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.

In contrast to discovery and investigation, the rule places decisions on mat- ters of burial treatment with the historic preservation division, aided by local, ethnically-defined communities or by descendants, if these can be found.

The burial rule that went to public hearing in 1996 was not perfect, but the Society’s board of directors believed it was both workable and an improve- ment over the failed rule that was heard publicly in 1995. The Society for Hawaiian Archaeology was proud to testify in favor of the burial rule. After public hearing, burials program staff inserted a prohibition and $10,000 penalty on photographing native Hawaiian human remains. The prohibi- tion and penalty specifically target the physical examination stage of the ethnicity determination process and were included in the rule approved by the land board over the objections of other historic preservation staff. The Society for Hawaiian Archaeology would have opposed the prohibition and penalty if it had been given an opportunity to comment on this portion of the rule, but the burial program staff’s tactic to deny the public its right to comment was unfortunately successful. When asked by a Society member whether the insertion of the prohibition and penalty constituted a sub- stantive change to the rule, which would require a new set of public hear- ings, a deputy attorney general reportedly answered that it was not a sub- stantive change because a similar prohibition was part of the failed rule 7 editor’s note

that went to public hearing in 1995! If it is important to prohibit photog- raphy of native Hawaiian remains at the final stage in the ethnicity deter- mination process, when ethnicity can only be determined, if it can be deter- mined at all, by a physical anthropologist, then the prohibition and penalty should be discussed publicly. The behind-the-scenes shenanigans that made the prohibition and penalty part of the rule only erode public confidence in government and further divide the community of people interested in his- toric preservation. T. D. The ‘Ewa Plain

Dave Tuggle

International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Introduction It was called the Plain of Kaupe‘a, or Pu‘uokapolei, or Kai‘ona,1 this scorched limestone corner of O‘ahu now know as the ‘Ewa Plain, part of the ahupua‘a of Honouliuli, in the moku of ‘Ewa (Fig. 1). From a vantage point at the southern tip of the Wai‘anae mountains, one can see the mountain-side level out to meet the plain (Fig. 2), unremarkable except for its expanse, the distant edge blurring into ocean. The landform of the plain is an emerged reef that stretches from Pearl Har- bor to the Wai‘anae coast (Fig. 3). The lower portion is exposed limestone pocked with sinkholes, the upper portion is covered by a soil mantle. This is a hot land that goes without rain for weeks or months, then may endure the downpour of a kona storm dropping rain measured in inches per hour, water that disappears into the limestone, leaving few surface drainage channels. Only one feature breaks the slope of this land: the small cinder cone of Pu‘uokapolei, which stands along the upper edge of the plain. Pu‘uokapolei was the common landmark for travelers of the nineteenth century making the hard journey between the upper Pearl Harbor area and Wai‘anae, with hot, barren Kaupe‘a well known as a place of spirits with- out good intentions (I‘i 1963:27, 29; Nakuina 1990:54; Fornander 1916–20, V:318; Pukui 1943:60). To the Hawaiians of old Pu‘uokapolei was not only a landmark, but a place of spiritual force, associated with Kamapua‘a,2 his grand- mother Kamaunua-Niho, and the sisters of Pele, particularly Hi‘iaka and Kapo- ‘ulakïna‘u, the eponymous deity of the hill.

In a version of the tradition of Pele and Hi‘iaka (from translation by Maly 1996: I-9, original parentheses and brackets), the spirit/soul of this hill tells us about the nature of this land. Hi‘iaka travels around O‘ahu and when she comes to ‘Ewa, she

8 9 tuggle

Figure 1. The ‘Ewa Plain and the ahupua‘a of Honouliuli O‘ahu: top, the location of the ‘Ewa Plain (light) on O‘ahu, and box showing area of detail; bottom, the ahupua‘a of Honouliuli (dark), with traditional place names mentioned in the text. (Illustration of O‘ahu, courtesy of Historic Preserva- tion Division, State of Hawaii). 10 hawaiian archaeology

is met by Pu‘uokapolei and her companion Näwa- hineokama‘oma‘o, and told:

Greetings. Love to you, o Hi‘iaka . . . Lo, we have no food with which to host you. Indeed the eyes roll dizzily with hunger. So you do not visit us two elderly women who have cultivated the bar- ren and desolate plain. We have planted the ‘uwala (sweet potato) shoots, that have sprouted and grown, and have been dedicated to you, our lord. Thus as you travel by, pull the potatoes and make a fire in the imu, so there will be relief from the hunger. For we have no food, we have no fish, and no blanket to keep us warm. We have but one kapa (covering), it is the pilipili-‘ula . . . Figure 2. Aerial view of the ‘Ewa Plain (June 19, When it blossoms, we go and gather the grass and 1941), facing west. Ewa Mooring Mast Field is in the plait it into the coverings for us. But in the time foreground; Kalaleloa is in the center, top; the track when the grasses dry, and none is left on the of the Oahu Railway and Land company runs along plain, we two are left to live without clothing. the right side; sugarcane grows inland of the rail line, with kiawe and sisal on the seaward side. The cold breeze blows in the night...and when (Photo courtesy of Spencer Mason Architects). the grasses of the land which give us warmth begin to grow again, our nakedness is covered,

Figure 3. Environment of the ‘Ewa Plain, with topography and natural features shown as of the early twentieth century. 11 tuggle

interest lies in understanding something about the life and history of the people who occupied this Hawaiian desert.

The ‘Ewa Plain in the Nineteenth Century 3

The historical descriptions of the ‘Ewa Plain have employed a vocabulary as sparse as the land they describe: “barren” and “desolate” nearly exhaust the adjectives (Vancouver 1778, II: 217; Nakuina 1904: 54). The plain was a stretch to be endured by travel- ers between the Wai‘anae coast and the settlements of Honouliuli and the Pearl Harbor area (Nakuina 1904:54).

Figure 4. Aerial view of the coastline of the ‘Ewa The nineteenth century ethnographic sources indi- Plain near One‘ula (October 16, 1925), facing north- cate that the ‘Ewa Plain was part of the ahupua‘a east. The photo source describes the wetlands as of Honouliuli4 (Fig. 1), a land of contrasts that “Natural Salt Beds.” Several walls, probably ranching included not only the sun-baked plain itself, but part features, can be seen around the wetlands. (Courtesy of the central O‘ahu plateau, the rich lowlands of 11th Photo section; Bishop Museum). Honouliuli stream, fishponds, and fishing and col- lecting rights to a portion of Pearl Harbor. Follow- ing the Kamehameha conquest of O‘ahu, the land and we are a little better off than the flowers of was given to Kalanimoku as panala‘au, conquered the ma‘o. It is because we are left without our cov- lands (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:58, 112). The ahupua‘a ering of the pilipili‘ula grass, that many people was given by Kalanimoku to his sister Wahinepi‘o, have come to say, ‘Waiho wale iho ka mau‘u o whose daughter, Kekau‘önohi, (also a granddaughter Kaiona’ (Kaiona is left exposed by the grasses) [It of Kamehameha through Kïna‘u) was awarded the is so hot that the grasses have withered and dried, land in the Mähele. The claims for subsistence and leaving everything exposed to be seen].” Aloha to house lots made by the people of the land all center you... around the lo‘i lands of Honouliuli, with the few kula claims that were made apparently referring to Hi‘iaka continues her journey “in the stifling heat of parcels along the base of the Wai‘anae mountains the sun on the plain of Pu‘uokapolei.” She picks a (Silva 1987; Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1994: cotton blossom and chants (Maly 1996:I-10): Appendix G). Kona is made dizzy in the long days of The interior of the plain was abandoned at this time, Makali‘i... as indicated by the ethnographic and archaeological The wiliwili...trees sway, then comes the calm data, but people continued to live along the coastline The birds of Känehili endure (Fig. 3). The Mähele records do not indicate any The sun is exceeding hot on Pu‘uokapolei claims or awards on the plain, so the individuality of The ma‘o growth is stunted on the seaward these people is known only through census records. plain... The families, mostly Hawaiian, survived in small The ‘Ewa Plain is cast as a place where daytime heat fishing villages along the coast, gaining additional is unrelenting, where nighttime cold is harsh, where support through labor at the Pu‘uloa salt works at drought is frequent, and where survival is measured the edge of Pearl Harbor, or as cowboys or wood- by the success of the sweet potato and pili grass. Our cutters.5 12 hawaiian archaeology

During the nineteenth century, kiawe (Prosopis pall- in every sink (Sinoto 1976). The ‘Ewa Plain was ida) spread across the plain, and cattle ranching was immediately recognized as one of the major sources introduced (Fig. 4). When artesian well exploration of fossil bird remains in Hawai‘i, but unlike most of proved a success in the upper areas of the plain, the the other locales of extinct bird bone in the islands, in water allowed the cultivation of sugarcane, begin- ‘Ewa the bones were found in archeological sites. The ning in 1890, but the soil was so shallow that it was question was thus formed: were Hawaiians a major alluvially augmented by controlled flooding. A rail- player in the avian extinction process, and, by exten- road was built across the plain in the 1890s (Fig. 3), sion, what was their full impact on the ecosystem?7 separating the sugarcane fields of the upper plain from the kiawe forest of the lower plain, which was left to desultory ranching, wood cutting, and a few Pre-Contact Landscape: plots of sisal (Agave sisalana). Resources and Subsistence

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the coast The ‘Ewa Plain provided a resource base similar to was largely abandoned, and the residents of the ‘Ewa that of most of the other dry regions of the islands, Plain were now primarily immigrant laborers living with the main differences deriving from the presence in small work camps along the railroad line at places of the limestone base, which created unusual limita- with names like “Sisal” and “Gilbert.” tions and opportunities for cultivation and access to water, and which made this a region where people made-do with soft rock in their hard lives. The Archaeological Landscape The Ocean For his remarkable archaeological study of O‘ahu, Hawaiian traditions provide substantial information McAllister 6 (1933) not only recorded the great tem- regarding environmental characteristics, plants, and ples and taro fields and fishponds of O‘ahu, but he general resources of Honouliuli and the ‘Ewa Plain. took the time to visit the uninviting ‘Ewa landscape Pearl Harbor is noted as a primary food source. of thick kiawe and thin cows. And he found archae- Kamakau (1964:83–84) describes the “blessings” of ological remains. the district of ‘Ewa, referring mostly to Pearl Har- bor. Among the “blessings” were pipi (pearl oyster), McAllister notes (1933:109): when after a kapu period they “were found in abun- Ewa coral plains, throughout which are remains dance—enough for all ‘Ewa—and fat with flesh,” of many sites...It is probable that the holes and transparent shrimp, spiked shrimp, mahamoe and pits in the coral were formerly used by the Hawai- ‘okupe bivalves and “many others that have now dis- ians. Frequently the soil in the larger pits was appeared,” plus nehu pala and nehu maoli, fishes that used for cultivation, and even today one comes “filled the lochs (nuku awalau) from the entrance of upon bananas and Hawaiian sugar cane still Pu‘uloa to the inland ‘Ewas.” Traditionally, the growing in them. They afford shelter and protec- entrance to West Loch was famous for ‘o‘io (Albula tion, but I doubt if previous to the time of Cook vulpes) and the area from West Loch to Kualaka‘i there was ever a large population here. was renown for lïpoa (Dictyopteris) (Kelly 1991:155), which was one of the three most favored seaweeds in In effect McAllister defined two of the three archae- Hawai‘i (Pukui and Elbert 1986:208). ological issues that would come to dominate the research on the ‘Ewa Plain initiated 40 years later, But how the riches of Pearl Harbor were acquired the intensity of settlement and the Hawaiian use of and distributed is unknown, and it is probable that the sinkholes. These problems proved interesting, this was a world removed from the people who occu- but rather conventional. The third issue arose unex- pied the ‘Ewa Plain itself, who in general probably pectedly, and it was even more interesting and much collected from along the open coast. One story of the less conventional. Excavations in sinkholes produced region refers to women traveling from the upper bones of extinct birds, bones by the hundred, bones portion of the plain to the coast at Kualaka‘i to 13 tuggle

reaches of the plain depended on sinkhole deposits and prepared stone mounds, rather than on good soils. The ‘Ewa Plain is described as “o ke kaha,” a reference to dry land, possible sweet potato land (Fornander 1916 –20, V:279). In various versions of the Hi‘iaka tale (Emerson 1978:167; Maly 1996), a number of plants of the ‘Ewa Plain are mentioned, including ‘uala (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas), pili- pili‘ula (pili grass, Chryosopogon aciculatus), ma‘o (cotton, Gossypium tomentosum), noni (Morinda cit- rifolia), ‘öhai (Sesbania tomentosa), and species noted for making leis: kauna‘oa (Cassytha filiformis L.), wil- iwili (Erythrina sandwicensis), and ‘Äkulikuli (Sesu- vium portulacastrum). One of the most interesting of plant references for the ‘Ewa Plain is ‘ulu (breadfruit, Figure 5. Archaeological survey areas and pre- Artocarpus incisus). The connections with ‘Ewa con- contact Hawaiian settlement complexes on the cern the bringing of the first breadfruit to Hawai‘i. ‘Ewa Plain. Detailed map data are presented in The most commonly quoted version (Kamakau Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle (1994). 1991:110) notes that the first breadfruit was planted at Pu‘uloa, ‘Ewa, brought by Mo‘ikeha’s grandson, Kaha‘ia-Ho‘okamali‘i, following a round-trip voyage that began at Kalaeloa. In the story of Namakaoka- pä‘o‘o (Fornander 1916–20, V:224–28), breadfruit obtain a‘ama crabs, pipipi, and limu (Nä Wahi Pana is mentioned growing at Kualaka‘i. Another story o ‘Ewa 1900, quoted in Sterling and Summers describes two fishermen from Pu‘uloa (Pearl Har- 1978:39). Archaeological investigations have shown bor) who are blown to one of the hidden lands of the that settlements, including inland sites, relied on reef gods, Kanehunamoku, where they acquired bread- fish and shellfish available from coastal waters (e.g., fruit (W. S. Lokai in Fornander 1916–20, V:678, Charvet-Pond and Davis 1992; Davis 1990:136; 679): Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:93; Wickler and Therefore by them it was introduced at Puuloa Tuggle 1996:131–141). and planted in a large excavation [lua nui ] where it grew and bore fruit, which they ate. The Land Preliminary modeling of the plain’s environment The translation of “planted in a large excavation” proposed that large colonies of birds would have (lua nui) is of interest because it could easily refer to been available for exploitation, at least early in the planting in the limestone sinkholes. Maly (1992:E- period of human colonization (Davis 1990:136; 12) notes a common Hawaiian phrase concerning Olson and James 1982), but the evidence for bird breadfruit is “ka‘ulu hua i ka hapapa”, which refers to predation has proved minimal (as summarized in planting trees in fissures or pits, with the fruit avail- Hammatt and Shideler 1995; Tuggle and Tomonari- able on the ground, describing what planting in the Tuggle 1994), and it appears now that the land limestone would have been like. Breadfruit is one of offered subsistence only through cultivation, and in the plants that have been identified in the botanical a minimal fashion at that. remains from archaeological and paleoenvironmen- tal sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (see Appendix A). Soil suitable for cultivation is not evenly distributed over the ‘Ewa Plain. The more arable soils, those As expected in a community that involved cultiva- used for 20th century sugarcane production, are tion, domesticated animals were part of the subsis- concentrated in the upland portion of the plain (Fig. tence base, as indicated by archaeological remains, 3). Hawaiian cultivation in the exposed limestone but the bones of pig (Sus scrofa), dog (Canis famil- 14 hawaiian archaeology

here to make a lei and saw her reflection in the water” (Pukui et al. 1974:119; also see Maly 1996). As recently as 1928, a spring is identified at this locale on USGS maps.

Although ‘Ewa was certainly always a place of scarce water, availability in earlier times was probably sig- nificantly greater than at present. Historical maps of the ‘Ewa Plain show a number of freshwater ponds, marshes, and waterholes (Tuggle and Tomonari- Tuggle 1995:Fig.3). It has been estimated that the water table may have “been drained to a third of its former level” as a result of artesian well drilling and the intensive water use for sugarcane irrigation (Culiney 1988:233). Today the water table is from 1 to 3 m below the surface up to about 500 m from the coast and thus is accessible from deeper sink- Figure 6. An example of a thick-walled rectangular holes. It is also probable that water would have been house platform on the ‘Ewa Plain, Kualaka‘i region less brackish than today. Currently, most of the (facing east). (Site 1724, Feature 11; see Fig. 7 for ground water below the general elevation of the rail- details; from Tuggle 1995: Photo C-3). road line is classified as brackish, with chlorides greater than 500 ppm (Traverse Group 1988:A-7).

The annual rainfall figure for the ‘Ewa Plain is about 18 to 20 inches, but this is a misleading number. iaris), and jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) are found in There is a substantial range of recorded annual rain- very small numbers (see e.g. Charvet-Pond and Davis fall, from a low of 5 inches to a high of 67 inches 1992:282; Collins 1990:349; Davis 1990:256; recorded from 1899 to 1995 (see summary in O’Hare et al. 1996:H-20; Wickler and Tuggle Athens et al. 1996), with several periods of pro- 1996:138). longed drought.

Stone of high quality suitable for tool manufacture is The overall picture of water on the plain suggests it a resource that is absent from the plain. The lime- was available in limited quantities for survival, but stone of the plain was the only non-perishable mate- for the support of cultivation on an annual basis, it rial commonly used by Hawaiians for structures, for was always at the margin of tolerance. hearths and earth ovens, for cooking stones, and for cutting tools. Basalt and volcanic glass have an uneven distribution in the sites of the region. Tools Settlement and flakes of these materials occur in the western portion of the plain, near the mountains, but are rare As McAllister first reported, and as intensive archae- in the eastern region, from Kalaeloa to Pearl Harbor ological surveys and excavations have since elabo- (Charvet-Pond and Davis 1992:108–127; Davis rated, people did live on this “barren” plain in pre- 1990:274, 277; O’Hare et al. 1996:255; Wickler contact times (Fig. 5). In those areas not damaged by and Tuggle 1996:126).8 twentieth century activities, remains of settlements are found extending from the edge of the sugarcane Water fields to the coast. Virtually nothing is known of the The traditions make little reference to water on the Hawaiian occupation of the sugar plantation area, ‘Ewa Plain, except in the travels of Hi‘iaka, where but presumably the soil covering and some runoff there is mention of a spring named “Hoaka-lei” from the Wai‘anae valleys would have provided a located at Kualaka‘i. “Hi‘iaka picked lehua flowers base for agricultural occupation of this region. There 15 tuggle

spread destruction of this century has left no areas undamaged (see e.g., Hammatt and Folk 1981). Many sites were stone-robbed during nineteenth century wall-building for cattle control, but most damage occurred in the 1930s and early 1940s with intensive use of the lower ‘Ewa Plain for military training. This involved bulldozing for roads and training areas, as well as the building of camps and permanent military facilities (Albert 1981; Denfeld 1995).

As a result of the damage to the landscape, the archaeological remains are found as patches of stone structures, concentrated around sinkhole clusters.9 These complexes typically contain C-shaped struc- tures, thick-walled rectangular houses (Fig. 6), small, high platforms, low walls or alignments enclosing sinkholes, cobble mounds or piles, and piles of fire- cracked limestone. The thick-walled, rectangular houses are very similar to those found in Mäkaha Valley (Green 1980:59), with the name for this struc- tural type adopted from the settlement research in that area). Vaulted mounds are also found in some of the complexes. These unusual structures are crypt- like (but do not contain burials), in which chambers (or “cupboards”) are constructed on the surface of the ground with stone slabs, and then covered in cobbles (Davis 1990a:540–548; O’Hare et al. 1996:80).10

Structures are universally made of limestone slabs and cobbles. A common construction method for Figure 7. Drawing of thick-walled rectangular the thick-walled rectangular houses and for the C- house platform (see Fig. 6). (From Tuggle 1995: shapes is the placement of upright slabs to form an Figure C-11). open “box” that is then filled with cobbles (Fig. 7).

