Four Sites in Upland Kaneohe

FOUR SITES IN UPLAND KÄNE‘OHESUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING

FOR INTERSTATE ROUTE H-3

Jane Allen, Ph.D.Heidi A. Lennstrom, Ph.D.Barbara Dolan, Ph.D.Helen Higman Leidemann, M.A.

November 2002

Prepared in cooperation with the State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division; U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration;

State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division; andOffice of Hawaiian Affairs.

The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State.

FOUR SITES IN UPLAND KÄNE‘OHE

SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING

FOR INTERSTATE ROUTE H-3

INTRODUCTION, SITES 50-80-10-2463, 4483, 4484,4485, ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS COLLECTED ATSITES 4484 AND 4485, CONCLUSION, AND APPENDICES

Project #451

CONTENTS

Abstract v

1 Introduction 1Jane Allen

2 Site 50-80-10-2463 35Helen Higman Leidemann

3 Site 50-80-10-4483 53Barbara W. Dolan, with contributions by James Cartwright, Stephan D. Clark,Linda Scott Cummings, Kevin Johnson, Susan A. Lebo, Deborah I. Olszewski,Mary Riford, Lonnie Somer, Frank Thomas, and Jahn Van Brunt



6 Archaeobotanical Materials Collected at 193 Sites 4484 and 4485

Heidi A. Lennstrom

7 Conclusion 245Jane Allen

Appendices

Lithics Glossary 269Mary Riford

Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483 277Frank R. Thomas and Jahn E. Van Brunt

Immunological Analysis of Artifacts from Site 4483 283Margaret Newman

Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483 287Kevin Johnson

Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483 291Mary Riford

Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Site 4483 297Mary Riford

Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Site 4483 303Mary Riford

Stratigraphic Pollen Analyses at Site 4483 305Linda Scott Cummings

Raw Weights for Archaeobotanical Materials 313 from Sites 4484 and 4485

Heidi A. Lennstrom

References 327

ê v

ABSTRACT

This report forms part of the ongoing presentation of results of the archaeological investigationsin the ahupua‘a of Käne‘ohe associated with the construction of the Interstate Route H-3, ascalled for by federal statute (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act). An

inventory survey report of the Käne‘ohe Interchange portion of the highway has already been presented(Allen ed. 1987); one data recovery report will be submitted shortly, with others to follow. The currentreport, labeled as a supplemental inventory survey, presents information gathered in 1990–1991 at aninventory survey level on project areas not included during the initial inventory survey effort, as wellas areas that were not considered sites during the initial survey but which revealed subsurface featuresduring subsequent highway construction.

Four sites are discussed in this report. Site 2463 contains as features numerous unnamed bananaroads and two named roads, all post-Contact in age. The investigation of this site relied mostly ondocumentary evidence, with a small number of excavations. A large number of subsurface pit featuresand extensive lithic scatters were revealed at Sites 4483, 4484, and 4485 during construction grading.Numerous excavations were conducted at these sites as features were revealed, and a wide array oflaboratory analyses were conducted on excavated remains. The pre-Contact nature of these latter threesites is shown by radiocarbon dating placing significant site use between the late thirteenth century A.D.and the period immediately prior to Western contact in 1778. Activities at the sites appear to haveincluded temporary or short-term habitation, cooking of plant and animal foods, and lithic toolproduction and use. All could have been indirectly related to cultivation of irrigated kalo along LulukuStream, activities associated with construction or use of nearby Kukuiokäne Heiau, or collection andprocessing of the abundant natural resources available in the upland Käne‘ohe area.

ê 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Jane Allen

The beaches and valleys of what was eventually to become Ko‘olau Poko District, borderingKäne‘ohe, Kailua, and Waimänalo Bays in windward O‘ahu, must have been among the mostinviting areas on O‘ahu for the earliest settlers of the island. Of 11 ahupua‘a (the basic Hawaiian

land unit; see Terminology, below) in Ko‘olau Poko, the three southernmost, Waimänalo, Kailua, andKäne‘ohe (Figure 1.1), have all produced radiocarbon dates as early as A.D. 500–600.

Two of these site areas, the slopes around Kawai Nui Marsh in Kailua and a dune inWaimänalo, are coastal or near-coastal. The third, the current project area in Luluku ‘ili (division of theahupua‘a; see Terminology), is located in an inland valley that later became a major agricultural zone(Allen, ed. 1987:174–179, 244; Clark 1982; Kelly and Clark 1980:51–68; Pearson et al. 1971).Although each of the A.D. 500–600 dates has been questioned by other researchers (e.g., Spriggs andAnderson 1993; Tuggle 1994:104–106), it appears likely that temporary habitation at Bellows andbeside Kawai Nui Marsh, and dryland and irrigated agriculture, respectively beside Kawai Nui and inupland Käne‘ohe, were underway in both coastal and inland areas in windward O‘ahu by A.D. 700.

Käne‘ohe, with its lush valleys, long shoreline, and protected bay offshore, must have beenespecially attractive to the early Polynesian settlers, encompassing as it does nearly the full range ofenvironmental zones needed for a comfortable life. According to the mission census taken in 1831–1832(Schmitt 1973:19), after Contact (A.D. 1778, which marks the arrival of Captain James Cook, the firstknown non-Polynesian explorer to reach Hawai‘i), Käne‘ohe was at that time the most populous of thenine ahupua‘a that border Käne‘ohe Bay, with a population of 1,159; of the areas listed in Ko‘olauPoko, only Waimänalo is credited with a larger population (1,208).

These totals, which reflect decreases caused by intense warfare (e.g., Kamakau 1992:233–235)during the late pre-Contact period and drastic depopulation caused by epidemics introduced afterContact (Bushnell 1993:especially 228–265), are undoubtedly much lower than population figureswould have been around A.D. 1700. Post-Contact depopulation in relatively rural areas like Käne‘ohealso resulted from increasing urbanization (Devaney et al. 1982:7–8).

Figure 1.1. The eleven ahupua‘a of Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu.

Chapter 1: Introduction ê 3

*In the State of Hawaii site numbering system, 50 = State of Hawai‘i; 80 = Island of O‘ahu; 10 = KaneoheQuadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1983); and the final digits = the unique site number. “50-80-10-” is omittedin this document.

In the Bishop Museum site numbering system, 50 = State of Hawai‘i; Oa = O‘ahu; G = Ko‘olau PokoDistrict; 5 = Käne‘ohe ahupua‘a; and the final digits = the unique site number. “50-Oa-” is omitted in thisdocument.

Käne‘ohe’s importance during traditional times was tied to the area’s great productivity inespecially two areas. The first was offshore: Käne‘ohe Bay and the ocean beyond the reef providedabundant fish and shellfish, and shoreline areas provided ideal locations for large, productive fishponds.Devaney et al. (1982:139) cite John N. Cobb’s 1901 U.S. Fish Commission report, which listed 16traditional ponds that were still worked at that time and suggested that twice as many had been activethirty years earlier.

Käne‘ohe’s second productive zone was its agricultural lands, where dryland (non-irrigated)cultivation of crops including taro (kalo, Colocasia esculenta; all botanical names follow Wagner et al.1990 unless otherwise noted) and sweet potato (‘uala, Ipomoea batatas) was made possible by abundantrainfall; and where, even more productively, large, permanent streams were tapped and modified toprovide constant supplies of fresh, flowing water to many square kilometers of lo‘i kalo (taropondfields; see Terminology). Among the streams that irrigated these extensive lo‘i sets was LulukuStream.

As will be discussed (see Early Land Use, below), earlier research in Luluku ‘ili producedimportant evidence for traditional agriculture, specialized activity areas, a large heiau (traditionalHawaiian place of worship; see Terminology), and post-Contact habitation (e.g., Allen, ed. 1987;Williams 1992a). Until the current project got underway, however, exposing unexpected numbers ofburied features for the first time in hundreds of years, little or no evidence suggested pre-Contacthabitation, either short- or long-term, in this agriculturally dominated area.

The research results presented in this report, added to the results of related monitoring projectsin adjacent areas (Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 1989–1993 field notes,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu), provide abundant evidence that ridges besideand between inland Käne‘ohe’s cultivated valley floors were indeed occupied, either briefly or forlonger periods, and were used far more extensively for non-agricultural activities such as toolmakingthan was suggested by the earlier results.

OVERVIEW: PROJECT HISTORY AND SCOPE OF WORK

This report presents the results of monitoring and inventory survey at four sites, Sites 50-80-10-2463,-4483, -4484, and -4485 (Bishop Museum Sites 50-Oa-G5-146, -G5-152, -G5-153, and -G5-154*), inKäne‘ohe Interchange (KIC), Interstate Highway H-3 corridor (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). The project wasconducted, under my supervision as Principal Investigator, by the Bishop Museum Applied ResearchGroup, now part of the Bishop Museum Anthropology Department, under contract to the HighwaysDivision of the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation.

Figure 1.3. Locations of Sites 2463, 4483, 4484, and 4485.

6 ê Chapter 1: Introduction

This project completes a series of archaeological surveys within the Interchange that began aspart of research conducted in the broader windward segment of the Highway H-3 corridor in the 1970s(Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane 1976; Dye 1977), was expanded within the Interchange in 1984–1985(Allen 1987, 1992a; Allen, ed. 1987; Allen-Wheeler 1984, 1985a), and continues to produce results asconstruction-related activities approach known sites or lead to the discovery of buried sites (Allen1990b, 1992b). It is the buried nature of three of the current sites, Sites 4483–4485, that necessitateda separate project; they were recognized only after construction machinery removed topsoils and thicksubsoils in preparation for highway construction, revealing buried pit features and other deposits. Twoof the buried sites, Sites 4483 and 4484, are located within the Interchange as it was mapped in 1987(Allen, ed. 1987:Figures 1, 2). Site 4485 is located in an area where the Interchange had to be expandedto meet construction needs.

The scope of work for the Interchange archaeological projects (Hawaii State Department ofTransportation and Bishop Museum 1984; excerpted here from Allen 1987:6) guided all survey phases,including the current project; and also mitigation-phase research (i.e., the final research phase, whichincluded interpretive excavation for preservation purposes, and data recovery). The scope stipulates thefollowing tasks for survey in the Interchange. Items 5.2b and 5.2c applied to the mitigation phase andare not addressed by this report.

5.1 General. The Consultant shall perform intensive archaeological survey and extensivesalvage operation, inclusive of historic research and laboratory analyses, and compile a reportif necessary for “Interstate Route H-3, Hospital Rock, 3,000 feet North of the Intersection ofH-3 and Likelike Highway, to 1,400 feet South of the Intersection (M.P. 8.62 to 9.46),”referred to as the “project.”

5.2 Work to be Done by Consultant. The Consultant shall perform, but not be limited to, thefollowing services:

(a) Conduct archaeological survey and mapping and historical study for theproject.

(b) Conduct archaeological salvage excavations, when archaeological remainsare uncovered.

(c) Disinter and conduct appropriate osteological studies when human burialsare encountered.

(d) Conduct laboratory analyses; and

(e) Prepare monthly field reports and final reports, if necessary.

(f) Inventory all field notes, maps, sketches, photographs, artifacts and othermaterials generated during this contract and submit copies of the inventorylisting to the State. These listings, however, need not form a physical partof the written report.

(g) Provide for storage of original records and salvaged items. However,materials are to be made available to interested persons and shall be subjectto withdrawal by the State for its own purposes.

(h) Comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the State and theFederal Governments as they may relate to the archaeological researchoperation [Hawaii State Department of Transportation and Bishop Museum1984].


One of the four sites discussed here, Site 2463, is an extensive network of paved and unpavedhistorical roads both within and beyond the Interchange. The buried deposits discovered at the otherthree sites, Sites 4483 through 4485, have produced large numbers of traditional Hawaiian materialsand smaller numbers of post-Contact items.

Site 2463, the road site, crosses several ridges and valleys in, from north to south, Kapalai,Punalu‘u Mauka, and Luluku ‘ili, the southernmost three of five ‘ili located within Käne‘oheInterchange. This site and certain features in other sites in the area (Leidemann, Chapter 2) are parts ofa road network that has served the project area and many areas beyond, toward Kamehameha Highwayand Käne‘ohe town, for most of this century and possibly much longer, as first foot trails and latervehicular roads. Sites 4483–4485 are all located in Luluku, the largest by far of the five ‘ili in theInterchange, and one of the two largest in inland Käne‘ohe (e.g., Lyons 1876).

Chapters 2–6 of this report, prepared by Bishop Museum authors, present field and laboratoryfindings from the sites (see following section). Chapters 1 and 7 have been prepared by OgdenEnvironmental and Energy Services, Honolulu, under contract to Bishop Museum (1995).

REPORT ORGANIZATION

The next section of this chapter introduces the physical environment surrounding the sites, and certaindocumented archaeological, legendary, and historical evidence for pre- and post-Contact land use inareas around the Interchange. Research goals and questions that guided the project are then reviewed.Finally, scheduling, personnel, and methods and methodological considerations are summarized, andglossaries of Hawaiian terms and technical abbreviations used here are presented.

Chapter 2, by Helen Leidemann, presents historical and archaeological evidence relating to theSite 2463 (G5-146) road network, which includes historic Luluku and Kapalai Roads as well as roadsserving farms for banana (mai‘a, Musa spp.) cultivation. As mentioned, these roads have providedaccess to various areas in Käne‘ohe Interchange since at least the early years of this century.

Chapter 3, by Barbara Dolan and other authors, concerns Site 4483 (G5-152), an extensive sitecontaining two main buried cultural layers and 41 features, 37 of them buried beneath surface soils. Theburied features include a post-Contact charcoal kiln and a road base; and traditional Hawaiian features:imu (earth ovens; see Terminology), smaller firepits, postmolds, and two lithic deposits that produced1,123 volcanic glass and basalt artifacts. Artifacts and other materials from this site were submitted forseveral important special studies that include microartifact, pollen, immunological (residue), andgeochemical sourcing analyses.

Chapters 4 and 5, by Helen Leidemann, describe Sites 4484 and 4485 (G5-153 and G5-154),two buried ridge sites located, respectively, north and south of Site 4483. Site 4484’s 13 featuresinclude, among others, a charcoal kiln, at least four imu, firepits, and an artifact scatter that representedan activity area. Site 4485’s nine features include imu and probable firepits, an artifact scatter (a formerdiscard area), and a post-Contact pit feature that may have been part of an ‘ökolehao still. Among theimportant contributions made by these chapters is a careful analysis of firepit shapes, and their careful


comparison with dating and macrobotanical results to investigate whether firepit shapes may representtemporal or functional classes.

Chapter 6, by Heidi Lennstrom, presents the results of macrobotanical analysis of materialscollected at Sites 4484 and 4485, the two sites for which firepit morphology is an important researchfocus. These results suggest certain specific uses to which various features were put, and environmentalchange through time.

Chapter 7 synthesizes the information provided in Chapters 1–6 and the appendices, anddiscusses the four sites within the broader context of Hawaiian sociocultural developments andenvironmental change through time.

Nine appendices include a glossary (Appendix A); specialist reports by Frank Thomas and Jahnvan Brunt, Margaret Newman, and Kevin Johnson (Appendices B–D); lithic artifact inventories(Appendices E–G); the Site 4483 pollen report by Linda Scott Cummings (Appendix H); and botanicalinventories for Sites 4484 and 4485 prepared by Heidi Lennstrom (Appendix I). A list of all referencescited throughout the report follows.

The background history for the project is presented in a separate report (Klieger 1996); certaininformation from that report is summarized in various sections of this volume.

THE PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Sites 2463 and 4483–4485 have been influenced to varying degrees at different times by physicalenvironmental processes that clearly include deposition of soils and sediments since abandonment atthe three (buried) ridge sites. The former occupants of these sites were influenced by both the physicalenvironment and their cultural surroundings, and influenced both in return, pursuing traditionalactivities and participating in changing economic and sociopolitical patterns that affected areasthroughout the ahupua‘a after ca. (circa) A.D. 1100.

The following sections summarize, first, characteristics of the physical environment that haveprobably been important in site location, use, and post-abandonment processes. Second, culturalevidence from the pre-Contact period in areas surrounding the sites is summarized to providebackground information concerning the economic and sociopolitical changes just mentioned, and theways the current sites may have participated in those changes. The final background section summarizesgeneral patterns of land use in Käne‘ohe since Contact, to illustrate certain changes and continuities.

THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Site-specific environmental characteristics are described in Chapters 2–6 and Appendix H. This sectionsummarizes environmental features that influence the general area surrounding Sites 2463 and4483–4485.

The following information is modified after Allen (ed. 1987:12–26) but does not repeat the fullinformation provided there, since it is included primarily to describe the non-agricultural areas where


the three ridge sites under study are located. The roads of Site 2463 cross many environmental zones,ridges, stream valleys, and flood plains. Segments in the project area are included in the followingdescriptions; portions outside the Interchange are not described here.

GEOLOGY, CLIMATE, AND HYDROLOGY

The three traditional sites discussed in this report occupy ridges formed of sediments transporteddownslope, at some past time, from the Ko‘olau Range. These sediments include materials thatoriginated in the Ko‘olau shield volcano, now considered part of the Ko‘olau Volcanic Series, whicherupted ca. 2.6 ± 0.1 million years B.P. (before 1950; see Terminology) (Clague and Dalrymple1994:14–15; Macdonald et al. 1983:431). It is the existing remnant of the Ko‘olau dome that forms thepali, the windward cliff of the range.

The portion of the Ko‘olau pali behind Käne‘ohe has been carved principally by stream erosion(Macdonald et al. 1983:222–226, 437; Stearns and Vaksvik 1935:28), which is produced in turn by thehigh rainfall that is dropped by the northeasterly trade winds when they contact O‘ahu’s windwardrange. The project area belongs to Blumenstock and Price’s (1994:113) windward lowland region,which lies approximately perpendicular to the prevailing direction of trade winds and the rains theycarry. Weather in the Interchange and surrounding areas is often cloudy to rainy, and agricultural cropslike taro and bananas do exceptionally well. Price (1983:62) graphs rainfall in the area as exceeding1,905 mm (millimeters; 75 inches) annually, far less than the >6,350 mm plotted for the Ko‘olausummit, but considerably more than the 762 mm that falls at the coast.

As discussed by Allen (ed. 1987:13–14, 31), the Luluku Stream network, the main streamnetwork in the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area, once included at least 11 tributaries. Water from theMämalahoa branch has been diverted to urban areas since before 1920 via the two Luluku Tunnels,which were drilled through pahoehoe and dike rock at a waterfall at an elevation of 174 masl (metersabove sea level). One tunnel produced 69,000 gallons on the day recorded in February 1919; the secondproduced 273,000 gallons (Stearns and Vaksvik 1935:410–411). But by 1932 the waterfall was nearlydry. Luluku Stream’s flow today is typically very low, even after rainstorms.

Luluku and other streams in upland Käne‘ohe join Kamo‘oali‘i Stream, which flows northwardto become part of Käne‘ohe Stream. Käne‘ohe Stream empties into Käne‘ohe Bay beside two traditionalfishponds, Waikalua and Waikaluawaho (Devaney et al 1982:139–157), and near the mouth of anotherimportant northward-flowing stream, the Käwä. An important lithic site on an old stream terraceoverlooking these stream mouths and the ponds will be discussed (Clark and Riford 1986).

North of the Luluku, a number of now-dry streams separate long ridges in Kapalai, Pa‘u, andKea‘ahala ‘ili, the northernmost three ‘ili in the Interchange project area. Deep, dry gullies also separatethe ridges investigated during the current project in Luluku ‘ili.

TOPOGRAPHY, LANDFORMS, AND SEDIMENTS

Elevations in the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area, as it was defined for the 1984–1985 survey (Figure1.2; also, Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 2), range from approximately 59 masl at the northeastern boundaryto 232 masl at the upper boundary on Punalu‘u Mauka’s “Red Dirt Hill,” the largest ridge in the area(Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 2). Elevations along the Site 2463 roads vary widely, from approximately 60masl in valleys to 125 masl on ridges. Sites 4483 and 4484 are located, respectively, 70–85 and 73–80


masl. Site 4485, in the area added to the Interchange since 1987, is 73–85 masl. All the ridge locationsare high enough to avoid stream flooding, and low enough to avoid overly steep slopes.

Most of the long ridges that extend toward Käne‘ohe from the Ko‘olau pali, including thosein the current project area, are massive piles of colluvial, clay- through boulder-sized sedimentstransported primarily by gravity and overland flooding, and redeposition in some cases over very oldalluvium (see photograph, Macdonald et al. 1983:Figure 10:23; Stearns 1939; Stearns and Vaksvik1935:92–97). These sediments emphasize materials derived from the basalt dome and also includematerials from a lower zone of basaltic dikes. This dike zone, described by Walker (1994:72, citing hisearlier work) for the Ko‘olau shield as a whole, is “an extraordinarily intense dike complex [that]contains an estimated 7,400 dikes totaling 4 km wide in one transect.” Aside from providing basalt andvolcanic glass for stoneworking, and sediments that form ridges below, the dikes of this complex forma major water-bearing unit. Perennial springs form all along the range at points where water flowingthrough permeable flow rock becomes trapped, often under pressure, by the dense dike rock. Thesesprings produce the streams mentioned above, which water the project area and areas throughoutwindward O‘ahu.

SOILS

The two main soil series in the Interchange project area are the Hanalei and Lolekaa (a misspelling of‘Ioleka‘a, a valley in He‘eia) series, the first in agricultural areas and the second on ridges.

Hanalei silty clays (sloping 2–6%; symbol “HnB,” Foote et al. 1972:38–39, Map sheet 60),which dominate the Luluku Stream valley, would have been an important attraction for any local siteoccupants who hoped to cultivate crops in the area. They are the most fertile soils in the area,developing as they do in constantly renewed alluvium. Plants including bananas, as well as taro, stilldo very well in these soils, as they do in downslope valley soils described by Cline et al. (1955:565,Soil map for eastern O‘ahu) as Laie clay loams. The Laie soils have been used since Contact primarilyfor rice (Oryza sativa) cultivation. Both Hanalei and Laie soils are also prone to flooding, however, andare poorly drained, with the result that they were rarely if ever used for habitation sites.

Soils at the current ridge sites, where habitation-related activities took place, are Lolekaa seriessilty clays, varying generally only in slope. The type soil (symbol “LoB,” Foote et al. 1972:83–84 andMap sheet 60) slopes 3–8%. “LoC” slopes 8–15%; “LoD” slopes 15–25%; and “LoE,” which occursprimarily on the steep south bank of Luluku Stream near Site 4485, slopes 25–40%. The threetraditional sites discussed here occupy slopes between 3 and 25%.

The Lolekaa silty clays on these ridges have formed on the old, gravelly colluvium that hasbeen mentioned. They are very well-drained, which would make them attractive for occupation in thisrainy area. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard is slightto severe, depending on slope; many site areas eroded rapidly, especially after rains, during fieldwork.Soils in the series are used for house sites today in steep areas; and for pasture, papaya (Carica papaya)cultivation, truck crops, and banana cultivation in more level areas.


VEGETATION AND FAUNA

For full lists of vegetation observed in the Interchange during the earlier survey, see Allen (ed.1987:Table 2). The area is located within Ripperton and Hosaka’s (1942:27–29, map) Vegetation ZoneD-1, which is characterized by shrub and closed forest and was found at that time below 457 masl;closed forest is probably considerably higher upslope today. Dominant trees in Zone D-1 include(exotic) common guava (Psidium guajava), endemic ‘öhi‘a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) at upperelevations, and isolated clusters of Polynesian-introduced kukui (Aleurites moluccana) and the possiblyindigenous hala (Pandanus tectorius).

A number of mango (manakö, Mangifera indica) trees visible as young roadside plantings inearly U.S. Geological Survey aerial photographs (U.S. Geological Survey 1926–1928; e.g., Allen, ed.1987:Figure 4b) are now huge, old trees that dominate segments of upper Luluku Road (Site 2463Feature 2) and other areas (Chapter 2). Cultivated bananas grew at Sites 4483–4485 as the currentproject began. Most natural vegetation today is exotic; guava and Christmas berry (wilelaiki, Schinusterebinthifolius) dominate many areas. As Chapters 3 and 4 indicate, Polynesian introductions including‘öhi‘a ‘ai (Syzygium malaccense; mountain apple), kukui, kï (Cordyline fruticosa), and ‘ape (Alocasiamacrorrhiza) were noted at Site 4483; and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, at Site 4484. The only native plant observed atthe sites was hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), which grew at Site 4483 (Chapter 3). ‘Öhi‘a lehua, anotherendemic, grows upslope, on the slopes of Red Dirt Hill, the ridge that dominates the entire area.

Except perhaps for certain insects, all fauna observed at the current sites have been introducedto Hawai‘i since Contact. Mammals seen at Sites 4483 and 4485 during fieldwork included Indianmongooses (Herpestes javanicus; Wilson and Reeder 1993:305) and feral cats (Felis catus). Birdsincluded shama thrushes (Copsychus malabaricus), red-vented bulbuls (Pycnonotus cafer), and cattleegrets (Bubulcus ibis) (Hawaii Audubon Society 1975).

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE AREA:

LEGENDARY AND TRADITIONAL SITES

Many research projects have now been completed in upland Käne‘ohe, and a wide range of sites,features, and portable finds has been reported in the literature. The most significant finds, in terms ofthe research questions that guided the present project (see below), are summarized here, drawing onprevious reviews including those in Allen (ed. 1987:29–33) and Allen (1992b:12–15).

EARLY FINDS AND REPORTS OF LEGENDARY SITES

Although the full range of sites that were occupied in this upland area before and shortly after Contact has been revealed only during recent projects, most conducted in connection withconstruction of Interstate Highway H-3, certain sites, especially heiau, were described in the early yearsof this century throughout Käne‘ohe (Figure 1.4). Thrum (1906:48; 1938:136) briefly described

Figure 1.4. Locations of some early finds and legendary sites in Käne‘ohe ahupua‘a, known prior to 1970.


Kawa‘ewa‘e Heiau, across Kamehameha Highway from the Interchange project area, as a large walledheiau luakini (sacrificial temple; see Terminology) built by Olopana ca. A.D. 1100. McAllister(1933:179–180) described it further and published a sketch plan. The structure is today tended and caredfor on a volunteer basis by members of the local community.

In 1915 Thrum (1915:90) mentioned two former heiau on Mökapu Peninsula, one of them onthe summit of Pu‘u Hawai‘iloa in Käne‘ohe, and added to his mainland Käne‘ohe list five heiau:Kaluaolomana, a walled structure at Pu‘uwaniania (possibly in Kailua; Shimizu 1980:Table 9);Maunahuia (later spelled “Maunahinia” [Thrum 1938:137], at the foot of the pali in Wa[i]kaluawaho;Kuakala, in Waikalua near the coast; Pule, in Kea‘ahala near the Ko‘olau Range and thought connectedwith Kuakala; and, in the Interchange project area as it was mapped for the 1984–1985 archaeologicalsurvey (Allen, ed. 1987), Kukuiokäne Heiau, a large platform heiau in Luluku ‘ili that was beingdestroyed when he wrote.

By 1930, when McAllister visited the site, Kukuiokäne Heiau had been destroyed for pineapple(Ananas comosus; Neal 1965:176) cultivation, leaving “ploughed-up remains” that included the ruinsof large walls and several terraces. This site, McAllister’s Site 340, had been the largest and mostimportant heiau in Käne‘ohe; its destruction was blamed by some local residents for the failure of thepineapple crops that supplanted it (McAllister 1933:177).

Kukuiokäne Heiau and adjacent sites in both Luluku and Punalu‘u Mauka ‘ili have beeninvestigated extensively during the H-3 Highway research projects (Allen, ed. 1987:42–43, 94–102,174–179; Davis 1988, 1989; Williams 1989a, 1992a); details are presented later in this section.McAllister’s Site 340 (also, State Site 2038; G5-106) and Site 2076 (G5-110), in Luluku, almostcertainly represent damaged and often relocated remains of the heiau. Williams believes that Site 1888(G5-86), a terrace site with a charcoal kiln and a trail located in Punalu‘u Mauka, the next ‘ili to thenorth, is also a component of the temple. Allen and Davis disagree with Williams’ interpretationregarding Site 1888, concluding that it is a dryland agricultural site. The site was, however, cultivatedthroughout a long period that included the period of heiau use nearby and may possibly, at that time,have produced crops destined for the heiau.

A fourth site, Site 1889 (G5-87), a multi-component linear rock mound/wall, follows orparallels closely the Luluku/Punalu‘u Mauka ‘ili boundary, between Sites 1888 and 2038/2076, and isapparently an ‘ili boundary feature that later became a post-Contact private property marker. In additionto pre-Contact components, both Sites 1888 and 1889 incorporate significant post-Contact features,respectively a charcoal kiln excavated into one of the agricultural terraces, and a metal fenceline withposts made of railroad ties.

McAllister (1933:177–182) and Sterling and Summers (1978:205–211, Ko‘olau Poko map)described other heiau, fishponds, and occasionally sites of other types for areas throughout Käne‘ohe.Sites and special places in Käne‘ohe west of Kamehameha Highway, near the current project area,include McAllister’s Site 338, Papua‘a a Käne: the legendary pigpen of Käne, described as a level areabelow Pu‘u KeahiaKahoe (Pukui et al. 1974; also spelled “Keahiakahoe”). Site 339 is described as theconfluence of Hi‘ilaniwai, Kahuaiki, and Mämalahoa Streams. As mentioned, Mämalahoa is the branchof Luluku Stream where the Luluku water tunnels are located; the other streams, however, are tributariesto Kamo‘oali‘i Stream, located southeast of the confluence of Luluku and Kamo‘oali‘i Streams andsoutheast of the current project area (Kelly 1987:Figure 107; Sterling and Summers1978:Ko‘olau Poko map).


Site 340, Kukuiokäne Heiau, has been introduced. Site 341, Kumukumu Spring, is locatedbeside Site 1890 (G5-88), a family cemetery and possible heiau in Punalu‘u Mauka at its boundary withKapalai, and was reportedly associated with Kukuiokäne (McAllister 1933:177). Site 358 was describedby McAllister (1933:182) as a possible house site or possibly a heiau in an area dominated by fourcoconut (niu, Cocos nucifera) trees, and mangoes and much pandanus (hala).

Three additional sites in the area include Sterling and Summers’ (1978:219–220, Ko‘olau Pokomap) Site 11, reportedly the ruins of a heiau where a legendary priest who had served Kana, possiblyKäne, once lived. The mapped location of this apparently destroyed site is northeast of theKamo‘oali‘i/Kahuaiki Stream confluence. Site 12, a “destroyed or non-archaeological site,” was mappedby Sterling and Summers in the upper Mämalahoa catchment; no description seems to be included inthe volume. Site 13 is another lost heiau, located at the Käne‘ohe/Kailua ahupua‘a boundary.

Kekele, at the foot of the Nu‘uanu pali, was once an extensive pandanus grove mentioned “inold songs and traditions as the sweet land of fragrance and perfume” (Sterling and Summers 1978:221,citing an 1883 source). Rose (1996:39–41) retells legends including one that describes the grove as thehome of Ka‘ulu, a culture hero and the son of Kü and Hina in their manifestations as woodland deities.Kekele was named after Ka‘ulu’s beautiful wife, whose favorite flowers and vines had included hala,maile (Alyxia oliviformis), and ‘ie‘ie (Freycinetia arborea). The grove was fast disappearing by 1866,the result of grazing by animals including cattle and horses, and is now present only as remnants in theeastern portion of Ho‘omaluhia Botanical Garden (Devaney et al. 1982:221; Kelly 1987:289).

Finally, among these early-recorded sites, McAllister (1933:176), although he did not describeagricultural sites in the area in detail, briefly mentioned a set of old, rectangular taro terraces, thenneglected and in swampy ground. And Handy (1940:97) recorded Käne‘ohe’s “complicated terraceareas,” which were still cultivated, although commercially, when he wrote.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS SINCE 1970

Although much of the research conducted in Käne‘ohe since 1970 has been conducted by BishopMuseum in conjunction with construction planning for Interstate Highway H-3, several other projectshave also contributed to what is now an impressive body of archaeological information (Figure 1.5).The results of research in the highway corridor are summarized here, and nearby or possibly related sitesare briefly described as background for the site reports and conclusions concerning land use that arepresented in Chapters 2–7.

For brevity’s sake, sites on Mökapu Peninsula, which is located offshore and is not clearlyrelated to the current site area, are not reviewed in detail. The area incorporates large traditionalHawaiian burial grounds in dunes along the east and north shores; temporary habitation sites, mostcoastal, represented by extensive cultural layers containing artifacts and midden; large fishpondsbetween the peninsula and the O‘ahu mainland; and now-buried salt pans near the east dune and beach(e.g., Allen and Schilz 1997:16–39; Davis et al. 1976; Price-Beggerly 1987; Tuggle and Hommon1986).

Figure 1.5. Locations of some sites and project areas relating to archaeological workconducted in Käne‘ohe ahupua‘a, since 1970.


The following summary begins in the north and east and ends with important new informationreported by Meeker (1995) concerning sites in the Minami Golf Course, above the H-3 corridor nearthe Käne‘ohe/Kailua ahupua‘a boundary.

Site 2937 (G5-101). Northeast of the corridor, in coastal Käne‘ohe, Clark and Riford (1986;also, Kurashina et al. 1986) investigated an important site (Bishop Museum Site G5-101) on an oldstream terrace between the mouths of Käwä and Kamo‘oali‘i (Käne‘ohe) Streams, near WaikaluaFishpond. During initial survey, Site G5-101 produced 187 lithic artifacts, and charcoal from a pitfeature associated with Layer II, the deeper of two main cultural layers, produced a 740±90conventional (12C/13C-corrected, as defined by Taylor 1987:4) radiocarbon age, a possible A.D.1070–1390 calibrated range (Clark and Riford 1986:6–7). Further excavation revealed 37 features, mostof them postmolds associated with Layer II. Layer Ib, within the upper cultural layer, also containedpit features, which included two human burials.

In all, the site produced eight post-Contact artifacts (four in one of the burial pits); 314 piecesof volcanic glass; eight traditional bone artifacts; and 12,288 basalt artifacts, of which 98.8% arediagnostic flakes and flake fragments. Formal basalt tools include, among others, grinding stones,hammerstones, and adze preforms of types considered stylistically early in Hawai‘i. The basalts usedprobably include both local material and rock quarried at Waiähole Quarry, further north along thecoast.

Layer Ib produced a 220 ± 60 age. Additional charcoal submitted for radiocarbon datinganalysis from Layer II produced a 700 ± 80 B.P. conventional age, very close to the one obtainedearlier. This site is one of the earliest lithic sites recorded in the area. As discussed by Dolan in Chapter3 here, Site 4483, which also contained extensive lithic deposits, produced much later dates. Thepresence at Site G5-101 of many postmolds and other pit features in Layer II, overlain by probablesubfloor burials in Layer I suggests first repeated temporary occupation for toolmaking, and later long-term habitation at this well-situated site (Clark and Riford 1986:103–104, 109–110).

Sites nearby include lithic scatters, walled agricultural fields, Kalaoa Heiau, a ditch, otherponds, and various post-Contact sites.

Sites in Käne‘ohe Interchange and Other H-3 Corridor Segments in Käne‘ohe. Within thehighway corridor, Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane (1976) surveyed (in six days) the entire right-of-wayfrom Halekou Interchange in the south to the windward portal of the Trans-Ko‘olau Tunnel in the north.They located four sites, all in Käne‘ohe: Sites 1902 (G5-68), incorporating a single platform andmounds; 1903 (G5-69), at the time thought to contain only three mounds and two platforms (it actuallyincorporates approximately 20 features: Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees,1989–1993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu); 1904 (G5-70), a wallsegment that is actually located in He‘eia and should have a “G4-” Museum number (Williams1991:10); and 1905 (G5-71, at that time numbered G5-67), incorporating platforms and enclosures withan upright. Sites 1902 and 1905 are located within Käne‘ohe Interchange.

Dye (1977) tested Sites 1903 and 1905 and concluded that the former was a group of clearingmounds. At Site 1905, he recovered, from beneath a boulder that was part of the structure, a blue-and-white ceramic sherd (recently identified as Chinese Kitchen Qing, probably eighteenth- or earlynineteenth-century; Allen, ed. 1994:Chapter 6, Figures 216, 217) and suggested that the site was a housesite. As the result of more recent research, Site 1905 is now known to be a cemetery.


Streck (1982) surveyed an alternate route (not selected) for the highway alignment from a pointnear Wilson Tunnel in the south to Käne‘ohe Interchange, recording 12 sites, Sites 2143 through 2154(G5-73 through G5-84). Surface features included primarily terraces, channels, and rock mounds,facings, walls, and alignments; most of these appeared associated with traditional Hawaiian or post-Contact agriculture. McMahon (1988), surveying along Likelike and Kahekili Highways, located nonew surface sites in areas including Kapalai ‘ili but revisited Sites 1890 and 1891, the familycemetery/possible heiau described earlier and an adjacent ‘ili boundary wall between Punalu‘u Maukaand Kapalai.

The following documents describe sites investigated in Highway H-3-related project areas inKäne‘ohe between 1977 and 1992: Allen (1990a–c, 1991, 1992a–b); Allen (ed. 1987); Allen-Wheeler(1984, 1985a–b); Applied Research Group (1985); Neller 1985; Riford (1986a–b, 1987, 1989); andWilliams (1989a–c, 1990, 1991, 1992a, and portions of 1992b). Mitigation-phase findings (as explainedearlier, the results of data recovery and interpretive, preservation-related investigations) will bediscussed in future reports and are not discussed in any detail here.

The largest group of Käne‘ohe sites reported to date includes the sites investigated by Allen (ed.1987) during the expanded inventory survey within the Interchange that took place in 1984 and 1985.Seventeen sites were recorded and mapped, and National Register of Historic Places nomination formswere completed for all 17 (Applied Research Group 1985). Two additional sites and several featureswithin the largest site, Site 1887 (G5-85), were surveyed in areas outside but near the Interchange(Riford 1987).

The 17 sites located in the Interchange in 1987 include two researched earlier by Cleghorn andRogers-Jourdane (1976) and Dye (1977): Sites 1902 and 1905. Site 1905, as the result of mitigation-phase research within the Interchange (report in preparation at the Museum), is now known to housea post-Contact cemetery.

The other 15 sites (Sites 1887 through 1901; G5-85 through G5-99), all newly documented in1984–1985, include three ‘ili boundary walls, each with an associated road or trail (Sites 1887, 1889,1892), and, from north to south: in Kea‘ahala, a valley floor clearing mound and platform site (Site1893); in Pa‘u, a charcoal kiln misidentified at the time as a seepage well (Site 1901); in Punalu‘uMauka, the large dryland agricultural complex mentioned earlier (Site 1888), a post-Contact artifactconcentration (Site 1892), and the possible family heiau (Site 1890); and, in Luluku, seven sites.

The newly documented Luluku sites include one of the largest pondfield complexes on O‘ahu(Site 1887), two post-Contact artifact concentrations (Sites 1895, 1896), a post-Contact site with rockfeatures and roads that occupies portions of two ridges (Site 1897), a ridgetop mound and a bombshelter at the base of the steep slope below it (Site 1898), a ridgetop rock enclosure (Site 1899), and along linear rock mound near a rock dam and a road (Site 1900). As a brief preview, mitigation-phaseresearch uncovered, among other finds, fire features and post-Contact burials at Site 1897, a charcoalkiln at Site 1898, and pre-Contact lithics and a post-Contact cemetery at Site 1899.

The two sites outside the Interchange, in Luluku and Kahuauli ‘ili, include Site 1967 (G5-105),an agricultural clearing mound site containing primarily post-Contact artifacts and features but alsomounds that may predate Contact; and Site 2199 (G5-125, called G5-106 at the time), a post-Contactsite that includes, among other features, a former bridge on a road connected with the current Site 2463Feature 1 banana road network, and probably built to haul pineapple (see Chapters 2, 7).

Three agricultural sites, Sites 1887, 1888, and 1893, respectively the large pondfield site, thelarge dryland terrace site, and the valley dryland site with clearing mounds and a platform, were tested


during inventory survey. Site 1887 produced 15 conventional ages ranging from 1560 ± 100 to 160 ±60 B.P.; although, as mentioned, certain dates have been disputed (e.g., Spriggs and Anderson 1993),the overall sequence suggests that the site may have been cultivated before A.D. 700, saw peak usearound A.D. 1250–1450, and continued in use into the early post-Contact era. Historical data suggestuse of certain portions of the complex in mid-nineteenth century, when the land redistribution knownas the Mahele took place. Site 1888 produced an 880 ± 90 B.P. conventional radiocarbon age oncharcoal collected from a buried dryland field. Site 1893 was not dated, but its contents suggest that itmay postdate Contact.

As mentioned earlier, Williams (1989a, 1992a) researched two sites above Likelike Highway,Sites 2038 and 2076, that probably represent the remnants of Kukuiokäne Heiau and associated features.Site 2038 incorporates 26 features, including wall remnants, mounds, and low terraces, and a largeplatform remnant (Feature 20) that, on excavation, produced 33 pieces of branch coral, a finding uniquein the Interchange; as well as an imu, and a rich assortment of artifacts. Site 2038 produced a total of255 artifacts of traditional Hawaiian types that include poi (taro paste) pounders and adzes, as well asmany basalt and volcanic glass flakes (Williams 1989a:18, 1992a:54–57, Table 11), and that includetools made of both local basalts and basalts that were probably quarried as far away as the Wai‘anaeRange on O‘ahu, the south shore of Kaua‘i, and the Mauna Kea quarry on Hawai‘i Island (Johnson1994).

Williams (1989b–c, 1990, 1992b) also directed surface survey, testing, and monitoring, withdata recovery in certain cases, in other portions of the Highway H-3 right-of-way. In Käne‘ohe, his teaminvestigated a total of 45 sites, both surface sites and large numbers of sites that had been completelyburied by colluvial sediments 10 to 150 cm (centimeters) thick. Buried sites were encountered notonly in low-lying areas, where site burial beneath sediments had been expected, but also onridgetops. The most common buried features were imu and smaller firepits, but architecturalfeatures including a rock paving and terraces were also found beneath later sediments on ridges(Williams 1992b:69).

Williams (1992b) analyzed 54 radiocarbon dates processed for 40 upland Käne‘ohe sites,including Sites 1887 and 1888 and the newly discovered buried sites. The dates suggest that agricultureand use of isolated earth ovens, which had probably begun earlier, increased by A.D. 1000; thatpermanent habitation sites were established by or before A.D. 1200; and that Kukuiokäne Heiauprobably began use as a heiau ca. A.D. 1300 (Williams 1992b:71, 75).

In summary, 85 sites have been investigated in Käne‘ohe since 1976 in connection with theplanned construction of Highway H-3. Thirty-five have been discussed here by number: Cleghorn andRogers-Jourdane’s (1976) and Dye’s (1977) four sites (1902–1905); Streck’s (1982) 12 sites(2143–2154); Allen (ed. 1987; Riford 1987) 17 new Interchange and adjacent sites (1887–1901, 1967,and 2199); and, Williams’ (1989a, 1992a) two Kukuiokäne-related sites (2038 and 2076).

The 50 remaining sites include 45 for which reports are in preparation at the Museum, plus Site2462 (G5-155), with agricultural terraces, possible pre-Contact deposits, and post-Contact components(Allen 1992b); and the four sites reported here.

The 45 H-3-related sites in Käne‘ohe for which Museum reports are in preparation includeSites 2039–2040 (G5-107 and G5-108), 2077 (G5-111), 2084–2086 and 2087 (G5-112 through G5-114 and G5-109), 2156–2165 (G5-115 through G5-124), 2200–2219 (G5-126 through G5-145),2247–2251 (G5-147 through G5-151), and 2258–2260 (G5-156 through G5-158) (Williams 1989a–c,1990, 1992a–b, 1993; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 1989–1993 field


notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). The majority of the features at most ofthese sites are firepits. Site 2204 is an extensive buried ridge site containing a rock paving, several pitfeatures, and large numbers of lithic artifacts, especially volcanic glass flakes; nine conventionalradiocarbon ages processed for this site range between 770 ± 60 and 60 ± 50 B.P., with most predatingContact (Williams 1992b). Three sites (2039, 2161, and 2213) are post-Contact charcoal kilns thatresemble kilns described in Chapters 3 and 4 here. Other sites include clearing mounds, terraces, otheragricultural features, and charcoal concentrations.

Sites Located Outside the Highway Corridor in South Käne‘ohe. In the 1970s, investigationsof the upper Kamo‘oali‘i Stream catchment, southeast of the Interchange, conducted by Bishop Museumfor the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, resulted in the recording of post-Contact house sites, agriculturalsites, and charcoal kilns; and rock alignments, ditches, and agricultural complexes that probably includepre-Contact sites and features (McCoy and Sinoto 1976; Rosendahl 1976). Two charcoal kilns, BishopMuseum Sites G5-53 and G5-61, remain attractions for visitors to Ho‘omaluhia Botanical Garden.

Five sites were identified in areas near the H-3 corridor: two terrace complexes, a disturbedterrace with rock mounds; a rock alignment, and a retaining wall. Like the Luluku sites, they representpredominantly agricultural land use; most probably predate Contact, as suggested tentatively byMcCoy’s (1976) testing results at Site G5-54, the most extensive terrace set. Most fields are probablypondfield terraces, as suggested by closely spaced and uniformly built terrace sets visible in the earlyU.S. Geological Survey (1926–1928; e.g., Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 4a) aerial photographs of the area.

Szabian et al. (1989), during reconnaissance survey in an area dominated by two mainstreams and several tributaries, east of Kamehameha Highway near Kamo‘oali‘i Stream, revisitedKawa‘ewa‘e Heiau, which had been described earlier by Thrum and McAllister (see Early Finds andReports of Legendary Sites, above) and recorded 11 additional sites containing 25 features. The featuresinclude walls, mounds, and especially terrace sets. The terrace sets probably include both dryland andpondfield complexes; most appear likely to predate Contact, based on surface characteristics.

Most recently, survey, monitoring, and data recovery conducted by International ArchaeologicalResearch Institute in the Minami Golf Course project area, upslope above the highway corridor (Meeker1995; also, Shun et al. 1987), have documented 22 sites, including one (4115) near Site 2204 (G5-130), Williams’ buried ridge site with rock pavement, pit features, and lithics. The golf course areais generally moderately sloped, although occasionally steep, and is crossed by many small tributarieson their way to Kamo‘oali‘i Stream. The sites are located in both Käne‘ohe and Kailua ahupua‘a asthose two land units are mapped today; Meeker (1995:3–4), citing the interpretations of otherresearchers including Devaney et al. (1982:Figure 1) and Sterling and Summers (1978:Ko‘olau Pokomap), suggests that the ahupua‘a boundary may once have been located further east, which would haveplaced all the golf course sites, and most of the Kamo‘oali‘i catchment, in Käne‘ohe (cf. Klieger1996:8).

The Minami sites include four lithic sites (Sites 2150, 4115, 4128, 4133); a boundary wall thatprobably postdates Contact (Site 2941); a terrace complex located near a stream and interpreted as apossible pondfield complex (Site 2938); a set of 11 terraces (Site 4114) described as a drylandagricultural complex (but see below); three rock mounds (Site 4203), apparently a dryland agriculturalsite; one habitation terrace with associated rock paving and a charcoal kiln (Site 2940); six firepits (Sites4120, 4148, 4184–4187); and seven charcoal kilns (Sites 2939–2940, 4067, 4113, 4129, 4149, 4223).

Of the lithic sites, Site 4133 is interpreted as containing too few lithic artifacts to suggest aworkshop (Healan’s [1995] lithic reduction locus: a bounded area where lithic reduction or specialized


tool manufacture, or both, took place); it is dominated by firepits and postmolds. Site 4128 Feature 29,a firepit spatially separate from the lithic concentrations at this site but probably associated, producedtaro, kï, and häpu‘u (Cibotium sp.) and produced a 610 ± 100 B.P. conventional radiocarbon age, a datenearly as early as the date discussed earlier for Site G5-101 in coastal Käne‘ohe (Clark and Riford 1986;Meeker 1995:55–60, 72). The four lithic sites in all produced twelve radiocarbon dates, seven fairlycertainly pre-Contact.

One of the most interesting sites in terms of relationships to site use and dating in Käne‘oheInterchange is Site 4114, the set of 11 terraces tentatively interpreted as a dryland complex, whichproduced an 890 ± 80 B.P. conventional radiocarbon age on bulk soil collected from Layer IIa, theagricultural layer. Site soils, analyzed by myself and others, lack strong signs of saturation and irrigationsuch as gleying, which has probably been lost since abandonment because of the site’s current high anddry location. But, based on the site’s proximity to a stream, evidence for close control over terrace sizesand slopes, and signs of washouts during flooding in spite of this close control, I believe this site wasprobably a pondfield complex irrigated from the adjacent stream, before it downcut to its current level.The lack of an obvious ‘auwai may be more apparent than real, as colluvial sediments cover the site’supstream border, where any ‘auwai would have been located. Although, as Meeker suggests (1995:46),the ‘auwai supplying the site from this site would probably need to tap water some distance upstream,long ditches are not unusual in terrace sets in windward O‘ahu.

Evidence from this site, whether it was irrigated or not, suggests that terraced agriculture wasbeing conducted even beside this upslope tributary in an area that was not apparently part of the coreKäne‘ohe agricultural zone sometime between ca. A.D. 978 and 1279 (Meeker 1995:Table 10), as thepeak period began in Luluku, in the core area. Paralleling Site 1887’s temporal priority in theInterchange project area, Site 4114 produced the earliest date obtained in the Minami project area,reinforcing archaeological and historical evidence that Käne‘ohe was first and foremost an agriculturalarea during traditional, pre-Contact times. One of the most interesting questions concerning Sites4483–4485 and the other lithic and ridge sites in the area is how, or whether, they fit into thepredominantly agricultural picture. They might, alternatively, have been used in connection with themaintenance and use of Kukuiokäne Heiau (which may have been agricultural), with forest productcollection, or with the quarrying of lithic material for toolmaking.


OVERVIEW: ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND ETHNOHISTORICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING

POST-CONTACT LAND USE

This section briefly introduces certain prominent archaeological site and feature types that appeared inupland Käne‘ohe during the post-Contact era and reviews the historical and ethnohistorical informationfor land use in this portion of the ahupua‘a.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR NEW TYPES OF LAND USE FOLLOWING CONTACT

During the post-Contact era, several new site and feature types appeared in upland Käne‘ohe, and otherscontinued in use, with certain changes. Among the most prominent, cemeteries containing coffin burialshave been documented, largely during mitigation-phase research, at Sites 1890, 1899, and 1905 in theInterchange. Isolated post-Contact human and pet burials are also known, as at Site 1897.

Other common post-Contact feature types include charcoal kilns, which had been excavated intothe bases of hill slopes throughout the area: in the Minami project area; in the area now covered byHo‘omaluhia Park; and, in the Interchange, at Sites 1887, 1888, 1898 (report pending), 1901, and now4483 and 4484. Charcoal preparation, primarily using guava wood, was both a family practice and acottage industry; it remains uncertain whether the recorded kilns, and the associated collection of guavawood, were one of the main reasons for habitation in the area or were built by families who lived inupland Käne‘ohe for other purposes.

‘Ökolehao stills (see Chapter 5) were probably not associated with house sites. Production ofthe liquor was illegal, and stills were generally as well-hidden from the law as possible (e.g., Allenn.d.).

Other post-Contact feature types include ‘ili and other boundary structures (e.g., Sites 1889,1891, 1894). Boundary walls and fences became common as land use in Hawai‘i increasinglyemphasized private property. Roads like the banana roads at the current sites were built and occasionallypaved, serving primarily private lands. These roads (e.g., Kapalai Road: see Chapter 2) often followedland unit boundaries, and may have followed the paths of old trails.

Traditional lithic workshop areas may have continued in use for toolmaking well into the post-Contact era; post-Contact materials were often discarded on the old workshop floors (see Site 4483,Chapter 3), either during toolmaking or after traditional use had ceased. Firepits and imu were also usedfor discard at many sites including Sites 1895–1897 and 4483–4485 in the Interchange.

The ceramic, glass, metal, and other items discarded at sites in the Interchange project area oftendate to the late nineteenth or the early twentieth century. It is not known whether this discard wasproduced by house sites, few of which have been documented in this upland area even for this latestperiod; or whether the bottles and other trash may have been left by people who lived elsewhere. Alarge, twentieth-century dump on old Luluku Road was used by local banana farmers and other arearesidents until the Highway H-3 Käne‘ohe Interchange construction project was well underway.


Most residential and other land use in upland Käne‘ohe after Contact, as before it, was probablyagriculturally related. Rice, pineapple, and banana cultivation eventually dominated many areasformerly in taro and sweet potato. Certain terraces at Sites 1887 and 1888 were in use into the mid-nineteenth century and were claimed at Mahele, as will be discussed by Klieger (1996) in theirwindward Highway H-3 project history report, which will be the most thorough history to date forKäne‘ohe and He‘eia.

HISTORICAL AND ETHNOHISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR POST-CONTACT LAND USE IN UPLAND KÄNE‘OHE

Klieger’s (1996) report, currently in draft status, compiles detailed textual, ethnohistorical, mapping,and photographic information concerning areas throughout both Käne‘ohe and He‘eia ahupua‘a,including areas on mainland O‘ahu and also Moku o Lo‘e (Coconut Island) and Mökapu Peninsula.Rose (1996), in the same report, also provides a review of legendary information that relates legend toreality in the two ahupua‘a and explains the reasons for the importance of the legends.

Certain other reports also provide useful information concerning Käne‘ohe generally, as wellas areas within the Highway H-3 corridor. Many aspects of Käne‘ohe’s history have been detailed, anda photographic record published, by Devaney et al. (1982). Kelly (1987) summarizes informationregarding certain Land Commission Awards (LCA) granted at Mahele. Allen (ed. 1987:27–29, 49,56–57, Figure 16) review certain information and plot the approximate locations of kuleana awardedin the main agricultural area in the Interchange project area over a current map of Site 1887, the largepondfield site.

Leidemann brings together in Chapter 2 here a large body of information concerning the Site2463 road networks, which, as indicated, have served the project area for many years. Dolan andLeidemann, in Chapters 3–5, review post-Contact information concerning Sites 4483–4485, the Lulukuridge sites. And, finally, Klieger (1996) are completing a map of LCA properties throughout Luluku;that map, when complete, used in conjunction with the maps of other Käne‘ohe ‘ili and Klieger andParry’s (1996) Chapter 6 and Appendix B, will do much to explain how various portions of uplandKäne‘ohe were used at mid-nineteenth century.

This section, rather than repeating details that are available in the reports just cited, brieflyreviews certain points to clarify changes and continuities in nineteenth-century land use in the area.

Land Ownership in Luluku ‘Ili at Mahele. Luluku at Mahele was classified as Ahupua‘a VI(Lyons 1876; portion reprinted, Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 5). As Klieger and Parry (1996:38) explain, thatmeant that, except for 10 awarded kuleana, it belonged to Queen Kalama. The 10 awarded propertiesincluded six along Luluku Stream, which are reviewed below; LCA 4491, which included land furthersouth, near the Luluku/Kahuauli ‘ili boundary and in Kuou, south of Kahuauli; LCA 2589 byKamo‘oali‘i Stream; LCA 2539 in a lele (separate portion; see Terminology) of Luluku in Kuou ‘ili;and LCA 2539B, in Luluku (Klieger and Parry 1996:38–41).

The six awarded kuleana that included land along Luluku Stream, listed approximately fromwest to east, are: LCA 2574 ‘Äpana 1–3 to Hewahewanui (kula land [unirrigated fields], followingKlieger and Parry 1996:38); LCA 4490 to Kawelau (18 lo‘i and kula fields); LCA 7619 to Kikane (kulaland and at least seven lo‘i, which apparently included the upper terraces below Likelike Highway atSite 1887; LCA 2514 to Makaiohua (34 lo‘i, apparently the lower terraces at Site 1887, and kula land);LCA 4223 to Kapawa (26 lo‘i, kula land, and citrus trees); and LCA 4225 ‘Äpana 1 and 2 to Kaneihoe


(a house site that may have been located at Site 1897, and six lo‘i) (Kelly 1987; Klieger and Parry 1996;also, see Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 16).

The four remaining kuleana were located nearby. In the northern portion of the ‘ili, where thecurrent ridge sites are located, no kuleana were awarded or apparently even claimed at Mahele. Luluku’sfirst and foremost use in the mid-nineteenth century remained agricultural. As the twentieth centuryapproached, the crops were to change, but agriculture remained dominant.

Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Land Use in Luluku. Land use in Luluku sinceMahele has included specialized activities. Charcoal kilns produced guava charcoal for heating andcooking purposes in the days before gridded electricity was introduced in some areas in Käne‘ohe, ca.1922. Rock was reportedly quarried and worked into stone tools in Luluku by a local resident earlierin the current century, leaving lithic debris at Site 1887 Feature 109 (Riford 1987:190–191), as well asSites 2038 and 2076 (G5-106 and 110) (Williams 1989a:18). And Luluku had its stills (see Chapter 5).

Even most non-agricultural land use in Luluku, however, was connected with farming. AsLeidemann explains in Chapter 2, many of the roads in the area were cut to provide access to Luluku’spineapple or banana farms. The house site awarded to Kaneihoe at Mahele (LCA 4225) appears likelyto have been located at Site 1897; the location was probably selected to keep his residence close to hissix lo‘i. And the houses in Luluku today almost without exception belong to banana farmers.

Edmund Haitsuka, a taro farmer who has lived in the area for a long time, and Richard Miller,another long-term resident, recalled during interviews (Allen, ed. 1987:Appendix I) that the localsequence of crops in the early twentieth century began with rice, which had probably been cultivatedin lower Luluku, near today’s Ho‘omaluhia Botanical Garden, since ca. 1870, when many old taro fieldswere converted to the new crop. Next came pineapple, which was grown on the slopes above LikelikeHighway, almost to the pali, into the 1920s.

Many rice paddies were converted to commercial taro by the 1920s, as the market for Hawaiianrice declined (Kelly 1987:295); Mr. Haitsuka thinks the taro was Chinese taro. Many, although not all,of the new taro farmers were Chinese immigrants. As the rice paddies were converted to taro, thepineapple fields, further upslope, were converted to banana cultivation; this change took place around1918–1919. Commercial banana cultivation was initiated primarily by Japanese immigrants, who beganto settle in the area in significant numbers in 1919–1920, and who are credited with introducingdiversified agriculture to the area (Allen n.d.; Kelly 1987:295). Eugene Honda, a local banana farmer,recalls that large banana plantations began operation in the 1930s (Kelly 1987:296).

The only one of these crops still thriving in Luluku today is banana, which grows not only informer pineapple lands but also, luxuriantly, on the old taro terraces at Site 1887, producing the applebananas that are so popular locally.

The background information that has been summarized here suggested, and helped refine, theresearch goals and questions that guided investigations at Sites 2463 and 4483–4485, as well as othersites in the Interchange project area. The current project’s research plans are considered next.


RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS, AND EVIDENCE NEEDED

With the exception of ten mitigation-phase units excavated at Site 4484, the research reported hereconsisted of monitoring and inventory survey. The discoveries were actually made, however, as themitigation phase of the research in the Interchange was beginning, and after the mitigation plans for theInterchange project area (Allen 1987, 1990a) had been completed. Since the mitigation plans containedmore up-to-date information than the much earlier survey plan (Allen-Wheeler 1985b), they were usedmore extensively than the survey-phase plan to guide the current research.

Since it would be repetitious to discuss here the research plans for all sites, for example thelarge valley agricultural sites that dominate the project area, this section summarizes only the researchproblems and goals that were expected to apply to Sites 2463 and 4483–4485. The questions that guidedthe research at the sites are then presented and discussed.

RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND GOALS

Agricultural sites dominate Luluku ‘ili and most surrounding areas, and, when the current ridge siteswere discovered, it appeared likely that they, like the road site (Site 2463), had been associated withtraditional agricultural practice in some way. The following paragraphs briefly review certaininformation concerning the development of intensive agriculture in the Interchange project area in orderto provide background information concerning the cultural context in which the current sites werethought to have functioned as the current project began.

As explained in the previous section, sites within the Interchange had already producedimportant information regarding Hawaiian agriculture during the pre- and early post-Contact periods.In particular, Site 1887 had produced surprisingly early dates, possibly A.D. 500–600, for initialpondfield cultivation in a complex of rock-faced terraces beside Luluku Stream, one of several uplandtributaries to Kamo‘oali‘i Stream and eventually Käne‘ohe Stream. Agriculture at this large siteexpanded through the years, in some upper areas beginning with dryland cultivation and intensifyingto irrigated agriculture.

Terrace construction and use at Site 1887 were apparently coordinated by A.D. 1200 or 1300,and the site achieved and maintained peak production between ca. A.D. 1250 and 1450 or 1500. Someevidence suggests that cultivation on most terraces ceased by A.D. 1650; other very large terraces,which seem to reflect poor water control, and efforts to produce too much too fast, probably continuedin use into the post-Contact period. As indicated, many areas of the site were later claimed at Mahele.Other valley and slope sites in the five ‘ili transected by the highway corridor, as well as historicalrecords, reinforce the evidence that this entire area was a core traditional agricultural zone.

Two general models have proven useful for describing the sequence of developments thattransformed Hawaiian culture and society between initial settlement of the islands and Contact. One isKirch’s (1985:297–308) cultural historical model, which begins with Colonization ca. A.D. 300–600;the Developmental Period followed, from A.D. 600 to 1100; the Expansion Period, from A.D. 1100 to1650; and the Proto-Historic Period, from A.D. 1650 through 1795. The second, more explanatory,model is Hommon’s (1976:224–278) scheme, which, as revised in 1986 (Hommon 1986), begins with


Colonization and Coastal Settlements, ca. A.D. 500–1400; Inland Expansion followed, from A.D. 1400to 1600; and Political Expansion, from A.D. 1600 to 1778.

Hommon (1976:225) predicted that it would eventually become possible to subdivide his A.D.500–1400 Colonization and Coastal Settlements phase, and Kirch (1985:303) anticipated eventualsubdivision of his A.D. 1100–1650 Expansion Period; both predictions have proven accurate. Asdiscussed by Allen et al. (2002:Chapter 9), increasing archaeological evidence now suggests that at leastfive “watershed” events occurred in Hawaiian economic and sociopolitical history.

These events, slightly revised here, are: A.D. 500–600 (Colonization); 1100 (AcceleratingInland Expansion); 1300 (Coordination of Economic Resources); 1600 (Ahupua‘a Fully Developed);and 1778 (Initial Contact). As these dates suggest, certain developments now appear likely to have takenplace earlier than once thought. Ahupua‘a development, a critical early step in the sociopolitical processthat eventually produced the Hawaiian state, may eventually be established at an even earlier date.

Agriculture in upland Käne‘ohe apparently began shortly after initial Colonization, earlier thanhad been expected, and probably peaked before the formalization of the ahupua‘a. I have suggestedelsewhere (Allen 1991) that the structures necessary for agricultural coordination, control of irrigationwater use, and centralization and redistribution of agricultural produce contributed importantly to thedevelopment of both the ahupua‘a and the Hawaiian state system of government, which grew out ofthe ahupua‘a. One of the goals of the current research, as suggested, was to determine whether, andhow, the ridge sites fit into this picture of agricultural coordination and political growth.

Although it is unlikely, in view of the dominance of agriculture throughout upland Käne‘ohe,that use of the ridge sites was entirely unassociated with agricultural activities, other possible site useswere considered as research continued. The three ridge sites might have been organized to facilitate useof rock quarries nearby. They might have been entirely the product of the collection of forest productsincluding plant foods, wood, and birds. And they might have been connected with the use andmaintenance of Kukuiokäne Heiau, a short distance upslope.

A related focus concerns the roads at Site 2463, which also appear primarily agricultural inorientation. One of the patterns documented for ahupua‘a on Hawai‘i Island is the occurrence of trailsbeside, and paralleling, ahupua‘a boundaries (e.g., Cordy and Kaschko 1980; Kaschko 1973; Kirch1985:266–270). These trails integrated upland and coastal resource areas, defining mauka-makaiprocurement routes that accompanied accelerating inland growth and eventually coordination ofresources; they may predate actual ahupua‘a development. In upland Käne‘ohe, several trails, and roadsthat may have been built where old trails were located, parallel ahupua‘a boundaries, at least in part.These features, here as on the island of Hawai‘i, may eventually provide important information as toearly, possibly pre-ahupua‘a resource procurement routes that led from coastal settlement to inlandfields and mountain forests.

A curbstone-lined mauka-makai trail assigned to Site 1888 (Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 6) parallelsat least part of the Luluku/Punalu‘u Mauka ‘ili boundary feature (Site 1889) on the Luluku side. A trailin Pa‘u parallels Site 1894, the Pa‘u/Kea‘ahala boundary feature. Of particular interest here, a longsegment of Kapalai Road, Site 2463 Feature 3, parallels the downslope portion of the Punalu‘uMauka/Kapalai ‘ili boundary wall in Kapalai (see Allen, ed. 1987:99, 254). And Luluku Road, Site2463 Feature 2, follows the Mahinui/Keapuka ‘ili boundary before entering the Interchange project areaand ending in what was, at Mahele, Makaiohua’s LCA 2514 (see Chapter 2). During the nineteenth andtwentieth centuries, roads may have replaced many trails in the area, and additional roads wereundoubtedly built to serve the private interests of new landowners in the area.


Chapter 2 documents what is known of the twentieth-century development of Luluku andKapalai Roads, as well as the banana (and probably pineapple) road network, both to illustrate recentchanges in the area and to provide baseline information that may eventually be related to earlier trails,and to ‘ili, ahupua‘a, and kuleana development. Two road segments were excavated to determinewhether any underlying structures could be identified.

As indicated, Sites 4483–4485 provided the first convincing evidence for pre-Contacthabitation, either temporary or permanent, in Luluku. As the current project began, it appeared likelythat most habitation during the pre-Contact period had been coastal, and that the cultivators of fieldsnearby had walked to their fields, staying in temporary inland shelters only during certain periods inthe cultivation cycle. The main goals of research at Sites 4483–4485, the three ridge sites, were, assuggested, to identify any signs of habitation at the sites; to define the nature of that habitation; tointerpret the relationships, temporal and functional, that existed between these sites and the largesurrounding agricultural sites; and to place these sites, which appeared somewhat rural and isolated,within the known economic and sociopolitical sequence that led to intensified inland use, ahupua‘adevelopment, and state emergence. Research at all the sites was interdisciplinary, emphasizing carefuland often innovative techniques in order to identify and explain past cultural and environmentalpatterns.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND EVIDENCE NEEDED

Chapters 2–6 summarize certain site-specific research questions and problems. One problem ofparticular interest, and that should be considered at sites investigated in the future, emerged after theproject began: that is the question, developed by Leidemann, concerning whether different fire featureshapes in cross section may represent either temporal or functional differences, or both.

The following research questions are based on those presented in Allen (1987), but are modifiedto decrease the mitigation plan’s emphasis on agriculture. The 1987 document generally guided researchat all the current sites, supplemented by non-agricultural questions that appear in print here for the firsttime but were instrumental in guiding research at the sites. The evidence needed in order to answer eachquestion is summarized below in each case; the evidence collected from the current sites is applied tothe questions in the Conclusion (Chapter 7).

1) When were the sites occupied? Were the occupations at these sites contemporaneous withuse of agricultural areas nearby, especially during the peak period of agricultural activity ca.A.D. 1250–1450? Did use continue into the post-Contact period (see Allen 1987: Questions7, 8; also, Allen-Wheeler 1985:1, 4–5)?

When the current project began, as indicated, it was expected that early cultivators of fieldsnearby had lived at the coast, using field shelters when necessary; it was suggested that any long-termhabitation in the area would postdate A.D. 1200 or 1300, “by which time a sophisticated system ofsociopolitical control facilitated the collection and redistribution of goods … and cultivators may havebeen required to live near their fields for purposes of maximal productivity” (Allen 1987:10–11).


The evidence needed to address this question includes primarily datable charcoal, soils, andother materials collected from carefully defined stratigraphic contexts that represent habitation (seeQuestion 2). For the most recent period, post-Contact artifacts assignable to manufacture source anddate were used to date the sites, and historical documents were searched for further information.

2) Are the three ridge sites habitation sites? Was habitation here permanent, repeated, orshort-term? Is there evidence for occupation by more than one social class, for example, bykonohiki who supervised agricultural activities nearby (see Allen 1987:Questions 7, 5)?

Much of the following information is excerpted with minor changes from Allen et al. (2002).Characteristics thought to distinguish permanent Hawaiian house sites include large platforms andterraces, large walled enclosures, three-sided walled structures, and rock pavements (Clark 1987:209;Green 1980:59–63); dense, thick midden and artifact deposits; firepits or imu in or near the main housein a compound, with deep deposits suggesting continual use over a long period; thick, continuouslyused midden deposits lacking signs of abandonment and reuse; and one set of postmolds representingsubstantial poles (e.g., Dixon and Major 1993:195–206; Dixon et al. 1992:20; Hammatt et al.1990:87–90; Kirch 1985:248–257; Ladefoged 1991; Rosendahl 1972). Discrete auxiliary buildings suchas cookhouses are often present, especially in high-status compounds (e.g., Cordy 1981:Table 8, 71–74;Malo 1951:118–124).

Temporary habitation sites such as field shelters may be represented by small enclosures,terraces, or platforms; shallow cultural deposits; and scant midden. If use of the area was temporary andrepeated, perhaps seasonal, these sites may exhibit overlapping, unpatterned postmolds, suggestingmultiple construction events, and overlapping firepits and refuse pits that are not associated with othersigns of permanent habitation (Allen and Schilz 1997:9, 82–83; Dixon and Major 1993:80–83; Dixonet al. 1992:20; Hammatt et al. 1990:90–91; Schilz and Allen 1995:10, 92–94). Clark (1987:197–198)suggests that single-use shelters are generally associated only with other shelters, while shelters usedrecurrently tend to be associated with agricultural features or specialized resource areas.

At the current sites, the presence of high-status residents was expected to be difficult torecognize, since elaborate residential complexes, one of the main types of architectural evidencedescribed in the literature (e.g., Kamakau 1976:96; Malo 1951:122; also, Cordy 1981:72–74), seemedto be lacking. Temporary habitation shelters are often difficult to distinguish from specialized workareas, and Cordy (1981:54) defines temporary habitation shelters as associated with special uses. Bothspecialized work areas and temporary habitation sites typically contain lithic artifacts, shallow deposits,postmolds, and structural remnants such as small paved areas. The various spheres of Hawaiian life maynot have been as neatly compartmentalized as ethnographic and archaeological models often suggest.

3) Does the evidence suggest a change in residential pattern at any point during theagricultural site sequence that has been documented for the area? For example, does evidence,or lack of it, suggest residence outside the project area during the earliest cultivation period,and later residence near the fields (see Allen 1987:Question 7)?

If evidence for habitation during early and later periods is recognized, analysis of thearchitectural evidence summarized for Question 2, combined with careful stratigraphic control andassignment of every feature or deposit possible to natural or cultural layer, should suggest whether the


habitation pattern changed through time. Dating evidence (Question 1, above) should providesupporting evidence for stratigraphic interpretation and sequential patterns.

4) Is there evidence for tool manufacture or other activities accessory to cultivation orhabitation or both at the sites? Does the evidence at the three ridge sites suggest that theoccupants of the sites were cultivators of fields nearby (see Allen 1987:Question 8)?

The evidence needed to address this question includes primarily artifacts and botanical materialsretrieved from secure stratigraphic contexts. Identification of the specific activities, here especiallyagricultural activities, for which tools were manufactured and used remains an important problem forHawaiian archaeology. Adzes were certainly used to work wood; Kirch’s (1985:183) question as towhether they may also have been used for agricultural activities deserves attention.

Basalt and volcanic glass flakes are found in agricultural, as well as other, contexts. Oneinteresting suggestion as to a possible agriculturally-related use of volcanic glass flakes in the Waimea-Kawaihae area of Hawai‘i Island is made by Reeve (1983:230–231), who cites historical references tothe use of sharp stones to strip the bark of paper mulberry (wauke, Broussonetia papyrifera) trees grownin fields for cloth preparation. Kirch (1992:44) suggests that this use may explain some flakes recoveredin Anahulu Valley, O‘ahu, where wauke production was once an important activity.

Basalt flakes, both diagnostic and non-diagnostic and occasionally retouched or showing signsof use, dominate the relatively small artifact assemblages that have been collected from Hawaiianpondfields in Hanalei, Kaua‘i (Athens 1983), and Kawai Nui Marsh and Maunawili, O‘ahu (Allen etal. 2002; Allen-Wheeler 1981), and occur in dryland fields at Site 1888, the terrace set in Punalu‘uMauka in the Interchange project area. As suggested by Allen (ed. 1987:159), these tools may have beenused for tasks that included cutting and sharpening ‘ö‘ö (digging tools), cutting taro corms forvegetative reproduction, harvesting plant parts, mounding earth around taro or other plants, andweeding.

Tools used in domestic, habitation-related, activities include a much broader range (e.g., Kirch1985:189–193). Although basalt and volcanic glass flakes are numerous at sites of many types,domestic and special activity areas also commonly produce formal tools such as poi pounders, adzes,grinding stones, hammerstones, and ‘ulu maika (gaming stones). Residue analysis (Allen et al. 1995)is now beginning to make it possible to identify the substances worked or prepared with tools, whichwill eventually mean much more precise and accurate interpretation of the activities represented.

5) Were the sites alternatively in use primarily for non-agricultural purposes such as forestproduct collection?

Forest products collected in traditional times in Hawai‘i included, among others, wood forhouse construction and canoe building; roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and other plant parts used as foodsor medicines, and for other purposes; bird feathers used in ornaments and high-status garments such asfeather cloaks; and probably meat provided by free-ranging pigs and dogs, as well as birds. Theevidence needed here includes midden and residues, and emphasizes archaeobotanical and faunal data.

6) Is there evidence for landscape change over time? Is there evidence for increasingdeposition due to erosion upslope during or after the period(s) of cultural activities at the sites(see Allen 1987:Question 12)?

Research in the Interchange and adjacent segments of the H-3 corridor has produced evidencefor significant landscape change during the millennium and a half since the area was colonized by thefirst Polynesian settlers. Lower areas at Site 1887, now a hill slope, were apparently a flood plain when


the first fields were cultivated there. Upslope, as mentioned, cultural deposits have been found deeplyburied beneath more recent sediments even on ridges, where erosion was probably nearly as frequentas deposition. If so, many sediments have been lost downslope, and deposition may have been evenmore intense than is suggested today by the measurable sediments overlying the cultural deposits.Colluvial processes and, to a lesser extent, alluviation have transformed this area over the years, as theyhave other Hawaiian areas where high rainfall and intense chemical weathering of sediments and soilslead to massive erosion upslope, and redeposition of the freed sediments further downslope (e.g., Allen1997; Allen et al. 2002; Beggerly 1990; Kraft 1980a, 1980b; Williams 1992b; Scott Williams, Tomasi[Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 1989–1993 field notes, Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum).

The current ridge sites had clearly been buried by post-abandonment sediments. Additionalevidence needed to address this question included evidence for sediment thicknesses, depositionalmodes, and velocities through time.

7) Was this area of upland Käne‘ohe in use from the initial days of the post-Contact period(see Allen 1987:Question 15)?

As indicated, archaeological and historical research in Käne‘ohe has produced evidence forpost-Contact features including charcoal kilns, possible stills, boundary walls, roads, and centralizedcemeteries. Sites 1890, 1892, 1895, and 1897 in the Interchange project area were probably house sitesduring the nineteenth or the early twentieth century. Agriculture continued in areas nearby, with newcrops including rice and pineapple joining traditional crops.

The archaeological evidence needed to address this question was expected to include post-Contact structures and artifacts dateable to specific periods. Historical evidence was expected tosupplement the archaeological data.

8) How did land use in the project area at mid-nineteenth century compare with land useelsewhere in Käne‘ohe? Is there evidence that the cultivators of upland Käne‘ohe by nowresided at the coast (see Allen 1987:Question 17)?

This last question is addressed largely through documentary research, the subject of theseparate, forthcoming historical report (see Klieger 1996). A brief summary of the main post-Contactland use trends is presented in Chapter 7.

PROJECT LOGISTICS, PERSONNEL, METHODS AND TERMINOLOGY

Field research at the sites reported here was conducted between April 1990 and September 1991, withadditional visits continuing into July 1993. The site chapters indicate the specific fieldwork periods forthe individual sites, specific methods used, and sampling information. This brief summary lists the


personnel who participated in fieldwork and all project specialists; provides an overview concerningmethods and methodological problems encountered; and defines commonly used Hawaiian terms andcertain technical abbreviations used here.

PERSONNEL

Archaeological research at the four sites was completed under the direction of Barbara Dolan, Ph.D.,and Mary Riford, B.A.; Helen Leidemann, M.A., served as Supervisor. I served as Principal Investigatorduring the fieldwork and throughout much of report preparation.

The field investigations were completed, over the approximately 1 ½-year field period, by a totalof 41 crewmembers and two volunteers. Field assistance was provided by Wanda Ah Chan, GavinArcher, Jessica Baldwin, Gayle Black, Luis Camilli, James Cartwright, Nancy Chin, Mary Clarke,Nancy Cooper, Charmian Dang, Erik Davis, Chris Descantes, William Fortini, Wendy Goodman, JimHayden, Marni Hussong, Chris Kitchens, Robin Lowell, Chrissi Malterre, Elizabeth Manning, AndyMauldin, James McIntosh, Heidi and Todd McMahon, Lynn Miller, Eileen Moss, Charles Ogata, DonPerson, Clark Pope, Chris Rundell, Kari Ryder, Mary Schramm-Coberly, Debbie Schult, Jeff Smith,Epifania Suafo‘a, David Szondy, Frank Thomas, Judi Wall, Robin Wofford, and Carrie Woodward.Pratt Hayes and Noah Hulbert volunteered time at Site 4485, as well as at sites not reported here.

The project specialists include Stephan D. Clark, B.A., Mary Riford, B.A., and Deborah I.Olszewski, Ph.D. (lithic analysis); Linda Scott Cummings, Ph.D. (pollen analysis); Kevin Johnson,Ph.D. (geochemical analysis of lithic materials); Susan A. Lebo, Ph.D. (post-Contact artifact analysis);Heidi A. Lennstrom, Ph.D. (macrobotanical analysis); Margaret E. Newman, Ph.D. (residue analysis);Lonnie Somer, Ph.D. (faunal analysis); and Frank Thomas, M.A., and Jahn Van Brunt, B.A.(microartifact analysis).

FIELD METHODS AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Methods at the road site, Site 2463, involved mapping of road segments, manual excavation of twounits that investigated road construction and possible pre-existing features, and extensive research intoold maps and documents to trace the former routes of especially Luluku and Kapalai Roads and, ifpossible, date their beginnings.

Research at the other three sites involved monitoring and excavation. As mentioned earlier, thesupplementary research design prepared for mitigation-phase investigations in areas near (at that timeundiscovered) Site 4484 (Allen 1990a) recommended that 10 m2 be excavated there, largely becauseseveral archaeological sites including Kukuiokäne Heiau were known to be located nearby. Neither theoriginal research design (Allen 1987) nor the supplement had called for units in the Site 4483 or 4485areas, whose existence was unsuspected.

During monitoring, which was conducted during all ground-breaking activities, a staffarchaeologist constantly watched the operations, inspecting soils and sediments encountered for anysigns of cultural deposits. When cultural materials were found, mechanical excavation stopped, and thearea was flagged until it could be excavated manually. The discovery of Sites 4483–4485 duringmonitoring changed plans and logistics significantly, as numerous features and deposits neededexcavation.


Among the main methodological goals at the ridge sites, where exposed features wereconstantly in danger of eroding and losing contextual information, were identification of natural andcultural layers, interpretation of stratigraphic associations wherever possible, and correlation of layersacross the individual site. Although correlation of layers between sites proved difficult, the sequencesdo suggest similar cultural patterns, although at slightly different times.

At each site construction backhoes excavated archaeological trenches (Site 4483 Units 101–103,Site 4484 Units 101–102, Site 4485 Units 101–105) before general grubbing and constructionexcavations began, so that the archaeological team could inspect freshly cut profiles and photograph andrecord cultural, environmental, and general stratigraphic information; soils in these backhoe units werenot generally screened. The exposure of long sections was critical to site interpretation, as it providedby far the best-controlled stratigraphic information for each site.

Otherwise, monitoring provided abundant evidence for former cultural site use, as feature afterfeature was exposed for the first time in perhaps several centuries. But the rapid removal of surface andsubsurface layers over relatively large areas often meant that features and deposits were revealed onlyafter the layers with which they had been associated (i.e., the surfaces from which they had beenexcavated and used) had been removed. Stratigraphic control was difficult in those situations, as isreflected in the site chapters by features and deposits that cannot be assigned to layer.

Nonetheless, without the extensive, monitored excavation that accompanied construction, noneof the three buried sites would have become known, and the evidence they produced for non-agriculturalactivities in upland Käne‘ohe would not have been discovered. Monitoring of mechanical excavationsis expected to become an increasingly common archaeological method as development continues inwindward O‘ahu and elsewhere in the islands.

Except for the exploratory trenches listed above, excavation of archaeological units wascompleted manually with trowels, picks, and shovels, always following natural and cultural layer, andfeature, boundaries. Individual layers were often subdivided into arbitrary internal levels for closercontrol. As explained in Chapters 3–5, at Site 4483 all unit contents were dry-screened through 6- and3-mm (1/4- and 1/8-inch) mesh; at Site 4484 cultural deposits were screened, with two exceptionsnecessitated by construction scheduling; and, at Site 4485, screening was completed in all possibleunits, again under construction-related scheduling constraints. All units were profiled, and all culturalfeatures were mapped in plan view. Units and features were photographed with 35-mm black-and-whiteprint and color slide film.

