Independent Researcher, Aotearoa New Zealand
25 August 2026
Version 1.0
Archaeology, Oral History and Political Authority in Western Polynesia
Abstract
Samoan oral traditions attribute exceptional sacred and political seniority to the Tu‘i Manu‘a title and preserve accounts linking Manu‘a with Tonga, Fiji and other parts of Polynesia. Some versions describe an older regional order, termed Samoa‘aatoa in the work of Tongan scholar ‘Opeti Manisela Taliai, in which seafood tribute or umiti was presented to Tu‘i Manu‘a. These traditions are sometimes dismissed on the grounds that archaeology has not identified the material remains of a Manu‘an “empire.” This paper evaluates that objection through an interdisciplinary review of archaeological research, nineteenth-century recorded Samoan traditions, Tongan historiography and studies of long-distance interaction in Western Polynesia. It distinguishes three propositions that are frequently conflated: a centrally administered territorial empire, episodic or hegemonic political authority, and sacred or genealogical seniority expressed through tribute and inter-island relationships. Current archaeology does not support the first proposition. Recent settlement research instead finds limited evidence for durable political integration beyond individual Samoan communities, particularly in the eastern islands. However, the same research expressly recognises multi-island prestige and does not exclude political influence extending beyond individual communities at particular times. Research on Ta‘ū has also revealed a substantially engineered inland landscape whose scale was poorly represented in earlier archaeological models. Regional geochemical studies independently demonstrate intensive movement of prestige goods between Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and more distant islands. The paper therefore concludes that archaeology has not demonstrated a Tu‘i Manu‘a territorial empire, but neither has it falsified a model of Manu‘an sacred or hegemonic authority operating through genealogy, prestige, tribute and voyaging. The appropriate research question is not whether an empire comparable to a Eurasian territorial state existed, but what form of supra-local authority the Tu‘i Manu‘a traditions may preserve.
Keywords: Tu‘i Manu‘a; Manu‘a; Samoa‘aatoa; Sāmoa; Tonga; Western Polynesia; archaeology; oral tradition; political authority; umiti
1. Introduction
Samoan oral traditions place Manu‘a at the centre of an ancient Polynesian social and sacred geography. Within these traditions, Tu‘i Manu‘a was not simply a local ruler of Ta‘ū, Ofu and Olosega. The title is associated with relationships extending across the Samoan archipelago and, in more expansive accounts, to Tonga, Fiji and other islands. Taliai (2007), drawing on Samoan and Tongan traditions, uses the term Samoa‘aatoa for an older order in which several island groups were said to have presented seafood tribute to Tu‘i Manu‘a.
The historical status of these traditions remains disputed. A common archaeological objection holds that if Tu‘i Manu‘a exercised authority across a large part of Polynesia, a corresponding material signature of empire should be visible. That argument depends on what kind of authority is being proposed. A centralised territorial state should be expected to leave a different archaeological signature from a system based on sacred seniority, genealogy, marriage, periodic tribute, ceremonial precedence or episodic political hegemony.
This paper reassesses the Tu‘i Manu‘a question by separating those political models and comparing the claims preserved in oral and historical traditions with the actual scope of archaeological evidence. It does not seek to prove the most expansive form of the Tu‘i Manu‘a tradition. Rather, it asks whether current archaeology has falsified that tradition and, if not, what narrower hypotheses remain historically plausible.
The central argument is that the absence of evidence for durable territorial integration cannot, by itself, be treated as evidence against all forms of supra-local Manu‘an authority. Archaeology is well suited to identifying settlement, construction, exchange, fortification and other material processes. It is less capable of directly identifying titles, genealogical rank, the political meaning of gifts, or ceremonial obligations. A rigorous assessment therefore requires multiple forms of evidence to be considered together.
2. Research Questions, Scope and Method
This paper addresses four questions. First, what do the earliest recorded Samoan and Tongan traditions actually claim about Tu‘i Manu‘a and relationships beyond Manu‘a? Second, what aspects of those claims are archaeologically testable? Third, what does current archaeological research in Manu‘a and the wider Samoan archipelago establish about settlement scale, political organisation and inter-island interaction? Fourth, which interpretations are supported, contradicted or left unresolved by the available evidence?