These complexes are the settlements of small com- munities (two or three families) surviving on a mixed subsistence base of dryland farming, fishing, and are nineteenth century references to a few people liv- shellfish collecting (Davis 1990b; Hammatt and ing at the base of the Wai‘anae range overlooking the Folk 1981; Wicker and Tuggle 1996). The C-shapes plain (Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1994), and at and thick-walled enclosures served as sleeping and least one place name, Kalo‘i stream, suggests perma- cooking houses, with a few possible eating houses, nent settlement in that locale. although much of the eating probably occurred out- For the lower portion of the plain, there is much doors or under lean-tos with no remnant structural more available information than for the upper, but evidence. Some of these also probably served as stor- the settlement system will never be completely age houses, with additional storage in sinkholes and understood. The lack of historical records leaves us in the vaulted mounds. The agricultural features with no knowledge of how the region was subdi- include the enclosed sinkholes and the clusters of vided (the ‘ili ) or spatially perceived, and the wide- cobble mounds. 16 hawaiian archaeology

platforms were constructed on top of large quantities of fish placed in a layer on the ground as an offering (Wickler and Tuggle 1996:157).

Burials are commonly found in these settlements (see e.g. Charvet-Pond and Davis 1992:298; Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:154). Individuals have been placed beneath the overhangs of sinkholes, buried in sinkhole deposits, or in a few instances located in platforms.

In terms of broad patterns of settlement, the ‘Ewa Plain archaeology suggests a system comparable to others found in the very dry regions of the islands, including Kawela and Kamiloloa (Tuggle 1993; Weisler and Kirch 1980) on Moloka‘i, and lower Mäkaha Valley on O‘ahu (Hommon 1969; Green 1980). These areas have the remains of small com- munities existing in agriculturally impoverished areas. They contrast with well-developed leeward dryland agricultural systems such as leeward Kohala and Kona, with settled coastal villages and well- developed inland field complexes (Kirch 1985: 228 –230; Rosendahl 1994). ‘Ewa Plain and leeward Moloka‘i represent gardening families living at the edge of survival.

Settlement History

Nearly 200 radiocarbon dates have been obtained Figure 8. Top, Histogram of radiocarbon dates from from the sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (Athens et al. 1997). the ‘Ewa Plain (histogram generated by Tom Dye; see As indicated by the construction of a histogram data set in Appendix B). Bottom, Charcoal particle derived from these dates (Fig. 8; Appendix B), there density from a core taken from the Ordy Pond wet- are some dates that fall in the first millennium a.d., land (Athens et al. 1996), with the time scale based on age-depth sampling positions interpolated from but the argument has been made that these are not radiocarbon dating of samples from the core. associated with cultural events (Spriggs and Ander- son 1993; Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:80– 83).11 Analysis of sediment cores on O‘ahu has indi- cated a post-a.d. 800 date for settlement in general (Athens and Ward 1993), and data from sediment Structures identified as religious or ceremonial are cores on the ‘Ewa Plain suggest a settlement date as rare. Along the coast are a few examples of ko‘a, plat- late as a.d. 1000 (Athens et al. 1997). If the early forms with branch coral placed on top (Fig. 5). dates from archaeological sites are rejected, the evi- Inland, there are small platforms or enclosures that dence indicates that settlement was initiated in the may have been agricultural temples or men’s eating a.d. 1000–1250 range, with rapid expansion dating houses. Some of the small, raised platforms may have from a.d. 1250 to 1400, and a general plateau of been community altars dedicated to fishing. There occupation from a.d. 1400 to the time of abandon- are three examples recorded for the ‘Ewa Plain where ment (Fig. 8). 17 tuggle

Compared to the settlement/population curve for Hawai‘i (Dye and Komori 1992a), the ‘Ewa growth (Fig. 8) appears later and peaks earlier, as would be expected for an area of limited resources. At the same time, the curve demonstrates the same general shape as the Hawai‘i curve, and thus the three phase his- tory pattern proposed by Dye (1994).

However, although radiocarbon dates generate an image of occupation continuity that is hard to resist, in some cases it may be a pointillist illusion. The range of a single date or combined ranges of several dates graphically suggest duration, when in fact, each date is associated with a very small number of events, that is, the number of fires that produced the dated charcoal.12 Overlapping dates from a region may represent a set of contemporaneous events. The date ranges for the ‘Ewa Plain fall into three general clus- ters that could be interpreted as three periods of short-term settlement, one between a.d. 1300– 1450, one between a.d. 1450–1700, and a third sometime after a.d. 1700 (Athens et al. 1997). Duration of occupation (and thus settlement his- tory) has to be inferred from deposition, stratifica- tion, horizon markers (such as introduced artifacts or plant and animal remains) and the judicious use of radiocarbon dates and any other available means of controlling temporal reference points.

For Hawaiian sites, the deposits are not tells, but in this they are telling. Data suggest that a great many of the sites in Hawai‘i were simply not occupied for very long periods of time. On the ‘Ewa Plain the great majority of the pre-contact sites have shallow deposits, with relatively low densities of midden and low numbers of artifacts. The nature of this material clearly indicates that the sites do not represent long- term occupations.13 The problem is determining what sort of occupation they do represent.14 They do not usually have the multiple overlapping fea- tures that is taken as the model of re-occupied tem- Figure 9. Radiocarbon dates from the ‘Ewa Plain, porary sites. Nor are they one-term, single occupa- ordered by distance of site from the coast. (Dates tion camps. They have well-built (albeit small) from sites at the same elevation are subordered by age.) houses, (particularly the thick-walled rectangular houses), a range of structural types, burials, shrines in some instances, storage facilities, agricultural fea- tures, and a full-range of midden (including mam- mal bone, fish, and shellfish). In other words, they have most of the characteristics that suggest perma- 18 hawaiian archaeology

The model proposed elsewhere (Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 1994; Wickler and Tuggle 1996), and repeated here, is that these communities were occupied during periods of above-average rainfall, given the great variability of long-term precipitation discussed above.15 Re-occupation would occur, if at all, in a subsequent period of increased rainfall, but not on a seasonal basis. Unlike returns to seasonal sites, the reoccupation of periodically occupied set- tlements could involve rebuilding rather than reuse, and as Davis (1990b) has long argued, the sites in the Kalaeloa area indicate shifting of surface struc- ture location over time. This could have been done in a manner consistent with the present model.16

Testing of sites in two inland community complexes in the Kualaka‘i region produced stratigraphic evi- dence for two distinct occupations, with their pro- posed dating ranges falling within the periods of a.d.1450 to 1650 and sometime after 1650 (Wick- ler and Tuggle 1996:167). Further inland, test exca- vations at Site 1724 indicate a single period of occu- pation, probably late pre-contact in age (Tuggle 1994). In both of these cases, it is argued that the quantities of midden indicate a brief span of occu- Figure 10. Radiocarbon dates from the Kualaka‘i region, ordered chronologically (by age of early end pation within each settlement period. The entire set of each date range). of dates from several excavations in the Kualaka‘i region (Fig. 10), can be viewed as three clusters of dates representing three periods of activity, rather than continuous occupation.

nent occupation. But the shallow deposits and the Given this view of non-seasonal, episodic settlement, low quantities and densities of midden suggest that the “barren plain” of the early nineteenth century even though these communities were permanent (in can be interpreted as a temporary period of aban- the sense of established residential areas for complete donment, a period of drought, or sub-optimum con- social units), they were not occupied for very long ditions, in the long-term cycle of occupation. The periods of time. model can also be applied to the dryland settlements at Kawela, Kamiloloa, and Mäkaha noted above.17 The radiocarbon dates for the ‘Ewa Plain (Fig. 9) indicate no long-term trends related to inland settle- An unusual source of information provides some ment. There is, for example, no evidence that inland support for this episodic occupational history model. settlement was either relatively late or relatively The analysis of the density and size of microscopic early. The dates also do not show any regional varia- charcoal particles in the sedimentary cores obtained tion or any important variation related to type of from Ordy Pond in the Kualaka‘i region (Athens et structure, such as C-shape versus the thick-walled, al. 1997) indicates that fires burned near the pond rectangular houses (Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle for three main periods. Based on radiocarbon dates 1994:Figures 18, 20). The range of individual radio- from the Ordy Pond core, these periods are inferred carbon dates simply allows for a broad contempo- by depth-age interpolation to be a.d. 1300–1400, raneity of general occupation, which masks sporadic a.d. 1600 –1700, and around a.d. 1800. occupation. 19 tuggle

As indicated in Figure 8, there is a general corre- (1) Despite all of the archaeological research on the spondence between these periods of cultural activity ‘Ewa Plain, no substantial evidence has accumulated suggested by the sedimentary core data and those in support of the model, following the original stud- indicated by the clustering of radiocarbon dates ies upon which it was based (primarily Allen 1990, derived from archaeological context. Davis 1990b, Kirch and Christensen 1981, Chris- tensen and Kirch 1986). It may be argued, for exam- The data for the episodic settlement model are ple, that the sinkhole excavations have not produced crude, but suggestive. In the American southwest, in any significant quantities of charcoal indicating a contrast, the extremely fine controls of archaeologi- period of intensive burn-off (e.g. Tuggle 1995). cal dating and climatic variation have allowed a demonstration of tight relationship between settle- Further, evidence that clearly demonstrates a chro- ment shifts and rainfall extremes (e.g. Dean et al. nological relationship (defined absolutely or strati- 1985; Larson et al. 1996; Windes and Ford 1996). If graphically) between human arrival on the ‘Ewa Hawaiian archaeology can solve several of its meth- Plain and bird decline or extinction has not been odological problems, it may be possible to increase forthcoming (see summaries in Tuggle and Tomo- the resolution of settlement system analysis. nari-Tuggle 1994; Hammatt and Shideler 1995).

(2) Some of the previous evidence for environmental change within the general human time period may Pristine Landscape? The Colonization now be called into question. For example, regarding of the ‘Ewa Plain and Environmental land snail change, the land snail occurrence graphs Change often show significant change in deposits inferred to be pre-human in age (e.g. Kirch and Christensen 1981:Figure 2). This raises the problem well-enunci- The question of bird extinction on the ‘Ewa Plain ated by Nunn (1991) that long-range environmental arose in the 1970s, when settlement pattern study trends need to be evaluated before a human causal had become commonplace, and human modification role in change can be substantiated. However, the of the environment a frequent theme of research. snail data can also be re-manipulated to suggest that Human-induced environmental change was being either there was no significant change at all in local considered in both positive and negative terms, not species populations until the historic introductions only in Hawaiian archaeology, but as a common cul- (Athens et al. 1997), or that there was long-term tural theme of the time. On the ‘Ewa Plain, research change due to natural processes, with an abrupt examined the proposition, or proposed as a model, change in the late pre-contact or early post-contact that Hawaiian forest clearing and cultivation era (Dye and Tuggle in preparation). resulted in increased erosion, changes in land snail populations, and avian extinction (Allen 1990; (3) From the standpoint of methodological con- Cleghorn and Davis 1990; Christensen and Kirch cerns, it has become evident that the sinkholes are 1986; Davis 1990b; Kirch and Christensen 1981; not a suitable site type for the study of the faunal Olson and James 1982). Elsewhere in the Pacific, extinction process (Athens et al. 1997). The sink- human impact on island ecosystems became a dom- holes contain complex deposits that cannot show inant theme, and the argument for bird extinction gradual change in species percentages because the related to human presence is well supported (Rolett deposits containing the bird bone are not gradually 1992; Steadman 1995). accumulated in a process of primary deposition.18

However, despite the logical appeal of the original (4) The nature of avian extinction in Hawai‘i is rec- model for describing environmental change of the ognized as a complex issue, with yet very poor ‘Ewa Plain, the model has not been verified. There understanding of the timing of individual species have been several developments that relate to this extinctions, the geography of extinction, and the argument. nature of the ecological interactions (see e.g. Collins 1995; Olson and James 1982, 1991). 20 hawaiian archaeology

(5) Finally, there is evidence to suggest that there with (1970:487) classes this reference under the may have been a drastic environmental change on theme of the “stretching tree kupua,” the “symbolic the ‘Ewa Plain before human settlement of the expression throughout Polynesia of the blood tie region, including vegetation change and extirpation which connects migrating people to their original of most of the non-Procellariid birds (Athens et al. ancestral line.” 1997). The reasons for this are not yet evident, but may involve factors related to human colonization There is nothing in the traditions that provides a elsewhere in Hawaii, including introduction of the direct source for the place name Kualaka‘i. However, Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) and possibly plant given the importance of fishing in the area it would diseases. be hard to overlook a tie with Kü, and Kü as Kü‘u- lakai, the deity of fishing people (cf. Maly 1992:E- 12). Kualaka‘i (also Kualakai)20 is the name of a sea creature, possibly Tethys spp. or Aplysia spp. (Pukui Spiritual Landscape et al. 1974; Pukui and Elbert 1986). The tie might Hawaiian oral literature and place names provide be found in a story from Ka‘ü, a story that has simi- suggestions of the complex set of spiritual associa- lar elements to that of Namakaokapao‘o. In the Ka‘ü tions with the ‘Ewa Plain. This summary presented story, Kü as Küalakai (Kü road of the sea—Pukui here is an analytical construct of these associations, and Green 1995:7) is attacked by his wife Hina for based on translated Hawaiian traditions. killing their child. Küalakai is defeated and thrown into the sea to become the “first küalakai fish” (Pukui and Green 1995:6), that is, the sea creature The Plain of Kaupe‘a kualaka‘i. Kamakau (1961:47, 49) tells us that Kaupe‘a was the ao kuewa of O‘ahu, a place of homeless souls, souls Pu‘uokapolei without ‘aumakua, souls who had no “rightful place” in the realm of the ‘aumakua. The sparsely settled Pu‘uokapolei was the spiritual vortex of the ‘Ewa and harsh region of Kaupe‘a seems an appropriate Plain, as indicated by numerous references to this setting for this spiritual realm.19 locale in the traditions. A temple once stood on the hill but was destroyed when the stones were used in a rock crusher (McAllister 1933:108). Any other Kualaka‘i Hawaiian structures were demolished before World There is a spiritual association with the place of War II by construction of a massive gun emplace- Kualaka‘i on the coast of the ‘Ewa Plain. In a story ment (Kennedy 1991). recounted by Fornander (1916–20, V:224–227) a child by the name of Na-makaokapao‘o is aban- The specific character of the temple and of the hill’s doned by his father, Kaulua-Kaha‘i, a famous chief/ spiritual domain were never recorded, but traditions god from Kahiki. But Kaulua-Kaha‘i leaves royal indicate a strong association of the pu‘u with the garments in a gourd for his son, who finds them at demigod Kamapua‘a and his grandmother Kamau- Kualaka‘i beneath a breadfruit tree, a tree that repre- nua-Niho, a deity from Kahiki (Bush in Johnson sents his father (“the standing breadfruit of Kaha‘i,” 1988, Charlot 1987, Kahiolo 1978, Kame‘eleihiwa Beckwith 1970:479; in other stories, e.g. Kamakau 1996). In addition, according to Kamakau (1976: 1991:110, it was Kaha‘i who brought the breadfruit 14), Pu‘uokapolei was used by the astronomers of from Kahiki to Hawai‘i, in some versions to Kalae- O‘ahu as the reference point for the solar equinoxes. loa, or to Pu‘uloa; that is, to ‘Ewa). Hawaiian tradi- tions and historical sources indicate that there was a This association of the hill with solar movement spring or springs at Kualaka‘i, so this an oasis, a place immediately illuminates the meaning of the hill’s where one could live in the desert of the ‘Ewa Plain. name and the possible significance of its temple. The As such, it was also a place of symbolic life/geneal- name Pu‘uokapolei refers to the hill of “beloved ogy, expressed in the spirit of Kaulua-Kaha`i, godly Kapo” (Pukui et al. 1974), or to the wreath of royalty, a tree of life, and a being from Kahiki. Beck- Kapo21 created by the setting sun ( Johnson 1988). 21 tuggle

Kapo (particularly as Kapo‘ulakïna‘u) can be inter- For the common people who struggled for survival preted as the female element of the sun, a counter- in this land, the ‘Ewa Plain was a place of small vil- part of Käne. Kapo is directly referenced in the lages, One‘ula and Kualaka‘i and Kalaeloa, and their chants and hulas that celebrate the rising sun (e.g., deities were Küulakai and Lono. For the royalty of Barrere et al. 1980:8; Emerson 1978: 41, 45). Thus ‘Ewa, their priests and priest-astronomers, this was it is proposed that Pu‘uokapolei was a temple and the plain of Kaupe‘a and of Pu‘uokapolei; this was place of the sun, dedicated to the deity Kapo, and the plain of the sun, and their gods were Käne and that it was a sacred setting for ceremonies and hula Kapo‘ulakïna‘u. dedicated to solar events.22

Appendix A. Identified Plants of the ‘Ewa Plain (Kualaka‘i Region) —The Pre-contact Period

Common/ Source Family Scientific Name Hawaiian Name Origin Habit Hwn Charcoal Pollen

Agavaceae Cordyline fruticosa a Ti, kï Polynesian introduction Shrub (1), (2) Aizoaceae Sesuvium portulacastrum a Äkulikuli Indigenous Herb x (3) Amaranthaceae Achyranthes splendens a Endemic Shrub (1) (3) Nototrichium sp. Kulu‘ï Endemic Shrub (4) (3) Apocynaceae Rauvolfia sandwicensis Hau Endemic Tree (2) (5) Araliaceae — — — — (6) Tetraplasandra spp. ‘Ohe Endemic, 6 spp. Tree (3), (5) Arecaceae Palm Tree (2) Cocos nucifera a Coconut, niu Polynesian introduction Tree (3) Pritchardia spp. Loulu Endemic, 19 spp. Tree (3), (5), (6) Asteraceae — — — — (5), (6) Artemesia sp. — — — (5) Bidens sp. Ko‘oko‘olau Endemic Shrub (1) (3) Boraginaceae Cordia subcordata a Kou Polynesian introduction Tree (1), (2) Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium sp. — — — (5), (6) Chenopodium oahuense ‘Äheahea Endemic Shrub (1), (2), (4) (5) Chenopodiaceae/ — Cheno/am — — (3), (5), (6) Amaranthaceae Convolvulaceae Ipomoea batatas ‘Uala Polynesian introduction Vine x (3) Ipomoea batatas (type) — — — (6) Cucurbitaceae Lagenaria siceraria Ipu, gourd Polynesian introduction Vine (1), (2) Cuscutaceae Cuscuta sandwichiana a Kauna‘oa Endemic Vine x (3) Cyperaceae — Sedge family — — (3)

Continued on next page 22 hawaiian archaeology

Appendix A. Identified Plants of the ‘Ewa Plain (Kualaka‘i Region) —The Pre-contact Period (continued)

Common/ Source Family Scientific Name Hawaiian Name Origin Habit Hwn Charcoal Pollen

Ebenaceae Diospyros sandwicensis Lama Endemic Tree (1) Euphorbiaceae Aleurites moluccana a Kukui Polynesian introduction Tree (1), (2), (3) (4), (5) Antidesma sp. Hame Endemic Tree (2) (5) Chamaesyce skottsbergii a ‘Akoko Endemic Shrub (1), (2), (4) (3) Euphorbia sp. — — — (6) Fabaceae Acacia koa Koa Endemic Tree (1) (3) Acacia koaia Koai‘a, koai‘e Endemic Tree (2) Caesalpinia bonduc a Kakalaioa Indigenous Vine-tree (1) Erythrina sandwicensis a Wiliwili Endemic Tree x (1) Kanaloa kahoolawensis — Endemic Shrub (3) Sesbania tomentosa ‘Ohai Endemic Shrub x (2) — Unknown type — — (3) Flacourtiaceae Xylosma hawaiiense Maua Endemic Tree (2) Goodeniaceae Scaevola sp. — — — (5) Scaevola coriacea Dwarf naupaka Endemic Herb (1), (2) Hydrangeaceae Broussaisia arguta b Kanawao Endemic Shrub (6)b Malvaceae Gossypium tomentosum a Ma‘o, Hawaiian Endemic Shrub x (2) cotton Sida sp. — — — (3), (5), (6) Sida fallax a ‘Ilima Indigenous Shrub x (1), (2), (4) Thespesia populnea a Milo Indigenous/Polynesian Tree (1) introduction? Moraceae Artocarpus altilis ‘Ulu Polynesian introduction Tree x (1) Myoporaceae Myoporum sandwicense a Naio Indigenous Tree (1), (2) Myrsinaceae Myrsine sp. Kolea Endemic Shrub-tree (3), (5) Myrtaceae Myrtle family — — (3) Metrosideros polymorpha Lehua Endemic Tree x Oleaceae Nestegis sandwicensis Olopua Endemic Tree (3) Pittosporaceae Pittosporum sp. Hö‘awa Endemic Tree (1), (2) Poaceae — Grass family — — (3), (6) Chrysopogon aciculatus Pilipili‘ula Indigenous? Grass x Rhamnaceae Colubrina oppositifolia Kauila Endemic Tree (2) Colubrina spp. ‘Änapanapa or Indigenous or Shrub-tree (3) Kauila endemic, 2 spp.

