Samoa rooms

Mulifanua ferry berth, Upolu, Samoa

Mulifanua

About 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago (a dredged Lapita site, and a second clock that shifts it)

The Mulifanua ferry terminal in 2016. The Lapita layer was found in dredge spoil in 1973, below sea level. The sherds are not on this concrete, and the berth has been rebuilt. Rickard Törnblad, CC BY-SA 4.0. Shown unedited.

In 1973, dredging for a ferry berth at Mulifanua on Upolu pulled up the only dentate-stamped Lapita pottery known in Samoa, the most easterly Lapita site in the Pacific. The sherds lay in a layer under water, on an old beach. Shell and bone from the spoil gave a combined age of about 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago. A later study, using one bone date and a different correction for the sea, shifts that to about 3020 to 2760, and then says the bone would not pass today’s tests.

Why this is extraordinary

In 1973 a dredge cutting a ferry berth at Mulifanua, on the northwest of Upolu, brought up pottery nobody expected in Samoa. The stamps are dentate, made with a toothed tool, the Lapita pattern, and they are still the only such pots in the country. They are also the most easterly Lapita in the Pacific. The old beach they sat on was a strip about 30 to 40 metres wide and at least 110 metres long, sheltered by two coral islets. By the time the dredge found it, the midden was under water. One description says 1.5 metres below sea level, stuck in the base of beachrock. Another puts the sherds at 2.25 metres below the modern tide. Both numbers are in print. They are not two names for one measurement, and forcing them together would invent a third. Take the deeper one, allow for where the sea stood then, and the coast has sunk about 4 metres, at roughly 1.4 millimetres a year, under the load of the volcanoes. Any other early site on Upolu or Savaiʻi may be down there too.

The clocks are radiocarbon on shell and bone, which have to be corrected because the sea’s carbon is older than the air’s. That correction is called delta-R. Four results came out of the spoil. One dates a later hardening of the beachrock and was set aside. A shell date and a turtle-bone date agree, and together, at 68 percent probability, they give 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago, about 930 to 800 BC, with delta-R plus 57 plus or minus 23. The decoration, dense rectilinear stamps like the early pots of Fiji and Tonga, fits that window. A third date, NZA-4780, 3062 plus or minus 66 on bone, looked too young for those stamps and was filed as something that fell into the sand later. In 2019 a restudy did the opposite. It kept that bone date, changed the correction to minus 48 plus or minus 82, and printed 3020 to 2760 calibrated years. In the same paper it says the bone was measured too long ago, and would not pass the checks now used to see if a bone still holds its original carbon. So the newer range rests on the sample the newer paper does not trust, and the older range rests on spoil.

The catch is the dredge. A sherd and a shell that come up in the same load are “associated” only in the bucket. One pot has a temper that is probably from Fiji, which is a real westward thread in the clay, bucket or not. No one has published a bearing for the old beach. Lapita sailors, like the Oceanic navigators after them, made landfall by wind and stars. This berth does not add the heading they steered. The photograph is the terminal in 2016, orange and concrete. The 1973 spoil is not on the deck. The building is the place, rebuilt.

What this changes: if 2880 to 2750 holds, Samoa’s only stamped Lapita is the same early centuries as Fiji and Tonga, on a sunken beach. If the other correction is the right one and a better sample confirms it, the landing moves a little older and the poor state of the bone remains a warning. The great mound at Pulemelei is more than a thousand years later, and it is not this pottery. Star mounds, the armed platforms, are a different plan again, and no azimuth from them to a named star is published.

Why it matters

Samoa is the eastern edge of Lapita. The date here is the date at which the pottery tradition that will become Polynesian plainware is already in these islands, and the start of the long argument about the pause before anyone sailed farther east. A dredged site is a bad place to be precise, which is why the clocks disagree.

