hawaiian archaeology 7 Volume 7, 1999 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology hawaiian archaeology Volume 7, 1999 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology Editor’s Note 3 Elaine Rogers Jourdane Obituary for Catherine Cooke Summers 8 Papers Patrick C. McCoy Neither Here nor There: A Rites of Passage Site on the Eastern Fringes of the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry, Hawai‘i 11 Tim Denham, Francis J. Eblé, Palaeoenvironmental and Archaeological Barbara Winsborough, and Investigations at ‘Öhi‘apilo Pond, Leeward Jerome V. Ward Coast of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i 35 Forum Patrick V. Kirch Hawaiian Archaeology: Past, Present, and Future 60 C. Këhaunani Cachola-Abad and He Pane Ho‘omälamalama: Setting the Record Edward Halealoha Ayau Straight and a Second Call for Partnership 73 Ross Cordy Thoughts from the Chaotic Midst of Hawaiian Archaeology 82 P. Bion Griffin Hawaiian Archaeology: A Post-Colonial History 89 Yosihiko H. Sinoto Some Comments on “Hawaiian Archaeology: Past, Present and Future” 99 hawaiian archaeology 7 Tom Dye, Editor Production of this volume was made possible with the generous financial assistance of Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. Cultural Resource Management Services issn 0890–1678 Contributor notes and subscription information can be found on the second to the last page of this volume. Editor‘s Note It is difficult to remember the state of Hawaiian archaeology before the Society’s Annual Conferences began over a decade ago. Begun at a time when the center of archaeological activity had nearly completed its disper- sal to the many cultural resources management firms from its old centers at Bishop Museum and the University of Hawai‘i, the conferences brought together archaeologists whose daily work rarely, if ever, did so. The sharing of information and ideas that are the goals of the conference have been enthusiastically embraced by the members—so much so that papers that once would have been offered at the old monthly (now quarterly) speakers’ series are now routinely held back for presentation at the more prestigious conference. Most of us look forward to the conference and find it an excit- ing time, both intellectually and socially. So it was at the 10th annual conference hosted by Pila Kikuchi, Nancy McMahon, and Martha Yent at Kaua‘i Community College. Pat Kirch, Class of 1954 Professor of Anthropology at the University of California at Berke- ley, gave the conference a rousing start on Friday night with a keynote address that, in just over one hour, managed to canvas our discipline’s past and its present, and to speculate on what the future might hold. Pat’s per- spective, which has grown from his many years on the Mainland after a pro- lific career at Bishop Museum, was a fascinating mix of first-hand knowl- edge, detached observation, and academic politics that sketched the broad outlines of change in institutional terms. At the heart of the talk were Pat’s opinions about the proper and necessary functions of four archaeological 3 4 hawaiian archaeology institutions—the CRM firms, the State Historic Preservation Division, B.P. Bishop Museum, and the University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa Anthropology Department—and his conviction that the institutional balance that consti- tutes a healthy discipline has now been lost. From my position, after six intense and often trying years with the State Historic Preservation Division where it was frequently clear that something wasn’t right, much of what Pat said made good sense and I was captivated by the vision of institu- tional balance and harmony that he was promoting. It seemed that night like a very worthwhile idea to think about. So, when Rob Hommon and Pat approached me with their idea to submit a revised version of the keynote address to Hawaiian Archaeology, I quite happily agreed to the idea. It wasn’t until the next week that I caught wind of a strongly negative reaction to Pat’s address. I was teaching a graduate seminar in historic preservation at Mänoa on Tuesday evenings and both faculty and students made it abundantly clear to me during some animated discussions that they were not at all swayed by Pat’s portrayal of their institution’s role nor did they agree with his assessment of their efforts. Not only did their insti- tutional balances weigh with different scales, their interpretations of the discipline’s history focused on different events and highlighted other trends. With what I hoped was an editor’s eye to a potentially interesting clash of ideas, I decided to put together a forum on the topics raised in the keynote address and I invited responses from distinguished society mem- bers representing each of the institutions that Pat had singled out. I am delighted that Yosi Sinoto, Senior Anthropologist and Kenneth P. Emory Distinguished