Soils and sediments were described following U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Staff(1951, 1962) and Munsell Color (1990) standards. Bulk and charcoal samples were collected from themost promising contexts, field-accessioned, and transferred to the Bishop Museum ArchaeologyLaboratory for further processing and possible submission for pollen, macrobotanical, and radiocarbondating analyses. All artifacts of traditional Hawaiian types, and diagnostic post-Contact artifacts, werefield-accessioned and collected.

LABORATORY METHODS

Laboratory methods for most materials included cataloging, cleaning, analysis, and curation at theBishop Museum Archaeological Laboratory. Soil and charcoal samples to be submitted to Beta AnalyticInc., Miami, Florida, were cleaned using metal forceps, to remove contaminating roots and othermaterials; dried; and packaged in aluminum foil for shipment.


The specific methods used in ancillary studies, including lithic, microartifact, residue,geochemical, and botanical analyses, are outlined by the authors of the specialist chapters andappendices and are not reviewed here.

TERMINOLOGY

This final introductory section lists and defines certain Hawaiian terms that are important to the currentresearch, and explains abbreviations commonly used here. For detailed definitions of lithic terms, seeAppendix A.

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

The following definitions are based on those of Pukui and Elbert (1986), with additions from Pukui etal. (1974); other sources are noted. The list includes only terms used commonly here; less commonterms including many plant names are defined the first time they are used in each chapter.

ahupua‘a the basic traditional land division, usually reaching from the uplands to the sea. The11 ahupua‘a of Ko‘olau Poko District are, from north to south, Kualoa, Hakipu‘u,Waikäne, Waiähole, Ka‘alaea, Waihe‘e, Kahalu‘u, He‘eia, Käne‘ohe, Kailua, andWaimänalo.

ali‘i chief, ruler, noble, élite; the ruling class.

‘äpana piece, portion. Here, a subdivision of a kuleana (see below: a small property).

heiau traditional Hawaiian place of worship; temple or shrine.

heiau luakini Hawaiian place of worship used by ruling chiefs, and where human sacrifices wereoffered.

‘ili land section next in importance to the ahupua‘a, usually a subdivision within it.

imu underground oven.kalo Colocasia esculenta, taro: the main staple food in Hawai‘i, producing corms and

leaves, both very nutritious.

kï Cordyline fruticosa (Wagner et al. 1990:1348), ti: a shrub producing leaves used aswrappers, thatch, and clothing; and roots that were baked for food and distilled as‘ökolehao (see below).

konohiki the supervisor of an ahupua‘a, who worked under, and represented the interests of,higher ali‘i.

kukui Aleurites moluccana, candlenut: a large tree that provided nuts cooked for a relish, oilfor lights, soft wood for canoes, gum for painting Tampa, and dyes, among otherthings.

kula plain, field, open country, pasture. Kula fields, which are unirrigated, are distinguishedfrom lo‘i, irrigated fields.


kuleana right, privilege, responsibility; here, a small piece of property, generally awarded to anindividual at Mahele.

lele fly, jump, leap; separate, detached; here, a section of land belonging to one ‘ili butlocated in another.

lo‘i irrigated terrace or field traditionally used for taro cultivation. Lo‘i were used afterContact for both taro and rice cultivation.

lo‘i kalo taro pondfields.

mahele portion, division, section; share. Mahele (“the Great Mahele”): the land division of1848, during which Hawai‘i’s ruler redistributed parts of “the whole landed estate”(Lyons 1903:30), lands formerly held as a unit by the ruling class, to chiefs andcommoners who could establish claims. The properties were afterward held in feesimple, as individual properties.

maika Hawaiian game much like bowling, involving rolling a rounded stone (‘ulu maika).

maka‘äinana commoner, people; those who attend the land.

makai toward the sea.

mauka toward the mountains.

‘ö‘ö digging stick; also, spade.

‘ökolehao liquor distilled from ti root, later also from pineapple or rice.

pali cliff. In windward O‘ahu, the term is typically used to refer to the windward cliff of theKo‘olau Range.

poi Hawaiian staple food; paste made by pounding cooked taro corms (rarely breadfruit[‘ulu; see below]) and thinning the mixture with water.

‘ulu Artocarpus altilis, breadfruit: a tree producing large, edible fruits.

‘ulu maika round, smooth stone rolled in maika.

EXPLANATIONS OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

The following lists only abbreviations that are not used commonly in general literature; abbreviationssuch as “A.D.” are omitted.

AMS radiocarbon date processed by accelerator mass spectrometry.

B.P. before present; “present” in radiocarbon-dating terms is 1950.

ca. circa; approximately; used in reference to time.

CAMS radiocarbon date processed by accelerator mass spectrometry at Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory, California.


CIEP cross-over immunoelectrophoresis; a technique used in residue analysis.

cm centimeter.

cmbs centimeters below current surface.

HRC Hawaii Radiocarbon (Bishop Museum radiocarbon sample accessioning designation).

LCA Land Commission Award (land awarded at Mahele).

m meter.

masl meters above sea level.

mm millimeter.

sp. one unidentified or indeterminate species.

spp. more than one unidentified or indeterminate species.

We now turn to the archaeological evidence that has been collected and analyzed during theproject, to investigate land use at Sites 2463 and 4483–4485, and the relationships between these sitesand their physical and cultural environments.

ê 35

CHAPTER 2

SITE 50-80-10-2463

Helen Higman Leidemann

Site 50-80-10-2463 (50-Oa-G5-146) consists of a network of unnamed banana roads, and twolarger named roads that serve the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area (approximately 15 ha) andnearby locations below Likelike Highway (TMK 4-5-25, 4-5-41, and 4-5-82). The site, as

discussed here, overlies the entire project area and the 16 other sites located within the projectboundaries. Much of the project area supports small banana farms with access throughout provided bynarrow, unpaved roads. These roads are considered as a group here and labelled Feature 1 (Figure 2.1).In addition, there are two historically documented and named roads—Luluku Road, labelled Feature2, and Kapalai Road, labelled Feature 3—that provide access to the project area from Käne‘ohe town.

METHODS

Investigation of the road system in the project area included some fieldwork, but relied mainly onreviewing old maps, aerial photographs, and published ethnohistoric information provided by localbanana farmers. One aerial photograph (U.S. War Department 1940) was especially useful because itshowed roads that were not included on maps of the same period. Such discrepancies could indicateeither that the mapping survey transects were spaced too far apart to record all of the roads, or that someroads were not considered important or useful enough to map. The maps appear to show those roadsthat were best established and were well used at the time, while the aerial photograph reveals more ofwhat actually existed on the ground—whether heavily traveled, lightly used, or abandoned.

Figure 2.1. Site 2463, plan view showing roads and excavation units.

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463 ê 37

The ethnohistoric information that was used deals more with road conditions and features than withtheir actual routes.

A map of the unnamed banana roads (Feature 1) currently in the project area was compiled fromrecent DOT maps and visual estimates made during walk-through surveys (see Figure 2.1). Some ofthese roads were previously given individual feature numbers and assigned to sites other than Site 2463(Table 2.1). Site 50-80-10-1887 (50-Oa-G5-85), Features 103, 128, and 130; Site 50-80-10-1897 (50-Oa-G5-95), Feature 9; and Site 50-80-10-2199, Features 1 and 4 (published as 50-Oa-G5-106,subsequently renumbered 50-Oa-G5-125) are road sections that have already been described (Allen, ed.1987:64, 114; Riford 1987:198–199, 202). A portion of Luluku Road (Feature 2) was recently labeledFeature 5 at Site 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152) (see Chapter 3). Part of Kapalai Road (Feature 3) waspreviously assigned to Site 50-80-10-2462 (50-Oa-G5-155), Feature 19 (Allen 1992b).

Fieldwork included excavation of two banana road sections—one at Feature 1, south of Site 50-80-10-4485 (50-Oa-G5-154), and another at Feature 2 (labeled as Feature 5, Site 4483 duringexcavations).

Table 2.1. Current and previously assigned site and feature numbers, Site 2463

Current Designation Previous Designation Description

Site 2463, Feature 1 Unpaved banana road network

Site 1887, Feature 103 Unpaved banana road






Site 2463, Feature 2 Luluku road

Site 4483, Feature 5 Luluku road (portion)

Site 2463, Feature 3 Kapalai road

Site 2462, Feature 19 Kapalai road (portion)

ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 1 of this publication fully describes the project area environment. Discussion here addressespoints that most directly affect the physical nature of the roads.

38 ê Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

The project area is located 2 to 3 km south of Käne‘ohe town, not far from the base of theKo‘olau Mountains. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 60 to 125 masl. Roads areoften sloped or inclined over their full lengths.

The project area lies on the windward side of O‘ahu, hence is subject to a considerable amountof orographic rainfall, averaging 1,905 mm a year (Takasaki et al. 1969:8). Most soils in the area aredescribed as Hanalei and Lolekaa silty clays. Flooding can be a problem with the first type, and erosionis a hazard with the second; good land use management is required to avoid these situations (Allen, ed.1987:14–18, 257; Cline et al. 1955:325–327; Foote et al. 1972:38–39, 83–84).

Boulders, either broken off the pali or transported by stream flooding, are common in theproject area. Boulders that form the substrate for Lolekaa soils are often noted in the roadbeds,especially when extensive rains have washed away the overlying soils. The boulders are useful as afoundation, keeping the roads from becoming a quagmire of mud in the rainy season, or from washingaway entirely.

Many streams flow from the upland area, through small valleys and around hills and ridges.There are also numerous gullies and dry streambeds in the project area. Roads need to cross thesestreams and gullies, sometimes more than once. When floods make fords impassable or when they washout bridges, alternate routes must be used or new ones created.

ROADS IN KÄNE‘OHE

Lyons’s 1876 survey map of Käne‘ohe (Figure 2.2) shows most of the roads, trails, and bridges of theahupua‘a concentrated at or near the coast. This map notes, but does not show, an inland trail (labeled“old trail from Kalihi”) that crossed the pali and entered Ho‘oleinaiwa ‘Ili, south of Luluku (see Figure2.2). From Pa‘u ‘Ili (not shown in Figure 2.2) south to Kuou ‘Ili, however, this map is featureless inregard to midslope/upslope transportation and access. No roads are shown for Luluku; the closest roadshown is “Watson’s Road,” in Mahinui, east of and adjacent to Luluku. Watson is the name of aprominent family who resided in Punalu‘u Mauka, and who are closely associated with Site50-80-10-1890 (50-Oa-G5-88), a possible heiau, cemetery, and house site. The 200-m-long mappedroad segment passes between two hills or ridges and crosses a stream. This road does not appear to leadto or from anywhere definite, although the northeast (downslope) end is headed toward a nearby spotmarked “Old Lois” on the map. This road segment lies south of what later becomes known as oldLuluku Road.

An article in the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1933 notes that previously there had beenfew visitors from Honolulu to the windward area, and that “Lack of adequate roads and means oftransportation were largely responsible. People did not get away from Honolulu often enough to learnjust how different other sections are. But in these last few years there has been an awakening. Goodroads and many automobiles have brought home to thousands the climatic attractions of ‘the other sideof the Pali’” (Cooper 1933:121). The first documentary evidence of roads in Luluku ‘Ili and theKäne‘ohe Interchange project area comes from this period.

Figure 2.2. Detail of 1876 C. J. Lyons survey map, showing Watson’s road and an old trail from Kalihi.

40 ê Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

ROADS IN THE PROJECT AREA

SITE 2463 FEATURE 1: UNNAMED BANANA ROAD NETWORK

Although this road network is considered one feature of a single site, it is important to note here thatindividual road sections cross over several other discrete, previously-published sites—Sites 1887, 1897,and 2199, noted above, as well as Sites 50-80-10-1892 (50-Oa-G5-90) and 50-80-10-1895 (50-Oa-G5-93) (Allen, ed. 1987). Sites 4483, 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153), and 4485 are also crossed by thisroad network (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5). These unpaved roads can quickly become hidden andovergrown if not used and maintained by the banana farmers. Maps or route descriptions of some of themore ephemeral banana roads will not be attempted here. Instead, a few points will be raised to illustratethe nature of the roads and their relation to nearby archaeological sites (see Figure 2.1).

Archaeologists surveying the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area in 1985 noted that “The areasunder banana cultivation are dissected by jeep access roads currently utilized by the farmers fortransportation” (Riford 1987:205). Some of these roads may have persisted from the time of the earlierpineapple planters (Allen, ed. 1987:27). For example, Feature 103, Site 1887, is described as “an oldvehicular road, no longer passable, but traceable from the dump road, through a cut ditch across WedeliaKnoll, along a berm in low-lying land, and onto an agricultural terrace. The road measures 1.5 m widealong the berm. …We noted ruts that may have been made by the hard rubber tires of mule-drawn draysused to haul pineapple grown in areas not far from the site (E. Haitsuka, personal communication)”(Allen, ed. 1987:64).

Possible supporting archaeological evidence for pineapple transport comes from a mule shoe(Artifact 50-Oa-G5-95-8) that was recently recovered from the surface of Site 1897. Feature 9 of thissite is an unpaved road that connects old Luluku Road, located a short distance to the north, with aprobable house site (Allen, ed. 1987:113;128–131). The road is described as “a long, unpaved, vehicularroad generally 1.5 to 2.0 m wide that bifurcates to serve most of the site area. Regularly spacedplantings along its margins, still growing, include impatiens and ti” (Allen, ed. 1987:114). Post-Contact-period artifacts recovered from the site range in date from mid-nineteenth to early twentiethcentury (Allen, ed. 1987:129).

According to Edmund Haitsuka, pineapple farming in the area was followed by banana farming(Allen, ed. 1987:282). Commercial banana production in Käne‘ohe probably began after World WarI. Eugene Honda, a banana farmer, “remembers the large-scale banana plantations as having begun inthe early 1930s, although most of the early rice and taro farmers also planted bananas on land that wasnot suitable for their main crops” (Kelly 1987:296). Many of the winding, unmapped roads in theKäne‘ohe Interchange project area seem designed to divide the banana fields there into small, easily-traversed sections for harvesting. One informant, Thelma Uechi, interviewed by Kelly (1987:311),described part of the banana harvest routine when she was a child:

Most of the time I carried banana, and I hated to carry banana, theApple Banana. If it’s big, I carry only one [bunch], if it’s small, I carry two.Those days, young, you get energy, but not any more.

From the center of the banana field we took them to the side of theroad. My father would drive, or I would drive up and put them in the back.

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463 ê 41

As mentioned above, the Feature 1 road network in the project area north of Luluku Streamconnects and/or links various sites. One road crosses the ridge that contains the subsurface features ofSite 4484 (see Figure 2.1 and Chapter 4). Artifacts collected from Site 4484, Feature 13 (an artifactscatter exposed along both sides of the road) are mostly fragments of glass bottles. Earliest manufacturedates for these pieces generally fall in the first half of the twentieth century, consistent with aninterpretation of banana farm (and banana road) use beginning sometime after World War I. Part of thisroad joins other roads that enter Site 1892, which lies to the northeast (discussed below as part of theLuluku Road-Kapalai Road connection), while another section swings southwest past the mouth of thedeep gully leading to Site 50-80-10-1898 (50-Oa-G5-96). Further to the south, roads leading off Lo‘ihiextension road (part of old Luluku Road) cross Site 4483 (see Chapter 3).

Mention has already been made of unpaved roads north of Luluku Stream in Site 1887 (Features103, 128, and 130). There are also several banana road segments in the portion of this site that lies southof the stream, including a deeply-cut road parallel to and east of Likelike Highway. This road, in whicha small metal pipe is embedded, passes Site 1887, Feature 108 (Riford 1987:190). Another unnamedroad south of Luluku Stream crosses Site 1895 and passes Sites 50-80-10-1896 (50-Oa-G5-94) and 50-80-10-1900 (50-Oa-G5-98). Others overlie the subsurface features of Site 4485. Feature 1 of this siteis a large fire feature exposed beneath a banana road. Radiocarbon dating of this feature suggests thatthe road above it could not have been built before the nineteenth century (see Chapter 5).

Although none of these banana roads are smooth-surfaced, many show signs of having beenprepared in some way. For example, in the southern portion of the project area near Site 4485, smallbits of marine shell were exposed along the grubbed surface for at least 50 m in a north/south direction.A denser concentration of shell at the southern end of this scatter was thought to be evidence of a pitfeature, and Unit 1 was placed there to investigate this possibility. What was revealed, however, wasa thin, linear concentration of coral, sand, gravel, and marine shell fragments, all extremely loose andunconsolidated (Figure 2.3). The 1 by 0.5 m unit revealed 0.25 m of recent construction fill overlying0.10 m of coral/sand/gravel/shell deposit. This thin deposit, exposed in some places on the grubbedsurface, sits on the brown to dark brown (10YR 3/3, moist) silty clay that makes up Layer III in thisarea (see Chapter 5). Collected shell fragments from this deposit include Bentharca asperula, Chamaiostoma, Phenacolepas scobinata, and Pinctada sp.; Porites sp. coral was also identified. Although theconcentration was shallow, it was extensive. It was interpreted as fill or underlayment for a banana road.Another excavation, Unit 4, Site 4483, Feature 5 (part of Site 2463, Feature 2, Luluku Road), alsoexhibits a deposit that is interpreted as a road foundation (see below). It is interesting to note thatcomparative tests of various road construction materials were conducted in 1916 in Honolulu. One ofthe combinations tested was of crushed coral on a coral rock base; others included concrete, lava rock,and asphalt (Thrum 1917:172).

SITE 2463 FEATURE 2: OLD LULUKU ROAD

A published interview with Edmund Haitsuka, detailing life in Luluku between 1925 and the 1940s,provides some information on Luluku Road. Mule-drawn drays with hard rubber tires traveled alongLuluku Road to pick up pineapple, crossed three stone and wooden bridges along the way, then returnedto a big pineapple camp in lower Luluku. The bridge near the pineapple camp “was maybe 20 feethigh,” the biggest one on Luluku Road (Allen, ed. 1987:281–283).

Figure 2.3. Profile of Unit 1 showing a portion of Feature 1 (one of the network of unpavedbanana roads), Site 2463.

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463 ê 43

Luluku Road was first mapped in 1928, although it was not labeled as such (Figure 2.4). A1928 U.S. Geological Survey map shows a secondary and probably unpaved road leading west fromKamehameha Highway. The road crosses Kamo‘oali‘i Stream, then turns southwest, angling towardLuluku Stream. It crosses one stream branch (probably the northwestern end of the Feature 10 ditch atSite 1897), then ends at the 340-ft contour on Wedelia Knoll in the northern portion of LandCommission Award (LCA) 2514 belonging to Makaiohua (Figure 2.5; see also Allen, ed. 1987:57). Thesouthern end of this LCA contains many of the agricultural terraces associated with Site 1887. Thedistance from Kamehameha Highway to this endpoint is 2 km.

The map shows a 0.4-km-long track or trail of some kind continuing west from that point,ending at a structure just above the 450-ft contour adjacent to Luluku Stream. This location coincideswith a ridge above a set of agricultural terraces within LCA 4490 awarded to Kawelau. The trail appearsto end just short of the location of the Luluku water tunnels that were built before 1920 (Allen, ed.1987:13). Part of this trail may pass by Feature 128 of Site 1887, which according to Riford (1987:199)is a rock-faced terrace along a section of road that may provide access to the Luluku water tunnels.

Six shorter spur roads branch off the main Luluku Road, three to the north and three to thesouth (see Figure 2.4). At least ten structures, possibly houses, are served by these spur roads. Thewesternmost spur on the north side of the road, with two associated structures, heads north to coincidewith the location of Site 1892. The spur may merge with the ti (kï; Cordyline fruticosa)-lined road atthis site, described and mapped during the inventory survey portion of the Käne‘ohe Interchange project(Allen, ed. 1987:120–121).

A 1932–1933 Hawaii Territory Survey map of the Käne‘ohe Forest Reserve (Aiu 1933; seeFigure 2.5) also shows Luluku Road, with some changes. The road seems to have been improved,possibly paved or widened, from Kamehameha Highway to the stream (shown as “Kaneohe Stream”rather than Kamo‘oali‘i Stream). The map shows the secondary, perhaps still unpaved, and stillunnamed, portion of the road crossing the stream and generally following the boundary betweenKeapuka and Mahinui ‘Ili until it reaches Luluku ‘Ili and LCA 2514. The map does not show the trailor track leading past the upper set of agricultural terraces to the water tunnels. Only one spur or offshootof Luluku Road is marked on this map—the northern spur that probably leads to the existing ti-linedroad at Site 1892. This northerly road now continues past the location that was shown on the 1928 map,and connects to Kapalai Road (see below).

A soil survey map created in 1939 (Cline et al. 1955, map of windward O‘ahu; Figure 2.6)shows Luluku Road but, surprisingly, not Kapalai Road. The symbol used for Luluku Road, indicatinga “secondary road” or “poor motor road,” extends from Kamehameha Highway to the end of the earliermapped trail just short of the 500-ft contour. Only one of the spur roads is shown—the westernmostspur shown in 1928 on the south side of the road. It extends further south than shown previously,crossing Luluku Stream and then turning west toward the pali.

An aerial photograph of the Käne‘ohe area taken in 1940 (U.S. War Department 1940) clearlyshows Luluku Road and its offshoots (Figure 2.7). In the photograph, the road appears wider andbrighter at the eastern end where it joins Kamehameha Highway, showing the improved or paved natureof this section of the road. As the road continues to the southwest it becomes progressively narrowerand fainter, perhaps indicating less traffic and less need for improvements. All six spur roads noted in1928 are present in the photograph (even though not mapped in 1933 or 1939). The trail mentioned

Figure 2.4. Detail of 1928 USGS map, Käne‘ohe quadrangle, showing Luluku Road and trail, and KapalaiRoad. Scale 1:20000.

Figure 2.5. Detail of 1933 Hawaii Territory Survey map, Kaneohe Forest Reserve, showing Luluku and Kapalai Roads, ‘ili boundaries and LCA locations.

Figure 2.6. Detail of 1939 soil survey map taken from Cline (1955), showing Luluku Road. Scale1:62500.

Figure 2.7. 1940 War Department aerial photo showing Luluku and Kapalai Roads and spur roads. Photo by: Base Photographic Laboratory. A.A.I...A.P.O.959.

48 ê Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

above, leading from the western end of Luluku Road past the terraces and to the water tunnels, cannotbe seen in the photograph.

At Site 4483, Unit 4 was set up on a berm at the north side of old Luluku Road in a sectionknown as the dump road (because it passes a local trash dump). The unit was placed where earliergrubbing had exposed some coral fragments. Excavation revealed more pieces of somewhat worn coral,angular to subangular gravel, and clumps of asphalt, all elements that constituted the road base at onetime. This unit is discussed further in Chapter 3.

SITE 2463 FEATURE 3: OLD KAPALAI ROAD

Kapalai Road first appears on the 1928 U.S. Geological Survey map mentioned above (see Figure 2.4)but it, like Luluku Road, is not specifically named at that time. It also undergoes several changes inroute and configuration over the years. In 1928, Kapalai Road is shown 0.6 km north of Luluku Road,extending west from Kamehameha Highway. It crosses a bridge over Kamo‘oali‘i Stream and curvesthrough LCA 1889, awarded to Lihue (see Figure 2.5). The road then splits, with branches eventuallyturning north and southwest. The southwest branch splits again into one northern and two southernspurs. These two southern spurs are emphasized here, as they relate most closely to sites in theKäne‘ohe Interchange project area.

Both southern spurs end at the border between Kapalai and Punalu‘u Mauka ‘Ili. Thewesternmost of these leads to Site 1890 (the possible heiau, cemetery, and house site noted above) andSite 50-80-10-1891 (50-Oa-G5-89, a boundary wall). Members of the extended Watson family areburied at Site 1890, and a Mr. Watson lived in a house that informants say was either built at the siteor transferred there ca. 1930 (Allen, ed. 1987:118, 283). According to other informants, the Watsonfamily has lived along Kapalai Road since about 1900 (Allen 1992b:11). The 1928 map shows that thissouthwestern spur road ends 260 m northeast of Site 1892 and the northwestern branch of Luluku Road.The distance from Kamehameha Highway to the end of this southern spur of Kapalai Road is 1.5 km.

Kapalai Road appears by 1933 to be improved, and perhaps paved, from Kamehameha Highwayto the stream crossing (see Figure 2.5). The road is now shown to turn south (perhaps following one ofthe previously mapped spurs at the western end), connecting with the northwestern spur from LulukuRoad. In 1933, then, travelers or workers could turn off Kamehameha Highway onto a relatively goodKapalai Road that continued to the crossing of Kamo‘oali‘i Stream (labelled Kaneohe Stream on thismap), follow a secondary Kapalai Road west and then south to secondary Luluku Road, turn east againuntil coming once more to the stream, cross over onto improved Luluku Road, and end up atKamehameha Highway, south of the starting point. Kapalai Road, from Kamehameha Highway to theLuluku Road junction, would be slightly more than 2 km long at this time.

The 1940 aerial photo does not cover the area that includes the juncture of KamehamehaHighway with the beginning of Kapalai Road (see Figure 2.7). Like Luluku Road at this time, KapalaiRoad appears progressively narrower and less developed as it extends farther to the west, away fromKamehameha Highway. The connection between Kapalai and Luluku Roads shown on the 1933 mapis not easily traceable in the 1940 photograph. The more easterly of the two southern spurs at the westend of Kapalai Road, mentioned above, skirts the end of the ‘ili boundary wall between Kapalai and

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463 ê 49

Punalu‘u Mauka, and may continue along the northern side of the wall. It is this road that is laterdesignated Site 2462, Feature 19.

MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF LULUKU AND KAPALAI ROADS

By 1945 the names for Luluku and Kapalai Roads were published in Bryan’s Sectional Map ofHonolulu with Index of All Streets in the City of Honolulu and Rural Oahu and Street Numbers (Bryan1945:section 33). Both roads are shown, in sketched detail only, on the 1950 map in this series (Bryan1950). During this period Luluku Road is still paved only as far west as the stream crossing. The 1950map symbols indicate that Luluku Road was considered to be unimproved farther west, althoughexcavations show that portions at least had an asphalt surface over a coral base. Luluku Road alsoappears to be much shorter than before, and no longer extends as far west as the stream or ditch crossingat Site 1897. This is consistent with the opinion based on archaeological investigations that Site 1897was abandoned sometime in the mid-1940s (Allen, ed. 1987:114). Kapalai Road, as shown on the 1950map, appears to be paved along its entire, but rather shortened, length (only 900 m).

A 1954 U.S. Geological Survey map (Figure 2.8), taken from Takasaki et al. (1969), showsLuluku Road paved for approximately 1.25 km. The unpaved road north to Site 1892 is still shown, andthe unpaved spur to the south shown in 1939 now extends farther, curving around to the west to meetthe route for Likelike Highway.

Later maps in the Bryan series (Bryan 1959, 1964) give indications of overall developments.By 1959 the route of Luluku Road appears to be shifted somewhat to the north (perhaps to coincide withthe route of one of the northern spur roads), lengthened, and entirely paved. The road may have beenpaved in conjunction with a concrete culvert constructed in 1958 for the Feature 10 ditch at Site 1897(Allen, ed. 1987:114). With the construction of Likelike Highway between Luluku and Kapalai Roads,the two would never again be connected. Many new streets leading off the eastern portion of LulukuRoad and the remnants of Kapalai Road had been created by 1964 to serve housing developments.

Luluku Road currently still extends west from Kamehameha Highway, crossing Kamo‘oali‘iStream. The route is initially similar to that mapped for the old Luluku Road, but does not slant quiteas far to the southwest. Consequently, much of modern Luluku Road lies to the north of old LulukuRoad. The modern paved road no longer continues to the terraces of Site 1887. Instead, the road joinsthe Ho‘omaluhia Park access road, which makes a sharp turn to the southeast. Asphalt-based andunpaved portions of the dump road and Lo‘ihi extension road represent original portions of the routedescribed for old Luluku Road. There is also still a remnant of the unpaved, ti-lined road at Site 1892that probably once connected old Luluku Road and old Kapalai Road.

The present Kapalai Road is cut by Likelike Highway. The portion north of Likelike Highwaystill extends west from Kamehameha Highway for 0.25 km, ending before it reaches Kamo‘oali‘iStream. South of Likelike Highway and west of the stream, a curving portion of Kapalai Road existsin the vicinity of Site 2462. It is described as “The main Kapalai Road corridor, Feature 19, … pavedthroughout the project area with asphalt and crushed coral” (Allen 1992b:21). It “was passable duringmost of this century through the area now covered by a wetland: the segment that traverses the housingarea in an H-3 construction segment known as the KM Ramp was continuous with the

Figure 2.8. Detail of 1954 USGS map taken from Takasaki et al. (1969), showing Luluku and KapalaiRoads. Scale 1:62500.

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463 ê 51

segment further south, which serves the area near Site G5-88… The middle segment has not beenpassable since 1985, for reasons that are not yet clear” (Allen 1992b:11).

DISCUSSION

The roads and the changes that they undergo through time reflect some interesting points in Hawaiianhistory. A lack of smooth, easily traveled roads apparently kept the windward side of the islandrelatively isolated for a time after Contact. Vehicular roads opened the area up to increased populationand commercial production. Some of these roads are intimately related to social or political landdivisions, such as traditional ‘ili boundaries and Land Commission Awards. They provided access tohabitation sites, agricultural areas, and water resources. They also reflect changing conditions—eitheras neglected roads leading to isolated, abandoned housesites and gardens, or as new roads developedto meet the increasing (and continuing) need for commercial farms and housing tracts. The story of theroads’ shifting routes and altered conditions helps illustrate the changing economic circumstances inLuluku and the surrounding Käne‘ohe ‘ili.

The historical details and map and photo references provided in this chapter provide sufficientinformation to document the site. Further study of the roads themselves, which lack physical integrityin many places, is unnecessary.

ê 53

CHAPTER 3

SITE 50-80-10-4483

Barbara W. Dolan

with contributions byJames Cartwright Stephan D. Clark Linda Scott CummingsKevin Johnson Susan A. Lebo Deborah I. OlszewskiMary Riford Lonnie Somer Frank ThomasJahn Van Brunt

Site 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152) consists of subsurface cultural deposits and 41 featuresdiscovered during monitoring of highway construction. The features include imu and firepitsfrom the pre- and post-Contact periods, amorphous charcoal stains and smears (possibly fire

feature remnants), scatters of lithic artifacts, and postmolds. The post-Contact period is also representedby a charcoal kiln, a portion of an old road (probably old Luluku Road; see Chapter 2, Site 2463), anda recent trash dump. A soil depression, a cobble mound, and two cobble alignments were also givenfeature numbers, but excavation indicated that these are either natural or recent in origin.

The site covers an area of 18.1 ha, and is bounded by Likelike Highway to the west andnorthwest, by Sites 1898 and 4484 to the northwest, and by Site 1897 to the east and southeast.Approximately 250 m directly south lies the lower set of terraces of the large agricultural complexdesignated Site 1887. The boundaries of Site 4483, as well as the recorded features, are plotted in Figure3.1.

The environmental characteristics of the site are presented first, followed by an account ofavailable historical and ethnohistorical information, then a brief summary of previous archaeologicalresearch conducted. Next, the report provides a review of the survey and excavation methods used, anoverview of the features, and a description of the results of our investigations. The discussion andconclusion that complete the report explore the probable relationships, both temporal and spatial, to thenearby agricultural terrace complex, Site 1887, and to other sites in the area.

Figure 3.1. Map of Site 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152) showing features and units.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 55

ENVIRONMENT

Chapter 1 provides a detailed environmental discussion of the project area (see also Allen, ed.1987:12–18). The points mentioned below relate specifically to Site 4483.

TOPOGRAPHY

Site 4483 is situated on two small ridges, part of a series of low ridges in this area, at the base of theKo‘olau mountains. Elevations range between 70 and 85 masl, and a gentle to fairly steep slope(4–22%) is evident throughout much of the site. Gullies occur to the southwest and northwest of thesite. A small stream appears intermittently in the southwestern gully, while the permanent LulukuStream lies to the south, flowing through the nearby terraces of Site 1887.

SOILS

Soils for the site area are the very acidic, silty clays of the Lolekaa Series (Foote et al. 1972:83–84).Table 3.1 describes the soils of Unit 102 (excavated by backhoe), which are seen as representative ofthe stratigraphy apparent throughout Site 4483, and Figure 3.2 shows the profile of the south face ofUnit 102. Layer I is thin and composed of humic materials; in many cases the layer had been removedby construction bulldozing before excavation. Layer II is the main cultural layer at the site; it containsfeatures and artifacts from the pre- and post-Contact periods. In about half of the excavation units, LayerII can be divided into two sections—Layer IIa and Layer IIb—based on subtle differences in soil color,structure, and consistence. Layer III sometimes contains artifacts, and occasionally features, in the upperfew centimeters. As is the case with most of the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area, Layer III isconsidered the basal cultural layer at this site (the stratigraphy at Site 1887 is the major exception).Layers IV and V, recorded in the deep backhoe trenches, are noncultural layers and will not bediscussed further.

CLIMATE AND VEGETATION

Rainfall is plentiful at Site 4483, as it is throughout most of the ahupua‘a of Käne‘ohe. The site lieswithin Blumenstock and Price’s (1972:200) Region 1, windward areas receiving moderate rainfalland frequent trade wind showers, with annual precipitation totals of approximately 1,850–1,900 mmor more (Blumenstock and Price 1972:164). Because of the ample rainfall, site soils are able to supporta broad variety of flora, including both native and introduced species. Of the 26 species of plantsobserved at Site 4483 and nearby areas (Table 3.2), 21 were introduced to the islands followingEuropean contact, while candlenut (kukui, Aleurites moluccana), ti (kï, Cordyline fruticosa), ‘ape(Alocasia macrorrhiza), and mountain apple (‘öhi‘a ‘ai, Syzygium malaccense) are Polynesianintroductions. Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) is the only indigenous plant at the site. In addition to thoseplants found at the site, pandanus (hala, Pandanus tectorius), koa (Acacia koa), and ‘öhi‘a (‘öhi‘alehua, Metrosideros polymorpha) were available in the forest zone above the site during the pre-Contactera, and undoubtedly were collected and utilized for their wood, fibers, leaves, and fruit.

56 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.1. Soils and Stratigraphy, South Face, Unit 102, Site 4483*

Layer Thickness(cm)

Description

I 5–7 Very dark brown (10YR 3/3, moist) silty clay; moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure;friable when moist, slightly sticky and plastic when wet; many, fine to coarse roots; <5%pebbles; abrupt, wavy boundary.

II 11–18 Brown/dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure;friable when moist, slightly sticky and plastic when wet; many, fine roots; <5% pebbles;abrupt, wavy boundary.

III 10–15 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4, moist) silty clay; moderate, medium to coarse, prismatic,breaking to fine, subangular blocky structure; very friable when moist, slightly sticky andplastic when wet; common, fine roots; <5% pebbles; clear, wavy boundary.

IV 46–56 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4, moist) silty clay; medium to coarse, prismatic, breaking tofine, subangular blocky structure; very friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; veryfew, fine roots; <5% pebbles; clear, wavy boundary.

V 29–33 Brown/dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; weak, medium to coarse, prismatic, breakingto fine, subangular blocky structure; friable when moist, very slightly sticky and slightlyplastic when wet; <5% pebbles; base not reached.

*Following U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Staff 1951, 1962; Munsell 1990.

Various indigenous species of fern were recorded for surrounding sites, but were not observed at Site4483, possibly due to bulldozer and backhoe activity that has occurred throughout the site area.

The possibility that many of the Polynesian-introduced native tree species have been replacedby post-Contact (after A.D. 1778) introductions over much of the project area “… suggests that muchof the original growth has been cleared … the burning of forests in the area for cultivation began manycenturies ago, probably soon after the arrival of Polynesians in Käne‘ohe” (Allen, ed. 1987:26).

FAUNA

The fauna observed at Site 4483 include feral cat (Felis catus), mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), cattleegret (Bubulcus ibis), shama thrush (Copsychus malabaricus), and red-vented bulbuls (Pycnonotuscafer). In addition, mosquitos, flies, centipedes, and spiders are ubiquitous throughout the project area,including Site 4483.

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH

ARCHAEOLOGY

Previous archaeological surveys in the area by Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane (1976), and by Dye(1977) were limited in nature and make no mention of the Site 4483 area. In 1985, an extensivereconnaissance survey by Bishop Museum archaeologists again found no surface features within the

Figure 3.2. Profile of Unit 102, Site 4483, portion of south face.

58 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.2. Vegetation List, Site 4483 and Surrounding Areas

Genus Species Common Name Hawaiian Name Status*

Hibiscus tiliaceus hau hau Indig.

Spathodea campanulata African tulip Intro.

Psidium guajava common guava kuawa Intro.

Leucaena leucocephala koa haole koa haole Intro.

Mangifera indica mango manakö Intro.

Aleurites moluccana candlenut kukui Intro. Poly.

Musa sp. Brazilian banana mai‘a Intro.

Passiflora edulis passion fruit liliko‘i Intro.

Cordyline fruticosa ti kï Intro. Poly.

Alocasia macrorrhiza ‘ape ‘ape Intro. Poly.

Brachiaria mutica California grass Intro.

Impatiens wallerana impatiens ‘ölepe Intro.

Paederia scandens stink maile maile pilau Intro.

Paspalum conjugatum Hilo grass mau‘u Hilo Intro.

Clidemia hirta Koster’s curse Intro.

Rubus rosifolius thimbleberry öla‘a Intro.

Wedelia trilobata wedelia Intro.

Oplismenus hirtellus basket grass honohono Intro.

Brassaia actinophylla umbrella tree Intro.

Syzygium cumini Java plum palama Intro.

Hibiscus rosa-sinensis red (Chinese) hibiscus Intro.

Caesalpinia decapetala wait-a-bit, cat’s claw pua kelekino Intro.

Dieffenbachia sp. dumb cane Intro.

Coix lachryma-jobi Job’s tears püpü kölea Intro.

Syzygium malaccense mountain apple ‘öhi‘a ‘ai Intro. Poly.

Albizia sp. albizia Intro.

Information from Wagner et al. (1990).*Indig. = Indigenous to Hawai‘i; Intro. = Introduced plants; Intro. Poly. = Polynesian introduction.

current boundaries of Site 4483 (Allen, ed. 1987). For a full account of archaeological work in theKäne‘ohe Interchange project area until 1990, see Allen (ed. 1987) and Allen (1992b).

Although the surface survey revealed nothing, the area was still of archaeological interest;Williams (1992b:69) notes that considerable subsurface evidence of pre-Contact activities is oftenrevealed on ridges and slopes of windward O‘ahu during grading for road construction. Similar ridgesto the north and south of Site 4483, with no surface indications of cultural activity, contained significantsubsurface features that were revealed by monitoring of construction work during the course of thisproject (see Chapters 4 and 5).

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 59

HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY

The ahupua‘a of Käne‘ohe, except for individually awarded lands, was awarded to Queen Kalama aspart of the Mahele of 1848–1853. Since there are no individual Land Commission Awards for the areaof Site 4483, the land would have been considered hers. To date there is no historical informationrelating specifically to Site 4483. However, ethnographic interviews with local farmers and residents,conducted by Klieger and Leidemann (1992) and Klieger and Miller (1991, 1992), provide informationcovering agriculture and land-use changes that occurred in the ahupua‘a of Käne‘ohe during the earlydecades of the twentieth century. The following information is taken from those interviews (see alsoKlieger 1996 for a full account of the oral history, traditions, and written records relating to Käne‘oheAhupua‘a).

Carabao, beef and dairy cattle, horses, and mules were raised and used in Käne‘ohe for variouspurposes by the early 1900s. For example, Libby, McNeill & Libby used mules for hauling pineapplesfrom the fields to their cannery, as well as to Käne‘ohe Bay for shipment to Honolulu. Libby, McNeill& Libby stabled their mules across from and above what is currently Ho‘omaluhia Park, probably ina portion of what is now designated Site 4483.

Gridded electricity did not become available in Käne‘ohe until 1923, or even later in many areasof the ahupua‘a. Consequently, charcoal was often used in lanterns, in irons, and for cooking. Manyof the immigrant Japanese farmers brought with them the skills and knowledge needed to construct,load, and fire kilns in order to produce fine charcoal. One of many charcoal kilns in windward O‘ahuis located at Site 4483. Although charcoal production never proved to be a particularly profitableventure in its own right, it did provide an important ingredient in a profitable offshoot business. Duringthe years of prohibition, following the enactment of the Halstead Act, the farmers utilized their charcoalin the production of illegal liquor (‘ökolehao), which they then sold throughout the area, often at a tidyprofit.

Today, as in the past, many families maintain small garden plots near Site 4483 on which theygrow food for their personal consumption. However, banana constitutes the only commercial cropcurrently cultivated throughout the site.

METHODS, SAMPLING, AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS

MONITORING METHODS

Prior to the current highway construction work in the area, Site 4483 had not been identified as adiscrete site; no surface cultural features had been located during earlier surveys. However, sincenumerous subsurface cultural features have been uncovered by ground-altering activities in nearby areas,our inventory survey included careful monitoring of all bulldozer and backhoe operations. Initialconstruction work at the site consisted of three trenches (Units 101, 102, and 103) that were cut bybackhoe in order to determine the general stratigraphy and the condition of the soils. These monitoredtrenches provided an opportunity both to identify any subsurface cultural deposits that might be presentand to complete stratigraphic profiles and soil descriptions. Unit 101 revealed four features—two

60 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

firepits, a charcoal scatter, and a postmold—described below. Units 102 and 103 contained no culturaldeposits and will not be discussed further. During extensive bulldozer grubbing operations, more areaswere uncovered that displayed possible signs of past cultural use (e.g., lithic scatters, charcoal deposits,and soil depressions); in these areas the machines were halted while monitors collected artifacts andsamples, and recorded exposed features. Depending upon the type of features and the density of culturalmaterials, excavation units were then opened for further investigation.

EXCAVATION METHODS

Approximately 40 people worked at the site at various times; the average crew size was 10 people.Excavation at the site was conducted between July 1990 and September 1991. During that timeexcavators had to deal with seasonally heavy rains and often extremely muddy conditions.

Except for the backhoe-excavated units, excavation of features and adjacent areas wasconducted manually with trowels and picks following natural soil layers. Layers more than 10 cm indepth were subdivided into 10-cm arbitrary levels. All of the soil removed from hand-excavated unitswas dry-screened through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6- and 3-mm] mesh. Soils and sediments weredescribed in the field; photographs were taken of all units and features. All recovered cultural materials,including charcoal, were transferred to the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory specialists forprocessing, analysis, and curation.

SAMPLING

The choice of project area was based on highway construction criteria, and so could be consideredarchaeologically random. Monitoring of the bulldozer and backhoe activity provided 100% surfacecoverage of the site area, albeit under less than ideal collection conditions. Subsequent excavation ofthe exposed features provided a biased or judgmental sample. A total of 177.2 m2 was excavated (76m2 in backhoe units), or 0.1% of the site. The total excavated volume of units at the site is 133.9 m3

(92.4 m3 in backhoe units).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Once subsurface features began to be uncovered at the site, basic questions were developed concerningsite chronology and function.

1) What periods of Hawaiian history are represented at the site?2) What activities are suggested by the features?

3) Was use of the site area temporary, intermittent, or permanent in nature?

4) How does the site compare with others in the project area, and what was the relationshipbetween this site and the agricultural terraces at Site 1887?

5) What might Site 4483 tell us about early land use and the changes that may have takenplace over time?

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 61

In addition, it was hoped that evidence from this site could help in answering some of thegeneral project research questions, especially those concerning settlement patterns and populationchange (Allen 1987:10–12).

RESULTS

SURFACE FINDS

Four surface features (Features 16, 37, 38, and 40) were found at Site 4483 during the course of thisproject; they may not have been in existence at the time of earlier surveys. Feature 16, a shallow soildepression, is probably natural, possibly a tree mold. Feature 37, a boulder and cobble alignment, andnearby Feature 38, a large cobble mound, could be the result of clearing by banana farmers. Feature 40is a large concentration of recent trash and organic refuse; this feature was not excavated and will notbe discussed further. These surface features are not included in the inventory of historic culturalproperties, but to remain consistent with the practice observed for other reports within the largerInterstate Route H-3 project, they are noted here as part of the record of field observations.

SUBSURFACE FINDS

Overview

Of the 37 subsurface features (Features 1–15, 13.1, 17–36, and 39) listed in Table 3.3, 31 are fire-related(or possibly fire-related) pit features or feature remnants. Of these, six are imu, nine are fire pits orpossible fire pits, one is a charcoal kiln, and 15 are amorphous charcoal scatters or smears, often nomore than a few centimeters in depth, that cannot be accurately evaluated. The remaining six featuresare of diverse types. Features 4 and 6 are, respectively, a well-defined postmold and a possiblepostmold, located in the same general area of the site. Feature 5 is a small scattering of coral on thegrubbed surface, probably a remnant of an early road base. Features 13 and 32 are extensive scatters oflithic artifacts, apparently associated with the bottom of Layer II/top of Layer III. These features couldrepresent lithic workshops (see Appendix A for lithics terminology for this volume). Feature 36 is asubsurface alignment of cobbles found during excavation; it is probably a natural accumulation of rock.

Table 3.4 presents the size (length, width, depth, and volume) of each unit excavated. Whereapplicable, associated feature numbers also are included. Fire feature characteristics are provided inTable 3.5; see Chapter 4 for a discussion of these traits.

UNIT AND FEATURE DESCRIPTIONS

The excavation units and features at Site 4483 (see Tables 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5) can be grouped into fourareas (see Figure 3.1), three on the north ridge and one on the south ridge. Excavations started in thecenter part of the site, south of Lo‘ihi Extension Road, with Units 101, 102, and 103, followed by

62 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.3. Feature Summary, Site 4483

Fe.Size (m)

OriginatingLayer

Form FunctionL x W orDiameter

Depth

1 0.91 0.04 unknown irregular charcoal scatter remnant of Fe. 2 firepit

2 0.86 0.30 lower Layer II irregularly shaped pit firepit

3 0.90 0.31 Layer II bowl-shaped pit firepit

4 0.21 0.76 Layer II circular pit, tapered toward base postmold

5 0.90 x 1.00 — at grubbed surfaceunknown

coral scatter banana road base

6 0.15 0.16 Layer II circular pit possible postmold

7 0.84 0.10 Layer II bowl-shaped pit firepit

8 0.70 0.04 Layer II circular charcoal concentration firepit

9 0.31 0.15 unknown charcoal scatter firepit or refuse pit

10 1.50 0.48 unknown funnel-shaped pit imu

11 1.00 x 0.50 0.05 at grubbed surfaceunknown

charcoal smear bulldozed remains offire feature

12 1.60 0.11 at grubbed surfaceunknown


13 210 x 34.5 — Layer II/III; at grubbedsurface

large lithic concentration workshop/activity area

13.1 0.60 0.22 Layer III bowl-shaped pit firepit or refuse pit

14 1.35 0.65 Layer II bowl-shaped pit imu

15 2.80 1.15 Layer II semicircular pit charcoal kiln

16 0.65 0.21 at surface oval depression soil depression; natural

17 0.90 0.08 grubbed area unknown charcoal scatter bulldozed remains offire feature

18 1.00 0.65 Layer II funnel-shaped pit imu


charcoal scatter bulldozed remains offire feature

20 1.00 0.27 Layer III bowl-shaped pit imu


irregularly shaped pit bulldozed remains offire feature


irregularly shaped pit bulldozed remains offire feature

23 1.85 x 0.75 0.28 grubbed area unknown irregularly shaped pit possible firepit or imu

24 0.38 0.13 unknown circular charcoal concentration bulldozed remains offirepit or refuse pit

25 1.00 0.45 unknown bowl-shaped pit imu

26 0.80 0.47 Layer IIa bowl-shaped pit imu


irregularly shaped charcoalscatter

bulldozed remains offire feature




irregularly shaped charcoalscatter

bulldozed remains offire feature

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 63

(continued)

Fe.Size (m)

OriginatingLayer

Form FunctionL x W orDiameter

Depth



31 2.50 x 1.00 — at grubbed surfaceunknown


32 22.0 x 13.0 — Layer IIa/IIb; at grubbedsurface

lithic scatter workshop/activity area

33 0.55 0.27 Layer IIa irregularly shaped pit firepit


charcoal stain bulldozed remains offirepit or refuse feature

35 0.52 0.06 Layer IIb circular pit firepit or refuse pit

36 0.63 x 0.20 0.10 Layer IIb cobble alignment unknown

37 1.22 x 1.00 0.40 at surface cobble/boulder alignment unknown

38 8.75 x 4.20 0.30 at surface cobble mound clearing/planting mound

39 0.37 — construction fill circular charcoal scatter probable firepit remnant

40 60.00 x 40.00 — at surface concentration of trash post-Contact refusedump

Table 3.4. Unit Excavation Summary, Site 4483

Unit Length (m)

Width (m)

Average Depth(m)

Volume (m3)

AssociatedFeature(s)

1 2.00 1.00 0.55 1.10 3 & 42 1.30 1.10 0.30 0.43 23 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.24 14 1.00 1.00 0.13 0.13 55 1.00 1.00 0.26 0.26 None6 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 67 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 78 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.22 7 & 89 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.32 None

10 1.00 0.50 0.15 0.08 9*

11 1.50 1.30 0.35 0.68 10*

12 1.00 1.00 0.06 0.06 11*

13 2.75 1.00 0.05 0.14 12*

14 5.00 5.00 0.45 11.25 1315 1.50 0.60 0.40 0.36 14*

17 3.30 1.40 1.30 6.00 1518 2.00 2.00 0.35 1.40 None19 1.00 1.00 0.22 0.22 13.1*

20 2.00 1.00 0.32 0.64 1621.1 1.00 1.00 0.19 0.19 None21.2 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 None21.3 1.00 1.00 0.27 0.27 None

64 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Unit Length (m)

Width (m)

Average Depth(m)

Volume (m3)

AssociatedFeature(s)

21.4 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 None21.5 1.00 1.00 0.28 0.28 None21.6 1.00 1.00 0.34 0.34 None22 1.00 0.50 0.07 0.04 17*

23 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.13 18*

24 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.01 19*

25 0.75 0.75 0.25 0.14 2026 1.50 1.50 0.10 0.22 2127 1.00 1.00 0.09 0.09 22*

28 1.50 0.75 0.30 0.34 2329 1.00 0.50 0.15 0.08 24*

30 1.20 0.85 0.35 0.36 25*

31 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.59 2632 0.50 0.50 0.02 0.01 27*

33 2.00 0.40 0.06 0.05 2834 No excavation—profile only 2935 1.00 1.00 0.03 0.03 3036 No excavation—charcoal smear, cleared only 3137 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 3238 1.00 1.00 0.40 0.40 3239 1.00 1.00 0.24 0.24 3240 1.00 1.00 0.30 0.30 3241 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.32 3242 0.80 0.70 0.12 0.07 3343 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15 3444 2.00 2.00 0.41 1.64 3545 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 None46 3.00 1.00 0.43 1.29 None47 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 3648 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.55 None49 2.00 1.00 0.42 0.84 None50 2.00 1.00 0.41 0.82 None

51.1 2.00 2.00 0.65 2.60 3751.2 3.00 1.00 0.53 1.59 3752 3.00 1.00 0.60 1.80 3853 No excavation; charcoal at grubbed surface—cleared only 39101 15 2 1.25 37.5 1, 2, 3, 4102 13 2 1.15 29.9 None103 10 2 1.25 25 None

*Only the feature was excavated.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 65

Table 3.5. Fire (and Possible Fire) Feature Characteristics (Field Observations), Site 4483*

Fe. Size Shape Rock Artifacts CharredkukuiSeedCoats

BurntEarth

Reuse LocationSouth/North of

Lo‘ihi ExtensionRoad

Diam.(m)

InsideFeature

OutsideFeature

2 0.78 irregular pit few yes yes yes yes ridge top north

3 0.90 bowl-shaped pit yes yes yes none ridge top north

7 0.74 bowl-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes no none ridge top north

8 0.09 circular pit yes; fire-affected yes yes none ridge top north

9 0.31 charcoal scatter no yes no none ridge top north

10 0.90 funnel-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes none ridge top north

13.1 0.30 bowl-shaped pit yes yes no none ridge top north

14 1.20 bowl-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes yes none ridge top north

18 0.85 funnel-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes none ridge top south

20 1.00 bowl-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes yes none ridge top south

23 0.75 circular pit yes; fire-affected yes yes yes none ridge top north

25 1.00 bowl-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes yes none ridge top north

26 0.80 bowl-shaped pit yes; fire-affected yes yes yes yes none ridge top north

33 0.25 irregular;somewhat square

yes; fire-affected yes none ridge top south

35 1.00 circular pit yes; fire-affected yes no none ridge top south*Excluding grubbed remnants: Features 1, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27–31, 34, 39; Feature 15 charcoal kiln also excluded.

Units 1 through 9, 12, 13, 17, and 22. Units 10, 14, 18 through 21, and 35 were excavated nearby, inan area to the north of the road. Units 11, 15, 28 through 31, 33, 34, and 36 investigated thenorthernmost section of the site. Units 23 through 27, 32, and 37 through 53 were excavated in thesouthern portion of the site, on the south ridge. (There was no Unit 16).

North Ridge: Center Section of Site, South of Lo‘ihi Extension Road

Four features were revealed with the excavation of Unit 101, a 15-m-long backhoe trench. A charcoalscatter (Feature 1) was discovered on the grubbed surface beside the trench, while two pit-shapedconcentrations of charcoal (Features 2 and 3) and the outline of a postmold (Feature 4) were visible inthe walls of the trench.

Layer I contained a broken, edge-altered, basalt flake, as seen in the profile of the north faceof Unit 101 (Figure 3.3). This artifact was collected as part of the Unit 2 excavations. The north faceprofile (see Figure 3.3) also shows Feature 2 originating in Layer II. The feature is composed of fourdistinct bands of charcoal and fire-affected soil, indicating separate episodes of use. A broken basaltflake was exposed in the profile just above the third band of charcoal in Feature 2.

Figure 3.4, a profile of the south face of the trench, shows Feature 3, another charcoal-filled pit,associated with Layer II. The greatest concentration of charcoal in Feature 3 is located at its base,between 25 and 31 cmbs. Reddened and blackened earth throughout Feature 3 attests to its use as afirepit.

Figure 3.3. Profile of Unit 101, Feature 2, Site 4483, portion of north face.

Figure 3.4. Profile of Unit 101, Features 3 and 4, Site 4483, portion of south face.

68 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

The postmold (Feature 4), also on the south face, cuts through Layers II, III, and a portion of Layer IV.The soil within the postmold is a slightly sandy silt, with no cultural materials present.

Unit 1 was set up 20 cm south of Unit 101. It was the first of 21 units at Site 4483 in which aseparate, distinct soil layer was recognized between Layers II and III. This layer exhibited only slightdifferences in soil color and consistency when compared to Layer II, which prompted the designationof Layer IIb for this discrete layer. In units where Layer IIb appeared, Layer II became Layer IIa.

A small amount of charcoal and a volcanic glass flake were recovered from Layer IIa. One post-Contact-period artifact, an olive green sherd of bottle glass, was also recovered from Layer IIa. A heavyconcentration of charcoal, together with fire-affected cobbles and burnt soil, was found in Layer IIb at30 cmbs. This charcoal concentration is in line with the bowl-shaped pit profile seen in the south wallof Unit 101, and likely constitutes the southerly extension of Feature 3. One basalt flake with polish wasfound in Layer III. A portion of the Feature 4 postmold appeared in Unit 1 and produced charcoal,flotation samples, one broken basalt flake, and one basalt fragment.

Unit 2 was opened adjacent to the north wall of Unit 101 to determine the extent of the Feature2 firepit. Mammal bone was collected from the surface of the unit. Four distinct charcoal bands wereexcavated, corresponding to those described in the north wall of Unit 101. As mentioned above, abroken basalt flake was found within Feature 2, above one of the charcoal bands. An abundance ofwood charcoal, collected separately by band, was recovered from Feature 2. HRC 1493, taken from thelowest band, was submitted for radiocarbon dating analysis, and produced a conventional age of 270± 70 B.P.

Layer I, outside the feature, yielded two edge-altered flakes of basalt (one broken), one volcanicglass flake, and two volcanic glass fragments. Layer II contained a basalt artifact that could have beenused both as an ‘ulu maika and as a hammerstone.

The scatter of charcoal (Feature 1) at the surface north of Unit 101 prompted the opening ofUnit 3. A cow bone was recovered from the surface of the unit. Excavation revealed that Feature 1 wasprobably not a discrete feature, but was instead a portion of the charcoal from Feature 2 that had beenscattered by the backhoe during cutting of the Unit 101 trench. One volcanic glass fragment wasrecovered from Layer IIa, below the disturbed charcoal scatter.

Unit 4 was opened over a grubbed surface scatter of coral (Feature 5) found to the east of Unit101. A thin piece of metal was found in Layer IIa, and one volcanic glass flake was recovered fromLayer IIb in association with more coral pieces. This scatter initially was thought to represent pre-Contact remains. Excavators eventually determined, however, that use of the coral as a base or bed fora road was the more likely explanation. An interesting description of early twentieth-century use ofcoral as a road bed is provided by Thrum (1917); see also Chapter 2.

Units 5 and 6 are two contiguous units opened near the north wall of Unit 101, northwest ofUnit 2, to explore the possibility of further cultural deposits in this area. The discovery of a postmoldand firepits in Unit 101, and the recovery of the ‘ulu maika/hammerstone and other lithic artifacts inUnit 2, suggested that this may have been an activity area, or perhaps a habitation locale.

A possible postmold, Feature 6 (Figures 3.5 and 3.6), described as a depression in the soiltoward the base of Layer II, was noted in the northwest corner of Unit 6. The soil within Feature 6was like that of the rest of Layer II, a dark brown, silty clay, containing many fine to very fine roots;no cultural materials were present. Two basalt flakes and one volcanic glass fragment were recovered

Figure 3.5. Profile Units 5 and 6, Feature 6, Site 4483, west and north faces.

Figure 3.6. Feature 6, Site 4483, possible postmold. View to northwest. BMNeg. No. Oa(a)665:44.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 71

from Layer II in Unit 6. Small, sparse flecks of charcoal in Layer II, Unit 6, and in Layer III, Unit 5,were noted but not collected.

The discovery of a possible second postmold in Unit 6 prompted the opening of more unitssouth of Unit 101. During excavation of two adjacent units, Units 7 and 8 (Figure 3.7), the crewcollected one mammal bone from the surface and 21 indigenous lithic artifacts from Layer II. A smallbasalt adze, a basalt flake with polish, one other basalt flake, five broken basalt flakes, two volcanicglass flakes, one broken volcanic glass flake, and one volcanic glass fragment came from Unit 7. Unit8 contained one edge-altered flake, two other flakes, two broken flakes, and two fragments of basalt;and one broken flake and one core of volcanic glass. These artifacts surrounded a bowl-shaped firepit(Feature 7) that appeared at the juncture of the two units at the base of Layer II. A small concentrationof charcoal (Feature 8) was uncovered in the northeast corner of Unit 8, also at the base of Layer II. Tworadiocarbon samples, one from Layer II of Units 7 and 8, and one from the Feature 7 firepit fill,produced nearly identical conventional ages. HRC 1450, from Layer IIa, is dated at 180 ± 60 years B.P.,while HRC 1451, from within Feature 7, is dated at 160 ± 70 years B.P.

More lithic artifacts were recovered from nearby Unit 9. Two basalt flakes, two volcanic glassflakes, and a volcanic glass fragment were recovered from Layer IIa. Layer IIb produced one basalt flakeand one volcanic glass fragment. This underscored the probability that the locality in and around Unit101 was an area of intermittent, but considerable, cultural activity over a relatively long period of time,possibly a site of temporary habitation as well. In fact, a total of 42 indigenous lithic artifacts, fourfirepits, and at least one (and possibly two) postmold(s) were documented in Layers II and III for theunits described above.

Bulldozers uncovered two adjacent smears of charcoal and fire-affected soil (Features 11 and12) at the grubbed surface to the southeast and across the banana road from Unit 9 (see Figure 3.1).Excavation of Units 12 and 13 indicated that only 1–2 cm of each feature was still intact.

Unit 17 was set up where bulldozer operations had exposed Feature 15 in the southern portionof Site 4483, southeast of Unit 101. Feature 15 is the remnant of a kiln that had been constructed atsome time past for the production of charcoal (Figures 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10). The large, cobble-lined kilnwas cut in half by the bulldozer, leaving the rear portion open to view and to archaeological excavation.Five to six courses of vertically stacked, large cobbles characterized the north, west, and south facingsinside the semicircular feature. The bulldozer had cut away the front portion of the kiln, leaving a littleless than half of the original structure intact. The floor of the kiln was encountered 120 cmbs, while thediameter of the remaining stone-lined arc measured 2.80 m.

The fill within the kiln was composed of bright red and reddish brown, randomly mixed, andcharcoal-stained silty clay. Large cobbles, presumably associated with the facing of the kiln, andabundant charcoal pieces of varying sizes were noted in the fill. Post-Contact-period artifacts in the fillincluded fragments of metal, wire nails, and tin cans.

An unlined vent (see Figure 3.9) for controlling air and oxygen levels within the kilnduring firing was located in the west wall. This vent extended from just below floor level, upwardthrough the wall, to the surface. Two iron bars recovered from the kiln floor may have served originallyas supports for a roof of soil, branches and twigs, and Hilo grass. However, roofs of this type usuallyincluded the use of chicken wire as well (Klieger and Leidemann 1992), which was lacking in theFeature 15 kiln. Allen (1987:98), in her discussion of Feature 3 at Site 1888, described an iron bar thatcontinued to support the only remaining portion of that feature’s domed concrete roof. However,

Figure 3.7. Profile of Units 7 and 8, Features 7 and 8, Site 4483, south and north faces.

Figure 3.8. Profile of Unit 17, Feature 15, Site 4483, south face.

Figure 3.9 Feature 15, Site 4483, vent in kiln. View to west. BM Neg. No. Oa(a)686:7.

Figure 3.10 Feature 15, Site 4483, kiln. View to southwest. BM color slide field roll No. 30A:18.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 75

there was no evidence that a concrete roof had ever been part of the Feature 15 structure, leavingunknown the function of the two iron bars found on the floor of the kiln.

Bulldozer grubbing uncovered a semicircular ring of charcoal, designated Feature 17, northeastof Unit 101. Unit 22 was opened and the feature bisected for excavation in an attempt to discern theorigin of the charcoal, and/or its depth and horizontal extent. Several fire-affected cobbles were noted,together with a large amount of burnt and charcoal-stained soil (Figure 3.11). Excavators soondiscovered that the base of the charcoal feature in Layer III was all that remained.

North Ridge: Center Section of Site, North of Lo‘ihi Extension Road

An extensive lithic scatter (Feature 13), associated with the bottom of Layer II/top of Layer III, wasexposed in the center of the site on the grubbed surface of the north ridge (see Figure 3.1 and Figures3.12 and 3.13). A total of 1,035 lithic artifacts was collected from the 27 grids located within the 7,245m2 area of Feature 13. Basalt artifacts included adzes, adze fragments, adze blanks, and flakes withpolish, probably from adzes; hammerstones, an anvil/hammerstone, and a hammerstone/abrader; agrinding stone fragment; edge-altered flakes; a flaked cobble; and modified waterworn pebbles. Basaltcores and numerous basalt flakes, broken flakes, and fragments were recovered as well. The majorityof the artifact assemblage recovered from Feature 13 consists of volcanic glass cores, edge-alteredflakes, flakes, broken flakes, and fragments. The grubbed collections also include cow bone, two piecesof post-Contact-period glass, and a metal artifact. These artifacts are discussed in the LaboratoryAnalysis section, below.

Because of the large number of artifacts recovered from Feature 13, excavators opened Unit14, a 5 by 5 m unit in a relatively undisturbed area at the south end of the surface collection area. In thesoutheast corner of the unit, a portion of a small, intact fire feature (Feature 13.1) capped by upper LayerIII soils was revealed (see Unit 19, below). Unit 14 also produced a total of 344 indigenous artifacts.An adze blank was recovered from the grubbed surface (top of Layer IIa). Layer IIa yielded an adzefragment, a flake with polish, and 53 flakes, broken flakes, and fragments of basalt; and six cores, oneedge-altered flake, two edge-altered fragments, and 46 flakes, broken flakes, and fragments of volcanicglass. Basalt artifacts recovered from Layer IIb include one polished chisel, three flakes with polish, and53 flakes, broken flakes, and fragments. Volcanic glass artifacts from this layer include 10 cores, twoedge-altered flakes, one broken edge-altered flake, and 128 other flakes, broken flakes, and fragments.Layer III contained one broken flake with polish, and seven other flakes, broken flakes, and fragmentsof basalt; and three cores, one edge-altered flake, and 23 other flakes, broken flakes, and fragments ofvolcanic glass.

Samples were selected for radiocarbon analysis from the wood charcoal collected in Layers IIaand III. HRC 1452, recovered from Layer IIa, 10–23 cmbs, produced a conventional age of 110 ± 60B.P. HRC 1453, recovered from Layer III, 30–42 cmbs, produced a conventional age of 310 ± 50 B.P.

Although there appears to be no stylistic difference among the lithic tools recovered from LayerIIa and those recovered from Layer IIb/III in Unit 14, the variance in radiocarbon dates/ranges oncharcoal from Layer IIa and Layer III suggests the presence of two cultural components, separated byat least a century, and possibly more.

Unit 18 was opened along the west edge of the Feature 13 gridded area to further explorethe nature and extent of cultural activity in the immediate vicinity. A small amount of charcoal was

Figure 3.11. Profile of Unit 22, Feature 17, Site 4483, west face.

Figure 3.12. Feature 13, Site 4483, artifact totals by grid.

Figure 3.13. Distribution of Lithic Artifacts by Grid Number, Feature 13, Site 4483.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 79

recovered from Layers IIa, IIb, and III (Layer I had been removed by the bulldozer). One broken basaltflake was collected from the surface. One volcanic glass flake, one broken volcanic glass flake, fourpost-Contact-period glass fragments, and 147 metal fragments were collected from Layer IIa—the mostpost-Contact artifacts encountered in any one unit at Site 4483. Another volcanic glass flake came fromLayer IIb.

As mentioned briefly above, a portion of a small firepit (Feature 13.1) was uncovered in thesoutheast corner of Unit 14, in Layer III. Unit 19 was opened to investigate the extent and depth ofFeature 13.1, which proved to be a distinct, well-protected, bowl-shaped firepit (or possible refuse pit)containing charcoal (Figure 3.14). No baked soil rind appeared beneath the feature. A sample of woodcharcoal, HRC 1454, taken directly from the firepit, 23–55 cmbs, yielded a conventional age of 340 ±120 B.P. This age correlates well with the 310 ± 50 B.P. age obtained from sample HRC 1453 from30–42 cmbs in Layer III of Unit 14. One basalt flake was recovered from Layer II.

Unit 20 was opened near the southwest corner of Unit 14 to determine the nature of a soildepression (Feature 16) noted there, and to locate and recover any cultural material that might bepresent. One basalt flake with polish and two other basalt flakes were recovered from Layer IIa, and onebasalt flake was recovered from Layer IIb. None was in association with Feature 16. No charcoal, burntearth, or fire-affected rock was present. The large number of roots found in and just below the featuresuggests that the depression had been formed by vegetational growth, and disturbed by more recentbulldozer and backhoe activity. This soil depression is probably nothing more than a tree mold.

Unit 21 was opened as a 2 by 3 m unit adjacent to the west wall of Unit 14. The unit wasdivided into six 1 m2 sections, with each section excavated independently. The north and west portionsof this unit had been recently grubbed; the visible surface in all areas of the unit was already into LayerIIa soil. Layer IIa in Sections 21.1–21.5 contained modern trash (plastic, paper, foil, and road gravel).However, also recovered were two basalt flakes and a broken volcanic glass flake from Layer IIa inSection 21.2, and a basalt fragment and charred kukui seed coats from Layer IIb. A sparse amount ofcharcoal was also noted. Section 21.3 yielded a post-Contact-period glass fragment from Layer IIa, andscattered charcoal flecks were present in Layer IIa of Section 21.5. Section 21.6, which lay adjacent tothe west wall of Unit 14, produced a total of 16 lithic artifacts. Layer IIa produced three flakes and twobroken flakes of basalt, and one edge-altered flake and two fragments of volcanic glass. Layer IIbproduced one flake, one broken flake, and one fragment of basalt, as well as three flakes and two brokenflakes of volcanic glass. Sparse charcoal and charred kukui seed coats were also noted in Layer IIb.

Due to the relative abundance of traditional-type lithic artifacts found in Unit 14, furthersampling upslope (to the south) was carried out to determine the presence or absence of an intactcultural layer that would indicate intensive pre-Contact use of that area. A total of 83 auger boresamples was extracted and analyzed from seven transects in a 20 by 32 m area southwest of Unit 14.Samples were removed by manual bucket auger (7.5 cm in diameter) every 2 m along each transect,analyzed to determine soil characteristics, measured to estimate depths of layer boundaries, and screenedthrough 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh. Soil stratification data from units throughoutSite 4483 indicate Layer III as basal to the cultural sequence; therefore, each auger was halted eitherafter reaching Layer III, or at a depth of 1 m below surface. Most bore samples showed a consistent soilstratification composed of four layers (I, IIa, IIb, III).

Three indigenous artifacts were collected: two basalt flakes (Transect 3, Bore 1, Layer IIa andTransect 4, Bore 5, Layer IIb) and one basalt flake with polish (Transect 5, Bore 5, Layer IIb).

Figure 3.14. Feature 13.1, Site 4483, firepit/refuse pit. View to south. BM Neg.No. Oa(a)706:16.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 81

One fragment of post-Contact-period glass was collected (Transect 2, Bore 5, Layer I). Other post-Contact-period artifacts recorded, but not collected, include glass fragments (Transect 2, Bore 5, LayerI), one bottle cap with accompanying glass fragments (Transect 3, Bore 10, Layer IIa), and one screw-type bottle cap with accompanying glass fragments (Transect 5, Bore 11, Layer IIa). Small, widelydispersed flecks of charcoal were also recorded (Transect 3, Layers IIa and IIb, throughout; Transect4, Bore 6, Layer IIb; and Transect 5, Bore 8, Layer IIa), but not collected due to insufficient sample sizefor dating analysis or identification to taxon.

Layers I and IIa, both containing fragments of glass, appear to have been deposited post-Contact. Layer IIb, containing charcoal and two basalt flakes, appears to be the layer of depositionduring the indigenous cultural era. Layer III yielded no cultural material. Analysis of all data indicatedthat cultural evidence was insufficient to warrant further excavation in the transect area. The heaviestconcentration of lithic artifacts found in the southern part of Feature 13 does not appear to extend furthersouth than Unit 14.

North Ridge: Northernmost Section of Site

On the north part of the north ridge, bulldozers exposed a scatter of charcoal on the grubbed surface ofLayer III. Excavation of Unit 10 revealed the remains of a small firepit (Feature 9) containing bothcharcoal and burnt kukui seed coats.

Bulldozer grubbing also uncovered a large deposit of charcoal further north on a slope of thenorth ridge near the northeast boundary of the site. Excavation of Unit 11 revealed a funnel-shaped imu,Feature 10 (Figure 3.15). The imu contained many fire-affected cobbles, a 10-cm-thick charcoal lens,and burnt soil at the bottom.

Ongoing construction activity on the north ridge near Unit 11, Feature 10, uncovered a secondlarge concentration of charcoal on the grubbed surface, as well as one volcanic glass core and twovolcanic glass fragments. Unit 15 was opened to explore the extent and depth of the feature, labeledFeature 14. Charred kukui seed coats, fire-affected cobbles, and burnt soil were found within thecharcoal-filled pit, with a baked soil rind underlying it. Feature 14 was designated an imu (Figures 3.16and 3.17) upon completion of excavation.

Four more charcoal features were uncovered as bulldozer grubbing continued at the north endof the north ridge. Unit 28 was set up to examine Feature 23. The perimeter and resulting shape of thefeature were totally amorphous due to grubbing by bulldozers. However, the presence of angular andsubangular fire-affected cobbles and burnt soil associated with the feature, together with an abundanceof charcoal, indicate that Feature 23 may have been an imu. One metal fragment and one glass marblewere collected from the grubbed surface. One small, broken volcanic glass flake was recovered fromthe feature fill.

Unit 29 explored Feature 24, an accumulation of charcoal at the grubbed surface. The small sizeof this feature, with regard to both diameter and depth, together with the absence of burnt earth, suggestthat Feature 24 may be only a remnant of the two imu nearby, scattered and deposited during machinegrubbing here on the north ridge. On the other hand, Feature 24 may have been a refuse pit.

Units 30 and 31 were opened to include the visible portions of Features 25 and 26, which,like Feature 23, appeared as large concentrations of charcoal following bulldozer grubbing.Excavation of the features revealed bowl-shaped pits of considerable size, together with fire-affectedsoil and cobbles, indicating that both Feature 25 and Feature 26 are imu (Figures 3.18 and 3.19). One

Figure 3.15. Profile of Unit 11, Feature 10, Site 4483, north face.

Figure 3.16. Profile of Unit 15, Feature 14, Site 4483, west face.

Figure 3.17. Feature 14, Site 4483, imu. View to west. BM Neg. No.Oa(a)685:16.

Figure 3.18. Profile of Unit 30 extension, Feature 25, Site 4483, east face.

Figure 3.19. Profile of Unit 31, Feature 26, Site 4483, east face.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 87

edge-altered volcanic glass flake and one broken volcanic glass flake were recovered from the grubbedsurface (Layer IIa) of Unit 30. Sixteen volcanic glass artifacts were recovered from Unit 31: one coreand one flake from the grubbed surface (Layer IIa); two flakes, three broken flakes, and five fragmentsfrom within Layer IIa; and two flakes and two broken flakes from Layer IIb.

Four small scatters of charcoal in the same northern area were labeled Features 28, 29, 30, and31. Units 33, 34, 35, and 36 showed that these features were only 1 to 1.5 cm in depth. In addition, thebulldozer tracks in Feature 31 contained soil that appeared to be fire-affected. One explanation for thesesmall scatters of charcoal and the apparent burnt soil may be found in the presence of the nearby imulocated on the far north end of the ridge. With bulldozers and backhoes working back and forth overthe north ridge, the charcoal and underlying burnt soil may have been dragged along. On the other hand,the scattered charcoal and burnt soil might be the remains of a brush fire in the vicinity at some timepast. One volcanic glass fragment was recovered from the grubbed surface (already well into Layer II)of Feature 31, Unit 36.

South Ridge: Southernmost Section of the Site

Unit 23 was opened adjacent to Likelike Highway, where a backhoe working on the south ridge hadexposed a soil bank containing charcoal and a number of fire-reddened rocks (Feature 18). Excavationof Feature 18 (Figure 3.20) revealed a large, funnel-shaped pit, 80 cmbs at its deepest point. Charcoal,fire-affected rocks, and charred kukui seed coats were found above a rind of burnt soil. The top of thisimu was associated with Layer II, while its base was cut well into Layer III.

In a nearby area (see Figure 3.1 and map inset), four concentrations of charcoal (Features 19,20, 21, and 22) associated with either Layer IIb or III were uncovered on the newly exposed surface oftwo grubbed access roads.

Unit 24 was opened over a scatter of charcoal, designated Feature 19, seen on the grubbedsurface. The unit was bisected in order to provide a profile of the feature. It proved to be extremelyshallow, no more than 1–2 cm in depth, with a very small area of burnt soil noted as well. The shallow,scattered appearance of Feature 19, plus its proximity to Feature 20, suggests that originally it may havebeen part of Feature 20 (see below), and subsequently spread by bulldozer during grubbing of the road.

Unit 25 was opened to investigate Feature 20, another scatter of charcoal exposed on thegrubbed surface of the access road (Figure 3.21). The unit was bisected and the south portion excavatedfirst. One volcanic glass fragment was recovered from the grubbed surface of Layer III, outside thefeature. At 35 cmbs the feature was no longer a small scatter, but a dense concentration of charcoal withfire-affected pebbles and cobbles as well. The bowl-shaped pit feature turned out to be much larger thanoriginally thought—roughly 1 m in diameter. The presence of the fire-affected cobbles and burnt soiltogether with the charcoal suggests that Feature 20, associated with Layer III, originally functioned asan imu.

Units 26 and 27 were opened to explore Features 21 and 22, each of which proved to be verysmall and shallow with no real definition of size or shape. Like Feature 19, Features 21 and 22 wereprobably scattered remnants of the Feature 20 imu. In addition to charcoal, two basalt flakes (one ofthem edge-altered) were recovered from Feature 21, and both features contained charred kukui seedcoats.

Figure 3.20. Profile of Unit 23, Feature 18, Site 4483, east face.

Figure 3.21. Plan of Unit 25 and extension, Feature 20, Site 4483.

90 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Bulldozer grubbing of a dump road in the far southwest portion of Site 4483 revealed a smallscatter of charcoal, Feature 27, at the grubbed surface. However, when crew members opened Unit 32and began excavation, it became apparent that the feature was extremely shallow, with flecks ofcharcoal scattered over an area no more than 30 to 50 cm in diameter, with a depth of only 1 to 1.5 cm.Exactly where this small amount of charcoal originated, or what the original function or purpose mayhave been, is unknown.

A large concentration of lithic artifacts, designated Feature 32, was found approximately twomonths after the completion of excavation in Units 24–27, in the area of Feature 20; the artifacts wereundoubtedly exposed by several periods of heavy rains. The 94 traditional lithic artifacts collected fromthe grubbed surface (Layer IIa/IIb) are mostly of basalt. Basalt tools include one adze fragment, oneadze preform, one awl, two grinding stone fragments, one hammerstone, two edge-altered flakes, onebroken edge-altered flake, four flakes with polish, and one broken flake with polish. There were also68 basalt flakes and fragments recovered from the grubbed surface. Volcanic glass artifacts include twocores (one of which is a secondary core), six flakes, one broken flake, and three fragments.

Units 37, 38, 39, 40, and 41 were opened on the grubbed access roads to address the questionof whether the 94 artifacts that constituted Feature 32 indicated a local activity area or were simply theresult of erosion. The soils within the units were typical of the general soil sequence found throughoutthe site, although all of Layer I and some of Layer IIa had been removed by the bulldozer. All of theartifacts recovered from these units came from Layer IIa. Unit 37 yielded one basalt flake with polish,one basalt flake, one basalt fragment, one volcanic glass flake, and one broken volcanic glass flake, andtwo pieces of post-Contact-period glass. Unit 38 contained one edge-altered volcanic glass flake. Nocultural materials were collected from Unit 39. Unit 41 yielded a volcanic glass core. These fewartifacts, as well as the 94 lithics collected from the surface of the grubbed roads, appear to relatestratigraphically, and possibly functionally, with both the Feature 20 imu, located on the north-southaccess road, and the Feature 18 imu, situated just off Likelike Highway.

Feature 33, a soil depression and charcoal deposit, was revealed in the cut bank of the north-south access road. Excavation of Unit 42 showed Feature 33 to be a small firepit, associated with LayerIIa, containing charcoal and fire-affected cobbles and soil. One basalt flake with polish and one brokenbasalt flake were recovered from Layer IIa, and one basalt flake from Layer IIb.

Unit 43 was set up to investigate a small charcoal stain on the grubbed surface of the north-south access road. A very small concentration of charcoal appeared in the southeast quadrant of the unitat a depth of 7 cmbs, in Layer IIb. Small flecks of charcoal continued until 12 cmbs, then disappearedcompletely. Feature 34 may have been part of the Feature 20 imu pushed by the bulldozer when theaccess road was grubbed.

Seven more units were opened to further explore the vicinity surrounding the Feature 32 lithicscatter. Unit 44 was opened upslope and southwest of the grubbed road intersection. Feature 35, asmall firepit or refuse pit (Figure 3.22), was encountered at the base of Layer IIa/top of Layer IIb. Thisfeature contained both charcoal and charred kukui seed coats. A total of 32 lithic artifacts wasrecovered from the unit: one basalt flake with polish from the undisturbed surface; one flake, one brokenflake, and one fragment of volcanic glass from Layer I; another basalt flake with polish, one edge-altered basalt flake, seven basalt flakes, five broken basalt flakes, eight volcanic glass flakes, twobroken volcanic glass flakes, and one flake of cryptocrystalline silicate from Layer IIa; one basalt

Figure 3.22. Unit 44, Feature 35, Site 4483. Top: Plan of Unit 44 and Feature 35. Middle:Profile of Unit 44, west face. Bottom: Profile of Feature 35, west face.

92 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

flake and one broken basalt flake from Layer IIb; and one basalt flake from the Feature 35 fill. Post-Contact artifacts include three bottle caps and one metal bastard file recovered from upper Layer IIa.

Although no feature was found in Unit 45, located just southwest of Unit 44, Layer IIa yieldedone basalt flake, one broken basalt flake, two volcanic glass cores, two volcanic glass flakes, and twobroken volcanic glass flakes.

Excavators collected one whole amber beer bottle and two beer bottle fragments from theunmodified surface of Unit 46, located southeast of the access roads’ intersection. Layer I yielded twopost-Contact-period glass fragments, while Layer IIa yielded two basalt flakes.

Units 47 and 48 were opened to the northwest of the intersection of the access roads. The onlyartifact recovered from Unit 47 was one volcanic glass flake from Layer IIa. Once excavation reachedLayer IIb, however, excavators encountered an apparent pebble and cobble alignment, orienteddiagonally across the unit. This alignment, designated Feature 36, appeared to be a natural accumulationof rocks. Unit 48 provided meager cultural information as well, with only one broken volcanic glassflake recovered from Layer IIa.

Units 49 and 50 were opened to the northeast of the access roads’ intersection. In Unit 49,Layer I yielded one basalt flake, a small fragment of post-Contact-period glass, and a few small piecesof charcoal. Upper Layer IIa yielded an edge-altered basalt flake, a volcanic glass core, and a volcanicglass flake. Lower Layer IIa yielded a basalt flake and a broken basalt flake, and charcoal sufficient forcollection. Soil samples from Layers IIa, IIb, and III were collected for paleoenviron- mental analysis(Figure 3.23). In addition, soil samples were taken from Layers I, IIa, IIb, and III for microartifactanalysis (see Laboratory Analyses below).

