hawaiian archaeology 12

Volume 12, 2011 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology

hawaiian archaeology

Volume 12, 2011

Society for Hawaiian Archaeology

Patrick V. Kirch When Did the Polynesians Settle Hawai‘i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer 3

Boyd Dixon and Floodwater Farming of Ritual Offerings at Kaunolū and Maurice Major Māmaki on Leeward Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i 27

Windy Keala McElroy and Anatomy of an Unfinished Lo‘i System: The Ku‘ele West Steven Eminger Complex in Wailau Valley, Moloka‘i 47

Patrick C. McCoy Signs of a Divine Reality: The Materiality of Bird Cook Stones (Pōhaku ‘Eho) from the Dry Interior Uplands and Mountainous Regions of the Island of Hawai‘i 65

James L. Flexner Bottles, Abandonment, and Re-visitation in the Hansen’s Disease Settlement at Kalawao, Moloka‘i 108

Thomas S. Dye Contemporary Practice of Archaeology in Hawai‘i 125

hawaiian archaeology 12

Windy Keala McElroy, Editor ISSN 0890-1678 Editorial notices and subscription information can be found on the inside of the back cover of this volume.

When Did the Polynesians Settle Hawai‘i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer1

Patrick V. Kirch University of California, Berkeley Departments of Anthropology & Integrative Biology

Abstract

The question of when Polynesians first discovered the Hawaiian Islands—the most remote archipelago in the world—has engaged scholars for two centuries. Abraham Fornander, Edward Handy, Te Rangi Hiroa, Kenneth Emory, and others proposed theories and projected dates of first settlement based on oral traditions, genealogies, and linguistic comparisons. With the advent of stratigraphic archaeology and radiocarbon dating, new models of Polynesian settlement emerged, seeming to push back the date of Polynesian settlement in Eastern Polynesia. Until recently, orthodox opinion put initial Polynesian discovery of Hawai‘i between ca. AD 300–750. In the past two decades, significant advances in radiocarbon dating and the targeted re-dating of key Eastern Polynesian and Hawaiian sites has strongly supported a “short chronology” model of Eastern Polynesian settlement. It is suggested here that initial Polynesian discovery and colonization of the Hawaiian Islands occurred between approximately AD 1000 and 1200. The only habitation site in the archipelago which has been securely dated to this time frame is the O18 Bellows Beach site at Waimānalo, O‘ahu Island.

3 4 hawaiian archaeology

Among the general public and professional Polynesian discovery of Hawai‘i, so much archaeologists alike, one of the most as to show how interpretation is affected by pervasive questions concerning the Hawaiian changes in theory and method. I will, in my past is: when did the Polynesian ancestors of conclusion, summarize what I believe to be the Hawaiians first discover and settle the the best current estimate for the timeframe islands? The Hawaiian archipelago is one of of first Polynesian colonization of Hawai‘i. the most remote on Earth, thousands of But--caveat lector--the debate will continue. kilometers from the probable immediate Polynesian homelands of the Marquesas and Society Islands in the South Pacific. It is even Before Radiocarbon Dating: Early more distant from the Americas and Asia. Theories of Hawaiian Settlement The very fact that Polynesian seafarers in their double-hulled voyaging canoes were Various European explorers, traders, able to carry out such a feat of exploration missionaries, and others--from Captain and discovery is astounding. Our curiosity James Cook onwards--speculated about naturally drives us to ask--at what period in where the ancestors of the Hawaiians and history did this occur? Indeed, scholars have other Polynesians came from, and about been posing this question for at least a when they had made their migrations into century and a half, and attempting to answer and across the vast Pacific. But the first to it by various means. Over this time, the systematically compile a large body of methods at our disposal for resolving empirical data relevant to these questions, questions of ancient chronology have been and to lay out a formal argument and theory, greatly refined. Not surprisingly, the was Abraham Fornander, primarily in his proposed answers to the question of classic An Account of the Polynesian Race Hawaiian settlement have also changed. (1878–1885), but also in a posthumously published summary (Fornander 1919). This article surveys changing views about Fornander was not an archaeologist (indeed initial Polynesian discovery and settlement of his main profession was law, and he Hawai‘i, beginning with Abraham Fornander practiced as a Magistrate of the Hawaiian th in the late 19 century, continuing through Kingdom’s courts); he did not draw upon early archaeological investigations of the the material record of ancient sites or th mid-20 century, to the radical re-thinking of artifacts. Fornander, who became fluent in Eastern Polynesian chronology of the past Hawaiian, regarded the Hawaiian traditions two decades. My personal involvement with as historical accounts of real individuals. He this question now spans almost a half- also realized that these accounts could be century, beginning with my participation in placed into a relative chronology using the the excavation of several key sites at the genealogies of the chiefly lines which he center of the debates. My aim here, however, also collected and analyzed. is not to propose a definitive new date for the

5 kirch

Based on his careful study of the Hawaiian Hawaiian Islands, and for the space of genealogies, Fornander realized that five or six generations revived and “Hawaiian traditions on Hawaiian soil . . . do maintained an active intercourse with the first-named groups and the mother- not go back with any historical precision stock. (1919:233–34) much more than twenty-eight generations from the present (about 1865), or say 840 The “fresh immigrants” referred to were the years” (1919:232). On this basis, Fornander several lineages of voyaging chiefs felt he could safely assert “that these islands (especially Māweke and his descendants were inhabited 800 or 900 years ago. . .” Mo‘ikeha and ‘Olopana, followed by Kila (1919:233). Fornander did not believe that and La‘amaikahiki; and Pā‘ao) who traveled this was the time of initial Polynesian arrival, back and forth between Hawai‘i and but simply the greatest time depth that could “Kahiki” and whose exploits are recounted be traced with historical accuracy based on in the traditions collected by Fornander. the genealogies. In fact, Fornander argued Fornander’s theory in many ways that the islands had already been occupied for foreshadows much of what came later in some centuries, “ . . . by the same race of discussions of Hawaiian origins and people that inhabits them now” (1919:233). chronology. It is remarkably modern in the Fornander’s overall theory of Polynesian overall scenario proposed for Polynesian origins traced them back to “the Asiatic migrations, and interesting in the two-phase Archipelago” (i.e., Island Southeast Asia), sequence for Hawaiian settlement (later to and he allowed some centuries for the period be a key element in the “orthodox model” of of initial migrations into the central Pacific. Kenneth Emory and Yosihiko Sinoto, see His succinct views on the chronology of below). Hawaiian origins follow: We get, then, the following leading Professional anthropology incorporating propositions as chronological sign-posts, archaeology took hold in Polynesia in the approximately at least, of the Polynesian early 20th century, especially after the migrations in the Pacific: 1. During the appointment of Herbert E. Gregory as close of the first and the beginning of the Director of the Bishop Museum in 1920. second century of the present era, the Polynesians left the Asiatic Archipelago Gregory proclaimed “the problem of and entered the Pacific, establishing Polynesian origins” as the major scientific themselves on the Samoa and Tonga question to be tackled by the Museum’s groups and spreading eastward and scientists; expeditions using a multi-pronged northward. 2. During the 5th century approach combining ethnography, Polynesians settled on the Hawaiian archaeology, and physical anthropology Islands and remained there were dispatched to most of Polynesia’s comparatively unknown until 3. the eleventh century when several parties of major islands and archipelagos (see Kirch fresh immigrants from the Marquesas, 2000:20–24 for a summary of this period in Tahiti and Samoa groups arrived at the Polynesian research). Archaeology at this

6 hawaiian archaeology

time lacked any direct methods for dating between Hawai‘i and Tahiti--which he says Polynesian sites or artifacts, and was largely was that of Pā‘ao--to AD 1275. relegated to the mapping of surface architecture. Oral traditions, along with Kenneth P. Emory joined the Bishop detailed ethnographic comparisons, were the Museum staff in 1920 and was a major main sources for historical reconstruction. contributor to the Museum’s research The Maori ethnographer Te Rangi Hiroa (Sir program synthesized by Hiroa. Following Peter H. Buck), who succeeded Gregory as the research hiatus imposed by World War Director of the Bishop Museum, synthesized II, Emory matriculated at Yale University to the results of the Museum’s major research obtain his long-delayed doctorate. His 1946 program in his popular book Vikings of the dissertation (never published but available Sunrise (1938). on microfilm, Emory [1946]) broke new methodological ground by turning to the In spite of the decades of research by Bishop evidence from Polynesian languages in Museum’s and other anthropologists, Hiroa’s order to infer migrations and times of account of Hawaiian settlement differs little divergence between the cultures of Eastern from that of Fornander. Hiroa places the first Polynesia. Emory used an early form of arrival of Polynesians in Hawai‘i at AD 450 lexicostatistics or comparison of (Hiroa 1938:249). He states that this may vocabularies (including estimates of have been by the legendary voyager Hawai‘i- percentage agreement in word lists) to assess loa, but argues “it is more likely that the the relationships among the various name of the first settler was forgotten, and Polynesian cultures. Among his key the [Polynesian] historians gave him the conclusions were that the original name of the island in order to establish their Polynesian homeland was situated in claim that he was the first settler.” Like Western Polynesia (Tonga and Samoa in Fornander, Hiroa then picks up the thread of particular), and that these Polynesian colonization with a “later influx of people ancestors “remained a considerable time in from Tahiti . . . led by chiefs who became West Polynesia before moving on [to distinguished ancestors of the chiefly families Eastern Polynesia]” (1946:274). Emory thus of Hawai‘i” (1938:249). Hiroa identifies the anticipated the later debate regarding the so- people who had already settled the Hawaiian called “long pause” between the settlement archipelago prior to the arrival of the Tahitian of Western and Eastern Polynesia (on which voyaging chiefs as “the Menehune people”. see more below). He argues that they were especially associated with Kaua‘i Island, and speculates Emory’s model for the settlement of that eventually they were pushed out of the Polynesia--and the dates associated with the main islands and “. . . withdrew to the barren divergence of various branches of and rocky islets of Nihoa and Necker” Polynesian culture--was encapsulated in a (1938:250). Hiroa dates the last voyage “tree” diagram, reproduced here as Figure 1.

7 kirch

Figure 1. Emory’s tree diagram of Polynesian cultural relationships, from his 1946 Yale dissertation, showing estimated “dates of branching.” The settlement of Hawai‘i from Tahiti is estimated by Emory to have occurred about AD 1150.

He situated the initial arrival of Polynesians of direct contact between Hawai‘i and the from the Western Polynesian homeland to the Marquesas, after enough time had elapsed Society Islands, dating their arrival to around for Marquesan culture to take on AD 200. Emory then inferred a diaspora out peculiarities of its own.” of Tahiti, beginning around AD 900, with various “dates of branching” estimated on the basis of the oral traditions and genealogies. The Radiocarbon Revolution and The date of arrival in Hawai‘i was estimated Polynesian Settlement Chronology to have been around AD 1150. Echoing Fornander and Hiroa, however, Emory left At the time that Emory submitted his Yale open the possibility of an earlier visit by dissertation, Pacific anthropology was on the Marquesan voyagers to Hawai‘i (1946:278). cusp of a sea-change. Until then, He wrote: “At least we have good evidence archaeology in Polynesia had largely

8 hawaiian archaeology

contented itself with surface surveys of then from New Caledonia). Emory’s account monumental architecture and studies of stone reveals the excitement provoked by the artifacts. Excavation had rarely been invention of a means for directly dating the ventured and even when it was, stratigraphy age of an archaeological site: was ignored (J.F.G. Stokes’ 1913 excavations While this [excavation] was in progress, on Kaho‘olawe Island being a notable in May of 1950, word came of W. F. exception). More critically, there was no Libby’s momentous discovery of a means to independently date the few artifacts method for dating charcoal through recovered. But in 1947 Edward Gifford of the measuring radioactivity. A sample of University of California at Berkeley led an charcoal from a fireplace . . . was archaeological expedition to Fiji, on the submitted . . . revealing that the shelter had been occupied about AD 1004. This western boundary of Polynesia, revealing a was the first radiocarbon date from any deeply stratified succession of pottery types island in the Pacific and it opened up (see Kirch 2000:27–29 for an overview of undreamed of possibilities for these developments). In 1950, Emory reconstructing the prehistory of the area. commenced excavations at a rockshelter site (Emory, in Emory et al. 1959:ix) at Kuli‘ou‘ou, O‘ahu; the shelter had been unsystematically probed by Jack Porteus as The invention of radiocarbon dating helped early as 1938, and Emory knew that its to spark a boom in Polynesian and Pacific earthen floor contained a variety of artifacts archaeology. Emory launched a multi-year (Emory and Sinoto 1961). Hawaiian Archaeology Program under the auspices of the Bishop Museum, searching These and other tentative forays into island nearly every island for rockshelter and sand- sites might have had little impact on dune sites rich in artifacts which could be Polynesian anthropology were it not for the radiocarbon dated to develop a cultural contemporaneous development of the method sequence for the Hawaiian Islands. He was of radiocarbon dating by chemist Willard soon joined by University of Hawai‘i Libby (Libby 1952). By the late 1940s Libby student William J. Bonk, and Japanese had confirmed that his method worked by archaeologist Yosihiko Sinoto. Other field dating wooden lintel beams from Egyptian teams were also mobilized during the 1950s temples whose age had been independently and early 60s, including Robert Suggs (from given by hieroglyphic dates. With the support the American Museum of Natural History) of the Viking Fund of New York, Libby put in the Marquesas, the Norwegian Expedition out a call for archaeological samples from in Easter Island and other parts of Eastern different parts of the world. Emory was the Polynesia, Jack Golson and then Roger first in the Pacific to respond, sending a Green in New Zealand (and the latter in charcoal sample from the base of the Mangareva as well). Emory and Sinoto Kuli‘ou‘ou Rockshelter (Gifford followed extended the Bishop Museum’s program to shortly thereafter with samples from Fiji, and the Society Islands and the Marquesas in the

9 kirch

early 1960s. Golson, Green, and their (1966), expanding the Marquesan work to students and colleagues also initiated Ua Huka and other islands of the group, also programs in Tonga and Samoa in Western found pottery but his dates suggested to him Polynesia. (For an overview of these that first settlement was somewhat later, developments, see Kirch [2000:29–32].) As a perhaps around AD 300. Nonetheless, result, by the mid-to-late 1960s, a new Sinoto believed that his data supported a archaeologically-based and radiocarbon- primary role for the Marquesas as a date defined chronology for Polynesia was “dispersal center” in Eastern Polynesia. (3) emerging. The use of oral traditions and Relatively early Polynesian dispersal genealogies was regarded as passé, having throughout at least parts of Eastern been superseded by a new and thoroughly Polynesia was also reinforced by the early “scientific” methodology privileging date obtained by the Norwegian Expedition stratigraphic excavation of material remains, at Poike Ditch on Easter Island, AD 380 and dating the associated charcoal using the (Heyerdahl and Ferdon, eds., 1961:394). increasingly sophisticated radiocarbon technique. By the early 1960s, a consensus model for the radiocarbon-based chronology of Among the major outcomes of this burst of Polynesian settlement was emerging (Emory excavation and radiocarbon dating, the 1959; Green 1966, 1967; Emory and Sinoto following were especially significant in 1965). Based largely on the new shaping views concerning the sequence of archaeological evidence, the model also timing of settlement in Polynesia: (1) First, incorporated rapidly developing insights the primacy of the Western Polynesian from historical linguistics, which also archipelagoes as the original Polynesian indicated a later branching of the Eastern homeland was confirmed by the much older Polynesian languages off of a considerably archaeological sequences there, dating back older Proto Polynesian stem situated in the to at least 400 BC in Samoa and possibly as Western Polynesian homeland. In brief, this early as 1,500 BC in Tonga (Groube 1971). model had the ancestors of the Polynesians In both Samoa and Tonga, the early periods arriving in the Tonga-Samoa region, were marked by the presence of pottery, possibly as early as 1500 BC, where they signaling a connection to Fiji and Melanesia developed a distinctive Proto Polynesian to the west. (2) The surprisingly old language and culture. Further expansion radiocarbon dates obtained by Suggs eastwards--possibly directly from Samoa to (1961:Table 1) in the Marquesas, 150 BC in the Marquesas--took place by AD 300 if not the case of the Ha‘atuatua dune site on slightly earlier (Figure 2). Easter Island Nukuhiva, combined with small quantities of appeared to have been settled around the potsherds, suggested that the Marquesas had same time. Exactly when the Society Islands played a hitherto unsuspected role in the (which had played such a key role in initial settlement of Eastern Polynesia. Sinoto Fornander’s and Hiroa’s theories) were

10 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 2. Roger Green’s “family tree for the Polynesian languages” (Green 1966:Table 9). In this model, Hawaiian diverges from the Proto-Marquesic branch around the middle of the first millennium AD.

colonized was somewhat uncertain, as no and his colleagues Bonk and Sinoto had early sites containing pottery were discovered scoured the archipelago for stratified sites, by Emory and Sinoto’s explorations. This led testing at least 33 locations on all of the to the view that Tahiti was settled from the major islands except for Maui. But it was in Marquesas, and that it became a second the vicinity of Ka Lae (South Point) on “dispersal center” for Eastern Polynesia by Hawai‘i Island that Emory’s team around AD 1200 (thus continuing to fit the discovered and excavated three sites which evidence from oral traditions). together seemed to provide a framework for the entire Hawaiian cultural sequence, from first settlement up until historic times. The Early Radiocarbon-Dated Sites in the Pu‘u Ali‘i (H1) sand dune site anchored the Hawaiian Islands sequence at the base, the Waiahukini Shelter (H8) continued the sequence through the It was within this emerging Polynesian middle time period, and the Makalai Shelter settlement model that the empirical (H2) capped the sequence at the late end archaeological and radiocarbon evidence (Emory et al. 1959:6–7, Figs. 23, 25). The from several key Hawaiian sites first had to rich quantities of bone and shell fishhooks be evaluated, in order to establish the place of from these sites provided a sequence of Hawai‘i in the model, including a probable typological changes which Emory’s team date for Polynesian discovery and settlement used to construct a master chronology for of the islands. Throughout the 1950s, Emory the islands, reported in detail in their classic

11 kirch

monograph Hawaiian Archaeology: They now proposed that the earliest deposits Fishhooks (Emory et al. 1959). were those at the bottom of the H8 Waiahukini rockshelter, which they Whereas the initial excavations at Kuli‘ou‘ou interpreted as beginning around AD 750 on O‘ahu had returned a radiocarbon date of (1969:15). The H1 sand dune site was AD 1004 ± 180, a much older age was believed to overlap in time with the lower obtained from the base of the Pu‘u Ali‘i sand part of H8, and the fishhook-rich deposits of dune site at South Point: AD 124 ± 60. This the dune were suggested to have been was far older than anyone had previously deposited between roughly AD 1000 to postulated for initial Polynesian settlement in 1350. A revised settlement date for Hawai‘i Hawai‘i--Fornander and Hiroa had estimated of AD 750 was seen by Emory and Sinoto as that event at around AD 450, and Emory’s fitting better with Sinoto’s sequence for the linguistic analyses had led him to propose a Marquesas Islands, which began at AD 300 date of around AD 1150. But in light of the (Sinoto 1979). If the Marquesas were the new archaeological dates emerging from the immediate homeland of the first voyagers to Marquesas and Easter Island, not to mention Hawai‘i, as seemed to be the case based on the much earlier sites in Western Polynesia, a both material culture and linguistic date in the second century AD for Polynesian evidence, then a date for initial Hawaiian arrival in Hawai‘i was entirely plausible. In settlement several centuries after the his preface to the Fishhooks monograph, Marquesas themselves were first occupied Emory therefore wrote: “Radiocarbon dates was appropriate. for excavations reveal that the Hawaiian Islands were well populated by AD 1000, and At the same time that Emory and Sinoto that the first settlers may have arrived by AD were revising their estimate for initial 125” (Emory, in Emory et al. 1959:ix). Hawaiian settlement from AD 125 to AD 750, two new sites were discovered and By the mid-1960s, Emory and Sinoto (Bonk excavated which added evidence to the had dropped out of the team) began to harbor emerging picture about the timing of doubts about the single early date from H1 Polynesian colonization of the archipelago. that had anchored their initial Hawaiian The Bellows dune site (O18) at Waimānalo, fishhook chronology at AD 125. An O‘ahu, was excavated in 1967 under the extensive program of radiocarbon dating of direction of Richard Pearson of the 59 samples from the H1 and H8 South Point University of Hawai‘i, and published a few sites, carried out in conjunction with the years later by Pearson et al. (1971).2 A well- Washington State University radiocarbon stratified coastal dune adjacent to laboratory (Emory and Sinoto 1969) failed to Waimānalo Stream, O18 yielded a small but replicate the early age first suggested for the striking assemblage of adzes, fishing gear, base of site H1. Reviewing the expanded and other artifacts, many of which appeared radiocarbon corpus, Emory and Sinoto closer to early Marquesan forms than to later revised their Hawai‘i fishhook chronology. Hawaiian types. Five radiocarbon dates were

12 hawaiian archaeology

obtained; with the exception of one late date his Introduction, Jennings provided a (<380 years), the dates spanned a range from graphic summary of the model, reproduced 1600 to 700 BP (Pearson et al. 1971:Figs. 13, here as Figure 3. His succinct text summed 14). However, two of the dates from Layers up the achievements of three decades of II and III were stratigraphically inverted. excavations and radiocarbon dating: Based on these dates, Pearson et al. Pioneer explorers called Lapita . . . (1971:230–231, Fig. 14) argued that the two reached both Tonga and Samoa by 1000 deepest layers spanned a period between BC. The first eastwards movement about AD 600 to 1100, and were farther into the Pacific is recorded for contemporaneous with the older deposits at the Marquesas by AD 300. Thence went two groups, one to Easter Island by AD South Point sites H1 and H8. 400 and the other to Hawaii by AD 500. It is possible that another group went to On Moloka‘i Island, Kirch discovered a sand the Societies shortly after their arrival in dune site (Mo-A1-3) at the mouth of the the Marquesas, but that thrust has not Hālawa Valley in the mid-1960s, and been proved. Certainly, a second excavated the deposits over two seasons in movement to Tahiti (the Societies) 1969–70 (Kirch 1971; Kirch and Kelly, eds., occurred by AD 600 and from thence to 1975). The Hālawa dune site also yielded New Zealand by AD 800. Secondary artifact types arguably similar to early dispersals from Tahiti to Hawaii and New Zealand after AD 1000 are Marquesan forms (and with simple two-piece possible but debated. (Jennings 1979:2) fishhooks very much like those from the O18 site on O‘ahu), as well as the stone Re-reading this summary, it is remarkable foundations and postholes from simple oval- how faithful it remained to the old ended houses. A radiocarbon date of 1380 ± Fornander and Hiroa theories, at least in so 90 BP from a hearth at the base of the far as Hawai‘i is concerned. An initial cultural deposit was taken to indicate initial migration ca. AD 500 from the Marquesas settlement between ca. AD 560–740 (Kirch (e.g., Hiroa’s “Menehune” people), was and Kelly, eds., 1975:Table 41). followed by the arrival of Tahitian voyagers after AD 1000 (e.g., the Māweke and Pā‘ao

voyaging sagas). Even though the new The ‘Orthodox Scenario’ and the model was based on the scientific evidence Debate Over Long Versus Short of archaeology and radiocarbon dating, it Chronologies was still one that Fornander clearly would have recognized! By the close of the 1970s, a synthetic model of Polynesian settlement chronology had The first book-length synthesis of Hawaiian emerged, one that is well reflected by various archaeology, including a cultural sequence chapters in The Prehistory of Polynesia of four named phases, was published by volume edited by Jesse Jennings (1979). In Kirch (1985).3 With respect to initial

13 kirch

Figure 3. The orthodox model of Polynesian settlement as summarized by Jennings in 1979 (from Jennings 1979, fig. 3).

Polynesian arrival in the islands, Kirch wrote: was based on its material culture (especially “Although the information concerning the adze and fishhook types). Kirch agreed with first few centuries of Polynesian occupation the orthodox synthesis in pointing to the in Hawai‘i is scant, there is sufficient Marquesas Islands as the immediate evidence to state that the archipelago was homeland of the voyagers who discovered colonized sometime during the three Hawai‘i. He also opined that “there is some centuries prior to AD 600” (1985:298). He element of historical reality in the Hawaiian argued that Layer III at the O18 Bellows site, traditions of multiple contacts” (1985:66), and Layer III at the Pu‘u Ali‘i sand dune site thus reinforcing the interpretation of a (H1) were the only two assemblages that secondary phase of contact with the Society could actually be assigned to this initial Islands. Colonization Period. Given the problems of radiocarbon dating at H1, the ascription of As is often the case in science, just when a the Layer III assemblage there to this period particular paradigm appears to be

14 hawaiian archaeology

unassailably constructed, cracks already have opined that there had been quite a long begun to appear in the foundations. Such was pause between the settlement of Western the case for the “orthodox scenario” of and Eastern Polynesia. They proposed Polynesian settlement in the early 1980s. The applying “chronometric hygiene” to the model which was so succinctly summarized available radiocarbon dates from Eastern by Jennings (1979), based on the work of Polynesian sites, eliminating from the body Emory, Sinoto, Green, Suggs, Golson, and of evidence dates which did not meet a set others began to come under attack by the of strict criteria. Using their method of early 1980s. In a provocative essay, Irwin screening, Spriggs and Anderson claimed (1981) questioned whether there had actually that only for the Marquesas was there been a significant “pause” in the eastward possible support for colonization ca. AD expansion of early Polynesians from Western 300–600, with the “central, northern, and Polynesia to Eastern Polynesia. Referencing eastern archipelagoes” being settled ca. AD the early dates of Suggs in the Marquesas, 600–950, and New Zealand between AD Irwin suggested that the loss of pottery may 1000–1200 (1993:211). have made initial colonization sites in Eastern Polynesia less visible to archaeologists. Kirch (1986) followed with a Refinements in Radiocarbon Dating more explicit critique of the “orthodox scenario” as this applied to Eastern The “chronometric hygiene” approach Polynesia, arguing that the earliest settlement advocated by Spriggs and Anderson (1993) phases through the central Eastern Polynesian was based in part on the increasing archipelagoes of the Societies, Marquesas, recognition of various problems with Cook Islands, and Australs were as yet radiocarbon dating. Some of these had to do inadequately defined. Again, the implication with laboratory methods (e.g., questions was that the “pause” between the initial about pretreatment methods used by the Lapita settlement of Tonga-Samoa and Gakushuin Laboratory in Japan), while central Eastern Polynesia may have been others concerned issues of sample type and 14 shorter than the orthodox scenario allowed collection. Many of the early C dates, such for. as those obtained by Emory and his colleagues from the Hawaiian archaeology A very different perspective on Eastern program in the 1950s, had rather large Polynesian chronology was advanced by standard errors, a reflection of the crude Spriggs and Anderson (1993). Influenced by solid-carbon counting methods first used by radiocarbon dating developments in New Libby and other pioneers of the radiocarbon Zealand which had increasingly supported a method. The shift to gas-proportional very late colonization of those large, counting, or to liquid scintillation counting temperate Eastern Polynesian islands methods, were significant improvements but (Anderson 1991), Spriggs and Anderson the greatest advance came with Muller’s use

15 kirch

of accelerator mass spectrometry or AMS old driftwood being collected and used for (Muller 1977). By the late 1980s, AMS 14C fuel. With dating materials other than dating was rapidly becoming the standard, charcoal, there were additional potential largely replacing the older laboratory complications deriving from isotopic methods. This advance in laboratory methods fractionation (especially in bone samples) had two major consequences for and from reservoir effects (especially for archaeological dating: (1) standard errors marine shell or other materials grown in the were reduced; and (2) samples of relatively ocean). small size could now be dated. For charcoal, sample sizes as small as 10 milligrams could The most important step in developing new be dated by AMS, opening up the possibility protocols for radiocarbon sample selection of dating individual seeds or small twig was the taxonomic identification of wood fragments. charcoal based on anatomical characteristics by comparison to a reference collection of Equally important to the refinements in known woody plant species for the laboratory methods was the realization by particular region or island. In Hawai‘i, the archaeologists that they needed to pay close first efforts at archaeological wood charcoal attention to the kinds of samples they identification were made when Kirch, then submitted for dating. This was especially the directing several large projects for the case for wood charcoal, perhaps the most Bishop Museum, approached University of commonly dated material from Polynesian Hawai‘i botanist Charles Lameroux about sites. In the early years of radiocarbon dating, the problem. Lameroux’s laboratory when the crude laboratory methods required assistant, Gail Murakami started to develop large sample sizes, there was a tendency to a reference collection for Hawaiian wood select the largest pieces of charcoal. Indeed, charcoal, and she has continued to be the the entire contents of hearths or earth ovens main contributor to Hawaiian and other (often including tens or even hundreds of Pacific wood identification (Murakami individual charcoal fragments) were often 1983). In the 1990s, Kirch also encouraged submitted in bulk to the dating laboratory. James Coil to establish a reference The problem, of course, was that such collection at Berkeley’s Oceanic samples in many cases included old growth Archaeology Laboratory (Coil 2004). These timber, which had an “in built” age that was and similar efforts have now made it potentially much older than the time at which possible for wood charcoal from Hawaiian the wood was actually burnt in the hearth or and other Polynesian sites to be identified oven. The date returned by the radiocarbon prior to 14C dating. Most importantly, lab may have been an accurate indication of taxonomic identification allows the the age of the timber, but not of the “target archaeologist to select short-lived species, date” of human use of the site. With many and to reject wood samples that are likely to coastal sites, there was also the likelihood of have a significant in-built age factor.

16 hawaiian archaeology

Unfortunately, not all archaeologists working considerable support to a “short chronology” Polynesia have availed themselves of the whereby the central archipelagoes of Eastern ability to identify their samples prior to Polynesia did not begin to be colonized until dating; it is still necessary when reviewing after AD 800 or later (Allen, 2004; suites of dates from particular sites to Anderson et al., 1994, 1999; Anderson and consider whether the samples in question Sinoto 2002; Conte and Anderson 2003; meet the new standards for sample selection. Green and Weisler 2002; Kirch et al. 1995; Rolett 1998; Rolett and Conte, 1995 Weisler The methodological advances just 1994, 1995). Recently, Wilmhurst et al. summarized--both in laboratory methods and (2011) have advanced claims that the in sample selection criteria--have had a major settlement of all but the Society Islands impact on the evolving radiocarbon occurred after AD 1190–1290; their chronology for Eastern Polynesia. Targeted argument, however, depends on a fairly AMS re-dating of identified samples from extreme form of chronometric hygiene, previously excavated Eastern Polynesian sites which rejects dates on any samples other such as Hane or Vaito‘otia-Fa‘ahia than charcoal from identified, short-lived (Anderson and Sinoto 2002) have typically taxa. shortened the chronologies for those sites, while dating of newly excavated sites such as Most important from the perspective of the Tangatatau Rockshelter (MAN-44) on Hawaiian settlement are the colonization Mangaia (Kirch et al. 1995) or Onemea in dates for the Society Islands and the Mangareva (Kirch et al. 2010) have failed to Marquesas, as these two archipelagoes have replicate the kinds of early first-millennium long been considered to be the immediate AD dates for initial Polynesian settlement source regions for the first Polynesian obtained by Suggs or Sinoto. In short, the voyagers to Hawai‘i. For the Society argument in favor of a “long pause” and a Islands, the oldest dates potentially “short chronology” for Eastern Polynesia indicating a human presence are two 14C have been greatly strengthened by the dates on anaerobically preserved coconuts advances in radiocarbon dating over the past from water-logged sediments in the lower two to three decades. ‘Opunohu Valley on Mo‘orea Island (Lepofsky et al. 1992), with ages of 1270 ± 60 and 1360 ± 60 BP, possibly indicating The Emerging Chronological Picture for settlement by about AD 600. However, no Eastern Polynesia cultural materials were associated with these putatively domesticated coconuts, and until Over the past decade or so, dating of a confirmed by additional results, it is not number of key Eastern Polynesian sites, using certain that these dates indicate human AMS radiocarbon methods on better activity on Mo‘orea. The Vaito‘otia-Fa‘ahia controlled (identified) samples has lent site on Huahine, originally thought to date as

17 kirch

early as AD 800–850, was re-dated by from the Marquesas strongly suggests that Anderson and Sinoto (2002). Although there initial Polynesian settlement of that is considerable range in the ages of the newly archipelago was unlikely to have occurred dated samples (Anderson and Sinoto before about AD 900, and may have been as 2002:Table 1, Fig. 1), they conclude that the late as AD 1000. “most reliable” suite of shell dates from the site has a range of about AD 1050–1450. Emerging chronologies for other Eastern Polynesian islands are also relevant here. In The Marquesas, as noted above, initially the southern Cook Islands, the Tangatatau produced the earliest dates in Eastern Rockshelter on Mangaia was occupied by Polynesia, as old as 150 BC in the case of around AD 1000, based on a large suite of Suggs’s excavations at Ha‘atuatua (Suggs 14C dates (Kirch et al. 1995:55, Table 2). 1961). The Hane dune site on Ua Huka Kirch et al. (2010) recently published a suite Island, excavated by Sinoto (1966), yielded of 14C AMS dates from the Onemea site on pottery and other artifacts similar to those Taravai Island in the Gambier (Mangareva) from Ha‘atuatua, and Sinoto’s original suite Islands indicating initial Polynesian 14 of C dates led him to propose that Hane had colonization around AD 950. This age fits been settled as early as AD 300–600. well with Weisler’s claims for the Anderson and Sinoto (2002:Table 2, Fig. 2) colonization of Henderson Island no later dated ten new samples from Hane, with than AD 1050, and possibly slightly earlier results indicating that the site “. . . was (Weisler 1995:389, Table 2). Despite Hunt probably not earlier than about AD 1000, and Lipo’s claims (2006, 2008) that Rapa according to the lower calibrated ranges of Nui was not settled until AD 1200, the full the new results, and if actually around the corpus of dates from the Anakena Dune Site medians would be dated approximately AD (including those of Steadman et al. 1994) are 1100–1200” (2002:251). In 2009, Eric Conte also compatible with a colonization date of conducted renewed excavations at Hane. A around AD 1000. In sum, the southeastern suite of as yet unpublished radiocarbon dates archipelagoes and islands of Eastern from these excavations yielded results similar Polynesia have a set of radiocarbon to the Anderson and Sinoto (2002) re-dating, chronologies now converging on the period again suggesting that the lowest levels at from AD 900–1000. Hane are unlikely to be older than AD 900– 1000 (Conte, pers. comm., 2010). These With the caveat that the Society Islands revised dates from Hane are also consistent might still prove to have initial settlement with Rolett’s dating of the earliest levels at dates slightly earlier than elsewhere in the Hanamiai site on Tahuata Island, which Eastern Polynesia, the extensive re-dating of are bracketed in the interval between AD key sites and discovery and dating of new 1025–1300 (Rolett 1998:241, Table 4.1). In sites throughout central Eastern Polynesia short, the emerging chronological evidence strongly supports a “short chronology” that

