hawaiian archaeology 6 Volume 6, 1997 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology hawaiian archaeology Volume 6, 1997 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology Editor’s Note 3 Dave Tuggle The ‘Ewa Plain 8 J. Stephen Athens and The Maunawili Core: Jerome V. Ward Prehistoric Inland Expansion of Settlement and Agriculture, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i 37 Boyd Dixon, David Soldo, Radiocarbon Dating Land Snails and Polynesian and Charles C. Christensen Land Use on the Island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i 52 hawaiian archaeology 6 Tom Dye, Editor Production of this volume was made possible with the generous financial assistance of Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. Cultural Resource Management Services issn 0890–1678 Contributor notes and subscription information can be found on the last page of this volume. Editor‘s Note A sentence in the lead article of a recent American Antiquity took me by surprise. Elizabeth Brumfiel wrote that “personal experience has taught many archaeologists that data do make a difference.” My decade-long absence from the halls of academe left me poorly prepared for the head- way an extreme relativism has made in our field. At first I thought Brumfiel was spoofing—does any prehistorian really think that data don’t make a difference? But it’s true, relativists have advanced the propositions that archaeological research is purely a social product and nothing more than politics. Brumfiel’s article is a dead serious first-person testimony to an instance when data did make a difference—in this case a change in her understanding of Indian women’s resistance to tribute collection in Aztec and colonial Mexico brought about by study of archaeological assemblages. Her point is that prehistorians are not free to write whatever they want about the past, guided solely by social and political forces of the moment. Rather, they are constrained in what they can write by archaeological (and I would add, other) evidence. They learn about the past from archaeologi- cal data. Data do make a difference. As I read Brumfiel’s article I was reminded of a meeting I had several years ago with a well-known local developer. He demanded to know why state laws made him spend so much money for archaeological excavations before he built his high-rise complex. I explained the rational for the state’s historic preservation law, which recognizes “that it is in the public interest to engage in a comprehensive program of historic preservation...to promote 3 4 hawaiian archaeology the use and conservation of [historic] property for the education, inspira- tion, pleasure, and enrichment of its citizens” (H.R.S. 6E-1). The developer noted that the only thing his archaeologist was contracted to produce was a report of findings. Would this report educate, inspire, give pleasure to, or enrich Hawai‘i’s citizens, he asked? My inability to predict the future saved me from answering his question directly, but the question itself is a good one. How much of the information that Hawaiian archaeologists work so hard to discover and report ever makes its way to Hawai‘i’s citizens? The connection between Brumfiel's article and the developer's blunt query is their shared concern with a perceived failure of prehistorians to trans- form archaeological data into something useful. This is a harmful percep- tion. Something like it was behind unsuccessful attacks on the National His- toric Preservation Act during the last session of Congress. Changes in the organization and role of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation auger a reduced role for the Council in overseeing historic preservation compliance by Federal agencies. At the local level, rumors of an impending challenge in the legislature to the state historic preservation law are circu- lating as I write. According to one rumor, large landowners will ask for a repeal of 6E-42, the section of the state’s law that gives the historic preser- vation division of DLNR the opportunity to comment on the impact that pri- vate developments will have on historic sites (developments by government agencies are covered in a different section). If 6E-42 is repealed, the amount of archaeological data that will be lost to development is staggering. But if these data are not perceived as useful, then why worry? Archaeological data are useful, of course. The lead article by Dave Tuggle shows just how useful archaeological data can be. His prehistory of an eco- logically marginal corner of O‘ahu struck me with the degree to which old ideas about Hawaiian life on the ‘Ewa plain have to be questioned and changed in the face of new archaeological data—data collected over the last several years by state and federally-mandated historic preservation pro- jects. Tuggle’s prehistory is also remarkable in the degree to which data from Hawaiian tradition and archaeology are brought together to con- tribute to the story of ‘Ewa’s past. Traditional histories, with their emphasis on the