volcanic hill, Finol Poro) is man-made, consisting of coralline fill placed on top
of the fringing reef. Settlement prior to A.D. 1250 was confined to natural narrow sand
strips bordering the lagoon below Leluh’s volcanic hill. Then, between about A.D.1250
and 1400 a small complex was built over the reef off the northwest side of the island, but
there seems to have been little in the way of permanent surface architecture at this time.
The initiation of major construction at Leluh, including expansion of compounds over the
reef flat and the building of massive basalt walls, dates after A.D. 1350 and may not have
begun until A.D. 1400. According to Cordy (1985: 262; 1993: 255), this change in the
configuration of settlement at Leluh appears to mark the time that Kosrae became unified
under a single paramount chief. Construction of new compounds over the reef flat
continued into the early A.D. 1700s.
With respect to Leluh’s massive basalt walls, which demarcated chiefly compounds, their
lower parts were often constructed with massive basalt boulders. Several meters of
columnar basalt was then placed on top of the boulders (this type of construction is
(p. 291) also present at several of the Nan Madol islets [e.g., Nandauwas #113]).
However, the use of columnar basalt on Kosrae is not nearly as common as it is on

Pohnpei. The Kosrae columnar basalt is also of a much coarser quality and seems to be
less abundant.
Unlike Nan Madol, there is little in the way of oral accounts to fill out the details of
religious/ritual and chiefly residential life at Leluh. But it does seem that while Nan
Madol was dedicated to the affirmation and validation of Saudeleur authority through the
labor-intensive construction of massive walls and buildings, and also through a highly
developed religious organization and ritual performance, Leluh achieved the same
purpose on a somewhat more modest (but still very impressive) scale. The apparent fact
that commoners lived in Leluh is in striking contrast with Nan Madol during Saudeleur
times (based on oral accounts). It thus appears that the power and authority of the
Tokosra did not reach quite reach a level comparable to that of the Saudeleur.
Settlement Pattern and Population on Kosrae

There have been several settlement pattern studies on the main island of Kosrae (for a
review of these studies and references, see Athens 1995: 20‒34). The archaeological
findings indicate a dispersed settlement pattern across the lower elevation areas along
Page 24 of 37

the narrow coastal plains and inland within the larger valleys. The archaeological sites
are mostly characterized by rectilinear compounds with stacked stone walls. Houses,
constructed entirely of perishable materials, were built on top of relatively small
rectangular basalt pavings within the compounds. In several cases there are tight
clusters of relatively large compounds, which conceivably may represent residences of
lower chiefs who served as land managers. While there have been attempts to infer the
sociopolitical significance of these patterns, particularly with respect to social hierarchies
(Cordy 1985: 262), it is clear that further investigations would be useful to bolster the
models.
One interesting aspect of the settlement pattern investigations concerns the 109
radiocarbon dates produced by test excavations at many of the mainland Kosrae sites
(i.e., dates not obtained at Leluh). These dates suggest occupation of the main island
began around A.D. 500 (somewhat later than at Leluh), with a very slow growth in the
numbers of dated sites until around A.D. 1200 to 1300, when there is a noticeable rise in
the curve, and then very high numbers of sites cause an uptick in the curve beginning in
the A.D. 1400s (Athens 1995: 21‒27).
Although archaeological investigations of prehistoric population growth and population

size have been largely frowned upon for many years by archaeologists, Athens (2007b)
attempted to develop a model for Kosrae based on (1) good information for the date of
initial settlement, (2) historic information on the number of people on the island at the
time of initial western contact, and (3) detailed information on the productivity of
breadfruit on Pohnpei, a major dietary constituent on Kosrae. His “multiple constraints”
(p. 292) modeling approach suggests that population growth rates always must have been
relatively modest compared to the highest nineteenth- and twentieth-century growth

rates recorded by demographers in some countries, and some other high-end estimates in
the historical literature. It appears that Kosrae must have had a population in the range
of 2,500 to 3,000 people at A.D. 1400 when Kosrae seems to have come under the
hegemony of a single paramount chief (Athens 2007b: 276). By the time of the earliest
western contact, Kosrae’s population would have been in the range of 3,263 to 7,949
people (Athens 2007b: 275; cf. Cordy 1986: 139 and Ritter 1981: 16).
By way of comparison, Pohnpei’s population at contact has been variously estimated at

10,000 (Hanlon 1988: 204), about 25,000 people (Ayres 1990: 200, citing Ayres, Haun,
and Severance 1981), 17,500 (Cordy 1986: 139), and 20,000 to 35,000 (Fischer 1964:
52). However, there is little empirical basis for these numbers, which are basically just
guesses based on highly subjective inferences gleaned from limited observations during
the early period of western contact. In any case, given Pohnpei’s significantly larger size
and more propitious environment for indigenous horticulture compared to Kosrae, the
lower figure (10,000) seems too low, and perhaps the high end estimate of 35,000 is too
high, but it is anyone’s guess at this point whether either of the middle two figures are
closer to the mark.
Page 25 of 37

