HAWAIIAN AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN THE KOHALA DRYLAND FIELD SYSTEM

MARA A. MULROONEY & THEGN N. LADEFOGED University of Auckland

Archaeological studies of the Hawaiian archipelago have documented that a high level of sociopolitical complexity characterised Hawaiian society at the time of European contact in 1778 (e.g., Earle 1978, 1997, Kirch 1985, 1990, 2000, Kolb 1999, Sahlins 1958, Spriggs 1988). As Kolb (1994a:417) notes, “Hawaiian traditional society, during a period of 1500 years, experienced a dramatic increase in population, the development of a varied and complex subsistence economy, and the rise of a four-tiered chiefly hierarchy.” The most dramatic changes to Hawaiian society occurred during the latter half of the cultural sequence (Hommon 1986, Kirch 1985, 1990, Spriggs 1988). Many archaeological studies that examine this period focus on chiefly institutions such as the building of religious monumental architecture (e.g., Kolb 1991, 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 1997), the expansion and intensification of large agricultural field systems (e.g., Allen 2004, Kirch 1994, Ladefoged and Graves 2000) and the development of social inequality and hierarchical social organisation (e.g., Cordy 2000, Hommon 1986, Kirch 1990). Studies that focus on the social relations between chiefs and commoners at the community level have been somewhat more limited. Recent studies have shown that the community level is significant in examining the nature of social complexity in Hawai‘i (see, for example, Kolb 1997, Kolb and Snead 1997). Social relations between chiefs and commoners were manifest in various ways, including the creation of territorial land units (ahupua‘a) that were occupied by commoners but economically controlled by chiefs. Both the Hawaiian religious system and the chiefly economy served to link the commoners who resided in these territorial land units to each other as well as the ruling elite. Examining the nature and distribution of intermediate- level heiau ‘religious structures’ in relation to changing ahupua‘a boundaries provides insights into sociopolitical relations and how ideology was used to legitimate social and economic divisions. In the following analysis we examine the functional significance of agricultural heiau distributed throughout the southern portion of the Kohala field system (Figs 1 and 2), an area that was probably developed from ca.

45 4 Hawaiian heiau and Agricultural Production

figure 1: the Kohala peninsula of hawai‘i island showing the location of the Kohala dryland field system and ahupua‘a boundaries. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 47

A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1800 (Ladefoged and Graves 2004). By considering the spatial configuration of these structures in relation to social, economic and political boundaries and the morphology of architectural design traits that characterise these community-level constructions, a better understanding of their significance is attained. The eight heiau are located in the uplands of five ahupua‘a in the southern portion of the leeward dryland field system. The structures reflect intermediate level religious activity and we argue that these features represent community-level constructions that were vital in reinforcing the community within the larger chiefly economy.

Hawaiian Heiau and Agricultural Production Archaeological research of heiau in the includes broad scale surveys (e.g., James 1995, Kirch 1997, McAllister 1933a, 1933b, Stokes 1991), studies of heiau function (e.g., Graves and Cachola-Abad 1996, Kirch 1990, 2004, Kolb 1991, 1994a, 1997, Ladefoged 1998), dating of heiau (Kirch and Sharp 2004) and analyses of architectural attributes based on archaeological excavation (Kolb 1992). Together these studies have produced a large body of literature describing the form and function of heiau, and are largely augmented by the incorporation of information provided in the form of ethnohistorical accounts (e.g., Cordy 2000). However, many of the studies focus primarily on the larger heiau. Part of this bias is undoubtedly because these are the most archaeologically visible structures and are most likely to have been preserved. Also, theoretical studies on heiau function have largely been concerned with chiefly institutions and power relations in the later portions of the Hawaiian cultural sequence (see, for example, Kolb 1991, 1992, 1994a). They thus emphasise the monumental constructions that were restricted to the ruling elite, such as large luakini heiau ‘sacrificial war temples’. Studies generally ignore the full continuum of the religious system that developed in conjunction with the increasing sociopolitical complexity that characterised Hawaiian society. The most complete ethnohistorical synthesis of Hawaiian religious practices is the work of Valeri (1985). He notes that Hawaiian contained a continuum of deities that were reflected in a continuum of religious practices. Various akua ‘deities’ were related to and controlled different aspects of Hawaiian life and there existed a pantheon of akua that included the four ‘major gods’ (po‘o ki‘eki‘e or ke köko‘oha o ke akua)— Kü, Lono, Käne and Kanaloa (Valeri 1985:13). Warfare and conquest were in the realm of Kü, the war god, while the system of tribute was bound up in the cults of Kanaloa, the god of male power and irrigated agriculture, and Lono, the god of fertility and dryland agriculture (Kirch 1984, Valeri 1985). 48 Hawaiian H eiau and Agricultural Production