Continued on next page 23 tuggle

Appendix A. Identified Plants of the ‘Ewa Plain (Kualaka‘i Region) —The Pre-contact Period (continued)

Common/ Source Family Scientific Name Hawaiian Name Origin Habit Hwn Charcoal Pollen

Rubiaceae Bobea sp. ‘Ahakea Endemic Tree (1) Canthium odoratum Alahe‘e Indigenous Shrub-tree (1), (2) (5) Morinda spp. Noni Polynesian or Shrub-tree x (5) endemic, 2 spp. Ruppiaceae Ruppia maritima Ditchgrass Indigenous Herb (3) Santalaceae Santalum a sp. ‘Iliahi Endemic Shrub-tree (1), (2) Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa ‘A‘ali‘i Indigenous Shrub-tree (2) (3), (5) Solanaceae Solanum sp. — — Shrub-tree (3), (5) Sterculiaceae Waltheria indica a ‘Ulahoa Indigenous Shrub (5) Thymeliaeaceae Wikstroemia sp. ‘Akia Endemic Shrub-tree (1) Zygophyllaceae Tribulus cistoides Nohu Indigenous Herb x Division: Pteridophyta Fern (1)

Sources: Hawaiian traditions (Hwn): x = noted, see summary in Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle (1994), also Maly (1996). Wood identification (Charcoal) and pollen: (1) Murakami (1996b); (2) Murakami (1996a); (3) Athens et al. 1996; (4) Murakami (1995); (5) O’Hare et al. (1996); (6) Franklin et al. (1995). Note: This table was prepared by Gail Murakami with the assistance of D. Tuggle. a Denotes taxa found during the ‘Ewa Plain botanical survey (Char and Balakrishnan 1979). b The identification of B. arguta is almost certainly a misidentification of Kanaloa kahoolawensis ( J.V. Ward, personal communication). 24 hawaiian archaeology

Appendix B. Radiocarbon Dates from Carbonized Material (Non-bone), Sites of the ‘Ewa Plain

Site / Wood Conventional Calibrated date Lab no. Feature Provenience ID radiocarbon age range a.d.a Reference

Beta-01982 2710-5 Tr. S2W1, L. II. 30 –40 cmbs no 100 ± 60b 1658–1955 14 Beta-01983 2710-2 Tr. S2W1, L. II, 30 –40 cmbs no 105 ± 70b 1652–1955 14 Beta-09052 2702-7 Hearth 7i, 19–22 cmbs no 550 ± 50 1305–1443 11 Beta-09057 2706-4b Hearth 4b1, 23–28 cmbs no 270 ± 50 1484–1682 11 Beta-09058 2711-22d Hearth 22d2, 5–20 cmbs no 220 ± 70 1622–1896 11 Beta-09541 2700-15 Pit, L. VII, 100 –110 cmbd no 210 ± 90 1617–1955 11 sinkfloor Beta-09542 2702-1 Hearths 1a /1c and no 370 ± 90 1404 –1678 11 concentration, 7–18 cmbs Beta-09543 2702-7 Hearth 7b, 25–28 cmbs no 400 ± 70 1423–1646 11 Beta-09546 9661-7 Hearth 7d , 25 cmbs no 110 ± 50 1676–1942 11 Beta-11716 2706-9b Hearth 9b, 5–20 cmbs no 110 ± 50 1676–1942 11 Beta-16989 3356-3 TE14, upper lens [I], no 0 ± 70 1804 –1937 9 8–32 cmbs Beta-16990 3356-3 TE14, lower lens [I], no 110 ± 50 1676–1942 9 10 –36 cmbs Beta-16991 2720-1 TE33, HF1D, 15–20 cmbs no 350 ± 100 1404 –1691 9 Beta-16992 1446-1 TE21, L. IIIB, 200–210 cmbs no 1650 ± 90 217–616 9 Beta-16993 1438-1 HF1a, 35 cmbs no 170 ± 90 1630 –1955 9 Beta-17416 1438-4 TE1, L. II, 22–32 cmbs no 220 ± 60 1626 –1891 9 Beta-17417 1438-4 TE2, L. IV, 69 –96 cmbs no 460 ± 60 1395–1529 9 Beta-17418 3355-2 TE7, L. I, 15–17 cmbs no 160 ± 50 1666–1890 9 Beta-17419 3355-2 TE8, L. II, 10 –34 cmbs no 680 ± 60 1251–1405 9 Beta-17420 3356 -2 TE12, L. II, 156–163 cmbs no 330 ± 70 1439–1674 9 Beta-17421 1446 -1 TE21, L. IIA, 45–55 cmbs no 600 ± 80 1278–1448 9 Beta-17424 3355-1 TE 4, L. I, 20–35 cmbs no 1230 ± 90 660–982 9 Beta-17425 1446 -1 TE23, L. IIIB, 65– 80 cmbs no 270 ± 90 1449–1821 9 Beta-17427 3352-2 TE62, HF26, 20–25 cmbs no 630 ± 80 1262–1438 9 Beta-17428 1438-3 TE77, HF1, L. II 22–25 cmbs no 290 ± 60 1459–1681 9 Beta-17429 2893-1 TE63, L. I, 37–45 cmbs no 350 ± 80 1424–1675 9 Beta-17430 1438-1 TE83, HF1c, L. II 72–84 cmbs no 1490 ± 70 430–663 9 Beta-17431 3357 TE87A, L. IIIA, 430 –460 cmbs no 1660 ± 70 237–559 9 Beta-17432 3357 TE92C, L. IIIA, 375–395 cmbs no 560 ± 70 1292–1456 9 Beta-21913 1446 -1A Unit 1-3, HF14, 115–122 cmbd no 430 ± 70 1407–1630 9

Continued on next page 25 tuggle

Appendix B. Radiocarbon Dates from Carbonized Material (Non-bone), Sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (continued)

Site / Wood Conventional Calibrated date Lab no. Feature Provenience ID radiocarbon age range a.d.a Reference

Beta-21914 1446 -1A Unit 1-6, HF11, 128–133 cmbd no 300 ± 210 1391–1955 9 Beta-25960 2711-30 TU3, L. I, 0–18 cmbs no 990 ± 120 851–1279 16 Beta-25961 2711-22 TU1, L. II, 5 cmbs no 290 ± 80 1441–1701 16 Beta-25962 2710 -4 TU2, L. II, 15–21 cmbs no 500 ± 60 1374 –1514 16 Beta-25963 2710 -5 TU8, L. I, 1–13 cmbs no 480 ± 50 1393–1515 16 Beta-25964 2710 -5 TU8, L. II, 5–23 cmbs no 710 ± 70 1207–1407 16 Beta-30763 3910 -C1 T1, L. 3 no 440 ± 80 1394 –1649 13 Beta-30764 3910 -C2 T2, L. 2 yes 470 ± 70 1390 –1530 13 Beta-32861 3782 T5, L. 2A no 650 ± 140 1150–1515 13 Beta-32862 3898 T1, L. 1A no 280 ± 60 1465–1685 13 Beta-32863 3898 T1, L. 2 no 240 ± 70 1488 –1822 13 Beta-32864 3898 T1, L. 3 no 370 ± 70 1433–1656 13 Beta-32866 3927-D1 T2, L. 1B/2 no 430 ± 210 1371–1670 13 Beta-32867 3927-D1 T2, L. 2/3 no 680 ± 140 1026–1487 13 Beta-38632 1438-1 Unit 1-2, HF1, L. II, no 530 ± 50 1376–1457 9 50 –70cmbd Beta-38633 1438-1 Unit 2-2, HF3, L. III[II]/3, no 540 ± 60 1301–1458 9 35 –50 cmbd Beta-38634 2718-1A Unit 2, HF1, L. II, 12–16 cmbs no 370 ± 60 1442–1646 9 Beta-38635 2719-4 Unit A3, HF4, L. II, no 760 ± 130 1024 –1418 9 47–67 cmbd Beta-38636 2719-4 Unit E3, L. II, 18–28 cmbs no 80 ± 50 1680–1930 9 Beta-38637 1438-4 Unit D-1, HF102, L. VII[IIC] no 580 ± 100 1244 –1514 9 111–121 cmbd Beta-38638 1438-4 Unit E-11, HF22, L. IVB/6 no 40 ± 50 1808–1931 9 84 –103 cmbd Beta-38639 1438-4 Unit E-11, HF26, L. VI/9 no 200 ± 60 1637–1899 9 115–122 cmbd Beta-38640 1446-1C Unit 4-G7, HF23, 44 –51 cmbs no 250 ± 50 1489–1814 9 Beta-38641 1446-2 Unit 1-7, L. II/2, 41–44 cmbs no 350 ± 80 1424 –1675 9 Beta-38642 2718-1B Unit 1, HF1B, L. IV[IIB]/8 no 500 ± 60 1374 –1619 9 58 –63 cmbs Beta-38643 2718-1B Unit 2, L. IVC [ IIB]/8, no 190 ± 100 1618–1955 9 64 –68 cmbs Beta-38645 3351-4 Unit B8, HF2, L. III [IIB], no 530 ± 60 1304 –1470 9 35–48 cmbs

Continued on next page 26 hawaiian archaeology

Appendix B. Radiocarbon Dates from Carbonized Material (Non-bone), Sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (continued)

Site / Wood Conventional Calibrated date Lab no. Feature Provenience ID radiocarbon age range a.d.a Reference

Beta-38646 3351-6 Unit 3, L. IV [III upper], no 620 ± 70 1284 –1431 9 57–62 cmbs Beta-38715 1438-3 Unit 1-6/9, HF18, L. II/5, no 630 ± 70 1280–1429 9 68–119 cmbd Beta-38716 1438-3 Unit 1-3, HF14, L. II/5, no 260 ± 50 1487–1809 9 71–107 cmbd Beta-38717 1450-1 Unit 3, HF6, L. IIA, 7–12 cmbs no 420 ± 70 1412–1640 9 Beta-38718 2718-7 Units 4 /5, HF7C, L. II, no 560 ± 60 1301–1443 9 15 –30 cmbs Beta-38719 2720-1 Unit 12, HF1, 5–15 cmbs no 310 ± 90 1431–1701 9 Beta-38720 2720-2 Units 3,4,9,10, HF1, 22–32 cmbs no 290 ± 60 1459–1681 9 Beta-38721 3355-2 Unit 2-2, L. IB/4, 45–50 cmbd no 90 ± 50 1679–1939 9 Beta-38722 3356-1 Unit 1-2, HF1, L. II, no 30 ± 50 1810–1929 9 38– 42 cmbd Beta-39589 2893-1 Unit 1-6, L. II/3, 95 –105 cmbd no 450 ± 50 1404 –1522 9 Beta-39815 3202-A TU-3, L. IV, 58 – 65 cmbd no 380 ± 60 1439 –1643 8 Beta-39816 3201-A TU-7, L. III, 25–34 cmbs no 340 ± 50 1458–1651 8 Beta-39817 3201-H TU-5, L. II/1, 15–21 cmbd no 180 ± 50 1655–1886 8 Beta-39818 3201-O TU-2, L. III, 15–30 cmbs no 20 ± 50 1811–1927 8 Beta-39819 Sinks B, L. I, 143–153 cmbs no 250 ± 50 1489–1814 8 Sink 4 Beta-39820 4295-B, L. III, 120 –130 cmbs no 80 ± 60 1677–1941 8 Cluster C, Sink 2 Beta-39821 4275-A ST-7, L. II & III, 4–27 cmbs no 100 ± 50 1678–1940 8 Beta-39824 3202-A ST-2, L. I/1, 0–5 cmbd no 920 ± 60 1015–1239 8 Beta-39825 3215-V TU-1, L. I/1, 0–10 cmbd no 230 ± 60 1514 –1823 8 Beta-39826 3215-R TU-3, L. III/1, 47–57cmbd no 520 ± 70 1297–1511 8 Beta-39827 4275-A TU -1, L. II/1, 17–27 cmbd no 400 ± 70 1423–1646 8 Beta-39828 4275-I ST-5, L. III, 14 –23 cmbd no 140 ± 60 1670–1948 8 Beta-39829 4275, L. II, 88 –100 cmbs no 230 ± 60 1514 –1823 8 Cluster F Beta-39830 4299-B TU -1, L. II/1, 41 cmbd no 260 ± 50 1487–1809 8 Beta-39833 3202-K, L. II, 80–96 cmbs no 480 ± 100 1371–1638 8 Sink 7 Beta-39834 3202-K, L. II/1, 76 –86 cmbs no 130 ± 50 1673–1945 8 Sink 3

Continued on next page 27 tuggle

Appendix B. Radiocarbon Dates from Carbonized Material (Non-bone), Sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (continued)

Site / Wood Conventional Calibrated date Lab no. Feature Provenience ID radiocarbon age range a.d.a Reference

Beta-39835 4268, L. I, 53–125 cmbd no 230 ± 60 1514 –1823 8 Cluster B, Sink 3 Beta-39836 Sinks A, L. I/1, 110 –130 cmbs no 80 ± 50 1680–1938 8 Sink 3 Beta-39837 Sinks A, L. III/1, 82–87 cmbs no 20 ± 60 1806–1934 8 Sink 4 Beta-39838 Sinks H, L. I/4, 81–91 cmbs no 150 ± 50 1669–1897 8 Sink 1 Beta- 42525 3357 TR1, L. V, 530 –540 cm no 4480 ± 80 3352–2924 b.c. 9 Beta-45035 1446-1A Unit 1-23, HF21, 105–115 cmbd no 310 ± 80 1437–1687 9 Beta-45036 1446-1C Unit 1-M9, L. II/7, 60 –72 cmbs no 820 ± 130 997–1400 9 Beta-45037 1446-1C Unit 3-M25, L. IID/2, no 350 ± 80 1424 –1675 9 77–98 cmbd Beta-45038 1446-1D Unit 1-7, L. III/3, no 1170 ± 50 771–992 9 149 –159 cmbd Beta-46607 3356-1 Unit 1-4, L. II/5, 45–55 cmbd no 180 ± 80 1633–1955 9 Beta-46608 3356-3 TE14, L. VI[II], 160 –201 cmbs no 340 ± 90 1417–1685 9 Beta-52197 2719-4 Unit C5, L. [II] no 20 ± 60 1806–1934 9 Beta-52199 2719-4 Unit D3, HF2 no 270 ± 70 1453–1819 9 Beta-52200 2718-1/2 Unit B5/6 /6x, L. III no 300 ± 70 1446–1683 9 Beta-52201 1450-1 Unit 2, HF4 no 370 ± 70 1433–1656 9 Beta-53086 2722(?) test no 630 ± 50 1290 –1408 15 Beta-62235 4650-2 U-2, Ib, F2.1 no 100 ± 60 1675–1944 3 Beta-62237 4650-3 — no 40 ± 70 1679–1939 3 Beta-69557 1724-11 TP-2, Feature A yes 80 ± 80 1662–1946 4 Beta-69558 1724-3 TP-1, L. I/2, 45–55 cmbs yes 120 ± 70 1670–1948 4 Beta-75962 3205-A1 EU-55, HF-8, IV-2, nod 350 ± 90 1410–1680 7c 90–93 cmbd Beta-75963 3205-A1 EU-56, IVB-2, 70–80 cmbd nod 1240 ± 60 660–900 7c Beta-76440 3202-F EU-88, III-1, 30–40 cmbd no 470 ± 100 1290–1650 7 Beta-76441 3205-A1 EU-57, HF-9, IVA-1, no 570 ± 120 1230–1520 7c 54 –60 cmbd Beta-76443 3216-J EU-91, III-2, 110 –120 cmbd no 520 ± 100 1270–1520 7 Beta-76447 3211-D EU-35, HF-7, V, 55–62 cmbd no 200 ± 180 1390–1955 7 Beta-76448 3210-C EU-40, IIB, 109 –114 cmbd no 280 ± 70 1450–1690 7c

Continued on next page 28 hawaiian archaeology

Appendix B. Radiocarbon Dates from Carbonized Material (Non-bone), Sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (continued)

Site / Wood Conventional Calibrated date Lab no. Feature Provenience ID radiocarbon age range a.d.a Reference

Beta-79660 4275-H EU-21, HF-4, 29–33 cmbd no 50 ± 70 1670–1955 7 Beta-79661 3211-C EU-33, HF-6, 60–69 cmbd no 220 ± 70 1490–1900 7 Beta-79662 3211-D EU-35, HF-5 nod 360 ± 70 1420–1620 7 Beta-79664 3201-I EU-80, HF-11, III-2, 82–99 cmbd nod 200 ± 40 1641–1820 7 Beta-79666 3216-O EU-92, HF-13, III, 80–86 cmbd nod 240 ± 40 1523–1954 7 Beta-84123 1753-3 TU 1, I/1-2 yes 170 ± 60 1663–1954 1 Beta-84124 1753-9 TU 1, hearth 1-2 yes 30 ± 70 1889–1955 1 Beta-84125 1753-11 TU 1, hearth 2-3 yes 200 ± 60 1654 –1954 1 Beta-84126 1753-23 TU 1, II/2 yes 150 ± 60 1669–1955 1 Beta-84127 1752-19b TU 1, II/2 yes 140 ± 50 1675–1955 1 Beta-84129 1752-22 TU 1, II/3 yes 40 ± 60 1889–1955 1 Beta-84130 1752-5 TU 1, I/1 yes 370 ± 80 1443–1644 1 Beta-84131 1752-9 TU 3 yes 230 ± 60 1644 –1954 1 Beta-84132 1752-60 TU 2, III/9 yes 90 ± 60 1686–1955 1 Beta-84133 1752-27 TU 1, II/3 yes 190 ± 100 1644 –1955 1 Beta-84134 1752-31b TU 2, II/2-3 yes 310 ± 70 1482–1660 1 Beta-85049 5129-G EU 25, I-1 yes 170 ± 60 1650–1894 5 Beta-85050 5129-A EU 23, III-2 yes 350 ± 70 1427–1663 5 Beta-85051 1719-B EU 33, HF-5 yes 80 ± 60 1672–1947 5 Beta-85052 1718-A EU 39, III-1 yes 140 ± 60 1667–1897 5 Beta-85053 1718-A EU 39, II, HF-6 yes 150 ± 70 1659–1955 5 Beta-85054 1721-A EU 44, I, 1-3 yes 170 ± 90 1624 –1955 5 Beta-85055 1721-A EU 44, II, 1-3 no 250 ± 50 1471–1820 5 Beta-85056 1717-F EU 53, III 1-2 yes 350 ± 70 1427–1663 5 Beta-85058 1722-B EU 46, HF 9 no 190 ± 100 1610–1955 5 Beta-85059 1734-K EU 64, 1-3 yes 640 ± 100 1180–1450 5 Beta-85060 1735-T EU 88, II, 1-2 no 110 ± 120 1620–1955 5 Beta-85061 1735-J EU 92, HF-12 no 240 ± 80 1476–1882 5 Beta-85062 1732-G EU 100, II-2 no 130 ± 60 1668–1950 5 Beta-85063 1735-AL EU 104, III, 1-2 no 130 ± 120 1620–1955 5 Beta-85064 1745 EU 108, II-1-2 no 420 ± 80 1392–1650 5 Beta-85065 1736-B EU 117, III-2 no 180 ± 60 1643–1896 5 Beta-85066 1736-EE EU 122, I-2 no 260 ± 70 1455–1821 5 Beta -85067 1737-H EU 147, II, 1-2 yes 270 ± 110 1440–1880 5