Chair in Anthropology at Bishop Museum, Bion Griffin, Pro- fessor of Anthropology and Department Chair at the University of Hawai‘i, Mänoa, and Ross Cordy, Archaeological Branch Chief at the State Historic Preservation Division all took time from their busy schedules to provide thoughtful essays on themes that Pat touched upon in his keynote address. A fourth essay, solicited from a prominent member of the contract archae- ology profession, was never written. Given the theme that runs through Kirch’s keynote address that contract archaeologists give back too little to the public, it might be tempting to read a lot into this situation. Is the unwritten essay another example of contract archaeology taking care of its bottom line first? Fortunately, this is not the story here. Instead, the archaeologist simply agreed with Pat so completely that in the end he could find nothing that he believed really needed to be said. Soon after my invitations went out, I received a telephone call from Këhau Abad, an archaeologist who is not a member of the Society, but whose 5 editor’s note publications on Hawaiian prehistory I have read with interest. She expressed an interest in writing a response from the native Hawaiian point of view, and I quite happily agreed to this idea, too. Her essay with Eddie Ayau, for- mer head of the State burials program, rounds out the responses to Kirch’s keynote address. I thank all of the commentators for responding to a draft of Kirch’s keynote address. They took their tasks seriously and have written on important issues with courage, precision, wit, and commitment. Some minor editorial corrections to Kirch’s draft were made prior to its publication. As far as I can tell, these did not change the substance of his argument in any way and they should not have any effect on the comments, either. If this somewhat disjointed editorial process did introduce errors, then blame the editor and not the authors. They worked too hard on the substantive issues to endure criticism for minor points of scholarship. Abad and Ayau’s original draft contained detailed citations to Kirch’s draft and I thank them for agreeing to remove these. The production process at Hawaiian Archaeology has no ready facility for cross-references to pages within the same issue. The commentors betray a wide variety of opinions, but there is clear una- nimity about several things—the desirability of cooperation among archae- ologists and native Hawaiians, the pervasive influence of cultural resources management concepts, and the central role of the State Historic Preserva- tion Division. In today’s world, these issues are inextricably linked. Although most of the essays are, at best, ambivalent about cultural resources management, one beneficial effect of having archaeology firmly embedded in the regulatory nexus is that the consultation evoked by Abad and Ayau’s oli kähea / oli komo metaphor is today routinely carried out as part of the environmental review required of development projects by Fed- eral, State, and County agencies. As a key part of this consultation process, the SHPD performs an enormous service for which it receives little credit. Day in and day out the archaeological staff of the Division review develop- ment proposals for possible effects on historic sites. When an effect, or a possible effect, is identified, then the developer starts the historic preserva- tion review process. This process, despite the lack of an administrative rule to guide it, does succeed in making historic preservation issues a matter of public record and this is accomplished today on a routine basis. It would undoubtedly be preferable to have an administrative rule in place, and the critics are certainly right that the lack of a rule might prove fatal to historic preservation concerns if push came to shove, but in fact the process gener- ally works quite well. The archaeologists at SHPD deserve more credit than they usually get for this job. 6 hawaiian archaeology One reason that the development review is rarely praised is that the pub- lic’s interest in historic preservation is usually episodic and intense and does not extend to the more general issues surrounding management of the cul- tural resource base in the face of a development-oriented economy. The primary exception to this generalization is the public interest in human burials, which has been both sustained and extremely effective in changing the way that human remains in unmarked graves are treated in Hawai‘i. But even here, there is a tendency to look away from the larger picture. There is no doubt in my mind that human burials could be better protected if bur- ial areas were registered with the SHPD, so that they could be identified early in the development process, rather than discovered later, when the range of possible mitigation measures might be constrained or when dam- age to bones has already occurred.