Valeri (1985) identifies two major forms of worship in the Hawaiian religious system. The first was manifest in productivity rituals that were conducted at small local heiau by priests, chiefs and commoners. The second system was manifest in sacrificial rituals that were performed at large heiau by priests and high chiefs; the largest of these was the luakini heiau, which was used exclusively by the ali‘i nui (Kamakau 1992, Malo 1951). In these rituals, heiau functioned in various ways and their significance did not necessarily correlate with their material form (see Cachola-Abad 1996). The term “heiau” describes any place of worship and can thus refer to a natural or built structure or a location that is considered sacred (Valeri 1985:173). Personal shrines found in residential structures, upright stones and temples built for specific purposes, such as fishing shrines and agricultural temples, are all considered heiau. The great diversity of these structures reflects the complex nature of Hawaiian religion and the fact that the domains of the deities to which these structures were dedicated encompassed most aspects of Hawaiian life (Cachola-Abad 2000:110). The highly varied architectural form of heiau has hampered attempts to classify these structures based on morphological attributes (e.g., Stokes 1991, Thrum 1908; see also Cachola-Abad 1996). Kolb, from his extensive work on heiau, however, notes a general temporal shift from open courts to elevated platforms and enclosures, based on relative and absolute dating. While it is thought that earlier forms would have been accessible to most members of society, the later forms would have limited public participation in sacred rituals or physically separated elite participants from those viewing the ritual from outside the sacred space (Kolb 1994a:532). Using Kolb’s data from 107 recorded heiau on Maui, Graves and Cachola-Abad (1996) performed a stylistic seriation that ordered chronologically the morphological design traits of these heiau. They noted both geographic variation, in terms of windward heiau versus leeward heiau, and temporal variation that was confirmed by radiocarbon determinations. As recently noted by Kirch and Sharp (2004:102-3), determining the age of heiau by the radiocarbon dating of associated charcoal is problematic. In large complex structures such as heiau it is often difficult to firmly establish the association of the charcoal with precise building and use episodes. This is sometimes exacerbated by the burning and subsequent dating of old wood that predates temple use. There is also the problem of irregular fluctuations in atmospheric 14C that can lead to uncertainties of 40 to 250 years (Kirch and Sharp 2004:102). Given the short history of most Hawaiian archaeological sites, the temporal resolution of radiocarbon dating is often inadequate for resolving temporal patterning. Finally, it should be noted that heiau Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 49 are religious sites that are highly valued by contemporary communities. The excavation and destruction of these sites to obtain datable material is undesirable and problematic. For these reasons researchers in Hawai‘i (Graves and Cachola-Abad 1996, Graves et al. 2002, O’Connor 1998) have developed non-destructive methodologies, such as seriation, for establishing relative chronological ordering of archaeological features. Studies of heiau on Hawai‘i Island have largely been limited to broad surveys (e.g., James 1995 and Stokes 1991) that do not consider the full range of heiau structures. These studies almost completely ignore heiau located in the context of subsistence production systems. Most research on Hawai‘i Island subsistence production systems has focused on the three most extensive dryland field systems: the Kohala field system, the Waimea- Lälämilo field system and the Kona field system.1 These systems were vital sources of surplus economic foodstuffs that supported the chiefly economy. Researchers have hypothesised that the main development of these field systems occurred in the later portion of the Hawaiian cultural sequence, from A.D. 1450-1800 in Kohala (Ladefoged et al. 1996:864, Ladefoged and Graves 2000, Ladefoged et al. 2003) and A.D. 1400-1850 in Kona (Allen 2001:142) and that intensification of the systems occurring relatively late in their development. According to Kirch (1984:189, 1990), the lateral expansion of the Kohala field system had been reached by the 1600s and the system was highly intensified by A.D. 1800. Ladefoged et al. (2003) and Ladefoged and Graves (2000) suggest that the southern portion of the field system was one of the last to be developed; and a suite of 18 recent radiocarbon determinations from this area associated with agricultural walls and trails indicates that development in the south took place from c. A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1800 (Ladefoged and Graves 2004). Given the uncertainties of radiocarbon dating and the limited period of development in the southern portion of the field system (c. 250 years), resolving temporal associations will have to rely primarily on alternative absolute dating methods, such as coral 230Th dating (see Kirch and Sharp 2004), and on developing relative chronologies. Scholars working in the Kohala field system have noted the presence of “small agricultural temples” (Tuggle 1979, see also Rosendahl 1972,1994), but until recently (Mulrooney 2004) these structures have not been the focus of research. This lack of attention has been mirrored in regional studies elsewhere in Hawai‘i (e.g., Clark 1986). The goal of our study was to examine the role of religious features (heiau) in the upland portion of the Kohala field system. By examining the spatial distribution of eight heiau in relation to the field system and ahupua‘a divisions, we aimed to gain a better understanding of how they functioned within the chiefly economy. The spatial patterning of 50 Hawaiian H eiau and Agricultural Production

Table 1: attributes of the eight heiau.

Site ID Ahupua‘a Area (m2) Morphology

H3 Kalala 550 multi-levelled platform heiau H8 Makiloa/Pähinahina 454 walled enclosure with internal terrace H2 Kahua 2 1603 multi-levelled walled structure H7 Pähinahina 412 walled enclosure with internal platform H1 Kahua 1 910 notched walled enclosure H5 Makiloa 329 notched walled enclosure H4 Kalala 359 walled enclosure H6 Makiloa 190 walled enclosure archaeological remains and the seriation of morphological traits indicate that heiau form and placement on the landscape changed through time. Further, the analysis suggests how the ideological basis of sociopolitical organisation was related to the economic aspects of surplus production.

Analysis Eight heiau in the ahupua‘a of Kalala, Makiloa, Pähinahina, Kahua 1 and Kahua 2 were intensively mapped. Table 1 shows the location and morphological attributes of each of the eight heiau and Figure 2 depicts their spatial distribution in relation to the southern ahupua‘a boundaries. As Table 1 shows, there is significant variability in the sample of heiau in terms of morphology, size (based on surface area) and distribution (among ahupua‘a). The heiau dataset was analysed in two ways: (i) a seriation of the heiau based on morphological design traits was produced, and (ii) the distribution of heiau in relation to ahupua‘a boundaries was examined. These analyses were carried out to examine variability among the heiau in terms of morphological attributes and their temporal and spatial distribution.

