Archaeological Assessment of the Salvador Property, TMK:3–9–013

T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc.735 Bishop St., Suite 315, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96813

Archaeological Assessment of the SalvadorProperty, TMK:3–9–013:016, Kama‘ole

Ahupua‘a, Wailuku District, Island of Maui

Windy K. McElroy

July 1, 2004

Contents1 Introduction 2

1.1 Survey Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2 Background Research 32.1 Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.2 Archaeological Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Methods 5

4 Field Survey Results 6

5 Discussion and Conclusions 8

A Previous Archaeology 10

Glossary 11

Bibliography 12

Illustrations1 Project location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Survey area, facing west . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Test pit 1, representative profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

1

2 1 INTRODUCTION

4 Test pit 1, facing north . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Test pit 2, facing northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Test pit 2, representative profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Tables

1 Sediment descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Abstract

Archaeological surface survey and test pits at a residential lot in Kama‘oleahupua‘a yielded no evidence for historic properties. Proposed construction ac-tivities will have “no effect” on historic properties because none are present. Testexcavations were too limited in extent to rule out the possibility that isolated hu-man burials are present on the property.

1 Introduction

At the request of Pau Pono Construction, Inc., T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists,Inc. conducted an archaeological assessment of the Salvador Property at TMK:3–9–013:016, Kama‘ole ahupua‘a, Wailuku District, Maui Island. Two shovel test pits

ahupua‘awere excavated and no subsurface cultural deposits or features were discovered.

The report begins with a description of the project site and an historical overviewof land use and archaeology in the project area. The next section presents a descriptionof the survey methods and the results of the archaeological inventory. Project resultsare summarized and recommendations are made in the final section. No significanthistoric properties were discovered in the project area.

Marginal notes call out the first occurrence of words that appear in the glossary.

1.1 Survey Area

The project is located on the island of Maui, in the district of Wailuku, Kama‘oleahupua‘a, at TMK:3–9–013:016 (fig.1). This is in Kihei, on Kanakanui Road, whichruns parallel to Pi‘ilani Highway on the makai side of the highway. Kama‘ole ahupua‘a

makaiextends from the coast at Kihei to the rim of Haleakala crater, encompassing land intwo modern districts, Wailuku and Makawao. Although the project area lies entirely inthe district of Wailuku, it sits at the border of the Wailuku and Makawao districts. Thisis approximately 150 ft. above sea level.

The parcel measures roughly 128 ft. by 100 ft., an area of approximately 0.459 ac.The land is owned by John and Carolyn Salvador. Two single-family dwellings will beconstructed on the property. The primary focus of the project was on the discovery andappropriate treatment of historic properties potentially affected by the construction.

1.2 Environment 3

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !"

###

��$�� !%

###

��&�� !'

###( ) * + , - . / ) , /

Figure 1. Project location on a portion of the USGS Puu o Kali quadrangle topo-graphic map. Grid tic marks are UTM Zone 4, Old Hawaiian datum. Inset, projectlocation on the island of Maui.

1.2 EnvironmentThe surveyed parcel is a relatively flat to gently sloping piece of land bounded on thesouth and east by paved roads, and on the north and west by adjacent parcels. The areais generally dry and hot, with no permanent streams in the vicinity. The parcel is 942 meast of the coast.

Rainfall in Kihei is very low, averaging less than 15 in. per year (Juvik and Juvik1998). The parcel lies right at the boundary of two soil types. The majority of the parcelconsists of Puuone sand, but a small strip along the eastern boundary is composed ofMakena loam (Foote et al. 1972). Vegetation is sparse, consisting of grasses and twolarge monkeypod trees within the boundaries of the parcel, and four coconut trees just monkeypod

outside the northern boundary.

2 Background ResearchThis section presents background information that can be used to predict the kindsand distributions of historic properties that might still be present in the project area.This includes information on land use patterns derived from available literature and

4 2 BACKGROUND RESEARCH

records specific to the vicinity of the project, but also includes more general referencesto the ahupua‘a of Kama‘ole, as appropriate. This information provides context forunderstanding and evaluating the significance of historic properties.

