Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Alaoa Hydropower Dam Site in Samoa (Part 6 of 9)

Environmental Impact Assessment

Project Number: 52111-01 February 2020

Samoa: Alaoa Multi-Purpose Dam Project

Volume 2: Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Alaoa Hydropower Dam Site in Samoa (Part 6 of 9)

Prepared by National University of Samoa for the Asian Development Bank.

This environmental impact assessment is a document of the borrower. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of ADB's Board of Directors, Management, or staff, and may be preliminary in nature. Your attention is directed to the “terms of use” section on ADB’s website.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ALAOA HYDROPOWER DAM SITE IN SAMOA Centre for Samoan Studies | National University of Samoa

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ALAOA HYDROPOWER DAM SITE IN SAMOA

Gregory Jackmond Research Archaeologist

Centre for Samoan Studies National University of Samoa

Report prepared for Richard Herweynen Entura, Hydro-Electric Corporation

Contents

Executive summary ...... 5 1. Area surveyed ...... 6 2. Cultural Heritage Findings ...... 11 2.1 Areas within the Project Area ...... 11 2.2 Areas outside the Project area:...... 11 Archaeological remains in Area Number 1 ...... 11 Archaeological remains in Area Number 2: ...... 11 3. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 15 3.1 It is unlikely that heritage sites will be threatened by the construction of the Alaoa dam...... 15 3.2 Adjacent areas have minor cultural heritage significance ...... 15 3.3 Recommended procedure if there is Project design modification ...... 15 3.4 Recommended Procedure for Incidental Archaeological Finds ...... 15  Incidental finds retrieval strategy: ...... 16 3.6 Conservation: ...... 16 Appendix 1: Survey methods ...... 17 Appendix 2: Heritage legislation ...... 18 Appendix 3: Archaeological record of the area surrounding Alaoa ...... 19 Appendix 4: Record of meeting with members of Malietoa family ...... 21 Appendix 5: Features Recorded...... 23 Appendix 6: Original Entura Maps of Project Area ...... 26

FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Project Location Figure 2: Map of Survey Area (Aerial photo) Figure 3: Survey sections – enumerated Figure 4: River valley and surrounding forest (Section 13B facing south to southwest). Figure 5: Survey area showing location of archaeological and other features Figure 6: Enlargement of eastern ridge above dam. Figure 7: Partial fale stone outline (curbing) – marked with photo scale (between Sections 13B & 13C, photo taken facing north). Figure 8: Two possible graves (center right near photo scale) (between Sections 13B & 13C, photo taken facing northeast). Figure 9: Tia as seen from access road to east. Figure 10: Close up of cleared Tia. Figures 11 – 16: Portions of platform (fale) foundations. Figure 17 – 22: Modern era artifacts found in survey area associated with platforms (fale).

Alaoa Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Survey Team: Centre of Samoan Studies (CSS), National University of Samoa (NUS).

Leader and team leaders Project Position Position Gregory Jackmond Lead Research Research Archaeologist, Archaeology and Archaeologist Cultural Heritage, CSS/NUS). Matthew Durling Crew Chief GIS Specialist, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, CSS/NUS Mohammed Sahib Crew Chief Research Project Officer, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, CSS/NUS Crew Chief Lecturer, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Erenei Samuelu CSS/NUS Johannes Uili Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Fina Potifara Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Aiga Niualuga Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Justin Alatimu Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Taatia Asenati Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS

Survey Conducted by: Gregory Jackmomd ______

Report Prepared by: Gregory Jackmomd ______

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE PROPOSED ALAOA HYDROPOWER DAM SITE IN SAMOA

Executive summary The Centre for Samoan Studies (CSS) at the National University of Samoa (NUS) conducted a pedestrian archaeological field survey of the proposed Alaoa Hydropower Dam site in Samoa. The objective was to identify and record any archaeological features of heritage significance in the area. Samoa’s heritage legislation is described in Appendix 2. Concerns raised by some members of the Malietoa family were investigated (see Appendix 4).

The survey was conducted in four stages.