Unit 50 yielded just two lithic artifacts, an edge-altered volcanic glass flake from the lowerportion of Layer IIa, and a basalt flake from Layer IIb.

Feature 37, a surface alignment of boulders and coarse cobbles, was discovered close toLikelike Highway and southwest of Feature 32. Although the feature was originally considered to bea possible platform or terrace remnant, excavation of Unit 51 revealed that the base of the rocks formingthe alignment was found just a few centimeters into Layer II; there was no evidence of a terrace or aplatform of any sort (Figure 3.24). A basalt adze preform came from Layer I in Unit 51.1 (the sectionof the unit upslope of the feature). Unit 51.2 (downslope of the feature) yielded two volcanic glassflakes (one of them edge-altered) from Layer IIa, and an edge-altered basalt flake with polish fromLayer IIb. The boulders and coarse cobbles that composed this alignment may have been deposited hereat some time during construction of Likelike Highway, and perhaps moved around again duringpreparation of the area for planting bananas.

Feature 38, a large cobble mound (Figure 3.25), was located just southeast of the above units.Unit 52 was opened to investigate the feature, but neither artifacts nor other cultural materials wererecovered. Excavators concluded that the mound of cobbles based in Layer I/II most likely had beendeposited there during recent clearing of the land for banana cultivation.

A small deposit of charcoal, Feature 39, was noted during monitoring along Likelike Highway.Unit 53 revealed that it had been deposited by a bulldozer and was contained within construction fill,thus the original context was unclear. A small amount of charcoal constituted the only cultural materialpresent.

Figure 3.23. Profile of Unit 49, Site 4483, west face.

Figure 3.24. Profile of Unit 51, Site 4483, north face.

Figure 3.25. Profile of Unit 52, Site 4483, west and north faces.

96 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

EXCAVATION SUMMARY

Fire Features

A total of six imu (Features 10, 14, 18, 20, 25, and 26) were documented for Site 4483, two associatedwith Layer II, one with Layer IIa, one with Layer III, and two of unknown association. Crew membersinvestigated nine smaller charcoal features (Features 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13.1, 23, 33, and 35), four of whichwere associated with Layer II, one each with Layer IIa and IIb, and three with Layer III. In addition, 15scatters of charcoal of unknown layer association were revealed throughout the site on grubbed surfacesduring bulldozer and backhoe activities (Features 1, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34,and 39). Table 3.5, above, provides an overview of the physical characteristics of the various firefeatures.

Postmolds and Lithics

Feature 4, a postmold associated with Layer II, was found on the south face of Unit 101, and anotherpossible postmold, Feature 6, was encountered in Layer II at the northwest corner of Unit 6. A largenumber of lithic artifacts was recovered from the site, especially from the area surrounding Feature 7,from Feature 13, and from Feature 32. The postmold and possible postmold, together with the largelithic scatters, the six imu, and the many other charcoal features found at Site 4483 strongly suggesttemporary habitation of the site.

Modern and Natural Features

Feature 15 is the large, post-Contact-period charcoal kiln, one of six such kilns documented for sitesin the ‘ili of Luluku. Evidence for early twentieth century road construction was uncovered at Feature5. Five features are either natural or very recent, and do not provide any further useful information forsite interpretation. Feature 16, a soil depression, and Feature 36, a subsurface rock alignment, areprobably naturally formed. Features 37 and 38 may have been created recently, as banana farmerscleared the area for planting. Feature 40, the trash dump, is also a recently created feature.

LABORATORY ANALYSES

All artifacts from this site are numbered with the Bishop Museum site number (50-Oa-G5-152-) as aprefix; for easier reading, this prefix is deleted in the discussions below.

RADIOCARBON DATING

Bishop Museum archaeologists recovered wood charcoal samples from many layers and features at Site4483. In order to prevent contamination, all charcoal was collected with metal forceps or trowels,carefully wrapped and sealed in aluminum foil envelopes, and labeled with provenience and unit and

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 97

layer/feature numbers. The samples were then taken to the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratoryfor preliminary processing, which included drying the samples in small ovens, separating the charcoalfrom soil or organic materials, and finally, weighing the processed samples. All charcoal not sent forradiocarbon dating remains curated at the Archaeology Laboratory for possible future analysis.

Wood charcoal samples from the following contexts were selected for analysis: Features 2, 7,13.1, and 25, as well as Layer IIa in Units 7 and 8, and Layers IIa and III in Unit 14. These charcoalsamples were submitted to Beta Analytic, Miami, Florida. The two smallest samples, HRC 1454(Feature 13.1) and HRC 1455 (Feature 25), each weighing 0.4 gm, were sent by Beta Analytic to theLawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, where they were processed by the AcceleratorMass Spectrometry (AMS) technique.

The results of the radiocarbon analyses are presented in Table 3.6. The list includes uncorrected14C age (at 1 F) and *13C (indicating that the dates have been corrected for isotope fractionation), 13C-adjusted (conventional) age, and calibrated dates/range A.D. using the computer program CALIB 3.0.3(Stuiver and Reimer 1993). Two methods were utilized: “Method A yields calibrated ages (intercepts)and ranges; Method B generates a cal probability distribution compatible with the 14C age and itsGaussian age distribution” (Stuiver and Reimer 1993:226). Refer to Table 3.6 for all calibratedage/range data.

HRC 1493 (Beta 75011) was selected for radiocarbon analysis from the charcoal collected fromFeature 2, Unit 2, a firepit associated with the bottom of Layer II. The four distinct bands of charcoalthat constitute Feature 2 were first noted in Unit 101, and appear in the profile of the north face of thatunit. HRC 1493, recovered from the feature fill in Band 4 at 48 cmbs (see Figure 3.3), produced aconventional age of 270 ± 70 B.P. and a pre-Contact A.D. 1453–1702 range, with a 95.4% confidencelevel.

Feature 13.1 in Unit 19 is a distinct, circular firepit or refuse pit, 0.30 m in diameter and 0.22m in depth, well-sealed by Layer III soil, and located in the southeast corner of Unit 14. HRC 1454(Beta 5586; CAMS 3732), collected directly from the feature, yielded a conventional age of 340 ± 120B.P. and a pre-Contact date range of A.D. 1403–1707, with a 95.4% confidence level.

Unit 14, a 5 m2 unit opened adjacent to the large lithic concentration of Feature 13, containedindigenous artifacts in both Layer II and Layer III. Two wood charcoal samples were submitted forradiocarbon analysis. HRC 1453 (Beta 5585), recovered from Layer III, 30–42 cmbs, produced aconventional age of 310 ± 50 B.P. and a pre-Contact A.D. 1463–1668 range, with a 95.4% confidencelevel. In addition to this charcoal sample, Layer III yielded 35 traditional artifacts of basalt and volcanicglass, and no evidence of post-Contact-period artifacts.

The three dates/ranges discussed above are nearly identical, and, taken together with the numberof indigenous artifacts recovered, probably represent the earliest use of Site 4483 as an activity/lithicworkshop area. Lending further support to this statement are the 1,056 traditional lithic artifactsrecovered from the grubbed surface (bottom of Layer II/top of Layer III) of Feature 13, immediatelynorth of Unit 14.

The second wood charcoal sample from Unit 14, HRC 1452 (Beta 5584), recovered from LayerIIa, 10–23 cmbs, generated a conventional age of 110 ± 60 B.P. and a probable post-Contact A.D.1797–1945 range at a 95.4% confidence level. It is also possible that we have a late pre-Contactcomponent represented in Layer IIa of Unit 14, shown by the A.D. 1673–1779 date range.

Feature 7 in Units 7 and 8 is a bowl-shaped firepit or refuse pit associated with Layer II. Thischarcoal feature, 0.12 m in depth, containing fire-affected cobbles and charcoal, was found along the

Table 3.6. Radiocarbon Dating Results, Site 4483

Unit Feature Context/Depth

(cmbs)*

Measured14C Age B.P.

(1F)

*13C 13C-Adjusted(Conventional)

Age B.P.

Calibrated Date/Range A.D.

HRCNo.

Lab No.

Stuiver and Reimer (1993)

CalibratedDate(s)

Range-Method A:Intercepts

Range-Method B: Relative area under probability

distribution curve

(1F) (2F) 68.3% areaenclosed (1F)

95.4% areaenclosed (2F)

7 & 8 12–22Layer II/Level 1

240 ± 60 -28.7 180 ± 60 16781772, 18011941, 1954

1660–17021718–18191858–18611917–1954

1641–1955 1660–1701 .221719–1818 .571918–1955 .21

1652–1893 .821905–1955 .18

1450 Beta 5582

7 & 8 7 24–29Fe. fill

210 ± 70 -28.4 160 ± 70 16831745, 18071933, 1954

1663–18971902–1955

1641–1955 1671–1705 .181715–1783 .361794–1820 .141838–1871 .151915–1947 .161953–1955 .01

1662–1899 .821900–1955 .18

1451 Beta 5583

14 13 10–23Layer IIa

160 ± 60 -27.9 110 ± 60 1710, 18221833, 18821912, 1954

1680–17531804–19371954–1955

1663–1955 1689–1733 .281813–1925 .72

1673–1779 .381797–1945 .62

1452 Beta 5584

14 13 30–42Layer III

320 ± 60 -26.0 310 ± 50 1638 1511–16001616–1654

1459–16691786–17931948–1953

1513–1596 .711618–1652 .29

1463–1668 .991787–1792 .00

1453 Beta 5585

19 13.1 23–55Fe. fillLayer III

340 ± 120 1520, 15691627

1441–1666 1400–18891907–1954

1440–1667 .99 1790–1790 .001951–1952 .01

1403–1707 .801713–1821 .131836–1878 .031914–1955 .05

1454 Beta 5586Cams 3732

30 25 4–25Fe. fillLayer II

80 ± 80 1955 1683–17451807–19331954–1955

1660–1955 1689–1733 .271812–1925 .73

1672–1781 .371795–1946 .631953–1955 .00

1455 Beta 5587Cams 3733

2 2 48–55Fe. filllower Layer II

290 ± 70 -26.4 270 ± 70 1651 1520–15691627–16721781–17951946–1953

1459–16951725–18161921–1954

1511–1600 .441616–1678 .361772–1801 .141940–1955 .07

1453–1702 .721716–1819 .201859–1860 .001917–1955 .08

1493 Beta 75011

*Below grubbed surface.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 99

south wall on each side of the common boundary of these adjacent units. HRC 1450 (Beta 5582),collected immediately outside the firepit at a depth of 12–22 cmbs in upper Layer II, yielded aconventional age of 180 ± 60 B.P., and at a 95.4% confidence level produced a date range of A.D.1652–1893. HRC 1451 (Beta 5583), recovered from within the firepit, 24–29 cmbs, generated aconventional age of 160 ± 70 B.P., and at a 95.4% confidence level yielded a range of A.D. 1662–1899.These dates, together with the lack of post-Contact artifacts in Layer II or the feature, suggest pre-Contact, or possibly initial post-Contact utilization of the area. The assemblage consists of 21 basaltand volcanic glass artifacts (adzes, flakes, and one core) that were recovered from Layer II. Three ofthese artifacts showed positive reactions during immunological tests—one to dog antiserum, one to fernantiserum, and one to pig antiserum (see Residue Analysis, below).

Feature 25, an imu in Unit 30, is a distinctive bowl-shaped pit containing a concentration offire-affected cobbles, burnt soil, ash, and charcoal. The imu measures 1 m in diameter and 0.45 m indepth. Wood charcoal collected from the feature fill (HRC 1455; Beta 5587; CAMS 3733) produceda conventional age of 80 ± 80 B.P. and a post-Contact range of A.D. 1795–1946 at a 95.4 % confidencelevel. A late pre-Contact range is also possible, shown by the A. D. 1689–1733 range.

The radiocarbon dates discussed above strongly suggest that Native Hawaiians activelyexploited Site 4483 as early as the fifteenth century, and that they and/or other groups continued toutilize various portions of the site, if not continually, then intermittently, into the present century. Thedate range of A.D. 1403–1707 for the upper portion of Layer III in the Unit 14/19 area, and for thedeepest charcoal band of Feature 2, in Layer II of Unit 2, indicate the earliest cultural component at Site4483. In addition, the largest number of indigenous artifacts recovered from Units 14 and 19, as wellas those from the Feature 13 gridded area, came from the bottom of Layer II (Layer IIb) and upperLayer III (Layer III/1), indicating contemporaneous use of these artifacts and the charcoal features inUnit 2 and in the Unit 14/19 area. This particular portion of Site 4483 was probably utilized as anactivity area for tool production, and very possibly for food preparation as well.

MICROARTIFACT ANALYSIS

The certainty of mechanical disturbance from bulldozers and the probability of erosional disturbancethroughout the area led to questions about artifact proveniences at this site. Although the many firepitsand imu in this area indicated that cultural activities were taking place here, it was possible that someof the artifacts had undergone post-depositional transport. The large number of flakes and fragmentsat Site 4483 indicates a lithic production area; such an area should be accompanied by microdebitage,the smallest residue of stone flaking activity, which becomes embedded in the soil as a permanentsignature of lithic tool production.

Microartifact analysis was attempted in one section of the site in order to see whether or notmicrodebitage, or other microartifacts, could be detected. Soil samples were taken from four layers inUnit 49, located within the Feature 32 lithic artifact scatter in the southern section of the site.Microartifacts were recognized in all four layers. Charcoal and post-Contact-period glass were seen inthe samples from Layer I and Layer IIa. The Layer IIb sample contained volcanic glass. The Layer IIIsample yielded charcoal. Naturally formed basalt granules and culturally produced basalt microartifactswere observed throughout the samples, but were difficult to differentiate and so were not quantified.Each of these materials was also recovered from Unit 49 during initial excavation.

100 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

The results of the microartifact study indicate that lithic flaking activities were being conductedin this area of the site, and post-depositional transport of artifacts is probably not a significant problemhere. A detailed explanation of the microartifact analysis conducted for this site is given in AppendixB.

RESIDUE ANALYSIS

Residue analyses of various types are becoming widely used by archaeologists (although some havequestioned the validity of the results of blood analyses—e.g. Eisele et al. 1995). In areas where thepreservation of macroscopic organics is poor or virtually nonexistent, as in parts of the HawaiianIslands, residue analyses may prove to be an extremely valuable tool for identifying the various floraand fauna utilized by the indigenous inhabitants. Chemical, microscopic, and immunological tests, inconjunction with microscopic analysis of wear patterns, can shed light on the use, or uses, of early stoneimplements. In addition, the utilization of such tests and analyses may enhance our knowledge offeature and site function, intersite relationships (e.g., exchange or procurement networks), and culturalchange over time.

Six basalt and four volcanic glass pieces from Site 4483 were chosen for crossover immuneelectrophoresis (CIEP) analysis, based on physical characteristics such as edge use or edge wear, orbecause of a spatial association with other features and artifacts indicating an activity area. Only four,all of basalt, elicited positive reactions. The results are shown in Table 3.7, and are discussed in greaterdetail below.

Table 3.7. Results of Residue Analysis on Ten Lithic Artifacts, Site 4483

Reaction Material Specimen Unit Layer/Level Artifact No.(50-Oa-G5-153-)

pig basalt adze fragment Grid 1, Fe. 13 grubbed surface 23

pig basalt edge-altered flake 8 II/1 172

dog basalt flake with polish 7 II/1 26

fern basalt adze 7 II/1 27

none basalt flake Grid 1, Fe. 13 grubbed surface 19

none basalt broken flake 7 II/2 28

none volcanic glass flake 2 II 25

none volcanic glass flake 7 II/2 163

none volcanic glass flake 9 IIa/2 364

none volcanic glass fragment 9 IIa/2 363

Artifact 23, the basalt adze fragment that produced a positive reaction to pig antiserum,exhibited an intact working edge (Figure 3.26) with an adhering mineral or organic substance. It wasrecovered from the grubbed surface of Feature 13, Grid 1, Layer II/III (see Figure 3.12), approximately60 m north of Feature 7, the charcoal-filled firepit or refuse pit excavated within Units 7 and 8.

Artifact 172, the basalt flake that elicited a positive reaction to pig antiserum, displays roundingon both lateral edges (Figure 3.27). It was collected in Unit 8, Layer II, just outside the

Figure 3.26. Artifact 23, basalt adze fragment, Grid 1.Positive reaction to pig antiserum.

Figure 3.27. Artifact 172, basalt flake, Unit 8. Positive reaction to pigantiserum.

102 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

firepit or refuse pit (Feature 7) that originates in Layer II. There are also a number of other firepits andimu in the area, suggesting that the adze and flake were used in killing and butchering pigs prior tocooking.

Artifact 26 (Figure 3.28), a basalt flake with polish associated with Unit 7, Layer II, showeda positive reaction to dog antiserum. This flake exhibited rounding, probably from use-wear, on thedistal end. This characteristic, in addition to the animal residue, suggests food preparation.

A positive reaction to common fern antiserum was obtained on Artifact 27 (Figure 3.29), abasalt adze also collected from Unit 7. This antiserum was raised against bracken fern (Pteridium spp.,family Polypodiaceae), and will elicit positive reactions with all members of the common fern family.

The items that produced no reaction to the available antisera were a broken basalt flake fromFeature 13, a volcanic glass flake from Unit 2, another broken basalt flake and a volcanic glass flakefrom Unit 7, and a volcanic glass flake and a volcanic glass fragment from Unit 9.

The results of the immunological analyses on the basalt artifacts discussed above underscorethe importance of flakes in the overall lithic assemblage. As Shott (1994:71) points out, “flake debriscan be a reliable, if not the sole, source of information on tool-using activities … and can moreaccurately reflect human behavior than the tools found at the same site.”

The Discussion section below includes an interpretation of what these results might mean forSite 4483. Details of the residue analysis procedure conducted on the 10 artifacts can be found inAppendix C. Further discussion of the analysis results and significance for Hawaiian site interpretationcan be found in Allen et al. (1995).

GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS

Macroscopic analysis of the lithic assemblage from Site 4483 indicated that at least two different kindsof basalt were used, and that most of the basalt was worked in a preliminary fashion elsewhere beforebeing brought to the site for final tool production. A sample of artifacts was submitted for geochemicalanalysis to determine whether artifacts at the site are derived from locally available stone, more distantsources, or a combination of both.

Eight lithic artifacts from various parts of the site were submitted for geochemical analysis(Table 3.8). The pieces chosen are of fine-grained basalt, coarse-grained basalt, and volcanic glass,representing manufacturing tools, unfinished tools, and finished tools. They include an ‘ulumaika/hammerstone and a grinding stone fragment, both of coarse-grained basalt; an adze preform, anadze fragment, a small whole adze, and a chisel of finer-grained basalt; and a core and an edge-alteredflake of volcanic glass.

Four of the samples were sourced to the east-central portion of the Ko‘olau range (the ‘ulumaika/hammerstone, adze preform, grinding stone fragment, and volcanic glass core), while theremaining four were sourced to the Wai‘anae range (the chisel, adze, adze fragment, and edge-alteredvolcanic glass flake). It is interesting that the heavier, coarser-grained artifacts (‘ulu maika/hammerstone and grinding stone) and the unfinished artifact (adze preform) are from local sources, andtherefore not transported from any great distance. The three smaller, finished artifacts (the complete andbroken adzes and the chisel) are of material that has been transported from the other side of the island.Such transport may indicate that these items were highly valued.

Figure 3.28. Artifact 26, basalt flake with polish, Unit 7. Positivereaction to dog antiserum.

Figure 3.29. Artifact 27, basalt adze, Unit 7. Positive reaction to fernantiserum.

Figure 3.30. Artifact 171, basalt adze, Grid 18. Sourced to Wai‘anae Range.

Figure 3.31. Artifact 260, basalt adze fragment, Feature 32 (grubbed road surface).Sourced to Wai‘anae Range.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 105

Table 3.8. Results of Geochemical Analysis on Eight Lithic Artifacts, Site 4483

Source Material Specimen Unit Layer/Level Artifact No.(50-Oa-G5-153-)

Ko‘olau basalt ‘ulu maika/hammerstone 2 II 65

Ko‘olau basalt grinding stone fragment Fe. 13, Grid 3grubbed surface

108

Ko‘olau volcanic glass core 14 IIb 205

Ko‘olau basalt adze preform 51.1 I 175

Wai‘anae basalt small adze Fe. 13, Grid 18,grubbed surface

171

Wai‘anae volcanic glass edge-altered flake 14 IIb 209

Wai‘anae basalt chisel 14 IIb 213

Wai‘anae basalt adze fragment Fe. 32grubbed surface

260

Appendix D provides more details of the geochemical analysis conducted on these eightartifacts.

LITHIC ARTIFACTS

A total of 1,635 lithic artifacts was recovered from Site 4483, including 468 (28.6%) basalt artifacts,1,167 (71.3%) volcanic glass artifacts, and one (0.1%) artifact of a cryptocrystalline silicate material.Table 3.9 summarizes the lithic artifacts from Site 4483. The percentage values for basalt artifacts(tools, cores, and debitage) given in Table 3.9 are based on the basalt artifact total (n = 468). Similarly,percentage values for volcanic glass artifacts are based on the volcanic glass total (n = 1,167).

Specific artifact numbers, along with specimen types, proveniences, counts, and additionalnotes, are provided in Appendices E, F, and G.

Method

All collected artifacts were cataloged at Bishop Museum Archaeological Laboratory, where they noware stored. All lithics were handled minimally; no washing was done. Surfaces of a few samples werelightly brushed with a soft dry brush to reduce the amount of soil and to expose artifact form data foranalysis. Soil remained on the surfaces of the brushed samples because much of the cultural basaltmaterial had developed a thick band of relatively soft weathering rind, and overbrushing would havealtered the artifact surfaces.

All lithic artifacts from Site 4483 were examined with a reflecting light microscope at 10X forcharacteristics of use such as residue or edge alteration. Seventeen artifacts exhibit visible residue and/oraltered edge(s). They additionally appear to be associated with probable activity areas. Of the 17artifacts, 10 were selected for crossover immune electrophoresis (CIEP) analysis: six basalt and fourvolcanic glass artifacts that are derived from two lithic concentrations. The four artifacts yieldingpositive results during CIEP analysis are described in the Residue Analysis section, above, as well asin the Basalt Tools portion of this section.

106 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.9. Summary of Lithic Artifacts, Site 4483

Artifact Type

North Ridge South RidgeSite TotalsFeature 13 Units Feature 32 Units

# %* # % # % # % # %

Basalt Tools

Adze, complete 2 0.43 1 0.21 3 0.64

Adze fragments 4 0.85 1 0.21 1 0.21 6 1.28

Adze blanks 3 0.64 1 0.21 4 0.85

Adze preforms 1 0.21 1 0.21 2 0.43

Anvil/hammerstone 1 0.21 1 0.21

Abrader/hammerstone 1 0.21 1 0.21

Awl 1 0.21 1 0.21

Hammerstones 5 1.07 1 0.21 6 1.28

Chisel 1 0.21 1 0.21

Flake/flake fragments with polish 6 1.28 9 1.92 5 1.07 5 1.07 25 5.34

Edge-altered flakes/flake fragments 14 3.00 3 0.64 3 0.64 3 0.64 23 4.91

Grinding stones 1 0.21 2 0.43 3 0.64

‘Ulu maika/hammerstone 1 0.21 1 0.21

Flaked cobble 1 0.21 1 0.21

Modified waterworn pebbles 2 0.43 2 0.43

Total Basalt Tools 40 8.5 17 3.6 14 3.0 9 1.9 80 17.1

Basalt Cores 3 0.6 3 0.6

Basalt Debitage

Flakes 60 12.82 80 17.09 42 8.97 18 3.85 200 42.74

Broken flakes 47 10.04 58 12.39 19 4.05 9 1.92 133 28.42

Fragments 31 6.62 13 2.78 7 1.49 1 0.21 52 11.11

Total Basalt Debitage 138 29.5 151 32.3 68 14.5 28 5.9 385 82.3

Total Basalt Artifacts 181 38.6 168 35.9 82 17.5 37 7.9 468 100

Volcanic Glass Tools

Edge-altered flakes/fragments 25 2.14 9 0.77 3 0.26 37 3.2

Volcanic Glass Cores 79 6.77 22 1.88 2 0.17 4 0.34 107 9.2

Volcanic Glass Debitage

Flakes 311 26.65 110 9.43 15 1.28 436 37.3

Broken flakes 198 16.97 76 6.51 1 0.08 7 0.59 282 24.2

Fragments 241 20.65 58 4.97 3 0.26 3 0.26 305 26.1

Total Volcanic Glass Debitage 750 64.27 244 20.91 4 0.34 25 2.14 1023 87.6

Total Volcanic Glass Artifacts 854 73.2 275 23.5 6 0.5 32 2.7 1167 100

Total Cryptocrystalline Silicate Artifacts 1 100 1 100

Total Lithic Artifacts 1035 63.24 443 27.09 88 5.38 70 4.28 1636 100*Percentage values based on material. (n = 468 for basalt artifacts; n = 1,167 for volcanic glass artifacts; n = 1,636 for total lithics).

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 107

The Site 4483 lithics collection subsequently was entered in the lithic analysis database. Datain five link (identical) fields was entered to allow coordination between the lithic analysis, provenience,and artifact number databases. Additional fields are used to describe the lithic artifacts, depending onthe artifact form (three fields for unmodified manuports, manuports associated with generalconstruction, and raw material collections, to as many as 17 fields for formal tools). Debitage isdescribed in as many as nine fields for broken flakes and 14 fields for diagnostic flakes. A completedictionary of lithic analysis fields (29 total) and terminology is planned for the project summaryvolume. It also will include an outline for data entry. A lithics glossary (Appendix A) defines the termsrelevant to the artifacts discussed here.

Several objectives were considered in processing and analyzing the lithic material:1) creation of a completely cataloged database from which future lithic analyses could

proceed;

2) sourcing of raw material;

3) interpretation of possible on-site activities related to the use of lithics; and

4) compilation of specific data related to the overarching research questions posed in themitigation plans for the project area (Allen 1987).

Basalt Artifacts

A total of 468 basalt artifacts, representing 28.6% of the total lithic artifact assemblage, was recoveredfrom excavation units and surface proveniences in Site 4483. This total includes 80 tools, 3 cores, and384 debitage. The basalt artifact assemblage consists of three separate collections: the proveniencedmaterial from controlled unit excavations (Appendix E), and the two bulldozed surface collections fromFeatures 13 and 32 (Appendices F and G, respectively).

Basalt Tools. A total of 80 basalt tools was recovered from Site 4483, representing 17.1% ofthe total basalt artifact assemblage. Basalt tools recovered include three adzes, six adze fragments, fouradze blanks, two adze preforms, one anvil/hammerstone, one abrader/ hammerstone, one awl, sixhammerstones, one chisel, 25 flakes and broken flakes with polish (one with an altered edge), 23 edge-altered flakes and broken flakes, three grinding stones, one ‘ulu maika/hammerstone, one flaked cobble,and two modified waterworn pebbles.

Half of the basalt tools (40 tools, or 50%) collected from Site 4483 came from the bulldozedsurface of Feature 13 on the north ridge (see Table 3.9), while 17 (21.3%) of the tools were recoveredfrom excavation units on the same ridge. The south ridge of Site 4483 yielded 14 basalt tools (17.5%)from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32, and 9 (11.3%) from excavation units. Table 3.10 providesmetric data (length, width, thickness, and weight) for basalt tools from Site 4483, and the tools arediscussed below by formal categories.

The third adze (Artifact 150) is a larger specimen, has a rectangular cross section, is untanged,and appears to have been manufactured from a flake of medium- to coarse-grained basalt. Visiblecharacteristics (force bulb and lines) of a ventral flake surface were observed on the back side of thisadze. The cutting edge of this adze is relatively irregular, suggesting that it may have been in theprocess of being resharpened. One of the sides is vertical to the face, the other forms a slightly acuteangle with the face.

108 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.10. Measurements of Basalt Tools, Site 4483

Description Length(cm)

Width(cm)

Thickness(cm)

Weight (gm)

Artifact Number:50-Oa-G5-152-

Adzes, complete 8.8 4.8 1.7 105.9 150

5.0 2.3 1.1 22.8 171

4.1 1.9 0.8 8.1 27

Adze fragments 8.1 4.7 4.0 273.0 260

2.1 2.0 1.0 9.4 109

3.0 3.7 1.1 12.5 211

4.5 3.3 2.5 60.8 156

2.0 2.4 1.7 5.1 23

6.0 2.9 2.4 67.8 102

Adze blanks 11.2 5.0 3.0 226.1 101

10.0 4.9 3.0 166.3 374

7.1 3.7 3.0 116.4 138

5.1 2.1 2.0 20.3 82

Adze preforms 6.2 3.9 3.0 119.7 175

8.5 4.6 3.7 262.4 263

Abrader/hammerstone 5.4 1.8 1.4 16.4 112

Anvil/hammerstone 12.6 5.4 4.2 614.3 147

Awl 5.3 2.2 0.8 3.0 391

Chisel 4.0 1.5 1.3 9.0 213

Flakes and broken flakes with polish 5.4 2.2 1.1 15.1 26

2.7 2.5 0.8 4.4 135

2.5 2.4 1.1 7.9 195

2.3 3.4 1.1 6.4 201

1.9 2.5 0.5 2.6 202

3.7 4.0 0.7 11.5 223

2.9 2.9 1.3 14.0 261

2.9 5.3 0.9 16.8 262

3.0 3.5 0.8 11.1 267

2.7 2.8 2.6 4.4 288

1.8 2.6 0.4 2.0 299

3.7 2.3 0.8 7.3 347

3.0 2.8 0.8 10.7 357

1.5 1.8 0.4 2.3 371

2.0 3.4 1.1 9.1 372

4.3 3.4 1.3 18.6 373

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 109

(continued)


Width(cm)

Thickness(cm)

Weight(gm)

Artifact Number: 50-Oa-G5-152-

Flakes and broken flakes with polish(continued)

2.7 2.2 0.4 2.5 3751.8 3.8 0.7 4.2 3793.2 4.0 0.6 12.1 3803.2 2.4 1.3 7.4 3814.2 5.0 1.0 19.5 3832.0 3.3 0.7 4.2 3842.0 3.3 0.7 4.2 3850.9 1.5 0.4 0.4 3862.8 3.3 0.7 6.0 387

Edge-altered flakes and broken flakes 3.5 2.5 1.0 15.2 626.2 8.9 2.0 122.0 635.1 5.0 0.1 26.7 894.8 3.3 1.7 24.3 994.0 3.0 0.1 17.6 1065.1 6.0 1.1 74.1 1077.3 8.6 2.0 174.8 1264.2 3.9 1.1 15.0 1418.7 5.9 3.7 268.3 144

5.8 8.3 2.1 150.3 145

6.3 6.8 1.2 81.8 148

6.1 5.3 2.6 113.7 149

3.4 5.1 1.1 22.6 172

7.0 4.5 1.8 60.2 199

3.0 4.3 0.8 19.4 295

3.1 3.6 0.8 9.1 300

4.5 4.7 1.5 50.9 318

8.0 4.2 1.2 37.0 333

4.8 3.4 1.6 28.0 343

2.5 2.6 0.6 5.6 352

3.6 4.3 1.4 22.4 367

7.7 5.2 1.5 50.8 Lot 49

Hammerstones 6.3 4.4 4.5 115.5 97

4.3 2.5 1.4 23.7 123

5.1 3.2 2.1 66.7 124

5.3 4.8 3.2 101.9 146

2.6 2.4 3.1 36.4 183

4.7 4.1 2.5 83.9 321

110 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483


Width(cm)

Thickness(cm)

Weight(gm)

Artifact Number:50-Oa-G5-152-

Grinding stone fragments 10.2 6.9 3.8 297.6 1086.1 5.9 2.2 123.7 2584.5 4.3 1.0 36.9 264

Flaked cobble 10.5 9.8 5.1 639.3 98‘Ulu maika/hammerstone 5.2 5.2 3.3 125.0 65Waterworn pebble with multiple grooves 5.0 4.1 4.0 112.9 113Waterworn pebble, multiuse 4.6 3.9 2.8 61.2 390

Adze Fragments—A total of six adze fragments was recovered from archaeologicalinvestigations at Site 4483, representing 7.5% of the basalt tools. Four of these (Artifacts 23, 102, 109,and 156) were collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the north ridge of the site, one(Artifact 211) from Unit 14 (Layer IIa) on the north ridge, and one (Artifact 260) from the bulldozedsurface of Feature 32 on the south ridge of the site. Five of the six fragments are adze blade fragments,the sixth being an adze poll fragment. All but two reveal rectangular cross sections (Artifacts 109 and211 are too small to determine cross sections).

Artifact 109, found in Feature 13 (Grid 3), is a corner of an adze blade made from fine- tomedium-grained, gray basalt. A portion of the cutting edge is present, and reveals damage in the formof battering and rounding.

Artifact 211, found in Unit 14 (Layer IIa), is also an adze blade fragment made from fine- tomedium-grained basalt. The portion of the cutting edge present on this adze fragment is still relativelysharp, and exhibits several microscars.

Artifact 260 is an adze blade fragment from a large adze found in Feature 32 on the south ridge.Rounding and scarring of the blade’s cutting edge is visible (Figure 3.31). The gray to light gray, fine-grained basalt of this adze was sourced to the Wai‘anae range.

Artifact 156, found in Feature 13 (Grid 17), consists of the poll end of an adze with a completebutt portion. The sides are vertical and appear to have been shaped by grinding, but they are notpolished. A slightly raised mass that is higher than the butt indicates that the adze may have beentanged. One portion of the broken area exhibits battering that suggests this fragment may have beenused as a hammerstone.

Artifact 23, found on the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 1), is a microadze bladefragment made from fine- to medium-grained basalt. The cutting edge is present on this fragment andexhibits moderate rounding (see Figure 3.26). This adze fragment was selected for CIEP analysis. Apositive reaction to pig antiserum was identified on the cutting edge.

Artifact 102, a Feature 13 surface find (Grid 1), is an adze blade fragment made from fine- tomedium-grained basalt. All surfaces have polish, and striations are present. Portions of the bevel arevisible. The polished face of the adze is mostly absent. Instead, the bevel and flake scars on the facesuggest that the adze possibly was being rejuvenated. This rejuvenation process was in the preformstage, based on the cross section. The adze was probably discarded because a relatively large mass onthe face adjacent to one of the side surfaces makes further rejuvenation of the piece unfeasible.

Adze Blanks—Four adze blanks were recovered from archaeological investigations at Site 4483,representing 5% of the basalt tool total. Three of these (Artifacts 101, 374, and 138) were collected

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 111

from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the north ridge of the site. The fourth (Artifact 82) wasrecovered from the grubbed surface of Unit 14 on the north ridge.

The largest adze blank (Artifact 101) was found on the surface of Feature 13 (Grid 1), and isa medium-grained, gray to dark gray basalt with dark crystalline inclusions (possibly feldspars). Thisblank was manufactured from a large flake. One step flake scar is visible on one side, and both endsexhibit bevels.

Artifact 138, found in Feature 13 (Grid 10), is also a relatively large adze blank that was beingreworked from a previously complete, polished adze. A new bevel and cutting edge had been started,but not yet completed. The face, sides, and back have polished facets. Flakes were removed from thefront (cutting edge), one side, and the poll to create a smaller adze than the original.

Artifact 374, the adze blank from Feature 13 (Grid 1.1), is made from medium- to coarse-grained basalt, and is very weathered. An incipient bevel is present in addition to vertical sides with stepflake scars. The thickness tapers to a width of about 1.5 cm at one end.

Artifact 82 is a small adze blank of medium-grained basalt that was found on the grubbedsurface of Unit 14. Step flake scars are visible on one vertical side surface. The opposing side surfaceis not vertical. It has an incipient bevel with an unevenly formed cutting edge. There is a facet withpolish on the back surface of this adze blank.

Adze Preforms—Two adze preforms were recovered from Site 4483, representing 2.5% of thebasalt tool total. One (Artifact 263) was collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the southridge of the site, the other (Artifact 175) was recovered from excavations in Unit 51.1 (Layer I) on thesouth ridge.

Artifact 263 is an adze preform made of medium- to coarse-grained, gray basalt. Based on thepresence of cortex on the poll, this tool was probably made from a waterworn cobble. The preform hasa rectangular cross section and step-terminating flake scars on one side where a relatively largeunreduced mass of basalt is still present. This mass may be the reason this preform was discarded.

Artifact 175 is an adze preform fragment with a portion of the blade and the entire cutting edgeabsent. It has a reverse trapezoidal cross section and a relatively well-formed poll with an incipient tang.This adze preform was made from a dark gray, fine-grained basalt, and was sourced to the Ko‘olaurange.

Abrader/Hammerstone—A single abrader/hammerstone (Artifact 112) was collected from thebulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 5). This multiuse tool is made from a small, elongated cobble,and functioned both as an abrader and a hammerstone. It is interesting to note that its shape resemblesa slate-pencil sea urchin (Heterocentrotus mammillatus) spine, commonly used as an abrader (Emory,Bonk, and Sinoto 1968). The abrader/hammerstone has three abrading surfaces that are relativelysmooth, flat, and slightly polished. Although one end is broken, use of this tool as a hammerstone isreflected by damage (battering) on the opposite end. The battered surface extends approximately 0.75cm onto two of the three abrading surfaces.

Anvil/Hammerstone—A single anvil/hammerstone (Artifact 147), representing 1.3% of thebasalt tools, was collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 14) on the site’s north ridge.This multiuse tool is made from a large, elongated cobble, and was used as both a hammerstone andan anvil. Use as a hammerstone is reflected by damage (battering and pitting) on both ends and alongone side surface adjacent to one end. A pitted depression, measuring 1.8 by 1.6 cm in size and 0.5 cmin depth, indicates use as an anvil, possibly for bipolar flaking.

112 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Awl—One basalt awl (Artifact 391) was recovered from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 onthe south ridge of Site 4483. Ventral and dorsal surfaces of this edge-altered flake tool can bedistinguished, but the distal and proximal ends of the flake have been modified to such an extent thatthe proximal end cannot be distinguished from the distal end.

A point was formed on one end of the awl by marginal ventral flaking. Microscopicexamination of this awl point revealed rounding and polishing, as well as a small (micro) depressionon the tip. The other end of the awl also was modified by marginal ventral flaking, forming an incipientbevel, similar to an adze.

Small facets on the dorsal surface of this tool exhibit polish similar to the polish usually foundon Hawaiian adzes. The dorsal surface also has discontinuous ridge formations that exhibit roundingand polish, presumably from use wear.

Both left and right lateral edges exhibit continuous marginal ventral scarring. All but two ofthese marginal flake scars can be traced to platforms on the ventral surface of the flake.

Chisel—One chisel (Artifact 213) was collected from Unit 14 (Layer IIb) on the site’s northridge. This small tool resembles a microadze, but was classified as a chisel because of its well-roundededges. The cutting edge is somewhat rounded, probably from use, and measures 1.0 cm in width. A 1.0cm long lip of basalt, extending from the butt of the chisel, may be the result of a break (Figure 3.32).The dark gray, fine-grained basalt was sourced to the Wai‘anae range.

Flakes and Broken Flakes with Polish—Twenty-five flakes and broken flakes with polish wererecovered from Site 4483, representing 31.3% of the basalt tools. Four flakes with polish and twobroken flakes with polish were collected from grid locations on the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 onthe site’s north ridge. Eight flakes with polish and one broken flake with polish were recovered fromnorth ridge excavation units. Five flakes with polish were collected from the Feature 32 bulldozedsurface on the site’s south ridge. Three flakes with polish and one broken flake with polish wererecovered from south ridge excavation units.

The flakes and broken flakes with polish range in length from 0.9 to 5.4 cm, in width from 1.5to 5.3 cm, and in thickness from 0.4 to 2.6 cm. All are of a medium-grained basalt and have one or twofacets with polish. Two of the flakes (Artifacts 201 and 372) have two adjacent facets with polishseparated by a sharp adjoining edge, and are probably from adzes. Several representative examples ofthese artifacts are discussed below.

One flake (Artifact 373) from Feature 13 (Grid 10) has facets with polish on the opposingventral and dorsal surfaces of the broken flake that appear to be the result of rubbing action (i.e., usewear), and not the result of grinding to put a polished finish on a tool.

One flake (Artifact 26) from Unit 7 (Layer II/1) has two facets with polish and edges that arequite sharp (see Figure 3.28). This artifact was selected for CIEP analysis and had a positive reactionto dog antiserum.

Artifact 357, from Unit 51.2 (Layer IIb/1) on the site’s south ridge, is a flake having one facetwith polish and one altered edge. The altered edge is rounded and slightly polished, presumably fromuse.

Edge-Altered Flakes and Broken Flakes— Twenty-three edge-altered flakes and brokenflakes, representing 28.8% of the basalt tools, were recovered from Site 4483. Twelve edge-alteredflakes and two edge-altered broken flakes were collected from grid locations on the bulldozedsurface of Feature 13 on the site’s north ridge. Two edge-altered flakes and one edge-altered brokenflake were recovered from excavation units on the north ridge. Three edge-altered flakes were collected

Figure 3.32. Artifact 213, basalt chisel, Unit 14. Sourced toWai‘anae Range.

114 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the site’s south ridge. Three additional edge-altered flakeswere recovered from excavation units on the south ridge.

The edge-altered flakes and broken flakes range in length from 2.5 to 8.7 cm, in width from 2.2to 8.9 cm, and in thickness from 0.1 to 3.7 cm. All are of a medium- to coarse-grained basalt.

A variety of edge-alteration characteristics was observed on the assemblage of these flakes andbroken flakes. These include 1) continuous marginal unifacial scarring along one or both lateral edges;2) intermittent marginal unifacial scarring along one lateral edge; 3) continuous marginal bifacialscarring along one lateral edge; 4) notched areas on one or both lateral edges; and 5) rounding and/orpolishing on one lateral edge. Several flakes exhibited more than one of these characteristics (e.g.,continuous marginal unifacial scarring and rounding of the edge, or continuous marginal unifacialscarring and notches). Examples of edge-altered flakes are discussed in more detail below.

Artifact 99, an edge-altered flake found on the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 1), exhibitsmarginal bifacial scarring along the left lateral edge, as well as marginal unifacial dorsal scarring on theright lateral edge. This alteration formed a point, with a small flake scar originating from the tip of thepoint. The flake scar may be the result of the edge-alteration, or from use of the point (possibly as anawl).

Artifact 141, an edge-altered flake found on the Feature 13 surface (Grid 12), has marginalventral scarring on both lateral edges. It also has two notches formed on either side of the platform.

Artifact 62, an edge-altered broken flake found in Unit 2 (Layer I) on the site’s north ridge, hascontinuous marginal unifacial scarring on both lateral edges and on the distal end of the broken flake.Although a beveled end is not apparent, this piece could be interpreted as a blank for a microadze.

One edge-altered basalt flake (Artifact 172), recovered from Unit 8 (Layer II/1) on the site’snorth ridge, has unifacial marginal scarring on one lateral edge, and rounding of this same edge(see Figure 3.27). This tool was selected for CIEP analysis, and had a positive reaction to pigantiserum.

Hammerstones — A total of six hammerstones, representing 7.5% of the basalt tools, wascollected at Site 4483. Five were collected from surface proveniences of Feature 13 on the site’snorth ridge, and one was collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the site’s southridge.

Artifact 97, a small hammerstone found in the Feature 13 area (Grid 1), is a broken, elongated,waterworn cobble. One end is extensively battered; this pitted damage extends approximately halfwayto the opposite, broken end. Two opposing surfaces of this hammerstone also exhibit lineargrooves of varying length that do not appear to be incised. In one area, two grooves (separated byapproximately 2.0 mm) parallel each other for about 1.0 cm and then diverge. About 0.5 cm after thedivergence, one groove ends and the other groove continues for approximately 1.5 cm, before endingabruptly.

Three hammerstones (Artifacts 123, 183, and 321) are waterworn stones in the smallcobble/large pebble size range, and all have at least one pitted surface (Artifact 321 has two pittedsurfaces), reflecting their use as hammerstones. Based on size (see Table 3.10), these four hammerstoneswere likely used to manufacture volcanic glass flakes and tools.

Artifact 146, found in Feature 13 (Grid 13), is a discoidal hammerstone made from dense,coarse-grained basalt. It is very weathered and has two very battered areas along the edge. Artifact 124,found on the surface of Grid 6 in Feature 13, is a piece of tabular, coarse-grained basalt with one pittedend.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 115

Grinding Stone Fragments—Three grinding stone fragments were found at Site 4483,representing 3.8% of the basalt tools. One (Artifact 108) was collected from the site’s north ridge, whilethe other two (Artifacts 258 and 264) were collected from the site’s south ridge.

Artifact 108, collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 3), has three modifiedsurfaces (Figure 3.33). Two opposing surfaces are smooth, slightly concave, and exhibit slight polish.Striations are visible with a 5X hand lens. One side surface is also smooth and has visible striations.The light gray, medium- to fine-grained basalt of this grinding stone was sourced to the Ko‘olau range.

Artifact 258, found on the bulldozed surface of Feature 32, is triangular in shape and has twoopposing surfaces that are smooth, slightly concave, and exhibit polish. Striations on this grinding stoneare visible on both surfaces with a 5X hand lens. The coarse-grained material of this grinding stone hasa salt and pepper appearance, and is probably a fine-grained gabbro (see Appendix A). This materialoccurs as xenoliths on Hawai‘i, Maui, and Kaua‘i (Hazlett and Hyndman 1996; McDonald et al. 1983;Prinz et al. 1978). Although the grindstone may represent a trade item, it is also likely that it comesfrom an as-yet-unidentified source on O‘ahu.

The third grinding stone (Artifact 264), also found on the Feature 32 bulldozed surface, isbroken and resembles a large flake. It has one modified surface (smooth, exhibits polish) with visiblestriations. The basalt is quite similar to, if not the same as, the above-described grindstone (Artifact258).

‘Ulu Maika/Hammerstone—One ‘ulu maika/hammerstone (Artifact 65) was recovered on thenorth ridge of Site 4483, in Unit 2 (Layer II). This piece was possibly used both as a game stone andas a hammerstone. It is relatively well formed, with two slightly convex side surfaces (Figure 3.34), asobserved in Hawaiian ‘ulu maika (see Appendix A), but does not have well-defined edges adjacent tothe rolling surface. It is small for an ‘ulu maika (5.2 cm diameter and 3.3 cm thick), and is not polished.The surfaces are relatively rough, and there is one area that is somewhat battered, suggesting that it mayhave been used as a hammerstone. The coarse-grained, light gray basalt of this artifact was sourced tothe Ko‘olau range.

Flaked Cobble—One flaked cobble (Artifact 98) was recovered from the bulldozed surface ofFeature 13 (Grid 1) on the north ridge of Site 4483. Negative flake scars are present on all surfaces. Thefunction of this artifact is not determined. The multiple negative flake scars suggest the artifact may bethe rough form of an adze blank. Three of the four identified adze blanks found at Site 4483 were alsocollected from the north ridge. This artifact was not included with adze blanks because aspects of thefinal product (front, back, and side) are not clearly identified.

Modified Waterworn Pebbles—Two large, modified waterworn pebbles were recovered fromthe bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grids 5 and 22) on the north ridge of Site 4483. Artifact 113 is alarge waterworn pebble with multiple grooves present on the surface of the stone. The weathered patinaof this rock is present in the grooves, confirming that the grooves were not recently formed. Over 150short, linear and curvilinear grooves are present over the entire surface of the pebble. The groovesappear to be incised, but this has not been confirmed. No particular patterns can be discerned.Observations regarding the grooves include: 1) many of the grooves converge to form V shapes; 2)many areas have parallel grooves; 3) three areas have numerous grooves that connect, overlap, intersect,and form designs (rough triangles and quadrulaterals) that do not resemble known Hawaiian artisticmotifs; and 4) many of the grooves are quite short (4 mm or less) and isolated. This artifact wascarefully examined by Dr. Yosihiko Sinoto, of Bishop Museum’s Anthropology

Figure 3.33. Artifact 108, basalt grinding stone fragment, Grid 3. Sourced to Ko‘olau Range.

Figure 3.34. Artifact 65, basalt ‘ulu maika, Unit 2. Sourced to Ko‘olau Range.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 117

Department, who was fairly certain that the grooves were cultural, probably incised. However, upon hisrecommendation, the artifact was also examined by Dr. Kevin Johnson, Geologist with BishopMuseum. Dr. Johnson was fairly certain the grooves were not formed by geological processes.

The second artifact in this category is also a large, modified waterworn pebble (Artifact 390).This pebble has a single groove, which, like Artifact 113, has patina present. An area exhibiting polishon one side of the pebble measures about 1.5 by 1.8 cm. This area is also somewhat darker in color thanthe rest of the surface, and may be the result of residues. A single groove with interior patina, adjacentto the area with polish, measures about 1.5 cm long and 0.2 cm wide. It is uncertain why and how thegroove was made. One end of the pebble is broken, but the broken end does not appear to have beenused as a hammerstone.

Basalt Cores. Three basalt cores were collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on thenorth ridge. The largest of the three (Artifact 114), found in Grid 5, is a gray, medium- to coarse-grainedbasalt with numerous gas pockets. This core has 7 to 8 negative flake scars. A second core (Artifact 85),found in Grid 14, is a gray medium-grained basalt with cortex on approximately 75% of the surface.Two negative flake scars indicate that flakes were removed longitudinally from this core.

Basalt Debitage. Of the total basalt assemblage (468 items) for Site 4483, 384 (82.1%) aredebitage (199 flakes, 133 broken flakes and 52 fragments). Diagnostic flakes range in size from 0.75cm to 9.82 cm in length. Site 4483 is divided for analysis into two areas, north ridge and south ridge.

A total of 289 debitage (75.3% of the total basalt debitage and 61.8% of the total basalt artifactassemblage) was recovered from excavation units and the Feature 13 grubbed surface collection on thenorth ridge. These north ridge excavation units yielded a total of 151 debitage (80 flakes, 58 brokenflakes, and 13 fragments). The Feature 13 grubbed surface collection yielded a total of 138 debitage (60flakes, 47 broken flakes and 31 fragments). The density of basalt debitage recovered from the northridge surface collection is about 0.02 per square meter, based on the Feature 13 area of 7,245 m2.

A total of 96 debitage (25.0% of the total basalt debitage and 20.4% of the total basalt artifactassemblage) was recovered from excavation units and the Feature 32 grubbed surface collection on thesouth ridge. These south ridge excavation units yielded a total of 18 flakes, 9 broken flakes, and 1fragment. The Feature 32 grubbed surface collection yielded 42 flakes, 19 broken flakes and 7fragments. The density of basalt debitage recovered from the south ridge surface collection is about 0.23per square meter, based on the Feature 32 area of 286 m2.

Artifact length was recorded for diagnostic complete flakes. The following tables summarizelength data variation between layers (Table 3.11) and between the north and south ridges (Table 3.12)of Site 4483.

Eight basalt flakes (4.0% of total basalt flakes) display cortex. All are secondary flakes withonly 1% to 25% cortex on the dorsal surface. The average length for the flakes with cortex is 3.6 cm.

Two macroscopic material grain sizes are represented in the flake collection. The minimum andmaximum sizes are shown in Table 3.13.

Summary of Basalt Artifacts. Detailed attribute analysis of the entire basalt lithic assemblage,and geochemical sourcing and residue analysis for a small sample of the basalt artifacts, is informativewith respect to activities and interactions on both a site-specific and a region-wide level. The followingobservations are briefly highlighted here, and treated in more detail in the discussion that concludes thelithics section for Site 4483.

118 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.11. Flake Length Summary by Layer, Site 4483

Layer II and IIa Layer IIb and II–III

Minimum Length (cm) 1.01 0.75

Maximum Length (cm) 5.19 9.82

Flake Count 32 129

Average Length (cm) 2.97 3.00

Standard Deviation 1.09 1.58

Table 3.12. Flake Length Summary by Area, Site 4483

North ridge South ridge

Minimum Length (cm) 0.87 0.75

Maximum Length (cm) 9.82 5.83

Flake Count 131 61

Average Length (cm) 3.28 2.61

Standard Deviation 1.58 1.16

Table 3.13. Basalt Flake Size Range by Material Grain Size, Site 4483

Length (cm) Artifact 50-Oa-G5-152-

Largest coarse grain flake 9.82 84

Smallest coarse grain flake 0.75 337

Largest fine grain flake 5.9 Lot 77 (flake #1)

Smallest fine grain flake 0.7 Lot 112 (one flake)

The major formal tool class comprises adzes in various stages of manufacture from adze blankto finished tool. Preliminary observations indicate that some adzes were brought to the site in completedform, while others were shaped and finished on site. Adzes also were resharpened or rejuvenated.Presumably the majority of this tool class is functionally linked to diverse woodworking activities,although it is interesting to note that one adze fragment (Artifact 171) yielded a positive reaction to pigantiserum during CIEP analysis.

Formal tools other than adzes are rare, and include single examples of a chisel, an awl, and an‘ulu maika/hammerstone. There also are artifacts that are defined as tools on the basis of their use asa tool, rather than on deliberate shaping. These include edge-altered flakes and broken flakes, flakes andbroken flakes with polish, an abrader/hammerstone, an anvil/hammerstone, hammerstones, grindingstones, a flaked cobble, and waterworn pebbles with grooves and/or use. The residue adhering to oneedge-altered flake and to one flake with polish suggests that some of these informal tools were used inthe butchering of pigs and dogs.

Although available radiocarbon dates indicate that Site 4483 may have been used intermittentlyover several hundred years beginning in the A.D. 1400's, the basalt lithic assemblage does not appearto reflect chronological change in tools or debitage (see Tables 3.9 and 3.11). There are minordifferences, however, in the metrics of the debitage assemblages from the north and south ridge areasof the site. Debitage from the north ridge tends to be larger (greater average length) than that from the

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 119

south ridge (see Table 3.12). This may indicate that somewhat different lithic reduction activitiesoccurred in those two areas.

Finally, of the six basalt artifacts submitted for geochemical sourcing, half were determined tohave originated from nearby sources in the Ko‘olau range and half from more distant sources in theWai‘anae range. The presence of formal tools manufactured from Wai‘anae Range basalt, in a contextwhere locally available basalt from the Ko‘olau Range also is manufactured into similar tools, hasimportant ramifications for interpretation of intra-island resource utilization and possible exchangerelationships.

Volcanic Glass Artifacts

A total of 1,167 volcanic glass artifacts, representing 71.3% of the lithic artifact assemblage, wasrecovered from Site 4483, including 37 tools, 107 cores and 1,023 debitage. As with the basalt artifactassemblage, the volcanic glass artifacts were collected from controlled unit excavations and from thetwo grubbed surface collections from Features 13 and 32 (see Appendices F and G).

Volcanic Glass Tools. A total of 37 volcanic glass tools was recovered from Site 4483,representing 3.2% of the volcanic glass artifact assemblage. Volcanic glass tools recovered consist ofedge-altered flakes. The majority of the volcanic glass tools (25 tools, or 67.6%) collected from Site4483 came from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the north ridge (see Table 3.9), while 9 (24.3%)of the tools were recovered from excavation units on the same ridge. The south ridge of Site 4483yielded three (8.1%) tools from excavation units.

Edge-Altered Flakes and Broken Flakes—Thirty-seven edge-altered volcanic glass flakes andbroken flakes were recovered from Site 4483. Twenty edge-altered flakes and five edge-altered brokenflakes were collected from Feature 13 grid locations on the site’s north ridge. Seven edge-altered flakesand two edge-altered broken flakes were recovered from excavation units on the north ridge. Threeedge-altered flakes were collected from excavation units on the site’s south ridge. No edge-alteredvolcanic glass artifacts were recovered from Feature 32 bulldozed surface collections.

A variety of edge alteration characteristics was observed on the flakes and broken flakes of thisassemblage. The predominant pattern of edge alteration was continuous marginal dorsal scarring alongone or more edges. Twelve (35.3%) of the 34 analyzed edge-altered volcanic glass artifacts (Artifacts86, 96, 111, 120, 121, 128, 129, 130, 132, 181, 231, and 315) exhibited this pattern. Ten (29.4%) edge-altered tools (Artifacts 95, 133, 134, 140, 143, 198, 226, 270, 313, and 360) exhibited continuousmarginal ventral scarring of one or more edges. Continuous marginal bifacial scarring was observed onfour (11.8%) of these edge-altered artifacts (Artifacts 122, 131, 209, and 389), and eight (Artifacts 110,115, 136, 161, 203, 206, 212, and 355) exhibited other forms of edge-alteration, including isolatedmarginal notching, marginal snap breaks, rounded or crushed edges, and discontinuous marginalscarring.

The edge-altered volcanic glass artifacts range in length from 0.8 to 2.2 cm, in width from 0.6to 1.5 cm, and in thickness from 0.1 to 0.9 cm. Eight of the flakes have cortex. Several edge-alteredflakes that are representative of this informal tool class are discussed in more detail below.

Artifact 131, an edge-altered flake found on the surface of Feature 13 (Grid 8), exhibitscontinuous marginal bifacial scarring along the right lateral edge, as well as one crushed edge. Artifact

120 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

209, collected from Unit 14 (Layer IIb), displays continuous marginal bifacial scarring on a portion ofthe left lateral edge (Figure 3.35). This edge-altered flake was sourced to the Wai‘anae range.

Artifact 130, an edge-altered flake found on the Feature 13 surface (Grid 8), has marginal dorsalscarring on both proximal and distal ends of the flake. It also exhibits a crushed platform. Artifact 129,another edge-altered flake found in Feature 13 (Grid 8), has a marginal dorsal scar that forms a notchalong the left lateral edge.

Artifact 140, an edge-altered flake found in Feature 13 (Grid 12), exhibits continuous marginalventral scarring on the distal end. This flake has a hinge termination. Artifact 134, an edge-altered flakefound in Feature 13 (Grid 8), displays continuous marginal ventral scarring on the right lateral edge aswell as rounding of the left lateral edge.

Artifact 355, an edge-altered flake found in Unit 51.2 (Layer IIa/1) on the site’s south ridge,exhibits marginal bifacial scarring on the right lateral edge, and marginal ventral scarring on both theleft lateral edge and distal end of the flake. Artifact 110, an edge-altered flake found in Feature 13 (Grid4), has snap breaks along the right lateral edge and the distal end.

Volcanic Glass Cores. A total of 107 volcanic glass cores was recovered from Site 4483. Coresrepresent about 9.2% of the total volcanic glass assemblage. The north ridge yielded 101 (94.4%) cores,including 79 cores from Feature 13 grid locations and 22 from excavation units. Six (5.6%) other coreswere recovered from the site’s south ridge, including two from the Feature 32 bulldozed surfacecollection and four from excavation units.

An analysis of metric and nonmetric attributes was conducted on 86 of the 107 cores. Size,weight, core type, platform condition, flake scar orientation, and presence of cortex were recorded.Multiple cores in lots of two to ten were assigned numbers (e.g., Lot 32/core 1, Lot 43/core 7) duringthe analysis to distinguish individual cores within the lots. The results of the volcanic glass coreanalysis is summarized below.

The volcanic glass cores in this collection are all relatively small. They range in length from0.7 to 3.8 cm, in width from 0.5 to 2.8 cm, in thickness from 0.4 to 2.3 cm, and in weight from 0.2 to29.3 g. Five of the smaller cores (Artifacts 103, Lot 43/cores 5 and 7, Lot 50/core 10, and Lot 36/core3) appear to be spent or exhausted. Eighty of the 86 recorded cores had cortex.

Core type analysis determined that 82 (95.3%) of the 86 cores are primary cores, while four aresecondary cores. Of the primary cores, 18 are fragmentary, four (Artifacts 162, 119, Lot 117/core 2, Lot43/core 6) were determined to be possible tools, and four (Artifacts Lot 36/core 9, Lot 32/core 1, Lot149/core 1, and Lot 110/core 1) consist of both volcanic glass and basalt.

Analysis of core platform condition found that 43 (50%) of the 86 cores have completeplatforms, 37 (43%) have crushed platforms, five (5.8%) have prepared platforms, and one (1.2%) hasa rounded platform. A flake was removed to prepare the platforms for further flake removal on threeof the five cores with prepared platforms (Artifacts 196, 235, and 277).

Analysis of flake scars revealed a variety of orientation patterns, with the predominant pattern(39 cores or 45.3%) consisting of multidirectional flake scars. Of the remainder, 19 (22.1%) of the coresexhibited a pattern of unidirectional scars aligned with the core width, 18 (20%) exhibited unidirectionalscars aligned with the core length, and six (7.0%) exhibited unidirectional scars aligned with the corethickness. Three (3.5%) of the cores had flake scars that were bidirectional (Artifacts Lot 50/core 7, Lot43/core 8, and Lot 113/core 1). The flake scar orientation on one core (Artifact Lot 102/core 4) couldnot be determined.

Figure 3.35. Artifact 209, volcanic glass flake, Unit 14.Sourced to Wai‘anae Range.

122 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Of the four cores recorded as possible tools, three (Artifacts 119, Lot 117/core 2, and Lot43/core 6) exhibit rounded, slightly crushed edges. The fourth core tool (Artifact 162) has marginalunifacial scarring along one edge.

The four secondary cores exhibit variation in platform condition. Artifact 90 has a completeplatform, Artifact 322 has a prepared platform, and Artifacts 104 and Lot 45/core 2 have crushedplatforms. Two of these secondary cores (Artifacts 90 and Lot 45/core 2) have multidirectional flakescar orientations, and two (Artifacts 104 and 322) have flake scar orientations that are aligned with thecore thickness.

Artifact 205, a core recovered from Unit 14 (Layer IIb) on the site’s north ridge, was sourcedto the Ko‘olau range.

Volcanic Glass Debitage. The volcanic glass assemblage contains 1,167 items, of which 1,023(87.6%) are debitage (436 flakes, 282 broken flakes and 305 fragments).

The north ridge of Site 4483 yielded 994 volcanic glass debitage (97.2% of the volcanic glassdebitage and 85.2% of the total volcanic glass assemblage) from excavation units and the Feature 13surface collection. Of this total, 244 (110 flakes, 76 broken flakes and 58 fragments) came from theexcavation units, and 750 (311 flakes, 198 broken flakes and 241 fragments) came from the Feature 13bulldozed surface collection. The density of volcanic glass debitage recovered from the surfacecollection is about 0.10 debitage per square meter, based on the Feature 13 area of about 7,245 m2.

The south ridge of Site 4483 yielded 29 volcanic glass debitage (2.8% of the volcanic glassdebitage and 2.5% of the total volcanic glass assemblage) from excavation units and the Feature 32bulldozed surface collection. Of this total, 15 flakes, seven broken flakes, and three fragments camefrom the excavation units, while one broken flake and three fragments came from the Feature 32bulldozed surface collection. The density of volcanic glass debitage recovered from this surfacecollection is about 0.03 pieces per square meter, based on the Feature 32 area of 286 m2.

Four volcanic glass flakes (Artifacts 25, 163, 363, and 364) were selected for CIEP analysis.These flakes all yielded negative results.

Summary of Volcanic Glass Artifacts. Detailed attribute analysis of the volcanic glass tools andcores, as well as observations regarding the debitage, and geochemical sourcing, complementinformation derived from the basalt artifact component and add further insight into intra-site activitiesand patterning. The following observations are briefly highlighted here, and treated in more detail inthe discussion that concludes the lithics section for Site 4483.

The lithic assemblage from Site 4483 is dominated by the volcanic glass component, acharacteristic common to many Hawaiian sites (Schousboe et al. 1983:348). Although most volcanicglass artifacts are quite small, their overwhelming abundance at numerous sites indicates that this rawmaterial was an economically valuable resource. At Site 4483, intra-site spatial patterning of volcanicglass shows that the north ridge area of the site was the focal point for the utilization of volcanic glass.This patterning may relate to the types of activities that were carried out on the north ridge as opposedto the south ridge.

The volcanic glass tool component is composed exclusively of informal tools (edge-alteredflakes and broken flakes). This undoubtedly reflects opportunistic use of the sharp edges of the flakes,with little occasion or need to resharpen the edges. Thus, no formal tool classes are to be expected inan assemblage of this type.

Cores are a prominent feature of the volcanic glass assemblage. Most of these are relativelycompletely reduced, so that further flake production is extremely limited. Many of the negative flake

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 123

scars on the cores are quite small, suggesting that even very small flakes must have been of suitableuseable size for various tasks. The directionality of flake removal from the cores, which is weightedslightly in favor of unidirectional as opposed to multi-directional removals, is both a function of thesmall size of most volcanic glass nodules, and the imperfections present in this raw material type.

Volcanic glass from Site 4483 has been sourced to both the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau Ranges, apattern also present in the basalt assemblage from the site. Because similar informal tools aremanufactured from both locally available (Ko‘olau) and more distant (Wai‘anae) volcanic glass sources,intra-island connections involving either direct transport or exchange of volcanic glass appear to beoperating at Site 4483.

Cryptocrystalline Silicate Artifact

A single flake of cryptocrystalline silicate material (Artifact 302) was recovered from Unit 44 (LayerIIa) on the south ridge of Site 4483. Although a dark red (2.5YR 3/6) patina is present on one surface,the flake is generally yellowish brown (10YR 5/6) in color. This flake measures 2.1 by 1.5 by 1.0 cm,and has a ventral eraillure scar on the bulb of force. The platform area is somewhat crushed.

Silicate-based minerals, while not common in Hawai‘i, are known to be present in the windwardO‘ahu area. This flake could be from local chalcedony found in the vicinity of Olomana Peak in theKailua region of Ko‘olau Poko (Macdonald and Abbott 1974).

Discussion

The following discussion of the implications of the data recovered from the lithic analysis is organizedinto two major sections. The first considers the observations and interpretations that are germane to theactivities that may have occurred at Site 4483. The second part assesses the lithics data from Site 4483within the broader context of the intra-island framework, with particular attention to the researchproblems posed by Allen (1987).

Site Activities and Patterning. The suite of radiocarbon dates from Site 4483 indicates that thisarea was used intermittently over a period of several centuries. Correlation of the range of radiocarbondates with observable stratigraphy suggests that cultural remains in Layers IIb and III tend to fall withinthe A.D. 1400 to 1700 period, while occupation in Layers II and IIa is in the period later than A.D.1700. Ideally, the lithic assemblage initially should be grouped to follow these temporal guidelines,rather than treated as a single analytical unit. Practically, however, this objective was hampered by theextensive bulldozing activities that led to the initial discovery of this buried site. In effect, grubbing ofthe surface resulted in the mixture of materials from all the layers for the greater portion of the exposedsite area. Test units also were placed in some of the relatively undisturbed areas, and the lithic debitagefrom units there was examined for possible chronological differences in average size. In this attribute,there is little apparent temporal difference (see Table 3.11). By default, all subsequent discussion treatsthe lithic assemblage from Site 4483 as a single temporal analytical unit.

Site Activities—The adzes and debitage with polish suggest that a number of probable activitiesoccurred, including tree cutting (either en mass for deforestation, or singly for wood for houses, canoes,and other structures) and woodworking (Malo 1951). The presence of both small (micro) and largeadzes and adze fragments, the small chisel, and the awl may indicate that a range of woodworking tasks

124 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

was carried out, including the possible manufacture of spears, tapa beaters, bait sticks, canoe parts, postsfor houses, and hafts for tools.

The edge-altered basalt flakes could have been used for a variety of cutting, scraping, andchopping tasks. These informal tools likely were used for everyday activities as well as specializedtasks. Potential tasks involve preparation of plants and animals for food, as is indicated by twospecimens with positive reaction to dog and pig antiserum (CIEP analysis). Volcanic glass edge-alteredflakes also were undoubtedly used for a variety of cutting tasks, including preparation of plants andanimals for food, manufacture of bone and wooden implements, and preparation of plants (e.g., halaand palm fronds) for the manufacture of woven items (e.g., Barrera and Kirch 1973:185–186; Kirch1975:43).

Initial results from artifacts submitted for residue analysis are promising with respect tointerpretation of activities at the site. It is important, however, to keep in mind that this technique is notwithout its critics (e.g., Eisele et al. 1995). Residue analysis does not always yield “logical” results andthere are ways that artifacts can be “contaminated,” thus generating false conclusions. For example,Malo (1951: 52) describes the preparation of stone for adze manufacture as involving the soaking of thesplit rock in a liquid composed partly of fern juice. This might explain the fern residue on the adze(Artifact 27) from Site 4483, if the process of manufacturing the adze into a completed form did not“erase” the soaking residue through removal by flaking and grinding. Experimental tests would beneeded to examine this possibility. A second example of the potentially problematic nature ofinterpreting residue results for Site 4483 relates to the adze fragment (Artifact 23) that tested positivefor pig antiserum. As a tool class, adzes primarily are correlated with woodworking or with use on otherplant materials. It seems unlikely, on the face of it, that adzes would make effective butchering tools,except perhaps to chop through the sternum or deliver the death blow. Thus, the fact that the residuefrom an adze fragment had a reaction to pig antiserum is one that necessitates further evaluation beforeunconditional acceptance.

The presence of adze blanks and preforms, hammerstones, and basalt debitage indicates thatadze manufacturing was occurring at Site 4483. The low percentage (3.4%) of basalt flakes with cortex,however, indicates that manufacturing concentrated on adze production after the blank stage. Adzefragments and basalt debitage with grinding stone polish are evidence that adze reworking, rejuvenation,or resharpening were among the on-site activities.

The volcanic glass assemblage is of particular interest given that it comprises the majority ofthe lithic artifacts recovered, a feature in common with many Hawaiian sites (Schousboe et al. 1983:348). Volcanic glass obviously was an economically valuable commodity, either because it wasparticularly well suited for certain tasks or because it is characterized by consistently available sharpedges.

One striking characteristic of volcanic glass artifacts is their small size, which is a functionprimarily of the small nodules from which flakes are struck. Cores often are heavily reduced, so thatthe final flakes removed are particularly diminutive. Core types from Site 4483 are principally singleplatform (resulting in unidirectional removals) and multiple platform (creating a polyhedral form fromwhich flakes have been removed from many directions). There also are a smaller number of bipolar (oranvil) reduced cores, in which the two opposing platforms have a characteristic “splintered” appearance.Bipolar reduction of tiny nodules is an effective method of flake production that has been documentedfor analogous raw materials in other parts of the world, for example, the reduction of small obsidiannodules in the American Southwest (Slaughter et al. 1992).

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 125

Previous analyses (e.g., Rosendahl 1976:6–52—6–59; Kirch 1979:169–171; and Schousboeet al. 1983:359) found that edge-altered flakes group into the larger end of the size range for volcanicglass flakes. This suggested to them that the smaller flakes of volcanic glass were by-products ofplatform preparation on cores or flakes regarded as unsuitable for the task at hand. It should be noted,however, that the presence of numerous cores with very small negative flake scars, at least at Site 4483,points to a deliberate production of small flakes. Such small flakes would not have been struck off coresif the knapper did not believe that they would be of sufficient size to be utilized.

There are several reasons why use of the smaller range of volcanic glass flakes may not producemicrowear traces under low-power magnification. First, although low-power microwear analysiscan document usewear, it is not the best venue for identification of the types of materials on which atool was used (high-power and scanning electron microscopy are recommended by most microwearanalysts, e.g., Keeley 1980). It is possible that edge-alteration appears on the larger-sized volcanicglass flakes because these items were used on materials that rapidly modified the edges of flakes,whereas the smaller-sized flakes were utilized on other types of materials less conducive tocreation of visible edge damage. Smaller flakes also may have been used less intensively than largerflakes.

Second, larger flakes can be more easily hand held than smaller flakes. This suggests that theset of tasks for which they were used differed from that of smaller flakes. Different tasks might resultin varying amounts of microwear traces.

Third, smaller flakes potentially are most useful when employed as replaceable elements incomposite tools. This type of tool is a well-known feature of late Pleistocene and early Holocenemicrolithic assemblages of Eurasia (e.g., G.E.E.M. 1969, 1972; Bar-Yosef 1987), where somepreservation contexts have yielded organic hafts with inset microliths (small retouched or unretouchedblades). Microlithic elements continued to be heavily used by several early agricultural societies of theeastern portion of Southwest Asia as well (e.g., Hole 1994; Kozlowski 1994). It is not difficult toenvision possible Hawaiian composite tools with inset small volcanic glass flakes (e.g., the classic“grating board” suggested many years ago by Clarke [1976] that could be used to scrape vegetables suchas taro corms or yam tubers, or aligned in a single row along a haft as a fish scaling knife [Kirch1975:43]). In fact, McCoy (1976: 4–7) has pointed out that small volcanic glass flakes would be mostfunctional if inserted into a wooden handle. Individual wear on any one flake element of the compositetool might be minimal to nonexistent under low-power magnification, especially if elements werereplaced in the composite tool on a relatively frequent basis.

Intra-Site Patterning—The grubbing of sediment by the bulldozing of the site also hindersprecise delineation of specific activity loci in many areas across the site, because artifactual materialswere somewhat spatially displaced in all grubbed areas. Within the portions of the site that wereexposed and tested, however, there are a number of partially to completely intact features that permita preliminary assessment of the more intensively utilized locales within the overall exposed site area.The site is described in terms of two main areas, the north and the south ridges.

The north ridge, especially its southern portion containing Units 1–10, 12–14, 17, 20–22, and101–103, has the heaviest concentration of lithic artifacts. The assemblage is dominated by the volcanicglass component, but also includes a substantial portion of the basalt component (see Table 3.9). Thesouth ridge, by contrast, has a representative sample of the basalt component, but the volcanic glassassemblage is practically nonexistent. This patterning suggests that the knapping and use of volcanic

126 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

glass in the south ridge area of the site was relatively unimportant compared to activities that involvedbasalt lithics.

Although both the north and south ridges have a similar representation of basalt tool types, thereare interesting differences in the basalt debitage assemblages from the two areas. For example, the largeraverage length of basalt flakes from the north ridge previously was noted (see Table 3.12).Proportionally, however, there are less complete flakes, and more fragments and broken flakes, fromthe north ridge. One explanation for this patterning might relate to the coarse- or fine-grained nature ofthe basalt worked in the two ridge areas. Coarse-grained basalt flakes tend to be larger than fine-grainedbasalt flakes (see Table 3.13), while fine-grained materials usually will produce better conchoidalfracturing when knapped.

There are three complementary possibilities that follow from these observations. First, becausegood conchoidal fracturing usually yields less breakage, the higher proportion of complete flakes andvery small percentage of fragments in the south ridge area may be a reflection of the use of finer-grainedbasalt there. Second, good conchoidal fracturing properties also can lead to more intensive reductionof the raw material (e.g., the ability to produce very small flakes from volcanic glass) and this, in turn,can result in smaller average length of flakes, because there are greater numbers of small flakes in theoverall assemblage that are being averaged. Again, this may suggest that fine-grained basalt wasprimarily worked on the south ridge. Finally, the smaller sized, yet less broken and fragmented, basaltdebitage assemblage from the south ridge may reflect activities that focused primarily on the finalshaping, sharpening and rejuvenation of adzes there. The data from Table 3.6 are suggestive in thisregard, with adze preforms found only on the south ridge, while adze blanks and complete adzes arefound only on the north ridge.

Habitation areas often are recognized archaeologically on the basis of data reflecting diverseactivities. The greater density of lithics in the southern portion of the north ridge appears to beassociated with a concentration of firepit and imu features, as well as with postmold features. The lithicassemblage from this portion of the site, while containing a relatively small array of formal and informaltool types, does exhibit more diversity than the south ridge because it includes the majority of thevolcanic glass assemblage. Taken together, these data suggest that the southern portion of the northridge may have been a focus of temporary habitation at the site.

Regional Context. The following discussion is not intended to be an exhaustive synthesis ofprehistoric patterning on the island of O‘ahu. Rather, it highlights those aspects of the lithicsassemblage from Site 4483 that have the potential to address selected portions of the research problemsposed by Allen (1987).

One of the themes selected by Allen (1987) is that of changes in land tenure or land use. Twoaspects of this topic are: 1) determination of the location of residences—that is, are residences primarilycoastal, or do inland habitation areas exist?; and 2) examination of the artifactual assemblages to assesstool manufacture that may be related to either cultivation or habitation activities. The analysis ofthe lithics assemblage from Site 4483 indicates that this site was a habitation area, based on thediversity of tool types and raw material types present on the overall site. The density of lithics in thesouthern portion of the north ridge, in conjunction with numerous features and two postmolds,suggests that this specific area was the main focus of habitation activity. Other postulated inlandhabitation areas include Layer III of the Kamo‘oali‘i Mound site (Site 2046) (Rosendahl 1976) andnumerous sites in the Windward Highway corridor of the H-3 Project (Williams 1992b). Thus, in theperiod from A.D. 1150 and later, inland habitation appears to have been well-established.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 127

The presence of adzes, grinding stones, edge-altered flakes of basalt and volcanic glass, as wellas numerous small volcanic glass flakes lacking visible traces of use, attest to the probable variety oftasks undertaken at Site 4483. These undoubtedly included various woodworking activities (adzes),butchery of dogs and pigs (residues on basalt flakes), and probably the processing of both cultigens anddiverse forest products (volcanic glass flakes possibly set in composite tools). Additionally, it is evidentthat lithic production was a task undertaken at Site 4483, with evidence for the full range of knappingof volcanic glass, and finishing and reworking of adzes as well.

The second theme is related to changing political organization and population expansion overtime. One of the postulated effects is the increased control of agricultural areas/features and thesubsequent redistribution of goods by chiefs (Allen 1987). Another is expansion of intensive agricultureto the leeward areas (Allen 1992). In this regard, lithic geological sourcing data from Site 4483, thatmay be related to exchange or contact with the leeward regions of O‘ahu, is of interest. Of the eightbasalt and volcanic glass artifacts submitted for analysis, half were sourced to the Wai‘anae range onthe leeward side of O‘ahu. There are at least two likely explanations for the appearance of Wai‘anae rawmaterials at Site 4483. Both of these can be accommodated within the framework of increasing politicalcontrol and the expansion of agricultural fields to the leeward side of the island.

Artifacts manufactured from Wai‘anae raw materials could represent goods obtained by chiefsfrom high-ranking individuals on the leeward side and redistributed to various groups on the windwardside. This explanation might be partially supported by the fact that the basalt artifacts manufacturedfrom the Wai‘anae range source are finished products (adze, adze fragment, and chisel). Alternatively,these imported artifacts (both basalt and volcanic glass) might represent items carried back from theleeward side as the result of visits by either individuals or groups. Such visits might have been in theform of scouting trips made to assess the potential for agricultural fields on the leeward side. While onthe leeward side, replacement tools would undoubtedly need to be manufactured and some of thesewould be transported to the windward side, when people returned home.

The lithic assemblage from Site 4483 thus holds the potential for contributing informationregarding not only use of the immediate site area, but also patterning that is present in a wider regionalcontext. Such patterning ultimately must be assessed against the specific lithic data sets generated fromresearch at all known windward inland archaeological sites of similar chronological range.

POST-CONTACT-PERIOD ARTIFACTS

Ten of the 53 units at Site 4483 produced post-Contact-period artifacts; pieces were also collected fromthe Feature 13 grubbed surface collection and from one of the transects south of Unit 14. Artifacts ofglass (Table 3.14) and metal (Table 3.15) were found at the site; no ceramics were recovered. Most ofthe artifacts came from Unit 18 (147 pieces of metal and 4 pieces of glass) and from Unit 17, inside thecharcoal kiln (11 pieces of metal).

128 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.14. Bottle Glass, Site 4483*

Unit Layer/Level

Fe. Artifact/Lot No.

Count Color Tech. Bottle/Jar Type

Source BeginningDate

EndDate

1 IIa 4 1 olivegreen

MB/ABM unknown unknown ca. 19th c ca. 20th c

18 II 33 1 amber ABM beer USA ca. 1940 ca. 20th c

18 IIa Lot 7 3 amber ABM beer USA ca. 1942 ca. 20th c

21.3 IIa 17 1 clear MB/ABM unknown unknown ca. 1880 ca. 20th c

37 IIa 32 46 1 amber ABM unknown unknown ca. 1933 ca. 20th c

37 IIa 32 45 1 clear MB/ABM unknown unknown ca. 1880 ca. 20th c

46 at surface Lot 13 2 amber ABM beer USA ca. 1940 ca. 20th c

46 at surface 57 1 amber ABM beer USA ca. 1961 ca. 1971

46 IIa/1 Lot 14 2 light green

ABM unknown unknown ca. 1910 ca. 20th c

49 at surface 47 1 amber ABM beerBudweiser

USA ca. 1960 ca. 1975

49 IIa/2 48 1 clear MB/ABM unknown unknown ca. 1880 ca. 20th c

Grid 3 grubbedsurfaceIIb/III

13 118 1 olivegreen

ABM spirits unknown ca. 1910 ca. 20th c

Grid 11 grubbedsurfaceIIb/III

13 31 1 olivegreen


Trct.2Bore 5

I 21 1 lightgreen


*Trct. stands for Transect.Compiled by Susan A. Lebo.

Two whole modern beer bottles and a glass marble were located on the surface, and 16 glassfragments were collected, mostly from Layer IIa. Several fragments are from beer or spirits bottles;most are too small for identification. Six of the fragments could be from the 1880s; the rest are fromthe twentieth century. An interesting piece is Artifact 31, an edge-altered sherd of olive green glass fromthe grubbed surface (Layer IIb or III) in Grid 11; Lebo (1997:70), in discussing edge-altered bottleglass, note that “This imported material, possibly modified by traditional Hawaiian methods andtechniques, probably dates to the occupation of the site during the early to mid-nineteenth century byNative Hawaiians from the village of Kou.”

Most of the metal items recovered are unidentifiable fragments. However, within the charcoalkiln (Feature 15) was a possible leaf spring—a long metal piece that may have been part of the kilnconstruction. There were also two metal nails, a metal brace, and possible tin can fragments. Otheridentifiable pieces include crown bottle cap fragments, a file, and a car key. All of the pieces are fromthe twentieth century.