2.1 Land UseVery little is known about the traditional use of Kama‘ole ahupua‘a. The ahupua‘a isknown for the two battles of Kipuka‘ohelo and Ki‘imumuku carried out by Kekauliketo establish his sovereignty over Maui Island (Kamakau 1992:73). Sweet potato, ‘uala,

‘ualawas grown extensively in the uplands in the pre-contact period, but taro was apparentlypre-contactabsent (Handy and Handy 1972:510). The coast was thought to have been sparselyoccupied, with marine exploitation the primary subsistence strategy (Fredericksen andFredericksen 2001). It has also been proposed that the land functioned primarily asa transitional zone, for transportation to and from elsewhere on the island, with littlepermanent habitation (Kennedy 1991).

In the 1830s and 1840s Kama‘ole lands were used to grow Irish potatoes in re-sponse to the growing number of whaling ships in the Pacific and to supply the influxof settlers to California during the gold rush. Crops were later diversified in Kama‘oleand Chinese immigrants were brought in to work the land, but many left because of thehot, dry conditions (Haun and Henry 2001).

At the mahele of 1848, Kama‘ole ahupua‘a belonged to the government of Hawai‘i.mahele

Land claim awards show 29 mahele claimants for the uplands and eight claimants forthe coastal zone. Of these, 23 were awarded land. Two of the land claim awardsmention the creek of Kama‘ole, but this creek is dry today. An 1872 map drawn byAlexander and Monsarrat depicts a heiau and coconut grove on the coast at Kama‘ole.

heiauAn ahupua‘a boundary or shrine between Kama‘ole and Keokea ahupua‘a is also de-picted (Haun and Henry 2001).

By the 1880s cattle ranching encompassed most of the uplands. Haleakala Ranchcontrolled much of the grazing lands in Kihei. In 1899 the Kihei Plantation Companybegan a sugar operation in the area. The plantation was bought by Hawaiian Commer-cial and Sugar Company in 1908. The ahupua‘a was also a source of kiawe wood,

kiaweand harvesting continued until the 1920s (Hurst et al. 1991). In 1920 the HawaiianHomes Commission divided parts of the ahupua‘a into homestead lots. World War IIsaw military use of the coastal zone from Kihei to Makena. The beach was off-limitsto civilians during that time. From the 1960s on, the coastal zone has been developedas a tourist, residential, and commercial area.

2.2 Archaeological Background InformationArchaeological work has been extensive in Kama‘ole ahupua‘a (appendix A). Of the30 Kama‘ole archaeological reports on file at the State Historic Preservation office, fiveencompass land within 500 m of the project area. These will be briefly summarizedhere, in order of proximity to the project.

An archaeological inventory survey was conducted on two parcels just makai, orwest of the project area (Kennedy 1991). No archaeological sites were reported for thisarea.

5

An extensive archaeological reconnaissance survey was carried out for the KiheiFlood Control Project in the late 1970s (Cordy 1977). The survey stretched from Wa-iakoa to Paehu ahupua‘a, and included Kama‘ole lands. Three sites were found inproximity to the project area. Site 50–50–10–01724 lies 62 m east of the parcel. Itconsists of a rectangular enclosure and associated small mound. Site 50–50–10–01723is a C-shaped structure located 106 m northeast of the project area. Site 50–50–10–01718 lies 120 m south of the parcel. It consists of the remains of a historic bridge,including cement piers and wooden planking.

Another archaeological reconnaissance survey was carried out at the Keonekai De-velopment, roughly 125 m makai, of the project area (Leidemann 1989). No archaeo-logical sites were reported.

A third archaeological reconnaissance survey was conducted for the Kihei Em-ployee Housing Project, approximately 500 m northwest of the project area (Hammattet al. 1990). No archaeological sites were observed within the boundaries of the projectarea, but a possible traditional complex was noted to the east of the project. This con-sisted of seven low mounds near a fallen-down historic shack.

Finally, an archaeological inventory survey was conducted on two parcels approx-imately 500 m southwest of the project area (Kennedy 1989). No archaeological siteswere observed.

The historical information and previous archaeological work help in predictingthe kinds and distribution of archaeological remains in the project area. Historicalaccounts describe Kama‘ole as sparsely populated until the historic era, when cat-tle ranching dominated the landscape. Therefore, traditional Hawaiian remains arelikely to be sparse. Remnants of historic cattle ranching operations are more likelyto be encountered. Archaeological work in the area is consistent with these predic-tions (appendix A). Of the 30 archaeological projects in Kama‘ole, 19 recorded noarchaeological sites. The remaining 11 projects recorded both traditional and historicarchaeological remains, many of which are related to historic cattle ranching.

