Four Sites in Upland Kaneohe

FOUR SITES IN UPLAND KNEOHE
SUPPLEMENTAL 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; and Office 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 KNEOHE

SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING
FOR INTERSTATE
ROUTE H-3
INTRODUCTION, SITES 50-80-10-2463, 4483, 4484, 4485, ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS COLLECTED AT SITES 4484 AND 4485, CONCLUSION, AND APPENDICES
Project #451
CONTENTS
Abstract 1 2 3 Introduction
Jane Allen
v 1
Site 50-80-10-2463
Helen Higman Leidemann
35
Site 50-80-10-4483
Barbara 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
53
4 5 6
Site 50-80-10-4484
135
Site 50-80-10-4485
171
Archaeobotanical Materials Collected at Sites 4484 and 4485

Heidi A. Lennstrom
193
Conclusion
Jane Allen
245
Appendices
Lithics Glossary
Mary Riford
269 277 283 287 291 297
Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483

Frank R. Thomas and Jahn E. Van Brunt
Immunological Analysis of Artifacts from Site 4483

Margaret Newman
Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483

Kevin Johnson
Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483

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

Mary Riford
Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Site 4483

Mary Riford
303 305 313
Stratigraphic Pollen Analyses at Site 4483

Linda Scott Cummings
Raw Weights for Archaeobotanical Materials from Sites 4484 and 4485
Heidi A. Lennstrom
References
327
ABSTRACT
his report forms part of the ongoing presentation of results of the archaeological investigations in the ahupuaa of Kneohe associated with the construction of the Interstate Route H-3, as called for by federal statute (e.g., Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act). An inventory survey report of the Kneohe 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 current report, labeled as a supplemental inventory survey, presents information gathered in 19901991 at an inventory survey level on project areas not included during the initial inventory survey effort, as well as areas that were not considered sites during the initial survey but which revealed subsurface features during subsequent highway construction. Four sites are discussed in this report. Site 2463 contains as features numerous unnamed banana roads and two named roads, all post-Contact in age. The investigation of this site relied mostly on documentary evidence, with a small number of excavations. A large number of subsurface pit features and 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 of laboratory analyses were conducted on excavated remains. The pre-Contact nature of these latter three sites 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 have included temporary or short-term habitation, cooking of plant and animal foods, and lithic tool production and use. All could have been indirectly related to cultivation of irrigated kalo along Luluku Stream, activities associated with construction or use of nearby Kukuiokne Heiau, or collection and processing of the abundant natural resources available in the upland Kneohe area.
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Jane Allen
he beaches and valleys of what was eventually to become Koolau Poko District, bordering Kneohe, Kailua, and Waimnalo Bays in windward Oahu, must have been among the most inviting areas on Oahu for the earliest settlers of the island. Of 11 ahupuaa (the basic Hawaiian land unit; see Terminology, below) in Koolau Poko, the three southernmost, Waimnalo, Kailua, and Kneohe (Figure 1.1), have all produced radiocarbon dates as early as A.D. 500600. Two of these site areas, the slopes around Kawai Nui Marsh in Kailua and a dune in Waimnalo, are coastal or near-coastal. The third, the current project area in Luluku ili (division of the ahupuaa; see Terminology), is located in an inland valley that later became a major agricultural zone (Allen, ed. 1987:174179, 244; Clark 1982; Kelly and Clark 1980:5168; Pearson et al. 1971). Although each of the A.D. 500600 dates has been questioned by other researchers (e.g., Spriggs and Anderson 1993; Tuggle 1994:104106), it appears likely that temporary habitation at Bellows and beside Kawai Nui Marsh, and dryland and irrigated agriculture, respectively beside Kawai Nui and in upland Kneohe, were underway in both coastal and inland areas in windward Oahu by A.D. 700. Kneohe, with its lush valleys, long shoreline, and protected bay offshore, must have been especially attractive to the early Polynesian settlers, encompassing as it does nearly the full range of environmental zones needed for a comfortable life. According to the mission census taken in 18311832 (Schmitt 1973:19), after Contact (A.D. 1778, which marks the arrival of Captain James Cook, the first known non-Polynesian explorer to reach Hawaii), Kneohe was at that time the most populous of the nine ahupuaa that border Kneohe Bay, with a population of 1,159; of the areas listed in Koolau Poko, only Waimnalo is credited with a larger population (1,208). These totals, which reflect decreases caused by intense warfare (e.g., Kamakau 1992:233235) during the late pre-Contact period and drastic depopulation caused by epidemics introduced after Contact (Bushnell 1993:especially 228265), are undoubtedly much lower than population figures would have been around A.D. 1700. Post-Contact depopulation in relatively rural areas like Kneohe also resulted from increasing urbanization (Devaney et al. 1982:78).
Figure 1.1.
The eleven ahupuaa of Koolaupoko District, Oahu.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Kneohes importance during traditional times was tied to the areas great productivity in especially two areas. The first was offshore: Kneohe Bay and the ocean beyond the reef provided abundant fish and shellfish, and shoreline areas provided ideal locations for large, productive fishponds. Devaney et al. (1982:139) cite John N. Cobbs 1901 U.S. Fish Commission report, which listed 16 traditional ponds that were still worked at that time and suggested that twice as many had been active thirty years earlier. Kneohes 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 abundant rainfall; and where, even more productively, large, permanent streams were tapped and modified to provide constant supplies of fresh, flowing water to many square kilometers of loi kalo (taro pondfields; see Terminology). Among the streams that irrigated these extensive loi sets was Luluku Stream. As will be discussed (see Early Land Use, below), earlier research in Luluku ili produced important evidence for traditional agriculture, specialized activity areas, a large heiau (traditional Hawaiian 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 of buried features for the first time in hundreds of years, little or no evidence suggested pre-Contact habitation, either short- or long-term, in this agriculturally dominated area. The research results presented in this report, added to the results of related monitoring projects in adjacent areas (Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu), provide abundant evidence that ridges beside and between inland Kneohes cultivated valley floors were indeed occupied, either briefly or for longer periods, and were used far more extensively for non-agricultural activities such as toolmaking than 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*), in Kneohe Interchange (KIC), Interstate Highway H-3 corridor (Figures 1.2 and 1.3). The project was conducted, under my supervision as Principal Investigator, by the Bishop Museum Applied Research Group, now part of the Bishop Museum Anthropology Department, under contract to the Highways Division of the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation.
In the State of Hawaii site numbering system, 50 = State of Hawaii; 80 = Island of Oahu; 10 = Kaneohe Quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1983); and the final digits = the unique site number. 50-80-10- is omitted in this document. In the Bishop Museum site numbering system, 50 = State of Hawaii; Oa = Oahu; G = Koolau Poko District; 5 = Kneohe ahupuaa; and the final digits = the unique site number. 50-Oa- is omitted in this document.
Figure 1.3.
Locations of Sites 2463, 4483, 4484, and 4485.
This project completes a series of archaeological surveys within the Interchange that began as part 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 19841985 (Allen 1987, 1992a; Allen, ed. 1987; Allen-Wheeler 1984, 1985a), and continues to produce results as construction-related activities approach known sites or lead to the discovery of buried sites (Allen 1990b, 1992b). It is the buried nature of three of the current sites, Sites 44834485, that necessitated a separate project; they were recognized only after construction machinery removed topsoils and thick subsoils in preparation for highway construction, revealing buried pit features and other deposits. Two of 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 expanded to meet construction needs. The scope of work for the Interchange archaeological projects (Hawaii State Department of Transportation 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, which included interpretive excavation for preservation purposes, and data recovery). The scope stipulates the following tasks for survey in the Interchange. Items 5.2b and 5.2c applied to the mitigation phase and are not addressed by this report.
5.1 General. The Consultant shall perform intensive archaeological survey and extensive salvage operation, inclusive of historic research and laboratory analyses, and compile a report if necessary 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 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, the following services: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Conduct archaeological survey and mapping and historical study for the project. Conduct archaeological salvage excavations, when archaeological remains are uncovered. Disinter and conduct appropriate osteological studies when human burials are encountered. Conduct laboratory analyses; and Prepare monthly field reports and final reports, if necessary. Inventory all field notes, maps, sketches, photographs, artifacts and other materials generated during this contract and submit copies of the inventory listing to the State. These listings, however, need not form a physical part of the written report. Provide for storage of original records and salvaged items. However, materials are to be made available to interested persons and shall be subject to withdrawal by the State for its own purposes. Comply with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the State and the Federal Governments as they may relate to the archaeological research operation [Hawaii State Department of Transportation and Bishop Museum 1984].
(g)
(h)
One of the four sites discussed here, Site 2463, is an extensive network of paved and unpaved historical roads both within and beyond the Interchange. The buried deposits discovered at the other three sites, Sites 4483 through 4485, have produced large numbers of traditional Hawaiian materials and smaller numbers of post-Contact items. Site 2463, the road site, crosses several ridges and valleys in, from north to south, Kapalai, Punaluu Mauka, and Luluku ili, the southernmost three of five ili located within Kneohe Interchange. This site and certain features in other sites in the area (Leidemann, Chapter 2) are parts of a road network that has served the project area and many areas beyond, toward Kamehameha Highway and Kneohe town, for most of this century and possibly much longer, as first foot trails and later vehicular roads. Sites 44834485 are all located in Luluku, the largest by far of the five ili in the Interchange, and one of the two largest in inland Kneohe (e.g., Lyons 1876). Chapters 26 of this report, prepared by Bishop Museum authors, present field and laboratory findings from the sites (see following section). Chapters 1 and 7 have been prepared by Ogden Environmental 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 certain documented archaeological, legendary, and historical evidence for pre- and post-Contact land use in areas around the Interchange. Research goals and questions that guided the project are then reviewed. Finally, scheduling, personnel, and methods and methodological considerations are summarized, and glossaries of Hawaiian terms and technical abbreviations used here are presented. Chapter 2, by Helen Leidemann, presents historical and archaeological evidence relating to the Site 2463 (G5-146) road network, which includes historic Luluku and Kapalai Roads as well as roads serving farms for banana (maia, Musa spp.) cultivation. As mentioned, these roads have provided access to various areas in Kneohe 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 site containing two main buried cultural layers and 41 features, 37 of them buried beneath surface soils. The buried 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 produced 1,123 volcanic glass and basalt artifacts. Artifacts and other materials from this site were submitted for several important special studies that include microartifact, pollen, immunological (residue), and geochemical 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 4484s 13 features include, among others, a charcoal kiln, at least four imu, firepits, and an artifact scatter that represented an activity area. Site 4485s nine features include imu and probable firepits, an artifact scatter (a former discard area), and a post-Contact pit feature that may have been part of an kolehao still. Among the important 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 represent temporal or functional classes. Chapter 6, by Heidi Lennstrom, presents the results of macrobotanical analysis of materials collected at Sites 4484 and 4485, the two sites for which firepit morphology is an important research focus. These results suggest certain specific uses to which various features were put, and environmental change through time. Chapter 7 synthesizes the information provided in Chapters 16 and the appendices, and discusses the four sites within the broader context of Hawaiian sociocultural developments and environmental change through time. Nine appendices include a glossary (Appendix A); specialist reports by Frank Thomas and Jahn van Brunt, Margaret Newman, and Kevin Johnson (Appendices BD); lithic artifact inventories (Appendices EG); the Site 4483 pollen report by Linda Scott Cummings (Appendix H); and botanical inventories for Sites 4484 and 4485 prepared by Heidi Lennstrom (Appendix I). A list of all references cited throughout the report follows. The background history for the project is presented in a separate report (Klieger 1996); certain information from that report is summarized in various sections of this volume.
THE PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

Sites 2463 and 44834485 have been influenced to varying degrees at different times by physical environmental processes that clearly include deposition of soils and sediments since abandonment at the three (buried) ridge sites. The former occupants of these sites were influenced by both the physical environment and their cultural surroundings, and influenced both in return, pursuing traditional activities and participating in changing economic and sociopolitical patterns that affected areas throughout the ahupuaa after ca. (circa) A.D. 1100. The following sections summarize, first, characteristics of the physical environment that have probably been important in site location, use, and post-abandonment processes. Second, cultural evidence from the pre-Contact period in areas surrounding the sites is summarized to provide background information concerning the economic and sociopolitical changes just mentioned, and the ways the current sites may have participated in those changes. The final background section summarizes general patterns of land use in Kneohe since Contact, to illustrate certain changes and continuities.
THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

Site-specific environmental characteristics are described in Chapters 26 and Appendix H. This section summarizes environmental features that influence the general area surrounding Sites 2463 and 44834485. The following information is modified after Allen (ed. 1987:1226) but does not repeat the full information 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 following descriptions; 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 transported downslope, at some past time, from the Koolau Range. These sediments include materials that originated in the Koolau shield volcano, now considered part of the Koolau Volcanic Series, which erupted ca. 2.6 0.1 million years B.P. (before 1950; see Terminology) (Clague and Dalrymple 1994:1415; Macdonald et al. 1983:431). It is the existing remnant of the Koolau dome that forms the pali, the windward cliff of the range. The portion of the Koolau pali behind Kneohe has been carved principally by stream erosion (Macdonald et al. 1983:222226, 437; Stearns and Vaksvik 1935:28), which is produced in turn by the high rainfall that is dropped by the northeasterly trade winds when they contact Oahus windward range. The project area belongs to Blumenstock and Prices (1994:113) windward lowland region, which lies approximately perpendicular to the prevailing direction of trade winds and the rains they carry. Weather in the Interchange and surrounding areas is often cloudy to rainy, and agricultural crops like taro and bananas do exceptionally well. Price (1983:62) graphs rainfall in the area as exceeding 1,905 mm (millimeters; 75 inches) annually, far less than the >6,350 mm plotted for the Koolau summit, but considerably more than the 762 mm that falls at the coast. As discussed by Allen (ed. 1987:1314, 31), the Luluku Stream network, the main stream network in the Kneohe Interchange project area, once included at least 11 tributaries. Water from the Mmalahoa 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 (meters above sea level). One tunnel produced 69,000 gallons on the day recorded in February 1919; the second produced 273,000 gallons (Stearns and Vaksvik 1935:410411). But by 1932 the waterfall was nearly dry. Luluku Streams flow today is typically very low, even after rainstorms. Luluku and other streams in upland Kneohe join Kamooalii Stream, which flows northward to become part of Kneohe Stream. Kneohe Stream empties into Kneohe Bay beside two traditional fishponds, Waikalua and Waikaluawaho (Devaney et al 1982:139157), and near the mouth of another important northward-flowing stream, the Kw. An important lithic site on an old stream terrace overlooking 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, Pau, and Keaahala ili, the northernmost three ili in the Interchange project area. Deep, dry gullies also separate the ridges investigated during the current project in Luluku ili.
TOPOGRAPHY, LANDFORMS, AND SEDIMENTS

Elevations in the Kneohe Interchange project area, as it was defined for the 19841985 survey (Figure 1.2; also, Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 2), range from approximately 59 masl at the northeastern boundary to 232 masl at the upper boundary on Punaluu Maukas Red Dirt Hill, the largest ridge in the area (Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 2). Elevations along the Site 2463 roads vary widely, from approximately 60 masl in valleys to 125 masl on ridges. Sites 4483 and 4484 are located, respectively, 7085 and 7380
10
masl. Site 4485, in the area added to the Interchange since 1987, is 7385 masl. All the ridge locations are high enough to avoid stream flooding, and low enough to avoid overly steep slopes. Most of the long ridges that extend toward Kneohe from the Koolau pali, including those in the current project area, are massive piles of colluvial, clay- through boulder-sized sediments transported primarily by gravity and overland flooding, and redeposition in some cases over very old alluvium (see photograph, Macdonald et al. 1983:Figure 10:23; Stearns 1939; Stearns and Vaksvik 1935:9297). These sediments emphasize materials derived from the basalt dome and also include materials from a lower zone of basaltic dikes. This dike zone, described by Walker (1994:72, citing his earlier work) for the Koolau 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 and volcanic glass for stoneworking, and sediments that form ridges below, the dikes of this complex form a major water-bearing unit. Perennial springs form all along the range at points where water flowing through permeable flow rock becomes trapped, often under pressure, by the dense dike rock. These springs produce the streams mentioned above, which water the project area and areas throughout windward Oahu.
SOILS
The two main soil series in the Interchange project area are the Hanalei and Lolekaa (a misspelling of Iolekaa, a valley in Heeia) series, the first in agricultural areas and the second on ridges. Hanalei silty clays (sloping 26%; symbol HnB, Foote et al. 1972:3839, Map sheet 60), which dominate the Luluku Stream valley, would have been an important attraction for any local site occupants 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, still do very well in these soils, as they do in downslope valley soils described by Cline et al. (1955:565, Soil map for eastern Oahu) as Laie clay loams. The Laie soils have been used since Contact primarily for rice (Oryza sativa) cultivation. Both Hanalei and Laie soils are also prone to flooding, however, and are 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 series silty clays, varying generally only in slope. The type soil (symbol LoB, Foote et al. 1972:8384 and Map sheet 60) slopes 38%. LoC slopes 815%; LoD slopes 1525%; and LoE, which occurs primarily on the steep south bank of Luluku Stream near Site 4485, slopes 2540%. The three traditional sites discussed here occupy slopes between 3 and 25%. The Lolekaa silty clays on these ridges have formed on the old, gravelly colluvium that has been mentioned. They are very well-drained, which would make them attractive for occupation in this rainy area. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow to medium, and the erosion hazard is slight to 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.
11
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 Hosakas (1942:2729, map) Vegetation Zone D-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 hia lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) at upper elevations, and isolated clusters of Polynesian-introduced kukui (Aleurites moluccana) and the possibly indigenous hala (Pandanus tectorius). A number of mango (manak, Mangifera indica) trees visible as young roadside plantings in early U.S. Geological Survey aerial photographs (U.S. Geological Survey 19261928; e.g., Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 4b) are now huge, old trees that dominate segments of upper Luluku Road (Site 2463 Feature 2) and other areas (Chapter 2). Cultivated bananas grew at Sites 44834485 as the current project began. Most natural vegetation today is exotic; guava and Christmas berry (wilelaiki, Schinus terebinthifolius) dominate many areas. As Chapters 3 and 4 indicate, Polynesian introductions including hia ai (Syzygium malaccense; mountain apple), kukui, k (Cordyline fruticosa), and ape (Alocasia macrorrhiza) were noted at Site 4483; and hia ai, at Site 4484. The only native plant observed at the sites was hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus), which grew at Site 4483 (Chapter 3). hia lehua, another endemic, 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 introduced to Hawaii since Contact. Mammals seen at Sites 4483 and 4485 during fieldwork included Indian mongooses (Herpestes javanicus; Wilson and Reeder 1993:305) and feral cats (Felis catus). Birds included shama thrushes (Copsychus malabaricus), red-vented bulbuls (Pycnonotus cafer), and cattle egrets (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 Kneohe, and a wide range of sites, features, and portable finds has been reported in the literature. The most significant finds, in terms of the research questions that guided the present project (see below), are summarized here, drawing on previous reviews including those in Allen (ed. 1987:2933) and Allen (1992b:1215).
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 with construction of Interstate Highway H-3, certain sites, especially heiau, were described in the early years of this century throughout Kneohe (Figure 1.4). Thrum (1906:48; 1938:136) briefly described
Figure 1.4.
Locations of some early finds and legendary sites in Kneohe ahupuaa, known prior to 1970.
13
Kawaewae Heiau, across Kamehameha Highway from the Interchange project area, as a large walled heiau luakini (sacrificial temple; see Terminology) built by Olopana ca. A.D. 1100. McAllister (1933:179180) described it further and published a sketch plan. The structure is today tended and cared for on a volunteer basis by members of the local community. In 1915 Thrum (1915:90) mentioned two former heiau on Mkapu Peninsula, one of them on the summit of Puu Hawaiiloa in Kneohe, and added to his mainland Kneohe list five heiau: Kaluaolomana, a walled structure at Puuwaniania (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 Keaahala near the Koolau Range and thought connected with Kuakala; and, in the Interchange project area as it was mapped for the 19841985 archaeological survey (Allen, ed. 1987), Kukuiokne Heiau, a large platform heiau in Luluku ili that was being destroyed when he wrote. By 1930, when McAllister visited the site, Kukuiokne Heiau had been destroyed for pineapple (Ananas comosus; Neal 1965:176) cultivation, leaving ploughed-up remains that included the ruins of large walls and several terraces. This site, McAllisters Site 340, had been the largest and most important heiau in Kneohe; its destruction was blamed by some local residents for the failure of the pineapple crops that supplanted it (McAllister 1933:177). Kukuiokne Heiau and adjacent sites in both Luluku and Punaluu Mauka ili have been investigated extensively during the H-3 Highway research projects (Allen, ed. 1987:4243, 94102, 174179; Davis 1988, 1989; Williams 1989a, 1992a); details are presented later in this section. McAllisters Site 340 (also, State Site 2038; G5-106) and Site 2076 (G5-110), in Luluku, almost certainly 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 Punaluu Mauka, the next ili to the north, is also a component of the temple. Allen and Davis disagree with Williams interpretation regarding Site 1888, concluding that it is a dryland agricultural site. The site was, however, cultivated throughout 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 or parallels closely the Luluku/Punaluu Mauka ili boundary, between Sites 1888 and 2038/2076, and is apparently an ili boundary feature that later became a post-Contact private property marker. In addition to 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 with posts made of railroad ties. McAllister (1933:177182) and Sterling and Summers (1978:205211, Koolau Poko map) described other heiau, fishponds, and occasionally sites of other types for areas throughout Kneohe. Sites and special places in Kneohe west of Kamehameha Highway, near the current project area, include McAllisters Site 338, Papuaa a Kne: the legendary pigpen of Kne, described as a level area below Puu KeahiaKahoe (Pukui et al. 1974; also spelled Keahiakahoe). Site 339 is described as the confluence of Hiilaniwai, Kahuaiki, and Mmalahoa Streams. As mentioned, Mmalahoa is the branch of Luluku Stream where the Luluku water tunnels are located; the other streams, however, are tributaries to Kamooalii Stream, located southeast of the confluence of Luluku and Kamooalii Streams and southeast of the current project area (Kelly 1987:Figure 107; Sterling and Summers 1978:Koolau Poko map).
14
Site 340, Kukuiokne Heiau, has been introduced. Site 341, Kumukumu Spring, is located beside Site 1890 (G5-88), a family cemetery and possible heiau in Punaluu Mauka at its boundary with Kapalai, and was reportedly associated with Kukuiokne (McAllister 1933:177). Site 358 was described by McAllister (1933:182) as a possible house site or possibly a heiau in an area dominated by four coconut (niu, Cocos nucifera) trees, and mangoes and much pandanus (hala). Three additional sites in the area include Sterling and Summers (1978:219220, Koolau Poko map) Site 11, reportedly the ruins of a heiau where a legendary priest who had served Kana, possibly Kne, once lived. The mapped location of this apparently destroyed site is northeast of the Kamooalii/Kahuaiki Stream confluence. Site 12, a destroyed or non-archaeological site, was mapped by Sterling and Summers in the upper Mmalahoa catchment; no description seems to be included in the volume. Site 13 is another lost heiau, located at the Kneohe/Kailua ahupuaa boundary. Kekele, at the foot of the Nuuanu pali, was once an extensive pandanus grove mentioned in old songs and traditions as the sweet land of fragrance and perfume (Sterling and Summers 1978:221, citing an 1883 source). Rose (1996:3941) retells legends including one that describes the grove as the home of Kaulu, a culture hero and the son of K and Hina in their manifestations as woodland deities. Kekele was named after Kaulus beautiful wife, whose favorite flowers and vines had included hala, maile (Alyxia oliviformis), and ieie (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 the eastern portion of Hoomaluhia Botanical Garden (Devaney et al. 1982:221; Kelly 1987:289). Finally, among these early-recorded sites, McAllister (1933:176), although he did not describe agricultural sites in the area in detail, briefly mentioned a set of old, rectangular taro terraces, then neglected and in swampy ground. And Handy (1940:97) recorded Kneohes complicated terrace areas, which were still cultivated, although commercially, when he wrote.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS SINCE 1970