The cultural layer ran in a band about 30 to 40 metres wide and at least 110 metres long, on a former coral-sand beach behind two small islets. When it was found, the midden was described as 1.5 metres below sea level, partly caught in beachrock. Another measurement puts the sherd horizon at 2.25 metres below modern sea level. Those two depths are both published. They are not the same sentence, and this room does not force them into one. Allowing for the sea level of the time, the deeper figure has been read as about 4 metres of subsidence, at a mean rate of about 1.4 millimetres a year, from the weight of Samoan volcanoes. Four radiocarbon results exist. One was set aside as a later recrystallisation of the beachrock. Of the rest, a shell date and a turtle-bone date were combined, at 68 percent probability, to 2880 to 2750 calibrated years before present, about 930 to 800 BC, using a marine correction, delta-R, of plus 57 plus or minus 23. A third date, on bone, NZA-4780, 3062 plus or minus 66, looked too young for the dense decoration and was treated as later material in the spoil. A 2019 recalculation instead uses that bone date alone, with delta-R of minus 48 plus or minus 82, and gets 3020 to 2760 calibrated years at 68 percent. The same paper says the bone was measured too long ago to pass current checks on whether bone still has its original carbon. One sherd has a temper that is probably Fijian, which is a direct link west. No bearing of the old beach is published. The voyage was by wind and stars. The ferry berth does not record the heading.

Photo tour

1 photograph, unedited. On a phone, swipe the row. Choose one to look closely.

The Mulifanua ferry terminal in 2016. The Lapita layer was found in dredge spoil in 1973, below sea level. The sherds are not on this concrete, and the berth has been rebuilt. Rickard Törnblad, CC BY-SA 4.0

What is still unexplained

These sit beside the consensus account, with the same visual weight. None of them is marked solved.

Open Spoil is not a layer The pots, the shell, and the bone came up in a dredge. A dredge mixes a band 110 metres long into one heap. The two dates that were combined agree with each other and with the early-looking decoration, rectilinear stamps of the kind known in Fiji and Tonga. The bone date that looked late may be a later visitor to the same sand, or a bone that did not keep its carbon. Either way, “associated with the pots” means “came out of the same spoil,” which is weaker than a sherd in a drawn section.
Open Two corrections for the sea Shell and turtle bone from the ocean need a reservoir correction, delta-R, because sea carbon is older than air carbon. Plus 57 and minus 48 are both published for this material. They move the calendar. The 2880 to 2750 result uses the first. The 3020 to 2760 result uses the second, on a sample the same study no longer trusts. Changing the correction and changing your mind about the sample are two different edits. Doing both at once is why Mulifanua is called poorly dated even by people who do not doubt that Lapita sailors landed here.

Location and dating

Location
The ferry berth at Mulifanua, Aiga-i-le-Tai, northwest Upolu. The pin is the village, 13.848 south, 172.038 west. The 1973 spoil came from the berth in the photograph, which has been rebuilt. The sherds are in collections, not on the wharf.
Period label
Current consensus — open to revision Lapita. Combined calibrated age 2880 to 2750 years before present at 68 percent, or 3020 to 2760 if the single bone date and the other reservoir correction are used. The second pair is published with a warning about the bone.
How this dating was done
Radiocarbon on shell and bone, with a marine reservoir correction. One result was rejected as beachrock recrystallisation. The depth below sea level is a measurement of subsidence once the old sea level is allowed for, not a date by itself.
What could change it
A new date on shell or bone that passes current preservation tests, from a piece still in the beach sand rather than in stored spoil, would replace both published combinations.
Published ranges, drawn as bars. A bar is a claim about a span, not a point.
Combined shell and turtle boneContested
Single bone date, other correctionContested
1070 BCE900 BCE800 BCE
  • Combined shell and turtle bone. 2880 to 2750 calibrated years before present, 68 percent, delta-R +57 ± 23. About 930 to 800 BC.
  • Single bone date, other correction. 3020 to 2760 calibrated years, 68 percent, on NZA-4780 with delta-R −48 ± 82. The study that prints it also doubts the bone.

