Polynesian Expansion Across the Pacific
Follow the evidence for generations of voyaging, from the Lapita world to the far corners of Polynesia.
Over many generations, Pacific communities established connections across an immense ocean. This story begins with the Lapita cultural world of the western Pacific, follows the emergence of ancestral Polynesian societies in the west, and explores the later settlement of eastern islands. Its pins locate archaeological evidence or clearly identified regional anchors. Dates refer to particular studies and evidence types; they are not a log of one expedition. Read the dates as approximate historical ranges. The place order is a reading order, not one itinerary. Site occupation, regional arrival and genetic estimates are identified separately in each description. About the routes: this map shows places without connecting lines. Polynesian expansion involved many generations and branching voyages; the evidence supports broad connections between regions, while exact sailing paths and many departure and landing sites remain unknown. Voyaging context and competing interpretations are explained in the descriptions. The long interval before settlement farther east does not mean all voyaging or contact stopped. Earlier Austronesian movements, later outlying settlements and contact with South America are outside this first edition. Selected research: Journal of Archaeological Science (2025): Understanding the human settlement of the Pacific – Are we there yet? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440325001566 Fiona Petchey and Patrick V. Kirch (2019): The importance of shell: Redating of the To’aga site (Ofu Island, Manu'a) and a revised chronology for the Lapita to Polynesian Plainware transition in Tonga and Sāmoa https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211990 David A. Sear and colleagues (2020): Human settlement of East Polynesia earlier, incremental, and coincident with prolonged South Pacific drought https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253300/ Barry Rolett and Thomas Dye (2024): Polynesian settlement of the Marquesas Islands: The chronology of Hanamiai in comparative context https://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal/article/view/348 Magdalena M. E. Bunbury, Fiona Petchey and Simon H. Bickler (2022): A new chronology for the Māori settlement of Aotearoa (NZ) and the potential role of climate change in demographic developments https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9674228/
Stop 1
Bismarck Archipelago — the Lapita world
c. 1500–1300 BCE — emergence of Lapita. Decorated Lapita pottery provides an archaeological thread through the western Pacific. Its characteristic stamped designs emerged in the Bismarck Archipelago, a region already inhabited long before these voyages. Communities connected with this cultural world later spread into Remote Oceania. This opening pin provides ancestral context for Polynesia; it does not label all Bismarck communities as Polynesian. What the date establishes: cultural appearance, not first human settlement of the Bismarcks. Dating detail: Te Ara uses around 1500 BCE; the 2025 review places the first Lapita sites around 3300 BP, approximately 1350 BCE. Map location: New Ireland island reference point stands for the Bismarck Archipelago; not a founder settlement or a departure beach. Evidence limits: The beginning of Lapita material culture is not the beginning of seafaring or human occupation here. Earlier Island Southeast Asian movements are outside this edition. Sources: Geoff Irwin (2017): Pacific migrations: Into Remote Oceania: Lapita people https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/page-3 Journal of Archaeological Science (2025): Understanding the human settlement of the Pacific – Are we there yet? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440325001566 Coordinate reference: GeoNames: New Ireland island gazetteer record https://www.geonames.org/advanced-search.html?continentCode=&country=PG&fclass=T&q=
Te Ara — Encyclopedia of New Zealand (2017)Stop 2
Efate, Vanuatu — evidence at Teouma