The Breadfruit Revolution: Understanding the

Trajectory of Micronesian Prehistory
The idea of a breadfruit revolution in Micronesia has its genesis in the work of Parker and
King (1981). They noted that the archaeological record of Chuuk is characterized by a
very long period between the date of initial settlement, around 2,000 years ago, and the
time that archaeological remains first began to be widely visible on the landscape, which
is around A.D. 1300. The sudden onset of visible prehistoric activity on the landscape is
attributed to a major change in subsistence, one that had become substantially based on
breadfruit. The evidence for this was the appearance after A.D. 1300 of a “complex of
tools and facilities associated with breadfruit processing” (Parker and King 1981: 18).
The absence of breadfruit processing facilities and equipment in the earliest sites
suggested to them that breadfruit was not a particularly important contributor to the diet
until after A.D. 1300. Parker and King (1981: 19, 25) believed this subsistence change
was part of a larger pattern in eastern Micronesia.
Using new botanical evidence, G. Petersen (2006, 2009) has now developed this idea
much further, putting forward a bold thesis that unifies Micronesia as a culture area
despite the very different settlement histories and languages between its western and
eastern areas. He notes that the traditional economies of eastern Micronesia are
“overwhelmingly tied” to breadfruit despite some mix of other utilized food plants and
some differences between the islands.
Recent botanical findings are at the heart of G. Petersen’s argument. There are
(p. 293)
two distinct types of breadfruit—one that grows wild on the high islands of western
Micronesia, Artocarpus mariannensis, a seeded breadfruit, and the other that grows as a
domesticate from New Guinea and eastward into Polynesia, A. altilis, a seedless
breadfruit, which was probably domesticated from A. camansi (G. Peterson 2006: 85;
Zerega, Ragone, and Motley 2004). This domestic variety would have been transported by
the earliest settlers to the high islands of Eastern Carolines, possibly from the Santa Cruz
islands to the south, which according to G. Petersen (2006: 86) seems uniquely situated
as a colonizing origin, given the linguistic, botanical, and archaeological evidence. The
breadfruit revolution essentially ignited when at some point, “probably in the first
millennium AD,” it hybridized with the seeded Marianas breadfruit (G. Petersen 2006: 85,
citing botanical studies of Zerega 2003; Zerega, Ragone, and Motley 2004, 2006; Ragone
2001). According to Zerega’s (2003:50) DNA sleuthing, hybridization occurred not in a
single event but in a “series of interspecies crosses . . . followed by repeated
backcrosses.” The result was “a unique diversity of cultivars” (Zerega 2003:50). Hybrid
varieties now thrive throughout Micronesia.
This hybridization process had numerous consequences. Some of the most important of
these, as listed by G. Petersen (2006: 85), are (1) the development of salt-tolerant hybrids
that thrive on Micronesian atolls; (2) development of an extraordinarily large number of
Page 26 of 37

varieties, enabling breadfruit to grow productively throughout the year and in varying
soil conditions, and to recover rapidly from drought or wind damage; (3) greatly
increased productivity and year-round availability with minimal labor cost; and (4) it is an
easily prepared and good tasting starch food that complements abundant marine
resources in the lagoon.
Central to G. Petersen’s (2006: 86) thesis is that some degree of voyaging and exchange
was maintained between western and eastern Micronesia for hybridization to have
occurred in eastern Micronesia. Atoll dwellers were presumably essential in this regard.
Open ocean sailing was certainly a part of the sawei exchange system, which bound
together Yap and the atolls between Ulithi and Puluwat and Namonuito to the east (Kirch
2000: 191‒192; Hage and Harary 1996; Hunter-Anderson and Zan 1996). As Descantes
(2005) has shown, this system has considerable time depth. Davidson (2012: 1), as noted
earlier, also refers to Kubary’s documentation of open ocean sailing in eastern
Micronesia. Thus, with hybridization made possible by the movement of people between
western and eastern Micronesia, the suddenly vastly increased productivity of breadfruit
led to a population and developmental surge in eastern Micronesia, culminating in the
construction of such sites as Nan Madol and Leluh. However, for G. Petersen, an even
more far-reaching consequence of the breadfruit revolution was the resulting
development of the unique adaptive qualities of the matrilineally ordered conical clans,
the matriclan, as a result of,
breadfruit’s overwhelmingly greater productivity with the matriclans’ adaptive