Continued on next page 29 tuggle

Appendix B. Radiocarbon Dates from Carbonized Material (Non-bone), Sites of the ‘Ewa Plain (continued)

Site / Wood Conventional Calibrated date Lab no. Feature Provenience ID radiocarbon age range a.d.a Reference

Beta-85069 1737-G EU 141, III no 5030 ± 50 3968 –3744 b.c. 5 Beta-85070 1737-G EU 142, II no 10 ± 50 1803–1936 5 Beta-85071 1737-R EU 144, I, 1-2 yes 310 ± 70 1441–1674 5 Beta-85073 1725-J EU 178, III no 30 ± 60 1801–1939 5 Beta-85074 1725-S EU 177, II-3 no 630 ± 80 1254 –1433 5 Beta-85075 1731-A EU 58, II-2 yes 10 ± 80 1672–1946 5 Beta-85076 1737-L EU 251, I-1 yes 200 ± 70 1520–1579 5 Beta-85113 1722-C /D EU 47, II-1 no 150 ± 50 1664 –1891 5 Beta-85114 1731-B EU 57, II, 1-2 no 310 ± 50 1458–1660 5 Beta-85115 1735-A EU 82, I-1 no 250 ± 50 1485–1808 5 Beta-85116 5100 EU 246, II no 510 ± 50 1376–1465 5 Beta-85117 5102 EU 232, I, 1-2 no 310 ± 50 1458–1660 5 Beta-86402 2220 EU 1, II-1 no 210 ± 30 1646–1804 6 Beta-86403 2220 EU 26, VII-2 no 370 ± 30 1445–1632 6 Beta-86405 2220 EU 20, IV-2 yes 130 ± 50 1669–1949 6 Beta-86406 2220 EU 22, IV-2 yes 580 ± 100 1230–1510 6 Beta-86407 2220 EU 26, VUU-6 yes 360 ± 90 1403–1676 6 Beta-87041 2220 EU 15, IV-1 yes 10 ± 60 1803–1936 6 HRC-1013 Ewa — no 1580 ± 70 370–632 10 Gentry(?) SI-5136 9637 — no 770 ± 50 1205–1299 12 (B6-22) unknown 2220-A Shovel probe 3 no 270 ± 110 1448–1823 2

Sources: (1) Wickler and Tuggle (1996); (2) Haun (1991); (3) Landrum and Schilz (1993); (4) Tuggle (1995); (5) O’Hare et al. (1996) (Additional information from Beta Analytic data sheets kindly provided by Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.); (6) Wulzen and Rosendahl (1996); (7) Franklin et al. (1995); (8) Dunn et al. (1991); (9) Goodfellow (1992); (10) Spriggs and Anderson (1993); (11) Cleghorn and Davis (1991); (12) Olson and James (1982); (13) Kennedy and Denham (1992); (14) Hammatt and Folk (1981); (15) Hammatt and Folk (1992); (16) Miller (1993). Note: The table does not include dates from the irrigated taro fields and alluvial deposits of Honouliuli drainage, nor does it include “modern” dates. The data from this table were used to construct figures 8, 9, and 10. For complete information on the dates, including wood taxa identification and types of features, see Athens et al. (1997). a Calibrated age ranges at >70% confidence interval. b Conventional radiocarbon age estimated with a value of ∂13C appropriate for the dated material. c Contraction or conflict in site numbering. d Dated material described as “bulk organics.” 30 hawaiian archaeology

Maly (1996), and Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle Acknowledgments (1994).

Several people have contributed significantly to my 4. The spelling “Honouliuli”, without glottals, is thoughts concerning the ‘Ewa Plain, but they wish that given in Pukui et al. (1974), although other to remain anonymous and blameless in Gaza. Oth- sources do employ glottals. ers who are more thick-skinned but to whom I owe 5. Summaries of the Land Commission Awards for an equal debt include Jane Allen, Sara Collins, Bert Honouliuli are found in Silva (1987) and Tuggle Davis, Tom Dye, Ruby Johnson, Kepä Maly, and and Tomonari-Tuggle (1994:Appendix G). A list Alan Ziegler, although none have had a chance to of names of Hawaiian residents of the coast from search out my errors in this particular paper. The 1855–1888, derived from tax records, is in Tuggle histogram in Figure 8 was generated by Tom Dye, and Tomonari-Tuggle (1994:Appendix B). using the method in Dye and Komori (1992b). 6. The work of pre-WWII archaeologists deserves more attention than the cursory reference we usually Notes make to it. In one small volume McAllister was able to provide an excellent summary of O‘ahu archaeol- 1. These are three of the many Hawaiian names for ogy and archaeological sites, with detailed site mea- the ‘Ewa Plain (which also include Pe‘ekäua, Puuai- surements and meaningful descriptions, extensive nako, and Keoneae—Maly 1996:I-10; Sterling and use of Hawaiian informant data, and information on Summers 1978:39) but it is unknown how many of artifacts, history, and traditions. these are synonymous or refer to various portions of 7. The numerous archaeological studies of the ‘Ewa the region. Kamakau uses plain of Kaupe‘a and plain Plain are summarized in several sources, including of Pu‘uokapolei in contexts that suggest these two Charvet-Pond and Davis (1992), O’Hare et al. names, at least, were interchangeable (Kamakau (1996), and Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle (1994, 1964:29, 47). The plains of Puuainako and Keoneae 1995). are clearly distinct areas (as described in Na Wahi pana o Ewa, 1900, quoted in Sterling and Summers 8. Pu‘upälailai, which lies at the edge of the Wai- 1978:39). The boundaries of the landform of the ‘anae mountains, is reported as a source of volcanic ‘Ewa Plain are based on Armstrong (1973). glass (Manhoff and Uyehara 1976). In 1995 Roger Blankfein and I attempted to locate glass exposures The spelling of Hawaiian place names follows Pukui in quarried areas of this pu‘u, but were unsuccessful. et al. (1974) and spelling of Hawaiian deity names In the volcanic glass collections of the Laboratory follows Pukui and Elbert (1971). of Archaeology, University of Hawai‘i-Mänoa, the 2. For a discussion and references of Kamapua‘a in source nearest the ‘Ewa Plain is Kolekole Pass. ‘Ewa see Charlot (1987) and Johnson (1988), and 9. Based on the available information, the general- for some of the specific traditions see Kahiolo ization that residential complexes and sinkhole clus- (1978), Kame‘eleihiwa (1996), and J. Bush’s 1891 ters are associated appears to be a strong one, at the tale translated in Johnson (1988). These stories, how- same time recognizing that there is incomplete ever, appear incomplete concerning the details and preservation of sites. possibly local variations on the Kamapua‘a tradition in ‘Ewa. The place names of the region indicate the 10. Oddly, trails are rare in this rough terrain. There strong connection of Kamapua‘a with Honouliuli is one portion of a remarkable trail preserved in the and perhaps a body of legend that was never recorded Kualaka‘i region of the plain (Wickler and Tuggle (see Pukui et al. 1974: Pu‘ukapua‘i and Pu‘uku‘ua). 1996). The trail (Site 1753, Feature 1) is 2 m wide, paved, and has parallel uprights bordering it about 3. There are several available summaries of the post- every 3 to 4 m; about 300 m is intact. It is possible contact history of the ‘Ewa Plain: see Kelly (1991), that this is a remnant of a trail recorded in 1825 (see 31 tuggle

Fitzpatrick 1986:Figure 33). Its characteristics also production rate can be generated through experi- suggest a special purpose, perhaps a ceremonial con- mentation. nection between the coast and Pu‘uokapolei. Hawai- ian traditions have several references to deities (akua 15. Davis (1990b) proposes a seasonal model for and kupua) who travel from Pu‘uokapolei to Kuala- inland settlement, but does not have site data to sup- ka‘i (e.g. Kame‘eleihiwa 1996:63). port the model. In addition, if inland occupation was seasonal, the sparse midden and other data con- In this regard it is also worth noting that a trail, and cerning total duration of occupation indicate that perhaps this trail, may be referenced in the Pele and this would have been for only a very few seasons at Hi‘iaka myth by the name Känehili (Emerson any one locale. Consequently, “seasonal” with some 19768:167; Maly 1996). If so, this is one of the few other parameter would have to be defined to account known traditional trail names on O‘ahu. When Hi‘i- for three or four seasons of use in a period of roughly aka leaves Pu‘uokapolei and heads to the coast, she 500 years (a.d. 1300–1800). chants (Maly 1996: I-10): 16. This suggests that excavations should not be Let us dwell upon the ‘öhai covered shore focused exclusively on structures. Earlier compo- Where the noni blossoms are twisted together nents may well be missed if this is the case. However, Descending along Känehili the settlements on the ‘Ewa Plain were centered I am winding along. around sinkhole complexes (or marshes/ponds), so that reoccupation probably always occurred in the 11. It can be argued that the identification and dat- same general locale. ing of “early sites” has been a failure (see Athens et al. 1997). As suggested by James et al. (1987) and 17. For dryland Mäkaha, Hommon (1969) recog- elaborated in Athens et al. (1997), a program of dat- nizes the high variability of rainfall and associated ing bone of Rattus exulans may be an alternative to limited settlement, but proposes a seasonal occupa- the search for an early site by which the colonization tion. As indicated in Note 15, seasonality does not horizon of Hawai‘i can be established. appear to be a satisfactory model for occupations of such limited duration. 12. In a sense, most Hawaiian radiocarbon dates do not really date anything, archaeologically speaking. 18. The Pu‘u Naio cave deposit on Maui ( James et At best they may date a feature, and at worst (scatter al. 1987) is a good example of such a deposit, but charcoal) they date nothing—no feature, no stra- the excavated portion was primarily natural deposi- tum, no phase marker. tion, with the cultural period too compressed strati- graphically to allow detailed analysis of extinction. 13. In recent years, there has been a cultural resources management bias against excavation of 19. Other ao kuewa include the barren areas of intensively occupied, long-term sites, which are Kama‘oma‘o, Maui; Uhana, Läna‘i; and Ma‘ohe- avoided for cost-efficiency or for preservation. This laiea, Moloka‘i (Kamakau 1964:49). gives the misleading impression that the shallow site is somehow the norm for occupational duration. 20. In Pukui et al. (1974) kualaka‘i is Tethys; in Pukui and Elbert (1986) kualakai (no glottal) is 14. The measurement of site occupational charac- Aplysia dactylomeia. Other translations of Kualaka‘i teristics such as “duration” and “intensity” remains include “Kü [the] leader” (May 1992:E-12) and “to poorly developed in Hawaiian occupation, as does rise up and lead” (Kame‘eleihiwa 1996:63). the related problem of the methodology of site for- mation analysis. Density and absolute quantity can 21. The spelling/pronunciation “Kapo” is preferred be used as rough measures for these characteristics, by Johnson (1988) and Kame‘eleihiwa (1996), but given certain assumptions, for example, that trash is “Kapö” is the pronunciation used by many individ- discarded locally. For the ‘Ewa Plain, the presence of uals involved in hula. large quantities of fire-cracked limestone provides an 22. This is a complex subject, developed in Tuggle opportunity to estimate occupational duration if a (1996) where the connection of Kamapua‘a to Pu‘u- 32 hawaiian archaeology

okapolei/Kapo is also explored. (Also see Barrere et Burgett, B. and P. H. Rosendahl. 1992. Archaeologi- al. 1980 for the relationship of Kapo/Laka.) Kame- cal inventory survey, contaminated soil stockpile/reme- ‘eleihiwa (1996:14) suggests that the temple at Pu‘u- diation facility. Report submitted to Halber Hastert okapolei may have been named Kekelei‘aikü, also & Fee, Honolulu. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., the name of Kamapua‘a’s older brother and Inc. guardian. Kekelei‘aikü lived with the grandmother Kamaunua-Niho at Pu‘uokapolei, where he com- Cachola-Abad, C. K. 1993. Evaluating the orthodox mitted suicide, was buried, and then revived (J. Bush dual settlement model for the Hawaiian Islands: an [1891] translated in Johnson 1988). analysis of artefact distribution and Hawaiian oral traditions. In The evolution and organization of pre- historic society in Polynesia, eds. Michael Graves and Roger Green, 13–32. New Zealand Archaeological References Association Monograph No. 19.

Albert, R. W. 1981. Appendix III: A study of the Char, W. P. and N. Balakrishnan. 1979. Ewa Plain wartime history of Camp Malakole, 1940–1946. In Botanical Survey. Report for U.S. Department of the Archaeological and paleontological investigation at Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Kalaeloa (Barber’s Point), Honouliuli, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu, Charlot, J. 1987. The Kamapua‘a literature: The clas- Federal study areas 1a and 1b, and State of Hawaii sical traditions of the Hawaiian pig god as a body of optional area 1, by H. Hammatt and W. Folk. literature. The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Lawa‘i: Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Monograph Series, No. 6. Laie: Brigham Young Uni- Allen, J. 1990. Technical Report No. 1: Geology, versity-Hawai‘i Campus. soils and sediments at Barber’s Point, O‘ahu. In Charvet-Pond, A. and B. D. Davis. 1992. Volume I: Archaeological and paleontological investigations at the West Beach data recovery program, phase 4—archaeo- Barbers Point deep draft harbor, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu (final logical and paleontological excavations, Ko Olina draft), eds. P. L. Cleghorn and B. D. Davis. Report Resort, land of Honouliuli, ‘Ewa, Island of Oahu. submitted to the Pacific Ocean Division, Corps of Report prepared for West Beach Estates, c/o Wilson Engineers, Department of the Army. Honolulu: Okamoto & Associates, Inc., Honolulu. Hilo: Paul Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum. H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Armstrong, R. W. (ed.) 1973. Atlas of Hawai‘i. Christensen, C. C. and P. V. Kirch. 1986. Non- Honolulu: University Press of Hawai‘i. marine mollusks and ecological change at Barbers Athens, J. S. and J. V. Ward. 1993. Environmental Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Occasional change and prehistoric Polynesian settlement in Papers 26:52–80. Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives 32(2):205–223. Cleghorn, P. H. and B. D. Davis (eds). 1990. Archae- Athens, J. S., J. Ward, and H. D. Tuggle. 1997. Envi- ological and paleontological investigations at the Bar- ronment, vegetation change, and early human settle- bers Point deep draft harbor, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu ( final ment on the ‘Ewa Plain: Paleoenvironmental investi- draft). Report submitted to Pacific Ocean Division, gations. Report prepared for Belt Collins Hawaii. Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army. Hono- Honolulu: International Archaeological Research lulu: Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum. Institute, Inc. Collins, S. L. 1990. Technical Report 4: Analysis of Barrere, D. B., M. K. Pukui, and M. Kelly. 1980. vertebrate remains from Barbers Point, southwestern Hula: Historical perspectives. Pacific Anthropological O‘ahu. In Archaeological and paleontological investi- Records No. 30. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. gations at the Barbers Point deep draft harbor, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu ( final draft), eds. P. L. Cleghorn and B. D. Beckwith, M. 1970. Hawaiian mythology. Honolulu: Davis. Reported submitted to the Pacific Ocean University of Hawaii Press. Division, Corps of Engineers, Department of the 33 tuggle

Army. Honolulu: Applied Research Group, Bishop ———. 1992b. Computer programs for creating Museum. cumulative probability curves and annual frequency distribution diagrams with radiocarbon dates. New ———. 1995. Avifaunal remains from the Kawailoa Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:35– 43. Site, O‘ahu Island (BPBM Site 50-OA-D6-62). Hawaiian Archaeology 4:4–16. Dye, T. and H. D. Tuggle. in prep. Land snail extinc- tions at Kalaeloa. Culliney, J. C. 1988. Islands in a far sea: Man and nature in Hawaii. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books. Emerson, N. D. 1978 [1915]. Pele and Hiiaka: A myth from Hawaii. Rutland: Charles E. Tuttle. Davis, B. D. 1990a. Appendix II: Archaeological site descriptions. In Archaeological and paleontologi- Fitzpatrick, G. L. 1986. The early mapping of cal investigations at the Barbers Point deep draft har- Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Editions Limited. bor, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu ( final draft), eds. P. L. Cleghorn and B. D. Davis. Reported submitted to the Pacific Fornander, A. 1916–20 [1880s]. Fornander collec- Ocean Division, Corps of Engineers, Department tion of Hawaiian antiquities and folk-lore. Memoirs of the Army. Honolulu: Applied Research Group, of the B. P. Bishop Museum, Vols. IV–VI. Hono- Bishop Museum. lulu: Bishop Museum Press.

———. 1990b. Human settlement in pristine insu- Franklin, L. J., S. T. Goodfellow, and W. Wulzen. lar environments: A Hawaiian case study from Bar- 1995. Final report, phase II—data recovery archaeo- bers Point, southwestern O‘ahu. Ph.D. dissertation, logical mitigation program, Ewa Marina community Dept. of Anthropology, Univ. of Hawaii, Honolulu. project, volume I. Report prepared for Haseko (Ewa), Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms Inter- Inc., c/o Belt Collins Hawaii, Honolulu. Hilo: Paul national. H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.

Dean, J. S., R. C. Euler, G. J. Gummerman, F. Plog, Goodfellow, S. T. 1992. Data analysis. In Volume I: R. H. Hevly, and T.N.V. Karlstrom. 1985. Human West Beach data recovery program, phase 4—archaeo- behavior, demography, and paleoenvironment of the logical and paleontological excavations, Ko Olina Colorado Plateaus. American Antiquity 50:537-554. Resort, land of Honouliuli, Ewa, Island of Oahu, by A. Charvet-Pond and B. D. Davis. Report prepared Denfeld, D. C. 1995. Appendix B: History of Naval for West Beach Estates, c/o Wilson Okamoto & Air Station, Barbers Point, and survey of cold war Associates, Inc., Honolulu. Hilo: Paul H. Rosen- facilities. In A cultural resource inventory of Naval Air dahl, Ph.D., Inc. Station, Barbers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i: Part I: Phase a.d. I survey and inventory summary, eds. H. D. Tuggle Green, R. C. 1980. Mäkaha before 1880 Pacific and M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle. Prepared for Belt Col- Anthropological Records 31. Honolulu: B. P. Bishop lins Hawaii. Honolulu: International Archaeological Museum. Research Institute, Inc. Hammatt, H. H. and W. H. Folk. 1981. Archaeolog- Dunn, A., A. E. Haun, and S. Goodfellow. 1991. ical and paleontological investigation at Kalaeloa (Bar- Intensive archaeological survey and test excavations, ber’s Point), Honouliuli, ‘Ewa, O‘ahu, Federal study Ewa Marina community project, phase I. Prepared for areas 1a and 1b, and State of Hawaii optional area 1. Belt Collins & Associates. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lawa‘i: Ph.D., Inc. Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc.

Dye, T. 1994. Population trends in Hawai‘i before ———. 1990. Archaeological subsurface testing of a 1778. The Hawaiian Journal of History 28:1–20. beach berm within the proposed Barbers Point drainage channel. Prepared for Engineering Concepts. Hono- Dye, T. and E. Komori. 1992a. A pre-censal popu- lulu: Cultural Surveys Hawaii. lation history of Hawai‘i. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:113–128. Hammatt, H. H. and D. W. Shideler. 1995. Data recovery plan for archaeological sites in the proposed 34 hawaiian archaeology

Barber’s Point expansion area. Prepared for the Estate ———. 1991 [1865–1869]. Tales and Traditions of of James Campbell. Kailua: Cultural Surveys the People of Old; Na Mo‘olelo a Ka Po‘e Kahiko. Hawai‘i, Inc. Bishop Museum Special Publication 94. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Haun, A. E. 1991. An archaeological survey of the Naval Air Station, Barber’s Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Kame‘eleihiwa, L. 1992. Native land and foreign Honolulu: Applied Research Group, Bishop desires. Pahea la e pono ai? Honolulu: Bishop Museum. Museum Press.