exploits of akua and ali‘i and their lack of concern with “time’s arrow,” often seem to be far removed from, and tangential to, the archae- ological analysis of material remains. It is not surprising that the two are usually kept apart in archaeological reports. But for the prehistorian, whose job is to synthesize information about the past from a variety of disciplines, including archaeology, Hawai‘i’s rich store of tradition is a prime resource in reconstructing and communicating the story of our islands’ past. Just how these two sources of data can be used with one another is an important research topic for Hawaiian prehistorians and Hawaiian Archaeology will welcome articles that explore it. 5 editor’s note Athens’ and Ward’s description of a sediment core from Maunawili con- tributes data on the timing and nature of environmental change on O‘ahu during Polynesian times. This type of paleoenvironmental data, virtually unknown in Hawai‘i a decade ago, now paints a vivid and consistent picture of Polynesian transformation of the natural island ecosystem. The Mau- nawili core described by Athens and Ward is unusual because it was not col- lected and analyzed in the context of a cultural resources management pro- ject, nor was it paid for by a research grant. Instead, Athens and Ward invested their own time and funds for the simple reason that the data in the core were potentially important for interpretations of O‘ahu prehistory. In my view, the results prove them right. The data from the core do make a difference. The article by Dixon and his colleagues explores the use of radiocarbon dates on land snail shells for chronology building. Although the constraints that the land snail dates impose on interpretation are not great in this case, the innovative use of new types of information is a hallmark of science that deserves encouragement, especially within the cultural resources manage- ment world where it is all too easy to fall back on what is tried and true. * * * * * Promulgation of the administrative rule for the state’s burial law last year was a positive step for historic preservation. The protection that the law affords unmarked graves goes well beyond what archaeologists were able to accomplish on their own. Gone are the days when Kenneth Emory had to stand in front of bulldozers to protect native Hawaiian grave sites from destruction. Now, development projects are reviewed for likely effects on unmarked graves, and if an effect is likely then a burial treatment plan that specifies what will happen if an unmarked grave is inadvertently discovered is worked up before the bulldozers get started. Gone, too, are the days when the only place to put human remains rescued from the bulldozer’s crush was a cardboard box in a storage room. Now, the Historic Preserva- tion Division finds land that can be used for reburial—a difficult task, espe- cially on O‘ahu where land is in short supply and expensive. Credit for this progress in the discovery and treatment of unmarked graves goes to the Hawaiian community, which is no longer silent on these issues. Credit also the dedicated individuals who serve on the island burial councils. Preserva- tion and protection of unmarked burial sites has progressed in the last decade from being solely an archaeological concern to a contemporary social issue. The rule defines the important role of archaeologists and physical anthro- pologists in the discovery and investigation of unmarked burials in the state. In practice, investigation in most cases will be limited to determina- 6 hawaiian archaeology tions of whether remains are human, if human remains are likely to be greater than 50 years old, how many individuals are represented, and the ethnicity of the remains. The most difficult responsibility for archaeologists will be determining the ethnicity of remains in unmarked and unclaimed grave sites. The rule sets out a three-stage process for determining ethnicity where success at either of the first two stages ends the process. The first stage evaluates available historical data or contemporary testimony. If these sources are silent or inconclusive, then an archaeologist evaluates the stratigraphic context of the burial, associated burial goods, and any other relevant archaeological information to determine ethnicity. The evidence supporting an ethnicity determination made by an archaeologist should be clearly laid out in a brief report filed with the historic preservation division. If the information at this stage proves inconclusive, and the ethnicity of the individual is still unde- termined, then the remains are examined by a physical anthropologist. In the event ethnicity cannot be determined by physical examination, then the historic preservation division will decide how the remains will be treated. This process makes sense both from the point of view of Hawaiians who take offense at the handling of ancestral remains and from a purely eco- nomic perspective, since the process ensures that ethnicity will be deter- mined with a minimum of handling and cost.