qualities in the area where this breadfruit revolution initially began [which] meant
that matriclan organization diffused as part and parcel of the new productive
regime. (G. Petersen 2006: 89)
(p. 294) As explained by G. Petersen (2006: 89),
the dispersed matrilineal clans, which create web after web of institutionalized
linkages among the many islands and communities, and which are essentially
impervious to the vagaries of time, individual idiosyncrasy, and environmental
exigency, have remained vital and dynamic.
Rainbird (2006) has also taken up the theme of the conical clan in his interpretation of
the prehistory of Nan Madol and Leluh, which he believes were “places where power was
negotiated through genealogy and competition.” Rather than being at the apogee of
sociopolitical evolution, Nan Madol and Leluh represent “the importance of ancestry and
place in the past negotiation of sociopolitical organization” (Rainbird 2006: 315), two
dimensions that are fundamental to the establishment of ranking in conical clans.
Although conical clans are fundamentally heterarchical in organization, Rainbird (2006:
314) believes they provided the organizational impetus for monumental building efforts.
Although Rainbird did not have G. Petersen’s breadfruit revolution in mind when he
Page 27 of 37

developed his argument, the possible significance of the conical clan in understanding
sociopolitical evolution on the high islands of eastern Micronesia was recognized by him.
G. Petersen brings together a great wealth of ethnographic and historical data in support
of his thesis that the breadfruit revolution initiated a social dynamic that affected the
whole of Micronesia. In his view, Micronesia is every bit as much of a cohesive culture
area as Polynesia, perhaps even more so, once one goes beyond superficial aspects of
language and material culture. He may be right, and at least one other investigator sees
the same processes at work in prehistoric western Micronesia (J. Peterson 2012; cf.
Hanlon 2009: 96‒97). At the very least, G. Petersen has provided a set of arguments that
can be researched, tested, and debated as Micronesia archaeology moves forward in the
coming decades to document and understand prehistoric adaptation and sociopolitical
evolution within a vast region comprised of islands of varying size, environments, and
resources.
References
Anderson, Atholl, John Chappell, Michael Gagan, and Richard Grove. 2006. “Prehistoric
maritime migration in the Pacific Islands: An hypothesis of ENSO forcing.” The Holocene
16(1): 1–6.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1980a. “Pottery from Nan Madol, Ponape, Eastern Caroline Islands.”
The Journal of the Polynesian Society 89(1): 95–99.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1980b. Archaeological Investigations at Nan Madol: Islet Maps and
Surface Artifacts. Report prepared for the Historic Preservation Office, T.T.P.I., Saipan.
Guam: Pacific Studies Institute.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1981a. “A stone adze from Ponape, Eastern Caroline Islands.” Asian
Perspectives 24(1): 43–46.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1981b. The Discovery and Archaeological Investigation of Nan

(p. 295)
Madol, Ponape, Eastern Caroline Islands: An Annotated Bibliography (revised).

Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report No. 3. Saipan: Historic Preservation Office,
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1984. “Surface artefact distributions at the Nan Madol site: A
preliminary assessment of spatial patterning.” New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 6:
129–153.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1990a. “Nan Madol pottery, Pohnpei.” Micronesica, Supplement, 2:

17–32.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1990b. “Kosrae pottery, clay, and early settlement.” Micronesica,
Supplement, 2: 171–186.
Page 28 of 37

Athens, J. Stephen. 1995. Landscape Archaeology: Prehistoric Settlement, Subsistence,

and Environment of Kosrae, Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia. Report prepared for
the Kosrae State Government, Federated States of Micronesia. Honolulu: International
Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Athens, J. Stephen. 2007a. “The Rise of the Saudeleur: Dating the Nan Madol Chiefdom,
Pohnpei.” In Vastly Ingenious: The Archaeology of Pacific Material Culture in Honour of
Janet M. Davidson, ed. Atholl Anderson, Kaye Green, and Foss Leach, pp. 191–208.
Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.
Athens, J. Stephen. 2007b. “Prehistoric Population Growth on Kosrae, Eastern Caroline

Islands.” In The Growth and Collapse of Pacific Island Societies: Archaeological and
Demographic Perspectives, ed. by Patrick V. Kirch and Jean-Louis Rallu, pp. 257–277.
Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Athens, J. Stephen, and Janelle Stevenson. 2012. “Pohnpei coring records: The natural
distribution of Cyrtosperma chamissonis.” Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(1): 35–47.
Athens, J. Stephen, Jerome V. Ward, and Gail M. Murakami. 1996. “Development of an

agroforest on a Micronesian high island: Prehistoric Kosraean agriculture.” Antiquity
70(270): 834–846.
Ayres, William S. 1990. “Pohnpei’s position in Eastern Micronesian prehistory.”

