Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation Volume 17 Article 4 Issue 2 October

2003 A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear: Analyses of Discoidal Artifacts From Nu'alolo Kai, Kaua'i Julie S. Field University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Follow this and additional works at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj Part of the History of the Pacific slI ands Commons, and the Pacific slI ands Languages and Societies Commons

Recommended Citation Field, Julie S. (2003) "A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear: Analyses of Discoidal Artifacts From Nu'alolo Kai, Kaua'i," Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation: Vol. 17 : Iss. 2 , Article 4. Available at: https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4

This Research Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Hawai`i Press at Kahualike. It has been accepted for inclusion in Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation by an authorized editor of Kahualike. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Field: A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear A CLASSIFICATION FOR HAWAIIANARTIFACTS BASED ON MORPHOLOGY AND WEAR: ANALYSES OF DISCOIDAL ARTIFACTS FROM NU'ALOLO KAI, KAVA'I

Julie S. Field Department ofAnthropology, University ofHawai'i at Manoa

This tool [typology] is designed for the reconstruction ofculture history in time arul space. This is the beginning arul not the end ofthe archaeologist's responsibility. (Ford 1954a:52).

INTRODUCTIO of ideas. The work of Ford (1954a, 1954b), Gifford (1960), Kidder (1915), Krieger (1944) and e pecially Rou e (1939), ame Ford' decree of the purpose of typologies serves as a were succe sful demon tration of analytic cla ification. Since Jmodel for the following discussion. He believed that typolo­ tho e early day , archaeology has expanded to include tudies gie are the products of classificatory proce ses - archaeologists of cultural proce es, the formation of identifie and communi­ create them in order to bound and define the variability of the ties, technology, and subsistence. In dealing with these complex empirical world. As such they are powerful tools, and their con- i sue , analy t have experimented with a variety of y tematic truction and use is defined by the theoretical framework that is and unsystematic cla ificatory methods, with varying rates of employed to describe reality (Ford 1954a:43). uccess and heated debate (e.g., Adams and Adams 1991; Dun­ Ford' views have pecific implication for Pacific archae­ nell 1978; Ford 1954a, 1954b; Gifford 1960; Haury 1950; Judd ology. Advancements in the region over the past two decade 1954; Schiffer 1992; Spaulding 1953; Taylor 1948). have refined the prehi toric equence for many island , and Despite the diversity of theoretical per pective and ana­ under tanding of the i ue related to colonization and chronol­ lytical techniques espou ed by the e cholar, the creation of ogy (Athens and Ward 1997; Athen et al. 2002; Finney 1996; typologie can be reduced to two fundamentally different cla i­ Hunt and HoI en 1991; Spriggs and Ander on 1993), subsis­ fication techniques: grouping and cla sification. A cla i an tence (Kirch 1982; Ladefoged and Grave 2000; Moniz­ intentionally defined unit; a conceptual box created by its Nakamura 1999; Weisler and Walter 2002), interaction boundarie . More importantly, a cla is a product of a cla sifi­ (Cachola-Abad 2000; Grave et al. 2002; Kolb 1997), and emer­ cation, which in e ence i a et of explicit criteria that deter­ gent complexity (Cordy 1981, 1996; Hommon 1996; Sahlin mine the boundarie of individual cla ses (Adams and Adams 1992) have been further broadened and developed. However, in 1991:91; Dunnell 1971:45). Sy tematic cla ification uch a many instances the systematic analysis of artifacts ha lagged paradigms and taxonomie are re pon ible for the generation of ub tantially behind, in particular the more mundane and imple formal cla es. A group, on the other hand, i an aggregate of tool of daily life. This discussion focuse on the cla ification event or objects that are phy ically or conceptually a ociated of relatively similar discoidal shaped artifacts from Hawai'i ­ (Dunnell 1971:89). Grouping does not require explicit criteria gaming pieces ('ulumaika [bowling stones] and kilu [quoits]), that determine boundaries. and thus groups have an objective and grinding/pounding tool (abraders and harnmerstones) via a existence that is based solely on the presence of constituent. systematic classification of morphological attributes and wear Grouping methods such as statistical clustering and numerical patterns. The utility of a further development of this cla sifica­ taxonomies are responsible for the generation of formal group , tion i demonstrated in the assessment of the diversity of although informal groups are al 0 commonly employed in ar­ 'ulumaika morphology and material types, with particular atten­ chaeological studie .A typology, at least in most archaeological tion paid to the performance of 'ulumaika during play. Implica­ literature, can be generated by either grouping or cla ification tion for changes in 'ulumaika construction and increa ing com­ mechanisms. In mo t in tance typologies are generated for a petition between players at different times in prehistory are con- particular purpo e, and are re tricted to a particular cultural area idered. In addition, the analysis of wear patterns suggest mul­ or temporal period. tiple u es for some 'ulumaika, and also the effects of attrition on common and uncommon materials and morphologies. Functional Typologies and Classification in the Hawaiian Islands CLA SIFICATIO IN ARCHAEOLOGY - THE FuNDAMENTALS The focus of cla ification has varied according to the goals of the discipline, and many part in the world ( uch a Ha­ In the early decades of this century archaeologists created arti­ wai'i) followed their own scholarly trajectorie when it came to fact typologies that documented the diversity of the archaeo­ the classification of antiquities. Graves and Erkelens (1991:3) logical record (Rau 1876; Wilson 1898). In later decade ar­ have noted that early Hawaiian typologies were the product of chaeologists established the practice of creating stylistic types ethnographic, as oppo ed to archaeological, research. Native of artifacts that could not only describe the archaeological re­ ethnographers such as Kamakau (1865) and Malo (1903) were cord, but also construct testable chronologies and address is ues essential in this endeavor, for despite the devastation of the con­ of homologous similarity, human migration, and the diffusion tact period they were able to utilize genealogies, oral histories,