Seriation There is substantial variability of heiau form in the Kohala sample, which could either represent diachronic design change or functional differences. To investigate this variability, the sample was seriated. Classes of design traits, listed in Table 2, are based on the seriation criteria established by Graves and Cachola-Abad (1996). The diagnostic features used in this seriation are those Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 51

Table 2: Brief description of analytical design traits used in seriation (after Graves and Cachola-Abad 1996:23).

Class Description

Wall Freestanding horizontally and vertically elaborated rock alignment faced on two sides. Retaining face Horizontally and vertically elaborated rock alignment placed against a sloping landscape and faced on one side. Stacked walls Wall whose interior is composed of interlocking rocks of comparable dimension. Core-fi lled walls Wall whose interior is composed of randomly placed stones that are smaller than those used to create the exterior faces. Notching Structure whose plan view shows an inversion of what would otherwise have been a corner thus creating two additional sides. Lowered surface Structure whose interior is lower in relation to the perimeter elements. Raised surface Structure whose interior is generally the same height as the perimeter. Internal platform Relatively small-sized raised internal surface that is freestanding, and abutted against a side or a corner of the structure. Multiple levels Raised internal surface that abuts the walls or retaining faces on opposite sides of a structure. established for Graves and Cachola-Abad’s “Zone 4” heiau on Maui (after Kolb 1992). These are located in the arid leeward districts of Honua‘ula, Kahikinui and Kula, which lack perennial streams and exhibited extensive dryland agricultural practices (Kolb 1992:30). Table 3 illustrates the seriation of the eight heiau mapped in the upland Kohala field system. This seriation uses the traits of multiple levels and of retaining faces, notches and walls as diagnostic features. Other traits, including stacked walls, core-filled walls, lowered surfaces, raised surfaces and internal platforms were not used for the present seriation. All heiau, except H3, had stacked walls and lowered surfaces, so these traits do not show significant variability to aid in seriating the heiau. Core-filled construction was only present in one heiau(H2) and only a single heiau possessed an internal platform (H6). Therefore, these traits were of no use in examining shared design traits. A raised surface was not present in any of the structures and was therefore also omitted as a trait. 52 Hawaiian H eiau and Agricultural Production

Table 3: seriation of heiau based on attributes.

Group Site ID multi-levels retaining faces notches walls

1 H3 $ 1 H8 $ $ 2 H2 $ $ $ 2 H7 $ $ $ 3 H1 $ $ $ 3 H5 $ $ 4 H4 $

4 H6 $

In this seriation, seven of eight heiau contain walls, which would indicate that this trait is not as variable as the others. Multiple levels, conversely, are present in four of the eight heiau. Retaining faces are even less common, appearing in three heiau. The notched shape, also known as the “Maui notch style” (Kirch 2004, Kolb 1992, 1994a), is the least common trait, present for two of the eight heiau. A distinct pattern is visible in the seriation. While most of the heiau share the trait of walls, the other traits show significant variability. Those heiau with multiple levels never have notches, and retaining faces always occur in conjunction with either multiple levels or notches. This overlap may represent a temporal shift in the occurrence of design traits. Based on this seriation, heiau were classified into four groups. Seriation Group 1 includes heiau numbered H3 and H8. Heiau H8 has walls and multiple levels, while H3 has multiple levels only. In seriation Group 2, which includes heiau H2 and H7, the traits of walls, multiple levels and retaining faces are present. Seriation Group 3 includes heiau H1 and H5. These structures have common traits of walls and notches, and H1 also has a retaining face. Seriation Group 4, which includes heiau H6 and H4, is characterised by the presence of walls only. The close fit of this data to the seriation model shows that this classification may represent a historical trend, where Group 1 represents the earliest temporal class followed by Group 2, Group 3 and Group 4. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 53

In their seriation of Maui Island heiau, Graves and Cachola-Abad (1996:26) noted that retaining faces replace walls and multiple levels replace lowered surfaces for Zone 4 heiau . The same trend is not present in the Kohala heiau, where walls and lowered surfaces are common among nearly all of the heiau. The traits that replace walls and lowered surfaces in the Maui sequence (retaining faces and multiple levels) are present in those structures thought to represent the earliest classification (Group 1), which means that an opposite trend may be manifest in the Kohala seriation. The traits of walls and lowered surfaces are present in the later groups of heiau (Group 3 and Group 4). We hypothesise that the heiau in these groups represent the latest portion of the sequence because they contain the “Maui notch style” (Group 3) that would have appeared relatively late in the historical sequence when interactions with Maui districts increased. The latest seriation group (Group 4) contains heiau that have only walls and lack any diagnostic features that distinguish them from heiau in other groups. This Group does not include any other morphological traits that are shared with any other classification. These heiau appear to be a simplified form of previous more complex morphological classes. The seriation may not follow the same trend as the Maui sequence for a number of reasons. Firstly, this seriation has analysed structures that have a shorter proposed temporal distribution. While the Maui seriation was based on design traits of heiau that were built between A.D. 1200 and A.D. 1819, the Kohala sample appears to represent a much shorter temporal sequence, because it is located in the southern portion of the field system. According to Ladefoged and Graves (2000, 2004), this area was one of the last areas of expansion within the field system, with significant development occurring probably between A.D. 1550 and A.D. 1800. Because many of the heiau structures are spatially related to the overall spatial configuration of agricultural walls and trails in the area, we can infer that they are associated temporally with this late expansion. The second reason for deviation from the Maui trend may be because this sample of heiau represents a single functional class of heiau (agricultural heiau) rather than a wider range of functional classes. The Maui seriation includes structures that have been assigned functions as war temples, agricultural temples, navigation temples, residences and places of refuge based on ethnohistoric data (Kolb 1994a:524), whereas the Kohala sample represents a single functional group, with variability in design traits that possibly representing different chronological phases within that group. Finally, the discrepancy may also be attributed to the inherent difficulty in comparing structures from different localities. As Graves and Cachola-Abad note (1996:21, also Graves et al. 2002, O’Connor 54 Hawaiian heiau and Agricultural Production