The study is an interdisciplinary historical review rather than a report of original fieldwork. It synthesises peer-reviewed archaeological studies, archaeological monographs, nineteenth- and early twentieth-century records of Indigenous traditions, Tongan historical interpretations, and relevant institutional heritage research. Particular weight is given to work that directly concerns Manu‘a, Samoan settlement organisation, Tongan political development and geochemically demonstrated inter-island exchange. Oral tradition is treated as historical evidence requiring corroboration, not as automatically literal history. Archaeological absence is likewise treated cautiously where survey coverage, preservation or the material visibility of the proposed institution is limited.
For analytical purposes, the paper distinguishes three models of regional authority. Territorial administration means durable political control materialised through institutions and infrastructure. Hegemonic or episodic authority means political influence extending beyond a local community without permanent administration. Sacred-genealogical seniority means recognised precedence expressed through ancestry, ritual, tribute, marriage or ceremonial relationships. Each model should produce a different archaeological expectation.
| Evidence class | What it can establish relatively well | What it cannot establish by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Settlement archaeology | Population organisation, construction, land use, fortification, labour mobilisation | The name of a political office or the meaning of a title |
| Radiocarbon dating | Approximate age of dated organic material and associated activities | The founding date of a chiefly title unless directly associated evidence exists |
| Geochemical sourcing | Movement of stone and other sourceable materials between islands | Whether movement represented trade, tribute, marriage, warfare or gifting |
| Oral traditions and genealogies | Indigenous memories of relationships, rank, movement and political meaning | Precise chronology or literal accuracy without external corroboration |
| Early ethnographic records | Traditions circulating at the time of collection | Automatic proof that the recorded tradition describes an unchanged ancient reality |
3. Historical and Ethnohistorical Foundations of the Tu‘i Manu‘a Tradition
The proposition that Manu‘a possessed exceptional regional significance predates modern social-media debates by more than a century. Thomas Powell collected Samoan traditional material during the nineteenth century, including material supplied by Tauanu‘u of Manu‘a. John Fraser subsequently edited and published The Samoan Story of Creation—A ‘Tala’ in the first volume of the Journal of the Polynesian Society (Fraser, 1892). The published account states that the tradition had been obtained from Tauanu‘u and preserves a cosmological geography in which Manu‘a occupies a position of particular seniority.
The value of this source is not that a creation account can be read as a literal political chronicle. Mythic narratives combine cosmology, genealogy, political legitimacy and memory. Their importance is evidentially narrower: they demonstrate that concepts of Manu‘an seniority and connections beyond Manu‘a were already embedded in recorded Samoan tradition in the nineteenth century. Consequently, the regional Tu‘i Manu‘a tradition cannot reasonably be characterised as a recent invention.
The same caution applies to later institutional summaries of the tradition. The National Register documentation for the Tui Manu‘a Graves Monument treats the title as historically central within Manu‘a while also reviewing traditions of broader prestige and connection (Clark & Motu, 2015). Such documents do not prove regional sovereignty, but they reinforce the distinction between the secure historicity of the title itself and the unresolved scale or form of its earlier authority.
4. Tongan Historiography, Samoa‘aatoa and Umiti
Arguments for an earlier Manu‘an relationship with Tonga are not confined to Samoan sources. Tongan social anthropologist ‘Opeti Manisela Taliai (2007), in his doctoral thesis on the legitimation of Tongan political and economic power, reinterprets the ‘Aho‘eitu foundation traditions of the Tu‘i Tonga system. In his glossary, Taliai defines Samoa‘aatoa as a wider “all Samoa” incorporating Samoa, Tonga, Fiji, Rarotonga, Tahiti and Wahua and associates these places with seafood tribute to Tu‘i Manu‘a. He also interprets Samoan figures within the ‘Aho‘eitu narrative, including the older Samoan half-brothers Faleua and Falefaa, as politically significant to the formation of the early Tu‘i Tonga order (Taliai, 2007).
Taliai’s reconstruction should not be converted into archaeological fact. It is a socio-historical interpretation of traditional material, and several of its linguistic and historical propositions require independent testing. Nevertheless, it is important because it demonstrates that a model of pre-Tu‘i Tonga Manu‘an seniority can be generated from the examination of Tongan political traditions themselves rather than only from later Samoan assertions.
Earlier Tongan historiography also considered Manu‘a within reconstructions of Tonga’s political past. Collocott’s (1924) attempt to order Tu‘i Tonga genealogies and traditions is methodologically dated by modern standards, but it remains important as an early record of traditions then available in Tonga. Taken together, these sources justify treating the Tu‘i Manu‘a question as a legitimate problem in Western Polynesian political history rather than as a simple contest between modern national narratives.