Hommon, R. J. 1969. An interim report on archaeo- ———. 1996. A legendary tradition of Kamapua‘a, logical zone 1. In Makaha Valley historical project, the Hawaiian pig-god; An annotated translation of a interim report no. 1, ed. R.C. Green, 41–53. Pacific Hawaiian epic from Ka Leo o ka Lähui June 22, Anthropological Records 4. Honolulu: Bishop 1891–July 23, 1891. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Museum. Press.

Ii, John Papa. 1963 [1869]. Fragments of Hawaiian Kelly, M. 1991. Appendix A: Notes on the history of history. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Honouliuli. In An archaeological survey of the Naval Air Station, Barber’s Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, by A. E. James, H. F. and S. L. Olson. 1991. Descriptions of Haun. Prepared for Commander, Pacific Division, thirty-two new species of birds from the Hawaiian Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Har- Islands: Part II. Passeriformes. Ornithological Mono- bor. Honolulu: Applied Research Group, Bishop graphs 46:1–88. Museum.

James, H. F., T. W. Stafford, D. W. Steadman, S. L. Kennedy, J. 1991. Subsurface testing at the proposed Olson, P. S. Martin, A. T. Jull, and P. C. McCoy. Kapolei Park/Fort Barrette, Puu Kapolei, Island of 1987. Radiocarbon dates on bones of extinct birds O‘ahu. Haleiwa: Archaeological Consultants of from Hawai‘i. Proceedings of the National Academy of Hawaii. Science 84:2350–2354. Kennedy, J., J. Berlin, and T. Denham. 1992. Johnson, R. K. 1988. Pu‘u-o-Kapolei and a transla- Archaeological data recovery report for the Puuloa Golf tion of Kamaliikane “Ka leo o ka lahui” (1900). Course located at ‘Ewa, island of O‘ahu. Prepared for Report prepared for The Estate of James Campbell. Puuloa Homes. Haleiwa: Archaeological Consul- Typescript. tants of Hawaii, Inc.

Kahiolo, G. W. 1978. He moolelo no Kamapua‘a Kirch, P. V. 1982. The impact of the prehistoric (from Ka Hae Hawaii, 1861). Translated by E. T. Polynesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem. Pacific Sci- Mookini and Erin Neizmen, with the assistance of ence 36(1):1–14. David Tom. Honolulu: Hawaiian Studies Program, University of Hawaii, Mänoa. ———. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: an intro- duction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. Kamakau, S. M. 1961 [1868 –1870]. Ruling chiefs Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. of Hawaii. Honolulu: The Kamehameha Schools Press. Kirch, P. V. and C. C. Christensen. 1981. Appendix II: Nonmarine mollusks and paleoecology at Barbers ———. 1964 [1866–1871]. Ka po‘e kahiko, the peo- Point, O‘ahu. In Archaeological and paleontological ple of old. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. investigation at Kalaeloa (Barber’s Point), Honouliuli, Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. ‘Ewa, O‘ahu, Federal study areas 1a and 1b, and State ———. 1976 [1869–1871]. The Works of the People of Hawaii optional area 1, by H. Hammatt and of Old, Na Hana a Ka Po‘e Kahiko. B. P. Museum W. Folk. Report for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Special Publication 61. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Lawa‘i: Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, Inc. Press. Landrum, J. and A. J. Schilz. 1993. Archaeological reconnaissance and limited subsurface testing at the 35 tuggle

proposed family housing construction area, Barber’s sive survey and testing, Naval Air Station Barbers Point Naval Air Station, Honouliuli ahupua‘a, Ewa Point (prefinal report), by C. O’Hare, T. R. Wol- District, Oahu Island. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps forth, and P. H. Rosendahl. Prepared for Naval of Engineers, Fort Shafter, Hawaii. Honolulu: Facilities Engineering Command, Department of Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. the Navy. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.

Larson, D. O., H. Neff, D. A. Graybill, J. Michael- ———. 1996b. Appendix G: Identification of taxa sen, and E. Ambos. 1996. Risk, climatic variability, in archaeological charcoal samples. In (Prefinal) A and the study of Southwestern prehistory: An evolu- cultural resource inventory of Naval Air Station, Bar- tionary perspective. American Antiquity 61(2): bers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i: Part II: Phase II inventory 217–241. survey of selected sites, by S. K. Wickler and H. D. Tuggle. Prepared for Belt Collins Hawaii. Hono- Maly, K. 1992. Appendix E: Historical documen- lulu: International Archaeological Research Insti- tary research. In Archaeological inventory survey, con- tute, Inc. taminated soil stockpile/remediation facility, by B. Burgett and P. H. Rosendahl. Report submitted to Nakuina, E. 1904. Hawaii, its people, their legends. Halber Hastert & Fee, Honolulu. Hilo: Paul H. Honolulu. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Nakuina, M. E. 1990 [1900]. The wind gourd of ———. 1996. [translation of ] He mo‘olelo ka‘ao no La‘amaomao. [Moolelo Hawaii o Pakaa a me Ku-a- Hi‘iaka-i-ka-poli-o Pele. (Ka Hoku o Hawai‘i, Sep- Pakaa...]. Translated by E. T. Mookini and tember 18, 1924–July 17, 1928). In Prefinal report, S. Näkoa. Honolulu: Kalamakü Press. phase II-intensive survey and testing, Naval Air Station Barbers Point, by C. O’Hare, T. R. Wolforth, and P. Nunn, P. D. 1991. Keimami sa vakila na liga ni kalou H. Rosendahl. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (Feeling the hand of god): Human and non-human impacts on Pacific island environments. Occasional Manhoff, M. and M. Uyehara. 1976. Rockhounding Papers of the East-West Environmental and Policy in Hawaii: Our rocks, minerals, and semi-precious Institute 13. Honolulu: East-West Center. stones. Honolulu: Hawaiian Almanac Publishing Company. O’Hare, C., T. R. Wolforth, and P. H. Rosendahl. 1996. Phase II—intensive survey and testing, Naval McAllister, J. G. 1933. Archaeology of Oahu. B. P. Air Station Barbers Point (Prefinal Report). Prepared Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Honolulu: Bishop for Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Depart- Museum Press. ment of the Navy. Hilo: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. Miller, L. 1993. Archaeological data recovery of state sites 50-80-12-2710 and 50-80-12-2711 at Barber’s Olson, S. L. and H. F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the Point, Hono‘uli‘uli Ahupua‘a, ‘Ewa district, O‘ahu. fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Report for R.H.S. Lee, Inc. Honolulu: Anthro- Contributions to Zoology No. 365. Washington, pology Department, Bishop Museum. D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Murakami, G. 1995. Appendix B: Macroscopic ———. 1984. The role of Polynesians in the extinc- screening results of charcoal samples from NAS Bar- tion of the avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. In bers Point, O‘ahu. In Archaeological inventory survey Quaternary extinctions: A prehistoric revolution, eds. for construction projects at Naval Air Station, Barbers P. S. Martin and R. G. Klein. Tucson: University of Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, by H. D. Tuggle. Prepared for Arizona Press. Belt Collins Hawaii. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. ———. 1991. Descriptions of thirty-two new spe- cies of birds from the Hawaiian Islands: Part I. Non- ———. 1996a. Appendix E: Identification of taxa passeriformes. Ornithological Monographs 45:1–88. in archaeological charcoal samples, Barbers Point Naval Air Station data recovery. In Phase II—inten- Pukui, M. K. 1943. Ke awa lau o Puuloa. Hawaiian Historical Society Report No. 52. 36 hawaiian archaeology

Pukui, M. K. and S. H. Elbert. 1971. Hawaiian dic- for the U.S. Navy. [place unrecorded] The Traverse tionary. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Group, Inc.

———. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary (revised and Tuggle, H. D. 1993. Kamiloloa archaeology: Data enlarged edition). Honolulu: University of Hawaii recovery and site inventory for a portion of Kamiloloa, Press. Island of Moloka‘i, Hawai‘i. Prepared for Depart- ment of Hawaiian Home Lands. Honolulu: Interna- Pukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. Mookini. 1974. tional Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Place names of Hawai‘i. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii. ———. 1995. (Prefinal) Archaeological inventory survey for construction projects at Naval Air Station, Pukui, M. K. and L.C.S. Green. 1995. Folktales of Barbers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Prepared for Belt Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Collins Hawaii. Honolulu: International Archaeo- Rolett, B. V. 1992. Faunal extinctions and depletion logical Research Institute, Inc. linked with prehistory and environmental change in ———. 1996. Search for the observation point of the Marquesas Islands (French Polynesia). Journal of O‘ahu’s po‘e kilo hoku (astronomers). Typescript. the Polynesian Society 101:86–94. Tuggle, H. D. and M. J. Tomonari-Tuggle. 1994. Rosendahl, P. H. 1994. Aboriginal Hawaiian struc- Synthesis of cultural resource studies of the ‘Ewa plain. tural remains and settlement patterns in the upland Task 1a: Archaeological research services for the pro- agricultural zone at Lapakahi, Island of Hawai‘i. posed cleanup, disposal and reuse of Naval Air Station Hawaiian Archaeology 3:14–70. Barbers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Draft report prepared Silva, C. L. 1987. Appendix A: Historical documen- for Belt Collins Hawaii, Honolulu. Honolulu: Inter- tary research-West Loch Estates project area. In national Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Archaeological reconnaissance survey for environmental ———. 1995. A cultural resource inventory of Naval impact statement, West Loch Estates-golf course and Air Station, Barbers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i: Part I: park, by A. M. Dicks, A. E. Haun, and P. H. Rosen- Phase I survey and inventory summary. Prefinal report dahl. Prepared for City and County of Honolulu, prepared for Belt Collins Hawaii. Honolulu: Inter- Hawai‘i. Kurtistown: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D, Inc. national Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Sinoto, A. 1976. A report on cultural resources survey Vancouver, G. 1778. A voyage of discovery to the at Barbers Point, Island of Oahu. Report for Dept. North Pacific Ocean, and round the world...per- of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean formed in the years 1790 –1795. 3 volumes. London: Division. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Robinsons and Edwards. Bishop Museum. Weisler, M. and P. V. Kirch. 1985. The structure of ———. 1978. Archaeological and palaeontological settlement space in a Polynesian chiefdom: Kawela, salvage at Barbers Point, Oahu. Honolulu: Depart- Molokai, Hawaiian Islands. New Zealand Journal of ment of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Archaeology 7:129–158.

Spriggs, M. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late coloniza- Wickler, S. K. and H. D. Tuggle. 1996. A cultural tion of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200–217. resource inventory of Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, Steadman, D. W. 1995. Prehistoric extinctions of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i: Part II: Phase II inventory survey of Pacific Island birds: Biodiversity meets zooarchaeol- selected sites. Prefinal report prepared for Belt Collins ogy. Science 267:1123–1130. Hawaii. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Sterling, E. P. and C. C. Summers. 1978. Sites of Oahu. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. Windes, T. C. and D. Ford. 1996. The Chaco wood project: The chronometric reappraisal of Pueblo Traverse Group. 1988. Natural Resources Manage- Bonito. American Antiquity 61(2):295–310. ment Plan, Naval Air Station Barbers Point. Prepared The Maunawili Core: Prehistoric Inland Expansion of Settlement and Agriculture, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i

J. Stephen Athens International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Jerome V. Ward Pacific Palynology

Introduction This article presents the results of a sediment coring project undertaken at a small unnamed wetland in upper Maunawili Valley on windward O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Recent paleoenvironmental research in Hawai‘i has documented a dramatic decline in the native lowland forest starting ca. 950 b.p. (a.d.1000; Athens and Ward 1993, Athens et al. 1992). This decline included the severe reduction of the native low- land Pritchardia palm forest, the extirpation and near extinction of at least one major endemic species (i.e., Kanaloa kahoolawensis), and the serious reduction of other native species. Although the exact mechanism for this change remains unclear, it is virtually certain that the arrival of Polynesian settlers in Hawai‘i, perhaps some- time after 1250 b.p. (a.d.700; see Spriggs and Anderson 1993, Athens and Ward 1993:219, Athens et al. 1992:10), was intimately tied to the onset of the forest decline.

All of our previous O‘ahu paleoenvironmental projects had been in coastal and near-shore areas except for one high elevation site (see Athens n.d. for recent list- ing of projects). We were therefore curious to find out what was happening to plant communities in the interior areas of O‘ahu at an intermediate elevation, though well within the zone of permanent human habitation and agriculture as documented ethnohistorically. Had there been a similar dramatic shift in the veg- etation of these areas? Was it coincident with or later than the documented coastal changes? What was the evidence for initial human use and occupation of these inland areas? Partly because of the wealth of recent archaeological research in nearby areas, the small wetland in upper Maunawili Valley appeared to be an excellent choice for investigation. Also important in our decision was the fact that this location represents the upper portion of the same watershed where our Kawai

37 38 hawaiian archaeology

Nui Marsh paleoenvironmental coring investiga- Finally, Allen (1992:53) is clear about her accep- tions had been carried out (Athens and Ward 1991, tance of inland dates as early as a.d. 500. On wind- Athens et al. 1992). Thus, in a sense our work in ward O‘ahu, Allen’s most important sources of upper Maunawili Valley would represent a coastal to inland archaeological data derive from Luluku (Allen inland transect within the same watershed, provid- et al. 1987), upper Maunawili Valley (Allen 1989, ing an especially interesting basis for comparison. 1992), and Ha‘iku Valley (only a limited date series for the Ha‘iku Valley investigations was available to An earlier coring effort at the Maunawili wetland Allen at the time of her writing; see Williams and had been undertaken by the Bishop Museum in late Nees 1994). 1990 and early 1991. The Museum designated the location as State site 50-80-14-1994 (Williams et al. Williams (1992) also provides an important perspec- 1995:60–62). The value of these investigations, tive on this issue. Based on an analysis of 84 radio- however, was limited as no radiocarbon dates were carbon dates obtained from sites along the H-3 obtained and there were other problems (see Cum- Highway corridor on windward O‘ahu, Williams mings 1995). Nevertheless, these early investigations (1992:72) finds: did suggest the excellent potential of the Maunawili wetland for paleoenvironmental investigations. This analysis of the radiocarbon data suggests that exploitation of inland Käne‘ohe began early in the Hawaiian cultural sequence, possibly even as early as what Kirch (1985) has termed the Col- The Archaeological Problem onization Period (a.d. 300–600), although the data supporting this proposition are not particu- The significance of the Maunawili paleoenviron- larly convincing. Certainly, however, by the start mental investigations fundamentally derives from of what Kirch refers to as the Expansion Period the problem of determining the timing for the (a.d. 1100–1650), the inlands were being used inland expansion of early Hawaiian settlement on for a variety of activities. O‘ahu. Although Hawaiian settlement has been fre- quently regarded as primarily favoring coastal areas Although more cautious and reserved than Allen, during the early period, followed by late radiation Williams (1992:75) is nevertheless clear in his belief into the supposedly less desirable interior areas (e.g., that inland areas of windward O‘ahu were in use by Kirch 1985:297, Hommon 1986), Allen (1992) has prehistoric Hawaiians at a relatively early time: recently challenged this view. Assembling and ana- . . . low levels of agriculture beginning at an as yet lyzing a large array of radiocarbon dates, Allen unknown date were followed by agricultural (1992:53) argues that, expansion beginning around a.d. 1000. The thirteen pre-a.d. 1200 dates suggest that Subsequent to the studies on which Allen’s and inland localities were in use approximately as Williams’ papers were based, archaeological investi- early as coastal areas. gations were conducted in upper Maunawili Valley In her abstract, Allen (1992:45) further adds that, (Williams et al. 1995) and the nearby Ko‘olau Golf Course (above Ho‘omaluhia Botanical Garden; . . . it appears likely that both irrigated and non- Meeker 1995). Although these studies add 4 and 18 irrigated agriculture were established shortly after radiocarbon dates, respectively, to the record for colonization in both coastal and inland loca- windward O‘ahu, they provide no new early dates tions.... (the earliest date was a.d. 1030–1258 [920–692 b.p. Allen (1992:54) also remarks: ; cal. 1 sigma range] from dispersed charcoal in a natural sedimentary unit in agricultural terraces at . . . inland areas were cultivated shortly after col- the Ko‘olau Golf Course). onization, with well developed [agricultural] fields in use by a.d. 750.... Allen’s (1992) and Williams’ (1992) discussions of the pre-a.d. 1200 radiocarbon dates are not unrea- 39 athens and ward

sonable if taken at face value. The early dates are toric population was distributed through time on the there for all to see. But as will be shown, the coring various islands. Allen’s (1992) work quite clearly evidence from the Maunawili wetland suggests a pertains to this level of inference, providing a con- very different interpretation—one that does not sup- trasting perspective to the prevailing archaeological port the inference of settlement or agriculture in the understanding in which settlement and agriculture interior until after about a.d. 1200. How do we gradually radiate out from favorable coastal areas to resolve this seeming conflict in the evidence? the interior. On another level, however, the question takes on considerable importance concerning the The early radiocarbon dates from inland archaeolog- inference of processes of social organization and the ical sites are admittedly difficult to explain away. eventual evolution of highly complex chiefdom soci- Based on the coring evidence, however, we suggest eties as documented by oral accounts and by contact that there may be a significant in-built age or “old period observations. Here we may refer to Hom- wood” problem in Hawaiian archaeological char- mon’s (1986) work on the investigation of the origin coal, and that this may be pushing back the ages of of the ahupua‘a and its relation to the development the earliest occupations by several hundred years or of stratified chiefdoms. The inland expansion of set- more in some cases. Such an age distortion, which tlement, which resulted in new economic patterns presumably occurs in only a portion of the dated and social relationships, was the main ingredient in samples, is enough to significantly affect the inter- this process according to Hommon (1986). In sum, pretation of early Hawaiian settlement processes. therefore, an understanding of the chronology and There may be other problems as well. One particu- spatial patterning of prehistoric island settlement in larly important concern is the mistaking of anaero- Hawai‘i is a very important archaeological problem. bically blackened wood for charcoal. We know that this happens from time to time. Coring studies have shown that charcoal only occurs with human settle- Location and Environment ment on O‘ahu (Athens n.d.); therefore uncharred wood could potentially date to prehuman times The location of the Maunawili wetland, in Ko‘olau while all charcoal must be anthropogenic. Thus, if Poko District of Kailua ahupua‘a, is shown in Figure the sample is anaerobically blackened and in a con- 1. It is in the back of Maunawili Valley, roughly text that has not been independently verified to be some 700 meters from the base of the near-vertical human (e.g., a midden or agricultural terrace), falla- cliffs of the Ko‘olau Mountains, which rise steeply to cious interpretations are possible if this same sample the south and west. The valley is further defined by is misidentified as charcoal. Aniani Nui and Olomana Ridges to the east. Mau- nawili Valley opens into Kawai Nui Marsh downs- Because of these potential problems (old wood and lope and some 5 km north of the Maunawili wet- blackened non-anthropogenic wood), it is obvious land, and the nearest ocean shoreline at Kailua is that charcoal dating samples should be examined by some 8.5 km distant. a qualified wood anatomist prior to submittal to the dating laboratory. This will insure that only anthro- The wetland, at an elevation of 158 m (518 ft) above pogenic charcoal (in the case of O‘ahu) is dated. sea level, is within a well defined north-south trend- Equally important, the wood anatomist can separate ing gully-like depression. It measures roughly 25 to out only short-lived taxa for the radiocarbon detem- 30 meters wide and 120 meters long. The wetland ination. evidently was formed by a small spring originating at an undetermined upslope location. A rock wall The significance of this archaeological problem— forms a terrace facing at the lower end of the wetland that is, early vs. late inland settlement—for Hawai- (Williams et al. 1995:60–61). A small stream gently ian archaeology may be considered from two differ- flows through the middle of the wetland. A dirt and ent perspectives. On the one hand there is the gravel road cuts across its upper (south) end. empirical question concerning the nature of early settlement processes in Hawai‘i and how the prehis- The soil-covered terrain in the vicinity of the wet- 40 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 1. Location of Maunawili wetland, USGS topographic map, Island of Oahu, 1970 revision. 41 athens and ward