Micronesica, Supplement, 2: 187–212.
Ayres, William S. 1993. Nan Madol Archaeological Fieldwork: Final Report. Pohnpei:
Historic Preservation Office, Pohnpei State Government, F.S.M.
Ayres, William S., and Alan E. Haun. 1980. Ponape Settlement Archaeology. Interim
Report 79-2, submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee, Ponape District, and the
Historic Preservation Program, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Saipan.
Ayers, William S., and Rufino Mauricio. 1987. “Stone adzes from Pohnpei, Micronesia.”
Archaeology in Oceania 22(1): 27–31.
Ayres, William S., Alan E. Haun, and Rufino Mauricio. 1983. Nan Madol Archaeology:
1981 Survey and Excavations. Report submitted to the Historic Preservation Committee,
Ponape State, F.S.M., and the Historic Preservation Program, Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, Saipan.
Ayres, William S., Alan E. Haun, and Craig Severance. 1981. Ponape Archaeological
Survey: 1978 Research. Micronesian Archaeological Survey Report 4. Saipan: Historic
Preservation Office, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Ayres, William S., Gordon G. Goles, and Felicia R. Beardsley. 1997. “Provenance Study of
Lithic Materials in Micronesia.” In Prehistoric Long-Distance Interaction in Oceania: An
Page 29 of 37

Interdisciplinary Approach, ed. Marshall I. Weisler, pp. 53–67. Auckland, New Zealand:
New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 21.
Bascom, William R. 1948. “Ponapean prestige economy.” Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology 4: 211–221.
Bascom, William R. 1965. Ponape: A Pacific Economy in Transition.

(p. 296)
Anthropological Records, vol. 22, Berkeley: University of California.
Bath, Joyce. 1984. Sahpwtakai: Archaeological Survey and Testing. Micronesian

Archaeological Survey Report 14. Saipan: Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands Historic
Preservation Office.
Bath, Joyce E., and J. Stephen Athens. 1990. “Prehistoric social complexity on Pohnpei:
The Saudeleur to Nahnmwarki transformation.” Micronesica, Supplement, 2: 275–290.
Beardsley, Felicia Rounds. 1994. Archaeological Investigations on Kwajalein Atoll,

Marshall Islands. Report prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific Ocean Division,
Fort Shafter, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Bender, B. W., and J. W. Wang. 1985. “The Status of Proto-Micronesian.” In Austronesian

Linguistics at the 15th Pacific Science Congress, ed. A. Pawley and L. Carrington, pp. 53–
92. Pacific Linguist, C-88. Canberra: Australian National University.
Bernart, Luelen. 1977. The Book of Luelen. Trans. and ed. J. L. Fischer, S. H. Riesenberg,
and M. G. Whiting, Pacific History Series No. 8. Honolulu: University Press of Hawai‘i.
Christian, F. W. 1899. “On Micronesian weapons, dress, implements, etc.” The Journal of
the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, n.s., 1: 288–306.
Cordy, Ross. 1985. “Investigations of Leluh’s stone ruins.” National Geographic Research
1: 255–263.
Cordy, Ross. 1986. “Relationships between the extent of social stratification and
population in Micronesian polities at European contact.” American Anthropologist 88:
136–142.
Cordy, Ross. 1993. The Leluh Stone Ruins, Kosrae, Micronesia: 1978‒81 Historical and
Archaeological Research. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No. 10, Social Science
Research Institute. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Davidson, Janet M. 1967. “Preliminary Archaeological Investigations on Ponape and Other

Eastern Caroline Islands.” Micronesica 3: 81–95.
Davidson, Janet M. 1971. Archaeology on Nukuoro Atoll, a Polynesian Outlier in the

Eastern Caroline Islands. Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and Museum, No. 9.
Auckland, New Zealand.
Page 30 of 37

Davidson, Janet M. 1992. “New Evidence about the date of colonization of Nukuoro Atoll,
a Polynesian outlier in the Eastern Caroline Islands.” Journal of the Polynesian Society
101: 293–298.
Davidson, Janet M. 2012. “Intrusion, integration and innovation on small and not-so-small
islands with particular reference to Samoa.” Archaeology in Oceania 47: 1–13.
Descantes, Christophe. 2005. Integrating Archaeology and Ethnohistory: The

Development of Exchange between Yap and Ulithi, Western Caroline Islands. BAR
International Series 1344. Oxford: Archaeopress.
Desilets, Michael, Jolie Liston, and H. David Tuggle. 2007. “Ceramic Analysis.” In Palau
Compact Road Archaeological Investigations, Babeldaob Island, Republic of Palau, Phase
II: Historic Preservation Investigations, vol. 8, Laboratory Analyses, Syntheses, and
Recommendations, ed. J. Liston, pp. 181–231. Final report prepared for the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division, Ft. Shafter, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: International
Dickinson, William R. 1995. “Temper Sand in Prehistoric Sherds from Kosrae.” In

Landscape Archaeology: Prehistoric Settlement, Subsistence, and Environment of Kosrae,
Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia, ed. J. Stephen Athens, pp. 271–276. Report
prepared for the Kosrae State Government, Federated States of Micronesia. Honolulu:
International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Dickinson, William R. 2001. “Paleoshoreline record of relative Holocene sea