I. A preliminary review which included a literature search to identify any existing archaeological research in the project area (see Appendix 3), reference to Samoa’s cultural heritage policy and legislation (Appendix 2) and analysis of aerial photographs and LiDAR images to identify any possible heritage sites (such as remains of old settlements, monuments and walls). II. A field survey (18 March - 5 April 2019) of the proposed Alaoa Dam area guided by the LiDAR images, conducted with a total of 1600 person-hours. The survey methods are described in Appendix 1. III. Consultation on interests expressed by one faction of the Malietoa clan in areas adjacent to the project areas are addressed in Appendix 4 IV. Final report preparation was undertaken in consultation with the Samoa Electric Power Corporation and Entura.

The findings are as follows:

1. There is no evidence of heritage sites in the Project Area: a complete ground survey of the Project area found no evidence of heritagesites likely to be affected by the construction of the Alaoa dam. It is possible, although very unlikely, that earthworks for the construction of the dam may reveal buried heritage remains.

2. Heritage sites of minor significance were found in adjacent areas outside the Project area:The adjacent areas are unlikely to be disturbed by the Project. These include portions of old small stone house platforms, stone markers possibly indicating very old grave sites, modern era (20th century) refuse (bottles, broken household implements), and a modern era stone-marked grave (tia) which may be about 50 years old.

3. Incidental finds or changes to Project plan. If earthworks uncover incidental finds, or if proposed access road is substantially widened, or if other areas are modified for associated infrastructure, the Centre for Samoan Studies at the National University of Samoa should be requested to send a qualified archaeologist to investigate. The investigation would determine whetherfurther excavation should be carried out to record features of potential significance to Samoa’s cultural heritage.Section 3 of this report provides recommendations on the procedures to be taken in the event of incidental finds.

1. Area surveyed

The project area as defined by the maps provided of the project on 3 Jan 19 (EHT-AL-FR-C-015.pdf and EHT-AL-FR-C-004.pdf – see Appendix 7) wasgeoreferenced and the information wasentered into the QGIS software programme. This project area encompasses approximately70 hectares of land and is situated in the Vaisigano River drainage, near the convergence of the middle (eastern) and eastern branch of the river, approximately5.5 km south of the city of Apia, locatedbetween the villages of Vaoala and Letava on the west and Magiagi-Uta on the east (Figures 1 &2).

No permanent land acquisition or resettlement of any kind (voluntary or involuntary) is expected under the current project scope and design. The colonial Administrator of the Territory of Western Samoa acquired the Vaisigano watershed land in 1921 under Ordinance No. 18 (Land for Water Supply Purposes) with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council of the Territory. Subsequent disputes over the land have been legally resolved in the government’s favor.

The area surveyed to identify any potential heritage features consists of a steep river valley bordered on both sides by high ridges. The valley was ravaged by Cyclone Evan in 2012. Large quantities of debris were flushed down the river by the ensuing flash flood. This had massive impacts on the original vegetation (which has been replaced by new growth) and any remains of human activity.

The survey areaswere defined as a 30 m wide boarderencompassing all areas of construction or possible construction (as shown on the pdfmaps of 3 Jan. 19, listed above). For roads and proposed roads,60 m wide corridors (30 m on each side from the centre of the road) were marked for the survey (Figure3a). Other areas of construction and inundation were drawn with an additional 30 m border for the survey to produce an added buffer (Figure3b). QGIS was used to demarcate these areas and they were further divided into smaller workablesections to be surveyed (Figures3a and 3b). Sections were numberedand lettered for easy recognition.

Because of the near vertical nature of many of the sections of the river valley the pedestrian surveyconcentrated on the river valley and gently sloping ridges. The majority of the river valley is very steep, and those areas of flatter land are presently covered with dense vegetation (grasses and brush) which made precise observation difficult (Figure 4). Under heavy forest cover (higher on the ridges), where vegetation was less dense, surveying was relatively easier.

The recent devastation caused by Cyclone Evan (2012) was evident, even under the dense forest cover on the upper slopes of the valley, in the form of numerous “tree falls” and a greatly disturbed, uneven surface.