Table 1. Sediment description for Core 1, Maunawili wetland

Layer Depth Munsell Sediment Description cm Color (dry)

I 0–4 10YR 3/2 Loam; non-sticky, slightly plastic; lower boundary gradual; dark brown some fine rootlets. II 4–29 10YR 3/3 Clay loam; sticky; plastic; numerous yellowish red mottles (5YR 5/8); very dark grayish brown lower boundary gradual. III 29–94 10YR 4/1 Silty clay loam, very humic; numerous red mottles (2.5YR 4/8); dark gray non-sticky and plastic; some wood fragments and kukui nut shells throughout layer with large log and other limb fragment at base; occasional subangular basalt cobbles and rounded pebbles throughout layer; water table at 86 cm; lower boundary abrupt. IV 94–130 10YR 3/1 Gleyed clay; sediment becomes wetter and less compacted; small very dark gray amount of organics (presumably sedge stems) especially below 120 cm; lower boundary clear. V 130–144 10YR 4/2 Gleyed clay with small amount of decomposing basaltic sand and dark grayish brown gravel and dense “mat” of vegetation (presumably sedge stems); lower boundary clear. VI 144–169+ 2.5Y 4/4 Clay loam with decomposing coarse sand and gravel, mostly well olive brown rounded (there is more rock and larger pieces than in Layer V); slightly sticky and plastic. Corer would not penetrate deeper.

land gently slopes to the north and is dissected by along the stream channel through the wetland. The occasional streams and gullies. Soils consist primar- ground surface of the wetland, as would be expected, ily of the Lolekaa Series, which are was soggy though relatively firm. On the slopes above the wetland and in its immediate vicinity were . . . well-drained soils on fans and terraces.... Hibiscus tiliaceus, Hedychium coronarium (white gin- These soils developed in old, gravelly colluvium ger), Musa sp. (banana), Schefflera actinophylla (octo- and alluvium (Foote et al. 1972:83). pus tree), Pluchea carolinensis, Ipomoea sp. (probably Because of its location near the pali (steep cliffs) of alba), Pterolepis glomerata, Toona ciliata (Australian the Ko‘olau Mountains, the area receives abundant red cedar), Syzygium jumbos, Citharexylum cauda- rainfall with over 2,100 mm per year (Giambelluca tum, Stachytarpheta dichotoma, Phaeomeria magnifica et al. 1986:236). Presently much of the land in the (torch giner), and Mangifera indica (mango). A more vicinity of the wetland is under intensive banana cul- systematic vegetation survey would certainly include tivation, attesting to its high agricultural potential. many more species, though the above listing pro- Presumably this land would have been well-suited vides a fairly good indication of the generally highly for many of the traditional Polynesian cultigens, altered natural environmental setting of the wetland. including, taro, breadfruit, and bananas.

At the time of coring, the wetland vegetation con- Fieldwork, Core Description, and Dating sisted of dense California grass (Brachiaria mutica), Commelina diffusa, and Oenothera sp. The Museum Following an earlier reconnaissance of the wetland report indicates that the marsh was covered by area with Scott Williams, who had conducted an Arthrostema at the time of its investigations, though archaeological field survey of the area for Bishop this plant was either not observed or recognized by Museum, a single core was raised in the center of the us. Alocasia macrorrhiza was growing fairly densely 42 hawaiian archaeology

softer. A log was encountered at 86 cm and an auger was used to penetrate it so that coring could con- tinue. The basal sediment was very gravelly and peb- bly, and further penetration with the corer was not possible. A complete description of the sedimentary layers is presented in Table 1.

Following recovery of the core, a small trench was excavated over the bore hole to retrieve a sample of the wood encountered at 86 cm for radiocarbon dat- ing. On reaching the wood, it was discovered that there was one very large log along with another much smaller limb or small trunk of a clearly differ- ent species. Both pieces were lying horizontally. The large log’s maximum dimensions in cross-section were 8.5 x 11 cm and its length was 80 cm (total dry weight of 4.5 kg). The wood, completely blackened from anaerobic processes, was very hard and solid. The other piece of wood, rather soft and spongy, was 24 cm long and had maximum measurements of 3.1 x 4.8 cm in cross-section. The two pieces of wood were subsequently identified by G. Murakami, a wood anatomist, as Syzygium malaccense (mountain apple) for the log, and kukui (Aleurites moluccana) for the smaller specimen. Kukui nut shells were pre- sent in the excavation unit from near the surface down to the wood at 86 cm.

The sedimentary profile consists of loam, humic clay loam, and very humic silty clay loam from the sur- face to the water table (above 86 cm; Layers I, II, and III—see profile, Fig. 2). The humic content in Layer Figure 2. Profile of Core 1, Maunawili wetland III, in fact, was high enough to make it almost a showing sedimentary layers, pollen samples, and peat. Stream gravels or coarse sands were not present radiocarbon determinations. The radiocarbon deter- in this part of the unit, suggesting that fluvial distur- minations are calibrated with a 1 sigma confidence interval. bances did not significantly affect the depositional sequence. The excavation, however, revealed the infrequent presence of rounded basalt pebbles and wetland by the authors on July 21, 1992. The coring subangular cobbles, suggesting perhaps the dislodg- apparatus was that of a modified Livingstone piston ing and transport of rocks from the colluvial slopes corer, which is a hand driven instrument specifically on the edges of the wetland (perhaps as trees top- designed to recover intact and undisturbed wetland pled). There is no indication for any kind of flood and lake sediment samples (Wright et al. 1965, event to explain the presence of these rocks. 1984; Wright 1967). The core barrel was 5 cm in Below the wood there was a gleyed clay layer about diameter and 1 meter long. 36 cm thick (Layer IV), and below this was another The core penetrated to a maximum depth of 169 cm gleyed clay layer (Layer V) containing decomposing below the surface, requiring 4 separate drives. The basaltic sand and gravel along with a relatively dense upper sediment layers were relatively stiff, while “mat” of vegetal remains, probably sedge stems. The those below the water table at 86 cm were much basal layer—Layer VI—consisted of a clay loam with 43 athens and ward

Table 2. Radiocarbon dating results, Core 1, Maunawili wetland

Cat. No. Lab.No. Provenience Weight Age 13C/12C Conventional Calibrated Beta _ g/Material B.P. 14C Age Age B.P.

Mauna 86-94 54920 Core 1, III 197.0 800±50 -29.3 730±50 688-655 (base of layer), wood** 86–94 cm b.s Mauna 132–144 57890 Core 1, V, 3.95 930±90 -25.0 930±90 947-734 132-144 cm b.s. plants***

* Calibration from Calib 3.0.3 computer program of Stuiver and Reimer (1993); all dates have a 1 sigma age range. Calibrations are from decadal treering dataset to 6000 cal b.c. ** Syzgium malaccense (mountain apple), uncharred. *** Probably sedge stems and leaves, uncharred.

Figure 3. Sediment accumulation graph for Core 1, Maunawili wetland. A cubic spline interpolation function was used (computer program of Maher 1992). Radiocarbon determinations are calibrated at a 1 sigma confidence interval. 44 hawaiian archaeology

Table 3. Interpolated dates for sediment layers, effect on the date. The calibrated 1 sigma date range Core 1, Maunawili wetland of this log is 688–655 years b.p., while the lower probable sedge plants dated to 947–734 years b.p. Soil Layer Depth cm b.s. Age* yrs b.p. Sediment Accumulation, cm/year Using the Maher (1992) computer program, a depth I 0–4 0–23 0.1298 vs. age plot was constructed, and dates were interpo- II 4–29 23–227 0.1190 lated for particular points along the plot (see Fig. 3) III 29–94 227–690 0.2228 The mathematical model selected was that of the IV 94–130 690–813 0.3156 cubic spline, which produced the most reasonable plot based on expectations for the data. Interpolated V 130–144 813–862 0.2539 ages for the different soil layers are presented in VI 144–169 862–996 0.1408 Table 3, and Table 4 lists interpolated ages for the * Dates are interpolated from cubic spline function (Maher 1992) based on calibrated pollen samples (discussed below). As may be seen, radiocarbon age ranges at 1 sigma. the entire core sequence dates from about 1000 years b.p. (or a.d. 950). The interpolated ages, while appearing to represent precise dates, should be Table 4. Pollen samples and interpolated dates, understood to encompass a standard error range at Core 1, Maunawili wetland least as great as the radiocarbon determinations on which they are based. Depth cm Weight g Age* yrs. b.p. Sediment Accumulation cm/year

0–2 30.74 0 0.1326 Pollen Analysis and Charcoal Particles 19–20 22.92 147 0.1207 39–40 24.94 315 0.1200 A total of 7 samples were analyzed throughout the 80–81 30.10 619 0.1680 core for pollen and charcoal particles. The samples, 105–106 22.34 736 0.2816 their depths, and interpolated ages are listed in Table 132–133 33.18 821 0.3073 4. Sample preparation was identical to that reported 160–161 39.64 941 0.1733 for other recent paleoenvironmental studies (e.g., Athens et al. 1992, 1996). The pollen count data is * Dates are interpolated from cubic spline function (Maher 1992) based on calibrated presented in Table 5 along with qualitative observa- radiocarbon age ranges at 1 sigma. tions on the presence and density of charcoal. A dia- gram of the principal pollen types is shown in Figure 4.

decomposing rounded coarse sand and gravel. Depo- The palynomorph counts are placed in broad eco- sition of the Layer VI sediments apparently occurred logical categories in an effort to identify sources of within the context of relatively low energy fluvial contribution. The pollen groups are Herbs, and action within what was a sharply incised gully. Large Trees and Shrubs divided into three groups: Dry- rocks were apparently present at the base of the core Mesic Forest, Mesic-Wet Forest, and Unknown Pol- at 169 cm, suggesting the presence of colluvium and len. The pteridophytes are separated into morpho- preventing further penetration of the corer. logical groups, whether monolete or trilete, which could potentially sort into dry, mesic, or wet forest if Two samples from the core were submitted for the species were identified. Charcoal particles were radiocarbon dating. These included a sample from limited to the samples from the 105–106 interval the log at a depth of 86 to 94 cm and a sample of the and above. vegetation mat—presumably sedge—from 132–144 cm. The details of the dating analysis are shown in Pollen preservation was excellent throughout the Table 2. With respect to the log, only a 2.5 cm thick core, and high counts (pollen and spores) of 379 to section from the outer edge was removed for dating 1,071 grains were obtained for the samples. There in an attempt to minimize any possible “old wood” 45 athens and ward

Figure 4. Pollen and spore percentage diagram of Maunawili wetland, Core 1.

was a great diversity of plant types, with 51 for pol- ance in the record, but definitely not the dominance len (48 identified mostly to genera and/or species) it had in the earlier part of the Kawai Nui marsh and 16 for pteridophyte spores (5 identified mostly sequence. We suspect that it may have favored a to genera and/or species). The resulting pollen dia- drier environment. Interestingly, coconut, a Polyne- gram shows what seems to us to be an exceptionally sian introduction, makes its appearance at the upper interesting and clear picture of the vegetation history limit of this zone. There is also the earliest trace of of upper Maunawili Valley. We have divided the charcoal at this time—that is at 736 years b.p. (a.d. sequence into three major zones, A, B, and C, which 1214), which continues to be present throughout the correspond to the pristine forest community (Zone rest of the core sequence. The top of this zone obvi- A), the period of forest decline and its replacement ously represents the very beginning of a transition. by ferns, grasses, and shrubs (Zone B), and the late increase in trees and shrubs with historically intro- With Zone B, dating from the top of Zone A at b.p. a.d. b.p. duced plants. about 736 years ( 1214) to 147 years (a.d. 1803), there is a sudden and spectacular Zone A, the earliest part of the sequence, dates from decline in the native forest community. Also, three 941 years b.p. (about a.d. 1009) to about 736 years new Polynesian plant introductions appear (in addi- b.p. (a.d. 1214). It is dominated by a forest of tion to coconut), and charcoal particles continue to Pritchardia palms with a lower story of shrubs and be present in low abundance. By about 619 years ferns. Kanaloa, the newly discovered native legume b.p. (a.d. 1331) taro (Colocasia esculenta) makes its bush (Lorence and Wood 1994), has a slight appear- first appearance, indicating that the wetland began 46 hawaiian archaeology

Table 5. Palynomorphs from Core 1, Maunawili wetland

Species or type Sample number as depth in cm. 0–2 19–20 39–40 80–81 105–106 132–133 160–161

Herbs Boerhavia 1 Colocasia esculenta 43 2 Commelina 611 Cyperaceae (Sedge) 5 179 236 59 1 5 5 Ludwigia 74 4 Poaceae (Grass) 73 217 109 11 2 4 13 Potamogeton 22336

Dry-Mesic Forest Acacia koa 51 4 7 1 1 Aleurites moluccana 1144 4 Antidesma 4383 Araliaceae 5 2 4 25 22 80 Asteraceae (high-spined) 3 13 8 8 1 Casuarina equisetifolia 3 Chamaesyce 44 1 1 Cheno-am 2 8 10 5 5 Claoxylon sandwicense 22 Cocos nucifera 21 Colubrina 54 4 1 Cordyline 3232 1 Dodonaea viscosa 25 Eucalyptus type 14 3 Hibiscus sp., 3 spines=15–17 m Kanaloa kahoolawensis 332 Lythraceae 2 18 Melastomataceae 3 Myrtaceae 30 56 3 16 49 19 15 Nestegis 22 2 3 1 Pandanus 63 1 Pisonia 1 Pleomele 28 2 12 2 Pouteria sandwicensis 25

Continued on next page 47 athens and ward

Table 5. Palynomorphs from Core 1, Maunawili wetland (continued)

Species or type Sample number as depth in cm. 0–2 19–20 39–40 80–81 105–106 132–133 160–161

Pritchardia 1 1 1 17 229 95 84 Reynoldsia 26 Scaevola 2 Sida 11

Mesic-Wet Forest Bobea elatior 12211 Cyrtandra 1 Elaeocarpus 36 711 Freycinetia 5 7 31 27 12 Hedyotis terminalis 1 Ilex anomala 11 Melicope barbigera type 1 2 3 1 5 2 M. clusiifolia 11 Myrsine 12121 Platydesma 1 Urticaceae 2 5 3 24 20 18 10 Wikstroemia 21 3

Unknown pollen Tricolporate, reticulate 6 2 4 9 10 Tricolporate, granulate, legume type 97 Monosulcate, echinate 3 TOTAL POLLEN 266 628 436 193 401 247 264

Pteridophyte spores

Monolete Marattia 3453611 Polypodium pellucidum 11333 Foveolate 3 46 39 8 3 Psilate 148 327 93 174 103 253 53 Fine verrucate 3 13 3 Perinate 2 3 Granulate 4 6 12 10 Echinate 1

Continued on next page 48 hawaiian archaeology

Table 5. Palynomorphs from Core 1, Maunawili wetland (continued)

Species or type Sample number as depth in cm. 0–2 19–20 39–40 80–81 105–106 132–133 160–161

Trilete Cibotium 61 4 15389041 Cibotium, large type 11 Gleichenia linearis 17 Lycopodium cernuum 11 46 10 Pteris sp. 1 54 24 Psilate 19 12 18 11 8 5 4 Echinate 4 8 1 Verrucate 1 10 6 1 TOTAL SPORES 198 443 184 239 261 432 115

TOTAL POLLEN AND SPORES 464 1071 620 432 662 679 379

Algae Zygnema 6 Fungal spores 348 187 358 367 2 Charcoal tr tr tr tr tr abs abs

tr = trace; abs = absent

to be used for cultivation. The appearance of taro Core Findings and Archaeological also marks the significant expansion of sedge, sug- Interpretations gesting an increased area of very wet or marshy con- ditions. Pondfield construction, of course, is one possibility to account for this. It would be of interest From an archaeological perspective, the main point to determine if the wall across the lower part of the to be made from the Maunawili core investigations wetland dates to this time period (see Williams et al. is that there is not the slightest evidence or indica- 1995:60–61). tion of human activity until 736 years b.p. (a.d. 1214). And even at this time changes in the native The end of Zone B and start of Zone C essentially forest vegetation are virtually imperceptible (basi- marks the end of the prehistoric Polynesian period cally one grain of Cocos pollen and a trace amount of and the advent of historic introductions. It is notable charcoal). However, one can view the date of ca. that the pollen diagram, with its composite graph for a.d. 1200 as a crucial moment in the history of Trees and Shrubs, actually depicts the forest as upper Maunawili valley, and perhaps all of wind- rebounding during this time. Presumably this is ward O‘ahu. This is the time that the earliest signs of largely a result of the abandonment of interior lands anthropogenic activity in this area begin to be seen. by Hawaiians during this time. However, the forest After a.d. 1200 the native forest community quickly composition was entirely changed, consisting of declines and Polynesian-introduced plant species many non-native species. become more common, and finally the altered vege- 49 athens and ward

tation is entirely overtaken by historic introductions. Conclusion Thus, based on the Maunawili coring evidence, which arguably provides data from an entire upper watershed area, there is no evidence for human occu- The Maunawili core provides uninterrupted sedi- pation or activities in the region until after about mentary and paleoenvironmental records covering a.d. 1200 (750 b.p.). Up until this time the native the time from prior to initial Hawaiian settlement forest community appears to have remained entirely and agriculture through to historic and modern pristine. times for an entire interior lowland watershed. We believe it is reasonable, therefore, to accept its 750 Another inland core from windward O‘ahu, from b.p. (a.d. 1200) date for the earliest anthropogenic the Kapunahala wetland above Käne‘ohe, seems to indicators as the time for initial Hawaiian settlement preclude any possibility for settlement or agriculture and agriculture in the interior areas of O‘ahu. This b.p. a.d. in this watershed prior to about 1000 ( inference is supported by the Kapunahala record 950; Athens and Ward 1996). Unfortunately, how- from inland Käne‘ohe, which although not covering ever, there is a gap in the core record after that date the crucial time period in question due to a sedi- b.p. a.d. until about 650 or 550 ( 1400–1500), by mentary gap, nevertheless fails to provide any evi- which time the vegetation had undergone drastic dence for inland settlement and agriculture prior to change. Thus, while it is impossible to date the exact about 1000 b.p. With wetland coring dates from time for the onset of inland settlement and agricul- coastal areas consistently centering on a ca. 950 b.p. ture above Käne‘ohe with the Kapunahala core, this (a.d. 1000) time frame for the onset of vegetation core nevertheless clearly demonstrates that until change and the appearance of charcoal particles, pre- b.p. sometime after 1000 there is not a hint of historic settlement and agriculture in these areas human disturbance to the natural environment. clearly preceded that of the interior areas. However, There is obviously a serious problem matching the with mounting evidence for the late Polynesian set- Maunawili and Kapunahala coring results with the tlement of Hawai‘i, the difference in timing may interpretations of Allen (1992) and Williams (1992) have been only a matter of a few centuries. for the inland areas. As we believe wetland core records in Hawai‘i are very sensitive in their ability to detect human settlement and agriculture, it seems Acknowledgments inconceivable that we are somehow missing what Allen (and Williams to a less specific and more cau- The authors wish to thank Scott Williams for bring- tious extent) is suggesting—that is, inland settle- ing the paleoenvironmental potential of the Mauna- ment and intensive agriculture as early as 1450 b.p. wili wetland to their attention, and for his effort in (a.d. 500). This sensitivity of wetland core records making field work possible. We also thank Gail for documenting human settlement and agriculture Murakami for her help with the wood identifica- has been widely demonstrated in the literature for tions, and Roger Blankfein for his drafting of the fig- other areas of the world (e.g. Athens et al. 1996; ures. Finally, we appreciate the assistance of Derral Flenley 1994; Flenley et al. 1991; Burney 1987, Herbst for his help with the identification of mod- 1993). Here we are reminded of Fosberg’s (1963: ern plant specimens. A preliminary version of this 559) well known statement that “. . . the thing that paper was presented at the 7th Annual Hawaiian most distinguishes islands, at least oceanic islands, Archaeology Conference in Hilo, April 1–3, 1994. . . . is their extreme vulnerability, or susceptibility, to disturbance.” Hawai‘i, with its isolation and high degree of biological endemism (Loope and Mueller- Dombois 1989), should be especially sensitive to impacts caused by the advent of human agricultural- ists. 50 hawaiian archaeology