(p. 297)
levels on Pacific Islands.” Earth-Science Reviews 55: 191–234.
Dickinson, William R. 2009. “Pacific atoll living: How long already and until when?” GSA
Today 19(5): 4–10.
Dickinson, William R., and J. Stephen Athens. 2007. “Holocene paleoshoreline and
paleoenvironmental history of Palau: Implications for human settlement.” Journal of
Island & Coastal Archaeology 2: 175–196.
Di Piazza, Anne. 1999. “Te Bakoa site: Two old earth ovens from Nikunau Island (Republic
of Kiribati).” Archaeology in Oceania 34: 40–42.
Falgout, Suzanne. 1987. Master Part of Heaven: The Ethnohistory and Archaeology of
Wene, Pohnpei, Eastern Caroline Islands. Micronesian Archaeological Survey, No. 22.
Saipan: Division of Historic Preservation, Department of Community and Cultural Affairs.
Favreau, Carla K. 1995. “Non-Ceramic Portable Artifacts.” In Landscape Archaeology:

Prehistoric Settlement, Subsistence, and Environment of Kosrae, Eastern Caroline
Islands, Micronesia, ed. J. Stephen Athens, pp. 277–298. Report prepared for the Kosrae
State Government, Federated States of Micronesia. Honolulu: International
Page 31 of 37

Feinberg, Richard, and Richard Scaglion (eds.) 2012. Polynesian Outliers: The State of the
Art. Ethnology Monographs, No. 21. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
Fischer, John L. 1964. “The abandonment of Nan Matol, Ancient Capital of Ponape.”
Micronesica 1: 49–54.
Fischer, John L., Saul H. Riesenberg, and Marjorie G. Whiting. 1977. Annotations to The
Book of Luelen. Pacific History Series 9. Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Galipaud, Jean-Christophe. 2000. Nan Madol et le peuplement ancient de la Micronésie:

Rapport préliminaire de la mission de recherche archéologique qui s’est déroulée du 2
Septembre au 2 Octobre 1999 à Ponape (Îles Carolines). Orléans, France: IRD,
Laboratoire ERMES.
Graves, Michael. 1986. “Late prehistoric complexity on Lelu: Alternatives to Cordy’s

model.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 95: 479–489.
Green, Roger C. 1979. “Lapita.” In The Prehistory of Polynesia, ed. J. Jennings, pp. 27–60.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Green, Roger C., and A. Pawley. 1998. “Architectural Forms and Settlement Patterns.” In
The Lexicon of Proto Oceanic: The Culture and Environment of Ancestral Oceanic
Society, ed. M. Ross, A. Pawley, and M. Osmond, pp. 37–65. Pacific Linguistics C-152.
Canberra: Australian National University.
Hadley, Masao. 1981. “A History of Nan Madol.” Manuscript trans. and ed. Paul M.
Ehrlich. Copy at library of International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu.
Hage, P., and F. Harary. 1996. Island Networks: Communication, Kinship, and
Classification Structures in Oceania. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hambruch, Paul. 1911. “Die Ruinen von Ponape.” Korrespondenzblatt fur Anthropologie,
Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 42:128–131. Republished in Anthropologischen
Gesellschaft, in Wien, 1912, pp. 74–77 (Dritte Sitz), and in English in Transactions of the
Fijian Society 1912–13: 1–5.
Hambruch, Paul. 1919. “Die Ruinen von Lolo.” In Kusae, by Ernst Sarfert (ed), vol. 1,
Allgemeiner Teil und Materielle Kultur, pp. 261–296. Ergebnisse der Südsee-Expedition
1908‒1910. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen & Co.
Hambruch, Paul. 1936. “Ponape: Die Ruinen.” In Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition

1908‒1910, vol. 2, B7–3, ed. G. Thilenius. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen, de Gruyter & Co.
Hanlon, David. 1988. Upon a Stone Altar: A History of the Island of Pohnpei to
(p. 298)
1890. Pacific Islands Monograph Series, No. 5. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Hanlon, David. 2009. “The ‘Sea of Little Lands’: Examining Micronesia’s place in ‘Our Sea
of Islands.’” The Contemporary Pacific 21(1): 91–110.
Page 32 of 37

Hasebe, Kotondo. 1915. “On the natives of the Eastern Caroline Islands.” Zinruigaku
Zassi 30(339): 262–275 [in Japanese]. Trans. into English by P. S. Chapman, “Micronesian
Archaeology: An Annotated Bibliography,” M.A. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, Stanford
University, 1964.
Hunter-Anderson, Rosalind L. 1991. “A Review of Traditional Micronesian High Island