Although much of the research conducted in Kneohe since 1970 has been conducted by Bishop Museum in conjunction with construction planning for Interstate Highway H-3, several other projects have 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 sites are briefly described as background for the site reports and conclusions concerning land use that are presented in Chapters 27. For brevitys sake, sites on Mkapu Peninsula, which is located offshore and is not clearly related to the current site area, are not reviewed in detail. The area incorporates large traditional Hawaiian burial grounds in dunes along the east and north shores; temporary habitation sites, most coastal, represented by extensive cultural layers containing artifacts and midden; large fishponds between the peninsula and the Oahu mainland; and now-buried salt pans near the east dune and beach (e.g., Allen and Schilz 1997:1639; Davis et al. 1976; Price-Beggerly 1987; Tuggle and Hommon 1986).
Figure 1.5.
Locations of some sites and project areas relating to archaeological work conducted in Kneohe ahupuaa, since 1970.
16
The following summary begins in the north and east and ends with important new information reported by Meeker (1995) concerning sites in the Minami Golf Course, above the H-3 corridor near the Kneohe/Kailua ahupuaa boundary. Site 2937 (G5-101). Northeast of the corridor, in coastal Kneohe, Clark and Riford (1986; also, Kurashina et al. 1986) investigated an important site (Bishop Museum Site G5-101) on an old stream terrace between the mouths of Kw and Kamooalii (Kneohe) Streams, near Waikalua Fishpond. During initial survey, Site G5-101 produced 187 lithic artifacts, and charcoal from a pit feature associated with Layer II, the deeper of two main cultural layers, produced a 74090 conventional (12C/13C-corrected, as defined by Taylor 1987:4) radiocarbon age, a possible A.D. 10701390 calibrated range (Clark and Riford 1986:67). Further excavation revealed 37 features, most of them postmolds associated with Layer II. Layer Ib, within the upper cultural layer, also contained pit features, which included two human burials. In all, the site produced eight post-Contact artifacts (four in one of the burial pits); 314 pieces of volcanic glass; eight traditional bone artifacts; and 12,288 basalt artifacts, of which 98.8% are diagnostic flakes and flake fragments. Formal basalt tools include, among others, grinding stones, hammerstones, and adze preforms of types considered stylistically early in Hawaii. The basalts used probably include both local material and rock quarried at Waihole Quarry, further north along the coast. Layer Ib produced a 220 60 age. Additional charcoal submitted for radiocarbon dating analysis from Layer II produced a 700 80 B.P. conventional age, very close to the one obtained earlier. This site is one of the earliest lithic sites recorded in the area. As discussed by Dolan in Chapter 3 here, Site 4483, which also contained extensive lithic deposits, produced much later dates. The presence at Site G5-101 of many postmolds and other pit features in Layer II, overlain by probable subfloor burials in Layer I suggests first repeated temporary occupation for toolmaking, and later longterm habitation at this well-situated site (Clark and Riford 1986:103104, 109110). Sites nearby include lithic scatters, walled agricultural fields, Kalaoa Heiau, a ditch, other ponds, and various post-Contact sites. Sites in Kneohe Interchange and Other H-3 Corridor Segments in Kneohe. Within the highway corridor, Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane (1976) surveyed (in six days) the entire right-of-way from Halekou Interchange in the south to the windward portal of the Trans-Koolau Tunnel in the north. They located four sites, all in Kneohe: Sites 1902 (G5-68), incorporating a single platform and mounds; 1903 (G5-69), at the time thought to contain only three mounds and two platforms (it actually incorporates approximately 20 features: Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu); 1904 (G5-70), a wall segment that is actually located in Heeia and should have a G4- Museum number (Williams 1991:10); and 1905 (G5-71, at that time numbered G5-67), incorporating platforms and enclosures with an upright. Sites 1902 and 1905 are located within Kneohe Interchange. Dye (1977) tested Sites 1903 and 1905 and concluded that the former was a group of clearing mounds. At Site 1905, he recovered, from beneath a boulder that was part of the structure, a blue-andwhite ceramic sherd (recently identified as Chinese Kitchen Qing, probably eighteenth- or early nineteenth-century; Allen, ed. 1994:Chapter 6, Figures 216, 217) and suggested that the site was a house site. As the result of more recent research, Site 1905 is now known to be a cemetery.
17
Streck (1982) surveyed an alternate route (not selected) for the highway alignment from a point near Wilson Tunnel in the south to Kneohe 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 postContact agriculture. McMahon (1988), surveying along Likelike and Kahekili Highways, located no new surface sites in areas including Kapalai ili but revisited Sites 1890 and 1891, the family cemetery/possible heiau described earlier and an adjacent ili boundary wall between Punaluu Mauka and Kapalai. The following documents describe sites investigated in Highway H-3-related project areas in Kneohe between 1977 and 1992: Allen (1990ac, 1991, 1992ab); Allen (ed. 1987); Allen-Wheeler (1984, 1985ab); Applied Research Group (1985); Neller 1985; Riford (1986ab, 1987, 1989); and Williams (1989ac, 1990, 1991, 1992a, and portions of 1992b). Mitigation-phase findings (as explained earlier, the results of data recovery and interpretive, preservation-related investigations) will be discussed in future reports and are not discussed in any detail here. The largest group of Kneohe 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 forms were completed for all 17 (Applied Research Group 1985). Two additional sites and several features within 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 and Rogers-Jourdane (1976) and Dye (1977): Sites 1902 and 1905. Site 1905, as the result of mitigationphase research within the Interchange (report in preparation at the Museum), is now known to house a post-Contact cemetery. The other 15 sites (Sites 1887 through 1901; G5-85 through G5-99), all newly documented in 19841985, include three ili boundary walls, each with an associated road or trail (Sites 1887, 1889, 1892), and, from north to south: in Keaahala, a valley floor clearing mound and platform site (Site 1893); in Pau, a charcoal kiln misidentified at the time as a seepage well (Site 1901); in Punaluu Mauka, the large dryland agricultural complex mentioned earlier (Site 1888), a post-Contact artifact concentration (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 Oahu (Site 1887), two post-Contact artifact concentrations (Sites 1895, 1896), a post-Contact site with rock features and roads that occupies portions of two ridges (Site 1897), a ridgetop mound and a bomb shelter at the base of the steep slope below it (Site 1898), a ridgetop rock enclosure (Site 1899), and a long linear rock mound near a rock dam and a road (Site 1900). As a brief preview, mitigation-phase research uncovered, among other finds, fire features and post-Contact burials at Site 1897, a charcoal kiln 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 also mounds that may predate Contact; and Site 2199 (G5-125, called G5-106 at the time), a post-Contact site that includes, among other features, a former bridge on a road connected with the current Site 2463 Feature 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, the large dryland terrace site, and the valley dryland site with clearing mounds and a platform, were tested
18
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 use around A.D. 12501450, and continued in use into the early post-Contact era. Historical data suggest use of certain portions of the complex in mid-nineteenth century, when the land redistribution known as the Mahele took place. Site 1888 produced an 880 90 B.P. conventional radiocarbon age on charcoal collected from a buried dryland field. Site 1893 was not dated, but its contents suggest that it may postdate Contact. As mentioned earlier, Williams (1989a, 1992a) researched two sites above Likelike Highway, Sites 2038 and 2076, that probably represent the remnants of Kukuiokne Heiau and associated features. Site 2038 incorporates 26 features, including wall remnants, mounds, and low terraces, and a large platform remnant (Feature 20) that, on excavation, produced 33 pieces of branch coral, a finding unique in the Interchange; as well as an imu, and a rich assortment of artifacts. Site 2038 produced a total of 255 artifacts of traditional Hawaiian types that include poi (taro paste) pounders and adzes, as well as many basalt and volcanic glass flakes (Williams 1989a:18, 1992a:5457, Table 11), and that include tools made of both local basalts and basalts that were probably quarried as far away as the Waianae Range on Oahu, the south shore of Kauai, and the Mauna Kea quarry on Hawaii Island (Johnson 1994). Williams (1989bc, 1990, 1992b) also directed surface survey, testing, and monitoring, with data recovery in certain cases, in other portions of the Highway H-3 right-of-way. In Kneohe, his team investigated a total of 45 sites, both surface sites and large numbers of sites that had been completely buried by colluvial sediments 10 to 150 cm (centimeters) thick. Buried sites were encountered not only in low-lying areas, where site burial beneath sediments had been expected, but also on ridgetops. The most common buried features were imu and smaller firepits, but architectural features 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 Kneohe sites, including Sites 1887 and 1888 and the newly discovered buried sites. The dates suggest that agriculture and use of isolated earth ovens, which had probably begun earlier, increased by A.D. 1000; that permanent habitation sites were established by or before A.D. 1200; and that Kukuiokne Heiau probably began use as a heiau ca. A.D. 1300 (Williams 1992b:71, 75). In summary, 85 sites have been investigated in Kneohe since 1976 in connection with the planned construction of Highway H-3. Thirty-five have been discussed here by number: Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdanes (1976) and Dyes (1977) four sites (19021905); Strecks (1982) 12 sites (21432154); Allen (ed. 1987; Riford 1987) 17 new Interchange and adjacent sites (18871901, 1967, and 2199); and, Williams (1989a, 1992a) two Kukuiokne-related sites (2038 and 2076). The 50 remaining sites include 45 for which reports are in preparation at the Museum, plus Site 2462 (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 Kneohe for which Museum reports are in preparation include Sites 20392040 (G5-107 and G5-108), 2077 (G5-111), 20842086 and 2087 (G5-112 through G5114 and G5-109), 21562165 (G5-115 through G5-124), 22002219 (G5-126 through G5-145), 22472251 (G5-147 through G5-151), and 22582260 (G5-156 through G5-158) (Williams 1989ac, 1990, 1992ab, 1993; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 field
19
notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). The majority of the features at most of these sites are firepits. Site 2204 is an extensive buried ridge site containing a rock paving, several pit features, and large numbers of lithic artifacts, especially volcanic glass flakes; nine conventional radiocarbon ages processed for this site range between 770 60 and 60 50 B.P., with most predating Contact (Williams 1992b). Three sites (2039, 2161, and 2213) are post-Contact charcoal kilns that resemble kilns described in Chapters 3 and 4 here. Other sites include clearing mounds, terraces, other agricultural features, and charcoal concentrations. Sites Located Outside the Highway Corridor in South Kneohe. In the 1970s, investigations of the upper Kamooalii Stream catchment, southeast of the Interchange, conducted by Bishop Museum for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, resulted in the recording of post-Contact house sites, agricultural sites, and charcoal kilns; and rock alignments, ditches, and agricultural complexes that probably include pre-Contact sites and features (McCoy and Sinoto 1976; Rosendahl 1976). Two charcoal kilns, Bishop Museum Sites G5-53 and G5-61, remain attractions for visitors to Hoomaluhia Botanical Garden. Five sites were identified in areas near the H-3 corridor: two terrace complexes, a disturbed terrace with rock mounds; a rock alignment, and a retaining wall. Like the Luluku sites, they represent predominantly agricultural land use; most probably predate Contact, as suggested tentatively by McCoys (1976) testing results at Site G5-54, the most extensive terrace set. Most fields are probably pondfield terraces, as suggested by closely spaced and uniformly built terrace sets visible in the early U.S. Geological Survey (19261928; 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 main streams and several tributaries, east of Kamehameha Highway near Kamooalii Stream, revisited Kawaewae Heiau, which had been described earlier by Thrum and McAllister (see Early Finds and Reports of Legendary Sites, above) and recorded 11 additional sites containing 25 features. The features include walls, mounds, and especially terrace sets. The terrace sets probably include both dryland and pondfield complexes; most appear likely to predate Contact, based on surface characteristics. Most recently, survey, monitoring, and data recovery conducted by International Archaeological Research Institute in the Minami Golf Course project area, upslope above the highway corridor (Meeker 1995; also, Shun et al. 1987), have documented 22 sites, including one (4115) near Site 2204 (G5130), Williams buried ridge site with rock pavement, pit features, and lithics. The golf course area is generally moderately sloped, although occasionally steep, and is crossed by many small tributaries on their way to Kamooalii Stream. The sites are located in both Kneohe and Kailua ahupuaa as those two land units are mapped today; Meeker (1995:34), citing the interpretations of other researchers including Devaney et al. (1982:Figure 1) and Sterling and Summers (1978:Koolau Poko map), suggests that the ahupuaa boundary may once have been located further east, which would have placed all the golf course sites, and most of the Kamooalii catchment, in Kneohe (cf. Klieger 1996:8). The Minami sites include four lithic sites (Sites 2150, 4115, 4128, 4133); a boundary wall that probably postdates Contact (Site 2941); a terrace complex located near a stream and interpreted as a possible pondfield complex (Site 2938); a set of 11 terraces (Site 4114) described as a dryland agricultural complex (but see below); three rock mounds (Site 4203), apparently a dryland agricultural site; one habitation terrace with associated rock paving and a charcoal kiln (Site 2940); six firepits (Sites 4120, 4148, 41844187); and seven charcoal kilns (Sites 29392940, 4067, 4113, 4129, 4149, 4223). Of the lithic sites, Site 4133 is interpreted as containing too few lithic artifacts to suggest a workshop (Healans [1995] lithic reduction locus: a bounded area where lithic reduction or specialized
20
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, produced taro, k, and hpuu (Cibotium sp.) and produced a 610 100 B.P. conventional radiocarbon age, a date nearly as early as the date discussed earlier for Site G5-101 in coastal Kneohe (Clark and Riford 1986; Meeker 1995:5560, 72). The four lithic sites in all produced twelve radiocarbon dates, seven fairly certainly pre-Contact. One of the most interesting sites in terms of relationships to site use and dating in Kneohe Interchange is Site 4114, the set of 11 terraces tentatively interpreted as a dryland complex, which produced an 890 80 B.P. conventional radiocarbon age on bulk soil collected from Layer IIa, the agricultural layer. Site soils, analyzed by myself and others, lack strong signs of saturation and irrigation such as gleying, which has probably been lost since abandonment because of the sites current high and dry location. But, based on the sites proximity to a stream, evidence for close control over terrace sizes and slopes, and signs of washouts during flooding in spite of this close control, I believe this site was probably 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 sites upstream 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 Oahu. Evidence from this site, whether it was irrigated or not, suggests that terraced agriculture was being conducted even beside this upslope tributary in an area that was not apparently part of the core Kneohe agricultural zone sometime between ca. A.D. 978 and 1279 (Meeker 1995:Table 10), as the peak period began in Luluku, in the core area. Paralleling Site 1887s temporal priority in the Interchange project area, Site 4114 produced the earliest date obtained in the Minami project area, reinforcing archaeological and historical evidence that Kneohe was first and foremost an agricultural area during traditional, pre-Contact times. One of the most interesting questions concerning Sites 44834485 and the other lithic and ridge sites in the area is how, or whether, they fit into the predominantly agricultural picture. They might, alternatively, have been used in connection with the maintenance and use of Kukuiokne Heiau (which may have been agricultural), with forest product collection, or with the quarrying of lithic material for toolmaking.
21
OVERVIEW: ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORICAL, AND ETHNOHISTORICAL INFORMATION CONCERNING POST-CONTACT LAND USE
This section briefly introduces certain prominent archaeological site and feature types that appeared in upland Kneohe during the post-Contact era and reviews the historical and ethnohistorical information for land use in this portion of the ahupuaa.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR NEW TYPES OF LAND USE FOLLOWING CONTACT

During the post-Contact era, several new site and feature types appeared in upland Kneohe, and others continued in use, with certain changes. Among the most prominent, cemeteries containing coffin burials have been documented, largely during mitigation-phase research, at Sites 1890, 1899, and 1905 in the Interchange. 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 into the bases of hill slopes throughout the area: in the Minami project area; in the area now covered by Hoomaluhia Park; and, in the Interchange, at Sites 1887, 1888, 1898 (report pending), 1901, and now 4483 and 4484. Charcoal preparation, primarily using guava wood, was both a family practice and a cottage industry; it remains uncertain whether the recorded kilns, and the associated collection of guava wood, were one of the main reasons for habitation in the area or were built by families who lived in upland Kneohe for other purposes. kolehao stills (see Chapter 5) were probably not associated with house sites. Production of the liquor was illegal, and stills were generally as well-hidden from the law as possible (e.g., Allen n.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 Hawaii increasingly emphasized private property. Roads like the banana roads at the current sites were built and occasionally paved, serving primarily private lands. These roads (e.g., Kapalai Road: see Chapter 2) often followed land 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 postContact 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 used for discard at many sites including Sites 18951897 and 44834485 in the Interchange. The ceramic, glass, metal, and other items discarded at sites in the Interchange project area often date to the late nineteenth or the early twentieth century. It is not known whether this discard was produced by house sites, few of which have been documented in this upland area even for this latest period; or whether the bottles and other trash may have been left by people who lived elsewhere. A large, twentieth-century dump on old Luluku Road was used by local banana farmers and other area residents until the Highway H-3 Kneohe Interchange construction project was well underway.
22
Most residential and other land use in upland Kneohe after Contact, as before it, was probably agriculturally related. Rice, pineapple, and banana cultivation eventually dominated many areas formerly in taro and sweet potato. Certain terraces at Sites 1887 and 1888 were in use into the midnineteenth century and were claimed at Mahele, as will be discussed by Klieger (1996) in their windward Highway H-3 project history report, which will be the most thorough history to date for Kneohe and Heeia.
HISTORICAL AND ETHNOHISTORICAL EVIDENCE FOR POST-CONTACT LAND USE IN UPLAND KNEOHE
Kliegers (1996) report, currently in draft status, compiles detailed textual, ethnohistorical, mapping, and photographic information concerning areas throughout both Kneohe and Heeia ahupuaa, including areas on mainland Oahu and also Moku o Loe (Coconut Island) and Mkapu Peninsula. Rose (1996), in the same report, also provides a review of legendary information that relates legend to reality in the two ahupuaa and explains the reasons for the importance of the legends. Certain other reports also provide useful information concerning Kneohe generally, as well as areas within the Highway H-3 corridor. Many aspects of Kneohes history have been detailed, and a photographic record published, by Devaney et al. (1982). Kelly (1987) summarizes information regarding certain Land Commission Awards (LCA) granted at Mahele. Allen (ed. 1987:2729, 49, 5657, Figure 16) review certain information and plot the approximate locations of kuleana awarded in the main agricultural area in the Interchange project area over a current map of Site 1887, the large pondfield site. Leidemann brings together in Chapter 2 here a large body of information concerning the Site 2463 road networks, which, as indicated, have served the project area for many years. Dolan and Leidemann, in Chapters 35, review post-Contact information concerning Sites 44834485, the Luluku ridge 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 Kneohe ili and Klieger and Parrys (1996) Chapter 6 and Appendix B, will do much to explain how various portions of upland Kneohe were used at mid-nineteenth century. This section, rather than repeating details that are available in the reports just cited, briefly reviews 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 Ahupuaa VI (Lyons 1876; portion reprinted, Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 5). As Klieger and Parry (1996:38) explain, that meant that, except for 10 awarded kuleana, it belonged to Queen Kalama. The 10 awarded properties included six along Luluku Stream, which are reviewed below; LCA 4491, which included land further south, near the Luluku/Kahuauli ili boundary and in Kuou, south of Kahuauli; LCA 2589 by Kamooalii Stream; LCA 2539 in a lele (separate portion; see Terminology) of Luluku in Kuou ili; and LCA 2539B, in Luluku (Klieger and Parry 1996:3841). The six awarded kuleana that included land along Luluku Stream, listed approximately from west to east, are: LCA 2574 pana 13 to Hewahewanui (kula land [unirrigated fields], following Klieger and Parry 1996:38); LCA 4490 to Kawelau (18 loi and kula fields); LCA 7619 to Kikane (kula land and at least seven loi, which apparently included the upper terraces below Likelike Highway at Site 1887; LCA 2514 to Makaiohua (34 loi, apparently the lower terraces at Site 1887, and kula land); LCA 4223 to Kapawa (26 loi, kula land, and citrus trees); and LCA 4225 pana 1 and 2 to Kaneihoe
23
(a house site that may have been located at Site 1897, and six loi) (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 the current ridge sites are located, no kuleana were awarded or apparently even claimed at Mahele. Lulukus first and foremost use in the mid-nineteenth century remained agricultural. As the twentieth century approached, the crops were to change, but agriculture remained dominant. Late Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Land Use in Luluku. Land use in Luluku since Mahele has included specialized activities. Charcoal kilns produced guava charcoal for heating and cooking purposes in the days before gridded electricity was introduced in some areas in Kneohe, ca. 1922. Rock was reportedly quarried and worked into stone tools in Luluku by a local resident earlier in the current century, leaving lithic debris at Site 1887 Feature 109 (Riford 1987:190191), as well as Sites 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. As Leidemann explains in Chapter 2, many of the roads in the area were cut to provide access to Lulukus pineapple or banana farms. The house site awarded to Kaneihoe at Mahele (LCA 4225) appears likely to have been located at Site 1897; the location was probably selected to keep his residence close to his six loi. 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 local sequence of crops in the early twentieth century began with rice, which had probably been cultivated in lower Luluku, near todays Hoomaluhia Botanical Garden, since ca. 1870, when many old taro fields were converted to the new crop. Next came pineapple, which was grown on the slopes above Likelike Highway, almost to the pali, into the 1920s. Many rice paddies were converted to commercial taro by the 1920s, as the market for Hawaiian rice 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, the pineapple fields, further upslope, were converted to banana cultivation; this change took place around 19181919. Commercial banana cultivation was initiated primarily by Japanese immigrants, who began to settle in the area in significant numbers in 19191920, and who are credited with introducing diversified 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 in former pineapple lands but also, luxuriantly, on the old taro terraces at Site 1887, producing the apple bananas that are so popular locally. The background information that has been summarized here suggested, and helped refine, the research goals and questions that guided investigations at Sites 2463 and 44834485, as well as other sites in the Interchange project area. The current projects research plans are considered next.
24
RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS, AND EVIDENCE NEEDED