3 Methods

An archaeological assessment was carried out on 21 May, 2004. Thomas Dye, Ph.D.,served as principal investigator. He drew up the scope of work in consultation withSHPD Maui Island archaeologist, Melissa Kirkendall. Fieldwork was conducted byWindy McElroy. One hundred percent of the project area was surveyed on foot toinspect the ground surface for archaeological remains. Vision was obscured by tallgrass in almost the entire survey area. In some places the grass grew to waist-height(fig. 2). In addition to the pedestrian survey, two shovel test pits were excavated todetect subsurface deposits or cultural material. These were excavated by hand witha pick, shovel, and trowel. All sediment was screened through 0.125 in. mesh andsediment characteristics were described using Munsell soil color charts, sand grain sizecharts, and a sediment texture flowchart (Thien 1979). Both test pits were backfilledafter excavation. Cultural material was assigned to contexts in the field according tovertical and horizontal position.

6 4 FIELD SURVEY RESULTS

Figure 2. Survey area, facing west.

4 Field Survey Results

Surface survey indicated that no surface architectural features are present on the parcel.Test pit 1 was excavated in the area proposed for construction of the easternmost

house. This pit measured 35 cm in diameter and was excavated to a depth of 72 cm(fig. 3). Stratigraphy consisted of two layers of brown sandy loam followed by a layerof culturally sterile sand, with solid or densely packed coral below (table 1). Isolatedcharcoal flecks were collected from the uppermost layer a few centimeters from thesurface. These are thought to result from modern activity and are not suitable datingmaterials. The sediment itself is thought to have been deposited naturally, resulting

suitable dating materialfrom the intermixing of Makena loam and Puuone sand, which both occur on the parcel.Layers I and II were very similar in color (fig. 4); both are probably a mixture ofMakena loam and Puuone sand. Layer III is a lighter colored culturally sterile sandwhich was deposited naturally, and layer IV consists of solid or densely packed coral.No cultural deposits or features were observed in test pit 1.

Test pit 2 was excavated in the area proposed for the installation of the septic tankof the westernmost house. This pit measured 45 cm long, 35 cm wide, and 80 cmdeep (fig. 5). Three stratigraphic layers were encountered: two layers of sandy loamunderlain by a layer of culturally sterile fine sand (fig. 6, table 1). Land snail shellsand isolated charcoal flecks were observed in layer I. This dark layer is thought toresult from the detritus of the nearby monkeypod tree. Irrigated community gardensmay have also been located in the vicinity in the recent past (Howard Lipp, pers. com.2004) and these may have been a source for the dark sandy loam of layer I as well.Layer II consisted of sandy loam with an abundance of basalt cobbles and gravel anda few isolated charcoal flecks. None of the basalt was modified or fire cracked and nocultural material was observed. This layer is thought to have been deposited naturally,

7

010101010010101010212121212212121212

313313414414

unexcavated

10 YR 4/3 sandy loam

7.5 YR 3/3 sandy loam

10 YR 5/4 fine sand

coral

20 cm0

I

II

III

IV

II

I

III

IV

Figure 3. Test pit 1, representative profile.

Figure 4. Test pit 1, facing north. The boundaries between layers I, II, and II havebeen outlined; layer IV is not visible in the photo. The scale is marked in 10 cmincrements.

8 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 1. Sediment descriptions

Test Pit Layer Depth (cm) Color (damp) Description

1 I 0–23 10YR 4/3 Sandy loam, fine roots, few basalt and coralgravel and cobbles, isolated charcoal flecks;smooth, abrupt boundary.

1 II 23–38 7.5YR 3/3 Sandy loam, fine and medium roots, very fewbasalt and coral gravel and cobbles; smooth,clear boundary.

1 III 38–72 10 YR 5/4 Fine sand, very few fine roots, basalt and coralgravel; smooth, abrupt boundary.

1 IV 72+ N/A Solid or densely packed coral; base of excava-tion.

2 I 0–40 10YR 2/2 Sandy loam, fine roots, few angular basalt cob-bles and gravel; smooth, gradual boundary.

2 II 40–70 10 YR 4/3 Sandy loam, fine roots, 20% basalt cobbles andgravel, both angular and smooth, none mod-ified; isolated charcoal flecks; smooth, clearboundary.