The most testable element of Taliai’s argument is not the word “empire” but the proposed relationship between umiti, Tu‘i Manu‘a and later Tongan tributary institutions. If a tribute relationship existed, the relevant questions concern chronology, the direction and frequency of movement, the identity of participating communities and the material contexts of ceremonial exchange. These are narrower and potentially testable propositions.
5. Archaeological Visibility and the Limits of Material Evidence
Archaeology provides the strongest independent means of testing whether large populations, intensive construction, warfare, territorial integration or long-distance material exchange existed. It does not, however, recover every dimension of political life with equal reliability. Radiocarbon dating dates organic samples and associated activities, not political titles as abstract institutions. Geochemical sourcing identifies the geographical origin of stone, but not whether its movement represented trade, tribute, diplomatic gifting, chiefly marriage or another social process. Organic tribute items such as food, fibre, feathers and wooden objects are particularly vulnerable to tropical decay.
This distinction is recognised in the archaeology of the later and materially more visible Tongan state. Clark et al. (2014) demonstrated large-scale movement of stone tools into Tongan political centres while noting that perishable exchange items would be much less archaeologically visible. Thus, even where exchange is securely demonstrated, archaeology does not automatically disclose the political meaning of the exchange.
The same issue applies to umiti. Fish bone at a site can provide information about species, diet and potentially provenance. Without a distinctive depositional context or independent historical association, however, it cannot identify a meal as tribute. Conversely, failure to identify a deposit labelled archaeologically as “tribute” cannot falsify a tribute system whose principal materials were consumed or perishable. The appropriate inference is therefore neither that oral tradition is proven nor that archaeological silence disproves it.
6. The Archaeological Record of Manu‘a
Archaeological investigation in Manu‘a has a substantial history. Hunt and Kirch’s (1988) survey and the subsequent To‘aga project established a long sequence of occupation and provided important evidence for settlement, subsistence and inter-island interaction in the Manu‘a group (Hunt & Kirch, 1988, 1993). Martinsson-Wallin’s (2007) review subsequently synthesised the broader development of Samoan archaeology and emphasised how uneven survey histories affected regional comparison.
Later remote sensing and intensive field survey substantially enlarged the known archaeological landscape. Research at Luatele on Ta‘ū documented an extensive agro-residential landscape rather than an archaeologically empty interior. Quintus et al. (2020) developed a radiocarbon chronology for stone and earthen architecture on Ta‘ū, showing that most construction belongs to the second millennium AD, with some plausible earlier terrace construction. Follow-up landscape analysis recorded 312 terraces and 93 linear mound segments across approximately 130 hectares of surveyed Luatele terrain and interpreted changes in settlement organisation as evidence of increasing landscape packing and community integration through time (Quintus et al., 2022).
These findings do not constitute evidence of an inter-island Tu‘i Manu‘a state. They are nevertheless important to the historiography of the debate because they show that earlier descriptions of Manu‘a were limited by the archaeological visibility and survey coverage then available. Remote sensing and targeted pedestrian investigation exposed a scale of inland landscape modification that had not been fully incorporated into older models. Accordingly, statements based on earlier non-discovery must be distinguished from positive evidence that a feature or institution was absent.
7. Settlement Diversity and the Case Against a Durable Territorial Empire
The strongest recent archaeological challenge to an expansive Tu‘i Manu‘a model comes from Quintus, Cochrane, Laumea and Filimoehala’s archipelago-wide study of settlement diversity, published online in 2025 and appearing in the 2026 volume of The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology (Quintus et al., 2026). Their analysis finds more robust archaeological evidence of territorial behaviour in the western islands, especially ‘Upolu and Savai‘i, where larger settlement units and labour forces are visible. Eastern islands, including Manu‘a, display smaller and more nucleated communities and more limited evidence of territoriality.
The study found that public goods were generally localised, providing little evidence for durable political control beyond individual settlements. On present evidence, this is difficult to reconcile with a model in which Manu‘a permanently administered a large territorial state through institutional control comparable to that visible in later Tonga.