Rapa Nui Journal 94 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 Published by Kahualike, 2003 1 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 17 [2003], Iss. 2, Art. 4 and urviving cultural traditions to recount hi tory and docu­ Nakamura et al~ n.d.) and adze (Cleghorn 1982; Emory 1968; ment Hawaiian culture. Early European accounts (e.g., Bate La 1994) are the most diverse in form of the portable artifact, 1854; Cook L784; Ellis L827; Gilman L908) al 0 contributed and have received the most attention. Evolutionary informed additional information and ob ervation . By the 1890' , intere t tudie of octopus lure weights (Pfeffer 1995), poi pounder in Hawaiian culture and antiquities fostered several hi torical (McElroy 2003), and ceremonial architecture (Cochrane 1998, treati e by non-Hawaiian scholar (e.g., Alexander 1891; Dole 2002; Grave and Cachola-Abad 1996) have also made ub tan­ 1892; Fornander 1890,1916; Jarve 1843), and in 1889 the Ber­ tial contribution to current under tanding of Hawaiian and nice P. Bi hop Mu eum wa e tabLished in Honolulu. in the ea t Polyne ian prehi tory. However, more mundane artifacts, decade to follow, mu eum cholar Brigham (1902, L903, uch a hammer tones, abrader, file , chi els, and other imple­ 1906), Bennett (1931), Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa) (1927, 1930, ment have been tudied to a much Ie er extent. Recent analy- 1938, 1957), and Stoke (1927) pioneered the fu t archaeologi­ es have demon trated potential avenue of re earch for such cal tudie of prehi toric Hawaiian ettlements and antiquities. artifacts, which often go overlooked, yet contain vital informa­ Of the e work, Brigham' appear to have had the mo t tion pertaining to ubsistence and technology. For example, impact. In Stone Implements and Stone Works of the Ancient McElroy's tudy of ba all and coral file (McElroy 2000) indi­ Hawaiians (1902), Brigham employed ethnographic data to cate a variety of behavioral and cultural traits related to the e­ group artifacts into activity clu ters, which he further subdi­ lection and use of different materiaL during fishhook manufac­ vided into functional types that were recognizable from Hawai­ ture. Studies of this kind that al 0 utilize temporally indexed ian culture, e.g., mortars, poLi hing stones, chi els, pe tles, collection have the potential to delineate technological trend , adze, etc. Perhaps most importantly, Brigham's monograph which differentially spread and per isted throughout Hawaiian contained vivid photograph of diagno tic artifact types, which prehistory. Perhaps just as important, expLicit cla sification that were a embled into group that demonstrated both the homo­ focus on the variability of artifact morphology, wear pattern , geneity and diversity of particular type morphoLogie . Although and performance can potentially alleviate identification prob­ Brigham did not comment upon the method he u ed to place lems associated with the traditional Hawaiian artifact typology artifact into particular group, careful analy i of the photo­ (e.g., Brigham 1902). Rather than implicit categorization based graph i telling - artifacts were placed into categorie ba ed upon artifact morphology or material type (e.g., "pounder ", upon impLicit notion of imilarity. Some group were based on "grinder ", "abrader" etc.), artifacts can be classified accorded morphology, and others by the location of u e wear, size, or ma­ to the presence of wear and morphology that is indicative of terial type. In in tances where artifact were anomalou (i.e., of variation in u e. At pre ent, archaeoLogical protocol in Ha­ ob cure hape or material, or unfini hed), they were relegated to wai'i encourage orne advanced level of artifact analy i , how­ an "ancient" or "rude" category (Brigham 1902:43; 62). ever, more inten ive tudie would be an important addition to In the following decade , excavations and cultural surveys Hawaiian archaeology, a the complete identification of activi­ that u ed Brigham's functional groups as their guide produced ties would provide a much fuller picture of ancient subsistence de cription of subsistence and ettlement patterns at both local and ettlement behaviors. and regional level (e.g., Emory 1928; Buck 1957; McAlli ter 1933; Soehren and Kikuchi n.d.). However, new conceptions of A Classification ofMorphology and Wear Hawaiian prehistory emerged in the 1950 following the exca­ The classification of some of the least complex artifacts in vation at the Kuli 'ou'ou Rockshelter. These excavations Hawaiian archaeology require a unique approach. Shepard yielded depo its that were nearly 1000 years old, and contained (1956), Dunnell and Lewarch (1974), Dunnell and Campbell artifacts that were unknown to Hawaiian antiquarians (Emory (1977), Campbell (1981), and Allen (1992) made steps in thi and Sinoto 1961). The notion that Hawai'i had a long and com­ direction when they developed some of the rust classification plex history erved as a catalyst for the revision of the existing of artifact morphology and wear. In simple terms, artifact mor­ artifact typology. Most notably, Emory, Bonk and Sinoto (1959) phol~gy i the result of either manufacture or attrition, and its and later Sinoto (1962) recognized that the stylistic traits inher­ documentation requires the creation of a classification that can ent in fishhooks could indicate temporal change and interaction. record the variability of a 3-dimensional object. The simple t Their re earch demonstrated that the variability in artifact form, cla sification of morphology requires the dimensioning of an which in previous decades had been ignored or thought to be artifact into plan view, side view, and end view (X, Y, and Z uninformative, could yield data that was crucial to prehi toric face )1. Each face can then be cia sified according to its congru­ re earch ence with one of a selection of morphological classe , the shape Sinoto et al.'s findings opened the door for more intensive of which are determined by the co-occurrence of three vari­ and explicit clas ification of Hawaiian (and other east Polyne- ables: the number of sides, the pre ence/ab ence and frequency ian) material culture. Archaeology performed in the 1960s and of interior and exterior angles, and the number of planes of 70 retained the functional groupings establi hed by Brigham, ymmetrl. According to Euclidean geometry the co-occurrence and added additional analy es of morphology and wear to pro­ of these variables generates roughly 40 combination, which duce a typology that included regional and temporal variants (e. manifest as a variety of symmetrical and non-symmetrical poly­ g., Kirch 1985; Kirch and Kelly 1975; Pear on, et al. 1971; Soe­ gons. These include triangles, quadrilaterals, pentagon, hexa­ hren and Tuohy 1987). Artifacts with diver e morphologies gons, octagons, and dodecagons (circle ). Irregular hapes gen­ were inve tigated in more detail, a their variability could po­ erated by the pre ence of exterior angles are also included tentially address complex issue of chronology, interaction, ex­ among t the possible morphological classes. Classification itself change, and competition. Fi hhooks (Allen 1992, 1996; Moniz- can be performed via visual inspection or with digital photo-

Rapa Nui Journal 95 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4 2 Field: A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear graphs that are later analyzed with drafting oftware uch as u'aJolo Kai SigrnaScan or Canva . Each artifact can thu be ummarized a a series of ix cla se , each of which de cribes the morphology of plan, ide, and end view. Q'ahu In addition to morphology, wear is directly indicative of Kaua'i both the manufacturing techniques and use of a particular ob­ - Moloka'i ject. More specifically, wear is the direct result of human articu­ .... lation with the environment, and it can occur on an artifact in a ~ variety of forms (i.e., cru hing, abrasion, chipping), and across Lanai'i many surfaces. Tills being the case, the actual instance of wear, not the object itself, are the focus of the clas ification. Allen (1992:204) designed a wear classification that i based upon the The Hawaiian inter ection of five dimensions: kind of wear, location of wear, Archipelago edge angle, shape of wear, and orientation. Witilln till y tem, Hawai'i artifacts are visually examined for the pre ence of chipping, 0",,---, 40 mi crushing, abra ion, and polishing, and then further cla ified according to the location of the wear on the artifact, the shape of Figure I. Location of the site of Nu 'alolo Kai (KA-C 10-2), located the worn surface, and the orientation of the wear on the artifact. along the Na Pali coasl of Kaua'i. As with the morphological classification, each artifact can be urnmarized as a series of five wear classes, although in ome ologi ts Emory, Soehren, and Kikuchi between 1958 and 1964, cases an artifact will be classified several times due to the pre ­ and the deep depo its yielded ome of the rare t cultural re­ ence of multiple instances of wear on either the ide, tip , or main in all of Hawai'i, including feather, kapa, gourd, and a other surface of an artifact. A classification of till kind i ad­ rich variety of wood, stone, hell, and bone implement. vantageou in that it make po sible an evaluation of the entire Chronological analyses by Soehren and Kikuchi (n.d.) and later range of functional activities in willch an object may have par­ by Moniz-Nakamura et al. (n.d.) indicate that the ite wa occu­ ticipated. pied as early as A. D. 1100, and wa maintained a a remote The propo ed cia sification of wear and morphology is ettlement until the 1800s. Although of mall ize, the village paradigmatic in tructure (i.e., dimensional, with mutually ex­ contained everal occupational component, including hou e , clusive modes), which i the most efficient system for dealing canoe heds, a heiau (religiou tructure), and a large ystem of with the complex variables involved in artifact morphology and Lo'i (irrigated kalo pond) in a nearby valley. The collection of u e. The large body of information that i generated for each artifacts recovered [rom the ite wa partially analyzed by object is of value, as simple analy es can determine a sem­ Bi hop Mu eum archaeologi ts in the 1970 (Soehren and Ki­ biage-wide trends in artifact manufacture and u e. Allen (1996) kuchi n.d.), although in recent years the collection ha under­ and Moniz-Nakamura et aJ. (n.d.) established that trait that co­ gone reanaly is with the morphological and u e-wear cla sifica­ occur on more than one kind of material are more likely to be tion de cribed above. As an example of the utility of the classi­ tyli tic, i.e., the trait doe not affect the performance of the fication, the following discussion will describe the analy i of item, and it pre ence indicate de ign choices made during discoidal artifact from Nu'alolo Kai. Under the traditional manufacture. In addition, traits (e.g., pecific morphological functional typology, di coid- haped artifact were grouped un­ combinations) that occur in one material type but not in others der categories of gaming stone or grinding/pounding tool , i.e., may be related to functional differences. Wear studies can indi­ 'uLumaika, konane stones, kiLu, hammerstone , and abrader. cate how these artifacts may have been used differently if their Although the e artifact were functionally distinct their ba ic material varied, and if there were preferences for one material ffiqrphology wa quite similar- hence the common conflation over another. In some ca e , the co-occurrence of certain cla ses of these artifact (Figure 2). The following ets of analyse clas­ will be indicative of the differentiation between artifact design sify an assemblage of discoidal artifacts according to morphol­ and function. For example, two basalt artifacts that share identi­ ogy and wear. In 0 doing, the actual function( ) of the e ob­ cal u e wear pattern but contra t in only one dimension of mor­ ject can be ascertained. phology may be functionally identical but stylistically different (e.g., cutting tool that differ in the shape of their cross-section). Discerning Manufacture from Attrition In thi ca e, the variation exhibited by the class may be indica­ The morphological cla ification wa applied to 2730 arti­ tive of cultural preferences for certain designs. In other cases, facts in the Nu'alolo Kai collection. Queries witbin the databa e artifacts may be identical in morphology but differ in patterns of identified artifacts that were round in plan view and either rcc­ u e wear, thus indicating difference in use, e.g., plummet- tangular, or elliptical in side view. Thi resulted in an a em­ haped fi hing weights and conical pounding tools. blage of 26 artifacts that were made of coral, ba alt, limestone, hematite, and coquina. Coquina i essentially reef detritu DISCOIDAL ARTIFACT IN HAWAI'I (broken shells and coral sand) that has cemented together to form a conglomerate. In addition, a query wa used to identify Nu'alolo Kai (KA-ClO-2) wa an ancient Hawaiian ettlement artifacts that were round in plan view and only partially ym­ located on the remote Na Pali coast of Kaua'i (Figure 1). Exca­ metrical in side view, thus adding an additional three artifacts vation were conducted at the ite by Bishop Mu eum archae- that were somewhat irregular in form. In their initial typology of