18 hawaiian archaeology

begins no earlier than AD 900–1000. Given and his collaborators applied the methods of that this region is widely regarded as the sediment coring and palynology to a number immediate homeland for the first Polynesian of lake and swamp sites on O‘ahu Island, settlers to Hawai‘i, the obvious implication is such as ‘Uko‘a Pond and Kawainui Marsh that Hawaiian colonization is unlikely to be (Athens 1997; Athens and Ward 1993, 1997; earlier than around AD 1000. Athens et al. 1992). Analysis of cores showed unmistakable signals of anthropogenic disturbance, especially with Paleo-Environmental Evidence for the dramatic increases in microscopic charcoal Initial Hawaiian Settlement (from near 0 in pre-human levels to 25 mm2/cc in upper levels) and in significant Evidence for human colonization of an island declines in native plant taxa, especially the or archipelago can come from two different endemic palm Pritchardia and a now sources: (1) direct artifactual evidence from extirpated shrub Kanaloa. These data were human settlements such as sand dune revolutionary for the information they occupations or rockshelters; and, (2) indirect provided about changes to the O‘ahu evidence in the form of proxy signals of landscape following Polynesian colonization anthropogenic disturbance, such as increases and land use, but they also had potential to in charcoal fluxes in lake or swamp help establish the date of Polynesian arrival. sediments, rapid changes in pollen In an influential article, Athens wrote: frequencies in these sediments, or the What, then, is the very earliest coring appearance of commensal or synanthropic evidence we have for the Polynesian plants and animals such as weeds, insects, or presence in Hawaii? The answer is rats. During the first few decades of approximately AD 800, which is from Polynesian stratigraphic archaeology, the ‘Uko‘a Pond. The securest evidence is emphasis was almost exclusively on the in the form of microscopic particulate charcoal, though it is also supported by search for early habitation sites. With the the pollen evidence . . . Because increased interest in an ecological or particulate charcoal does not occur in environmental archaeology from the late sample intervals predating Polynesian 1960s on, however, indirect evidence for occupation in any of our cores on anthropogenic disturbance on islands began O‘ahu, we feel confident that its to be considered in the debate on long versus presence in the ‘Uko‘a Pond core (and short chronologies. The application of other cores) must be entirely due to anthropogenic causes. (Athens palynological analysis to lake and swamp 1997:266) sediments in Pacific islands has been especially important in this regard (e.g., Figure 4 reproduces Athens’ plot of the 14 Kirch and Ellison 1994). ‘Uko‘a Pond charcoal concentrations. A C date of approximately AD 800 (Athens did Beginning in the early 1990s, Steve Athens not publish the full details of the

19 kirch

Figure 4. Athens’ plot of charcoal concentrations in the ‘Uko‘a Pond core (Athens 1997:Fig. 12.7). Note that the dramatic rise in charcoal concentrations is bracketed between AD 800 and 1200.

radiocarbon dates from ‘Uko‘a Pond) is program on O‘ahu makes it clear that by AD associated with the first presence of charcoal, 1200 anthropogenic disturbance was while another date of AD 1200 is associated widespread on the island. Thus initial with a dramatic spike in charcoal Polynesian colonization must have occurred concentrations. Thus, while Athens placed some time prior to AD 1200, but is unlikely the approximate date of Polynesian arrival at to have been much before AD 1000. AD 800, it would probably be more accurate to say that a dramatic spike in anthropogenic On Kaua‘i Island, the team of David and charcoal is bracketed by radiocarbon dates of Lida Burney (2003) has applied sediment approximately AD 800 and 1200. In later coring and dating of charcoal influxes to work at the Ordy Pond on O‘ahu, Athens et attempt to establish the earliest presence of al. (1999) report that the first presence of Polynesians on various parts of the island. charcoal is bracketed by two radiocarbon Their earliest reliable record for dates between AD 1000–1100. And, a core in anthropogenic charcoal comes from an inland location in Maunawili Valley on the Kekupua Fishpond on the island’s windward side of O‘ahu shows Pritchardia southwestern coast. The first presence of and other indigenous taxa beginning to charcoal in a 2.2 m deep core comes at 1.4 14 decline after about AD 1200 (Athens and m and has an associated C date of 830 ± 50 Ward 1997). In all, Athens’ coring BP, or AD 1165–1260 when calibrated (at 1

20 hawaiian archaeology

s.d.). Burney et al. (2001; Burney and dates strongly indicative of human presence Kikuchi 2006) have also carried out extensive on O‘ahu by around AD 1000, with work in the Makauwahi limestone sinkhole, evidence for widespread anthropogenic an extraordinary sediment trap yielding a rich disturbance by AD 1200. For Kaua‘i, initial record of biotic change on the island. Here human presence is indicated by at least AD the earliest indication of human presence is 1200. from the pelvis of a Polynesian-introduced rat (Rattus exulans), directly 14C dated at 822 ± 60 BP, or AD 1160–1270 calibrated (at 1 Re-Evaluating “Early” Hawaiian Sites s.d.). The final set of evidence to consider before Bones of R. exulans were also recovered returning to the question of when the from limestone sinkholes in the ‘Ewa Plain Hawaiian Islands were first settled by on O‘ahu, where they are associated with the Polynesians is the radiocarbon evidence bones of extinct or extirpated avifauna, from the handful of habitation sites which including large flightless ducks had been proposed as belonging to the (Thambetochen sp.), and the shells of extinct earliest phases of the Hawaiian cultural endemic terrestrial gastropods (Athens et al. sequence (Kirch 1985). For the South Point, 1999, 2002; see also Christensen and Kirch Hawai‘i Island sites there has been no recent 14 1986). Direct AMS C dating on several of attempt at re-dating, although the older sets these rat bones also provides proxy evidence of radiocarbon dates have been reassessed for initial Polynesian presence on O‘ahu, as (Dye 1992). Combining the four most these rats were commensal and introduced by consistent 14C dates on charcoal from Layer humans. Figure 5 is a combined Oxcal II at site H8 (Emory and Sinoto 1969:Table probability plot of the two earliest dates from 1) yields calibrated age ranges of AD 1040– R. exulans bones from ‘Ewa, with a highest 1090 and 1120–1280 (at 1 s.d.), which probability calibrated age range of AD 970– would be consistent with the general time 1030 (at 1 s.d.), or AD 890–1040 (at 2 s.d.). frame suggested by the paleoenvironmental evidence just reviewed, and with the Some scholars are reluctant to use the kinds emerging chronologies for Eastern of proxy indicators of anthropogenic Polynesia. Nonetheless, it would be disturbance described above as evidence for desirable to attempt to re-date the base of human arrival on islands, and have rejected site H8 (and possibly also Layer III at H1) dates on charcoal in sediment cores or on rat using AMS methods, if suitable samples can bones (e.g., Wilmhurst et al. 2011). This be located in the Bishop Museum seems to me to be an extreme application of collections. “chronometric hygiene.” In the case of Hawai‘i, the dates from numerous sediment A second site for which claims of relatively cores, combined with direct AMS 14C dating early settlement had been advanced is the of rat bones, has provided a consistent set of Hālawa Dune Site (Mo-A1-3) on Moloka‘i

21 kirch

(Kirch and Kelly 1975). Kirch and McCoy earliest dates on Rattus exulans bones from (2007) submitted six samples from the the ‘Ewa Plain (see Figure 5). This is not to original 1969–70 excavations for AMS 14C say that the Bellows Dune site is the “ur- dating. Based on the results of this re-dating colonization” settlement for Hawai‘i. But it combined with a re-analysis of the original does strongly hint that the O18 occupation suite of dates, Kirch and McCoy conclude dates to within the first century of that the Hālawa site dates no earlier than Polynesian arrival in the archipelago. about AD 1300, with the main occupation phase dating to between AD 1400–1650 (2007:402). When Was Hawai‘i First Settled?

This leaves only the Bellows Dune site (O18) In this paper I have endeavored to trace the at Waimānalo, O‘ahu, as having a possible efforts--over more than a century and a half- claim of dating with the period of initial -of various scholars to determine the Polynesian settlement of the Hawaiian approximate time when Polynesian archipelago. In an attempt to establish the age explorers first made their remarkable voyage of the deeper stratigraphic deposits at O18, from central Eastern Polynesia, across the Dye and Pantaleo (2010) dated seven samples doldrums and into the North Pacific, to obtained during the original 1967 discover Hawai‘i. Fornander and Hiroa were excavations, selecting only short-lived limited to Polynesian oral traditions materials. Based on the new results, and calibrated to chiefly genealogies, but using a Bayesian statistical framework, they thought that this event occurred sometime in conclude that the O18 site was “established in the mid-first millennium AD Emory applied AD 1040–1219” (2010:113). Dye and linguistic analysis to arrive at a date of AD Pantaleo argue that this was “some 260–459 1150. But with the advent of stratigraphic years after the current estimate of first archaeology and radiocarbon dating, it settlement” of Hawai‘i. That argument, appeared for a time that the date of initial however, is based on the acceptance of AD settlement would be pushed back 800 as the date of Polynesian colonization of considerably, possibly to the beginning of the islands, following Athens (1997). As I the first millennium AD. Then a long have pointed out above, the ‘Uko‘a core from process of scientific investigation and self- which Athens derived the AD 800 date correction set in. The initial uncritical actually only shows anthropogenic influences enthusiasm for radiocarbon dating was occurring between approximately AD 800 replaced by a more sober realization that and 1200. Dye and Pantaleo’s new dates for radiocarbon dating was complicated, and O18, in my opinion, establish the site as the that the early methods need improvement. earliest documented habitation in the Archaeologists began to pay attention to Hawaiian Islands. Their estimate of AD issues of sample type and selection. In the 1040–1219 is only marginally later than the half-century that has passed since Emory

22 hawaiian archaeology

and Sinoto obtained their first 14C dates from 3. Re-dating of the O18 site at Bellows, Kuli‘ou‘ou, South Point, and other Hawaiian Waimānalo, O‘ahu puts the occupation sites, we have made huge strides forward in of that small hamlet at between AD the hard work of establishing solid cultural 1040–1219. Obviously, this range falls chronologies throughout Polynesia. closely between the lower and upper bounds indicated by the Eastern To the question of “when was Hawai‘i first Polynesian chronologies and the settled by Polynesians” I would answer with paleoenvironmental evidence. the following three points: In my view, it is now reasonable to argue 1. Although the debate over the chronology that the first arrival of Polynesians in for Polynesian expansion into Eastern Hawai‘i is unlikely to have occurred much Polynesia still continues (e.g., Wilmhurst before AD 1000, although the event could et al. 2011; Mulrooney et al. 2011), there conceivably have been sometime in the 10th is no question that some form of “short century. There is also no question that at chronology” has prevailed. With the least O‘ahu and Kaua‘i islands were already exception of the Society Islands (for well settled, with local populations which our database for early settlement established in several localities, by AD remains inadequate), none of the main 1200. Beyond this I fear it would be archipelagoes and islands of central dangerous to tread. But the research will Eastern Polynesia are likely to have been continue, and with future improvements in colonized by Polynesians before AD methods accompanied by the inevitable 900–1000. Since this is the immediate serendipity that archaeologists know they homeland region from which the must depend on, we may yet narrow down voyagers to Hawai‘i are presumed to the time frame of Polynesian discovery of have come, a lower bound on the this most amazing archipelago. settlement date for Hawai‘i also has to be AD 900–1000.

2. The “proxy” paleoenvironmental Notes evidence for human presence in Hawai‘i, which for now comes almost exclusively 1. This article is based upon the Keynote from O‘ahu and Kaua‘i Islands, leaves no Address delivered to the Society for doubt that human activities were creating Hawaiian Archaeology at the 2010 Annual significant disturbances on both of these Meeting at Wailua, Kaua‘i. islands by AD 1200. This then sets an 2. The main excavation at O18 took place upper bound on Polynesian settlement at during the summer of 1967, as a University this time. Moreover, the earliest dates on of Hawai‘i field school. Although still a human introduced Rattus exulans bones Punahou student at the time, I participated in on O‘ahu are consistent with Polynesian the excavation at Pearson’s invitation, and arrival around AD 1000. later helped to analyze the collections.

23 kirch

3. Although published by the University of ______. 1997. The Maunawili core: Hawai‘i Press in 1985, the manuscript was Prehistoric inland expansion of settlement based on lectures given by Kirch at the and agriculture, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Hawaiian University of Hawai‘i in the early 1980s. Archaeology 6:37–51. Athens, J.S., J. Ward, and S. Wickler. 1992. Late Holocene lowland vegetation, O‘ahu, References Cited Hawai‘i. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:9–34. Allen, M.S. 2004. Revisiting and revising Athens, J.S., J.V. Ward, H.D. Tuggle, and Marquesan culture history: New D.J. Welch. 1999. Environment, Vegetation archaeological investigations at Anaho Bay, Change, and Early Human Settlement on the Nuku Hiva Island. Journal of the Polynesian ‘Ewa Plain: A Cultural Resource Inventory Society 113:143–196. of Naval Air Station, Barber’s Point, O‘ahu, Anderson, A. 1991. The chronology of Hawai‘i, Part III, Paleoenvironmental colonization in New Zealand. Antiquity 65: Investigations. International Archaeological 767. Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu. Anderson, A., E. Conte, G. Clark, Y. Sinoto, Athens, J.S., H.D. Tuggle, J.V. Ward, and and F. Petchy. 1999. Renewed excavations at D.J. Welch. 2002. Avifaunal extinctions, Motu Paeao, Maupiti Island, French vegetation change, and Polynesian impacts Polynesia. New Zealand Journal of in prehistoric Hawai‘i. Archaeology in Archaeology 21: 47–66. Oceania 37:57–78. Anderson, A., H. Leach, I. Smith, and R. Burney, D.A. and W.K.P. Kikuchi. 2006. A Walter. 1994. Reconsideration of the millennium of human activity at Makauwahi Marquesan sequence in East Polynesian Cave, Maha‘ulepu, Kaua‘i. Human Ecology prehistory, with particular reference to Hane 34:219–247. (MUH1). Archaeology in Oceania 29: 29–52. Burney, D.A., H.F. James, L.P. Burney, S.L. Anderson, A. and Y.H. Sinoto. 2002. New Olson, W.K. Kikuchi, W. Wagner, M. radiocarbon ages of colonization sites in East Burney, D. McCloskey, D. Kikuchi, F.V. Polynesia. Asian Perspectives 41:242–257. Grady, R. Gage, and R. Nishek. 2001. Fossil evidence for a diverse biota from Kaua‘i and Athens, J.S. 1997. Hawaiian native lowland its transformation since human arrival. vegetation in prehistory. In P.V. Kirch and Ecological Monographs 71:615–641. T.L. Hunt, eds., Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental Burney, L.P. and D.A. Burney. 2003. and Landscape Change, pp. 248–70. Yale Charcoal stratigraphies for Kaua‘i and the University Press, New Haven. timing of human arrival. Pacific Science 57:211–226. Athens, J.S. and J.V. Ward. 1993. Environmental change and prehistoric Christensen, C. and P.V. Kirch. 1986. Non- Polynesian settlement in Hawai‘i. Asian marine mollusks and ecological change at Perspectives 32:205–223. Barbers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 26:52–80.

24 hawaiian archaeology

Coil, J.H. 2004. “The Beauty that Was”: Fornander, A. 1878, 1880, 1885. An Account Archaeological Investigations of Ancient of the Polynesian Race: Its Origin and Hawaiian Agriculture and Environmental Migration and the Ancient History of the Change in Kahikinui, Maui. Unpublished Hawaiian People to the Time of Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Kamehameha I. 3 vols. London. Berkeley. ______. 1919. Source and migration of the Conte, E. and A.J. Anderson. 2003. Polynesian race. In T.G. Thrum, ed., Radiocarbon ages for two sites on Ua Huka, Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Marquesas. Asian Perspectives 42:155–160. Antiquities and Folk-Lore, Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Vol. VI, Part II, Dye, T.S. 1992. The South Point radiocarbon pp. 222–238. Bishop Museum Press, dates thirty years later. New Zealand Journal Honolulu. of Archaeology 14:89–97. Green, R.C. 1966. Linguistic subgrouping Dye, T.S. and J. Pantaleo. 2010. Age of the within Polynesia: The implications for O18 site, Hawai‘i. Archaeology in Oceania prehistoric settlement. Journal of the 45:113–119. Polynesian Society 75:6–38. Emory, K.P. 1946. Eastern Polynesia: Its ______. 1967. The immediate origins of the Cultural Relationships. Unpublished Polynesians. In G.A. Highland, et al., eds., Dissertation. Yale University, New Haven Polynesian Culture History, pp. 215–240. (University Microfilms, Ann Arbor). Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. ______. 1959. Origin of the Hawaiians. Green, R.C. and M.I. Weisler. 2002. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 68:29–35. Mangarevan sequence and dating of the Emory, K.P., W.J. Bonk and Y.H. Sinoto. geographic expansion into Southeast 1959. Hawaiian Archaeology: Fishhooks. Polynesia. Asian Perspectives 41:213–241. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Groube, L.M. 1971. Tonga, Lapita pottery, Publication 47. Honolulu and Polynesian origins. Journal of the Emory, K.P. and Y.H. Sinoto. 1961. Polynesian Society 80:278–316. Hawaiian Archaeology: O‘ahu Excavations. Heyerdahl, T. and E.N. Ferdon, Jr., eds. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special 1961. Reports of the Norwegian Publication No. 49. Bishop Museum Press, Archaeological Expedition to Easter Island Honolulu. and the East Pacific. Vol. 1, Archaeology of ______. 1965. Preliminary Report on the Easter Island. Monographs of the School of Archaeological Investigations in Polynesia. American Research 24(1). Santa Fe. Mimeographed Report to the National Hiroa, Te Rangi (P.H. Buck). 1938. Vikings Science Foundation. Bernice P. Bishop of the Sunrise. J.B. Lippincott, Philadelphia. Museum, Honolulu. Hunt, T.L. and C.P. Lipo. 2006. Late ______. 1969. Age of the Sites in the South colonization of Easter Island. Science Point Area, Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. Pacific 311:1603–1606. Anthropological Records 8. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

25 kirch

______. 2008. Evidence for a shorter Hawaiian Valley: Halawa Valley, Molokai. chronology on Rapa Nui (Easter Island). Pacific Anthropological Records 24. Bernice Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 3:140–148. Kirch, P.V. and M.D. McCoy. 2007. Irwin, G. 1981. How Lapita lost its pots: The Reconfiguring the Hawaiian cultural question of continuity in the colonisation of sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa Oceania. Journal of the Polynesian Society Dune Site (Mo-A1-3), Moloka‘i Island. 90:481–94. Journal of the Polynesian Society 116:385– 406. Jennings, J.D. 1979. Introduction. In J.D. Jennings, ed., The Prehistory of Polynesia, Kirch, P.V., D.W. Steadman, V.L. Butler, J. pp. 1–5. Harvard University Press, Hather, and M.I. Weisler. 1995. Prehistory Cambridge. and human ecology in Eastern Polynesia: Excavations at Tangatatau rockshelter, Kirch, P.V. 1971. The Halawa Dune Site Mangaia, Cook Islands. Archaeology in (Hawaiian Islands): A Preliminary Report. Oceania 30:47–65. Journal of the Polynesian Society 80:228– 236. Lepofsky, D., H.C. Harries, and M. Kellum. 1992. Early coconuts on Mo‘orea Island, ______. 1985. Feathered Gods and French Polynesia. Journal of the Polynesian Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Society 101:299–308. Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Libby, W. 1952. Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ______. 1986. Rethinking East Polynesian prehistory. Journal of the Polynesian Society Muller, R.A. 1977. Radiocarbon dating with 95: 9–40. a cyclotron. Science 196:489–494. ______. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Mulrooney, M., S.H. Bickler, M.S. Allen, Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands and T.N. Ladefoged. 2011. High-precision Before European Contact. University of dating of colonization and settlement in East California Press, Berkeley. Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 108:E192–E194. Kirch, P.V., E. Conte, W. Sharp, and D. Nickelsen. 2010. The Onemea site (Taravai Murakami, G.M. 1983. Analysis of charcoal Island, Mangareva) and the human from archaeological contexts. In J.T. Clark colonization of southeastern Polynesia. and P.V. Kirch, eds., Archaeological Archaeology in Oceania 45:66–79. Investigations of the Mudlane-Waimea- Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Kirch, P.V. and J. Ellison. 1994. Hawai‘i, pp. 514–526. Report 83-1, Palaeoenvironmental evidence for human Department of Anthropology. Bishop colonization of remote Oceanic islands. Museum, Honolulu. Antiquity 68:310–21. Pearson, R.J., P.V. Kirch, and M. Kirch, P.V. and M. Kelly, eds. 1975. Pietrusewsky. 1971. An early prehistoric site Prehistory and Ecology in a Windward at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu,

26 hawaiian archaeology

Hawaiian Islands. Archaeology and Physical Wilmhurst, J.M., T.L. Hunt, C.P. Lipo, and Anthropology in Oceania 6:204–34. A.J. Anderson. 2011. High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid Rolett, B.V. 1998. Hanamiai: Prehistoric initial colonization of East Polynesia. Colonization and Cultural Change in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Marquesas Islands (East Polynesia). Yale Sciences, USA 108:1815–1820. University Publications in Anthropology No. 84. New Haven. Rolett, B.V. and E. Conte. 1995. Renewed investigation of the Ha‘atuatua dune (Nukuhiva, Marquesas Islands): A key site in Polynesian prehistory. Journal of the Polynesian Society 104:195–228. Sinoto, Y.H. 1966. A tentative prehistoric cultural sequence in the northern Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. Journal of the Polynesian Society 75:287–303. ______. 1979. The Marquesas. In J. Jennings, ed., The Prehistory of Polynesia, pp. 110–34. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Spriggs, M.J.T. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late colonization of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200–17. Steadman, D.W., C. Vargas, and F. Cristino. 1994. Stratigraphy, chronology, and cultural context of an early faunal assemblage from Easter Island. Asian Perspectives 33:79–96. Suggs, R.C. 1961. Archaeology of Nuku Hiva, Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 49, Part 1. New York. Weisler, M.I. 1994. The settlement of marginal Polynesia: New evidence from Henderson Island. Journal of Field Archaeology 21:83–102. ______. 1995. Henderson Island prehistory: Colonization and extinction on a remote Polynesian island. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 56:377–404.

Floodwater Farming of Ritual Offerings at Kaunolū and Māmaki on Leeward Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i

Boyd Dixon TEC Inc. PO Box 326461 Hagatna, Guam 96932 [email protected]

Maurice Major Washington State Dept. of Natural Resources PO Box 47000, 1111 Washington Street SE Olympia, WA 98504 [email protected]

Abstract

Archaeological survey and mapping of the traditional Hawaiian village sites of Kaunolū and Māmaki on the leeward coast of Lāna‘i during 1991 revealed possible evidence of the controlled use of periodic floodwaters in two dryland farming feature complexes. Limited excavations at two of these locations in 1998, and the quantification of an optimal annual yield for various indigenous agricultural products, suggests these particular features were far from capable of sustaining the pre-Contact population predicted for each settlement, even given peak amounts of rainfall. Given the close proximity of these features to two temples or heiau at both sites, it appears likely that the crops produced here were grown primarily to supply the priests, or kahuna, and chiefs, or ali‘i, with agricultural offerings needed during ritual events which may have proliferated after both temples were enlarged and redesigned under the aegis of Maui polities by AD 1650. Agricultural intensification in this particular case could therefore be considered a direct response to increasing religious and socio-political

27 28 hawaiian archaeology

complexity, rather than a gradual process Kawela on Moloka‘i (Weisler and Kirch driven by increasing ali‘i tribute demands on 1985), and the entrapment of spring water to the commoner, or maka‘āinana, or the create ponds or lo‘i for wetland taro subsistence needs of a growing population as production in the west O‘ahu valleys of is hypothesized with more extensive leeward Mākaha (Green 1980; Hommon 1969, 1970, agricultural systems elsewhere in Hawai‘i. 2010) and Lualualei (Dixon et al. 2003). In all cases, the assumption appears to have been that these features and the methods Introduction employed were the primary source of agricultural sustenance for the nearby Archaeological documentation of the remains settlements, allowing, of course, for some of indigenous agriculture in dry leeward exchange within and between adjoining settings across the Hawaiian archipelago has communities or ahupua‘a (Cordy and a relatively long history, especially on the Kaschko 1980). larger more populated islands of O‘ahu (Green 1969, 1970) and Hawai‘i (Ladefoged While the use of plants such as ‘awa, et al. 1996; Rosendahl 1972), and more bananas, coconuts, breadfruit, ti, taro, and recently on Moloka‘i (Dixon et al. 1994; sweet potato for votive offerings in religious Major and Dixon 1994, 1995) and Maui rituals has been documented in the (Dixon et al. 1997, 1999, 2002; Kirch and ethnohistoric (Beaglehole 1967; Kamakau Van Gilder 1996; Major et al. 1995; O’Day 1992; Malo 1951) and ethnobotanical 2001). Such remains generally consist of (Abbott 1992; Handy and Handy 1972; either small-scale complexes of probable Krauss 1993; Yen 1974) literature in sweet potato planting circles and clearing Hawai‘i, little archaeological evidence of piles, such as those found in Makena on Maui deliberate agricultural production for ritual (Gosser et al. 1992; Klieger 1992; Stocker purposes has been recorded (Graves and and Klieger 1992), or more large-scale Ladefoged 1995; Ladefoged 1998). Lack of dryland taro and sweet potato field systems good botanical preservation in excavated consisting of kuaiwi or linear mounds, such heiau and associated habitations is certainly as those found at Lapakahi (Rosendahl 1994), one factor in this omission, although some Waimea (Burtchard and Tomonari-Tuggle success has been had with the identification 2004), and Kona (Allen 2001) on the island of charred wood remains in ritual contexts of Hawai‘i. Variations on these leeward (Kolb and Murakami 1994). One line of agricultural practices include planting in evidence for determining the existence of collapsed volcanic lava tubes, or kīpuka, of ritual agriculture is the close spatial Ka‘ū on the Big Island (Allen and McAnany association of both heiau and kahuna 1994), in karstic sinkholes on O‘ahu (Davis residences with particular agricultural 1995; Flood et al. 1994; Miller 1993), the use features, in situations where production for of seasonal sheetwash in small terraces at domestic support of the whole community is

29 dixon and major

out of the question. This research will communities were joined by a pre-Contact document one such possible scenario on the paved footpath. The site of Māmaki is island of Lāna‘i and how this situation likely considerably smaller than Kaunolū (Dixon relates to interisland political hegemonic et al. 1992), but with many of the same expansionism. functional types of features including a heiau, canoe shed, fishing shrine, small dryland agricultural clearings, petroglyph Background fields, residential platforms, and garden enclosures. In addition to these remains, a The Setting small isolated cluster of five structures The geographical focus of this study found on Emory’s 1924 site map was concerns the sites of Kaunolū and Māmaki, relocated in 1991 near a possible canoe both coastal village communities on the dry landing on the trail between the two sites, leeward shore of Lāna‘i (Figure 1). The site but these features were not remapped. Kaunolū was originally mapped in 1921 by Population History Kenneth Emory (1921, 1924), was later evaluated for the National Register of Genealogical histories associated with Maui Historic Places (Dunbar 1987), was ali‘i suggest that Lāna‘i was occupied by the resurveyed and mapped in 1991 by a team 15th century AD (Emory 1924; Fornander from the Bishop Museum (Dixon et al. 1992), 1969; Gay 1965; Kaopuiki and Moore 1987; and was then tested by another Bishop Stokes 1933), while a more recent program Museum team in 1993 (Sweeney et al. 1994). of radiocarbon dating at Kaunolū (Sweeney Based on this research (Figure 2), the .25 km² et al. 1994) has provided strong evidence traditional village of Kaunolū was found to that the site was occupied from at least the consist of the remains of over 800 mid-1400s. An analysis of community architectural features (Gosser and Dixon settlement patterns and heiau construction 1998) ranging from various sized residential styles at Kaunolū and Māmaki suggested platforms to a canoe storage shed, walled that these two sites were integrated into gardens, paved trails, petroglyph fields, Maui island polities by 1650 (Dixon et al. fishing shrines, possible sporting areas, a 1995), and an analysis of post-Contact large community heiau, and many smaller surface collections indicated residency until habitation structures and dryland agricultural the end of the 19th century (Dixon 1995), as features. has been documented elsewhere in the archipelago (Dye 2004a, 2004b, 2010; At Māmaki, only the unnamed heiau was Major and Dye 2005). originally mapped by Emory (1924:63), but almost the entire site was subsequently The Mormon patriarch Walter Murray mapped in 1991 (Figure 3) since both Gibson made no reference to Native

30 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 1. Site locations of Kaunolū and Māmaki on the island of Lāna‘i.

Figure 2. The settlement of Kaunolū: site sectors denoted in Roman numerals; feature complexes denoted in Arabic numerals.

31 dixon and major

Figure 3. The settlement of Māmaki: site sectors denoted in Roman numerals; feature complexes denoted in Arabic numerals.

Hawaiian inhabitants at the site during his mapped platforms (n=19.2) were in fact visit to Halulu Heiau in the 1850s (Gibson permanent habitations at any one point in 1873:156). But Ohua, the last known the site’s 500 year occupation, we arrive at a occupant of Kaunolū, apparently moved from figure of approximately 120 inhabitants that site to Māmaki after the Pa‘ao Well was residing at Kaunolū. This does not include, destroyed by Gibson’s son-in-law, F.H. of course, periodic off-island ali‘i visitors to Hayselden in 1895 (Emory 1924). Large the site such as Kamehameha I and his block-lettered petroglyphs of Hawaiian retainers, or mā, in the early 1800s (Emory family names in English found on foundation 1924:23) or the presence of other Lāna‘i stones of one platform in Māmaki (Dixon et inhabitants during seasonal festivals such as al. 1992) and the recovery of EuroAmerican the Makahiki. Interestingly however, the artifacts on the surface also indicate 19th missionary and sailor Captain Cochran century occupation of this smaller site. Forbes mentioned preaching to Native Hawaiian congregations ranging between Based on an ethnohistorically derived factor 125 and 180 persons during a two day visit of six persons per household or residential to Kaunolū in 1845 (Forbes 1984:168). This sleeping platform (Cordy 1981; King 1821), number probably represented most of both and assuming only 25% of the total of 130 communities and their neighbors by this

32 hawaiian archaeology

time, given the total population estimate of paper was “that such practices occur during 616 individuals for the island in 1846 (Munro the late prehistoric period when population 2007:16). density and political complexity [emphasis added] were also changing, suggest[ing] Agricultural Subsistence there is a functional linkage” (Graves The recording of agricultural remains on 1990:7). Lāna‘i has not been a priority for most

archaeological research projects on the island largely because of the relative “invisibility” The Archaeological Evidence of such features on the eroded landscape, Kaunolū although Emory noted the presence of terracing for taro production along Mauna Two of the largest possible agricultural Lei Gulch during his pioneering study of the features recorded during 1991 at the site of ū island (Emory 1924). Minimal modification Kaunol are located in Site Sector III (see ū of bedrock outcroppings and outwashed Figure 2), on the west bank of Kaunol cobbles within dry gulches and the clearing Gulch approximately 50 m upstream of of nearby slopes have been attributed to Halulu Heiau Feature I/7 (Munro 2007:164) agricultural pursuits along Kapiha‘a and its possible kahuna residential zone. (Hammatt et al. 1990) and Mānele Gulches These two features were mapped by Emory (Athens and Kaschko 1988) to the east of in 1921 as part of a larger architectural Kaunolū, for example, but the prevailing complex located next to the Pa‘ao Well, but logic has been that coastal settlements were they were never identified as to function nor supported by inland production around the were they described separately at that time, better watered Pālāwai Basin (Kaschko and and much of the complex was washed away Athens 1987) located some 1,200 feet (365 by historic flooding. Features III/1 and III/2 m) above mean sea level. today consist of a pair of terraces created by modifying the natural bedrock outcroppings The only project to have specifically with ancient alluvial and beach cobbles and addressed the issue of arid agriculture on the boulders found on this side of the gulch island of Lāna‘i was the 1988 University of (Figure 4), creating two relatively flat Hawai‘i field school at Lae Hi, which surfaces roughly 1 m tall and measuring focused on cultural remains in an area of approximately 108 m2 (Feature III/1) and 42 lithified sand dunes and adjacent soils on the m2 (Feature III/2) in size. During excavation north shore. Here too, ubiquitous stone of a 1 x 1 m test unit in upper Feature III/2 mounds, small terraces, and irregular and a 1 x 2 m unit in lower Feature III/1 alignments were recorded along dry gulches (Figure 5), soil on both terraces consisted of and associated slopes at an approximate no more than 10 cm of light brown sandy density of 16 features per acre, and the silt above the cobble terrace base, although observation most relevant to the thesis of this recent erosion was evident, suggesting a

33 dixon and major

Figure 4. Agricultural terraces at Kaunolū.

Figure5. Kaunolū Feature III/1 to the northwest (right); Test Unit 2 to the northeast (left).

34 hawaiian archaeology

deeper planting zone in the past. No artifacts floodwater farming feature was found or midden were encountered to indicate a alongside the smaller of two gulches domestic or residential function to the emptying into the bay, in Site Sector IV/4 feature. A more recent-looking C-shaped (see Figure 3) located about 25 m upstream enclosure or probable hunting blind had been from a probable fishing shrine, or ko‘a, and constructed in the northeast corner of the an associated habitation which face the lower terrace (see Figure 4) but did not unnamed heiau. As with the terraces at appear on Emory’s 1924 site map. Kaunolū, the agricultural feature at Māmaki was constructed on a natural cobble and In addition to the periodic sheetwash which boulder terrace just above the streambed, would have watered the upper terrace from forming a flat planting area measuring the bedrock ledges above, a small check dam approximately 120 m2 in size by 0.5 m high at the bottom of the narrow gulley bounding (Figure 6). Since this particular gulch was the terraces to the north was constructed to smaller than its neighbor containing the temporarily impound seasonal rainfall runoff canoe shed to the east, with less destructive and redirect it back onto the lower terrace flashflood potential, the seasonal through a sluicegate of large cobbles and floodwaters were diverted by a small boulders, now reused as part of the hunting boulder check dam directly into the feature blind. This process was aided by a linear wall through a cobble sluice with adjacent 9 m long and .5 m high (Feature III/3) which overflow channel. was constructed at a 45° angle to the slope located across the narrow gulley (see Figure The terrace was further subdivided into two 4), thus diverting even more sheetwash planting areas of roughly equal size by an through the lower terrace to its overflow exit. alignment of small boulders which slowed Interestingly, no attempt seems to have been and dispersed water within the first feature, made to channel runoff from the main gulch while the outflow was accommodated by a into these two terraces, probably to guard small opening with a cobble gate eventually against the destructive potential of allowing water to exit to the stream. Possible flashfloods and tidal surges (as occurred use of some overflow for even smaller during Hurricane Iniki in 1992). The planting areas is suggested by the presence proximity of the Pa‘ao Well reputedly of two semi-circular alignments of small located at the southeast corner of the lower boulders on the northeast side of the terrace terrace suggests that fresh water from an wall, which would have trapped enough silt underground aquifer may have also been and moisture to extend the yield of the used for localized agricultural watering terrace slightly. During excavation of one 1 during the dry season. x 1 m test unit and two shovel probes in this feature (Figure 7), soil beneath the surface Māmaki within the main terrace consisted of no more At the Māmaki site, another possible than 10 cm of light brown sandy silt,

35 dixon and major

Figure 6. Agricultural terrace at Māmaki.

Figure 7. Māmaki Feature IV/4 to the southeast (right); Test Unit 1 to the northwest (left).