2 III 70+ 10YR 5/4 Fine sand, very few basalt and coral gravel, cul-turally sterile; base of excavation.

from materials washing down the long gradual slope to the east of the project area. Soilto the east is made up of Makena loam, which is erodable, stony in places and exhibitsunstable slopes (Foote et al. 1972). Layer II is likely a mix of the existing Puuone sandand the Makena loam that washed downslope. The charcoal was probably washeddown from the uplands as well, either during a burning episode related to clearing theland for ‘uala or Irish potato cultivation or a natural fire on the hot dry slopes to theeast of the parcel. Charcoal was very sparse, and the layer is very similar in color to theculturally sterile layer III below, therefore layer II is not interpreted as a cultural layer.Charcoal fragments were collected from layer II but they were not submitted for woodspecies identification or 14C dating because they were not part of a cultural deposit orfeature. Layer III consists of culturally sterile fine sand, identical in color to layer IIIof test pit 1. This was likely deposited naturally. No cultural deposits or features wereobserved in test pit 2.

5 Discussion and ConclusionsNo archaeological surface remains or subsurface cultural deposits or features werefound at TMK:3–9–013:016. The construction of two single-family dwellings at TMK:3–9–013:016 will have no effect on significant historic properties because significant his-toric properties are absent on the parcel. It should be noted that it is possible thatisolated human burial remains will be discovered during construction activities, eventhough no evidence of human burials was discovered during archaeological survey.This caveat is based on the fact that the test pits excavated during survey were not largeor numerous enough to have exposed isolated cultural features in every part of the prop-erty. Should human burial remains be discovered during construction activities, workin the vicinity of the remains should cease and the Maui Island Archaeologist shouldbe contacted.

9

Figure 5. Test pit 2 facing northeast. The scale is marked in 10 cm increments.

565656565655656565656556565656565767676767767676767767676767

20 cm0

10 YR 5/4 fine sand

868688686886868969699696996969

unexcavated



III

I

II

III

I

II

Figure 6. Test pit 2, representative profile.

10 A PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGY

A Previous Archaeology

Report ProjectType

Location Results

Cordy (1977) Recon-nais-sance

Waiakoa-Paeahu Twelve sites in Kama‘ole: including wall seg-ments, C-shaped enclosures, mounds, trail, his-toric bridge remnants, and enclosure.

Sinoto (1978) Recon-nais-sance

Kihei Boat Ramp Six sites: including wall segments, U-shapedstructures, cairn, enclosure, and grave.

Shapiro andRosendahl (1988)

Recon-nais-sance

Auhana Road No sites.

Fredericksen et al.(1989)

Survey TMK:(2)3–9–20:10 No sites, but possible disturbed midden scatter.

Kennedy (1989) Survey TMK:(2)3–9–4:132,135

No sites.

Leidemann (1989) Recon-nais-sance

KeonekaiDevelopment

No sites.

Sinoto (1989) Survey TMK:(2)3–9–18:01 Eight sites: three walls, two midden scatters,one with associated foot trail, two rectangularenclosures, and a rockshelter.

Donham (1990) Survey Kihei PublicLibrary

No sites, but mound recorded.


Survey TMK:(2)3–9–20:07 No sites.

Hammatt et al.(1990)

Recon-nais-sance

Kihei EmployeeHousing

No sites, but possible traditional Hawaiiancomplex east of project area.



Hurst et al. (1991) Survey Kihei ElementarySchool

Eight sites: L-shaped structure, shrine, stonefacing, mounds, historic structures.

Kennedy (1991) Survey TMK:(2)3–9–13:01and 10

No sites.


Survey TMK:(2)3–9–05:3,4

No sites.

Hammatt andShideler (1992)

Survey TMK:(2)3-9-19 Relocated eight sites reported by Hammatt andShideler (1989) : : midden scatter, shrine, his-toric ranch remains, C-shaped enclosure, twotemporary shelters, and a disturbed traditionalHawaiian site.

Fredericksen et al.(1994a)

Survey Keala HillsSubdivision

Two sites: midden scatter and historic slaugh-terhouse.

Fredericksen et al.(1994b)

Survey TMK:(2)3–9–18:01 Relocated eight sites reported by Sinoto (1989)and found three new sites: midden scatter, cob-ble alignment, and historic enclosure.