Figure 1 : Project Location Figure 2 : Survey Area

Figure 3a: Survey areas of roads and proposed roads.

Existing Roads Constructed Roads Proposed Roads

Figure 3b: Survey areas of reservoir and associated infrastructure.

Reservoir Dam Lower Dam Aggregate

On Sky View Factor LiDAR, light colored regular shaped areas, sometimes surrounded by dark borders, usually indicate areas of raised elevation. As such, these areas may indicate, if man-made, the presence

9 of platforms, terraces or mounds for ancient dwellings.Although the light colored rectangular areas appearing on LiDAR images of the project area may be indicative of raised elevation (see Figures23 & Figure 24) and in the past have indicated raised terraces or platforms, in this area when these raised areas where ground proof, viewed on foot, they were shown to be only large tree falls (possibly from cyclone Evan) and not man-made.

Figure 4 Figure 5 Alaoa Project overlaid on LiDAR Image LiDAR image (Enlargement of NE portion of Figure 23) Features of interest – circled in red

All of the possible features identified on the LiDAR were visited and turned out to be large “tree falls” and apparent natural terracing without evidence of human modification. As much as possible, all accessible portions of the river valleys and surrounding slopes shown in Figure 3a and bwere surveyed on foot for evidence of human modification and use (see Apendix 1 – Survey Methods). Numerous natural outcroppings were encountered within the river basin but no evidence of human modification or use was found within the river basin, flood plain or proposed flooded area.

Figure 4: River valley and surrounding forest (Section 13B facing south to southwest).

2. Cultural Heritage Findings The following findings were made from the ground survey of the project area 2.1 Areas within the Project Area No archaeologicalfeatures were encountered within theproposed project area andstream basins.Although some questionable examples of possible single small grinding stone were found along the river course, it is most probable that these are the result of the action of natural water caused by the associated streams rather than artifacts made by man. 2.2 Areas outside theProjectarea: Although sections 1G and 1F (Figure 3a) are not considered a primary construction zone, they are directly associated with the modern grave (Tia) located along the existing road. It was felt prudent to survey these areas should additional widening to the existing road be deemed necessary. Two areas of interest were located on higher ground above the proposed project areawithevidence of recent and possibly not so recent activity (see Figures 5 & 6). It is unlikely that they will be affected by the project but are recorded here for the record.

Archaeological remains in Area Number 1 On the central ridge just to the south of the convergence of the two branches of the Eastern Vaisigano River (Figure 5 – lower center) a partial rock outline of a standard sized falewas observed (see Figure 7). Stones were located, placed in a way suggesting that mark graves were located in this area; indicating small graves (Figure 8) to the northeast.One of these is larger and comprised of raised stones (Figure 10) while two other are smaller marked with stone rings.

Measurements were taken as accurately as possible of the remaining evidence of the two features given their heavily eroded condition (Table 1). These two features are on the outside of the proposed flooded area for the dam and are in no eminent danger of destruction, henceno excavations were undertaken.

Archaeological remains in Area Number 2: An area of feature concentration, the possible remains of a small village (Figure 3: Section 1F & 1G), was observed along the ridge above and to the west of the proposed dam (see Figure 6). This area is adjacent to the present access road but does not appear to extend into the present right of way. This area may be destroyed if the access road is substantially widened. This area (Section 1F) also contains an apparently modern Tia (burial mound), less than 15 meters west of the present access road (Figure 9 & 10).

Figure 5: Survey area showing location of Figure 6: Enlargement of western ridge above dam. archaeological and other features.

Figure 7: Partial house (fale) stone outline (curbing) – marked with photo scale (between Sections 13B & 13C, photo taken facing north).

Figure 8: Two probable graves (center right near photo scale) (between Sections 13B & 13C, photo taken facing northeast).

Figure 9: Tia as seen from access road to east. Figure 10: Close up of cleared Tia.

Figures 11 – 16: Portions of house platform (fale) foundations.