Rapa Nui Journal 96 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 Published by Kahualike, 2003 3 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 17 [2003], Iss. 2, Art. 4 shaped and smoothed wooden canoe. or other objects. D In other circumstances it i more difficult to discern manu­ facture from attrition. Four ba- alt artifacts in the u'alolo Kai collection are particularly de­ monstrative of this problem. Traditionally, hammer ·tones and 'ulumaika were differenti­ ated by shape and material type, as it was as umed that mo t pounding tool would bepheri­ cal and compo ed of den e ba­ salt, and most 'L1lumaika would be well-formed discoid. How­ ever, the use of vesicular ba alt for pounding was not uncom­ mon, and there was alway the potential for broken 'ulumaika to be re-used as hammerstones. A classification that can focu on the finer morphologie and wear pattern of arti fact uch a the e ha the potential to ac­ Figure 2. Dicoidal artifacts from Hawai'i. A) Biconvex 'ulumaika; B) Flat-Sided 'ulumaika; C) kilu (Buck curately di cern the range of 1957:372). D) hammerstone (Brigham 1902:338); E) poli hing stone (disc abrader) (Brigham 1902:plate XXXV); activitie the e artifact repre- sent. For example, two artifacts were clas ified as di coidal the Nu 'alolo Kai artifact, Soehren and Kikuchi (n.d.) noted hammerstones according to the functional typology. Both were that it was difficult to cla sify di coidal artifacts due to the made of vesicular basalt and crushed acro all sUiface . How­ overlapping definitions for abrader, 'ulllll1aika, and ham­ ever, one of wa cru hed more exten ively, to the point that it mer tone. In their final analy i , eight of the e artifact were was nearly spherical in shape (# 433), while the other retained de ignated a discoid- haped abrader, two were di coidal flatter sides and a more ovoid cros ection (# 432). The pre ­ hammer tone, fifteen were 'L1lumaika, and one artifact each ence of crushing acros' all urface i more ugge tive of wa. de ignated as a tone di 'c. 'ulumaikafhammer tone, ko­ pounding activities, thus artifact # 433 was mo t likely u. ed a Ilalle tone, and a quoit (Table I). The analy is and classifica­ a hammerstone. However, the flat- ided morphology of # 432 tion of material type, morphology, and wear pre ented herein is more suggestive of an 'ulumaika. In comparison, two arti­ sugge t that in some cases, the discoid-shaped artifacts in the facts appear to have been originally manufactured as ample were used for other or multiple purposes than originally 'ulumaika, but were later re-used as hammerstones. Artifact # specified by Soehren and Kikuchi. The analy is also demon­ 669, which was cia sified as a "ba alt disc" under the func­ trate how morphology and wear can be used to determine tional typology, is one such artifact. Thi object was cru hed function and morphological variation as it relate to attrition and abraded into a distinct di coid hape, but aI 0 how evi­ and choice made during manufacture. dence of exten ive battering and wear along the ide and For example, of the eight artifact that were clas ified a edge. Similarly, artifact # 284 wa categorized by the func­ di coidal abrader under the functional typology, even were tional typology as an 'ulllll1aika. but al 0 demonstrate e ten­ compo ed of coral (Porites [obara) and exhibited extensive sive wear that i indicative of its sub equent u e a a pounding abra ion and crushing wear on their surfaces (#s 320, 321, 322, tool. 323, 326, 327, 517). The eighth artifact (# 450) wa composed of vesicular ba alt, and was abraded and crushed more exten- ADVANCED MORPHOLOGICALIWEAR CLASSfFICAnON ­ ively in one direction, thus producing an asymmetrical cross GAMING STONE ection (Y face). The wear patterns and morphologies of these artifact all uggest tool that were u ed for grinding or sanding Within the u'alolo Kai collection, the mo t congruence be­ ofter material (uch as wood), although the difference in ma­ tween Soehren and Kikuchi's functional typology and the mor­ terial type (ba alt v . coral) may reflect the need for rougher phological/wear cla ification wa with artifact that were u ed grinding urfaces in some ta k . However, the morphologie of in game and competition . Ethnographic and hi toric litera­ the artifact are all due to attrition, both natural and man-made. ture from Hawai'i record everal game, including po'alli Mo t likely, these artifact originated as water-worn beach cob­ (team port) and mokomoko (individual port and game ). bles, which were sub equently ground into di coids a they The e game were played throughout the year, but with more

Rapa ui Journal 97 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4 4 Field: A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear Table I. Discoidal artifacts from the Nu 'alolo Kai collection.

Material Soehren et al. 'Ulumaika Artifact ID# Class }1 Subclass Class 22 Tvoe Portion ConditionILocation of Wea.-J type4 Morph. Class

282 Konane Stone * * Aph. Basalt Whole Po)jshed, surfaces Konane Stone * 320 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Abraded, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 321 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Crushed, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 322 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Abraded, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 323 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Abraded, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 326 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Abraded, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 327 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Abraded, 2 surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 380 Kitu ** Hematite Fragment Chipped, edge Quoit? * 433 Hammerstone * * Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces Harnrnerstone, disc. * 450 Abrader Discoidal * Yes. Basalt Whole Abrad., crushed, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 517 Abrader Discoidal * Coral Whole Abraded, surfaces Abrader, discoidal * 284 'ULwnaika * Hammerstone Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, edges 'ULumaika 222 285 'Ulumaika ** Aph. Basalt Fragment Abrad., crushed, edges/surface 'Ulumaika 242 286 'ULumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces ' Ulumaikalharnrner 222 287 'Ulumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed,surfaces 'ULumaikll 222 288 'Ulumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Abrad., chipped, edges/surface 'Ulumaika 222 289 'Ulumaika * * Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces 'UlunUlika 222 290 'Ulumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces 'ULumaika 222 363 'ULumaika ** Coral Whole Abraded, surfaces 'ULumaika 222 364 'Ulumaika ** Hematite Whole Unworn 'Ulumaika 222 365 'Ulumaika ** COQuina Whole Crushed, surfaces 'Ulwnaika 222 366 'ULumaika ** Coquina Whole Crushed, surfaces 'ULumaika 332 367 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Unworn 'Ululllllika 242 368 'ULumaika * Hammerstone Limestone Fragment Chipped, crushed, edges 'Ulumaika 442 'ULumaika Chipped, edges ' Ululllllika - 369 ** Limestone Fragment 242 370 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Chipped, edges 'ULumaika 222 371 'ULumaika ** COQuina Whole Chipped, surfaces 'ULumaika 222 372 'Ulumaika ** Limestone Whole Unworn 'Ulumaika 222 373 'ULumaika * Hammerstone Limestone Fragment Crushed, surfaces 'ULumaika 222 375 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured 'ULumaika 200 376 'Ulumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured 'ULwnaika 200 377 'ULwnaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured 'Ulwnaika 200 378 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured 'Ulumaika 200 379 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured 'ULumaika 200 381 'ULumaika * * Coquina Fragment Fractured 'Ulumaika fragmen 222 382 'ULumaika ** Coquina Fragment Abraded, surfaces 'ULumaika fragmen 200 391 'ULumaika ** Aph. Basalt Fragment Fractured Adze chip 200 432 'ULumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces Hammerstone, disc. 222 448 'ULumaika * * Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces 'Ulumaika 222 451 'Ulumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces 'ULUllUlika 222 619 'Ulumaika * * COQuina Whole Crushed, surfaces 'Ululllllika 332 633 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured ' ULUIllllika 222 636 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured ' ULulIIIlika 222 668 'ULumaika ** Yes. Basalt Whole Crushed, surfaces .ULulIIIlika 332 669 'ULwnaika * Harnmerstone Yes. Basalt Whole Abrad., crushed, surfaces Basalt disc 222 822 'ULumaika * * Limestone Fragment Fractured ' ULulllllika 222 823 'ULumaika ** Limestone Fragment Fractured 'Ulumaika 200 824 'ULumaika * * Coquina Fragment Abraded, surfaces 'ULumaika 200 1831 'Ulumaika * * Hematite Fragment Abraded edge, surfaces Hematite 200 'Class I indicates the primary functional designation for an artifact. Class I is determined by the analysis of morphology and wear pat­ terns on an object, and also by comparison to traditional artifact typologies for the Hawaiian Islands. 2Class 2 indicates the econdary functional designation for an artifact, which i determined in the same manner as Class 1. l The kind and extent of wear recorded for each artifact utilized the wear classification outlined by Allen (1992:204). The data presented in thi column is a ummary of the five (or more) dimension of wear that were recorded for each artifact. 4 The types indicated in thi column were designated by Soehren et aI. (n.d.) between 1958-66.