Burgett et al. (1996) Monitoringand datarecovery

Kihei PublicLibrary

Five sites: including pavings, pits, cultural de-posit, midden scatter, and platform.

Burgett and Spear(1996)

Survey TMK:(2)3–9–17:2,68, 69

One site: stone alignment and subsurface pit.

continued on next page . . .

GLOSSARY 11

. . . continued from previous pageReport Project

TypeLocation Results

Sinoto et al. (1999) Survey Douglas SpencerSubdivision

No sites.

Haun and Henry(2000)

Survey TMK:(2)3–9–16:01, 07, 08,09

No sites.

Callis (2001) Survey TMK:(2)3-9-4:1, 61 No sites.Fredericksen andFredericksen (2001)

Survey TMK:(2)3–9–20:34 Two sites: late pre-contact to early historictemporary habitation structure and subsurfacecultural deposit.


Survey TMK:(2)3–9–04:portion 01,portion 61

Relocated four sites identified by Sinoto(1978).



Fredericksen (2002) Monitoring Kama‘ole III Park No sites, but isolated human bone.Pantaleo (2002) Survey TMK:(2)3–9–17:34 No sites.Davis (2003) Assessment TMK:(2)3–9–

016:21No sites.

Fredericksen (2003) Monitoring Keawekapu Views No sites.Rechtman (2003) Monitoring TMK:(2)3–9–

016:2, 3,6

No sites.

;Report not found in the SHPD library

GlossaryEntries for Hawaiian words are excerpted or paraphrased, where possible, from theHawaiian Dictionary (Pukui and Elbert 1971), or from Lucas (1995). Geological andgeographical terms are from American Geological Institute (1976) and Clark (1998).Archaeological terms are from Bray and Trump (1982) and Mignon (1993).

‘uala The sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas.

ahupua‘a Traditional Hawaiian land division usually extending from the uplands tothe sea.

heiau Traditional Hawaiian place of worship.

kiawe The algaroba tree, Prosopis sp., a legume from tropical America, first plantedin 1828 in Hawaii.

mahele Land division of 1848.

makai Seaward.

monkeypod A large tree, Samanea saman, introduced to Hawai‘i from tropical Amer-ica.

pre-contact Prior to A.D. 1778 and the first written records of the Hawaiian Islandsmade by Captain James Cook and his crew.

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY

suitable dating material An identified sample of wood charcoal, selected to includeshort-lived species, twigs, or sapwood collected from a context that is in a clearlydefined association with a confidently identified traditional Hawaiian culturalfeature.

BibliographyAmerican Geological Institute (1976). Dictionary of Geological Terms (Revised ed.).

Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Press.

Bray, W. and D. Trump (1982). The Penguin Dictionary of Archaeology (Second ed.).New York: Penguin Books.

Burgett, B., A. Dunn, and R. L. Spear (1996, February). Archaeological Monitor-ing and Salvage Data Recovery Excavations, Kihei Public Library Project, Land ofKamaole, Wailuku District, Island of Maui, TMK:3–9–12:13. Prepared for G.W.Murphy Construction Company, Ltd. Honolulu: Scientific Consulting Services.

Burgett, B. and R. L. Spear (1996, December). An Archaeological Inventory Surveyof Approximately 8.7 Acres in Kihei, Wailuku District, Kamaole Ahupua‘a, MauiIsland, Hawai‘i, TMK:3–9–17:2, 68, 69. Prepared for Maui Home Company. Hon-olulu: Scientific Consulting Services.

Callis, I. (2001, July). Archaeological Inventory Survey for Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a, KulaDistrict, Island of Maui, Hawai‘i [TMK:3–9–4:1 and 61]. Prepared for C. TakumiEngineering, Inc. Honolulu: Scientific Consultant Services, Inc.

Clark, A. N. (1998). The Penguin Dictionary of Geography (Second ed.). London:Penguin Books.

Cordy, R. (1977, September). Cultural Resources Study: Archaeological Reconnais-sance at Kihei Flood Control Project, Kihei, Maui. Prepared for the Kihei FloodControl Project. Honolulu: Army Corps of Engineers.

