Talk:Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands/Archive 1

Ridiculous Length of Section
I think there may be more to Saipan than the Abramoff scandal. It's an insult to all the indigenous on the island to spend more time talking about a scandal (that may be very important to leftist wiki editors who want to prove that all republicans are helldemons) but is still a very small part of the history of Saipan. If anyone is interested in creating an accessible online encycolopedia and not cheaply pedaling their not so well thought out political views they should adjust that section to an appropriate length. ..Maybe that way it will unbiasedly report what happened without making such an attempt to "prove the truth about those evil right wing moralists".

Is this website for knowledge or pretending Huffington post like immature leftist rants are news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.174.204 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree that it's too long. Can somebody do the cutting? HkCaGu (talk) 12:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Left wing blogger think wikipedia is the place to rewrite history to suit their own agenda. The section needs to be removed all together as it violates the neutral point of view rules of wikipedia and doesn't cite any reliable sources (as of 8 Aug 2009). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.29.140 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Good, accurate article. Do not censor Wikipedia because it may put one political party or another in a poor light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.35.240 (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Old talk
Issues, queries... make them here. - RoyBoy 800 04:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC) Good, accurate, article. Do not censor Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.35.240 (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

saipansucks.com
The following was removed from the article:


 * SaipanSucks.com - Critical of Saipan

Why? And any objections to it being put back? - RoyBoy 800


 * I placed it back. CyberAnth 05:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Marine cemetery
I notice that there is no mention of the military cemeteries that were on the island. Were they all moved to Hawaii? I know that the 2nd Division Marine cemetery was moved to the Honolulu Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific at Honolulu. Doc ♬ talk 21:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

There are still a number of military (WW2) memorials on Saipan, though I can't vouch for any cemeteries. Most notable among the WW2 memorials are Suicide Cliff and Banzai Cliff (where Japanese and locals committed suicide during the US's final invasion of the island), the Last Command Post (of the Japanese), a (popular divesite) underwater aluminum WW2 airplane, and an underwater memorial placed by Koreans next to a Japanese troopship wreck (which had been carrying conscripted Korean soldiers). Banzai Cliff has many Japanese wooden gravestones and memorial sculptures honoring specific fallen soldiers and ww2 soldiers in general, and could therefore be regarded as a cemetery of sorts.Sethnessatwikipedia 08:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggested improvements
The sentence on Garapan seems out of place in the middle of the history section. How about adding a section on geography and putting it in there? 84.74.79.109 00:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section needs moving to another or its own page. See my comment in "Controversy Claims" below. The "Saipan" page is almost a stub once the Controversy section gets moved to a more appropriate page. Those of you currently living on Saipan need to get to work. You need to add more about geography, climate, geology, demographics, life styles, and marine life, to name a few aspects worth elaborating on. Photos would help show some of Saipan's uniqueness. See any of the pages on South Korean cities and provinces as examples. There are plenty of books on Saipan you could draw from and reference, including the USGS Professional Paper on the Geology of Saipan, which has quite a bit about natural history, not just geology, as I recall. Rich Johnson. SilasCreek (talk) 03:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably not all of the "controversy" section's material should be removed from this article, but it does look like that part needs to be cleaned up and updated (regardless of whether it remains in this article or is moved elsewhere). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Claims
The whole "controversy" section is old news and more appropriate anyway on the CNMI page. Some mention, with links, in the "history" or "economy" sections might be ok. The "Saipan" page should be more about Saipan itself, including photos. A model page is the one on Jeju Island, South Korea. Jeju suffered through the infamous Jeju Uprising, but the much uglier politics involved don't dominate the page or the beauty and interest of Jeju itself. Saipan likewise is a beautiful and interesting place.SilasCreek (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

"Garment workers in Saipan often live and work in fenced-in compounds (some residents also have fenced-in compounds),"

This statement is true but the wording seems convoluted. The first part of the statement is I think trying to imply that the workers are semi-prisoners and the part in parenthesis is defensive?

"and they are often not permitted to leave the fenced-in areas without permission from the manager and without an escort, although against the law and previously prosecuted, to limited effect."

It seems to me that anyone who lives on Saipan (I do) and can see the multitudes of garment workers wandering around wherever and whenever they please knows this statement is not generally true.

David on Saipan 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The info just needs to be sourced to updates that show such things largely ceased after the press about it. But other exploitation still happens.


 * Some former garment workers have asked local residents to enter into arranged marriages for a certain fee so they can obtain IR status.


 * Some who cannot go back home unless they first acquire the money to pay their creditors have resorted to prostitution.


 * Some of these women offer “sex now, pay later” schemes to their clients.


 * Also see http://www.mvariety.com/calendar/january/08/frontpage/front01.htm


 * CyberAnth 06:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

David on Saipan -- I wrote the "Garment workers... compounds" portion, based on personal experiences including a tour of a garmentn facility and personally knowing many factory workers while living on Saipan for a few years in the mid-90s. Looks like the parenthetical defensive item was indeed defensive -- and added by someone else. It's a bit schizophrenic to have that parenthetical bit in the sentence. While some rich folks may live in fenced-in compounds (as they do on Guam), this has nothing to do with the reasons why garment workers is/were kept behind fences.

I agree, sometimes garment workers are allowed out, since they can sometimes be found working nights in the local hostess-bars. However, this represents a minority (or at least, it did in the mid-90s). While I lived there, the overwhelming majority of garment workers were only allowed outside the compounds if they were accompanied by a manager/handler, and only allowed a "no work" day once a month-- pointedly on a weekend, so they could not go to an open government facility to complain about conditions and learn what was legal.

I think the big problem on this page is to prevent apologists and cover-ups for what is (or was), in reality, a pretty ugly situation. Sethnessatwikipedia 10:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I know that abuses occur on Saipan just as they do in other places. Wherever there are vulnerable people, there are always those that try to exploit them. I know of several recent cases of human trafficing and underage girls forced into prostitution, because the cases were brought to trial and the perpetrators went to jail. This also happened in California when I was living there. But it just seems to me that the treatment and prominence on the page has been out of line with the general practices in this or other encyclopedias. If you look up California, you don't see a large proportion of the page devoted to exploitation of illegal aliens, although it certainly continues to happen. The page has had a general lack of factual information.

David on Saipan 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

David, I would agree that abuses of illegal aliens IN CALIFORNIA are overemphasized in the Media. However, in Saipan and in this Wikipedia article, the problem cannot be overstated. The textile industry, built on exploited Chinese contract-worker labor in sweatshop conditions, is the NUMBER ONE industry in Saipan. Tourism is the number two industry. The exploited contract workers from China (textile workers), Burma, the Philippines (bar girls), and Thailand represent roughly a third of the island's population. The current state of the Wikipedia article is misleading because it has deemphasized a TRULY large problem. I would strongly advocate returning the page to its earlier state, in which many citations and examples were listed. Sethnessatwikipedia 08:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Villages
It would be nice to have a list of villages by population. -- Beland 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This is difficult, Beland. Except for Garapan which has well-defined borders and lots of roads in a crisscross matrix, the "villages" on Saipan are little more than loosely defined suburban zones with just one or two roads running through them. Possible exception might be "Navy Hill", "San Roque", or possibly "Dan dan". Populations might also be very dependent on hazy or missing statistics, like overseas contract workers living in barracks and illegal aliens. Sethnessatwikipedia 10:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Only Place to Join the US By Free Will?
First of all, what does that mean? Second of all, what about Texas? Papercrab  17:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits
I just made edits of various kinds to every part of this article, which are stated in a nutshell in my summary, but here is a bit more detail for reference:


 * "most people think", "word has it", and "which knowledgeable persons agree are true" are blatant weasel-wording.


 * The mention of Levi Strauss didn't make sense and shouldn't be included before further context can be added along with it. It said the workers' lawsuit was successful.  Then it said Levi Strauss refused to reach a settlement.  Then it said the case against them was dismissed.  Then it talked about the money which apparently resulted from the success of the aforementioned lawsuit.  Huh?  What?


 * Unless perhaps "utter degradation of the island and its inhabitants" can be cited as an actual quote, or a citation to that website where it provides more of a detailed explanation about just what that means in the website's context is made available, it is an inappropriate phrase for inclusion in this article. Much of the wording relating to that website was boastful or otherwise flauted neutrality.

Adrigon 12:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Playing Pitches
Is it true that the football pitches in Saipan are so bad that they are more like car parks than grass fields? Can anyone verify this claim & do you think it's worthy of mention? InSPURation 15:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

US Federal omsbudsman for CNMI report
See http://www.doi.gov/oia/reports/OmbudsmansReport.pdf 216.114.81.230 23:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Harry Blalock radio commentary
Some dude from Scotland living in Korea keeps acting like he knows what he is talking about regarding life on this island, and seems to have some serious difficulty diferentiating between what is a blog and transcripts of a radio program. He keeps removing Food for Thought - Transcripts of the Harry Blalock radio program on CNMI society as an external link. First, let us explain the difference between a blog and a radio commentary for those having difficulty with this. Any self-appointed monkey can post a blog to the net and have his or her amatuer hour that no one really reads. A radio commentary is, er, radio, a type of broadcast media, and it is very rare for someone to have their own radio broadcast. Second, as one who actually lives on Saipan, the Blalock radio program is highly respected and more popular than newspapers. People gather around the radio just to listen--Saipan is still largely an oral society--like Ma and Pop used to do in olden days with a radio show. Blalock interviews senators, community leadrs, the governor, etc., regularly. He is not just any monkey. In fact, he is THE ONLY person on the island with a radio commentary, and is considered more influential than the politicians. Nuff said. C.m.jones 18:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Emm, no, an administrator on the English Wikipedia is enforcing the External links guideline. I added a link to an island newspaper, a far more comprehensive site which also links to your beloved Chamorros.com. I suggest you chill out, learn more about external linking on WP, and consider refraining from editing Wikipedia if you don't agree with its policies and guidelines.  Dei z  talk 23:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am the one who added the Blalock link a good long while ago. Having lived on Saipan for several years in the past, I can attest that Blalock's "Food for Thought", and Blalock, is just as the user above is describing.

Deiz, which part of WP:EL do you think you are trying to enforce here? Under What should be linked, I see "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews. That pretty well describes Blalock: he reviews weekly happenings, current events, on the island and interviews leaders.  Under Links normally to be avoided, I see nothing there that would apply.

By the way, the link to Chamorro.com from saipantribune.com is an advertisement, which you can see in the emboldened part of the URL: http://www.saipantribune.com/adredir.aspx?adID=68&url=http://www.chamorro.com.

I am going to re-add the link, because there is no basis in policy to remove it, and in addition, there is basis in policy for its inclusion. That is why I added it initially.

CyberAnth 02:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your point about the link being an advert. The Saipan Tribune is a newspaper site, and there is inevitably going to be advertising. I didn't add the link because it could be used to connect to a specific page, rather it is a newspaper website and a jumping-off point for all manner of Saipan related sites and info. I've answered on your talk pages about the sections of WP:EL that the radio link violates. Who is Blalock? Seems to me there would be an article about a personality so influential that his words were considered gospel, as appears to be the case here. Of course, I understand that Saipan is a relatively small entity, and maybe shouldn't expect others to understand that the same standards that might be expected on articles about larger islands or countries also apply here.  Dei z  talk 05:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not stated anything about what part of WP:EL the link violates. If you want to remove the link, quote the policy, not whatever you are conjuring up as a basis.  The relevant portions of WP:EL are quoted above to indicate it stays.  You clearly are an amateur about this island.  Ever lived there or studied its history and society extensively?  Of course not. C.m.jones 20:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty well done with this, especially given your incivility and ignorance of why I am involved in this extremely minor dispute. Wikipedia editors and administrators need not have any knowledge about a subject to cleanup articles. As for your assertion that I have not stated which parts of :EL the link violates, here you go:


 * Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article.


 * Let me be very clear: the radio transcripts are the self-hosted personal opinions of one individual of unverified notability with a tangential relationship to the subject of the article which, lest we forget, is "Saipan", not "Harry Blalock", "Public opinion in Saipan", "Politics and society in Saipan" or something of that nature. They most certainly do not qualify as reliable, fact-checked sources. I suggest you start an article about Blalock that is compliant with WP:BIO. You could then bluelink him from the Saipan page and link his radio transcripts from his own article. Comments such as: "You clearly are an amateur about this island. Ever lived there or studied its history and society extensively?  Of course not." are really never going to help your case when arguing with another editor, administrator or otherwise. An editor who seems to pass your "Saipan expert" test also appears to be against the addition of the link, and until such time as clear consensus aemerges here that the link should be added, it will remain excluded.  Dei z  talk 23:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Here we have two people placing the link and one admin way too big for his britches enforcing his lack of knowledge against them.  Freakin' hilarious.  Truly Wikipedia at its normal finest. Every time you write you display this.  Here, have a slice of WP:CHEESE. C.m.jones 01:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I really feel you should be investing your time into starting an article about this god-figure you seem to worship. Admins get a lot of interesting comments about their actions from people who don't quite get it, just another day at the office.  Dei z  talk 02:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Diaz, I must have missed the part in WP:EL about how each site linked to must meet WP:BIO. I must have also missed the policy where an admin can violate WP:CIVIL against a user, as you just did above, a get away with it. I must have further missed the policy that first requires a user to write a bio article about the content creator of the material featured in the link. Are you making policy up as you go along to just support what you want?

I showed over a month ago the very clear basis in the policy for the inclusion of the link based on WP:EL, and you have done nothing but say "I've answered on your talk pages about the sections of WP:EL that the radio link violates", which you have not done anywhere. What you have done is snowball on the issue, introducing irrelevant arguments, and threatened those who disagree with you with locking the page.

Per the above reasons from WP:EL I gave, and per the complete lack of reasoning based in WP:EL from Diaz, and also because there is consensus here (although that can never trump other policies, WP:EL in this case), I am restoring the link.

Until you start arguing from WP:EL for why the link should be excluded, and against my reasons based in WP:EL for why it should be included, all you are doing is engaging in your own self-styled WP:EW of your own initiation. Your view goes against consensus on this page, and you actions and threats smack of abuse and WP:OWN.

CyberAnth 06:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Diaz? Never heard of him. I've never said ELs have anything to do with WP:BIO, rather that you could quite legitimately link these radio scripts from an article about this person. The lack of effort from anyone to actually take the time to create an article about this person despite the regard he seems to be held in is puzzling. As far as the general article about Saipan goes, the link is tangentially, rather than directly related to this article. That's quite clear in WP:EL and can be read by clicking that convenient link. To suggest that an editor WP:OWNs a page when their only contributions therein are cleaning up the external links is a bit of a stretch. As noted above, admins get delightful comments like these all the time from those who disagree with their cleanups. Rest assured I can see there is consensus emerging here, despite the disappointing language being used to frame it.  Dei z  talk 06:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yea, let's evaluate this:


 * Diaz? Never heard of him.
 * Pomposity. It is how anyone perceives it. Professional people overlook innocent naming mistakes unless they are ongoing.


 * I've never said ELs have anything to do with WP:BIO.
 * It is clearly inferred by your citing the policy and introducing the subject in your poor attempt to snowball the real issue: WP:EL. Who brought up WP:BIO here?


 * The lack of effort from anyone to actually take the time to create an article about this person despite the regard he seems to be held in is puzzling.
 * Like I said above, it appears you are making up self-styled policy here as you go, that first requires a user to write a bio article about the content creator of the material featured in the link. Then you carry out this self-made policy by stating above, "I really feel you should be investing your time into starting an article about this god-figure you seem to worship," in violation of WP:CIVIL, not to mention you have clearly exhibited here an abuse of your admin authority by this self-styled rule you are making up.  WP:BIO, or whether the creator of the content of an external link has a WP bio is wholly irrelevant.


 * As far as the general article about Saipan goes, the link is tangentially, rather than directly related to this article.
 * Wow. And this is coming from someone who has removed the link several times as a "blog". Hard fact, anyone who says that the Blalock radio commentaries are only "tangentially related" to Saipan is only proving they are throwing their weight around before having actually read the commentaries!