With the exception of the materials from the kiln, and possibly the edge-altered piece of bottleglass, the post-Contact-period artifacts do not provide much interpretive site information.

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 129

Table 3.15. Metal, Site 4483*

Unit Fe. Layer/Level

Artifact/Lot No.

Count Comments BeginningDate

End Date

4 5 IIa 29 1 unidentified thin metal ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

17 15 kiln fill Lot 177 1 unidentified heavy metal, possible leafspring

ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

17 15 kiln fill Lot 174 5 unidentified metal fragments ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

17 15 kiln fill Lot 9 2 two wire nail fragments ca. 1894 ca. 20th c

17 15 kiln fill 369 1 unidentified metal brace ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

17 15 kiln fill Lot 176 2 unidentified possible tin can fragments ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

17 15 kiln fill Lot 175 6 unidentified possible tin can fragments ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

18 IIa Lot 178 99 unidentified, heavy flat and curvedfragments


18 IIa 368 1 unidentified heavy metal fragment ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

18 IIa Lot 180 47 unidentified heavy metal fragments ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

28 23 grubbedsurface IIa

44 1 unidentified heavy metal fragment ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

44 IIa Lot 12 3 crown bottle cap fragments with plasticliners


44 IIa Lot 11 1 bastard file, now in seven pieces ca. 20th c ca. 20th c

Grid 1 13 grubbedsurfaceIIb/III

30 1 Volkswagen car key; embossed: V8I WTaylor U.S.A. Fits VW

ca. post-1950s ca. 20th c

*Compiled by Susan A. Lebo.

ORGANIC MATERIALS

Charred Botanical Remains

The largest category of organic materials retrieved from Site 4483 is in the form of charred botanicalremains collected from fire features. No identification of this material has been done so far, but it is apossibility for the future. It is likely that fire features at Site 4483 contain woods similar to thoseidentified for fire features at Sites 4484 and 4485 (see Chapters 4, 5, and 6).

Pollen

Six pollen samples were taken from Unit 49; two from Layer IIa, two from Layer IIb, and two fromLayer III. The lowest sample from Layer III (Sample 6) contained only a few, very eroded pollen grains;no identification was possible. Sample 5, from higher up in Layer III, included tree and shrub pollenfrom eight different taxa, five of which are either endemic or indigenous to Hawai‘i. In addition, thesample contained Araliaceae (Ginseng family) and Euphorbia (a genus of shrubs), which also havespecies endemic to Hawai‘i. The anomaly of the presence of a very small amount of modern Schinuspollen in Layer III can perhaps be explained by the evidence of bioturbation in the form of a rodentburrow in the west wall of Unit 49.

Cordyline fruticosa (ti), a Polynesian introduction to Hawai‘i, is present in sample 4, from thelower portion of Layer IIb, indicating a cultural presence during the time when this layer was being

130 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

deposited. Sample 3, from the interface of Layers IIa and IIb, exhibits evidence of a variety of starchgranules. Samples 1 and 2 from Layer IIa show an abundance of European- and Asian-introducedplants, while pollen from native species disappears.

Based on the pollen analysis, Layer III probably represents a wet forest with grassy clearings;most of the species identified are native. The presence of ti in the pollen record in lower Layer IIbsuggests that this is probably the initial cultural layer. Starch grains appear in only one sample, that forthe Layer IIa/IIb transition. The fact that starch grains occur only here seems to preclude the possibilityof natural deposition from the surrounding vegetation. The various starches may suggest agriculture,or more likely the processing of plants harvested from nearby areas such as Site 1887, a largeagricultural terrace system for producing irrigated taro. Layer IIa postdates the Contact period.Appendix H presents a complete report on the pollen analysis for Site 4483.

Faunal Remains

Faunal remains were recovered from the site, but not in large quantities. All are surface finds andprobably represent modern refuse. Pig, cow, sheep/goat, and medium mammal are the identifiedcategories (Table 3.16).

DISCUSSION

Taken together, the imu, firepits, postmolds, lithic artifact scatters, kiln, and other features areindications of heavy and extensive use throughout Site 4483. When the archaeological data arecombined with the information gleaned from the radiocarbon dating and the palynological,immunological, and geochemical analyses, a clearer picture of Site 4483's past begins to emerge.

Radiocarbon analysis of seven wood charcoal samples, all from likely primary deposits inLayers II and III contexts on the north ridge, produced dates ranging from the early fifteenth centuryto the twentieth century. Thus, Kirch’s (1985:303–309) “Expansion Period” and “Proto-Historic Period”are both represented here, as is the post-Contact era. In addition, these dates/ranges from the north ridgeare comparable to seven of the 16 dates obtained on charcoal from the nearby agricultural terraces atSite 1887 (Allen, ed. 1987:175–176), thus supporting the likelihood of a temporal relationship betweenthe two sites.

The very proximity of Site 4483 to the Site 1887 agricultural terrace complex lends strongsupport to the possibility, hinted at by pollen analysis, that crops were being harvested from the terracesand brought to the site area to be processed and prepared for consumption. The proximity of Site 1887also lends support to our proposal that Site 4483 was temporarily and intermittently occupied over aperiod of several centuries, because “it is becoming increasingly clear, as more and more subsurfacefeatures are discovered near buried fields, that agricultural exploitation of an area generally involvedat least temporary habitation nearby” (Allen 1992a:58).

Also, the adze that elicited a positive reaction to fern antiserum may have been used to cut fernsfor construction of a temporary dwelling. The use of an adze (Artifact 50-Oa-G5-27) for cuttingferns seems to indicate that tree ferns were being utilized, rather than ground ferns. If such was thecase, one of a number of likely species of fern of particular interest for this report (also see Allen et

Table 3.16. Faunal Remains, Site 4483*

SampleNo.

Feature Unit Layer/Level

Taxon ElementDescription

Wt (gm)

NISP MNI Age atDeath

247 --- 23 Surface Sus scrofa Permanent right upper canine 0.6 1 1 Minimum of 6months

157 --- 2 Surface Medium Mammalia unid. Cranial fragment 0.6 1 --- ---

173 --- Grid 2 GrubbedSurface

Medium Mammalia unid. Bone fragment 0.4 1 --- ---

208 --- 8 Surface Medium Mammalia unid. Cranial fragments 0.6 2 --- ---

97 --- 103 Surface Bos taurus Rib fragments 11.6 1 1 Juvenile to adult

176 --- 3 Surface Bos taurus Rib section cut at both ends withmetal tool

23.2 1 1 Juvenile to adult

664 --- LoihiRoad

Surface Capra hircus/Ovis aries

Right humerus 39.3 1 1 Juvenile to adult

566 --- TC 1+ 45

Surface Bos taurus Left femur 756.5 1 1 Minimum of 3.5 years

506 --- TC 1+ 50

Surface Bos taurus Right femur 983.8 1 1 Minimum of 3.5 years

697 --- NearUnit 14

Surface Sus scrofa Left mandibular corpus 33.7 1 1 Between 12 and 16months

*Compiled by Lonnie Somer.

132 ê Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

al. 1995) is that of ‘ama‘u (Sadleria cyatheoides), “one of several species belonging to a genus endemicto the Hawaiian Islands” (Neal 1965:22). Pukui and Elbert (1986:23) and Neal (1965:23) elaborate onthe use of ‘ama‘u as stuffing for pillows and mattresses, as trim for house thatching (also see Fornander1916–1920:654), and in times of famine, as a survival food. Also, the stems of this fern “were used assizing in making tapa, [and] the fronds were used to mulch dry-land taro” (Neal 1965:23). However,most interesting to our investigation of Site 4483 is Fornander’s (1916–1920: 654) description of atemporary dwelling called a fern house. “The house thatched with ‘ama‘u has no real post, no battens,no ridge; but in its construction, simply break the ‘ama‘u midrib and all, and stick them in the groundon that side and this side, leaving a place in the middle for occupation, then bring the tops of the leavestogether, and lash them with cords.” Even though evidence of ‘ama‘u fern stems would long since havedisappeared in the acidic soils so typical of windward O‘ahu, the positive reaction of a microadze to fernantisera, along with the description for this type of temporary dwelling, built without the need for posts,may explain why we found so little evidence of house construction at Site 4483. It is also possible that‘äkölea (Athyrium microphyllum), another tree fern known for its use in pre-Contact times, may havebeen the source of the fern residue on the adze. Both ‘ama‘u and ‘äkölea could have been procured fromforests above Site 4483.

Other indications of native use of the area are the six imu found at Site 4483. These imu are ofan adequate size for cooking animals for sacrifice and consumption. Evidence from the residues foundon three of the artifacts submitted for CIEP analysis indicates that both pig and dog were prepared forcooking at Site 4483. Pigs and dogs were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands by the early Polynesians(Handy et al. 1972:242; Pukui and Elbert 1986:99), and both were raised for food during the pre-Contact period (Malo 1951:29; Titcomb 1969:6–8). In addition, pigs, and less frequently dogs, servedas sacrificial animals during religious ceremonies at heiau, and as offerings to the gods for the harvestof crops, for ceremonies for the dead, for rituals performed during medical treatment for the ill, andwhenever a canoe was to be built (Malo 1951:100–103, 107–109, 126–130; Kamakau 1976:30, 36, 121;Handy et al. 1972:141).

The small firepits found at Site 4483 are further support for human activity. Kamakau (1991:97)describes the kindling of a small fire for a cooked offering at the time of an illness suffered by a familymember. Another use of a small firepit occurred following the planting of taro, when the farmer wouldlight a small fire to offer thanks to the gods and prayers for a bountiful harvest (Kamakau 1976:34–35;Handy et al. 1972:98).

The large lithic collection recovered is a key element of this site; it indicates numerous activitiesinvolving tool use and production. The preponderance of formal tools, flakes, and debitage recoveredfrom Feature 13 and, to a lesser extent, Feature 32, point to these areas as locations of tool production.The diversity of the lithic assemblage suggests that site activities likely included food preparation, aswell as the procurement of a variety of forest products including those used for medicinal purposes, themanufacture of kapa cloth, the capture of forest birds, or, perhaps, the construction of canoes anddwellings.

Local informants noted what are believed to be two very old rock quarries, possibly dating tothe pre-Contact era, located to the west of Kamehameha Highway in Käne‘ohe, south of HalekouRoad—about a mile from the site area (Klieger and Miller 1991). These may constitute the east-centralKo‘olau range source location identified for several of the lithic artifacts from Site 4483. With theWai‘anae range as the source of the raw material for four artifacts submitted for geochemical analysis,questions arose about transport and possible trade issues. Hommon (1976:70) states that “there are nodata now available that indicate large-scale trade before Contact. This is not to suggest that tradebeyond the intra-ahupua‘a level did not take place before Contact but simply to note that the

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483 ê 133

ethnohistoric evidence for such a practice is not clear.” The Wai‘anae basalts and volcanic glass mayreflect inter-ahupua‘a exchange, collection under supervision, or perhaps an individual or severalindividuals making the trip to the Wai‘anae region of their own volition to procure what they may haveconsidered superior material for the production of lithic artifacts. It is possible also that an ‘ohana, orkin group, had members living both in Käne‘ohe and in the leeward areas of the Wai‘anae range whowere in the habit of exchanging goods among themselves.

Utilization of the area continued during the post-Contact era. The individuals who constructedthe large charcoal kiln (Feature 15) also exploited the area’s natural resources of guava wood;ethnographic accounts indicate the possible use of a portion of the site by Libby, McNeill & Libby forstabling their mules; and agriculture remained an endeavor into the modern era with the cultivation ofintroduced species of plants, particularly new types of banana.

CONCLUSION

Radiocarbon dating at Site 4483 suggests a pattern of intermittent but continued site use covering aperiod of four or five hundred years. Analysis of the features indicates that food processing and cooking,tree cutting, woodworking, adze production, and tool repair and maintenance were taking place at thesite. Many of the feature types described for this site are also found at Site 4484, to the north, and Site4485, to the south, and it is probable that activities at these three sites were very similar (see Chapters4 and 5). A chronological relationship also exists with the agricultural terrace complex at Site 1887(Allen, ed. 1987:175–176).

We have indicated the possibility of small, temporary dwellings at Site 4483, and documentedmultiple, noncontemporaneous imu and other firepits, with possible evidence of reuse (Feature 2)—allpotential indicators of a temporary, shifting settlement pattern (Clark and Kirch 1983:14). Site 4483 liesclose enough to Käne‘ohe Bay to have allowed early area inhabitants to both maintain their permanentdwellings near the shore, as well as to use temporary habitations on the ridges and slopes at Site 4483while farming, tool making, or collecting forest products for a variety of purposes.

Although Site 4483 and all its archaeological features are now destroyed, information from thesite has been useful in answering the research questions posed above. Site significance here is basedupon Criterion D, which requires that a site has “yielded, or may be likely to yield, informationimportant in prehistory or history” (U.S. Department of Interior 1981).

ê 135

CHAPTER 4

SITE 50-80-10-4484


Site 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153) consists of subsurface features only, found during monitoringof earth-moving activities related to highway construction. Radiocarbon evidence suggests thatthe site was used intermittently, from perhaps as early as the thirteenth century until the

twentieth century. Twelve cultural features at the site may represent use for temporary or short-termwork or habitation areas.

The 0.96-ha site is located in banana fields within the ‘ili of Luluku (TMK 4-5-41:1) on a ridgein the northern section of the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area. The area is approximately 3.5 kminland from Käne‘ohe Bay (see Figure 1.1). The western boundary of Site 4484 (Figure 4.1) isartificially set at Likelike Highway, which is also a boundary for the project area. The eastern boundarylies 20 m east of the base of the ridge, the farthest point at which artifacts were recovered from thebulldozed surface. Sites 50-80-10-1889 and 50-80-10-1898 (50-Oa-G5-87 and 50-Oa-G5-96) bound thesite on the north and south, while Sites 50-80-10-1888 and 50-80-10-2038 (50-Oa-G5-86 and 50-Oa-G5-106) lie upslope and to the west, across Likelike Highway (Allen, ed. 1987; Williams 1992a). Allof these sites will be discussed in separate forthcoming reports.

ENVIRONMENT

TOPOGRAPHY

Handy et al. (1972:455) describe Käne‘ohe as “an area of little hills with many small streams betweenthem,” which is a good description of this site in relation to the rest of the Käne‘ohe

Figure 4.1. Site 4484, plan view showing excavation units and features.

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 137

Interchange project area. The site is located on a low, broad ridge about 250 m from the base of RedDirt Hill, a foothill of the Ko‘olau Mountains. Luluku Stream lies approximately 0.5 km to the south.Elevations at the site range between 73 and 80 masl.

SOILS

The highly acidic, silty clay soils of this area have been discussed in detail by Allen (1990b:2;1992b:5–6) and Allen (ed. 1987:15–18). Soils for the site area fall into the Lolekaa series of silty clays(sloping 15–25%), which are “well-drained soils developed in old, gravelly colluvium and alluvium …Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate” (Foote et al. 1972:83–84).

Three stratigraphic layers were recorded for Site 4484. Soil layers in the units were fairlyconsistent except for the varying thicknesses of Layers I and II, which were heavily affected in differentareas by grubbing, and localized differences in the number of colluvial cobbles in Layer III for Units7 and 9. Soil descriptions for Unit 3 (Table 4.1) represent soils across the whole site. Cultural materialsincluding isolated artifacts, features, and scattered charcoal were found in Layers II and III at this site.

Table 4.1. Stratigraphy and Soils, Unit 3, Site 4484*

Layer Thickness(cm)

Description

I <3 Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2, moist) silt; strong, medium, subangular blocky structure; very firmwhen moist; nonsticky and nonplastic when wet; common, fine and medium roots; <3%pebbles; abrupt, smooth boundary.

II 15–20 Dark brown (10YR 3/2, moist) silty clay; moderate, medium, subangular blocky structure;very friable when moist; slightly sticky and slightly plastic when wet; few, fine and mediumroots; <3% decomposing pebbles; abrupt, wavy boundary.

III >80 Dark brown/dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4, moist) silty clay; weak, medium, prismaticstructure; friable when moist; slightly sticky and plastic when wet; rare, fine roots; 30%pebbles and cobbles; base not reached.



Average annual rainfall in the windward area that includes this site is 1,905 mm, occurring mostly fromOctober to March (Armstrong 1983:62). Native Hawaiians may have considered the Site 4484 ridgeto be kula land (defined by Pukui and Elbert [1986:178] as dry field, plain, or pasture) rather than wetor irrigated land. Handy et al. (1972:456) mention various cultivated plants that were grown inKäne‘ohe, and state that here “The kula lands between the streams were planted in pandanus,wauke, bananas and sweet potatoes. Kalo malo‘o (dry taro) was not planted here.… This well-wateredand sheltered zone at the base of the mountains was ideal for yams, wild bananas, wauke, olonaand kukui.” Before the Käne‘ohe Interchange project began, bananas were being commerciallycultivated at the site, so the predominant vegetation is Musa spp. Nearby, to the north and south of theridge, are clusters of introduced species such as common guava (Psidium guajava) and Christmas berry(Schinus terebinthifolius), and isolated mango (Mangifera indica), umbrella (Scheffleraactinophylla), and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai (mountain apple, Syzygium malaccense) trees. Ground cover includes

138 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

wedelia (Wedelia trilobata), impatiens (Impatiens sp.), pïkake hohono (Clerodendrum philippinum),ferns, grasses, and weeds.

As mentioned above, the ridge on which Site 4484 is located is 0.5 km north of Luluku Stream.This stream flows through a valley containing Site 50-80-10-1887 (50-Oa-G5-85), a large agriculturalterrace site that supported Hawaiian cultivation of pondfield kalo (taro, Colocasia esculenta).Cultivation in the terrace complex “was well underway in several areas … by A.D. 1350 and hadprobably begun in the lower terraced area by A.D. 500” (Allen, ed. 1987:229). Kalo cultivation wasabandoned sometime after the sixteenth century (Allen, ed. 1987:255).

FAUNA

No birds or other animals were recorded at this site.


ARCHAEOLOGY

The only previous archaeological research conducted in the immediate vicinity of Site 4484 has beenin the form of surface surveys. The surveys by Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane (1976) and Dye (1977)make no specific mention of the ridge area under discussion here. Surface survey of the Käne‘oheInterchange project area in 1985 included the ridge, but there were no indications that it containedcultural deposits (Allen, ed. 1987). A survey specifically of the ridge segment conducted in 1989 byRiford revealed some loose basalt cobbles on the slopes and an area of soil, crushed gravel, and roundedcobbles by Likelike Highway. No cultural patterning other than a banana road was observed (Riford1989:2).

Although surface cultural remains were not visible, evidence from similar areas (e.g., Sites 50-80-10-4483 and 50-80-10-4485 [50-Oa-G5-152 and 50-Oa-G5-154], this volume; Williams1992b:68–69; Williams 1993:12–13), plus historical references, suggested that upland ridges like thisone were likely to contain archaeological sites. The overall pattern of pre-Contact land use in Käne‘oheAhupua‘a that is being developed from archaeological sources is one of initially temporary or short-termhabitation on the mauka ridges above stream valleys, with permanent habitation perhaps closer to thecoast. Stream valleys were used for cultivating crops such as wetland kalo, while the ridges may haveprovided work areas, natural resource collection sites, dryland cultivation spots, and/or places to restand eat (Malo 1951:20, 37, 48, 51, 127). Permanent habitation inland followed as agriculture intensified(Williams 1992b:73–74).

Allen (1992b) summarizes all the archaeological research conducted in and around theKäne‘ohe Interchange project area until 1990. Recorded sites dating to the pre-Contact periodinclude: Kukuiokäne Heiau; traditionally important streams and springs; habitation sites; burial sites;trails; rock alignments, rock mounds, and free-standing walls; ditches; terrace complexes; streamfacings; imu (the Hawaiian earth oven that uses heated rocks to steam food) and firepits; and artifact

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 139

scatters/activity areas. Post-Contact period sites include habitation sites, burial sites, boundary walls,agricultural sites, charcoal kilns, and refuse dumps.


No individual Land Commission Awards were recorded for Site 4484, which means that this areabelonged to Queen Kalama at the time of the Great Mahele of 1848–1853. The ahupua‘a of Käne‘ohe,minus individually awarded lands, was granted to her as Land Commission Award 4452, ‘äpana 13(Indices of Awards … 1929:220; see also Devaney et al. 1982:25, 27; Kelly 1987:289). A completedescription of the results of research into the oral history, traditions, and written records relating toKäne‘ohe Ahupua‘a land use and site settlement patterns, conducted as part of the Interstate HighwayH-3 project, is presented in Klieger (1996). At the present time, there are no known traditional culturalproperties associated with this site.

The ridge may have been covered in thickets of common guava during the post-Contact period.Guava is still found nearby, to the north between this site and Site 50-80-10-1892 (50-Oa-G5-90), andacross the highway to the west. Interviews with Edmund Haitsuka and Richard Miller of Käne‘oheindicate that guava was the preferred raw material for making charcoal early in the twentieth century(Allen, ed. 1987:281; Allen et al. 2002). One of the recovered archaeological features at Site 4484(Feature 10) is a charcoal kiln, and guava is the predominant material from the archaeobotanicalcollections there (see Chapter 6). The presence of the kiln indicates that the natural resources of the areawere being exploited before commercial banana cultivation began.

The most recent use of the site area is for banana farming. Modern banana farm roads (part ofSite 50-80-10-2463 [50-Oa-G5-146], discussed in Chapter 2) were visible on the surface of the site.Modern banana cultivation in the overall project area apparently began just after World War I (Kelly1987:296). Discussions with local informants revealed that the ridge was grubbed sometime between1970 and 1980 in order to plant bananas. The grubbed material was pushed west, up to LikelikeHighway and to the north, over the edge of the ridge. The informants expressed familiarity with thestone features at nearby Site 1892 (low facings and mounds), but made no mention of ever having seenany surface structures or features at Site 4484.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, METHODS, AND SAMPLING

Although initial surface survey revealed no cultural features on the ridge other than unpavedaccess roads used by farmers (Allen, ed. 1987; Riford 1989), test excavation totaling 10 m2 wasrecommended (Allen 1990a) because of the proximity of several archaeological sites (includingKukuiokäne Heiau), and because the area was to be destroyed during highway construction. Anexamination of aerial photos taken between 1926 and 1928 (Allen 1990a:3, 13; U.S. GeologicalSurvey ca. 1926–1928) indicated that the ridge may have been the site of “the downslope portion ofa square area that … may represent an archaeological site” (Allen 1990a:3). The first item to beaddressed by the testing was to determine whether initial Likelike Highway construction fill had

140 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

covered possible archaeological features on the ridge. Additionally, testing was proposed to determineif any subsurface deposits or materials could connect this area to any of four nearby sites: Site 1892 tothe north (low rock mounds, facings, and a post-Contact-period artifact scatter); Site 1898 to the south(rock mound and possible World War II bomb shelter); and upslope and across the highway, Site 1888(terraces) and Site 2038 (terraces, rock mounds, concentrations, and alignments, interpreted as portionsof Kukuiokäne Heiau).

MONITORING

Archaeologists monitored construction work at a stockpile area and future bridge site beside LikelikeHighway between April 1990 and January 1991 to collect information from any subsurface features thatmight be exposed during bulldozing. They also monitored the backhoe excavation of two long trenches(Units 101–102) set up to examine the stratigraphy of the area. No cultural material was found in Unit101, but a post-Contact-period postmold feature was observed in Unit 102. The feature was interpretedas part of the Site 1889 fence line, and will be discussed in a forthcoming separate report.

The monitors reported seven charcoal-related features—Features 1, 5, and 7 through 11. Theyalso collected some isolated post-Contact-period artifacts, and flagged two artifact scatters for latermapping and collection. These scatters were eventually designated as Features 12 and 13 (Features 2,3, 4 and 6 were uncovered when excavation units were set up within the bounds of the Feature 12artifact scatter).

EXCAVATION

Ten test units (Units 1–10), representing the 10 m2 of test excavations called for in the supplementalmitigation plan (Allen 1990a:13), were placed near Likelike Highway to look for fill deposits andburied archaeological features. Five additional units (Units 11–15) were set up to investigate the centralpart of the ridge and the subsurface features that were uncovered there. These excavations took placebetween 27 August and 26 September 1990. Five final units (Units 16–20) were excavated over 13 daysbetween 10 December 1990 and 22 January 1991 to explore subsurface features uncovered duringbulldozer grubbing. In all, 22 units were excavated by several different methods in the affected ridgearea. Five of the 22 units (Units 1, 2, 4, 10, and 102) were later reassigned to other sites (Sites 1889 and1898), based on unit content and proximity to site boundaries; these units will be discussed inforthcoming site reports. Thirteen people worked on the site at various times, with the standard crewconsisting of eight excavators and monitors.

Black-and-white photographs and color slides were taken of all units and features. The site wasmapped by tape and pocket transit, backsighting and converting sloped distances to horizontal distances.Backhoe-excavated units (Units 101 and 102) were monitored but not screened. Units 1–20 wereexcavated by hand, according to natural and cultural layers, with small pick, shovel, and trowel.Screening was to be conducted if subsurface features or other cultural materials were revealed. Units1–7, 9, and 10 were not screened. Unit 8, which was set up to examine Feature 1, was screened through1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh; the contents of Units 11–16, 18, and 19 were alsoscreened. Construction activity and time constraints prevented screening of features at Units 17 and 20.Soils and sediments were described in the field.

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 141

Initial units (Units 1–5, 101, 102) were excavated or augered to 1 m or more below surface (190cmbs in the case of the units excavated by backhoe). Examination of the stratigraphy demonstrated thegenerally consistent nature of the layers, and the lack of any highway fill deposits overlying andprotecting buried cultural deposits or features. Later units were excavated at least 10 cm into Layer III(the basal layer for this site), or to the bases of features that had been excavated into Layer III. In mostcases, features were bisected to define their shapes, examine their contents, and obtain charcoal samplesfor radiocarbon dating and wood identification. Flotation samples were taken from Features 2, 3, and4. All artifacts of indigenous types were collected, as well as diagnostic post-Contact-period artifacts.Artifacts and samples were sent to Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory for cataloging, analysis,and curation.

SAMPLING

The locations within the project area scheduled for bulldozing and monitoring were determined byconstruction needs, not archaeological criteria. Monitoring (of grubbed surface areas and machineexcavations) was therefore conducted on an archaeologically random sample of the project area. Initialexcavations at Site 4484 were placed beside the highway, forming a biased or stratified sample, toanswer specific questions about the stratigraphy of the area in relation to previous constructionactivities. Later excavation focused only on the features that were exposed by bulldozers, and formedanother stratified sample. The excavated units and features represent approximately 0.4% of the site area(42 m2); a volume of approximately 42.3 m3 was excavated.

RESULTS

SURFACE FINDS

No surface features or artifacts were found. All features and recovered artifacts were identified afterheavy construction machinery had altered or removed the existing ground surface.

SUBSURFACE FINDS

Overview

Results from 17 excavation units (Units 3, 5–9, 11–20, and 101) are presented here, including the 13subsurface features uncovered at the site. As indicated, Units 1, 2, 4, 10, and 102 have been reassignedto other sites. Twelve of the 13 features excavated at Site 4484 are considered cultural. These areinterpreted as four imu, one imu discard pile, three firepits, one possible postmold, one lithicscatter/activity area, one post-Contact-period artifact scatter/refuse area, and one post-Contact-periodcharcoal kiln. One feature is interpreted as a recent plant/root mold. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 summarize thefeature and unit information for Site 4484. Unit 101, which contained no features and no culturalmaterials, is listed in Table 4.3 but not discussed further.

142 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

Fe.+Feature Size* (m)

Associated

Layer

Feature Form Feature FunctionL x W or

diam.Depth(min.)

1 0.35 0.08 unknown prob. circular pit; poss. bowl base poss. firepit/food preparation

2 0.55 0.45 II? circular pit; flat base plant mold

3 0.15 0.25 II/III circular pit; tapered base poss. postmold

4 0.75 0.15 II/III circular pit; round base firepit/food preparation

5 1.2 x 0.8 0.4 unknown oval pit; round base imu/food preparation

6 0.5 0.15 II/III circular pit; round base firepit/food preparation

7 1.9 x 1.15 0.5 unknown oval pit; funnel base imu/food preparation

8 2.1 0.65 unknown circular pit; round base imu/food preparation

9 1 0.65 unknown circular pit; funnel base imu/food preparation

10 3.3 x 2 0.4 unknown walled, circular pit remnant; flat base charcoal kiln

11 1 x 0.5 0.3 unknown rock concentration imu discard pile ?

12 80 x 20 surf. II? artifact scatter activity area

13 80 x 7 surf. II? artifact scatter refuse or discard area/banana road+All features are subsurface.*Remnant size in all cases except for intact Features 4 & 6; approximate sizes for Features 12 and 13.

Table 4.3. Unit Summary, Site 4484

Unit Unit Size (m)Unit Volume* (m3) Associated

FeatureLength Width Depth (max.)

3 1.5 1.5 1 2.25

5 1 1 0.6 0.6

6 1 1 0.35 0.35

7 1 1 0.65 0.65

8 0.7 0.7 0.15 0.07 1

9 1 1 0.35 0.35

11 1 1 0.5 0.5 2, 3

12 1 1 0.3 0.3

13 1 1 0.25 0.25

14(J1) 1 1 0.2 0.2 4

14(J2) 1 1 0.25 0.25 6

15 1.4 0.5 0.4 0.07 5

16 1.15 0.85 0.5 0.13 7

17 2.1 1 0.65 0.36 8

18 1.05 0.55 0.4 0.06 9

19 4 2.5 0.65 6.5 10

20 1.5 1.2 0.4 0.9 11

101 15 1 1.9 28.5*Area of Units 15–18 = 1/2 (pi x R2), estimated as a half circle or oval, following bisected feature outline; volume of Units 15–18 = 1/2 (pi x R2 x D/3), estimated as a half cone, following bisected feature shape; R2 for these bisected feature units = L/2 x W; area of other units = L x W; volume of other units = L x W x D.

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 143

Most of the features were exposed and partially removed by bulldozers. For these remnantfeatures, the measurements given in Table 4.2 do not reflect the total feature size, and the originatinglayer is unknown. The bases of all the pit features lie within Layer III. Feature 3, the possiblepostmold, was indistinct and noted only in profile; again, originating layer is uncertain. Features 4 and6 were recovered intact, so correct size and originating layer can be determined. The artifacts recoveredfrom Features 12 and 13 may have been associated with Layer II. No bone or shell midden wasrecovered from the site, probably because of the acidic nature of the soils (Foote et al. 1972:83);flotation samples from the fill material in Features 2, 3, and 4 gave pH values between 4.3 and 5.0(extremely acid to very strongly acid). The most frequently recovered items were charred organicremains, mainly fragments of wood and kukui (candlenut, Aleurites moluccana) seed coats. Thestatement of function as food preparation for most of the fire features is tentative; other possibilities willbe mentioned later (see also Chapter 5). Nothing remains of the features now, as the area has beenbulldozed and filled.

Table 4.4 summarizes some of the characteristics most commonly observed in the field for pitfeatures containing charcoal (excluding the post-Contact-period charcoal kiln). This table is an attemptto provide a means of defining the features based on the following traits: size, profile shape, contents(rocks, artifacts, kukui seed coats), internal characteristics (burnt earth, reuse), and location. Thesecharacteristics, which are described below, should also be useful in comparing the features within andbetween sites.

The larger features at Site 4484 that are interpreted as imu are at least 1 m in diameter, evenwhen truncated by bulldozing. Feature 11 is also large, but it is amorphous and lacks burnt earth; it isinterpreted instead as an imu discard pile. Smaller features at this site are less than 1 m across (between30 and 80 cm), and are shallower than the larger fire features. These smaller features are interpreted asfirepits used for grilling or roasting food, or for heat or light; alternatively, they may have functionedas trash pits. Feature 3, one of the smaller features at Site 4484, contains a few small pieces of charcoal,but is interpreted as a postmold and not a firepit or trash pit.

To determine the feature shape, excavators followed the edge of the original pit, which in mostcases proved to have a rounded base forming a bowl shape. However, in several cases the pit becomesabruptly deeper in the middle bottom, forming a lower, tapered section surrounded by an upper, broadershelf. These funnel shapes are found in the larger features, but not in the smaller ones. Most of thelarger and smaller fire features at Site 4484 have rounded, bowl-shaped bases. Feature 3 is elongatedwith a tapered base. Feature 11 has no definable shape.

All the larger features at Site 4484 have rocks incorporated into the feature fill, with some ofthe rocks being up to small boulder size. The smaller features contain fewer rocks, mostly pebbles orsmall cobbles. Not all of the rocks are fire-affected. The artifact category refers to artifacts within thefeature and to artifacts surrounding the feature at (or near) original ground surface. Kukui seed coats areeasily identified in the field and excavators reported finding kukui fairly often in the smaller firepits.The presence or absence of red or orange, burnt or oxidized earth around the edges of the feature wasalso a trait consistently noted by the excavators. Stratigraphic evidence of reuse, in the form of bandingor layering within the fire features (as at Site 4483, Feature 4), was not observed at this site. Table 4.5,the soil description for Feature 7, Unit 16, is presented as an example of the fill and burnt earth foundin a large imu.

144 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

Table 4.4. Characteristics of Pit Features (Field Observations), Site 4484

Fe. Size*

(diam)Shape Rock Artifacts Charred

kukuiseed

coats**

Burntearth

Reuse Location

withinfeature

outsidefeature

1 prob. < 1 m

unknown —bowl?

few, decayed pebbles,cobbles

yes no no ridge top

3 < 1 m circular, tapered one pebble yes no no ridge top

4 < 1 m circular bowl few, not fire-affected,above feature

yes yes yes no no ridge top

5 > 1 m oval, bowl yes, fire-affected yes no ridge top

6 < 1 m circular, bowl yes, above feature yes yes no no ridge top

7 > 1 m oval, funnel yes, fire-affected,tightly packed

yes no ridge side

8 > 1 m circular, bowl? many, fire-affected yes no ridge top

9 > 1 m circular, funnel yes yes no ridge top

11 > 1 m amorphous yes yes no no ridge top* Features 4 and 6 are intact; all others are remnant features.**Botanical analysis later showed that other features also contained charred kukui.

Table 4.5. Feature Fill and Burnt Earth, Feature 7, Site 4484*

Layer Description

feature fill Dark brown (10YR 3/3, m) with mottles of dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/6, m) and very dark gray(10YR 3/1, m) silty clay; moderate, very fine to fine, subangular blocky structure; friable when moist;slightly sticky and slightly plastic when wet; very few, medium roots and common, fine roots; 60%cobbles and boulders; charcoal and fire-affected rocks; abrupt, smooth boundary within the feature (orabrupt, wavy boundary in overall landscape).

burnt earth Dark reddish brown (2.5YR 2.5/4, m) with mottles of yellowish red (5YR 4/6, m) silty clay; moderate,medium, prismatic structure; friable when moist; sticky and slightly plastic when wet; no roots; no rocks;abrupt, smooth boundary within the feature (or abrupt, wavy boundary in overall landscape).


All of the fire features at this site (excluding Feature 10, the charcoal kiln at the base of theslope) are considered to be on top of or on the side of the ridge. Location information for any one sitewould probably be fairly consistent. This characteristic might become more significant when comparingfeatures from many different sites.


Preliminary excavations at Site 4484 revealed little; Units 3, 5, and 9 produced no cultural material, andno evidence of highway fill deposits was seen. Traces of charcoal were noted (but not collected) inLayers I and II of Unit 6, while a small amount of charcoal was collected from Layer II of Unit 7. Twowood species—lama (Diospyros sp.) and ‘ulu (breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis)—were tentativelyidentified from the Unit 7 collections (all wood identifications are discussed in detail in Chapter 6).

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 145

Unit 8 was set up to investigate a charcoal stain (Feature 1) on the grubbed surface. Only asmall part of the feature remained after previous and recent ground alterations (Figure 4.2a). It may havebeen the bottom of a firepit (or perhaps a refuse pit) dug into Layer III, similar perhaps to Features 4and 6. The feature contains charred kukui seed coats and fragments that have been identifiedpreliminarily as ‘uala (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas). Charred wood from the feature appears to bekï (ti, Cordyline fruticosa), lama, and ‘ulu. No other cultural material was found in or around thefeature.

When it was determined that few cultural deposits remained near the highway, attention wasturned to a portion of the ridge extending south and west from Feature 1, where monitors had noted andflagged cultural materials exposed by bulldozer grubbing. Finds included charcoal stains; pieces ofbasalt, volcanic glass, and hematite; and post-Contact-period glass and ceramic fragments. Units 11,12, and 13 were set up to investigate this scatter of cultural materials. The area containing most of thelithic artifacts was later designated Feature 12, and the predominantly post-Contact-period artifactscatter was labelled Feature 13.

Unit 11 was located in an area where three pieces of volcanic glass had been collected from thegrubbed surface. The purpose of the unit was to discover if any remnant deposits bearing in-situarchaeological materials could be identified on this portion of the ridge. A small amount of charcoal wasrecovered from the remains of Layer II, including ‘ulu and two unidentified types. Layer III,encountered between 2 and 5 cmbs, produced one piece of volcanic glass and charred kukui seed coats,kï, lama, ‘ulu, and possibly guava (Psidium sp.). The outlines of two features were revealed at thebottom of Layer II/top of Layer III. Feature 2 is a circular pit with flat sides and bottom (Figure 4.2b).It contains numerous small roots but no cultural material. One flotation sample from this featureproduced charred and uncharred sedge seeds and uncharred grass and mallow seeds, all probably recent.The feature is probably a plant mold related to the banana-planting activities mentioned by localinformants. Feature 3 is also circular, but smaller and narrower with a rounded, tapered bottom (Figure4.2c). The indistinct feature, which may represent a postmold, contained small, scattered pieces ofcharcoal and one pebble. Charred kukui seed coat fragments were recovered from the Feature 3 flotationsample.

Units 12 and 13 were set up at the northeast and southwest ends of the lithic artifact scatter (seeFigure 4.1). Unit 12, to the north, revealed stratigraphy similar to that in Unit 11, with no trace of theLayer I deposit seen in ungrubbed areas and with less than 10 cm of Layer II remaining. A smallamount of charcoal (including pieces resembling charred sap) and two pieces of volcanic glass wererecovered from the grubbed surface (Layer II). Layer III produced traces of charcoal (more charred sapand lama), two small pieces of volcanic glass, and one small fragment of post-Contact-period glass.Crumbling bits of metal were detected but not collected. In Unit 13, at the south end of the ridge, LayerIII was encountered just under the grubbed surface. No artifacts were found in the unit. ‘Ulu wasidentified in the small amount of charcoal recovered from Layer III.

It was clear that although Layer II in this area had contained cultural deposits at one time, it wasnow too disturbed or truncated to yield much meaningful archaeological information. Layer III,however, was nearly intact, and features that had been dug into that layer were still visible. Unit 14 wasset up as a 9 by 6 m grid (Figure 4.3), roughly centered on Unit 11 and Feature 3 (the possiblepostmold), in order to look for any other features that may have been cut into the Layer III deposit. Thegrubbed surfaces of 32 of the 54 gridded units were skimmed down to Layer III with trowel and shovel.Several round, dark, root-filled areas were exposed and identified as banana tree molds

Figure 4.2. Profiles of small features at Site 4484.

Figure 4.3. Plan of Unit 14, Site 4484.

148 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

similar to Feature 2; these were not excavated further. One piece of volcanic glass was recovered fromLayer III of section R1 after troweling the southwest portion of the large grid.

Features 4 and 6 were encountered in sections J1 and J2 of the Unit 14 grid, just north ofFeature 3. Both are small (< 1 m diameter), shallow, roughly circular, bowl-shaped pits; neitherexhibited burnt soil. They appeared at the base of Layer II/top of Layer III. Feature 4 (Figure 4.2d)contains charcoal and two pieces of volcanic glass. The flotation sample from this feature producedwood pieces that may have been used for kindling, as well as a possible fruit stalk. The field-screenedsample produced a relatively large quantity of kukui seed coat fragments and a few charred piecesidentified as kalo.

Charred sap, similar to that seen in Unit 12, was also present. Wood tentatively identified fromthis feature includes kï, lama, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai (mountain apple, Syzygium malaccense), ‘ulu, and lapalapa(Cheirodendron sp.). A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1492; Beta 74100) consisting of wood charcoal fromFeature 4 produced an age of 470 ± 50 years B.P. Feature 6 (Figure 4.2e) is filled with charcoal andcovered with cobbles (not fire-cracked). Fragments of charred kukui seed coats were collected, as wellas probable kï, lama, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, ‘ulu, and ‘ohe‘ohe (Tetraplasandra sp.). ‘Ulu was the dominant woodtype recovered from this feature. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1456; Beta 55838; CAMS 3734)consisting of wood charcoal from Feature 6 produced an age of 260 ± 90 years B.P. Both features areinterpreted as probable firepits.

It is interesting to note that at this site there appeared to be relatively more kukui in the smallerfirepits, especially Features 4 and 6, than in the much larger imu. Charred and burnt kukui seed coatsare commonly found in Hawaiian archaeological sites. Kirch (1985:210), describing kukui in the middenat the coastal site of Häwea Point, Maui, suggests that it could represent the remains of a Hawaiianprocedure that uses kukui and green seaweed to ferment and preserve fish. Such a use could beenvisioned for Features 4 and 6, with fish brought from the coast. Another possible use might be thepreparation of ‘inamona, a relish made of cooked kukui and salt (Pukui and Elbert 1986:100). Thepossibility of a relationship between kukui nut processing and smaller fire features should beinvestigated.

Unit 15 was set up to investigate Feature 5, a fire feature remnant (Figure 4.4a). The oval,bowl-shaped pit contains charcoal, fire-cracked cobbles, and small boulders; burnt earth is visible alongthe edges of the feature. Most of the botanical remains collected from this feature are in deterioratedcondition. The pieces that could be identified as to plant type include kukui seed coat fragments, a drupe(or key) of a hala (screwpine, Pandanus sp.) fruit, and kï and ‘ulu wood. No artifacts were found in oraround the feature. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1457; Beta 55839) consisting of wood charcoalprovided an age of 210 ± 90 years B. P. for this feature. The size and contents of the feature indicatethat it is probably an imu.

Plans were made to grade the ridge when the excavations described above were completed.Monitors subsequently reported charcoal features on the east edge of the ridge and at the base of theeastern slope. Units 16 through 20 were set up to recover information from the exposed features.

Unit 16 was positioned to investigate Feature 7, a large (> 1 m diameter) fire feature at theedge of the ridge. It is an oval, funnel-shaped pit surrounded by a band of burnt earth (Figures4.4b and 4.5; see Table 4.5), filled with charcoal, and with a distinct layer of charcoal at the base. Thefeature contains numerous fire-cracked cobbles and small boulders, but no artifacts. Charred woodcollected from this feature includes a predominance of ‘öhi‘a (Metrosideros polymorpha), as wellas lama, koa (Acacia koa), ‘ulu, ‘ohe‘ohe,and lapalapa. A leaf, possibly kï, was also recovered from

Figure 4.4. Profiles of large features at Site 4484.

Figure 4.5. Feature 7, Site 4484. View to northwest. BM Neg. No.Oa(a)693:30.

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 151

this feature. The size and contents of the feature indicate that it is probably an imu. Feature 7 had beenburied under a substantial amount of sediment; it was only uncovered after repeated bulldozing andgrading. The feature is one of the oldest ones dated at this site, with a radiocarbon age of 560 ± 90 yearsB.P. from a sample consisting of wood charcoal (HRC 1458; Beta 55840).

Excavation in Unit 17 provided information on Feature 8, a very large, somewhat bowl-shapedfire feature (Figures 4.4c and 4.6). The pit is lined with burnt earth, and contains charcoal, numerousfire-cracked cobbles, and small boulders. A charcoal layer was found at the bottom of the feature.‘Öhi‘a ‘ai was the dominant wood type recovered; other tentatively identified woods include kï, koa,‘ulu, and ‘öhi‘a. No artifacts were recovered from the feature. The size and contents of Feature 8indicate that it is probably an imu. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1459; Beta 55841) consisting of woodcharcoal provided an age of 370 ± 50 years B. P. for this feature.

Unit 18 was placed on the northeast edge of the ridge where Feature 9, a large, funnel-shapedpit (Figure 4.4d) had been exposed. The base of the feature contains fire-cracked cobbles, boulders, andsome charcoal. Burnt earth is visible along the sides of the pit. Charred remains recovered from thefeature include kukui seed coat fragments and probable kukui, kï, lama, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, ‘ulu, and lapalapawood. No artifacts were found. The size and contents of the feature indicate that it is probably an imu.This feature is the oldest one dated at the site; a wood charcoal sample (HRC 1398; Beta 63313)provided a radiocarbon age of 580 ± 90 years B. P. The funnel shape, feature contents, and radiocarbondate for Feature 9 are similar to those of Feature 7.

Unit 19 is a large unit encompassing Feature 10, a charcoal kiln remnant cut into the Layer IIIsoils and sediments of the slope at the base of the ridge (Figures 4.7 and 4.8). One piece of post-Contact-period glass and a porcelain button were found inside the feature fill. Much of the area had beenbulldozed, so it is possible that these artifacts are out of context. When the fill was removed, theremains of an earthen floor and a semi-circular rock lining (representing about one-third of the originalkiln) were visible. The rock lining consists of four to five rows of rounded and angular fire-affectedcobbles, not uniformly placed. There were no indications left of the kiln roof or any holes or pipes toregulate air flow. On the kiln floor were a deteriorating metal bar and tin can fragments. The bar is long,narrow, and flattened; it may have been taken from a large piece of machinery or a vehicle, and reusedhere to support a roof. Ninety percent of the charred wood recovered from the feature has been identifiedas guava (Psidium sp.); ‘ohe‘ohe and a conifer species were also present. The presence of extensiveburnt earth deposits and ash indicates that air had gotten into the kiln, causing combustion and failureof the coaling process. The kiln has features similar to those of the kiln in Site 4483 (flat earthen floor,stone lining in courses, and iron bars).

Feature 11, seen in Unit 20 (Figure 4.4e), is located in the same general area as Features 7 and8, and buried approximately 1.5 m below surface. The feature is irregularly shaped, with numerousrocks and pockets of charcoal, but no clear boundaries or burnt earth outlines. The feature produced oneedge-altered basalt flake. The small botanical collection from this feature yielded a relatively largenumber of plant types. Identified remains include kukui seed coat fragments, and wood fragments thatappear to be kï, lama, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, ‘ulu, and ‘ohe‘ohe. Feature 11 is not considered an intact fire feature;it may represent material discarded from nearby imu.

The final two features to be discussed at this site are artifact scatters. Almost all of the artifactscollected from this site were retrieved from the grubbed, bulldozed surface rather than from excavatedunits or pit features. They include tools, flakes, and fragments of basalt and volcanic glass, one pieceof worked hematite, and fragments of post-Contact-period glass and ceramic. Artifacts

Figure 4.6. Feature 8, Site 4484. View to west. BM color slide field roll 34B:4.

Figure 4.7. Profile of Feature 10, Site 4484, charcoal kiln.

Figure 4.8. Feature 10, Site 4484. View to west. BM Neg. No. Oa(a)718:13.

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 155

were recovered from the central ridge, the sides of the ridge, and from the flat area extending east fromthe base of the ridge. The main concentration of artifacts is on the central ridge, with the numbersdropping off on the sides and base.

Feature 12 is the designation for the lithic artifact scatter on the grubbed surface of the centralportion of the ridge, which could have functioned as an activity area. The 25 artifacts recovered fromthis scatter appear to be lying at the base of Layer II or the top of Layer III; cultural deposits may havebeen thicker before the various grubbing and grading episodes. The majority of the artifacts are smallflakes and fragments of basalt and volcanic glass. Other basalt tools or tool fragments include a flakewith polish, edge-altered flakes, a hammer/polishing stone, and a grinding stone fragment. Volcanicglass cores were also collected from this feature. The hematite artifact is an unusual piece for thisupland area. Hematite, which has localized source areas (Kirch 1985:32), is often used for octopus luresinkers (Kirch 1985:106, 204).

Feature 13 produced 54 post-Contact-period glass and ceramic fragments, as well as onevolcanic glass core. Most of these artifacts turned up after an existing banana road was grubbed. Thisbanana road extended from the south edge of the ridge down toward Site 1898. The availablemanufacture dates for most of the artifacts are relatively recent, although the two ceramic pieces couldhave been manufactured before 1900. Overall, there is little spatial or chronological connection betweenthe post-Contact-period artifacts at Feature 13 and the traditional-type artifacts and features at the restof the site.

RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSES

All artifacts from this site are numbered with the Bishop Museum site number (50-Oa-G5-153-) as aprefix; for easier reading, this prefix is deleted in the discussions below.

ARTIFACTS OF INDIGENOUS TYPES

All of the indigenous-type artifacts from Site 4484 were formed of lithic materials—no artifacts of bone,shell, coral or other Hawaiian materials were found. A total of 41 lithic artifacts was collected,including: 14 basalt and 25 volcanic glass pieces, one artifact that exhibits a basalt/volcanic glassselvage, and one unusual hematite artifact (Table 4.6). Of these artifacts, 13 (32%) are tools or toolfragments; measurements in Table 4.7 list the maximum dimensions for these pieces. The followingparagraphs describe the formal tools and diagnostic artifacts as an aide to interpretating activities in theSite 4484 area (see Appendix A, Lithics Glossary, for definitions and references).

Artifact 24 (Figure 4.9b), a basalt grinding stone fragment, has two opposite concave surfaces,as shown in the cross section view (Figure 4.10b). This piece is a small portion of a much larger originalslab. The fragment may have been used later as a whetstone; however, there is no visible usewear (at10X microscopic magnification) on the broken edges to verify this possibility.

Artifact 67 (Figures 4.9a and 4.10a), a multi-purpose hammerstone and polishing stone, isa dense, waterworn, basalt pebble containing three very distinct areas of pitting, and one relatively

156 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

Table 4.6. Artifacts, Site 4484

Provenience Material Specimen Notes++ Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-153-

Count

Unit 11, L. III volcanic glass flake 41 1

Unit 12, L. II volcanic glass 1 flake; 1 fragment Lot 5 2

Unit 12. L. III volcanic glass 1 flake; 1 fragment Lot 1 2

Unit 12, L. III clear glass fragment 2 1

Unit 14 (R1), L. III volcanic glass flake 76 1

Unit 14 (J1), Fe. 4 fill volcanic glass 1 flake; 1 flake fragment Lot 31 2

Unit 19, Fe. 10 fill aqua glass prob. soda bottle fragment mold blown;1880–1910

6 1

Unit 19, Fe. 10 fill ceramic,porcelain

button sew through, singleelement; 4 holes

7 1

Unit 19, Fe. 10 kiln floor metal bar 8 1

Unit 19, Fe. 10 kiln floor metal tin can fragments double seamsanitary can, c. 1900

Lot 2 17

Unit 20, Fe. 11 basalt edge-altered flake 79 1

grubbed surface, Fe. 12,Layer II/III?

basalt flake with polish Fig. 4.12 74 1

basalt hammer/polishing stone Fig. 4.10, 4.11 67 1

basalt grinding stone fragment Fig. 4.10, 4.11 24 1

basalt edge-altered flakes Fig. 4.12 29, 68, 69 3

basalt edge-altered flake poss. adze blank; Fig. 4.10, 4.11

72 1

basalt flakes 10, 11, 20, 21,23

5

basalt fragment 14 1

volcanic glass cores 35, 36, 40 3

volcanic glass flake negative residueresults

4 1

volcanic glass flakes 5, 33, 37, 38,39, 70, 77

7

hematite modified artifact poss. sinker; Fig.4.10

30 1

grubbed surface, Fe. 13,Layer II?

volcanic glass core volcanic glassformed on basalt

34 1

clear glass soda bottle fragment ABM; 1954–20thcentury

28 1

clear glass soda bottle fragment ABM; 1961–20thcentury

66 1

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 157

Provenience Material Specimen Notes++ Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-153-

Count

grubbed surface, Fe. 13,Layer II?

emerald greenglass

beer/soda bottlefragment

ABM; embossed;1954–20th century

61 1

amber glass beer bottle fragments ABM; 1940–20thcentury

26, 27 60, 63 4

amber glass beer/whiskey bottle fragment embossed; 20thcentury

65 1

clear glass bottle/jar fragments machine made;1910–20th century

Lot 18 2

clear glass culinary jar fragments ABM; 1924–20thcentury

Lot 28 5

clear glass possible jar fragments possibly ABM;1910–20th century

Lot 24 8

clear glass possible jar fragments ABM; 1924–20thcentury

Lot 21 8

gray glass fragments machine made; ca.1915–20th century

Lots 4, 19, & 23 10

clear glass fragments 20th century Lots 22, 27, &29

10

light blueglass

fragment 20th century 64 1

ceramic,porcelain

rice bowl fragment prob. Japan; post-1880; underglazetransfer print

16 1

ceramic,earthenware

cup/bowl fragment England/US; handpainted underglaze;ca. 1890–1950;floral design

17 1

grubbed surface, by hwy.,to N

clear glass soda bottle, whole ABM; embossed;Diamond HeadBeverages; made inJapan; 1961–20thcentury

18 1

grubbed surface, to E

volcanic glass 4 flakes; 1 flake fragment; 1fragment

32, 73, Lots 3 &6

6

++Date ranges indicate beginning and ending manufacture dates.

158 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

Table 4.7. Measurements of Lithic Tools, Site 4484


Width(cm)

Thickness(cm)

Weight(gm)

Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-153-

Basalt

grinding stone fragment 10.5 9.4 4.5 416.9 24

hammer/polishing stone 5.1 6 4 265.5 67

edge-altered flakes 6.8 4.9 2.4 72.5 72

6.3 6.7 1.7 81.4 29

4.1 8.1 1 62.9 79

3.3 5.2 2.2 56.1 69

3 6.1 1.1 29.9 68

flake with polish 2.4 2.2 0.6 2.8 74

Volcanic glass

cores 5 2.5 2.2 33.5 34

1.6 1.1 0.6 1.2 36

1.5 1.6 0.9 2.9 40

1.2 1.1 0.5 0.8 35

Hematite

modified artifact 3.4 3.3 1.7 27.6 30

flat, polished face. The pitting is evidence for the hammerstone interpretation. There is some form ofunidentified residue adhering to a portion of the polished surface.

There are five edge-altered flake tools in the Site 4484 collection (12% of the lithic artifactcollection). Artifact 72 (Figures 4.9c and 4.10c) may be an adze blank; the dorsal surface exhibitsmultiple flake scars and there is continuous marginal scarring on nearly half of the ventral surface. Theentire flake, including the platform, was being shaped before it was discarded. Artifact 29 (Figure 4.11a)exhibits two areas of bifacial scarring on the distal end and left lateral edge. Most of the rounding onthe edges may be the result of natural weathering, although the rounding on the left lateral edge nearthe proximal end could be interpreted as usewear. Artifact 69 (Figure 4.11b) exhibits marginal scarringon the left lateral edge. Artifacts 68 (Figure 4.11d) and 79 exhibit continuous marginal scarring alongthe distal ends. Artifact 79 also exhibits some rounding at the distal end.

Artifact 74 (Figure 4.11c) is a thin basalt flake with a feather termination. The polish on oneside and the fine-grained material of the piece indicate that the flake was created during reworking ofan adze.

Five basalt flakes and one fragment make up 15% of the lithic artifact collection. Four of thefive complete basalt flakes at Site 4484 range in length from 2.6 to 5.7 cm. These flakes have featherterminations and no cortex. The other flake, Artifact 23, is a blade flake with a length of 16.1 cm, morethan twice the length of the next smallest flake. The dorsal ridge was a platform for flake removal priorto detachment of the blade.

Three of the four volcanic glass cores at Site 4484 are small, a little over 1 cm in length. Thefourth core, Artifact 34, is more than three times the length of other cores from Site 4484. Raw materialfor the core is a basalt/volcanic glass selvage; only the volcanic glass segment of the artifact has beenused as a core.

Figure 4.9. Artifacts from Site 4484: upper left) basalt hammerstone/ polishing stone (50-Oa-G5-153-67),upper right) basalt grinding stone fragment (50-Oa-G5-153-24), lower left) basalt flake, edgealtered, possible adze blank (G5-Oa-153-72), and lower right) hematite fragment, possiblesinker (50-Oa-G5-153-30). BM Neg. No. Oa(a)1007-3.

Figure 4.10. Artifacts from Site 4484, cross section view: upper left) basalt hammerstone/polishing stone(50-Oa-G5-153-67), upper right) basalt grinding stone fragment (50-Oa-G5-153-24), lower left)basalt flake, edge altered, possible adze blank (G5-Oa-153-72), and lower right) hematitefragment, possible sinker (50-Oa-G5-153-30). BM Neg. No. Oa(a)1007-6.

Figure 4.11. Artifacts from Site 4484: upper left) basalt flake, edge-altered (50-Oa-G5-153-29), upperright) basalt flake, edge-altered (50-Oa-G5-153-69), lower left) basalt flake with polish (50-Oa-G5-153-74), and lower right) basalt flake, edge-altered (50-Oa-G5-153-68). BM Neg. No.Oa(a)1007-9.

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 161

A total of 22 volcanic glass flakes, flake fragments, and fragments (53% of the lithic artifactcollection) was collected from the site. Volcanic glass flakes range from 0.9 to 1.9 cm in length. Oneof these flakes, Artifact 4, was sent for residue analysis, but no residues were detected. However, usecannot be ruled out since there was only a small range of antisera available at the time (Allen et al.1995; see also Appendix C).

Artifact 30 is an interesting tool—a modified artifact of hematite (Figures 4.9d and 4.10d).Facets with nearly continuous polish on all surfaces and a manufactured groove identify this piece asa fishing sinker. It is likely that a fragment of a larger, broken sinker was polished and reworked intothe current form.

The lithic materials described here indicate that tool production, tool use, and tool maintenanceand repair were occurring at Site 4484. Artifacts include tools to fashion and refine other tools, plussimple tools for cutting. The activities that these tools suggest are similar (although on a much smallerscale) to those proposed for nearby Site 4483, and are compatible with the idea of an upland resourceextraction/exploitation area. The hematite sinker is an unusual find for this area, and may indicate acoastal connection of some kind.


Only two excavated units produced nonindigenous, post-Contact-period materials. The small, clear glassfragment from Unit 12 retains no diagnostic features. The layers in this unit seemed affected andperhaps mixed by various bulldozing activities. Items in Unit 19, Feature 10 (the charcoal kiln), includea glass fragment with a manufacture date between 1880 and 1910. Tin can fragments (Artifact Lot 2)found on the floor of the kiln are also rather early; they are from a double seam sanitary can, ca. 1900.These dates fit the assumption, noted earlier, that the charcoal kilns were a means of utilizing naturalresources in the area before the establishment of commercial banana farms and banana roads. Artifact7, a porcelain or white china button found in the feature fill, is a sew-through, single element piece withfour holes and a convex back, sized at 18 lines. Artifact 8, a large, rusted metal bar found on the kilnfloor, may have come originally from a vehicle of some kind, and been reused here as part of the kilnstructure.

Monitors flagged 54 glass and ceramic artifacts on the grubbed surface of Feature 13. Thefragmentary nature of these pieces affects the degree of analysis that is possible. The smaller pieces,showing fewer diagnostic traits, provide little or no information on form, only generalized informationabout manufacturing technique, and broad ranges of earliest and latest dates of manufacture. Moreprecise information can be supplied for larger pieces.

Most of the glass fragments from Feature 13 (45 of 52) are probably from bottles produced byautomatic bottle machine; none exhibits attributes of mold-blown bottles. All are twentieth centurypieces, with earliest manufacture dates ranging between 1910 and 1924. Seven pieces, fragments of beeror soda bottles produced by automatic bottle machine, have earliest manufacture dates between 1940and 1961. Two of the fragments are from Diamond Head soda bottles, probably post-1950 (Millar1985:17). Place of manufacture for most of the glass pieces is unknown. The United States is identifiedas place of manufacture for three fragments. One of these, Artifact 61, an emerald green, probable beerbottle fragment, has an Owens trademark embossed on the base, identifying bottles made by the OwensGlass Co., Illinois, since 1954 (Toulouse 1972:403).

162 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

Artifact 16, a rice bowl fragment, exhibits part of an underglaze transfer print. The design mayrepresent stylized bamboo leaves or grass stems, and part of a flower. This porcelain piece is probablyfrom Japan, and dated post-1880. It could have been made in the late nineteenth or twentieth centuries(Costello and Maniery 1988:19–25). The English or American whiteware fragment, Artifact 17, is fromeither a cup or a bowl. One portion exhibits a handpainted underglaze design, possibly a leaf that maybe part of a larger floral pattern (Majewski and O’Brien 1987:120, 157). This fragment probably datesto the late nineteenth to twentieth centuries.

The Feature 13 artifacts are most likely twentieth century discards at Site 4484. None of thepieces is very old, which is reasonable given their provenience in relation to the grubbed banana road.The road was probably created after the establishment of banana farms at the end of World War I. It isdoubtful that the artifacts represent habitation at the site; casual discard along a banana road is a morelikely explanation for the deposition of these recent artifacts.

Monitors also recovered a modern (1962) soda bottle, Artifact 18, near Likelike Highway. Thisbottle was made in Japan, but the contents were bottled for the local Diamond Head Beverages company(Millar 1985:17;plates 52–54).

ORGANIC MATERIALS

The only organic items recovered from this site are charred and uncharred macrobotanical remains.Chapter 6 is a detailed report concerning the identification and analysis of this material. Discussionsof feature functions at this site rely on the information gathered from these organic collections.

Wood remains in the features and other areas of Site 4484 include native plants andPolynesian introductions. ‘Ulu, lama, and kï appear most frequently in the fire features. The presenceof probable food remains (‘uala and kalo) in Features 1 and 4 strengthens the interpretation of thesesmall features being firepits used for cooking, rather than as pits used for refuse. Although no specificfood remains were recovered from the larger fire features, Features 5, 8, and 9 contain possible tubersor corms. Also, the presence of kï leaf in Feature 7 is reminiscent of imu cooking techniques. Feature11 produced the smallest botanical sample of any of the features here, but contains many plant types.It is interesting to note that none of these types is unique to this feature. The impression that this featureis a discard pile, possibly containing material from several other features, is enhanced by the sense ofdiversity present in the organic remains. The guava identified from Feature 10, the charcoal kiln,confirms the ethnographic information provided by various informants about preferred wood fortwentieth-century charcoal production. The grass and sedge seeds from the Feature 2 flotationsample are not inconsistent with the interpretation of the feature as a modern plant mold.

The woods identified so far from these features are usually found in mesic to wetenvironments. The inclusion of koa in two of the features is interesting. It is possible that a mesic-to-wetsubtype of the “Koa (Acacia koa) Mesic Forest” (Wagner et al. 1990:81), which also would haveincluded Metrosideros polymorpha and Diospyros sp., could have existed at this site or nearby. Mostof the identified native species at this site (Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron sp., Diospyrossp., and Tetraplasandra sp.) occur together in the “Öhi‘a Lowland Wet Forest” vegetationcommunity (Wagner et al. 1990:90). The two forest types can be found in adjacent areas, with thekoa forest generally lower than the öhi‘a forest; “Many of the species present in the mesic-to-wetsubtype (of the Koa Mesic Forest) extend into Öhi‘a Lowland Wet Forest” (Wagner et al. 1990:81).

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 163

When the features at Site 4484 were in use, the surrounding vegetation may have composed an interfacebetween these two regimes.

RADIOCARBON DATING

Charcoal samples were collected in the field with clean trowels and forceps, then placed in clean foilpackets. Samples were taken to Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory to be oven-dried, weighed,and curated. A section of each wood piece in each dating sample was split off, to be reserved foreventual wood species identification. The splitting technique was done with gloves and metal tools ona glass surface. Care was taken to avoid contamination of the samples. Identification of the datedsamples is planned for the future.

Charcoal samples from six of the fire features were sent to Beta Analytic, Inc., Miami, Florida,for radiocarbon dating. Table 4.8 lists uncorrected ages, conventional (13C-adjusted) ages in years B.P.(at one standard deviation), 13C/12C ratios, calibrated (A.D.) dates, and calibrated ranges using theintercept method and the probability distribution method at one and two standard deviations.Calibrations were done using the CALIB computer program, version 3.0.3 (Stuiver and Reimer 1993),set for the bidecadal atmospheric/inferred atmospheric curve.

The six dated samples come from two large funnel-shaped pits, two large bowl-shaped pits, andtwo small bowl-shaped pits. The six features were chosen to test whether the differences noted in featureshape and size are a reflection of chronological variation as well (see also Site 4485, Chapter 5).

Feature 4, one of the small, intact firepits, is dated to the fifteenth century. This feature islocated on the central part of the ridge. Features 7 and 9, the large funnel-shaped pits, have virtuallyidentical radiocarbon dates (calibrated dates and ranges) that appear to be of the early fifteenth century(and possibly as early as the late thirteenth century). The date for Feature 8, which has a somewhatbowl-shaped profile, is probably from the sixteenth century. These three features are found at the eastedge or side of the ridge. All four features would fit into Hommon’s (1976:225) Phase II (inlandexpansion), dated from A.D. 1400–1550, and Kirch’s (1985:303) Expansion period (A.D. 1100–1650).

Calibrations for Features 5 and 6, using the intercept method (Method A) at two standarddeviations, give wide ranges that end at A.D. 1954/1955. To make the dates somewhat moremeaningful, an additional method (Method B) was used for these features, relying on the relative areaunder a probability distribution curve for each sample. For Feature 5, assuming that the date is betweenA.D. 1512 and 1955 at two standard deviations, 88% of the area under the probability distribution curvefalls within the period between A.D. 1617 and 1955. For Feature 6, assuming that the date ranges fromA.D. 1470 to 1955 at two standard deviations, 65% of the area under the probability distribution curvefalls within the period from A.D. 1470 to 1705.

Feature 5, the very large bowl-shaped feature, is probably later than Features 4, 7, 8, and 9,although there is some overlap of dates at two standard deviations. This feature most likely falls withinthe eighteenth- to nineteenth-century time period, possibly in the initial Contact period. This feature ison the upper, central portion of the ridge.

Feature 6, a small, intact firepit, is also probably later than Features 4, 7, 8, and 9, but earlierthan Feature 5. Although the date for this feature could fall anywhere from the late fifteenth to the earlyeighteenth or nineteenth centuries, the close proximity of Feature 6 to Feature 4, a similar

Table 4.8. Radiocarbon Dating Results, Five Fire Features, Site 4484

Unit Fe* Context/Depth

cmbs**


* 13C 13C-Adjusted(Conventional)

14C Age B.P.

CALIBRATED DATE AND RANGE A.D.

HRCNo.

LabNo.


Date Range -- Method A: Intercepts

Range -- Method B: Relative area under probability

distribution curve

(1F) (2F) 68.3%area enclosed

(1F)

95.4%area enclosed

(2F)

14(J1)

4 fe. fill/15–25

510 ± 50 -27.8 470 ± 50 1438 1420–1454 1402–14891609–1688

1413–1469 1.00 1396–1519 .931576–1625 .07

1492 Beta-74100

14(J2)

6 fe. fill/9–21

--- --- 260 ± 70 (AMS)

1654 1525–1559

1631–1675

1776–1798

1943–1954

1471–17021718–18191857–18611917–1954

1515–1591 .341621–1680 .341752–1804 .231937–1955 .09

1470–1705 .651715–1820 .241839–1869 .021916–1955 .09

1456 Beta-55838;CAMS 3734

15 5 fe. fill/0–15

250 ± 90 -27.3 210 ± 90 1669,1786,1793,1949,1952

1641–17021718–18191859–18601917–1954

1477–1955 1640–1705 .271715–1820 .461838–1872 .101915–1955 .17

1512–1599 .121617–1955 .88

1457 Beta-55839

16 7 fe. fill/15–22

560 ± 90 -25.2 560 ± 90 1405 1305–13681372–1439

1283–1483 1307–1362 .471377–1436 .53

1278–1514 .981595–1619 .02

1458 Beta-55840

17 8 fe. fill/60–69

370 ± 50 -27.6 330 ± 50 1525,1558,1631

1482–1647 1448–1663 1509–1602 .781614–1642 .22

1461–1656 1.00 1459 Beta-55841

18 9 fe. fill/10–42

580 ± 90 -27.5 540 ± 90 1410 1310–13541385–1444

1288–15111600–1616

1307–1362 .401377–1447 .60

1284–1519 .951577–1625 .05

1398 Beta-63313

* Features 4, 5, 6, and 8 are bowl-shaped; Features 7 and 9 are funnel-shaped**Below grubbed surface in all cases

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 165

feature dated to the fifteenth century, makes it tempting to select an early date for this feature as well.The location of these two small firepit features near a possible posthole and a lithic scatter is intriguing.

The date ranges for the site suggest that the area might have been used as early as the latethirteenth century. The calibrated ranges at two standard deviations overlap, spanning the period fromthe thirteenth to the twentieth centuries. However, since each of the five features dated probablyrepresents a single use, a continuous 700-year period of use for the site is not advocated. The proposeddates for Features 4, 7, 8, and 9 belong generally to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which fitwithin the later portion of the main period of use of the agricultural terraces at Site 1887 (Allen, ed.1987:175–176). Feature 6 is later, probably used during the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. Feature5 is possibly linked to initial Contact and post-Contact times. A tentative case could be made for morefrequent use of the site during the fifteenth century, when terraced cultivation was in effect.

DISCUSSION

The main activities at Site 4484, as inferred from the archaeological record, deal with burning wood inexcavated pits at various times from perhaps the thirteenth century until the early twentieth century.Nine of the twelve cultural features described here could have been used either for cooking and heatingfoods (probably Features 1, 4–9); for preparing other raw materials such as kukui (possibly Features 4and 6) and guava (Feature 10, the charcoal kiln); or possibly as a discard area for ashy remains removedfrom other features (Feature 11). Lithic tool production and maintenance were also probably occurringat the site (Feature 12). Cooking and tool working may have taken place in the vicinity of a small ortemporary shelter (represented by the possible Feature 3 posthole). Twentieth century use of the site,in addition to use of the kiln, includes banana cultivation (probably represented by Feature 2) andmodern artifact discard (Feature 13).

FIRE FEATURES

The fire features (and probable fire features) uncovered at this site, excluding the Feature 10 charcoalkiln, can be divided into three main groups based on physical characteristics uncovered throughexcavation (see Table 4.4): large, bowl-shaped pits with many rocks and burnt earth (Feature 5 andprobably Feature 8); large, funnel-shaped pits with many rocks and burnt earth (Features 7 and 9); andsmall, bowl-shaped pits with few rocks and little or no or burnt earth—some of these small pits havenoticeable amounts of charred kukui seed coats (Features 4 and 6, and perhaps Feature 1). These threetypes also appear in Sites 4483 and 4485 (see Chapters 3 and 5). A statement of the formalcharacteristics of the features in these and future sites could be an aid in discussing their probablefunctions and relationships to other features within a site, as well as making comparisons between thefeatures of different sites.

166 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

As noted above, dates for the funnel-shaped imu (Features 7 and 9) at Site 4484 are earlier thanthose for the large bowl-shaped imu (Features 5 and 8). There are not enough dated funnel-shapedfeatures yet to tell whether there is a consistent link between chronology and feature form. Botanicalidentifications and residue analyses on the contents of funnel-shaped versus bowl-shaped imu could helpdetermine whether there are any differences in kinds of plants and/or animals processed in the differentimu forms. Preliminary work on wood identifications suggests that the smaller, firepit features haverelatively more burnt kukui seed coats than do the larger imu—perhaps indicating a specific use forsmall features that was not provided by the larger features. It is possible that the imu could have hadspecific ceremonial purposes in addition to, or instead of, a food preparation function. Offerings ofcooked food were prepared for many different events in Hawaiian life—when a tree was cut to makea canoe (Malo 1951:127), during heiau construction (Malo 1951:165), after agricultural terraceconstruction and after harvesting (Kamakau 1876:34), to name a few. Any of these activities might haveoccurred at Site 4484.

At the nearby agricultural terraces of Site 1887, the “most extensive wetland agricultural use”occurred between A.D. 440 and 1650 (Allen, ed. 1987:230). Site 4484 was in use during the latter partof this period—the radiocarbon dates indicate that the earliest features of Site 4484 were probably beingused by A.D. 1400 (or perhaps even earlier). Williams (1992b:70–74) finds that isolated imu in thenearby Windward Highway corridor peak around A.D. 1300–1450, and begin to decline after A.D.1500. Several feature dates from Sites 4483 and 4485 also fall into this period. Williams suggests thatthese isolated earth ovens represent short-term excursions to the inland area by cultivators or collectorswho lived close to the coast. When permanent habitation, represented by “earth ovens, hearths, oroccupation layers within formal domestic features such as platforms, pavements, or terraces” (Williams1992b:69) expanded inland, the occurrence of isolated imu declined.

OTHER FEATURES

Feature 11, although described as a pit containing pockets of charcoal and ash, does not fit into the firefeature groups; it is possibly a discard area composed of materials removed from other features. It maybe worthwhile to suggest that other large subsurface features with amorphous or irregular outlines, noburnt earth, and charcoal collections showing a very high degree of species diversity are likelycandidates for the discard/trash pit functional designation.

The presence at Feature 12 of the multi-use hammerstone, grinding stone fragment, flake withpolish, possible adze blank, flakes, and flake fragments suggests that basalt tool production,maintenance, and reworking activities occurred at the site and/or surrounding area. Volcanic glass cores,flakes, and fragments indicate that core reduction and the production of potential tools in the form ofsmall flakes also occurred in this area. The polishing stone and edge-altered flakes represent tool useunrelated to the production of other stone tools. Woodworking is probably one of the polishingfunctions of the multi-use hammerstone/ polishing stone. The edge-altered flakes exhibit marginalscarring formed through retouch, or as the result of scraping over hard materials such as bone, wood,or rock. Rounding of edges, observed on Artifacts 29 and 79, is evidence for repeated or continuous useof the tools. The other flakes and flake fragments at this site could have been used as tools for short-term cutting and scraping on soft materials leaving no visual evidence of use (under 10X microscopicmagnification); alternatively, they could be unused debitage. Finally, finding a possible piece of fishing

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 167

gear (the hematite tool) in this upland agricultural area is of interest, and could indicate links with thecoast and the travel or transport of people and/or goods.

Feature 3 is very faint suggestion of a possible postmold. There may have been other similarfeatures in the area that were not recognized. The location of this feature on the central part of the ridge,surrounded by small firepits (Features 4 and 6) and a lithic scatter (Feature 12), is suggestive of a smallor temporary shelter of some kind. If these elements are temporally related, they may represent a short-term or temporary habitation and work area, with perhaps a small, post-supported shelter and firepitsfor preparing modest meals. It is interesting to note that a similar association of small firepits, a possibleposthole, and a lithic scatter is seen at Site 4483. It is likely that temporary field shelters werecommonly used by people working in the upland fields and forests. Site 4484 may be somewhat similarto Site 50-80-10-2046 (50-Oa-G5-37), located along Kamo‘oali‘i Stream to the southeast of the currentproject area. Layer III deposits at the site, dated between A.D. 1390 and 1656, include various firepitsand imu, postmolds, and artifacts. The site is interpreted as a habitation “temporarily abandoned andreoccupied several times during the phase of site development represented by Layer III. Site habitationwas probably associated with local dryland cultivation and/or the exploitation of natural forestresources” (Rosendahl 1976:6–92).

Feature 10, the post-Contact-period charcoal kiln, was presumably in use at the turn of thetwentieth century. Nearby agricultural fields were probably abandoned by this time. This kiln is one ofseveral in the upland Käne‘ohe area (Dolan 1992), and very similar to one uncovered at Site 4483(Feature 15) in terms of construction, dimensions, geographic placement, and associated artifacts (seeChapter 3).

Feature 13 represents a modern discard area, with fragmented artifacts of ceramic and glassscattered beside a banana road. The estimated dates of manufacture for these small pieces are generallyconsistent with a post-World War I date for the banana farms and linking road system (Site 2463; seeChapter 2).

Feature 2 was identified as a noncultural feature, probably a banana plant mold. A flotationsample from the feature suggests that it is fairly recent in origin.

INITIAL SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDATION

Site significance is recommended based upon Criterion D, which requires that a site has “… yielded,or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history” (U.S. Department of Interior1981). Although the site is now destroyed, information gathered from the site has provided someanswers to the research questions posed earlier. The first question involved the nature of the nearbysquare area, tentatively identified from aerial photographs as an archaeological site. Excavationsrevealed no features corresponding to this photographic image. An examination of the site stratigraphyindicated that this portion of the ridge downslope from Likelike Highway had not been covered byconstruction fill. The square area, whether a cultural or a natural feature, may have been removed duringLikelike Highway construction.

168 ê Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484

Subsurface features not visible in the aerial photo did, however, exist in the area and wereuncovered at Site 4484. These deposits can be used to answer the second research question, which dealswith relationships or connections between this area and surrounding sites. Site 4484 is linked by abanana road to Site 50-80-10-1892 (50-Oa-G5-90), which lies to the north. Both have a scatter of post-Contact-period artifacts of glass and ceramic. The report on data recovery excavations at Site 1892 willreveal whether the artifact assemblages are stylistically or chronologically related. Recent excavationat Site 1898, to the south, has revealed a charcoal kiln there (Dolan 1992), probably similar to Feature10 at Site 4484. Details of the kiln at Site 1898 will be presented in a separate forthcoming datarecovery report. The terraces at Site 1888, upslope and across the highway, show three stratigraphiclayers with Munsell colors similar to those for layers at Site 4484, and somewhat comparablecharacteristics relating to texture, structure, consistence, and abundance of roots and rocks (Allen, ed.1987:101). The more prominent aspects of Site 4484, namely the imu, firepits, and lithic artifact scatter,are not seen at Sites 1892, 1898, or 1888.

Site 2038, also upslope and across the highway, contains subsurface deposits that includeseveral fire features (Williams 1992a). Radiocarbon samples from one imu, three firepits, and twooccupation layers from Site 2038 were dated. The site appears to date from possibly the thirteenthcentury to the twentieth century—the same time span proposed for use of Site 4484. Some of thesedates probably point to a period before the construction of the Site 2038 surface features, which havebeen interpreted as portions of the Kukuiokäne Heiau complex.

Plant species found in the fire features at Site 2038 include several that were also found in firefeatures at Site 4484—‘ulu, lama, kï, kukui, ‘öhi‘a, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, hala, and kalo. It is interesting to notethat the charred plant types identified at Site 2038, but not at Site 4484, are all endemic species(Murakami 1992a).

Site 2038 also has a large lithic artifact collection, including 121 basalt artifacts and 134volcanic glass artifacts (Williams 1992a). Basalt and volcanic glass flakes make up the bulk of thiscollection (76%). The collection includes edge-altered flakes and polished flakes, as at Site 4484, butalso contains such tools as adzes, poi pounders, abraders, awls, and flaked cobbles that were notrecovered from Site 4484.

Although Sites 2038 and 4484 have some elements in common, Site 4484 is not interpreted ashaving any specialized ritual significance related to a heiau. It lacks surface architecture of any kind,there are no pieces of coral left as ritual offerings, and there is no evidence of ethnohistoric recognitionof the ridge as a religious site. Its relation to Site 2038 is more in terms of similar environment andcontemporaneous usage rather than as a functional adjunct or counterpart.

CONCLUSION

Site 4484 can be included in the “pattern of extensive subsurface deposits [that] is now being seen allalong the Interstate H-3 corridor on the windward side of O‘ahu …” (Williams 1992b:75). The featuresthat form this upland ridge site had been buried (by up to 1.5 m of overlying deposits), and had not beenidentified through traditional surface survey. It is important to note once more that this site was only

Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484 ê 169

discovered during archaeological monitoring of construction activities. Results from this site are strongevidence that monitoring is a useful and necessary archaeological tool. Analysis of the features at Site4484 has yielded information and ideas concerning fire feature typologies, possible functional clusteringof certain kinds of features, lithic and organic resource utilization, and elements of pre-Contact foresttype in this upland region. The fire features, in particular, have provided useful chronological andenvironmental information, as well as materials for future work on botanical identifications that maylead to more secure interpretations of feature function. Research from this site provides clues to aid inunderstanding the role of upland areas in the overall settlement pattern in Käne‘ohe. It should proveuseful in discussing various archaeological research problems proposed for the Käne‘ohe Interchangeproject as a whole, and particularly those related to changes in land use and tenure, population changein pre-Contact Hawai‘i, landscape change, and post-Contact changes (Allen 1987:10–14).

ê 171

CHAPTER 5

SITE 50-80-10-4485


Site 50-80-10-4485 (50-Oa-G5-154) consists of nine subsurface features with dates that extendover 500 years of Hawaiian history. The approximately 0.16-ha site is located in banana fieldswithin the ‘ili of Luluku (TMK 4-5-41:1), about 3.8 km inland from Käne‘ohe Bay, in the

southeast portion of the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area. Sites 50-80-10-1896 and 50-80-10-1899(50-Oa-G5-94 and 50-Oa-G5-97) are to the west, while Site 50-80-10-1887 (50-Oa-G5-85) and LulukuStream lie to the north (see Figure 1.1).

The site was discovered during monitoring of construction for a temporary connector road thatlinked Likelike Highway for a short time with the completed portion of the H-3 Highway at HalekouInterchange and Kamehameha Highway. Features and artifacts at this site were found in an area 80 mlong by 20 m wide, on an approximate northeast-southwest axis (Figure 5.1). The northeast end of thesite is marked by Feature 1, and the southwest end of the site is defined by Feature 7. The east and westboundaries of the site as shown in Figure 5.1 are somewhat arbitrary, since there may be undiscoveredsubsurface features outside the bulldozed path of the connector road.

ENVIRONMENT

TOPOGRAPHY

As discussed in previous chapters, the terrain of the project area in upland Käne‘ohe is hilly, with smallridges extending from the base of the Ko‘olau Mountains. These ridges are separated by

Figure 5.1. Site 4485, plan view showing excavation units and features.