With the exception of ten mitigation-phase units excavated at Site 4484, the research reported here consisted of monitoring and inventory survey. The discoveries were actually made, however, as the mitigation phase of the research in the Interchange was beginning, and after the mitigation plans for the Interchange project area (Allen 1987, 1990a) had been completed. Since the mitigation plans contained more up-to-date information than the much earlier survey plan (Allen-Wheeler 1985b), they were used more 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 the large valley agricultural sites that dominate the project area, this section summarizes only the research problems and goals that were expected to apply to Sites 2463 and 44834485. The questions that guided the 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 sites were discovered, it appeared likely that they, like the road site (Site 2463), had been associated with traditional agricultural practice in some way. The following paragraphs briefly review certain information concerning the development of intensive agriculture in the Interchange project area in order to provide background information concerning the cultural context in which the current sites were thought to have functioned as the current project began. As explained in the previous section, sites within the Interchange had already produced important information regarding Hawaiian agriculture during the pre- and early post-Contact periods. In particular, Site 1887 had produced surprisingly early dates, possibly A.D. 500600, for initial pondfield cultivation in a complex of rock-faced terraces beside Luluku Stream, one of several upland tributaries to Kamooalii Stream and eventually Kneohe Stream. Agriculture at this large site expanded through the years, in some upper areas beginning with dryland cultivation and intensifying to 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. Some evidence 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 continued in 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 historical records, 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 that transformed Hawaiian culture and society between initial settlement of the islands and Contact. One is Kirchs (1985:297308) cultural historical model, which begins with Colonization ca. A.D. 300600; the Developmental Period followed, from A.D. 600 to 1100; the Expansion Period, from A.D. 1100 to 1650; and the Proto-Historic Period, from A.D. 1650 through 1795. The second, more explanatory, model is Hommons (1976:224278) scheme, which, as revised in 1986 (Hommon 1986), begins with
25
Colonization and Coastal Settlements, ca. A.D. 5001400; Inland Expansion followed, from A.D. 1400 to 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. 5001400 Colonization and Coastal Settlements phase, and Kirch (1985:303) anticipated eventual subdivision of his A.D. 11001650 Expansion Period; both predictions have proven accurate. As discussed by Allen et al. (2002:Chapter 9), increasing archaeological evidence now suggests that at least five watershed events occurred in Hawaiian economic and sociopolitical history. These events, slightly revised here, are: A.D. 500600 (Colonization); 1100 (Accelerating Inland Expansion); 1300 (Coordination of Economic Resources); 1600 (Ahupuaa Fully Developed); and 1778 (Initial Contact). As these dates suggest, certain developments now appear likely to have taken place earlier than once thought. Ahupuaa development, a critical early step in the sociopolitical process that eventually produced the Hawaiian state, may eventually be established at an even earlier date. Agriculture in upland Kneohe apparently began shortly after initial Colonization, earlier than had been expected, and probably peaked before the formalization of the ahupuaa. I have suggested elsewhere (Allen 1991) that the structures necessary for agricultural coordination, control of irrigation water use, and centralization and redistribution of agricultural produce contributed importantly to the development of both the ahupuaa and the Hawaiian state system of government, which grew out of the ahupuaa. One of the goals of the current research, as suggested, was to determine whether, and how, 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 Kneohe, that use of the ridge sites was entirely unassociated with agricultural activities, other possible site uses were considered as research continued. The three ridge sites might have been organized to facilitate use of rock quarries nearby. They might have been entirely the product of the collection of forest products including plant foods, wood, and birds. And they might have been connected with the use and maintenance of Kukuiokne Heiau, a short distance upslope. A related focus concerns the roads at Site 2463, which also appear primarily agricultural in orientation. One of the patterns documented for ahupuaa on Hawaii Island is the occurrence of trails beside, and paralleling, ahupuaa boundaries (e.g., Cordy and Kaschko 1980; Kaschko 1973; Kirch 1985:266270). These trails integrated upland and coastal resource areas, defining mauka-makai procurement routes that accompanied accelerating inland growth and eventually coordination of resources; they may predate actual ahupuaa development. In upland Kneohe, several trails, and roads that may have been built where old trails were located, parallel ahupuaa boundaries, at least in part. These features, here as on the island of Hawaii, may eventually provide important information as to early, possibly pre-ahupuaa resource procurement routes that led from coastal settlement to inland fields and mountain forests. A curbstone-lined mauka-makai trail assigned to Site 1888 (Allen, ed. 1987:Figure 6) parallels at least part of the Luluku/Punaluu Mauka ili boundary feature (Site 1889) on the Luluku side. A trail in Pau parallels Site 1894, the Pau/Keaahala boundary feature. Of particular interest here, a long segment of Kapalai Road, Site 2463 Feature 3, parallels the downslope portion of the Punaluu Mauka/Kapalai ili boundary wall in Kapalai (see Allen, ed. 1987:99, 254). And Luluku Road, Site 2463 Feature 2, follows the Mahinui/Keapuka ili boundary before entering the Interchange project area and ending in what was, at Mahele, Makaiohuas LCA 2514 (see Chapter 2). During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, roads may have replaced many trails in the area, and additional roads were undoubtedly built to serve the private interests of new landowners in the area.
26
Chapter 2 documents what is known of the twentieth-century development of Luluku and Kapalai Roads, as well as the banana (and probably pineapple) road network, both to illustrate recent changes in the area and to provide baseline information that may eventually be related to earlier trails, and to ili, ahupuaa, and kuleana development. Two road segments were excavated to determine whether any underlying structures could be identified. As indicated, Sites 44834485 provided the first convincing evidence for pre-Contact habitation, either temporary or permanent, in Luluku. As the current project began, it appeared likely that most habitation during the pre-Contact period had been coastal, and that the cultivators of fields nearby had walked to their fields, staying in temporary inland shelters only during certain periods in the cultivation cycle. The main goals of research at Sites 44834485, the three ridge sites, were, as suggested, to identify any signs of habitation at the sites; to define the nature of that habitation; to interpret the relationships, temporal and functional, that existed between these sites and the large surrounding 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, ahupuaa development, and state emergence. Research at all the sites was interdisciplinary, emphasizing careful and often innovative techniques in order to identify and explain past cultural and environmental patterns.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND EVIDENCE NEEDED

Chapters 26 summarize certain site-specific research questions and problems. One problem of particular interest, and that should be considered at sites investigated in the future, emerged after the project began: that is the question, developed by Leidemann, concerning whether different fire feature shapes 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 modified to decrease the mitigation plans emphasis on agriculture. The 1987 document generally guided research at all the current sites, supplemented by non-agricultural questions that appear in print here for the first time but were instrumental in guiding research at the sites. The evidence needed in order to answer each question is summarized below in each case; the evidence collected from the current sites is applied to the questions in the Conclusion (Chapter 7).
1) When were the sites occupied? Were the occupations at these sites contemporaneous with use of agricultural areas nearby, especially during the peak period of agricultural activity ca. A.D. 12501450? Did use continue into the post-Contact period (see Allen 1987: Questions 7, 8; also, Allen-Wheeler 1985:1, 45)?
When the current project began, as indicated, it was expected that early cultivators of fields nearby had lived at the coast, using field shelters when necessary; it was suggested that any long-term habitation in the area would postdate A.D. 1200 or 1300, by which time a sophisticated system of sociopolitical control facilitated the collection and redistribution of goods and cultivators may have been required to live near their fields for purposes of maximal productivity (Allen 1987:1011).
27
The evidence needed to address this question includes primarily datable charcoal, soils, and other materials collected from carefully defined stratigraphic contexts that represent habitation (see Question 2). For the most recent period, post-Contact artifacts assignable to manufacture source and date 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, or short-term? Is there evidence for occupation by more than one social class, for example, by konohiki 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 and terraces, large walled enclosures, three-sided walled structures, and rock pavements (Clark 1987:209; Green 1980:5963); dense, thick midden and artifact deposits; firepits or imu in or near the main house in a compound, with deep deposits suggesting continual use over a long period; thick, continuously used midden deposits lacking signs of abandonment and reuse; and one set of postmolds representing substantial poles (e.g., Dixon and Major 1993:195206; Dixon et al. 1992:20; Hammatt et al. 1990:8790; Kirch 1985:248257; Ladefoged 1991; Rosendahl 1972). Discrete auxiliary buildings such as cookhouses are often present, especially in high-status compounds (e.g., Cordy 1981:Table 8, 7174; Malo 1951:118124). 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 and repeated, perhaps seasonal, these sites may exhibit overlapping, unpatterned postmolds, suggesting multiple construction events, and overlapping firepits and refuse pits that are not associated with other signs of permanent habitation (Allen and Schilz 1997:9, 8283; Dixon and Major 1993:8083; Dixon et al. 1992:20; Hammatt et al. 1990:9091; Schilz and Allen 1995:10, 9294). Clark (1987:197198) suggests that single-use shelters are generally associated only with other shelters, while shelters used recurrently 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 to recognize, since elaborate residential complexes, one of the main types of architectural evidence described in the literature (e.g., Kamakau 1976:96; Malo 1951:122; also, Cordy 1981:7274), seemed to be lacking. Temporary habitation shelters are often difficult to distinguish from specialized work areas, and Cordy (1981:54) defines temporary habitation shelters as associated with special uses. Both specialized 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 may not 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 the agricultural 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 the architectural evidence summarized for Question 2, combined with careful stratigraphic control and assignment of every feature or deposit possible to natural or cultural layer, should suggest whether the
28
habitation pattern changed through time. Dating evidence (Question 1, above) should provide supporting evidence for stratigraphic interpretation and sequential patterns.
4) Is there evidence for tool manufacture or other activities accessory to cultivation or habitation or both at the sites? Does the evidence at the three ridge sites suggest that the occupants 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 materials retrieved from secure stratigraphic contexts. Identification of the specific activities, here especially agricultural activities, for which tools were manufactured and used remains an important problem for Hawaiian archaeology. Adzes were certainly used to work wood; Kirchs (1985:183) question as to whether 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. One interesting suggestion as to a possible agriculturally-related use of volcanic glass flakes in the WaimeaKawaihae area of Hawaii Island is made by Reeve (1983:230231), who cites historical references to the use of sharp stones to strip the bark of paper mulberry (wauke, Broussonetia papyrifera) trees grown in fields for cloth preparation. Kirch (1992:44) suggests that this use may explain some flakes recovered in Anahulu Valley, Oahu, where wauke production was once an important activity. Basalt flakes, both diagnostic and non-diagnostic and occasionally retouched or showing signs of use, dominate the relatively small artifact assemblages that have been collected from Hawaiian pondfields in Hanalei, Kauai (Athens 1983), and Kawai Nui Marsh and Maunawili, Oahu (Allen et al. 2002; Allen-Wheeler 1981), and occur in dryland fields at Site 1888, the terrace set in Punaluu Mauka in the Interchange project area. As suggested by Allen (ed. 1987:159), these tools may have been used for tasks that included cutting and sharpening (digging tools), cutting taro corms for vegetative reproduction, harvesting plant parts, mounding earth around taro or other plants, and weeding. Tools used in domestic, habitation-related, activities include a much broader range (e.g., Kirch 1985:189193). 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, which will 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 forest product collection?
Forest products collected in traditional times in Hawaii included, among others, wood for house construction and canoe building; roots, stems, leaves, flowers, and other plant parts used as foods or medicines, and for other purposes; bird feathers used in ornaments and high-status garments such as feather cloaks; and probably meat provided by free-ranging pigs and dogs, as well as birds. The evidence 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 increasing deposition 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 evidence for significant landscape change during the millennium and a half since the area was colonized by the first Polynesian settlers. Lower areas at Site 1887, now a hill slope, were apparently a flood plain when
29
the first fields were cultivated there. Upslope, as mentioned, cultural deposits have been found deeply buried beneath more recent sediments even on ridges, where erosion was probably nearly as frequent as deposition. If so, many sediments have been lost downslope, and deposition may have been even more 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 they have other Hawaiian areas where high rainfall and intense chemical weathering of sediments and soils lead to massive erosion upslope, and redeposition of the freed sediments further downslope (e.g., Allen 1997; Allen et al. 2002; Beggerly 1990; Kraft 1980a, 1980b; Williams 1992b; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum). The current ridge sites had clearly been buried by post-abandonment sediments. Additional evidence needed to address this question included evidence for sediment thicknesses, depositional modes, and velocities through time.
7) Was this area of upland Kneohe in use from the initial days of the post-Contact period (see Allen 1987:Question 15)?
As indicated, archaeological and historical research in Kneohe has produced evidence for post-Contact features including charcoal kilns, possible stills, boundary walls, roads, and centralized cemeteries. Sites 1890, 1892, 1895, and 1897 in the Interchange project area were probably house sites during the nineteenth or the early twentieth century. Agriculture continued in areas nearby, with new crops including rice and pineapple joining traditional crops. The archaeological evidence needed to address this question was expected to include postContact structures and artifacts dateable to specific periods. Historical evidence was expected to supplement the archaeological data.
8) How did land use in the project area at mid-nineteenth century compare with land use elsewhere in Kneohe? Is there evidence that the cultivators of upland Kneohe by now resided at the coast (see Allen 1987:Question 17)?
This last question is addressed largely through documentary research, the subject of the separate, forthcoming historical report (see Klieger 1996). A brief summary of the main post-Contact land 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, with additional visits continuing into July 1993. The site chapters indicate the specific fieldwork periods for the individual sites, specific methods used, and sampling information. This brief summary lists the
30
personnel who participated in fieldwork and all project specialists; provides an overview concerning methods and methodological problems encountered; and defines commonly used Hawaiian terms and certain 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 Investigator during the fieldwork and throughout much of report preparation. The field investigations were completed, over the approximately 1 -year field period, by a total of 41 crewmembers and two volunteers. Field assistance was provided by Wanda Ah Chan, Gavin Archer, Jessica Baldwin, Gayle Black, Luis Camilli, James Cartwright, Nancy Chin, Mary Clarke, Nancy Cooper, Charmian Dang, Erik Davis, Chris Descantes, William Fortini, Wendy Goodman, Jim Hayden, Marni Hussong, Chris Kitchens, Robin Lowell, Chrissi Malterre, Elizabeth Manning, Andy Mauldin, James McIntosh, Heidi and Todd McMahon, Lynn Miller, Eileen Moss, Charles Ogata, Don Person, Clark Pope, Chris Rundell, Kari Ryder, Mary Schramm-Coberly, Debbie Schult, Jeff Smith, Epifania Suafoa, 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 two units that investigated road construction and possible pre-existing features, and extensive research into old maps and documents to trace the former routes of especially Luluku and Kapalai Roads and, if possible, date their beginnings. Research at the other three sites involved monitoring and excavation. As mentioned earlier, the supplementary research design prepared for mitigation-phase investigations in areas near (at that time undiscovered) Site 4484 (Allen 1990a) recommended that 10 m2 be excavated there, largely because several archaeological sites including Kukuiokne Heiau were known to be located nearby. Neither the original research design (Allen 1987) nor the supplement had called for units in the Site 4483 or 4485 areas, whose existence was unsuspected. During monitoring, which was conducted during all ground-breaking activities, a staff archaeologist constantly watched the operations, inspecting soils and sediments encountered for any signs of cultural deposits. When cultural materials were found, mechanical excavation stopped, and the area was flagged until it could be excavated manually. The discovery of Sites 44834485 during monitoring changed plans and logistics significantly, as numerous features and deposits needed excavation.
31
Among the main methodological goals at the ridge sites, where exposed features were constantly in danger of eroding and losing contextual information, were identification of natural and cultural layers, interpretation of stratigraphic associations wherever possible, and correlation of layers across the individual site. Although correlation of layers between sites proved difficult, the sequences do suggest similar cultural patterns, although at slightly different times. At each site construction backhoes excavated archaeological trenches (Site 4483 Units 101103, Site 4484 Units 101102, Site 4485 Units 101105) before general grubbing and construction excavations began, so that the archaeological team could inspect freshly cut profiles and photograph and record cultural, environmental, and general stratigraphic information; soils in these backhoe units were not generally screened. The exposure of long sections was critical to site interpretation, as it provided by far the best-controlled stratigraphic information for each site. Otherwise, monitoring provided abundant evidence for former cultural site use, as feature after feature was exposed for the first time in perhaps several centuries. But the rapid removal of surface and subsurface layers over relatively large areas often meant that features and deposits were revealed only after the layers with which they had been associated (i.e., the surfaces from which they had been excavated and used) had been removed. Stratigraphic control was difficult in those situations, as is reflected in the site chapters by features and deposits that cannot be assigned to layer. Nonetheless, without the extensive, monitored excavation that accompanied construction, none of the three buried sites would have become known, and the evidence they produced for non-agricultural activities in upland Kneohe would not have been discovered. Monitoring of mechanical excavations is expected to become an increasingly common archaeological method as development continues in windward Oahu and elsewhere in the islands. Except for the exploratory trenches listed above, excavation of archaeological units was completed manually with trowels, picks, and shovels, always following natural and cultural layer, and feature, boundaries. Individual layers were often subdivided into arbitrary internal levels for closer control. As explained in Chapters 35, at Site 4483 all unit contents were dry-screened through 6- and 3-mm (1/4- and 1/8-inch) mesh; at Site 4484 cultural deposits were screened, with two exceptions necessitated by construction scheduling; and, at Site 4485, screening was completed in all possible units, again under construction-related scheduling constraints. All units were profiled, and all cultural features were mapped in plan view. Units and features were photographed with 35-mm black-and-white print 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 the most promising contexts, field-accessioned, and transferred to the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory for further processing and possible submission for pollen, macrobotanical, and radiocarbon dating analyses. All artifacts of traditional Hawaiian types, and diagnostic post-Contact artifacts, were field-accessioned and collected.
LABORATORY METHODS
Laboratory methods for most materials included cataloging, cleaning, analysis, and curation at the Bishop Museum Archaeological Laboratory. Soil and charcoal samples to be submitted to Beta Analytic Inc., Miami, Florida, were cleaned using metal forceps, to remove contaminating roots and other materials; dried; and packaged in aluminum foil for shipment.
32
The specific methods used in ancillary studies, including lithic, microartifact, residue, geochemical, and botanical analyses, are outlined by the authors of the specialist chapters and appendices and are not reviewed here.
TERMINOLOGY
This final introductory section lists and defines certain Hawaiian terms that are important to the current research, and explains abbreviations commonly used here. For detailed definitions of lithic terms, see Appendix A.
GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

The following definitions are based on those of Pukui and Elbert (1986), with additions from Pukui et al. (1974); other sources are noted. The list includes only terms used commonly here; less common terms including many plant names are defined the first time they are used in each chapter. ahupuaa the basic traditional land division, usually reaching from the uplands to the sea. The 11 ahupuaa of Koolau Poko District are, from north to south, Kualoa, Hakipuu, Waikne, Waihole, Kaalaea, Waihee, Kahaluu, Heeia, Kneohe, Kailua, and Waimnalo. chief, ruler, noble, lite; the ruling class. piece, portion. Here, a subdivision of a kuleana (see below: a small property). traditional Hawaiian place of worship; temple or shrine. Hawaiian place of worship used by ruling chiefs, and where human sacrifices were offered. land section next in importance to the ahupuaa, usually a subdivision within it. underground oven. Colocasia esculenta, taro: the main staple food in Hawaii, producing corms and leaves, both very nutritious. Cordyline fruticosa (Wagner et al. 1990:1348), ti: a shrub producing leaves used as wrappers, thatch, and clothing; and roots that were baked for food and distilled as kolehao (see below). the supervisor of an ahupuaa, who worked under, and represented the interests of, higher alii. Aleurites moluccana, candlenut: a large tree that provided nuts cooked for a relish, oil for lights, soft wood for canoes, gum for painting Tampa, and dyes, among other things. plain, field, open country, pasture. Kula fields, which are unirrigated, are distinguished from loi, irrigated fields.
alii pana heiau heiau luakini ili imu kalo k
konohiki kukui
kula
33
kuleana lele loi loi kalo mahele
right, privilege, responsibility; here, a small piece of property, generally awarded to an individual at Mahele. fly, jump, leap; separate, detached; here, a section of land belonging to one ili but located in another. irrigated terrace or field traditionally used for taro cultivation. Loi were used after Contact for both taro and rice cultivation. taro pondfields. portion, division, section; share. Mahele (the Great Mahele): the land division of 1848, during which Hawaiis ruler redistributed parts of the whole landed estate (Lyons 1903:30), lands formerly held as a unit by the ruling class, to chiefs and commoners who could establish claims. The properties were afterward held in fee simple, as individual properties. Hawaiian game much like bowling, involving rolling a rounded stone (ulu maika). commoner, people; those who attend the land. toward the sea. toward the mountains. digging stick; also, spade. liquor distilled from ti root, later also from pineapple or rice. cliff. In windward Oahu, the term is typically used to refer to the windward cliff of the Koolau Range. Hawaiian staple food; paste made by pounding cooked taro corms (rarely breadfruit [ulu; see below]) and thinning the mixture with water. Artocarpus altilis, breadfruit: a tree producing large, edible fruits. round, smooth stone rolled in maika.
maika makainana makai mauka kolehao pali poi ulu ulu maika
EXPLANATIONS OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