However, the same paper explicitly distinguishes durable political integration from wider social influence. Its abstract notes that multi-island influence and prestige are well attested ethnographically, while the discussion states that the absence of large-scale durable integration does not imply that political prowess never extended beyond individual communities at particular times (Quintus et al., 2026). The findings weigh against a permanently administered territorial empire, but they do not falsify episodic hegemony, ritual seniority, genealogical precedence or tribute relationships that were not materialised through permanent infrastructure.
The archaeological conclusion depends on the kind of authority being proposed. If “empire” is defined as durable territorial integration, current archaeology does not support a Tu‘i Manu‘a empire. If the historical claim is instead that Tu‘i Manu‘a possessed supra-local sacred prestige or intermittent political authority recognised through tribute and genealogy, the archaeological test is substantially different and remains unresolved.
8. Political Form: Empire, Hegemony and Sacred Seniority
The word empire risks imposing an inappropriate comparative model on the evidence. A centralised state normally requires sustained mechanisms for extracting resources, mobilising labour, enforcing decisions and reproducing authority across territory. Such mechanisms frequently produce durable material consequences. The later Tongan state provides a useful regional contrast because centralisation is visible in monumental construction, political centres and the concentration of imported prestige goods (Clark et al., 2014).
A political system based principally on sacred seniority would not necessarily generate the same material pattern. Genealogical precedence, chiefly marriage, first-fruit or seafood presentations, ceremonial recognition and periodic voyaging can establish asymmetrical political relationships without permanent administration. Such arrangements may be described more accurately as hegemonic, tributary, ritual or sacred-political networks, depending on the evidence, rather than as territorial empire.
This distinction does not rescue an unsupported hypothesis by definition. A tribute model still requires evidence. Independent traditions should preserve compatible relationships; relevant sites should show chronologically plausible inter-island contact; material sourcing should demonstrate movement along the proposed routes; and, where possible, ceremonial contexts should be archaeologically investigated. The advantage of the narrower model is that it generates specific tests rather than requiring archaeologists to search for the material equivalent of a European imperial bureaucracy.
9. Regional Interaction as Independent Archaeological Evidence
Whatever political interpretation is adopted, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Samoa, Tonga and Fiji cannot be treated as isolated prehistoric systems. Barnes and Hunt (2005) reviewed archaeological, linguistic, genealogical and ethnohistorical evidence and concluded that pre-contact interaction among Samoa, Tonga and Fiji was extensive, with particularly strong evidence for Samoa–Tonga relationships.
Clark et al. (2014) provide a strong independent archaeological demonstration of this connectivity. Geochemical analysis of worked stone from Tongan political centres found that approximately 66% of the analysed adze flakes were long-distance imports, principally from Fiji and Samoa, with one specimen sourced much farther east. These findings establish that people and valued materials moved across large distances within the Central Pacific and that imported objects accumulated at Tongan centres of political power.
This evidence does not establish Tu‘i Manu‘a authority over Tonga, but it removes geographical isolation as an objection to the traditional accounts. Regular inter-island movement, political communication and exchange were technologically and socially feasible. The unresolved question is therefore not whether Samoa and Tonga interacted, but what forms of reciprocity, hierarchy and political meaning accompanied that interaction at different periods.
10. Chronology, Identity and the Problem of Projecting Modern Nations into Prehistory
The deep settlement chronology of Western Polynesia must also be separated from later political identity. Archaeological evidence places Lapita populations in Tonga and Samoa close to three millennia ago, with very early occupation securely established in both archipelagos (Hunt & Kirch, 1993; Martinsson-Wallin, 2007). Archaeologists routinely use modern island names as geographical descriptors for these populations, but geographical location does not establish that communities 2,500–3,000 years ago possessed the later political identities known historically as “Samoan” or “Tongan.”
The rise of the centralised Tongan state occurred much later than initial human settlement. The political landscape of the second millennium AD cannot simply be projected backward into the Lapita period. Taliai’s Samoa‘aatoa reconstruction is one interpretation of an earlier political order, not an archaeological conclusion. Conversely, early Lapita occupation in Tonga cannot by itself disprove a later period of Manu‘an political or sacred seniority. The propositions concern different chronological questions.
11. Evaluating Oral Tradition as Historical Evidence
Oral traditions cannot be treated as direct transcripts of remote events. Genealogies may be reorganised to legitimise later political claims; cosmology and history may be intertwined; events may be telescoped; and the meaning of titles can change. The nineteenth-century recording of a tradition proves that the tradition existed by that time, not that every element of it accurately describes events many centuries earlier.