Horticulture in Belau, Yap, Chuuk, Pohnpei, and Kosrae.” Micronesica 24(1): 1–56.
Hunter-Anderson, R. L., and Y. Zan. 1996. “Demystifying the sawei: A traditional

interisland exchange system.” Isla: A Journal of Micronesian Studies 4: 1–45.
Intoh, Michiko. 1999. “Cultural Contacts between Micronesia and Melanesia.” In Le

Pacifique de 5000 à 2000 avant le present: Suppléments à l’histoire d’une colonization /
The Pacific from 5000 to 2000 BP: Colonisation and Transformation, ed. J.-C. Galipaud
and I. Lilley, pp. 407–422. Actes due Colloque Vanuatu, 31 Juillet—6 Août 1996. Orléans,
France: Éditions de IRD, Laboratoire ERMES.
Kataoka, Osamu. 1991. “Faunal analysis of Nan Madol, Pohnpei, Micronesia.” Man and
Culture in Oceania 7: 71–105.
Keating, B. H., D. P. Mattey, C. E. Helsley, J. J. Naughton, and D. Epp. 1984. “Evidence for
a hot spot origin of the Caroline Islands.” Journal of Geophysical Research 89(B12): 9937–
9948.
Kirch, Patrick V. 1987. “Lapita and oceanic cultural origins: Excavations in the Mussau
Islands, Bismarck Archipelago, 1985.” Journal of Field Archaeology 14: 163–180.
Kirch, Patrick V. 1997. “Introduction: The Environmental History of Oceanic Islands.” In

Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and Landscape
Change, ed. P. V. Kirch and T. L. Hunt, pp. 1–21. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Kirch, Patrick V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific
Islands before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kirch, Patrick V. 2010. “Peopling of the Pacific: A holistic anthropological perspective.”

Annual Review of Anthropology 39: 131–148.
Landers, Mark A., and Shahram Khosrowpanah. 2004. Rainfall Climatology for Pohnpei
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia. Technical Report, No. 100. Guam: Water and
Environmental Research Institute of the Western Pacific (WERI), University of Guam.
Leach, Helen M. 1982. “Cooking without pots: Aspects of prehistoric and traditional
Polynesian cooking.” New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 4: 149–156.
Leach, B. Foss, and Graham Ward. 1981. Archaeology on Kapingamarangi Atoll. Privately
published by B. F. Leach, Anthropology Dept., University of Otago, New Zealand.
Page 33 of 37

Leach, Foss, Janet Davidson, and J. Stephen Athens. 1996. “Mass Harvesting of Fish in
the Waterways of Nan Madol, Pohnpei, Micronesia.” In Oceanic Culture History: Essays in
Honour of Roger Green, ed. Janet Davidson, Geoffrey Irwin, Foss Leach, Andrew Pawley,
and Dorothy Brown, pp. 319–341. Dunedin North, New Zealand: New Zealand Journal of
Archaeology Special Publication.
MacLean, C. D., T. G. Cole, C. D. Whitesell, M. V. Falanruw, and A. H. Ambacher. 1986.

Vegetation Survey of Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Resource Bulletin PSW-18.
Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service,
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
McCoy, Mark K., and J. Stephen Athens. 2012. “Sourcing the megalithic stones of
(p. 299)
Nan Madol: An XRF study of architectural basalt stone from Pohnpei, Federated States of
Micronesia.” Journal of Pacific Archaeology 3(1): 105–114.
Moore, Darlene R. 2002. Guam’s Prehistoric Pottery and Its Chronological Sequence.
Report prepared by Micronesian Archaeological Research Services, Guam, for
International Archaeological Research Institute, Hawai‘i, under contract to the
Department of the Navy, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl
Harbor, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
Morgan, William N. 1988. Prehistoric Architecture in Micronesia. Austin: University of

Texas Press.
Murakami, Gail M. 1995 “Identification of Charred Plant Remains.” In Landscape

Archaeology: Prehistoric Settlement, Subsistence, and Environment of Kosrae, Eastern
Caroline Islands, Micronesia, by J. Stephen Athens, pp. 337–348. Report prepared for the
Kosrae State Government, Federated States of Micronesia. Honolulu: International
Osborne, Douglas. 1966. The Archaeology of the Palau Islands, an Intensive Survey.
Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 230. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. 1981. “Recent and current archaeological
research on Moen Island.” Asian Perspectives 24: 11–26.
Petersen, Glenn. 2006. “Micronesia’s breadfruit revolution and the evolution of a culture
area.” Archaeology in Oceania 41: 82–92.
Petersen, Glenn. 2009. Traditional Micronesian Societies: Adaptation, Integration, and

Political Organization. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.
Peterson, John A. 2012. “Latte villages in Guam and the Marianas: Monumentality or
monumenterity?” Micronesica 42(1/2): 183–208.
Page 34 of 37