What is actually there

Open questions

Question Status
Which calibrated age should be taught? Open. 2880 to 2750 combines the samples once thought reliable. 3020 to 2760 uses a bone the same paper does not trust.
How far has the coast sunk? Open. 1.5 metres and 2.25 metres are both in print. About 4 metres of subsidence is the reading of the deeper one, after sea level is accounted for.

The current narrative

Where publication stands today. It is the best-supported reading, and it is open to revision. It is not a verdict.

The current narrative — open to revision

Settlement around 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago

People with dentate Lapita pottery lived on a beach at Mulifanua about 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago, at the eastern edge of the Lapita world, on a coast that has since sunk.

What supports this

  • A shell date and a turtle-bone date combine in that range and match the early-looking rectilinear decoration.
  • One sherd has temper that is probably Fijian, so the link west is in the clay.
  • The geological reading, about 4 metres of subsidence, explains why a beach site is under the modern berth.

What pushes back

  • Everything was dredged. Association is spoil, not a section.
  • A different reservoir correction and a different choice of sample move the age to 3020 to 2760.
  • Two published depths, 1.5 and 2.25 metres, mean the subsidence sum depends on which depth you start from.

What would settle it

It is the centre because it is the combination that threw out the sample which looked too young and kept the two that agree with the pots. It moves if a new, well-preserved sample prefers the other correction.

Emerging narratives

Other published readings. Each may be right. None is adopted here unless the evidence carries it.

An emerging narrative

A slightly older, less trustworthy bone date

The age should follow the single bone date NZA-4780 and a delta-R of minus 48, giving 3020 to 2760 calibrated years, and even that is a poor date.

What supports this

  • The 2019 paper prints 3020 to 2760 at 68 percent using that sample and that correction.
  • Reservoir corrections are not eternal. A plus 57 used in the 1990s need not be the correction used now.
  • The same paper says the bone would fail modern quality checks, which is a reason to call the site poorly dated rather than precisely older.

What pushes back

  • NZA-4780 was the date earlier workers set aside because it was too young for the decoration.
  • Using a sample you have just called unreliable is a weak foundation for a new range.
  • The shell-and-turtle combination still overlaps the early Lapita window of Fiji and Tonga.

What would settle it

It stays because the reservoir value really does change the calendar, and the warning about the bone is part of the published record. It is not the centre while it depends on the sample the study itself does not trust.

Should the current view be reevaluated?

Open to revision

Lapita pottery at Mulifanua is not in doubt. The calibrated century is, because the finds were dredged and the two published combinations do not use the same samples or the same sea correction. Open is a site everyone counts and nobody can date cleanly.

What drives this

  • A dredged layer, with 1.5 metres and 2.25 metres both in print.
  • 2880 to 2750 calibrated years from shell and turtle bone.
  • 3020 to 2760 from a bone date the same study says would fail current tests.

This is the museum’s own weighing of the evidence. It is not a visitor vote, and it is separate from the slider.

Weigh it yourself

Anonymous. Nothing here is stored except on this browser. Your lean does not change the assessment beside it.

Settlement around 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago Unsure A slightly older, less trustworthy bone date

If the contested reading is right

What would follow if a reading that is not the consensus turned out to be true, and what could settle it. This explains the stakes. It does not adopt the reading.

An eastern Lapita beach about 2880 to 2750 calibrated years ago, now under water

Samoa would have dentate pottery at the same time as the Fiji–Tonga window, on a coast that has sunk about 4 metres, and the pause before East Polynesia would start from that landing.

Why it is still worth a test

A new date on well-preserved shell still in the beach sand, with the reservoir correction stated.

Sources

  1. Radiocarbon determinations from Mulifanua Radiocarbon, the 2880 to 2750 combination and the samples set aside
  2. Geoarchaeological context of subsidence at Mulifanua Geoarchaeology, 1998, 2.25 metres and about 4 metres of subsidence
  3. Redating and the Lapita to plainware transition PLOS ONE, 2019, the 3020 to 2760 shift and the bone-quality warning

Image credits