1998), groups and classes employed in seriations must belong to the same cultural tradition and be located in the same local area. although heiau from different islands can be assigned to the same cultural tradition because of the distinguishing unifying characteristics of hawaiian society overall, they are from different local contexts. the Maui seriation is representative of a number of heiau classes over a wide geographic range, while the present seriation has been carried out to examine a small, localised sample. seriations of these features may not produce similar historical trends because the overall island-wide seriation of Maui included a much wider temporal, spatial and functional range of heiau.

Spatial Distribution the proposed temporal sequence in the Kohala seriation is also manifest in the spatial distribution of the heiau in terms of changing community-level boundaries. no significant spatial clustering of heiau is found in any of the five ahupua‘a, and only one of the eight heiau is located on the boundary of two ahupua‘a (see fig. 2). But, as ladefoged and Graves (in press) have recently

figure 2: the spatial distribution of all seriation Group 1, 2, 3 and 4 heiau, and the historically documented ahupua‘a boundaries of the southern portion of the field system. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 55 noted, these ahupua‘a boundaries changed through time. hommon (1986) proposed that ahupua‘a were originally developed as early as the 13th century a.D., and were subsequently divided into smaller and smaller administrative units over time as population increased and “buffer zones” between optimal land units were filled in. this would result in the development of different social and economic units over time. ladefoged and Graves (in press) have recently established the historical development of ahupua‘a boundaries in leeward Kohala by examining the boundaries documented in the mid-19th century, the distribution of the archaeological trails that served as boundaries, and the archaeological agricultural walls that preceded the construction of the boundary trails. By applying a set of explicit criteria (e.g., whether adjacent ahupua‘a share a common name or whether they have bifurcation points showing that they were subdivisions of larger land units), they identified at least three, and possibly as many as seven, levels of territorial divisions that occurred through time. in the five southern ahupua‘a, where the eight heiau studied are located, the historical and archaeological evidence is clear that at some

figure 3: the spatial distribution of three of the four seriation Group 1 and 2 heiau and the boundaries of early territorial units. 5 Hawaiian heiau and Agricultural Production point in time there were only two territorial units. through time these units were subdivided to form four territorial units, and these in turn were further subdivided by the mid-19th century into the five ahupua‘a that were historically documented. these groupings by ladefoged and Graves (in press) are relevant for examining the spatial distribution of heiau, in conjunction with the proposed temporal sequence based on the seriation presented above. there is a distinctive spatial pattern in relation to the changing ahupua‘a boundaries over time that correlates well with the proposed temporal seriation based on design traits. figure 3 shows the distribution of three out of the four heiau from seriation Groups 1 and 2 in relation to the early territorial boundaries that ladefoged and Graves defined based upon historical and archaeological data. Heiau h8 is located on the border of these territories, and heiau h3 and h2 are located near the centre of each of the early territorial units. figure 4 shows the distribution of all seriation Group 1 and 2 heiau in relation to later territorial boundaries. at this stage in time a new ahupua‘a was “cut out” of an existing territorial unit. Heiau h7, from seriation Group 2, is located in

figure 4: the spatial distribution of all seriation Group 1 and 2 heiau and the boundaries of mid-period territorial units created through “cut-out” divisions. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 57 the centre of this new territorial unit (the ahupua‘a recorded in the mid-19th century as pähinahina). this represents a distinct temporal phase when this ahupua‘a was separated out from a former territorial unit encompassing pähinahina, Kahua 1 and Kahua 2. Heiau h5 from seriation Group 3, which has a notched design, correlates well to ahupua‘a divisions around this time as well (fig. 5). this heiau is located in Makiloa, which separates out from a former territorial unit that consisted of Kalala and Makiloa. figure 6 shows the historically documented ahupua‘a territories. at this time, h1 (from seriation Group 3) is located in a significant location at the centre of Kahua 1. the seriation suggests that the ahupua‘a of pähinahina was defined first (based on the location of heiau h7 from seriation Group 2), followed by Makiloa and Kahua 2 (based on the location of seriation Group 3 heiau). those heiau that fall into seriation Group 4 (h6 and h4) do not appear to be related to changes in ahupua‘a boundaries (see fig. 2 for their distribution). they are simplified forms located in Makiloa and Kalala, and are religious structures that probably represent infilling of the ahupua‘a after the boundaries had been established.