Burney, D. A. 1987. Late Holocene vegetational References change in central Madagascar. Quaternary Research 28:130–143. Allen, J. 1989. Preliminary report: archaeological investigations at sites 50-Oa-G6-17 and G6-69 ———. 1993. Late Holocene environmental through G6-71, Royal Hawaiian Country Club, Inc., changes in arid southwestern Madagascar. Quater- Makai Golf Course Project Area, Maunawili, Kailua, nary Research 40:98-106. Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Honolulu: Anthropology Cummings, L.S. 1995. Appendix B: pollen analysis, Department, Bishop Museum. site 50-80-14-1994, upper Maunawili Valley, O‘ahu. ———. 1992. Farming in Hawai‘i from coloniza- In Archaeological investigations in the Luluku banana tion to contact: radiocarbon chronology and impli- farmers’ relocation area, Maunawili Valley, Kailua cations for cultural change. New Zealand Journal of Ahupua‘a, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 4-02-1-:1), by Archaeology 14:45–66. S. S. Williams, P. R. Mills, and J. Allen, 97–104. Report prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Allen, J., M. Riford, T. M. Bennett, and G. M. Transportation. Honolulu: Anthropology Depart- Murakami. 1987. Five upland ili: archaeological and ment, Bishop Museum. historical investigations in the Käne‘ohe Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu. Depart- Flenley, J. R. 1994. Pollen in Polynesia: the use of mental Report Series 87-1. Honolulu: Department palynology to detect human activity in the Pacific of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. islands. In Tropical Archaeobotany: applications and new developments, ed. J. G. Hather, 202–214. New Athens, J. S. n.d. Hawaiian native lowland vegeta- York: Routledge. tion in prehistory. In Historical ecology in the Pacific Islands, ed. P. V. Kirch and T. L. Hunt. New Haven: Flenley, J. R., A.S.M. King, J. T. Teller, M. E. Pren- Yale University Press. tice, J. Jackson, and C. Chew. 1991. The late Qua- ternary vegetational and climatic history of Easter Athens, J. S. and J. V. Ward. 1991. Paleoenvironmen- Island. Journal of Quaternary Science 6(2):85–115. tal and archaeological investigations, Kawainui marsh flood control project, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Report Foote, D. E., E. L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Pacific F. Stephens. 1972. Soil survey of the islands of Kauai, Ocean Division, Ft. Shafter, Hawai‘i. Guam: Micro- Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. nesian Archaeological Research Services. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with the University of Hawaii Agri- ———. 1993. Environmental change and prehis- cultural Experiment Station. Washington, D.C.: toric Polynesian settlement in Hawai‘i. Asian Per- U.S. Government Printing Office. spectives 32(2):205–223. Fosberg, F. R. 1963. Disturbance in island ecosys- ———. 1996. A sediment coring record at Kapuna- tems. In Pacific basin biogeography, ed. J.L. Gressitt, hala Marsh, Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Report pre- 557–561. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. pared for Scientific Consultant Services, Inc., Hono- lulu. Honolulu: International Archaeological Giambelluca, T. W., M. A. Nullet, and T. A. Schroe- Research Instutite, Inc. der. 1986. Rainfall atlas of Hawai‘i. Report R76. Water Resources Research Center with the coopera- Athens, J. S., J. V. Ward, and G. M. Murakami. tion of the Dept. of Meteorology, University of 1996. Development of an agroforest on a Microne- Hawaii at Manoa. Honolulu: State of Hawaii, sian high island: prehistoric Kosraean agriculture. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Divi- Antiquity 70:834–846. sion of Water and Land Development.

Athens, J. S., J. V. Ward, and S. Wickler. 1992. Late Hommon, R. J. 1986. Social evolution in ancient Holocene lowland vegetation, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. New Hawai‘i. In Island societies, archaeological approaches Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:9–34. 51 athens and ward

to evolution and transformation, ed. P. V. Kirch, Williams, S. S. 1992. Early inland settlement expan- 55–68. New York: Cambridge University Press. sion and the effect of geomorphological change on the archaeological record in Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu. New Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: an Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:67–78. introduction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Williams, S. S., P. R. Mills, and J. Allen. 1995. Archaeological investigations in the Luluku banana Loope, L. L. and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1989. Char- farmers’ relocation area, Maunawili Valley, Kailua acteristics of invaded islands, with special reference Ahupua‘a, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 4-02-1-:1). Report to Hawaii. In Biological invasions: a global perspective, prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Trans- ed. J. A. Drake, H. A. Mooney, F. DiCastri, R. H. portation. Honolulu: Anthropology Department, Groves, FmJ. Kruger, M. Rejmànek, and M. Wil- Bishop Museum. liamson, 257–280. Chichester, United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Williams, S. S. and R. C. Nees. 1994. Archaeological reconnaissance survey and limited testing for proposed Lorence, D. H. and K. R. Wood. 1994. Kanaloa, a sites of construction pond, installation recreation areas, new genus of Fabaceae (Mimosoideae) from Hawaii. animal quarantine station, and road access alternatives Novon 4(2):137–145. for family housing construction, U.S. Coast Guard Maher, L. J., Jr. 1992. Depth-age conversion of pol- Omega Transmitter site He‘eia, Ko‘olau Poko district, len data. INQUA—Commission for the Study of Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 4-6-15). Honolulu: the Holocene, Working Group on Data-Handling Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Co., Inc. Methods. INQUA Newsletter 7:13–17. Wright, H. E. Jr. 1967. A square-rod piston sampler Meeker, V. 1995. From firepits to charcoal kilns: for lake sediments. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology resource procurement and land use in the upland Käne- 37:975–976. ‘ohe catchment. Report prepared for Minami Group Wright, H. E., E. J. Cushing, and D. A. Livingstone. (U.S.A.) Inc., Honolulu. Honolulu: International 1965. Coring devices for lake sediments. In Hand- Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. book of paleontological techniques, ed. B. Kummel and Spriggs, M. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late coloniza- D. Raup, 494-520. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman tion of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200–217. and Co.

Stuiver, M. and P. J. Reimer. 1993. Extended 14C Wright, H. E. Jr., D. H. Mann, and P. H. Glaser. data base and revised CALIB 3.0 14C age calibration. 1984. Piston corers for peat and lake sediments. Radiocarbon 28 (2B):1022–1030. Ecology 65(2):657–659. Radiocarbon Dating Land Snails and Polynesian Land Use on the Island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i

Boyd Dixon State of Hawaii, Historic Preservation Division

David Soldo Department of Anthropology, Witchita State University, Kansas

Charles C. Christensen State of Hawaii, Department of Agriculture, Plant Quarantine Branch

The exact chronology of the first settlement of Hawai‘i was a topic of much spec- ulation (Irwin 1993; Dye 1989) generations before the introduction of radiocar- bon dating to Pacific archaeology by Emory (Libby 1951). Traditional Hawaiian genealogies were first used to calculate initial settlement in the 5th century a.d. (Fornander 1969) while archaeological models postulated an arrival date of about a.d. 750 (Sinoto 1970; 1983; Bellwood 1978; Jennings 1979), based in part on seriations of diagnostic attributes in fishhooks (Sinoto 1962) and other artifacts (Kirch 1974; Cordy 1974; Sinoto 1967). Kirch (1985) later suggested that initial colonization occurred circa a.d. 300, if not before (Kirch 1986). More recently, debate has become focused in two camps, one cautiously favoring the beginning of the first millenium (Hunt and Holsen 1991) and the other favoring dates no earlier than a.d. 600–950 (Spriggs and Anderson 1993).

In almost all cases in Hawai‘i, the materials which have been radiocarbon dated are wood charcoals, from either domestic or occasionally agricultural (Allen 1987; 1991; 1992) contexts, many of which are not securely associated with cultural activities. A few examples of organic floral materials such as Aleurites nut shells and the organic fraction of sediments encountered during pollen coring of wetland environments (Athens and Ward 1993) have also been dated, as have faunal mate- rials such as marine shells and bird bones (Beggerly 1990, 1993; Davis 1990; Dye 1994). Terrestrial gastropods have generally been examined in the absence of radiocarbon dates (Christensen and Kirch 1986) or in some cases with bird bone collagen dates (Davis 1994), rather than as an integral part of a chronological framework themselves (Kikuchi 1988).

This hesitancy to date these shells is due to the fact that the use of radiocarbon dat- ing techniques on fossil land snails has been called into question because of the

52 53 dixon, soldo and christensen

snails’ intake from the substrate of calcium carbon- lia dolei isenbergi populations were still in existence ate which becomes incorporated into their shells into the period of early human colonization, espe- (Goodfriend and Hood 1983; Goodfriend 1987). cially if one is a proponent of Polynesian settlement While the exact nature of this process of carbonate by a.d. 300. The co-occurrence of Carelia dolei isen- intake is still not thoroughly understood (DeNiro bergi with a Polynesian introduced land snail Lamel- and Epstein 1978; Goodfriend and Stipp 1983), lidea oblonga (see below) is also indicative of extinc- there is a concensus that snails living in a limestone tion after human settlement of the area and suggests environment often yield an anomalously old age that Native Hawaiians had inhabited this portion of (Dye 1994; Evin et al. 1980; Kikuchi 1988; Tamers Kaua`i by sometime after the mid-6th century a.d. 1970), sometimes older than can be dated by the radiocarbon method due to the ingestion of ancient carbonate. Calcium carbonate from coralline sand Background and Results dunes on the shores of the Hawaiian archipelago would therefore consitutute an environment suffi- During 1993, the Bishop Museum Anthropology cient to contaminate land snail shells (Goodfriend Department conducted a program of archaeological 1987; Goodfriend and Stipp 1983). monitoring on house foundation trenches within a 2 In part because of these dating problems, there has acre residential parcel located in a coastal sand dune been no archaeological test of the hypothesis that the setting at Hä‘ena Point (Figure 1), on the north deposition of land snails from the genus Carelia on windward shore of the island of Kaua‘i (Soldo and the island of Kaua‘i was the result of a major extinc- Dixon 1994). While mechanical excavation is not a tion caused by rapid late Pleistocene climatic change standard investigative technique in Hawai‘i (Athens (Cooke 1931:18). As the catastrophic effects of early 1994), emergency monitoring procedures were man- Polynesian habitat destruction on indigenous avian dated by the State Historic Preservation Division populations have been suggested elsewhere in the due to the destruction caused by Hurricane Iniki in 1 archipelago (Olson and James 1982), it was postu- 1992. Archaeological Site 50-30-02-1031 was situ- lated that the disappearance of the land snail Carelia ated at an elevation of only 8 meters above mean sea was instead the result of environmental degradation level (Figure 2) on a coastal terrace of probable Pleis- during initial human settlement of Kaua‘i (Soldo tocene sands which formed in front of a semi-tropi- and Dixon 1994). With these two competing cal environment characterized by steep mountain hypotheses in mind, wood charcoal from two pre- valleys which receive over 1250 mm of rainfall annu- Contact firepits recently found in the ahupua‘a of ally. This precipitation contributed to the formation Hä‘ena was submitted for radiocarbon dating in con- junction with a shell sample from a nearby natural deposit of the extinct land snail Carelia dolei isen- bergi, to determine if the deposition of these land snails in fact occurred at the beginning of the Colo- nization Period circa a.d. 1–900.

As will be demonstrated, the uncertainty of correlat- ing these land snail deposits chronologically with the pre-Contact archaeological contexts did not allow resolution of the issue of what specific events or processes caused the deposition of land snails. The exact time period of the land snails’ extinction could not be determined either, although it presumably occurred well after the end of the Pleistocene. In fact, if the shell deposit’s radiocarbon date of a.d. 252–549 is taken as a terminus post quem date for Figure 1. Location of project area on the island their extinction, then this seems to imply that Care- of Kaua‘i 54 hawaiian archaeology

Figure 2. Project area in Hä‘ena ahupua‘a 55 dixon, soldo and christensen

of several permanent streams which have been the focus of Native Hawaiian irrigated taro agriculture for centuries pre-dating European arrival in a.d. 1778 (Earle 1978; 1980).

Excavations revealed the remains of eleven archaeo- logical features located within two stratigraphic lay- ers in the upper 50 cms of unconsolidated sands. Of these eleven features recorded before house con- struction, two firepits with wood charcoal, one imu (rock filled earth oven), and one land snail deposit were sampled and their contents submitted to Beta Analytic Inc. for radiocarbon dating (Table 1). Fea- ture 12 was found to be a modern or recently dis- turbed firepit. The earth oven, Feature 11 (Figure 3), was dated to 520 ± 80 BP and the firepit, Feature 5 (Figure 4), to 460 ± 60 BP. These features repre- sented the remains of a pre-Contact Native Hawai- ian domestic occupation of the site, similar in form and time period to habitation remains previously encountered in other archaeological investigations nearby (Hammatt and Meeker 1979; Griffin et al. Figure 3. Earth oven Feature 11 1977; Hammatt et al. 1978; Hammatt 1989; Den- ham and Kennedy 1993). The remaining five firepits, one land snail deposit, and an historic period trash dump were only analysed for their arti- factual content. The radiocarbon date for land snail deposit Feature 3 was 1390 ± 60 BP.

Feature 3 (Figure 5) was an extremely large deposit of fossil land snails and very dark grayish brown silty sand (10YR 3/2) measuring over 20 meters in length and 10 meters in width across the site. The depth of this deposit ranged from 20 to 40 cm beneath a sur- face stratum of sand and root mat of the same color (Layer I) mixed with debris from Hurricane Iniki. The subsurface feature was generally 40 cm in thick- ness within the light brownish gray sandy subsoil matrix (Layer II, 10YR 6/2) and tapered off at its extremities. The land snails in Feature 3 represented a dozen species endemic to Kaua‘i prior to Polyne- sian colonization (Table 2), as well as two species introduced by Polynesians at some time after initial settlement of the archipelago. The assemblage was dominated in size and volume by the extinct Carelia dolei isenbergi (Figure 6) found only on the coastal flats and neighboring slopes between Wainiha Bay and Kë‘ë on the north coast of Kaua‘i (Christensen Figure 4. Fire pit Feature 5 1992:12). The preferred native habitat of these gas- tropods was within the leaf litter in semi-tropical 56 hawaiian archaeology

forest settings (Carl Christensen, personal commu- Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from Site 50-30-02-1031 nication 1994), and it is presumed that Feature 3 Sample Sample Conventional ∂13C Calibrated was the product of natural erosional processes of Number Context 14 C age correction age a accumulation within a shallow swale, probably after the forest cover was removed. HRC 1429 Snail Shell, 1390 ± 60 -9.2 a.d. 252–549 Beta-67905 Feature 3, Trench 3 Discussion HRC 1430 Wood charcoal, 100.0% ± 0.5%d -28.7 modern Beta-67906 Feature 12, Trench 19 Archaeological investigation of possible human- induced modification of lowland Hawaiian biota HRC 1431 Wood charcoal, 460 ± 60b -28.4 a.d. 1414–1644 Beta-67907 Feature 5, and landscapes by early Polynesian settlers has only Trench 1 recently begun using geological and biological data. Studies have included an examination of indigenous HRC 1432 Wood charcoal, 520 ± 80c -26.9 a.d. 1294–1624 Beta-67908 Feature 11, avifauna (Davis 1990; Moniz 1994; James et al. Trench 18 1987; Olson and James 1984; Sinoto 1978), terres- trial gastropods (Kirch and Christensen 1980; Chris- a 2 sigma calibrated date ranges based on University of Washington, Quatenary Isotope tensen and Kirch 1986), geomorphology (Allen Lab, Radiocarbon Calibration Program Rev 3.0.3 (Stuiver, M. and Reimer, P. J., 1993 1987; Beggerly 1990, 1993; Hammatt 1978; Kelly Radiocarbon 35:215–230). and Clark 1980), and pollen cores (Athens and b Small carbon sample (0.7 gram) given quadruple-normal counting time. c Small carbon sample (0.8 gram) given double-normal counting time to reduce Ward 1993; Kraft 1980). Conclusions range from attendant error taken. those generally supporting the proposition that early d Age is expressed as the 14 C activity of the sample as a percentage of the 14 C activity Hawaiian adaptations to the archipelago had a major of the modern standard. impact on the environment (Kirch 1982), to those questioning that such an effect can be inferred from the same data (Athens and Ward 1994; Nunn 1991).

A pre-Contact change from a grassland-parkland environment to decreasing vegetation and increasing aridity has been postulated for leeward west O‘ahu, for instance, based in part upon the extinction of several species of endemic land snails (Christensen and Kirch 1986). Similar evidence has been docu- mented for the pre-Contact period in archaeological excavations from natural sinkholes from the Barbers Point area (Davis 1994; Miller 1993) and Wai‘anae (Flood et al. 1993). An early period of avian extinc- tion has also been identified on the leeward coast of Kaua‘i (Ziegler 1991; Liedemann and Kishinami 1990) with subsurface deposits of extinct land snails also noted here (Kikuchi 1988). Environmental deg- radation on the windward coasts of the Hawaiian islands has also been inferred from archaeological investigations, especially those focusing on areas of Figure 5. Landsnail deposit Feature 3 wetland or terraced agriculture and Holocene alluvi- ation on O‘ahu (Allen 1987; Beggerly 1990, 1993) and Kaua‘i (Schilt 1980; Athens 1983). 57 dixon, soldo and christensen

Table 2. Land Snail Species Encountered in Feature 3 Deposit

Family Species Commentsa Helicinidae Pleuropoma laciniosa (Mighels, 1845) native Orobophana cookei Neal, 1934 native Achatinellidae Lamellidea oblonga (Pease, 1864) possible Polynesian introduction (Cooke & Kondo 1960) ?Tornatellides sp. fragment of juvenile, too small for identification; native Amastridae Carelia dolei Ancey, 1893 native Amastra ovatula Cooke, 1933 native Leptachatina deceptor Cockerell, 1927 native Leptachatina knudseni Cooke, 1910 native Leptachatina species 1 perhaps undescribed; native Leptachatina species 2 perhaps undescribed; native Leptachatina species 3 perhaps undescribed; native Vertiginidae Lyropupa lyrata (Gould, 1843) possibly a distinct subspecies; native Subulinidae Unidentified fragment non-native; not known whether pre- or post-Contact Succineidae Laxisuccinea haena Cooke, 1921 native Succinea sp. native

a Identifications by Dr. Robert Cowie based on comparison with Bishop Museum collections and reference to appropriate literature.