The appropriate method is convergent testing. A claim of tribute from Tonga should be compared with Tongan traditions and with archaeological evidence for contact in the relevant period. Claims of chiefly intermarriage can be compared across independent genealogies. Material movement can be tested through geochemical sourcing. If ceremonial localities associated with Tu‘i Manu‘a and umiti can be securely identified, their deposits can be examined for non-local materials, unusual faunal assemblages or other indicators of supra-local exchange.
This approach treats Indigenous oral traditions neither as inferior to archaeology nor as exempt from critical evaluation. Each evidence class is strongest when used to answer questions suited to it, and confidence increases where independent lines of evidence converge.
12. Discussion
The evidence presently supports a more differentiated conclusion than either an unqualified “Tu‘i Manu‘a Empire” narrative or an archaeological dismissal of the tradition.
First, the existence and high status of the Tu‘i Manu‘a title in historical Manu‘a are not in serious dispute. Second, traditions attributing broader relationships and seniority to Manu‘a were recorded well before contemporary nationalist debate. Third, Tongan historical interpretation contains material compatible with an earlier Manu‘an relationship, although the meaning and chronology of that material remain contested. Fourth, archaeology demonstrates an ancient and intensively connected Western Polynesian interaction sphere. Fifth, the archaeological landscape of Ta‘ū is more extensive and socially structured than older survey-based characterisations suggested.
At the same time, the strongest current settlement analysis does not identify the material signature expected from durable large-scale territorial administration centred on Manu‘a. The eastern islands contained smaller political communities than ‘Upolu and Savai‘i, and public infrastructure appears principally local rather than archipelago-wide (Quintus et al., 2026). Any academic reconstruction must take this finding seriously.
The apparent tension can be reduced by recognising that territorial control and sacred-political seniority are not equivalent phenomena. Current evidence weighs against a model of permanent Manu‘an administration of Tonga, Fiji and distant Polynesian islands. It is substantially less decisive against a model in which Tu‘i Manu‘a possessed recognised sacred status, genealogical seniority, episodic political influence or tributary relationships within a highly mobile inter-island network.
Taliai’s Samoa‘aatoa hypothesis is therefore best treated as a research programme rather than an established conclusion. Its strongest contribution is that it generates testable questions about the relationship between Manu‘a and the emergence of the Tu‘i Tonga system, the terminology and practice of tribute, and the chronological development of Western Polynesian political institutions.
13. Research Limitations and Priorities
Several limitations prevent stronger conclusions. Archaeological survey coverage remains uneven, and the visibility of older coastal sites has been affected by sea-level change, erosion, storms and later settlement. Radiocarbon chronologies date particular activities rather than chiefly institutions. Much of the relevant historical material was written down after European contact and passed through missionary, colonial or scholarly intermediaries. The internal chronology of genealogical traditions is also uncertain.
Future research should therefore focus on propositions capable of independent testing. Priorities include systematic archaeological investigation of landscapes directly associated with Tu‘i Manu‘a on Ta‘ū, geochemical sourcing of non-local stone and shell from securely dated elite or ceremonial contexts, detailed zooarchaeological analysis of marine remains from such contexts, comparison of Samoan, Tongan, Fijian, ‘Uvean and Rarotongan traditions concerning tribute and seniority, historical-linguistic analysis of umiti, ‘inasi and related political vocabulary, and chronological comparison between political change in Tonga and changes in settlement, hierarchy and ceremonial activity in Manu‘a.
The most persuasive evidence would not be a single spectacular monument. It would be convergence among independent datasets: compatible traditions recorded in different island groups, demonstrable movement of people or prestige goods, securely dated ceremonial contexts, and political transformations occurring in a plausible chronological sequence.
14. Conclusion
Current archaeological evidence does not demonstrate that Tu‘i Manu‘a governed a centrally administered territorial empire extending across Western or wider Polynesia. The most recent settlement research provides substantial reason for caution because durable political integration is poorly expressed beyond local communities in the Samoan archaeological record, and the eastern islands show less material evidence of territorial organisation than the larger western islands.
That finding does not resolve the wider Tu‘i Manu‘a question. Nineteenth-century records establish that traditions of exceptional Manu‘an seniority were already in circulation well before modern nationalist debate. Tongan historiography preserves potentially compatible traditions. Archaeology demonstrates intensive long-distance interaction among Samoa, Tonga, Fiji and other island groups. Recent work on Ta‘ū has also revealed a much more extensive engineered landscape than earlier research had documented. The newest settlement analysis distinguishes the absence of durable territorial integration from the existence of wider social prestige and occasional political influence.
Taken together, the evidence supports a more specific interpretation. Tu‘i Manu‘a probably did not rule a conventional territorial empire maintained through permanent governors, military occupation or administrative infrastructure. A more plausible model is that Manu‘a functioned at some period as an important sacred and political centre within a wider Western Polynesian network, with Tu‘i Manu‘a authority potentially expressed through genealogy, ceremonial precedence, tribute such as umiti, chiefly relationships and episodic political influence. That model is not proven, but it fits the surviving traditions and is not contradicted by the archaeological evidence presently available.
The finding can therefore be stated plainly. A Tu‘i Manu‘a territorial empire is not presently demonstrated, but a wider sphere of Manu‘an sacred, genealogical and possibly political authority is historically plausible and has not been disproved. The evidence is strong enough to justify direct multidisciplinary investigation rather than dismissal of the tradition as unsupported myth.
Future research should test whether the Samoa‘aatoa and umiti traditions preserve the memory of an older Western Polynesian political order that existed before the later political identities of Samoa, Tonga and neighbouring island societies became fully differentiated. If such an order existed, its authority may have operated through rank, kinship, tribute and ceremonial recognition rather than through the permanent territorial institutions expected of a modern or Eurasian-style empire.
References
Barnes, S. S., & Hunt, T. L. (2005). Sāmoa’s pre-contact connections in West Polynesia and beyond. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 114(3), 227–266.
Clark, G., & Martinsson-Wallin, H. (2007). Monumental architecture in West Polynesia: Origins, chiefs and archaeological approaches. Archaeology in Oceania, 42(Supplement), 28–40.
Clark, G. R., Reepmeyer, C., Melekiola, N., Woodhead, J., Dickinson, W. R., & Martinsson-Wallin, H. (2014). Stone tools from the ancient Tongan state reveal prehistoric interaction centers in the Central Pacific. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(29), 10491–10496. doi:10.1073/pnas.1406165111
Clark, J. T., & Motu, N. (2015). Tui Manu‘a Graves Monument: National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
Collocott, E. E. V. (1924). An experiment in Tongan history. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 33(131), 166–184.
Fraser, J. (1892). The Samoan story of creation—A ‘Tala’. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 1(3), 164–189. [Tradition collected by Thomas Powell from Tauanu‘u of Manu‘a; Samoan text and translation prepared with G. Pratt and S. Ella.]
Hunt, T. L., & Kirch, P. V. (1988). An archaeological survey of the Manu‘a Islands, American Samoa. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 97, 153–183.
Hunt, T. L., & Kirch, P. V. (Eds.). (1993). The To‘aga Site: Three millennia of Polynesian occupation in the Manu‘a Islands, American Samoa. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 51.
Martinsson-Wallin, H. (2007). Samoan archaeology: A review of research history. Archaeology in Oceania, 42(Supplement), 11–27. doi:10.1002/j.1834-4453.2007.tb00008.x
Quintus, S., Huebert, J., Day, S., Lincoln, N., Yoo, K., Lee, T., Filimoehala, D., & Autufuga, D. (2020). Tempo and trajectory of the built landscape on Ta‘ū Island, Manu‘a Group, American Sāmoa: Integrating extensive radiocarbon dating with joint posterior modeling. Radiocarbon, 62(5), 1317–1337. doi:10.1017/RDC.2020.60
Quintus, S., Autufuga, D., Day, S., Huebert, J., Lincoln, N. K., Motu, N., & Yoo, K. (2022). Tracking emergent spatial and social patterns across terraced landscapes in Polynesia. Journal of Field Archaeology, 47(3), 196–211. doi:10.1080/00934690.2021.2018259
Quintus, S., Cochrane, E. E., Laumea, M., & Filimoehala, C. (2026). Assessing settlement diversity in Sāmoa. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology, 21(1), 24–52. Published online 16 July 2025. doi:10.1080/15564894.2025.2509519
Taliai, ‘O. M. (2007). The legitimation of economic and political power in Tonga: A critique of Kauhala‘uta and Kauhalalalo moieties [Doctoral thesis, Massey University]. Massey Research Online.