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 173

valleys, many with streams running through them. A portion of one of these ridges, situated betweenLuluku Stream to the north and the Kuou Stream drainage to the south, forms the location for the ninefeatures that make up Site 4485. Elevations at the site range between 73 and 85 masl.

SOILS

Soils for the site area conform to those described in Allen (ed. 1987:15–18), specifically the Lolekaasilty clays (Foote et al. 1972:83) also seen at Site 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153; see Chapter 4). Table5.1 shows the stratigraphic sequence for Units 101 through 105, which were excavated by backhoe.Cultural materials including isolated artifacts, features, and scattered charcoal are found in Layers II andIII at this site.

Table 5.1. Stratigraphy and Soils, Units 101–105, Site 4485*

Layer Thickness(cm)

Description

I 0–15 Dark brown (10YR 3/3, moist) silty clay; weak to moderate, fine, subangular blocky structure;friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; few to common, fine to medium roots; fewrocks; clear, smooth to wavy boundary.

II 15–40 Brown to dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay loam; weak, fine, subangular blocky structure;friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; few, fine roots; few decayed rocks; clear, wavyboundary.

III 58–108 Brown to dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; weak, fine, prismatic structure; friable whenmoist, sticky and plastic when wet; no roots; few decayed rocks; gradual to clear, wavy boundary.

IV > 100 Brown to dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; weak, fine, prismatic structure; friable whenmoist, sticky and plastic when wet; no roots; 20% decayed rocks; base not reached.



This site is located on the windward side of O‘ahu in an area that receives an average annual rainfallof 1,905 mm, occurring mostly from October to March (Armstrong 1983:62). Rainfall in the higherelevations of this area, where steep ridges face prevailing northeasterly trade winds, could be higher.The existing vegetation consists of introduced plants, especially cultivated bananas (Musa sp.),impatiens (Impatiens sp.), grasses, and weeds.

Evidence for the kind of vegetation community that existed before the introduction of alienspecies is difficult to obtain. Wagner et al. (1990:67) state that “Most native communities below 450m elevation were adversely affected by ancient Hawaiian agricultural practices, and where these siteshave been abandoned, primarily alien communities have replaced them.” It is interesting to note thatthe site discussed here is on a ridge adjacent to a large Hawaiian agricultural terrace complex, Site 1887;kalo (taro, Colocasia esculenta) cultivation there was abandoned sometime after the sixteenth century(Allen, ed. 1987:255). Jacobi (1990:173–179) discusses the kinds of disturbances that affect plantcommunities, including intentionally set fires, forest clearing, and introduction of new and competingplants and animals. Cuddihy and Stone (1990:8, citing Jacobi) note that “because of long-termanthropogenic disturbance, lowland wet vegetation is particularly difficult to reconstruct andcharacterize, especially on the older, more dissected Hawaiian Islands like O‘ahu.…” It may be possible

174 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

to determine some of the early vegetation for the Luluku area archaeologically, based on identificationsof pollen, wood charcoal, and other botanical remains.

FAUNA

Shama thrushes (Copsychus malabaricus) and mongooses (Herpestes javanicus) were the only wildlifeseen at the site.


ARCHAEOLOGY

Previous archaeological research in the vicinity of Site 4485 consists of four initial surface surveys thatwere conducted for the Interstate Highway H-3 project (Allen, ed. 1987; Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane1976; Dye 1977; Streck 1982). No surface indications of any archaeological sites were found in thecurrent site area. Chapter 4 provides a brief list of archaeological site types found elsewhere in theproject area and surrounding sections of upland Käne‘ohe.

Although there were no cultural remains on the surface, evidence from similar areas plushistorical references suggested that this ridge was likely to contain buried archaeological deposits. Otherridge sites in the project area and elsewhere in Käne‘ohe have revealed subsurface lithic scatterssuggesting tool use and/or manufacture (see Chapters 3 and 4), as well as fire features of varying shapesand sizes (Williams 1992b:69; Williams 1993:12–13). Upland areas such as the one discussed heremight have been used by Native Hawaiians to collect forest resources such as wood and plant materials,basalt and volcanic glass, and forest birds or feathers (Malo 1951:20, 37, 48, 51, 127). As noted earlier,the site is adjacent to and above an agricultural terrace complex. Today the ridge is cooled by tradewinds and offers a view of Käne‘ohe Bay. All these factors lead to a preliminary interpretation of Site4485 as a location where planters and/or collectors could relax, eat, and gather and process natural orcultivated resources.


The site area was not specifically awarded as an individual Land Commission Award (LCA); therefore,it was considered a part of LCA 4452, ‘äpana 13—the 9,500-acre parcel of Käne‘ohe Ahupua‘abelonging to Queen Kalama (Indices of Awards … 1929:220; see also Devaney et al. 1982:25, 27; Kelly1987:289). There are no other specific historical or legendary references to any use of Site 4485 beforebanana farming began, although some informants speculate that portions of the site may have been usedfor brewing the alcoholic beverage ‘ökolehao (Miller 1992:28–30). Klieger (1996) presents full detailsof land use and site settlement patterns for Käne‘ohe Ahupua‘a, based on oral and documentary history.

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 175

Currently visible on the surface of the site are modern banana farm roads (part of Site 50-80-10-2463 [50-Oa-G5-146]; see Chapter 2). One area near the site has been used as a cemetery for petsbelonging to the banana farmers currently using the land. The most recent burial is of the family dog,Ruby. The feature is marked by a 1 by 0.8 m rectangle of basalt cobbles, and is located in a buffer zonebetween the proposed route of the H-3 Highway and Ho‘omaluhia Park (Miller 1992:28–30).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS, METHODS, AND SAMPLING

No site-specific research design was prepared prior to the discovery of the subsurface features duringmonitoring. When excavation of the exposed charcoal-filled pit features revealed differing shapes andsizes similar to those seen at Site 4484, they became the focus of several research questions:

1) What was the chronological relationship between the features—were they all used duringa single time period, or did they represent separate, isolated uses over a longer span of time?Were pre-Contact and/or post-Contact periods represented?

2) What were the functions of the features—were they trash pits or did they reflect in-situburning? Were they used for cooking plant and/or animal foods, or processing other naturalresources? Were they related to habitation sites, field shelters, or extraction locales?

3) Did the morphological variations observed in the features relate to any chronological orfunctional differences?

4) What did the features contain, and were there any differences in content related tomorphology, chronology, or function? Were certain wood species favored as a fuel source?Could conclusions be drawn about the previous site environment?

MONITORING

Highway-related construction work began in 1990, requiring archaeological monitoring to locate andrecord any subsurface features revealed by earth-moving activities. Subsurface features, especiallyfirepits, have been uncovered often in the monitoring stages of other archaeological projects in the H-3Highway corridor (e.g., Williams 1992b:69) and were expected in this portion of the Käne‘oheInterchange project area as well.

Five long trenches (Units 101–105 in Figure 5.1) were machine excavated as the first part ofthe road-building procedure. These were monitored and examined by archaeologists, but produced nocultural materials. Next, archaeologists monitored bulldozing of the temporary connector road withinthe Käne‘ohe Interchange area, providing 100% surface coverage. The monitors retrieved a fewscattered, isolated glass bottles and ceramic pieces, and also reported eight subsurface features that hadbeen exposed by bulldozing (Features 1, 2, 4–9). Excavation of Feature 2 revealed underneath it anadditional, intact subsurface feature (Feature 3).

176 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

EXCAVATION

A rotating crew of nine people conducted 20 days of feature excavations (Units 1–9) between September1990 and April 1991, with two to three excavators per feature. The features were photographed andmeasured as they were uncovered. Mapping was done at various times with either an alidade or tape andpocket transit, backsighting and converting sloped distances to horizontal distances. Excavation wasby trowel, and proceeded by natural and cultural layers. The contents of Features 3, 7, 8, and 9 werescreened through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh. Construction activity and timeconstraints prevented screening at the other features. Soils and sediments were described in the field.In most cases, features were bisected to define the shape, examine the contents, and obtain charcoalsamples for radiocarbon dating and wood identification. Flotation samples were taken from two features(Features 3 and 7). Artifacts of indigenous types, diagnostic post-Contact-period artifacts, and sampleswere collected and sent to Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory for cataloging, analysis, andcuration.

SAMPLING

As with Site 4484, the bulldozed and monitored area at Site 4485 could be considered as part of anarchaeologically random sample of the project area. Within the site, however, excavation by trowel wasconducted on a biased or stratified sample, namely the exposed features. The excavated units andfeatures total 281.4 m2. Backhoe-excavated units account for 271 m2, but 239 m2 of that total actuallylie outside the boundaries of the site as defined by the nine subsurface features (see Figure 5.1). Withinthe site boundaries, approximately 2.65% of the site area was excavated (42.4 m2). A total volume ofapproximately 425 m3 was excavated; 52.6 m3 was excavated within the site boundaries.

RESULTS

SURFACE FINDS

No surface features or artifacts were found. All the features and recovered artifacts were identified afterheavy construction machinery had altered and removed the existing ground surface.

SUBSURFACE FINDS

Overview

The function of the site as a whole can be described generally as an activity area or areas. Eight ofthe nine subsurface features encountered at the site are fire features and probable fire features; theother feature (Feature 2) is a scatter of post-Contact-period artifacts. Table 5.2 summarizes thefeature information for the site, and Table 5.3 summarizes the unit excavation information. Someexcavated unit dimensions are less than the associated feature dimensions, indicating that the feature

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 177

Table 5.2. Feature Summary, Site 4485

Fe.+Feature Size* (m)

AssociatedLayer

Feature Form Feature FunctionL x W orDiameter

Depth(min.)

1 2.1 0.75 unknown circular pit; bowl base ‘ökolehao production?

2 1 x 0.8 0.2 II artifact scatter discard/refuse area

3 2.1 x 1.7 0.95 top of III oval pit; funnel-base imu/food preparation

4 0.8 0.05 unknown prob. pit; shape unknown imu?/food preparation?

5 1.8 0.7 unknown circular pit; funnel base imu/food preparation

6 0.7 0.3 unknown circular pit; bowl base firepit/food preparation

7 1.25 0.7 unknown circular pit; bowl base imu/food preparation

8 0.35 x 0.25 0.1 unknown oval pit; bowl base prob. firepit/food preparation (or poss. trash pit)

9 1 0.1 unknown prob. circular pit(s);bowl base

prob. firepit/food preparation (or poss. trash pit)

+All features are subsurface.*Remnant size in all cases except for intact Feature 3; approximate size for Feature 2.

Table 5.3. Unit Summary, Site 4485

UnitUnit Size (m)

Unit Volume*

(m3)Associated

FeatureLength Width Diam. Depth (max.)

1 2.1 1.2 0.75 1.89 1

2 1.5 0.8 0.30 0.36 2

3 1.7 1 1.05 1.58 3

4 0.8 0.05 0.008 4

5 1.8 0.7 5

6 0.7 0.3 0.04 6

7 1.25 0.7 0.7 0.61 7

8 0.35 0.25 0.1 0.008 8

9 1 0.6 0.15 0.09 9

101 28 2 2 112 -

102 42 2 1.6 134.4 -

103 12 2 1.3 31.2 -

104 23 2 1.5 69 -

105 30.5 2 1.2 73.2 -*Area of Units 4–6 = pi x R2, following feature outline; volume of Units 4–6 = pi x R2 x D/3, estimatedas a cone, following feature shape; area for other units is L x W; volume for other units is L x W x D.

178 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

was bisected instead of completely excavated. Units 101–105, which contained no features andproduced no cultural materials, are listed in Table 5.3 but not discussed further.

The following notes are common to all the pit feature descriptions. All the features except one(Feature 3, discovered intact in Layer III) were truncated to some extent by the bulldozer, so thedimensions and thicknesses provided in Table 5.2 do not represent the whole feature. Sometimes, somuch material had been removed that the only reliable information (based on remains of charcoal, burntearth, and/or rock) was that a fire feature had once existed in that location. Approximately half of theFeature 1 remnant still exists unexcavated; all the other features were destroyed during the road buildingprocess. The earth-moving activities that led to the discovery of the subsurface features removed allof Layer I and most, or in some areas all, of Layer II. No fire features were seen in the remnants ofLayer II. Most hand-excavated units in the bulldozed areas revealed only one layer, the brown to darkbrown silty clay with decomposed pebbles labeled Layer III (see Table 5.1) that forms the base for allthe fire features. Therefore, except for Feature 3, which was initially excavated and used during theperiod represented by Layer III, original ground surface for these features is unknown. Few artifactswere recovered from the pit features. No bone or shell midden was recovered (but see Unit 2, below),probably because of the acidic nature of the soils (Foote et al. 1972:83). Flotation samples from Feature3 fill gave pH values between 5.4 and 5.8 (strongly acid to medium acid), while Feature 7 fill produceda pH value of 5.2 (strongly acid). The most frequently recovered items from the pit features werecharred organic remains, mainly wood and kukui (candlenut, Aleurites moluccana) seed coats. Theidentification of feature function as food preparation is tentative; other possibilities have been suggestedin Chapters 3 and 4.

Table 5.4 is a summary of several characteristics (described in Chapter 4) that were consistentlynoted in the field for the charcoal-related pit features. These traits can be used to more closely definefeature types.

Table 5.4. Characteristics of Pit Features (Field Observations), Site 4485

Fe. Size*

diam(m)

Shape RockArtifacts Charred

Kukuiseed

coats**

BurntEarth

Reuse Locationwithinfeature

outsidefeature

1 > 1 oval, bowl few; smooth, rounded &fire-affected

yes yes no ridge top

3 > 1 oval, funnel many, angular &subangular, fire-affected

yes yes no ridge top

4 ca. 1 unknown yes yes unknown ridge top

5 > 1 circular, funnel yes yes no ridge top

6 < 1 circular, bowl few little no ridge top

7 > 1 circular, bowl few yes yes yes no ridge top

8 < 1 oval, bowl few, fire-affected yes yes no no ridge top

9 ca. 1 circular, bowl no yes yes no no ridge top* Only Feature 3 is intact; others are remnant features.**Botanical analysis later showed that other features also contained charred kukui.

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 179


Unit 1 was set up to investigate the grubbed remnant of Feature 1, a very large, circular, bowl-shapedfire feature. It contained abundant charcoal and many small, rounded boulders and cobbles, as well asfire-affected rock (Figures 5.2a and 5.3). Several small boulders were wedged in the bottom of thefirepit; burnt earth was visible underneath the rocks. Three artifacts (one basalt flake, one volcanic glassflake, and one volcanic glass fragment) were recovered from the feature, 15 cm below the grubbedsurface. Almost 60% of the recovered botanical materials from this feature consist of charred wood.Half of this wood sample is composed of kï (ti, Cordyline fruticosa) stems; other woods present includekukui, ‘ulu (breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis), and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai (mountain apple, Syzygium malaccense) (seeChapter 6). Over 28% of the charred, nonwood remains from Feature 1 have been identified as rootmaterial from the kï plant; no other feature at this site produced kï root. A radiocarbon sample (HRC1394; Beta 63309) consisting of wood charcoal from this feature produced a fairly recent age of 110 ±50 years B.P.

The size of the feature and the presence of burnt earth and large fire-affected rocks suggest thatthe pit may have been used as an imu, the Hawaiian earth oven that uses heated rocks to steam food.Ethnographic references indicate that kï root was baked and eaten as a sweet, as well as being used fora “famine-diet” (Malo 1951:43–44; Handy and Pukui 1991:239); it is also used to make the alcoholicdrink known as ‘ökolehao (Handy et al. 1972:224). Combining the kï root identification with thepost-Contact date and informants’ comments on the site area leads to an interpretation of ‘ökolehaoproduction for the probable function of this feature.

The feature was discovered in the middle of a banana road; after it was bisected, the excavatedhalf was backfilled. The road has not been altered further, so half the feature is still in situ (althoughtruncated), and is potentially accessible for future archaeological investigation.

A highly disturbed scatter of post-Contact-period glass artifacts turned up in Layer II duringbulldozing south of Feature 1; this scatter was designated Feature 2. Only approximate dimensions areavailable for the feature, as it was discovered when a grubbing pile was moved. Excavation of Units2 and 3, centered over the exposed scatter, produced 17 fragments of glass on the grubbed surface and186 glass fragments between 1 and 22 cm below the grubbed surface in Layer II. The small charredwood collection from this unit contained a high proportion of conifer wood, closely resembling Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii). Other charred woods in the unit include kukui and lama (Diospyros sp.).One small, eroded piece of marine shell (Cymatium sp.) was recovered from Unit 2. It probably camefrom the crushed coral/shell base of a nearby banana road. The feature exhibited no observable pitoutline, and was perhaps a surface discard site.

Unit 3, in addition to providing information on Feature 2, bisected Feature 3, the only firefeature at this site that was discovered intact. It is an oval, funnel-shaped fire feature (Figures5.2b and 5.4) originating just below the top of Layer III, 23 cm below the current (grubbed) surface.Feature 3 appeared below Feature 2; however, the stratigraphic and radiocarbon evidence show thatthere is no cultural or temporal connection between the two features. The feature containsmedium to large subangular basalt cobbles and fire-affected rock, with a dense band of charcoal at thecenter bottom. Reddish, burnt soil is visible along the edges of the pit. One volcanic glass flake wasrecovered outside the feature in Layer III at a depth of 20 cmbs. A small quantity of kukui seed coatfragments was recovered from the feature. Identified charred wood species from this feature includekï, ‘ie‘ie (Freycinetia arborea), ‘ulu, lama, and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai. The dominant wood species in the charredsample has not been identified. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1395; Beta 63310) consisting of wood

Figure 5.2. Profiles of excavated features and units at Site 4485.

Figure 5.4. Feature 3, Site 4485. View to northeast. BM Neg. No. Oa(a)686:17.

Figure 5.3. Feature 1, Site 4485. View to west. BM Neg. No.Oa(a)663:15.

182 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

charcoal from this feature produced an early age for this site, 510 ± 50 years B.P. The feature probablyfunctioned as an imu.

Unit 4 was set up to examine the remnant of Feature 4, which had been almost totally destroyedby the bulldozers. Little more than locational information is available; all that remains is the base,which is 80 cm across. The feature must have been rather large originally. It contains charcoal and fire-affected rock, and exhibits red, burnt earth along the sides of the pit. No artifacts were recovered fromFeature 4. Most of the botanical collection from this feature consists of undiagnostic plant fragmentsand ash. Kukui, lapalapa (Cheirodendron sp.), lama, and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood was collected, in addition tokukui seed coat fragments. The feature possibly functioned as an imu.

Excavation of Unit 5 revealed Feature 5 to be a remnant of a large, roughly circular, funnel-shaped fire feature (Figure 5.2c). Red, burnt earth lines the feature, which contains large cobbles andcharcoal. No artifacts were recovered. Ashy conglomerations form the largest part of the botanicalcollection from this feature. The identifiable portion of the botanical remains includes ‘ie‘ie, lama, and‘öhi‘a hä (Syzygium sandwicensis). A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1396; Beta 63311) consisting of woodcharcoal from Feature 5 produced another early age, 470 ± 50 years B.P. The size and contents of thefeature indicate that it may have served as an imu.

Bulldozers just scraped the top of Feature 6, another fire feature to the south of Feature 5. Unit6 showed it to be a small, bowl-shaped feature (Figure 5.2d) containing several small boulders and somecharcoal; there was little burnt earth showing. No artifacts were recovered. Seven unidentified speciesof wood were collected in the botanical sample from this feature, in addition to eroded, ashyconglomerates similar to those in Features 4 and 5. The smaller size and depth of the feature (Figure5.5) suggest that it may have been used as a firepit of some kind, rather than as an imu.

Feature 7 is a large, circular, bowl-shaped fire feature remnant (Figure 5.2e) in Unit 7. Thereis a large concentration of ash and charcoal at the base and red, burnt earth along the sides of the pit.Fire-cracked rocks are also present. The contents of Feature 7 include one basalt flake and one basaltfragment from 40 cm below the grubbed surface. A few kukui seed coat fragments were recovered fromthe feature fill. Identified charred woods include kï, kukui, ‘ulu, lama, ‘öhi‘a (Metrosiderospolymorpha), and ‘öhi‘a hä. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1397; Beta 63312) consisting of woodcharcoal from this feature produced a B.P. age of 230 ± 50. This feature may have been used as an imu.It marks the southernmost extent of the site.

Feature 8 was exposed in Unit 8, located north of Unit 7. The feature is a relatively intact, verysmall, bowl-shaped firepit (Figure 5.2f), or perhaps a refuse pit. There is no burnt earth in this feature.The feature contains some fire-cracked rock, as well as burnt kukui seed coat fragments, kï stemfragments, and ‘ulu and lama wood. A volcanic glass core was found on the grubbed Layer III surfacenearby.

Unit 9, the last unit excavated at the site, uncovered Feature 9, a circular remnant (Figure 5.2g)located just east of Site 1899. The feature profile is amorphous; it may actually represent two smallerfeatures superimposed, or one feature that has been deformed by bulldozing. The feature contains onevolcanic glass flake, some pebbles, and charred remains of kukui seed coats, kï stems, hala (screwpine,Pandanus tectorius) stems, and ‘ulu, lama, ‘öhi‘a, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, and ‘ohe‘ohe (Tetraplasandra sp.) wood.The feature lacks fire-affected rock and burnt earth. It is interpreted as a firepit, although it could alsohave functioned as a trash or refuse pit.

Figure 5.5. Feature 6, Site 4485. View to north. BM color slide.

184 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

LABORATORY ANALYSES

All artifacts from this site are numbered with the Bishop Museum site number (50-Oa-G5-154-) as aprefix. For easier reading, this prefix is deleted in the discussions below.

ARTIFACTS OF INDIGENOUS TYPES

No artifacts of bone, shell, coral, or other Hawaiian materials were found at Site 4485, but eight lithicartifacts were recovered (Table 5.5). One piece (Artifact 12) is a volcanic glass core exhibiting at leastone complete negative flake scar and several fragmentary negative scars. The other pieces are smallcomplete flakes and nondiagnostic fragments of basalt and volcanic glass. The volcanic glass core is1.3 cm in length; all volcanic glass flakes are smaller than the core. The basalt flakes range between 2.1and 4.3 cm in length.

Table 5.5. Lithic Artifacts, Site 4485

Context Material Specimen Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-154-

Count

Unit 1, Fe. 1 fill, 15 cmbs*

basalt flake 10 1

volcanic glass flake 7 1

volcanic glass fragment 14 1

Unit 3, Layer III, 20 cmbs


Unit 7, Fe. 7 fill, 40 cmbs

basalt flake 15 1

basalt fragment 16 1

outside Fe. 8, grubbed surface,Layer III

volcanic glass core 12 1

Unit 9, Fe. 9 fill,0–28 cmbs


*Below grubbed surface in all cases.

One of the flakes is of particular interest. Artifact 10, recovered from Feature 1, is a fine-grainedbasalt. It has a width (3.1 cm) greater than its length (2.1 cm), and an abrupt, step hinge termination.These might be characteristics of flakes produced from a preform during the side-straightening andthinning stage of adze manufacture or rejuvenation.

The sparse lithic material at the site is not concentrated in any one area. Only three of the eightpit features at the site (Features 1, 7, and 9) produced lithic artifacts. Two artifacts were found outsideof features—on the grubbed surface (Layer III) near Feature 8, and at the top of Layer III in Unit 3. Thelack of clustering of artifacts of similar material makes it unlikely that the lithic artifacts at this siterepresent a tool production or repair area.

It is possible that the flakes may have been used as informal cutting tools. No alteration wasobserved (with microscopic magnification at 10X) on the edges of flake artifacts from Site 4485, butshort-term use and use on soft materials is not discounted. The small number of artifacts and their

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 185

seemingly unpatterned spatial associations indicate that the production, use, and/or discard of stonetools was not a common occurrence at this site.


Monitors collected a small number of isolated artifacts. Glass objects included a fragment of an olivegreen, spirits bottle lip with applied, tapered or sloping collar and flared ring, ca. 1815–1885 (Artifact8), and a modern, clear glass, continuous-thread-lip juice bottle (Artifact 9) (Toulouse 1972). Twoceramic fragments were of white earthenware, probably flatware, decorated with underglaze transferprints in Blue Willow border patterns (Artifacts 1 and 2). These pieces are probably from England orthe mainland United States, manufactured in the nineteenth century (Gatson 1990; Majewski andO’Brien 1987). A pink-glazed, white earthenware fragment, possibly from a modern artware piece(Artifact 3), was also collected.

Excavation of Units 2 and 3 explored Feature 2, the scatter of glass fragments (Table 5.6). Allthe glass pieces are very small, and many are of unidentifiable form or function; none are embossed.There are sherds from at least three bottles, one possible vase, a white milk glass bowl, and windowglass (Fike 1986; Moir 1987; Newman 1970; Toulouse 1972). The sherds are too small to differentiatebetween mold blown or automatic bottle machine technology, so the dates of manufacture could rangefrom the late nineteenth century to the twentieth century. Place of manufacture is unknown. The featuremay represent a small trash deposit.

ORGANIC MATERIALS

Charcoal collected from units and features forms an important component of the information retrievedfrom this site. ‘Ökolehao production as the functional interpretation for Feature 1 is based onidentification of charred kï (especially kï root) from the feature. Identification of imported coniferfragments agrees with the other post-Contact-period contents in Feature 2. Fuel for imu and firepitsincludes native species and Polynesian introductions, with no clear differences related to feature formor size. The woods identified so far from these features are usually found in mesic to wet environments.When the features at Site 4485 were in use, the surrounding vegetation may have composed an interfacebetween these two regimes. It is interesting to note that most of the identified native species at this site(Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron sp., Diospyros sp., Freycinetia arborea, Syzygiumsandwicensis, and Tetraplasandra sp.) occur together in the “Öhi‘a Lowland Wet Forest” vegetationcommunity (Wagner et al. 1990:90).

The identification and analysis of the charred remains from Site 4485 is presented in Chapter6. Further work involving the unidentified wood types is planned for the future, as is identification ofthe small number of tuber and corm fragments collected from the features.

The only other organic item collected during excavation is a 0.6-gm fragment of Cymatium sp.This fragment is interpreted as material for a banana road base (see Chapter 2) rather than as a foodresource. The lack of any additional shell, bone or other fragile organic materials from the excavatedunits may be due to the acidic nature of the soils.

186 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

Table 5.6. Post-Contact-Period Glass Artifacts, Units 2 and 3, Feature 2, Site 4485

Context Material Specimen* Notes** Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-154-

Count

at grubbedsurface,Layer II

aqua glass unknown 4 1

clear glass unknown mold/ABM; 1880–20th century Lot 3 1

lt. green glass unknown mold/ABM; 19th–20th century Lot 3 1

aqua glass bottle mold/ABM; late 19th century-ca. 1915 Lot 1 12

white milk glass probable bowl mold/ABM; ca. 1880–1960 Lot 2 2

1–10 cmbs+,Layer II

clear glass unknown mold/ABM; ca. 1880–20th century 6 1

white milk glass probable bowl mold/ABM; ca. 1880–1960; burned Lot 11 5

2–22 cmbs+,Layer II

lt. green glass unknown mold/ABM; 19th–20th century; burned Lot 5 110

lt. green glass unknown mold/ABM; 19th–20th century Lot 12 2

aqua glass bottle mold; ca.1880–1915 Lot 8 5

clear glass bottle mold/ABM; ca. 1880–20th century 5 1

clear glass bottle or flask mold/ABM; ca. 1880–20th century Lot 10 3

lt. green glass possible vase mold/ABM; late 19th–20th century Lot 7 2

white milk glass probable bowl mold/ABM; ca. 1880–1960 Lot 4 30

aqua glass window 2.23–2.85 cm thick; 20th century Lot 9 14

clear glass unknown 1880–20th century Lot 9 3

aqua glass unknown 19th–20th century Lot 9 4

aqua glass window 3.17 cm thick; 20th century Lot 6 6* All specimens are fragments only.**Mold = mold blown; ABM = automatic bottle machine; mold/ABM = small fragment lacks diagnostic attributes necessary to distinguish between mold blown and automatic bottle machine technology.+ Below grubbed surface.

RADIOCARBON DATING

Charcoal samples were collected in the field with clean trowels and forceps, then placed in clean foilpackets. Samples were taken to the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory to be oven-dried, weighed,and curated. Each charcoal piece selected for dating was split—one piece for the dating laboratory, andone piece for eventual wood species identification. The splitting technique was done with gloves andmetal tools on a glass surface; care was taken to avoid contamination of the samples. Identification ofthe dated samples is planned for the future.

Charcoal samples from four probable imu (Features 1, 3, 5, and 7) were sent to Beta Analytic,Inc., Miami, Florida, for radiocarbon dating. (Of the four remaining fire features, sample size orprovenience problems affect three; Feature 6 is the only other readily useful sample for dating). Thefour dated samples come from two of the large (>1 m diameter) funnel-shaped pits and two of the largebowl-shaped pits. They were chosen to test the possibility, observed in the dating results for firefeatures in Site 4484, that funnel-shaped fire features may be older than bowl-shaped fire features(see Chapter 4). Results from Site 4485, shown in Table 5.7, offer some support for this hypothesis.Table 5.7 lists uncorrected ages, 13C/12C ratios, 13C-adjusted (conventional) 14C ages, calibrated dates,and calibrated ranges using the intercept method and the probability distribution method at one and

Table 5.7. Radiocarbon Dating Results, Four Fire Features, Site 4485

Unit Fe* ContextDepth

cmbs**


* 13C 13C-Adjusted-(Conventional)

14C Age B.P.

Calibrated Date and Range A.D.

HRCNo.

LabNo.


Date Range -- Method A: Intercepts

Range -- Method B:Relative area under probability

distribution curve

(1F) (2F) 68.3%area enclosed

(1F)

95.4%area enclosed (2F)

1 1 fe. fill/35–50

120 ± 50 -25.8 110 ± 50 1710,1822,1833,1882,1912, 1954

1683–17451807–19331954–1955

1669–17861792–19501952–1955

1691–1729 .251814–1900 .591900–1923 .16

1676–1774 .361800–1942 .64

1394 Beta-63309

3 3 fe. fill/95–105

540 ± 50 -26.6 510 ± 50 1426 1405–1441 1320–13411392–1467

1401–1446 1.00 1309–1356 .121383–1480 .88

1395 Beta-63310

5 5 fe. fill/0–55

500 ± 50 -27.0 470 ± 50 1438 1420–1454 1402–14891609–1611

1413–1469 1.00 1329–1332 .001396–1519 .931576–1625 .07

1396 Beta-63311

7 7 fe. fill/0–70

260 ± 50 -26.9 230 ± 50 1663 1647–16781772–18011940–1954

1525–15591631–16951725–18161921–1954

1642–1682 .371747–1805 .461935–1955 .17

1518–1579 .081624–1706 .331714–1820 .411838–1873 .031915–1955 .16

1397 Beta-63312

* Features 1 and 7 are bowl-shaped; Features 3 and 5 are funnel-shaped.**Below grubbed surface in all cases.

188 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

two standard deviations. Calibrations were done using the CALIB computer program, version 3.0.3(Stuiver and Reimer 1993), set for the bidecadal atmospheric/inferred atmospheric curve.

Calibrations for Features 1 and 7, using the intercept method at two standard deviations, givewide date ranges that end at A.D. 1954/1955. To make the dates more meaningful, an additional methodis used for these features, relying on the relative area under a probability distribution curve for eachsample. For Feature 1, assuming that the date is between A.D. 1669 and 1955 at two standard deviations(see Table 5.7), 64% of the area under the probability distribution curve falls within the period betweenA.D. 1800 and 1942. For Feature 7, assuming that the date ranges from A.D. 1525 to 1954 at twostandard deviations, 74% of the area under the probability distribution curve falls within the period fromA.D. 1624 to 1820.

Even at two standard deviations, Features 3 and 5 (funnel-shaped features) have radiocarbondates that are earlier than Features 1 and 7 (bowl-shaped features). Features 3 and 5 appear to be of thefifteenth century, and fit into Hommon’s (1976:225) Phase II (inland expansion), dated from A.D.1400–1550, and Kirch’s (1985:303) Expansion Period (A.D. 1100–1650). Feature 7 is probably fromthe seventeenth or eighteenth century, perhaps best fitting into Hommon’s (1976: 226) Phase IV fromA.D. 1650 to 1778, and Kirch’s (1985:306) Proto-Historic period dating from A.D. 1650 to 1795; thefeature may represent use during the initial Contact period (ca. 1778–1820). Feature 1 probablypostdates Contact.

The radiocarbon dates for Site 4485 indicate that the area might have been used as early as thefourteenth century. The proposed dates for Features 3 and 5 belong generally to the later period of mainuse of the agricultural terraces at Site 1887. Features 1 and 7 are later, possibly linked to initial Contactand post-Contact times. Although the calibrated dates seem to indicate that a gap occurred in the useof the site between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, the calibrated ranges at two standarddeviations overlap from the fourteenth to the twentieth centuries. However, as noted for Site 4484, sinceeach of the four features dated probably represents a single use, a continuous 600-year period of activityat the site is not advocated. A weak case could be made for more frequent use of the site during thefifteenth century, when terraced cultivation was in effect; the later dates for Features 1 and 7 indicatethat the area was still being used in some manner even after most terraces had been abandoned.

It is interesting to note that Site 4484 (see Chapter 4) also has large funnel-shaped imu (Features7 and 9) that produced radiocarbon ages of over 500 years B.P., and large bowl-shaped imu that aremore recent. The similarities between the two sites in terms of certain feature types and feature datescould indicate that the two sites had similar functions.

DISCUSSION

Information gathered from the features uncovered at Site 4485 reveals that this is yet another uplandridge that was the scene of cultural activities in the past, activities that left only a few signs in anarchaeological context. There is no recovered evidence, either surface or subsurface, pre- or post-Contact, for permanent or temporary architecture. There is no evidence of agricultural terracing or

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 189

production on the ridge. There are no signs of burials. No real evidence for tool manufacture wasuncovered here, although eight small lithic artifacts were found. The main activity evidenced at the sitehas to do with burning wood in excavated pits, most likely involving some form of food preparation.

Earlier research based on identifications of charred plant remains within various fire featuretypes has been conducted by Allen for Kaho‘olawe (1992) and Anahulu Valley, O‘ahu (1989). WhenKaho‘olawe sample contents were compared based on feature size, large features interpreted as earthovens presented greater species diversity or taxonomic richness than smaller features. Anahulu featuresamples also showed differences in number of specimens identified and in taxonomic richness, althoughthe pattern was different. Sources of variation could be functional differences between the features orvariable preservation contexts. Allen (1989:101) concludes that “In order to address questions of therelationship between plant remains and feature functions, for example, feature types will need to berigorously defined and a sufficient number of features from a given locality sampled.”

The current study is an attempt to develop some fire feature types, based on several featurecharacteristics observed in the field (see Table 5.4). Large bowl-shaped pits, large funnel-shaped pits,and small bowl-shaped pits have been observed at this site and at Sites 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152)and 4484; additional types may exist at other sites. Although there are no observed correlations betweenfeature size or shape and charred botanical remains found in these features (see Chapter 6), there doesappear to be a chronological change in plant use or availability. There are some indications of increasinguse of Polynesian introductions for fuel through time, and a decrease in the presence of native speciesin the fire features. This trend is shown most clearly in Table 6.6 in Chapter 6, with a decreasingnumber of features containing ‘ie‘ie, koa, lapalapa/‘ölapa, and lama woods, and an increasing numberof features containing kï stem, kukui wood, and ‘ulu wood. Identification of possible plant and animalfoodstuffs cooked in the firepits might in the future provide evidence for any functional differencesbetween the feature types. Potential analyses include identification of tubers and corms, andidentification of residues on rocks and artifacts found within the features. Some fragmentary, nonwood,macrobotanical remains from this site have been sent for identification and are awaiting analysis.Unfortunately, collection of firepit rocks for residue analysis was not an excavation strategy for thisproject.

The locations of the features at Site 4485 may be an indication of how they were used. The lackof any evidence for habitation structures here, and the lack of stratigraphic indications of reuse of thefeatures, suggest that the features were not part of an ongoing domestic routine; rather, they may havebeen related to simple, temporary field shelters, or perhaps part of some specialized or ceremonial use.The fact that the radiocarbon dates for two of the features probably fall within the period of use at thenearby agricultural terraces is of interest. Kamakau (1976:34), describing the process of constructingnew lo‘i, says that at the beginning of construction, “… when the soil was thoroughly soaked, ‘food’and ‘fish’ were brought to the scene of labor; if pigs were brought they were baked there.” When thelo‘i had been dug out, which might take months or years, people gathered to trample the muddy bottom,“so the water would not sink into the soil” (Kamakau 1976:34). Firepits and imu may have been builtnearby, because “On the day of treading the lo‘i was filled with water, and the owner of the patch madeready plenty of ‘food’ (poi), pork, and ‘fish’” (Kamakau 1976:34). It is possible that the large, early firefeatures at Site 4485 could have been used for a ceremonial event of this kind.

190 ê Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485

INITIAL SITE SIGNIFICANCE RECOMMENDATION

Site significance is recommended based upon Criterion D, which requires that a site has “… yielded,or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history” (U.S. Department of Interior1981). Although most of the site is now destroyed, information gathered from its features, and theresulting analysis of that information, holds the potential to yield information on such things as the pre-Contact environment and Native Hawaiian resource utilization.

Information gathered from the site has already provided some answers to the research questionsposed earlier. Radiocarbon dating of the features shows that they probably represent separate, isolatedinstances of use over a long span of time. The post-Contact period is represented at the site by Feature1, which was probably used for preparing ‘ökolehao, and by Feature 2, a surface discard area containingglass bottle and window fragments. At least two of the features (Features 3 and 5) are dated to the pre-Contact period, when a nearby agricultural terrace site was still in use. A radiocarbon date for Feature7 indicates that the site was also in use between these two periods, perhaps during early Contact times.

The charcoal-filled features probably all reflect in-situ burning, but there is a possibility thattwo small features (Features 8 and 9) that do not exhibit burnt earth may be trash pits instead. Features3 through 7 were probably used for cooking foods, but there is little information to confirm this yet.There is no architectural evidence for habitation at the site. It is possible that the features mark the sitesof temporary, short-term habitation locations. It may also be that the features are related to activitiesoccurring at an extraction locale only, with habitation elsewhere.

There is some evidence that morphological variations in the features, especially feature profile,may reflect chronological differences, but so far there is no indication of a relation between shape ofthe feature and how it was used. There is also no evidence of a relation between feature shape andfeature contents. The features contain a variety of woods including native species and Polynesianintroductions, but few artifacts. There is some indication that earlier features used native species morethan later features. As at Site 4484, lama, ‘ulu, and kï seem to be used most frequently as fuel sources,but many of the features contain various wood and nonwood specimens with no one species dominant.The previous site environment may have been an interface between a mesic and a wet forest, possiblywith an “Öhi‘a Lowland Wet Forest” (Wagner et al. 1990:90) nearby.

CONCLUSION

Site 4485 demonstrates the utility of predictive modeling of site location, as well as the need forarchaeological monitoring during the initial earth-moving phases of a construction project. No featuresother than modern banana roads had been found during surface survey; nevertheless, subsurface featureswere expected because of the ridgetop location, as seen in other recent projects in windward O‘ahu.

Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485 ê 191

Without the predictive model to go by, monitoring might not have been approved. Without themonitoring, these features—and therefore this site—would not have been documented. The site hasalready provided suggestive, new information concerning feature age/form differentiation. It is proposedthat archaeologists begin to take note of pit feature characteristics to see whether similar patterns occur.Reference to the features found at Site 4485 should prove valuable in discussing future sites.

ê 193

CHAPTER 6

ARCHAEOBOTANICALMATERIALS COLLECTEDAT SITES 4484 AND 4485

Heidi A. Lennstrom

Useful insights into the resources utilized at Sites 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153) and 50-80-10-4485 (50-Oa-G5-154) can be gained through a close examination of the macrobotanicalmaterials recovered. Charred botanical remains were recovered from imu and other fire features,

and were also present in other, less well-defined contexts. Because archaeobotanical materials are thedirect end product of burning activities, they are a good source of complementary data for comparisonswith other information from archaeological features and other paleoenviron-mental studies.

The information in this chapter is limited to analysis of a portion of the archaeobotanicalremains from Sites 4484 and 4485. Plant materials from Site 4484 include those recovered fromFeatures 1 through 11, and nonfeature areas associated with the features (Units 7, 11, and 12). Site 4485is represented by floral remains from Features 1 through 9.

METHODS OF COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

As at many archaeological sites, charred botanical remains were quite common in Sites 4484 and 4485.The materials collected and discussed here have been preserved by charring; due to soil conditions, nouncharred materials are thought to date to the premodern periods under consideration.

As noted above, plant remains were recovered from both feature and nonfeature contexts. Thisis a common phenomenon because plant materials are normally distributed widely in sites and are notconfined to well-defined features such as firepits or trash dumps (Pearsall 1989:95).

194 ê Chapter 6: Archaeobotanical Materials Collected at Sites 4484 and 4485

COLLECTION OF ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS

Plant remains from Sites 4484 and 4485 were retrieved using two different methods: field-screening andflotation. Field-screening yielded plant remains for all features, as well as for many nonfeature areas.In this case, of the archaeobotanical materials observed during screening through 1/4- and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] screens, only portions were collected for dating and identification. Because of thispartial collection, the quantified values presented in this text may be biased and must be comparedcarefully (Appendix I:Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3).

Individual proveniences (features or units) contained varying amounts of plant remains, andoften produced several subsamples of materials—each collected and recorded as an individuallynumbered bag. These bags may be the result of one or more of the following collection circumstances:1) the individual bags were collected separately to represent different layers or areas within aprovenience; 2) numerous subsamples may be the result of multiple days of excavation; and 3) densebotanical remains simply may require more than a single subsample bag. The third circumstance appearsto be the case most often, making each individual bag a somewhat random subsample of thearchaeobotanical content of a feature or unit.

The collection of site sediments for flotation was only possible for a few locations, as time didnot permit regular, systematic sampling. Flotation samples examined here are of a standard 2.5-litersize. The samples were processed in the Museum’s mechanized flotation device, which passes lightfraction materials through a set of geologic sieves, the finest of which possesses apertures of 0.5 mm.The inner portion of the machine, where the heavy fraction rests, had openings of 1 mm at the timethese samples were processed. Three of the 11 features from Site 4484 (Features 2, 3, and 4) and twoof nine feature from Site 4485 (Features 3 and 7) were sampled this way. These types of collections canallow for fuller quantitative analyses (Appendix I:Table I-4).

ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS

Archaeobotanical remains recovered from field-screening were examined under a low-powerstereoscopic microscope. The identification procedure for these specimens was a multistep process,where identifications became more specific (and more time consuming) at each stage. The amount ofmaterials examined at each of the stages often decreased to avoid excessive costs and redundantinformation.

First, all >2 mm plant materials were examined under the microscope and divided into generalanatomical categories (wood and stems; seeds and fruits; tubers, corms, and roots; and unidentifiedplant tissues). Second, seeds and fruits were identified, and an attempt made to subdivide the wood andtubers/corms/roots further into types that may represent different plant taxa. Wood was normallyexamined only in transverse sections along fresh fractures; radial and tangential sections were rarelyobservable. Third, the type categories that could be defined were compared to modern comparativespecimens (dry and charred), and tentative identifications were made in some cases. Fourth,representative samples of the most common wood and tuber/corm/root types were sent to specialistsG. Murakami (International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu) and J. Hather (Instituteof Archaeology, London). In the case of wood types, Murakami identified many unidentified specimens,corrected inaccurate identifications, and confirmed the tentative identifications of some specimens. Inthe case of the possible corms and tubers, Hather’s results are not yet available, and the identifications

Chapter 6: Archaeobotanical Materials Colleted at Sites 4484 and 4485 ê 195

of possible taro and sweet potato made by the author must be considered tentative. The final results ofHather’s analysis will be presented in a later volume; identifications currently available from Murakamiare incorporated into this document.

Flotation samples were sorted, and the resulting materials identified under a low-powerstereomicroscope (6.4–80X). For rapidity of sorting and comparability of results, each light and heavyfraction was dry-screened into standard size-grades, and all >0.5 mm materials were examined. Severalsamples of <0.5 mm materials were examined, but they were found to be devoid of identifiable plantparts, and the practice was discontinued. Wood fragments were only recorded if they were >2 mm,because smaller materials are rarely identifiable and are of negligible weight (Asch and Asch 1975).Identifications of archaeobotanical specimens from flotation samples were made through comparisonswith modern materials housed at Bishop Museum. Plant remains recovered from flotation samples arereported here as counts because this method keeps weights of small seeds from becoming overwhelmedby large amounts of wood charcoal from the same sample.

QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS OF ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS

Archaeobotanical materials from Hawai‘i traditionally have not been collected and analyzed in asystematic fashion. This precludes statistical manipulation and easy comparison within and among sites.When research into Polynesian plant remains began in the 1970s, the focus was on the feasibility ofrecovery and the difficulties of identifying tropical woods and the soft tissues of tubers, corms, androots (Allen 1984; Murakami 1983; Hather and Kirch 1991; Rosendahl 1972:383). Methods forsampling, subsampling, quantifying, and interpreting plant remains in Hawai‘i (and most of the PacificBasin tropics) are therefore not as well developed as they are in Europe, Asia, and the Americas.Hawai‘i and Pacific archaeologists often choose small amounts of plant remains for identificationwithout consideration of their relation to the overall archaeobotanical content of the site or feature. Theresulting difficulty in assessing whether the remains are representative of a single feature or an entiresite makes interpreting quantitative results problematic.

The analysis outlined below is an attempt to begin unraveling methodological issues forHawaiian paleoethnobotany. While it is not possible to investigate all aspects of paleoethnobotanicalmethods at once, these materials are appropriate as test cases for certain questions on subsampling,quantification, and comparability.

A common problem with all archaeological materials, including dense archaeobotanicalremains, is determining what proportion of the materials must be examined in order to obtainrepresentative results, without wasting time and effort on redundant information. Quantitative samplingand subsampling techniques have been widely discussed in the archaeological literature (Leonard andJones 1989; Mueller 1975), particularly for faunal and floral remains (Grayson 1984; Pearsall 1989).The focus here centers on a number of approaches to assess the representativeness of subsamples ofmaterials, which will be made at three different levels. First, what proportion of a subsample needs tobe examined to accurately assess its taxonomic richness (the number of different taxa)? Second, in astratigraphic context, which is represented by multiple subsamples, is it necessary to examine all thesubsamples? Third, how do the results of a single feature represent a site as a whole? In addition tothese questions, this discussion touches upon quantitative methods that display data in forms that arecomparable within and amongst sites, as well as the relationship between counts and weights asmethods of recording archaeobotanical remains. As this was the author’s first large-scale attempt atinterpreting Hawaiian plant remains, these questions shaped the analytical process, which evolved and


became more efficient over the course of the investigation of these two sites.The approaches used in this archaeobotanical investigation can easily be transferred to other

archaeobotanical assemblages (though the exact quantities of materials may differ at other Hawaiiansites).

Development of Subsampling Strategies

Initially, all subsamples from each provenience were examined, materials were categorized into generalanatomical categories (wood, seeds, soft tissues, etc.), and their counts and weights were recorded. Thenext step was to divide the materials in each category into types that could be matched to modernreference specimens or sent to other specialists for identifications and/or confirmations of identifica-tions.

Sorting, categorizing, and identifying all >2 mm botanical remains recovered from each featurewere very time consuming. Features at Site 4484 produced as many as six subsamples each, withtotal botanical weights over 170 gm. Because this was the first site examined, all availablesubsamples from each feature were examined, and all plant remains were categorized into types.However, it became obvious during this procedure that it was not feasible to continue this strategy forall field-screened archaeobotanical materials. Plant remains from Site 4485 were even moreplentiful; one feature was represented by 34 bags (having a total weight of over 5,000 gm), with nearlyall the remains being charred wood. Changes in strategy then took place, based on the followingexperiments, and although Sites 4484 and 4485 were not processed in exactly the same manner, the dataare fairly comparable.

The first level of investigation centered on the amount of wood (the main component of field-screened materials) per subsample needed to accurately represent the overall diversity (taxonomicrichness or number of different taxa) of the entire bag. Because of the similarity between Sites 4484 and4485 and their features (mostly firepits and imu), it was predicted that the results of a test on one featurecould be extrapolated for all the materials from these two sites. Feature 9, Site 4485, was randomlyselected, then subjected to the following procedure to determine the point at which the total diversitywithin each subsample would be recorded. Following the originally outlined steps, one bag fromFeature 9 was examined completely, with all archaeobotanical materials placed into general anatomicalcategories. There was a total of 100 >2 mm wood fragments, which was analyzed in individual lots of20 fragments each. That is, the wood was randomly split into five lots of 20 fragments each, and eachlot was sorted into types and recorded separately. When the results of individual lots were comparedto the total subsample (of 100), 40 was determined as the minimum number of pieces needing to beexamined to represent the overall diversity and relative proportion of the different wood types. This wasdetermined by two factors. First, none of the individual lots of 20 fragments contained all the differentwood types recorded (total = 9), but nearly any combination of two 20-fragment lots did contain allnine. Second, when the relative proportions (percentages, see below) of the wood types were compared,no single 20-fragment lot showed patterns closely resembling the overall relative proportion of taxa forthe entire 100-fragment subsample, but again, a combination of any two lots did produce relativeproportions that matched the overall subsample pattern. Therefore, examining 40 fragments of woodfrom each subsample would save time and avoid redundancies, but still capture the total variability.


Determining the number of subsamples to examine per feature was performed at a feature-by-feature level. All bags from Site 4484 were examined, and most showed similar patterns. This suggestednot much internal differentiation within the features, and that one or two subsamples might produce anaccurate representation of the entire feature. Yet, this was not always the case, and multiple subsamplesfrom each feature in Site 4485 were also examined to insure a representative pattern for the feature asa whole. To determine the number of bags necessary to represent the feature as a whole, subsampleswere selected randomly, analyzed separately, and tallied separately. When the patterns of the cumulativeresults stabilized, no further subsamples were examined.

Assessing whether or not a single feature can accurately represent an entire site will bediscussed in the following sections that describe the results from each site. It is sufficient to say, at thispoint, even similar types of features at a single site can vary widely in the types and amounts of plantremains they contain, and using a single feature to represent plant use at a site must be interpreted withcaution.

To investigate the relationship between recording plant remains by weight and by count, acomparison was made between the rank order of the plant taxa by each recording technique. ASpearman’s rank order correlation test (Freund 1979:405) showed an average positive correlation valueof +0.81, indicating that either quantification scheme should present similar results. In light of thisfinding, the values provided for field-screened materials are presented as weights (see AppendixI:Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3); in paleoethnobotany it is most common to present plant parts such as tubersand wood as weight because they can easily be broken into an infinite number of pieces.

Quantification Strategies

To facilitate understanding of the patterns contained in the archaeobotanical data, the results arepresented in a variety of ways, in addition to their raw form (see Appendix I). For each feature, field-screened macrobotanical materials are expressed as percentages (relative percentage of the total byweight). The percentage values are useful when comparing samples and features of differing size, asthey standardize results. This routine is also useful because it allows the information to be presentedin easily read pie charts. However, the two sites presented here were analyzed differently, and care mustbe taken when comparing the diagrams of one set to those of the other.

A second type of quantitative value is termed frequency or ubiquity (Popper 1988). Here theoccurrence of each plant taxon or type is tallied simply as present for each feature where it occurs,regardless of the actual amount (e.g., Tables 6.1 through 6.6). For example, if kï stems are found inthree of six features, that taxon receives a frequency score of 50%. This measure can be used forcomparisons between the two sites, as quantified results for individual taxa do not enter into itscalculation.

Occasionally diversity is expressed as the number of different plant types found in each feature.This is similar to the idea of Ntaxa (Number of Taxa), as used in some faunal analyses (Grayson1984:132). In this chapter the concept of Ntaxa is used somewhat loosely, as the term taxon is appliedto categories of materials that may not actually be identified. For example, charred plant tissue andunidentified wood are considered to be taxa in the Ntaxa count, because they are important categoriesin and of themselves.


ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS FROM SITE 4484

Below is a listing of plant parts and taxonomic identifications for the archaeobotanical materials at Site4484. This includes archaeobotanical materials from the features and nonfeatures from both pre- andpost-Contact contexts. Botanical nomenclature follows Wagner et al. (1990), and numbered wood types(e.g., #W-1) refer to distinct wood types defined by the author that have not yet been identified. Asnoted above, wood was categorized into types and compared against a small wood collection at theMuseum. Examples of the most common types then were sent to Murakami for thin-sectioning andidentification and/or confirmation. The wood identifications are listed as cf. [Latin confer, compare]because they compare well with the genus or species listed, but each individual piece is not identifiedsecurely. Possible tuber and corm remains are also listed as cf. because Hather’s final identificationsare not yet available.

PLANT REMAINS RECOVERED

Seeds and Fruits

Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd. (kukui, candlenut), seed coatPandanus tectorius S. Parkinson ex Z (hala, screw pine), drupe (key)Unknown, seed

Tubers, Corms, and Roots

cf. Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.(‘uala, sweet potato), tubercf. Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott (kalo, taro), cormTuber/corm/root, tuber/corm/root

Identified Wood and Stems

Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. (kï; ti)Monocotcf. Acacia koa A. Gray (koa)cf. Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd. (kukui, candlenut)cf. Artocarpus altilis (S. Parkinson ex Z) Fosb. (‘ulu, breadfruit)cf. Cheirodendron sp. (lapalapa,‘ölapa)cf. Diospyros sp. (lama, ëlama)cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud. (‘öhi‘a, ‘öhi‘a lehua)cf. Psidium sp. (guava)cf. Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr & Perry (‘öhi‘a ‘ai, mountain apple)cf. Tetraplasandra sp. (‘ohe‘ohe)Coniferophyta (conifer)


Unidentified Wood and Stem Types

Type #W-4 Type #W-16 Type #W-24Type #W-7 Type #W-18 Type #W-25Type #W-8 Type #W-19 Type #W-26Type #W-11 Type #W-20 Type #W-27Type #W-13 Type #W-22 Type #W-28Type #W-14 Type #W-23 Type #W-29

Leaf

cf. Cordyline fruticosa (kï, ti), leaf

Other Organic Materials

Shiny organic material—In some of the samples there is an organic residue that lacks cellular structure.Exactly what this material is remains uncertain, but it appears that the material has been physicallyaltered, perhaps caramelized by fire. It may be sap (e.g., sugar cane [kö, Saccharum officinarum L.] orkï) or tissue with destroyed cellular structure.

Charred plant tissue—In many samples there are fragments of charred plant remains thatpossess some cellular structure, but which are too eroded to determine exact plant part. These types ofmaterials are common archaeologically, and in this site most are probably wood, although a smallportion might have been tubers, roots, fruits, or other soft tissues containing large parenchyma cells.In a few cases, these materials might be conglomerates of ash and other plant fragments.

DISCUSSION

The plants listed above are typical for the study area. Indeed, charred wood and food remains are exactlywhat were predicted for this site, which is made up primarily of fire features. Other paleoethnobotanicalstudies from Hawai‘i have recovered many of the same species (e.g., Allen 1984, 1992; Murakami1983, 1987, 1989, 1992b). The taxa are from indigenous, endemic, Polynesian-introduced, and alienspecies, but the latter come only from post-Contact contexts within the site. In general, these remainsare indicative of Hawaiian utilization of the native forest and plant species brought in for subsistenceor other purposes (kalo, ‘uala, kukui, ‘ulu and kï). The only tree types that are slightly out of theirdefined modern range are lapalapa and ‘ohe‘ohe. These trees are now reported in areas above 310 mand 150 m, respectively (Wagner et al. 1990:226–228, 234–237). It may be that these taxa were broughtin from a higher elevation, but this is unlikely given the local abundance of other desirable tree species.A more plausible explanation is that these trees had a wider distribution in the past.

Nearly all of the recovered taxa have one, if not numerous, ethnographically documented usesin traditional Hawaiian culture. Sources such as Abbott (1992), Buck (1957), Handy et al. (1972),Krauss (1993), Malo (1951), and Neal (1965) testify to the dominance of kalo as the mainpre-Contact staple, with ‘uala as a secondary resource, so there is no need to elaborate here. Thetraditional uses of wood types recovered from this site are many and varied; canoes, house posts,rafters, dyes, medicines, altars, idols, spears, digging sticks, fish traps, fish floats, bird snares,


surfboards, calabashes, and more were commonly made from these trees. Only the ‘ohe‘ohe seems tohave had “no known use” and possesses wood which “was not good for any particular use” (Lamb1981:102).

When assessing the occurrence of charred wood in firepits and imu, it must be kept in mind thatits presence may not directly relate to these defined ethnographic uses, as there is no evidence that anyof the materials found had been worked in any way. The remains under discussion here are left fromfires. There is mention that ‘öhi‘a and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai were used as fuel (Malo 1951; Wagner et al. 1990:976),and guava was used historically to make charcoal (Allen, ed. 1987:281). Most ethnographic works,though, say very little about the choice of firewood and fuel, and none discuss the native Hawaiiancriteria for selecting fuels used for different types of firing activities. Contrary to this lack ofinformation being a detriment, it offers the paleoethnobotanist an opportunity to contribute previouslyundocumented information concerning native selection and use of fuel types.

Additional sources of information on pre-Contact plant distribution are available tocontrast with these archaeobotanical macrofossils, including the fossil pollen record and other accountsof archaeobotanical materials. Palynological research has been conducted at neighboring Sites 50-80-10-1887 (50-Oa-G5-85), 50-80-10-1888 (50-Oa-G5-86) (Bennett 1987), and 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152) (Cummings, Appendix H). Murakami (1987) has published results of charcoal analysis fromSites 1887 and 1888. Bennett’s (1987) analysis shows a dominance of grasses and sedges from a widevariety of samples that are associated with conventional radiocarbon ages between 290 ± 60 B.P. and880 ± 90 B.P. (Allen, ed. 1987:175–176). Evidence for grasses and sedges is (not surprisingly) absentfrom the archaeobotanical materials, most of which were collected from 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mmand 3-mm] screens at this site. Arboreal species recorded in Bennett’s analysis include ‘öhi‘a andlapalapa, as well as taxa from the Moraceae family (which includes ‘ulu) and additional members ofthe Myrtaceae family (which includes ‘öhi‘a, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, and ‘öhi‘a hä). These occurrencescoincide with some of the most commonly found taxa in the macrobotanical remains recovered fromSite 4484.

Cummings (Appendix H) suggests that by the post-Contact period the area was probably asparse forest or a forest with some clearings linked to agricultural activities at Site 4483. Interestingly,many of the taxa found at Site 4483 as pollen in the Contact and post-Contact deposits overlap with thepre-Contact macrofloral remains such as ‘ohe‘ohe, hala, and Myrtaceae family from Site 4484. Thisdemonstrates that certain elements of the native forest survived the changes in landscape that occurredover this extended period of time.

Murakami’s (1987) published account of wood charcoal from neighboring Sites 1887 and 1888lists some of the same taxa encountered in Site 4484. These include probable examples of lama, kukui,‘öhi‘a, and ‘öhi‘a hä. These similarities suggest that these types of trees were probably widespread andcommonly used during the pre-Contact period.

Overall, the summary botanical data from Site 4484 are compatible with the environmentalpattern outlined for the area by other paleoecological work. Many of the tree taxa are the same as thoserepresented by pollen and wood charcoal from neighboring sites. As noted above, the inclusion oflapalapa (seen also in Bennett 1987: 210, 212) may indicate that it grew below 310 m in the pre-Contact era. The inclusion of koa, lama, and ‘öhia may indicate some type of Lowland Wet Forest(Wagner et al. 1990:89–93) was present during the early habitation of Site 4484. In some contrast tothe work of Bennett, macroremains from Site 4484 suggest that wood was plentiful, and that maturewood was used as fuel; this pattern does not suggest an environment that was poor in forest resources.


It is obvious that a good deal of the local landscape was cultivated, or was being converted toagricultural use, but this does not mean that forest resources were at all difficult to come by foreveryday use.

If indeed the identifications of kalo and ‘uala are verified, we will again be able to confirm theirimportance in the pre-Contact subsistence of the region, which is implied by the architectural remainsof many nearby sites. The inclusion of ‘ulu wood may indicate the use of this fruit for food (thoughcutting down ‘ulu for wood would seem counterproductive if the trees were grown for their fruit).

ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL FEATURES

Feature 1

The plant remains from Feature 1, a small, probably bowl-shaped firepit, were collected in sixsubsamples. As noted in Chapter 4, this feature was badly damaged, but the small total weight of theremains (9.1 gm) does not diminish their importance. This feature contains the most robust evidencefor what appears to be ‘uala (Figure 6.1). The fragments were large and weighed approximately 1.5 gm.These remains were recovered from two of the six subsamples (see Appendix I:Table I-1).

The overall pattern of plant materials in the feature shows a wide variety of different plants andplant parts (Ntaxa = 14). Feature 1 contains several types of wood, the possible ‘uala, other tubers orcorms, and a small amount of kukui seed coats. This diversity suggests varied functions for this feature(cooking, heating, or other industrial uses). It is interesting to note that the kï remains are probably stemfragments, not roots, and therefore do not directly indicate cooking of kï for consumption. More likelythese stems represent the remnants of branches that would have been attached to leaves commonlylayered over food and fuel in imu. The possible ‘uala and the kukui seed coats may both be indicativeof foods that were being utilized, although the kukui could have been charred purposefully for soot tomake dye, or simply may have been thrown in as fuel. In comparing the six subsamples collected, it isobvious that the feature contained highly variable materials. No stratigraphic layering was observedduring excavation, and the subsamples are not recorded as being collected from discrete horizontallocations within the feature. The subsamples are marked according to northern and southern areas ofthe feature, yet there appears to be no correlation between samples from the same half of the deposit.Instead, each subsample is different in content and relative proportions of plant types. This suggests thateither a single firing activity involved a wide variety of different plants, or that the materials recoveredmay be the result of several burning events. Analyzing any single bag from this feature might havegiven a biased impression of the overall botanical makeup of the fill, and, in fact, there is no guaranteethat the total materials retrieved represent the feature as a whole, because much of the fill was lost tothe bulldozer before the feature was identified. The inclusion of both food remains and wood charcoalsupport the idea that cooking was at least one of the most recent functions of this pit feature.

Feature 2

As noted in Chapter 4, Feature 2 measured 55 cm in diameter, and was approximately 45 cm in depth.Contents suggested it was simply the by-product of recent banana farming practices. Plant remainscollected from this feature include two flotation samples from the upper and lower portions of the

Char. Tissue (9.9%)

Kukui seed (1.1%)

‘Uala (16.5%)

Tuber/corm/root (1.1%)

K stem (7.7%)ï

Unid. Wood (26.4%)

Unid. Twig (1.1%)Monocot stem (1.1%)

Lama (1.1%)‘Ulu (1.1%)

Wood #16 (17.6%)

Wood #18 (6.6%)

Wood #28 (1.1%)Wood #19 (7.7%)

Site 4484Total weight = 9.1 gm

\

Figure 6.1. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 1, Site 4484.Note inclusion of possible ‘uala tuber.


feature. Both samples contained very small amounts of wood charcoal and less than 10 uncharred grass(Poaceae) and sedge (Cyperaceae) seeds each (see Appendix I:Table I-4). The age of these seeds hasnot been determined, nor has the feature been dated, but it is likely the seeds are of modern origin.

Feature 3

A single flotation sample was recovered from Feature 3, which is thought to represent a pre-Contactpostmold. Botanical materials in the sample include 13 charred kukui seed coat fragments, 13 smallfragments of wood charcoal, and one small fragment of a charred twig (see Appendix I:Table I-4). Noidentification of the wood was attempted because the fragments were too small; therefore, it is notpossible to determine whether any of the species present might suggest a post-Contact date. Burnt woodand kukui are among the most common archaeobotanical materials in Hawai‘i, and their presence alonedoes little to identify the precise function of this feature.

Feature 4

The form and artifactual contents of Feature 4 led excavators to suggest it is a small firepit.Archaeobotanical materials collected include six subsamples of macroremains and one flotation sample.This feature displayed no obvious layering during excavation, and the six subsamples are recorded fromoverlapping depths. The general stratigraphic order that can be inferred for the samples shows novertical patterning.

Analysis of the flotation sample produced approximately 700 small (>2 mm) pieces of wood,as well as three branch or twig fragments, and nearly 30 segments of monocot stalks (all charred). Theseprobably represent fuel remains; the twigs and stalks might be evidence of kindling, something not seenin most features where flotation samples were not collected. A single small (<2 mm) charred seed wasrecovered, but it is too eroded for further identification.

As in Feature 1, the weight of macroremains collected from on-site screening of Feature 4 wasnot great (total 16.3 gm), but this feature has remains that are currently the most securely identified askalo (awaiting confirmation by Hather) from Sites 4484 and 4485. These remains indicate foodpreparation. The large amount of charred kukui shell (Figure 6.2), 34.4% of the feature remains byweight (total 5.6 gm), is unusual compared with values between 0 and 4.5% (total weight per feature#1.3 gm) for other features at the site, and 0 to 20% (total weight per feature #0.7 gm) at Site 4485.This may be evidence for the charring of kukui seed coats for their soot, a by-product of the preparationof ‘inamona (kukui relish), or simply the use of these ubiquitous seeds or discarded seed coats for fuel.Because burned seed coat fragments are so widespread at archaeological sites in Hawai‘i, it must beassumed that at least a small number are background noise that occur regardless of the specializedactivities occurring at any given site. Yet, it appears that the kukui concentration was more substantialin this feature than in other features; therefore, it is suggested that one or more special kukui-relatedactivities might have resulted in this deposit.

An unusual type of archaeobotanical find in this feature is the structureless organic material.This material looks similar to burned sugar cane sap, but without chemical analysis it is impossible toidentify definitively (see also in Unit 12, Appendix I:Table I-1).

The wood fragments from this feature are somewhat small and eroded, and many are difficultto categorize with any degree of confidence. This fact may result from heavy weathering of feature

Char. Tissue (5.5%)Shiny organic (0.6%)

Kukui seed (34.4%)

Kalo (1.8%)K stem (1.8%)ï

Unid. Wood (36.8%)

Wood #24 (0.6%)Monocot stem (2.5%)

Lama (4.3%)Lapalapa (0.6%)‘ hi‘a ‘ai (1.8%)Ö

‘Ulu (4.3%)Wood #26 (0.6%)

Wood #27 (4.3%)


Figure 6.2. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 4, Site 4484.Note large number of different plant types, possible kalo, and kukui seedcoats.


contents during use or after abandonment. Wood taxa that can be matched with identified types are thesame as in many other firepits and imu at Sites 4484 and 4485, such as probable kï stem, lama, ‘ulu,and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai.

Comparison of the plant remains from the six subsamples collected from the feature shows thateach is somewhat different (Ntaxa = 14). As with Feature 1, this may be indicative of remnants fromseveral separate events; yet, no layering was recorded during excavation. Conversely, it may be that thefiring activity represented called for layers of different fuel types, or that this pattern is the result ofindiscriminate fuel use.

Feature 5

Feature 5, described as a large, bowl-shaped imu, produced archaeobotanical remains that are plentifuland varied (Ntaxa = 13). Nearly 150 gm of archaeobotanical materials were recovered in six, somewhatstratified, subsamples. Unfortunately, most of these materials are very badly eroded, so badly that it isnot even possible to determine what type of plant tissues they are. Approximately 75% of the plantfragments have had to be classed simply as charred tissue (Figure 6.3). It is likely they are charredwood, but activities during or after use of this feature destroyed the anatomical structure of thematerials. Many of the pieces that could be identified as wood are too badly damaged to categorize oridentify more precisely. This destruction is not due to excavation, collection, or storage; nor is it limitedto one or two of the subsamples. All six of the subsamples showed the same pattern. This suggests thatwhatever damaged the materials was very thorough and not limited to one area (e.g., the top or bottomportion of the feature).

In spite of the deteriorated condition of most of the remains, those which are identifiable do addunique information to this study. For example, Feature 5 contains the only remains of hala (Pandanus)fruits in this site. The paucity of evidence for use of hala is interesting, given Cummings's (AppendixH) finding that hala pollen increased at and after European contact. It is almost certain that this plantwas widely used during the pre-Contact and post-Contact periods. Activities could have included theuse of hala keys as paint brushes and lauhala for matting and baskets, both of which might leave noarchaeological traces in this wet/acidic environment. If hala keys were used as a famine food they mighthave had a greater chance of being exposed to fire, hence have a higher chance of being preserved.

Other identifiable materials suggest that the fuels used in this large, late pre-Contact imu werenot unlike those used in other fire features at the site, which vary widely in size, shape, and phase ofoccupation. Wood and stem fragments of kï and ‘ulu are known from many of these features, as are theubiquitous kukui seed coats. Very few remains appear to be actual food remains.

Feature 6

Unlike some of the features discussed above, Feature 6, a small firepit, produced only three subsamplesof archaeobotanical remains, yielding a total of 14 different taxa. Fortunately, a comparison of thematerials in each resulted in very similar results, suggesting that they may indeed be sufficient torepresent accurately the feature as a whole (see Appendix I:Table I-1 and Figure 6.4). The threesubsamples cannot be distinguished vertically, as they are recorded as having overlapping depthmeasurements. ‘Ulu is the most common wood taxon in each of the three subsamples; ‘ulu makes upover 65% of the materials in two cases. The similarity of the sample contents and the

Char. Tissue (75.4%)

Kukui seed (0.2%)

Hala key(0.4%)K stem (0.3%)ï

Unid. Wood (19.1%)

‘Ulu (2.8%)Other (1.8%)

(Other=Monocot Stem,Tuber/corm/root, Wood #4, Wood#18, Wood #19, Wood #22, andWood #26)



Kukui seed (4.6%) Tuber/corm/root (0.4%)K stem (0.7%)ï

Unid. Wood (8.2%)

Monocot stem (0.4%)

Lama (7.5%)

‘ hi‘a ‘ai (0.7%)Ö

‘Ulu (54.5%)

‘Ohe‘ohe (0.7%)Other (2.4%)


(Other=Wood #4, Wood #7,Wood #8, and Wood #29)

Figure 6.3. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 5, Site 4484.Note large proportion of unidentifiable plant material and hala key.

Figure 6.4. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 6, Site 4484.Note large proportion of ‘ulu.


dominance of a single wood type may be explained in at least two ways: 1) these remains represent asingle event; and 2) these remains may be left from a repeated activity, for which ‘ulu was continuallyselected as the desired fuel source.

The other wood types identified from this probable sixteenth- to mid-seventeenth centuryfeature include kï stem, lama, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, and ‘ohe‘ohe. Again, these species seem to be usedconsistently in many features of varying shapes and sizes, dating to both early and late pre-Contactcontexts. It is likely that these trees produced favorite firewoods and were easily obtained. As seen inmany of the features in this site, there are also fragments of kukui seed coats and some charredfragments that might be from a tuber or corm. These remains may be indicative of food preparation oranother undiscovered function.

Feature 7

Four subsamples of field-screened botanical materials were produced by this large, funnel-shaped imu.Two of these subsamples were obtained from a distinct charcoal layer in the lower portion of thefeature, and were utilized for radiocarbon analysis. This left only two subsamples for identification, bothfrom the upper area of the imu. A total of 77.8 gm of archaeobotanical materials was examined (Ntaxa= 13) from these two subsamples. The two subsamples are not identical in content, yet there is asimilarity (see Appendix I:Table I-1). Both subsamples displayed a dominance of ‘öhi‘a, with acombined total over 34 gm. Feature 7 is unique in this aspect, as it is the only one from this site withsuch a large inclusion of this wood type (Figure 6.5). Again, the preponderance of a single taxon maybe the by-product of a single firing event, or of repeated activities involving the use of the same woodtype. Feature 7 contained lama and ‘ulu, as do many of the features at Site 4484, but the inclusion of‘ohe‘ohe, koa, and lapalapa is a little more unusual. There are two possible explanations for the patternof one dominant species and many traces of other taxa: 1) the fire may have been built mostly of onespecies, perhaps a single tree, with the other, sparser materials being incidental or used as kindling; and2) the remnants of the other species might have been left from previous firings.

One subsample (Bag 115) contains a large percentage of unidentifiable materials, suggestingthat only part of the feature had undergone substantial deterioration. This subsample is recorded ascoming from the highest part of the feature, and the damage may be due to construction activities. Thebag also contains one small leaf fragment that is probably from the kï plant. Leaves are not normallypreserved well enough to be identified, but this rare specimen may hint that kï leaves were layered inthe upper portion of this fourteenth- to fifteenth-century imu. This would demonstrate the long-standingtradition of this ethnographically documented practice.

Feature 8

This large, bowl-shaped imu displays a very distinctive botanical pattern. Four subsamples ofbotanical materials were collected in situ or from on-site screening, though the precise coordinates ofthese remains were not recorded. One of the subsamples was used to obtain a radiocarbon date thatplaces this feature in the mid-fifteenth to mid-seventeenth century. All three remaining subsampleswere analyzed; together they total over 170 gm of charred materials, which include 10 different taxa.A unique aspect of this imu is that it contains over 50% ‘öhi‘a ‘ai (Figure 6.6), a s pecies thought tobe introduced by the Polynesians and widely cultivated for its wood, bark, and fruit (Wagner et al.


Lapalapa (0.1%)

Unid. Wood (27.5%)

Lama (1.4%)Koa (0.9%)

‘Ulu (0.3%)

‘ hi‘a (44.2%)Ö

‘Ohe‘ohe (0.4%)Other (1.9%)

(Other=Monocot stem, Wood #8,Wood #13, and Wood #14)


Unid. Wood (27.5%)

‘ hi‘a (0.1%)Ö

‘ hi‘a ‘ai (58.6%)Ö

Wood #20 (0.6%)K stem (1.2%)ï

Koa (0.9%)Char. Tissue (2.8%)

Tuber/corm/root (1.6%)‘Ulu (0.3%)


Figure 6.5. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 7, Site 4484.Note large proportion of ‘öhi‘a.

Figure 6.6. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 8, Site 4484.Note large proportion of ‘öhi‘a ‘ai.


1990:976). The similarity of the three subsamples indicates that the distribution of materials throughoutthe feature is fairly homogeneous (see Appendix I:Table I-1), suggesting that these remains are probablya representative sample of this feature as a whole. Again, the pattern may be related to a single event,or a repeated activity that is taxon-specific. Small amounts of koa and ‘öhi‘a suggest that native forestelements were still available and utilized regularly during this phase of pre-Contact occupation.

As seen in most of these fire features (especially those thought to be imu), there is very littledirect evidence of food preparation. Feature 8 contains a small amount of charred materials that mightbe tubers, roots, or corms, but these fragments are far less diagnostic than those recovered from Features1 and 4.

Feature 9

Two subsamples of charred botanical remains were collected from this large, funnel-shaped imu.Unfortunately, securing the fourteenth- to fifteenth-century date for this feature consumed all of onesubsample and a portion of the other, leaving only 7 gm of materials to examine. For this reason, theinformation presented for this feature should be viewed as tentative, especially in any quantitative sense.

Nearly half of the available archaeobotanical materials are not identifiable beyond the fact thatthey are charred plant tissue (Figure 6.7). Yet, the nine taxa that are recognizable are the same as inother features: kï stem, and wood fragments of ‘ulu, lapalapa, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, and lama. The inclusion ofkukui seed coats in this feature, along with kukui and ‘ulu wood and the large proportion of ‘öhi‘a ‘ai,demonstrates the availability of these Polynesian-introduced species for use in one of the older featureson this site. Again, this is not unusual, but this information can help us to document the timing of thespread of these species.

Feature 10

The plant remains recovered from Feature 10, a post-Contact charcoal kiln, are generally quite differentfrom the remains recovered from the other features discussed in this chapter (Figure 6.8). This is to beexpected as the kiln dates to a much later period of history, and had a very different function than allthe other fire features from the site. Excavation of the kiln produced six separate subsamples, totallingover 77 gm in weight. Yet this feature had very homogeneous contents, and the diversity of the taxaencountered was lower (Ntaxa = 6) than might have been expected for such a large deposit. At least84% of the materials in each of the six subsamples are guava, a tree with two species (P. cattleianumSabine and P. guajava L.) introduced to the Hawaiian Islands around A.D. 1825 (Nagata 1985). Thepieces of guava are mostly small trunk or branch sections, some 1 to 1.5 cm in diameter, fractured intodisks no more than .5 cm in length. This fracturing might have been intentional, or simply the resultof the charcoal production process. As noted by Allen (Allen, ed. 1987:281), area residents specifyguava as a preferred source of charcoal in the late post-Contact period. The ring patterns visible in somespecimens suggest that the trees might have been only a few years old. However, these specimens mayrepresent branches, or the ring-count may be inaccurate, given the variability of growth patterns seenin other types of tropical trees (Lamberton 1955:92).

Kukui seed (1.4%) Tuber/corm/root (1.4%)

K stem (1.4%)ï

Unid. Wood (47.1%)

Lama (7.1%)

Lapalapa (1.4%)

‘ hi‘a ‘ai (22.9%)Ö

Kukui (wood) (1.4%)

‘Ulu (15.7%)

Site 4484Total weight = 7 gm

‘Ohe‘ohe (1.2%)Unid. Wood (1.6%)

Guava (90.8%)

Conifer (0.1%)Wood #10 (6.1%)

Wood #11 (0.3%)


Figure 6.7. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 9, Site 4484.Note Polynesian-introduced taxa.

Figure 6.8. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 10, Site 4484.Note large proportion of guava and inclusion of conifer.


In addition to the guava there are two other identified taxa—one small fragment of conifer woodsuggests outside contact, though the inclusion of ‘ohe‘ohe demonstrates some continuing use of nativeflora.

Feature 11

This feature differs from those previously discussed in that it is not clearly a firepit or imu that includescharred plant remains as a result of normal use. Instead, Feature 11 is more ambiguous in shape andfunction. Trash disposal, possibly resulting from the cleaning of fire features, may have led to thedeposition of the charred botanical remains in this feature.

The botanical materials available for analysis were limited to two subsamples, having a totalweight of only 5.6 gm. Nevertheless, this amorphous scatter of ash displays a diversity of remains(Ntaxa = 14) that is greater than or equal to the diversity seen in all other features from this site, evenwhile being smaller and less numerous than the subsamples from all the other features. The relativeproportions of plants recovered from this feature show no dominant taxon (Figure 6.9), and the twoseparate subsamples are not particularly similar to one another. These characteristics lend credence tothe interpretation that this might have been a discard area for ash and burned materials derived from imuand other fire features. Whereas this is a suggestion, it must be kept in mind that there is not a cleardistinction between this area and all fire features. As noted, many of the fire features display a diversityof taxa similar to that of Feature 11, and they too may represent the end result of numerous activitiesover some span of time.

ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS FROM NONFEATURE CONTEXTS

In addition to the remains gathered from features, there are a small number of field-screened subsamplescollected outside the boundaries of the defined firepits, imu, and kiln. These materials were recoveredfrom Units 7 and 12 (where no features are recorded), as well as areas of Unit 11 that lay outsideFeatures 2 and 3.

Unit 7

This unit contains no features and was excavated to help establish stratigraphic relationships. Thedeposit from the unit was not screened systematically, but charcoal was noted and two subsamples werecollected at approximately 43 and 46 cmbd. Analysis of the two subsamples produced variable results,suggesting that they may not accurately represent the variability in the unit. Each subsample contained‘ulu, but one bag (28) contained more identifiable types than the other bag (26). Unfortunately, fieldnotes suggest that the area where these plant remains were collected might have been disturbed. It istherefore of cautionary interest that the pattern displayed by the small amount of charcoal (1.2 gm) fromUnit 7 is not unlike that of Feature 6 (compare Figures 6.4 and 6.10). Each contains slightly over 50%‘ulu, 7 to 8% lama, and 17 to 20% unidentifiable charred fragments. Unit 7 contains less variable plantmaterials (Ntaxa = 5 versus Ntaxa = 14 from Feature 6), but if the differences in depositional historyand disturbance had not been known, one might have suggested that the same type of function oractivity produced the patterning observed in both. Of course, disturbed materials originate as in-situdeposits, and it may be that the disturbed sediment in Unit 7 had once been in a firepit, not unlikeFeature 6.

Char. Tissue (5.4%)Kukui seed (1.8%)

K stem (1.8%)ï

Unid. Wood (26.8%)

Monocot stem (3.6%)Lama (1.8%)

‘ hi‘a ‘ai (1.8%)Ö‘Ulu (25.0%)

‘Ohe‘ohe (1.8%)

Wood #8 (19.6%)

Wood #16 (1.8%)Wood #20 (1.8%)

Wood #22 (3.4%)Wood #23 (3.6%)



Unid. Wood (8.3%)

Monocot stem (8.3%)

Lama (8.3%)

‘Ulu (58.3%)


Figure 6.9. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 11, Site 4484.Note large number of different plant types with no dominant type.

Figure 6.10. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Unit 7, Site 4484. Notelarge proportion of ‘ulu.


Unit 11

Two subsamples of archaeobotanical remains were collected from Layers II and III of Unit 11, in areassurrounding Features 2 and 3. This deposit was screened, and a total of 7.8 gm of materials collected.The pattern seen in the percentage diagram (Figure 6.11) shows a dominance (nearly 70%) of a singlewood type, which unfortunately has not yet been identified (#W-25). This appears to be the only unitor feature in which this type occurs (unless this type is actually the same as one of the others). Bothsubsamples are dominated by this taxon, ranging from 62 to 87% of the total subsample by weight. Theother plant materials recovered in this unit varied greatly, and the unit contains a total of 12 differenttaxa. Most of the variability comes from Layer III (Bag 61), suggesting this is the main source of plantremains.

Again, the archaeobotanical pattern in Unit 11 is similar in many ways to some of the well-defined features (e.g., Feature 8 in Figure 6.6). Each has a single dominant taxon, and a wide varietyof other species and plant parts that make up the remaining part of the sample. Also, the Ntaxa value(12) for Unit 11 is not statistically different than the mean Ntaxa value (11.9) from the features (Freund1979:275). Minor taxa recorded in this unit also overlap with many of the fire features, for example,‘ulu, guava, lama, kï, and kukui seed coats. These similarities point to a common origin for both types(feature and nonfeature) of materials. As outlined for Unit 7, this pattern would suggest that charredmaterials originate in the firepits and imu, and ultimately become spread throughout the site. It wouldonly be through the identification of #W-25 that this deposit might be defined as representing a uniqueactivity.

Yet, the mix of materials in this unit may be meaningless. Field notes suggest that the charcoalmay have been disturbed by bulldozer activities. A possible sign of this disturbance is the inclusion ofcharred wood that appears to be guava, an introduced species, from the lower of the two subsamples(Bag 61).

Unit 12

Three subsamples of archaeobotanical remains were collected from Layers II through IIIa of this unit,which is located in the vicinity of Features 8 and 9. Total weight of materials produced by the unitisonly 2.4 gm, and most of it is the same shiny organic material seen in Feature 4 (Figure 6.12). Allthree of the subsamples contain a high proportion of this substance, suggesting that it characterizes theplant remains for the unit.

Field notes and site maps show that the layers represented by botanical remains from this unitcontain some post-Contact materials, and that the unit falls within the boundaries of Feature 12, a scatterof lithic artifacts. The inclusion of the shiny organic material (possibly burned sap) along with lamadoes nothing to determine the age of the deposit, as these plants could relate to either pre- or post-Contact activities.

SUMMARY OF BOTANICAL DATA FROM SITE 4484

While each individual deposit and feature at Site 4484 has its own character, there are certain patternsthat emerge from this analysis. First and foremost, wood remains are the most commonarchaeobotanical materials recovered from the site. This is not uncommon in archaeological sites,especially when most of the remains are collected in the field with 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and

Lama (5.1%)

Wood #24 (7.7%)

Kukui seed (1.3%)K stem (1.3%)ï

Unid. Wood (5.15)

Monocot stem (1.3%)Guava (1.3%)

‘Ulu (3.9%)

Wood #22 (1.3%)Wood #23 (1.3%)

Wood #25 (69.2%)

Char. Tissue (1.3%)


Lama (8.3%)

Shiny organic (79.2%)

Unid. Wood (8.3%)

Wood #16 (4.2%)


Figure 6.11. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Unit 11 from Site 4484.Note large proportion of wood type #25.

Figure 6.12. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Unit 12 from Site 4484.Note large proportion of shiny (unidentifiable) organic material.


3-mm] screens. The virtual absence of charred seeds or other small plant parts in the flotation samplesis surprising and disappointing because nearly all archaeological sites contain some amounts of thesematerials. It may be that the samples collected do not accurately represent the features or the site; therewere only four flotation samples recovered, and only one of these is from a fire feature (see AppendixI:Table I-4). It is also possible that the Museum's flotation equipment permitted small plant parts suchas seeds to escape recovery, as its inner screen size was 1 mm at the time these materials wereprocessed.

Conversely, the archaeobotanical remains collected from on-site screening are more plentiful.The materials that are identified complement and enhance the interpretation of most of the features asfirepits and imu used in cooking. Most common wood types used in these pits are ‘ulu, kï, lama, and‘öhi‘a ‘ai, each of which occurred in over half of the features (Table 6.1). The use of ‘ulu is particularlyrobust, as it is found in 100% of the pre-Contact features. This suggests that the site inhabitants maderegular use of trees and shrubs they introduced to the islands, as well as some native species. Overallthere is a strong complement of Polynesian-introduced species (‘ulu, kï, ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, and kukui) alongwith native taxa (koa, lapalapa, lama, ‘öhi‘a, and ‘ohe‘ohe). This suggests that the species brought byPolynesians were either well-established during the periods represented or that these species werepreferred by the site's inhabitants for fuel. When the species frequency values are observed in roughchronological order (Table 6.2), it is of interest that three of the five native species (koa, lapalapa, and‘öhi‘a) occur only in the earlier features. This pattern may hint at the continuing replacement of nativeforest by tree species brought by the original Polynesian settlers. Most striking is the pattern forlapalapa. This species is found in all three of the earliest features, but in none of the later ones. Asnoted earlier, lapalapa is the furthest outside its modern reported range. Lapalapa (or ‘ölapa) is thecommon Hawaiian name for species of the genus Cheirodendron, which is made up of five endemicspecies that are now known from elevations between 310 and 2,190 m, most commonly on ridges andmountain summits (Wagner et al. 1990:226–228). The inclusion of lapalapa in only the three earliestfeatures may suggest this species had a wider range and grew at lower elevations in the past, and thatit was replaced in these areas by Polynesian-introduced species. The inclusion of ‘ohe‘ohe in one of theearliest features (7) also suggests that past forest composition was different than present day plantassociations. The modern range of the six known species of Tetraplasandra is 150 to 1,600 m (Wagner1990:234–237). All other species found could easily grow in the Mesic and Wet Lowland Forest thatis still in evidence in the area (though much invaded by species introduced after the Contact period).Given the ecological requirements of the species recovered, it does not appear that there is a shift inenvironmental conditions, instead it would appear that any changes in evidence are related to humanintervention.

A comparison of archaeobotanical materials from features of different sizes and shapes showslittle patterning that might suggest activities that are characterized by different fuel types. That is, theredoes not appear to be a link between the differences in appearance of the pit and the wood typesrecovered. A cursory examination of Table 6.1 might lead one to suggest that koa and ‘öhi‘a are foundonly in large imu-type pits, yet, while that is the only place these two species are found, only two ofthese four large features contain these species. It might appear that the temporal element is a betterexplanation for the pattern observed for these native species (see Table 6.2).


Table 6.1. Frequencies of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Remains in Pre-Contact Archaeological Features at Site 4484 by Size, Shape, and Form

Archaeobotanical MaterialsPercent presence in samples from

All FireFeatures1

(n = 7)

Lrg. Funnel-shaped2

(n = 2)

Lrg. Bowl-shaped3

(n = 2)

Sml. Bowl-shaped4

(n = 3)

TrashScatter (n = 1)5

Kukui seed coats 71.4 50 50 100 100

Hala keys 14.3 --- 50 --- ---

cf. ‘uala tubers 14.3 --- --- 33.3 ---

cf. kalo corms 14.3 --- --- 33.3 ---

cf. tuber/corm/root 71.4 50 100 100 ---

cf. kï leaf 14.3 50 --- --- ---

Unidentifiable plant tissue 85.7 50 100 100 100

Shiny organic material 14.3 --- --- 33.3 ---

Unidentifiable wood/stem 100 100 100 100 100

Monocot stem 71.4 50 50 100 100

cf. kï stem 85.7 50 100 100 100

cf. koa wood 28.6 50 50 --- ---

cf. kukui wood 14.3 50 --- --- ---

cf. ‘ulu wood 100 100 100 100 100

cf. lapalapa/‘ölapa wood 42.9 100 --- 33.3 ---

cf. lama wood 71.4 100 --- 100 100

cf. ‘öhi‘a wood 28.6 50 50 --- ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood 57.1 50 50 66.7 100

cf. ‘ohe‘ohe wood 28.6 50 --- 33.3 100

Unknown wood type #4 28.6 --- 50 33.3 ---

Unknown wood type #7 14.3 --- --- 33.3 ---

Unknown wood type #8 28.6 50 --- 33.3 100

Unknown wood type #13 28.6 50 50 --- ---

Unknown wood type #14 14.3 50 --- --- ---

Unknown wood type #16 14.3 --- --- 33.3 100


Unknown wood type #19 28.6 -- 50 33.3 ---

Unknown wood type #20 14.3 --- 50 --- 100

Unknown wood type #22 14.3 --- 50 --- 100

Unknown wood type #23 --- --- --- --- 100




All FireFeatures1

(n = 7)

Lrg. Funnel-shaped2

(n = 2)

Lrg. Bowl-shaped3

(n = 2)

Sml. Bowl-shaped4

(n = 3)

TrashScatter (n = 1)5




Unknown wood type #29 14.3 --- --- 33.3 ---1=Features 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.2=Features 7 and 9.3=Features 5 and 8.4=Features 1, 4, and 6.5=Feature 11.

Table 6.2. Frequencies of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Remains in Archaeological Features at Site 4484 by Date


500s B.P.1 (n = 3)

300s B.P.2

(n = 1)200s B.P.3

(n = 2)Post-Contact4

(n = 1)

Kukui seed coats 66.7 --- 100 ---

Hala keys --- --- 50 ---

cf. kalo corms 33.3 --- --- ---

cf. tuber/corm/root 33.3 100 100 ---

cf. kï leaf 33.3 --- --- ---

Unidentifiable plant tissue 66.7 100 100 ---

Shiny organic material 33.3 --- --- ---

Unidentifiable wood/stem 100 100 100 100

Monocot stem 66.7 --- 100 ---

cf. kï stem 66.7 100 100 ---

cf. koa wood 33.3 100 --- ---

cf. kukui wood 33.3 --- --- ---

cf. ‘ulu wood 100 100 100 ---

cf. lapalapa/‘ölapa wood 100 --- --- ---

cf. lama wood 66.7 --- 50 ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a wood 33.3 100 --- ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood 66.7 100 50 ---

cf. ‘ohe‘ohe wood 33.3 --- 50 100

cf. guava --- --- --- 100

Conifer --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #4 --- --- 100 ---


Unknown wood type #8 33.3 --- 50 ---

Unknown wood type #10 --- --- --- 100



500s B.P.1 (n = 3)

300s B.P.2

(n = 1)200s B.P.3

(n = 2)Post-Contact4

(n = 1)

Unknown wood type #11 --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #13 33.3 100 --- ---

Unknown wood type #14 33.3 --- --- ---



Unknown wood type #20 --- 100 --- ---



Unknown wood type #26 33.3 --- 50 ---


Unknown wood type #29 --- --- 50 ---1=Features 4, 7, and 9.2=Feature 8.3=Features 5 and 6.4=Feature 10.

Unfortunately, the information that relates most directly to food preparation and diet is sorelylacking. Given that the Hawaiian diet was presumably based on the corm kalo and the tuber ‘uala, itis not surprising that there is little remaining evidence. Corms and tubers are made up of tissues thatare notoriously fragile once charred, and soft tissues also contain less diagnostic features than seeds orwood. There has been progress on soft tissue identification (Hather 1991; 1994) through the use ofdiagnostic anatomical characters, but this requires special expertise and a wide range of referencespecimens. Additionally, much of this work is being done with the aid of scanning-electron microscopy.In a move to expand on traditional morphological and anatomical methods, researchers using chemicalidentification techniques show that these methods too, hold great promise for the identification ofPacific foodstuffs (e.g., Allen et al. 1995; Fankhauser 1994). These techniques, though, are stillexperimental, and some are only at the stage of developing reference standards and are not yet widelyavailable.

In spite of the fact that most of the fire features might relate to food preparation, there is verylittle direct evidence of this activity. Unidentifiable charred tissue that could conceivably be some typeof food was found in nearly all the features, but it is probable that many of these fragments are highlyeroded wood. Remains that are more confidently identified as some type of parenchymous tissue(marked cf. tuber/corm/root) occur in all time periods and fire feature types (see Tables 6.1 and 6.2).Kï leaf fragments, probably a by-product of food preparation, occurred in one of the older, funnel-shaped imu, again confirming that imu activities were much the same then as they are more recently.The most secure information concerning the food itself comes from two of the smaller bowl-shapedfirepits (in the form of probable kalo and ‘uala remains), not the larger imu-type pits. This suggests thatthese smaller features were used to cook food as well. Because food remains are so scarce, it is unwiseto read too much into these data. It is sufficient to note that food remains do occur, and that there aremany potential samples for examination by other more sophisticated methods. Any type of quantitativeanalyses will require far more data and more secure identifications.


ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS FROM SITE 4485

Site 4485 is located approximately 0.7 km from Site 4484. Archaeobotanical materials from Site 4485were recovered from nine features, and are dominated by wood and stem fragments (Appendix I:TablesI-2 and I-3). Eight of the features are firepits or imu, and one (Feature 2) appears to be a post-Contactrefuse area. Field-screened materials are available for each of the nine features, and two features arerepresented by flotation samples as well. Most of the features produced few subsamples, whereas others(such as Feature 3) provided many.

The available field-screened materials from Site 4485 were selected and quantified differentlythan equivalent materials from Site 4484. It was not feasible to categorize all these materials intospecies or types. As outlined previously, each subsample (bag) was examined in its entirety, but onlyto the general anatomical level (see Appendix I:Table I-2). Once the contents had been inventoried, anattempt was made to identify all nonwood remains, while the wood was subjected to furthersubsampling. Based on trial results, 40 pieces of randomly selected wood is thought to accurately reflectthe overall subsample contents. As was done for Site 4484, materials tentatively identified by the authorwere sent for confirmation and further identification to Murakami (wood) and Hather (soft tissues).

PLANT REMAINS RECOVERED

Seeds and Fruits

Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd. (kukui, candlenut), seed coatcf. Chenopodium sp. (‘äheahea, goosefoot), seedUnknown seed

Tubers, Corms, and Roots

cf. Cordyline fruticosa (kï, ti), rootUnidentified soft tissue, tuber/corm/root

Identified Wood and Stems

Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. (kï, ti)Monocotcf. Freycinetia arborea Gaud. (‘ie‘ie)cf. Pandanus tectorius S. Parkinson ex Z (hala, screw pine)cf. Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd. (kukui, candlenut)cf. Artocarpus altilis (S. Parkinson ex Z) Fosb. (‘ulu, breadfruit)cf. Cheirodendron sp. (lapalapa, ‘ölapa)cf. Diospyros sp. (lama, ëlama)cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud. (‘öhi‘a, ‘öhi‘a lehua)


cf. Syzygium sandwicensis (A. Gray) Nied (‘öhi‘a hä)cf. Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr & Perry (‘öhi‘a ‘ai, mountain apple)cf. Tetraplasandra sp. (‘ohe‘ohe)Coniferophyta (conifer)

Unidentified Wood and Stem Types

Type #W-4 Type #W-30 Type #W-39Type #W-10 Type #W-31 Type #W-41Type #W-18 Type #W-32 Type #W-42Type #W-20 Type #W-33 Type #W-43Type #W-24 Type #W-34 Type #W-44Type #W-25 Type #W-35 Type #W-45Type #W-26 Type #W-36 Type #W-46Type #W-27 Type #W-37 Type #W-47Type #W-29 Type #W-38

Other Organic Materials

Charred plant tissue—In many samples there are fragments of charred plant remains that possess somecellular structure, but they are too eroded to determine the exact plant part represented. These types ofmaterials are common archaeologically, and in this site most are probably wood, although a smallportion might have been tubers, roots, fruits, or other soft tissues containing large parenchyma cells.In a number of cases, these materials might be conglomerates of ash and other plant fragments.

DISCUSSION

Plant remains recovered from Site 4485 are very similar to those recovered from Site 4484 (seeAppendix I:Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3). This is not surprising as the sites are fairly close together, havesimilar types of features, and date to contemporaneous time periods. Overall, each assemblage isdominated by wood and stem fragments; remains of foods are scarce. In the case of Site 4485, there areno materials that could even tentatively be identified as kalo or ‘uala, and only four of the eight firefeatures contained fragments that could even be classed as possible roots, tubers, or corms. But not allthe information from this site is a simple replication of the information from Site 4484. A large pieceof kï root recovered from Feature 1 at Site 4485 is the only example from either site, and may representan activity not recorded at Site 4484.

Site 4485 also has examples of possible hala and ‘ie‘ie stems, which were not recovered fromSite 4484. The hala evidence fits with Cummings's (Appendix H) assertion that hala was a majorcomponent of the vegetation that increased throughout the later periods of occupation of this area. It isinteresting that, although both Bennett (1987) and Cummings (Appendix H) suggest an openenvironment with many grasses and sedges, the inhabitants who utilized these areas apparently had easyaccess to mature trees of many types.

Another plant type not recorded at Site 4484 is the endemic ‘öhi‘a hä. This species iscurrently defined as occurring above 230 m (Wagner et al. 1990:976). The recovery of ‘öhi‘a hä fromSite 4485, along with lapalapa and ‘ohe‘ohe from Site 4484, suggest a wider lowland distribution


of certain native trees. The occurrence of ‘öhi‘a hä, along with ‘öhi‘a and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, coincides with thepollen spectra from nearby sites. Sites 1887, 1888, and 4484 all include some amounts of Myrtaceaepollen—a plant family that includes ‘öhi‘a hä, ‘öhi‘a, and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, as well as guava and eucalyptus(Bennett 1987; Cummings, Appendix H). Other plant macrofossils recovered from Site 4485 that arealso represented in local pollen deposits are: Moraceae (the family including ‘ulu), lapalapa or ‘ölapa(Cheirodendron), and ‘ohe‘ohe (Tetraplasandra). The wood remains from this site are also similar tothose recorded by Murakami (1987) at neighboring Sites 1887 and 1888, which include lama, kukui,‘öhi‘a, and either ‘öhi‘a ‘ai or ‘öhi‘a hä.

These continuities suggest similar activities and a consistent use of a somewhat uniformenvironment, or that even in a varied environment, cultural dictates for resource utilization did not varygreatly over time in this area. These new data add to the existing evidence that the landscape wasculturally modified and that Polynesian-introduced species were widespread.

ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL FEATURES

Feature 1

Botanical materials from this large, bowl-shaped feature (probably an imu) were collected in 11subsamples. Of these, three subsamples from different vertical locations were selected to represent theoverall variability within the feature. The plant remains from these three subsamples total over 40 gmof charred plant remains, and include 14 different types of plant remains (Appendix I:Table I-2 and I-3).The three subsamples were collected from discrete depths: Bag 7 from 25–35 cmbs, Bag 10 from 35–50cmbs, and Bag 5 from 50–70 cmbs. This feature dates to post-1800 A.D. (Chapter 5), and has abotanical signature that differs from all others at the site. This feature contained large fragments (11.7gm) of what is likely a kï root; all other kï finds from Sites 4485 and 4484 are stem and leaf fragments.There are at least two ethnographically documented activities that could explain the presence of kï rootin this feature. First, it may represent the remnants of ‘okolehao (alcohol) distilling activities (Handyet al. 1972:224). Local informants have described the production of ‘okolehao from kï root in this area(Klieger 1995). Alternatively, the root may have been steamed and eaten, as noted by Portlock in 1798(Abbott 1992:41), an activity also documented ethnographically for the region (Klieger 1995).

Kï also figures prominently in the wood and stem fragments that were examined. A total of 120fragments (14.8 gm) was examined from the three subsamples. Of this, 50% is made up of kï stem(Figures 6.13 and 6.14). Interestingly, all the materials that are identified in this feature are Polynesianintroductions: kï, kukui, ‘ulu, and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai. It may be that by this late occupation, these species hadsuccessfully replaced much of the native vegetation.

The three different subsamples taken from this feature are quite distinctly different. The lowerarea produced a subsample that is mainly kï stem, with some soft tissue fragments that may representtubers, corms, or roots. The center subsample is made up of a wide variety of different materials,including wood and stems of kï, kukui, ‘ulu, and three unidentified taxa, as well as soft tissues thatmight be tubers, corms, or roots, and kukui seed coat fragments. As noted above, the uppermost sampleis dominated by a large piece of kï root. In addition, this subsample includes a small amount of kï stem,‘ulu, and the same three unknown wood taxa as the central subsample.

These vertical differences recorded in the careful excavation and documentation of the threesubsamples may reflect actual variation within the feature, perhaps representing the layering of fuel

Kukui seed (1.0%)Char. Tissue (0.7%)

K root (28.4%)ï


Wood/stems (59.7%)


Unid. Wood (9.5%)

Monocot stem (1.4%)

K stem (50.0%)ï

Kukui (wood) (0.7%)

‘Ulu (6.1%)

‘ hi‘a h (1.4%)Ö ä

Wood #20 (3.4%)

Wood #45 (6.1%)

Wood #46 (18.9%)

Wood #47 (2.7%)


Figure 6.13. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 1, Site 4485.Note kï root and large proportion of wood.

Figure 6.14. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 1, Site4485. Note large proportion of kï stem and presence of Polynesian-introduced taxa.


and food associated with a single event. Yet, it is unlikely that the feature was abandoned without theremoval of the materials that were being prepared, so the strata observed may not reflect exactly theoriginal layering. Alternatively, the deposits may reflect remains from separate firing events.

Feature 2

Archaeobotanical remains recovered from this late nineteenth-century trash area are quite different fromthose collected from fire features (see Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3), as well as those collected fromthe trash feature at Site 4484 (Appendix I:Table I-1:Feature 11). Two subsamples were collected fromon-site screening, which together contained a total of 9.2 gm of charred wood. Bag 14 was collectedat the surface of the feature and Bag 16 was collected between 2 and 22 cmbs. The two bags aredominated by the same taxon, and the total Ntaxa is only six.

The most striking aspect of this feature is that the dominant taxon is a species of Coniferophyta(Figures 6.15 and 6.16). Conifers are softwoods that are not native to the area, and there are no speciesknown to have been brought by the original Polynesian settlers. The remains recovered from Feature2 do not appear to be one of the more common naturalized post-Contact conifer species, such as NorfolkIsland pine or its relatives (Araucaria spp.). Instead, these specimens most closely resemble Douglasfir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirabel] Franco.), a common timber used in post-Contact construction. Allthe materials here are charred, suggesting that these fragments might have been used as fuel once theyno longer served their original purpose. Or it may be that these remains represent burned trash thatincluded scrap lumber. In any event, it is unlikely that Douglas fir would have been imported asfirewood.

In addition to the conifer wood, there are small fragments of lama and kukui, as well as twounidentified types of wood recovered from one of the subsamples. Their inclusion in the featuresuggests that these native and Polynesian-introduced species continued to be available during the lateroccupation of the area.

Feature 3

Because this large, funnel-shaped imu was recovered intact, the amount of plant materials collected wasmuch greater than for any of the other features. This fifteenth-century feature produced 33 subsamplesfrom on-site screening. In addition, two flotation samples were recovered.

The two flotation samples produced a great deal of charred wood, but very little else. Fourcharred seeds recovered from one of the samples (Bag 55) are not very diagnostic, and could not beidentified with any degree on certainty. Oddly, they do not appear to be grasses or sedges (both ofwhich produce readily identifiable seeds); this is contrary to what would be predicted from localpalynological studies (Bennett 1987; Cummings, Appendix H).

In order to best assess the botanical materials collected from this feature, as well as to save timeand keep the results comparable with other features, only certain of the field-screened remainswere analyzed. After an examination of three subsamples from the feature, the botanical patternsappeared to repeat themselves, and no further analysis was deemed necessary. Given that most of theother features at this site produced only two or three subsamples each, it also seemed best not tocomplicate quantitative comparisons amongst them by analyzing 10 times as much of the materialsfrom this feature as had been done for the others. Unfortunately, because the subsamples wereselected randomly, they do not represent the vertical distribution of plant samples available as well

Wood/stems (100.0%)


Unid. Wood (8.9%)

Kukui (wood) (4.4%)

Lama (2.2)

Conifer (73.3%)

Wood #42 (4.4%)

Wood #44 (6.7%)


Figure 6.15. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 2, Site 4485.Note wood only.

Figure 6.16. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 2, Site4485. Note large proportion of conifer.


as they could have. There are subsamples collected between 18 and 109 cmbs, but the three examinedhere cluster between 25 and 35 cmbs. Future research will have to be conducted to fully explore thisintact feature for forthcoming synthetic reports.

The three subsamples analyzed contain a total of 206.3 gm of charred botanical remains. Nearlyall of the materials are charred wood (Figure 6.17). Good evidence was not available for possible roots,corms, or tubers; the weight of kukui seed coat fragments is very low, and they are confined to one ofthe three subsamples (see Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3).

The dominant wood found in Feature 3 is wood type #44 (Figure 6.18), which has not yet beenidentified. This wood makes up 33 to 77% of each individual subsample. ‘Öhi‘a ‘ai also occurs in allthree subsamples and ‘ulu is found in two. As seen at Site 4484, even the earliest dated features containsubstantial amounts of Polynesian-introduced species, and they seem to have been preferred fuelsources.

Another unique aspect of the botanical materials from Site 4485 is the inclusion of ‘ie‘ie inFeature 3. This native, woody climber produces aerial roots that were used by the Hawaiians for baskets(Krauss 1993:29). ‘Ie‘ie has thick woody stems, which may have been burned as fuel; it is also a sacredplant (Neal 1965:54), and was used in offerings (Malo 1951:128).

Feature 4

As noted in Chapter 5, this feature is a remnant of what was once probably an imu or firepit. It had beenalmost completely destroyed prior to excavation, resulting in only three subsamples being collected,and individual depth ranges not being recorded. The total weight of field-sorted botanical remains wasover 116 gm. Unfortunately, most of these archaeobotanical materials lack distinguishing characteris-tics. They do not appear to be simply eroded wood or soft tissue; instead, most of these materials arein the form of ash and plant fragments pressed together, as if they had been under pressure or wet. Theseashy conglomerates are not identified from features at Site 4484, and are limited to three features in Site4485 (see also Features 5 and 6, below). These materials account for more than 88% of the threesubsamples (Figures 6.19 and 6.20). Interpretation is uncertain, but this feature may have been used orreused differently than most others, or may have undergone more severe post-depositional destruction(either in the past or more recently).

The three subsamples exhibit fairly similar patterns, and have a total Ntaxa of 13 (AppendixI:Tables I-2 and I-3). Materials that can be identified from this feature include a small number of theubiquitous kukui seed coats, and a few fragments that might possibly be tubers, corms, or roots. Woodspecimens identified are predominantly those thought to be ‘öhi‘a ‘ai, with a small percentage thatcompare well with kukui, lapalapa, and lama.

Feature 5

Feature 5 is a large, fifteenth-century (probable) imu that produced six subsamples ofarchaeobotanical materials, none of which is recorded with precise vertical coordinates. Of these, thethree subsamples that were split for identification and radiocarbon dating were selected forinvestigation. These subsamples contain a total of 86 gm of charred remains, and have a total Ntaxaof 12. As in Feature 4, this feature contains a large fraction of eroded, ashy botanical materials, mixedtogether with small fragments of wood, rocks, and soil. Each subsample is dominated (>45%) bythese ashy conglomerates (Appendix I:Table I-2 and I-3). Again, this may suggest that these Features

Kukui seed (0.1%)Char. Tissue (13.8%)

Wood/stems (86.1%)


Unid. Wood (9.8%)Monocot stem (1.5%)

K stem (1.9%)ï‘Ie‘ie (0.6%)

‘Ulu (4.8%)

Lama (0.4%)

‘ hi‘a h (23.0%)Ö äWood #44 (56.9)

Wood #45 (1.1%)


Figure 6.17. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 3, Site 4485.Note large proportion of wood.

Figure 6.18. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 3, Site4485. Note large proportion of wood type #44.

Kukui seed (0.1%)



Wood/stems (11.4%)


Unid. Wood (18.8%)

Kukui (wood) (1.6%)Lapalapa (1.6%)

Lama (3.1%)

‘ hi‘a h (40.6%)Ö ä

Wood #4 (10.9%)

Wood #25 (12.5%)

Wood #27 (1.6%)

Wood #30 (7.8%)Wood #31 (1.6%)


Figure 6.19. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 4, Site 4485.Note large proportion of unidentifiable plant tissue.

Figure 6.20. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 4, Site4485. Note large proportion of ‘öhi‘a hä.


(4, 5, and 6) were used and reused over a longer period of time than other features in Sites 4485 and4484. Alternatively, these three features may have suffered intense post-depositional destruction.

Most of the materials that can be identified from this feature are wood and stems (Figures 6.21and 6.22). Soft tissue fragments that might be tubers, corms, or roots were rare; no kukui seed coatswere collected.

Feature 6

The interpretation of this feature suggests that it may be a small firepit. Only two subsamples of plantremains (totalling 29.2 gm) are available from this feature, and both were analyzed; no differentiationin depth is recorded for the two subsamples. The feature remains undated, and contained a total Ntaxaof 10. Like Features 4 and 5, many of the archaeobotanical materials in this feature are badly erodedand compressed into ashy conglomerates. These unidentifiable materials make up 68.5% of the totalweight of botanical materials in the feature. These conglomerates contain ash, small fragments of wood,sediment, and rocks. Features 4, 5, and 6 are all located close together at Site 4485, and may have beenmore heavily utilized, reused, or used for different activities than other features. Conversely, theiroriginal use may have been comparable to other features, but this location may have suffered fromgreater post-depositional erosion or leaching than other features at Sites 4485 and 4484.

No remains that might be categorized as possible tubers, corms, or roots, or seeds are identifiedfrom this feature. Both of the subsamples collected share one pattern in common: over 40% of the woodexamined was unidentifiable. Wood types that are defined do not occur in both subsamples, suggestingthat this feature is highly variable in content and that the samples available may not accurately representthe feature as a whole (Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3). Most wood types from this feature have not yetbeen examined by Murakami, but it appears that there is no dominant type (Figures 6.23 and 6.24).

Feature 7

Botanical remains from this large, seventeenth-century imu are more well-preserved than those frommany of the other features in Site 4485. Five subsamples of archaeobotanical materials were collected,one of which was collected specifically to retrieve kukui seed coats noted during excavation. Two ofthe subsamples were used for radiocarbon dating, leaving only three samples available for examination.The locations recorded for these three subsamples are overlapping, so no vertical or horizontaldifferentiation is possible. Together the subsamples contained 7.8 gm of charred materials and 13different types of plant remains. Like most other features from Sites 4485 and 4484, Feature 7 containeda high proportion of wood (Figure 6.25). There are no remains of soft tissues, and possible food remainsare limited to kukui seed coat fragments. An examination of wood types shows that the subsamples arenot very similar in content (Appendix I:Table I-2 and I-3), implying that the total variability of thefeature may be poorly represented. But even if the overall pattern has not been captured, the presenceof native taxa such as ‘öhi‘a hä, lama, and the less commonly recorded ‘öhi‘a document the continuedutilization of indigenous and endemic forest elements alongside Polynesian introductions, such as kï,kukui, and ‘ulu into the later part of the archaeological sequence of the area (Figure 6.26).



Wood/stems (28.4%)


Unid. Wood (30.5%)

‘Ie‘ie (1.1%)Lama (1.1%)

‘ hi‘a ai (16.8%)Ö

Wood #20 (33.7%)

Wood #29 (1.1%)Wood #35 (1.1%)

Wood #41 (1.1%)

Wood #42 (10.5%)Wood #43 (3.2)



Figure 6.22. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 5, Site4485. Note variety of plant types.


Wood/stems (31.5%)


Unid. Wood (44.4%)

Monocot stem (3.7%)Wood #10 (7.4%)

Wood #26 (11.1%)

Wood #27 (3.7%)

Wood #32 (14.8%)

Wood #33 (3.7%)

Wood #34 (3.7%)

Wood #35 (7.4%)



Figure 6.24. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 6, Site4485. Note large proportion of unidentifiable wood.

Kukui seed (2.6%)

Wood/stems (97.4%)


Figure 6.25. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 7, Site 4485.Note large proportion of wood.


In addition to materials recovered from on-site screening, there was one flotation samplecollected and processed from this feature. The bulk of the materials in the sample are wood fragments,most of which are too small to identify. Most of the charred seeds (6) in the sample were too eroded toidentify, but there is one possible Chenopodium oahuense seed (see Appendix I:Table I-4). As notedby Allen (1992), these seeds are ubiquitous in most archaeological sites in Hawai‘i, and may be anindicator of disturbed habitats. A suggestion that the area was disturbed is complementary to mostavailable palynological data.

Feature 8

Only one botanical subsample was available from this small, bowl-shaped firepit. Field notes attest thatnot all charred plant remains were collected, and that some number of kukui seeds coats that had beencollected were lost. For these reasons, the total weight of plant materials examined is a modest 1 gm;the total Ntaxa is only 7. It is therefore impossible to say whether the true character of this feature isrepresented, but the remains are very similar to those recovered from many other fire features.

The botanical remains from the single subsample include charred kukui seed coats, kï stemfragments, and wood from ‘ulu and lama (Figures 6.27 and 6.28). Unlike the materials recorded forsome of the other features at Site 4485, most of the archaeobotanical remains in Feature 8 still possessanatomically diagnostic features, suggesting less destruction during the use of the feature or aftersubsequent abandonment. The mix of native and Polynesian-introduced species is consistent with otherfire features from Sites 4485 and 4484.

Feature 9

Details concerning the size and shape of this feature were difficult to define after its disturbance duringconstruction activity, but it was possible to remove three subsamples of botanical materials, totalling14.5 gm. One subsample was collected with radiocarbon dating in mind, one subsample was earmarkedfor identification, and one subsample was made up solely of kukui seed coats; all three come fromroughly the same location within the feature fill. These remains are not highly eroded, and all areclassified at least to anatomical categories of wood/stem, seed, or tuber/corm/root (Figure 6.29).

The total number of different plant types recovered from Feature 9 is 12, with both native andPolynesian-introduced species present (Figure 6.30). A detailed analysis of the two subsamplescontaining wood showed similar contents (Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3). These samples look verymuch like many of the samples from other fire features at the two sites under consideration. Bothsubsamples contain kï stem, ‘ulu, lama, ‘öhi‘a, and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai in similar proportions. Neither subsampleis dominated by a single taxon, and each contains some amount of unidentifiable wood. Thesubsamples, however, are by no means identical, even though they were collected from the samelocation. One subsample contains ‘ohe‘ohe, whereas the other includes an unusual find of a hala stemfragment. Both hala and ‘ohe‘ohe are noted in Cummings's (Appendix H) palynological analysis of Site4483, but neither are commonly recovered from fire features in this area. This may indicate that thesetrees were rarely used for firewood, the wood preserves poorly, the wood is difficult to identify, or thatthese species are not as widespread as the pollen work might suggest.

Unid. Wood (33.3%)

Monocot stem (6.7%)

Kï stem (8.3%)Kukui (wood) (1.7%)‘Ulu (3.3%)

Lama (3.3%)

‘ hi‘a (11.7%)Ö

‘ hi‘a ai (5.0%)Ö

Wood #36 (10.0%)

Wood #37 (3.3%)

Wood #38 (10.0%)

Wood #39 (3.3%)


Kukui seed (20.0%)


Wood/stems (70.0%)


Figure 6.26. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 7, Site4485. Note variety of plant types with no dominant type.

Figure 6.27. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 8, Site 4485.Note large proportion of wood and stems.

Unid. Wood (42.9%)

Monocot stem (14.3%)

K stem (14.3%)ï

‘Ulu (14.3%)

Lama (14.3%)


Kukui seed (4.8%)Tuber/corm/root (1.4%)

Wood/stems (93.8%)


Figure 6.28. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 8, Site4485. Note few wood types.

Figure 6.29. Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 9, Site 4485.Note large proportion of wood and stems.

Unid. Wood (39.3%)

K stem (2.4%)ïHala (2.4%)

‘Ulu (3.6%)

Lama (21.4%)

‘ hi‘a (9.5%)Ö

Wood #18 (1.2%)

‘ hi‘a ‘ai (11.9%)Ö

‘Ohe‘ohe (7.1%)Wood #24 (1.2%)


Figure 6.30. Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 9, Site4485. Note variety of wood types and large proportion of unidentifiablewood.


SUMMARY OF BOTANICAL DATA FOR SITE 4485

Many of the botanical patterns exhibited by these features are similar to those demonstrated for Site4484. There is a wide variety of tree taxa used as fuel in the area, the most common being lama, ‘ulu,‘öhi‘a ‘ai, kukui, and kï. Table 6.3 displays frequency values for all taxa recovered, and demonstratesthat these five taxa are most widespread (frequencies vary between 37 and 75%). The fact that four ofthe five most commonly found species are Polynesian-introduced (only lama is endemic) suggests thatthe surrounding forest was dominated by species brought by the Polynesians, or that these trees werepreferred over others as fuel. Other native plants, such as ‘ie‘ie, hala, lapalapa, ‘öhi‘a, ‘öhi‘a hä, and‘ohe‘ohe are less common, and are found in only 13 to 25% of all fire features at the site.

Unfortunately, three of the eight fire features at Site 4485 contained materials that are highlyeroded and cannot be identified by anatomical structures. These charred materials seem to representconglomerations of materials turned completely to ash. This suggests these features were used moreheavily, or that post-depositional deterioration was greater in Features 4, 5, and 6, all of which arelocated in a cluster near the center of the site. The other features, though, have abundant identifiableplant materials. There are even a few features that contain large deposits dominated by one or two taxa.Feature 1 contains mainly kï root and kï stem fragments; Feature 3 remains are composed mainly of oneunidentified type and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai; and Feature 4 is dominated by ‘öhi‘a ‘ai. These may represent single-use activities or repeated use of a feature for a similar purpose with the same fuel type. Thearchaeobotanical remains from Feature 2, the post-Contact trash area, are almost exclusively coniferwood, suggesting either a single event, or a constant supply of discarded building materials. Conversely,Features 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 contain many species in smaller amounts. Again, this may be linked torepeated utilization of these latter features without complete cleaning after each use.

In an attempt to identify patterns that may be a function of feature type or chronology,frequency values for taxa recovered from Site 4485 were separated by size and shape, and date (seeTable 6.3 and Table 6.4). As seen for Site 4484, there appear to be few clear trends that are linked tothe size and shape of the features (see Table 6.3). Most species appear to be randomly distributedthroughout features of varying sizes and shapes. Some possible links might be proposed between large,funnel-shaped features and the native ‘ie‘ie, between bowl-shaped features and ‘öhi‘a, and between‘öhi‘a hä and large features. Unfortunately, the number of each type of feature is small, and it isdifficult to determine if these trends are real or simply coincidences.

A breakdown of the features by date appears to show some of the same trends noted at Site4484. Clearest is a pattern that shows increasing use of Polynesian-introduced species and a decreasein the use of indigenous and endemic taxa. Again, these trends are possibly the causal factors for someof the botanical trends noted by shape and size—as the large funnel-shaped features are the earliest atthe site. In Table 6.4, features with known dates are displayed chronologically, and a subtle shift seemsto be present. This trend is a gradual transition from the use of more native species towards the use ofmore introduced species. During the period of 500s B.P. the ratio of native to Polynesian-introducedwood species is 2:2; in the 400s B.P. the ratio is 3:0; in the 200s B.P. the ratio is 3:2; in the 100s B.P.the ratio is 0:4; and in the most recent period there is a ratio of 1:2:1 of native:Polynesian-introduced:post-Contact-introduced taxa.


(continued)

Table 6.3. Frequencies of Archaeobotanical Remains in Archaeological Fire Features from Site 4485 by Size and Shape


All Features1

(n = 8)

Lrg. Funnel-shaped2

(n = 2)

Lrg. Bowl-shaped3

(n = 2)

Sml. Bowl-shaped4

(n = 3)

Size & shapeunsure5

(n = 1)

Kukui seed coats 75 50 100 66.7 100

cf. tuber/corm/root 50 50 50 33.3 100

cf. kï root 12.5 --- 50 --- ---

Unidentifiable plant tissue 75 100 50 66.7 100


Monocot stem 62.5 50 100 66.7 ---

cf. kï stem 62.5 50 100 66.7 ---

cf. ‘ie‘ie stem 25 100 --- --- ---

cf. hala stem 12.5 --- --- 33.3 ---

cf. kukui wood 37.5 --- 100 --- 100

cf. ‘ulu wood 62.5 50 100 66.7 ---

cf. lapalapa/‘ölapa wood 12.5 --- --- --- 100

cf. lama wood 75 100 50 66.7 100

cf. ‘öhi‘a wood 25 --- 50 33.3 ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a hä wood 25 50 50 --- ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood 50 50 50 33.3 100

cf. ‘ohe‘ohe wood 12.5 --- --- 33.3 ---

Unknown wood type #4 12.5 --- --- --- 100



Unknown wood type #20 25 50 50 --- ---




Unknown wood type #27 25 --- --- 33.3 100







Unknown wood type #35 25 50 --- 33.3 ---

Unknown wood type #36 12.5 --- 50 --- ---




All Features1

(n = 8)

Lrg. Funnel-shaped2

(n = 2)

Lrg. Bowl-shaped3

(n = 2)

Sml. Bowl-shaped4

(n = 3)

Size & shapeunsure5

(n = 1)







Unknown wood type #45 25 50 50 --- ---


Unknown wood type #47 12.5 --- 50 --- ---1=Features 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.2=Features 3 and 5.3=Features 1 and 7.4=Features 6, 8, and 9.5=Feature 4.

Table 6.4. Frequencies of Archaeobotanical Remains in Fire Features from Site 4485 by Date


500s B.P.1

(n = 1)400s B.P.2

(n = 1)200s B.P.3

(n = 1)100s B.P.4

(n = 1)Recent5

(n = 1)

Kukui seed coats 100 --- 100 100 ---

cf. tuber/corm/root --- 100 --- 100 ---

cf. kï root --- --- --- 100 ---

Unidentifiable plant tissue 100 100 --- 100 ---


Monocot stem 100 --- 100 100 100

cf. kï stem --- --- 100 100 100

cf. ‘ie‘ie stem 100 100 --- --- ---

cf. kukui wood --- --- 100 100 100

cf. ‘ulu wood 100 --- 100 100 ---

cf. lama wood 100 100 100 --- 100

cf. ‘öhi‘a wood --- --- 100 --- ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a hä wood --- 100 100 --- ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood 100 --- --- 100 ---

Conifer --- --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #10 --- --- 100 --- ---

Unknown wood type #20 --- 100 --- 100 ---

Unknown wood type #29 --- 100 --- --- ---

Unknown wood type #36 --- 100 100 --- ---




500s B.P.1

(n = 1)400s B.P.2

(n = 1)200s B.P.3

(n = 1)100s B.P.4

(n = 1)Recent5

(n = 1)




Unknown wood type #42 --- 100 --- --- 100


Unknown wood type #44 100 --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #45 --- --- --- 100 ---

Unknown wood type #46 --- --- --- 100 ---

Unknown wood type #47 --- --- --- 100 ---1=Feature 3.2=Feature 5.3=Feature 7.4=Feature 1.5=Feature 2.

CONCLUSIONS FROM SITES 4484 AND 4485 AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

This study has been exploratory in nature, and the limited scope of the data precludes broadgeneralizations. In addition, it is apparent that there is often as much archaeobotanical variability withineach category as there is between the categories. That is, it is not possible to make generalizations aboutlarge, bowl-shaped features because there is as much variation amongst the four examples of thesefeature types as there is between these features and (for example) large funnel-shaped fire features. Tolump them together as a category, at least paleoethnobotanically, makes little sense (compare Tables6.1, 6.3, and 6.5).

The chronological presentation of data from Sites 4484 and 4485 confirms the pattern ofreplacement of native taxa by Polynesian-introduced species, and the eventual use of post-Contactintroductions for firing activities (Figure 6.31). While this trend appears genuine, there are at least fourcautionary notes to keep in mind: 1) the trend is not perfectly smooth; 2) there are Polynesian-introduced elements that are found in the earliest features; 3) at least one native taxon persists to themost recent deposits; and 4) the number of dated features is small, especially given the amount ofvariability in contents of pits with similar and dissimilar morphologies. An additional insight from thisstudy, to contrast with pollen studies, is that there was a wide variety of locally-available trees to beused without many restrictions, and that at no time under consideration did agricultural practices causea shortage of mature trees used for fuel.

The forest types represented throughout the sequence at these two sites are also of interest. Forexample, the earliest phase (500s B.P.) shows high frequencies of ‘ulu, lama, lapalapa, and ‘öhi‘a ‘aiassociated with lower frequencies of koa, kukui, and ‘öhi‘a (Table 6.6), suggesting a forest dominatedby the first four taxa with a minor component of the other three. Such a combination is not describedin modern vegetation zones known for the Hawaiian Islands (e.g., Gagné and Cuddihy 1990:45–115).

Figure 6.31. Percentages of native, Polynesian-Introduced, and post-Contact- introduced tree taxathrough time.


Table 6.5. Frequencies of Field-sorted Archaeobotanical Remains in Fire Features from Sites 4484 and 4485 by Size and Shape


Lrg. Funnel(n = 4)1

Lrg. Bowl(n = 4)2

Sml. bowl(n = 6)3

Other (n = 1)4

Total (n = 15)5


cf. ‘ulu wood 75 100 83 --- 80

Unidentifiable plant tissue 75 75 83 100 80

Kukui seed coat 50 75 83 100 73

cf. lama wood 100 25 83 100 73

cf. kï stem 50 100 83 --- 73

Monocot stem 50 75 83 --- 67

cf. tuber/corm/root 50 75 67 100 67

cf. ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood 50 50 50 100 53

Unknown wood #26 --- 50 33 --- 27

cf. kukui wood 25 50 --- 100 27

cf. lapalapa/‘ölapa wood 50 --- 17 100 27

cf. ‘öhi‘a wood 25 50 17 --- 27

Unknown wood #4 --- 25 17 100 20

Unknown wood #27 --- --- 33 100 20

cf. ‘ohe‘ohe wood 25 --- 33 --- 20

Unknown wood #20 25 50 --- --- 20

Unknown wood #18 --- 25 33 --- 20

Unknown wood #8 25 --- 17 --- 13

Unknown wood #24 --- --- 33 --- 13

Unknown wood #29 25 --- 17 --- 13

Unknown wood #35 25 --- 17 --- 13

Unknown wood #13 25 25 --- --- 13

Unknown wood #19 --- 25 17 --- 13

cf. ‘ie‘ie stem 50 --- --- --- 13

cf. koa wood 25 25 --- --- 13

Unknown wood #45 25 25 --- --- 13

cf. ‘öhi‘a hä wood 25 25 --- --- 13

Unknown wood #44 25 --- --- --- 7

Unknown wood #34 --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #47 --- 25 --- --- 7

Unknown wood #32 --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #46 --- 25 --- --- 7

Unknown wood #33 --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #37 --- 25 --- --- 7

Unknown wood #38 --- 25 --- --- 7

Unknown wood #39 --- 25 --- --- 7



Lrg. Funnel(n = 4)1

Lrg. Bowl(n = 4)2

Sml. bowl(n = 6)3

Other (n = 1)4

Total (n = 15)5

Unknown wood #36 --- 25 --- --- 7

Unknown wood #43 25 --- --- --- 7

Unknown wood #42 25 --- --- --- 7

Unknown wood #41 25 --- --- --- 7

Unknown wood #31 --- --- --- 100 7

cf. kï leaf 25 --- --- --- 7

Shiny organic material --- --- 17 --- 7

cf. hala stem --- --- 17 --- 7

cf. kï root --- 25 --- --- 7

Hala key --- 25 --- --- 7

cf. ‘uala tuber --- --- 17 --- 7

cf. kalo corm --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #7 --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #25 --- --- --- 100 7

Unknown wood #28 --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #30 --- --- --- 100 7

Unknown wood #22 --- 25 --- --- 7

Unknown wood #10 --- --- 17 --- 7

Unknown wood #14 25 --- --- --- 7

Unknown wood #16 --- --- 17 --- 71=Site 4484: Features 7 & 9 and Site 4485: Features 3 & 5.2=Site 4484: Features 5 & 8 and Site 4485: Features 1 & 7.3=Site 4484: Features 1, 4, & 6 and Site 4485: Features 6, 8, & 9.4=Site 4485: Feature 4.5=Site 4484: Features 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9 and Site 4485: Features 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9.

Table 6.6. Frequencies of Field-sorted Archaeobotanical Remains in Features from Sites 4484 and 4485 by Date


500s B.P.1

(n = 4)400s B.P.2

(n = 1)300s B.P.3

(n = 1)200s B.P.4

(n = 3)100s B.P.5

(n = 1)Recent(n = 1)6

Kukui seed coats 75 --- --- 33.3 100 ---

Hala keys --- --- --- 33.3 --- ---

cf. kalo corms 25 --- --- --- --- ---

cf. kï root --- --- --- --- 100 ---

cf. tuber/corm/root 25 100 100 66.7 100 ---

cf. kï leaf 25 --- --- --- --- ---

Unidentifiable plant tissue 75 100 100 66.7 100 ---

Shiny organic material 25 --- --- --- --- ---



500s B.P.1

(n = 4)400s B.P.2

(n = 1)300s B.P.3

(n = 1)200s B.P.4

(n = 3)100s B.P.5

(n = 1)Recent(n = 1)6

(continued)

Unidentifiable wood/stem 100 100 100 100 100 100

Monocot stem 75 --- --- 100 100 ---

cf. ‘ie‘ie stem 25 100 --- --- --- ---

cf. kï stem 75 --- 100 100 100 ---

cf. koa wood 25 --- 100 --- --- ---

cf. kukui wood 25 --- --- 33.3 100 ---

cf. ‘ulu wood 100 --- 100 100 100 ---

cf. lapalapa/‘ölapa wood 75 --- --- --- --- ---

cf. lama wood 75 100 --- 66.7 --- ---

cf. ‘ohe‘ohe wood 25 --- --- 33.3 --- 100

cf. ‘öhi‘a wood 25 --- 100 33.3 --- ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a ‘ai wood 75 --- 100 33.3 100 ---

cf. ‘öhi‘a hä wood --- 100 --- 33.3 --- ---

cf. guava --- --- --- --- --- 100

Conifer --- --- --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #4 --- --- --- 66.7 --- ---


Unknown wood type #8 25 --- --- 33.3 --- ---

Unknown wood type #10 --- --- --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #11 --- --- --- --- --- 100

Unknown wood type #13 25 --- 100 --- --- ---

Unknown wood type #14 25 --- --- --- --- ---



Unknown wood type #20 --- 100 100 --- 100 ---



Unknown wood type #25 25 --- --- 33.3 --- ---


Unknown wood type #29 --- 100 --- --- --- ---










500s B.P.1

(n = 4)400s B.P.2

(n = 1)300s B.P.3

(n = 1)200s B.P.4

(n = 3)100s B.P.5

(n = 1)Recent(n = 1)6



Unknown wood type #45 25 --- --- --- 100 ---

Unknown wood type #46 --- --- --- --- 100 ---

Unknown wood type #47 --- --- --- --- 100 ---1=Site 4484: Features 4, 7, & 9 and Site 4485: Feature 3.2=Site 4485: Feature 5.3=Site 4484: Feature 84=Site 4484: Features 5 & 6 and Site 4485: Feature 7.5=Site 4485: Feature 1.6=Site 4484: Feature 10.

These unusual combinations are found throughout the sequence. Such patterning may indicateone of at least three scenarios. First, it may be that the vegetation communities that inhabited the areaover the past 500 years are no longer in existence. The lack of modern analogs for prehistoric vegetationtypes is not unprecedented, even in Hawai‘i. For example, Athens et al. (1992) have suggested that therewere substantial Pritchardia forests on O‘ahu prior to human occupation. These Pritchardia forestshave not been documented in the configuration they describe, nor has widespread occurrence of thedominant species been recorded historically or ethnohistorically (see also Athens and Ward 1993).Second, the patterns recorded in the samples from Sites 4484 and 4485 may reflect human selection andnot the actual frequencies of the different taxa in the surrounding vegetation. Humans are not alwaysgeneralists, and there are many cultural factors that may have biased their behavior in fuel selection.Third, the sample size may be too small to accurately represent the types and amounts of different plantspecies utilized over the past 500 years in the area.

Another interesting aspect of materials from these sites is the occurrence of ‘ohe‘ohe, lapalapa,and ‘öhi‘a hä below their current elevational ranges. This fact documents species that probably had awider lowland distribution in the past, but which have since been out-competed by alien taxa.

To assess the changes that appear to be taking place in the environment, and to tease out thedifferences between sampling error and actual behavior, a number of avenues might be followed.Similar types of features from additional sites, especially older ones, should be investigated. With morerobust data sets and a longer time span, it may be possible to chart changes in the ecosystem broughtabout by settlement and agricultural intensification. Additional studies of materials from other imu andfirepits of known shapes and sizes may also allow the discovery of different functions or characteristicplant types that were not obvious from this small sample. Information concerning tuber, corm, and rootmaterials may also help identify differences in feature function. Also, taking advantage of the 33subsamples of charred botanical materials from Feature 3 at Site 4485 might allow for an in-depthstratigraphic understanding of the archaeobotanical content of such features.

ê 245

CHAPTER 7

CONCLUSION

Jane Allen

This chapter applies the evidence from the current sites to the research questions asked earlier,bringing together all the information in order to relate the sites to other upland Käne‘ohe sitesand the surrounding physical environment.

One problem noted in the field, as explained in earlier chapters, is that overlying layers wereoften stripped away by heavy equipment before a cultural deposit could be recognized in the field, asis common during monitoring projects. The result is that the layer associated with a specific imu orother feature, the layer that was being deposited when the feature was in use, could not always besecurely identified. Although every attempt was made to identify precisely the layers of origin for imuand other features (see feature tables and text, Chapters 3–5), many features discovered during grubbingactually could not be sourced to layer. This situation results in certain layer entries in the tables (e.g.,Table 3.3) appearing as “unknown”.

246 ê Chapter 7: Conclusion

FIRE FEATURE SHAPE, FUNCTION, AND CHRONOLOGY: A NEW MODEL

As fieldwork continued, Helen Leidemann, in particular, began to notice that the larger fire features atthe ridge sites seemed to take two distinctive forms in cross section: bases were either bowl- (round-)shaped, as was most common; or funnel-shaped. Small fire features appeared bowl-shaped, withoutexception.

In order to test earlier suggestions (M. S. Allen 1989, 1992) that feature size and diversity ofbotanical contents might be interrelated, and might relate in turn to feature function or preservation orboth, a program was initiated to describe as precisely as possible several attributes that mightdistinguish fire features from pit features of other types; these include length and width or diameter;depth; general pit shape; layer association; presence of rock, artifacts, or charred kukui within pit fill;baked soil rinds; and evidence for reuse.

The botanical results reported here identify several dominant woods (e.g., ‘ulu, lama, kï, kukui)that were used as fuels; this information proved very helpful in identifying as firepits, as opposed torefuse pits, certain features such as Site 4484 Features 1 and 4, which produced apparent food remainssuch as starch grains but lacked baked soil rinds or other indications of burning in situ (see Chapter 4).Other botanical characteristics such as taxonomic diversity, although not conclusive, may also behelpful in distinguishing firepits, for which lower diversity might be predicted, from features used asrefuse or imu clean-out areas. As an example, Site 4484 Feature 11 lacks clear food remains andproduced a diversity of taxa within the upper range seen at these sites; it is tentatively interpreted as animu discard area (Chapter 4).

No clear differences in botanical composition of pit contents could be distinguished for largefeatures of the two shapes; Lennstrom (Chapter 6) points out that variability among bowl-shaped firefeature contents is as great as the differences between the bowl-shaped and the funnel-shaped features.

As explained in Chapters 4 and 5, the results of radiocarbon dating analysis suggest that thedifference may be temporal. Of six feature fill samples submitted for radiocarbon dating analysis fromSite 4484, two funnel-shaped pits (Features 7, 9) produced probable fifteenth-century or earlier dates,while large bowl-shaped pits (Features 5, 8) date to the sixteenth century or later. Small bowl-shapedpits (Features 4, 6) crosscut the two categories, dating to the fifteenth century or later. At Site 4485three imu samples (the fourth sample submitted probably represents an ‘ökolehao still, not an imu)produced probable fifteenth-century dates for the two funnel-shaped pits (Features 3, 5) and aseventeenth-century date for the bowl-shaped pit (Feature 7).

At Site 4483, however, Feature 18, the only one of two large funnel-shaped pits (Features 10,18; not dated) that could be securely associated with a layer of origin, was associated with Layer I,which suggests a recent date. A large bowl-shaped pit (Feature 25) may date to the nineteenth

Chapter 7: Conclusion ê 247

century; and two small bowl-shaped pits (Features 7, 13.1), as at Site 4484, date to the fifteenth centuryor later.

Future research projects should continue to document pit feature morphology and internalcharacteristics carefully in order to test whether large funnel-shaped pits generally predate large bowl-shaped pits. The reason behind the possible differences also remains an interesting problem. Tom Dye(personal communication, 1995) suggests that funnel-shaped pit features may have been excavatedaround standing tree trunks; the reasons might include either burning a tree or a stump to clear the land.If this practice occurred, and if the morphological difference proves to be temporal, feature shape mayreflect the type of vegetation at the site at the time the feature was used, and the extent to which the areahad been cleared.

SITE CHRONOLOGY, USE, AND PATTERNSTHROUGH TIME: THE EVIDENCE APPLIED

TO THE GENERAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The following evaluation of site evidence in terms of the research questions interprets temporalsequences, habitation and other site uses, and related cultural and environmental patterns through time.Most of the following questions concern the three ridge sites. Site 2463 is discussed, with other post-Contact evidence, under Questions 7 and 8.

CHRONOLOGY

The first research question asked:1) When were the sites occupied? Were the occupations at these sites contemporaneouswith use of agricultural areas nearby, especially during the peak period of agricultural activityca. A.D. 1250–1450? Did use continue into the post-Contact period?

The dates from the three ridge sites are first reviewed as a group; all ranges presented are two-sigma, Method B calibrated ranges (Stuiver and Reimer 1993, as cited in Chapters 3–5). The three sitesare discussed in numerical order; the dates, from earliest to latest at each site. Developments insurrounding areas, including agricultural sites and sites of other types, are then reviewed; and the threeridge sites are discussed in terms of those developments.

Summary of the Dating Evidence from the Three Sites

At Site 4483 Layer III produced two conventional radiocarbon ages: 340 ± 120 B.P. (CAMS; Feature13.1 firepit fill, 23–55 cmbs); and 310 ± 50 B.P. (Unit 14, 30–42 cmbs). Feature 13 Layer III, part ofthe lithic concentration, is interpreted as contemporaneous with Unit 14 Layer III. The two Layer IIIages provide possible late fifteenth/sixteenth- through seventeenth-century calibrated date ranges.

Secure Layer II contexts at Site 4483 produced three conventional ages: 270 ± 70 B.P. (Feature2 firepit fill, 48–55 cmbs); 180 ± 60 B.P. (Units 7 and 8 Layer II Level 1, 12–22 cmbs); and 160 ± 60


B.P. (Unit 14 Layer IIa, 10–23 cmbs, associated with the upper Feature 13 lithic deposit). The LayerII ages provide probable mid-seventeenth- to nineteenth-century ranges. Feature 7 (Layer II or III, 24–29cmbs) produced a 160 ± 70 B.P. age, for a seventeenth- to late nineteenth-century range. Finally, theFeature 25 imu, of unknown provenience (4–25 cmbs, the layer indicated in Table 3.6 is internal, withinthe feature), produced an 80 ± 80 B.P. CAMS age and a probable late eighteenth- to twentieth-centuryrange. Overall, this site was probably occupied between the late fifteenth or sixteenth and the latenineteenth centuries.

Site 4484 produced the earliest probable overall range among the three sites. Six pit features,two firepits associated with lower Layer II or upper Layer III and four imu of unknown originalproveniences (originating layers), produced the following conventional ages: 560 ± 90 B.P. (Feature7; 15–22 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 540 ± 90 B.P. (Feature 9; 10–42 cmbs, originating layerunknown); 470 ± 50 B.P. (Feature 4; 15–25 cmbs, lower Layer II or upper Layer III; see Chapter 4);330 ± 50 B.P. (Feature 8; 60–69 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 260 ± 70 B.P. (CAMS; Feature 6;9–21 cmbs, lower Layer II or upper Layer III; see Chapter 4); and 210 ± 90 B.P. (Feature 5; 0–15 cmbs,originating layer unknown). The site may have been occupied as early as the late thirteenth century, andwas almost certainly in use by the late fourteenth or fifteenth century. Leidemann suggests sixteenth-or seventeenth-century use for Feature 6; and initial Contact or later post-Contact use for Feature 5.Overall, the firepits and imu at this site were probably in use between the late thirteenth and eighteenthor nineteenth centuries.

At Site 4485 three imu and a pit possibly associated with an ‘ökolehao still (Feature 1) (not animu; cf. Table 5.7) produced the following dates: 510 ± 50 B.P. (Feature 3; 95–105 cmbs, upper LayerIII); 470 ± 50 B.P. (Feature 5; 0–55 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 230 ± 50 B.P. (Feature 7; 0–70cmbs, originating layer unknown); and 110 ± 50 B.P. (Feature 1; 35–50 cmbs, originating layerunknown). Features 3 and 5, both funnel-shaped imu, may have been used by the late fourteenth centuryand were almost certainly in use by the fifteenth. Feature 7, a bowl-shaped imu, was probably usedbetween the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries; and Feature 1 is a post-Contact feature. Overall,the imu were probably used between the late fourteenth or fifteenth and the eighteenth centuries, withthe ‘ökolehao feature used more recently.

Dating Evidence and Sociopolitical Developments at Other Sites in the Area

As explained in Chapter 1, Kirch’s (1985:297–308) model for the sequence of cultural change in pre-Contact Hawai‘i includes Colonization ca. A.D. 300–600, a Developmental Period from A.D. 600 to1100, an Expansion Period from A.D. 1100 to 1650, and a Proto-Historic Period from A.D. 1650through 1795. Hommon’s (1976:224–278, revised 1986) includes Colonization and Coastal Settlementsfrom ca. A.D. 500 through 1400, Inland Expansion from A.D. 1400 to 1600, and Political Expansionfrom A.D. 1600 to 1778. As indicated, both researchers predicted that it would eventually be possibleto refine these models. As the result largely of agricultural archaeology conducted in windward O‘ahu,Hommon’s A.D. 500–1400 Colonization and Coastal Settlements phase, and Kirch’s A.D. 1100–1650Expansion Period can now be subdivided.

I have introduced elsewhere (Allen et al. 2002:Chapter 9) a revised sequence that takes intoconsideration five “watershed” events that are reflected by recent agricultural and other data. Theseevents, slightly revised here, are: A.D. 500–600 (Colonization); 1100 (Accelerating InlandExpansion); 1300 (Coordination of Economic Resources); 1600 (Ahupua‘a Fully Developed); and


1778 (Initial Contact). As suggested in Chapter 1, certain important developments such as theformalization of the ahupua‘a as a basic sociopolitical and economic unit supervised by konohiki forhigher-level ali‘i, now appear likely to have taken place earlier than had been thought.

The revised model includes Colonization and Initial Inland Expansion, A.D. 500–1100;Accelerated Inland Expansion, A.D. 1100–1300; Coordination of Economic Resources, A.D.1300–1600; Ahupua‘a Fully Developed/Political Expansion, A.D. 1600–1778; and Initial Contact,A.D. 1778.

Pondfield cultivation at Site 1887, the extensive Luluku terrace site, may have begun by A.D.500–600, shortly after initial colonization. Both dryland and irrigated cultivation were well underwayin Luluku and Punalu‘u Mauka, and in other inland windward areas such as Maunawili Valley, Kailua,shortly after A.D. 1100, as suggested for the Accelerated Inland Expansion phase in the revisedsequence (Allen 1992; Allen, ed. 1987:174–179, 2002: Chapter 9; Williams 1992b).

Activities of some sort in the area later occupied by Kukuiokäne Heiau may have begun as earlyas A.D. 1000 (Williams 1992a:Chapter 8), predating Hommon’s post-A.D. 1400 Inland Expansionphase and even Kirch’s earlier, post-A.D. 1100 Expansion Period. Again, the suggested A.D. 500–1100Initial Inland Expansion phase seems to fit. By ca. A.D. 1400, Kukuiokäne, a large and impressiveheiau, had been built and was in use; construction had almost certainly been supervised by ali‘i, andthe heiau may possibly have been used by ali‘i as well.

Site 2397 (G5-101), the lithic workshop at the coast in Käne‘ohe town (Clark and Riford 1986),by A.D. 1200 produced tools made of rock that included material from Waiähole Quarry, an inlandquarry several valleys to the north. Whether collection of distant materials was coordinated at this earlydate or accomplished by individual effort remains uncertain. Coordination of pondfield agriculture issuggested by evidence for architectural standardization and by the need for water use regulation at Site1887 by A.D. 1250 (Allen 1991), probably through supervision by konohiki representing upper ali‘i.Agricultural production and water use may have been among the first activities to be coordinated in landunits that would eventually become ahupua‘a. Supervision of other economic activities such as forestproduct collection and possibly quarrying and toolmaking may have been slightly later, as suggestedby the A.D. 1300–1600 Coordination of Economic Resources phase in the revised model. The land unitthat was developing into Käne‘ohe ahupua‘a was now probably governed by ali‘i, and the elaborationof the bureaucratic hierarchy that eventually led to state development was underway.

As indicated earlier, pondfield production at Site 1887 apparently peaked in some areas beforeca. A.D. 1500, and before the suggested date for full development of the ahupua‘a land system. Thedevelopment of the control structures that were needed for coordination of pondfield construction, wateruse, and collection and redistribution of agricultural produce probably contributed importantly toahupua‘a and later state development.

The latest period of terrace use at this site may, as suggested in Chapter 1, have occurred duringthe reign of Kamehameha I, when large supplies of taro and other foods were needed for retainers andforeign visitors.

Ridge Site Chronology and the Local Mauka-Makai Network

As explained earlier, it was expected that any habitation-related evidence in this agriculturallydominated area would date to a period after A.D. 1200 or 1300 when collection and redistribution


of goods throughout the mauka-makai network were politically coordinated, and “cultivators may havebeen required to live near their fields for purposes of maximal productivity” (Allen 1987:10–11).Although that is the period represented at the ridge sites, the three sites did not produce any evidencefor coordination of activities.

Botanical finds and dating evidence suggest either that forest collection of wood for fuelentailed trips upslope in the thirteenth or fourteenth century or that the native forest extendeddownslope, near the site, at that time. The plants identified include lapalapa, which tends to grow todayon ridges and mountain summits (Lennstrom, Chapter 6). Two species mentioned by Wagner et al.(1990:226–228) for O‘ahu are typically found between 310 and 2,190 masl, although, as Lennstrompoints out, the tree may have grown at lower elevations at one time. Other forest plants that suggestcollection in areas near the sites include ‘ohe‘ohe, koa, and lama, which are known to occur on lowerslopes. The tree taxa recovered suggest that firewood was always available, although the individualspecies changed as Polynesian and later foreign introductions replaced native trees.

The makai end of the mauka-makai network is not represented during pre-Contact times at thethree sites. No clearly coastal plants were identified, although certain taxa such as Scaevola, present inthe pollen collection from Unit 49 Layer III (Cummings, Appendix H), includes both coastal and inlandmembers. Except for a marine shell fragment in post-Contact roadbed fill at Site 4885 and a hematitesinker found at Site 4484 but presumably used at the coast, no coastal materials were recovered, eitheras midden or artifacts. The lack of shell midden probably, as suggested by Leidemann (Chapter 5),results from the acidic nature of the soils at the sites, although it is also possible that the people whoused the sites lived at the coast and prepared most meals there, eating only foods collected in inlandareas when they stayed in Luluku.

As suggested, collection of either mauka or makai resources would not necessarily representpolitical coordination, especially at early dates. The clearest and earliest evidence for coordination ofresources remains the evidence for craft standardization and controlled production and water use byA.D. 1300 at Site 1887 and other windward agricultural sites, and the collective, supervised effort thatpresumably went into construction of Kukuiokäne Heiau before A.D. 1400.

Of 17 dates processed for the three ridge sites, only five—representing two imu and one firepitat Site 4484 and two imu at Site 4485—suggest occupation between A.D. 1250 and 1450, the probablepeak production period at Site 1887. Otherwise, occupation at the three sites, as reviewed below, seemsto have been later.

Sites 4484 and 4485 continued in use after the apparent peak agricultural period, while, at Site4483, the earliest occupation may have taken place during the late fifteenth or sixteenth century. Onelithic workshop (i.e., as defined in Chapter 1, a discrete area where lithic reduction or specialized toolmanufacture, or both, took place) may have been in use by that time at Site 4883, but the other appearslater. Quarrying (see Chapter 3, Appendix D) and probably specialized tool manufacture at Site 4483seem to have begun during the modeled post-A.D. 1400 period of sociopolitical control overproduction, although coordination of activities at the site remains problematic.

By A.D. 1650, the area was almost certainly integrated within an ahupua‘a-based economic andsociopolitical system, with processing and redistribution of harvested and finished products supervisedwithin an ahupua‘a-wide network. The likely quarrying of rock from the Wai‘anae Range by theoccupants of Site 4483 is thus far documented only for contexts postdating A.D. 1500 or more likelyA.D. 1600. It is likely that the site was by now involved in cross-island economic and sociopoliticalnetworks.


SITE USE AND UPLAND RESIDENCE PATTERNS

Questions 2 and 3 concern whether the three ridge sites represent habitation and, if so, whetherpermanent or temporary; whether contemporaneous feature distribution across the site suggests specificresidential patterns; who occupied the sites; and whether habitation patterns changed through time:

2) Are the three ridge sites habitation sites? Was habitation here permanent, repeated, orshort-term? Is there evidence for occupation by more than one social class, for example, bykonohiki who supervised agricultural activities nearby? And

3) Does the evidence suggest a change in residential pattern at any point in the agriculturalsite sequence? For example, does evidence, or lack of it, suggest residence outside the projectarea during the earliest cultivation period, and later residence near the fields?

The Evidence for Habitation

As discussed in Chapter 1, several archaeological characteristics are thought to differentiate permanentfrom temporary habitation sites in Hawai‘i. To review briefly, suggested permanent house site traitsinclude large platforms and terraces, large walled enclosures and other walled structures, andpavements; dense, thick midden and artifact deposits; fire features in or near the main house in acompound, with deposits suggesting continual use over a long period; thick, continuously used middendeposits lacking signs of abandonment; and one set of postmolds for substantial poles (sources cited,Chapter 1). Auxiliary buildings such as cookhouses are often present, especially in high-statuscompounds.

Temporary shelters may incorporate small enclosures, terraces, or platforms; shallow culturaldeposits; and scant midden. Areas used recurrently for temporary shelters should exhibit overlapping,unpatterned postmolds and fire features.

A broad range of tools including flakes and many types of formal tools, and other artifacts suchas ‘ulu maika (gaming stones) and bowls have been recorded in domestic, habitation-related, contextsin Hawai‘i (e.g., Kirch 1985:189–193). Although permanent and temporary patterns are not yet clear,Clark (1987:197–198, 209) considers artifact diversity primarily a feature of permanent domestic units.Since Site 4483, which produced the greatest artifact diversity of the current sites, was apparentlyinvolved in toolmaking, however, the tool evidence is inconclusive concerning length of habitation atthat site.

Neither Site 4483 nor the other two current sites produced clear pre-Contact architectural ordepositional evidence for permanent habitation, although all produced abundant evidence for temporaryoccupation and meal preparation, including cultural layers, lithic concentrations, firepits and imu, andpostmolds that suggest shelters or possibly more substantial structures.

The only possible, weak, feature evidence recognized at the three sites for occupation that lastedlonger than a single mealtime, or perhaps overnight, is provided by postmolds and large imu. Thepostmolds probably represent only overnight shelters but could suggest more substantial woodstructures. Imu, which require longer to prepare than shallow firepits and which cook larger amountsof food, might possibly be associated with stays of a few days, rather than with single-meal or overnightuse. Imu could also, however, provide food for many people at a single meal, and, as suggested byLeidemann (Chapters 4, 5), could also have been connected with agricultural or other ceremonies.


The Sites’ Occupants: Status

No signs of high-status residence were recognized at the sites. Although, as discussed, evidence fromthe agricultural sites nearby suggests that cultivation was supervised throughout the period of use at thethree ridge sites, and the construction of Kukuiokäne Heiau nearby suggests supervision by ali‘i, nohigh-status artifacts or elaborate compounds containing both residences and auxiliary structures (e.g.,Kamakau 1976:96) were encountered during the current project.

The occupants of the three sites were probably maka‘äinana (commoners, literally, “people whoattend the land;” Pukui and Elbert 1986:224). As will be discussed (Questions 4 and 5), it remainsunclear whether they were cultivators of the fields nearby. Other possible explanations for site useinclude collection of forest products including either plants or bird feathers or both; association withthe building, maintenance, or use of other sites nearby (e.g., Kukuiokäne Heiau); and possibly locationnear local sources for basalt and volcanic glass, which were collected and turned into tools at two of thesites.

Spatial Patterning and Site Use

This section discusses intrasite patterns that are suggested by feature placement at each individual site.Interpretation of intrasite patterns, whether spatially across the site at a given time, or through time,requires stratigraphic evidence that suggests contemporaneity in the one case and secure sequentialplacement in the other. Only those features whose layer attributions are clear are considered more thanbriefly in this section and the one that follows. Features in uncertain stratigraphic contexts, found at allthree sites, are considered only briefly, since their temporal associations are not known, and patternscannot be predicted with confidence.

The scant, possible evidence for habitation longer than a single meal or an overnight stay isemphasized here. That evidence, as discussed above, might include imu and postmolds. Imu in securecontexts were encountered only in upper layers at Site 4483, in Layers I and II (Features 18, 26), whichprobably postdate A.D. 1650. No imu with clear layer associations were encountered at Site 4484. AtSite 4485 an imu (Feature 3) in Layer III produced an earlier, fourteenth- to fifteenth-century date range.Postmolds and possible postmolds in secure stratigraphic contexts were found in Layers I and II(Features 4, 6) at Site 4483, and in Layer II or III (Feature 3), probably postdating A.D. 1400, at Site4484. Prior to these dates, no secure evidence suggests occupation for more than very brief periods.

Additional evidence for activities was provided by artifacts and other portable finds; thoseare occasionally mentioned here but are discussed more fully under Questions 4 and 5. As an overview,contemporaneous patterning at the intrasite level suggests workshop associations for most LayerII features at Site 4483 and for the “lower Layer II or upper Layer III” features, Features 4 and6, at Site 4484, the two contexts that produced datable features in sufficient numbers to suggestpatterning.

At Site 4483, where the features occupy portions of two ridges, one in the north and one in thesouth, Layer II provided the only evidence extensive enough to suggest contemporaneous patterns.Layers III and I are also mentioned briefly. The two recognized postmolds, in Layers I and II, arelocated at the south edge of the north ridge, between the two lithic workshops, Features 13 and 32,both of which were in use during the Layer II period but not necessarily in Layer I. Fern residueidentified on an adze recovered from a firepit (Feature 7; Layer II, seventeenth to nineteenth


centuries) near the postmolds may represent a tree fern. Since, as will be discussed, certain tree fernsare known to have been used to build shelters, this finding might suggest construction of a shelterconnected with workshop use. Feature 26, an imu in Layer II, was located some distance away, at thefar north end of this large, approximately 200-m-long, site. Feature 18, an imu in Layer I and probablypostdating workshop abandonment, is located southwest of the two postmolds, near the old Feature 32workshop, on the south ridge.

Several fire features of unknown original proveniences are surrounded by the lithic debris ofthe two workshop features; others occur on the edges of the concentrations or between the two, near theLayer II postmold. Of all the Site 4483 firepits and imu assignable to Layer II, the locations of only thetwo imu, at the far north end of the site and on the south ridge, suggest possible connections withfeatures or areas other than the Feature 13 and 32 lithic workshops. In particular, when imu of unknownoriginal proveniences are considered, the northern area around Feature 26 becomes a distinct activityarea, with four imu and two smaller fire features, at what was apparently the least used end of theFeature 13 workshop (Dolan et al., Chapter 3:Figure 3.12; also, see orienta-tion and tie-in’s providedby Mary Clarke’s 1990 field map, on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). Thecluster of fire features, especially if all are contemporaneous, could be a habitation area associated withother, probably off-site, activities.

Site 4883 is located near Site 1887, and the overall date range overlaps the later end of theagricultural date range. One piece of evidence may connect this site with the agricultural sites: starchgrains recovered from Unit 49 Layer II (Cummings, Appendix H), suggest that Site 4483’s occupantswere harvesting crops for food and transporting them to this site.

At Site 4484 no imu were assignable to layer, but two smaller firepits (Features 4, 6) and apossible postmold (Feature 3) originated, respectively, in lower Layer II or upper Layer III (see Chapter4, Table 4.2), and in an uncertain Layer II or III context. Those contexts might be approxi-matelycontemporaneous, although the two dates from Features 4 and 6 barely overlap at two sigma and mayspan the period from ca. A.D. 1400 to 1700. The three features cluster within the (Layer II) Feature 12lithic concentration and may be entirely associated with the workshop. Imu at the site, all of unknownoriginal proveniences, ring this workshop feature.

Site 4485’s features may have been used in connection with off-site activities. Only one imucould be assigned to layer (Feature 3, Layer III). It and Feature 5, of unknown original provenience butfunnel-shaped like Feature 3, produced probable fifteenth-century dates contemporaneous with the laterpart of the probable peak period of use of fields nearby, and could have been used to prepare meals forcultivators; as part of the ceremony to celebrate the opening of newly constructed lo‘i nearby; or forother purposes.

It was not often possible at the ridge sites to interpret patterns at the “micro” (Fletcher 1977),within-feature, level that might suggest abandonment or continuing use of that feature or whether thefeature was used once, repeatedly over a long period, or intermittently. Four internal charcoal lenses,separated by baked soil lenses, indicate reuse of Site 4483 Feature 2, a Layer II firepit probably datingto the sixteenth or the seventeenth century, and located at the south edge of the north ridge, between thetwo (Layer II and Layer II or III) workshops. Since the same firepit was the site of each reuse, it seemslikely that little time passed between uses. Although no clear evidence for feature reuse was encounteredat Site 4485, a charcoal lens in Feature 7, an imu at the south end of that site (Figure 5.1.e), mightpossibly reflect a second use of that feature.


Lennstrom (Chapter 6) makes the very useful suggestion that features such as Site 4484 Feature1 and Site 4485 Features 5–9, which contain many botanical taxa, sometimes as ash or very smallfragments, might possibly reflect repeated use without complete cleaning between uses. This sort ofreuse is not readily visible stratigraphically and may depend on studies like the current macrobotanicalstudies for recognition. The Site 4484 Feature 11 assemblage, which, as noted earlier, contains noknown food remains and shows high diversity, may have resulted from multiple cleanings or sweep-outs.

Finally, as pointed out in Chapter 1, it is often difficult to differentiate between specializedwork areas and temporary habitation sites, because, as explained by Cordy (1981:54), temporaryoccupation at Hawaiian sites was probably invariably associated with special uses (e.g., agriculture,forest manufacture, tool manufacture).

Change in Occupation Patterns at the Sites Through Time

Again, overall patterns are difficult to evaluate where the layers overlying or associated with burieddeposits have been removed. Nonetheless, the stratigraphic evidence that could be documented, incombination with radiocarbon dating evidence, does suggest certain patterns through time.

At Site 4483 firepits and possible refuse pits originated in at least Layers II and III, suggestingbrief, possibly lunchtime or overnight, use of this site from the late fifteenth or sixteenth century on.It is possible, as discussed earlier, that Site 4483 Layer III and any firepits associated with it representnot toolworking use but rather site use in another connection, possibly by forest product collectors orby cultivators of the fields nearby. Occupation at Site 4483, whatever its purpose, seems to have beenbrief during the late part of the peak agricultural period at Site 1887. Inland residence near fieldscertainly does not seem to have been required at that time.

By Layer II, however, the pattern may have changed. The Layer II features at Site 4483, manyprobably in use into the early post-Contact period, as was Layer II itself, may have served collectorsor cultivators producing supplies, or the tools used to produce those supplies, that were necessary tosupport the retainers of the ali‘i in the Hawaiian state, and, after Contact, the new foreign tradingpartners of Kamehameha I. The Layer I and II imu and postmolds discussed earlier were the only pitfeatures that might, weakly, suggest habitation over longer periods and that were assignable in the fieldto clear stratigraphic contexts. Although it remains possible that residence near fields or rock sourceswas encouraged at this later time, it seems more likely that inland residence for a few days or weeks ata time was simply more productive, and that, for that reason, the individual toolworkers chose to stayfor slightly longer periods.

In either case, the surviving evidence at Site 4483 suggests that toolworking may have been themain activity of interest. Basalt microdebitage, which suggests lithic manufacture, was found in alllayers from III to I (Dolan et al., Chapter 3). Although such fine fragments could have been translocateddownward in the soil after deposition, explaining their occurrence in Layer III, Layer II and an uncertainLayer II or Layer III context produced both microdebitage and actual tools. The grubbed Layer IIb/IIIsurface at Feature 13 also produced three post-Contact artifacts. All tools recovered outside theworkshops come from Layer II or I. The site may not have been used as a workshop prior to theseventeenth century or so.

Scott Williams (personal communication, 1996) suggests two possible implications of thesizes and densities of the workshop deposits at Site 4483, and for the fact that so much glass


reduction and reworking of basalt adzes are indicated. Either workshop could represent the destroyedhouse site of a stoneworker. And either could have been involved in the working of wood forconstruction at Kukuiokäne Heiau (Site 2038; G5-106), which is located a little more than 100 mupslope.

At Site 4484 Layers II and III produced traditional lithics, and Layers I and (probable) IIproduced post-Contact artifacts. The two early, funnel-shaped imu and the Feature 4 (lower Layer II orupper Layer III) firepit may have predated the Layer II activity area, which is probably a lithic workshop(see Chapter 4), although a much smaller one than those at Site 4483. The two imu are located on theeastern slope and could have been located for convenient access to some off-site area; aside from Site1887, agricultural fields (undated) once occupied areas downslope (Allen, ed. 1987:Figures 98, 100;U.S. Geological Survey ca. 1926–1928) and could possibly have been a focus at this early time. But,by the Layer II period, which may have begun ca. A.D. 1300, features including a possible postmoldseem to cluster within the Layer II activity area; these features were probably used to provide shelterand cook meals for the site’s toolworkers, who may have increased in number or may have stayedlonger than previously. As was suggested for Site 4483, if stays were longer now, to provide access toquarries or other resources, the choice may have been entirely individual. No direct archaeologicalevidence really suggests that residence here was encouraged politically or socially.

No pattern through time is clear for pre-Contact features at Site 4485, since only a singlefeature, Feature 3, was assignable to layer (Layer III), and the feature sequence is therefore unknown.The radiocarbon dating evidence suggests imu construction over perhaps 250 years, from ca. A.D. 1450to 1700. Within the site layers outside the features, Layer III produced traditional, volcanic glass flakes,and Layer II, post-Contact artifacts.

The evidence strongly suggests that most pre-Contact habitation at the three ridge sites was verytemporary, at least until shortly before Contact. And even at this late time, long-term residence at thesesites is problematic.

Evidence from other inland windward sites suggests that residential patterns during this lateperiod may have varied. A lithic site in upper Maunawili Valley, Kailua, and six or more house sitesin upland Käne‘ohe and Ha‘ikü Valley seem to represent long-term habitation (Williams et al. 1995;Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 1989–1993 field notes, AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). Yet the evidence from Luluku suggests few residents for theperiod. And in middle Maunawili Valley (Allen et al. 2002:Chapter 9), where agriculture seems to havecontracted by this time, as is suggested for Luluku, only two recognized and dated features even suggesttemporary occupation between A.D. 1650 and A.D. 1778.

Although certain inland areas may have continued in use as habitation sites, it seems possiblethat concentration of the population in coastal settlements may have been preferred generally during thislate period of growing conflict, increasing social stratification, political elaboration, and statedevelopment.

TOOL USE AND OTHER EVIDENCE FOR SITE-ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES

Questions 4 and 5 are concerned primarily with site relationships with other areas nearby and witheconomic uses of those areas:


4) Is there evidence for tool manufacture or other activities accessory to cultivation orhabitation or both at the sites? Does the evidence at the three ridge sites suggest that theoccupants of the sites were cultivators of fields nearby? And

5) Were the sites alternatively in use primarily for non-agricultural purposes such as forestproduct collection?

These questions require evidence for tool manufacture and habitation evidence at the sites;botanical, faunal, or other evidence for the occupants’ involvement in off-site activities such ascultivation or forest collection; and evidence that the tools produced at the sites were used in one ormore of these activities. This section discusses these sets of evidence, and concludes by considering theroles played by the sites and their occupants in broader, extralocal, economic networks.

Evidence for Tool Manufacture

Although colluvial deposition of the two lithic concentrations at Site 4483 was initially considered apossibility, the artifact densities themselves, and mixed artifact sizes that did not suggest sorting bygravity, water, or other natural agent, suggested strongly that these features were in-situ, althoughprobably reworked, deposits. Tools probably used in tool manufacture, and recovered at Site 4483,include abraders, grinding stones, hammerstones, an anvil/hammerstone, an ‘ulu maika/hammerstone,possibly two grooved waterworn pebbles, and three grinding stone fragments.

One of the grinding stones (Artifact 258) may have been imported to windward O‘ahu, sincenatural occurrences of gabbro, the material believed represented (Chapter 3), are not reported forO‘ahu in the available literature. A coarse-grained, intrusive, igneous rock type, gabbro is foundprimarily in continental areas; it is also known to form as shallow units in Maui and as xenoliths inthe 1801 flow from Hualalai on the Big Island (Macdonald et al. 1983:124, 126, 128, 130–131; Prinzet al. 1978:285–286). Although its mineral composition is similar to that of basalt, gabbro is not atype of basalt, which is a fine-grained, extrusive rock (cf. lithic discussion, Chapter 3; also, AppendixA).

It would be useful to source this rock, since it may have been imported from Maui or Hawai‘iIsland or may have been quarried at an unidentified source on O‘ahu, suggesting either inter-islandprocurement or collection beyond Ko‘olau Poko. Such patterns may affect not only the current sites butalso sites in areas including Kualoa and Mäkua Valley, where gabbro artifacts have reportedly also beenrecovered (Scott Williams, personal communication, 1996).

At Site 4483, although most materials were recovered after bulldozing and the layer of originis often unknown, the grinding stones and other tools used in lithic manufacture, as well as the variedassemblages of formal and informal tools and debitage recovered all reinforce identification of Features13 and 32 as lithic workshops: i.e., activity areas where core reduction and tool manufacture took place.The results of a microartifact study conducted at Site 4483 (Dolan et al., Chapter 3; Thomas and VanBrunt, Appendix B) to identify sand-sized and finer lithic fragments, which are typically producedduring lithic manufacture but are lost through most archaeological screening (Fagan 1985:179–180;Schiffer 1987:269; Whittaker 1994:21), also suggest workshop use at Site 4483.

As noted by Dolan et al. (Chapter 3), lithic manufacture patterns vary across Site 4483. Basaltflakes interpreted as debitage are smaller on the south ridge and made of finer-grained basalt thanis the case on the north ridge, while the north ridge was the focus for volcanic glass toolworking.


Different manufacture techniques or stages in the lithic manufacture process may have been emphasizedin the two areas, as suggested in Chapter 3; alternatively, the differences might be temporal.

The Evidence for Site-Related Activities: Habitation, Agriculture, Forest Collection

Tools, residues, and faunal and botanical data are discussed here as indicators of the activities in whichthe occupants of the three ridge sites participated.

Habitation: Review. The tools recovered at Site 4483, especially within the lithic workshops,may have been used on-site to process food or for other domestic activities including the constructionof shelters, or may have been intended for use elsewhere, for example at Kukuiokäne Heiau, justupslope. The relatively diverse lithic assemblage, if found in domestic contexts, could represent thediverse activities of habitation. But here, since most of the tools were recovered from workshop floors,they probably simply represent craft specialization (i.e., the performance of activities requiringparticular skills and training by workers who are dedicated to those activities) and the very short-term,mealtime needs of the workers.

Although formal tools have long been studied in terms of their possible uses, few Hawaiianstudies until recently focused on potential uses of the basalt and volcanic glass flakes that account forthe vast majority of the artifacts found at many Hawaiian sites. Use wear and residue studies nowsuggest that many flakes and fragments that might otherwise be dismissed as debitage (waste, debris;Schick and Toth 1993:99) were actually used. Allen et al. (1995:285) review a few uses suggested byhistorical sources.

Agriculture and Forest Collection. Formal tools in Hawai‘i include most prominently adzes,which were most commonly used in woodworking, but which may have been used both agriculturallyand during forest collection. Flakes and fragments are also found in agricultural contexts. Based on theirlarge numbers in various contexts, common signs of edge wear, and adhering residues of certainsubstances, flakes were certainly used as tools in Hawai‘i and were almost certainly producedintentionally for that purpose. The common assumption that flakes are simply debitage (discard) needscareful reassessment.

The following paragraphs summarize certain information concerning flake sizes analyzed foragriculturally associated sites on O‘ahu and Kaua‘i, in the hope that it will eventually be possible todistinguish size ranges likely to represent agricultural, as compared with domestic, uses.

Basalt and volcanic glass flakes have been recovered from pondfields and other agriculturalcontexts in Hanalei, Kaua‘i (Athens 1983); and Kawai Nui Marsh, Maunawili, and the current projectarea, especially at Sites 1887 and 1888, on O‘ahu (Allen et al. 2002; Allen-Wheeler 1981). Suggesteduses include cutting and sharpening ‘ö‘ö, cutting taro corms for vegetative reproduction, harvestingplant parts, mounding earth around taro or other plants, and weeding.

Athens (1983:48; also, Figure 10), recovered diagnostic basalt flakes <1–9 cm long, andsuggested that, although flakes <5 cm long were too small for agricultural uses, flakes >5 cm long mayhave been “integral to some aspect of agricultural production.” Flakes 2.1–>10 cm long have beenrecovered from clearly agricultural contexts in Kawai Nui Marsh and Luluku on O‘ahu,suggesting that even small flakes may have been used agriculturally, possibly hafted or even hand-held.Eight basalt flakes, seven diagnostic and one non-diagnostic, recovered from Kawai Nui Marshpondfields measure 2.1–7.8 cm. Four flakes (two diagnostic, one non-diagnostic, one modified) from


pondfield and dryland fields at Sites 1887 and 1888 in the Käne‘ohe Interchange project area measure4.1–>10 cm in length, three of them between 4 and 5 cm. A single volcanic glass flake fragment, 1.1cm long, was recovered from a probable pondfield context at Site 1887; volcanic glass flakes tend tobe very small, and correlation with specific function on sizing grounds will be even more difficult thanthat for basalt.

At Site 4483, 25 basalt flakes with (intentional) polish and broken flakes with polish, allprobably representing adze flakes, range from 0.9 to 5.4 cm in length; 23 edge-altered flakes and flakefragments measure 2.5–8.7 cm; and diagnostic flakes (count not provided) measure 0.75–9.82 cm. Non-diagnostic flakes were not measured. The range is approximately 1–9.8 cm, much like those justmentioned. Thirty-seven edge-altered volcanic glass flakes and fragments range from 0.8 to 2.2 cm, butmeasurement of 1,167 other volcanic glass flakes and fragments could not be undertaken.

At Site 4484 one basalt flake with polish is 2.4 cm long; five edge-altered flakes, the largestpossibly an adze blank, measure 3–6.8 cm; four complete flakes measure 2.6–5.7 cm; and a single, rareblade flake is 16.1 cm long. Omitting the possible adze blank and the blade flake, these flakes are quitesmall, between 2.4 and 6.3 cm long. Twenty-two volcanic glass flakes and fragments are 0.9 to 1.9 cmlong, close to the documented range at Site 4483.

At Site 4485 the two basalt flakes recovered are 2.1 and 4.3 cm long, although the firstmentioned is wider (3.1) than it is long and may have been struck off an adze preform (see Chapter 5).Three volcanic glass flakes, each <1.3 cm, are smaller than the agricultural range suggested by Athens(1983) and were found either in pit features or in a layer not known to have any agriculturalconnections.

At this point, all that can be said concerning the sizing evidence is that the range could includeagricultural as well as domestic uses. While it seems reasonable that larger flakes would be moreuseful in the field, where they would likely be hand-held, agricultural and probable domestic sizeranges probably overlap. Much additional study, to include residue analysis and other usestudies, will be needed before correlation between flake size and use can be suggested with confidence.

Botanical remains analyzed for the ridge sites include agricultural and other cultivated plants,but identification of the inhabitants of Sites 4483–4485 as actual cultivators of the fields nearby hasproven difficult. Large quantities of the remains of crop plants such as kalo and ‘uala, which mightsuggest that the ridge sites were processing centers for crops from the fields, were not recovered.

At Site 4483, as mentioned, one suggestive piece of evidence concerning possible relationshipswith agricultural sites nearby is the recovery of a variety of starch grains from Unit 49 Layer II(Cummings, Appendix H:7–9), which suggests that the site occupants were harvesting crops for foodand transporting them to this site. At Site 4484 kalo and ‘uala have been tentatively identified insamples collected respectively from Features 4 and 1, two firepits (see Chapter 6).

Kï pollen was recovered from Site 4483 Unit 49 Layers IIa and IIb (Cummings,Appendix H); kï parts were recovered by Lennstrom from several contexts at Sites 4484 and 4485(including the post-Contact probable ‘ökolehao still, to be discussed). ‘Ulu, a cultivated tree, wasrecovered from all features at Site 4484 (Lennstrom, Chapter 6) and most at Site 4485. Kukui shellwas commonly recovered from deposits at all three sites. Although kukui is certainly not specific toagricultural contexts and was also used domestically, for instance to ferment and preserve fish, asmentioned by Leidemann (Chapter 4, citing Kirch), it frequently grew in pondfield complexes, and itsleaves were used as mulch (Allen 1992a:48, citing Malo 1951:205, among others). Even at the earliestdates, when forest plants were collected commonly (see below), the collectors also brought to Sites


4484 and 4485 cultivated and tended plants including kukui, probably kalo, kï, ‘ulu, and ‘öhi‘a ‘ai; theseplants were therefore being managed from the earliest period represented.

The very limited faunal remains recovered at the sites are uninformative regarding the siteoccupants’ possible involvement in either agriculture or forest collection prior to Contact. At Site 4483most represent post-Contact introductions, and all were surface or grubbed surface finds. The only otherfaunal material recovered is a Cymatium (marine) shell fragment in roadbed fill at Site 4485. Noremains of pig or dog, the two mammals that were traditionally associated with agriculture in Hawai‘i(discussed below; see Titcomb 1969), were recovered from definite pre-Contact contexts.

Organic residues identified on four basalt tools recovered from Site 4483 Layer II, one fromthe Feature 13 workshop but three that could represent either workshop or other associations, are morepromising. These suggest, tentatively, both agricultural associations and forest collection. The residueson an adze fragment (a small piece that was probably used as a knife or scraper, not as an adze: cf.comment, lithic discussion, Chapter 3) and a flake reacted to pig antiserum; another adze flake reactedto dog antiserum; and a small adze reacted to common fern antiserum.

Domesticated pigs (pua‘a) and dogs (‘ïlio) were raised for food in Hawai‘i and were cookedin imu; dogs were also often considered pets. Both were closely associated with agriculture; the twowere typically left to herd together and were fed vegetables including sweet potato and poi. Young pigswere allowed to run free in gardens (Handy and Handy 1972:245, citing Pukui; Titcomb 1969:3–4,6–7). Since agricultural fields were presumably readily available nearby at the time of Layer II’sprobable deposition, between the mid-seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, domesticated animals mightbe expected at this site, where so many imu and firepits were encountered.

The results of residue analysis (Appendix C) indicated that the only whole adze tested, amicroadze, showed a positive reaction to common fern antiserum (Pteridium sp., a member of FamilyPolypodiaceae at the time of analysis; now assigned to Hypolepidaceae [Valier 1995:54]). Thismicroadze might represent forest collection, or could be associated with either agriculture or domesticactivities. Family Polypodiaceae, as discussed by Allen et al. (1995, reporting the current results andresults for Site 1899, nearby), formerly included smaller ferns and also two tree ferns, ‘ama‘u (Sadleriacyatheoides) and‘äkölea (Athyrium microphyllum; Neal 1965:22–23) that were considered possiblesources for this residue when the 1995 article was submitted for publication. These tree ferns are nowassigned to Blechnaceae and Athyriaceae or Dryopteridaceae (Valier 1995:63, 78). It now seemsunlikely that one of them produced the current results. Although more recent residue analyses (M.Newman, personal communication 1995) now suggest that cross-reactions occur between botanicalfamilies, it is not known whether fern families are affected in this way.

An alternative explanation suggested in the lithic tool discussion in Chapter 3, that fernjuice used to soak basalt before flaking left the residue, also appears unlikely. The fern mentioned byMalo (1951:51–52) is palae, apparently an early spelling of palai (also palapalai: Neal 1965:12; nowMicrolepis strigosa, in Family Dennstaedtiaceae). The flaking and polishing that followed any initialsoaking of the raw basalt would almost certainly have removed all traces of such a vegetablemixture. The fern residue identified appears likely to represent adze use, not the initial stage in adzemanufacture.

If fern families are eventually found to exhibit cross-reactions during CIEP analysis, this fernresidue might conceivably represent any of a number of ground or tree ferns that were used traditionallyin Hawai‘i. To use as examples the tree ferns mentioned above, the starchy pith and young shoots of‘ama‘u were eaten as famine food (Cuddihy and Stone 1990:34; Handy and Handy 1972:234); the plant


was also used for agricultural mulching and other purposes. ‘Äkölea was often cleared from ‘öhi‘agroves (which grow upslope even today) in preparation for taro planting (Fornander 1916–1920:654,686; Handy and Handy 1972:234; Kamakau 1976:103; Neal 1965:22–23; Pukui and Elbert 1986).Again, agricultural associations are possible; the evidence is, however, inconclusive.

Forest collection is most clearly reflected by macrobotanical evidence from Sites 4484 and4485; although pollens recovered at Site 4483 represent forest plants, these small grains may well havebeen transported to the site by wind or rain. The macrobotanical evidence is especially interesting inthe three earliest features at Site 4484, which produced lapalapa wood, representing a tree that, asindicated, often grows today at upper elevations, although it might have grown closer to the sitesformerly.

Other forest plants identified for Sites 4484 and 4485, suggesting either wider distributions ofthe plants in the past or collection upslope by the sites’ occupants, include ‘ie‘ie, ‘ohe‘ohe, koa, andlama. ‘Öhi‘a, another forest tree, still grows a short distance above the three sites. But, at these samesites, Polynesian-introduced plants appear even in the earliest dated contexts, and introductionsprogressively replace native taxa upward through time in the macrobotanical samples. The impressionis strong that the occupants of the three ridge sites participated in cultivation, perhaps arboriculture,from the earliest days of site occupation on, and that they processed crop foods grown at agriculturalsites nearby. Whether they were the actual cultivators of the fields at Sites 1887 and 1888, however,remains uncertain.

Site Involvement in Broader Networks

Involvement of at least three pre-Contact Käne‘ohe sites in ahupua‘a-wide and broader networks issuggested by lithic sourcing results from Sites G5-101, near the coast; Site 2038, Kukuiokäne Heiau;and Site 4483. At Site G5-101 (Clark and Riford 1986), petrographic and dating results suggest thatbasalt was collected at Waiähole Quarry, five ahupua‘a north of Käne‘ohe, as early as A.D. 1070–1390.At Site 2038, as explained in Chapter 1, certain tools had been made from basalts possibly quarried inthe Wai‘anae Range on O‘ahu, on the south shore of Kaua‘i, and on Mauna Kea on Hawai‘i Island(Johnson 1994). Materials from the Mauna Kea quarry may have been used at the heiau between A.D.1450 and 1650.

At Site 4483, the lithic materials in use by the mid-seventeenth century included both basaltand volcanic glass probably quarried in the Wai‘anae Range (see Appendix D). As suggested, collectionmay have been accomplished by coastal residents themselves or may have been part of the mauka-makaiexchange networks that later gave rise to the ahupua‘a as a land unit. The fact that the items sourcedto the Wai‘anae volcano are finished products could relate either to preferential collection supervisedby ali‘i or to individual preferences to carry back to Ko‘olau Poko only material useful for themanufacture of formal tools.

By the seventeenth century, the period represented at Site 4483, although supervision cannotbe inferred from the site evidence, Käne‘ohe ahupua‘a was probably well established as aneconomic and sociopolitical land unit, and the island of O‘ahu had already been unified under at leastone leader, Kalaimanuia, who, according to available genealogical information, ruled in the sixteenth


century (Klieger 1996). The various districts across the island were increasingly brought intocontact as state development advanced, and later leaders began to have greater success ruling O‘ahuas a unified polity. The gabbro used for a chisel at Site 4483 may even suggest inter-island exchangeat this time.

LANDSCAPE CHANGE

One of the most important bodies of evidence produced during earlier research in the H-3 corridorincludes pedological, sedimentological, and botanical evidence for dramatic landscape change in thearea during the cultural era. Question 6 is concerned with that change:

6) Is there evidence for landscape change over time? Is there evidence for increasingdeposition due to erosion upslope during or after the period(s) of cultural activities at the sites?

As indicated in Chapter 1, two main sedimentary changes—massive erosion of soils andsediments upslope and their redeposition in lowland areas—have apparently affected Käne‘ohe andother areas in windward O‘ahu dramatically through the centuries since the first Polynesian colonistsarrived. As discussed, major changes have also taken place in the botanical environment. Erosion oninland hillsides and infilling of low-lying areas with new sediments is by now well documented forareas including the Luluku area (Allen 1997; Allen, ed. 1987:256–260; Williams 1992b; Williams etal. 1995; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 1989–1993 field notes,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu); Kawai Nui Marsh and Maunawili Valley,Kailua (Allen et al. 2002; Allen-Wheeler 1981; Kraft 1980a, 1980b); Bellows Air Force Station,Waimänalo (Athens 1988; Beggerly 1990); and Kahana Valley (Beggerly 1990).

Evidence for Landscape and Environmental Change at the Ridge Sites

The current project did not produce sedimentary evidence as dramatic as that seen on steeper ridgescloser to the pali, where cultural deposits were found buried as deeply as 150 cmbs beneath morerecent sediments (Williams 1992b; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees,1989–1993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). Much stratigraphic andsoil/sedimentary evidence had been removed before site and off-site deposits could be inspectedclosely, and, except for the profiles examined in the exploratory stratigraphic trenches and units, mostcultural sequences were truncated, lacking at least Layer I. Although nearly all the cultural featuresand layers at the ridge sites had been buried by combined natural sediments and cultural materials,the fact that the two were mixed made it difficult to determine the rate of natural sedimentation.

The three ridge localities, as explained in Chapter 1, occupy long colluvial ridges below the paliof the Ko‘olau Range. Sediments exposed during the excavations, whether underlying or overlying thesite deposits, were predominantly colluvial; some rock fragments in the basal colluvial layer hadpartially decomposed, indicating that these ridges have existed for a very long time. In contrast withevidence from the lower area at Site 1887 nearby (Allen, ed. 1987; Chapter 1 here), no evidence wasrecognized here for the formation of a ridge in what had been a valley or a flood plain.

Although the sizes of the ridges have undoubtedly altered through time, erosion anddeposition may nearly have been equal through the years. Disregarding recent fill, Layer I is the mainlayer overlying the main occupation deposits. It is generally thin, ranging up to 20 cm thick (e.g.,


Figure 3.3). Layer II or IIa, generally less than 20 cm thick but up to 40 cm at Site 4485, had buriedLayer III, earlier. Although evidence for erosion was difficult to assess because of the truncation andcompaction of the sequences, the abrupt, wavy boundaries described in soil profiles presented inChapters 3–5 suggest strongly that erosion has occurred regularly.

One of the main reasons for the erosion that did occur was undoubtedly the eventual removalof the native forest, which had retained the lateritic soils of the area, and its replacement by grasses,shrubs, and cultivated plants that bind less effectively and, when harvested, leave soils exposed to rain,wind, and the effects of gravity. Change in the botanical composition of surrounding forests and openareas is demonstrated by the results of Cummings’ analysis of pollen grains, spores, and starch grainscollected at Site 4483 (Appendix H); and Lennstrom’s macrobotanical analysis of materials collectedat Sites 4484 and 4485 (Chapter 6).

At Site 4483, pollen grains and spores recovered from upper Layer III through (post-Contact)Layer IIa indicate that grasses increased through time, while ferns and native forest trees decreased(Cummings, Appendix H). Kï at the Layer IIb/IIa interface, presumably postdating A.D. 1600,reinforces archaeological evidence from surrounding areas that by that time cultural plants and plantingswere common where native plants had once grown. In (post-Contact) Layer IIa, interestingly, Pandanusincreases in prominence; at the same time, however, grasses dominate, and post-Contact introductionsappear (Schinus, a post-Contact introduction, is also present in Layer III, apparently as a contaminant).The pollen results, although they suggest increasing deforestation, also suggest that some forest areashad been replaced by grassy areas even before the earliest period represented. Culturally influencedlandscape change had probably been underway for several centuries.

At Sites 4484 and 4485 Lennstrom (Chapter 6) recovered plant parts representing native foresttrees, shrubs, and vines in highest frequencies from contexts that produced conventional ages >500years B.P. The plants identified, as reviewed earlier, include ‘ie‘ie, koa, lama, lapalapa, ohe‘ohe, and‘öhi‘a lehua. Polynesian introductions including kalo, kï, kukui, ‘uala, and ‘ulu dominate later counts,replaced after Contact by exotics. At both sites, within contexts relatively securely assignable to LayerII, the later of the two cultural layers, (possible) lama may be the only tree identifiable to genus thatrepresents the former native forest (Chapters 4–6, Appendix I).

It is nonetheless interesting that native forest still thrived nearby during the later portion of thepeak period of agricultural production in Luluku, as late as the thirteenth or fourteenth century, assuggested by the evidence from Sites 4484 and 4485, and possibly even later around Site 4483. Asmentioned earlier, (endemic) ‘öhi‘a lehua and (probably indigenous) hau are the only native treesknown to grow nearby today.

Evidence for Changing Sedimentary Regimes Through Time

The windward O‘ahu studies cited earlier not only document significant landscape change since thearrival of the first settlers, but also indicate that upland erosion accelerated markedly after ca. A.D.1200. From that time on, redeposition of terrigenous sediments filled lowland basins with newly arablesoils that were then intensively cultivated. Valleys filled with fertile new soils; and coastlinesprograded.

The possibility that increasing sedimentation in Pacific areas during the later pre-Contact eramay have resulted from overuse of slopes for dryland cultivation has been discussed by many


researchers including Kirch (1982a, 1982b), Price Beggerly (1990), Spriggs (1991), and myself (e.g.,Allen 1997; Allen-Wheeler 1981). Dryland agriculture was conducted in certain areas upslope abovethe current sites (e.g., at Site 1888), and it is likely that additional dryland gardens or fields exist, buriedunder more recent sediments, on upper slopes beneath the pali.

Whether as the result of overly extensive cultivation practices or other processes, large volumesof sediment reached Site 1887, near the current sites, over time, until terrace construction excluded newsediments more effectively. Even then, at Site 1887, thin layers of fresh sediments were apparently able,during fallow periods and periods of abandonment, to pass over retaining walls, invading the terraces.

By comparing sediment sizes and volumes upward through the profiles, it has been possibleat Site 1887 to detect, although not to quantify (because of missing information lost during agriculturalmaintenance and erosion), increasing sedimentary rates and velocities that ultimately deposited colluvialboulders up to 2 m across (Allen, ed. 1987, Site 1887 Feature 4) in upper fields. The same increase,leading up to the deposition of enormous boulders in recent layers, is seen on slopes beside Kawai NuiMarsh, and in Maunawili at both valley and ridge sites.

At the current ridge sites, no intervals of renewed sedimentation are clear, a finding that issomewhat surprising, since periods of abandonment must have occurred if the sites were used onlytemporarily. Although the initial impression might be that little sedimentation took place here, the lackof evidence for sedimentary lenses and beds more likely reflects the fact that the site areas have beentraversed repeatedly by heavy machinery, which almost undoubtedly compacted and obscured someinformation.

Changes in the sedimentation patterns and rates could not be detected directly at these sites, inpart because of truncation and compaction, and in part because virtually all layers are cultural. Culturaldeposition of materials including organics develops sediments into soils, which result in chemicalweathering and obscuring of sedimentary structures, and also, importantly, in stability of the surface.

The soil profiles presented in Chapters 3–5 describe either rock frequencies and sizes thatremain similar throughout the sequence, as at Site 4483, or frequencies and sizes that actually decreaseupward through the profile, as at Sites 4484 and 4485. Stability is suggested. Interestingly, culturalmodification has stabilized the ridge sites, just as it did Site 1887. But here, no terraces were built;instead, the three ridges were stabilized by soil formation and the accumulation of humic, forest andcultural soils tracked in and deposited underfoot during centuries of site use.

POST-CONTACT LAND USE

Questions 7 and 8 address post-Contact changes and continuities in the area:7) Was this area of upland Käne‘ohe in use from the initial days of the post-Contact period?

8) How did land use in the project area at mid-nineteenth century compare with land useelsewhere in Käne‘ohe? Is there evidence that the cultivators of upland Käne‘ohe by nowresided at the coast?

The evidence that can be used to address these questions includes both archaeological andhistorical data. The archaeological finds are discussed first here, followed by summaries concerning thevarious types of land use suggested by available historical documents.


Archaeological Evidence for Post-Contact Site Use

The archaeological evidence from Sites 2463 and 4483–4485, including features and especially datableportable items, suggests site occupation during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The archaeological evidence noted at Site 2463 and other roads in the Käne‘ohe Interchangeproject area (e.g., oil drums, ruts probably carved by pineapple carts, bottle glass) points to earlytwentieth-century use, although historical maps describe certain roads as early as 1876 (Chapter 2, citingLyons 1876).

At the three ridge sites, late nineteenth-century or turn-of-the-century features include thecharcoal kilns at Sites 4483 and 4484, and the possible ‘ökolehao still at Site 4485. Possible latenineteenth-century artifacts include wire nails and either mold-blown or automatic-bottle-machine(ABM)-produced bottle glass recovered at Site 4483; mold-blown bottle glass and British/Americanand possibly Japanese ceramic fragments from Site 4484; and mold-blown or ABM-produced bottleglass from Site 4485. No hand blown “black” (dark olive) glass, which generally predates 1870, wasrecovered. Most post-Contact materials found at the three ridge sites were manufactured during thetwentieth century.

No clear archaeological evidence for occupation of the four sites during the initial Contact eraor the early post-Contact period, ca. 1780–1850, was recognized, although the mix of traditionalHawaiian artifacts and post-Contact items recovered, for example, from Site 4483 Feature 13 Grids 3and 11 (Layer II/III or IIb/III: Chapter 3, Appendix F), and possibly from Site 4484 Layer III (Table4.6), might represent the initial period after Contact. Other items that might possibly predate 1850include two Blue Willow ceramic sherds collected at Site 4485. Blue Willow wares have beenmanufactured in Europe since before 1790 (Miller 1991:8); the current examples are thought to date tothe nineteenth century.

The radiocarbon dating results are uninformative regarding post-Contact occupation. Althoughthey include post-Contact ranges, the most reliable, two-sigma, ranges span at least the entire nineteenthcentury and portions of the twentieth century.

Most of the post-Contact items found at the three ridge sites are domestic. It is not certain,however, whether they represent meal consumption during lithic manufacture or other specialized workactivities; overnight stays associated with agriculture, forest product collection, or other activities; orlonger residence. The domestic items left beside the Site 2463 roads may have been thrown from cartsor may represent overnight stays.

Documentary Evidence for Post-Contact Land Use in the Area

As indicated in Chapter 1, documentary information that can be applied to these questions will be madeavailable in the Highway H-3 windward history that is currently being completed. This section providesa brief overview of general nineteenth-century trends and patterns as they were represented at Mahele,and summarizes related patterns that characterized upland Käne‘ohe around the turn of the century.

Agriculture. Basically, upland Käne‘ohe remained a prime agricultural area after Contact, whileKäne‘ohe’s population center developed nearer the coast. Taro lands were claimed at Mahele in Luluku,as they were in other inland areas in Käne‘ohe and He‘eia.


In low-lying areas in Luluku and elsewhere, rice was cultivated, primarily by Chineseimmigrants who had arrived initially to work on sugar plantations, from ca. 1860 until sometime after1910, when the market for local rice began to decline. During the rice years, water buffalo and oxenwere used in plowing and cultivation in Käne‘ohe, Kailua, and other areas, and the fields themselvesvery closely resembled Asian paddies. Old taro fields were converted to rice, and old ‘auwai wereextended into extensive systems. Rice, as explained in the background information in Chapter 1, wasreplaced in the early twentieth century by renewed, but now commercial, taro cultivation (Allen, ed.1987:Appendix I; Devaney et al. 1982; Tam Sing 1996).

In hill and upslope areas, pineapple was grown from ca. 1912 into the 1920s, when itfailed in this wet, windward area. The effects of pineapple cultivation in the Käne‘ohe area reflectsharp breaks with Hawaiian tradition, and marked acculturation: Klieger (n.d.) lists for the area fourheiau and a hölua slide (sledding run) described by McAllister (1933) as destroyed for pineapplecultivation. The four heiau, as indicated earlier, included Kukuiokäne Heiau in the Interchange projectarea.

Pineapple was eventually replaced by bananas (Allen, ed. 1987:Appendix I), which still thrivetoday, both on slopes and in the old taro terraces at Site 1887.

Urbanization, Transportation and Marketing. Although, as will be seen, roads probably beganto serve houses in the Interchange project area after Mahele, it was the transportation needs ofcommercial agriculture that was apparently responsible for most roads in upland Käne‘ohe. The needsof pineapple and later banana cultivation probably explain most features at Site 2463, whichincorporates Luluku and Kapalai Roads and an intricate network of unpaved and paved roads thatconnect the banana farms in the area, forming mazes of roads within each farm.

Many roads in the area were probably built along routes provided by old Hawaiian trails. Trails(foot paths, as opposed to vehicular roads) are known for several sites in the Interchange project area(e.g., Site 1887 Feature 102, Site 1888 Feature 5; Allen, ed. 1987), and have undoubtedlycrisscrossed the area for centuries, connecting villages, fields, and the coast. Since the early nineteenthcentury, when windward farmers took their poi, ‘uala, fruits, and pigs to market in Honolulu along aprecipitous and winding trail across the Nu‘uanu pali (Devaney et al. 1982:163), the marketing ofagricultural produce has been a driving force behind the construction of most trails and roads inwindward O‘ahu.

The needs of sugar transportation and marketing resulted in the widening and rock paving ofthe pali road by 1845, and further improvements have been made regularly since. In Käne‘ohe, in the1920s and probably earlier, Luluku Road (Site 2463 Feature 2) was used to haul pineapple. KapalaiRoad (Site 2463 Feature 3) was probably also used in the same way, and roads including Site 1887Feature 103 were used by mule-drawn drays with hard rubber tires, which left still-visible ruts, to haulpineapple to coastal and possibly to Honolulu canneries (interview with Edmund Haitsuka, Allen, ed.1987:Appendix I; Klieger 1996:Chapter 11). Mules used for pineapple hauling in Luluku and adjacentareas were stabled in the lower part of the Interchange project area, above the Shiroma house, neartoday’s Ho‘omaluhia Botanical Garden (Allen n.d.).

Many of today’s banana road networks probably began as pineapple haul roads. Others, likeSite 1897 Feature 9 may have begun instead as driveways and roads serving house sites, which becamemore common in the area after A.D. 1850.

Once commercial agriculture and the need to get produce to local and international marketsin large part had brought roads to Käne‘ohe, the roads themselves, especially the paved roads,


probably made the most important and lasting change in the character of the area. Traditionally,Käne‘ohe had been favored by ali‘i, but must have been a rural, somewhat isolated, location for themaka‘äinana who had worked the land prior to Contact. In the nineteenth century, the rural landscapebegan to change, as roads made upland residence simpler and probably more attractive. Increasingly,houses were built, and Käne‘ohe became ever more closely connected to Honolulu and the outsideworld as urbanization proceeded.

Late Nineteenth-Century Residential Patterns. Land Commission Award records suggest thatthe farmers of upland Käne‘ohe were, from the time of the mid-nineteenth-century Mahele on, morelikely to live permanently near their fields than had been the case before Contact. The popularity ofupland areas as habitation areas has increased from ca. 1850 to the present.

As reviewed by Klieger and Parry (1995), LCA’s in the five ‘ili that make up the Interchangeproject area contained not only extensive agricultural lands, but also house lots. In the north, Kea‘ahalaMauka included three, in a total of five land awards; a fourth house lot was claimed but not awarded.In Pau, Ke, a konohiki, obtained land, but use is not specified in the records. Kapalai contained threeLCA’s and three additional claimed parcels. Several house sites were claimed, including house lots inall three properties awarded as LCA’s; interestingly, none of the house lots were awarded. Punalu‘uMauka contained a single LCA, which included a house site.

Of the ten kuleana awarded in Luluku, however, only two contained house lots: one nearLuluku Stream and the other southeast, near the ‘ili boundary with Kahuauli. As mentioned in Chapter1, not a single LCA, with or without a house lot, was located in the northern part of the ‘ili, where thethree ridge sites are located, although a small amount of archaeological evidence may suggest that oneor more residences were located near Sites 4483–4485 by the later nineteenth century. Examples includethe charcoal kilns, which, as indicated in Chapter 1, were commonly built by families in Käne‘ohe tosupply charcoal for heating; and portable post-Contact artifacts such as sanitary (food) cans, and BlueWillow ware and rice bowl fragments, which suggest domestic activities. Many of the bottles recoveredand the nails may also reflect household use.

While other parts of upland Käne‘ohe have increasingly combined agricultural lands withsuburban housing since 1900, Luluku has remained almost exclusively agricultural. In contrast to thepattern at Mahele, no permanent houses were located in areas surveyed in Luluku west (mauka) ofHo‘omaluhia Botanical Garden even as recently as 1984, when the Interchange project began.

SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS: SUMMARY

Sites 2463, 4483, 4484, and 4485 are recommended as significant according to National Register ofHistoric Places Criterion D: that is, they have yielded or have the potential to yield informationimportant for our understanding of history or prehistory (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation andGSA Training Center 1990:Section II, 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic Places; HawaiiState Department of Land and Natural Resources 1989:10).

Sites 4483, 4484, and 4485 have produced important new information regarding pre-Contactsite use in a portion of upland Käne‘ohe where, as explained earlier, almost exclusively agricultural


evidence had been recovered prior to the current project. The sites incorporate lithic workshops, twoof them extensive, that suggest a type of local resource collection that had not been documented as animportant pre-Contact activity in Luluku previously. All three sites were also occupied during eitherthe main period or the later period of cultivation at nearby Site 1887, and agricultural connectionsremain a possibility, especially at Site 4483, where starch grains were identified through pollen analysis.Habitation appears likely to have been temporary throughout most or all of the pre-Contact period.Although no LCA’s are recorded for this portion of Luluku at Mahele, by the late nineteenth centurycharcoal kilns and certain portable artifacts suggest permanent residence nearby.

Each of the three sites has supplied information that addresses, at least in part, the researchquestions guiding the project. As reviewed by Leidemann (Chapter 4), excavation of ten recommendedunits at Site 4484 revealed no features corresponding to a puzzling square area indicated in earliertwentieth-century aerial photographs (U.S. Geological Survey 1926–1928; see Allen 1990a:3, 13), andit seems possible that any surface features had been removed during construction of Likelike Highway.Testing identified no connections with Kukuiokäne Heiau, across the highway to the west.

It appears likely that, as suggested by Dolan and Leidemann (Chapters 3–5), most significantdata have been collected from these sites. Most site areas have now been destroyed, and it appearsunlikely that further archaeological information will be forthcoming. Any further ground disturbancein areas not investigated, however, should be monitored by a qualified archaeologist in order to ensurethat any unusual deposits are recognized and investigated.

Site 2463, the road network has been adequately documented with archaeological and archivalresearch.

CONCLUDING SUMMARY

The four sites that produced the evidence presented in this report represent activities and patterns thathave not been documented previously for this area of upland Käne‘ohe.

At the three traditional Hawaiian sites, Sites 4483, 4484, and 4485, imu, firepits, and postmoldssuggest that, as had been expected but not confirmed during earlier research in the area, temporaryhabitation did indeed take place in this upland area during the pre-Contact period. Overnight or longerstays are suggested for the period after ca. A.D. 1350 or 1400 at Sites 4464 and 4485, and after ca. A.D.1450 or 1500 at Site 4483, coinciding, at the first two sites, with the A.D. 1250–1450 peak period ofpondfield cultivation nearby, but apparently postdating the peak period at Site 4483.

Although agriculture remains both archaeologically and historically the dominant activityrepresented in Luluku ‘ili, it remains uncertain that the domestic features at the ridge sites representfield shelters used by cultivators. One of the main contributions of this project is that the three ridgesites provide archaeological, botanical, and lithic sourcing evidence for a broader range of activities inthis upland area than had been expected. At a minimum, the activities pursued by the occupants of thesites, between ca. A.D. 1300 and Contact apparently included harvesting of agricultural foods,


collection of forest products including woods for fuel and perhaps other purposes, quarrying of localbasalt, and manufacture of a wide range of stone tools.

The presence of lithic workshops at Sites 4483 and 4484 suggests that local sources for basaltand volcanic glass may have provided as great an attraction for upland location as agricultural lands andforest resources, even as early as A.D. 1300. These three activity areas provide the first evidence thatcraft specialization in Luluku may not have been exclusively agricultural. As suggested, it also seemspossible that tool production at these sites was related to construction, maintenance, and use ofKukuiokäne Heiau, a short distance upslope.

Most firepits at the two sites seem spatially associated with workshop activities, althoughstratigraphic associations remain unclear in many cases. During the later period of workshop use at Site4483, collection of basalt as far away as the Wai‘anae Range suggests that Luluku participated not justagriculturally but in other ways in the island-wide economic and sociopolitical network that isrepresented in genealogy and legend by ca. A.D. 1600. Gabbro may possibly have been imported at thistime from Maui or Hawai‘i Island, suggesting inter-island exchange.

Botanical information suggests that replacement of the native forest with Polynesianintroductions had either begun before the earliest-recognized cultural deposits were laid down at thethree sites or was occurring as they were deposited. Soil and sedimentary deposition and erosion at thesethree sites may nearly have canceled each other out. The site surfaces suggest relative stabilitythroughout the cultural era, the probable result of the deposition of organics, and subsequent soilformation, during site occupation.

Site 2463, and certain features including charcoal kilns and the probable ‘ökolehao still at theridge sites, represent the nineteenth- and twentieth-century opening up of Käne‘ohe to urban influencesand the world market. Certain road segments also suggest earlier patterns, following ahupua‘a and ‘iliboundaries, and possibly built over old trails that may have led from the coast to the mountains evenbefore the ahupua‘a and ‘ili existed as formal land units.

After Contact, the pattern of land use in upland Käne‘ohe remained dominated by cultivationof agricultural produce—traditional taro, then rice, then pineapple, then commercial taro, and finallybananas. Houses were apparently present in Luluku at Mahele, probably situated for access to adjacentfields; later residences may be suggested by at least some of the turn-of-the-century charcoal kilns thatdot the archaeological landscape, although others may have operated by residents of Käne‘ohe town.

Today, no permanent houses, and few buildings of any kind, are present in Luluku ‘ili aboveHo‘omaluhia Botanical Garden. The area is nearly entirely devoted to agriculture, which has alwaysdominated the fertile slopes and valleys of upland Käne‘ohe.

ê 269

APPENDIX A

LITHICS GLOSSARY

Mary Riford

The following glossary is divided into two sections: 1) Tool Glossary, defining form, material, andfunction of formal tools, and 2) Lithic Terminology, defining general lithic terms. The LithicTerminology section includes potential tools such as flakes. The glossary is limited to lithic tool

forms recovered and lithic terminology used in this volume.

TOOL GLOSSARY

Abrader Natural or modified piece of basalt or coral, of a size to be manipulated by hand, showingdistinctive wear to one or more convex or flat surfaces. These tools were put to many uses, includingremoving edges between adze marks during woodworking, removing the singed hair of pigs beforecooking (Buck 1957:257–258, 385), “bath rubbers” (Brigham 1974:17–18), cleaning out gourds (Handyet al. 1972:217), and as a general sandpaper (Gunness 1987:220).

Buck reports several gradations of canoe rubbers based on material used: ‘elekü for those ofvesicular basalt; ‘ö‘io for those of close- or fine-grained basalt; puna for those of fine coral; ‘ana forthose of large pieces of pumice; ‘öahi for those of dense coral reef rocks (Buck 1957:257–58).

Adze (complete) Tool of rock, shell, or any equally hard substance, that is longer than it is wide, withone end of the long axis modified into a sharp edge for cutting. Sizes range from tiny (see Microadze)to very large depending on their purpose (e.g., fine woodwork to tree felling). The adze is similar infunction to an axe—the difference being the bevel (working) end cross section of an adze isasymmetrical, and that of an axe is symmetrical (Cleghorn 1982:1).

Adzes in Hawai‘i were manufactured primarily from volcanic andesite and basalt (Kirch1985:6); raw material was procured from quarries as well as naturally occurring boulders, waterwornstones, and basalt outcrops. Adzes were hafted to wooden handles, with the cutting edge perpendicularto the plane of the handle (Buck et al. 1930:175).

The adze was used in pre-Contact Hawai‘i for chopping trees, manufacturing canoes, and“cutting and hewing all kinds of timber used in every sort of wood work” (Malo 1951:51). This

270 ê Appendix A: Lithics Glossary

multipurpose tool was manufactured in many sizes, from very large heavy adzes to microadzes. Themethod of measuring adzes follows that of Cleghorn (1982:67).

Adze blank Manufactured block or flake produced from outcrops, boulders, and cobbles (Cleghorn1982:7). Although some portions of the final product (front, back, and side) may be distinguishable,“the cross-section does not yet fit an ideal geometric form” (McCoy 1986:11). See also Blank.

Adze fragment Broken adze exhibiting sufficient component parts to identify the original tool. See alsoFlake, . . . with polish.

Adze preform Unfinished tool where the final cross section is evident (Crabtree 1972:85). An adzepreform is one stage closer to a complete adze than a blank—a blank is flaked into a preform in severalmanufacturing steps, after which the different component parts of the adze are apparent (Cleghorn1982:7, McCoy 1986:11). The preform becomes a completed adze after grinding and polishing. See alsoPreform.

Anvilstone Basalt stone (usually a cobble or boulder) exhibiting a pitted, roughly circular depressionon one or more surfaces. The anvilstone is used to support a tool blank or preform during flake removal.The blank or preform is set in the depression of the anvilstone, and flakes are removed using either abipolar or direct rest technique (Cleghorn 1982:185).

Awl Nonhafted flake or core tool that has one or more points formed by modification (reduction) of oneor two adjacent edges (Clark 1979:1). Although primarily basalt, awls made from cryptocrystallinesilicate (CCS), limestone, and volcanic glass have also been recorded. Awls function as gravers andperforators with the points functioning as the working ends.

Broken flake See Flake, broken.

Chisel Highly polished, often cylindrical-shaped, basalt tool, nonhafted, with a narrow diameter(approximately 3 cm) and beveled end. Chisels may have been used in woodworking “for carvingimages or the like” (Brigham 1974:91). A chisel fragment with polish can be distinguished from an adzefragment with polish because the chisel exhibits a convex surface, the remnant of the cylindrical shapeof the tool.

Edge-altered flake, broken flake, or fragment A flake, broken flake, or fragment with one or moreedges modified through retouch and/or use. Alteration may take the form of scarring, polish, abrasion,or rounding (see Lithic Terminology).

Flake, broken flake, or fragment with polish A flake, broken flake, or fragment exhibiting one ormore surfaces with polish. These types of artifacts have been purposely removed from a tool, havebroken off of a tool during use or reworking, or have broken off a tool after discard.

The material type of the flake, broken flake, or fragment often provides identification of theoriginal tool. Fine-grained basalt artifacts with polish include adzes, chisels, ‘ulu maika, and mirrors.Diagnostic adze flakes and fragments with polish include small bevel (working) end corner fragmentsexhibiting three surfaces with polish. Coarser-grained basalt artifacts with polish include grinding stoneand whetstone fragments.

A flake, broken flake, or fragment with polish is distinguished from an artifact with a polishedarea. The term with polish represents a tool or tool fragment, whereas, the term polished represents use-wear. A distinguishing characteristic of with polish is a sharp margin along the edge of the polish.

Appendix A: Lithics Glossary ê 271

Grinding stone Usually a boulder or cobble that has one or more surfaces worn down primarily by theback-and-forth rubbing motion used during the creation or resharpening of stone tools (e.g., adzes, slingstones, ‘ulu maika, etc.). Can be flat slab or area on larger boulder (Brigham 1974:14–15; Gunness1987:219). The worked surfaces become smooth, and a well-used grinding stone develops concavesurfaces.

Hammerstone Generally a cobble (often waterworn) of various lithic materials that was used inpercussion (as opposed to pressure) manufacture of lithic tools. Displays concentrations of smallindentations as evidence of use.

Microadze Relatively small adze; in this report <6 cm in length. See also Adze.

Preform Unfinished, unused form of the proposed artifact, however, it is one stage closer to a completeartifact than a blank (Crabtree 1972:34). In general, “larger than, and without the refinement of, thecompleted tool” (Crabtree 1972:85). When referring to adzes, the term preform denotes that the finalform and cross section are identifiable.

Sinker A fishing accessory manufactured from vesicular basalt and other materials, including sandstoneand hematite (Buck 1957:342–346; Kirch 1985:204). Variations of stone sinkers include grooved,perforated, coffee-bean, bread-loaf, and plummet. The distinguishing feature of a sinker is the presenceof a groove or perforation that provides a “method of securing the line to the sinker” (Buck 1957:342).

‘Ulu Maika Discoidal stone, in the cobble size range, made from various kinds of material (basalt,coral, sandstone, etc.), and used in the Hawaiian game of maika or ‘ulu maika. Most ‘ulu are thincylinders with rounded edges. The slightly convex side surfaces allowed the disk to travel in a straightline (Brigham 1974:69, Buck 1957:372).

LITHIC TERMINOLOGY

Anterior “Top. End opposite the posterior” (Crabtree 1972:34). Used with posterior to describe theopposite ends of nonflake artifacts such as poi pounders (e.g., the knobbed end, or top, of a poi pounderis the anterior end). Anterior is synonymous with the term proximal, used to describe one end of a flake.See Proximal end.

Bidirectional (scarring, flaking, core) Negative flake scars resulting from flakes having been detachedfrom two directions (Crabtree 1972:38).

Bidirectional flaking technique is the preferred strategy during thinning and straightening ofquadrangular cross section adze preforms (Cleghorn 1982:196). An examination of flake scars producedduring bidirectional flaking suggests a majority will have the following characteristics: width greaterthan length, abrupt terminations (hinge, step), and a 90 degree platform/ventral surface angle (shearedbulb of percussion). Most likely, adze preform bidirectional flakes will have flake scars on the dorsalsurface (no cortex) reflecting previous reduction during the blank stages of adze manufacture. Flakeswith the above characteristics can also be produced during the earlier blank stages of adze manufacture.Bipolar flake See Flake, bipolar.

Bipolar technique The “technique of resting a core, or lithic implement, on an anvil and striking thecore with a percussor” (Crabtree 1972:42). Cleghorn (1982:152–53) found extensive evidence of flakes


with diffused bulbs of force in the early stage of adze manufacture, possibly associated with the bipolartechnique.

Blank “A usable piece of lithic material of adequate size and form for making a lithic artifact . . . theshape or form of the final product is not disclosed in the blank” (Crabtree 1972:42). The term blankidentifies an artifact in the early stages of tool manufacture. See also Adze blank; Core.

Boulder A rock >25.6 cm (>10 inches) in length (longest dimension), following the Wentworth scale(Wentworth 1922:381). Additionally, boulders are sized further: small, 25.6 to 38.1 cm (10 to 15inches); medium, 38.1 to 63.5 cm (15 to 25 inches); and large, >63.5 cm (>25 inches) (cf. Allen, ed.1987:39).

Bulb of force Partial cone on the ventral surface of a flake at the proximal end where it meets thestriking platform (area of impact). The point of impact received the force (either a blow or pressure),which detached the piece from the core (cf. Crabtree 1972:48). Bulb forms include diffuse, salient, andsheared (see below).

CCS See Cryptocrystalline silicate.

Cobble A rock 6.4 to 25.6 cm (2.5 to 10 inches) in length, following the Wentworth scale (Wentworth1922:381).

Core Piece of natural raw material exhibiting negative flake scars reflecting the deliberate detachmentof flakes. Can range in size from pebbles to boulders.

Core blank/tool A core blank exhibits only negative flake scars (primary core). A core tool ismanufactured from a core blank. See also Blank.

Core, Primary Primary cores exhibit only negative flake scars.

Core, Secondary Secondary cores are flakes from which other flakes have been removed (displayingone or more positive flake scars); the ventral surface is often used as a platform.

Cortex “The natural exterior surface of the rock, as opposed to an interior or flaked surface” (Addington1986:104). Cortex results from a combination of mechanical and chemical weathering. In contrast tocortex is weathering rind, which is chemical weathering of interior cracks, cleavage surfaces or formerinterior surfaces exposed for long periods of time. See Primary, Secondary and Tertiaryflakes—classified by relative amounts of cortex.

Cross section “The area that would be exposed if the artifact were cut in two” (Addington 1986:104).Cross section is taken at the shoulder of tanged adzes and at the midsection of untanged adzes (McCoy1991:91). Cross section provides a technique for identifying blank type. With adzes, triangular crosssections often represent adze flake blanks. Rectangular or square cross sectioned adzes were producedfrom blocks of raw material (i.e., core blanks).

Cryptocrystalline silicate (CCS) Variety of quartz (Stearns 1939:69). Chert, flint, jasper, chalcedony,agate, and onyx fall under this category. Both cherts and flints are most commonly found as secondarydeposits forming in limestones and chalks because of a concentration of silica (Whittaker 1994:70).Although basalt is composed mostly of plagioclase feldspar and ferromagnesian minerals and containsvery little quartz or silica, CCS is found in Hawai‘i in basalt veins and vesicles as a result of water


leaching silicate from the rock through time. It also appears as introduced material (e.g., gun flints andship ballast).

Debitage “Residual lithic material resulting from tool manufacture” (Crabtree 1972:58; Muto1971:124). Generally refers to flakes, broken flakes, and fragments contained in an assemblage.

Distal end “The extremity of the artifact opposite the proximal end or bulb of percussion” (Addington1986:105). The bevel/edge/blade portion when referring to an adze made from a flake. Same astermination end.

Dorsal surface Outer surface removed from a core (cf. McCoy 1991:90). The dorsal surface of anartifact is the exterior flake “face of a core prior to detachment” (Crabtree 1972:59). The dorsal surfaceof a flake exhibits cortex and/or flake scars. The opposite surface is ventral (Addington 1986:105).

Edge When referring to flakes, the periphery between the proximal and distal ends. When referring toadzes, “the thin, sharp edge of the blade which does the cutting” (Buck et al. 1930:177).

Edge altered Any modification of the edge of an artifact through use, retouch, or natural wear.

Eraillure flake “An enigmatic flake formed between the bulb of force and the bulbar scar. Usuallyadheres to the core in the bulbar scar.” (Crabtree 1972:60).

Exhausted “Used up. Consumed” (Crabtree 1972:62). Synonymous with spent; used to describe a corethat has become too small to successfully detach additional flakes.

Feathering, feather termination “A technique producing a flake which terminates in an edge with aminimal margin. Produces blades or flakes with edges and distal ends which are very sharp” (Crabtree1972:64). Feather terminating flakes occur throughout the different stages of adze manufacture,although they are more prevalent during the earlier (blank) stages (Cleghorn 1982:156–159).

Flake “Any piece of stone removed from a larger mass by the application of force—either intentional,accidentally, or by nature. A portion of isotropic material having a platform and bulb of force at theproximal end” (Muto 1971:124).

Flake (diagnostic, complete) A flake having identifiable ventral and dorsal surfaces, and completeproximal (striking platform) and distal (termination) ends. The lateral edges (sides) may be completeor broken.

Flake, bipolar Flake that results from implementing the bipolar technique. The most diagnostic resultof bipolar technique is one or twin bulbs of percussion located at both proximal and distal ends. Alsodiagnostic of the bipolar flake is crushing at the distal end.

Flake blank/tool A flake blank exhibits a positive flake scar (secondary core), the ventral surface ofthe original flake, used as a platform for the removal of flakes to form a flake tool (cf. McCoy 1991:89).See also Cross section.Flake, broken (diagnostic, broken) A broken flake has identifiable ventral and dorsal surfaces; oneor both of the ends (proximal/distal) is broken. The lateral edges (sides) may be complete or broken.See Fragment (nondiagnostic).

Flake length The maximum dimension of a flake measured at right angles to the striking platform(Keeley 1980:17). Length is a proximal/distal measurement.


Flake, primary Flake bearing 90 to 100% cortex on the dorsal surface. This is a flake removed earlyin the reduction of a core (Crabtree 1972; Sullivan and Rozen 1985:757).

Flake scar The generally concave negative area on a stone remaining after a flake was removed.

Flake, secondary Flake bearing some cortex, which has been removed from a core.

Flake termination See Feathering; Hinge fracture; Step.

Flake thickness “The maximum depth of the flake measured perpendicular to the general plane ofpercussion” (Keeley 1980:17). Thickness is a dorsal/ventral measurement.

Flake width The maximum dimension perpendicular to the length (Keeley 1980:17).

Fragment (nondiagnostic) Ventral and dorsal surfaces are not identifiable; angular fragment does notexhibit general flake characteristics at the macroscopic level.

Gabbro Coarse-grained igneous rock, similar to basalt, composed mainly of plagioclase feldspar andpyroxene, often with olivine (Macdonald and Abbott 1974:111). Gabbro and Hawaiite are described ashaving a “salt and pepper” appearance.

Hinge fracture A fracture that “terminates the flake at right angles to the longitudinal axis and thebreak at the distal end is usually rounded or blunt” (Crabtree 1972:68).

Manuport Unmodified, often waterworn pebble, cobble, or boulder that does not naturally occur in theenvironment in which it is found. Manuports were brought onto the site either inadvertently, forspiritual or esthetic reasons (cf. Schilt 1984:245), as gamestones, or as a potential raw material for tools.

Margin Periphery of an artifact, used interchangeably with edge.

Measurements

Length Greatest longitudinal measurement (X axis). For artifacts identified as flakes, the length is a proximal/distal measurement taken at right angles to the strikingplatform.

Width Measurement taken by rotating the artifact 90° from the longitudinal plane(maximum length) (Y axis). Flake artifact width is the maximum dimension perpendicularto the length.

Thickness Greatest vertical measurement (Z axis). Flake artifact thickness is a dorsal/ventralmeasurement taken as a maximum depth measured perpendicular to the general plane ofpercussion.

Microscar A small flake scar. Microscars can be produced during use of a lithic tool. Microscars alsoresult from spontaneous retouch (occurring at the same time that the flake is removed from a core) ornatural causes.

The location and description of the microscars can sometimes be used to suggest a cultural ornatural origin.

Multidirectional flake scars The result of flaking from more than one direction (see also Schousboe


et al. 1983:363).

Pebble A rock 0.40 to 6.40 cm (approximately .25 to 2.5 inches) in length, following the Wentworthscale (Wentworth 1922:381).

Platform “The table, or surface area, receiving the force necessary to detach a flake. Can be eithernatural or prepared” (Muto 1971:125). Prepared platforms exhibit grinding, polishing, faceting, orbeveling on the end to receive the force that strengthens the platform, allowing a larger flake to beremoved (Crabtree 1972:84).

Polish The sheen of polish on an artifact develops in two ways. Polish develops on a plane surface bydeliberate or unintentional abrasion of an object with another object of equal or greater density. Polishalso develops as a result of sustained or repeated use on abrasive materials such as grasses.

Posterior Bottom, base, opposite of anterior (Crabtree 1972:34).

Primary flake See Flake, primary.

Primary core See Core, primary.

Proximal end “The extremity of the artifact that has, or once had, the bulb of percussion” (Addington1986), and striking platform. This is opposite the distal end.

Retouching A “technique used to thin, straighten, sharpen, smooth, and make the artifact more regularin form” (Muto 1971:126). Purposeful action to produce a tool.

Rounding “Rounding represents the process of fine abrasion or attrition of any portion of a tool throughthe gradual removal of fine particles or single grains” (Brink 1978:47). Rounding is characteristic ofuse.

Secondary flake See Flake, secondary.

Secondary Core See Core, secondary.

Step fracture “A flake or flake scar that terminates abruptly in a right angle break at the point oftruncation. Caused by a dissipation of force or the collapse of the flake” (Muto 1971:126).

Striation(s) “A linear groove, scratch or furrow found on any portion of a tool. These grooves occurwhen the tool is under pressure and in contact with another object” (Brink 1978:47).

Termination Distal end of a flake, opposite the bulb of percussion (Addington 1986:105). Techniquesmay be used to manufacture different desired terminations. Feathering creates a sharp end with a limitedmargin, while other techniques produce abrupt terminations known as hinge, reverse hinge, step, andsnap fractures (Crabtree 1972:92). Some snapping may be unintentional, but it is difficult to distinguishbetween deliberate and nondeliberate snap breaks. See also Distal end; Feathering; Hinge fracture;Step fracture.

Tertiary flake Flake bearing no cortex (Sullivan and Rozen 1985:757).

Use-wear micropolish Abrasive wear resulting in polish on margins and surfaces through use againstanother material. Similar to terms such as “microwear polish” (Keeley 1980:22), “micropolish”(Vaughan 1985), “use-wear” (Hayden 1979), and “microwear” (Brink 1978:48; Tringham et al. 1974).


Polished flakes, broken flakes, fragments, or other forms of basalt artifacts will characteristically havea gradual margin along the edge with polish.

Ventral surface “The surface of the artifact that was created by the separation of the piece from the coreand, as a result, has (or once had) a bulb of percussion.” It is the opposite of dorsal surface (Addington1986:110).Weathering rind Weathering formed on interior surfaces. See also Cortex.

Weathered surface Surface that was once interior, since exposed and subjected to weatheringprocesses.

ê 277

APPENDIX B

EXPERIMENTALMICROARTIFACT ANALYSES,SITE 4483

Frank R. ThomasJahn E. Van Brunt

Feature 32 (see Figure 3.2) is a collection of 92 traditional lithic artifacts recovered from thegrubbed road surface on the south ridge of Site 4483. The two roads involved here were gradedto provide access for construction work, and covered an area of approximately 286 m2. Due to

the highly disturbed nature of the site, and its proximity to Likelike Highway, concerns arose as towhether the artifacts were the result of primary or secondary deposition.

To answer this question, a decision was made to conduct a laboratory study of the microartifacts(Fladmark 1982) present in soil samples taken from Unit 49, adjacent to Feature 32. The research wascarried out from 22 October to 10 December 1992, and focused upon three objectives: 1) to locate andidentify microartifacts within the site area; 2) to correlate the distribution and provenience ofmicroartifacts with macroartifacts to provide supplementary (and we hoped, complementary) data; and3) to enhance our understanding of the applicability and the feasibility of this type of analysis inHawaiian and Pacific archaeology.

UNIT SUMMARY

Between 18 June and 5 July 1992, Unit 49 (see Figure 3.2) was excavated to a final depth of 42 cmbs.Manual excavation followed natural soil layers, with all removed soil dry-screened through 1/4-inchand 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh. Layer designations and soil descriptions correspond to thosefound throughout the site (Table B-1).

Cultural material recovered from this unit included: one basalt flake from Layer I; one pieceof historic glass, one basalt fragment, one edge-altered basalt flake, one fragment of volcanic glass, and

278 ê Appendix B: Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483

one volcanic glass core from Layer IIa; and one basalt fragment and one basalt flake from Layer IIb.Layer III showed no evidence of cultural material.

Table B-1. Soil Descriptions for Layers in Unit 49, Site 4483

Layer Thickness(cm)

Description

I .5–1.5 Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2, moist) silt; strong, medium, granular structure; friable whenmoist, slightly sticky and nonplastic when wet; common, fine roots; few, very fine, vesicularpores; small flecks of charcoal; abrupt, wavy boundary.

IIa 20 Dark brown (10YR 3/3, moist) silty clay; moderate, blocky, fine structure; friable when moist,slightly sticky and plastic when wet; common, very fine to fine roots; few to common, fine,vesicular pores; charcoal, historic glass fragment, volcanic glass fragment and two basaltfragments; abrupt, wavy boundary.

IIb 10–13 Dark brown (7.5YR 3/3, moist) silty clay; moderate, angular blocky, very fine to fine structure;firm when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; few, fine to medium roots; few, fine, vesicularpores; charcoal; abrupt, wavy boundary.

III +15 Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4, moist) silty clay; moderate, angular blocky, very fine to finestructure; very firm when moist, very sticky and very plastic when wet; few, fine roots; few, fine,vesicular pores; no cultural material.

BACKGROUND

The study of microartifacts has not been commonly applied at archaeological sites. There is, however,a growing interest in this relatively new approach to understanding the archaeological record that canbe traced to Fladmark’s (1982) efforts in reconstructing lithic reduction systems. His ground-breakingresearch not only resulted in the delineation of activity areas, but also provided a line of evidenceconcerning postdepositional disturbance. The guiding principle behind this avenue of research is the factthat microdebitage (i.e., one of the forms of primary refuse left over from lithic reduction activities) isnot likely to be cleaned away or removed. More likely these sand-sized particles become trampled intothe dirt by normal foot traffic. Thus, even when the tools and the larger debitage associated with theirmanufacture have been removed, the microdebitage remains in place, constituting primary refuse. If,as is suggested, microartifacts are more likely to remain in place, it follows that their spatial relationshipto activities conducted where they are deposited can be suggested by their relative proportions.Moreover, items that do not occur in large numbers may very well serve as indicators of activities ona presence/absence basis.

Microartifacts are defined as traces of human activity (artifacts and byproducts) with a diameterof one of the following five designated sizes on the phi scale;

1) very coarse sand, measuring 1 mm (0 phi).

2) coarse sand, measuring .5 mm (+1 phi).

3) medium sand, measuring .25 mm (+2 phi).

4) fine sand, measuring .125 mm (+3 phi).

5) very fine sand, measuring .062 mm (+4 phi).

Appendix B: Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483 ê 279

Theoretically, artifacts are detectable to ionic sizes, as in concentrations of culturally depositedphosphorus. However, in light of the difficulties in identifying distinctive physical properties for bothfine and very fine sand, the latter two categories (+3 and +4 phi) were omitted from the study.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In order to compare microartifacts with the macroartifacts associated with Feature 32, soil samples fromall layers excavated in Unit 49 had to be taken from the field and compared to the cultural material(macroartifacts) previously recovered. The results of this comparison in turn provided data indicativeof either the primary depositional nature of the site (i.e., nondisturbed, and thus cultural) or thesecondary nature of the deposits (i.e., disturbed, possibly being the result of recent constructionactivities).

FIELD PROCEDURES

Four soil samples from Unit 49, located very close to both of the graded roads designated Feature 32,were collected for analysis. The samples were systematically gathered from a single column, avoidinglayer boundaries. Excavation notes provided the information for the layer designations. After cleaningthe west wall, approximately 35 ml of soil were collected for each sample and stored in a plasticphotographic film canister. Depths were measured below surface and above/below datum. The raw data,including proveniences, are available at Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory in a notebook entitledMicroartifact Project.

LABORATORY PROCEDURES

The collected soil samples were taken to the laboratory and air-dried in clean paper bags. It was notedthat soil aggregates remained, which required further processing time. The additional processingincluded rehydrating the samples with a peptizing solution containing sodium hexametaphosphate(Calgon) (Folk 1980:18). Once all of the soil aggregates were broken down, the elimination of silts andclays from the samples followed. This was achieved through wet-sieving, which involved pouring thesamples into a series of nested geological screens attached to a portable shaker. Each sample wasprocessed for 15 minutes. Particles remaining in the coarsest screen (2 mm or -1 phi) were examinedfor cultural material, but none was present. The sand-sized fractions (1.0 mm to .062 mm or 0 to +4 phi)were weighed on a digital scale and transferred into glass or plastic containers.

Grains from each 0 to +2 phi fractions were poured onto a Petri dish with 1-cm-grid graphpaper attached beneath at the base. The use of a Petri dish is preferred over a glass slide with double-sided tape, for the latter does not permit the manipulation of individual grains required for makingdetailed observations. All grains were counted on a wide focus 10X stereo microscope to determinequantitatively the relative abundance of various compositional classes (cf., Galehouse 1971:390).

280 ê Appendix B: Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483

Examined materials were labelled with dots on the individual vials, and placed in paper bags. Althoughthis method may not permit as easy access to the data as does the use of slides, the potential to damageartifacts is considerably reduced by avoiding the use of either tape or an adhesive cement.

With the grains of same-sized fractions spread equally across the dish, point counting proceededaccording to compositional class. Stein and Telster (1989:11) found that a density of about 100 grains/1cm2 was the maximum that could be accurately counted. Samples containing compositional classes ofinterest, such as charcoal, volcanic glass, post-Contact glass, or shell, as well as questionable materialswere examined twice.

A minimum of 300 grains was counted for each of the phi sizes, as suggested by Galehouse(1971:395). The actual number of grains that are necessary to attain a certain amount of confidence inthe results depends on the number of compositional types being counted and the rarity of any given type(Rhode 1988:708). For each successive 100 particles within a layer and size fraction, the cumulativepercentages of each compositional type should be calculated. When the cumulative percentages of allcompositional types are within .1% of the respective previous cumulative percents, statisticalredundancy is reached and counting may cease (Madsen 1992:198–199). Several more lots of 100particles were often counted to ensure that redundancy had in fact been achieved.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The evidence of cultural activity, as reflected through all of the compositional classes researched, wasindeed identified at the micro level (see Table B-2 for specific percentages). Included was: 1) historicalglass recovered from Layers I and IIa; 2) volcanic glass recovered from Layer IIb; and 3) charcoalrecovered from Layers I, IIa, and III. All of the cultural material identified at the micro level correlateswith the cultural material recovered at the macro level, namely, charcoal being present throughout alllayers, with historic glass being found in the more recently deposited stratigraphic horizons (i.e., LayersI and IIa), and volcanic glass being found in the lower stratigraphic horizon (i.e., Layer IIb).Interestingly, when both micro- and macroartifacts were compared regarding volcanic glass, it wasfound that both the volcanic glass core and the volcanic glass fragment (Artifacts 50-Oa-G5-152-293and 50-Oa-G5-152-294, respectively) were recovered from Layer IIa, whereas the evidence on the microlevel for volcanic glass was recovered from Layer IIb. This supports the original line of reasoning andprinciple behind the study of microartifacts—that it is likely the microdebitage was literally trampledinto the dirt and left behind for contemporary archaeologists to find as primary refuse.

With regard to complementary data, it should be noted that no evidence of charcoal for LayerIII had been found at the termination of excavation. However, microanalysis later showed that charcoalwas indeed present, further helping us in our understanding of human occupation of the site.

Appendix B: Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483 ê 281

Table B-2. Contents of Soil Samples from Unit 49, Site 4483*

Layer Type Depth cmbs 0 phi 1 phi 2 phi

I Seed 1 .17

I Charcoal 1 .33 .29

I Historical Glass 1 .29

IIa Charcoal 11 .67 1.60 .33

IIa Historical Glass 14 .50 .50 .25

IIb Volcanic Glass 25 .07

III Charcoal 35 .20*Percentages for 0 to 2 phi only (roots excluded).

In sum, the evidence at the micro level supports the hypothesis that the lithic artifacts identifiedas Feature 32 were not the result of recent construction activities, but were the remains of culturalactivity left undisturbed until the present time. To conclude, the experimental microartifact analysisconducted indicates that this type of study is both feasible and applicable to Hawaiian and Pacificarchaeology, and as such, should be pursued actively in the future.

SIGNIFICANCE AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The interpretation of the prehistoric record has never been an easy endeavor. The research conductedin the Hawaiian Islands, in particular, offers the archaeologist no sequence of metallurgy forcomparisons, no terra cotta figurines to identify, and no ceramics to piece together and place inseriation. In short, the avenues of research currently available are limited. The fact that the study ofmicroartifacts opens a new avenue for researchers to further study and interpret prehistory is pertinentnot only to Hawaiian archaeology, but to the larger scope of Pacific archaeology as well.

The following is a list of recommendations for improving future sample processing.1) Soil and other particles tend to cling to plastic containers. Film canisters, plastic Petridishes, and containers previously used for other purposes should be avoided, as informationcan be lost or inadvertently added (a random check of empty, but previously used, filmcanisters confirmed the presence of residual marine shell fragments);

2) Air-drying prior to wet-sieving is not recommended. All samples should be processed whilemoist to facilitate the breakdown of particles;

3) A peptizing solution should be used to prevent clays from flocculating. Distilled water isalso preferred to tap water;

4) Some particles (e.g., charcoal) tend to fragment as they are being manipulated, thusskewing results. Careful handling of the samples after processing should minimize furtherbiases;

5) In an environment where silt and clay-sized particles abound, larger samples (greater than35 ml) should be taken to obtain a sufficient number of sand-sized particles for statisticallyvalid results.

ê 283

APPENDIX C

IMMUNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OFARTIFACTS FROM SITE 4483

Margaret Newman

Recent studies have demonstrated that lithic artifacts often retain traces of organic residueresulting from their original use (Briuer 1976; Broderick 1979; Downs 1985; Hyland et al.1990; Kooyman et al. 1992; Newman 1990; Newman and Julig 1989; Shafer and Holloway

1979; Yohe et al. 1991). Through the use of immunological and biochemical techniques, the animalof origin can be identified to at least the family level of identity. This information can be used in thereconstruction of prehistoric subsistence patterns, and possibly in identifying artifacts used forspecific tasks.

Immunological tests have been used for many years to characterize bloodstains in medico-legal work. Since the introduction of the precipitin test for the medicolegal identification ofbloodstains at the turn of the century (Culliford 1964; Gaensslen 1983), several new techniques havebeen introduced. However, the basis of all subsequent immunological tests remains the antigen-antibody reaction first observed in the classic precipitin test (Gaensslen 1983:53). The successfulidentification of residues by this method is dependent upon the amount and condition of antigenretained in the stain. However, forensic studies have demonstrated that blood proteins can generallywithstand harsh treatment and still be identified (Gaensslen 1983; Macey 1979; Sensabaugh et al.1971; among others). The sensitivity and specificity of precipitin reactions makes them an extremelyeffective method for the detection of trace amounts of protein (Kabat and Meyer 1967:22).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The method of analysis used in this laboratory is crossover immune electrophoresis (CIEP). This isbased on the work of Culliford (1964), with minor changes made following the methods of the Royal

284 ê Appendix C: Immunological Analysis of Artifacts from Site 4483

Canadian Mounted Police Serology Laboratory, Ottawa (Royal Canadian Mounted Police 1983), andthe Centre of Forensic Sciences, Toronto. The test is extremely sensitive and can detect 10-8gm ofprotein (Culliford 1964:1092). This procedure is discussed fully by Newman and Julig (1989).

Ten lithic artifacts recovered from Site 4483 (together with 10 from other sites: Allen et al.1995) were submitted for protein residue analysis. Control soil samples were also sent. Becausecontaminants in the soil, such as bacteria, tannic acid, and iron chlorates, may result in nonspecificprecipitation of antiserum, it is important that soils are included in the analysis (Gaensslen 1983).

Possible residues were removed from the artifacts by using a 5% ammonium hydroxidesolution. This has been shown to be the most effective extractant for old and denatured blood stains,and does not interfere with subsequent testing (Dorrill and Whitehead 1979; Kind and Cleevely1969). The artifacts were placed in shallow plastic dishes, and 0.5 cc of the 5% ammonia solutionapplied with a syringe and needle. Initial disaggregation of residue is carried out by floating theplastic dish and its contents in an ultrasonic cleaning bath for two to three minutes. Extraction iscontinued by placing the boat and contents on a rotating mixer for 30 minutes. The resulting ammoniasolution is removed with a pipette, placed in a numbered plastic vial, and refrigerated prior to furthertesting.

Approximately 1 ml of Tris buffer (pH 8.0) was added to the soil samples, mixed well, andallowed to extract for 24 hours at 4oC to prevent bacterial contamination. The resulting supernatantfluid was removed and tested against pre-immune serum to determine if contaminants were present.

Artifact and soil samples were first tested against preimmune serum (i.e., serum from anonimmunized animal). A positive result against preimmune serum could arise from nonspecificprotein interaction not based on the immunological specificity of the antibody (i.e., nonspecificprecipitation). No positive results were obtained. All artifact samples were then tested against theantisera shown in Table C-1. Duplicate testing is carried out on all positive reacting specimens.

Table C-1. Antisera Used in Crossover Immune Electrophoresis Analysis, Site 4483

Anti-Sera Source

anti-dog Organon\Teknika

anti-pig Forensic medicine

anti-chicken Forensic medicine

anti-rat Forensic medicine

anti-mouse Forensic medicine

anti-human Forensic medicine

anti-duck Nordic immunological

anti-fern University of Calgary

anti-shark Dr. J. Lowenstein

anti-sturgeon Dr. J. Lowenstein

Except where noted, the animal antisera used in this analysis are primarily obtained fromcommercial sources, and are developed specifically for use in forensic medicine. These antisera arepolyclonal, that is, they recognize epitopes shared by closely related species. For example, theantiserum to dog will give positive results with other members of the Canidae family such as fox,

Appendix C: Immunological Analysis of Artifacts from Site 4483 ê 285

coyote, and wolf. Two additional antisera, shark and sturgeon, were obtained from Dr. J. Lowenstein,University of San Francisco, while the antiserum to fern was raised at the University of Calgary.Immunological relationships do not necessarily bear any relationship to the Linnaean classificationscheme although they usually do (Gaensslen 1983).

RESULTS

The positive results obtained in CIEP analysis are presented in Table C-2 and discussed below.

Table C-2. Positive Results from Crossover Immune Electrophoresis Analysis, Site 4483

Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-152-

Artifact Type Result

23 Adze fragment, basalt pig

172 Flake, basalt pig

26 Flake with polish, basalt dog

27 Micro-adze, basalt fern

Positive reactions to pig antiserum were obtained on two artifacts. These results imply theprocessing of pig (Suidae), as cross-reactions with other families do not generally occur.

A positive reaction to dog antiserum was elicited from another artifact. As previouslydiscussed, any member of the Canidae family may be represented by these results. Cross-reactionswith other families are not known to occur.

A positive reaction to fern antiserum was obtained on one other artifact, a micro-adze. Thisantiserum was raised against bracken fern (Pteridium spp.), and will elicit positive reactions with allmembers of that family.

The absence of identifiable proteins on the other six artifacts may be due to poor preservationof protein, or to the possibility that the artifacts were used on species other than those covered by theantisera. It is also possible that the artifacts were not utilized.

ê 287

APPENDIX D

GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OFARTIFACTS COLLECTED ATSITE 4483

Kevin Johnson

Eight samples of basaltic rock and volcanic glass were selected for geochemical analysis todetermine possible source areas of the lavas. The samples, all prefixed by 50-0a-G5-152-, are:65, 108, 171, 175, 205, 209, 213, and 260. Each artifact was sampled either by removing small

cores with diamond drills or, if it was too small for coring, by removing a small (0.2 cm2) flake fromthe artifact for microanalysis. The samples were analyzed by either X-ray fluorescence (XRF), followingprocedures described by Norrish and Hutton (1969), or by ion probe microanalysis (Johnson et al. 1990)to determine their chemical compositions. The chemical analyses are listed in Table D-1 along with arepresentative analysis from Waiähole (O‘ahu) adze quarry for comparison.

The artifacts lie within a relatively narrow compositional range defined by Hawaiian volcanoes.Provenance of the artifacts was determined by comparing their geochemical compositions with thoseof geological samples from a comprehensive database of more than 4,000 Hawaiian rock compositions(Johnson 1995). Based on multivariate statistical analysis, primarily cluster and principal componentsanalysis, along with comparison plots of representative elements, artifact provenance was assigned.Because of insufficient geological sample coverage for some volcanoes, determination of precisesources within a volcano is not always possible. However, in some cases it is, and these are shown inthe listing of sources for four artifacts from the current site (Table D-2).

In summary, the eight samples analyzed in this study exhibit a relatively narrow compositionalrange. Based on geochemistry alone, the samples consistently plot in well-defined fields for O‘ahuvolcanoes. Four of the samples, 65, 108, 175, and 205, are probably from the east-central Ko‘olauRange and show similarities to samples from the Waiähole Quarry. Samples 171, 209, 213, and 260 plotwithin the broad range of Wai‘anae lavas, but their precise provenance is uncertain. While there is someoverlap with data from other Hawaiian volcanoes in some projections, this is not systematic, and it ismost probable that the rocks are from O‘ahu.

288 ê Appendix D: Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483

Table D-1. Geochemical Composition of Artifacts, Site 4483

Sample G5-152-WaiäholeQuarry65 108 171 175 205 209 213 260

Major Elements (weight percent)

SiO2 50.42 51.73 51.99 52.62 52.14 53.01

TiO2 2.26 2.18 2.20 2.36 1.94 1.83 2.13 2.50 2.14

Al2O3 15.70 13.94 14.04 14.21 14.00 13.88

Fe2O3 12.23 11.85 11.05 11.38 11.18 11.21

MnO 0.14 0.15 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14

MgO 6.39 6.97 5.75 6.69 5.68 6.54

CaO 9.78 9.85 9.58 9.30 9.23 9.10

Na2O 2.52 2.57 2.67 2.62 2.92 2.65

K2O 0.20 0.53 0.41 0.48 0.59 0.72

P2O5 0.32 0.30 0.39 0.27 0.39 0.32

LOI 0.02 0.07 1.77 1.30 0.54

Total 99.98 100.14 100.16 99.63 100.07 100.25

Trace Elements (ppm)

Zn 116 104 106 108 102

Cu 79 123 93 108 111

Ni 119 101 78 81 125

Co 53 63 53 56

Mn 1095 1129 1081 1063

Cr 211 284 243 158 210 424 159 226

V 282 258 234 289 223 293 290 265

Sr 463 401 313 594 270 278 537 441

Y 60 27 16 25 15 12 27 24

Zr 167 161 147 189 130 128 194 160

Nb 13.3 17.8 11.4 16.5 11.0 10.4 17.2 10

U 1.7 <2

Rb 1.7 7.3 14 24 10

Th <2

Pb 3.13 <2

La 9.0 7.2 4.4

Ce 23.7 19.8 13.2

Nd 15.3 13.6 10.3

Sm 4.2 3.6 2.9

Dy 3.8 3.1 2.7

Er 2.2 1.8 1.7

Yb 1.8 1.5 1.3

Appendix D: Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483 ê 289

Table D-2. Probable Source Area for Artifacts, Site 4483

Sample G5-152 Source Area

65 Ko‘olau Range, probably east-central


171 Wai‘anae Range






ê 291

APPENDIX E

INVENTORY OF LITHICS FROMUNITS AND AUGER BORES, SITE 4483

Mary Riford

Table E-1. Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483*

Unit Layer/Level

Material Specimen Notes Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152-

Count

1 IIa volcanic glass debitage flake 60 1III basalt flake with polish 375 1Fe. 4 basalt debitage 1 brkn. fl., 1 frag. Lot 150 2

2 I basalt edge-altered flake 63 1edge-altered flake, brkn. 62 1

volcanic glass debitage frags. Lot 17 2debitage flake; negative CIEP results 25 1

Fe. 2 basalt debitage brkn. fl. 64 1II basalt ‘ulu maika/hammerstone vesicular; sourced to

Ko‘olau Range65 1

3 IIa volcanic glass debitage frag. 78 14 IIb volcanic glass debitage flake 61 16 II basalt debitage flakes Lot 20 2

volcanic glass debitage frag. 77 17 II/1 basalt adze positive CIEP results 27 1

flake with polish positive CIEP results 26 1debitage flake 67 1debitage brkn. fl. 66 1

volcanic glass debitage 1 flake, 1 brkn. fl. Lot 18 2II/2 basalt debitage brkn. fl. 68 1

debitage brkn. fl. 69 1debitage brkn. fl. 70 1debitage brkn. fl. 28 1

volcanic glass debitage flake; negative CIEP results 163 1debitage frag. 236 1

*From transect/auger bores south of Unit 14.