Rapa NUl Journal 98 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 Published by Kahualike, 2003 5 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 17 [2003], Iss. 2, Art. 4 intensity and competition during the Makahiki season (late fall winner. At the turn of the century when Brigham was writing, a and winter). Games included kuikui (boxing), 'uma (hand wres­ famous kahua maika on Moloka'i was reputed to be littered tling), kukini (foot racing), hukihuki (tug-o-war), he'e naLu with "hundreds of uLu [maika] so broken that the fragments (surfing), he'e pahe'e (javelin throwing), mo 'a pahe'e (javelin were not worth carrying off' (Brigham 1902:400). sliding), he'e hoLua (track sledding), hu (spinning tops), konane These variations in the game suggest that player may (checkers), kiLu (pitching discs), and maika (track bowling). Of have experimented with a variety of 'uLumaika morphologie these sports and games, only the la t five are detectable in the and material type , in order to create stone that could roll in archaeological record. HoLua sledding involved the construction either straight or curved trajectories, and perhaps in orne ca e of stone tracks and ramps, many of which have been preserved be durable enough to withstand collision . Malo describe the in some of the remoter parts of Hawai'i (Stone and McAnany maika stone as "fashioned after the shape of a wheel, thick at 1997). Hu (spinning tops), were most likely constructed for and the center and narrow at the circumference - a biconvex used by children. Although rare, these pecked coral toys have disc" (Malo 1951:220). Brigham noted this as well, but also also been recovered from habitation ites (Soehren and Tuohy added that some 'uLumaika had flattened rather than convex 1987). Konane, a game similar to European checkers, was ides (Brigham 1902:401). Malo and Brigham also described played upon a wooden board (papamu) or pecked stone surface. the 'uLumaika as being "of variou size, being all the way from The game used coral and basalt pebbles ('iLi kea, 'iii 'eLe) for two and a quarter to six inches in diameter", and "made from "men", orne of which turn up in archaeological sites. A small many varieties of stone, and they were accordingly de igned basalt pebble from the Nu'alolo Kai collection (# 282) may after the variety of stone from which they were made" (Malo have been part of a konane game. KiLu (pitching discs, or 1951:220-221). Although it is difficult to ascertain from Malo quoits) are exceptionally rare, and are virtually unknown to eth­ and Brigham how 'uLumaika morphology was related to per­ nographic or hi torical literature. Bi hop (1940) and Emory formance in the game (either rolling or colliding), they do indi­ (1965) have suggested that game involved spinning or flinging cate that morphology was in some way dictated by material the kiLu di c towards a pole, and by striking the pole the player type. This uggests that some degree of artifact morphology was would receive a point. A lens-shaped hematite artifact was re­ predetermined by qualities of the material, and that the manu­ covered from the deposits of Nu 'alolo Kai, (# 380) and it has facturers of 'uLumaika may have elected both material and been tentatively identified as a kiLu, due to its highly polished morphologies with specific performance goals in mind. The surface and lack of edge wear. analysis of material types, wear patterns, and morphologies In comparison, the game of maika was commonly played amongst a ample of 'uLumaika may provide additional in ights throughout Hawai'i, and tone u ed in the game have been into how the game was played, and perhaps how it changed found in archaeological site dating back to the 8th century AD over time to empha ize different aspect of 'uLumaika perform­ (Kirch and Kelly 1975). Other ver ion of the game are known ance. The e analy es also ugge t that orne 'uLumaika were from Samoa and the Cook Islands, and most likely the more expedient tools, i.e., they were ha lily made, and others were ancient a pect of the game originated amongst these islands. In the products of rna ter craftsmen. Broken or worn out 'uLumaika Hawai'i, maika was an adult game, and the stones used for play­ were also u ed for a variety of other activities, as evidenced by ing ('uLumaika) were manufactured to be swift, balanced, and their wear pattern . durable. Variability in the way the game wa played i ug­ gested through oral historical data, and the vast array of materi­ MATERIAL TYPES, MORPHOLOGY, AND WEAR AMONGST HA­ als u ed to create 'uLumaika. Morphology and wear patterns on WAllAN 'ULUMAIKA the stones themselves also suggest that the game had several variations, which may represent regional or temporal trends in As before, a paradigmatic cla sifIcation was employed to ex­ game playing or competition . plicitly cla sify morphological features and instances of wear. In broad terms, the game wa similar to European bowl­ Previous analyses identified artifact that were round in plan ing, and Malo uggests the game involved a great deal of com­ view and either elliptical or rectangular in ide view. Excluding petition and betting. The principle point was to send a discoid- the artifact that had instance of wear and morphologies indica­ haped object (the 'uLumaika) down a prepared track (the ka­ tive of their use a abrader, harnrnerstones, kiLu, or konane hua) a far as wa possible. Several players could be involved in stones, 18 whole 'ulumaika were classilled from the Nu'alolo the game, and whoever had the longest throw was declared the Kai collection. Initial classification of wear sugge ted that most winner. In his translation of Malo, Emerson noted that addi­ 'uLumaika had abraded or polished convex surfaces, so an addi­ tional trial in the maika game incorporated accuracy, in the tional query wa performed to a semble artifact that were po­ form of two stakes set up orne distance from the start of the tentially the fragments of broken 'uLumaika. This resulted in a cour e, and separated by only a few inches. Players would at­ total assemblage of 38 broken and whole artifacts. A secondary tempt to roll their maika stones between those stakes to win the classification was employed to further cIa ify the morphology event. (Malo 1951 :221). There is also documentation that ug­ of 'uLumaika. This ystem classified artifacts according to the gest that a few kahua maika on Moloka'i (Kaunakakai and pre ence of convex, concave, flat, or indeterminate surfaces on Lanikaula) were constructed to include a curve, and 'uLumaika the yl, y2, and X sides (Table 2) and generated 125 potential of tho e competition were manufactured to roll in a curving classes, 6 of which occurred within the ample. trajectory (Malo 1951:221). Brigham described a third trial in the game that involved rolling the maika stones against one an­ MateriaL Type vs. 'ULumaika morphoLogy other, and the most durable stones would be proclaimed the Twenty one (55%) of the 'uLumaika were cla sified as