36 hawaiian archaeology

although recent erosion was evident, coastal areas...probably in the moisture- suggesting a deeper planting zone in the past. holding gulch bottoms. Yams and bananas No artifacts or midden were encountered to were also probably grown in such indicate a domestic or residential function to situations...” (Spriggs 1991:105). the feature. Upland taro (Colocasia esculenta) and

varieties such as dasheen or araimo Discussion (Colocasia esculenta var. globulifera) can be produced within a 8–10 month growing The first question to be asked after reviewing season in Hawai‘i today with supplemental the archaeological data above is whether irrigation in low rainfall areas, given a soil these dryland agricultural features could have cover of at least 3–4 inches (10 cm) and an been built for the production of crops strictly optimal pH range of 5.5 to 6.5 (De la Pena for domestic commoner (maka‘āinana) 1978). Sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas) is consumption. Obviously, the answer will not better adapted to the leeward soil and be derived by archaeological investigation rainfall conditions of Lāna‘i, with a 4–6 alone, but a review of the agricultural month growing season if adequately potential of these features and their irrigated, and the added benefit of possible hypothesized spatial and political/ritual storage for up to 4–7 months with proper context within these two communities may curing (Valenzuela et al. 1994). Other help clarify the issue. indigenous crops and trees which may have been planted in pre-Contact times for ritual Agricultural Crop Yields use and domestic consumption include ‘awa, The leeward coast of Lāna‘i near Kaunolū breadfruit, coconut, and ti (Allen and and Māmaki today receives only about 10 Murakami 1999), but crop yields for such inches (250 mm) of rain annually, hardly cultigens and tree fruits are not readily enough to be considered adequate for available due to the lack of large scale agriculture (Kirch 1985:133), especially as it commercial production of these plants in is practiced commercially on the island Hawai‘i today. Presumably, their growing today. While it is assumed that rainfall levels conditions would have to be at least here may have been somewhat higher in pre- consistent with those for taro and sweet Contact times when a denser forest covered potato outlined elsewhere in leeward the uplands (Hobdy 1993), it is doubtful that Hawai‘i (Kirch et al. 2004; Vitousek et al. the island climate was much moister given 2004). the perpetual rainshadow effect of 10,000- foot Haleakalā on Maui. The most optimistic A calculation of possible crop yields for taro scenario is that “the [Land Claim Awards] and sweet potato in the archaeological data from Lāna‘i suggest that ...[sweet features documented at Kaunolū and potato] could have been grown in the drier Māmaki is presented below (Table 1), based

37 dixon and major

Table 1. Estimated Annual Yield by Feature Feature Size Sweet Potato* Poi Taro** @11,480 lbs x acre @605.5 lbs x acre

Kaunolū III/1 108 m2 / .026 acre 298.4 lbs 15.7 lbs Kaunolū III/2 42 m2 / .010 acre 114.8 lbs 6.05 lbs Māmaki IV/4 120 m2 / .029 acre 332.9 lbs 17.5 lbs

* Derived by averaging 1990–1994 statistics for Maui/Moloka‘i (HASS 1995:63). ** Derived by averaging 1990–1993 statistics for Maui/Moloka‘i/O‘ahu (HASS 1995:64).

upon statistics averaged over a 4–5 year insufficient to support pre-Contact period in the early 1990s on the islands of populations at these two sites does not Maui, Moloka‘i, and O‘ahu (HASS 1995). resolve the issue of who the intended Undoubtedly, artificially aided commercial production was meant for in the first place. growing conditions today exceed those To address this concern, we must look at the possible on leeward Lāna‘i in pre-Contact spatial context of both feature complexes times, perhaps even in years of peak rainfall within each community, based mainly on of 15–20 inches annually (a 50–100% survey and mapping data recorded in 1991, increase over today’s average). Even given given the absence of any comprehensive these rather optimistic figures, however, it is subsurface testing program of agricultural obvious that a combined population of over remains. 150 inhabitants at both sites could hardly be In Kaunolū, agricultural Site Sector III was expected to be sustained for any length of located only 50 m upstream of Halulu Heiau time from the combined annual yield of these (Figure 8) and its associated ten platforms, three features alone — approximately 750 four C-shapes, and nine enclosures in Site pounds (340 kg) of sweet potato and 605 Sector I (see Figure 2), a complex of pounds (274 kg) of taro. The presumption features interpreted by Emory as “probably that coastal populations were sustained by those of chiefs and priests who officiated in inland production is therefore supported, the temple...” (Emory 1924:52). While this even with extensive use of small-scale hypothesis remains untested dryland agricultural complexes observed on archaeologically, it is clear that Halulu the slopes above the sites of Kaunolū and Heiau and its surrounding features were Māmaki (Dixon et al. 1992), or those constructed well away from the nearest documented at Lae Hi on the opposite residential complex of Site Sector II over coastline (Graves 1990). 100 m upslope, undoubtedly a testimony to the taboo, or kapu, status of this compound Spatial Context within the community. The possible Merely ascertaining that the combined yield extension of Feature III/1 to the south on of these three agricultural features was Emory’s 1921 map, sharing the same

38 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 8. Halulu Heiau from the reported residence of Kamehameha I, facing southwest.

Figure 9. Fishing shrine and canoe hālau at Kaunolū, located southwest of Sector III (reconstruction drawn by Wendell Kaho‘ohalahala).

39 dixon and major

topographical feature with the “Floor of Kamehameha I after his conquest of the Offering” (Emory 1924:51; Gibson 1873) or archipelago (Kaopuiki and Moore 1987:8). stone pavement of Feature I/1 (Munro Political/Ritual Context 2007:164), which originally contained the fishing shrine and stone image Kunihi If the hypothesized spatial association of (Figure 9), also suggests a spatial association these agricultural features with their between the ritual compound above and the neighboring heiau is correct, then we must agricultural complex below. Interestingly, the determine if there was an increased need for only evidence for remnant arboriculture at specific agricultural products in rituals the site of Kaunolū in 1921 was the presence occurring on these structures at a certain of one coconut palm tree depicted several point in time that might surpass the existing meters south of Site Sector III, although climatic capacity of the land. While no some noni trees (Morinda citrifolia) were archaeological excavations have been mentioned in the gulch on slopes just below conducted on either heiau at Kaunolū or Sector IX/5 (Emory 1924:55). Māmaki, an examination of architectural elements in these two structures has At the Māmaki site, agricultural Feature IV/4 suggested a parallel construction sequence, was found to be located opposite a possible presumably related to their redesign and ko‘a less than 50 m across the small bay from functional adaptation to the hegemony of the community heiau (see Figure 3), a Maui based polities by the mid-17th century structure found to replicate the design of (Dixon et al. 1995; Kolb and Dixon 2002). Halulu Heiau at Kaunolū, albiet on a somewhat smaller scale (Dixon et al. 1995). Both Halulu Heiau in Kaunolū and the Both religious structures are located at smaller heiau at Māmaki appear to have opposite ends of the ahupua‘a of Keāliakapu, been originally constructed as large terrace facing each other across a narrow land platforms overlooking their respective bays, division with a protective kapu on its with the later two-phased addition of a resources (Emory 1924:53), located next to notched enclosure wall sealing off the kapu the ahupua‘a of Keālia‘aupuni which was inner precinct, a design element found to be “reserved as the control center...for characteristic of leeward Maui heiau after the...Collection of taxes...” (Gay 1965:49). AD 1650 (Kolb 1991, 1992). While the While much of this agricultural tribute may exact function of these two structures is not have been collected during Makahiki season, known prior to this period, Halulu Heiau did it would have been very convenient if some serve as the only formal place of refuge, or produce from both these agricultural feature pu‘uhonua, on Lāna‘i (Emory 1924), with complexes was reserved for rites on the its creation as such perhaps being a response Māmaki and Kaunolū heiau, and for use as to the imposition of new kapu associated tribute or ho‘okupu during periodic visits by with the arrival of Maui ali‘i and their off-island paramount chiefs, or mō‘ī, such as residences at Kaunolū. Indeed, a tall

40 hawaiian archaeology

platformed structure in Sector VI/1 located as those described on the island of Lāna‘i directly across the gulch from Halulu Heiau seem to be particularly susceptible to such and the agricultural terrace complex in Sector precocious developments, especially when III was known as the dwelling of resources from wetter areas are eclipsed by Kamehameha I during periodic visits in the new tribute demands. In fact, “...we should late 1700s (Emory 1924), and its isolation expect to see instances in the late prehistoric from other residential architecture nearby record of such rapid- indeed, from an suggests its kapu status as well. archaeological perspective, ‘instantaneous’ - transformations of local landscapes” (Kirch In conjunction with the imposition of Maui 1992:54). The ritual use of the two based political and religious authority at agricultural terrace complexes at Kaunolū Kaunolū by 1650, it is probable that new and Māmaki would therefore appear to be rituals and kahuna were installed at Halulu one example of such a pre-Contact Heiau and perhaps Māmaki, as conquering transformation, predicated upon the political mō‘ī frequently reconsecrated heiau of the expansionism of Maui polities in the mid- vanquished to their personal war gods (Kolb 17th century. and Dixon 2002; Valerie 1985). Periodic rituals associated with conquest gods such as Kūka‘ilimoku often involved offerings of Conclusion agricultural products as was observed by Captain Cook in 1778, when “Breadfruit, The hypothesis that the two agricultural sweet Potatoes, plantains, a Pudding and feature complexes located at Kaunolū and Coco Nuts..” were presented to him on Māmaki were reserved for production of Hikiau Heiau in Kelakekua Bay “whilst crops for ritual usage is admittedly others were busy brewing the Yava...” circumstantial, based largely on the spatial (Beaglehole 1967:506). Nothing is recorded proximity of these features to nearby heiau of the specific types of offerings involved in and the small scale of these constructions in purification rites on heiau functioning as relation to estimated community subsistence pu‘uhonua, but taro and ti were also used needs. This evidence is therefore not during other ritual events (Handy and Handy presented as a conclusive test of this 1972) in addition to the plants mentioned hypothesis, but rather as a provocative above. proposition to hopefully inspire reconsideration of some agricultural remains The close relationship between political recorded in similar leeward settings events and rapid agricultural intensification elsewhere in the Hawaiian archipelago. in proto-historic Hawai‘i has already been documented on the islands of O‘ahu (Kirch Of more general theoretical interest if this 1992), Moloka‘i (Weisler and Kirch 1985), particular interpretation is correct, is that the and Hawai‘i (Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle invention or application of new intensified 1980). Leeward and “marginal” settings such agricultural techniques may sometimes be a

41 dixon and major

direct response to a rise in religious and Kaho‘ohalahala participated in the mapping socio-political complexity, rather than a project, and Uncle Sol Kaopuiki shared his process driven by increasing ali‘i tribute considerable knowledge of the site. The demands on the maka‘āinana or the authors would like to thank Bishop Museum subsistence needs of a growing population, as staff Hemantha Jayatilleke, Brad Evans, and is often hypothesized with more extensive Lora Crall who were responsible for the agricultural systems in Hawai‘i (Athens original illustrations, and Rick Schaefer and 1983; Cordy 1974; Hommon 1986). In other Angie Newmann who helped reproduce the words, “...the proximate impetus to specific final figures. Wendell Kaho‘ohalahala is projects of agricultural development... may especially thanked for creating the insightful often be overtly political.” (Kirch 1992:54), image of the fishing shrine at Kaunolū. as chiefdoms become part of expanding states Excavations in 1998 were conducted under (Allen 1991). the supervision of the two authors with the able assistance of Elizabeth and Ellie In this case, the imposition of Maui based Anderson, Valerie Curtis, Koa Hodgins, and political rule over Lāna‘i by the mid-1600s Darin Lazzaro. Sara Collins helped with may have required an intensification of permitting aspects of the project and Bob religious ritual activities on certain local Donovan coordinated the work with the heiau, necessitating increased production of Lanai Company. The authors of this paper specific crops for kapu ritual offerings, quite would like to thank Windy McElroy and two outside the realm of domestic subsistence and anonymous reviewers for their constructive tribute collection. The construction of small input. agricultural terrace complexes immediately below these heiau would effectively provide for this ritual necessity at Kaunolū and References Cited Māmaki, at least while seasonal floodwaters were a dependable resource. Abbott, I. 1992. La‘au Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Allen, M. 1991. The Role of Agriculture in Acknowledgements the Evolution of the Pre-Contact Hawaiian State. Asian Perspectives 30:117–132. The five months of original research by the ______2001. Gardens of Lono Bishop Museum on Lāna‘i in 1991 were Archaeological Investigations at the Amy made possible by the Lāna‘i Institute for B.H. Greenwell Ethnobotanical Garden, Business and Culture whose generosity is Kealakekua, Hawai‘i. Ed. by M. Allen. greatly appreciated. Sol Kaho‘ohalahala was Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. particularly indispensable in coordinating our needs with the Lanai Company, while Allen, M. and P. McAnany, 1994. Environmental Variability and Traditional Roxanne Morita and Wendell Hawaiian Land Use Patterns: Manukā’s

42 hawaiian archaeology

Cultural Islands in Seas of Lava. Asian Davis, B. 1995. Archaeological and Perspectives 33(1):19–56. Paleontological Investigations at the Barber’s Point Deep Draft Harbor, ‘Ewa Allen, M. and G. Murakami, 1999. Lāna‘i District, Honouliuli Ahupua‘a, O‘ahu Island’s Arid Lowland Vegetation in Late Island, Hawai‘i. Ms. on file, Department of Prehistory. Pacific Science 53:88–112. Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Athens, S. 1983. Prehistoric Pondfield De la Pena, R. 1978. Upland Taro. Hawaii Agriculture in Hawai‘i: Archaeological Cooperative Extension Service, Home Investigations at the Hanalei National Garden Vegetable Series No. 18. Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i. Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Dixon, B. 1995. Social Status Privilege and Continuity in the Post-Contact Period at the Athens, S. and M. Kaschko, 1988. Lāna‘i Site of Kaunolū, Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i. Paper Prehistory: A Preliminary Report on given at the Society for Historical Settlement and Chronology at the Manele Archaeology meetings, Washington, D.C. Bay and Hulopoe Bay Areas. Paper presented at the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology Dixon, B., A. Carpenter, F. Eble, M. Major, Conference on Hawaiian Archaeology, and C. Mitchell, 1995. Community Growth Volcanoes National Park, Hawai‘i, March 19 and Heiau Construction: Possible Evidence and 20. of Political Hegemony at the Site of Kaunolū, Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i. Asian Beaglehole, J. 1967. The Journal of Captain Perspectives 34(2):229–256. James Cook. The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery. 2 vols., ed. by J. Beaglehole. Dixon, B., P.J. Conte, V. Nagahara, and The Hakluyt Society, London. W.K. Hodgins, 1997. Upland Forest Periphery Subsistence and Settlement in the Burtchard, G. and M. Tomonari-Tuggle, Ahupua‘a of Kipapa, Nakaohu and Nakaaha: 2004. Agriculture on Leeward Hawai‘i A Preliminary Assessment. In: Na Mea Island: The Waimea Agricultural System Kahiko o Kahikinui: Studies in the Reconsidered. Hawaiian Archaeology 9:50– Archaeology of Kahikinui, Maui. Ed. by P. 73. Kirch, Oceanic Archaeology Laboratory, Cordy, R. 1974. Cultural Adaptation and Special Publication No. 1, pp. 28–43, Evolution in Hawai‘i: A Suggested New University of California, Berkeley. Sequence. Journal of the Polynesian Society ______1999. Risk Minimization and the 83:180–191. Traditional Ahupua‘a in Kahikinui, Island of ______1981. A Study of Prehistoric Social Maui, Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives Change. Academic Press, New York. 38(2):229–255. Cordy, R. and M. Kaschko, 1980. Prehistoric ______2002. Settlement Patterns and Archaeology in the Hawaiian Islands: Land Subsistence Strategies in Kahikinui, Maui. Units Associated With Social Groups. Hawaiian Archaeology 8:13–32. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:403–416.

43 dixon and major

Dixon, B., D. Gosser, S. Williams, L. Gilda, Methodology, edited by T.S. Dye, pp. 93– C. O’Hare, and J. Robins, 2003. A Cultural 155. Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, Resources Survey on Selected Lands in Honolulu. NAVMAG Lualualei Headquarters Branch, Emory, K. 1921. Unpublished Personal Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. AMEC, Honolulu. Diary. Ms. on file, Department of Dixon, B., M. Major, and D. Lazzaro, 1992. Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kaunolū: An Archaeological Inventory ______1924. The Island of Lāna‘i. Museum Survey and Mapping of State Site 50-40-98- Bulletin 12. Bishop Museum Press, 25, Kaunolū and Kealiakapu Ahupua‘a, Honolulu. Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i. Ms. on file, Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Flood, K., P. Klieger, and B. Dixon, 1994. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of State Dixon, B., M. Major, M. Price, A. Carpenter, Site 50-80-07-2472, Wai‘anae Ahupua‘a, C. Stine, and B. Longton, 1994. Lithic Tool Wai‘anae District, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Production and Dryland Planting Adaptations Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, to Regional Agricultural Intensification: Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Preliminary Evidence from Leeward Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Forbes, C. 1984. The Journals of Cochran Occasional Papers 39:1–19, Bishop Museum Forbes. Hawaiian Mission Children’s Press, Honolulu. Society, Honolulu. Dunbar, H. 1987. Kaunolū Village National Fornander, A. 1969 [1878–1885]. An Historic Landmark. National Register of Account of the Polynesian Race, its Origins Historic Places Inventory - Nomination and Migrations, and the Ancient History of Form. State Historic Preservation Division, the Hawaiian People to the Times of Honolulu. Kamehameha. 3 vols. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont. Dye, T. 2004a. How to Fix the Inventory Survey Rule. Hawaiian Archaeology 9:123– Gay, L. 1965. True Stories of the Island of 132. Lanai. Rogers Printing, Honolulu. ______2004b. The Tyranny of the Gibson, W. 1873. Kaala and Kaaialli. Traditional Hawaiian Built Environment. Reprinted in T. Thrum 1907. Legends of Paper presented at the University of Arizona Hawaii. Chicago. Anthropology Colloquium Series, Tucson, 16 Gosser, D., S. Clark, and B. Dixon, 1992. September. Electronic document, Na Lawai‘a O‘ao‘ao Kona O Ka Moku. http://www.tsdye.com/research/ua/tyranny- Excavations at the Southern Acreage and slides.pdf, accessed 30 November 2007. Lot 15, Wailea, Maui. Ms. on file, ______2010. Traditional Hawaiian Surface Department of Anthropology, Bishop Architecture: Absolute and Relative Dating. Museum, Honolulu. In Research Designs for Hawaiian Gosser, D. and B. Dixon, 1998. An Archaeology: Agriculture, Architecture, Organizational Analysis of Kaunolū, Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i. Easter Island in Pacific Context: South Seas Symposium. Proceedings of the

44 hawaiian archaeology

Fourth International Conference on Easter Hobdy, R. 1993. Lāna‘i - A Case Study: The Island Research, Session 6:260–266. Easter Loss of Biodiversity on a Small Hawaiian Island Foundation and Bearsville/Cloud Island. Pacific Science 47(3):201–210. Mountain Press, Los Osos, California. Hommon, R. 1969. An Interim Report on Graves, M. 1990. Food Production in an Archaeological Zone 1. In Makaha Valley Arid Context: Farming on Lāna‘i. Paper Historical Project: Interim Report No. 1, given at 55th Annual Meeting of the Society edited by R.C. Green, pp. 41–53. Pacific for American Archaeology, Las Vegas. Anthropological Records 4. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Graves, M. and T. Ladefoged, 1995. The Honolulu. Evolutionary Significance of Ceremonial Architecture in Polynesia. Evolutionary ______1970. Subzone 1C of Archaeology Methological Issues, edited by Archaeological Zone in the Lower Makaha P. Teltser, pp. 149–174, University of Valley. In Makaha Valley Historical Arizona Press, Tucson. Project: Interim Report No. 2, edited by R.C. Green, pp. 27–34. Pacific Green, R. 1969. Makaha Valley Historical Anthropological Records 10. Department of Project, Interim Report No. 1. Pacific Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Anthropological Records 4. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Honolulu. ______1986. Social Evolution in Ancient ______1970. Makaha Valley Historical Hawai‘i. In Island Societies: Archaeological Project, Interim Report No. 2. Pacific Approaches to Evolution and Anthropological Records 4. Bishop Museum, Transformation, edited by P. Kirch, pp. 55– Honolulu. 68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ______1980. Mākaha Before 1880 AD: U.K. Makaha Valley Historical Project-Summary, ______2010. Watershed: Testing the Report No. 5. Pacific Anthropological Limited Land Hypothesis. In Research Records 31. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Designs for Hawaiian Archaeology: Hammatt, H., D. Borthwick, W. Folk, and M. Agriculture, Architecture, Methodology, Stride, 1990. Archaeological Inventory edited by T.S. Dye, pp. 1–92. Society for Survey of the 300-Acre Rural District Hawaiian Archaeology, Honolulu. Palawai, Lāna‘i. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Kamakau, S. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Handy, C. and E. Handy, 1972. Native Kaopuiki, E. and R. Moore, 1987. Lāna‘i: Planters in Old Hawaii. Bishop Museum The Mystery Island. Lopa Publishing Co., Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Honolulu. Kaschko, M. and S. Athens, 1987. Hawai‘i Agricultural Statistics Service Archaeological Inventory Survey of the (HASS), 1995. Statistics of Hawaiian Hulopoe Bay and Manele Bay Areas, Island Agriculture 1994. Hawai‘i Department of of Lāna‘i, Hawai‘i. Report prepared for Agriculture, Honolulu.

45 dixon and major

M&E Pacific, Inc. International Kolb, M. and B. Dixon, 2002. Ritualized Archaeological Research Institute, Inc, Landscapes of War: Conflict and Avoidance Honolulu. in Ancient Hawai‘i. American Antiquity 67(3):514–534. King, J. 1821. The Three Voyages of Captain James Cook Round the World. London. Kolb, M. and G. Murakami, 1994. Cultural Dynamics and the Ritual Role of Woods in Kirch, P. 1985. Feathered Gods and Pre-Contact Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives Fishhooks. University of Hawai‘i Press, 33(1):57–78. Honolulu. Krauss, B. 1993. Plants in Hawaiian ______1992. Anahulu: The Archaeology of Culture. University of Hawai‘i Press, History. Vol. II, ed. by P. Kirch and M. Honolulu. Sahlins. University Press of Chicago, Chicago. Ladefoged, T. 1998. Spatial Similarities and Change in Hawaiian Architecture: The Kirch, P., A. Hartshorn, O. Chadwick, P. Expression of Ritual Offereing and Kapu in Vitousek, D. Sherrod, J. Coil, L. Holm, and Luakini Heiau, Residential Complexes, and W. Sharp, 2004. Environment, Agriculture, Houses. Asian Perspectives 37:59–73. and Settlement Patterns in a Marginal Polynesian Landscape. Proceedings of the Ladefoged, T., M. Graves, and R. Jennings, National Academy of Sciences 101:9936– 1996. Dryland Agricultural Expansion and 9941. Intensification in Kohala, Hawai‘i Island. Antiquity 70:165–176. Kirch, P. and C. Van Gilder, 1996. Pre- Contact and Early Historic Cultural Major, M., S. Clark, and B. Dixon, 1995. Landscapes in Kahikinui District, Maui: A Archaeological Data Recovery Excavations Progress Report. Hawaiian Archaeology at Site 50-50-14-1028, Palauea, Maui, 5:38–52. Hawai‘i. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Klieger, P. 1992. Archaeological Data Major, M. and B. Dixon, 1994. An Recovery Report for Parcel SF7, Wailea, Archaeological Reconnaissance of Halena Paeahu Ahupua‘a, Makawao District, Island Camp, Kaluako‘i Ahupua‘a, Island of of Maui, Hawai‘i. Ms. on file, Department of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. B.P. Bishop Museum, Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Honolulu. Kolb, M. 1991. Social Power, Chiefly ______1995. Final Technical Report: Authority, and Ceremonial Architecture, in Archaeological Survey and Evaluation, an Island Polity, Maui, Hawai‘i. USAF Receiver Station, Ho‘olehua, Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department Moloka‘i, Maui County, Hawai‘i. B.P. of Anthropology, University of California, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Los Angeles. Major, M. and T.S. Dye, 2005. ______1992. Diachronic Design Changes in Archaeological Data Recovery at the Heiau Temple Architecture on the Island of Coastal Portion of Kaiholena Ahupua‘a, Maui, Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives 31(1):9– North Kohala, Hawai‘i. T.S. Dye & 37. Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. Report

46 hawaiian archaeology

prepared for Pohaku Kea LLC. Electronic Stokes, J. 1933. New Bases for Hawaiian document, http://www.tsdye.com/, accessed Chronology. Forty-First Annual Report, pp. 15 November 2006. 23–65. Hawaiian Historical Society, Honolulu. Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Sweeney, M., M. Allen, and B. Dixon, 1994. Publication 2. Bishop Museum Press, Kaunolū’s Place in the Prehistory of Lāna‘i. Honolulu. 7th Annual Hawaiian Archaeology Conference, Hilo. Miller, L. 1993. Archaeological Data Recovery of State Sites 5-80-12-2710 and 50- Tuggle, D. and M. Tomonari-Tuggle, 1980. 80-12-2711 at Barber’s Point, Honouliuli Prehistoric Agriculture in Kohala, Hawai‘i. Ahupua‘a, ‘Ewa District, O‘ahu Island. Ms. Journal of Field Archaeology 7:297–312. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Valerie, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice. Museum, Honolulu. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Munro, G. 2007. The Story of Lāna‘i. Native Valenzuela, H., S. Fukada, and A. Arakaki, Books, Honolulu. 1994. Sweet Potato Production Guides for O’Day, S. 2001. Excavations at the Kipapa Hawai‘i. Research Extension Series 146. Rockshelter, Kahikinui, Maui. Asian College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Perspectives 40(2):279–304. Resources, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Rosendahl, P. 1972. Aboriginal Agriculture Vitousek, P.M., T.N. Ladefoged, P.V. Kirch, and Residence Patterns in Upland Lapakahi, A.S. Hartshorn, M.W. Graves, S.C. Island of Hawai‘i. Ph.D. dissertation, Hotchkiss, S. Tuljapurkar, and O.A. Department of Anthropology, University of Chadwick, 2004. Soils, Agriculture, and Hawai‘i, Honolulu. Society in Precontact Hawai‘i. Science 304:1665–1669. ______1994. Aboriginal Hawaiian Structural Remains and Settlement Patterns in Weisler, M. and P. Kirch, 1985. The theUpland Agricultural Zone at Lapakahi, Structure of Settlement Space in a Island of Hawai‘i. Hawaiian Archaeology Polynesian Chiefdom: Kawela, Moloka‘i, 3:14–70. Hawaiian Islands. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 7:129–158. Stocker, T. and P. Klieger, 1992. Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Portion Yen, D. 1974. The Sweet Potato and of Parcel MF-12 (TMK 2-1-8: Parcel 42), Oceania. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Wailea, Maui Island, State of Hawai‘i. Ms. Publication 236. Bishop Museum Press, on file, Department of Anthropology, Bishop Honolulu. Museum, Honolulu. Spriggs, M. 1991. Preceded by Forest: Changing Interpretations of Landscape Change on Kaho‘olawe. Asian Perspectives 30 (1):71–116.

Anatomy of an Unfinished Lo‘i System: The Ku‘ele West Complex in Wailau Valley, Moloka‘i

Windy Keala McElroy Steven Eminger Keala Pono Archaeological Consulting, LLC

Abstract

Agricultural production has been a main focus of archaeological research in Hawai‘i and elsewhere, although construction methods for agricultural features have not been widely examined. This research explores an irrigated agricultural system in Wailau Valley on the island of Moloka‘i that is thought to have been abandoned before construction was completed. Dating to the 14th century AD, the system provides a unique opportunity to examine stages of construction of traditional agricultural features and provokes questions as to why the complex was abandoned while others in the valley were put into production.

Introduction

This study explores the Ku‘ele West irrigated agricultural complex, what is thought to be an incomplete lo‘i system that was abandoned before construction was completed. To the best of our knowledge, this is a unique find in Hawai‘i, and possibly all of Polynesia, as an unfinished lo‘i system has never been reported in published sources. The ramifications of this discovery are far reaching. This unfinished system has the potential to provide information on how lo‘i complexes were built, as one can observe the various stages of construction that had been completed at the time of abandonment. We can also begin to postulate why this complex was never completed and subsequently put into production.

47 48 hawaiian archaeology

The Wailau Agricultural System has escaped the widespread development that has destroyed many of the Wailau is the largest of four valleys on the archaeological resources in other parts of wet windward coast of Moloka‘i that our state. It is this rare condition that makes stretches from Hālawa Valley on the east to the valley a prime source of information Kalaupapa Peninsula on the west (Figure 1). about the past. Wailau Valley was a major area of taro production in the pre-Contact era until the Recent surveys of Wailau identified 19 lo‘i 1930s when the valley was abandoned due to complexes in the lower 2.5 km of the valley flooding and unfavorable economic (Figure 2), including 534 individual conditions. Wailau is made up of a smaller agricultural terraces (McElroy 2007a, broad valley on the east and a deeper 2007b). Radiocarbon dates indicate that lo‘i narrower valley on the west, with heavy construction commenced as early as the 13th rainfall of 1,500 to 4,000 mm per year (Juvik century AD (Figure 3) and cultivation and Juvik 1998) feeding two perennial continued for roughly 700 years until the watercourses, Kahawai‘iki Stream and 1930s when the valley was abandoned. Wailau Stream. A series of intact lo‘i, or Production output was a major consideration irrigated agricultural terraces, forms a field in initial field construction, and large system distributed across almost the entire amounts of effort were invested in 936-ha valley. Trails, habitation remains, and agricultural systems that could produce high ceremonial structures are part of the cultural yields. Ethnographic accounts indicate that landscape as well. Wailau produced much of its taro for export through the post-Contact period, and this An unusual thing about Wailau is that the might help explain the focus on output in the valley is made up of two ahupua‘a, or pre-Contact era. community territories. The majority of Wailau Valley consists of the ahupua‘a of Wailau, while a smaller area along the The Ku‘ele West Complex eastern shore and extending into the valley several hundred meters is an extension of The Ku‘ele West complex was so named Hālawa Ahupua‘a, whose main land base lies because of its location on the western slope within a large valley to the east. Vehicular of Ku‘ele ‘Ili in Wailau (Figure 4). The access ends at Hālawa Valley, thus Wailau is system is composed of 16 terraces, Features accessible only by a long and dangerous C-19–C-34 (McElroy 2007b), spread across hiking trail, by helicopter, or by boat during 0.7505 ha (Figure 5). Terraces are typically the calm summer months. The valley is set cut soil banks, with terraces averaging 40 between rugged cliffs that rise 1,000 m from cm tall and leveled, generally stone-free the ocean, preventing access by foot along interiors suitable for planting. The complex the coastline. Because of its inaccessibility, is situated from 150 to 330 m inland on Wailau hosts few year-round residents and topography that is gently sloping to the east.

49 mcelroy and eminger

Figure 1. Map of the Hawaiian Islands with inset of Moloka‘i Island.

Figure 2. Wailau Valley, showing the 19 lo‘i complexes and their names on USGS topographic map (USGS 1983). Contours in 20 m intervals.

50 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 3. Calibrated AMS radiocarbon dates for Wailau Valley.

51 mcelroy and eminger

Figure 4. Wailau Valley, showing the location of Ku‘ele West in relation to the other 18 lo‘i complexes on USGS topographic map (USGS 1983). Contours in 20 m intervals.

52 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 5. Plan view of the Ku‘ele West lo‘i system.

53 mcelroy and eminger

Six excavation units were opened within the total height of each lo‘i complex by its system, and charcoal from beneath the wall total length. of terrace C-34 yielded an AMS radiocarbon 4. The system is composed mainly of cut date of 566±37 BP, which calibrates to AD and fill terrace construction (Figure 6), 1300–1430. This is relatively early in the with little stonework, while every other Wailau sequence (see Figure 3). surveyed lo‘i system in Wailau is made up almost entirely of stone walls. The Ku‘ele West complex is unlike the others Portions of the complex that exhibit in the valley in many ways and several pieces stonework are on the north and east of evidence led us to propose that this system sides of the system and around the areas was abandoned before construction was where water would have drained from completed: one terrace to the next. 1. The complex is located in a marginal 5. Excavation within the terraces revealed area, on a relatively dry slope above the no pondfield deposit, suggesting that the flat land along Wailau Stream, far from a terraces were never cultivated in reliable source of fresh water. wetland crops. 2. A long ‘auwai, or irrigation ditch, runs 6. Historic material (e.g., glass, metal, above the complex on the west, but the ceramic) was found in abundance in ‘auwai was blocked with stones where it other parts of the valley, but none was might have branched to the lo‘i, so that it encountered in the Ku‘ele West was never connected to the system. The complex. This suggests that other lo‘i ‘auwai is located approximately 50 m systems were utilized into the post- upslope of the terrace complex, while Contact era but Ku‘ele West was not. ‘auwai of the other systems in the valley were typically placed adjacent to or The most convincing pieces of evidence that within the terrace system (McElroy indicate this complex is unfinished are that 2007b). terraces were cut out of the soil but the 3. The land upon which the complex was stonework was never completed; the ‘auwai constructed slopes down to the east, was never connected to the system; and while the long axis of the system slopes pondfield deposits were absent. down to the north. This is one of only Anatomy of the System two instances in the valley where the slope, or the long axis, of the lo‘i system This section provides descriptions of the did not follow the natural gradient (the surface features of the Ku‘ele West complex other was the Palaloa complex). Ku‘ele and details of excavations. Information on West was also the most gradually sloping the few artifacts recovered from the system of all the systems (Table 1). This and a summary of identified charcoal taxa variable was calculated by dividing the are presented as well.

54 hawaiian archaeology

Table 1. Data for Wailau Lo‘i Systems

Lo‘i System # Terraces # ‘Auwai Area (ha) Slope (m)

Keiu 79 2 3.7690 0.042 Kahiwa 47 1 1.1194 0.110 Pawa‘a Makai 12 0 0.4877 0.032 Pawa‘a Central 4 1 0.0510 0.035 Pawa‘a Mauka 12 1 0.2192 0.043 Ku‘ele West 16 1 0.7505 0.018 Ku‘ele Central 63 3 3.2999 0.036 Makea Barrage 9 0 0.1770 0.075 Ahiki 24 1 1.1474 0.071 Kukuinui Makai 16 0 0.3372 0.043 Kukuinui Mauka 84 2 3.4910 0.032 Kopena 16 0 0.4235 0.050 Lower Eliali‘i 27 1 0.2200 0.147 Upper Eliali‘i 109 2 1.9666 0.130 Halepoki Makai 62 1 0.8080 0.064 Halepoki Central 18 0 0.4444 0.138 Halepoki Mauka 28 1 0.4793 0.063 Lahokea 24 1 0.5890 0.022 Palaloa 17 1 0.4312 0.027

Figure 6. Terrace C-27, west bank, showing cut soil construction.