Ragone, Diane. 2001. “Chromosome numbers and pollen stainability of three species of
Pacific Island breadfruit (Artocarpus, Moraceae).” American Journal of Botany 88: 693–
696.
Rainbird, Paul. 1999. “Entangled biographies: Western Pacific ceramics and the tombs of
Pohnpei.” World Archaeology 31(2): 214–224.
Rainbird, Paul. 2006. “The Archaeology of the Conical Clan in Micronesia.” In

Archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the Pacific Islands, ed. by Ian Lilley, pp. 302–317.
Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
Rainbird, Paul. 2007. “The Role of Fishing Lure Shanks for the Past People of Pohnpei,
Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia.” In Vastly Ingenious: The Archaeology of Pacific
Material Culture in Honour of Janet M. Davidson, ed. Atholl Anderson, Kaye Green, and
Foss Leach, pp. 217–226. Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.
Riesenberg, Saul H. 1968. The Native Polity of Ponape. Washington, DC: Smithsonian
Institution Press.
Rieth, Timothy, and J. Stephen Athens. 2013. “Suggested best practices for the
application of radiocarbon dating to Hawaiian archaeology.” Hawaiian Archaeology 13: 3–
29.
Riley, Thomas J. 1987. “Archaeological Survey and Testing, Majuro Atoll, Marshall
Islands.” In Marshall Islands Archaeology, ed. T. Dye, pp. 169–270. Pacific
Anthropological Records No. 38. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. Honolulu: Bishop
Museum Press.
Ritter, P. L. 1981. “The Population of Kosrae at Contact.” Micronesica 17: 11–28.
Ritter, L. T., and P. L. Ritter. 1982. The European Discovery of Kosrae Island: Accounts by
Louis Isidore Duperrey, Jules Sébastien César Dumont D’Urville, René Primevère Lesson,
Fyerdor (p. 300) Lütke, and Friedrich Heinrich von Kittlitz. Micronesian Archaeological
Survey Report, No. 13. Saipan: Historic Preservation Office, Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
Sarfert, Ernst. 1919. Kusae. Vol. 1, Allgemeiner Teil und Materielle Kultur. Ergebnisse der
Südsee-Expedition 1908‒1910. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen, de Gruyter & Co.
Schmeltz, J. D. E., and R. Krause. 1881. Die Ethnographisch-Anthropologische Abtheilung

de Museum Godeffroy. Hamburg: L. Friederichsen & Co.
Seikel, Katherine. 2011. “Mortuary contexts and social structure at Nan Madol, Pohnpei.”
Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 6: 442–460.
Shun, Kanalei, and J. Stephen Athens. 1990. “Archaeological investigations on Kwajalein

Atoll, Marshall Islands, Micronesia.” Micronesica, Supplement, 2: 231–240.
Page 35 of 37

Shutler, Richard, Jr. 1984a. “Radiocarbon Dating.” In Caroline Islands Archaeology:

Investigations on Fefan, Faraulep, Woleai, and Lamotrek, ed. Yosihiko H. Sinoto, pp. 57–
59. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 35. Honolulu: Dept. of Anthropology, Bernice P.
Bishop Museum.
Shutler, Richard, Jr. 1984b. “Description of Pottery from Sites TKFE-2, -3, -4, -5.” In
Caroline Islands Archaeology: Investigations on Fefan, Faraulep, Woleai, and Lamotrek,
ed. by Yosihiko H. Sinoto, pp. 44–53. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 35. Honolulu:
Dept. of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.
Shutler, Richard, Jr., and Jeffrey C. Marck. 1975. “On the dispersal of the Austronesian
Horticulturalists.” Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 10: 81–113.
Streck, Charles F., Jr. 1990. “Prehistoric settlement in Eastern Micronesia: Archaeology
on Bikini Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands.” Micronesica, Supplement, 2: 247–260.
Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer. 1993. “Extended 14C data base and revised CALIB
3.0 14C age calibration.” Radiocarbon 35: 215–230.
Tasa, Guy L. 1988. “Report on Human Skeletal Remains from Pahnwi and Wasau, Nan
Madol, Pohnpei.” Master’s Paper, Dept. of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene,
Oregon.
Ward, R. Gerard (ed.) 1967. American Activities in the Central Pacific, 1790‒1870.
Ridgewood, NJ: The Gregg Press.
Weisler, Marshall I. 1999. “The antiquity of Aroid pit agriculture and significance of
buried A horizons on Pacific atolls.” Geoarchaeology 14(7): 621–654.
Weisler, Marshall I. 2001. “Life on the edge: Prehistoric settlement and economy on Utrök
Atoll, Northern Marshall Islands.” Archaeology in Oceania 36: 109–133.
Weisler, Marshall I., Hiroya Yamano, and Quan Hua. 2012. “A multidisciplinary approach
for dating human colonization of Pacific atolls.” Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology
7: 102–125.
Whitesell, C. D., C. D. MaClean, M. C. Falanruw, T. G. Cole, and A. H. Ambacher. 1986.