Rapa Nui Journal 99 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4 6 Field: A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear Table 2. Classification of 'ulumaiko based upon the morphology of the game. Most likely this transition occurred throughout Poly­ the yl, y2, and X surfaces. 125 potential class combinations are gen­ ne ia, a biconvex discs are also the predominant form in erated by this classification. maika-like games in Samoa and the Cook Islands. Notably, the ver ion of the game played in the Cook Islands employed I. SURFACE OF yl wooden biconvex di c and a throwing sling made of hibiscu O. surface lacking* I. concave surface bark, which was wrapped around the flat 'track' of the di k and 2. convex surface then used to fling the di c down a prepared lane (Buck 3. flat urface 1927:341). 4. indeterminate surface Although it i unknown if the use of fiber lings was prevalent at any time in other parts of Polynesia, the design may II. SURFACE OF y2 have been part of a trend towards increased acceleration and O. surface lacking* accuracy. This is suggested to some extent by physics, within l. concave surface which the properties involved in the rotation of solid bodies are 2. convex surface 3. flat surface well under tood. Phy ic dictate that the rotational inertia of 4. indeterminate surface solid phere i les than that of discs, thus round and di c- haped gaming tones would not have performed equally in dis­ III. SURFACE OF X tance competitions. In controlled experiments, sphere acceler­ O. surface lacking* ate more ea ily than cylinder or di cs, because as an object' 1. concave urface mass i moved away from its axis of rotation, the object's rota­ 3 2. convex surface tional inertia increases . However, the use of a sling would have 3. flat urface dramatically improved the acceleration of any gaming stone, 4. indeterminate urface urpas ing even a sphere that was thrown by hand. If the early The Cia es filled by Nu'alolo Kai collection: 222, 242, 220, development of the maika game involved the use of fiber slings, 200, 332, 442. thi may explain why players preferred to manufacture discoid *In instances where two surfaces are perfectly convex, their gaming stone , as oppo ed to pherical ones, throughout the later period of ea t Polyne ia. In conparison, biconvex intersections do not permit the formation of a distinct yl, I y2, or X plane. 'ulumaika may have developed a an efficient hybrid of disc and pherical morphologie ; the flattened ide perhap made throwing ea ier, and the rounded hape would have allowed class 222; artifact with convex surface on the yl, y2, and X quick acceleration and long di tance that were almo t equiva­ faces (Table I). Thi is the cla ic biconvex disc hape that both lent to that of phere- haped object. In addition, biconvex di cs Malo and Brigham de cribed. However, if the fragmentary may have been favored for their tability, a the equal curvature 'ulumaika with convex Y face are also included (classes 242, of the sides may have helped to keep the stone balanced. Ex­ 220, 200), a total of 34 (89%) of the artifacts in the Nu'alolo perimental tests performed by the author involving ceramic Kai collection con i t of biconvex 'ulumaika. Only three speci­ 'ulumaika indicate that the flat-sided discs were considerably men were member of class 332 - 'ulumaika with flat sides and less stable, and had lower rate of acceleration. convex rolling tracks. Concave- ided 'ulumaika were not pre- These findings uggest that the biconvex morphology that ent, although they have been recorded from other parts of Ha­ i common in Hawaiian 'ulumaika i mo t likely related to the wai'i (McAllister 1933:50). An additional pecimen was of poor performance of the object, as opposed to a purely stylistic condition and mostly indeterminate in morphology (class 442). choice made by the manufacturer. This hape is perhap due to Of note, class 222 occurs across all material types, including evolutionary development in the playing of the maika game, in basalt (both ve icular and aphanitic), coral, coquina, limestone, which early players shifted to forms that were perhap ea ier to and hematite. Thi diver ity i particularly interesting, as co­ throw, but which maintained the speed, accuracy, and balance quina i very crumbly and lime tone and hematite are quite brit­ needed for performance. The exi tence of flat- ided variants in tle. Till pan-material ill tribution sugge ts that the biconvex Hawaiian 'ulumaika may ugge t later experimentation, the u e morphology wa a choice elected by the manufacturers, and of expedient materials, or perhaps the low attrition of stone not pre-determined by the qualities inherent in the raw material during many instances of play. The following discussion will (cf. Malo 1951). It may also suggest that the color of the raw focus on the wear patterns inherent in all the 'ulumaika forms, material, and its ability to be worked to a high polish, may have which may indicate variances in 'ulumaika manufacture, u e, been more important to manufacturers than simple durability. and sub equent modification. However, Allen (1996) ha sugge ted that traits that co­ occur on more than one kind of material indicate design choices 'Ulumaika Morphology and Attrition-Related Wear that do not affect performance (i.e., the traits are stylistic). This Of the 34 biconvex 'ulumaika, the mo t common material may not have been the ca e for Hawaiian 'ulumaika. Emerson type wa limestone (15, or 44%). This material was probably suggests that the game of maika originally employed unripe favored for its creamy white color and its ability to be worked breadfruit (ulu), which were gradually replaced with pherical to a high polish. However, the fragility of limestone i evident stones as the centurie progres ed (Emer on, in Malo from the Nu'alolo Kai collection, which contains only one com­ 1951:221). If Emer on i correct, the manufacture of biconvex plete limestone 'ulumaika. A a group limestone 'ulumaika are disc in later centurie may repre ent the further evolution of heavily fractured, and mo t likely this wear pattern is due to

Rapa Nui Journal 100 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 Published by Kahualike, 2003 7 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 17 [2003], Iss. 2, Art. 4 their breakage during play - either in collision with the surface and flat- ided (# 366, 619). Moreover, the effects of attrition of the kahua, or in collision with other 'ulumaika. Two lime­ are al 0 evident in the clas ification of the morphology of co­ stone 'ulumaika (# 368, 373) are also chipped and crushed quina 'ulumaika. Two of the even are fragmented, and nearly along their fractured edge ,which ugge ts that these artifacts all exhibit crushing and abra ion on their sides and rolling sur­ were u ed for cutting or chopping at a later time. Small faces. It is also po ible that the occurrence of the flat- ided 'ulumaika flakes that had harp edge may have also been cu­ morphology i due to the weathering of the parent material. rated a expedient cutting tool . La tly, the mo t rare material type amongst the Nu 'alolo Twelve (35%) of the biconvex 'ulumaika are compo ed of Kai 'ulumaika were tho e compo ed of hematite and coral. ba alt, which include both aphanitic and vesicular varieties. Only two hematite pecimen were recovered. Both were of the Ba alt wa the preferred material for 'ulumaika throughout Ha­ biconvex di c morphology and had polished surfaces that wai'i, a it could be pecked and cru hed into almost any shape, brought out their deep red color. The whole specimen (# 364) and wa exceptionally durable. Wear patterns on the Nu'alolo was in excellent condition, and may not have been u ed exten­ Kai 'ulumaika indicate exten ive play - all of the vesicular ba- sively as it lacked exten ive edge or surface chipping. The alt 'ulumaika are complete, yet they show cru hing wear on other hematite 'ulumaika wa a fragment (# 1831), which ap­ their rolling surfaces. Three pecimen also have instances of peared to have been lightly abraded. Tills may suggest that chipping and abrasion along their edge , two of which (# 284, after breakage the fragments of the hematite were used for cre­ 669) are evere enough to suggest that they were used as expe­ ating red pigment. The single coral 'ulumaika (#363) was also dient harnrnerstones. The two aphanitic basalt 'ulumaika (# in the shape of a biconvex disc. Tills artifact is extraordinarily 285, 391) are both fragmented from play, but only one ha symmetrical, which suggests the work of a master craftsman. chipped and abraded edge that indicate extensive rolling. Nei­ This 'ulumaika also shows little wear related to game playing, ther of the e artifact appear to have been subsequently u ed and may not have seen much use. for pounding or grinding. In addition, a ingle vesicular ba alt 'ulumaika (# 668) wa cla ified a a member of clas 332­ DISCUSSIO the flat sided morphology Tills artifact ha wear pattern that were imilar to biconvex 'ulumaika of the ame material, and i The clas ification of morphological variation amongst a sample otherwi e unremarkable. of Hawaiian 'ulumaika indicate that in most circumstances, The iconoclasts of the Nu 'alolo Kai collection are the co­ gaming stones were made by accompli hed craft men who pre­ quina 'ulumaika, as these artifacts show the most diversity in ferred biconvex morphologies to flat- ided or irregular mor­ morphology and wear patterns. Coquina particle are generally phologies. Historical and ethnographic analyses suggest that large and its con istency crumbly, although it can be ea ily this form derived from an earlier spherical morphology, and the pecked into any shape de ired. However, compared to ba alt retention of partial sphericity in the biconvex form was perhap and coral, it i not a very efficient material for either grinding due to player preference - it would have retained the speed and or pounding. Its occurrence as an 'ulumaika material type ug­ accuracy of the more ancient pheres, yet out-performed flat­ ge t that the e were expedient game stones, and not made to sided variants. The occurrence of the biconvex morphology the tandard of traditional 'ulumaika. Thi being the ca e, the e across material types is also indicative of the functional superi­ artifacts reflect both morphologie : biconvex (# 365, 371, 381) ority of this design. Although limestone and hematite were les durable, the use of the e

120 • Biconvex materials indicates that Basalt the color (and potential Flat-Sided for a illgh polish) was ~ lOll also preferable to the 0 Basalt 'C more mundane basalt. q,j • Biconvex Q., Figure 3 plots the distri­ eo c;... Coral bution of the 38 0 o Biconvex 'ulumaika in the Nu'alolo eQ" q,j 60 Hematite Kai collection according E-o... • Biconvex to morphology, material q,j Q" Coquina type, and temporal peri­ 4() ..c ods established by q,j Flat-Sided ...(,I Moniz-Nakamura et al. q,j Coquina Q., 20 (n.d.). Despite the small • Biconvex ample size, trend in Limestone manufacture are evident. o Indeterminate The cla sic biconvex 1100-1450 AC. 1450-1750 AC. Post 1750 A.C. Limestone form is the most common Temporal Periods at Nu'alolo Kai in all periods, although the flat-sided variant oc­ curs in low numbers be­ Figure 3. The distribution of 'ulumaika according to morphology and materiaJ type throughout the prehistoric se­ tween AD 1450 and the quence of Nu 'aJol0 Kai.

Rapa Nui Journal 101 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4 8 Field: A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear contact period. Basalt is the mo t prevalent material type be­ NOTES tween AD 1450-1750, and although it remains common in the latest temporal period, other material types such as limestone I The orientation of artifacts in the X, Y, and Z climensions is an and coquina increase in frequency after AD 1750 These data arbitrary construction, but for consistency in classification suggest that diversity in 'ulumaika form and material type was it is necessary to follow these simple rules: present as early as the 12th or 13 th century at Nu 'alolo Kai (the The Yaxis: the longest extension of the artifact (the longest earliest 'ulumaika is actually composed of hematite), and during side) determines the positioning of the Yaxis. the period of AD 1550-1750, the materials from which The Z axis: the shortest extension of the artifact (the short­ 'ulumaika were made became increasingly variable. est side) determines the positioning of the Z axis. It is not possible to cliscern whether the 'ulumaika of The X axis: the remaining extension of the artifact (the side Nu 'alolo Kai participated in the collision variation of the game that is longer than the Z but shorter than the Y) determines that is recorded for Moloka'i. Brigham's description of kahua the positioning of the X axis. maika on Moloka'i suggests that these were made from basalt Once the axis lines are established, the X, Y, and Z faces 'ulumaika (most likely fine-grained, as this region is known for can be determined. The shapes of these faces determine the having several adze quarries) that had been broken during play. overall morphology of a three-dimensional artifact. Six The Nu 'alolo Kai collection also contained two aphanitic basalt faces are created by the three-climensionalization of any 2 l 2 'ullimaika, both of which are fragmented. However, the bulk of object, Xl, X , y , y , ZI and Z2. the basalt artifacts were of the vesicular variety, and unbroken. Distinguishing faces follows these simple rules: Thus, it is difficult to determine whether the fragmentation of First and second faces: First faces are clistinguished from 2 2 limestone and aphanitic 'ullimaika (and conversely, the sound­ second faces solely by relative size: X , y , and Z2 faces l ness of vesicular basalt) is a result of intentional collisions, or must be larger than Xl, y , and ZI faces. the brittle/durable nature of these materials. Additional studies X Faces: X faces are created by the co-occurrence of the X of 'lllllmaika from other sites, particularly the kahua maika of axis and the Y axis, thus creating a "plan view". Kaunakakai and Lanikaula, may aid in determining the extent to Y Faces: Y faces are created by the co-occurrence of the Y which variations in the maika game existed in prehistoric Ha­ axis and the Z axis, thus creating a "side view". wai'i. What is certain is that at the remote village of Nu 'alolo Z Faces: Z faces are created by the co-occurrence of the X Kai, 'ulumaika were expecliently made of less than optimal ma­ axis and the Z axis, thus creating an "end view". terials (coquina), in the later periods, although better materials 2 Plane geometry dictates that closed shapes (Euclidean and and finely crafted 'ulumaika were available. This may suggest more complex topological shapes) are determined by the play by children, or perhaps practicing with 'junk' 'ulumaika by number of sides and degree of angles created by their verti­ adults (i .e., Brigham 1902:40 I). Throughout the sequence, ces (Ballard 1970:49). Shapes that contain only interior an­ whole and broken 'ullimaika were re-used as pounding, cutting, gles (an angle that is oriented toward the center of the and chopping tools. shape) can contain an infinite number of sides. However, the co-occurrence of interior and exterior angles (an angle CONCLUSION that is oriented away from the center of the shape) must follow these two rules: The morphological and wear classifications presented in this Shapes with 1 exterior angle must have more than 3 sides, study allow for systematic analyses of cliscoidal artifacts from and, shapes with 2 or more exterior angles must have 5 or the Na Pali coast of Kaua'i. More specifically, this classification more sides. identifies patterns of use-wear amongst morphologically similar The number of planes of symmetry present in a shape can objects, and cliscerns clistinct activities associated with grinding, be used to distinguish different shapes. Symmetry is deter­ pouncling, and game playing. In adclition, this classification was mined by the number of sides in a shape and the degree of further used to identify variations within the game of maika, congruence that exists between the sides. The number of including the way in which gaming stones performed, how they planes of symmetry present in a shape can range from zero were manufactured and used, and consequently recycled as to infinity. However, these two rules dictate the occurrence other tools. This study demonstrates the utility of a systematic of planes of symmetry for all shapes: classification for artifacts that normally receive little attention. Except for 3 and 5 sided shapes, odd-sided shapes cannot Research such as this in Hawai'i (and other parts of the Pacific) have more than 1 plane ofsymmetry, and, has been largely overshadowed by multi-disciplinary studies of for even sided shapes, the number of planes of symmetry settlement patterns and subsistence, and the regular use of ra­ are either less than or equal to the number ofsides. cliometric dating for chronology (e.g., Dixon et al. 2002). With­ 3 Colwell (2003) provides a concise summary of the physics of out doubt, these stuclies have developed scholarly conceptions rotating boclies: when a rigid body is rotated, its resistance of Hawaiian prehistory to an advanced degree. It is contended to a change in its state of rotation is called its moment of herein that more advanced analyses and classifications of arti­ inertia (rotational inertia). This resistance is due to the facts in tandem with these broader stuclies can provide a more amount of mass present in the object and the distribution of comprehensive account of Hawaiian prehistory. that mass about the chosen axis of rotation. Different posi­ tions of the axis result in clifferent moments of inertia for the same object; the further the mass is distributed from the axis of rotation, the greater the value of its moment of iner-

Rapa Nui Journal 102 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 Published by Kahualike, 2003 9 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 17 [2003], Iss. 2, Art. 4 tia. The rotational inertia for solid spheres can be summa­ Athens, J. and J. Ward. 1997. The Maunawili Core: Prehistoric rized by the following equation: I =2/5 rI1? Where I =iner­ Inland Expansion of Settlement and Agriculture, O'ahu, tia, m =rna and r =radius. Hawaj'i. Hawaiian Archaeology 6:37-51. The smaller the coefficient of mi, the ea ier it is to acceler­ Ballard, W. R. 1970. Geometry. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunder ate the object. Therefore, pheres accelerate easier than Co. disks and cylinders (I = Y2 m/), which accelerate easier Bates, G. W. 1854. Sandwich Island Notes by a Haole. New 2 than thin rings or hoops (I = rnr ). York. Bennett, W. C. 1931. Archaeology ofKaua 'i. Bernice P. Bishop ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Mu eum Bulletin 80. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Bishop, M. B. 1940. Hawaiian Life of the Pre-European Pe­ Thi research would not have been po sible without the invalu­ riod. Salem: Peabody Mu eum. able support and insight of several individual. Dr. Michael Brigham, W. T. 1902. Stone Implements and Stone Work ofthe Grave of the University of Hawai'i directed my initial analy es Ancient Hawaiians Memoir of the Bernice P. Bishop Mu­ of the Nu'alolo Kai collection, and provided both economic and seum. Vol. I, No.4. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Pre . intellectual mu cle to the project in ways that are almost too Brigham, W. T. 1903. Noteworthy Hawaiian Stone Implements. numerous to mention. The staff of the Bi hop Museum, in par­ Bernice P. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 2(1):33-36. ticular Betty Kam and Susan Lebo, are also to be commended Brigham, W. T. 1906. Mat and Basket Weaving of the Ancient for their continued support of the re earch performed on the col­ Hawaiians. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Memoir 2(1)1-105. lection by Univer ity of Hawai'i students and faculty. The staff Buck, P. (Te Rangi Hiroa). 1927. Material Culture ofthe Cook at Hawai'i State Parks, in particular Martha Yent, Maurice Ma­ Islands (Aitutaki). Memoirs of the Board of Maori Ethno­ jor, and Alan Carpenter, also contributed important information logical Research, Vol. 1. New Plymouth: Thoma Avery concerning the ite of Nu'alolo Kai, and have actively protected and Son. and managed the ite. I mu t al 0 acknowledge the work of Mi­ Buck, P. (Te Rangi Hiroa). 1930. Terminology For Ground chael Pfeffer (Univer ity of Wa hington), a hi research of Ha­ Stone Cutting Implements in Polynesia. Journal of the waiian octopu lure weight erved as an example for the devel­ Polynesian Society 39: 174-180. opment of a classification based on ymmetrical and asymmetri­ Buck, P. (Te Rangi Hiroa). 1938. Vikings of the Sunrise. New cal morphologies. York: Frederick Stokes Co. Kenneth Emory, Lloyd Soehren and William Kikuchi Buck, P. (Te Rangi Hiroa). 1957. Arts and Crafts of Hawai'i. must al 0 be recognized for their excavations and analyses per­ Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 45. formed during the 1960s and 70s, as they were the first to rec­ Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ognize the significance of the Nu'alolo Kai depo its and sub e­ Cachola-Abad, C. K. 2000. The Evolution of Hawaiian Socio­ quent artifact collections. Thanks also go to Windy McElroy for Political Complexity: An Analysis of Hawaijan Oral Tradi­ here diligent analy es of the Nu 'alolo Kai artifacts, and to Dr. tions. Unpublished Ph. D. dis ertation, Univer ity of Ha­ Matt McGranaghan of the Department of Geography, Univer­ wai'i, Manoa. sity of Hawai'i, for his knowledge of physics and rotational in­ Campbell, S. K. 1981. The Duwami h No. 1 Site. A Lower ertia. Lastly, pecial thanks go to Jolynn Gunness of the Univer­ Puget Sound Shell Midden. University of Washington, In­ sity of Hawai'i for her valuable insights into Hawaiian artifacts stitute for Environmental Studies, Office of Public Archae­ and lithic technologie , and al 0 her unswerving dedication to ology, Re earch Report 1. Seattle: Univer ity of Wa hing­ the curation and management of the University of Hawai'i ar­ ton Press. chaeological collections. Cleghorn, P. L. 1982. The Mauna Kea Adze Quarry: Techno­ logical Analyses and Experimental Te t . Unpubli hed Ph. REFERE CES D. dissertation, University of Hawai 'i, Manoa. Cochrane, E. E. 1998. The Chronological and Spatial Relation­ Adams, W. Y. and E. W. Adams, 1991. Archaeological Typol­ ship of Ceremonial Architecture: Seriation of Marae. Rapa ogy and Practical Reality: A Dialectal Approach to Artifact Nui Journal 12(1):3-9. Classification and Sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer­ Cochrane, E. E. 2002. Separating Time and Space in Archaeo­ sity Press. logical Land cape : An Example from Windward Society Alexander, W. D. 1891. A Brief History of the Hawaiian Peo­ Island Ceremonial Architecture. Pacific Landscapes: Ar­ ple. Publi hed by order of the Board of education of the chaeological Approaches. Ladefoged and Grave eds. Hawaiian Islands. New York: American Book Co. :189-210. Los Osos: Easter Island Foundation. Allen, M. S. 1992. Dynamic Landscapes and Human Subsis­ Colwell, C. 2003. Resource Lesson: Moment of Inertia and An­ tence: Archaeological Investigations on Aitutaki Island, gular Momentum. Online Physic Lab 14 Augu t, http:// Southern Cook Islands. Ph.D. Di ertation, University of online.cctt.org/physicslab/content/phyapb/lessonnotes/ Washington, Seattle. angularmomenturn/le sonangularmomentum.asp Allen, M. S. 1996. Style and Function in East Polynesian Fi h­ Cook, J. 1784. A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean for Making Di ­ hooks. Antiquity 70(267):97-116. coverie in the Northern Hemisphere, Under the Direction Athens, J., H. D. Tuggle, J. V. Ward and D. J. Welch. 2002. of Captain Cook, Clerke, and Gore, in the Years 1776 7 Avifaunal Extinctions, Vegetation Change, and Polynesian 8, 9, and 80; With an Introductory Review of Maritime Dis­ Impacts in Prehi toric Hawai'i. Archaeology in Oceania covery Down to the Time of Captain Cook. Edinburgh: 37:57-78.

Rapa Nui Journal 103 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4 10 Field: A Classification for Hawaiian Artifacts Based on Morphology and Wear William Reid and Son. its Origins and Migrations, and the Ancient History of the Cordy, R. 1981. A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The De­ Hawaiian PeopLe to the Times of Kamehameha I. Rutland: velopment of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. C. E. Tuttle Co. New York: Academic Press. Fornander, A. 1916 [1974]. Fornander CoLLection ofAntiquities Cordy, R. 1996. The Rise and Fall of the O'ahu Kingdom: A and FoLkLore: First Series. Bernice P. Bishop Mu eum. Brief Overview of O'ahu's History. Davidson et aI. eds., Memoir, Vol. 4-6. New York: Krau Reprint Co. Oceanic Culture History: Essays in Honour of Roger Gifford, J. C. 1960. Type-Variety Method. American Antiquity Green, :591-613. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 25:341-347. Special Publication. Auckland: New Zealand Journal of Gilman, G. D. 1908. JournaL of a Canoe Voyage ALong the Archaeology. Kaua'i PaLi's, Made in 1845. Hawaiian Historical Society Dixon, B. P. J. Conte, V. Nagahara and W. Hodgin. 2002. Set­ Papers, No. 14. Honolulu: Hawaiian Hi torical Society. tlement Patterns and Subsistence Strategies at Kahikinui Graves, M. W., B. O'Connor and T. N. Ladefoged. 2002. Maui. Hawaiian ArchaeoLogy 8: 12-32. Tracking Changes in Community-Scaled Organization in Dole, S. B. 1892. Evolution of Hawaiian Land Tenure. Hawai­ Kohala and Kona, Hawai'i I land. Pacific Landscapes: Ar­ ian Hi torical Society Paper, No.3. Honolulu: Hawaiian chaeoLogicaL Approaches, T. Ladefoged and M. Grave Historical Society Press. ed ., :231-255. Lo 00 : Ea ter I land Foundation. Dunnell, R. C. 1971. Sy tematics in Prehistory. New York: Free Graves, M. W. and C. Erkelen. 1991. Who's in Control? Pre . Method and Theory in Hawaiian Archaeology. Asian Per­ Dunnell, R. C. 1978. Style and Function: A Fundamental Di­ spectives 30(1): 1-17. chotomy. American Antiquity 43:192-202. Graves, M. W. and C. K. Cachola-Abad. 1996. Seriation as a Dunnell, R. C. and S. K. Campbell. 1977. AboriginaL Occupa­ Method of Chronologically Ordering Architectural Design tion of Hamilton IsLand, Washington. Reports in Archae­ Traits: an Example from Hawai'i. ArchaeoLogy of Oceania ology 4. Department of Anthropology, Univer ity of Wa h­ 31:19-32. ington. Seattle: University ofWashington Pres. Haury, E. 1950. The Stratigraphy and ArchaeoLogy of Ventana Dunnell, R. C. and D. Lewarch. 1974. ArchaeoLogical Remains Cave, Arizona. Albuquerque: The Univer ity of New Mex­ in Home VaLLey Park. Skamania County, Washington. Uni­ ico and Arizona Pres . versity of Washington, Department of Anthropology. Seat­ Hommon, R. J. 1996. Social Complex Adaptive Systems: Some tle: University of Washington Press. Hawaiian Examples. Oceanic Culture History: Essays in Elli W. 1827 [1963]. JournaL of WiLLiam ELLis: Narrative ofa Honor ofRoger Green, Davidson et al. eds. :579-590. New Tour ofHawaii, or Owhyhee: With Remarks on the History, Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication. Auck­ Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language ofthe Inhabi­ land: New Zealand Journal of Archaeology. tants ofthe Sandwich IsLands (1827). Reprinted, Honolulu: Hunt, T. L. and R. M. Holsen. 1991. An Early Radiocarbon Adverti er Publi hing Co. Chronology for the Hawaiian Island: A Preliminary Emory, K. P. 1928. ArchaeoLogy of Nihoa and Necker IsLands. Analysis. Asian Perspectives 30:147-162. Bernice P. Bi hop Mu eum Bulletin No. 53. Honolulu: Jarves, J. J. 1843. History ofthe Hawaiian or Sandwich IsLands, Bi hop Mu eum Press. Embracing their Antiquities, MythoLogy, Legends, Discov­ Emory, K. P. 1965. Sports, Games, and Amu ements. In Handy ery by Europeans in the Sixteenth Century, Re-discovery by et aI. eds., Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, :145-157. Ver­ Cook., With Their CiviL, ReLigious, and PoLiticaL History. mont: Charles Tuttle Co. Bo ton: J. Munroe and Co. Emory, K. P. 1968. East Polynesian Relationship as Revealed Judd, N. M. 1954. The Material CuLture of PuebLo Bonito. through Adzes. 1. Yawata and Y. Sinoto eds., Prehistoric Smith onian Miscellaneous Collections, Vol. 124. Wash­ CuLture in Oceania, :151-169. Honolulu: Bishop Museum ington DC: Smith onian Pre . Pres. Kamakau, S. M. 1865 [1992]. MooLeLo 0 Hawai'i. (Reprinted: Emory, K. P., W. J. Bonk and Y. H. Sinoto. 1959. Hawaiian Ruling Chiefs of Hawai'i), Honolulu: The Karnehameha ArchaeoLogy: Fishhooks. Bernice P. Bishop Special Publi­ School Pre . cation No. 47. Honolulu: Bishop Mu eum Press. Kidder, A. V. 1915. Pottery of the Pajarito Plateau and Some Emory, K. P. and Y. H. Sinoto. 1961. Hawaiian ArchaeoLogy: Adjacent Regions in New Mexico. American AnthropoLogi­ Oahu Excavations. Bernice P. Bi hop Museum Special caL Association, Memoirs 2(6):407-462. Pub. 49. Honolulu: Bi hop Mu eum Pre . Kirch, P. V. 1982. Transported Land cape. Natural History 91 Finney, B. 1996. Colonizing an I land World. W. Goodenough (12):32-35. ed., Prehistoric SettLement ofthe Pacific. :71-116. Memoirs Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Intro­ of the American Philosophical Society, No. 86. Philadel­ duction to Hawaiian ArchaeoLogy and Prehistory. Hono­ phia: American Philosophical Society. lulu: University ofHawai'i Pre . Ford, J. A. 1954a. The Type Concept Revisited. American An­ Kirch, P. V. and M. Kelly. 1975. Prehistory and EcoLogy in a thropoLogist 56:42-54. Windward Hawaiian Valley: HaLawa VaLLey, Moloka'i. Pa­ Ford, J. A. 1954b. Comment on "Stati tical Technique for the cific Anthropological Record 24. Honolulu: Bernice P. Di covery of Artifact Type ". American Antiquity 19:390­ Bishop Museum. 391. Kolb, M. J. 1997. Labor, Ethnohi tory, and the Archaeology of Fomander, A. 1890 [1969]. An Account ofthe PoLynesian Race: Community in Hawai'i. JournaL ofArchaeoLogicaL Method