Davis, B. D. (2003, October). An Archaeological Assessment of 10,207 Sq. Ft. of Landin the Ahupua‘a of Kama‘ole, Wailuku District, Maui Island, Hawai‘i [TMK:3–9–16:21]. Prepared for Hale Olu-Olu. Honolulu: Scientific Consultant Services, Inc.

Donham, T. K. (1990, December). Archaeological Inventory Survey Potential KiheiPublic Library Site D Land of Kamaole, Wailuku District Island of Maui (TMK:3–9–12:13). Prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and GeneralServices. Hilo, Hawaii: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.

Foote, D. E., E. L. Hill, S. Nakamura, and F. Stephens (1972). Soil Survey of the Islandsof Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. Washington, D.C.:United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Published incooperation with the University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 13

Fredericksen, D. L., E. M. Fredericksen, and W. M. Fredericksen (1994a, August). AnArchaeological Inventory Survey for Keala Hills Subdivision, Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a,Wailuku District, Maui Island (TMK:3–9–30:21). Prepared for Max D. and Ruth A.Soriano. Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Fredericksen, E. (2002, April). Archaeological Monitoring Report for the Kama‘ole IIIPark Irrigation Improvement Project, Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a, Wailuku District, Maui,TMK:3–9–004:048. Prepared for Department of Parks and Recreation, County ofMaui. Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Fredericksen, E. (2003, January). Archaeological Monitoring Report for theKeawekapu Views Subdivision Project, Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a, Makawao District,Maui, Hawai‘i (TMK:3–9–04:079). Prepared for R.T. Tanaka Engineers, Inc.Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Fredericksen, E. and D. Fredericksen (2001, October). An Archaeological InventorySurvey of a Parcel of Land in Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a, Makawao District, Island ofMaui (TMK:3–9–20:34[Lot A-2-B]). Prepared for R.T. Tanaka Engineering, Inc.Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Fredericksen, E. M., D. L. Fredericksen, and W. M. Fredericksen (1994b, June). AnArchaeological Inventory Survey of a 24-Acre Parcel, Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a, WailukuDistrict, Island of Maui, TMK:3–09–18:1. Prepared for Grant Y. M. Chun. Pukalani,Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Fredericksen, W. M., D. L. Fredericksen, and E. M. Fredericksen (1989, October).An Archaeological Inventory Survey of a 1-Acre Parcel Tax Map 3–9–20:10 Kihei,Maui, Hawaii. Prepared for Rainbow Mall. Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Fredericksen, W. M., D. L. Fredericksen, and E. M. Fredericksen (1990, March). AnArchaeological Inventory Survey of an 8.5 Acre Parcel Tax Map 3–9–20:07 Kihei,Maui, Hawaii. Prepared for Maui Realty, Inc. Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Re-searches.

Fredericksen, W. M., D. L. Fredericksen, and E. M. Fredericksen (1991, August).An Archaeological Inventory Survey of a 3.14 Acre Parcel in Kihei, Maui, Hawaii(TMK:3–9–17:26). Prepared for MLH Development Co. Pukalani, Hawaii: Xam-anek Researches.

Fredericksen, W. M., D. L. Fredericksen, and E. M. Fredericksen (1992, January). AnArchaeological Inventory Survey of a Beach Front Parcel in Kihei, Maui, Hawaii(TMK 3–9–05: 3 & 4). Prepared for GATRI, A Hawaii Limited Partnership.Pukalani, Hawaii: Xamanek Researches.

Hammatt, H., D. Shideler, and D. Borthwick (1990, February). ArchaeologicalReconnaissance Survey for a Kihei Employee Housing Project at Kama‘ole (Kihei),Wailuku District, Maui. Prepared for Sweeney Development Company, Inc. Kailua,Hawaii: Cultural Surveys Hawaii.

14 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hammatt, H. H. and D. W. Shideler (1992, December). Archaeological Survey andTesting of a 54-Acre Parcel at Kama‘ole, Wailuku District, Island of Maui. Preparedfor Kama‘ole Land Ventures. Kailua, Hawaii: Cultural Surveys Hawaii.

Handy, E. S. C. and E. G. Handy (1972). Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life,Lore, and Environment. Number 233 in Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin. Hon-olulu: Bishop Museum Press. With the collaboration of Mary Kawena Pukui.

Haun, A. and D. Henry (2001, November). Archaeological Inventory SurveyTMK:(2)3–9–04:Portion 01, Portion 061 Land of Kamaole, Wailuku District Islandof Maui. Prepared for the Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission. Keaau, Hawaii:Haun and Associates.