c. 1000–800 BCE — early Teouma activity. Teouma's cemetery and occupation deposits preserve evidence of early Lapita communities on Efate. Dating burials and accumulated food refuse helps researchers distinguish episodes in the site's history. The cemetery makes this a particularly tangible stop in a story otherwise reconstructed from scattered remains. Its dates describe activity here, rather than the first canoe to reach Vanuatu. What the date establishes: site activity; not first arrival anywhere in Vanuatu. Dating detail: Study reports earliest cemetery use around 2970 cal BP, regular use by 2940–2880 cal BP, and last interments around 2770–2710 cal BP. Display is rounded and does not contain every possible tail of the age distributions. Map location: Rounded from Academia Sinica's site point. Other public gazetteers differ by several kilometres; verify against a surveyed site plan before showing a precise excavation pin. Evidence limits: The site is an archaeological anchor within the western expansion, not proof that settlers of Fiji departed from this particular beach. Voyaging context: Lapita expansion into the Vanuatu region. c. 1100–800 BCE — broad western expansion. Intermediate island groups and multiple voyages are omitted. Teouma is an evidence anchor, not a documented arrival port. Sources: Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015): The chronology of occupation at Teouma, Vanuatu: Use of a modified chronometric hygiene protocol and Bayesian modeling to evaluate midden remains https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X15300833 Geoff Irwin (2017): Pacific migrations: Into Remote Oceania: Lapita people https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/page-3 Coordinate reference: Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica: Teouma — Lapita Online Database https://lapita.ihp.sinica.edu.tw/info.php?id=8
Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports (2015)Stop 3
Viti Levu, Fiji — Bourewa
c. 915–820 BCE — modelled start of Bourewa occupation. Bourewa on southwestern Viti Levu preserves evidence of a community established beside reef and tidal water. A 2013 re-analysis revised its occupation chronology after accounting for dating problems, including old charcoal. The preferred start boundary falls around 915–820 BCE. Bourewa is an important Lapita site, but that study identifies another Fijian site, Matanamuani, as the earliest securely dated in its comparison. What the date establishes: start of occupation at Bourewa in the preferred 2013 model, not initial settlement of all Fiji. Dating detail: Preferred model: 2814 ± 25 cal BP; 2837–2786 cal BP at 68.2%, 2865–2770 cal BP at 95.4%. Conventional approximate conversion gives 915–820 BCE for the latter. This revises the older approximately 1100 BCE estimate in Nunn (2009). Map location: Getty deserted-settlement/archaeological-site reference point, not a trench or reconstructed ancient shoreline. Evidence limits: The modern coastline differs from the early landscape. The preferred Bourewa model overlaps Nukuleka’s date and cannot establish Bourewa as the source of Tongan settlement; the connection represents the wider Fiji region. Voyaging context: Lapita expansion into Fiji. c. 915–820 BCE — selected Bourewa evidence, not first arrival in all Fiji. Connects regional anchors across a multi-island expansion; does not assert a direct Bismarcks–Bourewa crossing. Sources: Patrick D. Nunn and Fiona Petchey (2013): Bayesian re-evaluation of Lapita settlement in Fiji: radiocarbon analysis of the Lapita occupation at Bourewa and nearby sites on the Rove Peninsula, Viti Levu Island https://doi.org/10.70460/jpa.v4i2.118 Patrick D. Nunn (2009): Geographical Influences on Settlement-Location Choices by Initial Colonizers: a Case Study of the Fiji Islands https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2009.00594.x Geoff Irwin (2017): Pacific migrations: Into Remote Oceania: Lapita people https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/page-3 Coordinate reference: Getty Research Institute: Bourewa — TGN 7593827 https://www.getty.edu/vow/TGNFullDisplay?english=Y&find=&nation=&place=continent&subjectid=7593827
Journal of Pacific Archaeology (2013)Stop 4
Tongatapu, Tonga — Nukuleka
c. 888 BCE — a dated Nukuleka founder context. At Nukuleka, researchers dated worked coral files using uranium-thorium methods. One early-context sample yielded 2838 ± 8 BP, approximately 888 BCE, which the authors interpreted as evidence for a founder event. Early pottery also includes material brought from outside Tonga. Together these finds offer an unusually precise anchor for the establishment of communities in West Polynesia. What the date establishes: coral-file age in an early cultural layer. Dating detail: 2838 ± 8 BP, reported two-sigma measurement uncertainty; approximately 888 ± 8 BCE under the paper's BP convention. This is not a recorded arrival date. Map location: Modern Nukuleka village reference point; does not identify the dated excavation unit. Evidence limits: The laboratory uncertainty belongs to a sample. Its interpretation as initial settlement still depends on archaeological context, and does not date all islands of Tonga. Voyaging context: Fiji and the establishment of communities in Tonga. Around the ninth century BCE — overlapping site models. Bourewa stands for the wider Fiji region; its revised start range overlaps Nukuleka. This is not a claim that Nukuleka was founded after, or from, Bourewa. Imported pottery does not establish