This area contained 8-10 partial outline remains of houses (fale) (see Figures 11 – 16), numerous (10-15) piles of stone, various bottles (both old and new, broken and complete), a shovel with a plastic handle, a small piece of concrete (1 x 1 x .4 cm), and some old rusted metal kitchen utensils scattered about the area (Figures 17 - 22). Because of the apparent greatly disturbed ground surface from numerous tree falls, the stone piles may be evidence of additional platforms (fale) in the area giving evidence to the fact that this, atone time, may have been a small settlement. Several short rock alignments (probably old walls) were noted during the survey, but none that developed substantial evidence of human modification (height/width).

Figure 17 – 22: Modern era artefacts found in the survey area associated with platforms (fale).

Figure 17: Rusted knife blade Figure 18: Green glass bottle, Figure 19: Rusted metal bowl hand blown (ca.1920)

Figure 20: Rusted shovel w/ Figure 21: Metal tea pot Figure 22: Brown “ABC” bottle plastic handle (ca.1960)

Although we have no dates for the platform foundations, which may predate modern use, the presence of numerous modern era artifacts indicates that the area appears to have been used within the last 50 years or thereabouts. No excavations were carried out because these features are most likely to be outside of the proposed road construction and flooding for the dam and are in no imminent danger of destruction.

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

Despite an exhaustive pedestrian survey of the proposed Alaoa Dam area(Figure 3) aided by LiDAR and aerial photography, little evidence of human activityof cultural heritage significance was observed. 3.1 It is unlikely that heritage sites will be threatened by the construction of the Alaoa dam. There is no evidence of heritage sites in the Project Area. If there were heritage sites in the dam areas, the damage to the area caused by Cyclone Evan (2012), or similar earlier such events erased them. The cyclone sent massive walls of water down the Vaisigano River, as evident from the decapitated tree trunks shown in Figure 3. This flash flood undoubtedly erased any earlier evidence of human activity in the dam site. It is possible, although very unlikely, that earthworks for the construction of the dam may reveal buried heritage remains and recommendation are made should this occur in 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 below. 3.2 Adjacent areas have minor cultural heritage significance The only areas of past human occupation that wereobserved and recorded are located on the areas above the proposed flood basin. These areas also showed the results of considerable disturbance and destruction from repeated numerous tree falls, possibly caused by high winds. Theareas where past human occupation has been identified are in the higher locations above the river in Area Number 1 (Section 13C and 13F) and in Area Number 2 (Section 1F and 1G). On the basis of current plans for construction of the dam and its associated infrastructure, these do not appear to be in danger of destruction. 3.3 Recommended procedure if there is Project design modification If the proposed access road is substantially widened, or if other areas outside the present boundaries of the Project area are modified for associated infrastructure, the Centre for Samoan Studies at the National University of Samoa should be requested to send a qualified archaeologist to investigate whether further excavation should be carried out to record features of potential significance to Samoa’s cultural heritage. 3.4 Recommended Procedure for Incidental Archaeological Finds It is recommended that if there are Incidental finds (pottery shards, human remains, stone tools and other artefacts) during earthmoving and excavation activities, the following procedure should be followed

• During the project induction meeting, all contractors will be made aware of the availability of an Archaeologist from the Archaeology and Cultural Heritage program (ACH) at the Centre of Samoan Studies (CSS), National University of Samoa (NUS). • In the event of incidental finds all construction activity in the vicinity of the find/feature/site will cease immediately; the incidental finds are to be left in place and the area should be secured to prevent any damage or loss of removable objects. • An archaeologist from ACH/CSS should be notified to record the find location; assess, record, photograph and delineate the incidental finds

 Incidental finds retrieval strategy: It is recommended that incidental finds such as pottery shards, human remains, stone tools and other artefactsidentified during earthmoving and excavation activitiesshould be subject to the following procedures:

• All investigation of archaeological soils will be undertaken by hand, • All finds, osteological remains and samples will be kept and submitted to the National Museum of Samoa as required. • An on-site office and finds storage area will be provided, allowing storage of any artefacts orother archaeological material recovered during the monitoring process. • In the case of human remains, in addition to the above, such guidelines for the treatment of human remains as exist in Samoa will be adhered to. If skeletal remainsare identified, an osteoarchaeologist will be contacted by CSS/NUS to examine the remains.Where relevant the archaeologist from ACH/CSS will undertake the inspection process in accordance with all project health and safety protocols under direction of a Health and Safety Officer. In consultation with the statutory authorities the archaeologist from ACH/CSS will determine the appropriate follow up course of action to take.