The following lists only abbreviations that are not used commonly in general literature; abbreviations such as A.D. are omitted. AMS B.P. ca. radiocarbon date processed by accelerator mass spectrometry. before present; present in radiocarbon-dating terms is 1950. circa; approximately; used in reference to time.
CAMS radiocarbon date processed by accelerator mass spectrometry at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California.
34
CIEP cm cmbs HRC LCA m masl mm sp. spp.
cross-over immunoelectrophoresis; a technique used in residue analysis. centimeter. centimeters below current surface. Hawaii Radiocarbon (Bishop Museum radiocarbon sample accessioning designation). Land Commission Award (land awarded at Mahele). meter. meters above sea level. millimeter. one unidentified or indeterminate species. more than one unidentified or indeterminate species.
We now turn to the archaeological evidence that has been collected and analyzed during the project, to investigate land use at Sites 2463 and 44834485, and the relationships between these sites and their physical and cultural environments.
CHAPTER 2
SITE 50-80-10-2463
ite 50-80-10-2463 (50-Oa-G5-146) consists of a network of unnamed banana roads, and two larger named roads that serve the Kneohe Interchange project area (approximately 15 ha) and nearby 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 project boundaries. Much of the project area supports small banana farms with access throughout provided by narrow, 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 roadsLuluku Road, labelled Feature 2, and Kapalai Road, labelled Feature 3that provide access to the project area from Kneohe town.
METHODS
Investigation of the road system in the project area included some fieldwork, but relied mainly on reviewing old maps, aerial photographs, and published ethnohistoric information provided by local banana farmers. One aerial photograph (U.S. War Department 1940) was especially useful because it showed roads that were not included on maps of the same period. Such discrepancies could indicate either that the mapping survey transects were spaced too far apart to record all of the roads, or that some roads were not considered important or useful enough to map. The maps appear to show those roads that were best established and were well used at the time, while the aerial photograph reveals more of what actually existed on the groundwhether heavily traveled, lightly used, or abandoned.
35
Figure 2.1.
Site 2463, plan view showing roads and excavation units.
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
37
The ethnohistoric information that was used deals more with road conditions and features than with their actual routes. A map of the unnamed banana roads (Feature 1) currently in the project area was compiled from recent DOT maps and visual estimates made during walk-through surveys (see Figure 2.1). Some of these 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 (50Oa-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 1987:198199, 202). A portion of Luluku Road (Feature 2) was recently labeled Feature 5 at Site 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152) (see Chapter 3). Part of Kapalai Road (Feature 3) was previously assigned to Site 50-80-10-2462 (50-Oa-G5-155), Feature 19 (Allen 1992b). Fieldwork included excavation of two banana road sectionsone at Feature 1, south of Site 5080-10-4485 (50-Oa-G5-154), and another at Feature 2 (labeled as Feature 5, Site 4483 during excavations).
Table 2.1. Current and previously assigned site and feature numbers, Site 2463
Current Designation Site 2463, Feature 1 Site 1887, Feature 103 Site 1887, Feature 128 Site 1887, Feature 130 Site 1897, Feature 9 Site 2199, Feature 1 Site 2199, Feature 4 Site 2463, Feature 2 Site 4483, Feature 5 Site 2463, Feature 3 Site 2462, Feature 19 Previous Designation Description Unpaved banana road network Unpaved banana road Unpaved banana road Unpaved banana road Unpaved banana road Unpaved banana road Unpaved banana road Luluku road Luluku road (portion) Kapalai road Kapalai road (portion)
ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 1 of this publication fully describes the project area environment. Discussion here addresses points that most directly affect the physical nature of the roads.
38
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
The project area is located 2 to 3 km south of Kneohe town, not far from the base of the Koolau Mountains. Elevations in the project area range from approximately 60 to 125 masl. Roads are often sloped or inclined over their full lengths. The project area lies on the windward side of Oahu, hence is subject to a considerable amount of orographic rainfall, averaging 1,905 mm a year (Takasaki et al. 1969:8). Most soils in the area are described as Hanalei and Lolekaa silty clays. Flooding can be a problem with the first type, and erosion is a hazard with the second; good land use management is required to avoid these situations (Allen, ed. 1987:1418, 257; Cline et al. 1955:325327; Foote et al. 1972:3839, 8384). Boulders, either broken off the pali or transported by stream flooding, are common in the project 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 a foundation, keeping the roads from becoming a quagmire of mud in the rainy season, or from washing away 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 these streams and gullies, sometimes more than once. When floods make fords impassable or when they wash out bridges, alternate routes must be used or new ones created.
ROADS IN KNEOHE
Lyonss 1876 survey map of Kneohe (Figure 2.2) shows most of the roads, trails, and bridges of the ahupuaa 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 Hooleinaiwa Ili, south of Luluku (see Figure 2.2). From Pau Ili (not shown in Figure 2.2) south to Kuou Ili, however, this map is featureless in regard to midslope/upslope transportation and access. No roads are shown for Luluku; the closest road shown is Watsons Road, in Mahinui, east of and adjacent to Luluku. Watson is the name of a prominent family who resided in Punaluu Mauka, and who are closely associated with Site 50-80-10-1890 (50-Oa-G5-88), a possible heiau, cemetery, and house site. The 200-m-long mapped road segment passes between two hills or ridges and crosses a stream. This road does not appear to lead to or from anywhere definite, although the northeast (downslope) end is headed toward a nearby spot marked Old Lois on the map. This road segment lies south of what later becomes known as old Luluku Road. An article in the Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1933 notes that previously there had been few visitors from Honolulu to the windward area, and that Lack of adequate roads and means of transportation were largely responsible. People did not get away from Honolulu often enough to learn just how different other sections are. But in these last few years there has been an awakening. Good roads and many automobiles have brought home to thousands the climatic attractions of the other side of the Pali (Cooper 1933:121). The first documentary evidence of roads in Luluku Ili and the Kneohe Interchange project area comes from this period.
Figure 2.2.
Detail of 1876 C. J. Lyons survey map, showing Watsons road and an old trail from Kalihi.
40
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 that individual road sections cross over several other discrete, previously-published sitesSites 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-G593) (Allen, ed. 1987). Sites 4483, 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153), and 4485 are also crossed by this road network (see Chapters 3, 4, and 5). These unpaved roads can quickly become hidden and overgrown if not used and maintained by the banana farmers. Maps or route descriptions of some of the more ephemeral banana roads will not be attempted here. Instead, a few points will be raised to illustrate the nature of the roads and their relation to nearby archaeological sites (see Figure 2.1). Archaeologists surveying the Kneohe Interchange project area in 1985 noted that The areas under banana cultivation are dissected by jeep access roads currently utilized by the farmers for transportation (Riford 1987:205). Some of these roads may have persisted from the time of the earlier pineapple planters (Allen, ed. 1987:27). For example, Feature 103, Site 1887, is described as an old vehicular road, no longer passable, but traceable from the dump road, through a cut ditch across Wedelia Knoll, along a berm in low-lying land, and onto an agricultural terrace. The road measures 1.5 m wide along the berm. We noted ruts that may have been made by the hard rubber tires of mule-drawn drays used 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 this site is an unpaved road that connects old Luluku Road, located a short distance to the north, with a probable house site (Allen, ed. 1987:113;128131). The road is described as a long, unpaved, vehicular road generally 1.5 to 2.0 m wide that bifurcates to serve most of the site area. Regularly spaced plantings along its margins, still growing, include impatiens and ti (Allen, ed. 1987:114). PostContact-period artifacts recovered from the site range in date from mid-nineteenth to early twentieth century (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 Kneohe probably began after World War I. Eugene Honda, a banana farmer, remembers the large-scale banana plantations as having begun in the early 1930s, although most of the early rice and taro farmers also planted bananas on land that was not suitable for their main crops (Kelly 1987:296). Many of the winding, unmapped roads in the Kneohe Interchange project area seem designed to divide the banana fields there into small, easilytraversed 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, the Apple Banana. If its big, I carry only one [bunch], if its 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 the road. My father would drive, or I would drive up and put them in the back.
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
41
As mentioned above, the Feature 1 road network in the project area north of Luluku Stream connects and/or links various sites. One road crosses the ridge that contains the subsurface features of Site 4484 (see Figure 2.1 and Chapter 4). Artifacts collected from Site 4484, Feature 13 (an artifact scatter exposed along both sides of the road) are mostly fragments of glass bottles. Earliest manufacture dates for these pieces generally fall in the first half of the twentieth century, consistent with an interpretation of banana farm (and banana road) use beginning sometime after World War I. Part of this road joins other roads that enter Site 1892, which lies to the northeast (discussed below as part of the Luluku Road-Kapalai Road connection), while another section swings southwest past the mouth of the deep gully leading to Site 50-80-10-1898 (50-Oa-G5-96). Further to the south, roads leading off Loihi extension 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 (Features 103, 128, and 130). There are also several banana road segments in the portion of this site that lies south of the stream, including a deeply-cut road parallel to and east of Likelike Highway. This road, in which a small metal pipe is embedded, passes Site 1887, Feature 108 (Riford 1987:190). Another unnamed road south of Luluku Stream crosses Site 1895 and passes Sites 50-80-10-1896 (50-Oa-G5-94) and 5080-10-1900 (50-Oa-G5-98). Others overlie the subsurface features of Site 4485. Feature 1 of this site is a large fire feature exposed beneath a banana road. Radiocarbon dating of this feature suggests that the 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 been prepared in some way. For example, in the southern portion of the project area near Site 4485, small bits 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 pit feature, and Unit 1 was placed there to investigate this possibility. What was revealed, however, was a thin, linear concentration of coral, sand, gravel, and marine shell fragments, all extremely loose and unconsolidated (Figure 2.3). The 1 by 0.5 m unit revealed 0.25 m of recent construction fill overlying 0.10 m of coral/sand/gravel/shell deposit. This thin deposit, exposed in some places on the grubbed surface, sits on the brown to dark brown (10YR 3/3, moist) silty clay that makes up Layer III in this area (see Chapter 5). Collected shell fragments from this deposit include Bentharca asperula, Chama iostoma, Phenacolepas scobinata, and Pinctada sp.; Porites sp. coral was also identified. Although the concentration 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), also exhibits a deposit that is interpreted as a road foundation (see below). It is interesting to note that comparative tests of various road construction materials were conducted in 1916 in Honolulu. One of the 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 along Luluku Road to pick up pineapple, crossed three stone and wooden bridges along the way, then returned to a big pineapple camp in lower Luluku. The bridge near the pineapple camp was maybe 20 feet high, the biggest one on Luluku Road (Allen, ed. 1987:281283).
Figure 2.3. Profile of Unit 1 showing a portion of Feature 1 (one of the network of unpaved banana roads), Site 2463.
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
43
Luluku Road was first mapped in 1928, although it was not labeled as such (Figure 2.4). A 1928 U.S. Geological Survey map shows a secondary and probably unpaved road leading west from Kamehameha Highway. The road crosses Kamooalii Stream, then turns southwest, angling toward Luluku Stream. It crosses one stream branch (probably the northwestern end of the Feature 10 ditch at Site 1897), then ends at the 340-ft contour on Wedelia Knoll in the northern portion of Land Commission Award (LCA) 2514 belonging to Makaiohua (Figure 2.5; see also Allen, ed. 1987:57). The southern end of this LCA contains many of the agricultural terraces associated with Site 1887. The distance 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 coincides with a ridge above a set of agricultural terraces within LCA 4490 awarded to Kawelau. The trail appears to 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 the south (see Figure 2.4). At least ten structures, possibly houses, are served by these spur roads. The westernmost spur on the north side of the road, with two associated structures, heads north to coincide with the location of Site 1892. The spur may merge with the ti (k; Cordyline fruticosa)-lined road at this site, described and mapped during the inventory survey portion of the Kneohe Interchange project (Allen, ed. 1987:120121). A 19321933 Hawaii Territory Survey map of the Kneohe Forest Reserve (Aiu 1933; see Figure 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 Kamooalii Stream). The map shows the secondary, perhaps still unpaved, and still unnamed, portion of the road crossing the stream and generally following the boundary between Keapuka and Mahinui Ili until it reaches Luluku Ili and LCA 2514. The map does not show the trail or track leading past the upper set of agricultural terraces to the water tunnels. Only one spur or offshoot of Luluku Road is marked on this mapthe northern spur that probably leads to the existing ti-lined road 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 Oahu; Figure 2.6) shows Luluku Road but, surprisingly, not Kapalai Road. The symbol used for Luluku Road, indicating a secondary road or poor motor road, extends from Kamehameha Highway to the end of the earlier mapped trail just short of the 500-ft contour. Only one of the spur roads is shownthe westernmost spur 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 Kneohe area taken in 1940 (U.S. War Department 1940) clearly shows Luluku Road and its offshoots (Figure 2.7). In the photograph, the road appears wider and brighter at the eastern end where it joins Kamehameha Highway, showing the improved or paved nature of this section of the road. As the road continues to the southwest it becomes progressively narrower and fainter, perhaps indicating less traffic and less need for improvements. All six spur roads noted in 1928 are present in the photograph (even though not mapped in 1933 or 1939). The trail mentioned
Figure 2.4. Detail of 1928 USGS map, Kneohe quadrangle, showing Luluku Road and trail, and Kapalai Road. 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. Scale 1:62500.
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
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
above, leading from the western end of Luluku Road past the terraces and to the water tunnels, cannot be 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 section known as the dump road (because it passes a local trash dump). The unit was placed where earlier grubbing 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 one time. 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 in route 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 Kamooalii Stream and curves through LCA 1889, awarded to Lihue (see Figure 2.5). The road then splits, with branches eventually turning north and southwest. The southwest branch splits again into one northern and two southern spurs. These two southern spurs are emphasized here, as they relate most closely to sites in the Kneohe Interchange project area. Both southern spurs end at the border between Kapalai and Punaluu Mauka Ili. The westernmost of these leads to Site 1890 (the possible heiau, cemetery, and house site noted above) and Site 50-80-10-1891 (50-Oa-G5-89, a boundary wall). Members of the extended Watson family are buried at Site 1890, and a Mr. Watson lived in a house that informants say was either built at the site or transferred there ca. 1930 (Allen, ed. 1987:118, 283). According to other informants, the Watson family has lived along Kapalai Road since about 1900 (Allen 1992b:11). The 1928 map shows that this southwestern 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 Highway to the stream crossing (see Figure 2.5). The road is now shown to turn south (perhaps following one of the previously mapped spurs at the western end), connecting with the northwestern spur from Luluku Road. In 1933, then, travelers or workers could turn off Kamehameha Highway onto a relatively good Kapalai Road that continued to the crossing of Kamooalii Stream (labelled Kaneohe Stream on this map), follow a secondary Kapalai Road west and then south to secondary Luluku Road, turn east again until coming once more to the stream, cross over onto improved Luluku Road, and end up at Kamehameha Highway, south of the starting point. Kapalai Road, from Kamehameha Highway to the Luluku 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 Kamehameha Highway with the beginning of Kapalai Road (see Figure 2.7). Like Luluku Road at this time, Kapalai Road appears progressively narrower and less developed as it extends farther to the west, away from Kamehameha Highway. The connection between Kapalai and Luluku Roads shown on the 1933 map is not easily traceable in the 1940 photograph. The more easterly of the two southern spurs at the west end of Kapalai Road, mentioned above, skirts the end of the ili boundary wall between Kapalai and
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
49
Punaluu Mauka, and may continue along the northern side of the wall. It is this road that is later designated Site 2462, Feature 19.
MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF LULUKU AND KAPALAI ROADS

By 1945 the names for Luluku and Kapalai Roads were published in Bryans Sectional Map of Honolulu with Index of All Streets in the City of Honolulu and Rural Oahu and Street Numbers (Bryan 1945:section 33). Both roads are shown, in sketched detail only, on the 1950 map in this series (Bryan 1950). During this period Luluku Road is still paved only as far west as the stream crossing. The 1950 map symbols indicate that Luluku Road was considered to be unimproved farther west, although excavations show that portions at least had an asphalt surface over a coral base. Luluku Road also appears to be much shorter than before, and no longer extends as far west as the stream or ditch crossing at Site 1897. This is consistent with the opinion based on archaeological investigations that Site 1897 was abandoned sometime in the mid-1940s (Allen, ed. 1987:114). Kapalai Road, as shown on the 1950 map, 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), shows Luluku Road paved for approximately 1.25 km. The unpaved road north to Site 1892 is still shown, and the unpaved spur to the south shown in 1939 now extends farther, curving around to the west to meet the 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 with the route of one of the northern spur roads), lengthened, and entirely paved. The road may have been paved 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 Luluku Road 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 Kamooalii Stream. The route is initially similar to that mapped for the old Luluku Road, but does not slant quite as far to the southwest. Consequently, much of modern Luluku Road lies to the north of old Luluku Road. The modern paved road no longer continues to the terraces of Site 1887. Instead, the road joins the Hoomaluhia Park access road, which makes a sharp turn to the southeast. Asphalt-based and unpaved portions of the dump road and Loihi extension road represent original portions of the route described for old Luluku Road. There is also still a remnant of the unpaved, ti-lined road at Site 1892 that probably once connected old Luluku Road and old Kapalai Road. The present Kapalai Road is cut by Likelike Highway. The portion north of Likelike Highway still extends west from Kamehameha Highway for 0.25 km, ending before it reaches Kamooalii Stream. South of Likelike Highway and west of the stream, a curving portion of Kapalai Road exists in the vicinity of Site 2462. It is described as The main Kapalai Road corridor, Feature 19, paved throughout the project area with asphalt and crushed coral (Allen 1992b:21). It was passable during most of this century through the area now covered by a wetland: the segment that traverses the housing area 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 Kapalai Roads. Scale 1:62500.
Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463
51
segment further south, which serves the area near Site G5-88 The middle segment has not been passable 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 Hawaiian history. A lack of smooth, easily traveled roads apparently kept the windward side of the island relatively isolated for a time after Contact. Vehicular roads opened the area up to increased population and commercial production. Some of these roads are intimately related to social or political land divisions, such as traditional ili boundaries and Land Commission Awards. They provided access to habitation sites, agricultural areas, and water resources. They also reflect changing conditionseither as neglected roads leading to isolated, abandoned housesites and gardens, or as new roads developed to meet the increasing (and continuing) need for commercial farms and housing tracts. The story of the roads shifting routes and altered conditions helps illustrate the changing economic circumstances in Luluku and the surrounding Kneohe ili. The historical details and map and photo references provided in this chapter provide sufficient information to document the site. Further study of the roads themselves, which lack physical integrity in many places, is unnecessary.
CHAPTER 3
SITE 50-80-10-4483
Barbara W. Dolan
with contributions by James Cartwright Kevin Johnson Mary Riford Jahn Van Brunt Stephan D. Clark Susan A. Lebo Lonnie Somer Linda Scott Cummings Deborah I. Olszewski Frank Thomas
ite 50-80-10-4483 (50-Oa-G5-152) consists of subsurface cultural deposits and 41 features discovered during monitoring of highway construction. The features include imu and firepits from 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 represented by a charcoal kiln, a portion of an old road (probably old Luluku Road; see Chapter 2, Site 2463), and a recent trash dump. A soil depression, a cobble mound, and two cobble alignments were also given feature 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 and northwest, 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 complex designated Site 1887. The boundaries of Site 4483, as well as the recorded features, are plotted in Figure 3.1. The environmental characteristics of the site are presented first, followed by an account of available historical and ethnohistorical information, then a brief summary of previous archaeological research conducted. Next, the report provides a review of the survey and excavation methods used, an overview of the features, and a description of the results of our investigations. The discussion and conclusion that complete the report explore the probable relationships, both temporal and spatial, to the nearby agricultural terrace complex, Site 1887, and to other sites in the area.
53
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
55
ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 1 provides a detailed environmental discussion of the project area (see also Allen, ed. 1987:1218). 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 the Koolau mountains. Elevations range between 70 and 85 masl, and a gentle to fairly steep slope (422%) is evident throughout much of the site. Gullies occur to the southwest and northwest of the site. A small stream appears intermittently in the southwestern gully, while the permanent Luluku Stream 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. 1972:8384). Table 3.1 describes the soils of Unit 102 (excavated by backhoe), which are seen as representative of the stratigraphy apparent throughout Site 4483, and Figure 3.2 shows the profile of the south face of Unit 102. Layer I is thin and composed of humic materials; in many cases the layer had been removed by construction bulldozing before excavation. Layer II is the main cultural layer at the site; it contains features and artifacts from the pre- and post-Contact periods. In about half of the excavation units, Layer II can be divided into two sectionsLayer IIa and Layer IIbbased on subtle differences in soil color, structure, and consistence. Layer III sometimes contains artifacts, and occasionally features, in the upper few centimeters. As is the case with most of the Kneohe Interchange project area, Layer III is considered 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 be discussed further.
CLIMATE AND VEGETATION

Rainfall is plentiful at Site 4483, as it is throughout most of the ahupuaa of Kneohe. The site lies within Blumenstock and Prices (1972:200) Region 1, windward areas receiving moderate rainfall and frequent trade wind showers, with annual precipitation totals of approximately 1,8501,900 mm or more (Blumenstock and Price 1972:164). Because of the ample rainfall, site soils are able to support a broad variety of flora, including both native and introduced species. Of the 26 species of plants observed at Site 4483 and nearby areas (Table 3.2), 21 were introduced to the islands following European contact, while candlenut (kukui, Aleurites moluccana), ti (k, Cordyline fruticosa), ape (Alocasia macrorrhiza), and mountain apple (hia ai, Syzygium malaccense) are Polynesian introductions. Hau (Hibiscus tiliaceus) is the only indigenous plant at the site. In addition to those plants found at the site, pandanus (hala, Pandanus tectorius), koa (Acacia koa), and hia (hia lehua, Metrosideros polymorpha) were available in the forest zone above the site during the pre-Contact era, and undoubtedly were collected and utilized for their wood, fibers, leaves, and fruit.
56
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.1. Soils and Stratigraphy, South Face, Unit 102, Site 4483*
Layer I Thickness (cm) 57 Description 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. 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. 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 and plastic when wet; common, fine roots; <5% pebbles; clear, wavy boundary. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 4/4, moist) silty clay; medium to coarse, prismatic, breaking to fine, subangular blocky structure; very friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; very few, fine roots; <5% pebbles; clear, wavy boundary. Brown/dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; weak, medium to coarse, prismatic, breaking to fine, subangular blocky structure; friable when moist, very slightly sticky and slightly plastic when wet; <5% pebbles; base not reached.
II
1118
III
1015
IV
4656
2933
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 Site 4483, 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 replaced by post-Contact (after A.D. 1778) introductions over much of the project area suggests that much of the original growth has been cleared the burning of forests in the area for cultivation began many centuries ago, probably soon after the arrival of Polynesians in Kneohe (Allen, ed. 1987:26).
FAUNA
The fauna observed at Site 4483 include feral cat (Felis catus), mongoose (Herpestes javanicus), cattle egret (Bubulcus ibis), shama thrush (Copsychus malabaricus), and red-vented bulbuls (Pycnonotus cafer). 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 extensive reconnaissance 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
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.2. Vegetation List, Site 4483 and Surrounding Areas

Genus Hibiscus Spathodea Psidium Leucaena Mangifera Aleurites Musa Passiflora Cordyline Alocasia Brachiaria Impatiens Paederia Paspalum Clidemia Rubus Wedelia Oplismenus Brassaia Syzygium Hibiscus Caesalpinia Dieffenbachia Coix Syzygium Albizia Species tiliaceus campanulata guajava leucocephala indica moluccana sp. edulis fruticosa macrorrhiza mutica wallerana scandens conjugatum hirta rosifolius trilobata hirtellus actinophylla cumini rosa-sinensis decapetala sp. lachryma-jobi malaccense sp. hau African tulip common guava koa haole mango candlenut Brazilian banana passion fruit ti ape California grass impatiens stink maile Hilo grass Kosters curse thimbleberry wedelia basket grass umbrella tree Java plum red (Chinese) hibiscus wait-a-bit, cats claw dumb cane Jobs tears mountain apple albizia pp klea hia ai pua kelekino palama honohono laa lepe maile pilau mauu Hilo kuawa koa haole manak kukui maia lilikoi k ape Common Name Hawaiian Name hau Status* Indig. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Poly. Intro. Intro. Intro. Poly. Intro. Poly. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Intro. Poly. Intro.
Information from Wagner et al. (1990). * Indig. = Indigenous to Hawaii; Intro. = Introduced plants; Intro. Poly. = Polynesian introduction.
current boundaries of Site 4483 (Allen, ed. 1987). For a full account of archaeological work in the Kneohe 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 often revealed on ridges and slopes of windward Oahu during grading for road construction. Similar ridges to the north and south of Site 4483, with no surface indications of cultural activity, contained significant subsurface features that were revealed by monitoring of construction work during the course of this project (see Chapters 4 and 5).
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
59
HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY

The ahupuaa of Kneohe, except for individually awarded lands, was awarded to Queen Kalama as part of the Mahele of 18481853. Since there are no individual Land Commission Awards for the area of Site 4483, the land would have been considered hers. To date there is no historical information relating 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 information covering agriculture and land-use changes that occurred in the ahupuaa of Kneohe during the early decades of the twentieth century. The following information is taken from those interviews (see also Klieger 1996 for a full account of the oral history, traditions, and written records relating to Kneohe Ahupuaa). Carabao, beef and dairy cattle, horses, and mules were raised and used in Kneohe for various purposes by the early 1900s. For example, Libby, McNeill & Libby used mules for hauling pineapples from the fields to their cannery, as well as to Kneohe Bay for shipment to Honolulu. Libby, McNeill & Libby stabled their mules across from and above what is currently Hoomaluhia Park, probably in a portion of what is now designated Site 4483. Gridded electricity did not become available in Kneohe until 1923, or even later in many areas of the ahupuaa. Consequently, charcoal was often used in lanterns, in irons, and for cooking. Many of 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 Oahu is located at Site 4483. Although charcoal production never proved to be a particularly profitable venture in its own right, it did provide an important ingredient in a profitable offshoot business. During the years of prohibition, following the enactment of the Halstead Act, the farmers utilized their charcoal in the production of illegal liquor (kolehao), which they then sold throughout the area, often at a tidy profit. Today, as in the past, many families maintain small garden plots near Site 4483 on which they grow food for their personal consumption. However, banana constitutes the only commercial crop currently 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 a discrete site; no surface cultural features had been located during earlier surveys. However, since numerous 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. Initial construction work at the site consisted of three trenches (Units 101, 102, and 103) that were cut by backhoe in order to determine the general stratigraphy and the condition of the soils. These monitored trenches provided an opportunity both to identify any subsurface cultural deposits that might be present and to complete stratigraphic profiles and soil descriptions. Unit 101 revealed four featurestwo
60
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
firepits, a charcoal scatter, and a postmolddescribed below. Units 102 and 103 contained no cultural deposits and will not be discussed further. During extensive bulldozer grubbing operations, more areas were 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 and samples, and recorded exposed features. Depending upon the type of features and the density of cultural materials, 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 time excavators had to deal with seasonally heavy rains and often extremely muddy conditions. Except for the backhoe-excavated units, excavation of features and adjacent areas was conducted manually with trowels and picks following natural soil layers. Layers more than 10 cm in depth were subdivided into 10-cm arbitrary levels. All of the soil removed from hand-excavated units was dry-screened through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6- and 3-mm] mesh. Soils and sediments were described 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 for processing, analysis, and curation.
SAMPLING
The choice of project area was based on highway construction criteria, and so could be considered archaeologically random. Monitoring of the bulldozer and backhoe activity provided 100% surface coverage of the site area, albeit under less than ideal collection conditions. Subsequent excavation of the exposed features provided a biased or judgmental sample. A total of 177.2 m2 was excavated (76 m2 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 concerning site 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 relationship between 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 taken place over time?
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
61
In addition, it was hoped that evidence from this site could help in answering some of the general project research questions, especially those concerning settlement patterns and population change (Allen 1987:1012).
RESULTS SURFACE FINDS

Four surface features (Features 16, 37, 38, and 40) were found at Site 4483 during the course of this project; they may not have been in existence at the time of earlier surveys. Feature 16, a shallow soil depression, is probably natural, possibly a tree mold. Feature 37, a boulder and cobble alignment, and nearby Feature 38, a large cobble mound, could be the result of clearing by banana farmers. Feature 40 is a large concentration of recent trash and organic refuse; this feature was not excavated and will not be discussed further. These surface features are not included in the inventory of historic cultural properties, but to remain consistent with the practice observed for other reports within the larger Interstate 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 115, 13.1, 1736, 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 or possible fire pits, one is a charcoal kiln, and 15 are amorphous charcoal scatters or smears, often no more than a few centimeters in depth, that cannot be accurately evaluated. The remaining six features are of diverse types. Features 4 and 6 are, respectively, a well-defined postmold and a possible postmold, located in the same general area of the site. Feature 5 is a small scattering of coral on the grubbed surface, probably a remnant of an early road base. Features 13 and 32 are extensive scatters of lithic artifacts, apparently associated with the bottom of Layer II/top of Layer III. These features could represent lithic workshops (see Appendix A for lithics terminology for this volume). Feature 36 is a subsurface 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. Where applicable, associated feature numbers also are included. Fire feature characteristics are provided in Table 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 four areas (see Figure 3.1), three on the north ridge and one on the south ridge. Excavations started in the center part of the site, south of Loihi Extension Road, with Units 101, 102, and 103, followed by
62
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.3. Feature Summary, Site 4483

Size (m) Fe. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 L x W or Diameter 0.91 0.86 0.90 0.21 0.90 x 1.00 0.15 0.84 0.70 0.31 1.50 1.00 x 0.50 1.60 210 x 34.5 Depth 0.04 0.30 0.31 0.76 0.16 0.10 0.04 0.15 0.48 0.05 0.11 0.22 0.65 1.15 0.21 0.08 0.65 0.03 0.27 0.06 0.04 0.28 0.13 0.45 0.47 0.02 0.01 0.03 Originating Layer unknown lower Layer II Layer II Layer II at grubbed surface unknown Layer II Layer II Layer II unknown unknown at grubbed surface unknown at grubbed surface unknown Layer II/III; at grubbed surface Layer III Layer II Layer II at surface grubbed area unknown Layer II at grubbed surface unknown Layer III at grubbed surface unknown at grubbed surface unknown grubbed area unknown unknown unknown Layer IIa at grubbed surface unknown at grubbed surface unknown at grubbed surface unknown Form irregular charcoal scatter irregularly shaped pit bowl-shaped pit coral scatter circular pit bowl-shaped pit circular charcoal concentration charcoal scatter funnel-shaped pit charcoal smear charcoal smear large lithic concentration bowl-shaped pit bowl-shaped pit semicircular pit oval depression charcoal scatter funnel-shaped pit charcoal scatter bowl-shaped pit irregularly shaped pit irregularly shaped pit irregularly shaped pit circular charcoal concentration bowl-shaped pit bowl-shaped pit irregularly shaped charcoal scatter charcoal smear irregularly shaped charcoal scatter Function remnant of Fe. 2 firepit firepit firepit banana road base possible postmold firepit firepit firepit or refuse pit imu bulldozed remains of fire feature bulldozed remains of fire feature workshop/activity area firepit or refuse pit imu charcoal kiln soil depression; natural bulldozed remains of fire feature imu bulldozed remains of fire feature imu bulldozed remains of fire feature bulldozed remains of fire feature possible firepit or imu bulldozed remains of firepit or refuse pit imu imu bulldozed remains of fire feature bulldozed remains of fire feature bulldozed remains of fire feature
circular pit, tapered toward base postmold
13.1 0.60 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1.35 2.80 0.65 0.90 1.00 0.35 x 0.25 1.00 1.30 0.40 1.85 x 0.75 0.38 1.00 0.80 0.55 1.50 x 0.75 2.10 x 0.50
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
63
Size (m) Fe. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 L x W or Diameter 1.40 x 0.70 2.50 x 1.00 22.0 x 13.0 0.55 0.30 0.52 0.63 x 0.20 1.22 x 1.00 8.75 x 4.20 0.37 60.00 x 40.00 Depth 0.01 0.27 0.03 0.06 0.10 0.40 0.30 Originating Layer at grubbed surface unknown at grubbed surface unknown Form charcoal scatter charcoal scatter Function bulldozed remains of fire feature bulldozed remains of fire feature workshop/activity area firepit bulldozed remains of firepit or refuse feature firepit or refuse pit unknown unknown clearing/planting mound probable firepit remnant post-Contact refuse dump
Layer IIa/IIb; at grubbed lithic scatter surface Layer IIa at grubbed surface unknown Layer IIb Layer IIb at surface at surface construction fill at surface irregularly shaped pit charcoal stain circular pit cobble alignment cobble/boulder alignment cobble mound circular charcoal scatter concentration of trash
Table 3.4. Unit Excavation Summary, Site 4483

Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 17 18 19 20 21.1 21.2 21.3 Length (m) 2.00 1.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.50 1.00 2.75 5.00 1.50 3.30 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Width (m) 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.30 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.60 1.40 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Average Depth (m) 0.55 0.30 0.24 0.13 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.32 0.15 0.35 0.06 0.05 0.45 0.40 1.30 0.35 0.22 0.32 0.19 0.09 0.27 Volume (m3) 1.10 0.43 0.24 0.13 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.32 0.08 0.68 0.06 0.14 11.25 0.36 6.00 1.40 0.22 0.64 0.19 0.09 0.27 Associated Feature(s) 3&4 2 1 5 None 6 7 7&8 None 9* 10* 11* 12* 13 14* 15 None 13.1* 16 None None None
(continued)
64
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Unit 21.4 21.5 21.6 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51.1 51.2 52 53 101 102 103

*
Length Width Average Depth (m) (m) (m) 1.00 1.00 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.50 0.07 1.00 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.05 0.75 0.75 0.25 1.50 1.50 0.10 1.00 1.00 0.09 1.50 0.75 0.30 1.00 0.50 0.15 1.20 0.85 0.35 1.00 1.00 0.59 0.50 0.50 0.02 2.00 0.40 0.06 No excavationprofile only 1.00 1.00 0.03 No excavationcharcoal smear, cleared only 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00 0.24 1.00 1.00 0.30 1.00 1.00 0.32 0.80 0.70 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.15 2.00 2.00 0.41 1.00 1.00 0.55 3.00 1.00 0.43 1.00 1.00 0.50 1.00 1.00 0.55 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.42 0.41 0.65 0.53
Volume (m3) 0.25 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.22 0.09 0.34 0.08 0.36 0.59 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.30 0.40 0.24 0.30 0.32 0.07 0.15 1.64 0.55 1.29 0.50 0.55 0.84 0.82 2.60 1.59
Associated Feature(s) None None None 17* 18* 19* 20 21 22* 23 24* 25* 26 27* 28 29 30 31 32 32 32 32 32 33 34 35 None None 36 None None None 37 37 38 39 1, 2, 3, 4 None None
3.00 1.00 0.60 1.80 No excavation; charcoal at grubbed surfacecleared only 15 2 1.25 37.5 13 10 2 2 1.15 1.25 29.9 25
Only the feature was excavated.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
65
Table 3.5. Fire (and Possible Fire) Feature Characteristics (Field Observations), Site 4483*
Fe. Size Diam. (m) 2 3 7 8 9 10 13.1 14 18 20 23 25 26 33 35
*
Shape
Rock
Charred Burnt Reuse kukui Earth Seed Inside Outside Coats Feature Feature Artifacts yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes no yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes none none none none none none none none none none none none none none
Location South/North of Loihi Extension Road ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top south ridge top south ridge top north ridge top north ridge top north ridge top south ridge top south
0.78 0.90 0.74 0.09 0.31 0.90 0.30 1.20 0.85 1.00 0.75 1.00 0.80 0.25 1.00
irregular pit bowl-shaped pit bowl-shaped pit circular pit charcoal scatter bowl-shaped pit bowl-shaped pit bowl-shaped pit circular pit bowl-shaped pit bowl-shaped pit
few yes yes; fire-affected yes; fire-affected no yes yes; fire-affected yes; fire-affected yes; fire-affected yes; fire-affected yes; fire-affected
funnel-shaped pit yes; fire-affected
funnel-shaped pit yes; fire-affected
irregular; yes; fire-affected somewhat square circular pit yes; fire-affected
Excluding grubbed remnants: Features 1, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, 22, 24, 2731, 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, in an area to the north of the road. Units 11, 15, 28 through 31, 33, 34, and 36 investigated the northernmost section of the site. Units 23 through 27, 32, and 37 through 53 were excavated in the southern portion of the site, on the south ridge. (There was no Unit 16). North Ridge: Center Section of Site, South of Loihi Extension Road Four features were revealed with the excavation of Unit 101, a 15-m-long backhoe trench. A charcoal scatter (Feature 1) was discovered on the grubbed surface beside the trench, while two pit-shaped concentrations of charcoal (Features 2 and 3) and the outline of a postmold (Feature 4) were visible in the walls of the trench. Layer I contained a broken, edge-altered, basalt flake, as seen in the profile of the north face of Unit 101 (Figure 3.3). This artifact was collected as part of the Unit 2 excavations. The north face profile (see Figure 3.3) also shows Feature 2 originating in Layer II. The feature is composed of four distinct bands of charcoal and fire-affected soil, indicating separate episodes of use. A broken basalt flake 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 a firepit.
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
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 a separate, distinct soil layer was recognized between Layers II and III. This layer exhibited only slight differences in soil color and consistency when compared to Layer II, which prompted the designation of 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 postContact-period artifact, an olive green sherd of bottle glass, was also recovered from Layer IIa. A heavy concentration of charcoal, together with fire-affected cobbles and burnt soil, was found in Layer IIb at 30 cmbs. This charcoal concentration is in line with the bowl-shaped pit profile seen in the south wall of Unit 101, and likely constitutes the southerly extension of Feature 3. One basalt flake with polish was found 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 Feature 2 firepit. Mammal bone was collected from the surface of the unit. Four distinct charcoal bands were excavated, corresponding to those described in the north wall of Unit 101. As mentioned above, a broken basalt flake was found within Feature 2, above one of the charcoal bands. An abundance of wood charcoal, collected separately by band, was recovered from Feature 2. HRC 1493, taken from the lowest 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 volcanic glass flake, and two volcanic glass fragments. Layer II contained a basalt artifact that could have been used 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 of Unit 3. A cow bone was recovered from the surface of the unit. Excavation revealed that Feature 1 was probably not a discrete feature, but was instead a portion of the charcoal from Feature 2 that had been scattered by the backhoe during cutting of the Unit 101 trench. One volcanic glass fragment was recovered 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 Unit 101. A thin piece of metal was found in Layer IIa, and one volcanic glass flake was recovered from Layer IIb in association with more coral pieces. This scatter initially was thought to represent preContact remains. Excavators eventually determined, however, that use of the coral as a base or bed for a road was the more likely explanation. An interesting description of early twentieth-century use of coral 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 of Unit 2, to explore the possibility of further cultural deposits in this area. The discovery of a postmold and firepits in Unit 101, and the recovery of the ulu maika/hammerstone and other lithic artifacts in Unit 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 soil toward the base of Layer II, was noted in the northwest corner of Unit 6. The soil within Feature 6 was 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. BM Neg. No. Oa(a)665:44.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
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 units south of Unit 101. During excavation of two adjacent units, Units 7 and 8 (Figure 3.7), the crew collected one mammal bone from the surface and 21 indigenous lithic artifacts from Layer II. A small basalt adze, a basalt flake with polish, one other basalt flake, five broken basalt flakes, two volcanic glass flakes, one broken volcanic glass flake, and one volcanic glass fragment came from Unit 7. Unit 8 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 concentration of charcoal (Feature 8) was uncovered in the northeast corner of Unit 8, also at the base of Layer II. Two radiocarbon 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 glass flakes, and a volcanic glass fragment were recovered from Layer IIa. Layer IIb produced one basalt flake and one volcanic glass fragment. This underscored the probability that the locality in and around Unit 101 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, four firepits, and at least one (and possibly two) postmold(s) were documented in Layers II and III for the units described above. Bulldozers uncovered two adjacent smears of charcoal and fire-affected soil (Features 11 and 12) 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 12 cm of each feature was still intact. Unit 17 was set up where bulldozer operations had exposed Feature 15 in the southern portion of Site 4483, southeast of Unit 101. Feature 15 is the remnant of a kiln that had been constructed at some time past for the production of charcoal (Figures 3.8, 3.9, and 3.10). The large, cobble-lined kiln was 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 facings inside the semicircular feature. The bulldozer had cut away the front portion of the kiln, leaving a little less than half of the original structure intact. The floor of the kiln was encountered 120 cmbs, while the diameter 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, and charcoal-stained silty clay. Large cobbles, presumably associated with the facing of the kiln, and abundant charcoal pieces of varying sizes were noted in the fill. Post-Contact-period artifacts in the fill included fragments of metal, wire nails, and tin cans. An unlined vent (see Figure 3.9) for controlling air and oxygen levels within the kiln during firing was located in the west wall. This vent extended from just below floor level, upward through the wall, to the surface. Two iron bars recovered from the kiln floor may have served originally as supports for a roof of soil, branches and twigs, and Hilo grass. However, roofs of this type usually included the use of chicken wire as well (Klieger and Leidemann 1992), which was lacking in the Feature 15 kiln. Allen (1987:98), in her discussion of Feature 3 at Site 1888, described an iron bar that continued to support the only remaining portion of that features 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
75
there was no evidence that a concrete roof had ever been part of the Feature 15 structure, leaving unknown 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, northeast of Unit 101. Unit 22 was opened and the feature bisected for excavation in an attempt to discern the origin 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 soon discovered that the base of the charcoal feature in Layer III was all that remained.
North Ridge: Center Section of Site, North of Loihi Extension Road An extensive lithic scatter (Feature 13), associated with the bottom of Layer II/top of Layer III, was exposed in the center of the site on the grubbed surface of the north ridge (see Figure 3.1 and Figures 3.12 and 3.13). A total of 1,035 lithic artifacts was collected from the 27 grids located within the 7,245 m2 area of Feature 13. Basalt artifacts included adzes, adze fragments, adze blanks, and flakes with polish, probably from adzes; hammerstones, an anvil/hammerstone, and a hammerstone/abrader; a grinding stone fragment; edge-altered flakes; a flaked cobble; and modified waterworn pebbles. Basalt cores and numerous basalt flakes, broken flakes, and fragments were recovered as well. The majority of the artifact assemblage recovered from Feature 13 consists of volcanic glass cores, edge-altered flakes, flakes, broken flakes, and fragments. The grubbed collections also include cow bone, two pieces of post-Contact-period glass, and a metal artifact. These artifacts are discussed in the Laboratory Analysis section, below. Because of the large number of artifacts recovered from Feature 13, excavators opened Unit 14, a 5 by 5 m unit in a relatively undisturbed area at the south end of the surface collection area. In the southeast corner of the unit, a portion of a small, intact fire feature (Feature 13.1) capped by upper Layer III 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 adze fragment, a flake with polish, and 53 flakes, broken flakes, and fragments of basalt; and six cores, one edge-altered flake, two edge-altered fragments, and 46 flakes, broken flakes, and fragments of volcanic glass. Basalt artifacts recovered from Layer IIb include one polished chisel, three flakes with polish, and 53 flakes, broken flakes, and fragments. Volcanic glass artifacts from this layer include 10 cores, two edge-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 fragments of basalt; and three cores, one edge-altered flake, and 23 other flakes, broken flakes, and fragments of volcanic glass. Samples were selected for radiocarbon analysis from the wood charcoal collected in Layers IIa and III. HRC 1452, recovered from Layer IIa, 1023 cmbs, produced a conventional age of 110 60 B.P. HRC 1453, recovered from Layer III, 3042 cmbs, produced a conventional age of 310 50 B.P. Although there appears to be no stylistic difference among the lithic tools recovered from Layer IIa and those recovered from Layer IIb/III in Unit 14, the variance in radiocarbon dates/ranges on charcoal from Layer IIa and Layer III suggests the presence of two cultural components, separated by at least a century, and possibly more. Unit 18 was opened along the west edge of the Feature 13 gridded area to further explore the 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
79
recovered from Layers IIa, IIb, and III (Layer I had been removed by the bulldozer). One broken basalt flake was collected from the surface. One volcanic glass flake, one broken volcanic glass flake, four post-Contact-period glass fragments, and 147 metal fragments were collected from Layer IIathe most post-Contact artifacts encountered in any one unit at Site 4483. Another volcanic glass flake came from Layer IIb. As mentioned briefly above, a portion of a small firepit (Feature 13.1) was uncovered in the southeast corner of Unit 14, in Layer III. Unit 19 was opened to investigate the extent and depth of Feature 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 wood charcoal, HRC 1454, taken directly from the firepit, 2355 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 from 3042 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 soil depression (Feature 16) noted there, and to locate and recover any cultural material that might be present. One basalt flake with polish and two other basalt flakes were recovered from Layer IIa, and one basalt flake was recovered from Layer IIb. None was in association with Feature 16. No charcoal, burnt earth, or fire-affected rock was present. The large number of roots found in and just below the feature suggests that the depression had been formed by vegetational growth, and disturbed by more recent bulldozer 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 was divided into six 1 m2 sections, with each section excavated independently. The north and west portions of this unit had been recently grubbed; the visible surface in all areas of the unit was already into Layer IIa soil. Layer IIa in Sections 21.121.5 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 in Section 21.2, and a basalt fragment and charred kukui seed coats from Layer IIb. A sparse amount of charcoal was also noted. Section 21.3 yielded a post-Contact-period glass fragment from Layer IIa, and scattered charcoal flecks were present in Layer IIa of Section 21.5. Section 21.6, which lay adjacent to the west wall of Unit 14, produced a total of 16 lithic artifacts. Layer IIa produced three flakes and two broken flakes of basalt, and one edge-altered flake and two fragments of volcanic glass. Layer IIb produced one flake, one broken flake, and one fragment of basalt, as well as three flakes and two broken flakes 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, further sampling upslope (to the south) was carried out to determine the presence or absence of an intact cultural layer that would indicate intensive pre-Contact use of that area. A total of 83 auger bore samples 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 screened through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh. Soil stratification data from units throughout Site 4483 indicate Layer III as basal to the cultural sequence; therefore, each auger was halted either after reaching Layer III, or at a depth of 1 m below surface. Most bore samples showed a consistent soil stratification composed of four layers (I, IIa, IIb, III). Three indigenous artifacts were collected: two basalt flakes (Transect 3, Bore 1, Layer IIa and Transect 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
81
One fragment of post-Contact-period glass was collected (Transect 2, Bore 5, Layer I). Other postContact-period artifacts recorded, but not collected, include glass fragments (Transect 2, Bore 5, Layer I), one bottle cap with accompanying glass fragments (Transect 3, Bore 10, Layer IIa), and one screwtype bottle cap with accompanying glass fragments (Transect 5, Bore 11, Layer IIa). Small, widely dispersed flecks of charcoal were also recorded (Transect 3, Layers IIa and IIb, throughout; Transect 4, Bore 6, Layer IIb; and Transect 5, Bore 8, Layer IIa), but not collected due to insufficient sample size for dating analysis or identification to taxon. Layers I and IIa, both containing fragments of glass, appear to have been deposited postContact. Layer IIb, containing charcoal and two basalt flakes, appears to be the layer of deposition during the indigenous cultural era. Layer III yielded no cultural material. Analysis of all data indicated that cultural evidence was insufficient to warrant further excavation in the transect area. The heaviest concentration of lithic artifacts found in the southern part of Feature 13 does not appear to extend further south 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 of Layer III. Excavation of Unit 10 revealed the remains of a small firepit (Feature 9) containing both charcoal and burnt kukui seed coats. Bulldozer grubbing also uncovered a large deposit of charcoal further north on a slope of the north 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 second large concentration of charcoal on the grubbed surface, as well as one volcanic glass core and two volcanic glass fragments. Unit 15 was opened to explore the extent and depth of the feature, labeled Feature 14. Charred kukui seed coats, fire-affected cobbles, and burnt soil were found within the charcoal-filled pit, with a baked soil rind underlying it. Feature 14 was designated an imu (Figures 3.16 and 3.17) upon completion of excavation. Four more charcoal features were uncovered as bulldozer grubbing continued at the north end of the north ridge. Unit 28 was set up to examine Feature 23. The perimeter and resulting shape of the feature were totally amorphous due to grubbing by bulldozers. However, the presence of angular and subangular fire-affected cobbles and burnt soil associated with the feature, together with an abundance of charcoal, indicate that Feature 23 may have been an imu. One metal fragment and one glass marble were collected from the grubbed surface. One small, broken volcanic glass flake was recovered from the feature fill. Unit 29 explored Feature 24, an accumulation of charcoal at the grubbed surface. The small size of this feature, with regard to both diameter and depth, together with the absence of burnt earth, suggest that Feature 24 may be only a remnant of the two imu nearby, scattered and deposited during machine grubbing 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-affected soil 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
87
edge-altered volcanic glass flake and one broken volcanic glass flake were recovered from the grubbed surface (Layer IIa) of Unit 30. Sixteen volcanic glass artifacts were recovered from Unit 31: one core and one flake from the grubbed surface (Layer IIa); two flakes, three broken flakes, and five fragments from 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, and 31. Units 33, 34, 35, and 36 showed that these features were only 1 to 1.5 cm in depth. In addition, the bulldozer tracks in Feature 31 contained soil that appeared to be fire-affected. One explanation for these small scatters of charcoal and the apparent burnt soil may be found in the presence of the nearby imu located on the far north end of the ridge. With bulldozers and backhoes working back and forth over the 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 time past. 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 had exposed a soil bank containing charcoal and a number of fire-reddened rocks (Feature 18). Excavation of 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 this imu 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 of two grubbed access roads. Unit 24 was opened over a scatter of charcoal, designated Feature 19, seen on the grubbed surface. The unit was bisected in order to provide a profile of the feature. It proved to be extremely shallow, no more than 12 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 have been 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 the grubbed surface of the access road (Figure 3.21). The unit was bisected and the south portion excavated first. One volcanic glass fragment was recovered from the grubbed surface of Layer III, outside the feature. At 35 cmbs the feature was no longer a small scatter, but a dense concentration of charcoal with fire-affected pebbles and cobbles as well. The bowl-shaped pit feature turned out to be much larger than originally thoughtroughly 1 m in diameter. The presence of the fire-affected cobbles and burnt soil together with the charcoal suggests that Feature 20, associated with Layer III, originally functioned as an imu. Units 26 and 27 were opened to explore Features 21 and 22, each of which proved to be very small and shallow with no real definition of size or shape. Like Feature 19, Features 21 and 22 were probably scattered remnants of the Feature 20 imu. In addition to charcoal, two basalt flakes (one of them edge-altered) were recovered from Feature 21, and both features contained charred kukui seed coats.
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
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Bulldozer grubbing of a dump road in the far southwest portion of Site 4483 revealed a small scatter of charcoal, Feature 27, at the grubbed surface. However, when crew members opened Unit 32 and began excavation, it became apparent that the feature was extremely shallow, with flecks of charcoal 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 may have been, is unknown. A large concentration of lithic artifacts, designated Feature 32, was found approximately two months after the completion of excavation in Units 2427, in the area of Feature 20; the artifacts were undoubtedly exposed by several periods of heavy rains. The 94 traditional lithic artifacts collected from the grubbed surface (Layer IIa/IIb) are mostly of basalt. Basalt tools include one adze fragment, one adze preform, one awl, two grinding stone fragments, one hammerstone, two edge-altered flakes, one broken edge-altered flake, four flakes with polish, and one broken flake with polish. There were also 68 basalt flakes and fragments recovered from the grubbed surface. Volcanic glass artifacts include two cores (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 question of whether the 94 artifacts that constituted Feature 32 indicated a local activity area or were simply the result of erosion. The soils within the units were typical of the general soil sequence found throughout the site, although all of Layer I and some of Layer IIa had been removed by the bulldozer. All of the artifacts 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, and two pieces of post-Contact-period glass. Unit 38 contained one edge-altered volcanic glass flake. No cultural materials were collected from Unit 39. Unit 41 yielded a volcanic glass core. These few artifacts, as well as the 94 lithics collected from the surface of the grubbed roads, appear to relate stratigraphically, and possibly functionally, with both the Feature 20 imu, located on the north-south access 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 northsouth access road. Excavation of Unit 42 showed Feature 33 to be a small firepit, associated with Layer IIa, containing charcoal and fire-affected cobbles and soil. One basalt flake with polish and one broken basalt 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 northsouth access road. A very small concentration of charcoal appeared in the southeast quadrant of the unit at a depth of 7 cmbs, in Layer IIb. Small flecks of charcoal continued until 12 cmbs, then disappeared completely. Feature 34 may have been part of the Feature 20 imu pushed by the bulldozer when the access road was grubbed. Seven more units were opened to further explore the vicinity surrounding the Feature 32 lithic scatter. Unit 44 was opened upslope and southwest of the grubbed road intersection. Feature 35, a small firepit or refuse pit (Figure 3.22), was encountered at the base of Layer IIa/top of Layer IIb. This feature contained both charcoal and charred kukui seed coats. A total of 32 lithic artifacts was recovered from the unit: one basalt flake with polish from the undisturbed surface; one flake, one broken flake, and one fragment of volcanic glass from Layer I; another basalt flake with polish, one edgealtered basalt flake, seven basalt flakes, five broken basalt flakes, eight volcanic glass flakes, two broken 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
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. PostContact 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 yielded one basalt flake, one broken basalt flake, two volcanic glass cores, two volcanic glass flakes, and two broken volcanic glass flakes. Excavators collected one whole amber beer bottle and two beer bottle fragments from the unmodified surface of Unit 46, located southeast of the access roads intersection. Layer I yielded two post-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 only artifact recovered from Unit 47 was one volcanic glass flake from Layer IIa. Once excavation reached Layer IIb, however, excavators encountered an apparent pebble and cobble alignment, oriented diagonally across the unit. This alignment, designated Feature 36, appeared to be a natural accumulation of rocks. Unit 48 provided meager cultural information as well, with only one broken volcanic glass flake 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 pieces of charcoal. Upper Layer IIa yielded an edge-altered basalt flake, a volcanic glass core, and a volcanic glass flake. Lower Layer IIa yielded a basalt flake and a broken basalt flake, and charcoal sufficient for collection. 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 microartifact analysis (see Laboratory Analyses below). Unit 50 yielded just two lithic artifacts, an edge-altered volcanic glass flake from the lower portion of Layer IIa, and a basalt flake from Layer IIb. Feature 37, a surface alignment of boulders and coarse cobbles, was discovered close to Likelike Highway and southwest of Feature 32. Although the feature was originally considered to be a possible platform or terrace remnant, excavation of Unit 51 revealed that the base of the rocks forming the alignment was found just a few centimeters into Layer II; there was no evidence of a terrace or a platform of any sort (Figure 3.24). A basalt adze preform came from Layer I in Unit 51.1 (the section of the unit upslope of the feature). Unit 51.2 (downslope of the feature) yielded two volcanic glass flakes (one of them edge-altered) from Layer IIa, and an edge-altered basalt flake with polish from Layer IIb. The boulders and coarse cobbles that composed this alignment may have been deposited here at some time during construction of Likelike Highway, and perhaps moved around again during preparation 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 were recovered. Excavators concluded that the mound of cobbles based in Layer I/II most likely had been deposited 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 material present.
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
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 associated with Layer II, one with Layer IIa, one with Layer III, and two of unknown association. Crew members investigated nine smaller charcoal features (Features 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 13.1, 23, 33, and 35), four of which were associated with Layer II, one each with Layer IIa and IIb, and three with Layer III. In addition, 15 scatters of charcoal of unknown layer association were revealed throughout the site on grubbed surfaces during 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 fire features. Postmolds and Lithics Feature 4, a postmold associated with Layer II, was found on the south face of Unit 101, and another possible postmold, Feature 6, was encountered in Layer II at the northwest corner of Unit 6. A large number 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 large lithic scatters, the six imu, and the many other charcoal features found at Site 4483 strongly suggest temporary 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 sites in the ili of Luluku. Evidence for early twentieth century road construction was uncovered at Feature 5. Five features are either natural or very recent, and do not provide any further useful information for site interpretation. Feature 16, a soil depression, and Feature 36, a subsurface rock alignment, are probably naturally formed. Features 37 and 38 may have been created recently, as banana farmers cleared 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 a prefix; 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 Site 4483. 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
97
layer/feature numbers. The samples were then taken to the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory for preliminary processing, which included drying the samples in small ovens, separating the charcoal from soil or organic materials, and finally, weighing the processed samples. All charcoal not sent for radiocarbon 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 charcoal samples 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 the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California, where they were processed by the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) technique. The results of the radiocarbon analyses are presented in Table 3.6. The list includes uncorrected 14 C age (at 1 F) and *13C (indicating that the dates have been corrected for isotope fractionation), 13Cadjusted (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 its Gaussian age distribution (Stuiver and Reimer 1993:226). Refer to Table 3.6 for all calibrated age/range data. HRC 1493 (Beta 75011) was selected for radiocarbon analysis from the charcoal collected from Feature 2, Unit 2, a firepit associated with the bottom of Layer II. The four distinct bands of charcoal that constitute Feature 2 were first noted in Unit 101, and appear in the profile of the north face of that unit. HRC 1493, recovered from the feature fill in Band 4 at 48 cmbs (see Figure 3.3), produced a conventional age of 270 70 B.P. and a pre-Contact A.D. 14531702 range, with a 95.4% confidence level. Feature 13.1 in Unit 19 is a distinct, circular firepit or refuse pit, 0.30 m in diameter and 0.22 m 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 340 120 B.P. and a pre-Contact date range of A.D. 14031707, with a 95.4% confidence level. Unit 14, a 5 m2 unit opened adjacent to the large lithic concentration of Feature 13, contained indigenous artifacts in both Layer II and Layer III. Two wood charcoal samples were submitted for radiocarbon analysis. HRC 1453 (Beta 5585), recovered from Layer III, 3042 cmbs, produced a conventional age of 310 50 B.P. and a pre-Contact A.D. 14631668 range, with a 95.4% confidence level. In addition to this charcoal sample, Layer III yielded 35 traditional artifacts of basalt and volcanic glass, and no evidence of post-Contact-period artifacts. The three dates/ranges discussed above are nearly identical, and, taken together with the number of indigenous artifacts recovered, probably represent the earliest use of Site 4483 as an activity/lithic workshop area. Lending further support to this statement are the 1,056 traditional lithic artifacts recovered from the grubbed surface (bottom of Layer II/top of Layer III) of Feature 13, immediately north of Unit 14. The second wood charcoal sample from Unit 14, HRC 1452 (Beta 5584), recovered from Layer IIa, 1023 cmbs, generated a conventional age of 110 60 B.P. and a probable post-Contact A.D. 17971945 range at a 95.4% confidence level. It is also possible that we have a late pre-Contact component represented in Layer IIa of Unit 14, shown by the A.D. 16731779 date range. Feature 7 in Units 7 and 8 is a bowl-shaped firepit or refuse pit associated with Layer II. This charcoal feature, 0.12 m in depth, containing fire-affected cobbles and charcoal, was found along the
Table 3.6. Radiocarbon Dating Results, Site 4483

Calibrated Date/Range A.D. Stuiver and Reimer (1993) Unit Feature Context/ Depth (cmbs)* Measured 14 C Age B.P. (1F)
*13C
C-Adjusted (Conventional) Age B.P.
13
Calibrated Date(s)
Range-Method A: Intercepts (1F) (2F)
Range-Method B: Relative area under probability distribution curve 68.3% area enclosed (1F) 95.4% area enclosed (2F) 16521893 .82 19051955 .18
HRC No.
Lab No.
7&8
1222 Layer II/Level 1
240 60
-28.7
180 60
1678 1772, 1801 1941, 1954 1683 1745, 1807 1933, 1954
16601702 17181819 18581861 19171954 16631897 19021955
16411955 16601701 .22 17191818 .57 19181955 .21 16411955 16711705 .18 17151783 .36 17941820 .14 18381871 .15 19151947 .16 19531955 .01 16631955 16891733 .28 18131925 .72 14591669 15131596 .71 17861793 16181652 .29 19481953 14001889 14401667 .99 19071954 17901790 .00 19511952 .01 16601955 16891733 .27 18121925 .73 14591695 15111600 .44 17251816 16161678 .36 19211954 17721801 .14 19401955 .07
1450
Beta 5582
7&8
2429 Fe. fill
210 70
-28.4
160 70
16621899 .82 19001955 .18
1451
Beta 5583
14
13
1023 Layer IIa 3042 Layer III 2355 Fe. fill Layer III 425 Fe. fill Layer II 4855 Fe. fill lower Layer II
160 60
-27.9
110 60
1710, 1822 1833, 1882 1912, 1954 1638
16801753 18041937 19541955 15111600 16161654 14411666
16731779 .38 17971945 .62 14631668 .99 17871792 .00 14031707 17131821 18361878 19141955 .80 .13 .03 .05
1452
Beta 5584
14
13
320 60
-26.0
310 50
1453
Beta 5585
19
13.1
340 120
1520, 1569 1627
1454
Beta 5586 Cams 3732
30
25
80 80
1955
16831745 18071933 19541955 15201569 16271672 17811795 19461953
16721781 .37 17951946 .63 19531955 .00 14531702 17161819 18591860 19171955 .72 .20 .00 .08
1455
Beta 5587 Cams 3733 Beta 75011
290 70
-26.4
270 70
1651
1493
*Below grubbed surface.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
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 1222 cmbs in upper Layer II, yielded a conventional age of 180 60 B.P., and at a 95.4% confidence level produced a date range of A.D. 16521893. HRC 1451 (Beta 5583), recovered from within the firepit, 2429 cmbs, generated a conventional age of 160 70 B.P., and at a 95.4% confidence level yielded a range of A.D. 16621899. These dates, together with the lack of post-Contact artifacts in Layer II or the feature, suggest preContact, or possibly initial post-Contact utilization of the area. The assemblage consists of 21 basalt and volcanic glass artifacts (adzes, flakes, and one core) that were recovered from Layer II. Three of these artifacts showed positive reactions during immunological testsone to dog antiserum, one to fern antiserum, 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 of fire-affected cobbles, burnt soil, ash, and charcoal. The imu measures 1 m in diameter and 0.45 m in depth. Wood charcoal collected from the feature fill (HRC 1455; Beta 5587; CAMS 3733) produced a conventional age of 80 80 B.P. and a post-Contact range of A.D. 17951946 at a 95.4 % confidence level. A late pre-Contact range is also possible, shown by the A. D. 16891733 range. The radiocarbon dates discussed above strongly suggest that Native Hawaiians actively exploited Site 4483 as early as the fifteenth century, and that they and/or other groups continued to utilize various portions of the site, if not continually, then intermittently, into the present century. The date range of A.D. 14031707 for the upper portion of Layer III in the Unit 14/19 area, and for the deepest charcoal band of Feature 2, in Layer II of Unit 2, indicate the earliest cultural component at Site 4483. In addition, the largest number of indigenous artifacts recovered from Units 14 and 19, as well as those from the Feature 13 gridded area, came from the bottom of Layer II (Layer IIb) and upper Layer III (Layer III/1), indicating contemporaneous use of these artifacts and the charcoal features in Unit 2 and in the Unit 14/19 area. This particular portion of Site 4483 was probably utilized as an activity 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 disturbance throughout the area led to questions about artifact proveniences at this site. Although the many firepits and imu in this area indicated that cultural activities were taking place here, it was possible that some of the artifacts had undergone post-depositional transport. The large number of flakes and fragments at 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 permanent signature of lithic tool production. Microartifact analysis was attempted in one section of the site in order to see whether or not microdebitage, or other microartifacts, could be detected. Soil samples were taken from four layers in Unit 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 in the samples from Layer I and Layer IIa. The Layer IIb sample contained volcanic glass. The Layer III sample yielded charcoal. Naturally formed basalt granules and culturally produced basalt microartifacts were 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
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
The results of the microartifact study indicate that lithic flaking activities were being conducted in this area of the site, and post-depositional transport of artifacts is probably not a significant problem here. A detailed explanation of the microartifact analysis conducted for this site is given in Appendix B.
RESIDUE ANALYSIS
Residue analyses of various types are becoming widely used by archaeologists (although some have questioned the validity of the results of blood analysese.g. Eisele et al. 1995). In areas where the preservation of macroscopic organics is poor or virtually nonexistent, as in parts of the Hawaiian Islands, residue analyses may prove to be an extremely valuable tool for identifying the various flora and fauna utilized by the indigenous inhabitants. Chemical, microscopic, and immunological tests, in conjunction with microscopic analysis of wear patterns, can shed light on the use, or uses, of early stone implements. In addition, the utilization of such tests and analyses may enhance our knowledge of feature and site function, intersite relationships (e.g., exchange or procurement networks), and cultural change over time. Six basalt and four volcanic glass pieces from Site 4483 were chosen for crossover immune electrophoresis (CIEP) analysis, based on physical characteristics such as edge use or edge wear, or because 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 greater detail below.
Table 3.7. Results of Residue Analysis on Ten Lithic Artifacts, Site 4483
Reaction pig pig dog fern none none none none none none Material basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass volcanic glass volcanic glass Specimen adze fragment edge-altered flake flake with polish adze flake broken flake flake flake flake fragment Unit Grid 1, Fe. 13 8 7 7 Grid 1, Fe. 13 7 2 7 9 9 Layer/Level grubbed surface II/1 II/1 II/1 grubbed surface II/2 II II/2 IIa/2 IIa/2 Artifact No. (50-Oa-G5-153-) 23 172 26 27 19 28 25 163 364 363
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 was recovered from the grubbed surface of Feature 13, Grid 1, Layer II/III (see Figure 3.12), approximately 60 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 rounding on 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 pig antiserum.
102
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 and imu in the area, suggesting that the adze and flake were used in killing and butchering pigs prior to cooking. Artifact 26 (Figure 3.28), a basalt flake with polish associated with Unit 7, Layer II, showed a positive reaction to dog antiserum. This flake exhibited rounding, probably from use-wear, on the distal 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), a basalt 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 from Feature 13, a volcanic glass flake from Unit 2, another broken basalt flake and a volcanic glass flake from 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 underscore the importance of flakes in the overall lithic assemblage. As Shott (1994:71) points out, flake debris can be a reliable, if not the sole, source of information on tool-using activities and can more accurately reflect human behavior than the tools found at the same site. The Discussion section below includes an interpretation of what these results might mean for Site 4483. Details of the residue analysis procedure conducted on the 10 artifacts can be found in Appendix C. Further discussion of the analysis results and significance for Hawaiian site interpretation can be found in Allen et al. (1995).
GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS
Macroscopic analysis of the lithic assemblage from Site 4483 indicated that at least two different kinds of basalt were used, and that most of the basalt was worked in a preliminary fashion elsewhere before being brought to the site for final tool production. A sample of artifacts was submitted for geochemical analysis to determine whether artifacts at the site are derived from locally available stone, more distant sources, 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 ulu maika/hammerstone and a grinding stone fragment, both of coarse-grained basalt; an adze preform, an adze fragment, a small whole adze, and a chisel of finer-grained basalt; and a core and an edge-altered flake of volcanic glass. Four of the samples were sourced to the east-central portion of the Koolau range (the ulu maika/hammerstone, adze preform, grinding stone fragment, and volcanic glass core), while the remaining four were sourced to the Waianae range (the chisel, adze, adze fragment, and edge-altered volcanic 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, and therefore not transported from any great distance. The three smaller, finished artifacts (the complete and broken 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. Positive reaction to dog antiserum.
Figure 3.29.
Artifact 27, basalt adze, Unit 7. Positive reaction to fern antiserum.
Figure 3.30.
Artifact 171, basalt adze, Grid 18. Sourced to Waianae Range.
Figure 3.31.
Artifact 260, basalt adze fragment, Feature 32 (grubbed road surface). Sourced to Waianae Range.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
105
Table 3.8. Results of Geochemical Analysis on Eight Lithic Artifacts, Site 4483
Source Koolau Koolau Koolau Koolau Waianae Waianae Waianae Waianae Material basalt basalt volcanic glass basalt basalt volcanic glass basalt basalt Specimen ulu maika/hammerstone grinding stone fragment core adze preform small adze edge-altered flake chisel adze fragment 14 14 14 51.1 Unit 2 II Fe. 13, Grid 3 grubbed surface IIb I Fe. 13, Grid 18, grubbed surface IIb IIb Fe. 32 grubbed surface Layer/Level Artifact No. (50-Oa-G5-153-) 65 108 205 175 171 209 213 260
Appendix D provides more details of the geochemical analysis conducted on these eight artifacts.
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 additional notes, are provided in Appendices E, F, and G. Method All collected artifacts were cataloged at Bishop Museum Archaeological Laboratory, where they now are stored. All lithics were handled minimally; no washing was done. Surfaces of a few samples were lightly brushed with a soft dry brush to reduce the amount of soil and to expose artifact form data for analysis. Soil remained on the surfaces of the brushed samples because much of the cultural basalt material had developed a thick band of relatively soft weathering rind, and overbrushing would have altered the artifact surfaces. All lithic artifacts from Site 4483 were examined with a reflecting light microscope at 10X for characteristics of use such as residue or edge alteration. Seventeen artifacts exhibit visible residue and/or altered edge(s). They additionally appear to be associated with probable activity areas. Of the 17 artifacts, 10 were selected for crossover immune electrophoresis (CIEP) analysis: six basalt and four volcanic glass artifacts that are derived from two lithic concentrations. The four artifacts yielding positive results during CIEP analysis are described in the Residue Analysis section, above, as well as in the Basalt Tools portion of this section.
106
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.9. Summary of Lithic Artifacts, Site 4483

North Ridge Artifact Type Basalt Tools Adze, complete Adze fragments Adze blanks Adze preforms Anvil/hammerstone Abrader/hammerstone Awl Hammerstones Chisel Flake/flake fragments with polish Edge-altered flakes/flake fragments Grinding stones Ulu maika/hammerstone Flaked cobble Modified waterworn pebbles Total Basalt Tools Basalt Cores Basalt Debitage Flakes Broken flakes Fragments Total Basalt Debitage Total Basalt Artifacts Volcanic Glass Tools Edge-altered flakes/fragments Volcanic Glass Cores Volcanic Glass Debitage Flakes Broken flakes Fragments Total Volcanic Glass Debitage Total Volcanic Glass Artifacts Total Cryptocrystalline Silicate Artifacts Total Lithic Artifacts
*
South Ridge Feature 32 # % Units # % Site Totals # 3 1 0.21 1 0.21 1 0.21 6 4 2 1 1 1 0.21 1 6 1 5 1.07 3 0.64 2 0.43 5 1.07 3 0.64 25 23 3 1 1 2 1 0.21 % 0.64 1.28 0.85 0.43 0.21 0.21 0.21 1.28 0.21 5.34 4.91 0.64 0.21 0.21 0.43 0.6 %
Feature 13 # 2 4 3 1 1 5 6 14 1 1 2 40 3 %
*
Units # 1 1 1
0.43 0.85 0.64 0.21 0.21 1.07
0.21 0.21 0.21
1 1.28 3.00 0.21 1 0.21 0.43 8.5 0.6 17 9 3
0.21 1.92 0.64 0.21
3.6
14 3.0
9 1.9
80 17.1 3
60 12.82 47 10.04 31 6.62 138 29.5 181 38.6 25 79 2.14 6.77
80 17.09 58 12.39 13 2.78 151 32.3 168 35.9 9 22 110 76 58 275 0.77 1.88 9.43 6.51 4.97 23.5
42 8.97 19 4.05 7 1.49 68 14.5 82 17.5
18 3.85 9 1.92 1 0.21 28 5.9 37 7.9 3 0.26
200 42.74 133 28.42 52 11.11 385 82.3 468 100 37 107 436 282 305 1167 1 3.2 9.2 37.3 24.2 26.1 87.6 100 100 100
2 0.17
4 0.34 15 1.28
311 26.65 198 16.97 241 20.65 750 64.27 854 73.2 1035 63.24
1 0.08 3 0.26 4 0.34 6 0.5
7 0.59 3 0.26 32 2.7 1 100
244 20.91
25 2.14 1023
443 27.09
88 5.38
70 4.28 1636
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
107
The Site 4483 lithics collection subsequently was entered in the lithic analysis database. Data in 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 on the artifact form (three fields for unmodified manuports, manuports associated with general construction, and raw material collections, to as many as 17 fields for formal tools). Debitage is described in as many as nine fields for broken flakes and 14 fields for diagnostic flakes. A complete dictionary of lithic analysis fields (29 total) and terminology is planned for the project summary volume. It also will include an outline for data entry. A lithics glossary (Appendix A) defines the terms relevant 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 the mitigation 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 recovered from excavation units and surface proveniences in Site 4483. This total includes 80 tools, 3 cores, and 384 debitage. The basalt artifact assemblage consists of three separate collections: the provenienced material from controlled unit excavations (Appendix E), and the two bulldozed surface collections from Features 13 and 32 (Appendices F and G, respectively). Basalt Tools. A total of 80 basalt tools was recovered from Site 4483, representing 17.1% of the total basalt artifact assemblage. Basalt tools recovered include three adzes, six adze fragments, four adze blanks, two adze preforms, one anvil/hammerstone, one abrader/ hammerstone, one awl, six hammerstones, one chisel, 25 flakes and broken flakes with polish (one with an altered edge), 23 edgealtered 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 bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the north ridge (see Table 3.9), while 17 (21.3%) of the tools were recovered from 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 provides metric data (length, width, thickness, and weight) for basalt tools from Site 4483, and the tools are discussed 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. Visible characteristics (force bulb and lines) of a ventral flake surface were observed on the back side of this adze. The cutting edge of this adze is relatively irregular, suggesting that it may have been in the process of being resharpened. One of the sides is vertical to the face, the other forms a slightly acute angle with the face.
108
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.10. Measurements of Basalt Tools, Site 4483

Description Adzes, complete Length (cm) 8.8 5.0 4.1 Adze fragments 8.1 2.1 3.0 4.5 2.0 6.0 Adze blanks 11.2 10.0 7.1 5.1 Adze preforms Abrader/hammerstone Anvil/hammerstone Awl Chisel Flakes and broken flakes with polish 6.2 8.5 5.4 12.6 5.3 4.0 5.4 2.7 2.5 2.3 1.9 3.7 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.7 1.8 3.7 3.0 1.5 2.0 4.3 Width (cm) 4.8 2.3 1.9 4.7 2.0 3.7 3.3 2.4 2.9 5.0 4.9 3.7 2.1 3.9 4.6 1.8 5.4 2.2 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.4 3.4 2.5 4.0 2.9 5.3 3.5 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.8 1.8 3.4 3.4 Thickness (cm) 1.7 1.1 0.8 4.0 1.0 1.1 2.5 1.7 2.4 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.7 1.4 4.2 0.8 1.3 1.1 0.8 1.1 1.1 0.5 0.7 1.3 0.9 0.8 2.6 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.3 Weight (gm) 105.9 22.8 8.1 273.0 9.4 12.5 60.8 5.1 67.8 226.1 166.3 116.4 20.3 119.7 262.4 16.4 614.3 3.0 9.0 15.1 4.4 7.9 6.4 2.6 11.5 14.0 16.8 11.1 4.4 2.0 7.3 10.7 2.3 9.1 18.6 Artifact Number: 50-Oa-G5-152150 171 27 260 109 211 156 23 102 101 374 138 82 175 263 112 147 391 213 26 135 195 201 202 223 261 262 267 288 299 347 357 371 372 373
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
109
Description Flakes and broken flakes with polish (continued)
Length (cm) 2.7 1.8 3.2 3.2 4.2 2.0 2.0 0.9 2.8 3.5 6.2 5.1 4.8 4.0 5.1 7.3 4.2 8.7 5.8 6.3 6.1 3.4 7.0 3.0 3.1 4.5 8.0 4.8 2.5 3.6 7.7
Width (cm) 2.2 3.8 4.0 2.4 5.0 3.3 3.3 1.5 3.3 2.5 8.9 5.0 3.3 3.0 6.0 8.6 3.9 5.9 8.3 6.8 5.3 5.1 4.5 4.3 3.6 4.7 4.2 3.4 2.6 4.3 5.2 4.4 2.5 3.2 4.8 2.4 4.1
Thickness (cm) 0.4 0.7 0.6 1.3 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 1.0 2.0 0.1 1.7 0.1 1.1 2.0 1.1 3.7 2.1 1.2 2.6 1.1 1.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.2 1.6 0.6 1.4 1.5 4.5 1.4 2.1 3.2 3.1 2.5
Weight (gm) 2.5 4.2 12.1 7.4 19.5 4.2 4.2 0.4 6.0 15.2 122.0 26.7 24.3 17.6 74.1 174.8 15.0 268.3 150.3 81.8 113.7 22.6 60.2 19.4 9.1 50.9 37.0 28.0 5.6 22.4 50.8 115.5 23.7 66.7 101.9 36.4 83.9
Artifact Number: 50-Oa-G5-152375 379 380 381 383 384 385 386 387 62 63 89 99 106 107 126 141 144 145 148 149 172 199 295 300 318 333 343 352 367 Lot 49 97 123 124 146 183 321
Edge-altered flakes and broken flakes
Hammerstones
6.3 4.3 5.1 5.3 2.6 4.7
(continued)
110
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Description Grinding stone fragments
Length (cm) 10.2 6.1 4.5 10.5 5.2 5.0 4.6
Width (cm) 6.9 5.9 4.3 9.8 5.2 4.1 3.9
Thickness (cm) 3.8 2.2 1.0 5.1 3.3 4.0 2.8
Weight (gm) 297.6 123.7 36.9 639.3 125.0 112.9 61.2
Artifact Number: 50-Oa-G5-152108 258 264 98 65 113 390
Flaked cobble Ulu maika/hammerstone Waterworn pebble with multiple grooves Waterworn pebble, multiuse
Adze FragmentsA total of six adze fragments was recovered from archaeological investigations 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 bulldozed surface 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 and 211 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- to medium-grained, gray basalt. A portion of the cutting edge is present, and reveals damage in the form of battering and rounding. Artifact 211, found in Unit 14 (Layer IIa), is also an adze blade fragment made from fine- to medium-grained basalt. The portion of the cutting edge present on this adze fragment is still relatively sharp, 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 blades cutting edge is visible (Figure 3.31). The gray to light gray, finegrained basalt of this adze was sourced to the Waianae range. Artifact 156, found in Feature 13 (Grid 17), consists of the poll end of an adze with a complete butt portion. The sides are vertical and appear to have been shaped by grinding, but they are not polished. A slightly raised mass that is higher than the butt indicates that the adze may have been tanged. One portion of the broken area exhibits battering that suggests this fragment may have been used as a hammerstone. Artifact 23, found on the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 1), is a microadze blade fragment made from fine- to medium-grained basalt. The cutting edge is present on this fragment and exhibits moderate rounding (see Figure 3.26). This adze fragment was selected for CIEP analysis. A positive 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- to medium-grained basalt. All surfaces have polish, and striations are present. Portions of the bevel are visible. The polished face of the adze is mostly absent. Instead, the bevel and flake scars on the face suggest that the adze possibly was being rejuvenated. This rejuvenation process was in the preform stage, based on the cross section. The adze was probably discarded because a relatively large mass on the face adjacent to one of the side surfaces makes further rejuvenation of the piece unfeasible. Adze BlanksFour 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
111
from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the north ridge of the site. The fourth (Artifact 82) was recovered 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 is a medium-grained, gray to dark gray basalt with dark crystalline inclusions (possibly feldspars). This blank was manufactured from a large flake. One step flake scar is visible on one side, and both ends exhibit bevels. Artifact 138, found in Feature 13 (Grid 10), is also a relatively large adze blank that was being reworked 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 the front (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 coarsegrained basalt, and is very weathered. An incipient bevel is present in addition to vertical sides with step flake 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 grubbed surface of Unit 14. Step flake scars are visible on one vertical side surface. The opposing side surface is not vertical. It has an incipient bevel with an unevenly formed cutting edge. There is a facet with polish on the back surface of this adze blank. Adze PreformsTwo adze preforms were recovered from Site 4483, representing 2.5% of the basalt tool total. One (Artifact 263) was collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the south ridge of the site, the other (Artifact 175) was recovered from excavations in Unit 51.1 (Layer I) on the south ridge. Artifact 263 is an adze preform made of medium- to coarse-grained, gray basalt. Based on the presence of cortex on the poll, this tool was probably made from a waterworn cobble. The preform has a rectangular cross section and step-terminating flake scars on one side where a relatively large unreduced 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 edge absent. 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 Koolau range. Abrader/HammerstoneA single abrader/hammerstone (Artifact 112) was collected from the bulldozed 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 resembles a 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 relatively smooth, flat, and slightly polished. Although one end is broken, use of this tool as a hammerstone is reflected by damage (battering) on the opposite end. The battered surface extends approximately 0.75 cm onto two of the three abrading surfaces. Anvil/HammerstoneA single anvil/hammerstone (Artifact 147), representing 1.3% of the basalt tools, was collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 14) on the sites north ridge. This multiuse tool is made from a large, elongated cobble, and was used as both a hammerstone and an anvil. Use as a hammerstone is reflected by damage (battering and pitting) on both ends and along one side surface adjacent to one end. A pitted depression, measuring 1.8 by 1.6 cm in size and 0.5 cm in depth, indicates use as an anvil, possibly for bipolar flaking.
112
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
AwlOne basalt awl (Artifact 391) was recovered from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the south ridge of Site 4483. Ventral and dorsal surfaces of this edge-altered flake tool can be distinguished, but the distal and proximal ends of the flake have been modified to such an extent that the proximal end cannot be distinguished from the distal end. A point was formed on one end of the awl by marginal ventral flaking. Microscopic examination of this awl point revealed rounding and polishing, as well as a small (micro) depression on the tip. The other end of the awl also was modified by marginal ventral flaking, forming an incipient bevel, similar to an adze. Small facets on the dorsal surface of this tool exhibit polish similar to the polish usually found on Hawaiian adzes. The dorsal surface also has discontinuous ridge formations that exhibit rounding and polish, presumably from use wear. Both left and right lateral edges exhibit continuous marginal ventral scarring. All but two of these marginal flake scars can be traced to platforms on the ventral surface of the flake. ChiselOne chisel (Artifact 213) was collected from Unit 14 (Layer IIb) on the sites north ridge. This small tool resembles a microadze, but was classified as a chisel because of its well-rounded edges. The cutting edge is somewhat rounded, probably from use, and measures 1.0 cm in width. A 1.0 cm 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 Waianae range. Flakes and Broken Flakes with PolishTwenty-five flakes and broken flakes with polish were recovered from Site 4483, representing 31.3% of the basalt tools. Four flakes with polish and two broken flakes with polish were collected from grid locations on the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the sites north ridge. Eight flakes with polish and one broken flake with polish were recovered from north ridge excavation units. Five flakes with polish were collected from the Feature 32 bulldozed surface on the sites south ridge. Three flakes with polish and one broken flake with polish were recovered 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 1.5 to 5.3 cm, and in thickness from 0.4 to 2.6 cm. All are of a medium-grained basalt and have one or two facets with polish. Two of the flakes (Artifacts 201 and 372) have two adjacent facets with polish separated by a sharp adjoining edge, and are probably from adzes. Several representative examples of these artifacts are discussed below. One flake (Artifact 373) from Feature 13 (Grid 10) has facets with polish on the opposing ventral and dorsal surfaces of the broken flake that appear to be the result of rubbing action (i.e., use wear), 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 are quite sharp (see Figure 3.28). This artifact was selected for CIEP analysis and had a positive reaction to dog antiserum. Artifact 357, from Unit 51.2 (Layer IIb/1) on the sites south ridge, is a flake having one facet with polish and one altered edge. The altered edge is rounded and slightly polished, presumably from use. Edge-Altered Flakes and Broken Flakes Twenty-three edge-altered flakes and broken flakes, representing 28.8% of the basalt tools, were recovered from Site 4483. Twelve edge-altered flakes and two edge-altered broken flakes were collected from grid locations on the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the sites north ridge. Two edge-altered flakes and one edge-altered broken flake 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 to Waianae Range.
114
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the sites south ridge. Three additional edge-altered flakes were 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 2.2 to 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 and broken 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 bifacial scarring along one lateral edge; 4) notched areas on one or both lateral edges; and 5) rounding and/or polishing 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 unifacial scarring 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), exhibits marginal bifacial scarring along the left lateral edge, as well as marginal unifacial dorsal scarring on the right lateral edge. This alteration formed a point, with a small flake scar originating from the tip of the point. The flake scar may be the result of the edge-alteration, or from use of the point (possibly as an awl). Artifact 141, an edge-altered flake found on the Feature 13 surface (Grid 12), has marginal ventral 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 sites north ridge, has continuous 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 sites north 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 pig antiserum. Hammerstones A total of six hammerstones, representing 7.5% of the basalt tools, was collected at Site 4483. Five were collected from surface proveniences of Feature 13 on the sites north ridge, and one was collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 32 on the sites south ridge. 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 halfway to the opposite, broken end. Two opposing surfaces of this hammerstone also exhibit linear grooves of varying length that do not appear to be incised. In one area, two grooves (separated by approximately 2.0 mm) parallel each other for about 1.0 cm and then diverge. About 0.5 cm after the divergence, one groove ends and the other groove continues for approximately 1.5 cm, before ending abruptly. Three hammerstones (Artifacts 123, 183, and 321) are waterworn stones in the small cobble/large pebble size range, and all have at least one pitted surface (Artifact 321 has two pitted surfaces), reflecting their use as hammerstones. Based on size (see Table 3.10), these four hammerstones were 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 pitted end.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
115
Grinding Stone FragmentsThree grinding stone fragments were found at Site 4483, representing 3.8% of the basalt tools. One (Artifact 108) was collected from the sites north ridge, while the other two (Artifacts 258 and 264) were collected from the sites south ridge. Artifact 108, collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 3), has three modified surfaces (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 Koolau range. Artifact 258, found on the bulldozed surface of Feature 32, is triangular in shape and has two opposing surfaces that are smooth, slightly concave, and exhibit polish. Striations on this grinding stone are visible on both surfaces with a 5X hand lens. The coarse-grained material of this grinding stone has a salt and pepper appearance, and is probably a fine-grained gabbro (see Appendix A). This material occurs as xenoliths on Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai (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 comes from an as-yet-unidentified source on Oahu. The third grinding stone (Artifact 264), also found on the Feature 32 bulldozed surface, is broken and resembles a large flake. It has one modified surface (smooth, exhibits polish) with visible striations. The basalt is quite similar to, if not the same as, the above-described grindstone (Artifact 258). Ulu Maika/HammerstoneOne ulu maika/hammerstone (Artifact 65) was recovered on the north ridge of Site 4483, in Unit 2 (Layer II). This piece was possibly used both as a game stone and as a hammerstone. It is relatively well formed, with two slightly convex side surfaces (Figure 3.34), as observed in Hawaiian ulu maika (see Appendix A), but does not have well-defined edges adjacent to the 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 may have been used as a hammerstone. The coarse-grained, light gray basalt of this artifact was sourced to the Koolau range. Flaked CobbleOne flaked cobble (Artifact 98) was recovered from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grid 1) on the north ridge of Site 4483. Negative flake scars are present on all surfaces. The function of this artifact is not determined. The multiple negative flake scars suggest the artifact may be the rough form of an adze blank. Three of the four identified adze blanks found at Site 4483 were also collected from the north ridge. This artifact was not included with adze blanks because aspects of the final product (front, back, and side) are not clearly identified. Modified Waterworn PebblesTwo large, modified waterworn pebbles were recovered from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 (Grids 5 and 22) on the north ridge of Site 4483. Artifact 113 is a large waterworn pebble with multiple grooves present on the surface of the stone. The weathered patina of this rock is present in the grooves, confirming that the grooves were not recently formed. Over 150 short, linear and curvilinear grooves are present over the entire surface of the pebble. The grooves appear 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 artistic motifs; and 4) many of the grooves are quite short (4 mm or less) and isolated. This artifact was carefully examined by Dr. Yosihiko Sinoto, of Bishop Museums Anthropology
Figure 3.33.
Artifact 108, basalt grinding stone fragment, Grid 3. Sourced to Koolau Range.
Figure 3.34.
Artifact 65, basalt ulu maika, Unit 2. Sourced to Koolau Range.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
117
Department, who was fairly certain that the grooves were cultural, probably incised. However, upon his recommendation, the artifact was also examined by Dr. Kevin Johnson, Geologist with Bishop Museum. 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 polish on one side of the pebble measures about 1.5 by 1.8 cm. This area is also somewhat darker in color than the rest of the surface, and may be the result of residues. A single groove with interior patina, adjacent to the area with polish, measures about 1.5 cm long and 0.2 cm wide. It is uncertain why and how the groove was made. One end of the pebble is broken, but the broken end does not appear to have been used as a hammerstone. Basalt Cores. Three basalt cores were collected from the bulldozed surface of Feature 13 on the north ridge. The largest of the three (Artifact 114), found in Grid 5, is a gray, medium- to coarse-grained basalt 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%) are debitage (199 flakes, 133 broken flakes and 52 fragments). Diagnostic flakes range in size from 0.75 cm 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 artifact assemblage) was recovered from excavation units and the Feature 13 grubbed surface collection on the north ridge. These north ridge excavation units yielded a total of 151 debitage (80 flakes, 58 broken flakes, and 13 fragments). The Feature 13 grubbed surface collection yielded a total of 138 debitage (60 flakes, 47 broken flakes and 31 fragments). The density of basalt debitage recovered from the north ridge 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 artifact assemblage) was recovered from excavation units and the Feature 32 grubbed surface collection on the south ridge. These south ridge excavation units yielded a total of 18 flakes, 9 broken flakes, and 1 fragment. The Feature 32 grubbed surface collection yielded 42 flakes, 19 broken flakes and 7 fragments. The density of basalt debitage recovered from the south ridge surface collection is about 0.23 per square meter, based on the Feature 32 area of 286 m2. Artifact length was recorded for diagnostic complete flakes. The following tables summarize length 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 with only 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 and maximum 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 informative with respect to activities and interactions on both a site-specific and a region-wide level. The following observations are briefly highlighted here, and treated in more detail in the discussion that concludes the lithics section for Site 4483.
118
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.11. Flake Length Summary by Layer, Site 4483

Layer II and IIa Minimum Length (cm) Maximum Length (cm) Flake Count Average Length (cm) Standard Deviation 1.01 5.19 32 2.97 1.09 Layer IIb and IIIII 0.75 9.82 129 3.00 1.58
Table 3.12. Flake Length Summary by Area, Site 4483