this specific source settlement or track. Sources: David Burley, Marshall I. Weisler and Jian-xin Zhao (2012): High Precision U/Th Dating of First Polynesian Settlement https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0048769 Geoff Irwin (2017): Pacific migrations: Into Remote Oceania: Lapita people https://teara.govt.nz/en/pacific-migrations/page-3 Patrick D. Nunn and Fiona Petchey (2013): Bayesian re-evaluation of Lapita settlement in Fiji: radiocarbon analysis of the Lapita occupation at Bourewa and nearby sites on the Rove Peninsula, Viti Levu Island https://doi.org/10.70460/jpa.v4i2.118 Coordinate reference: GeoNames: Nukuleka gazetteer entry https://www.geonames.org/advanced-search.html?q=Tonga&startRow=1650
PLOS ONE (2012)Stop 5
‘Upolu, Sāmoa — Mulifanua
c. 1000–800 BCE — poorly constrained Lapita evidence. Dredging for a ferry berth brought decorated Lapita pottery to light at Mulifanua. The discovery establishes that Lapita communities reached ‘Upolu, but disturbed recovery conditions make precise dating difficult. A later re-analysis also questioned the quality of the available bone date. The evidence supports early occupation in Sāmoa without fixing a single arrival year or proving that the settlers came directly from Tonga. What the date establishes: site evidence; exact beginning and duration uncertain. Dating detail: The 2019 re-analysis gives 3020–2760 cal BP at 68% probability, approximately 1070–810 BCE, but warns that the bone date would not meet modern quality protocols. Earlier pooled 2880–2750 cal BP estimates should not silently replace this assessment. Map location: Te Papa locality point, not the submerged archaeological material recovered during ferry-berth dredging. Evidence limits: Date is low confidence. Fiji–Sāmoa connections and a northern corridor through ‘Uvea/Futuna remain relevant alternatives to a simple Tonga→Sāmoa sequence. Sources: Fiona Petchey and Patrick V. Kirch (2019): The importance of shell: Redating of the To’aga site (Ofu Island, Manu'a) and a revised chronology for the Lapita to Polynesian Plainware transition in Tonga and Sāmoa https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0211990 Coordinate reference: Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa: Mulifanua (Sāmoa) https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/place/1929
PLOS ONE (2019)Stop 6
Atiu, southern Cook Islands — Lake Te Roto evidence
c. 800–1000 CE — evidence of early human presence. A sediment core from Lake Te Roto preserves chemical evidence associated with humans and pigs between about 800 and 1000 CE. Changes linked to established communities appear later. The researchers interpret this as a possible sequence of exploratory visits followed by settlement. Their drought explanation is a hypothesis about the wider expansion, not a documented reason for a particular voyage. What the date establishes: human presence inferred from lake sediments, not a dated founder village. Dating detail: Human/pig-associated biomarkers occur in sediments dated 800–1000 CE; the paper summarizes dispersal around 900 CE. Stronger signals of established communities occur later. Map location: Atiu island reference point, not the sediment core's sampling location or an identified landing beach. Evidence limits: This finding should not be converted into a claim that every southern Cook Island was permanently settled in 900 CE. Voyaging context: West Polynesia to the southern Cook Islands. c. 800–1000 CE — early human presence in the southern Cooks. Mulifanua stands for the wider West Polynesian source region. No departure from this archaeological site is known. Sources: David A. Sear and colleagues (2020): Human settlement of East Polynesia earlier, incremental, and coincident with prolonged South Pacific drought https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253300/ University of Auckland (2020): Settling of East Polynesia earlier and likely connected to prolonged drought https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2020/04/16/settling-of-east-polynesia-earlier-and-likely-connected-to-prolo.html Coordinate reference: GeoNames: Atiu Island gazetteer entry https://www.geonames.org/search.html?country=CK&q=Cookinseln
PNAS (2020)Stop 7
Huahine, Society Islands — Fa‘ahia
