• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Figure 90. Puʻu 2 Figure 91. Close up of Puʻu 2 with maiʻa growing in the crater. Along with identifying Puʻu 1 and 2, we were also able to identify another puʻu nearby (to the northwest of Puʻu 1 and 2) that had lāʻī growing along the side of it (Figure 92). The name of this puʻu could not be identified on any historic maps or previous surveys so 341 it was temporaryly named Pu‘u 3. Figure 92. Puʻu 3 located the northwest of the Puʻu 1 and 2. Lāʻī was observed growing on the puʻu. The fourth site that was located was on the southeast side of Pu‘u Heiheiahulu. Four mounds were identified close to the crater rim (Figures 95-98). The mounds were located among three to four active steam vents. While seven mounds were identified during Sweeney’s survey in 1995, only four of these mounds were visible from the air during the current survey. Thick vegetation growth in the area was likely concealing the mounds. Therefore, it is recommended that a ground survey be conducted on the puʻu to relocate the seven mounds and assess the condition of these features. 342 Figure 93. Close up aerial photo of the cultural sites documented during the aerial survey 343 Figure 94. USGS map illustrating the location of the cultural sites documented during the aerial survey 344 Figure 95. Overview shot of Puʻu Heiheiahulu with 4 mounds located on the SE side of the puʻu (circled). Figure 96. Four mounds located on Puʻu Heiheiahulu 345 Figure 97. Mounds located amongst active steam vents and overgrown with vegetation (grass and ferns). Figure 98. One of the mounds with a wooden stick placed in the middle of it. The final site located was the Kaimū Cave. From the helicopter, we identified four cave openings located to the south of Pu‘u Heiheiahulu (Figures 99 & 100). We could not distinguish the presence of any cultural features within the cave, but due to the fact that other lava tubes in the area contain a large amount of preserved features, it is highly likely that this cave was used in pre-contact times and that remnants of human activity 346 are preserved within the cave. A thorough ground survey of this site is strongly recommended. Figure 99. Cave opening believed to be part of the Kaimū lava tube complex Figure 100. A skylight opening of the Kaimū Cave. 347 Summary While no new sites were located during the helicopter survey, the aerial reconnaissance was still very valuable as it provided the researchers with more familiarization with size, scale, and natural landscape of the project area. This general familiarization is helpful in planning and conducting any future archaeological fieldwork in the area. The helicopter survey also illustrated the advantages of utilizing aerial surveys for this type of landscape. The aerial, birds-eye view that was offered by the helicopter survey was an especially efficient and time-saving method to conduct large scale reconnaissance surveys of the project area. While ground surveys will be required for certain portions of WKOP, the helicopter survey was a necessary first step for us to obtain a useful overview and an initial familiarization of the area. Finally, the absence of cultural sites identified from our aerial survey corroborates previous findings that most surface cultural sites to be found within the project area are probably sparse in density, difficult to identify, and not well preserved. Figure 101. The WKOP forest surrounding the former geothermal drilling site. 348 PREVIOUS INTERVIEWS Native Hawaiian Ethnographic Study for the Hawaiʻi Geothermal Project Proposed for Puna and Southeast Maui (1996) The study titled, “Native Hawaiian Ethnographic Study for the Hawaiʻi Geothermal Project Proposed for Puna and Southeast Maui” was prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy and the Oak Ridge Operations Office in May of 1996. The co-authors of this study include Jon K. Matsuoka, Davianna Pōmaikaʻi McGregor, Luciano Minerabi, The Cultural Advocacy Network for Developing Options (CANDO), Pualani Kanahele, Marion Kelley, Noenoe Barney-Cambell, L.D. Trettin, J.W. Saulsbury, The Energy Division, and ORNL Subcontract Managers. This ethnographic study was initiated during the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed development of the Hawaiʻi Geothermal Project (HGP) in Puna, Hawaiʻi and Southeast Maui. The U.S. Department of Energy and State of Hawaiʻi decided to no longer pursue the HGP and completed this ethnographic study for the EIS project archives. The focus of this study was to identify and thoroughly assess traditional resources, cultural properties, and significant sites of Native Hawaiians with regard to the potential effects of the HGP in the proposed project areas (Figure 102). Those who conducted this study sought to gather information about Native Hawaiian resources in relation to ecological (atmospheric/terrestrial/aquatic) impacts, subsistence impacts, cultural impacts, and spiritual/religious impacts. In turn, this study resulted in a valuable compilation