figure 5: the spatial distribution of all seriation Group 1 and 2 heiau, one seriation group 3 heiau (h5), and the boundaries of mid-period territorial units created through two “cut-out” divisions. 5 Hawaiian heiau and Agricultural Production

in short, the patterning in the spatial distribution of different groups of heiau among changing ahupua‘a land divisions suggest at least five distinct temporal phases. the first temporal phase includes three out of the four heiau from seriation Groups 1 and 2 (h2, h3 and h8). these heiau correspond to the early territorial definitions (see fig. 3). the second temporal phase includes the fourth heiau from seriation Groups 1 and 2, i.e., heiau h7. it is located in the ahupua‘a of pähinahina and corresponds to the time when pähinahina had been separated off from Kahua 1 (see fig. 4). the third temporal phase includes h5, a heiau of seriation Group 3. it is associated with the separation of Makiloa ahupua‘a from Kalala (see fig. 5). the fourth temporal phase includes h1, a heiau from seriation Group 3, which is associated with the separation of Kahua 1 from Kahua 2 (see fig. 6). the fifth and final temporal phase includes heiau h4 and h6. these structures represent simplified forms and are associated with infilling of ahupua‘a whose boundaries were already established (see fig. 2).

figure 6: the spatial distribution of all seriation Group 1, 2 and 3 heiau, and the historically documented ahupua‘a boundaries. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 59

Discussion We propose a temporal sequence for heiau construction based on two independent forms of analysis. The seriation analysis of the morphological attributes of eight heiau defined four distinct groups. The spatial analysis of the heiau in relation to proposed changes in ahupua‘a boundaries produced additional patterning. Combining these two data sets leads us to identify five temporal phases of religious activity. The heiau that are thought to date to the earliest temporal period according to the seriation are in significant locations in terms of early ahupua‘a boundaries; significant correlations continue throughout the subsequent development of new ahupua‘a divisions. That the only heiau located on an ahupua‘a border is placed at the beginning of the seriation and is found on the only border present during the earliest territorial divisions is strong evidence that this pattern represents a real temporal sequence. The association of heiau assigned to the middle of the seriation with ahupua‘a boundaries that are thought to have occurred subsequently strengthens this conclusion. While absolute dating of these structures would be advantageous, the temporal resolution of radiocarbon dating might not be sufficient to clearly resolve the matter. It would, however, be useful to incorporate both absolute dating and a comparative analysis from heiau in other ahupua‘a of the field system that follow a similar proposed historical trajectory to this study area. The spatial distribution of heiau is significant in terms of social and economic divisions in the area that are manifest in ahupua‘a land divisions. There is no clustering of heiau in any of the territorial units. This may indicate that these structures were intentionally distributed evenly across the southern ahupua‘a that were part of the 60 km2 Kohala field system. This field system would have supported the chiefly economy that was in place in the latter half of the Hawaiian cultural sequence by providing tribute in the form of foodstuffs. Preliminary analysis of palaeodemographic data from the area suggests that agricultural productivity was higher than was needed by the immediate occupants (Ladefoged and Graves under review), strongly indicating that the area was producing a surplus of agricultural goods. The construction of heiau within this field system would have been a central aspect of the social relations between commoners and elite. Although we cannot gain a complete behavioural reconstruction based on this evidence, some findings point to a managerial presence in the field system: heiau variation and the even distribution of most seriation Group 1, 2, and 3 heiau (which include the six largest heiau) among social and economic divisions within a surplus-producing field system. The heiau that were examined are monumental in that they are significantly larger than residential features in 60 Hawaiian H eiau and Agricultural Production the area and have good views of the surrounding landscape and, in many instances, they are architecturally complex.2 The size and distribution of the sampled heiau indicate that these structures were probably constructed by a community. Studies from the agricultural community of Waiohuli on Maui (Kolb 1997, Kolb and Snead 1997) that follow a “microregional analysis” approach (Gaffney and Gaffney 1988, Gaffney and Tingle 1985, 1989, as cited in Kolb 1997) have shown that differential labour investment in the construction of heiau is important for examining community social organisation. In this study, Kolb identifies two levels of human labour expenditure: family projects and suprafamily projects (or custodial projects). Suprafamily projects are further divided into “festive” and “corvée” labour projects. Kolb and Snead (1997:613) explain that the majority of temple architecture in Waiohuli was constructed using corvée labour, which is characterised by centrally organised coordination and enforced participation. These temples are characterised by a surface area that is greater than 500 m2. Festive labour projects, conversely, are organised by communities or low-level elites and represent the intermediate level between family labour obligations and those controlled by the chiefly hierarchy. In Kolb’s classification, these structures range from 150 m2 to 500 m2 in surface area. The construction of these intermediate-level features in the Waiohuli community is not documented until A.D. 1650-1820. Based on Kolb’s classifications, three of the heiau from Kohala (H1, H2 and H3) would fit into the category of corvée labour projects; the next largest heiau( H8) with a size of 454m2 would come close to meeting this size criteria. These four largest heiau, those that could be classified as being built by corvée labour, are associated with seriation Groups 1 through 3 (see Table 1 and Table 3). The remaining four (heiau H4, H5, H6, H7), with sizes of 412m2 to 190m2, could represent festive labour projects; these are assigned to seriation Groups 2, 3 and 4. This would suggest that there was a decrease in heiau size through time, a notion supported by the statistic that the mean size of heiau assigned to the chronologically earlier seriation Groups 1 and 2 is 755m2, whereas the mean size of heiau assigned to the chronologically later seriation Groups 3 and 4 is 448m2. Indeed, three of the four largest heiau are assigned to seriation Groups 1 and 2, and three of the four smallest heiau are assigned to the seriation Groups 3 and 4. Interestingly, on Maui Island, Kolb notes that the decrease in the construction of large heiau during the Unification Period, A.D. 1500- 1650, was accompanied by an increase in festive projects. Kolb attributes this increase to “the growing importance of petty chiefs [konohiki] as arbitrators of agricultural production” (Kolb 1997:279). In the southern ahupua‘a of the Kohala field system it is difficult to assign the heiau to the corvée and festive categories with certainty. However, there does seem to be a general trend that Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 61 the larger, more complex (i.e., multi-level) heiau (that is H2, H3, H7 and H8) were constructed earlier in the territories that were also defined during the earlier periods. The exception to this trend is heiau H1, which is large in size but not architecturally very complex. This heiau is assigned to seriation group 3 and was constructed in a territory that was defined relatively late. In contrast to the larger, more complex heiau are the smaller, less complex heiau (i.e., H4, H5, and H6) that in general were constructed later in time in territories that were subsequently defined or in territories that already contained heiau built during the process of religious feature infilling. The construction of all of these structures would have enabled chiefly intermediaries (low-level managerial chiefs) to maintain power and institutionalise control at the local level. This control would have in turn enabled high chiefs to rule indirectly through these low-level chiefs and would have facilitated the production of an increased quantity of surplus to support the chiefly economy (Kolb 1997:280). In the later portions of Hawaiian prehistory, as agricultural expansion and intensification occurred, boundary maintenance would have been increasingly important. The distribution of heiau across ahupua‘a social divisions is indicative of one aspect of this boundary maintenance. By conspicuously placing large agricultural heiau fairly evenly across ahupua‘a social and economic units, low-level chiefs were able to monitor production at the individual community level within the larger context of a surplus-producing field system. The locations of heiau H4 and H6 are exceptions to this spatial pattern in that they represent infilling; and heiau H8 is an exception in that it is located on an ahupua‘a boundary. All of these structures, however, would probably have been used in productivity rituals that affected both chiefs and commoners. The functional significance of these structures would have been in the social messages that were manifest in their construction. Agricultural heiau linked local production to the larger chiefly economy and were distributed in such a way that they reinforced social relations both within the community and in relation to the larger sociopolitical system. The ideological underpinnings of these relations between different levels of society allow these structures to be viewed as an intermediate level of heiau, not just in terms of size, but also in terms of function. * * * This study presents an approach to understanding the social and economic significance of heiau by relating a proposed developmental sequence for social divisions to changes in heiau morphology. The proposed historical correlation of a seriation of morphological design traits and changing socio-economic 62 Hawaiian H eiau and Agricultural Production divisions is suggestive, but should be tested through further analysis and comparison with other forms of archaeological data. The economic and sociopolitical dimensions of religious authority can clearly be seen in the intermediate level of religious architecture examined in this study. Although the present study focuses on a limited spatial and temporal distribution of heiau features, the approach implemented here provides insight into the relationship of ritual architecture and surplus production in the late period of the Hawaiian cultural sequence (c. A.D. 1550 to A.D. 1800). By moving away from a broad scale survey approach in examining heiau form and function, which is highly variable and ambiguous in many cases, this study provides insight into local economic and sociopolitical relations between commoners and chiefs by examining a distinct functional class of religious architecture. Although seriation may have inherent flaws, it is a useful method for analysing variation among a single class of heiau. By taking a “microregional” approach to community-level heiau, rather than integrating them into classifications of heiau that have highly variable functions, much more can be learned about the functional significance of these constructions. The inherent difficulty in classifying heiau has long been recognised and perhaps the attempt to classify all heiau forms needs to be abandoned. Only by comparing comparable things can we get closer to understanding how these structures served as material manifestations of the ideological aspects of Hawaiian society. The construction of heiau reinforced the chiefly economy and social dimensions in pre-contact Hawaiian society. The role of heiau in Hawaiian society is complex and cannot be characterised by heiau morphology and distribution in a dryland field system alone. Nevertheless, this study shows that by using two lines of evidence an intriguing pattern emerges that can provide insights on how ideological development went hand-in-hand with economic and sociopolitical development in Hawai‘i. The wide range of heiau forms provide a difficult data set to characterise and classify as a whole, but by focusing on how a certain functionally and spatially related set of heiau may have functioned, a better understanding of the local role of these structures can be attained. Usually, a heiau is simply defined as any sacred space, but in fact heiau are much more than material manifestations of ideological aspects of Hawaiian society. These structures have much to say about the sociopolitical and economic environment to which they belonged, as well as the ideological basis for their construction and use. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 63

Acknowledgements The field project in the Kohala field system has been co-directed by Michael Graves, and we thank him for his help and guidance. The research was enhanced through discussions with Sarina Pearson, Melinda Allen, Oliver Chadwick, James Coil, Roger Green, Tony Hartshorn, Sara Hotchkiss, Terry Hunt, Geoff Irwin, Marjeta Jeraj, Stephanie Jolivette, Patrick Kirch, Charlotte Lee, Peter Ladefoged, Chris Lockwood, Blaze O’Connor, Richard Pearson, Peter Sheppard, Matthew Spriggs, Julie Stein, Shripad Tuljapurkar and Peter Vitousek. The research was funded by NSF Biocomplexity Grant BCS-0119819 (Principal Investigator Patrick Kirch), grants from the University of Auckland, grants from the University of Hawai‘i to Michael Graves and a grant from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. The fieldwork was done in conjunction with the 2004 University of Hawai‘i Archaeological Field School in Kohala, Hawai‘i, and we thank the participants. Permission to conduct fieldwork was provided by the State of Hawai‘i, Land Division, and by Monty Richards and Pono Van Holt. This paper is dedicated to the memory of Katherine A. Stolpman.

notes F1.or the Kohala field system, see Ladefoged et al. 1996, 2003, Ladefoged and Graves 2000, McCoy 2000, Newman 1970, Newman (ed.) 1970b, Rosendahl 1972, 1994, Tuggle and Griffin 1973, Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1980, and Vitousek et al. 2004. For the Waimea-Lälämilo field system, see Burtchard and Tomonari-Tuggle 2004, Clark 1986, 1987, and Clark and Kirch 1983. For the Kona field system, see Allen (ed.) 2001, Allen 2004, Newman (ed.) 1970, Schilt 1984, and Soehren and Newman 1968. 2. see Kolb 1991, Kolb and Snead 1997 and Kirch and Sharp 2004, among others, for criteria of “monumental architecture” in Hawai‘i based on the size and complexity of a feature.

References Allen, M.S. 2004. Bet-hedging strategies, agricultural change, and unpredictable environments: Historical development of dryland agriculture in Kona, . Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 23:196-224. —— 2001. The Kona field system in spatial and temporal perspective. In M.S. Allen (ed.), Gardens of Lono: Archaeological Investigations at the Amy B. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden, Kealakekua, Hawai‘i. : Press. —— (ed.), 2001. Gardens of Lono: Archaeological Investigations at the Amy B. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden, Kealakekua, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. 4 Hawaiian heiau and Agricultural Production

Burtchard, G.c. and M.j. tomonari-tuggle, 2004. agriculture on leeward, hawai‘i island: the Waimea agricultural system reconsidered. Hawaiian Archaeology, 9: 50-73. cachola-abad, c.K., 1996. the significance of heiau diversity in site evaluations. Cultural Resource Management, 8:11-16. ——2000. the evolution of hawaiian socio-political complexity: an analysis of hawaiian oral traditions. unpublished ph.D. dissertation, university of hawai‘i. clark, j., 1986. continuity and change in hawaiian agriculture. Agricultural History, 60(3):1-21. ——1987. Waimea-Kawaihae, a leeward hawaiian settlement system. unpublished ph.D. dissertation, university of illinois at champaign-urbana. clark, j. and p.V. Kirch (eds), 1983. Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane- Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawaii: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect. Departmental report 83-1. honolulu: Bernice p. Bishop Musuem. cordy, r., 2000. Exalted Sits the Chief: The Ancient History of Hawai'i Island. honolulu: Mutual publishing. earle, t.K., 1978. Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom: The Halelea District, , Hawaii. Museum of anthropology, university of Michigan, anthropological papers 63. ann arbor. ——1997. How Chiefs Come to Power: The Political Economy in Prehistory. stanford: stanford university press. Gaffney, c.f. and V.l. Gaffney, 1988. some quantitative approaches to site territory and land use from the surface record. in j l. Bintliff, D.a. Davidson and e.G., Grant (eds), Conceptual Issues in Environmental Archaeology. edinburgh: edinburgh university press, pp. 82-90. Gaffney, V.l. and M. tingle, 1985. the Maddle farm (Berks.) project and micro- regional analysis. in s. Macready and f.h. thompson (eds), Archaeological Field Survey in Britain and Abroad. society of antiquaries of london occasional paper no. 6. london: thames and hudson, pp. 67-73. ——1989. The Maddle Farm Project: An Integrated Survey of Prehistoric and Roman Landscapes on the Berkshire Downs. Bar international series 200. oxford. Graves, M.W. and K. cachola-abad, 1996. seriation as a method of chronologically ordering architectural design traits: an example from hawai‘i. Archaeology in Oceania, 31:19-32. Graves, M.W., B.V. o’connor and t.n. ladefoged, 2002. tracking changes in community-scaled organization in Kohala and Kona, hawai‘i island. in t.n. ladefoged and M.W. Graves (eds), Pacific Landscapes: Archaeological Approaches. los osos: easter island foundation, pp. 233-54. hommon, r.j., 1986. social evolution in ancient hawai‘i. in p.V. Kirch (ed.), Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation. cambridge: cambridge university press, pp.55-68. james, V., 1995. Ancient Sites of Hawai‘i: Archaeological Places of Interest on the Big Island. honolulu: Mutual publishing. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 65

Kamakau, S.M., 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii (Revised Edition). Honolulu: Kamehameha Schools. Kirch, P.V., 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. ——1990. The evolution of sociopolitical complexity in prehistoric Hawaii: An assessment of the archaeological evidence. Journal of World Prehistory, 4:311- 45. ——1994. The Wet and the Dry: Irrigation and Agricultural Intensification in Polynesia. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. ——2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. ——2004. Temple sites in Kahikinui, Maui, Hawaiian Islands: Their orientations decoded. Antiquity, 78(299):102-14. —— (ed.), 1997. Na Mea Kahiko o Kahikinui: Studies of the Archaeology of Kahikinui, Maui. Archaeological Research Facility Special Publication No. 1. Berkeley: Oceanic Archaeology Laboratory, Archaeological Research Facility, University of California at Berkeley. Kirch, P.V. and W.D. Sharp, 2004. Coral 230Th dating of the imposition of a ritual control hierarchy in precontact Hawaii. Science, 307:102-4. Kolb, M. J., 1991. Social Power, Chiefly Authority, and Ceremonial Architecture, in an Island Polity, Maui, Hawaii. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of California, Los Angeles. ——1992. Diachronic design changes in heiau temple architecture on the island of Maui, Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives, 31:9-37. ——1994a. Monumentality and the rise of religious authority in precontact Hawai‘i. Current Anthropology, 34:521-47. ——1994b. Ritual activity and chiefly economy at an upland religious site on Maui, Hawai‘i. Journal of Field Archaeology, 21:417-36. ——1997. Labor mobilization, ethnohistory, and the archaeology of community in Hawai‘i. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 4(3/4):265-85. ——1999. Staple finance, ritual pig sacrifice, and ideological power in ancient Hawai‘i. In E.A. Bacus and L.J. Lucero (eds), Complex Polities in the Ancient Tropical World . Washington: Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 9. pp.89-107. Kolb, M.J. and J.E. Snead, 1997. It’s a small world after all: Comparative analyses of community organization in archaeology. American Antiquity, 62:609-28. Ladefoged, T.N., 1998. Spatial similarities and change in Hawaiian architecture: The expression of ritual offerings and kapu in luakini heiau, residential complexes, and houses. Asian Perspectives, 37:59-74. Ladefoged, T.N. and M.W. Graves, 2000. Evolutionary theory and the historical development of dry-land agriculture in North Kohala, Hawai‘i. American Antiquity, 65:423-48. ——2004. Human Ecodynamics in Kohala, Hawai‘i. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific, Vina Del Mar, Chile. 66 Hawaiian H eiau and Agricultural Production

——in press. The formation of Hawaiian territories. In I. Lilley (ed.), Archaeology of Oceania. London: Blackwell Press. ——under review. Modeling agricultural development and demography in Kohala, Hawai’i. Manuscript submitted for publication in Long-Term Demographic Evolution in the Pacific Islands, edited by Patrick V. Kirch and Jean-Louis Rallu. Ladefoged, T.N., M.W. Graves and R.P. Jennings, 1996. Dryland agricultural expansion and intensification in Kohala, Hawai‘i Island. Antiquity, 70:861-80. Ladefoged, T.N., M.W. Graves and M. McCoy, 2003. Archaeological evidence for agricultural development in Kohala, Island of Hawai‘i. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30:923-40. Malo, D., 1951 [1903]. Hawaiian Antiquities. Translated by N.B. Emerson. Second edition. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 2. Honolulu. McAllister, J. G., 1933a. Archaeology of . Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Honolulu. ——1933b. Archaeology of . Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 115. Honolulu. McCoy, M.D., 2000. Agricultural Intensification and Land Tenure in Prehistoric Hawaii. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland. Mulrooney, M.A., 2004. Religious Activity and Surplus Production in the Kohala Dryland Agricultural Field System, Hawai‘i. Unpublished M.A. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland. Newman, T.S., 1970. Cultural adaptations to the island of Hawaii ecosystem: The theory behind the 1968 Lapakahi Project. In R. Pearson (ed.), Archaeology on the Island of Hawaii. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No.3. Honolulu, pp.3-14. Newman, T.S. (ed), 1970. Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A.D. 1778. Honolulu: Division of State Parks, Department of Land and Natural Resources. O’Connor, B.V., 1998. Spatial and Temporal Variations in Hawaiian Residential Architecture: A Seriation Study of Selected Coastal Settlements in Northern Hawaii. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland. Pearson, R.J. (ed.), 1968. Archaeology on the Island of Hawaii. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No.3. Honolulu. Rosendahl, P.H., 1972. Aboriginal Agriculture and Residence Patterns in Upland Lapakahi, Island of Hawaii. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai‘i. ——1994. Aboriginal Hawaiian structural remains and settlement patterns in the upland agricultural zone at Lapakahi, island of Hawai‘i. Hawaiian Archaeology, 3:14-70. Sahlins, M.D., 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Mara A. Mulrooney & Thegn N. Ladefoged 67

Schilt, R., 1984. Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Soehren, L.J. and T.S. Newman, 1968. The Archaeology of Kealakekua Bay. Special Report by the Departments of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum and the University of Hawaii. Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum and the University of Hawaii. Spriggs, M., 1988. The Hawaiian transformation of Ancestral Polynesian Society: conceptualizing chiefly states. In B.B.J. Gledhill and M.T. Larsen (eds), State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization. London: Unwin Hyman, pp.57-73. Stokes, J. F. G., 1991. Heiau of the Island of Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Bishop Museum. Thrum, T., 1908. Heiau and heiau sites throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Islands of Hawaii. Hawaiian Almanac & Annual for 1909, pp.38-78. Tuggle, H.D., 1979. Hawaii. In J.D. Jennings (ed.). The Prehistory of Polynesia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, pp.167-99. Tuggle, H.D. and P.B. Griffin, 1973. Lapakahi, Hawaii: Archaeological Studies. Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No. 5. Honolulu. Tuggle, H.D. and M.J. Tomonari-Tuggle, 1980. Prehistoric agriculture in Kohala, Hawaii. Journal of Field Archaeology, 7:297-312. Valeri, V., 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in . Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vitousek, P.M., T.N. Ladefoged, P.V. Kirch, A.S. Hartshorn, M.W. Graves, S.C. Hotchkiss, S. Tuljapurkar and O.A. Chadwick, 2004. Soils, agriculture, and society in precontact Hawai‘i. Science, 304:1665-69.