c. 1050–1160 CE — early Fa‘ahia occupation. Waterlogged deposits at Vaito‘otia-Fa‘ahia preserved wood and fibre alongside other evidence of early island life. Renewed excavations recovered short-lived materials suitable for radiocarbon dating, placing early occupation around 1050–1160 CE. Huahine provides an archaeological window into central East Polynesia. It serves here as a regional anchor, not a proven departure port for every voyage to the outer islands. What the date establishes: lowest sampled cultural layers at Fa‘ahia. Dating detail: Authors' abstract gives approximately 1050–1160 CE. Indexed full-paper results give approximately 1045–1180 CE at two sigma; the headline interval must not be relabelled a 95% bound. Map location: Huahine island reference point. The Fa‘ahia excavations are not located by this pin. Evidence limits: The earliest excavated layer is evidence for occupation at this site; it does not automatically establish the first settlement date for the entire Society archipelago. Voyaging context: Opening central East Polynesia. c. 900–1160 CE — evidence at selected central islands. A schematic relationship between regional evidence anchors, not proof of a direct Atiu–Huahine founding voyage. Sources: Atholl Anderson, Eric Conte, Ian Smith and Katherine Szabo (2019): New excavations at Fa’ahia (Huahine, Society Islands) and chronologies of central East Polynesian colonization https://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal/article/view/279 David A. Sear and colleagues (2020): Human settlement of East Polynesia earlier, incremental, and coincident with prolonged South Pacific drought https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32253300/ Coordinate reference: GeoNames: Huahine island gazetteer entry https://www.geonames.org/search.html?country=PF&q=Francouzsk%C3%A1+Polyn%C3%A9sie&startRow=250
Journal of Pacific Archaeology (2019)Stop 8
Hawaiʻi — Oʻahu regional anchor
c. 1000–1200 CE — arrival estimates remain debated. The northward Hawaiian branch spans a vast stretch of open Pacific. Its chronology depends on how researchers select and model archaeological and environmental evidence. One model places archipelago settlement most probably in 1000–1100 CE, while a different analysis gives a later estimate for Hawaiʻi Island. These studies address related but different questions. This pin preserves that distinction rather than assigning all Hawaiʻi a single first-arrival year. What the date establishes: separate archipelago and Hawaiʻi Island estimates. Dating detail: Athens, Rieth and Dye (2014): archipelago 940–1130 CE (95% HPD), most likely 1000–1100 CE (67% HPD). Rieth et al. (2011): Hawaiʻi Island 1220–1261 CE. The displayed centuries are a guide, not the union of identical statistical targets. Map location: Oʻahu island reference point represents the Hawaiian branch. No first landing on Oʻahu, or at this coordinate, is asserted. Evidence limits: The departure island, first Hawaiian landfall, and precise sailing track are not established here. This branch is not inferred from the 2021 genomic model. Voyaging context: Central East Polynesia toward Hawaiʻi. c. 1000–1200 CE — chronology debated. Huahine is only a visual proxy for central East Polynesia. Neither cited chronology identifies this departure island, an Oʻahu first landfall, or a path. Source identity is unresolved. Sources: J. Stephen Athens, Timothy M. Rieth and Thomas S. Dye (2014): A Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological Model-Based Age Estimate for the Colonization of Hawai‘i https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/abs/paleoenvironmental-and-archaeological-modelbased-age-estimate-for-the-colonization-of-hawail/A831E7C6BED967D22E33C905FE1CD3FA Journal of Archaeological Science (2011): The 13th century Polynesian colonization of Hawai‘i Island https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440311002159 Coordinate reference: GeoNames: O‘ahu island gazetteer entry https://www.geonames.org/search.html?country=US&q=Honolulu&startRow=0
American Antiquity (2014)Stop 9
Western Tuāmotu — a proposed voyaging hub
12th century CE — genomic-model estimate. A 2021 genetic study proposes the Tuāmotu region as a hub for later expansion toward the Marquesas and Gambier Islands. This pin identifies that model explicitly. It does not claim that Rangiroa was the sole hub or that its archaeological founding has been dated to the same century. What the date establishes: regional population-history inference. Dating detail: 2021 model places Tuāmotu expansion in the twelfth century. This is not a dated archaeological context at Rangiroa. Map location: Rangiroa administrative point stands for the western Tuāmotu region, not a dated founder site or the complete geographic extent of the genetic sample. Evidence limits: Keep the model layer visually separate from the archaeological evidence. Sources: Alexander G. Ioannidis and colleagues (2021): Paths and timings of the peopling of Polynesia inferred from genomic networks https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03902-8 Coordinate reference: GeoNames: Rangiroa — GeoNames 10295326 https://www.geonames.org/10295326/rangiroa.html
Nature (2021)Stop 10
Gambier Islands — Mangareva regional anchor