Several archaeological reports in the Hä‘ena Point vicinity note the presence of Carelia dolei isenbergi (Hammatt and Meeker 1979; Griffin et al. 1977; Hammatt et al. 1978), although the density of shell by volume often varies. The majority of the land snail species identified during the present study are native to the island. Lamellidea oblonga and the Sub- ulinidae are introduced (Table 2), perhaps by early Polynesian settlers (Cooke and Kondo 1960; Chris- tensen and Kirch 1986). The limited presence of these introduced species, therefore, suggests that the deposition episode responsible for Feature 3 occurred after initial human colonization of Kaua‘i. At least three possible scenarios may account for Figure 6. Extinct land snail Carelia dolei isenbergi (to scale) their deposition and/or extinction, and are now dis- cussed. It must be noted, however, that the mere existence of dense fossil land snail deposits does not necessarily indicate wholesale extinction events, as such features could instead be the results of local depositional conditions (Carl Christensen, personal communication 1996). 58 hawaiian archaeology

Natural Environmental Alteration Habitat Destruction

Land snail extinction has sometimes been inter- When the Carelia dolei isenbergi deposits are attrib- preted as the result of cataclysmic climatic occur- uted to cultural processes, they are sometimes rences (Cooke 1931:18) which stripped the surface hypothesized to be the result of the destruction of of all vegetation, contributing to rapid aeolian soil their habitat by pre-Contact period Native Hawaiian and sand movement. These events then “mark the agriculturalists, or predation by later introduced upper limits of a natural, stable land surface which predators (Hadfield, Miller, and Carwile 1993). It predates cultural deposition associated with dune must be noted here that the immediate vicinity of habitation...” (Hammatt and Meeker 1979:43). the project area is characterized by dune sands and The land snail deposit exposed during this 1993 pro- would not have been an attractive environment for ject was a much denser concentration of the shells irrigated pondfields or swidden agriculture. The than recorded elsewhere nearby, and was quite homo- actual deposition of the land snails in such quantities geneous with an absence of any internal layering or could nevertheless be the result of natural erosional extraneous debris. While the effects of hurricanes processes, such as might be expected from rainfall and tidal waves on soil deposition are highly varia- sheetwash after clearing of the coastal terrace for ble, it is unlikely that all fossil Carelia spp. deposits habitation, rapidly accumulating quantities of leaf in Kaua‘i could be the direct result of a single cata- litter in shallow swales on the dune surface. The Fea- clysmic erosional or depositional event. ture 3 shell concentration may therefore reflect the initial occupation of early swidden agriculturalists on the coast of Hä‘ena, and perhaps well after Polyne- Human Utilization sian colonization judging from the limited presence of Lamellidea oblonga in the deposit. No evidence of human utilization of the Carelia dolei isenbergi shells was noted during excavation or sub- sequent malacological analysis, although this inter- Conclusions pretation was entertained during fieldwork. The vast majority of snail shells were virtually undamaged in Radiocarbon dating of the Feature 3 concentration situ, and did not appear to have been altered by of Carelia dolei isenbergi at State Site 50-30-02-1031 cooking (ie. discoloration) or for meat removal (i.e. suggests that coastal populations of these indigenous tip ends removed or mouths abraded) after their land snails survived beyond a.d. 252–549 into what deposition. The presence of probable Polynesian was probably the early human Colonization Period, introductions in sealed deposits from Feature 3 although the exact time of their demise cannot be (Table 2) suggests that the land snail population deduced by these data. Their limited association continued to coexist alongside human populations with the Polynesian introduced land snail Lamellidea for a time. It would appear that the land snails had oblonga also suggests that large scale deforestation of become extinct by the time of Captain Cook’s visit the coastal sand dunes may not have accompanied to Kaua‘i in a.d. 1778, however, when a shell lei or initial settlement in this portion of Kaua‘i, as both necklace of Carelia dolei isenbergi was collected (Buck species seem to have coexisted for a time. More inten- 1987). The white coloration of the shells suggests sive evidence of Native Hawaiian habitation is pre- they were collected and strung in a fossil state, much sent at the site after the 13th century a.d., although as the single shell of Carelia dolei isenbergi found in there is no direct correlation between this occupa- another lei of Carelia cochlea from the Cook Voyage tion and the extinction of the land snails in Feature Ethnographic Collection (Gage 1989). 3. Nevertheless, these archaeological data and their associated radiocarbon dates do probably bracket the period during which the effects of deforestation were 59 dixon, soldo and christensen

first felt on Hä‘ena Point, demonstrating the poten- Athens, J. S. 1983. Prehistoric pondfield agriculture tial usefulness of chronological information often in Hawai‘i: Archaeological investigations at the considered to be marginal for paleoenvironmental Hanalei National Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i. MS on reconstructions. file, Honolulu: Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum.

———. 1994. Archaeological monitoring and his- Acknowledgements toric preservation. Hawaiian Archaeology 3:4–13.

The authors would like to thank architect John Con- Athens, J. S. and J. V. Ward. 1993. Environmental ley for sharing his mana‘o concerning previous change and prehistoric Polynesian settlement in research in the vicinity of the Glenn Frye property. Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives 32(2):205–221. Richard Harder, Art Rodarte, and the whole con- ———. 1994. Prehistoric inland expansion of set- struction crew were helpful throughout the field- tlement and agriculture, Oahu, Hawai‘i. Paper deliv- work. At Bishop Museum, Betty Tatar and Steve ered at 7th Annual Hawaiian Archaeology Confer- Clark gave professional advice and guidance. Paul ence, Hilo. Klieger and Tracy Tam Sing helped compile histor- ical data, while Brad Evans and Laura Prishmont Beggerly, P.E.P. 1990. Kahana Valley, Hawaii, a geo- deserve thanks for their artwork reproduced in the morphic artifact: a study of the interrelationships figures. Sylvia Reyna profiled excavations in the field among geomorphic structures, natural processes, and and Angela Steiner-Horton co-ordinated the lab ancient Hawaiian technology, land use, and settle- work and artifact processing. Melinda Sue Allen, ment patterns. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthro- Tom Dye, William Kikuchi, and Nancy McMahon pology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. provided invaluable insight into issues surrounding early Polynesian land use and its effects. Special ———. 1993. Artifactual landscape: Kahana Valley, thanks to Rob Cowie and Carl Christensen for their O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Hawaiian Archaeology 2:10–15. insightful reviews and for their patient introduction Bellwood, P. 1978. The Polynesians: prehistory of an to the intricacies of malacological interpretation. island people. London: Thames and Hudson. Mahalo also to Tom Dye and Sara Collins for their editorial advice. Any flaws in logic or presentation Buck, P. 1987. Arts and crafts of Hawaii. Honolulu: are the sole responsibility of the senior author. Bishop Museum Press.

Christensen, Charles. 1992. Kauai’s native land shells. Honolulu: Fisher Printing Co. References Christensen, Carl and P. V. Kirch. 1986. Nonmarine Allen, J., ed. 1987. Five upland ‘ili: Archaeological and molluscs and ecological change at Barbers Point, historical investigations in the Kaneohe interchange, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu. Depart- 26:52–80. mental Report Series 87-1. Honolulu: Department Cooke, C. M., Jr. 1931. The land snail genus Carelia. of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum. Bishop Museum Bulletin 85. Honolulu: Bishop Allen, J. 1991. The role of agriculture in the evolu- Museum Press. tion of the pre-contact Hawaiian state. Asian Perspec- Cooke, C. M. and Y. Kondo. 1960. Revision of Tor- tives 30(1):117–132. natellinidae and Achatinellidae (Gastropoda, Pulmo- ———. 1992. Farming in Hawai‘i from coloniza- nata). Bishop Museum Bulletin 221. Honolulu: tion to contact: radiocarbon chronology and impli- Bishop Museum Press. cations for cultural change. New Zealand Journal of Cordy, R. H. 1974. Cultural adaptation and evolu- Archaeology 14:45–66. tion in Hawaii: A suggested new sequence. Journal of the Polynesian Society 83:180–191. 60 hawaiian archaeology

Davis, B. D. 1990. Human settlement in pristine and mitigation plan of a seven acre parcel (TMK: 8-5- insular environments: A Hawaiian case study from 28: Por. 42) in Wai‘anae Kai Ahupua‘a, Wai‘anae Barbers Point, Southwestern O‘ahu. Ph.D. thesis, District, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Anthro- Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, pology Department, Bishop Museum. Honolulu. Fornander, A. 1969. [1878–85]. An account of the ———. 1994. Archaeological and paleontological Polynesian race: Its origins and migrations. 3 volumes investigations at the Barbers Point deep draft harbor, published as one. Vermont and Tokyo: Charles E. ‘Ewa, O‘ahu. Honolulu: Anthropology Department, Tuttle Co. Bishop Museum. Gage, R. P., II. 1989. A note on the Cook voyage col- De Niro, M. and S. Epstein. 1978. Influence of diet lection in Berne Historical Museum. Archaeology on on the distribution of carbon isotopes in animals. Kaua‘i 15(1):1–7. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 42:495–506. Goodfriend, G. 1987. Radiocarbon age anomalies in Denham, T. and J. Kennedy. 1993. Remedial archae- shell carbonate of land snails from semi-arid areas. ological investigations and monitoring report fol- Radiocarbon 29(2):159–167. lowing the inadvertent discovery of human remains Goodfriend, G. and D. Hood. 1983. Carbon isotope on the Zimmerman property, at TMK: 5-9-02:34, analysis of land snail shells: Implications for carbon Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a, Hanalei District, Kaua‘i Island, sources and radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon 25(3): June 1993. Pupukea: Archaeological Consultants of 810–830. Hawaii. Goodfriend, G. and J. Stipp. 1983. Limestone and Dye, T. 1989. Tales of two cultures: Traditional his- the problem of radiocarbon dating of land-snail shell torical and archaeological interpretations of Hawai- carbonate. Geology 11:575–577. ian prehistory. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers 29: 3–22. Griffin, B., R. Bordner, H. Hammat, M. Morgen- stein and C. Stauder. 1977. Preliminary archaeologi- ———. 1994. Apparent ages of marine shells: cal investigations at Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i Island. Implications for archaeological dating in Hawai‘i. Kailua: Cultural Surveys Hawaii. Radiocarbon 36(1):51–57. Hadfield, M., S. Miller and A. Carwile. 1993. The Earle, T. K. 1978. Economic and social organization decimation of endemic Hawaiian land snails by alien of a complex chiefdom: The Halele‘a District, Kaua‘i, predators. American Zoologist 33:610–622. Hawai‘i. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology No. 63. Ann Arbor: University of Hammatt, H. 1978. Geoarchaeological stratigraphy Michigan. in the Hawaiian Islands. Paper delivered at 43rd Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, ———. 1980. Prehistoric irrigation in the Hawai- Tucson. ian Islands: An evaluation of evolutionary signifi- cance. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Ocea- ———. 1989. Archaeological reconnaissance of a resi- nia 15:1–28. dential property, Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i. Kailua: Cultural Surveys Hawaii. Emory, K., W. Bonk and Y. Sinoto. 1959. Hawaiian archaeology: Fishooks. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Hammatt, H. and V. Meeker. 1979. Archaeological Publication 47. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press. and ethnohistorical investigation at Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i Island. Kailua: Cultural Surveys Hawaii. Evin, J., J. Marechal and C. Pachiaudi. 1980. Condi- tions involved in dating terrestrial shells. Radiocar- Hammatt, H., M. Tomonari-Tuggle and C. Streck. bon 22:545–555. 1978. Archaeological investigations at Ha‘ena State Park, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i Island, Phase II: Excavations of Flood, K., P. Klieger, S. Lebo, B. Dixon, S. Clark beach localities and visitors facilities area. Kailua: Cul- and S. Parry. 1994. An archaeological inventory survey tural Surveys Hawaii. 61 dixon, soldo and christensen

Hunt, T. and R. Holsen. 1991. An early chronology Libby, W. F. 1951. Radiocarbon dates, II. Science for the Hawaiian Islands: A preliminary analysis. 114:295. Asian Perspectives 30(1):147–162. Liedemann, H. and C. Kishinami. 1990. Archaeolog- Irwin, G. 1993. Voyaging. In A community of cul- ical/paleontological survey of the Kawaiele dunes, ture: The people and prehistory of the Pacific, ed. M. Kawaiele, Waimea, Kaua‘i Island: TMK 1-2-02:1. Spriggs, D. Yen, W. Ambrose, R. Jones, A. Thorne Honolulu: Anthropology Department, Bishop and A. Andrews. Departmental Papers in Prehistory Museum. No. 21. Canberra: Australian National University. Miller, L. 1993. Archaeological data recovery of State James, H., T. Stafford, D. Steadman, S. Olson, Sites 50-80-12-2710 and 50-80-12-2711 at Barbers P. Martin, A. Jull and P. McCoy. 1987. Radiocarbon Point, Honouliuli Ahupua‘a, ‘Ewa District, O‘ahu dates on bones of extinct birds from Hawaii. Pro- Island. Honolulu: Anthropology Department, ceedings of the National Academy of Science 84: Bishop Museum. 2350–2354. Moniz, J. 1994. Exploring the causes of Hawaiian Jennings, J. D., ed. 1979. The prehistory of Polynesia. avifaunal extinction. Paper delivered at 7th Annual Canberra: Australian National University Press. Hawaiian Archaeology Conference, Hilo.

Kelly, M. and J. Clark. 1980. Kawainui Marsh, Nunn, P. 1991. Keimami sa vakila na liga ni Kalou O‘ahu: Historical and archaeological studies. Depart- ( feeling the hand of God): Human and nonhuman mental Report Series 80-3. Honolulu: Department impacts on Pacific Island environment. Occasional of Anthropology, Bishop Museum. Papers of the East-West Environment and Policy Institute 13. Honolulu: East-West Center. Kikuchi, W. 1988. Archaeological survey and subsur- face testing of proposed Hyatt Regency Resort, TMK 2- Olson, S. and H. James. 1982. Fossil birds from 9-01:2, Keoneloa Bay, Ahupua‘a of Pa‘a, District of the Hawaiian Islands: Evidence for wholesale extinc- Koloa, Kaua‘i. ‘Oma‘o: ARCHAIOS. tion by man before Western contact. Science 217: 633–635. Kirch, P. V. 1974. The chronology of early Hawai- ian settlement. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology ———. 1984. The role of Polynesians in the extinc- in Oceania 9:110–119. tion of the avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. In Qua- ternary extinctions: A prehistoric revolution, ed. P. ———. 1982. The impact of the prehistoric Poly- Martin and R. Klein, 768–780. Tucson: University nesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem. Pacific Science of Arizona Press. 36(1):1–14. Schilt, A. R. 1980. Archaeological investigations in ———. 1985. Feathered gods and fishooks: An intro- specified areas of the Hanalei Wildlife Refuge, Hanalei duction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. Valley, Kaua‘i. Honolulu: Anthropology Depart- Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. ment, Bishop Museum.

———. 1986. Rethinking East Polynesian prehis- Sinoto, A. 1978. Archaeological and paleontological tory. Journal of the Polynesian Society 95(1):9–40. salvage at Barbers Point, O‘ahu. Honolulu: Anthro- Kirch, P. and C. Christensen. 1980. Nonmarine pology Department, Bishop Museum. molluscs and paleoecology at Barbers Point, O‘ahu. Sinoto, Y. 1962. Chronology of Hawaiian fishooks. Typescript on file, Anthropology Department, Journal of the Polynesian Society 71:162–166. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ———. 1967. Artifacts from excavated sites in the Kraft, J. 1980. Summary of results of the Kawainui Hawaiian, Marquesas, and Society Islands. In Poly- Marsh study. Letter to Coastal Zone Management nesian culture history, ed. G. A. Highland, 341–361. Program, State of Hawaii. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 56. Hon- olulu: Bishop Museum Press. 62 hawaiian archaeology

———. 1970. An archaeologically based assessment Note of the Marquesas Islands as a dispersal center in East Polynesia. In Studies in Oceanic culture history 1, eds. R. C. Green and M. Kelly, 105–132. Pacific 1. In the State of Hawaii numbering system, “50” Anthropological Records 11. Honolulu: Depart- refers to the State of Hawaii, “30” to the island of ment of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum. Kaua‘i, “02” to the USGS quadrangle map, and “1031” to the individual site. ———. 1983. An analysis of Polynesian migrations based on the archaeological assessments. Journal de la Societe des Oceanistes 39:57–67.

Soldo, D. and B. Dixon. 1994. Archaeological moni- toring during construction of a single family residence (TMK 5-9-02:36), Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a, Island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Honolulu: Anthropology Depart- ment, Bishop Museum.

Spriggs, M. and A. Anderson. 1993. Late coloniza- tion of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200–217.

Tamers, M. 1970. Validity of radiocarbon dates on terrestrial snail shells. American Antiquity 35:94– 100.

Ziegler, A. 1991. Letter to Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Editorial and subscription notices Notes for contributors Hawaiian Archaeology, founded in 1984, is published Articles on Hawaiian prehistory or archaeology, or by the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, a registered that contribute to the advance of method and theory tax-exempt organization. as these apply to Hawai‘i, are considered for publication in Hawaiian Archaeology. Send three photocopies of the The Officers of the Board of Directors of the Society text and of illustrations or roughs to the Publications for Hawaiian Archaeology are: Committee of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. R. J. Hommon, President Preferred style is as you find it in this volume, and S. L. Collins, Vice-President generally follows The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th or B. Lass, Secretary 14th Edition, for scientific and technical publications E. H. Jourdane, Treasurer using the short (B) form for bibliographic citations. Authors of articles accepted for publication will be The Publications Committee members are: asked to submit a copy of the text on a diskette format- T. S. Dye, Chair and S. L. Collins. ted for DOS and to provide camera-ready illustrations.

Copyright © 1997 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be Conventions for radiocarbon dates reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior In citing radiocarbon dates, Hawaiian Archaeology written permission of the Board of Directors, Society for uses the following conventions: b.p. (before 1950); Hawaiian Archaeology. CRA (conventional radiocarbon age) indicates a radiocarbon age that (i) uses 5568 as the 14 C half-life, (ii) was measured against the NBS oxalic acid standard, Address (iii) uses 1950 as the zero date for radiocarbon time, (iv) is normalized for ∂13C, and (v) has not been cor- rected for reservoir effects; b.c./a.d. indicates a measure- Hawaiian Archaeology, Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, ment that has been calibrated to calendar years. P. O. Box 23292, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96823-3292 is the address for all matters relating to the Society and to Hawaiian Archaeology. Cover image

Current subscriptions A Man of the Sandwich Islands, in a Mask, 1779. Engraving by Thomas Cook after a drawing by John Webber. Courtesy of Barbara Pope. Hawaiian Archaeology is published annually and distributed to members of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. Current dues are:

Professional—$26 Regular—$22 Associate—$18 Membership applications are available from the Corresponding Secretary of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. Editorial and subscription notices Notes for contributors Hawaiian Archaeology, founded in 1984, is published Articles on Hawaiian prehistory or archaeology, or by the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, a registered that contribute to the advance of method and theory tax-exempt organization. as these apply to Hawai‘i, are considered for publication in Hawaiian Archaeology. Send three photocopies of the The Officers of the Board of Directors of the Society text and of illustrations or roughs to the Publications for Hawaiian Archaeology are: Committee of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. R. J. Hommon, President Preferred style is as you find it in this volume, and S. L. Collins, Vice-President generally follows The Chicago Manual of Style, 13th or B. Lass, Secretary 14th Edition, for scientific and technical publications E. H. Jourdane, Treasurer using the short (B) form for bibliographic citations. Authors of articles accepted for publication will be The Publications Committee members are: asked to submit a copy of the text on a diskette format- T. S. Dye, Chair and S. L. Collins. ted for DOS and to provide camera-ready illustrations.

Copyright © 1997 Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be Conventions for radiocarbon dates reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior In citing radiocarbon dates, Hawaiian Archaeology written permission of the Board of Directors, Society for uses the following conventions: b.p. (before 1950); Hawaiian Archaeology. CRA (conventional radiocarbon age) indicates a radiocarbon age that (i) uses 5568 as the 14 C half-life, (ii) was measured against the NBS oxalic acid standard, Address (iii) uses 1950 as the zero date for radiocarbon time, (iv) is normalized for ∂13C, and (v) has not been cor- rected for reservoir effects; b.c./a.d. indicates a measure- Hawaiian Archaeology, Society for Hawaiian Archaeology, ment that has been calibrated to calendar years. P. O. Box 23292, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96823-3292 is the address for all matters relating to the Society and to Hawaiian Archaeology. Cover image

Current subscriptions A Man of the Sandwich Islands, in a Mask, 1779. Engraving by Thomas Cook after a drawing by John Webber. Courtesy of Barbara Pope. Hawaiian Archaeology is published annually and distributed to members of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology. Current dues are:

Professional—$26 Regular—$22 Associate—$18 Membership applications are available from the Corresponding Secretary of the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology.