Cited by 541Pacific and Southeast Asian StudiesArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies

Dating the late prehistoric dispersal of Polynesians to New Zealand using the commensal Pacific rat

Open access
Wilmshurst, Janet M., Anderson, Atholl J., Higham, Thomas F. G., Worthy, Trevor H.·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

The pristine island ecosystems of East Polynesia were among the last places on Earth settled by prehistoric people, and their colonization triggered a devastating transformation. Overhunting contributed to widespread faunal extinctions and the decline of marine megafauna, fires destroyed lowland forests, and the introduction of the omnivorous Pacific rat ( Rattus exulans ) led to a new wave of predation on the biota. East Polynesian islands preserve exceptionally detailed records of the initial prehistoric impacts on highly vulnerable ecosystems, but nearly all such studies are clouded by persistent controversies over the timing of initial human colonization, which has resulted in proposed settlement chronologies varying from ≈200 B.C. to 1000 A.D. or younger. Such differences underpin radically divergent interpretations of human dispersal from West Polynesia and of ecological and social transformation in East Polynesia and ultimately obfuscate the timing and patterns of this process. Using New Zealand as an example, we provide a reliable approach for accurately dating initial human colonization on Pacific islands by radiocarbon dating the arrival of the Pacific rat. Radiocarbon dates on distinctive rat-gnawed seeds and rat bones show that the Pacific rat was introduced to both main islands of New Zealand ≈1280 A.D., a millennium later than previously assumed. This matches with the earliest-dated archaeological sites, human-induced faunal extinctions, and deforestation, implying there was no long period of invisibility in either the archaeological or palaeoecological records.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0801507105

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • New Zealand's short colonization chronology is confirmed, with an EAEM-LAEM range of A.D. ∼1230-1282.

    “New Zealand's well-established short colonization chronology (11), which was further shortened and refined by dates from nonarchaeological sites on short-lived woody seed cases gnawed by the Polynesian-introduced Rattus exulans and compared with terrestrial avian eggshell from an early human cemetery (4, 15), and the short colonization chronology for Rapa Nui (6), are both confirmed here (EAEM–LAE”

    From High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia (2011) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say the results agree with, but shorten by about a century, New Zealand’s short prehistory model and place initial colonization at about A.D. 1280. The paper does not give the attributed EAEM–LAEM range of approximately A.D. 1230–1282. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Class 1 dates included samples on short-lived plant remains and terrestrial avian eggshell, all of which have been shown to produce consistent and reliable ages in the Pacific relative to the target event.

    “Class 1 dates included samples on short-lived plant remains (e.g., twig charcoal or wood, bark, seeds, leaves) and terrestrial avian eggshell, all of which have been shown to produce consistent and reliable ages in the Pacific relative to the target event, i.e., human activity (4, 6, 7, 32).”

    From High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia (2011) · cites this paper as [4]

    The paper describes AMS dating of rat-gnawed woody seeds and calls it a reliable approach to detecting initial rat presence (Conclusions; page not supplied). It also describes moa-eggshell dates from a securely dated New Zealand archaeological site (Abstract; page not supplied). It does not establish that all the listed short-lived plant remains and terrestrial avian eggshell consistently yield reliable ages across the Pacific relative to human activity. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [3]Steadman DW. Extinction and Biogeography of Tropical Pacific Birds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  2. [6]Tennyson A, Martinson P. Extinct Birds of New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand: Te Papa Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  3. [8]Anderson AJ. Initial human dispersal in remote Oceania: pattern and explanation. Cahiers Archaeol Nouvelle Caledonie. 2003;15:71–84. [Google Scholar]
  4. [27]Sutton DG. A paradigmatic shift in Polynesian prehistory: implications for New Zealand. NZ J Archaeol. 1987;9:135–155. [Google Scholar]
  5. [30]Worthy TH. What was on the menu- avian extinction in New Zealand. NZ J Archaeol. 1999;19:125–160. [Google Scholar]
  6. [39]Beavan NR, Sparks RJ. Factors influencing 14C ages of the Pacific Rat Rattus exulans. Radiocarbon. 1998;40:601–613. [Google Scholar]
  7. [48]Smith IWG. New Zealand Archaeological Association Monograph 17. In: Saying So Doesn't Make It So. Sutton DG, editor. Dunedin, New Zealand: New Zealand Archaeological Association; 1989. pp. 76–108. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wilmshurst, J. M., Anderson, A. J., Higham, T. F. G., & Worthy, T. H.
Affiliations
  • Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research (NZ)
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-06-03
Volume
105
Issue
22
Pages
7676-7680
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1994172734
Cited by
541
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 26
FWCI
214.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Animal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Keywords
Polynesian colonization, Pacific rat, Rattus exulans, New Zealand, East Polynesia, radiocarbon dating, deforestation, seed predation
MeSH terms
Animals, Emigration and Immigration, Fossils, Humans, New Zealand, Polynesia, Rats, Inbred Strains, Ecosystem, History, Ancient, Rats

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review