55 mcelroy and eminger

Terraces cm-diameter stones stacked five to seven courses to a height of 79 cm. The east end Feature C-19 makes up the northwest corner appears unfinished, and the cross-section of of the lo‘i system (See Figure 5). This terrace the wall is exposed (Figure 7). This wall measures 25 m (north-south) by 22.5 m (east- might have continued to meet the northeast west). It is composed almost entirely of cut corner of terrace C-26 had it been and fill construction, with cut banks along its completed. two downslope edges and one upslope edge (up to the unmodified slope above). Soil Feature C-23 abuts the east edge of C-22; it faces are as tall as 80 cm. The fourth is 30 cm higher than C-20, to the north. This (upslope) edge is formed by the C-21 terrace is 15 m long (north-south) and 7 m retaining wall on the south. Gap spillways wide (east-west) and is composed almost occur in the soil banks on the north to a entirely of cut and fill construction, except seemingly un-terraced area, and on the east to for a small portion along the north bank that terrace C-20. it shares with terrace C-20. Gap spillways in this north bank allow drainage into terraces Feature C-20, at the downslope edge of the C-20 and C-26. The soil face on the south is complex, steps down from the adjacent C-19. curved and 64 cm tall. Its maximum length is 35 m (north-south) and maximum width is 24 m (east-west). The Feature C-24 is 30–50 cm higher than C-20, northeast corner is open. The only stonework to the north. It measures 45 m (northwest- occurs on the south wall, which this terrace southeast) by 25 m (northeast-southwest) shares with Feature C-22. and exhibits multiple gaps in every bank for drainage from and into the adjoining Feature C-21 steps up from the south side of terraces. A small portion of the north bank is C-19. This terrace measures 35 m (northwest- made up of cobbles and soil piled to 30 cm southeast) by 6.6 m (northeast-southwest). It tall, and the rest of the banks are of cut and is open on the northwest and northeast fill construction. corners. The north wall is composed of 20 cm-diameter stones stacked four courses to Feature C-25 is 25 cm higher than C-24, 58 cm tall. The wall is gently U-shaped in which is adjacent on the east. This terrace is plan, appearing to retain the soil of this 25 m long (north-south) and 9 m wide (east- terrace from eroding into terrace C-19. west). It is constructed of cut soil except for a portion of the east bank that is composed Feature C-22 is adjacent to C-21 on the east. of stones averaging 15 cm in diameter This is a triangular terrace that measures 20 stacked four courses to a height of 51 cm. m (east-west) by 15 m (north-south). Its Gaps in the northwest and northeast corners edges are cut banks, except for a segment of allow drainage into terraces C-22 and C-23, retaining wall along the north edge, above and gaps in the center of the east bank drain Feature C-20. This wall is composed of 20 into C-26.

56 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 7. Example of typical terrace wall construction in the Lahokea lo‘i system, Wailau Valley.

Feature C-26 is a terrace that abuts C-25 on north bank, and a stone reinforcement of a the east. It has only three defined edges and gap in the northeast corner. The northwest is open to the north. This terrace is 12 m wide corner is open, and gap spillways occur in (east-west) and at least 38 m long (north- every cut soil face. south), although the exact length could not be Feature C-28 is adjacent to C-27 on the east. determined due to the absence of the north This terrace is 30 m long (north-south) and bank. A portion of the east bank exhibits 10 m wide (east-west). Three edges are stonework, consisting of stones averaging 18 defined by cut banks, and it is open in the cm in diameter stacked five courses to a northeast corner. The west cut soil face rises height of 40 cm. This stonework comes to an as tall as 1.1 m. abrupt end on the north. The other banks are composed of cut soil. Feature C-29 is a small terrace on the south end of C-28. It is separated from terrace C- Feature C-27, adjoining the edges of C-24 28 by a curved bank that creates an opening and C-25, is 100 cm higher than C-25. This on the northwest corner. This terrace terrace measures 41 m (north-south) by 25 m measures 12.5 m (north-south) by 8 m (east- (east-west). It is composed almost entirely of west) and is constructed entirely of cut soil. cut soil, except for two short segments of stonework: an L-shaped stone feature that Feature C-30 is a terrace that is 60 cm reinforces one of the gap spillways along the higher that C-27, which is adjacent on the

57 mcelroy and eminger

south. It is 31 m long (north-south) and Feature C-34, in the southeast corner of the approximately 20 m wide (east-west), complex, is only 10 cm higher than C-33, although the absence of a defined west edge the next terrace to the north. This terrace is prevents accurate measurement of the 25 m long (north-south) and 12 m wide terrace’s width. A soil and cobble berm 50 (east-west). It is constructed of cut soil, cm high has been constructed against a except for a 3.5 m-long stone wall segment portion of the east cut bank, above C-31. The near the southwest corner that keeps upslope other edges of the terrace are defined by cut soils out. A gap for drainage out of the banks. Drainage breaks interrupt every bank. terrace occurs in the east face. A 4.8 m-long alignment is situated near the southeast corner of the terrace. The alignment Excavations is composed of a single course of elongated A total of six excavation units were opened waterworn stones averaging 40 cm long. within the Ku‘ele West terraces (see Figure 5). Excavation units ranged in size from 0.4 Feature C-31 is adjacent to C-30 on the east. by 0.4 m to 1.0 by 1.0 m. Test units that This terrace is 32 m long (north-south) and were placed against stone wall segments 16 m wide (east-west). Except for a short exposed shallowly-buried wall foundations: rock retaining wall segment in the northwest, 10 cm below the surface (cmbs) at terrace C- the terrace margins are defined by cut banks. 22, 52 cmbs at terrace C-21, 30 cmbs for the The highest bank, on the east, is 82 cm higher alignment within terrace C-30, and 16 cmbs than the slope below. Gap spillways occur in at the upslope retaining wall of terrace C-34. the east and west banks. Charcoal and other cultural material was generally scarce in the excavation units, Feature C-32 is a terrace that is 25 cm higher with the exception of the unit placed in the than C-31 on the south. It measures 26 m curve of the north wall of terrace C-21, (north-south) by 23 m (east-west). Its edges where heavy sedimentary buildup occurred are defined by cut banks except for a 3 m- from runoff. Of the remaining five long segment of retaining wall on the south excavation units, three produced no charcoal side that keeps upslope soils from eroding or other cultural material and two yielded into C-31. Gap spillways occur on the north scant charcoal and artifacts. and west soil faces and in the northeast and southwest corners. The east bank is 1.25 m Test units offset from the terrace walls were higher than the adjacent terrace, C-33. so placed to identify possible pondfield deposits, but none were found. Stratigraphy Feature C-33 is adjacent to terrace C-32 on generally consisted of a layer of runoff the east. This terrace measures 22 m (north- deposition with sparse charcoal and artifacts, south) by 16 m (east-west) and exhibits cut with a culturally-sterile saprolitic soil layer and fill construction. A gap for drainage is below. The runoff layer was composed of a located near the northeast corner. very dark brown to very dark grayish brown clay loam extending from the surface to as

58 hawaiian archaeology

shallow as 10 cmbs in places and as deep as Cultural Material and Wood Identification 52 cmbs elsewhere. The saprolitic layer was Cultural material was relatively sparse in the similar in color and texture to the runoff layer Ku‘ele West complex, consisting of an adze but was characterized by reddish mottling blank, basalt flakes and cores, a basalt and the occurrence of weathered basalt abrading stone, a volcanic glass flake, and fragments. charcoal. Whereas historic artifacts (e.g., glass bottles, ceramic sherds, metal items) This stratigraphy found in the Ku‘ele West were found in abundance in several other excavations differs considerably with that lo‘i systems in Wailau (McElroy 2007b), no associated with wetland cultivation, or post-Contact material was encountered here. pondfield deposition, seen in other locations. In the Keiu complex on the east side of The presence of the adze blank and basalt Wailau, for example, the pondfield deposit debitage indicate that stone tool production was found beneath the runoff layer and above occurred in the Ku‘ele West complex, the saprolitic soil layer (McElroy 2004). This although this was probably never a major pondfield layer was a distinctive gray, gley- activity in the area. Ku‘ele Central, just like clay with charcoal flecking (McElroy below Ku‘ele West, produced far more 2004). In Waikolu Valley, west of Wailau, evidence of stone tool manufacture (19 limonite tubes were found in the pondfield basalt tools and 333 pieces of debitage), and layer, formed as iron oxide accumulated was likely the main locale of basalt working around the roots of the taro (Kirch 2002). in the valley (McElroy 2007b). These clear indicators of taro cultivation seen in Kirch’s (2002) Waikolu excavations did Two charcoal samples from the Ku‘ele West not occur in Wailau. complex were submitted for wood taxa identification to select material suitable for Allen et al. (2002:51) describe several radiocarbon dating. The first sample came common characteristics of pondfield soils as from below the south wall of Terrace C-20. 1) gleying produced by saturation; 2) a humic It was identified as Hibiscus sp., a shrub topsoil free of rocks; 3) bright, oxidized with both native and introduced varieties. mottling or limonite casts that formed around This sample was not dated. roots in gleyed soil; and 4) the occurrence of kukui (Aleurites moluccana) nut fragments The second sample was collected from and dispersed charcoal. The Ku‘ele West beneath the south wall of terrace C-34. Taxa soils did not exhibit these characteristics, identified were kōpiko (Psychotria sp.), a although one of the deposits at the north wall native shrub-tree, ‘ōhi‘a lehua of terrace C-21 was rich in dispersed (Metrosideros polymorpha), a native tree, charcoal. This deposit was also very rocky, ‘ōhi‘a hā (Syzygium sp.), a tree with native, however, and unlikely to have been utilized Polynesian-introduced, and historically- for cultivation. The distinctive pondfield gley introduced varieties, hao (cf. Rauvolfia did not occur in any areas of subsurface sandwicensis), a native tree, and kukui (cf. testing in Ku‘ele West. Aleurites moluccana), a Polynesian-

59 mcelroy and eminger

introduced tree. The kōpiko dated to 566±37 of the earthen berms was buttressed with BP (see Figure 3). stone facing. In addition, Kamakau (1976:34) states that large flat stones were Since no definite historically introduced pounded in at the base of the berms to plants were identified, these taxa were provide a firm foundation. probably part of the virgin forest on the coastal slopes of Wailau before the Ku‘ele For high terraces situated on steep slopes, West lo‘i complex was established. The Handy and Handy (1991:93) affirm that a charcoal that was recovered from beneath the stone wall had to be built to retain each terrace walls likely resulted from burning of terrace. To accomplish this, the soil at the the forest to clear the land before lo‘i base of the wall was dug out until the construction. foundation stones could be set into firm subsoil, forming a builder’s trench. The

excavated earth was thrown onto the slope Lo‘i Construction Methods above to be used later as terrace fill material. The largest moveable rocks were selected Handy and Handy (1991:92–93) describe two for the foundation stones, some weighing as methods for constructing a new wetland much as several tons. The terrace wall terrace system: one for low fields at valley would lean slightly inward toward the top to bottoms, and another for high terraces on make the wall more stable. After the wall steep slopes. For the low terraces, the area was constructed, the slope behind the wall was first flooded for a few days to soak the was excavated to complete the terrace. earth. The topography of the land determined the dimensions and shape of the terraces. Hollyer (1997:85–87) describes the process Men with o‘o, or digging sticks, would form of setting stones to complete a lo‘i terrace a line along the inside edge of the proposed wall in the kīpapa style of construction, in terrace and dig along that edge, piling the which one face of the wall is finished and excavated soil to form a berm. Occasionally the other is built into the soil. The niho, or la‘ola‘o la‘au, or small stakes, would be foundation stones, are the largest of the wall placed in the earth to secure the berm. The stones and are laid flat, not on edge. The sides of the berm were then stamped down by smaller stones above are angled downward foot, and sugar cane (Saccharum into the soil (Figure 8) and locked into each officinarum) leaves were beaten into the other by lodging the stones’ edges together inside surfaces of the berms, which were then or by inserting chinking wedge stones. This lined with coconut (Cocos nucifera) leaves to process of locking the wall stones, or form a surface for wet earth to be placed ho‘opiha, improves stability. The capstones, within the terrace. The earth was pounded or uppermost stones of the wall, are long, smooth and mulch was scattered on top to flat, and wide, so they stay in place when the prevent drying. Sometimes the inside edge wall is walked upon. The optimal slope of

60 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 8. Construction of a kīpapa style lo‘i terrace wall (adopted from Hollyer 1997:85).

the wall face is 22º, or roughly half of a 45º With these descriptions of lo‘i construction angle. methods, which, admittedly, do not specifically describe the techniques used ‘Auwai construction was described in detail 500 years ago, we can begin to evaluate the by Nakuina, the Commissioner of Private construction sequence of the Ku‘ele West Ways and Water Rights for the district of complex. Although the complex is situated Kona on O‘ahu in the late 1800s. According on a gentle slope, it appears that the method to Nakuina (1894:79–84), the digging of the of construction employed most closely ‘auwai started near the planting area and parallels that described by Handy and Handy extended back toward the water source. A (1991:93) for the techniques used in dam was then created with stones and soil to building high terraces on steep slopes. This divert the stream water. Pondfields were built is evidenced by the cut and partially after this preliminary construction of the dam reinforced faces of the Ku‘ele West system, and ‘auwai. as opposed to the low earthen berms described by Handy and Handy (1991:92– 93.) for lo‘i at valley bottoms.

61 mcelroy and eminger

The soil of these terraces would not have with the northeast corner of terrace C-26. been initially flooded because the ‘auwai was The occurrence of multiple unfinished wall never finished and there is no natural water segments in the same vicinity suggests that source nearby. Thus, it appears that multiple crews were working on the construction began by cutting into the slope stonework simultaneously. The dearth of to form the wall faces, and then leveling out suitable building stones in the immediate the interior surface of the terraces. No area and absence of raw material stockpiles indications of the builders’ trenches indicates that stones were transported for described by Handy and Handy (1991:93) some distance for immediate use or an initial were found against the cut soil faces; stockpile was used up before the decision therefore it seems that these were excavated was made to abandon construction. just before the wall stones were set or they were not employed in construction of this Excavation revealed that indeed, the largest system. Stratigraphic evidence for builders’ stones were placed at the bottom of the wall trenches was found in other completed and (Figure 9), and this was generally the case functional terrace systems in Wailau elsewhere in Wailau. Walls did lean slightly (McElroy 2007b:102) but not in Ku‘ele West. inward toward the top, and this slope was evident in the cut soil faces, even before After the soil faces were cut and the interior stones were set. The angle of the south wall leveled, gap spillways were then excavated of terrace C-20, where the cross-section was through the soil faces to facilitate water exposed, was 30º (see Figure 7), slightly movement into and out of the various greater than the optimal 22º slope (Hollyer terraces. In several places, these spillways 1997:85), although the wall may have were lined with stone for reinforcement. One shifted over time. As described in the of the final steps to complete the lo‘i was literature (Hollyer 1997:85), the stones in construction of the stone retaining walls. In this section of wall were, indeed, set at a Ku‘ele West, only a few segments of stone slight downward tilt to secure them in place facing were finished, and it appears that wall and seem to have been locked together with construction started on the north, or makai, the ho‘opiha technique. In some instances side of the system, as this is where the most piled cobbles were placed along the tops of complete wall sections are located. On the the walls, as at terrace C-30. The cobbles east wall of terrace C-26 stonework was might have been part of the material started on the north and continued south, excavated from the terrace below to be used while on the opposite wall (the east wall of as fill for the terrace above. terrace C-25) stonework began at the south end and continued north to a series of gap The ‘auwai was likely excavated before or spillways. The south wall of terrace C-20 was at the same time that terraces were being started on the west and continued east but built. Lining the ‘auwai with stone was done abandoned before it might have connected later in the construction sequence, as this

62 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 9. Terrace C-22 north bank, showing the unfinished portion of the wall with cross-section exposed.

was not yet completed at the time of terrace wall. It cannot be determined when abandonment. After all stone walls were in the construction sequence the alignment finished in the terraces and the stone facing was established, although it was clearly in of the ‘auwai was in place, the final step place before the stone wall facings were would be to connect the ‘auwai to the terrace begun in that part of the system. complex and release the stream water to flow into the system. The lack of a drainage ‘auwai for outflow on the downslope side of Discussion and Conclusion the system suggests that excavation of this feature took place in the later stages of We can now begin to speculate why the construction. Alternatively, the gap spillway Ku‘ele West system was never completed or system may have been all that was planned put into agricultural production. This for water outflow. complex may reflect experimentation in the placement of lo‘i systems in the valley. Its The function of the stone alignment within positioning on a dry slope far from a reliable terrace C-30 is unclear. Linear waterworn water source may have been an ambitious stones were selected and methodically placed attempt to cultivate a marginal area at a time on-end to form the alignment. As the rocks when prime lands for cultivation near the were not laid flat, they probably were not coast were already being used. Indeed, the meant to be foundation stones for a future two prime coastal cultivation areas at the

63 mcelroy and eminger

valley bottom were already in production In conclusion, the Ku‘ele West complex when Ku‘ele West was built (see Figure 2, provides a unique opportunity to examine a Ku‘ele Central and Keiu). The Ku‘ele Central lo‘i system that was abandoned before lo‘i complex, just downslope to the east, was construction was completed. Terraces were built in AD 1220–1400, while the Keiu cut and filled from the natural slope and complex on the east side of Kahawai‘iki stonework was begun on the drainage Stream was constructed in AD 1160–1400 spillways and several of the cut banks. The (McElroy 2007a:140). In fact, all of the ‘auwai was excavated but not stone lined largest irrigable areas were already in use and it was left disconnected from the before Ku‘ele West construction commenced. system. Aside from its construction, the Kukuinui Mauka, on the east side of Wailau complex differed from others in the valley in Stream was built in AD 1270–1400, and the that it was located away from a reliable Upper Eliali‘i complex inland on the valley water source and it was the most gradually slopes, was established between AD 1210 sloping. A few artifacts indicating stone tool and 1390 (McElroy 2007a:140). The Ku‘ele manufacture were found, but no historic West complex, dated to AD 1300–1430, was material was left behind, suggesting that the probably constructed just after the prime complex was not in use in the post-Contact areas were built out. The topography of era, and has probably lain idle since its Ku‘ele West offered a large area that could construction in the 14th century AD. The be terraced, a quality that the earliest farmers absence of pondfield deposits suggests that were seeking out, but it lacked a nearby the system was never put into production. In reliable water source. Wailau, locations for the earliest fields were selected because of their potential to yield After Ku‘ele West was abandoned, smaller large amounts of taro (McElroy 2007a), and lo‘i were established in other areas of the Ku‘ele West might have been appealing for valley until every cultivable tract of land was its great expanse of gently sloping land. The under production. These later lo‘i systems are exact reason for the abandonment of this all positioned on a small expanse of flat land system in mid-construction remains close to reliable water sources. Perhaps these enigmatic, but may relate to the difficulty of areas were more appealing for cultivation bringing in water from a relatively distant because they could be easily irrigated, even if source. yields were not as high as the large Ku‘ele West system might have produced. Ku‘ele West might have appeared promising but was References Cited too difficult to irrigate. Only after the ‘auwai was partially completed and terraces were Allen, J., M.F. Riford, P. Brennan, D. laid out, were farmers able to determine that Chaffee, L.S. Cummings, C. Kawachi, L. the system would not be viable. Liu, and G. Murakami. 2002. Kula and Kahawai: Geoarchaeological and Historical Studies in Middle Maunawili Valley, Kailua,

64 hawaiian archaeology

Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Ogden Environmental ______. 2007a. The Development of and Energy Services, Honolulu. Irrigated Agriculture in Wailau Valley, Moloka‘i Island, Hawai‘i. PhD Dissertation. Bronk Ramsey, C. 2005. OxCal Program v Department of Anthropology, University of 3.10. University of Oxford Radiocarbon Unit, Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Oxford. http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/oxcal/oxcal.htm. ______. 2007b. Wailau Archaeological Research Project 2005 and 2006 Results, Denham, T. 2004. The roots of agriculture. Wailau and Hālawa Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau Handy, E.S.C. and E. Handy. 1991. Native District, Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. Department of Planters of Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Anthropology, University of Hawai‘i at Environment. Department of Anthropology, Mānoa, Honolulu. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Nakuina, E.M. 1894. “Ancient Hawaiian Hollyer, J. (editor). 1997. Taro Mauka to Water Rights and Some of the Customs Makai: A Taro Production and Business Pertaining to Them.” In Thrum’s Hawaiian Guide for Hawai‘i Growers. College of Almanac and Annual. Edited by T.G. Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources, Thrum, pp. 79–84. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu. Reimer, P.J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Juvik, S. and J. Juvik. 1998. Atlas of Hawaii Bayliss, J.W. Beck, C. Bertrand, P.G. (Third edition). University of Hawai‘i Press, Blackwell, C.E. Buck, G. Burr, K.B. Cutler, Honolulu. P.E. Damon, R.L. Edwards, R.G. Fairbanks, Kamakau, S. 1976. The Works of the People M. Friedrich, T.P. Guilderson, K.A. of Old. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Hughen, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac, S. Publication 61. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Manning, C. Bronk Ramsey, R.W. Reimer, Honolulu. S. Remmele, J.R. Southon, M. Stuiver, S. Talamo, F.W. Taylor, J. van der Plicht, C.E. Kirch, P.V. 2002. From the ‘Cliffs of Weyhenmeyer. 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial Keōlewa’ to the ‘Sea of Papaloa’ An radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 cal kyr Archaeological Reconnaissance of Portions BP. Radiocarbon 46(3):1029–58. of the Kalaupapa National Historical Park, Moloka‘i, Hawaiian Islands. Oceanic United States Geological Survey (USGS). Archaeological Laboratory, Archaeological 1983. “Molokai East.” 11 x 18 minute Research Facility, University of California quadrangle. Scale 1:25,000. Berkeley, Berkeley. McElroy, W.K. 2004. Archaeological Inventory Survey of TMK:(2)-5-9-005:007 & 081, Wailau Valley, Halawa Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau District, Moloka‘i Island. T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc., Honolulu.

Signs of a Divine Reality: The Materiality of Bird Cook Stones (Pōhaku ‘Eho) from the Dry Interior Uplands and Mountainous Regions of the Island of Hawai‘i

Patrick C. McCoy Pacific Consulting Services, Inc. 724 Iwilei Road, Suite 424 Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96817

Abstract

One of the most enigmatic material culture items used by native Hawaiians in the past are bird cook stones variously referred to in the literature as ‘eho, pōhaku ‘eho or pōhaku ‘eho manu. The “type” specimens were collected in 1885–86 by J.S. Emerson on the island of Hawai‘i. The Emerson Collection and other collections made in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as ethnographic accounts, indicate the use of both natural, unmodified pebbles and pecked, ground and/or polished stones resembling small pestles and phallic emblems. A review of the ethnographic literature and early collections reveals some of the problems in identifying bird cook stones and the probable reasons why they have not been more commonly recognized in archaeological sites. The salient characteristics of an assemblage of artifacts interpreted as bird cook stones from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site on Mauna Kea are described and briefly compared to selected assemblages of morphologically similar artifacts from sites in the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), that until recently were most often described as pestles. The formal properties of these objects, their archaeological contexts, and the term ‘eho itself suggest that the manufactured variety of bird cook stones had symbolic meanings or uses not previously known, or at least not described in the ethnographic literature.

65 66 hawaiian archaeology

Dedication bird cook stones was based on comparison to morphologically identical specimens This paper is dedicated to the memory of collected by J.S. Emerson in 1885–86 on the Catherine (“Cappy”) Summers, who passed island of Hawai‘i (Figure 2; Summers away in 1996. Cappy spent years studying 1999:2–3). The Emerson Collection includes the J.S. Emerson Collection at the Bishop oblong shaped pebbles with little or no Museum and preparing a manuscript for human modification, and stones with a flat publication, which regrettably was not to slightly convex butt end tapering to a published by the Museum until 1999. Cappy rounded point that have been pecked, very generously allowed me access to her ground and/or polished (Summers 1999: draft manuscript on the Emerson Collection Figures 4 and 5). which I used in the analysis and interpretation of artifacts from the Pu‘u Artifacts of similar size, shape and lithology Kalepeamoa Site on Mauna Kea that were to those in the Emerson Collection have recovered during data recovery investigations been identified as phallic emblems (Brigham in 1987. 1902: Plate LXV), pestles or mullers (e.g., Rosendahl 1983; Haun 1986; Reinman and

Schilz 1993, 1994; Reinman and Pantaleo Introduction 1998b), and possible slingstones (Reinman and Pantaleo 1998a).2 The apparent use of Of all the traditional material culture items both unmodified pebbles and ground and/or used by native Hawaiians, undoubtedly one polished stones to cook birds, combined of the most obscure and poorly understood with the existence of phallic-shaped artifacts are cook stones variously called pōhaku ‘eho that on first glance are indistinguishable (McAllister 1933:34; Pukui and Elbert from the better made pohaku ‘eho manu in 1986:38), pōhaku ‘eho manu (Summers the Emerson Collection, obviously pose a 1999:2–3) or simply ‘eho (Andrews 2003:54; number of methodological and interpretive Pukui and Elbert 1986:38; Buck 1964:18–19) problems not commonly encountered in the used in steaming birds and other dressed study of pre-Contact Hawaiian material animals (Pukui and Elbert 1986:38), such as culture, where the function of artifacts are dogs (Titcomb 1969:12) and fish (Titcomb rarely, if ever, contested. 1972:25, 27; Beckwith 2007:160).1 In 1987 a number of artifacts provisionally identified as In this paper I argue that the pōhaku ‘eho are pōhaku ‘eho were found during data recovery open to multiple and contested meanings investigations of a portion of what I called and that the best approach to understanding the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site (50-10-23-16244), these particular cook stones, as opposed to located at the c. 9,200 ft. elevation on the the cook stones typically found in earth south slope of Mauna Kea (Figure 1; McCoy ovens (imu), is to examine a combination of 1991, 1997). Classification of the artifacts as empirical and phenomenological attributes. I

Figure 1. Location of the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site and a sample of PTA sites with pōhaku ‘eho.

68 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 2. Locations of the pōhaku ‘eho manu collected by J.S. Emerson in 1885–1886.

69 mccoy

begin with a review and critical assessment of used, embellished and discarded” (Hodder several ethnographic accounts and collections 1992:12). Not all things are equally of Hawaiian bird cook stones made in the late meaningful, however (Whittle 1988:112). 19th and early 20th centuries. The review, For example, I would argue that the objects which makes no claim of being exhaustive, is called pōhaku ‘eho carry more significance aimed at evaluating the veracity of the data than the stones used in everyday earth ovens on which archaeological interpretations of (imu). Also, as Tilley has written, “Material this particular class of artifacts are so culture does not simply reflect the lives of dependent at this point in time. Following, is persons or societies in a relatively passive a summary of the salient characteristics of the manner but is instead regarded as a Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site assemblage and brief fundamental medium for thought and comparison to similar artifacts, many of practical action in the world, as much which I believe have been mistakenly constituting as constituted” (Tilley 2007:1). identified in the past as pestles, from a In other words, things do more than express sample of sites located in PTA (see Figure 1). or communicate ideas. As Tilley has put it, Variability in raw material characteristics, “Persons make things and things make form, surface finish, and breakage patterns persons” (Tilley 2004:217). It is the indicate that the physical properties of these interaction between people and things in objects did not exhaust their meaning and that different contexts, or what is now being some, if not a large number of them, probably called materiality (Mills and Walker had non-utilitarian uses or symbolic values. 2008:3), that matters and should be the focus The argument for multiple uses and meanings of our attention. Things, moreover, are not is reinforced by a consideration of use and either simply functional or symbolic. recovery contexts, and the varied meanings of

the term ‘eho, all of which point to a divine reality-- the role of the gods-- in the lives of Ethnographic Accounts and Early Hawaiians before and after European contact Collections of Bird Cook Stones in 1778. The ethnographic literature and artifact My interest in the enigmatic objects called collections made in the late 19th and early pōhaku ‘eho lies with their use in social 20th centuries indicate the use of both practices (Pauketat 2001), rather than as a unmodified natural pebbles and pecked, signature of a type of society or culture or ground and/or polished stones with a flat to stage of cultural development. This paper is slightly convex butt end tapering to a based in part on the conviction that material rounded point as bird cook stones (see culture is, in Hodder’s words, “meaningfully Summers 1999: Figures 4 and 5). Because of constituted,” by which he means that “there their general obscurity and morphological are ideas and concepts embedded in social similarities to other artifacts, the life that influence the way material culture is identification of Hawaiian bird cook stones

70 hawaiian archaeology

from archaeological contexts is heavily Kepelino wrote that chickens, petrels, dependent at the present time on turkeys and other birds, as well as fish, were ethnographic records and collections. A cooked with hot stones. He described the critical review and synthesis of the existing process, which was called hakui or puholo data is presented below. (the latter was the name used by Mary Kawena Pukui; Beckwith 2007:173, note Ethnographic Accounts 66) as follows: Ethnographic information on traditional Put some smooth pebbles into the fire Hawaiian methods of preparing and cooking and let them get red hot. To cook a fresh birds is sketchy. Detailed descriptions, such fish or any such food, put it into a as the one made by Handy and Handy for calabash and put hot stones over it, then lay another fish on top of the stones and cooking the dark-rumped petrel (‘ua‘u) are close the calabash tight to keep in the rare: steam. After a time, take off the lid, They (petrels) were delicious broiled on sprinkle on a little salt, pour on a little hot coals, or when cooked in ti leaves water and cover again. After a time with young taro leaves (lu‘au) and stems open and eat. (Beckwith 2007:160) (haha). The fat of the bird worked into the greens and made them delicious. Kepelino’s account, one of the most detailed When too many birds were caught they of any found to date in terms of describing were salted until needed, then were the procedures involved in cooking with hot allowed to soak a little while to remove stones, describes what appears on current the excessive saltiness and were wrapped evidence to be one variant of the steaming in ti leaves and cooked. Sometimes the process, where the stones were placed on top birds were dried and later broiled. Whichever way the ‘uwa‘u was served it of, rather than inside of, an animal. was said to be delicious. (Handy and Unfortunately, Kepelino’s description is not Handy 1972:259) detailed enough to know whether the Birds were cooked by broiling over hot pebbles were shaped or natural. One would stones. (Handy and Handy 1972:259) assume, however, that if they were specially made stones Kepelino would have noted The Handys’ account, which makes no this. One of the most interesting parts of his reference to special cook stones, indicates, account is the mention of turkeys. This is the nonetheless, the use of varied methods and best evidence that the traditional method of techniques in cooking birds. cooking birds with heated stones survived well into the post-Contact period. Kepelino, who recorded a substantial amount of information on traditional Hawaiian In his description of traditional Hawaiian cultural practices and beliefs, most of it cooking methods, Buck noted that fowl were between 1865 and 1870 (Beckwith 2007), either boiled, or roasted and steamed, and made what may be one of the earliest written that both methods made use of heated stones descriptions of Hawaiian hot-rock cookery. called ‘eho that were inserted into the bird.

71 mccoy

Of particular interest to the issue of artifact Pokahi’s husband was Kaukini, a bird identification, interpretation, and possibly catcher. He went out into the forest for some birds. Soon he came back and differing contexts of use, is Buck’s prepared them for cooking. Hot stones description of the stones used in roasting and were put inside the birds, which were steaming as “special cone-shaped stones:” packed in calabashes, carefully covered The boiling method used throughout over with wet leaves which made steam Polynesia consisted of applying heat inside, so that the birds were well from the inside instead of from the cooked. Then they were brought to outside. The food was placed in wooden Kaholo for a feast. (Westervelt bowls with water, into which red hot 1987:103) stones were dropped. Heated stones termed ‘eho were also placed in the Early Collections from Hawai‘i Island, Kaho‘olawe, and Lāna‘i interior of fowls. According to some informants, alternate layers of stones and Complementing the ethnographic food were placed in the bowl and water descriptions are several collections of bird added. (Buck 1964:18) cook stones that were made in the late 19th Special, cone-shaped stones were used in and early 20th centuries on three different fowls; but like fish, they might be islands. The collections, none of them very wrapped in the ti-leaf cover called large, are nevertheless of major importance laulau. (Buck 1964:19) because of the time when they were made While the source of Buck’s information is and the fact that they were made in one case unclear, it is possible that some of it came by a serious amateur collector and, in the from the J.S. Emerson catalogs. The other cases, by scholars trained in reference to “special, cone-shaped” stones ethnography and archaeology. suggests that Buck had examined the The Emerson Collection from the Island of Emerson Collection and that what he was Hawai‘i describing were the manufactured variety of In 1885–86, J.S. Emerson, employed at the cook stones. time by the Hawaiian Government Survey The use of heated stones to cook wild birds is Department, amassed a large collection of also briefly described in the legend of Lau- Hawaiian artifacts on the island of Hawai‘i, kau-ieie , the daughter of Pokahi (Beckwith including some that he was told were 1970:17). While there is no mention of what pōhaku ‘eho manu. Material Culture: The kind of stone was used, this account, which J.S. Emerson Collection of Hawaiian takes place in Waipi‘o Valley in the Artifacts (Summers 1999) describes 14 Hāmākua District, is consistent with others in pōhaku ‘eho manu, including one that could describing the use of a calabash as the not be located and one that was discarded in container used in the steaming process: 1936. The collection includes: (1) two oblong or oval-shape pebbles with little or no human modification (Summers 1999:

72 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 4), and (2) 12 stones with a flat to with earth to steam in its own juice. slightly convex butt end tapering to a rounded This saved the use of water which was often a scarce article on the southern point that have been pecked, ground and/or and western slopes of the mountains of polished (Summers 1999: Figure 5). The Hawaii. (Peabody Catalog p. 8) two oblong pebbles (BPBM 4490 and 167) are 9.7 and 14.5 cm long and 4.5 cm and 4.0 One of the more interesting and informative cm in maximum diameter respectively catalog entries mentions three sizes of stones (Summers 1999:2–3). Eight of the cone- used in cooking three different species of shaped specimens with oval to circular cross- birds (Summers 1999:2): sections have measurements which vary BPBM 4491 & JSE 324. Pohaku eho between 5.3 and 15.9 cm in length and 2.7 used for roasting akekeke presented to and 6.3 cm in maximum diameter (Summers me Nov. 21, 1885 at Waikoloa, 1999:2–3). Waimea, Hawaii just makai of Father Lyons’ house by Lanakila who knew Emerson either purchased, found, or acquired N.B.E. [Nathaniel B. Emerson] at as gifts pōhaku ‘eho manu from several Kalaowao in 1879. He is the son of different localities on the island of Hawai‘i Kahakauila and son in law of (see Figure 2), including: Naihepahee who made this eho long ago out of a piece of eleku rock. It has often • South Kohala (Kawaihae uka, Waikoloa been used to roast akekeke. There are 3 and Waimea) sizes used viz.

• Ka‘ū (Punalu‘u and Ka‘alāiki) 1st. largest for uau 2nd. medium for kolea • Puna (Ōla‘a) 3rd. smallest for akekeke • North Kona-Hāmākua boundary along the road from Nā‘ōhule‘elua to Waimea 3 In all, four different species of birds are mentioned in Emerson’s catalogs: (1) ‘ua‘u The Emerson Collection is unquestionably (Dark-rumped Petrel); (2) ao (Newell’s one of the most valuable sources of Shearwater); (3) akekeke (Ruddy information about Hawaiian bird cook stones Turnstone), and (4) kolea (Golden Plover). because of the entries Emerson made in his catalogs, which are now in the Bishop Another interesting catalog entry, and sign Museum and the Peabody Museum of Emerson’s concern with recording (Summers 1999). Emerson recorded in the provenience and other information, comes Peabody Museum Catalog that he was told from Kawaihae. Emerson wrote somewhat that: passionately of a specimen that he purchased, together with an apu awa (cup), The stone was heated red hot and inserted in the interior of the bird to be for $3.00 from an old man named cooked. Bird and stone were then Kapulupulu and his wife living in a remote wrapped in suitable leaves and covered area of Kawaihae uka. He noted that the

73 mccoy

wife began to wail at seeing these belongings diameter is 1.4 inches. It was probably being taken away (Summers 1999:11). longer, as it appears to have been broken. (McAllister 1933:34) While the information Emerson collected is One cylindrical stone, 3.5 inches long, without parallel in terms of detail, the 2.2 inches in diameter, with one end problem with his collection, discussed in slightly concave and the other end more detail below, is that the specimens look rounded and convex, is of a cellular basalt and consequently rough in nothing like the kind of cook stones that appearance. A very slight groove about archaeologists are accustomed to finding in the center suggests that it may have earth ovens (imu) or open fire pits. The cook been used as a sinker. It is catalogued as stones recovered in most excavations are a “rough phallus” but is more probably typically fist-sized angular pieces of shattered a pohaku eho. (McAllister 1933:34) vesicular rock frequently referred to generically as “fire –cracked rock” or FCR Unlike the Emerson Collection, the two (Thoms 2009). Thoms has written that “Cook cook stones described by McAllister were stones by their very nature-- relative non- both made of vesicular basalt, which is what combustibility and high density material-- one would expect if the object was used as a have a potential to effectively and efficiently cook stone. The cylindrical form of both capture and retain heat” (Thoms 2009:576). artifacts suggests that they may have been This does not mean, however, that fine-grain worked. 4 rocks were never used in earth ovens. Emory Collection from Lāna‘i

Stokes/McAllister Collection from Kenneth Emory made a small collection of Kaho‘olawe bird cook stones on Lāna‘i during his J. Gilbert McAllister’s monograph, archaeological and ethnographic research on Archaeology of Kahoolawe (1933), describes the island in 1921–22 (Emory 1924- one and possibly two cook stones, both of reprinted 1969). He wrote: which had probably been collected by John Oblong, flat pebbles of vesicular basalt, Stokes in his work on the island in 1913, averaging 2 to 3 inches long and .5 although McAllister also made a small inches to 1 inch in diameter, were collected from house platforms. artifact collection with the assistance of Ed Informants say these were heated and Bryan in 1931 (McAllister 1933:4). inserted in small birds to be cooked. McAllister used the term pohaku eho in the The material of at least one such pebble description of two artifacts: (B4144) is compact, dark-blue basalt Only a portion of a pohaku eho, a stone not suited to heating. (Emory 1969:86) that is heated and put inside of a dressed animal when cooking, is represented. It is The information recorded by Emory of cellular basalt 2.1 inches long, circular indicates knowledge of bird cook stones th in cross section and gradually tapering to surviving into the beginning of the 20 a rounded point. Its maximum century. Emory’s description, though

74 hawaiian archaeology

somewhat ambiguous, suggests that the Collection in particular, cannot be accepted stones he collected were not worked (pecked, without additional scrutiny. In order to avoid ground and polished) and that they were most what is sometimes called the “tyranny of the likely waterworn pebbles like two larger ones ethnographic record,” it is necessary to from the plateau of Ka‘a that he guessed consider the veracity of Emerson’s probably functioned as pestles (Emory information. 1969:82). Emory observed what many others have subsequently noticed about collections Though the Emerson Collection is in effect of bird cook stones---that they commonly the “type” collection of Hawaiian bird cook include specimens of fine-grain basalt that do stones, the functional attributions are not fit the expectations of a cook stone difficult to accept unconditionally and because of the susceptibility of fine-grain without a consideration of alternative uses rocks to break or even “explode” when and meanings, especially in the case of the heated (but see Note 4). embellished examples that superficially resemble a small pestle or phallic emblem Summary and Evaluation of the (McCoy 1991:177). The fine-grain texture Ethnographic Literature and Early of many of the specimens raises doubts Collections about their purported use because of the The ethnographic data, though sketchy and susceptibility of fine-grain rocks to breakage incomplete, leave no doubt as to the when heated (Summers 1999:2–3), as does existence of a traditional Hawaiian method of their form and finish. Besides the questions steaming birds using heated stones that stemming from apparent inconsistencies in continued into the post-Contact period. Two texture and grain size, there is the problem different kinds of cooking facilities are of explaining why an object used in such a described in the literature: the calabash and mundane activity as cooking would be steaming pits. What is missing in the pecked and then ground and/or polished, ethnographic accounts is a clear and only to eventually break at the end of what unambiguous description of the stones would theoretically be a relatively short use- themselves, and in particular their form and life, assuming that the stones were heated to lithology. The early collections from Lāna‘i, temperatures similar to oven stones. In Kaho‘olawe and Hawai‘i Island fill that gap addition, Brigham included two of the in the ethnographic records, but they also pōhaku ‘eho from the Emerson Collection in raise a number of questions. a photograph of Hawaiian phallic emblems and noted that they were likely to be Because of the ambiguities in the mistaken for pestles (Brigham 1902:363, ethnographic literature and questions about Plate LXV). some of the specimens identified as bird cook stones in the early collections, I believe that That all of the artifacts catalogued by the existing data, and the Emerson Emerson as pōhaku ‘eho manu are in fact

75 mccoy

cook stones is clearly open to question. It is manufacture and use that was volunteered or of interest that one of the specimens that that he could elicit (Summers 1999:xii). Emerson himself had collected (Catalog No. Equally important is the fact that he was B.3961; JSE 322) was discarded from the fluent in Hawaiian (Summers 1999:xi). His Ethnology Collection in February 1936, intimate familiarity with both the land and possibly because it did not exhibit the language is one reason to believe that the characteristics believed to be necessary to information he obtained was factual. include in a collection of bird cook stones Another is the fact that people from various (Summers 1999:2). parts of the island of Hawai‘i consistently identified morphologically similar artifacts Based on the information Emerson obtained as pōhaku ‘eho manu and gave him the same regarding the use of bird cook stones in the basic information about their use. more arid regions of Hawai‘i Island, one would predict that the occurrence of pōhaku In evaluating the credibility of Emerson’s ‘eho manu would be restricted to certain data it is important to recognize that the geographical areas and environments. The information he obtained was oral testimony legend of Lau-kau-ieie, which takes place in from people with first-hand knowledge, Waipi‘o Valley, does not fit the predictive rather than recollections or second-hand model. Assuming that the legend is based in information. It is hard to imagine that the part on a real event, it would indicate the Hawaiian population in the 1880s, ravaged need to look for reasons other than adaptation by deadly diseases and in decline, would to water scarcity to explain the origin, have conspired against Emerson in manufacture and use of special cook stones. fabricating a wild story of phallic-shaped stones being used to cook birds. Some of the Why should we accept the information information, such as the use of different size Emerson collected when so many of the stones for different size birds, is intuitively objects catalogued as bird cook stones have correct, but it is the catalog entries that been questioned by later researchers? To mention the names of the owners and, in one begin with, Emerson was well educated and case, the name of the maker, that is most according to E.H. Bryan, a “very meticulous persuasive. man” (Summers 1999:xii). He excelled in many things, including his job as a Given the variety of artifact types in the government surveyor, and in his personal Emerson Collection I think it is noteworthy research on Hawaiian gods, spirits and that it does not contain any pestles, nor does beliefs, malacology, and botany (Summers the Hawaiian name for pestle (mea kui; 1999:xii). As a collector, he clearly Pukui and Elbert 1986:498) appear in any of recognized the importance of recording the Emerson’s catalog entries. In other words, provenience of the items he obtained, the none of the pōhaku ‘eho, which resemble names of the people from whom he acquired small pestles in some ways, were called them, and whatever other information on pestles by Emerson or the individuals from

76 hawaiian archaeology

which they were acquired. This may indicate Three radiocarbon dates on charcoal from that pestles were not a common household three fire pits indicate that the site, which item at the time Emerson was making his has been interpreted as a temporary camp collection. occupied by adze makers on the ascent to and descent from the Mauna Kea Adze Finally, I believe it is significant that the Quarry, as well as a logistical support camp information Emerson recorded is consistent occupied by people engaged in a number of with the independent accounts of Kepelino, activities, is of late pre-Contact age (ca. AD Buck and Emory, as well as the legend of 1600–1700, McCoy 1991:164–165; Table Lau-kau-ieie, in describing one kind of hot- 17). Two radiocarbon dates obtained in the stone cookery involving the use of pebbles data recovery of another portion of the site instead of the kinds of larger sized, generally in 1993 support the idea of a late prehistoric vesicular rocks used in underground earth camp site (Hammatt and Shideler 2002). ovens. If anything, I believe that Emerson was not given a full account of the probable The collection of bird cook stones from the varied uses and meanings of the pōhaku ‘eho Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site consists of 10 and the manufactured variety in particular, as specimens, referred to as Group 1, all of will be discussed below. them with smooth and rounded (ground/polished) exterior surfaces that

closely match those in the Emerson The Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site Assemblage Collection (Table 1; Figures 4 and 5), and and Comparison to Selected 10 examples of what are believed to Assemblages of Similar Artifacts from possibly be unfinished cook stones referred the Humu‘ula Saddle Area to as Group 2 (Figure 6). The latter are less uniform and exhibit varied shapes, cross- Ten and possibly as many as 20 artifacts sections and degrees of surface finish (Table identified as pōhaku ‘eho manu, based on 1; McCoy 1991:156). The Group 1 artifacts comparison to those in the Emerson were found at just two localities (7 and 8), Collection, were found in 1987 during data while the Group 2 specimens were found at recovery investigations of a portion of the Localities 7, 8, and 9 (see Figure 3). Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site (50-10-23-16,244), Selected attributes of each group are located at the 9,200 ft. elevation at Hale described below and summarized in Table 1. Pōhaku on the south flank of Mauna Kea The attributes were chosen for the primary (McCoy 1985, 1991). All of the specimens purpose of characterizing each group of w§ere found on the surface in association artifacts and for comparing them to one with adze and octopus lure sinker another and to the specimens in the Emerson 5 manufacturing workshops. Two shrines, one Collection. with unfinished sinker offerings in front of the uprights (god stones), are located in close (1) Condition/Part. All of the 10 confidently proximity to the workshops (Figure 3). identified cook stones in Group 1 are

77 mccoy

Figure 3. Plan map of the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site (50-10-23-16244) showing locations of stone tool workshops and shrines.

78 hawaiian archaeology

Table 1. Selected Attributes of Cook Stones from Sites 16244, 5004, and 14638

16244 16244 5004* 14638 SUM % TOTAL Group 1 Group 2 N=8 N=20 N=10 N=10 CONDITION/FRAGMENT Whole 0 7 1 3 11 22.92% Proximal end 2 0 4 9 15 31.25% Medial Section 1 0 2 3 6 12.50% Distal end 3 3 1 1 8 16.67% Lateral edge 4 0 0 4 8 16.67%

LITHOLOGY Fine-grained basalt 7 8 1 20 36 75.00% Coarse-grained basalt 3 2 3 0 8 16.67% Detrital limestone 0 0 2 0 2 4.17% No Data 0 0 2 0 2 4.17%

CROSS-SECTION Oval/circular 9 3 1 11 24 50.00% Sub-rectangular 0 4 5 9 18.75% Triangular 0 2 1 3 6.25% Irregular 0 0 3 3 6.25% Indeterminant 1 1 0 2 4.17% No Data 0 0 7 0 7 14.58%

SURFACE Ground/polished 5 0 2 0 7 14.58% Pecked/smooth 2 3 5 10 20.83% Pecked/rough 3 2 9 14 29.17% Pecked/partially ground 0 1 3 5 9 18.75% Waterworn/unmodified 0 1 1 2 4.17% Unworked 0 3 0 3 6.25% No Data 0 0 3 0 3 6.25%

DIMENSIONS (Range)** LENGTH [mm] 64–113 64–94 DIAMETER [mm] 32–43 19.6–32.1 28–34 WEIGHT [gm] 67–216 65–99

* The data for Site 5004 are incomplete, which means they were not included in the original site report. ** The dimensions, presented as a range, apply to whole specimens only.

79 mccoy

Figure 4. Comparison of a cook stone Figure 5. Group 1 cook stones from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa from the Bishop Museum Ethnographic sites (proximal, medial, and distal fragments). Collection (Cat. No. 9180) and proximal f ragment from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa site.

80 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 6. Possibly unfinished Group 2 cook stones from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa site.

fragments in contrast to the Group 2 (2) Raw Material Form. The sample specimens where there are only three includes several specimens made from fragments among the 10 specimens (Table 1). volcanic bombs and one made from an adze The broken fragments include four diagnostic reject (Artifact 8-J9-26). Most were made, parts or sections defined as follows: (1) however, using rounded pebbles with a proximal end—the tapered end which is a generally elongated shape. rounded point; (2) medial section—the proximal and distant ends are both missing; (3) Lithology and Grain Size. All of the (3) distal or butt end—the broad end that is specimens are made of basalt, which was slightly convex or flat, and (4) lateral edge recorded as either fine-grained or coarse- (see Figures 4 and 5). grained (vesicular), but there is variability

81 mccoy

within each of these categories, which is suggests the possibility of stylistic difficult to describe without a proper grain differences at the individual and/or size analysis. community level, although some of the variability could be due to raw material (4) Cross-section. All of the more finished characteristics. and larger specimens in Group 1 are oval in cross-section. The examples of what may be In examining raw material form and unfinished stones tend to be sub-rectangular lithology it is apparent that there was and there is one equivocal example (8-N19-3) selection for either fine-grain or medium that is triangular. coarse-grain elongated stones tapering to a point at one end, with sub-rectangular to (5) Surface Finish. There is extreme rounded cross-sections. In other words, there variability in this attribute, ranging from appears to have been selection for preformed completely unaltered surfaces to ground and shapes requiring only a relatively small polished surfaces. The degree of surface amount of pecking and grinding. One of the alteration generally varies with shape, which specimens was made from a volcanic bomb may reflect either different stages of and another from a discarded adze preform, manufacture or nothing more than different thus suggesting the possibility of in situ aesthetic standards. manufacture because of the site location on a cinder cone and presence of adze (6) Size. Measurements were limited to (1) manufacturing debris. On present evidence, length [the long axis--from tip to base]; (2) a cook stones were utilized, as well as maximal diameter [excluding the side possibly manufactured, at Localities 7 and 8. fragments] and (3) weight. Amongst the Group 1 specimens, the diameter is the most Only one of the possible total 20 specimens uniform of all the dimensions, with five shows evidence of having actually been used examples varying between 35 and 37 mm. or at least subjected to heat, an observation that raises the interesting possibility that There appear to be two general forms or most of them, and the fine-grained ones in varieties of manufactured cook stones at the particular, may not have been actually used Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site: (1) a long, thin and as cook stones. The one stone showing relatively straight-sided variety with only a evidence of having been heated is an slight taper, and (2) a shorter, thicker variety elongated beach pebble with a pot-lid with a more pronounced taper. Cross-sections fracture. It is similar in shape to one are generally oval and in the better made collected by J.S. Emerson and illustrated by specimens, circular. The butt or thicker ends Summers (1999: Figure 4). of both are either flat or slightly convex (see Figures 4 and 5). The bases of some stones The Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site assemblage of are battered. The same two forms are pōhaku ‘eho is not unique, although it represented in the Emerson Collection, which appears to be the first to be identified as

82 hawaiian archaeology

such since the collections made by Stokes apparent…Water worn pebbles/cobbles with and Emory. There are a large number of sites battering were generally classified as in the Humu‘ula Saddle, for example, with hammerstones whether or not they had an artifacts that I believe are bird cook stones as elongated shape” (Bayman et al. 2001:54). exemplified in the Emerson Collection, but Garcia and Associates (2006:137, Figure that have until recently been mistakenly 104) identified 12 groundstone artifacts, all identified as pestles or mullers (e.g., Haun broken, from Site 19490 (see Figure 1) as 1986; Reinman and Pantaleo 1998a, 1998b). either pōhaku ‘eho or pōhaku The discussion that follows is based on an ‘eho/hammerstones if the surface was examination of a small number of site battered. assemblages from PTA.6 The characteristics of some of the larger and Since the information on the cook stones more fully described assemblages from PTA from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site became are presented in Table 1 for comparison to available artifacts that would have been the cook stone assemblage from the Pu‘u called pestles 20–30 years ago are now being Kalepeamoa Site. Except for Sites 16244 classified with some regularity as bird cook and 14638 the data are uneven and in some stones, although with different degrees of cases, including Site 5004, not readily confidence and in some instances with more available. Of the 48 specimens included in than a single function in mind. Williams Table 1 only 11 or 23% are unbroken and of (2002:220, Table 4), for example, classified these seven are from Group 2. In the a total of 11 stone artifacts, including four fragment category proximal ends are the unmodified waterworn cylindrical pebbles most common (15 or 31.25% of the total). with tapered ends and seven groundstone Exactly 75% of the specimens were fragments, from Sites 18673, 21283, 21485, described as fine-grained basalt. Bobcat and 21492 ( see Figure 1) as bird cook stones. Trail Habitation Cave is the only site with A total of 20 artifacts from Site 14638 and specimens made of materials other than three from Site 5003 (see Figure 1) were basalt. Oval to circular cross-sections make classified as bird cook stones using the same up 50% of the sample. The percentage is attributes employed in the analysis of the much higher if the possibly unfinished cook Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site assemblage (Bayman stones (Group 2) from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa et al. 2001:54). As described by the authors, Site are excluded. When this same group is the identification process, which met with the excluded from consideration, there are no same difficulties as the analysis of the Pu‘u unworked artifacts in the sample of 48 Kalepeamoa Site assemblage, was to specimens. Metric data on whole artifacts “classify elongated (cigar-shaped) waterworn are incomplete except for the 10 cook stones pebbles as bird cooking stones, especially if from Site 14638 and the 10 possibly no battering, pecking, or other indications of unfinished cook stones from Site 16244. their use as hammerstones was Lengths and diameters are similar for both

83 mccoy

site assemblages, as well as weight, with the embellished variety of pōhaku ‘eho, neither exception of one heavy piece from Site the empirical nor the phenomenological 16244. approaches are adequate by themselves. Instead, each provides certain insights that taken together hold the potential to provide a better understanding of material culture. Interpretation and the Importance of Context: A Consideration of Possible Archaeological interpretations are not only Alternative Uses and Meanings theory-laden, they are also heavily dependent on context (Hodder 1987; The function of the stones that Emerson was Papaconstantinou 2006). Glassie has written told were pōhaku ‘eho manu is not readily that “To explain the object the analyst needs apparent and, indeed, if it were not for the to know something of its meaning, and to information on use and other details in his know its meaning he needs some catalogs there would be little or no reason to understanding of its context” (Glassie consider cooking as a possible function. 1975:116; see also Hodder 1999:86). Gould Lacking knowledge of the Emerson argues that “Anthropology’s greatest and Collection, it is easy to understand why most lasting contribution to the social fragments and even whole specimens from sciences lies in its recognition that context archaeological contexts might be called [interrelated conditions in which something pestles or phallic emblems. There are indeed exists or occurs] is everything in explaining some resemblances, but there are also variability and change in human behavior,” significant differences, as well as other and that “when disagreements arise in questions, as discussed below. archaeological interpretation, they usually spring from different assumptions about As previously argued (McCoy 1991, 1997), I what constitutes the relevant context: Not all believe that the cook stones called pōhaku archaeologists can agree on what contextual ‘eho or ‘eho by Emerson and Buck are open variables to control for, with the result that to multiple and contested meanings. The there may be widely divergent explanations discussion that follows emphasizes the for the same archaeological assemblages” importance of context in archaeological (Gould 1990:5). interpretation. It also recognizes the value of adopting a phenomenological perspective, The disagreement over the identification of which does not make a distinction between morphologically identical artifacts from sites primary attributes, such as those that can be on Mauna Kea and in the Humu‘ula Saddle objectively measured (e.g., length and exemplifies the point made by Gould diameter) and what are widely regarded as regarding the different assumptions made by secondary attributes, such as surface finish archaeologists on what is the relevant and feel (Tilley 2004:11). It is my view that context. It also exemplifies a point made by in the analysis of artifacts, such as the Hodder:

84 hawaiian archaeology

…we try to define the contexts a priori. have been found in lava tubes and blister We try to do this ‘objectively’ without caves used as temporary habitations, specific reference to the objects found in sometimes near a fireplace where the objects them. But we recognize the slippage, the have a charcoal-stained surface (Figure 7). arbitrariness in practice--because A smaller number have been found on open contexts depend dialectically on theories and objects. (Hodder 1999:86) sites, including some that appear to be temporary camps, such as Site 14638. The possibility that some pōhaku ‘eho were Haun identified what he believed were nine used for purposes other than cooking was small pestles from the interior surface of the suggested for some of the artifacts from the Bobcat Trail Habitation Cave, including one Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site (McCoy 1991). The whole specimen collected in 1983 examination of attributes, such as surface (Rosendahl 1983; Haun 1986:6) and eight finish, breakage characteristics, and the fragments. He described the assemblage, presence/absence of pot-lid fractures, points which included fine grain and coarse grain, to the possibility of several alternative uses slightly vesicular stones, as well as two and meanings, as does a consideration of the specimens made of detrital limestone7, as use and recovery contexts of the artifacts. representing at least three pestle types (Haun 1986:44, 80). With the exception of the The potential uses and meanings examined detrital limestone and one probable medial below, some of which are not necessarily fragment with a circular cross section and mutually exclusive and probably varied with somewhat larger diameter of 68.3 mm, the context, include: (1) pestles; (2) symbolic raw material properties, breakage patterns, “cook stones;” (3) phallic emblems; (4) variability in surface finish, size and shape slingstones; (5) amulets; and (6) fertility characteristics, and occurrence of battered stones. They constitute “multiple working ends on some pieces are similar to the Pu‘u hypotheses,” although few could be actually Kalepeamoa Site assemblage, although tested and proven. some of the attribute data are not available 1. Pestles (see Table 1). Haun’s description is exemplary of the widespread tendency Beginning with the initial recording of the amongst archaeologists to take the function Bobcat Trail Habitation Cave (Site 50-10-23- of artifacts for granted based on surface 5004) in the 1970s (Rosendahl 1977), appearance alone. archaeologists working in PTA have found a number of elongated, pecked and ground While a systematic use-wear study of the stone artifacts that until recently have been Bobcat Trail Habitation Cave and Pu‘u routinely interpreted as pestles or mullers Kalepeamoa Site artifacts has not been (e.g., Rosendahl 1983:8; Haun 1986:44, 80; undertaken, there are several reasons for Reinman and Schilz 1993, 1994; Reinman questioning their use as pestles. Studies by and Pantaleo 1998b). Most of the artifacts Adams (1996) and others have shown that

85 mccoy

Figure 7. Charcoal-stained broken cook stone from Site 14638.

the use-wear patterns on pestles may vary exhibit a smooth, rounded end like those considerably, depending on how they are illustrated by Brigham (1902: Plates XLI used: and XLII). And while pestles may also Pestles are typically classified as exhibit a battered working end from elongated handstones used to crush, pounding as noted above, they also typically pulverize, or grind materials in a bowl, have rounded (convex) and smoothed mortar, or on a stone or wood base working surfaces with striations that are the (Adams 1996:30). The use-wear patterns result of grinding (Figure 8). Brigham, who on a pestle include pitting, chips, illustrated a number of artifacts he called abrasions, scrapes, scars, and impact pestles (Brigham 1902:Figures 23–25) and fractures with the nature of the damage a reflection of the type of stroke used with mullers (Brigham 1902:Figure 26), noted the pestle. Deep impact fractures, chips, that some of the pestles “are flattened at the and distal end breakage indicate the butt, not always by long use; most, however, pestle was used with additional force or a are rounded to fit more closely the bottom of plunging stroke from a distance above the mortar” (Brigham 1902:30, Plates XLI the impact point (Tveskov et al and XLII). There is no conclusive evidence 2002:107). (Norris 2004:76) to my knowledge of either portable or If the Bobcat Trail Habitation Cave artifacts bedrock mortars in the Humu‘ula Saddle or were pestles and used in the traditional mid-elevation slopes of Mauna Kea. The manner with a mortar to grind kukui nuts for mortars may have been made of wood, but if oil, ‘awa root, or noni for dye or medicine, so the presence of battered surfaces would for example (Brigham 1902:30), they should be even more suspect. At this point in time

86 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 8. Distal end of a cook stone from Site 14638 with a convex surface that appears to show evidence of light battering or bruising.

there are at least three possible explanations If the artifacts found at Bobcat Trail for the presence of battered ends. These Habitation Cave and a number of other sites might be the result of: (1) the manufacturing at PTA are pestles, they are unlike any process, where a part of the artifact was left described and illustrated by Brigham, which unground; (2) an indication of a different or are not only significantly larger, but taper to secondary function, or (3) a new type of a convex end at the top rather than the miniature pestle. rounded point (see Table 1 and the photographs in Brigham (1902) and In evaluating the case for pestle use in the Summers (1999) for comparison). Besides geographic area under consideration, it use, there are other questions that have no becomes necessary to ask more specific answers at present, such as why so many are questions, such as “What uses would have found on the high plateau between Mauna been made of mortars and pestles in the dry Kea, Mauna Loa and Hualālai and the mid- interior uplands and mountainous regions of elevation slopes of Mauna Kea, why most Hawai‘i Island, which on current evidence of them are roughly the same size, why they were occupied on a short-term, recurrent are so small compared to those illustrated by basis” (Streck 1992; Williams 2002; Brigham, and why so many are broken and Williams et al. 2002). In the case of the kinds how did they break. of food preparation activities described above, the context is simply wrong. As mentioned above, some of the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site cook stones exhibit

87 mccoy

straight, clean, transverse breaks reminiscent primarily a form of “symbolic action” by of end-shock fractures (Crabtree 1972:60), which I mean a form of ritualization (Bell and in the case of the medial section 1992) in which manufactured pōhaku ‘eho, illustrated in Figure 5, two such breaks. The possibly heated to a low temperature, were same kinds of breakage patterns have been inserted into the body cavities of birds but observed on specimens from various sites at not with the intention of actually cooking PTA (Table 1), including the Bobcat Trail them until ready to eat. More specifically, I Habitation Cave assemblage (Haun 1986) and believe that the pōhaku ‘eho may have been Sites 14638 and 5003 (Bayman et al. 2001); used in rites of passage performed by adze 18673, 21283, 21485, and 21492 (Williams manufacturing specialists who at some place 2002), and 19490 (Garcia and Associates and time in their ascent to the quarry must 2006).7 Many of the fragments look as if they have undergone a change of social state have been snapped in two (see Figure 8; from noa to kapu, Hawaiian terms that are Figure 9). Natural breakage through use as a commonly but, according to Shore (1989), pestle cannot be ruled out at this time, but the not adequately glossed as sacred and amount of force implied is difficult to profane. According to Shore, kapu and noa envision as well as the purpose or reason. represent the relations possible between the divine and the human, with kapu being “a To be clear, I am not saying that there are no state of contact with the divine” and noa, pestles or related tools, such as mullers, in “an unbounded state of separation from the PTA. It is possible that some of the larger divine” (Shore 1989:164–165). broken specimens that have been found in a few sites may in fact be pestle or muller There is good reason to expect that the fragments, although this still remains to be ascent and descent phases of the quarry proven in my opinion. One problem, as noted operation were important social occasions above, is that the authors of reports based on ethnographic information relating describing the presence of pestles have failed to Hawaiian beliefs and the generalization to ask the kinds of questions posed above to that “The crossing of frontiers and support their claims. Another problem is that thresholds is always hedged about with so little is known at present about Hawaiian ritual, so also is the transition from one groundstone technology and tools. social status to another” (Leach 1976:35). From this I (McCoy 1991) inferred that the 2. Symbolic “Cook Stones” ascent to the quarry must have involved a As noted above, I am prepared at this time to serious of religious rites in the process of accept the information collected by J.S. passing through and across the boundaries of Emerson that the pōkahu ‘eho were cook a number of different environmental zones stones, but as argued elsewhere (McCoy perceived in cultural terms as wildernesses 1991) I think their use, at the Pu‘u and known by the general term wao (Malo Kalepeamoa Site, at least, may have been 1951:17). The inference that the Pu‘u

88 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 9. Cook stone fragment from Site 14638 with a clean, straight break.

Kalepeamoa Site was a transitional site the gods to make certain species available in occupied by craft specialists of different contrast to the “important ordinary” ranks or statuses where rites of passage were situations where eating with the gods was performed has a foundation then in general done to enter into contact with the gods social theory, and what is known of the (Valeri 1985:128). I think this same ideology of Hawaiian pollution beliefs. argument can be extended to cooking methods. Food is commonly used for social purposes as an appropriate mediator between nature The bird cook stones in my view were and culture and for the marking of differences employed to not just make contact with the in social status (Leach 2003; Kirch and gods, but to actually empower the consumer O’Day 2003). According to Edmund Leach, of the sacrifice. Valeri (1985) has called this “Cooking is thus universally a means by “eating the god’s mana” as a preparation for which nature is transformed into culture, and doing good, performing well-- for achieving categories of cooking are always peculiarly “success.” In this view the stones would appropriate for use as symbols of social have been used in rites performed on the differentiation” (Leach 1989:31). Information ascent to the quarry, in the change from the regarding pre-Contact Hawaiian food noa to kapu state. Having established that practices is somewhat sketchy (but see Kirch the site was an ascent-descent camp, it is and O’Day 2003), but it appears that in also possible that they were used in rites everyday or ordinary contexts men ate with aimed at dismissing the gods-- the untying or

89 mccoy

unbinding process described by Shore (1989). Implements and Stone Work of the Ancient Hawaiians in a section on phallic emblems The phallic shape of the stones is important (Brigham 1902:363–364). Brigham provided to the interpretation. Leach’s claim that male no translation of the term, but did note that potency and the power of the gods are such objects were likely to be mistaken for analogous and mysterious forces (La pestles and that the “pohaku eho are Fontaine 1985:115) seems especially apposite sometimes found buried or otherwise in this case given the connotation of power hidden” (Brigham 1902:363). A photograph and potency in the phallic shape of these of selected examples of “phallic emblems” stones. The persistence of the sanctity in (Brigham 1902: Plate LXV) includes two “sacred objects,” such as pōhaku ‘eho, artifacts from the Emerson Collection probably explains why they were frequently (catalog numbers BPBM 172/JSE 519 and hidden away (Brigham 1902:363) and why a BPBM 173/JSE 518) that are described and large number are found broken. Among the illustrated in the section on bird cook stones Maori it has been noted that “Early European in Material Culture: The J.S. Emerson visitors were disconcerted when Maori chiefs Collection of Hawaiian Artifacts (Summers whom they had invited for tea, would upon 1999:2, Figure 5). finishing its contents, dash the cup to the floor. Their intention was to ensure that their Brigham, who was writing at a time when tapu, which had entered the cup by contact there was a great deal of interest in phallic with their lips, spread no further to the worship, claimed that it “was prevalent possible detriment of both themselves and among the Hawaiians” (Brigham 1902:363). any future user” (Hanson and Hanson Though he chose not to elaborate on the 1983:53). The existence of similar beliefs in practice itself, the emblems he illustrated are Hawai‘i suggests the possibility that some of widely varying sizes and shapes (Brigham Hawaiians deliberately made their pōhaku 1902:Plate LXV). The problem is that there ‘eho of rock or stone that would break when are so many material culture items with a subjected to heat, or if it didn’t then they phallic shape, such as pestles, that it is hard would be deliberately broken. In considering to conclude that they were just emblems of what is the relevant context, there is evidence what has been described as a “mysterious from the summit region of Mauna Kea of the divine reality that cannot otherwise be deliberate breakage of shrine uprights, also apprehended” (Elder 1987:263). called ‘eho (Andrews 2003:54; Emory 1938; Pukui and Elbert 1986:38; McCoy and Nees 4. Slingstones 2010). According to Kamakau (1992; see also Langlas et al. 1997:27), the high plateau 3. Phallic Emblems between Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa and The word pohaku eho [without the ‘okina or Hualālai was used by armies of men moving glottal stop] appears in Brigham’s Stone from one area to another, as well as the

90 hawaiian archaeology

scene of several battles, including one would probably have been smooth pebbles. between Keawenui-a-‘Umi and his brother, In any case, they would be difficult to Kali‘iokaloa-a-‘Umi, near the place called identify archaeologically, even in areas Ahu a ‘Umi (see Figure 1). Based on this where smooth waterworn stones do not ethnographic information there is reason to occur naturally because it would still be expect that slingstones might be found necessary to eliminate other possible scattered over a large part of PTA. Such a functions, such as slingstones. possibility has been suggested for some of the worked and unworked pebbles found on sites 6. Fertility Stones at PTA, such as Site 18673 in the Redleg The interpretation I offered for the Pu‘u Trail area (Reinman and Pantaleo 1998b). Kalepeamoa Site, involving the change in The proximal ends or tips of pōhaku ‘eho status of adze makers, obviously can’t be appear in some cases, such as the fragment applied to all of the sites containing bird illustrated in Figure 4, to be part of a broken cook stones. One logical and highly likely slingstone. The bi-pointed specimen in the alternative is that these phallic-shaped Emerson Collection (Summers 1999; BPBM stones were used in fertility rites aimed at 4490) resembles a slingstone (Figure 10). A increasing the numbers of birds in an area small (43mm by 38mm and 24mm thick) known for an abundance of birds, especially discoidal pebble with several small facets and migratory sea birds, up into historic times a smooth, partially polished surface was (Henshaw 1902; Emerson 1894). It is found at the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site. The ends probable that an abundance of birds was are slightly pointed so that it bears some taken as a sign of mana and that rituals were resemblance to a slingstone, but it could also performed in connection with Ku-huluhulu- be an amulet (McCoy 1991:161). manu, the deity of “bird catchers, bird snarers (poe-ka-manu), bird limers and of all 5. Amulets who did feather-work” (Malo 1951:82). In Brigham, in his discussion of Hawaiian this regard, there appear to be many places slingstones, made the following remark: in the world where phallic images were used “When in the olden time a Hawaiian was “to evoke a divine power that lay behind the obliged to travel into the upper region of the abundance of animal life” (Elder 1987:263). mountains he was much in the habit of taking a stone in his hand for protection albeit no According to Pukui and Elbert (1986:38) more substantial enemy was to be met than ‘eho is a term for not only the stones used in the ‘aumakua or spirits whose domain he cooking dressed animals, but also a single placed in the waste places above the forests.” stone image as well as a stone pile, (Brigham 1902:344). The types of stones particularly of the kind used to mark land used as amulets were undoubtedly quite boundaries. The latter information may have varied, although it is reasonable to assume come from Samuel M. Kamakau, who noted that if they were carried in the hand they that “Boundary markers (kukulu ‘eho‘eho)

91 mccoy

Figure 10. Cook stone from the J.S. Emerson Collection (Cat. No. 4490) resembling a slingstone.

of tall stones (oeoe pōhaku) were set up to The possibility that pōhaku ‘eho were used identify the boundaries” (Kamakau 1976:7). to mark off territories by establishing a kapu The use of a stone to represent a god and and thus increasing the odds for an mark a land boundary are not necessarily abundance of birds, is suggested by the incompatible, since the construction of following description of a Maori practice religious structures in Polynesia was a which used either natural or manufactured common way of making a claim to a piece of objects and which were, like Brigham land (Handy 1927; Emory 1947:10). This (1902:363) had written of the Hawaiian points to the complexity of phallic ‘eho, hidden or concealed: symbolism. It can be linked not only to New Zealand Maori invited the gods to fertility but to boundaries and territory as certain places by setting out material well. In the case of the Japanese deity objects in which they could take up Dosojin, for example, “he assumes his chief residence. Rudely carved stone images, role as god of harvests; but, according to called “resting places for the gods,” would be placed in fields after sweet inscriptions on these images, he is also the potatoes had been planted. The intention ‘pass-not place deity,’ the power who was for gods to enter the images, protects the field from trespassers and from whence they would establish a state of other evils such as drought. Fertility, we are tapu over the crop by lending their being told, involves the accompanying growth-stimulating power to it. Other capacity to set boundaries and to defend special objects, either natural or man- one’s territory” (Elder 1987:263). made, were placed in forests, near the sea, or in fortified villages. These

92 hawaiian archaeology

constituted domiciles for the gods who is also possible that animal or vegetable fat ensured an abundance of birds and rats in was rubbed on the surface to anoint the the forest, fish of various species in the symbol of a god as described, for example, sea, or protection for the village. It was by Firth for Tikopia, and Valeri for Hawai‘i: important to conceal these objects very carefully, lest they fall into the hands of I remember seeing a Tikopia chief in some malefactor who would perform pagan times stand up in his temple and certain spells causing the god to depart rub the great centre post of the building and bringing disaster on the forest or with aromatic leaves drenched in village. (Hanson 1987:428) coconut oil. Now you can oil wood to preserve it or give it a polish, as The conventional view of Polynesian “god- decoration. And in the Pacific you can stones” is that they were “places for the gods oil your body and scent it with leaves, to inhabit,” or “abodes of the gods,” as when you decorate yourself, as for a dance. But as the chief did this rubbing opposed to icons or actual representations of he murmured: ‘May your body be the gods (Best 1976; Buck 1964; Handy washed with power.’ Now scrubbing a 1927). They can be regarded as either a baulk of timber with a hunk of oily special kind of sign or symbol in the way leaves is not a very elevated intellectual these terms were defined by Langer: act. But think of the timber as a body and of the fragrant oil as decorative Symbols are not proxy for their objects, medium. Think too not of a material but are vehicles for the conception of body, but of an invisible body--not objects. To conceive a thing or a necessarily with the shape of a post, but situation is not the same thing as to in another context, an anthropomorphic “react toward it” overtly, or to be aware body, of a spiritual being, believed to of its presence. In talking about things control crops and fish and the health of we have conceptions of them, not the men. Think too of washing as cleansing, things themselves; and it is the and cleansing as a preface to conceptions, not the things, that symbols adornment, and adornment as pleasing directly “mean.” (Langer 1957:60–61) to oneself as well as to others. So you can see this act as symbolizing the The view that the pōhaku ‘eho or ‘eho were a anointing of the body of a god with kind of god-stone used in fertility rites is also fragrant scents to express the status suggested by the presence of a greasy or oily relations and emotions of his substance on at least one of the Emerson worshippers. (Firth 1973:26) Collection specimens (B4904) and examples from some PTA sites (e.g., 19495, 18671 and Because anointment divinizes, it taboos. One can, for example, anoint a house to 18673). The greasy surface could be the taboo it...As this event shows, it is result of inserting the stone into the body possible to anoint with both animal and cavity of a fatty bird, such as the dark- vegetable fat. The latter is used rumped petrel, although in the case of the especially during the kapu Makahiki, artifacts from the three PTA sites only a when animal sacrifice is forbidden, but portion of each stone has a greasy feel to it. It during the rest of the year the images

93 mccoy

and temples are made sacred by the supply of fish. A third specimen (4067) grease of human and animal is a dull water-worn beach stone 5 victims...Like other peoples, the inches long, which was highly prized by Hawaiians probably associated fat or Queen Emma, who kept it “wrapped up grease with life. This explains why to in tapa and in a special casket.” (Buck give life to image of a god they smear it 1964:496) with grease. (Valeri 1985:381-- Note 22) Buck’s description provides the simplest and Buck’s description of Hawaiian god stones is best explanation for the variety of ‘eho or of great importance in noting the common pōhaku ‘eho collected by Emerson and use of stone for family and tutelary gods of others prior to the advent of modern crafts and the degree to which the selection archaeology in Hawai‘i and the recent of a stone was a matter of personal choice, collections from sites in the interior uplands rather than being formalized and rule-bound and mountainous regions of Hawai‘i Island as religious acts are commonly believed to that possess the same general characteristics, be: including the existence of worked and However, stone was used a good deal to unworked stones (Figure 11) in the same represent family or craft gods assemblage and stones with greasy surfaces (‘aumakua). Some individuals were that were probably oiled, such as an content to use pieces of unworked stone, elongated, partially ground and polished whereas others made rough pebble from Site 18673 (Reinman and representations of the human figure. It Pantaleo 1998b). One of the oblong shaped should be remembered that it was not the pebbles in the Emerson Collection (BPBM workmanship but the prayers and offerings which gave a material object 167; Figure 12) resembles the “sacred” power (mana) and converted it into a stones from the fishing shrine at Kamōhio god, no matter what the form. (Buck Bay on Kaho‘olawe (McAllister 1933:Plate 1964:495). 2).

The 15 unworked stone gods (pohaku One thing that the information summarized ‘aumakua ) consist of fine-grained basalt, by Buck does not account for is the high with the exception of one piece of natural percentage of broken stones from lava. Some are water-worn beach stones, and five have been polished to a shiny archaeological contexts, such as the Pu‘u black, probably by rubbing with oil. Kalepeamoa Site and sites in the Humu‘ula They range in length from 3.2 to 10 Saddle (see Table 1) and why they are inches, except for a few which are oftentimes found together with the much medium-sized boulders and one in the rarer unbroken stones. If they were indeed rough shape of a shark 45 inches long. --- god-stones used in the ways described by Another stone (4063), 3.2 inches long, Buck, how and why did they end up broken was purchased by J.S. Emerson at Kailua, Hawaii, in 1885 from an old or, if whole, were they lost or purposefully fisherman who kept it wrapped up in tapa left behind because of some reason, such as and prayed to it to bring him an abundant the loss of efficacy (Handy 1927). It raises

94 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 11. An unworked or minimally modified waterworn pebble from Site 14638 resembling a pohaku ‘eho in form and size.

Figure 12. Pohaku ‘eho manu from the J.S. Emerson Collection resembling the ‘sacred’ stones from the fishing shrine at Kamohio Bay, Kaho‘olawe.

95 mccoy

another series of questions that are the rule, however, and the pōhaku ‘eho is a unanswerable at this time about use and good example of the danger of inferring recovery contexts and discard practices. function based on similarities to known objects without a consideration of context.

Summary and Concluding Remarks In this paper I have argued, following the lead of Glassie (1975:116) and Hodder In the 1980s, archaeologists working in the (1992:19), that to make sense of an object Pohakuloa Training Area on the island of requires that one ask questions and have Hawai‘i began finding a distinctive class of some general anthropological and historical groundstone artifacts, primarily from lava understanding. As seen by Hodder, “The tube sites, which until recently were regularly interpretation of context and meaningful interpreted as pestles. The interpretations, similarities and differences are mutually which were based on morphological dependent” (Hodder 1999:48). What is characteristics and the occasional presence of meaningful is always subject to being battered ends, are the epitome of empiricist contested, of course. archaeology in which the data, in this case the function of an object, is taken to be self- With the renewed interest in material culture evident. The archaeologists did not think it studies in archaeology, some scholars are necessary, for example, to consider the giving more importance to the material possible uses of these pestles, how and why properties of things and the environment, they broke, the economic context of these rather than meaning alone (see Ingold tools or indeed any kind of context. The 2000:340–341; Olsen 2003, 2010). This earlier interpretations are a good example of shift in emphasis is part of the movement trying to interpret material culture in a simple towards “materiality,” that according to and objective way. some researchers is replacing what was for so long called “material culture” (Mills and To be fair, I think as a rule most Walker 2008:14; Meskell 2005), although archaeologists, including the writer, tend to there does not appear to be one take the function of artifacts for granted, and unambiguous definition of “materiality” at that even though it is inherently this time. Miller has written in this regard problematical, under most circumstances it is that “Materiality as a term always speaks to probably a warranted practice. The a paradox, which is the assumed greater identification of a piece of worked shell as a reality of that which we do not apprehend fishhook, for example, is generally made over that which is merely evident” (Miller with little or no deliberation, yet with a high 2005:212). For Jones and the author, who degree of confidence based on widely are interested in reconciling the division accepted criteria within the archaeological between science-based archaeology and profession. There are always exceptions to more subjective or sensuous approaches,

96 hawaiian archaeology

such as landscape phenomenology, between the ‘sacred’ and the ‘profane’ and materiality “encompasses the view that for ascribing such distinctions to realities material or physical components of the thought to transcend the powers of human environment and the social practices enacted actors” (Bell 1992:74). In Hawai‘i, and in that environment are mutually reinforcing” Polynesia more generally, the realities to (Jones 2004:330). which Bell refers are the gods, who though inhabiting a spiritual realm of their own are Though I don’t agree with all that Tilley has frequently invited into the world of humans written on the subject of landscape to assist in some endeavor and then phenomenology and materiality (Tilley 1994, dismissed when their services are no longer 2004), I do think he is right to say that “The needed (Hanson 1987:424). I believe that qualities of a thing, in fact, may tell us far the embellished forms of the pōhaku ‘eho more about it than any number of found at the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site are measurements of its geometrical properties analogous to Bell’s example of the Christian that we might like to take” (Tilley 2004:11). mass as not being a model for a normal meal In this paper I chose a combination of in providing sufficient nourishment, but empirically measurable attributes and other, rather a strategic version of one (Bell more subjective attributes, such as grain size, 1992:90). In other words, the embellished the relative degree of grinding and polishing, cook stones, especially those made of fine- and presence of surface residues. grain basalt, were probably not intended to be used to fully cook a bird, which thus sets I summarized the interpretation of the Pu‘u them off from the ordinary, everyday kinds Kalepeamoa Site assemblage of what I am of cook stones found in earth ovens. prepared to accept at this time, based on similarities to the pōhaku ‘eho manu in the In expanding the analytical gaze to the J.S. Emerson Collection and the social Humu‘ula Saddle area, bordering the south context in which they were found, to be bird slope of Mauna Kea and the Mauna Kea cook stones (pōhaku ‘eho manu). The formal Adze Quarry Complex, I have identified properties of the objects, almost total lack of what I believe to be separate but related or evidence of thermal alteration and breakage overlapping contexts. Sites 5003, 14638, patterns were used in arguing that this 21283, 21492 and 21502, located at PTA, all particular assemblage, which is clearly contain pōhaku ‘eho as well as basalt adze associated with a group of adze makers, was manufacturing debitage that has been used in their transformation from one social sourced to Mauna Kea (Williams 2002:224; state to another prior to entering the Mauna Bayman et al. 2001:55). These same sites Kea Adze Quarry Complex and possibly also contain avifaunal remains, primarily after, on their way back home. The evidence dark-rumped petrel (Pterodroma suggests that the pōhaku ‘eho at this site were phaeopygia sandwichensis) that was part of a ritualization process “for creating exploited on a seasonal basis. Though and privileging a qualitative distinction difficult to prove, there is a strong

97 mccoy

possibility that some of the birds, apparently glacial drift deposits on Mauna Kea, which butchered according to the late Alan Ziegler do, however, extend down to the roughly (1994, 2003), were intended for consumption 6,500 ft. elevation in the vicinity of Mauna by the adze makers on Mauna Kea (Hommon Kea State Park (Porter 1979, 1987:Fig. 21.3 and Ahlo 1983; McCoy 1986, 1990; Williams and 21.9; McCoy 1990:Figure 5, 1991; 2002; Zielger 1994, 2003).8 The breeding and McCoy and Nees 2010:7–22). collecting area, which undoubtedly covers an area even larger than PTA, constitutes a In the case of the mid-elevation slopes of different kind of context. Here, the use of Mauna Kea and the Humu‘ula Saddle, there pōhaku ‘eho, which have been recovered is solid evidence that at least some of the from a growing list of sites, may have been people that were using, discarding and used as fertility stones aimed at increasing the possibly even making pōhaku ‘eho were abundance of birds for probable consumption adze makers and/or people attending to the by craft specialists (adze makers and possibly needs of adze makers and to providing bird collectors) and chiefs. In this view, the chiefs with fatty young dark-rumped petrels pōhaku ‘eho, as a symbol, is part of a social and probably other birds as well (Athens and practice. It is, as Turner said of ritual Kaschko 1989; Athens et al 1991; Ziegler symbols, “associated with human interests, 1994, 2003; Williams 2002:111–112). Many purposes, ends, and means, whether these are of the ‘eho that have been collected in the explicitly formulated or have to be inferred last 30 years or so from this one area of from the observed behavior. The structure Hawai‘i Island are from surface contexts and properties of a symbol become those of a and, thus, undated. There are some dynamic entity, at least within its appropriate exceptions, such as Site 5003 (Welch 1993; context of action” (Turner 1967:20). Bayman et al. 2001:55; Bayman and Moniz Nakamura 2001:Table 3). Where dates are The meaning of the word ‘eho as god-stone available they indicate that pōhaku ‘eho and the presence of a greasy or oily substance were probably in use over a period of at on some specimens lend support to the idea least several hundred years and possibly that at least some pōhaku ‘eho were used as longer, ca. AD 1400–1600 or 1700, which possibly both a means of increasing on present evidence would make them abundance but also conserving or protecting a coeval with the period of maximum bird resource by making it taboo. Buck’s procurement (Streck 1992; Williams description of the wide variety of stone 2002:111–112; Williams et al 2002; Godby objects used as amulets and god-stones and Carson 2004:81). provides a tentative explanation for the occurrence of both unworked waterworn A curious thing about the Humu‘ula Saddle stones and worked stones in a part of the region, is that while it appears to have been island where there are no raw material an area of great importance in the hunting of sources for either variety, except for the birds (Henshaw 1902; Athens et al 1991),

98 hawaiian archaeology

there are very few shrines and none that can called Poli‘ahu, the idea that people would be linked directly to fowlers and their god, have traveled long distances to get a closer Ku-huluhulu-manu (Malo 1951:82), as would glimpse of her home on Mauna Kea, and the be expected based on the ethnographic data home of other gods and goddesses, such as on occupational shrines and rituals (Malo Kūkahalu‘ula and Lilinoe, is the most likely 1951:81; Buck 1964:529). When compared to “explanation” for the large number of the numerous shrines in the Mauna Kea Adze shrines that have been found below the Quarry Complex with lithic offerings summit (McCoy and Nees 2010). There is (McCoy 1981; McCoy and Nees 2010), it no way to prove this, but it is a logical raises the interesting question as to whether possibility that in my view has a high degree these particular bird catchers were specialists of “warranted assertability.” I believe that in the same sense as the adze makers (Lass the same holds true for what I think are 1998:20–21). Perhaps the fowlers were some of the varied contexts, uses and organized in a different way, and instead of meanings of what Emerson and others were building shrines to ensure a successful told were cook stones or ‘eho or pōhaku harvest and as a means of showing respect to ‘eho, but which on closer analysis appear to the gods, they operated like the Maori be examples of a ritual symbol that stood for fowlers in New Zealand in placing objects many things or what Turner called polysemy (‘eho) for the gods to inhabit when needed. (Turner 1967:50).

Some will undoubtedly criticize the ideas I think it is reasonable to suggest that the presented in this paper as nothing more than word ‘eho, which was used for three mere speculation, or examples of “just so seemingly very different things-- cook stories.” Though the alternative uses of the stones, boundary markers and god images-- objects called ‘eho or pōhaku ‘eho are but which share in common the phallic propositions that cannot be proved, at least at shape representing potency, can be viewed this time, they are, according to Bunge, like as three variations on a common theme of all others in that “Every concept and every power, food and boundaries-- of marking or proposition makes sense only in some creating boundaries to mark a social context-- that is, in relation to other bits of transition, or to protect and thus guarantee knowledge” (Bunge 1996:132). The other the availability of food sources by appealing bits of knowledge are the relevant contexts to the gods for their assistance. It is an that I have attempted to isolate. Tweed notes illustration of how the primary meaning that for philosopher Hilary Putnam truth does shifts with context, of how an object can be not entail “proof” or “justification”; it aims a god-stone in one context and a boundary for-- to use John Dewey’s term-- “warranted marker and even a special kind of cook assertability” (Tweed 2006:16). As an stone in other contexts or situations. As so example, if we accept the Hawaiian oral clearly articulated by Catherine Bell, traditions that there was a snow goddess “human activity is situational, which is to

99 mccoy

say that much of what is important to it use of similar terms, such as “toolstone,” cannot be grasped outside of the specific instead of the older “tool-quality” stone, can context in which it occurs” (Bell 1992:81). In also be found in the recent literature on the case of the dry interior uplands and North American archaeology. mountainous regions of Hawai‘i Island, the 2. The final reports prepared by Reinman large quantities of high quality toolstone for and Pantaleo (1998a and 1998b) for Garcia adze manufacture on Mauna Kea and and Associates (GANDA) include seasonal abundance of birds valued for food references to the bird cook stones from the and feathers seem to be the contingent factors Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site that were not in the of an historical context where the practice of 1995 draft reports prepared by Pacific using embellished bird cook stones and Legacy, Inc. It is the draft reports where physically similar objects became highly artifacts were described as pestles and a developed. possible slingstone to the exclusion of other In conclusion, there is clearly much we still artifact types. don’t know about the objects called ‘eho or 3. The one artifact from this location, found pōhaku ‘eho and probably will never know by Emerson himself, was later discarded by with any kind of certainty. It exemplifies the Museum as noted later in the text. what I think is a fact: “The interpretive practice that is archaeology is an ongoing 4. The view that fine-grain rocks are process: there is no final and definitive unsuitable for cook-stones has become account of the past as it was” (Shanks and orthodoxy in the archaeological profession, Hodder 1995:5). especially in Hawai‘i it seems. Though a well-founded assumption that is supported by the Hawaiian term makapā, meaning Notes “Stones that break in a fire, not desirable for the imu” (Pukui and Elbert 1986: 227), there 1. This is a revision of a paper presented at are also well-documented exceptions, such the 1997 Annual Meeting of the Society for as the oven stones found by Scott Williams Hawaiian Archaeology on Kaua‘i that was and his colleagues during excavations of titled “Bird Cooking Stones from the Island large imu on the windward side of O‘ahu of Hawai‘i: Multiple and Contested (Williams, personal communication). Not all Meanings.” The recent archaeological fine-grain rocks are the same, of course, and literature on what is called by some “hot-rock it is possible that some have better heat cookery” (e.g,. Thoms 2009) has moved retention capabilities, at least at certain away from the use of the present participle temperatures. There is no reason to assume, “cooking” as in “cooking stones” to the for example, that the heated stones used in adjective “cook” as in cook stone (e.g., cooking birds, dogs, and fish would Thoms 2008). This paper follows suit. The necessarily be the same as the stones used in

100 hawaiian archaeology

large earth ovens (imu). As Williams at the time by Ogden Environmental and reminded the author, there is obviously a Energy Services, Inc. and Garcia and need for some experimental research on Associates (GANDA). These collections, cooking methods and materials to answer some of which had not been fully analyzed, some of the questions that currently exist. have been returned to the Army and are now being curated at PTA. 5. The octopus sinkers should not be confused with artifacts identified as kōlea 7. The presence of two objects made from stones from the Waimea area (Pyle 2009). detrital limestone is of particular interest in The Mauna Kea sinkers are made from the terms of their geologic and geographic nuclei inside of cored volcanic bombs origins. EDXRF analyses of some of the (Macdonald 1967:48) from Pu‘u artifacts labeled as bird cook stones from the Kalepeamoa. The most common rock types Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site and various sites at found in the cores at this cinder cone are PTA indicate the primary geologic sources dunite, gabbro and peridotite. In addition to were Mauna Kea volcanics (Peter Mills, being heavy, many of the cores have faceted written communication in McCoy and Nees surfaces, thus making them the ideal material 2010; Taomia 2007). for making an octopus sinker. The Pu‘u 8. The late Alan Zielger analyzed many of Kalepeamoa Site assemblage includes both the vertebrate faunal collections from PTA the “coffee-bean” and “breadloaf” types of and Mauna Kea, and as was his custom, he sinkers in various stages of manufacture sometimes offered some of his own thoughts (Emory Bonk and Sinoto 1968:Figure 11). about the significance of the taxa he had None are grooved, thus indicating that the identified and the broader implications in the final step in the manufacturing process was memorandum he prepared for his clients and probably done elsewhere (McCoy 1991:115– colleagues. The citations to his work in this 144). paper are only two of many such references 6. The sites plotted on Figure 1 do not where he briefly discussed his ideas on represent all of the sites at PTA with pohaku butchering and the provision of birds for the ‘eho and in fact the number of sites at PTA adze makers on Mauna Kea. with pohaku ‘eho or possible pohaku ‘eho is probably unknown at the present time. This is due in part to the difficulties in identifying Acknowledgments these objects, but also to the common lack of detailed artifact descriptions and analyses, A great deal of gratitude is owed Dr. which is reflected in the incompleteness of Yosihiko Sinoto who, because of his long- Table 1. In the preparation of the paper term interest in and knowledge of Hawaiian delivered at the 1997 SHA conference, I material culture, suggested that I have a look made a preliminary examination of some of at the Emerson Collection after I showed the PTA collections that were being curated him the broken end of a ground and polished

101 mccoy

artifact from the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site that I References Cited initially thought might be one end of a slingstone. Thanks are also extended to Adams, J.L. 1996. The People Behind the Rocks. Archaeology in Tucson, Newsletter several former Bishop Museum employees, of the Center for Desert Archaeology including Toni Han Palermo and George 10(4):1–5. Tucson. MacDonell for access to the Emerson Collection, and Christine Takata for the three Andrews, L. 2003. A Dictionary of the artifact photographs (Figures 4–6). Hawaiian Language. Henry M. Whitney, Honolulu. First published 1865. Scott Williams, formerly with Ogden Athens, J.S. and M.W. Kaschko. 1989. Environmental and Energy Services, and Jeff Prehistoric Upland Bird Hunters: Pantaleo, formerly with GANDA, kindly Archaeological Inventory Survey and allowed me to examine the PTA collections Testing for the MPRC Project Area and the that both of these companies were curating Bobcat Trail Road, Pohakuloa Training for a time. Scott also provided some useful Area, Island of Hawaii. International comments on an early draft of the paper. Julie Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Taomia has been encouraging me for years to Honolulu. publish something on the pohaku ‘eho, even Athens, J.S., M.W. Kaschko, and H.F. though we appear to have slightly different James. 1991. Prehistoric Bird Hunters: High interpretations of the artifacts with battered Altitude Resource Exploitation on Hawai‘i ends. Island. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, Volume 31, pp 63–84. In the preparation of the draft paper I am Bayman, J.M. and J.J. Moniz-Nakamura. indebted to my colleagues at PCSI, Steve 2001. Craft Specialization and Adze Clark, Andy Tomlinson, Rich Nees and Production on Hawai‘i Island. Journal of Keola Nakamura. Steve and Rich provided Field Archaeology 28:239–252. comments on an early draft of this paper and Bayman, J.M., J.J. Moniz-Nakamura, T.M. also helped with the preparation of the Reith, and C.K. Paraso. 2001. University of photographs, along with Keola. Andy kindly Hawai‘i Archaeology Field School produced the maps that are an essential part Pohakuloa, Island of Hawai‘i. Department of this paper. of Anthropology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu. Special thanks are extended to SHA members Mark McCoy and Paul Cleghorn who Beckwith, M.W. 1970. Hawaiian reviewed the first draft. Both of them Mythology. University of Hawaii Press, provided thoughtful and useful comments Honolulu. First published 1940 by Yale University Press. that I believe improved the quality of the paper. I alone, of course, am responsible for ______(ed). 2007. Kepelino’s Traditions of any errors, omissions, and other shortcomings Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin of this paper. 95. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. First published in 1932.

102 hawaiian archaeology

Bell, C. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Emory, K.P., W.J. Bonk, and Y.H. Sinoto. Oxford University Press, New York. 1968. Hawaiian Archaeology: Fishhooks. Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Special Best, E. 1976. Maori Religion and Publication 47. Honolulu. Mythology, Part 1. A.R. Shearer, Government Printer, Wellington, New Firth, R. 1973. Symbols: Public and Private. Zealand. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Brigham, W.T. 1902. Stone Implements and Garcia and Associates. 2006. Phase II Stone Work of the Ancient Hawaiians. Archaeological Research of Proposed Battle Memoirs of the B.P. Bishop Museum, Vol. Area Complex (BAX) & Anti-Armor Live 14, No. 4. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Fire and Training Range (AALFTR) Training Areas for Stryker Brigade Combat Buck, S.P. [Te Rangi Hiroa]. 1964. Arts and Team (SBCT) U.S. Army Pohakuloa Crafts of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Training Area, Island of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i Special Publication 45. Honolulu. (TMK 3-4-4-16:1). Prepared for U.S. Army Bunge, M. 1996. Finding Philosophy in Corps of Engineers, Honolulu. Social Science. Yale University Press, New Glassie, H. 1975. Folk Housing in Middle London. Virginia. University of Tennessee Press, Crabtree, D. 1972. An Introduction to Knoxville. Flintknapping. Occasional Papers of the Godby, W.C. and M.T. Carson. 2004. An Idaho State University Museum, Number 28. Overview of the Archaeological Context of Pocatello, Idaho. Pohakuloa Training Area in Hawaii Island. Elder, G.R. 1987. Phallus. In The Hawaiian Archaeology 9:74–82. Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. By Mircea Gould, R.A. 1990. Recovering the Past. Eliade, 12:263–269. Macmillan Publishing University of New Mexico Press, Company, New York. Albuquerque. Emerson, N.B. 1894. The Bird-Hunters of Hammatt, H.H. and D.W. Shideler. 2002. Ancient Hawaii. Hawaiian Almanac and Data Recovery Report for Two Annual for 1895. T.G. Thrum, compiler and Archaeological Lithic Scatters, Sites 50-10- publisher, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. 23-10,310 and 50-10-23-10,311 at The Pu‘u Emory, K.P. 1938. The Adz Makers of Kalepeamoa Complex, Hale Pohaku, Mauna Kea. Paradise of the Pacific 50 Ka‘ohe Ahupua‘a, Mauna Kea, Hawaii (4):21–22. Island (TMK 4-4-15:12). Prepared for The ______. 1947. Tuamotuan Religious Institute for Astronomy, University of Structures and Ceremonies. Bernice P. Hawaii. Bishop Museum Bulletin 191. Honolulu. Handy, E.S.C. Polynesian Religion. Bernice ______. 1969. The Island of Lanai: A Survey P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 34. Honolulu. of Native Culture. Bernice P. Bishop Handy, E.S.C. and E.G. Handy. 1972. Museum Bulletin 12. Honolulu. First Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, published 1924. Lore, and Environment. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Honolulu.

103 mccoy

Hanson, F.A. 1987. Polynesian Religions: An Kamakau, S.M. 1976. The Works of the Overview. In The Encyclopedia of Religion, People of Old (Na Hana a ka Po‘e Kahiko). ed. By Mircea Eliade, 11:423–432. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Macmillan Publishing Company, New York. Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hanson, F.A. and L. Hanson. 1983. Counterpoint in Maori Culture. Routledge & ______. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Kegan Paul, London. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. Haun, A.E. 1986. Archaeological Survey and Kirch, P.V. and S.J. O’Day. 2003. New Testing at the Bobcat Trail Habitation Cave Archaeological Insights into Food and Site (50-10-30-5004) Pohakuloa Training Status: A Case Study from Pre-Contact Area, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. Report 194- Hawaii. World Archaeology 34(3):484–497. 041686. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Hilo, La Fontaine, J.S. 1985. Initiation. Penguin Hawai‘i. Books, New York Henshaw, H.W. 1902. Birds of the Hawaiian Langer, S. 1957. Philosophy in a New Key: Islands. Thomas G. Thrum, Honolulu. A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite Hodder, I. 1987. The Contextual Analysis of and Art [Third Edition]. Harvard University Symbolic Meanings. In The Archaeology of Press, Cambridge. Contextual Meanings, edited by Ian Hodder, Langlas, C., T.R. Wolforth, J. Head, and P. pp. 1–10. Cambridge University Press, Jensen. 1997. Archaeological Inventory Cambridge. Survey and Historic and Traditional ______. 1992. Theory and Practice in Cultural Assessment for the Hawai‘i Archaeology. Routledge, London. Defense Access Road A-AD-6(1) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project, Districts of South ______. 1999. The Archaeological Process: Kohala, Hamakua, North Hilo, and South An Introduction. Blackwell Publishers, Hilo Island of Hawaii. Prepared by Paul H. Oxford. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc., Hilo, Hawai‘i. Hommon, R.J. and H.M. Ahlo, Jr. 1983. A Lass, B. 1998. Crafts, Chiefs and Research Design for Archaeological Studies Commoners: Production and Control in at the Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of PreContact Hawai‘i. In Craft and Social Hawai‘i. Prepared by Science Management, Identity, Ed. By Cathy Costin and Rita Inc., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. On file in the State Wright, pp. 19–30. Archaeological Papers of Historic Preservation Office, Honolulu. the American Anthropological Association, Ingold, T. 2000. The Perception of the Number 8. Arlington, Virginia. Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling Leach, E. 1976. Culture and and Skill. Routledge, London. Communication: The Logic By Which Jones, A. 2004. Archaeometry and Symbols Are Connected. Cambridge Materiality: Materials-Based Analysis in University Press, Cambridge. Theory and Practice. Archaeometry ______. 1989. Claude Levi-Strauss. 46(3):327–338. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. First published 1974.

104 hawaiian archaeology

Leach, H. 2003. Did East Polynesians Have a Quarry. In Pacific Production Systems: Concept of Luxury Foods? World Approaches to Economic Prehistory, edited Archaeology 34(3):442–457. by D.E. Yen and J.M.J. Mummery, pp. 85– 119. Occasional Papers in Prehistory, No. Macdonald, G. 1967. Forms and Structures of 18. Department of Prehistory, Research Extrusive Basaltic Rocks. In Basalts: The School of Pacific Studies, The Australian Poldervaart Treatise on Rocks of Basaltic National University, Canberra. Composition, vol. 1, edited by H.H. Hess and Arie Poldervaart, pp. 2–61. Interscience ______. 1991. Survey and Test Excavations Publishers, New York. of the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site, Mauna Kea, Hawai‘i. Prepared for Facilities Planning Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities.Bishop and Management Office, University of Museum Press, Honolulu. Hawaii. Ms. on file in the Department of McAllister, J.G. 1933. Archaeology of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Kahoolawe. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Honolulu. Bulletin 115. Honolulu. ______. 1997. Bird Cooking Stones from McCoy, P.C. 1981. Stones for the Gods: the Island of Hawaii: Multiple and Ritualism in the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry Contested Meanings. Paper presented at the Industry, Hawaii. 46th Annual Meeting, Annual Meeting of the Society for Hawaiian Society for American Archaeology, San Archaeology on Kaua‘i in 1997. Diego, California. McCoy, P.C. and R. Nees. 2010. ______. 1985. Preliminary Archaeological Archaeological Inventory Survey of the Survey of the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site, Mauna Mauna Kea Science Reserve, Ka‘ohe Kea, Hawai‘i. In Draft Supplemental Ahupua‘a, Hamakua District, Island of Environmental Impact Statement Amendment Hawai‘i. Prepared for the Office of Mauna to the Mauna Kea Science Reserve Complex Kea Management. Development Plan for Construction Camp Meskell, L. (ed.). 2005. Archaeologies of Housing at Hale Pohaku, Hamakua, Mauna Materiality. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Kea, Hawaii. Appendix C [28pp.]. MCM Massachusetts. Planning. Honolulu. Miller, D. 2005. Afterword. In ______. 1986. Archaeological Investigations Archaeologies of Materiality, ed. By Lynn in the Hopukani and Liloe Springs Area of Meskell, pp. 212–219. Blackwell the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry Industry, Publishing, Malden, Massachusetts. Hawai‘i (Ms. 092386). Report Submitted to the U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu, Mills, B.J. and W.H. Walker. 2008. Fort Shafter, Hawai‘i. Report Prepared by the Introduction. In Memory Work: Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Archaeologies of Material Practices, ed. By Museum, Honolulu. Barbara Mills and William Walker, pp. 3– 23. School for Advanced Research Press, ______. 1990. Subsistence in a “Non- Santa Fe. Subsistence” Environment: Factors of Production in a Hawaiian Alpine Desert Adze

105 mccoy

Norris, N. 2004. Chapter 6. Ground and Pukui, M.K. and S. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Pecked Stone Tools, In Mark Tveskov, The Dictionary Revised. University Press of Hayes Site: Oral Tradition, Ethnohistory, and Hawaii, Honolulu. Archaeology of the South Fork Coquille Pyle, B.L. 2009. Kōlea Stones-Their River. Southern Oregon University Features and Ethnohistory. ‘Elepaio Laboratory of Anthropology Research Report 69(4):25–27. 2004-1. Ashland, Oregon. Reinman, F.M. and J.J. Pantaleo. 1998a. Olsen, B. 2003. Material Culture After Text: Final Report: Redleg Trail Archaeological Re-Membering Things. Norwegian Investigations for the Legacy Resource Archaeological Review 36(2):87–104. Management Program at Pohakuloa ______. 2010. In Defense of Things: Training Area, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i. Archaeology and the Ontology of Objects. Prepared by Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Altamira, Lanham. Hawai‘i. Papaconstantinou, D. 2006. Archaeological ______. 1998b. Final Report: Context as a Unifying Process: An Archaeological Investigations of Two Work Introduction. In Deconstructing Context: A Areas for the Legacy Resource Management Critical Approach to Archaeological program at Pohakuloa Training Area, Practice, edited by Demetra Hawai‘i Island, Hawaii. Prepared by Garcia Papaconstantinou, pp. 1–21. Oxbow Books, and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Oxford. Reinman, F. and A.J. Schilz. 1993. Final Pauketat, T.R. 2001. Practice and History in Report: Aerial and Ground Archaeological Archaeology: An Emerging Paradigm. Inventory Survey for Compilation of Anthropological Theory 1(1):73–98. Environmental Impact Statement, Multi- Purpose Range Complex, Pohakuloa Porter, S.C. 1979. Geologic Map of Mauna Training Area, Island of Hawaii. Prepared Kea Volcano, Hawaii. Geological Society of by Ogden Environmental and Energy America Map and Chart Series, MC-30. Services Co., Inc., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Boulder, Colorado. ______. 1994. Final Report: Archaeological ______. 1979. Hawaiian Glacial Ages. Data Recovery at the Multi-Purpose Range Quaternary Research 12:161–187. Complex Pohakuloa Training Area, Island ______. 1979. Quaternary Stratigraphy and of Hawai‘i, Hawaii. Prepared by Ogden Chronology of Mauna Kea: A 380,000-Yr Environmental and Energy Services Co., Record of Mid-Pacific Volcanism and Ice- Inc., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Cap Glaciation. Geological Society of Rosendahl, M.L.K. 1983. Cultural Survey of America Bulletin Part II, 90:980–1093. Documentation of National Register ______. 1987. Pleistocene Subglacial Nomination of Bobcat Trail Habitation Eruptions on Mauna Kea. In R.W. Decker, Cave, Site 50-10-30-5004. PHRI, Hilo. On T.L. Wright and P.H. Stauffer (eds.) file in the State Historic Preservation Office, Volcanism in Hawaii, pp. 587–98. U.S. Honolulu. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1350.