292 ê Appendix E: Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483

Unit Layer/Level


Count

8 II/1 basalt debitage brkn. fl. 71 1

debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 19 2

edge-altered flake positive CIEP results 172 1

volcanic glass debitage brkn. fl. 72 1

II/2 basalt debitage dike rock frag. 73 1

debitage flake 74 1

debitage frag. 75 1


9 IIa/2 basalt debitage flake 79 1

debitage flake 80 1

volcanic glass debitage flake 242 1

debitage flake; negative CIEP results 364 1

debitage frag.; negative CIEP results 363 1

IIb basalt debitage flake 165 1

volcanic glass debitage frag. 81 1

14 grubbedsurface

basalt

adze blank 82 1

IIa basalt adze fragment blade end frag. 211 1

flake with polish 381 1

debitage 6 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 100 7

debitage 4 flakes; 3 brkn. fls. Lot 107 7


debitage 10 flakes; 10 brkn. fls.; 2 frags.

Lot 121 22


volcanic glass cores Lot 113 2

core 204 1

cores Lot 21 2

core Lot 132 1

edge-altered frag. 389 1

edge-altered flake 206 1

edge-altered frag. 86 1

debitage 1 flake; 2 brkn. fls. Lot 93 3

debitage brkn. fl. 87 1

debitage 7 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. Lot 101 13

debitage 5 flakes; 1 frag. Lot 106 6


debitage frags. Lot 123 2



Appendix E: Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483 ê 293

Unit Layer/Level


Count

(continued)

14 IIb basalt chisel polished; sourced toWai‘anae Range

213 1




debitage flake 83 1




debitage flake 207 1




core sourced to Ko‘olau Range 205 1

cores Lot 117 3

core 208 1

core Lot 116 1

edge-altered flake, brkn. 212 1

edge-altered flake sourced to Wai‘anae Range 209 1

debitage 9 flakes; 11 brkn. fls.; 7frags.

Lot 109 27


Lot 103 20


Lot 118 40



Lot 124 22



III/1 basalt flake with polish, brkn. 202 1

debitage 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 112 5



core Lot 125 1




debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 119 3

debitage 3 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 2 frags. Lot 125 6


Unit Layer/Level


Count

14 III/1 volcanic glass debitage 4 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. Lot 130 6

15 grubbedsurface


debitage frag. 167 1

debitage frag. 388 1

18 grubbedsurface

basalt debitage brkn. fl. 187 1

IIa volcanic glass debitage brkn. fl. 189 1


IIb volcanic glass debitage flake 191 1

19 II/2 basalt debitage flake 182 1

20 IIa basalt flake with polish 379 1




21.2 IIa basalt debitage flake 218 1



IIb basalt debitage frag. 220 1

21.6 IIa basalt debitage flake 221 1



debitage 2 brkn. fls. Lot 142 2

volcanic glass edge-altered flake 226 1

debitage frags. Lot 140 2


debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 139 2

volcanic glass debitage 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. Lot 141 5

25 grubbedsurface


26 Fe. 21 basalt edge-altered flake 284 1


28 Fe. 23fill


30 grubbedsurface

volcanic glass edge-altered flake 231 1


31 grubbedsurface



IIa volcanic glass debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 143 2

debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 4 frags. Lot 144 6

debitage 1 flake, 1 brkn. fl. Lot 146 2

Appendix E: Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483 ê 295

Unit Layer/Level


Count

(continued)

31 IIb volcanic glass debitage 1 brkn. fl. 362 1



36 grubbedsurface


37 grubbedsurfaceof IIa

basalt debitage flake 266 1


volcanic glass debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 157 2

IIa basalt debitage frag. 268 1

38 IIa volcanic glass edge-altered flake 270 1

41 grubbedsurfaceof IIa


42 IIa basalt flake with polish 288 1



44 surface basalt flake with polish 299 1

I volcanic glass debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 165 2


IIa basalt flake with polish 387 1




IIa volcanic glass debitage flake 304 1




debitage flakes Lot 166 2


crypto-crystallinesilicate

flake 302 1

IIb basalt debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 164 2

Fe. 35fill

basalt debitage flake 308 1

45 IIa/1 basalt debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 159 2






Unit Layer/Level


Count

45 IIa/2 volcanic glass core 286 1

debitage 1 brkn. fl. 279 1

46 IIa/1 basalt debitage flakes Lot 160 2

47 IIa/1 volcanic glass debitage flake 292 1

48 IIa/2 volcanic glass debitage brkn. fl. 18 1

49 I basalt debitage flake 310 1

IIa/1 basalt edge-altered flake 295 1



49 IIa/2 basalt debitage brkn. fl. 312 1


50 IIa/2 volcanic edge-altered flake 313 1


51.1 I basalt adze preform sourced to Ko‘olau Range 175 1

51.2 IIa/1 volcanic glass debitage flake 358 1


IIb/1 basalt flake with polish, edge-altered

357 1

3.1* IIa basalt debitage flake 185 1

4.5* IIb basalt debitage flake 186 1

5.5* IIb basalt flake with polish 223 1

ê 297

APPENDIX F

INVENTORY OF LITHICS FROMFEATURE 13 GRIDS, SITE 4483

Mary Riford

Table F-1. Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Grubbed Surface Collections Layer II/III, Site 50-80-10-4483

Grid Material Specimen Notes Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152-

Count

1 basalt adze blank modified flake 101 1adze fragment positive CIEP results 23 1

adze fragment 102 1edge-altered flake 99 1

flaked cobble fragment with negative scars 98 1hammerstone 97 1

hammerstone fragment 183 1debitage flakes Lot 77 4

debitage flakes Lot 91 2debitage 3 flakes; 6 brkn. fls. Lot 25 9

debitage brkn. fl. 100 1debitage flake 92 1

volcanic glass core core frag. 94 1edge-altered flake 95 1

edge-altered flake 96 1debitage flake 93 1

debitage 6 flakes; 3 frags. Lot 24 9debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 92 2

debitage 7 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. Lot 73 15debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 89 2

1.1 basalt edge-altered flake 89 1adze blank 374 1


298 ê Appendix F: Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Site 4483


Count

1.1 basalt debitage 3 flakes; 1 frag. Lot 79 4debitage brkn. fl. 193 1

debitage flake 166 1debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 74 2

debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 23 3volcanic glass core secondary 90 1

debitage brkn. fl. 91 1debitage flake 194 1

2 basalt core Lot 26 1debitage 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. Lot 26 5

debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 86 2volcanic glass core 103 1

core secondary 104 1debitage flake 184 1

debitage 1 flake; 2 frags. Lot 88 33 basalt adze fragment 109 1

edge-altered flake 106 1edge-altered flake 107 1

grinding stone fragment sourced to Ko‘olau Range 108 1debitage 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 27 4

debitage brkn. fl. 117 1volcanic glass cores Lot 36 9


debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 78 2debitage 5 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 134 6

debitage 18 flakes; 14 brkn. fls.; 15 frags. Lot 37 474 basalt debitage 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. Lot 28 6

debitage 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 29 3debitage flake 179 1

volcanic glass cores Lot 30 3cores Lot 149 3

core 196 1cores 1 fragmentary Lot 84 4

edge-altered flake 110 1debitage 19 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. Lot 31 26

debitage 6 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. Lot 80 15debitage flake 240 1

debitage flake 241 1debitage brkn. fl. Lot 181 1

Appendix F: Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Site 4483 ê 299


Count

(continued)

4 volcanic glass debitage 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. Lot 95 75 basalt core 114 1

pebble tool with multiple grooves 113 1hammerstone/abrader 112 1

debitage 2 flakes; 2 frags. Lot 35 4debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 34 2

debitage flake 173 1debitage flake 188 1

debitage brkn. fl. 215 1debitage brkn. fls. Lot 137 2


core 271 1core Lot 136 1

edge-altered flake 111 1debitage 13 flakes; 6 brkn. fls.; 15 frags. Lot 33 34

debitage flake 174 1debitage 3 flakes; 7 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. Lot 136 14

debitage 6 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 135 96 basalt hammerstone tabular piece 124 1

hammerstone 123 1debitage 5 flakes; 3 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 39 9

debitage brkn. fl. 239 1debitage brkn. fl. 125 1

volcanic glass core 119 1core frag. 272 1

core 238 1core 197 1

core frag. 237 1core Lot 38 1

edge-altered flake 198 1edge-altered fragment 122 1


debitage 5 flakes; 6 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. Lot 96 14debitage 1 flake; 1 frag. Lot 148 2

debitage 5 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. Lot 85 14debitage 23 flakes; 6 brkn. fls.; 20 frags. Lot 38 49



Count

6 volcanic glass debitage flake 273 1debitage 2 flakes; 1 frag. Lot 138 3

debitage 2 brkn. fls. Lot 147 27 basalt edge-altered flake 126 1

debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 40 2debitage flake 356 1

debitage flake 127 1volcanic glass core fragment 274 1

debitage 10 flakes; 11 brkn. fls.; 9 frags. Lot 41 30debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. 176 2

debitage brkn. fl. 257 1debitage flakes Lot 133 2

8 basalt edge-altered flake 367 1edge-altered flake,brkn.

199 1


flake with polish 385 1debitage 4 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 44 6

debitage flake 216 1debitage 1 flake; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 82 4


core Lot 42 1core 235 1

edge-altered flake 360 1edge-altered flake,brkn.

131 1




edge-altered flake,brkn.

128 1

edge-altered flake 256 1debitage frag. 366 1

debitage 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 97 4debitage 17 flakes; 12 brkn. fls.; 19 frags. Lot 83 48

debitage 48 flakes; 27 brkn. fls.; 48 frags. Lot 42 1239 basalt debitage flake 291 1

debitage 1 brkn. fl.; 5 frags. Lot 47 6

Appendix F: Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Site 4483 ê 301


Count

(continued)

9 volcanic glass cores Lot 45 2edge-altered frag. 136 1

debitage 7 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 10 frags. Lot 46 18debitage 2 flakes; 1 frag. Lot 90 3

10 basalt adze blank very battered 138 1flake with polish, brkn. 372 1

flake with polish 373 1flake with polish 380 1

edge-altered flake Lot 49 1debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 49 3

debitage flakes Lot 99 2debitage flake 180 1

debitage flake 317 1debitage brkn. fl. 250 1

volcanic glass cores Lot 50 11core Lot 98 1

core Lot 51 1edge-altered flake 181 1

debitage 12 flakes; 8 brkn. fls.; 12 frags. Lot 87 32debitage 11 flakes; 12 brkn. fls.; 6 frags. Lot 98 29

debitage 41 flakes; 27 brkn. fls.; 22 frags. Lot 51 9011 basalt debitage frag. 139 1

debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. Lot 54 3volcanic glass core Lot 52 1

debitage 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 53 512 basalt edge-altered flake 141 1

debitage frag. 142 1volcanic glass cores Lot 55 3


315 1


debitage flake 316 1debitage brkn. fls. Lot 94 2

debitage 8 flakes; 7 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 56 1613 basalt edge-altered flake 145 1

edge-altered flake 144 1hammerstone discoid 146 1



Count

14 basalt anvil/hammerstone elongated cobble 147 1core 85 1


318 1

edge-altered flake 148 1debitage flake 84 1

debitage 3 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 58 4volcanic glass debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 57 2

15 basalt debitage 2 flakes; 2 frags. Lot 59 416 basalt adze battered 150 1

edge-altered flake 149 1volcanic glass debitage flakes Lot 81 2

17 basalt adze fragment 156 1volcanic glass core 155 1

debitage 2 flakes; 1 frag. Lot 63 318 basalt adze sourced to Wai‘anae Range 171 1

debitage 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. Lot 68 5volcanic glass cores Lot 66 2

core fragment of core tool 162 1edge-altered flake 161 1

debitage frags. Lot 65 13debitage 2 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. Lot 67 9

19 basalt debitage 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 2 frags. Lot 71 5debitage frags. Lot 70 2

volcanic glass debitage 4 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 69 720 basalt debitage brkn. fl. 158 1

debitage brkn. fl. 159 1volcanic glass core Lot 64 1

debitage brkn. fl. Lot 64 1volcanic glass debitage brkn. fl. 243 1

22 basalt waterworn pebble tool with groove and polish 390 1debitage brkn. fls. Lot 60 2

volcanic glass debitage frag. 152 123 basalt debitage brkn. fls. Lot 61 2

debitage flake 154 1volcanic glass debitage 4 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.;

5 frags.Lot 62 11

24 volcanic glass debitage 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. Lot 22 5

25 basalt debitage flakes Lot 76 3volcanic glass debitage brkn. fl. 88 1


ê 303

APPENDIX G

SUMMARY OF LITHICS FROMFEATURE 32, SITE 4483

Mary Riford

Table G-1. Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Grubbed Surface Collections (Layer II, Outside Units), Site 4483

Material Specimen Notes Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-152

Count

basalt adze frag. cutting edge; sourced to Wai‘anae Range 260 1adze preform 263 1awl rounded, polished point 391 1hammerstone pitted areas on large, waterworn pebble 321 1grinding stone frag. 258 1grinding stone frag. 264 1edge-altered flake, brkn. 333 1edge-altered flake 352 1flake with polish, brkn. 261 1flake with polish 262 1flake with polish 371 1flake with polish 383 1debitage frag. 245 1debitage flake 248 1debitage brkn. fl. 382 1debitage flakes Lot 151 2debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 154 2debitage 1 flake; 1 frag Lot 155 2debitage flakes Lot 156 12debitage flakes Lot 158 3debitage brkn. fl. 280 1debitage brkn. fl. 282 1

304 ê Appendix G: Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Site 4483

Material Specimen Notes Artifact No.50-Oa-G5-152

Count

basalt debitage 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. Lot 161 5debitage flake 320 1debitage flake 325 1debitage flake. 326 1debitage brkn. fl. 327 1debitage brkn. fl. 328 1debitage brkn. fl. 329 1debitage 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. Lot 168 3debitage flake 330 1debitage flake 332 1debitage flakes Lot 169 3debitage brkn. fl. 334 1debitage flake 335 1debitage brkn. fl.; fire-affected? 336 1debitage flake 337 1debitage flake 338 1debitage flakes Lot 170 2debitage brkn. fl. 339 1debitage brkn. fl. 340 1debitage brkn. fl. 341 1debitage brkn. fl. 342 1edge-altered flake 343 1debitage frag. 344 1debitage frag. 345 1debitage brkn. fl. 346 1flake with polish 347 1debitage flakes Lot 171 2debitage flake 348 1debitage flake 349 1debitage frag. 350 1debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. Lot 172 2debitage flake 353 1debitage frag. 378 1

volcanic glass core secondary 322 1core 331 1debitage brkn. fl. 323 1debitage frag. 351 1debitage frag. 229 1debitage frag. 324 1

ê 305

APPENDIX H

STRATIGRAPHIC POLLENANALYSIS AT SITE 4483

Linda Scott Cummings

METHODOLOGY

The organic-rich clay samples were placed in a solution of sodium hexametaphosphate todisaggregate the clays and liberate the organics, including pollen. Lycopodium tablets were addedto the samples at this stage, after which the samples were screened through 150-micron mesh. Afterthe samples had been rinsed and the majority of the clay removed, small quantities of hydrochloricacid were added to each sample to assure that they were acidic prior to the zinc bromide separation.Zinc bromide (density 2.5) was added to each sample to separate organics from remaining inorganicsin the same sample. This step was repeated using two separate applications of zinc bromide at adensity of 2.0. The organic matter recovered during this separation was retained, rinsed, andcentrifuged. All samples received a short (10 minutes) treatment in hot hydrofluoric acid to removeinorganic particles. The samples were then acetolated for five minutes to remove organic matter. Thesamples were examined microscopically at this time, and a single reference slide was made. Thesamples were then acetolated for an additional five minutes to remove more of the voluminousorganic matter present. The samples were processed at an elevation of 5,400 famsl, where theacetolysis reaction is considerably slower than at sea level. The samples were rinsed until neutral,at which time two to three drops of 5% potassium hydroxide were added to the distilled water rinseto put remaining humic acids into solution. Basic fuschin satin was added to the samples at this time.When the samples were rinsed clear with distilled water, microscope slides were made with glycerolto facilitate counting.

A light microscope was used to count the pollen to a total of 100 to 200 pollen grains at amagnification of 500X. Pollen preservation in these samples varied from good to poor. Comparativereference material collected at Bishop Museum Herbarium was used to identify the pollen to thefamily, genus, and species level, where possible.

Figure H-1. Pollen diagram of Site 4483.

Appendix H: Stratigraphic Pollen Analysis at Site 4483 ê 307

Pollen aggregates were recorded during identification of the pollen. Aggregates are clumpsof a single type of pollen, and may be interpreted to represent pollen dispersal over short distances,or the actual introduction of portions of the plant represented into an archaeological setting.Aggregates were included in the pollen counts as single grains, as is customary. The presence ofaggregates is noted by an “A” next to the pollen frequency on the pollen diagram (Figure H-1).

DISCUSSION

Six pollen samples were collected from strata in excavation Unit 49 (Table H-1). Modern vegetationin the vicinity of the site includes weeds, grasses, vines, and banana (Mary Riford, personalcommunication, 1992). This area has been disturbed in the past by construction of Likelike Highway,as well as by cultivation over many years.

Table H-1. Provenience Data for Samples from Site 4483

SampleNo.

Layer Sample Depth(cmbs)

Description/Cultural materials

PollenCount

1 IIa 10 Dark brown silty clay/Volcanic glass fragments, basalt, charcoal, post-Contact glass fragments

200

2 IIa 20 Dark brown silty clay/Volcanic glass fragments, basalt, charcoal, post-Contact glass fragments

200

3 IIa/IIb 23 200

4 IIb 28 Dark brown silty clay/Charcoal 100

5 III 35 Dark yellowish-brown silty clay/No cultural materials 71

6 III 43 Dark yellowish-brown silty clay/No cultural materials Insuff

The pollen record indicates that, for the time period represented by the strata sampled, thisarea supported a variety of Cyperaceae (sedges), Poaceae (grasses), and ferns (Table H-2). Thisvegetation, whether locally abundant or covering a relatively large area, would have resulted in arelatively open appearance. There is evidence in the pollen record of a variety of trees growing eithersparsely within the area dominated by grasses, sedges, and ferns, or as a more densely forested areasurrounding an opening. Shrubs are also noted.

Vegetation is noted to have changed through time at this site. Layer III is represented bypollen recovered from sample 5. Sample 6 exhibited too few pollen to provide a statistically accuratecount, and the pollen that were present exhibited severe erosion and deterioration, makingidentification nearly impossible. Local trees and shrubs in Layer III included Araliaceae, Myrsine,Pandanus, Pelea, Cyrtandra, Euphorbia, and Scaevola. These trees and shrubs are typical ofexpected vegetation on the windward side of O‘ahu. The presence of a small quantity of Schinuspollen in this sample indicates that there has been mixing of prehistoric and modern pollen.Stenogyne includes a number of vines, as well as perennial herbs, many of which grow in wet forests.The presence of Stenogyne pollen in the lower portion of the pollen record suggests the presence of

308 ê Appendix H: Stratigraphic Pollen Analysis at Site 4483

Table H-2. Pollen Types Observed in Samples from Site 4483

Scientific Name Common Name Native Polynesia Endemic Indigenous

TREES:

Araliaceae Ginseng family x x

cf. Tetraplasandra ‘Ohe‘ohe, ‘ohe mauka x

Casuarina Australian pine x

Myrtaceae Myrtle family x

Myrsine Myrsine x

Pandanus tectorius Hala, pü hala x

Pelea sandwicensis x

Pritchardia Loulu palm x

Reynoldsia sandwicensis ‘Ohe, ‘ohe kukuluäe‘o, ‘ohe makai, ‘ohekai x

Rhamnaceae Buckthorn family x x x

Colubrina ‘Änapanapa, kauila ‘änapanapa x

Schinus Christmasberry x

Xanthoxylum A‘e, mänele, hea‘e, käwa‘u, käwa‘u kua kukukapa, prickly ash

x

SHRUBS:

Cheno-ams Goosefoot family and pigweed (amaranth) x x

Cyrtandra Ha‘iwale, kanawao ke‘oke‘o x

Euphorbia Spurge, kaliko, Mexican fireplant, wildpoinsettia

x x

Scaevola Naupaka, naupaka kuahiwi, ‘ohe naupaka,huahekili, naupaka kai

x x

HERBS:

Low-spine Asteraceae Sunflower family, includes ragweed, andothers

x x x

High-spine Asteraceae Sunflower family, includes Bidens x x x

Liguliflorae Sunflower family, Lactuceae tribe x

Pilea x x

Rumex Curly or yellow dock, bitter dock x x

Stenogyne x

Cordyline fruticosa Ti, kï x

GRASSES:

Cyperaceae Sedge family x x x

Poaceae Grass family x x x

STARCHES:

Poaceae-type starch

Hollow starch

Irregular starch

Dot starch


Scientific Name Common Name Native Polynesia Endemic Indigenous

(continued)

SPORES:

Monolete bumpy

Monolete smooth

Lycopodium sp.

Lycopodium cernuum x

Cibotium Tree fern

Trilete smooth

Trilete spiny

Information from Wagner et al. (1990).

Table H-3. Pollen Counts from Site 4483

Scientific NameSample

1 2 3 4 5

TREES:

Araliaceae 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

cf. Tetraplasandra 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Casuarina 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Myrtaceae 6.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

Myrsine 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Pandanus tectorius 15.0 15.0 7.0 2.0 1.0

Pelea sandwicensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0

Pritchardia 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Reynoldsia sandwicensis 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rhamnaceae 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Colubrina 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

Schinus 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Xanthoxylum 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SHRUBS:

Cheno-ams 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0

Cyrtandra 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0

Euphorbia 6.0 11.0 9.0 4.0 1.0

Scaevola 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

HERBS:

Low-spine Asteraceae 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

High-spine Asteraceae 7.0 8.0 3.0 3.0 0.0

Liguliflorae 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Pilea 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Rumex 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Stenogyne 0.0 2.0 6.0 7.0 2.0

Cordyline fruticosa 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0

310 ê Appendix H: Stratigraphic Pollen Analysis at Site 4483

Scientific NameSample

1 2 3 4 5

GRASSES:

Cyperaceae 44.0 42.0 85.0 34.0 24.0

Poaceae 112.0 106.0 74.0 43.0 24.0

STARCHES:

Indeterminate 7.0 2.0 7.0 5.0 4.0

Poaceae-type starch 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

Hollow starch 0.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0

Irregular starch 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0

Dot starch 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 0.0

SPORES:

Monolete bumpy 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Monolete smooth 85.0 110.0 177.0 38.0 31.0

Lycopodium sp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0

Lycopodium cernuum 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Control Lycopodium 3.0 5.0 26.0 52.0 264.0

Cibotium 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Trilete smooth 1.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 3.0

Trilete spiny 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0

forested areas in this vicinity. Cyperaceae and Poaceae pollen dominate the record, indicating thatat least in the immediate area of Unit 49, on the south ridge, grasses and sedges were abundant.Monolete smooth fern spores were also abundant, indicating that ferns were also abundant in thisarea. The combined pollen record suggests scattered forests here, with abundant grasses, sedges, andferns as the understory.

Strata IIb and IIa are similar to one another, both being dark brown silty clays containingcharcoal. In addition, Layer IIa contained volcanic glass and basalt fragments and pieces of post-Contact glass. Pollen sample 4, from the lower portion of Layer IIb, exhibits many similarities toLayer III. The Cyperaceae, Poaceae, and monolete smooth spores remain relatively unchanged inabundance. Cyrtandra is no longer present in the vegetation, and there is no further evidence ofAraliaceae, Myrsine, or Scaevola. Asteraceae, including both Low-spine and High-spine, enter therecord at this point, as does Cordyline. The interface between Layers IIa and IIb is represented bypollen sample 3. This sample exhibits the first presence of Myrtaceae pollen, the presence ofColubrina, and the first presence of Cheno-am pollen. Cordyline continues in the pollen record andmonolete smooth fern spores are very abundant. This transitional sample also exhibits evidence ofa variety of starch granules, including those attributable to grasses (Poaceae-type starch) and a starchthat, as yet, cannot be attributable to any roots or seeds (hollow starch). This hollow starch exhibitsan apparent depression in the hilum area, but no clear hilum; an additional starch recovered has a veryirregular shape and exhibits a central hilum with no fissures. Also found is a dot starch, which hasa more regular, almost circular shape, and exhibits a central hilum, again with no fissures. This latterstarch type is recorded in grass seeds, and is reported in nongrass roots. At present, it is not possibleto identify the exact plants represented by the starches. Recovery of this variety of starches, however,suggests that this area was used for agriculture or for food processing at the time represented by the


contact between Layers IIa and IIb. The processing of grass seed is a possible activity, because bothstarch granules with central hila and dot starches are typical of starch granules produced by grassseeds.

Sample 2, in Layer IIa, shows a decline in Cyperaceae and an increase in Poaceae pollen,reflecting a change in relative proportions of sedges and grasses. This ratio holds through sample 1in the upper portion of Layer IIa. There is an accompanying decline in monolete smooth fern spores,suggesting a reduction in the fern population at this time. Stenogyne pollen is also noted to declinein sample 2, then disappears from the record in sample 1. This may be the result of post-Contactforest clearing activities in the area. With the exception of Pandanus and Myrtaceae pollen, pollenevidence from trees declines in the upper post-Contact portion of the record. It appears thatconditions for continued abundance of the vine Stenogyne deteriorated in the upper portion of thisstratigraphic record. Sample 2, representing the lower portion of Layer IIa, exhibits the greatestvariety of tree and herb pollen, including Tetraplasandra, Casuarina (an exotic tree), Myrtaceae,Pandanus, Pritchardia, Reynoldsia, Rhamnaceae, High-spine Asteraceae, Pilea, Rumex, andStenogyne. Cordyline (ti) disappears from the record by this time.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The pollen record for Site 4483 suggests that for the pre- to post-Contact period represented betweenLayer III and Layer IIa, grasses, sedges, and ferns were relatively abundant, with grasses increasingin dominance in Layer IIa, and sedges and ferns decreasing. Initially, they may have occurred as adense understory in an area that supported sparse forest, or as clearings between areas that were moredensely forested. The presence of Stenogyne pollen throughout most of the record indicates that vineswere once very abundant in this area and were probably most abundant in the lower portion of LayerIIb. Vines decrease in Layer IIa (postdating Contact) as Myrtaceae, Pandanus, and grasses increase.Interestingly, Pandanus has become more abundant in this area since Contact than it was previously.Many other trees have become less abundant, including Araliaceae, Tetraplasandra, Peleasandwicensis, Pritchardia, Reynoldsia, Rhamnaceae, and Colubrina. Trees of the Myrtaceae familyhave also become more abundant in the recent past. Myrtaceae includes cultivated species (e.g.,mountain apple, Java plum) that are still common in the area. Cyrtandra and Scaevola appear to havebeen relatively abundant shrubs in this area at one time, but disappeared as part of the localvegetation after Layer III. Members of the High-spine Asteraceae group have also increased slightlyin abundance near the present. Cordyline appears to have been introduced or grown in this areaduring Layer IIb, but did not survive much past the transition to Layer IIa. Recovery of a variety ofstarch granules at the interface of Layers IIb and IIa suggests the possibility that this locality mayhave been used for agriculture or food processing at the time represented. Identification of thespecific crops is not yet possible because two of the starches cannot be associated with probablegroups of foods, and dot starch cannot be identified as associated with a single specific food becausethis morphology is noted in several foods examined. A variety of ferns has been present, or even veryabundant, in the local vegetation.

ê 313

APPENDIX I

RAW WEIGHTS FORARCHAEOBOTANICALMATERIALS FROM SITES 4484AND 4485

Heidi A. Lennstrom

Table I-1. Raw Weights of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Materials from Site 4484 by Individual Bag Number

Feature Unit Layer/Area Bag Plant Weight (gm)

1 8 North 20 Charred plant tissue 0.6

1 8 North 20 Unidentifiable wood 0.1

1 8 South 21 Charred plant tissue 0.3

1 8 South 21 Aleurites moluccana seed coat 0.1

1 8 South 21 cf. Ipomoea batatas tuber 1.4

1 8 South 21 Cordyline fruticosa stem 0.1

1 8 South 21 Unidentified wood 0.6

1 8 South 21 Monocot stem 0.1

1 8 South 21 cf. Artocarpus altilis 0.1

1 8 South 21 Wood #16 1.2

1 8 South 21 Wood #18 0.4

1 8 South 21 Wood #19 0.4

1 8 South 22 cf. tuber/root/corm 0.1

1 8 South 22 Unidentifiable wood 0.2

1 8 South 22 cf. Diospyros 0.1

1 8 South 22 Wood #28 0.1

1 8 North 23 cf. Ipomoea batatas tuber 0.1


1 8 North 23 Wood #16 0.2

314 ê Appendix I: Raw Weights for Archaeobotanical Materials from Sites 4484 and 4485


ê 314

1 8 North 23 Wood #19 0.1

1 8 North 24 Cordyline fruticosa stem 0.5


1 8 North 24 Wood #16 0.2

1 8 North 24 Wood #18 0.1

1 8 North 24 Wood #19 0.2

1 8 South 25 Cordyline fruticosa stem 0.1

1 8 South 25 Unidentifiable wood 0.9

1 8 South 25 Unidentifiable twig 0.1

1 8 South 25 Wood #18 0.1

4 14 93 Aleurites moluccana seed coat 1.1

4 14 93 cf. Artocarpus altilis 0.1


4 14 94 Unidentifiable wood 1.4

4 14 94 Monocot stem 0.2


4 14 94 Wood #27 0.2

4 14 96 Unidentified charred tissue 0.3


4 14 96 cf. Colocasia esculenta 0.1

4 14 96 Cordyline fruticosa stem 0.1



4 14 96 cf. Diospyros 0.1


4 14 96 Wood #27 0.1



4 14 98 Shiny organic material 0.1




4 14 98 Unidentifiable wood 4



4 14 98 cf. Syzygium malaccense 0.3


Appendix I: Raw Weights for Archaeobotanical Materials from Sites 4484 and 4485 ê 315


(continued)

4 14 98 cf. Cheirodendron 0.1

4 14 98 Wood #24 0.1

4 14 98 Wood #26 0.1

4 14 98 Wood #27 0.2






4 14 99 Wood #27 0.2


5 15 86 Pandanus tectorius drupe 0.4

5 15 86 Unidentifiable wood 4







5 15 87 Wood #4 0.3

5 15 87 Wood #26 0.3

5 15 88 Unidentified charred tissue 3


5 15 88 cf. tuber/corm/root 0.6






5 15 89 Pandanus tectorius drupe 0.2





5 15 89 Wood #18 0.2

5 15 89 Wood #22 0.3






5 15 90 Wood #26 0.4






5 15 91 Wood #19 0.1






6 14 100 cf. Diospyros 1


6 14 100 Wood #29 0.2








6 14 101 Wood #4 0.1

6 14 101 cf. Tetraplasandra 0.1

6 14 101 Wood #7 0.1





6 14 102 Wood #4 0.2


6 14 102 Wood #8 0.1


7 16 115 cf. Cordyline fruticosa leaf 0.1





(continued)


7 16 115 cf. Acacia koa 0.7



7 16 115 Wood #8 0.2

7 16 115 cf. Metrosideros polymorpha 16.9

7 16 115 Wood #13 0.4

7 16 115 Wood #14 0.7










8 17 121 cf. Syzygium malaccense 41

8 17 121 cf. Acacia koa 0.6


8 17 121 Wood #13 3.6

8 17 121 Wood #20 1.1



8 17 122 cf. Acacia koa 1


8 17 122 Wood #13 7.5





8 17 124 Wood #13 0.2

9 18 120 Aleurites moluccana 0.1








9 18 120 cf. Aleurites moluccana (wood) 0.1




10 19 126 cf. Psidium 23.8

10 19 126 Coniferophyta 0.1

10 19 126 Wood #10 0.2

10 19 126 Wood #11 0.2


10 19 127 cf. Psidium 7.1


10 19 128 cf. Psidium 0.1


10 19 129 cf. Psidium 32.1


10 19 129 Wood #10 4.5


10 19 137 cf. Psidium 2.3


10 19 138 cf. Psidium 4.7








11 20 139 cf. Artocarpus altilis 1


11 20 139 Wood #8 0.8

11 20 139 Wood #16 0.1

11 20 139 Wood #20 0.1




11 20 140 Wood #8 0.3

11 20 140 Wood #22 0.2



11 20 140 Wood #23 0.2

7 II 26 Unidentified charred tissue 0.1

7 II 26 cf. Artocarpus altilis 0.1

7 II 26 Unidentifiable wood 0.1

7 II 28 Unidentified charred tissue 0.1

7 II 28 Monocot stem 0.1

7 II 28 cf. Diospyros 0.1


11 II 60 Unidentifiable wood 0.1


11 II 60 Wood #24 0.1

11 II 60 Wood #25 2

11 III 61 Unidentified charred tissue 0.1

11 III 61 Aleurites moluccana 0.1

11 III 61 Cordyline fruticosa stem 0.1

11 III 61 Unidentifiable wood 0.3

11 III 61 Monocot stem 0.1

11 III 61 cf. Diospyros 0.4

11 III 61 cf. Psidium 0.1

11 III 61 cf. Artocarpus altilis 0.2

11 III 61 Wood #22 0.1

11 III 61 Wood #23 0.1

11 III 61 Wood #24 0.5

11 III 61 Wood #25 3.4

12 12 II–IIIa 3 Shiny organic material 0.6

12 12 II–IIIa 3 Unidentifiable wood 0.1

12 12 II 4 Shiny organic material 0.1

12 12 II 4 Unidentifiable wood 0.1

12 12 II 4 Wood #16 0.1

12 12 IIIa 6 Shiny organic material 1.2

12 12 IIIa 6 cf. Diospyros 0.2


Table I-2. Raw Weights of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Materials from Site 4485 by Individual Bag Number (Anatomical Categories)

Feature Unit Bag Plant Weight (gm)

1 1 5 Charred plant tissue 0.2


1 1 5 Wood and stems 11.7

1 1 7 cf. Cordyline fruticosa root 11.7







































(continued)










Table I-3. Raw Weights of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Materials from Site 4485 by Individual Bag Number (Wood Subsamples Only: 40 Fragments Per Bag)


1 1 5 cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem 5.2






1 1 7 Wood #20 0.5

1 1 7 Wood #45 0.5

1 1 7 Wood #46 2.3

1 1 7 Wood #47 0.3






1 1 10 Wood #45 0.4

1 1 10 Wood #46 0.5

1 1 10 Wood #47 0.1






2 2 16 Wood #42 0.2

2 2 16 Wood #44 0.3




3 3 25 cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem 1

3 3 25 cf. Freycinetia arborea 0.3

3 3 25 Artocarpus altilis 0.4

3 3 25 Syzygium malaccense 4.8

3 3 25 Wood #44 4.3

3 3 35 Unidentified wood 0.5



3 3 35 Wood #44 13.6

3 3 35 Wood #45 0.7

3 3 45 Unidentified wood 2.5




3 3 45 Wood #44 12.8



4 4 57 Wood #27 0.1

4 4 57 Wood #30 0.5

4 4 57 Wood #31 0.1







4 4 59 Wood #4 0.7

4 4 59 Wood #25 0.8


5 5 60 Wood #20 1.1


5 5 61 Wood #20 0.8

5 5 61 Wood #35 0.1


5 5 62 cf. Freycinetia arborea 0.1


5 5 62 cf. Syzygium sandwicensis 1.6



(continued)

5 5 62 Wood #20 1.3

5 5 62 Wood #29 0.1

5 5 62 Wood #41 0.1

5 5 62 Wood #42 1

5 5 62 Wood #43 0.3



6 6 64 Wood #10 0.2

6 6 64 Wood #27 0.1

6 6 64 Wood #32 0.4

6 6 64 Wood #33 0.1


6 6 65 Wood #26 0.3

6 6 65 Wood #34 0.1

6 6 65 Wood #35 0.2



7 7 66 cf. Cordyline fruticosa 0.3


7 7 66 cf. Syzygium sandwicensis 0.3

7 7 66 Wood #36 0.3

7 7 66 Wood #38 0.6

7 7 66 Wood #39 0.2



7 7 67 cf. Aleurites moluccana 0.1



7 7 67 Wood #36 0.3

7 7 67 Wood #37 0.2

















9 9 85 cf. Pandanus tectorius 0.2





9 9 85 Wood #18 0.1

9 9 85 Wood #24 0.1

Table I-4. Raw Archaeobotanical Data from Flotation Samples from Sites 4484 and 4485

SITE 4484Feature 2 Bag 12 (From lower portion of feature)

Identification Count Weight (gm)

charred plant tissue-unidentifiable 2 <0.1

charred wood-unidentifiable 4 0.1

Feature 2 Bag 13 (From upper portion of feature)


charred plant tissue-unidentifiable 3 0.1

charred Cyperaceae achene (seed) 1 <0.1

uncharred Cyperaceae achenes 3 <0.1

uncharred Malvaceae seeds 3 <0.1

uncharred cf. Poaceae caryopsis (seed) 1 <0.1

uncharred seeds-unidentifiable 2 <0.1

charred stem-unidentifiable 1 <0.1


Feature 3 Bag 63



charred Aleurites moluccana seed coat fragments 13 2.0


charred twig-unidentifiable 1 <0.1


Feature 4 Bag 92



charred seed-unknown type #1 1 <0.1

charred wood-unidentified ca. 700 15.2

charred monocot stalk 27 0.7

charred twig-unidentifiable 3 0.1

SITE 4485Feature 3 Bag 55


charred plant tissue--unidentified 75 2.3

charred seed-unknown type #4 4 <0.1

charred wood-unidentified 191 2.1

charred monocot stalks 3 0.1

charred twigs 2 0.1

Feature 3 Bag 56


charred plant tissue-unidentifiable 5 <0.1

charred wood-unidentified 3870 75.0

Feature 7 Bag 76


charred plant tissue--unidentified 40 0.5

charred seed--cf. Chenopodium oahuense 1 <0.1

charred seeds--unidentified 6 0.1

uncharred seed--Cyperaceae 1 <0.1

charred wood--dictolyledons 272 6.0

charred stalk or petiole 16 0.5

charred twigs 2 0.1

ê 327

REFERENCES

Abbott, Isabella A.1992 Lä‘au Hawai‘i: Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Addington, Lucile R.1986 Lithic Illustration: Drawing Flaked Stone Artifacts for Publication. University of Chicago

Press, Chicago.

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and GSA Training Center1990 Participant’s Desk Reference: Legislation, Regulations, Guidelines, and Related Information

About Historic Preservation Policies and Requirements Under the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966. A Section 106 [Workshop] Training Publication.

Aiu, Joseph1933 Map of Kaneohe Forest Reserve, Kaneohe and Kailua, Koolaupoko, Oahu. Hawaii Territory

Survey, Robert D. King, Surveyor. Govt. Survey Reg. Map No. 2929. Scale 1:7200.

Allen, Jane1987 Attachment A: Archaeological Mitigation Plan, Käne‘ohe Interchange, Interstate H-3

Highway, O‘ahu. Ms. appended to Memorandum of Agreement for construction in theInterchange. On file, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office, Honolulu.

1990a Supplementary Mitigation Plan, Sites 50-Oa-G5-85, 50-Oa-G5-95, and Unsurveyed Areas,Käne‘ohe Interchange, Interstate H-3 Highway, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Ms. on file,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1990b Preliminary Report: Subsurface Testing Results, Sites 50-Oa-G5-88 and G5-89, Punalu‘uMauka ‘Ili, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu.

328 ê References

1990c Research Design for Subsurface Testing, Sites 50-Oa-G5-88 and 50-Oa-G5-89, Punalu‘uMauka ‘Ili, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum,Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copiesavailable, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

1991 The Role of Agriculture in the Evolution of the Pre-Contact Hawaiian State. AsianPerspectives 30(1):117–132.

1992a Farming in Hawai‘i from Colonisation to Contact: Radiocarbon Chronology and Implicationsfor Cultural Change. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:45–66.

1992b Archaeological Inventory Survey Site 50-80-10-2462 (Bishop Museum Site 50-Oa-G5-155)H-3 Highway KM Ramp Project Area Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Ms. on file,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

N.d. Interview with Richard Miller. Appendix C Part I in Hü Ka Ipu o O‘ahu: The History ofKäne‘ohe and He‘eia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation.

1997 Pre-Contact Landscape Transformation and Cultural Change in Windward O‘ahu, inHistorical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and Landscape Change,edited by Patrick V. Kirch and Terry Hunt, pp. 230–247. Yale University Press, New Haven,Connecticut.

Allen, Jane (editor)1987 Five Upland ‘Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Käne‘ohe Interchange,

Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu, edited by Jane Allen. Departmental Report Series87-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Allen, Jane, Margaret Newman, Mary Riford, and Gavin Archer1995 Blood and Plant Residues on Hawaiian Stone Tools from Two Archaeological Sites in

Upland Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko District, O‘ahu Island. Asian Perspectives 34:283–302.

Allen, Jane, Mary Riford, Gail M. Murakami, Linda Scott Cummings, Paul Brennan, and Carol Kawachi2002 Kula and Kahawai: Geoarchaeological and Historical Investigations in Middle Maunawili

Valley, Kailua, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu. Prepared for Royal Hawaiian Country Club, Honolulu.

Allen, Jane, and Allan J. Schilz1997 Archaeological Monitoring and Emergency Data Recovery, Repair Water Lines and Install

Water Pumping Station for Weapons Range (REWAT), Marine Corps Base Hawaii KaneoheBay, Hawai‘i. Preliminary report. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu.Submitted to U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. On file, U.S. NavalFacilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor.

Allen-Wheeler, Jane1981 Archaeological Excavations in Kawainui Marsh, Island of O‘ahu. Anthropology Department,

Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Planning andEconomic Development, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic PreservationDivision, Kapolei.

References ê 329

1984 Luluku: An Upland Agricultural System in Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu. Firstpreliminary report. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted toHawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii StateHistoric Preservation Division, Kapolei.

1985a Luluku: An Upland Agricultural System in Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko District, O‘ahu. Secondpreliminary report. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted toHawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii StateHistoric Preservation Division, Kapolei.

1985b Research Design for Käne‘ohe H-3 Interchange Project, Testing Phase. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department ofTransportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

Allen, Melinda S.1984 A Review of Archaeobotany and Paleoethnobotany in Hawaii. Hawaiian Archaeology

1(1):19–30.

1989 Archaeobotanical Assemblages from the Anahulu Rockshelters. In Prehistoric HawaiianOccupation in the Anahulu Valley, O‘ahu Island: Excavations in Three Inland Rockshelters,edited by Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 83–102. Contributions of the University of CaliforniaArchaeological Research Facility, No. 47. Archaeological Research Facility, AnthropologyDepartment, University of California, Berkeley.

1992 Kahoolawe Archaeobotanical Materials. In Kahoolawe Excavations, 1982–83 Data RecoveryProject Island of Hawaii, by Paul H. Rosendahl, Alan E. Haun, Joseph B. Halbig, MichaelKaschko, and Melinda S. Allen, pp. A1–A35. Prepared for Department of the Navy, PacificDivision, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. Report #48-011592.

Applied Research Group1985 National Register of Historic Places nomination forms for Sites 50-Oa-G5-68 and G5-71

through G5-99. Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to HawaiiState Department of Transportation. On file, Hawaii State Department of Transportation,Honolulu.

Armstrong, R. Warwick (editor)1983 Atlas of Hawaii. 2nd ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Originally published in 1973.

Asch, David, and Nancy Asch1975 Plant Remains from the Zimmerman Site—Grid A: A Quantitative Perspective. In The

Zimmerman Site: Further Excavations at the Grand Village of Kashakia, edited by M. K.Brown, pp. 116–120, Reports of Investigations 32. Illinois State Museum, Springfield.

Athens, J. Stephen1983 Prehistoric Pondfield Agriculture in Hawai‘i: Archaeological Investigations at the Hanalei

Wildlife Refuge, Kaua‘i. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu.Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii StateHistoric Preservation Division, Kapolei.

330 ê References

1988 Archaeological Survey and Testing for Airfield Perimeter Fence Project, Bellows Air ForceStation, Oahu, Hawaii. International Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu. Submittedto U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division, Fort Shafter. Copies available,U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter.

Athens, Stephen J., and Jerome Ward1993 Environmental Change and Prehistoric Polynesian Settlement in Hawai‘i. Asian Perspectives

32(2):203–223.

Athens, Stephen J., Jerome Ward, and Stephen Wickler1992 Late Holocene Lowland Vegetation, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology

14:9–34.

Bar-Yosef, Ofer1987 Late Pleistocene Adaptations in the Levant. In The Pleistocene Old World: Regional

Perspectives, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 219–236. Plenum Press, New York.

Barrera, Jr., William, and Patrick V. Kirch1973 Basaltic Glass Artifacts from Hawaii: Their Dating and Prehistoric Uses. Journal of the

Polynesian Society 82(2):176–187.

Beggerly, Patricia E. Price1990 Kahana Valley, Hawai‘i, a Geomorphic Artifact: A Study of the Interrelationships Among

Geomorphic Structures, Natural Processes, and Ancient Hawaiian Technology, Land Use,and Settlement Patterns. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Anthropology Department,University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Bennett, Thecla1987 Palynological Analysis of Selected Archaeological Sites along the H-3 Käne‘ohe Interchange

Project. In Five Upland ‘Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Käne‘oheInterchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 209–217.Departmental Report Series 87-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Bishop Museum1995 Statement of Work. Attachment 1 to Services Agreement made with Ogden Environmental

and Energy Services, Honolulu, for completion of Chapters 1, Introduction, and 7,Conclusion, to the current report. 8 December 1995. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Bishop Museum, Anthropology Department 1990–1991 Field notes and Illustrations Prepared by Monitoring and Excavation Crews at Sites

4483–4485. On file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, and Ogden Environmentaland Energy Services, Honolulu.

Blumenstock, David I., and Saul Price1972 Climates of the States: Hawaii. In A Natural History of the Hawaiian Islands, edited by E.

Alison Kay, pp. 155–204. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

References ê 331

1994 Climates of the States: Hawaii. In A Natural History of the Hawaiian Islands: SelectedReadings II, edited by E. Alison Kay, pp. 94–114. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Brigham, W. T. 1974 Stone Implements and Stone Work of the Ancient Hawaiians. Reprinted. Memoirs of the

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum I(4). Krauss Reprint Co., Millwood, N.Y. Originallypublished in 1902.

Brink, John W.1978 An Experimental Study of Microwear Formation on Endscrapers. National Museum of Man

Mercury Series 83, Ottawa, Canada.

Briuer, Frederick L.1976 New Clues to Stone Tool Function: Plant and Animal Residues. American Antiquity

41:478–484.

Broderick, Michael1979 Ascending Paper Chromatographic Technique in Archaeology. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis,

edited by Bryan Hayden, pp. 375–383. Academic Press, New York.

Bryan, Jr., E. H.1945 Bryan’s Sectional Map of Honolulu with Index of All Streets in the City of Honolulu and

Rural Oahu, and Street Numbers. Tongg, Honolulu.

1950 Bryan’s Sectional Map of Honolulu and Rural Oahu with Index of All Streets in the City ofHonolulu and Rural Oahu, and Street Numbers. Tongg, Honolulu.

1959 Bryan's Sectional Map of Honolulu and the Hawaiian Islands. South Sea Sales, Honolulu.

1964 Bryan's Sectional Maps of Honolulu and the Hawaiian Islands. South Sea Sales, Honolulu.

Buck, Peter H. (Te Rangi Hiroa)1957 Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Special Publication 45. Bishop Museum Press,

Honolulu.

Buck, Peter, Kenneth P. Emory, H. D. Skinner, and John F. G. Stokes1930 Terminology for Ground Stone-Cutting Implements in Polynesia. Journal of the Polynesian

Society 39:174–180.

Bushnell, O. A.1993 The Gifts of Civilization: Germs and Genocide in Hawai‘i. University of Hawaii Press,

Honolulu.

Clague, David A., and G. Brent Dalrymple1994 Tectonics, Geochronology, and Origin of the Hawaiian-Emperor Volcanic Chain. In A

Natural History of the Hawaiian Islands: Selected Readings II, edited by E. Alison Kay, pp.5–40. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Clark, Jeffrey T.1982 Early Settlement and Man-Land Relationships at Kawainui Marsh, Oahu Island, Hawaii. New

Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter 24(1):30–37.

332 ê References

1987 Waimea-Kawaihae, A Leeward Hawaii Settlement System. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Anthropology Department, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Clark, Jeffrey, and Patrick V. Kirch (editors)1983 Archaeological Investigations of the Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of

Hawai‘i: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect. Departmental ReportSeries 83-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Clark, Stephan D.1979 An Analysis of Hawaiian Basalt Awls: A Replication and Use Wear Experiment. Ms. on file,

Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Clark, Stephan D., and Mary Riford1986 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at Site 50-Oa-G5-101, Waikalua-Loko, Käne‘ohe,

Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.Submitted to RYM, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

Clarke, David1976 Mesolithic Europe: The Economic Basis. In Problems in Economic and Social Anthropology,

edited by G. de G. Sieveking, I. Longworth and K. Wilson, pp. 449–481. Unwin Brothers,Old Woking, England.

Clarke, Mary1990 Field Notes and Sketch Map, Site 4483 Feature 13 Collection Grids and Preliminary

Estimates of Artifact Densities. 8 September 1990. On file, Anthropology Department,Bishop Museum, and Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu.

Cleghorn, Paul1982 The Mauna Kea Adze Quarry: Technological Analyses and Experimental Tests. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa.

Cleghorn, Paul L., and Elaine Rogers-Jourdane1976 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of the Windward Portion of Route H-3, District of

Koolaupoko, Oahu Island. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum,Honolulu.

Cline, M. G., A. S. Ayres, W. Crosby, P. F. Philipp, R. Elliott, O. C. Magistad, J. C. Ripperton, E. Y.Hosaka, M. Takahashi, G. D. Sherman, and C. K. Wentworth

1955 Soil Survey of the Territory of Hawaii; Islands of Hawaii, Kauai, Lanai, Maui, Molokai andOahu. Soil Survey Series 1939, No. 25. U.S. Department of Agriculture and HawaiiAgricultural Experiment Station.

Cooper, Will J.1933 The Lure of Windward Oahu. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1933, edited by Thomas

G. Thrum, pp. 120–123. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu.

References ê 333

Cordy, Ross1981 A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the

Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press, New York.

Cordy, Ross, and Michael W. Kaschko1980 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Hawaiian Islands: Land Units Associated with Social Groups.

Journal of Field Archaeology 7(4):403–416.

Costello, Julia G., and Mary L. Maniery1988 Rice Bowls in the Delta: Artifacts Recovered from the 1915 Asian Community of Walnut

Grove, California. Occasional Paper 16. Institute of Archaeology, University of California,Los Angeles.

Crabtree, Don E.1972 An Introduction to Flintworking. Occasional Papers of the Idaho State University Museum

28, Pocatello.

Cuddihy, Linda W., and Charles P. Stone1990 Alteration of Native Hawaiian Vegetation: Effects of Humans, Their Activities and

Introductions. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Parks Resources Unit. Universityof Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Culliford, Bryan J.1964 Precipitin Reactions in Forensic Problems. Nature 201:1092–1094.

Davis, Bertell D.1988 Progress Report on Archaeological Excavations at Site Oa-G5-86 in the ‘Ili Lele of Punalu‘u

Mauka, Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

1989 Interim Report on Archaeological Excavations at Site Oa-G5-86 in the ‘Ili Lele of Punalu‘uMauka, Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

Davis, Bertell, Tom Dye, and Wendell Kam1976 Archaeological Investigations at the Kailua Effluent Force Main, Site 50-OA-G5-67,

Kaneohe, Oahu, Hawaii. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum. Submitted to City andCounty of Honolulu, Department of Public Works, Division of Sewers. Copies available,Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Devaney, Dennis M., Marion Kelly, Polly Jae Lee, and Lee S. Motteler1982 Käne‘ohe: A History of Change. Bess Press, Honolulu.

Dixon, Boyd, and Maurice Major1993 Kapukahehu to Pu‘uhakina: An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Southwest Moloka‘i,

Hawai‘i. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report submitted toAlpha USA, Honolulu.

334 ê References

Dixon, Boyd, Maurice Major, and Darin Lazzaro1992 Kaunolü: An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Mapping of State Site 50-40-98-25,

Kaunolü and Keäliakapu Ahupua‘a, Läna‘i, Hawai‘i. Applied Research Group, BishopMuseum, Honolulu. Draft report submitted to Lana‘i Company and Castle and Cooke,Honolulu.

Dolan, Barbara1992 Charcoal Kilns of Windward O‘ahu: Construction and Use. Paper presented at the American

Anthropological Association annual meeting, San Francisco.

Dorrill, Marion, and P. H. Whitehead1979 The Species Identification of Very Old Human Bloodstains. Forensic Science International

13:111–116.

Downs, E. F.1985 An Approach to Detecting and Identifying Blood Residues on Archaeological Stone

Artifacts: A Feasibility Study. Ms. on file, Center for Materials Research in Archaeology andEthnology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

Dye, Thomas S.1977 Archaeological Phase I Survey of the Windward Portion of Proposed Interstate H-3: Halekou

Interchange to Windward Portal of Koolau Tunnel, Oahu. Ms. on file, AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Eisele, J. A., D. D. Fowler, G. Haynes, and R. A. Lewis1995 Survival and Detection of Blood Residues on Stone Tools. Antiquity 69(262):36–46.

Emory, Kenneth P., William Bonk, and Yosihiko H. Sinoto1968 Hawaiian Archaeology: Fishhooks. Bishop Museum Special Publication 47. Bishop Museum

Press, Honolulu.

Fagan, John L.1985 Experimental Archaeology and Public Involvement: A Case Study. In Stone Tool Analysis:

Essays in Honor of Don E. Crabtree, edited by Mark G. Plew, James C. Woods, and Max G.Pavesic, pp. 161–185. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Fankhauser, Barry1994 Protein and Lipid Analysis of Food Residues. In Tropical Archaeobotany, edited by Jon

Hather, pp. 227–250. Routledge, London.

Fike, Richard E.1986 The Bottle Book: A Guide to Historic Medicine Bottles. Gibbs M. Smith, Layton, Utah.

Fladmark, K. R.1982 Microdebitage Analysis: Initial Considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science

9:205–220.

Fletcher, Roland1977 Settlement Studies (Micro and Semi-Micro). In Spatial Archaeology, edited by David L.

Clarke, pp. 47–162. Academic Press, London.

References ê 335

Folk, R.1980 Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill, Austin.

Foote, Donald E., Elmer L. Hill, Sakuichi Nakamura, and Floyd Stephens1972 Soil Survey of the Islands of Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, and Lanai, State of Hawaii. USDA

Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Fornander, Abraham 1916–1920 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore, edited by Thomas G. Thrum.

B. P. Bishop Museum Memoirs Vols. 4–6. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Freund, John E.1979 Modern Elementary Statistics, 5th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Gaensslen, R. E.1983 Sourcebook in Forensic Serology, Immunology, and Biochemistry. U.S. Department of

Justice, Washington, D.C.

Gagné, Wayne C., and Linda Cuddihy1990 Vegetation. In Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i, by Warren Wagner, Derral

Herbst, and S. Sohmer, pp. 45–115. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Galehouse, J. S.1971 Procedures in Sedimentary Petrology. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Gatson, Mary Frank1990 Blue Willow: An Identification and Value Guide. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky.

Grayson, Donald K.1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.

Green, Roger C.1980 Mäkaha Before 1880 A.D. Pacific Anthropological Records 31. Anthropology Department,

Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Groupe d'Etude de Epipaléolithique et Mésolithique (G.E.E.M.)1969 Epipaléolithique-Mésolithique: Les Microlithes Géométriques. Bulletin de la Societé

Préhistorique Française 66:355–366.

1972 Epipaléolithique-Mésolithique: Les Armatures Non-Géométriques-1. Bulletin de la SocietéPréhistorique Française 69:364–375.

Gunness, Jo Lynn1987 Archaeological Investigations at Kualoa Regional Park, 1975–1985: An Overview. Master’s

thesis, University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa.

Hammatt, Hallett H., Douglas Borthwick, William H. Folk, and Mark Stride1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the 300-Acre Rural District, Päläwai, Läna‘i. Cultural

Surveys Hawaii. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

336 ê References

Handy, E. S. Craighill1940 The Hawaiian Planter. Volume 1. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Bishop Museum Press,

Honolulu.

Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Mary Kawena Pukui1991 The Polynesian Family System in Ka‘u, Hawai‘i. Reprinted. Charles E. Tuttle, Rutland,

Vermont. Originally published in 1958.

Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Elizabeth Green Handy, with Mary Kawena Pukui1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bishop Museum Bulletin

233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Hather, Jon1991 The Identification of Charred Archaeological Remains of Vegetative Parenchymous Tissue.

Journal of Archaeological Science 18:661–675.

1994 The Identification of Charred Root and Tuber Crops from Archaeological Sites in the Pacific.In Tropical Archaeobotany, edited by J. Hather, pp. 51–64. Routledge, London.

Hather, Jon, and Patrick Kirch1991 Prehistoric Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) from Mangaia Island, Central Polynesia.

Antiquity 65:887–893.

Hawaii Audubon Society1975 Hawaii’s Birds. Hawaii Audubon Society, Honolulu.

Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources1989 Title 13 Subtitle 6 Chapter 146: Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation

Review. Draft Ms. Division of State Parks, Outdoor Recreation and Historic Sites. On file,Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Hawaii State Department of Transportation and Bishop Museum1984 Scope of Work for Archaeological Research for Interstate Route H-3, Hospital Rock, 3,000

Feet North of the Intersection of H-3 and Likelike Highway, to 1,400 Feet South of theIntersection (M.P. 8.62 to 9.46). Article V to contract, on file, Anthropology Department,Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Hayden, Brian (editor)1979 Lithic Use-Wear Analysis. Academic Press, New York.

Hazlet, Richard W., and Donald W. Hyndman1996 Roadside Geology of Hawai‘i: Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana.

Healan, Dan M.

1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A MultivariateApproach. American Antiquity 60(4):689–699.

References ê 337

Hole, Frank1994 Interregional Aspects of the Khuzistan Aceramic-Early Pottery Neolithic Sequence. In

Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, edited by G. G. Gebel and S.Kozlowski, pp. 101–116. Studies in Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment1. Ex oriente, Berlin.

Hommon, Robert1976 The Formation of Primitive States in Pre-Contact Hawai‘i. Ph.D. dissertation, University of

Arizona, Tucson.

1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawai‘i. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches toEvolution and Transformation, edited by Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 55–68. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, England.

Hyland, David C., J. M. Adovasio, and M. I. Siegel1990 Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material. American

Antiquity 55:104–112.

Indices of Awards1929 Indices of Awards Made by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian

Islands. Territory of Hawaii. On file, Hawaii State Archives, Honolulu.

Jacobi, J. D.1990 Distribution Maps, Ecological Relationships, and Current Status of Native Plant

Communities on the Island of Hawai‘i. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa.

Johnson, Kevin T. M.1994 Geochemical Analysis of H-3 Corridor, Käne‘ohe, Samples. Draft report on file,

Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1995 Geochemical Database of Hawaiian Volcanic Rocks. Available online:http://www.bishop.hawaii.org/bishop/geology/geochem.html

Johnson, K. T. M., H. J. B. Dick, and N. Shimizu1990 Melting in the Oceanic Upper Mantle: An Ion Microprobe Study of Diopsides in Abyssal

Peridotites. Journal of Geophysical Research 95: 2661–2678.

Kabat, E. A., and M. M. Meyer1967 Experimental Immunochemistry. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois.

Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani1976 Na Hana a Ka Po‘e Kahiko: The Works of the People of Old. Translated by Mary Kawena

Pukui. Edited by Dorothy Barrère. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. BishopMuseum Press, Honolulu.

1991 Ka Po‘e Kahiko: The People of Old. Reprinted. Translated by Mary Kawena Pukui. Editedby Dorothy Barrère. Originally published in 1964. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication51. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

1992 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Rev. ed. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.

338 ê References

Kaschko, Michael W.1973 Functional Analysis of the Trail System of the Lapakahi Area, North Kohala. In Lapakahi,

Hawaii: Archaeological Studies, edited by H. David Tuggle and P. Bion Griffin, pp.127–144. Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Keeley, Lawrence1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Kelly, Marion1987 Land Use in the ‘Ili of Luluku, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu. In Five Upland ‘Ili:

Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Käne‘ohe Interchange, InterstateHighway H-3, Island of O‘ahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 285–304. Departmental ReportSeries 87-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Kelly, Marion, and Jeffrey T. Clark1980 Kawainui Marsh, O‘ahu: Historical and Archaeological Studies. Departmental Report Series

80-3. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Kind, S. S., and Rosalyn M. Clevely1969 The Use of Ammoniacal Blood Stain Extracts in ABO Groupings. Journal of Forensic

Sciences 15:131–134.

Kirch, Patrick V.1975 Excavations at Sites A1-3 and A1-4: Early Settlement and Ecology in Halawa Valley. In

Prehistory and Ecology in a Windward Hawaiian Valley, edited by P. V. Kirch and M. Kelly,pp. 17–70. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 29. Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu.

1979 Marine Exploitation in Prehistoric Hawaii: Archaeological Investigations at Kalähuipua‘a,Hawai‘i Island. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 29. Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu.

1982a The Impact of the Prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian Ecosystem. Pacific Science36(1):1–14.

1982b Transported Landscapes. Natural History 91(12):32–35.

1985 Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

1992 The Archaeology of History. Volume 2 to Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in theKingdom of Hawaii, by P. V. Kirch and Marshall Sahlins. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Klieger, P. Christiaan1995 Nä Maka o Hälawa: A History of Hälawa Ahupua‘a, O‘ahu. Bishop Museum Technical

Report 7. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Klieger, P. Christiaan (editor)N.d. Hã Ka Ipu o O‘ahu: The History of Käne‘ohe and He‘eia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger.

Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for HawaiiState Department of Transportation, Honolulu.

References ê 339

Klieger, P. Christiaan, and Helen Leidemann1992 Luluku Ethnographic Interviews: Richard Miller of Mahinui, Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, Part

II. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Klieger, P. Christiaan, and Lynn Miller1991 Luluku Ethnographic Interviews: Japanese Farmers of the Halekou Interchange Area, O‘ahu,

Hawai‘i. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1992 Luluku Ethnographic Interviews: Ah Moy Young of Kahalu‘u, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Ms. on file,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Klieger, P. Christiaan, and Scot Parry1996 Human Settlement Patterns in the Käne‘ohe H-3 Corridor. Chapter 2 in Hü Ka Ipu o O‘ahu:

The History of Käne‘ohe and He‘eia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Departmentof Transportation, Honolulu.

Kooyman, Brian, Margaret E. Newman, and Howard Ceri1992 Verifying the Reliability of Blood Residue Analysis on Archaeological Tools. Journal of

Archaeological Science 19:265–269.

Kozlowski, Stefan1994 Chipped Stone Industries of the Eastern Wing of the Fertile Crescent. In Neolithic Chipped

Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent, edited G. G. Gebel and S. Kozlowski, pp. 143–171.Studies in Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1. Ex oriente, Berlin.

Kraft, John C.1980a Letter report to Susumo Ono, Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, re:

Coring results, Kawai Nui Marsh, Kailua, O‘ahu. Ms. on file, Hawaii State HistoricPreservation Division, Kapolei.

1980b Letter report to Ed Marcus, Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, re:Coring results, Kawai Nui Marsh, Kailua, O‘ahu. Ms. on file, Hawaii State HistoricPreservation Division, Kapolei.

Krauss, Beatrice1993 Plants in Hawaiian Culture. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Kurashina, Hiro, Helen Leidemann, and Marion Kelly1986 Archaeological Survey of Lands at Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko, Oahu (TMK 4-5-8:1, 4-5-9:1,

and 4-5-30:Portion 1). Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted toRYM, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Ladefoged, Thegn N.1991 Hawaiian Architectural Transformations During the Early Historic Era. Asian Perspectives

30:57–69.

Lamb, Samuel H. 1981 Native Trees and Shrubs of the Hawaiian Islands. Sun Stone Press, Santa Fe.

340 ê References

Lamberton, Alastair R. H.1955 The Anatomy of Some Woods Utilized by the Ancient Hawaiians. Master’s thesis, University

of Hawai‘i at Mänoa.

Lebo, Susan A. (editor)1997 Native Hawaiian and Euro-American Culture Change in Early Honolulu: Archaeological

Data Recovery, Harbor Court Property, Site No. 50-80-14-2456, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum. Report prepared for McCormack PropertiesLtd., Honolulu.

Leonard, Robert D., and George T. Jones1989 Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.

Lyons, Curtis J.1876 Map of Kaneohe, Oahu, with West Kailua. Hawaiian Government Survey, W. D. Alexander,

Surveyor General. Hawaii State Survey Office Reg. No. 1381. Scale 1:6000.

1903 A History of the Hawaiian Government Survey with Notes on Land Matters in Hawaii.Appendices 3 and 4 to Surveyor’s Report for 1902. Hawaiian Gazette, Honolulu.

Macdonald, Gordon A., and Agatin T. Abbott1974 Volcanoes in the Sea. Reprinted. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Originally published

in 1970.

1983 Volcanoes in the Sea: The Geology of Hawaii. 2nd ed. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Macey, H. L.1979 The Identification of Human Blood in a 166-Year-Old Stain. Canadian Journal of Forensic

Sciences 12(4):191–193.

Madsen, Mark E.1992 Lithic Manufacturing at British Camp: Evidence from Size Distributions and Microartifacts.

In Deciphering a Shell Midden, edited by Julie K. Stein, pp. 193–210. Academic Press, SanDiego.

Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O'Brien1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in

Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:97–209,edited by M. B. Schiffer. Academic Press, Orlando.

Malo, David1951 Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Translated by Nathaniel B. Emerson. Bishop

Museum Special Publication 2, 2nd ed. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Originallypublished in 1898.

McAllister, J. Gilbert1933 Archaeology of Oahu. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

References ê 341

McCoy, Patrick C.1976 Report 4. Intensive Survey. Archaeological Investigations Along Upper Kamo‘oali‘i stream,

Kaneohe, Oahu. In Archaeological Investigations in Upland Kaneohe, edited by P.Rosendahl, pp. 4–1 to 4–28. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum,Honolulu.

1986 Archaeological Investigations in the Hopukani and Liloe Springs Area of the Mauna KeaAdze Quarry, Hawai‘i: A Data Summary Report. Ms. in Archives, Bishop Museum,Honolulu.

1991 Survey and Test Excavations of the Pu‘u Kalepeamoa Site, Mauna Kea, Hawai‘i. Ms. on file,State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

McCoy, Patrick C., and Aki Sinoto1976 Reconnaissance Survey—Environmental Inventory. In Archaeological Investigations in

Upland Kaneohe, edited by Paul H. Rosendahl, pp. 3:ii–3:24. Departmental Report Series 76-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

McMahon, Nancy1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Kahekili Highway Widening and

Interchange, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu Island. Submitted to DHM, Honolulu. Copiesavailable, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Meeker, Virgil1995 From Firepits to Charcoal Kilns: Resource Procurement and Land Use in the Upland

Käne‘ohe Catchment. International Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu. Submittedto Minami Group, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

Millar, Jim1985 The Handbook of Hawaiian Machine Made Soda Bottles. Interactive Books, The Soda Mart,

Goodlettsville, Tennessee.

Miller, George L.1991 A Revised Set of CC Index Values for Classification and Economic Scaling of English

Ceramics from 1787 to 1880. Historical Archaeology 25:1–25.

Miller, Lynn1992 Archaeological Monitoring Report, Project 451: Käne‘ohe Interchange, Interstate H-3

Temporary Connector Road, Luluku ‘Ili, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu. Draft ms. on file,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Moir, Randall W.1987 Socioeconomic and Chronometric Patterning of Window Glass. In Historic Buildings,

Material Culture, and People of the Prairie Margin, edited by David H. Jurney and RandallW. Moir, pp. 73–81. Richland Creek Technical Series Vol. V. Archaeology ResearchProgram, Institute for the Study of Earth and Man, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Mueller, James. W. (editor)1975 Sampling in Archaeology. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

342 ê References

Munsell Color1990 Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation,

Baltimore.

Murakami, Gail M.1983 Analysis of Charcoal from Archaeological Contexts. In Archaeological Investigations of the

Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawai‘i: An Interdisciplinary Study ofan Environmental Transect, edited by J. T. Clarke and P. V. Kirch, pp. 514–524.Departmental Report Series 83-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1987 Identification of Charcoal from Archaeological Sites in Upland Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu. In FiveUpland ‘Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Käne‘ohe Interchange,Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 219–227. DepartmentalReport Series 87-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1989 Identification of Charcoal from Kuolulo Rockshelter. In Prehistoric Hawaiian Occupation inthe Anahulu Valley, O‘ahu Island: Excavation in Three Inland Rockshelters, edited by P. V.Kirch, pp. 103–220. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological ResearchFacility No. 47. Archaeological Research Facility, Anthropology Department, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley.

1992a Charcoal Identification. In Archaeological and Historical Investigations of KukuiokäneHeiau and the Kukuiokäne Complex (Site 50-80-10-340), Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu,edited by Scott S. Williams. Draft ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum,Honolulu.

1992b Identification of Charcoal from Kahoolawe. In Kahoolawe Excavations, 1982–83 DataRecovery Project, Island of Kahoolawe, edited by P. Rosendahl, pp. H1–H15. P. H.Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo.

Muto, Guy1971 A Technological Analysis of the Early Stages in the Manufacture of Lithic Artifacts. Master’s

thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

Nagata, Kenneth M.1985 Early Plant Introductions in Hawai‘i. Hawaiian Journal of History 19:35–61.

Neal, Marie1965 In Gardens of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Special Publication 50. Bishop Museum Press,

Honolulu.

Neller, Earl1985 The Luluku Settlement: Site 50-Oa-2914. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Hawaiian

Agricultural Settlement in Kaneohe, Oahu. Copies available, Hawaii State HistoricPreservation Division, Kapolei.

Newman, Margaret E.1990 The Hidden Evidence from Hidden Cave, Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto,

Toronto.

References ê 343

Newman, Margaret E., and P. Julig1989 The Identification of Protein Residues on Lithic Artifacts from a Stratified Boreal Forest Site.

Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:119–132.

Newman, T. Stell1970 A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology 4:70–75.

Norrish, K., and J. T. Hutton1969 An Accurate X-ray Spectrographic Method for the Analysis of a Wide Range of Geologic

Samples. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 33:431–451.

Pearsall, Deborah M.1989 Paleoethnobotany. Academic Press, San Diego.

Pearson, Richard J., Patrick V. Kirch, and Michael Pietrusewsky1971 An Early Prehistoric Site at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands.

Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 6(3):204–234.

Pope, Willis T.1911 Geography of the Mountaintops. Mid-Pacific Magazine. May 1(5):533–549.

Popper, Virginia1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany:

Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited byC. Hastorf and V. Popper, pp. 53–71. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Price, Saul1983 Climate. In Atlas of Hawaii, 2nd ed., edited by R. Warwick Armstrong, pp. 59–61.

University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Price-Beggerly, Patricia1987 Archaeological Monitoring at Nu‘upia ‘Ekolu Pond and Pa‘akai Pond/Salt Works, During

Nu‘upia Pond Improvement Project, Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, Kane‘ohe, O‘ahu,Hawai‘i. Submitted to U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific Division, PearlHarbor. Copies available, U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor.

Prinz, Martin, George Harlow, and Joseph Peters (editors)1978 Simon and Schuster’s Guide to Rocks and Minerals. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert1986 Hawaiian Dictionary. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini1974 Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Reeve, Rowland B.1983 Archaeological Investigations in Section 3. Report 6 in Archaeological Investigations of the

Mudlane-Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawai‘i, edited by Jeffrey T. Clarkand Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 181–239. Departmental Report Series 83-1. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

344 ê References

Rhode, David1988 Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and Sample Size Effect. American Antiquity

53:708–716.

Riford, Mary1986a Annotated Reference List for Iolani School Kane‘ohe Project, Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko,

O‘ahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Iolani School,Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

1986b Reconnaissance Survey of a Portion of the Haiku Corridor for H-3. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department ofTransportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

1987 Reconnaissance Survey Northwest and South of the Käne‘ohe Interchange Project Area. InFive Upland ‘Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Käne‘ohe Interchange,Interstate Highway H-3, Island of O‘ahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 285–304. DepartmentalReport Series 87-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1989 Luluku Field Check Summary, 30 June 1989. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu.

Ripperton, J. C., and E. Y. Hosaka1942 Vegetation Zones of Hawaii. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 89. University

of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Rose, Roger G.1996 Myths, Legends, and Traditions of He‘eia, Käne‘ohe, and Kailua. Chapter 2 in Hü Ka Ipu o

O‘ahu: The History of Käne‘ohe and He‘eia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Departmentof Transportation, Honolulu.

Rosendahl, Paul H. 1972 Aboriginal Agriculture and Residence Patterns in Upland Lapakahi, Island of Hawaii. Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Hawai‘i at Mänoa.

1976 Archaeological Investigations in Upland Kaneohe, edited by Paul H. Rosendahl. Ms. on file,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawai‘i.

Royal Canadian Mounted Police1983 Methods Manual, Serology Section. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa, Ontario.

Schick, Kathy D., and Nicholas Toth1993 Making Silent Stones Speak. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Schiffer, Michael B.1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque.

References ê 345

Schilt, Rose1984 Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawai‘i: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway

Realignment Corridor. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Anthropology Department, BishopMuseum, Honolulu.

Schilz, Allan J., and Jane Allen1995 Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery for Negation of Adverse Effect of KB-038M,

Replace Potable Water Mains, and Site 50-80-11-4933, Marine Corps Base Hawaii KaneoheBay, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Preliminary report. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services,Honolulu. Submitted to U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. On file,U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor.

Schmitt, Robert C.1973 The Missionary Censuses of Hawaii. Pacific Anthropological Records 20. Anthropology

Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Schousboe, Ragnar, Mary F. Riford, and Patrick V. Kirch1983 Volcanic-Glass Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Archeological Investigations of the Mudlane-

Waimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawai‘i: An Interdisciplinary Study of anEnvironmental Transect, edited by Jeffrey T. Clark and Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 348–370.Departmental Report Series 83-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Shimizu, Byron A.1980 An Architectural Analysis of Hawaiian Heiau Focusing on the Island of Oahu. Unpublished

M.A. thesis, Architecture, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Shun, Kanalei, Patricia Price-Beggerly, and J. Stephen Athens1987 Archaeological Inventory Survey of an Inland Parcel, Kaneohe-Kailua, Oahu, Hawaii. J.

Stephen Athens, Ph.D., Archaeological Consultant, Honolulu. Submitted to DHM, Honolulu.Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Sensabaugh, George F., A. C. Wilson, and P. L. Kirk1971 Protein Stability in Preserved Biological Remains. International Journal of Biochemistry

2:545–568.

Shafer, Harry H., and Richard G. Holloway1979 Organic Residue Analysis in Determining Stone Tool Function. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis,

edited by B. Hayden, pp. 385–399. Academic Press, New York.

Shott, Michael J.1994 Size and Form in the Analysis of Flake Debris: Review and Recent Approaches. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 1(1):69–110.

Slaughter, Mark C., Lee Fratt, Kirk Anderson, and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom1992 Making and Using Stone Artifacts: Lithic Sites in Arizona. SWCA Archaeological Report No.

92-5.

346 ê References

Spriggs, Matthew1991 Landscape Catastrophe and Landscape Enhancement: Are Either or Both True in the Pacific?

Paper presented at the 17th Pacific Science Congress, Honolulu.

Spriggs, Matthew, and Atholl Anderson1993 Late Colonization of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200–217.

Stearns, H. T.1939 Geologic Map and Guide of the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. Hawaii Division of Hydrography

Bulletin 2. Prepared in cooperation with the Geological Survey, U.S. Department of theInterior, Honolulu.

Stearns, Harold T., and Knute N. Vaksvik1935 Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Island of Oahu, Hawaii. Territory of Hawaii

Division of Hydrography Bulletin 1. Honolulu.

Stein, Julie K., and Patrice A. Telster1989 Size Distributions of Artifact Classes: Combining Macro- and Micro-fractions.

Geoarchaeology 4:1–30.

Sterling, Elspeth, and Catherine C. Summers1978 Sites of Oahu. Departments of Anthropology and Education, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Streck, Charles1982 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Route H-3 (Alternative A), Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu,

Hawai‘i. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon

35(1):215–230.

Sullivan, III, Alan P., and Kenneth C. Rozen1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755–779.

Szabian, John, James Landrum, and Paul L. Cleghorn1989 A Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Pikoiloa Cemetery, Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu Island.

Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Group 70, Honolulu.Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Takasaki, K. J., G. T. Hirashima, and E. R. Lubke

1969 Water Resources of Windward Oahu, Hawaii. U.S. Department of the Interior and State ofHawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and LandDevelopment. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1894.

Tam Sing, Tracy Leo1996 Laiki: The Story of Rice Production in Hawai‘i and Käne‘ohe. Chapter 9 in Hü Ka Ipu o

O‘ahu: The History of Käne‘ohe and He‘eia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Departmentof Transportation, Honolulu.

References ê 347

Taylor, R. E.1987 Radiocarbon Dating—An Archaeological Perspective. Academic Press, Orlando.

Thrum, Thomas G.1906 Heiaus and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual

for 1907, compiled by T. G. Thrum, pp. 36–48. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu.

1915 Completing Oahu’s Heiau Search. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1916, compiled byT. G. Thrum, pp. 87–91. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu.

1917 Retrospect for 1916: Road Tests. In Hawaiian Annual and Almanac for 1917, edited by T. G.Thrum, pp. 172–173. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu.

1938 Complete List of Heiaus (Temples) and Sites. In Hawaiian Annual for 1938, pp. 121–142.The Printshop Company, Honolulu.

Titcomb, Margaret1969 Dog and Man in the Ancient Pacific. Bishop Museum Special Publication 59. Bishop

Museum Press, Honolulu.

Toulouse, Julian H.1972 Bottle Makers and their Marks. Thomas Nelson, New York.

Tringham, R., G. Cooper, G. Odell, B. Voytek, and A. Whitman1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis.

Journal of Field Archaeology 1(1/2).

Tuggle, H. David1994 Archaeological Research of Areas Proposed for Development of Military Family Housing

and Expansion of Military Training at Bellows Air Force Station, Oahu. Task 1: LiteratureReview of the Cultural Resources of the Bellows Area. Draft final report. InternationalArchaeological Research Institute, Honolulu. Submitted to Belt Collins Hawaii, Honolulu.Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Tuggle, H. David, and Robert J. Hommon1986 Historic Property Inventory, Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay. U.S. Naval Facilities

Engineering Command, Pacific Division, Pearl Harbor. Copies available, U.S. NavalFacilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Staff1951 Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

1962 Supplement replacing Soil Survey Manual pp. 173–188. U.S. Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Interior1981 36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places, Section 60.4 Criteria for Evaluation.

U.S. Geological Survey ca. 1926 Aerial photograph, O‘ahu. On file, USGS Water Resources Division, Honolulu.

1928 Map of Kaneohe Quadrangle, Island of Oahu, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii. Scale1:20000.

348 ê References

1983 Kaneohe Quadrangle. Map, 1:24,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey,Reston, Virginia.

U.S. War Department1940 Aerial Photograph, Kaneohe Quadrangle, Oahu, T. H. Scale 1:10000.

Valier, Kathy1995 Ferns of Hawai‘i. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Vaughan, Patrick C.1985 Use-Wear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Wagner, Warren L., Derral R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer1990 Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawai‘i. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum

Press, Honolulu.

Walker, George P. L.1994 Geology and Volcanology of the Hawaiian Islands. In A Natural History of the Hawaiian

Islands: Selected Readings II, edited by E. Alison Kay, pp. 53–85. University of Hawai‘iPress, Honolulu.

Wentworth, C. K.1922 A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. Journal of Geology 30.

Whittaker, John C.1994 Flintknapping: Making and Understanding Stone Tools. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Williams, Scott S.1989a A Preliminary Report of Test Excavations on Sites 50-Oa-G5-106 and -G5-110, Luluku,

Kane‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, HawaiiState Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

1989b Data Recovery Plan, Site 50-Oa-G5-116, Kaneohe, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department ofTransportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

1989c Data Recovery Plan, Site 50-Oa-G5-119, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department ofTransportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

1990 Data Recovery Plan, Site 50-Oa-G5-130, Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department ofTransportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division,Kapolei.

1991 Preliminary Report: The Archaeology of Ha‘ikü Valley, He‘eia Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olau PokoDistrict, O‘ahu Island. Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted toU.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Division, Honolulu. Ms. on file, AnthropologyDepartment, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

References ê 349

1992a Archaeological and Historical Investigations of Kukuiokäne Heiau and the KukuiokäneComplex (Site 50-80-10-340), Käne‘ohe, Ko‘olau Poko, O‘ahu. Draft ms. on file,Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

1992b Early Inland Settlement Expansion and the Effect of Geomorphological Change on theArchaeological Record in Käne‘ohe, O‘ahu. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:67–78.

1993 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing for Proposed FamilyHousing Construction, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter Site Heeia, KoolaupokoDistrict, Island of Oahu, Hawaii (TMK 4-6-15). Draft final report. Ogden Environmental andEnergy Services, Honolulu. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter. Onfile, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter.

Williams, Scott S., Peter R. Mills, and Jane Allen1995 Archaeological Investigations in the Luluku Banana Farmers’ Relocation Area, Maunawili

Valley, Kailua Ahupua‘a, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum,Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copiesavailable, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Williams, Scott S., Tomasi (Kilino) Patolo, and Jane Allen 1989–1993 Interstate Highway H-3 Windward Highway Segment Project Field Notes (Report Pending).

On file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, and Ogden Environmental and EnergyServices, Honolulu.

Wilson, Don E., and DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors)1993 Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 2nd ed.

Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

Yohe, Robert M., Margaret E. Newman, and J. S. Schneider1991 Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment.

American Antiquity 56(4):659–666.

Documents

Four Sites in Upland Kaneohe