 * That's quite clear in WP:EL and can be read by clicking that convenient link.
 * Pomposity. I've read the policy and know about the links. I've been citing the policy to you and making links gallore.  Moreoever, it is not "quite clear", and all you are doing is saying and saying and saying it violates but not saying why, unless one take this clearly erroneous, even silly and ludicrous "tangentially" statement of yours above as so.  The real issue, as presented by your own words and actions here, is whether you are particularly versed in the policies.  You engage in edit warring over the link, lock the page once about it, threaten to do it again, threaten to block a user about it, say the link violates WP:EL and say you will tell me why on my talk page but never do, then only when one comes along strong enough to call you on it do you cite this "it's only tangential" stuff, which I have already shown for what it is.


 * To suggest that an editor WP:OWNs a page when their only contributions therein are cleaning up the external links is a bit of a stretch. As noted above, admins get delightful comments like these all the time from those who disagree with their cleanups.
 * Only contribution is cleaning up links? The record above shows a great deal more than that.


 * Rest assured I can see there is consensus emerging here
 * Gosh, thanks for your permission. And gee, what took so long?  It's been here over one month.  I reverted your removal of it, which you left for a while, then once it appeared I was gone, you began the game again.  Do I have to, like, make an edit here everyday saying "I still agree!"  Some of us have busy, professional lives and lot better things to do than be a constant Wikipedia pageguard.


 * despite the disappointing language being used to frame it.
 * That's truly disappointing language and it exhibits what appears clear as your pattern: Just say things and expect them to be taken as so, knowing you have a few extra buttons as "back up". The language I quoted is WP:EL.  The link is clearly supported thereby.  You have no basis to remove it and never have.

In short, your actions are the perfect explanation for why I keep reading at great Wikipedians' userpages about why they have left for Citizendium.

CyberAnth 07:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * CyberAnth and C.m.jones have my sympathies. Bullying is a terrible problem on Wikipedia.  We need to stick to (clearly written) policies.  Sadly, it is too common for people to cite policies that don't really say anything of the sort.  Such people should work on writing clearer policies, rather than using vague policies as a bully tactic.  Likewise anyone who says, I am an admin, so I am right, I see that as bullying.  Admins have even more responsibility to work within clearly written policies, rather than subjective stuff.  Also, I noted that your contributions were positive.  You are adding material, rather than deleting other peoples' work.  Linkboyz 03:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Having been a next-door neighbor (last two letters of my username) I would sympathize with the local editors too. A media guru's web archive is certainly different from other links we had such as the AG's blog, and is comparable to any of the two papers in terms of relevance.  I'm frustrated to see a lack of Wikipedia policy on giving weight to local knowledge. HkCaGu 05:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Chamorro Scouting
Can someone render "Be Prepared", the Scout Motto, into Chamorro? Thanks! Chris 08:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Immigration for garments?
I removed the statement about garments entering the US exempt from US immigration laws and other protections. Garments are not subject to immigration or labor laws, although they may be produced by people who are.David on Saipan (talk) 13:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Recruiting fees
In the last paragraph of the Foreign contract labor abuse and exemptions from U.S. federal regulations section:

The external link given as a reference (#22) does not work, so I wonder where the reference is for the recruitment fees and the year of salary. These figures don't make sense: First of all, one year of salary at CNMI minimum wage would be (2080 hours X $3.55/hr) which comes to $7384 per year. The reference to recruiters charging $6000 (#23) works but is nearly 10 years old. Even this amount would be less than one year of salary at minimum wage, even less at higher wages.

I have heard that many workers pay recruiters, however, I none of the workers I have talked to (perhaps 50 - 75) paid a recruiter. Most of the workers I know are Filipino, so maybe more of the Chinese pay recruiters.

Many contacts are for two years rather than one.

I have made no changes to the section but it obviously needs some changes. I am looking for sources so that I can replace it with something accurate and informative rather than just deleting it. Anyone have sources/info for this?

The current section reads as follows: "Contract laborers arriving from China are usually required to pay their (Chinese National) recruitment agents fees equal to a year's total salary[22] (roughly $3,500) and occasionally as high as two years' salary,[23] though the contracts are only one-year contracts, renewable at the employer's discretion."David on Saipan (talk) 08:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the contents make sense. Remember it was $3.05 ($6300) until recently, minus room and board (whatever caps CNMI govt allows) and possibly transportation. Changing to "net pay" may read better. Recent newspaper reports have quoted 40k CNY (5k USD), but those are the cases where the jobs aren't necessarily legit. You are right that Chinese labor and Filipino labor are very different. HkCaGu (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Number format
Is there any defensible reason that the numbers in the section describing the population of the island at the bottom of the page have the thousands separated like 1'000 rather than 1,000?

I don't recall ever seeing that before, and it disagrees with the format of the rest of the numbers in the article. I'm not an expert on such things but I don't think that's correct.

I was just going to change it outright but it's sufficiently strange enough that I thought I'd ask first.

Jdkkp (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Maybe somebody using a keyboard in a different language. You can go ahead and change ' to, ! HkCaGu (talk) 02:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was thinking... but it being an English-language page, it should be in the "standard" English format. Anyway, I fixed it. I scanned over the article again just to check and it's only in that section. Then I noticed the heading -- "People on Saipan". That's usually labeled "Demographics" on other pages, so I changed that, too. (Someone's got to nitpick.)

Jdkkp (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Saipan Railway History
Can anyone create the complete story of German Palm Oil Railways in 1901-1914 and the Japanese Sugar Railways in Saipan 1921-1944. These were of great importance for the island´s commercial development. Some notes are available, but the list of steam locomotives which worked in the Saipanese Railways are still missing as late as in 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.118.82 (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Labor and Immigration Scandal
Perhaps that material would be better placed on the CNMI main page, rather than on the page about Saipan.

Ordinary Person (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't agree more. And it needs to be rid of recentism as the garment worker population dwindles--it's now less than half of that back in 2000. HkCaGu (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

first habitation on the island
If someone can retrieve this, perhaps some of it can be used to support the text that the island was first inhabited 2000 B.C.?

"Saipan may be Pacific's oldest archaeological site Sediment cores taken from Saipan's Lake Susupe in 2002 have yielded a continual record of plant pollen and other materials for the past 8,000 years that could make the island one of the oldest archaeological site in the Pacific, according to the Historic Preservation Office. HPO director Epiphanio E. Cabrera said that scientists who have been working with the CNMI recently announced new evidence that could push the date for the earliest human settlement in Micronesia back to nearly 5,000 years ago. Cabrera said researchers J. Stephen Athens and Jerome Ward from the International Archaeological Research Institute Inc. noted a series of abrupt shifts in Saipan's ancient environment, some of which appeared to have been caused by humans. Charcoal particles and an abundance of grass pollen and pollens from betel nut palm and coconut trees that appeared around 6,860 BCE were analyzed. Cabrera said the discovery predates the earliest archaeological sites on Saipan by more than a thousand years. "This is some of the earliest evidence for human settlement ever found in Micronesia," he said. Dr. Richard Knecht, acting staff archaeologist, said the recent findings suggest that sites 5,000 years or older existed on Saipan. "The challenge now is to use what we know about ancient shorelines, which will likely reveal more early sites and possibly the first movement of early humans into the Pacific from Asia," Knecht said. Cabrera said that future studies and coring of lakes and sinkholes in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) are required to refine the "very promising, though still preliminary" findings. Other studies of ancient sites also revealed early occupation of the CNMI. The HPO director said a core from Lake Hagoi on Tinian revealed coconut pollen and charcoal particles dating back to 5,444 BCE There were also similar finds at Tipalao Marsh in Guam and a sinkhole in the Kagman Peninsula on Saipan's east side also shows major changes in vegetation by about 6,520 BCE. "It probably took years for humans to alter the environment to the point where it leaves a signature in the sediment cores. Therefore, the actual dates of initial human settlement could be decades or centuries before those taken from the cores," he said. The earliest sites in the CNMI are Saipan's Unai Achugao site from 1,800 B.C. and Tinian's Unai Chulu site dating to 1,500 B.C. Cabrera said HPO's search to find the earliest site in the CNMI will continue as long as funding is available. "It seems safe to assume that our ancestors were here on these islands 5,000 years ago," Cabrera said. Source: Saipan Tribune (10 November 2005)"