3.6 Conservation: A conservator is available to the Project, if required.The archaeologist from ACH/CSS will complete a report on the findings.Once authorisation has been given by the responsible statutory authorities, the client will beinformed when works can resume as soon as feasible.

Appendix 1: Survey methods

Survey team leaders Project Position Position Gregory Jackmond Lead Research Research Archaeologist, Archaeology and Archaeologist Cultural Heritage, CSS/NUS). Matthew Durling Crew Chief GIS Specialist, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, CSS/NUS Mohammed Sahib Crew Chief Research Project Officer, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, CSS/NUS Crew Chief Lecturer, Archaeology and Cultural Heritage, Erenei Samuelu CSS/NUS Johannes Uili Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Fina Potifara Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Aiga Niualuga Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Justin Alatimu Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS Taatia Asenati Team Leader Research Assistant, CSS/NUS

The survey team, comprising of four (4) lecturers, five (5) research assistants and twenty (20) National University of Samoa (NUS) students, canvassed the survey sections (see Figures 3a & 3b) using Samsung S6 smart phones to record data, document GPS waypoints, photograph features and track their progress. An intensive ground survey was conducted of the identified sections. Teams of three students and one instructor or research assistant performed a preliminary survey of the selected survey blocks by walking transects and recording the measurements and locations of all archaeological features encountered using standalone Samsung S6 smart phones (not connected to the internet) equipped with the following applications:

(i) Docs To Go (spreadsheet) to record all measurements, (ii) GPS Status (compass) to measure headings and orientations for recorded features and photographs, (iii) SavePoint to record GPS waypoints for all features (within an accuracy of 3 m), (iv) Camera to photograph all features and record GPS waypoints of the photographs, (v) QField to view exact locations in the field using selected aerial photographs and LiDAR- derived images of the survey area.

All information was then transferred into the QGIS software programme to develop maps and an integrated working database of the survey areas.

Using QGIS, a 60m wide survey buffer (30m on each side) was drawn around the proposed roads and project areas to insure complete archaeological survey coverage of the proposed project site (Figure 3a and Figure 3b).The survey area was further divided into workable sized sections (Figure 3a and Figure 3b) and each section was covered as completely as possible considering present conditions.

Appendix 2: Heritage legislation

In Samoa, current national legislation relating to cultural heritage protection or preservation is yet to be developed. However, the 2013 Samoa Law Reform Commission (SLRC) report on the establishment of a National Heritage Board recognises the existing fragmented government legislative framework. Furthermore, the report suggests the following ‘heritage’ definition:

In Samoa, heritage includes not only historic buildings, but other places with historic or cultural significance, as well as oral traditions and expressions; social practices and rituals; and knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe. In Samoa, our understanding of heritage is influenced by our geographical location, our genealogy and our standing in our community.1

In January 2019, the Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture launched the National Cultural Framework (2018-28) under which the following policies are situated; the National Heritage Policy (201- 28), the National Cultural Industries Policy (2018-28) and the National Culture in Education Policy (2018- 28). Overall, these policies outline the scope and objectives of the government to support the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Under the National Heritage Policy, the National University of Samoa (NUS) and the Centre for Samoan Studies (CSS)are key implementing partnersfor several activities in co-ordination with the Heritage Committee; and to develop capacity building initiatives for the implementation and safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage and Tangible Cultural Heritage. In addition, the NUS are tasked with developing and updating a national digital inventory which will be based at the CSS.

The CSSoffers an Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Programme at the undergraduate level, and a postgraduate course on Cultural Heritage Management. Currently, the CSS represent the NUS on the Disaster Risk Reduction Project for Heritage Sites associated with the government Apia Waterfront Plan (2017-26). A key agenda for the CSS is the need to include a Heritage Assessment for the Consent Development procedure as implemented by the Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure.