106 hawaiian archaeology

Rosendahl, P.H. 1977. Department of the Tilley, C. 1994. A Phenomenology of Army Inventory of Historic Property Forms Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments. for Archaeological Sites 50-10-30-5000, - Berg, Oxford. 5004, -5005, -5006, -5007, and -5008; 50-10- ______. 2004. The Materiality of Stone: 31-5001, -5002, and -5003; and 50-10-21- Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. 5009 in the Pohakuloa Training Area. Bishop Berg, Oxford. Museum, Honolulu. On file in the State Historic Preservation Office, Honolulu. ______. 2007. Review of Archaeologies of Materiality, Ed. By Lynn Meskell. Shanks, M. and I. Hodder. 1995. Processual, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, Mass. Postprocessual and Interpretive American Journal of Archaeology Online Archaeologies. In Interpreting Archaeology, 111.2 (April 2007). Ian Hodder et al. (eds.), pp. 3–30. Routledge, London. Titcomb, M. 1969. Dog and Man in the Ancient Pacific. Bishop Museum Special Shore, B. 1989. Mana and Tapu. In Publication 59. Honolulu. Developments in Polynesian Ethnology, edited by Alan Howard and Robert Borofsky, ______. 1972. Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. pp.137–173. University of Hawaii Press, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. First Honolulu. published in 1952 as Memoir 29 of the Polynesian Society. Streck, C.F., Jr. 1992. Prehistoric Settlement in the Upland Portions of the Island of Turner, V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols. Hawai‘i. New Zealand Journal of Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Archaeology Volume 14, pp. 99–111. Report Tweed, T.A. 2006. Crossing and Dwelling: on file at the U.S. Army Engineer District, A Theory of Religion. Harvard University Honolulu, Fort Shafter, Hawai‘i. Press, Cambridge. Summers, C. 1999. Material Culture: The Valeri, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: J.S. Emerson Collection of Hawaiian Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. Trans. Artifacts. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. by Paula Wissing. University of Chicago Taomia, J.M.E. 2007. Cultural Resources Press, Chicago. Management Projects Performed Under the Welch, D.J. 1993. Archaeological Survey Ecosystems Management Program at the and Testing for the Saddle Road Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawai‘i. Improvement Project, Pohakuloa Area, Thoms, A.V. 2008. The Fire Stones Carry: Hawai‘i, Hawaii. International Ethnographic Records and Archaeological Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Expectations for Hot-Rock Cookery in Honolulu. Western North America. Journal of Westervelt, W.D. 1987. Myths and Legends Anthropological Archaeology 27:443–460. of Hawaii. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. ______. 2009. Rocks of Ages: Propagation of Whittle, A. 1988. Problems in Neolithic Hot-rock Cookery in Western North Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, America. Journal of Archaeological Science Cambridge. 36:573–591.

107 mccoy

Williams, S. 2002. Ecosystem Management Program, Cultural Resources Inventory Survey of Previously Unsurveyed Areas, Redleg Trail Vicinity, U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Williams, S., R. Nees, and F. Reinman. 2002. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) for the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii, Ecosystem Management Program, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i. Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc., Honolulu, Hawai‘i. Zeigler, A. 1994. Identification of Faunal Materials from Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawai‘i (6 sites in series T-2 through T-32). Letter report dated 12 July 1994 presented in Appendix B of Archaeological Investigations of Two Work Areas for The Legacy Resource Management Program at Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawai‘i Island, Hawaii, by L. Shapiro and P. Cleghorn (Draft, February 1995). ______. 2003. Identification of Faunal Materials from GANDA PTA Project 2049 (several vertebrate faunal lots from Sites 21299, 23464 and 23626). Memorandum dated 13 May 2003 and 26 May 2003. In Robins et al. 2006, Final Report: Phase II Archaeological Research of Proposed Battle Area Complex (BAX) & Anti-Armor Live Fire and Training Range (AALFTR) Training Areas for Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawai‘i, Hawai‘i (TMK 3-4-4- 16:1). Prepared by Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i. Appendix A.

Bottles, Abandonment, and Re- visitation in the Hansen’s Disease Settlement at Kalawao, Moloka‘i

James L. Flexner Washington and Lee University Department of Sociology and Anthropology

Abstract

The concept of site abandonment is an important one for interpreting artifact assemblages from archaeological sites. Using bottle glass artifacts from the Hansen’s disease settlement at Kalawao, this paper explores the relationship between historically known dates for abandonment of an area and archaeological evidence for continued visits to the area. Although most of Kalawao is considered abandoned by the beginning of the 20th century, glass bottles indicate that people continued to visit Kalawao, and that the old settlement continued to be an important part of community social life even when no longer permanently inhabited. This observation has important implications for interpreting post- Contact site chronologies in Hawai‘i, as artifacts in surface contexts may indicate temporary visits, rather than continued habitation of archaeological features. This kind of evidence can also provide useful insights into behaviors not otherwise documented in contexts of permanent habitation.

Introduction

Understanding processes of site abandonment is critical for archaeological interpretation, especially in determining feature chronology. Schiffer’s (1972, 1987) work on formation processes brought specific attention to the transformation from systemic or living contexts to archaeological contexts. Archaeologists must take site abandonment, “the process whereby a place – an activity area, structure, or entire settlement – is transformed to an archaeological

108 109 flexner

context” into account when attempting to Rathje’s (e.g., 2001) “garbology” project understand assemblages and site provides a useful case study of the chronologies (Schiffer 1987:89). Much of difference between what people say, and Schiffer’s (1987:89–98) discussion of what they do. Bottle glass from the Hansen’s abandonment focuses on refuse left behind disease settlement at Kalawao, Moloka‘i can by people abandoning sites in a planned, be used to reinterpret certain historical gradual manner or a sudden, catastrophic assumptions based on the written record. In manner. In some cases, people would re-visit addition to resituating the narrative of site sites to collect intentionally cached materials, abandonment, bottle glass has provided an a pattern especially noted for highly mobile opportunity to examine previously groups. This behavior would remove undocumented behavior in the Hansen’s materials from the archaeological record disease settlement on Kalaupapa Peninsula. (Schiffer 1987:93). Archaeological evidence from Kalawao, Moloka‘i indicates the presence of artifacts that post-date the Kalawao: The Story of Abandonment historically accepted time of abandonment for the early Hansen’s disease settlement. Kalawao is one of three ahupua‘a on These remains represent re-visitation to an Kalaupapa Peninsula, on the north shore of area following a planned, gradual Moloka‘i (Figure 1). Kalaupapa is well abandonment, adding to the assemblages of known in Hawai‘i as the place where sites that were no longer permanently thousands of people diagnosed with inhabited. Hansen’s disease (more commonly called leprosy) were quarantined beginning in Archaeologists in Hawai‘i are concerned with 1866. The first people exiled to Kalaupapa assessing the effectiveness of our methods arrived in the eastern ahupua‘a of Kalawao, for interpreting feature chronology, where they set up a community that especially among surface remains (Dye eventually reached a size of over 1,100 2009). For post-Contact sites, written people. Inhabitants of Kalawao lived in documents can be compared with artifact scattered houses across the landscape, assemblages composed of materials with supported by a state-run store, hospital, known manufacturing dates. Contradictions dispensary, and slaughterhouse, as well as between the written and archaeological several churches. Within the settlement, records can lead us to reinterpret feature daily life was structured by internal chronology, but they could also result from community dynamics, along with the outside other patterns of behavior related to site influence of the Hawaiian Board of Health formation. This kind of evidence can be and various missionary groups (Greene useful for interpreting patterns of habitation, 1985; Inglis 2004; Moblo 1997, 1998, site abandonment, and re-visitation in 1999). Archaeological research focused on th Hawaiian landscapes. For the 20 century, the Hansen’s disease settlement in Kalawao

110 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 1. Map of Kalaupapa Peninsula.

111 flexner

revealed a landscape structured by the pre- abandoned until the 1930s, and doctors and existing Hawaiian spatial order. Household patients in the U.S. Leprosy Investigation architecture and refuse indicated continuity of Station, which was active from 1908–1920 traditional Hawaiian practices alongside (Greene 1985:258–289, 300). People likely adaptation of introduced materials. This work salvaged useful materials from sites in showed the dual nature of social organization Kalawao during the period of abandonment. in this total institution. The Board of Health After habitation shifted to Kalaupapa, it is superficially imposed certain rules and thought that the area of the former regulations, while the mostly Hawaiian settlement in Kalawao was generally left to community actually determined the form of processes of natural decay, as feral pigs and everyday life (Flexner 2010). uncultivated plant life reclaimed the landscape. Kalawao was a bustling community in the 1880s, but it was not seen as an ideal location for the Hawaiian Hansen’s disease Glass Bottles and Manufacturer’s settlement. Historical documents indicate Marks from Kalawao various problems with the physical geography of the eastern part of Kalaupapa Surface midden was present on 28 of 63 Peninsula. There was a notoriously windy archaeological features recorded during climate with periodic storms that caused archaeological fieldwork in Kalawao. extensive damage (Korn 1976:262). The area Surface collections along with test also lacked a reliable harbor where ships excavations recovered an assemblage of could drop off provisions. Kalawao was 9,216 artifacts, of which 46.85% (N=4,318) abandoned in the 1890s in favor of settlement were glass. Bottle glass was ubiquitous in in Kalaupapa, where winds were less severe, midden assemblages, and several caches of and there was a good natural harbor (Greene bottles were encountered on the surface 1985:xxviii, 247–248). In November 1894, (Figure 2). Within the glass assemblage, notices were served to kama‘āina living in about 40% of the artifacts (N=1,715) are Kalaupapa indicating that their lands were to identified as bottle glass, including complete be taken by the Board of Health. Residents bottles as well as small fragments. Bottle not in Kalaupapa under the Act of glass is commonly used to interpret Segregation to Prevent the Spread of Leprosy chronology and behavior on post-Contact had six months to vacate the area, which was archaeological sites. People were not subsequently to be used exclusively for the consuming the bottles themselves, but the Hansen’s disease settlement (Greene goods inside the bottles, after which bottles 1985:248). By 1900, it is generally assumed were discarded or re-used for other that residents of Kalawao had moved to purposes.1 It is unlikely that bottles were Kalaupapa, with the exception of orphan boys curated for long periods of time, so the time living in the Baldwin Home, which was not of discard can usually be assumed to be

112 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 2. Bottle cache on the surface of an archaeological feature in Kalawao. These are machine-manufactured crown top bottles probably dating to the early 20th century, which are typical of the area, and likely contained soft drinks or beer.

close to the time of use. While color is bottle glass assemblage from Kalawao, 7% usually a poor indicator of glass chronology (N=118) of artifacts exhibited some kind of (Jones and Sullivan 1989:12–14), the diagnostic marking, usually involving prevalence of uncolored glass (38% of the embossed letters, numbers, or shapes. bottle glass assemblage, N=655) from Commonly occurring marks indicate Kalawao generally indicates bottle primarily dates in the early 20th century, manufacturing practices from the end of the with bottles coming from the United States, 19th century onwards. Three hand-blown, notably San Francisco which has a long olive green glass bottles were recovered, history of trade relations with Hawai‘i indicating an earlier period, but the majority (Figure 3, Table 1).2 Beer consumption is of bottles from Kalawao were machine made, indicated by several bottles with embossed crown-top bottles, which were most likely marks. Kalawao’s residents enjoyed the manufactured after 1892 (Jones and Sullivan imported beers of Anheuser-Busch, as well 1989:79). as those of the Christian Moerlein Brewing Co., which produced beer from the mid-19th Diagnostic bottle manufacturer’s marks (Fike century through the beginning of prohibition 1987; Toulouse 1971) are much more useful in 1920 (Anheuser-Busch 2007; Christian chronological indicators, and sometimes also Moerlein 2009). Notably, Busch was one of indicate the contents of the bottles. In the the pioneers of the use of pasteurization and

113 flexner

Figure 3. Common manufacturer’s marks from bottles in Kalawao. (Clockwise from top left: “Slanted AB”, “PCGW”, “Oval-Diamond”, “HA”, see Table 1 for details).

Table 1. Details about Common Manufacturer’s Marks from Kalawao Bottles. (Note general tendency towards early 20th century dates.)

Mark Manufacturer Location Date

AB Adolphus Busch Glass Manufacturing St. Louis, Missouri 1904–1928 Co. Slanted AB Adolphus Busch Glass Manufacturing St. Louis, Missouri 1904–1907 Co. SB&G Co Streator Bottle & Glass Co. Streator, Illinois 1881–1905 PCGW Pacific Coast Glass Works San Francisco, California 1902–1924 P/C Pacific Coast Glass Co. San Francisco, California 1925–1930 Circle-Diamond Owens-Illinois Pacific Coast Co. San Francisco, California 1932–1943 HA Hazel Glass Co. Wellsburg, West Virginia 1920–1964

114 hawaiian archaeology

refrigeration techniques, which would give medicine that could be identified with more that particular brew an advantage in long- certainty was Scott’s Emulsion of Pure Cod distance shipping, allowing the beer to arrive Liver Oil, with Hypophosphates of Lime in places like Hawai‘i unspoiled. There is and Soda, represented by a rectangular also evidence for consumption of locally- aquamarine bottle with an embossed brewed beer in the presence of several bottles fisherman mark on the exterior base (Figure bearing the mark, “HONOLULU B&M Co., 6; Bloomingdale Brothers 1886:146; Fike LTD., HONOLULU, T.H.” (Figure 4). These 1987:196). bottles would have contained beer from Hawai‘i’s first brewery, the Honolulu Beer Food medicines were probably given to and Malt Company, which began brewing patients in Kalawao as a perceived means of beer in 1897. The “T.H.”, indicating promoting strength and vigor. Patent Territory of Hawaii, means these bottles post- medicines, often containing alcohol and date the 1898 annexation of the Kingdom of other narcotics, were a common remedy for th th Hawaii by the United States. Honolulu Beer illness during the late-19 and early-20 was the forerunner of Primo Beer, which is centuries (Armstrong and Armstrong 1991). also represented in the assemblage by short These products appear on other Hawaiian brown bottles with stippling on the shoulder archaeological sites, as with a bottle of th (Seeto 2009; Primo Brewing and Malting Co. Ayer’s Cherry Pectoral from a late-19 2009). century ranching site on the slopes of Mauna Kea (Olson 2006). Their use was apparently Glass bottles in Kalawao were used to hold widespread throughout Hawai‘i prior to the many sundries besides beverages, including passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of perfumes, medicines, and cleaning supplies. 1906, which was meant to regulate the use A small percentage of bottles (4%; N=65) are of intoxicating or poisonous substances that interpreted as containers for such things, and were misleadingly marketed as healthful. are spread throughout the research area (Table 2). The use of patent medicines was A short, squat aquamarine ink jar with an apparently widespread among Kalawao’s octagonal base and round neck and mouth inmates, who doubtless suffered from many was found on top of an enclosure wall close afflictions in addition to the disease that had to a location identified as that of the caused their exile. One such patent medicine settlement’s store. Hawai‘i had a high was “Bro. Benjamin Wonder Oil” (Figure 5, literacy rate in the 19th century, and ink may left). Another smaller patent medicine bottle have been one of the sundries purchased simply indicates, “MADE IN U.S.A.” on the regularly by inmates from the Kalawao side, with an embossed “N” on the base store. A second remarkable artifact from the (Figure 5, right). The ingredients of these same area is a blue glass jar with the medicines and the symptoms they were inscription “FIN[E] [TAB]LE SAL[T] meant to treat are unknown at this time. One FROM J.T. MORTON LEADENHALL ST.

115 flexner

Figure 4. Aquamarine glass beer bottle from the Honolulu Beer and Malt Company, Territory of Hawaii.

Table 2. Distribution of Glass Artifacts Interpreted as Holding Something Other Than Beer or Soft Drinks on Different Sites in Kalawao. Generic interpretations (e.g., “Medicine”, “Perfume”) are tentative, based on the form and size of the bottle.

Bottle Type “Downtown” Bakery Cistern South of Store Grand Kalawao Area Area North Road Area Total*

Bro. Benjamin 1 1 Wonder Oil Clorox Bleach 1 1 Cod Liver Oil 2 2 Ink Jar 1 1 Medicine 3 23 6 2 6 40 Medicine/Liquor 3 1 4 Morton's Salt 1 1 Jar Perfume 7 7 Undetermined 2 6 8 Grand Total** 3 30 20 3 9 65 * Grand total for each type of bottle. ** Grand total for non-beverage bottles on different sites in Kalawao.

116 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 5. Aquamarine glass patent medicine bottle that contained “Bro. Benjamin Wonder Oil” (left). Clear glass patent medicine bottle, “Made in U.S.A.” (right).

Figure 6. Aquamarine glass fragment from a bottle of Scott’s Emulsion of Cod Liver Oil.

117 flexner

LONDON”. An 1868 record of J.T. Morton, bottle neck was located. Of 257 glass salt merchant located at 107, 108, & 109 artifacts recovered from this area, 95 were Leadenhall Street (Merchant Shippers of classified as possibly used or worked, and London 1868:222) pinpoints the geographic 56 showed clear evidence of retouch and/or origin of this product, though the date of this use. One such artifact is a flake from the particular artifact may be slightly later. base of an uncolored glass bottle with Kalaupapa is known today as one of the best extensive edge damage (Figure 7).3 Glass places in the Hawaiian Islands to collect bottles from this midden are also largely of naturally occurring rock salt. That someone 20th century manufacture, including beer, would import salt all the way from London is soft drinks, and patent medicines, among thus surprising, and shows a growing interest which there were both worked and non- in exotic goods, as well as changing notions worked specimens. It is possible that the of purity and refinement for foods and other worked glass tools represent processing of consumables during this period. A similar wild or feral food sources such as fruit, deer, concern for cleanliness is represented in a or pigs, which are abundant in the Kalawao brown glass bottle neck bearing the landscape. inscription “CLOROX”, indicating the Clorox bleach company, which was founded Beck and Somerville (2005:476–477) in 1913 in Oakland, California. Overall, the consider worked glass in terms of a patterns found among Kalawao glass bottles “complementary conversation” between suggest late-19th century dates for some archaeology and oral history. Unfortunately, patent medicine bottles and other sundries, no records, written or oral, point to the and dates in the 20th century for things like nature of bottle glass tool production or use beer and soft drinks. The earlier bottles among residents of Kalaupapa. Gibbs and suggest a wider range of behaviors, while the Harrison (2008) documented procurement later bottles reveal something about post- and tool production patterns of flaked bottle abandonment activities in the settlement. glass among Australian Aboriginals within a Western Australian mining community. The Clorox bleach bottle neck mentioned Notably, glass knapping took place on the above was located in a surface midden fringes of the settlement in order to avoid deposit that contained a high percentage of treading on sharp waste flakes from the glass that showed evidence of retouch and production process. After site abandonment, use for cutting or scraping (Flexner and there is evidence that Aboriginal people Morgan 2009). While flaked glass was found returned to “quarry” glass bottles as raw in small amounts throughout the research materials for tool production (Gibbs and area in Kalawao (34 such artifacts were Harrison 2008:66-67). For Kalawao, glass recovered from surface collections knapping appears to have been concentrated elsewhere), it was highly concentrated around likewise outside of inhabited areas. The raw the small stone terrace where the Clorox materials could have been procured from

118 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 7. Flake from the base of an uncolored glass bottle with extensive edge damage.

pre-existing middens, or from beverage 1900. These artifacts add to the existing consumption in the area of tool production. story of Kalawao’s cultural landscape. In Glass tool production is another this case, while permanent habitation undocumented behavior relating to continued appears to have ended by the 20th century, use of Kalawao in the 20th century revealed people continued to visit the decaying ruins by archaeological evidence. of the old settlement. Three groups could have contributed to the 20th century bottle glass assemblage from Kalawao: residents Abandoned but not Forgotten of the main Hansen’s disease settlement at Kalaupapa, people working at the U.S. th The presence of a large number of 20 Leprosy Investigation Station, or orphans century bottles throughout the Kalawao from the Baldwin Home for Boys. It is landscape provides a complementary source likely that at least some of the assemblage (Beck and Somerville 2005) for histories was deposited by individuals from each of based on written documents, which generally these groups. assume that the settlement was abandoned by

119 flexner

In each case, the interpretation of these strict rules limiting alcohol consumption bottles might change, especially for alcoholic thus may be represented among the bottles beverage containers. Consumption of alcohol from Kalawao. was a serious concern for the Hawaiian Board of Health, which outlawed drunkenness, and Another possibility, which need not involve especially the distilling of the indigenous the question of whether beverages were th beverage ‘okolehao in the Hansen’s disease obtained or consumed legally, is that the 20 settlement (Greene 1985; Mouritz 1916). It is century glass bottles in Kalawao were unclear if the Board of Health was successful deposited by inhabitants of Kalaupapa in stopping clandestine distilling operations during visits to the old settlement. Residents in Kalaupapa. One interesting possibility is of the Kalaupapa Peninsula had a very that bottles in Kalawao were re-used as limited cultural landscape in which to move ‘okolehao containers. Without evidence in around. The abandoned or uninhabited parts the form of oral traditions or archaeological of the peninsula may have provided a space evidence in the form of still remains, though, for escape from the relative intensity of this will have to remain a question for future social interaction in the small, remote research. settlement. Walks in Kalawao may also have provided people with a sense of adventure as The attitude towards beer appears to have they left the confines of the living village. differed from the attitude towards ‘okolehao. Trips to Kalawao may have been an Beer was considered by many to be a opportunity to solidify social bonds, as well healthful, nutritious beverage in the late-19th as to share stories. Perhaps “old timers” and early-20th centuries, rather than an from Kalaupapa who remembered life in intoxicating one (Armstrong and Armstrong Kalawao would show younger patients 1991). By the 20th century, there appears to around the old settlement. Perhaps young have been an official line that mass-produced men would imbibe a beer or two to build up beers were acceptable, while Native home- courage before an evening hike to search for brews were not. While specific reference to one of the ghosts in the ruins. Or perhaps the alcohol consumption is not made, bottles are remnants of picnics in Kalawao “disciplinary problems” are noted for the on the way back to Kalaupapa after a Baldwin Home for Boys in Kalawao (e.g., Sunday service at Philomena Church, which Greene 1985:217). It is possible that orphans is used occasionally through the present day. from the Baldwin Home were using the ruins Finally, Kalawao continues to be used for of the abandoned settlement in Kalawao to hunting trips targeting local feral deer and evade surveillance when participating in pigs. Very recent bottles as well as illicit activities, including alcoholic beverage aluminum beer cans found in Kalawao can consumption. Likewise, beverage certainly be attributed to such activities. It is consumption may have been limited in the possible that this was also a common Leprosy Investigation Station. Resistance to activity in the past, though access to

120 hawaiian archaeology

firearms was probably limited in the The relevance of this work for post-Contact settlement. Whatever the specific intentions archaeology in Hawai‘i in general has to do of visitors to Kalawao, the fact that they with interpreting chronology for features deposited so many 20th century bottles on the based on artifacts found in surface middens. surface provided a valuable opportunity for For sites that do not have a clear re-interpreting the concept of abandonment documentary record, we must be careful for this landscape, which has implications about how we interpret materials found in both for local history and Hawaiian associated midden deposits. As the archaeology in general. assemblage from Kalawao indicates, later artifacts can find their way into sites that were no longer locations of permanent Conclusions habitation, but which were nonetheless important parts of the cultural landscape. Bottle glass in Kalawao has provided Items that were of short use-life, such as material for re-thinking the nature of alcoholic beverage containers, are especially abandonment of the original settlement. likely to derive from short-term visits rather Many of the marks on bottles found in than permanent habitation. In contrast, items th Kalawao indicate an early-20 century date, such as ceramics, tools, and construction which is later than is typically assumed for materials could be considered more likely the shift of settlement to Kalaupapa. One indicators of permanent habitation. Among possible explanation is that the bottles were many possible formation processes (Schiffer left by orphan boys living in Kalawao, who 1972; 1987), we should consider cultural stayed in the Baldwin Home through 1932 activities that might add to surface middens (Greene 1985:216–238). Another likely through periodic visits to otherwise possibility is that after the main settlement uninhabited areas when interpreting site shifted to Kalaupapa, patients continued to chronologies. visit the Kalawao side. Patients in Kalaupapa may have gone on such trips to escape from Beyond this, there are important the hustle and bustle of the community, visit anthropological repercussions for sites from their own memories or those considering what abandonment actually described to them by the old-timers in the means from a social perspective. Post- settlement, or simply to explore and gain a Contact archaeology in Hawai‘i involves a sense of adventure in the bounded space to variety of abandonment dynamics. In the which they were quarantined. It is likely that Anahulu Valley of O‘ahu, “upland a combination of processes were responsible households of Kawailoa-uka faded one by for the accumulation of 20th century bottles in one during the 1860s–80s as the older the “abandoned” village, artifacts of walks generation passed away and their sons and through the ruins of the old settlement with a daughters abandoned the ancestral estates, or few friends and a favorite beverage. sold them to the Haole planters” (Kirch

121 flexner

1992:167). This could be considered a more area circumscribed in the bounds of the gradual form of site abandonment, leaving a institution, but away from the watchful eyes marginal landscape that would eventually be of officials and neighbors. Far from being re-developed for sugar cane plantations. At empty spaces, abandoned areas of Pā ‘ula ‘ula o Hipo (Russian Fort Elisabeth) archaeological landscapes may have been on Kaua‘i, abandonment of the site as a fort areas where the behaviors least likely to be did not mean abandonment of the area, as otherwise documented took place. there is extensive documentary and Abandoned but periodically visited places archaeological evidence of continued are thus useful for examining evidence of indigenous Hawaiian habitation after resistance to an increasingly rule-bound and Russia’s experiment with colonialism in the surveillance-oriented modern world. archipelago (Mills 2002:201–204). Archaeological research in Kalawao suggests that after permanent settlement shifted, Notes people continued to leave traces of their activities in the area. Even in parts of the 1. Modern bottle collecting is one exception Hawaiian landscape where there is evidence where people curate the objects for their that permanent habitation had ended, there own sake. may be ephemeral evidence that abandoned 2. Just before the Hansen’s disease period, areas had an important role to play as places Kalaupapa was engaged in trade with San to escape stressful living situations, recount Francisco providing sweet potatoes to feed old stories, or simply to visit. the gold rush population (Goodwin 1994; McCoy 2005). What is intriguing about these visits is that the behaviors documented archaeologically 3. Surface collections nearby have recovered in such situations may be different from those glass bottle bases that appear to have been that took place in inhabited areas. Abandoned intentionally flaked to obtain shards with parts of the Hawaiian landscape may in many sharp cutting edges (E. Stein, pers. comm. cases hold useful clues about activities that 2010), which supports the interpretation that would not be observed in the places where people in Kalawao were using bottle glass to people lived on a more permanent basis. It make cutting and scraping tools. also must be noted that Kalaupapa was both a Hawaiian place, and an institutional one. Modern total institutions are designed with Acknowledgements particularly strict official rules, but their architecture often holds the space for This paper grew out of my dissertation resistance to those rules (e.g., Casella 2001). research, which was supported by the In the case of Kalaupapa, the shift of University of California, Berkeley settlement across the peninsula opened up an Archaeological Research Facility Stahl

122 hawaiian archaeology

Research Endowment, the Department of Bloomingdale Brothers. 1988[1886]. Anthropology Lowie-Olsen Fund, and Bloomingdale’s Illustrated 1886 Catalog: Kalaupapa National Historical Park. Pat Fashions, Dry Goods and Housewares. Kirch, Kent Lightfoot, and Laurie Wilkie Dover Publications, New York. from U.C. Berkeley provided supervision and Casella, E.C. 2001. To Watch or Restrain: support for the project, while Jennifer Cerny Female Convict Prisons in 19th-Century and Erika Stein from Kalaupapa kept the Tasmania. International Journal of work going from the Moloka‘i end. Many Historical Archaeology 5(1):45-72. student volunteers and colleagues helped with Dye, T.S. 2009. Traditional Hawaiian the fieldwork and laboratory analyses, and Surface Architecture: Absolute and Relative this work would not have been possible Dating. In Research Designs in Hawaiian without their efforts. The community in Archaeology: Agriculture, Astronomy, Kalaupapa was also instrumental in Architecture, edited by T.S. Dye. Society for welcoming us and supporting our research. Hawaiian Archaeology, Honolulu. Peter Mills and Fred McGhee provided useful Fike, R.E. 1987. The Bottle Book: A editorial comments for improving the paper. Comprehensive Guide to Historic, While many people made this work possible, Embossed Medicine Bottles. The Blackburn any errors or omissions are the fault of the Press, Caldwell, New Jersey. author. Flexner, J.L. 2010. Archaeology of the Recent Past at Kalawao: Landscape, Place,

and Power in a Hawaiian Leprosarium. References Cited Ph.D. diss., University of California, Berkeley. Anheuser-Busch. 2007. “A Brief History of Flexner, J.L. and C.L. Morgan. 2009. The Anheuser-Busch”. Anheuser-Busch Industrious Exiles: An Analysis of Flaked Companies, Inc. Website. Glass Tools from the Leprosarium at http://www.anheuser- Kalawao, Moloka‘i. Paper presented at busch.com/briefHistory.html (accessed 10 Hybrid Material Culture: The Archaeology February 2011). of Syncretism and Ethnogenesis, 26th Armstrong, D. and E.M. Armstrong. 1991. Annual Visiting Scholar Conference, Center The Great American Medicine Show: Being for Archaeological Investigation, Southern an Illustrated History of Hucksters, Healers, Illinois University, Carbondale. Health Evangelists, and Heroes from Gibbs, M. and R. Harrison. 2008. Dynamics Plymouth Rock to the Present. Prentice Hall, of Dispersion Revisited? Archaeological New York. Context and the Study of Aboriginal Beck, W. and M. Somerville. 2005. Knapped Glass Artefacts in Australia. Conversations Between Disciplines: Australian Archaeology 67:61–68. Historical Archaeology and Oral History at Goodwin, C.M. 1994. A Kalaupapa Sweet Yarrawarra. World Archaeology 37(3):468- Potato Farm: Report on Archaeological 483.

123 flexner

Data Recovery Operations, Kalaupapa Mills, P. 2002. Hawai‘i’s Russian Airport Improvement Project, Kalaupapa, Adventure: A New Look at Old History. Molokai, Hawai‘i. International University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Moblo, P. 1999. Ethnic Intercession: Honolulu. Leadership at Kalaupapa Leprosy Colony, Greene, L.W. 1985. Exile in Paradise: The 1871–1887. Pacific Studies 22(2):27-69. Isolation of Hawai‘i’s Leprosy Victims and ______. 1998. Institutionalising the Development of Kalaupapa Settlement, 1865 Leper: Partisan Politics and the Evolution of to Present. Department of the Interior, Stigma in Post-Monarchy Hawai‘i. Journal National Park Service, Branch of Planning of the Polynesian Society 107(3):229–262. Alaska/Pacific Northwest/Western Team, Denver. ______. 1997. Blessed Damien of Moloka‘i: The Critical Analysis of Inglis, K.A. 2004. “A Land Set Apart”: Contemporary Myth. Ethnohistory Disease, Displacement, & Death at 44(4):691–726. Makanalua, Moloka‘i. Ph.D. diss., University of Hawai‘i. Moerlein, C. 2009. “Our History”. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co. Website. Jones, O. and C. Sullivan (editors). 1989. The http://www.christianmoerlein.com/main.htm Parks Canada Glass Glossary. Minister of l (accessed 10 February 2011). Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa. Mouritz, A.A.S.M. 1916. “The Path of the Kirch, P.V. 1992. The Archaeology of Destroyer”: A History of Leprosy in the History. Volume 2 of Anahulu: The Hawaiian Islands and Thirty Years Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Research into the Means by which it has Hawaii. University of Chicago Press, been Spread. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Ltd., Chicago. Honolulu. Korn, A.L. (editor). 1976. News from Olson, D. 2006. There’s Nothing So Bad for Molokai: Letters between Peter Kaeo and a Cough as Coughing. Hohonu: A Journal of Queen Emma 1873–1876. University of Academic Writing 4(1). Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu. http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/hoho McCoy, M.D. 2005. The Development of the nu/writing.php?id=106 (accessed 8 February Kalaupapa Field System, Moloka‘i Island, 2011). Hawai‘i. Journal of the Polynesian Society Primo Brewing and Malting Co. 2009. 116(4):339–358. “What is Primo Anyway?”. Primo Brewing Merchant Shippers of London. 1868. The and Malting Company. Merchant Shippers of London, Liverpool, http://www.primobeer.com/about_home.asp Manchester, Birmingham, Bristol, and Hull: x (accessed 10 February 2011). A Comprehensive List of Merchant Shippers Rathje, W. 2001. Integrated Archaeology: A with their Respective Trading Ports and a Garbage Paradigm. In Archaeologies of the Classification of their Exports. S. Straker & Contemporary Past, edited by V. Buchli and Sons, London. G. Lucas. Routledge, London.

124 hawaiian archaeology

Schiffer, M.B. 1972. Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37(2):156-165. ______. 1987. Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Seeto, M. 2009. “Ale Love You, Hawaii”. Honolulu Weekly, April 29, 2009. http://honoluluweekly.com/cover/2009/04/ale -love-you-hawaii/ (accessed 10 February 2011). Toulouse, J.H. 1971. Bottle Makers and Their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York.

Contemporary Practice of Archaeology in Hawai‘i

Thomas S. Dye T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc.

Preface (by Windy McElroy and Sara Collins)

The following commentary was written by Dr. Dye in 2007 for a colloquium at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. The piece could not be published in Hawaiian Archaeology until now, but it still has relevance today for the context it provides on the current state of archaeology in Hawai‘i. Many of the challenges of 2007 have not been resolved, such as the curation issue, problems with the CRM industry, and the dysfunction of SHPD. Years after the events Dr. Dye describes, SHPD still faces serious issues and has now been deemed "at risk" by the National Park Service (NPS) after a comprehensive review. The SHPD has until 2012 to address corrective actions identified by NPS. Unfortunately, the office is still beset by many of the same problems Dr. Dye identified in 2007 so it is difficult to see how SHPD will meet the federal government’s requirements in time. The change in the state administration in late 2010 brought a commitment to restore state government offices, including SHPD. It remains to be seen if the administration will follow its words with the meaningful action and support SHPD needs to recover.