Haun, A. E. and D. Henry (2000, November). Archaeological Inventory SurveyTMK:3–9–16:01, 07, 08, 09, Land of Kamaole Wailuku District Island of Maui.Prepared for Mr. Bill Landry. Keaau, Hawaii: Haun and Associates.

Hurst, G., E. D. Davidson, and J. Pantaleo (1991, July). Archaeological InventorySurvey of Proposed Kihei Elementary School Site Lots 1 and 2 Kama‘ole, Wailuku,Maui Island. Prepared for Comprehensive Consulting Services of Hawaii. Honolulu:Anthropology Department, B. P. Bishop Museum.

Juvik, S. P. and J. O. Juvik (Eds.) (1998). Atlas of Hawai‘i (Third ed.). Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.

Kamakau, S. M. (1992). Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii (Revised ed.). Honolulu: The Kame-hameha Schools Press.

Kennedy, J. (1989, July). Archaeological Survey Report for TMK 3–9–04:135 andTMK 3–9–04:132, Located at Kihei, Maui. Prepared for Dujardin Development Co.Haleiwa, Hawaii: Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii, Inc.

Kennedy, J. (1991, September). Archaeological Investigations at TMK:3–9–13:01 and10 Located in the Ahupua‘a of Kama‘ole, Island of Maui. Prepared for GoodfellowBrothers. Haleiwa, Hawaii: Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii, Inc.

Leidemann, H. (1989, April). Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for KeonekaiDevelopment, Kihei, Maui, TMK 3–9–14:02. Prepared for Environmental Commu-nications, Inc. Honolulu: Anthropology Department, B. P. Bishop Museum.

Lucas, P. F. N. (1995). A Dictionary of Hawaiian Legal Land-Terms. Honolulu: NativeHawaiian Legal Corporation and University of Hawai‘i Committeee for the Preser-vation and Study of Hawaiian Language, Art and Culture.

Mignon, M. R. (1993). Dictionary of Concepts in Archaeology. Number 13 in Refer-ence Sources for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Westport, Conn.: GreenwoodPress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

Pantaleo, J. (2002, December). An Archaeological Inventory Survey of a 14-acre Parcelof Land Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a, Wailuku District, Maui Island (TMK:3–9–17:34. Pre-pared for Canco Hawaii, LLC. Wailuku, Hawaii: Archaeological Services, Hawai‘i,LLC.

Pukui, M. K. and S. H. Elbert (1971). Hawaiian Dictionary (Third ed.). Honolulu:University of Hawaii Press.

Rechtman, R. B. (2003, December). Archaeological Monitoring for Off-Site UtilitiesAssociated with the Development of TMKs:2–3–9–016:2, 3, 6 Kama‘ole Ahupua‘a,Wailuku District, Island of Maui. Prepared for Smith Development. Keaau, Hawaii:Rechtman Consulting, LLC.

Shapiro, W. and P. Rosendahl (1988, March). Subsurface Archaeological Reconnais-sance Testing, Auhana Road Drainline Project Area, Land of Kama‘ole, WailukuDistrict, Island of Maui. Prepared for the Department of Public Works, County ofMaui. Hilo, Hawaii: Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.

Sinoto, A. (1978, October). Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Proposed Ki-hei Boat Launching Ramp, Keawakapu, Maui. Prepared for M & E Pacific, Inc.Honolulu: Anthropology Department, B. P. Bishop Museum.

Sinoto, A. (1989, December). Postfield Summary of Surface Survey for the ResidentialSubdivision Development, TMK 3–9–18:01. Prepared for MTM Consulting. Hon-olulu: Anthropology Department, B. P. Bishop Museum.

Sinoto, A., L. Rotunno-Hazuka, and J. Pantaleo (1999, December). An ArchaeologicalInventory Survey of the Proposed Douglas Spencer Subdivision Kamaole Ahupua‘a,Wailuku, Maui, TMK 3–9–04:129. Prepared for Warren Unemori Engineering, Inc.Honolulu: Aki Sinoto Consulting.

Thien, S. (1979). A flow diagram for teaching texture-by-feel analysis. Journal ofAgronomic Education 8, 54–55.

Documents

Archaeological Assessment of the Salvador Property, TMK:3–9–013