The Post-Disaster Needs Assessment following Cyclone Evan (2012) recognises the affected cultural heritage areas, and vulnerability of heritage buildings and sites. As a result of the cyclone, damage and loss to the cultural heritage sector totalled an estimatedSAT$1.427 million. Key efforts towards the preservation and protection of heritage sites include co-ordinated and integrated approaches across the sectors.

1Government of Samoa, National Heritage Board Report (2013), Samoa Law Reform Commission, p.15.

Appendix 3: Archaeological record of the area surrounding Alaoa

An extensive literature review was undertaken as part of the survey to ascertain ifthere were any records of heritage sites in the Alaoa dam site.

No archaeological sites have been found or recorded in previous studies of the actual project area.

Archaeological surveys in the 1960’s located features in the general area of the proposed dam. The following known sites are located in areas adjacent to (within several km) of the project area, some documented in previous archaeological, ethnographic, and historical research on Samoa:

• An existing “Tia” (burial platform), visible on LiDAR, was identified along the upper western side of the access road,outside the project area, along the ridge above the present Alaoa reservoir (see Figure 5 above). The grave is reported by a senior member of the Malietoa family (on the staff of the Centre for Samoan Studies to belong to the Seumauntafa family of Apia village, located on land formerly used by that family and the Malietoa family).

• An earthen fort (olo) along the Magiagi Road in present Magiagi-Utu (north and above the proposed project area) was documented in the 1960s2. Several other similar forts, along with evidence of prehistoric habitation are evident from LiDAR images and also from visual ground observation made along the modern Magiagi road through the village, on the eastern ridge above the proposed dam site.

• The remains of an ancient edifice known as Fale o le Fe’eis located approximately 4.5 km to the south of the proposed dam on the Eastern Branch of the Vaisigano River. It was documented by Freeman in 19443 and restudied as recently as 2007 by Martinsson Wallin4. Oral traditions concerning the site have been documented in 2017 by Monalisa Saveaalii Malietoa5.

• Fortifications, a star mound, and terracing on Mt. Vaea(3 km to the west) are described by Best 19936.

• Reports on grinding stones (foaga) in Moamoa 4 km to the west of the project site are among other archaeological features that have been recorded in the general area7.

References

Best, S., 1993. At the Halls of the Mountain Kings. Fijian and Samoan Fortifications: Comparison and Analysis, The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 102, No. 4: 385-447 BLM/SHA, 2018. Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website, https://sha.org/bottle/. Web Site Built 30 Oct. 2018; Accessed 6 Apr. 2019

2Green, R. and J. Davidson, 1969. Archaeology in Western Samoa, Vol. 1: 205–223 3Freeman,J. D. O le Fale o le Fe’e.Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 53 No. 4: 121-144 4Martinsson-Wallin, H., 2007.Preliminary report of investigations at Fale o le Fe'e. (Unpublished) 5Saveaali’I Malietoa, M, 2017, “O le Fale o le Fe’e” Journal of Samoan Studies 7, 3: 6-18 – date? 6Best, S. 1993. At the Halls of the Mountain Kings. Fijian and Samoan fortifications: comparison and analysis. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 102, No. 4: 385-447 7Cochrane, E., 2013. Moamoa Foaga. Unpublished report to the Centre for Samoan Studies.

Cochrane, E., 2013. Report on grinding stone archaeological feature (foaga) Moamoa, Āpia, ‘Upolu, Unpublished report prepared for the Centre of Samoan Studies, National University of Samoa. Freeman, J. D., 1944. O le Fale o le Fe'e, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Volume 53 , No. 4, 121-144. Government of Samoa, 2013, SAMOA Post-disaster Needs Assessment, Cyclone Evan 2012, March 2013. Government of Samoa, 2013, National Heritage Board Report, Samoa Law Reform Commission. Government of Samoa, National Culture Framework (2018-2028), Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture. Government of Samoa, National Heritage Policy (2018-28), Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture.Government of Samoa, National Cultural Industries Policy (2018-28), Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture. Government of Samoa, National Culture in Education Policy (2018-28), Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture. Martinsson-Wallin, H., 2007.Preliminary report of Investigations at Fale o le Fe’e. Unpublished report prepared for the Centre of Samoan Studies, National University of Samoa.