of Hawaiian knowledge about the district of Puna and Southeast Maui. The following information was gathered from 45 interviews that were conducted with Native Hawaiian informants who have ancestral ties to Puna and those who are knowledgeable about this district. Direct quotes from the original summary of these interviews are utilized below to rid the information of misinterpretation. It is important to note that although the summary is written in past tense, it does not imply that these traditions no longer exist. The main themes presented in the interview data that relate to Wao Kele O Puna include: principals of subsistence, spiritual beliefs, the goddess Pele, trails and access, forest gathering, hunting, cultivation, and Hawaiian rights. The summarized information about these topics are given below. 349 Figure 102. Map showing the general locations of subsistence activities, trails, and ancient sites in Puna from 1990 CANDO study 350 Principals of Subsistence Many informants from the district of Puna describe traditional subsistence activities as an essential part of their lifestyle. These activities were guided by the knowledge of many principal beliefs that were passed down from generation to generation. In addition, this knowledge also perpetuated an effective and respectful relationship between people and the land. The summary of information regarding subsistence activities in the district of Puna is as follows: Several principles and aspects of subsistence were discussed which served to regulate resources and reinforce family and community cohesion. A critical guiding principle was to never take more of a resource than was needed. Families engaged in subsistence when supplies (fish, meat) were running low or for special occasions (e.g., lūʻau, graduations). The amounts taken depended upon family size. Obviously, a larger family required a larger quantity of a resource. The bulk of the food consumed by families came from some form of subsistence, although staples such as rice and other miscellaneous food items had to be purchased in Hilo or other nearby towns. The traditional diet was comprised of carbohydrates which came from the cultivation of kalo (taro), ‘uala (sweet potato), and ʻulu (breadfruit), and sources of protein which came from and seafood, pigs, goats, and wild cows. Wild donkeys were also hunted at one time. The availability of certain varieties or species of flora and fauna varied according to seasons or cycles. For example, certain species of fish (‘ū‘ū, ahi) were more abundant during the summer months, the pig population was cyclical according to roaming and reproductive patterns, and maile underwent periods of dormancy and regrowth according to the cycle of rain. Traditionally, when resources in a particular area dwindled because of overuse, that area was kapu or restricted to further usage or harvesting in order to allow regeneration. The resources were always abundant and readily accessible to those who possessed the knowledge about their location and skills required to obtain them. Knowledge about subsistence was passed down intergenerationally. Subsistence areas were understood in terms of boundaries and used by ʻohana who lived within close proximity to an area. These ʻohana were traditional stewards who had jurisdiction and inalienable rights in that particular resource domain. Others who wished to use the area exercised good manners and respect by asking their permission. Respect for other peoples’ subsistence domains appeared to the more prevalent among hunters and gatherers. Fishermen, the other hand, generally said they traveled the coastline in search of fish and other ocean resources. If one stop along the coast did not furnish a catch, they would move to the next place. Some informants, however, who lived along the ocean said that they watched for trespassers and warded off fishermen who entered their 351 property without permission. Traditional knowledge regarding techniques used for obtaining resources was based on an intimate understanding of the behaviors and predilections of animals, fish, and plants. Hawaiians were taught by their elders how to read the natural conditions (e.g. clouds, moon, water, animal behavior) to determine the best times to go fishing. The life cycle of mountain plants were also correlated to particular ocean conditions (e.g. wiliwili in bloom determined that sharks were feeding in near shore waters). Some informants subsisted according to traditional protocols that were tied to a “right” state of mind or spirit that placed them on a plane that was acceptable to the spirits and increased the potency of the resource. One informant stated: When I pick flowers or medicine, I take the knowledge that my father taught me. What hand to pick with, the whole process of knowing. There’s a oneness – the whole mind and body has to be centered on the medicine and how its gonna be used. You cannot think about anything else. It opens the channel, what you give out to that source.

Load more

  147

Copy Link