Rapa Nui Journal 104 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003

Published by Kahualike, 2003 11 Rapa Nui Journal: Journal of the Easter Island Foundation, Vol. 17 [2003], Iss. 2, Art. 4 and Theory 4(3):265-286. tion 609, Carnegie Institution of Washington. Washington Krieger, A. D. 1944. The Typological Concept. American An­ D.C.: Carnegie Institute of Washington. tiquity 9:271-287. Sinoto, Y. H. 1962. Chronology of Hawaiian Fi hhooks. Jour­ Ladefoged, T. N. and M. W. Graves. 2000. Evolutionary The­ nal ofthe Polynesian Society. 71(2):162-166. ory and the Hi torical Development of Dry-land Agricul­ Soehren, L. J. and D. Tuohy. 1987. Archaeological Excavations ture in North Kohala, Hawai'i. American Antiquity 65 at Pu 'uhonua 0 Honaunau National Historic Park, Honau­ (3):423-448. nau, Kona, Hawai'i. Bernice P. Bi hop Mu eum Report 87­ Lass, B. 1994. Hawaiian Ad..e Production and Distribution: 2. Honolulu: Bishop Mu eum Pre . Implications for the Development ofChiefdoms. Institute of Soehren, L. J. and W. IGkuchi. n.d. Archaeological Excavation Archaeology, Monograph 37. Los Angeles: University of at Nu'alolo, Kaua'i. Unpubli hed manu cript, Bernice P. California Press. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. McAlli ter, J. G. 1933. Archaeology of Kaho'olawe. Bernice P. Spaulding, A. C. 1953. Statistical Technique for the Di covery Bishop Museum Bulletin 115. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop of Artifact Types. American Antiquity 18:305-313. Museum. Spriggs, M. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late Colonization of Ea t McElroy, W. K. 2000. Expanding the Role of Artifact Analysis Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200-217. in Hawaiian Archaeology: A Comparison of Coral and Ba­ Stokes, J. F. G. 1927. Food Rubbing Stones of Kauai. Bernice alt Artifacts of Nu'alolo Kai, Kaua'i. Presented at the 13 th P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 12:22-23. Hono­ Annual Society for Hawaiian Archaeology Conference in lulu: Bishop Museum Press. Hilo, Hawai'i, 7 October, 2000. Stone, T. K. and P. A. McAnany. 1997. Ritualized Athletic McElroy, W. K. 2003. Variability in Poi Pounders from Kaua'i Competition: The Archaeology of Hawaiian Holua Sled­ Island, Hawai'i. M.A. thesis, University of Hawai'i, ding. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Manoa. Society for American Archaeology, Nashville. Malo, D. 1903. Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Hono­ Taylor W. W. 1948. A Study ofArcheology. Carbondale: South­ lulu: Hawaiian Gazette. ern Illinois University Press. Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities. Revi ed edition. Tran ­ Weisler, M., and R. Walter. 2002. Late Prehistoric Fishing Ad­ lated by N. B. Emerson. Bernice P. Bi hop Mu eum Spe­ aptations at Kawakiu Nui, We t Moloka'i. Hawaiian Ar­ cial Publications NO.2. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Mu­ chaeology 8:42-61. eum Press. Wil on, T. 1898. Arrowheads, Spearheads, and Knives of Pre­ Moniz-Nakamura, J. 1999. The Archaeology of Human Forag­ hi toric Times. United States National Museum, Annual ing and Bird Resources on the 1 land of Hawai 'i: The Evo­ Report 1897, Part I, :811-988. Washington D. c.: lutionary Ecology of Avian Predation, Re ource Intensifi­ Smithsonian. cation, Extirpation, and Extinction. Unpublished Ph.D. dis- ertation, University of Hawai 'i, Manoa. Moniz-Nakamura, J. M., M. S. Allen and M. W. Graves. n.d. Methodological Issues in Artifact Analysis: Explaining Sty­ listic Variability in Hawaiian Fishhooks. M. W. Graves and E. Cochrane eds., Style in Oceania: Evolutionary Archae­ INTERNATIONAL STRING FIGURE ASSOCIATION ology in the Pacific. Unpubli hed ms. on file, University of Hawai'i, Manoa. On Easter Island string figures are Pearson, R. J., P. Kirch, and M. Pietru ewsky. 1971. An Early known as kaikai. Prehistoric Site at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Ha­ Each year during waiian Islands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in the Tapati festival Oceania 6:204-234. participants in the Pfeffer, M. T. 1995. Distribution and Design of Pacific Octopu E Kuha, E Rati kaikai contest at- Lure: the Hawaiian Octopu Lure in Regional Context. tempt to weave the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology 4:47-56. island's traditional designs and recite the ancient chants Rau, C. 1876. The Archaeological Collections of the United that accompany them, all with great style and charm. States National Museum, in Charge of the Smithsonian In­ stitution, Washington D.C. Smith onian Contribution to The International String Figure Association was founded in Knowledge, Vol. 22. Washington, D. c.: Smithsonian. 1978 to gather and preserve string figures from around the Rouse, I. 1939. Prehistory of Haiti: A Study in Method. Yale world. Members receive our annual Bulletin (200-page Univer ity Publications in Anthropology 21. New York: book), quarterly magazine, and semi-annual newsletter. Yale Univer ity Pre s. Sahlin, M. D. 1992. Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in $25 annually· VisalMC accepted the Kingdom of Hawai'i. Volume One: Historical Ethnog­ International String Figure Association raphy. Chicago: Chicago University Press. P.O. Box 5134, Pasadena, California 91117 USA Schiffer, M. B. 1992. Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change. Tucson: The Univer ity of Arizona Pre s. www.isfa.orgl-webweaversflSfa.htm Shepard, A. 0.1956. Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publica-

Rapa Nui Journal 105 Vol. 17 (2) October 2003 https://kahualike.manoa.hawaii.edu/rnj/vol17/iss2/4 12