Newman, T.,1970. A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology, 4, 70-75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2561513 Saveaali’i Malietoa, M, 2017. “O le Fale o le Fe’e” Journal of Samoan Studies 7, 3: 6-18 Scott, S. and R.C. Green, 1969. Report 13: Investigation of Su-Lu-41, A Large Inland Fortification. In R.C. Green and J.M. Davidson (eds.), Archaeology in Western Samoa, Vol. 1. Auckland: Bulletin of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 205–223.

Appendix 4: Record of meeting with members of Malietoa family

Meeting with EPC and some Malietoa family members – 24th April, 2019 (EPC Conference room).

Attendeesat the Meeting:

EPC: Fonoti Perelini, Sam Sesega, two other officials.

Malietoa Family: Papali’i MalietauMalietoa, Papali’i Titi Malietoa, Viva Leotasu’ateleManusegi, one other person.

NUS/CSS Gregory Jackson, Malama Meleisea

Introduction: Some members of the Malietoa family (a grandson and son of the previous holder of the Malietoa title) had expressed concerns about (a) the safty of the dam and (b) their interests in the land impacted, including a grave site. It should be noted that these people represent a small faction of the Malietoa clan, and that the majority of them have not raised objections. The issue is covered in the resettlement plan.

At about 9.50am on the morning of the 24/4/19, Fonoti Perelinicalled a meeting, asking the NUS teams to inform the Malietoa family members about the archaeology and cultural heritage survey which the Centre for Samoan Studies (CSS) at the National University of Samoa (NUS) had been commissioned to carry out by a consulting firm on behalf of ADB.

Greg Jackmond. CSS specialist survey Archaeologist at CSS led the survey. The area surveyed included all the land which will be covered by water if and areas for associated infrastructure for the proposed multi-purpose dam at Alaoa .

Presentation: EPC gave a presentation on the background, the objectives and other technical engineering details, and thenGreg Jackmond made a brief presentation on the survey findings. He explained how the survey was carried out (use of Lidar images, information gathered from GPS/GIS and the actual ground surveys carried out by four Archaeology and Cultural Heritage staff and some twenty students over a period of about three weeks.

Findings: After outlining the geographic features of the land to be used and the location in relation to the whole area, Greg explained that the survey found nothing of any cultural or historical significance in the actual area which will be covered by water. He mentioned that they looked at areas outside the area to be flooded and found only a few historically recent

items (teapot and bottle). Greg’s presentation also pointed out that a well-known national cultural heritage site,the Fale o le Fe’e - is about 4.5 kilometers away from the proposed flooded area and is not in any danger of being affected by the construction of the dam. Recent pictures of this site site showed significant human/climate disturbances however.

Evidence of old settlements were found well outside the project area in locations being claimed by some families including the Malietoafamily .

Conclusion: Greg’s presentation helped clarify a number of issues: no evidence of cultural heritage under threat if the project goes ahead, no threat for other cultural heritage sites around the area, that none of the proposed project and other infrastructural constructions necessary will impact any of the customary-owned land at Alaoa.

Both EPC and Malietoa family members appreciated the clarifications Greg’s presentation made. The CSS team left and the meeting with EPC and the members of the Malietoa family continued.