1 The Archaeological Situation a Decade Ago

I want to thank Miriam Stark for the invitation to speak with you today and the Board of Directors of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology for agreeing to co- sponsor the colloquium. Miriam’s original invitation was for a talk on the Politics of Archaeology in Hawai‘i. I want to apologize right away to Miriam and to the rest of you for declining the invitation to speak on that subject. The noun

125 126 hawaiian archaeology

“politics” has several meanings, but I My starting point for this is the keynote understood Miriam’s request as having to do address, “Hawaiian Archaeology: Past, with Present, and Future,” given by Pat Kirch to the tenth annual conference of the Society The assumptions or principles relating to for Hawaiian Archaeology on Kaua‘i ten or underlying any activity, theory, or years ago. Pat, in his usual pellucid style, set attitude, esp. when concerned with questions of power and status in a out a vision of institutional harmony and society. (OED) balance among the cultural resources management, or CRM, archaeology firms, Miriam is certainly right to be concerned the State Historic Preservation Division, about the politics of archaeology in Hawai‘i B.P. Bishop Museum, and the University of today. We are now in a dark period when Hawai‘i. Pat felt this balance was necessary archaeology is being politicized to a degree for the field of archaeology to move unprecedented during my nearly 40 years in forward. I was ready to hear Pat’s talk that the field. I share Miriam’s concern about the evening on Kaua‘i. A few months before the state of archaeology in Hawai‘i, as I hope conference, I had moved to International you all do, and I will have something to say Archaeological Research Institute after six about the central drama in that politicization, intense and often trying years with the State the decline of the State’s Historic Historic Preservation Division, where I Preservation Division. But I was trained as a knew that something wasn’t right. Pat’s social scientist, not a political scientist. My notion of institutional balance struck a chord interest is in the institutional framework with me and I wanted to learn more. within which Hawaiian archaeology is Fortunately, I was at that time editor of the practiced, and the ways institutions promote journal Hawaiian Archaeology and I and hinder the substantive performance of the arranged a forum of sorts in which we discipline. My overriding concern is with the published a slightly revised version of Pat’s resource, how and why we study it, what we address along with commentaries by Yosi make of it, and how knowledge of the Sinoto, Senior Anthropologist and Kenneth resource is used in the production and P. Emory distinguished Chair in reproduction of modern Hawaiian society. To Anthropology at Bishop Museum, Bion be sure, there is much that is political in all Griffin, Professor of Anthropology and this, but the politics of the practice and the Department Chair at the University of practice of the politics consume far too much Hawai‘i at Manoa, Ross Cordy, of my time as it is. I’d rather spend my time Archaeological Branch Chief at the State with you here in the academy talking about Historic Preservation Division, and Kehau issues that I think are central to how we gain Abad and Halealoha Ayau, one a graduate and use knowledge about Hawai‘i’s student in anthropology here at UH Manoa, traditional Hawaiian history, and speculating and the other the author of Hawai‘i’s burial with you how we might work together to law and rules and regulations. At the time, I improve our performance. commented that they had all “written on

127 dye

important issues with courage, precision, wit, in Hawai‘i,” and that its faculty weren’t on and commitment.” There was, of course, “the cutting edge of research questions in broad disagreement on many issues, Hawaiian prehistory and history.” His including issues about what the future held assessment of Bishop Museum was harsher. for the discipline of archaeology in Hawai‘i. Not only had Bishop Museum “made a bad Their future is now our past. My goal today is job of the biggest CRM project ever to be to share my perspective on the institutional undertaken in Hawai‘i,” referring to the H-3 history set out by Pat, Yosi, Bion, Ross, highway project, it had “completely Kehau, and Halealoha, with the benefit of an abdicated its former role as a major player in additional ten years of participant Hawaiian archaeological research.” In observation. I hope it proves to be an addition, the Museum had neglected its adequate substitute for the topic Miriam mission to educate the public about invited me to address. Hawaiian archaeology, opting instead to import canned exhibits of “motorized, At the center of Pat’s keynote address is the plastic dinosaurs to Kalihi, prehistoric notion that there is an optimal institutional creatures that are utterly foreign to the balance in which professional archaeological natural and cultural history of Hawaii nei.” consultants operate in the state: there is an active university program in Hawaiian Pat was considerably more sanguine about archaeology at both the undergraduate and the dominant, CRM side of Hawaiian graduate levels, a strong museum program, archaeology. The situation at the State and a well-organized State agency for the Historic Preservation Division was regulation of archaeological laws and “healthy” and he characterized it as “a top- programs. In Pat’s view, this institutional quality agency, with some of the best and balance in 1997 was unbalanced, or brightest archaeologists on its staff.” In his kapakahi, characterized by an unhealthy opinion, the “archaeology section has made dominance of cultural resources management important innovations in site recording and archaeology carried out by CRM firms and inventory, such as the implementation of regulated by the State Historic Preservation Geographic Information System database.” Division, and the demise of “research He recognized the fragility of the agency archaeology” carried out by Bishop Museum and warned that it “is in danger of being and the University of Hawai‘i at Manoa. In slashed by our politicians, even as it comes his view, Bishop Museum and the University under repeated attacks by certain radical of Hawai‘i at Manoa were neglecting their Native Hawaiian ideologues.” In his view, historic leadership roles. He argued that the the CRM archaeologists were “busy doing University of Hawai‘i wasn’t “providing archaeology-as-usual” much of it “excellent, intellectual and pedagogical leadership in the a good deal … mediocre, and some … field,” that it wasn’t “training students of the unquestionably bad.” He did worry that the highest caliber to work in CRM archaeology CRM side of Hawaiian archaeology wasn’t

128 hawaiian archaeology

doing enough to create a permanent record of could be lowered or not applied.” Kehau and Hawai‘i’s past, that there was “no coherent Halealoha argued in an overtly political vein organizational structure” for the preservation that archaeology in Hawai‘i be “guided in a of archaeological reports and records and for Hawaiian culturally-appropriate manner that the materials that were recovered during respects those who created the archaeological investigations. archaeological record and their living descendants.” They disputed Kirch’s The published responses to Pat’s address are prediction that “Hawaiian ideologues” still interesting, and I’ll have more to say would join in any effort to dismantle historic about some of them later. Briefly, Yosi, who preservation and predicted that the opposite suffered more than most under Donald would be true. To their minds, the issue was Duckworth’s unfortunate tenure as director best viewed the other way around and the there, agreed with Pat that Bishop Museum appropriate question was whether or not had lost its way. Bion found Kirch’s address “archaeologists would join Native Hawaiian to be “self-serving” and offered his own, efforts to protect and strengthen” historic Manoa-centric history of Hawaiian preservation laws. archaeology. He defended UH Manoa’s accomplishments in Hawaiian archaeology, while noting that the department shared with 2 A Decade of Participant the rest of the University “a commitment to Observation Asia, the ancestral home of many of Hawai‘i’s people” and was not necessarily That is where matters stood in 1997. What a focused on Hawai‘i. He also had greater difference a decade can make! Today it insight into the internal workings of the State seems difficult to view the practice of Historic Preservation Division than did Pat-- archaeology in Hawai‘i as situated within his wife Agnes Estioko-Griffin worked there the nexus of the four institutions Pat for many years-- and he believed that Pat’s discussed. Instead, archaeologists at Bishop positive view on the agency was wrong and Museum, the University, the State Historic that the agency was “in deep trouble.” Ross’s Preservation Division, and the CRM firms response argued that it was possible for the constitute one part of a large and growing State Historic Preservation Division and historic preservation community, which is CRM firms to join with the University in now exercising greater influence over the exercising the leadership role that Pat “research” agenda than ever before. This believed belonged to Bishop Museum and the community, by and large, values the good University. He worried, though, that the State products of archaeological research, but it Historic Preservation Division would “lose its places equal or greater value on other current staff and slide back into a non- matters as well, human burials primarily, but research focused bureaucratic agency … also the persistence of cultural knowledge, [where] the standards applied to firms’ work the importance of a regional or place-based

129 dye

perspective, the relation of people past and particular. Where the archaeologists spoke present to the land, and the appreciation of of “educating” Hawaiians, Kehau and the traditional cultural landscape, among Halealoha insisted that education would be a others. Reading over Pat’s address and the “two way street.” We archaeologists various comments, I was struck by how little wouldn’t be educating Hawaiians and then the archaeologists perceived this sea of bringing them into the historic preservation change at the time, and by how clearly Kehau community when their education was and Halealoha expressed its inevitability. The finished. The barricades had already been archaeologists were, by and large, still caught breached. We archaeologists would have to up in the central dynamic of the 1970s, in open our eyes and ears and pay attention to which the practical, field-tested the changes underway lest we find ourselves archaeologists of Bishop Museum were and our work marginalized beyond the opposed to the theoretical, classroom-based mainstream of historic preservation. archaeologists at the University. On one side Before moving on to my evaluation of how were Pat and Yosi, Bishop Museum the four institutions Pat discussed have archaeologists par excellence. On the other responded to the challenge, I want to bring Bion, the University department’s chair and your attention to Kathy Kawelu’s Ross, arguably the program’s most successful illuminating dissertation written under Pat’s and influential graduate. To these people, and direction at Berkeley entitled A Socio- others, Pat’s address was about this political History of Hawaiian Archaeology: opposition, and it was perceived as an Kuleana and Commitment. Based on a series extended salvo from the Bishop Museum side of in-depth conversations with members of of the divide. Predictably, it drew a heated the newly emergent historic preservation response from the University, in particular community, Kathy deftly and sensitively from Michael Graves, whose public email identifies and investigates the oppositions exchanges with Pat after the address kept the that provide much of the dynamic for archaeology community amused for weeks. change in historic preservation today. Kathy Kehau and Halealoha, a generation younger has begun to give talks based on the than the others, and unlike the others native dissertation and I would urge you to attend Hawaiians whose history is the subject of the these if possible or to invite her here for a archaeologists’ work, saw the future that we colloquium. In my opinion, the dissertation now inhabit with much more clarity. For is a must-read for archaeologists working in them the opposition was not along the Bishop Hawai‘i. Museum-University axis, it was between Now on to those four institutions. archaeologists who had long exercised over- riding control over the historic preservation I’ll start with the easiest one first. The most agenda and the rest of the growing historic dire predictions about Hawaiian archaeology preservation community, Hawaiians in at Bishop Museum have come true. Both Pat

130 hawaiian archaeology

and Yosi recalled discussions at Bishop might yield to a sustained and incisive Museum in the early 1970s about the wisdom analysis, despite some likely problems in of entering into the CRM arena and the effect data recovery and reporting. that commercialism might have on research. On one side was Doug Yen, who was Pat’s keynote address had two main adamant that contract archaeology didn’t complaints against the University of belong at Bishop Museum. On the other side, Hawai‘i: that it wasn’t exercising enough Pat and Yosi argued that research and cultural intellectual leadership and that it wasn’t resources management weren’t exclusive of properly training students. Let’s look at the one another, and that cultural resources leadership argument first. In Pat’s view, the management projects could help fund University of Hawai‘i should propose research. I remember at the time thinking that research questions and priorities that are Pat and Yosi had the better argument and that taken up by the CRM firms in their field Doug was overstating the case of how toxic investigations. This is a sensible suggestion the one could be to the other. But Doug was about how the CRM firms might work right, the cash cow of CRM archaeology was together with the University and some like crack cocaine for a perennially under- arrangement like this is certainly desirable. funded museum. The combination of Donald There are two things I find puzzling about it, Duckworth’s complete addiction to it, and the though. First, the modes by which research kind of disparagement of research staff that questions are communicated—conference could only come from a failed researcher papers, journal articles, and books—are such as Duckworth, finally killed the open to any archaeologist and not just UH Hawaiian archaeology program at the place it Manoa faculty. In this increasingly global was born a century earlier. Suffice it here to and interconnected age, why is it important note two things: that the final Bishop to have research questions generated locally Museum document of that era, the within the state, when they could just as investigation of Kukuiokane Heiau, now easily come from overseas, from someplace “preserved” for future generations buried like, say, Berkeley, which has in fact been a under a freeway on-ramp, has been hotbed of this kind of activity since Pat completed and is under review before it is landed there some years ago? Second, it is made public; and that someone still needs to certainly the case that setting research figure out what the $21 million H-3 priorities is something best done close to the archaeology budget bought the historic action in the field, where face-to-face preservation community. This is true interaction on the research opportunities especially of the North Halawa Valley work, presented by a field project is the preferred whose synthesis and analysis might be a mode of communication. But the last time project designed for an ambitious graduate this kind of collaboration took place was student here at Manoa. I know for a fact that probably back in the early days of CRM, there are some gems in this material that when Roger Green, Richard Pearson, Yosi

131 dye

and others from Bishop Museum, Bion Kohala project in collaboration with Griffin, Francis Ching, and Stell Newman Berkeley and several other institutions has formed an informal coordinating committee yielded many new insights; there is enough that met for a short time with this goal in leadership in this project to keep CRM mind. I think it is important to understand archaeologists busy for years. The artifact that this was a time that archaeologists might studies completed by Michael, Jim Bayman, call the proto-CRM period, a time before and Windy McElroy are also important for a private for-profit CRM archaeology firms CRM archaeology community that typically were established in the islands. I’m not sure tallies, but does not describe or analyze, the Pat grasped how different most CRM firms artifacts it finds. Some UH archaeologists are from research institutes that also take have committed time to the kind of face-to- contract work. In my view, the crux of the face interaction required to set research leadership problem isn’t that UH or Berkeley priorities; I’m thinking here of Peter Mills’ or some other institution isn’t taking a and Jim Bayman’s participation in the sufficiently active role, it is that most CRM Archaeology Working Group meetings archaeologists in Hawai‘i aren’t looking for organized by SHPD, which unfortunately leadership in the form of research questions came to naught and appear in hindsight to and priorities. In my opinion, many of them have been convened for political cover in a are doing the opposite, ignoring research gubernatorial election year. leadership in a commercially-driven effort to stay competitive and keep costs low. I I’m happy to say that both UH Manoa and addressed this issue in a short article in UH Hilo responded to Pat’s call for more Hawaiian Archaeology a few years ago and training of local students for careers in proposed elements of a solution. I’ll spare cultural resources management archaeology. you those details today, but will have more to Manoa’s M.A. program in applied say about the conduct of CRM archaeology in archaeology started this Fall and Hilo’s a few minutes. M.A. program has cleared some initial hurdles. There are discussions within the Regardless, the last ten years have seen UH system now about how the two several positive local developments. Within campuses might cooperate. From my the larger UH system, Peter Mills has brought perspective, it makes eminent sense to craft a Hawai‘i focus and new energy to the Hilo a program that lets Hawai‘i Island students campus, and West O‘ahu has hired Ross complete most of their M.A. work at the Cordy, a long-time leader of Hawaiian Hilo campus, close to home. There are as archaeology at SHPD. I don’t need to recite many archaeological sites on Hawai‘i Island to this audience the research as the rest of the islands combined and the accomplishments of Manoa’s faculty and locals there need all the help they can get to staff in the ten years since Bion did just that identify and protect them. I urge the in his response to Pat. Michael Graves’ participants at Manoa and Hilo to do

132 hawaiian archaeology

everything in their power to ensure that these and plan and clearly indicated the various discussions succeed and that an M.A. architectural components of the mapped program in applied archaeology becomes a structure. Today, it is the fashion to draw all reality at the Hilo campus. These discussions the rocks, but somehow in the thicket of might profitably be broadened to include UH rock symbols any indication of architectural West O‘ahu, too. Ross Cordy’s unique component has been lost and with it most of experience in CRM would greatly benefit the information about Hawaiian architecture students throughout the UH system. the structure might convey. The field school is necessary; develop a long-term field The curriculum of the new Manoa applied school location here in Hawai‘i and make archaeology program looks strong, especially your M.A. students spend a summer if the exemption from ANTH 668, thinking through the process that turns field Archaeology Field Methods, is granted only observations into information about exceptionally, when a student has shown in Hawaiian history and prehistory. their cultural resources management writing an ability to transform pertinent observations I’ll try to keep my comments about the crisis into useful information. In my opinion, the at the State Historic Preservation Division success of the M.A. in applied archaeology brief. The turning point to today’s debacle hinges on whether it teaches students the was the Wal-Mart project. Here, divisions in analytic skills needed to transform the historic preservation community were observations into information. As an instance, effectively exploited by the Lingle take observations of stratigraphy, both in the administration. The Wal-Mart project was ground and in surface architecture. the pretext for replacing Holly Excavation profiles are a bread-and-butter McEldowney, in my opinion the most able illustration of any archaeological excavation administrator the division has had, with report and field workers with a B.A. or M.A. Melanie Chinen, who has no background in are expected to be able to record and draw historic preservation. For a long time, the them competently. Yet, this skill is in short historic preservation community hoped that supply in the world of CRM, where pure Chinen was just someone who hadn’t fit in description most often rules the day. A elsewhere and, as sometimes is the case in competent stratigraphic profile drawing state government, had been put out to illustrates information about a sequence of pasture in a position with relatively little events and processes, not just a description of perceived downside. Her many the various sediments that were observed. Or accomplishments at SHPD belie this take the large-scale maps of architectural analysis. In short order, she managed to features required by the state’s inventory purge SHPD of its institutional memory by survey rule. Back in the 1930s, Bishop letting go or forcing out nearly all of its Museum archaeologists produced schematic experienced professionals. She scuttled the block diagrams that illustrated both elevation important geographic information system

133 dye

database and has steadfastly refused to give that time the division has been unable to anyone access to it. She stopped maintaining produce any records about the property. This the one reasonably complete library of is a request that staff would have handled cultural resource management reports in the routinely and in very short order when I was state, a move with the potential to cripple the there in the 1990s. But then, we had many knowledge base upon which historic advantages over the current staff, including preservation functions. By several accounts access to a well-maintained library, a fully- she has purged the correspondence files, functional GIS, and a complete set of erasing the state’s record of its own historic correspondence files. Sadly, the staff at preservation decisions. The Society for SHPD today don’t have the administrative Hawaiian Archaeology under the leadership support they need to do their day-to-day of its then President, Hal Hammatt, jobs, and it really shows. complained of the situation at SHPD in 2005 The push at SHPD now is to institutionalize and there was a temporary improvement. the current state of dysfunction. Position Chinen hired a new staff of qualified descriptions for the archaeologists have been professionals, but most of them quickly saw rewritten, doing away with the requirement through the charade and they are now all that they be qualified professionals. Now, gone; at last count 22 qualified professionals the archaeologists hired by SHPD don’t have left the division during her short tenure. have to meet the minimum qualifications The division is now almost completely needed to write the reports they will be dysfunctional. Consider this history of what asked to review. I tip my hat to the Lingle should have been a routine request about administration and to Melanie Chinen. They historic preservation concerns for a property have certainly had their way with the here on O‘ahu. The division first responded historic preservation community. that no survey had been conducted on the property. My firm was contacted to prepare a I’ve saved the CRM archaeological firms for proposal for inventory survey, but we last because they are going to bear the brunt recognized quickly that the property had been of my criticism today. My warrant for this thoroughly surveyed several years ago. This criticism of CRM archaeology comes from wasn’t an obscure survey. One of the sites the mission statement of the Society for there played a central role in a published and Hawaiian Archaeology, which pledges the well-publicized argument about the causes of Society “to discourage unethical change in lowland forests after Polynesian commercialism in the archaeological field colonization. We supplied our prospective and to work for its elimination.” client with a map that showed the known historic properties on the property and But before I tell you what I think is wrong instructions to ask the division for their with CRM archaeology today, I want to records on site significance and preservation point out that CRM archaeology regularly commitments. That was two months ago. In produces important new knowledge. To be

134 hawaiian archaeology

sure, most of this knowledge is about local thought were abraders made from the fragile conditions. The examples I’ll give you today spines of the black sea urchin, or wana. In draw heavily on the work of my own firm; the field, I patiently explained to Kim that this is a matter of convenience for me and I Hawaiians made abraders from the spines of don’t intend to imply that my firm has a the red sea urchin, or ha‘ue‘ue, and not from corner on archaeological accomplishments of the fragile black wana. Kim has a wonderful this type in the CRM world. I’m certain that quality of knowing when she is right, and archaeologists from other firms could point to she insisted that these were indeed abraders. longer, more interesting lists of their own. With my old eyes, I couldn’t be certain in the field that day that she was wrong, so I In Kona, working with Alan Carpenter at had the rest of the crew look for them, too. State Parks, we collected and identified tens In the end, we found more than twenty of of thousands of fish bones from a cave that the little wana spines and close examination had been completely excavated some years in the laboratory confirmed that they were before by looters. We compared our fish bone indeed artifacts, perhaps the first new kind collections with records of fish populations of Hawaiian artifact found in the last quarter offshore made in the 1970s by a UH marine century, since the recognition in the 1970s biology class. We found that, by and large, that volcanic glass, once routinely discarded the most abundant fish in our collection were during excavation, was an important cutting also abundant in the sea, and that fish that tool in traditional Hawai‘i (Figure 2). were rare in our collection were rare offshore. All except for the aholehole, a fine eating Finally, I’ll mention some on-going work in fish, popular in fish ponds, that was and is Kohala that Eric Komori and I are carrying abundant in the waters adjacent to our sites, out with Maurice Major. Coastal Kohala is a but was absent in our collections. The only wonderful place to work; the architecture is plausible explanation I can conjure for this is massive and most of it sits out in the open, that we are seeing the results of a kapu, unencumbered by vegetation (Figure 3). where ali‘i were protecting the breeding What we’re documenting there is a built stock of fish that were important in the fish landscape in the process of change. Here is ponds they built and controlled. The same one of many examples. You can see a large, area had several upright boulders, like this remnant structure on the right, the rocks of one (Figure 1), worked extensively with its walls presumably taken to build the long water worn cobble hammers, to reveal the red structure, probably a canoe shed, or halau, lava within. In light of the fishing kapu, we next to it on the left. interpreted these otherwise enigmatic erect, red boulders as ku‘ula, shrines to the god of When the site was abandoned, the halau fishing. wasn’t being used to store a canoe any longer. A t-shaped wall divided the interior In Waimanalo, Kim Kalama, a resident there into two rooms; you can see the architectural and a valuable employee, found what she stratigraphy clearly in this photograph

135 dye

Figure 1. Upright boulder with exposed red interior. Note the mound of removed material at its base. The scale is marked in decimeters.

Figure 2. Abraders fashioned from the spine of the black sea urchin, wana, recovered from excavations at Bellows AFS. The scale bar is 1 cm.

136 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 3. Surface architectural remains at Kaiholena, Hawai‘i Island. The scale, against the wall of the large structure on the left, is marked in decimeters.

(Figure 4), where the interior wall clearly with human colonization, the decline of abuts the halau wall. The built landscape is loulu palms and the ‘a‘ali‘i shrub, and the clearly dynamic, with at least three periods of near extinction of the shrub Ka palupalu o construction and use visible from surface Kanaloa, known in the wild by a plant inspection alone. growing on a sea stack off the coast of Kaho‘olawe Island. It is difficult to overstate CRM archaeology has accomplishments that the importance of this work carried out go well beyond the local scale. For more than within the framework of CRM archaeology. 50 years, archaeologists in Hawai‘i tried to figure out when Polynesians first landed on CRM archaeology can and does work, but it these shores. It wasn’t too long ago that the accomplishes less than it should in Hawai‘i debate was between archaeologists in favor nei, because the competition among most of a long chronology, beginning about the CRM archaeology firms is for contracts, not time of Christ, and those who thought it was for a place at the cutting edge of knowledge shorter, with first settlement around AD 400. about traditional Hawai‘i. A project manager Now, Steve Athens and his colleagues at at one “successful” and busy firm International Archaeological Research complained to me recently that he was Institute have demonstrated beyond a managing so many projects that he had reasonable doubt, using paleoenvironmental given up hope of learning much from any of data generated almost completely within the them. Quantity drives his firm’s economic context of CRM archaeology, that engine, not quality, and in this his firm is not Polynesians didn’t get here until AD 750 at unique. The most successful business model the earliest (Athens et al. 2002). Along the among archaeological firms has two way, Athens et al. have also revealed in detail characteristics that keep it from contributing the changes to the lowland forests that came more strongly to research: it relies on a

137 dye

Figure 4. Architectural stratigraphy showing the addition of an interior wall.

steady influx of trained archaeologists from at a site with several dozen burials the mainland; and it entrusts field work to discovered a five foot long wooden box held archaeologists, local and mainland, with together with nails, filled with an organic insufficient training in Hawaiian deposit and human bones, and buried in a pit archaeology. These archaeologists generally dug to size. The report describes it simply as know the technical side of archaeology—how a “box.” If it is too much to expect that a to lay out an excavation grid, draw a tape and find like this be described as a coffin, then compass map, and so on—but most of them can there be any hope that the work of these have only the faintest idea what they are archaeologists this will lead to an looking at when they are out in the field in understanding of, say, regional variation in Hawai‘i. The reports they write have a the structure of kauhale? numbing sameness to them, where one observation follows another with no These CRM firms don’t generally look to indication for the reader which observation the UH or to Berkeley for research questions might be pertinent, which one less so. An and priorities. Ask yourself, can research extreme example of this substitution of questions and priorities bring new contracts? observation for information came to my Instead, these firms look squarely at the attention last month. Archaeologists working SHPD archaeology rules and figure how to

138 hawaiian archaeology

meet their minimum standards with the least This is not ethical behavior, it is possible effort. How else can one explain the commercialism run amok. The Society for fact that some firms still date unidentified Hawaiian Archaeology was established to wood charcoal? There is every reason not to discourage just this kind of behavior. Will date unidentified wood charcoal because it the archaeological community stand together stands a good chance of being up to several to work for the elimination of hundred years older than the archaeological commercialism’s ill effects? Or, will the rest event that turned the wood into charcoal. of the historic preservation community, Archaeologists refer to this potential bias as following Kehau and Halealoha’s example, in-built age. Many years ago archaeologists take the lead for us? the world over began to control for its effects by identifying short-lived plants, such as shrubs, in their charcoal and dating these. 3 What It Will Mean to Practice Using a sample of 44 radiocarbon dates from Archaeology Bellows AFS, I’ve shown that failure to control for in-built age does introduce a bias It is customary at the end of a talk like this in Hawaiian archaeological research, and that to speculate about what the future holds. this bias is great enough to make the dates You might expect me to be pessimistic useless for studying the Hawaiian past. In about the future of archaeology in Hawai‘i fact, the in-built age of dates on unidentified after describing for you the death of the wood charcoal was probably the main reason Hawaiian archaeology program at Bishop archaeologists were arguing for a first Museum, the dire results of the Lingle settlement date in the early centuries AD administration’s frontal assault on the when Steve Athens showed that settlement Historic Preservation Division, and the occurred after AD 750. The reason some firms pervasive effects of unethical date unidentified wood charcoal is because commercialism on the CRM archaeology the SHPD rule doesn’t require that charcoal firms. But I’m not pessimistic. In the short be identified before it is dated. What is term, I think we’re in for a rough ride, but important to these firms is that their proposal the long-range prospects look good. be cheaper by the cost of charcoal Compared with ten years ago, it is now easy identification, and that their report be to imagine a united historic preservation produced more quickly by eliminating the community working successfully to month or so it takes to have the charcoal document and preserve important historic identified. A speedier turnaround at a lower properties and burials. price? Now that spells competitive advantage! Unless the Lingle administration abandons its cynical politics, and I think the chances I could go on and on with similar complaints, of this are slim to none, the Historic but I’ll stop here and give you my opinion. Preservation Division will continue to be a

139 dye

big problem. Ultimately though, the damage These young people are not kolea. They will that Chinen has wreaked at Lingle’s behest stay here in the islands and gain the many will be undone. One reason is that Hawai‘i’s years of experience that are needed to people support historic preservation. A recent contribute fully to the research goals of Advertiser poll shows that 68% of Hawai‘i Hawaiian archaeology. I don’t think it will residents would protect cultural sites even at be too long before we begin to see the the cost of economic development. However, positive effects of this influence on the the primary reason that Chinen’s work will be quality of archaeological work. Just as undone is that Lingle over-played her hand. important, the influx of local archaeologists The dysfunction at SHPD is so extreme that it into the archaeology firms will serve to has galvanized the historic preservation homogenize the historic preservation community. The rifts that Lingle exploited to community, blurring the division between gut the division are now on the mend. Kehau what are often today largely mailihini and Halealoha were right when they archaeology crews and the rest of the predicted that the Hawaiian community, even historic preservation community, which is the so-called radical ideologues, would take predominately kama‘aina. The bridges that their stand with the archaeologists if historic we are building today and the trust that we preservation came under attack. It has been are developing are going to strengthen over my distinct pleasure as President of the time. The historic preservation community is Society for Hawaiian Archaeology to work going to be more effective and less closely these last few months with the vulnerable as a result. Friends of the Historic Preservation Division, a group made up of dedicated individuals To be sure, there are some formidable from Hui Malama i na Kupuna o Hawaii Nei, obstacles in the way of the bright future that ‘Ilioulaokalani, Defend O‘ahu Coalition, I see. Two of the most pressing obstacles Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation, both have to do with the permanence, or Naki‘ikeaho, and Kanaka Council among lack thereof, in the record of Hawai‘i’s past others. Day by day, and issue by issue, we are that archaeologists create. The irresponsible finding common ground and forging the management of SHPD has shown us all the bonds that we will eventually build upon to fragility of the knowledge base created by put the Historic Preservation Division back Hawaiian archaeology. I am speaking here together again. primarily about the report library, which SHPD has failed to maintain. The most Another reason for my optimism is the recent entry in the paper version of the Master’s program in applied archaeology at library index is dated 2004, and one often UH Manoa and the possibility of its spread to searches the shelves in vain for reports other campuses. In my opinion, the more written in the last two or three years. And it locally-trained archaeologists we have in is not just a matter of reports tardily making cultural resources management, the better. their way to the library shelves. The Society

140 hawaiian archaeology

for Hawaiian Archaeology, during its review Hawai‘i’s past that archaeologists create of the Ward Villages project, was denied must be permanent and available to each access to a report that served as the basis for other and to the public. the Division’s fateful decision to carry out inventory survey concurrently with The preservation of archaeological construction there because the Division no collections is a much more difficult problem longer “maintains” that document. When than preservation of archaeological reports, SHA went to the Office of Information and it is a problem without any clear Practices in an attempt to get a copy of the solution. We are at the cusp of a watershed report, the OIP replied that it wasn’t in the on this issue. The first generation of business of telling State agencies what archaeologists to make careers in CRM is documents they had to maintain. How many getting old now and on the verge of reports like this one will never make their retirement. When Bill Barrera, who ran a way to the library shelves? small firm on O‘ahu and Hawai‘i Island for many years, passed away on the mainland it Unless something is done, archaeologists will took a heroic effort by the Society for soon find themselves in the position of being Hawaiian Archaeology to rescue his unable to determine what archaeology has relatively modest collections from the been done where, and progress, such as it is, dumpster. What happens when the larger will become difficult or impossible. firms with their extensive collections start Fortunately, advances in technology have shutting down? We can’t count on SHA for brought us to a point where there are heroic efforts on this scale, but as an alternatives to the central library of paper archaeological community we have failed to reports. It is now within the reach of every address the problem in any meaningful way. cultural resources management archaeology This failure hasn’t escaped the attention of firm to make all of their reports available as the rest of the historic preservation portable document format, or pdf, files on the community. I’ve been asked by a Internet. I’ll be reading a paper at the community group working with current and upcoming Hawaiian Archaeology conference former clients of mine to help them devise a that details how my firm accomplished this plan to determine the disposition of goal. Steve Athens, at International archaeological materials collected from sites Archaeological Research Institute, has on the Kona coast over a period of twenty described to me his firm’s progress in years. These people respect the converting their reports to pdf, and Bishop archaeological record and the information it Museum makes most of the H-3 reports can yield about traditional Hawai‘i. But they available on their web page. Hopefully, other also have strong feelings about the land and CRM firms are active on this front. The what it means to care for it in the face of archaeology community must act decisively development. It seems clear to me that this and soon on this issue. The record of is an issue that is going to be decided by the

141 dye

larger historic preservation community, and Hawaiian Terms not by archaeologists alone. My advice to the archaeologists here today is to begin thinking ‘a‘ali‘i seriously about the obligations they have to A native shrub or small tree, Dodonaea the scientific community and how these can viscosa, with a variety of traditional uses. The fruit clusters and leaves were used in lei be met outside of the standard museum making; the hard, yellow-brown wood was model. The end of this story won’t reprise the used to make posts for thatched houses, end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where spears, and bait sticks for fishing; the leaves Harrison Ford ends his quest for the ark of were used in conjunction with ala‘a bark and the covenant at a huge government puakala root to treat skin rash. warehouse whose identical archival storage boxes, each full of archaeological artifacts, aholehole line the shelves as far as the eye can see. I The Hawaiian flagtail fish, Kuhlia sandvicensis. think the end of our story will see much, if not most, of our material back in the ground. ali‘i In this scenario, how can we carry out our Chief, chiefess, officer, ruler, monarch, peer, obligation to science and ensure that our head man, noble, aristocrat, king, queen, materials are available for re-analysis? I don’t commander. have an answer to this, but I am willing to participate fully with you in a search for halau solutions. Long house, as for canoes or hula instruction. Thank you once again for the opportunity to speak here today. I look forward to working ha‘ue‘ue with you. We need to work together for The slate pencil urchin, Heterocentrotus historic preservation to succeed. As I look mamillatus. around, I am confident that the next ten years Ka palupalu o Kanaloa will see us overcome the obstacles that we A shrub, Kanaloa kahoolawensis, first face today. Together, we will seize the described in 1994 from a plant discovered opportunities that will surely arise as we on the cliffs of Ale‘ale Pu‘uloae on sea bring CRM archaeology more fully into the stacks off the coast of Kaho‘olawe Island. mainstream of research on traditional Hawai‘i. kama‘aina Native-born, one born in a place, host.

kapa Tapa cloth, as made from wauke or mamaki bark.

142 hawaiian archaeology

kapakahi malihini One-sided, crooked, lopsided; biased, partial Stranger, newcomer, guest; one unfamiliar to one side; to show favoritism. with a place or custom; new, unusual, rare, or of foreign origin; for the first time. kapu Taboo, prohibition; special privilege or nei exemption from ordinary taboo; sacredness; This, here. prohibited, forbidden; sacred, holy, consecrated; no trespassing, keep out. wana A sea urchin, as Echinothrix diadema. kauhale Group of houses comprising a Hawaiian home, formerly consisting of men’s eating Reference Cited house, women’s eating house, sleeping house, cooking house, canoe house, etc. Athens, J.S., H.D. Tuggle, J.V. Ward, and D.J. Welch. 2002. Avifaunal extinctions, kolea vegetation change, and Polynesian impacts Pacific golden plover, a migratory bird which in prehistoric Hawai‘i. Archaeology in comes to Hawai`i about the end of August Oceania (37) 57–78. and leaves early in May for Siberia and Alaska. Fig., to repeat, boast; a scornful reference to foreigners who come to Hawaii and become prosperous, and then leave with their wealth, just as the plover arrives tin the fall each year, fattens up, and leaves; a less common figurative reference is to one who claims friendship and kinship that does not exist.

ku‘ula Any stone god used to attract fish, whether tiny or enormous, carved or natural, named for the god of fishermen.

lei Garland, wreath.

loulu The native fan palm, Pritchardia sp., whose leaves were used traditionally as thatch for houses and whose unripe seed was also eaten.

The Society for Hawaiian Archaeology would like to thank the following sponsors for their generous support of this volume:

Editorial and subscription notices Current Subscriptions

Hawaiian Archaeology, founded in 1984, is Hawaiian Archaeology is distributed to published by the Society for Hawaiian members of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, a registered tax-exempt Archaeology. Current dues are: organization. Regular—$30 The Officers of the Board of Directors of the Family/Institutional—$35 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology are: Student—$15 Lifetime—$500 Peter Mills, President Ethan E. Cochrane, Vice-President Membership applications are available online Victoria Wichman, Treasurer/Membership at www.hawaiianarchaeology.org Juanita Aguerrebere, Communications Secretary/Webmaster Jennifer Kahn, Recording Secretary Cover Image

Standing Committee Chairs Title: “A Morai, in Atooi” Tanya Souza and Adam Lauer, Education Hawai‘i, Island of Kaua‘i (United States) Sara Collins, Legislative Plate 23 Windy McElroy, Publications Drawing by John Webber Holly McEldowney, Standards & Ethics Engraving by Daniel Lerperniere Brian Lane, Student Representative Book info: Copyright © 2011 Society for Hawaiian Pacific Images: Views from Captain Cook’s Archaeology. All rights reserved; no part of this Third Voyage by Eleanor C. Nordyke in publication may be reproduced, stored in a collaboration with James A Mattison, Jr., M.D. retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or Published by the Hawaiian Historical Society, by any means, electronic, mechanical, 1999 photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Board of Engravings from A Voyage of the Pacific Directors, Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. Ocean by Captain James Cook and Captain James King, Published as the Official Edition of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty Address in London, 1784.

Hawaiian Archaeology, Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, PO Box 22458, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96823 is the address for all matters relating to the Society to Hawaiian Archaeology.