By c. 1100 CE — archaeological evidence; later genomic estimate. Archaeological work across the Gambier group supplies another anchor in southeastern Polynesia. A recent scholarly review places firmer evidence of occupation and environmental disturbance by about 1100 CE. A genetic reconstruction gives a later branching estimate and links Mangareva with Rapa Nui. The difference is retained as a research question rather than resolved by inventing one date. What the date establishes: regional evidence of occupation/environmental disturbance. Dating detail: The 2025 historical review reports firmer evidence by 1100 CE. The 2021 genetic reconstruction puts the Gambier branch in the twelfth century. These are different models and are not averaged into a new founding year. Map location: Mont Duff on Mangareva is a geographic anchor; it does not locate early occupation deposits or the Onemea site on neighbouring Taravai. Evidence limits: The new dates in the 2025 paper concern colonial buildings; only its review of earlier occupation is used for this prehistoric stop. Voyaging context: Central East Polynesia toward the Gambier Islands. By c. 1100 CE — reviewed regional archaeological evidence. Geographic schematic, not proof of a direct Huahine–Mangareva sailing route. Sources: Antiquity (2025): Direct dating of colonial-era coral building materials using the U-Th method in the Mangareva Islands, French Polynesia https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/direct-dating-of-colonialera-coral-building-materials-using-the-uth-method-in-the-mangareva-islands-french-polynesia/3A7A32B50999EB4599A12A7F15394B4C Alexander G. Ioannidis and colleagues (2021): Paths and timings of the peopling of Polynesia inferred from genomic networks https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03902-8 Coordinate reference: GeoNames: Mont Duff (Mangareva) gazetteer entry https://www.geonames.org/advanced-search.html?continentCode=&country=&fclass=T&q=iles
Antiquity (2025)Stop 11
Tahuata, Marquesas — Hanamiai
1160–1266 CE — start of the earliest Hanamiai phase. Hanamiai's coastal dune deposits preserve a long sequence of life on Tahuata. A 2024 re-analysis combined new dates with earlier measurements and placed the start of its earliest phase between 1160 and 1266 CE. This is a dated history of a particular community. Other Marquesan islands and sites need their own chronologies; the interval does not date the founding of the entire archipelago. What the date establishes: Hanamiai earliest occupation phase, not first arrival across all Marquesas. Dating detail: 2024 revision: 1160–1266 CE at 95% credible interval, from 22 age estimates including 14 new dates. Map location: Tahuata island gazetteer point, not the coastal Hanamiai excavation or an identified founding beach. Evidence limits: The genetic model's sampled Nuku Hiva and Fatu Hiva populations are not the Tahuata site; the two evidential units must not be equated. Voyaging context: Central East Polynesia toward the Marquesas. By 1160–1266 CE — Hanamiai site model. General expansion relationship; the source island and date of the actual passage are unknown. Hanamiai's date is not an arrival interval for all Marquesas. Sources: Barry Rolett and Thomas Dye (2024): Polynesian settlement of the Marquesas Islands: The chronology of Hanamiai in comparative context https://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal/article/view/348 Atholl Anderson, Eric Conte, Ian Smith and Katherine Szabo (2019): New excavations at Fa’ahia (Huahine, Society Islands) and chronologies of central East Polynesian colonization https://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal/article/view/279 Coordinate reference: National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency data via geographic.org: Tahuata island — NGA geographic names https://geographic.org/geographic_names/name.php?c=french_polynesia&fid=1832&uni=-1897700
Journal of Pacific Archaeology (2024)Stop 12
Rapa Nui — Anakena
c. 1200 CE — early Anakena occupation. Excavations in the dunes at Anakena helped revise the chronology of Rapa Nui. Radiocarbon evidence from early layers supports occupation around 1200 CE, considerably later than some older estimates. This bay provides a concrete archaeological stop at the eastern edge of the Polynesian world. A proposed Mangareva connection belongs to a separate genetic model; it is not a surviving canoe log. What the date establishes: early occupation used to infer island colonization. Dating detail: Hunt and Lipo's earliest Anakena strata and evaluation of older dates support colonization around 1200 CE; no exact year, month, or day is implied. Map location: Getty's Caleta Anakena point identifies the bay, not the exact sampled dune layer. Evidence limits: No claim is made here about a dated moai-building phase, population collapse, or a particular named founder's calendar date. Voyaging context: East Polynesian expansion toward Rapa Nui. c. 1200 CE — approximate early Rapa Nui occupation. Endpoint source and intermediate islands are unresolved in this broad layer. The geometry must not imply a proven nonstop departure from Huahine. Sources: Terry L. Hunt and Carl P. Lipo (2006): Late colonization of Easter Island https://experts.arizona.edu/en/publications/late-colonization-of-easter-island/ Coordinate reference: Getty Research Institute: Anakena, Caleta — TGN 7032218 https://www.getty.edu/vow/TGNFullDisplay?english=Y&find=&nation=north+korea&place=&subjectid=7032218