Appendix 5: Features Recorded. Length Width Height Site# Type m m m Shape Sides Comment P101 Grave 6 5 0.6 Rectangular Vertical grave build with stones P102 Platform 7 2 0.3 Unknown Sloping old platform with a large tree on it P103 Platform 7 4 0.7 Unknown Sloping unclear walkway P104 Platform 6 4 0.3 Oblong Sloping very disturbed P105 Platform 5 4 0.4 Oblong Sloping platform is badly disturbed P106 Platform 4 3 0.5 Oblong Sloping badly disturbed P107 Platform 3 3 0.1 Unknown Sloping very low disturbed P108 Platform 7 6 0.3 Unknown Sloping very disturbed P109 Platform 9 3 0.2 Oblong Sloping very disturbed P202 Platform 9 7 0.1 Irregular Vertical pile of rocks P203 Platform 4 1 0.6 Oblong Sloping tulagafale P204 Platform 10 4 0.8 Rectangular Sloping house foundation P205 Platform 11 8 0.6 Rectangular Sloping house foundation P206 Grave 4 1 0.1 Rectangular Sloping stone grave P207 Platform 6 10 0 Rectangular Sloping house foundation P208 Grave 3 2 0.1 Rectangular Sloping possible grave P209 Platform 3 3 0.2 Irregular Vertical scattered rocks, P210 Platform 6 4 0.2 Irregular Vertical scattered rocks P211 Platform 16 5 0.3 Irregular Vertical scattered rocks, platform ends P213 Platform 12 10 0.2 Oblong Sloping tulagafale Stone SP301 Pile 3 5 0.3 Oblong Sloping pile of rocks Stone SP302 Pile 4 3 0.3 Oblong Sloping pile of rocks Stone SP303 Pile 7 4 .1 Oblong Sloping pile of rocks Stone SP304 Pile 3 3 0.2 Oblong Sloping pile of rocks Stone SP305 Pile 3 3 0.2 Oblong Sloping pile of rocks Stone SP306 Pile 6 4 0.2 Oblong Sloping pile of rocks Stone SP307 Pile 14 11 1 Oblong Sloping natural outcropping Stone SP308 Pile 15 12 2 Oblong Sloping natural outcropping filled with sticks, possible tree fall, H101 Hole 5 4 1.5 Unknown Sloping only 1 of many in area O101 Other 5 3 0.4 Unknown Sloping very disturbed green bottle 30cm long seam down O102 Bottle both sides

close up of green bottle 30cm long O102-1 Bottle seam down both sides green bottle 30cm long seam down O102-2 Bottle both sides close up of seam on green bottle O102-3 Bottle 30cm long seam bottom of green bottle 30cm long O102-4 Bottle seam down both sides O103 Bottle bottom of broken brown bottle O103-1 Bottle bottom of broken green glass bottle top of broken brown glass bottle w/ O103-2 Bottle parts below top of broken green glass bottle w/ O103-3 Bottle parts below O104 Bottle 2 glass bottles brown & green O107 Other flat stone O108 Other flat stone w/ photo scale (50cm) O109 Other large pitted rock O110 Other 3 1 1 alignment of large stones old metal bowl w/ photo scale O111 Other (50cm) O112 Other part of stone paving? O113 Bottle green glass bottle plastic bottle with blue screw on top O114 Other w/ photo scale (50cm) O115 Other metal tea pot w/ photo scale (50cm) plastic bottle with yellow screw on O116 Other top w/ photo scale (50cm) O117 Other metal cups w/ photo scale (50cm) broken bottles w/ photo scale O118 Bottle (50cm) rusted metal shovel w/ plastic O119 Other handle w/ photo scale (50cm) possible old hearth w/ photo scale O120 Other (50cm) rusted knife blade 30cm long found O121 Other near P104 green hand blown glass bottle found O122 Bottle on P104 possible rock alignment w/ photo O201 Other scale (50cm) O214 Grave 6 4 0.2 Olong Sloping possible graves rectangular concrete block with O301 Other 1 1 1 R S broken edge on right sides O401 Other 7 5 0.2 O S natural outcropping of stone

natural outcropping of stone behind O402 Other 8 4 0.2 O S the river grass all over natural outcropping of O403 Other 8 7 0.3 S S stone lot's of grass natural outcropping of O404 Other 6 4 0.3 O S stone 27cm×30cm /possible grinding stone Grindingstone1 Other 0.27 0.3 0.6 ? Found in river bed 1.8m x1.2m /possible grinding Grindingstone2 Other 1.8 1.2 0.5 stones ? Found in river bed 30cm×30cm /possible grinding stone Grindingstone3 Other 0.3 0.3 0.8 ? Found in river bed

Appendix 6: Original Entura Maps of Project Area

EHT-AL-FR-C-004

EHT-AL-FR-C-015