Vegetation Survey of Kosrae, Federated States of Micronesia. Resource Bulletin PSW-17.
Berkeley, CA: Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service,
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.
Yawata, Ichiro. 1930. “The fish-shaped fishhooks in Micronesia.” Zinruigaku Zassi 45(4):
151–163 [in Japanese]. Trans. Chris Pearce. MS on file at Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop
Museum, Honolulu.
Yawata, Ichiro. 1932a. “Hidden Treasure in the Excavations.” Dorumen 1(1): 15‒18 [in
Japanese]. Trans. P. S. Chapman, Micronesian Archaeology: An Annotated Bibliography.
Page 36 of 37

M.A. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, Stanford University, 1964, pp. 225–227. Stanford,
California.
Yawata, Ichiro. 1932b. “Earthenware of Oceania.” Zinruigaku Zassi 47(2): 79 [in

(p. 301)
Japanese]. Trans. P. S. Chapman, Micronesian Archaeology: An Annotated Bibliography.

M.A. thesis, Dept. of Anthropology, Stanford University, 1964, p. 243. Stanford, California.
Zelenietz, Martin, and David Kravitz. 1974. “Absorption, Trade, and Warfare:
Beachcombers on Ponape, 1830‒1854.” Ethnohistory 21(3): 233–249.
Zerega, Nyree J. C. 2003. “The breadfruit trail.” Natural History 112(10): 46–51.
Zerega, Nyree J. C., Diane Ragone, and Timothy J. Motley. 2004. “Complex origins of
breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis, Moraceae): Implications for human migrations in Oceania.”
American Journal of Botany 91(5): 760–766.
Zerega, Nyree J. C., Diane Ragone, and Timothy J. Motley. 2006. “Breadfruit Origins,
Diversity, and Human-Facilitated Distribution.” In Darwin’s Harvest: Origins, Evolution,
and Conservation of Crop Plants, ed. T. J. H. Motley and N. Zerega, pp. 213–238. New
York: Columbia University Press.
J. Stephen Athens
J. Stephen Athens General Manager, International Archaeological Research Institute,

Inc. Hawaii, USA.
Page 37 of 37

Prehistory of Polynesia

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Prehistory of Polynesia

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Archaeology of the Eastern Caroline Islands, Micronesia

Oxford Handbooks Online

Print Publication Date: May 2018 Subject: Archaeology, Archaeology of Oceania

Abstract and Keywords

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Click to view larger

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Islands have long been

The Geographical Setting

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Language and Cultural Connections

Traditional Societies: The Ethnographic Record

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Initial Island Settlement

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Click to view larger

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

1Chuuk N-2845 TKFE-1, —charcoal 1,930 ± 75 — — 1,699– 146 B.C.–

1Chuuk N-2887 TKFE-1, —charred 2,020 ± 85 1,740– 351B.C.–

2Pohnpei Beta-6107 Nan 47.4charco 1,770 ± 90 — — 1,421– A.D. 35–

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

4Kosrae Beta-30788 Leluh, 27.8charco 1,850 ± 60 −22.1 1,900 ± 60 1,708– 38 B.C.–

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

6Marshall ISGS-669 Majuro —charcoal — −24.8 1,890 ± 75 1,624– 47B.C.

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

6Marshall ISGS-671 Majuro —charcoal — −25.3 1,970 ± 1,626– 351B.C.A.

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

8Marshall *Beta Maloelap < — — 1,910 ± 70 1,634– 84 B.C.–

9Kiribati Beta-89960 Nikunau —charred — −25 2,050 ± 90 1,822– 358B.C.–

9Kiribati Beta-89961 Nikunau —charred — −25 1,860 ± 1,542– 84B.C.–

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

(p. 284) Prehistoric Pottery

Prehistoric pottery is of particular interest because it can sometimes suggest cultural

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

out what this is with any certainty has proved elusive.

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

There is next to no archaeological or paleoenvironmental coring information regarding

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

(p. 287) Paleoenvironment

Prehistoric Cultural Florescence

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Nan Madol: Pohnpei

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

there as well, as indicated by archaeological investigations. However, Nan Madol seems

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Regarding archaeological research on Pohnpei’s main island, Ayres (1990) summarized

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

However, the use of columnar basalt on Kosrae is not nearly as common as it is on

Settlement Pattern and Population on Kosrae

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

Although archaeological investigations of prehistoric population growth and population

relatively modest compared to the highest nineteenth- and twentieth-century growth

By way of comparison, Pohnpei’s population at contact has been variously estimated at

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

The Breadfruit Revolution: Understanding the

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018

breadfruit’s overwhelmingly greater productivity with the matriclans’ adaptive

(p. 294) As explained by G. Petersen (2006: 89),

Subscriber: Universidad de Chile; date: 21 September 2018