Science (2006)Stop 13
Aotearoa — Te Ika-a-Māui / North Island
1250–1275 CE — modelled North Island arrival. A large re-analysis of radiocarbon evidence places initial settlement of the North Island in 1250–1275 CE and the South Island slightly later. These are modelled regional ranges, not dates recorded at a known first-landing beach. For voyagers from tropical East Polynesia, Aotearoa opened a large and varied temperate landscape. The map uses a whole-island anchor to keep that geographic uncertainty visible. What the date establishes: regional arrival model, not one dated landing. Dating detail: 2022 study highlights North Island settlement at 1250–1275 CE, followed by South Island settlement at 1280–1295 CE. These remain modelled ranges. Map location: Whole-island gazetteer point; deliberately does not locate an unknown first landing. Evidence limits: Alternative interpretations of the earliest settlement chronology exist. Do not use Wairau Bar's dated activities or a traditional canoe account to turn this regional model into a precise arrival event. Voyaging context: East Polynesia toward Aotearoa. 1250–1275 CE — regional arrival model. A central East Polynesian geographic proxy connects to a whole-island arrival proxy; neither endpoint is a documented departure or landfall. Sources: Magdalena M. E. Bunbury, Fiona Petchey and Simon H. Bickler (2022): A new chronology for the Māori settlement of Aotearoa (NZ) and the potential role of climate change in demographic developments https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9674228/ Coordinate reference: Getty Research Institute: North Island — TGN 1008380 https://www.getty.edu/vow/TGNFullDisplay?english=Y&find=rodi&nation=&place=island&subjectid=1008380
PNAS (2022)Stop 14
Te Pokohiwi / Wairau Bar — an early Māori community
1320–1350 CE — a specifically dated cooking/discard event. At the mouth of the Wairau River, Te Pokohiwi preserves evidence of an early Māori community. Moa eggshell from a studied cooking and discard feature places that episode in 1320–1350 CE. The result dates an activity, not the first settlement of Aotearoa. Reading this local history alongside regional arrival models shows how quickly a migration story becomes a history of established communities. What the date establishes: one studied feature, not first settlement of the bar or of Aotearoa. Dating detail: Walter et al. report Jacomb et al.'s 2014 feature dating at 1320–1350 CE, two standard deviations. Broader South Island arrival is separately modelled at 1280–1295 CE in 2022. Map location: Rounded geographic reference for the bar, cross-checked with the heritage landscape description; no burial or excavation unit is identified. Evidence limits: This is a heritage landscape and wāhi tapu; the geographic marker is not an invitation to access a burial or excavation location. Voyaging context: Regional spread and an established South Island community. South Island arrival model 1280–1295 CE; Wairau event 1320–1350 CE. Shows two scales of evidence, not a traced migration from the North Island centroid to the Wairau cooking feature. Sources: Chris Jacomb and colleagues (2014): High-precision dating and ancient DNA profiling of moa eggshell documents a complex feature at Wairau Bar and refines the chronology of New Zealand settlement by Polynesians https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440314002015 Richard Walter, Hallie Buckley, Chris Jacomb and Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith (2017): Mass Migration and the Polynesian Settlement of New Zealand https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-017-9110-y Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga: Wairau — List No. 9561 https://www.heritage.org.nz/list-details/9561/Wairau Magdalena M. E. Bunbury, Fiona Petchey and Simon H. Bickler (2022): A new chronology for the Māori settlement of Aotearoa (NZ) and the potential role of climate change in demographic developments https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9674228/ Coordinate reference: Wikipedia coordinate record, checked against Heritage New Zealand landscape description: Wairau Bar geographic location https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wairau_Bar
Journal of Archaeological Science (2014)