North ridge Minimum Length (cm) Maximum Length (cm) Flake Count Average Length (cm) Standard Deviation 0.87 9.82 131 3.28 1.58 South ridge 0.75 5.83 61 2.61 1.16
Table 3.13. Basalt Flake Size Range by Material Grain Size, Site 4483
Length (cm) Largest coarse grain flake Smallest coarse grain flake Largest fine grain flake Smallest fine grain flake 9.82 0.75 5.9 0.7 Artifact 50-Oa-G5-15284 337 Lot 77 (flake #1) Lot 112 (one flake)
The major formal tool class comprises adzes in various stages of manufacture from adze blank to finished tool. Preliminary observations indicate that some adzes were brought to the site in completed form, 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 pig antiserum 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 as a tool, rather than on deliberate shaping. These include edge-altered flakes and broken flakes, flakes and broken flakes with polish, an abrader/hammerstone, an anvil/hammerstone, hammerstones, grinding stones, a flaked cobble, and waterworn pebbles with grooves and/or use. The residue adhering to one edge-altered flake and to one flake with polish suggests that some of these informal tools were used in the butchering of pigs and dogs. Although available radiocarbon dates indicate that Site 4483 may have been used intermittently over several hundred years beginning in the A.D. 1400's, the basalt lithic assemblage does not appear to reflect chronological change in tools or debitage (see Tables 3.9 and 3.11). There are minor differences, however, in the metrics of the debitage assemblages from the north and south ridge areas of 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
119
south ridge (see Table 3.12). This may indicate that somewhat different lithic reduction activities occurred in those two areas. Finally, of the six basalt artifacts submitted for geochemical sourcing, half were determined to have originated from nearby sources in the Koolau range and half from more distant sources in the Waianae range. The presence of formal tools manufactured from Waianae Range basalt, in a context where locally available basalt from the Koolau Range also is manufactured into similar tools, has important ramifications for interpretation of intra-island resource utilization and possible exchange relationships.
Volcanic Glass Artifacts A total of 1,167 volcanic glass artifacts, representing 71.3% of the lithic artifact assemblage, was recovered from Site 4483, including 37 tools, 107 cores and 1,023 debitage. As with the basalt artifact assemblage, the volcanic glass artifacts were collected from controlled unit excavations and from the two 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 of edge-altered flakes. The majority of the volcanic glass tools (25 tools, or 67.6%) collected from Site 4483 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 4483 yielded three (8.1%) tools from excavation units. Edge-Altered Flakes and Broken FlakesThirty-seven edge-altered volcanic glass flakes and broken flakes were recovered from Site 4483. Twenty edge-altered flakes and five edge-altered broken flakes were collected from Feature 13 grid locations on the sites north ridge. Seven edge-altered flakes and two edge-altered broken flakes were recovered from excavation units on the north ridge. Three edge-altered flakes were collected from excavation units on the sites south ridge. No edge-altered volcanic 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 this assemblage. The predominant pattern of edge alteration was continuous marginal dorsal scarring along one or more edges. Twelve (35.3%) of the 34 analyzed edge-altered volcanic glass artifacts (Artifacts 86, 96, 111, 120, 121, 128, 129, 130, 132, 181, 231, and 315) exhibited this pattern. Ten (29.4%) edgealtered tools (Artifacts 95, 133, 134, 140, 143, 198, 226, 270, 313, and 360) exhibited continuous marginal ventral scarring of one or more edges. Continuous marginal bifacial scarring was observed on four (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 isolated marginal notching, marginal snap breaks, rounded or crushed edges, and discontinuous marginal scarring. The edge-altered volcanic glass artifacts range in length from 0.8 to 2.2 cm, in width from 0.6 to 1.5 cm, and in thickness from 0.1 to 0.9 cm. Eight of the flakes have cortex. Several edge-altered flakes 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), exhibits continuous marginal bifacial scarring along the right lateral edge, as well as one crushed edge. Artifact
120
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
209, collected from Unit 14 (Layer IIb), displays continuous marginal bifacial scarring on a portion of the left lateral edge (Figure 3.35). This edge-altered flake was sourced to the Waianae range. Artifact 130, an edge-altered flake found on the Feature 13 surface (Grid 8), has marginal dorsal scarring 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 notch along the left lateral edge. Artifact 140, an edge-altered flake found in Feature 13 (Grid 12), exhibits continuous marginal ventral scarring on the distal end. This flake has a hinge termination. Artifact 134, an edge-altered flake found in Feature 13 (Grid 8), displays continuous marginal ventral scarring on the right lateral edge as well as rounding of the left lateral edge. Artifact 355, an edge-altered flake found in Unit 51.2 (Layer IIa/1) on the sites south ridge, exhibits marginal bifacial scarring on the right lateral edge, and marginal ventral scarring on both the left lateral edge and distal end of the flake. Artifact 110, an edge-altered flake found in Feature 13 (Grid 4), 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. Cores represent 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 cores were recovered from the sites south ridge, including two from the Feature 32 bulldozed surface collection 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) during the analysis to distinguish individual cores within the lots. The results of the volcanic glass core analysis is summarized below. The volcanic glass cores in this collection are all relatively small. They range in length from 0.7 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 to 29.3 g. Five of the smaller cores (Artifacts 103, Lot 43/cores 5 and 7, Lot 50/core 10, and Lot 36/core 3) 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 are secondary cores. Of the primary cores, 18 are fragmentary, four (Artifacts 162, 119, Lot 117/core 2, Lot 43/core 6) were determined to be possible tools, and four (Artifacts Lot 36/core 9, Lot 32/core 1, Lot 149/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 complete platforms, 37 (43%) have crushed platforms, five (5.8%) have prepared platforms, and one (1.2%) has a rounded platform. A flake was removed to prepare the platforms for further flake removal on three of 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 cores exhibited a pattern of unidirectional scars aligned with the core width, 18 (20%) exhibited unidirectional scars aligned with the core length, and six (7.0%) exhibited unidirectional scars aligned with the core thickness. Three (3.5%) of the cores had flake scars that were bidirectional (Artifacts Lot 50/core 7, Lot 43/core 8, and Lot 113/core 1). The flake scar orientation on one core (Artifact Lot 102/core 4) could not be determined.
Figure 3.35.
Artifact 209, volcanic glass flake, Unit 14. Sourced to Waianae Range.
122
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Of the four cores recorded as possible tools, three (Artifacts 119, Lot 117/core 2, and Lot 43/core 6) exhibit rounded, slightly crushed edges. The fourth core tool (Artifact 162) has marginal unifacial scarring along one edge. The four secondary cores exhibit variation in platform condition. Artifact 90 has a complete platform, Artifact 322 has a prepared platform, and Artifacts 104 and Lot 45/core 2 have crushed platforms. Two of these secondary cores (Artifacts 90 and Lot 45/core 2) have multidirectional flake scar orientations, and two (Artifacts 104 and 322) have flake scar orientations that are aligned with the core thickness. Artifact 205, a core recovered from Unit 14 (Layer IIb) on the sites north ridge, was sourced to the Koolau 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 glass debitage and 85.2% of the total volcanic glass assemblage) from excavation units and the Feature 13 surface collection. Of this total, 244 (110 flakes, 76 broken flakes and 58 fragments) came from the excavation units, and 750 (311 flakes, 198 broken flakes and 241 fragments) came from the Feature 13 bulldozed surface collection. The density of volcanic glass debitage recovered from the surface collection 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 glass debitage and 2.5% of the total volcanic glass assemblage) from excavation units and the Feature 32 bulldozed surface collection. Of this total, 15 flakes, seven broken flakes, and three fragments came from the excavation units, while one broken flake and three fragments came from the Feature 32 bulldozed surface collection. The density of volcanic glass debitage recovered from this surface collection 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 and cores, as well as observations regarding the debitage, and geochemical sourcing, complement information derived from the basalt artifact component and add further insight into intra-site activities and patterning. The following observations are briefly highlighted here, and treated in more detail in the discussion that concludes the lithics section for Site 4483. The lithic assemblage from Site 4483 is dominated by the volcanic glass component, a characteristic common to many Hawaiian sites (Schousboe et al. 1983:348). Although most volcanic glass artifacts are quite small, their overwhelming abundance at numerous sites indicates that this raw material was an economically valuable resource. At Site 4483, intra-site spatial patterning of volcanic glass 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 opposed to the south ridge. The volcanic glass tool component is composed exclusively of informal tools (edge-altered flakes 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 in an assemblage of this type. Cores are a prominent feature of the volcanic glass assemblage. Most of these are relatively completely reduced, so that further flake production is extremely limited. Many of the negative flake
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
123
scars on the cores are quite small, suggesting that even very small flakes must have been of suitable useable size for various tasks. The directionality of flake removal from the cores, which is weighted slightly in favor of unidirectional as opposed to multi-directional removals, is both a function of the small 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 Waianae and Koolau Ranges, a pattern also present in the basalt assemblage from the site. Because similar informal tools are manufactured from both locally available (Koolau) and more distant (Waianae) volcanic glass sources, intra-island connections involving either direct transport or exchange of volcanic glass appear to be operating at Site 4483.
Cryptocrystalline Silicate Artifact A single flake of cryptocrystalline silicate material (Artifact 302) was recovered from Unit 44 (Layer IIa) 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 Hawaii, are known to be present in the windward Oahu area. This flake could be from local chalcedony found in the vicinity of Olomana Peak in the Kailua region of Koolau Poko (Macdonald and Abbott 1974). Discussion The following discussion of the implications of the data recovered from the lithic analysis is organized into two major sections. The first considers the observations and interpretations that are germane to the activities that may have occurred at Site 4483. The second part assesses the lithics data from Site 4483 within the broader context of the intra-island framework, with particular attention to the research problems posed by Allen (1987). Site Activities and Patterning. The suite of radiocarbon dates from Site 4483 indicates that this area was used intermittently over a period of several centuries. Correlation of the range of radiocarbon dates with observable stratigraphy suggests that cultural remains in Layers IIb and III tend to fall within the 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 the extensive bulldozing activities that led to the initial discovery of this buried site. In effect, grubbing of the surface resulted in the mixture of materials from all the layers for the greater portion of the exposed site area. Test units also were placed in some of the relatively undisturbed areas, and the lithic debitage from 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 treats the lithic assemblage from Site 4483 as a single temporal analytical unit. Site ActivitiesThe adzes and debitage with polish suggest that a number of probable activities occurred, 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 large adzes and adze fragments, the small chisel, and the awl may indicate that a range of woodworking tasks
124
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
was carried out, including the possible manufacture of spears, tapa beaters, bait sticks, canoe parts, posts for houses, and hafts for tools. The edge-altered basalt flakes could have been used for a variety of cutting, scraping, and chopping tasks. These informal tools likely were used for everyday activities as well as specialized tasks. Potential tasks involve preparation of plants and animals for food, as is indicated by two specimens with positive reaction to dog and pig antiserum (CIEP analysis). Volcanic glass edge-altered flakes also were undoubtedly used for a variety of cutting tasks, including preparation of plants and animals for food, manufacture of bone and wooden implements, and preparation of plants (e.g., hala and palm fronds) for the manufacture of woven items (e.g., Barrera and Kirch 1973:185186; Kirch 1975:43). Initial results from artifacts submitted for residue analysis are promising with respect to interpretation of activities at the site. It is important, however, to keep in mind that this technique is not without its critics (e.g., Eisele et al. 1995). Residue analysis does not always yield logical results and there 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 the split 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 be needed to examine this possibility. A second example of the potentially problematic nature of interpreting residue results for Site 4483 relates to the adze fragment (Artifact 23) that tested positive for pig antiserum. As a tool class, adzes primarily are correlated with woodworking or with use on other plant 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 residue from an adze fragment had a reaction to pig antiserum is one that necessitates further evaluation before unconditional acceptance. The presence of adze blanks and preforms, hammerstones, and basalt debitage indicates that adze 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. Adze fragments 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 of the 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 was particularly well suited for certain tasks or because it is characterized by consistently available sharp edges. One striking characteristic of volcanic glass artifacts is their small size, which is a function primarily of the small nodules from which flakes are struck. Cores often are heavily reduced, so that the final flakes removed are particularly diminutive. Core types from Site 4483 are principally single platform (resulting in unidirectional removals) and multiple platform (creating a polyhedral form from which flakes have been removed from many directions). There also are a smaller number of bipolar (or anvil) 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 documented for analogous raw materials in other parts of the world, for example, the reduction of small obsidian nodules in the American Southwest (Slaughter et al. 1992).
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
125
Previous analyses (e.g., Rosendahl 1976:652659; Kirch 1979:169171; and Schousboe et al. 1983:359) found that edge-altered flakes group into the larger end of the size range for volcanic glass flakes. This suggested to them that the smaller flakes of volcanic glass were by-products of platform 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 cores if 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 produce microwear traces under low-power magnification. First, although low-power microwear analysis can document usewear, it is not the best venue for identification of the types of materials on which a tool was used (high-power and scanning electron microscopy are recommended by most microwear analysts, e.g., Keeley 1980). It is possible that edge-alteration appears on the larger-sized volcanic glass 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 to creation of visible edge damage. Smaller flakes also may have been used less intensively than larger flakes. Second, larger flakes can be more easily hand held than smaller flakes. This suggests that the set of tasks for which they were used differed from that of smaller flakes. Different tasks might result in varying amounts of microwear traces. Third, smaller flakes potentially are most useful when employed as replaceable elements in composite tools. This type of tool is a well-known feature of late Pleistocene and early Holocene microlithic assemblages of Eurasia (e.g., G.E.E.M. 1969, 1972; Bar-Yosef 1987), where some preservation contexts have yielded organic hafts with inset microliths (small retouched or unretouched blades). Microlithic elements continued to be heavily used by several early agricultural societies of the eastern portion of Southwest Asia as well (e.g., Hole 1994; Kozlowski 1994). It is not difficult to envision 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 such as taro corms or yam tubers, or aligned in a single row along a haft as a fish scaling knife [Kirch 1975:43]). In fact, McCoy (1976: 47) has pointed out that small volcanic glass flakes would be most functional if inserted into a wooden handle. Individual wear on any one flake element of the composite tool might be minimal to nonexistent under low-power magnification, especially if elements were replaced in the composite tool on a relatively frequent basis. Intra-Site PatterningThe grubbing of sediment by the bulldozing of the site also hinders precise delineation of specific activity loci in many areas across the site, because artifactual materials were somewhat spatially displaced in all grubbed areas. Within the portions of the site that were exposed and tested, however, there are a number of partially to completely intact features that permit a 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 110, 1214, 17, 2022, and 101103, has the heaviest concentration of lithic artifacts. The assemblage is dominated by the volcanic glass component, but also includes a substantial portion of the basalt component (see Table 3.9). The south ridge, by contrast, has a representative sample of the basalt component, but the volcanic glass assemblage is practically nonexistent. This patterning suggests that the knapping and use of volcanic
126
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
glass in the south ridge area of the site was relatively unimportant compared to activities that involved basalt lithics. Although both the north and south ridges have a similar representation of basalt tool types, there are interesting differences in the basalt debitage assemblages from the two areas. For example, the larger average 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, from the north ridge. One explanation for this patterning might relate to the coarse- or fine-grained nature of the basalt worked in the two ridge areas. Coarse-grained basalt flakes tend to be larger than fine-grained basalt flakes (see Table 3.13), while fine-grained materials usually will produce better conchoidal fracturing when knapped. There are three complementary possibilities that follow from these observations. First, because good conchoidal fracturing usually yields less breakage, the higher proportion of complete flakes and very small percentage of fragments in the south ridge area may be a reflection of the use of finer-grained basalt there. Second, good conchoidal fracturing properties also can lead to more intensive reduction of 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 the overall assemblage that are being averaged. Again, this may suggest that fine-grained basalt was primarily worked on the south ridge. Finally, the smaller sized, yet less broken and fragmented, basalt debitage assemblage from the south ridge may reflect activities that focused primarily on the final shaping, sharpening and rejuvenation of adzes there. The data from Table 3.6 are suggestive in this regard, with adze preforms found only on the south ridge, while adze blanks and complete adzes are found only on the north ridge. Habitation areas often are recognized archaeologically on the basis of data reflecting diverse activities. The greater density of lithics in the southern portion of the north ridge appears to be associated with a concentration of firepit and imu features, as well as with postmold features. The lithic assemblage from this portion of the site, while containing a relatively small array of formal and informal tool types, does exhibit more diversity than the south ridge because it includes the majority of the volcanic glass assemblage. Taken together, these data suggest that the southern portion of the north ridge may have been a focus of temporary habitation at the site. Regional Context. The following discussion is not intended to be an exhaustive synthesis of prehistoric patterning on the island of Oahu. Rather, it highlights those aspects of the lithics assemblage from Site 4483 that have the potential to address selected portions of the research problems posed by Allen (1987). One of the themes selected by Allen (1987) is that of changes in land tenure or land use. Two aspects of this topic are: 1) determination of the location of residencesthat is, are residences primarily coastal, or do inland habitation areas exist?; and 2) examination of the artifactual assemblages to assess tool manufacture that may be related to either cultivation or habitation activities. The analysis of the lithics assemblage from Site 4483 indicates that this site was a habitation area, based on the diversity of tool types and raw material types present on the overall site. The density of lithics in the southern 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 inland habitation areas include Layer III of the Kamooalii Mound site (Site 2046) (Rosendahl 1976) and numerous sites in the Windward Highway corridor of the H-3 Project (Williams 1992b). Thus, in the period from A.D. 1150 and later, inland habitation appears to have been well-established.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
127
The presence of adzes, grinding stones, edge-altered flakes of basalt and volcanic glass, as well as numerous small volcanic glass flakes lacking visible traces of use, attest to the probable variety of tasks 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 and diverse forest products (volcanic glass flakes possibly set in composite tools). Additionally, it is evident that lithic production was a task undertaken at Site 4483, with evidence for the full range of knapping of volcanic glass, and finishing and reworking of adzes as well. The second theme is related to changing political organization and population expansion over time. One of the postulated effects is the increased control of agricultural areas/features and the subsequent redistribution of goods by chiefs (Allen 1987). Another is expansion of intensive agriculture to the leeward areas (Allen 1992). In this regard, lithic geological sourcing data from Site 4483, that may be related to exchange or contact with the leeward regions of Oahu, is of interest. Of the eight basalt and volcanic glass artifacts submitted for analysis, half were sourced to the Waianae range on the leeward side of Oahu. There are at least two likely explanations for the appearance of Waianae raw materials at Site 4483. Both of these can be accommodated within the framework of increasing political control and the expansion of agricultural fields to the leeward side of the island. Artifacts manufactured from Waianae raw materials could represent goods obtained by chiefs from high-ranking individuals on the leeward side and redistributed to various groups on the windward side. This explanation might be partially supported by the fact that the basalt artifacts manufactured from the Waianae 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 the leeward side as the result of visits by either individuals or groups. Such visits might have been in the form of scouting trips made to assess the potential for agricultural fields on the leeward side. While on the leeward side, replacement tools would undoubtedly need to be manufactured and some of these would be transported to the windward side, when people returned home. The lithic assemblage from Site 4483 thus holds the potential for contributing information regarding not only use of the immediate site area, but also patterning that is present in a wider regional context. Such patterning ultimately must be assessed against the specific lithic data sets generated from research 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 from the Feature 13 grubbed surface collection and from one of the transects south of Unit 14. Artifacts of glass (Table 3.14) and metal (Table 3.15) were found at the site; no ceramics were recovered. Most of the artifacts came from Unit 18 (147 pieces of metal and 4 pieces of glass) and from Unit 17, inside the charcoal kiln (11 pieces of metal).
128
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
Table 3.14. Bottle Glass, Site 4483*

Unit 1 18 18 21.3 37 37 46 46 46 49 49 Grid 3 Layer/ Level IIa II IIa IIa IIa IIa at surface at surface IIa/1 at surface IIa/2 grubbed surface IIb/III 13 32 32 Fe. Artifact/ Count Color Lot No. 4 33 Lot 7 17 46 45 Lot 13 57 Lot 14 47 48 118 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 olive green amber amber clear amber clear amber amber light green amber clear olive green olive green light green Tech. Bottle/ Jar Type Source unknown USA USA unknown unknown unknown USA USA unknown USA unknown unknown Beginning Date ca. 19th c ca. 1940 ca. 1942 ca. 1880 ca. 1933 ca. 1880 ca. 1940 ca. 1961 ca. 1910 ca. 1960 ca. 1880 ca. 1910 End Date ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 1971 ca. 20th c ca. 1975 ca. 20th c ca. 20th c
MB/ABM unknown ABM ABM ABM ABM ABM ABM ABM beer beer unknown beer beer unknown beer Budweiser spirits
MB/ABM unknown MB/ABM unknown
MB/ABM unknown ABM
Grid 11 grubbed surface IIb/III Trct.2 Bore 5

*
13
31
MB/ABM unknown
unknown
ca. 19th c
ca. 20th c
21
MB/ABM unknown
unknown
ca. 19th c
ca. 20th c
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 glass fragments 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 from the twentieth century. An interesting piece is Artifact 31, an edge-altered sherd of olive green glass from the grubbed surface (Layer IIb or III) in Grid 11; Lebo (1997:70), in discussing edge-altered bottle glass, note that This imported material, possibly modified by traditional Hawaiian methods and techniques, probably dates to the occupation of the site during the early to mid-nineteenth century by Native Hawaiians from the village of Kou. Most of the metal items recovered are unidentifiable fragments. However, within the charcoal kiln (Feature 15) was a possible leaf springa long metal piece that may have been part of the kiln construction. There were also two metal nails, a metal brace, and possible tin can fragments. Other identifiable pieces include crown bottle cap fragments, a file, and a car key. All of the pieces are from the twentieth century. With the exception of the materials from the kiln, and possibly the edge-altered piece of bottle glass, the post-Contact-period artifacts do not provide much interpretive site information.
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
129
Table 3.15. Metal, Site 4483*

Unit 4 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 28 44 44 Grid 1 13 23 Fe. 5 15 15 15 15 15 15 IIa kiln fill kiln fill kiln fill kiln fill kiln fill kiln fill IIa IIa IIa grubbed surface IIa IIa IIa grubbed surface IIb/III Layer/ Level Artifact/ Count Lot No. 29 Lot 177 Lot 174 Lot 9 369 Lot 176 Lot 175 Lot 178 368 Lot 180 44 Lot 12 Lot 11 30 1 1 5 2 1 2 6 99 1 47 1 3 1 1 Comments unidentified thin metal unidentified heavy metal, possible leaf spring unidentified metal fragments two wire nail fragments unidentified metal brace unidentified possible tin can fragments unidentified possible tin can fragments unidentified, heavy flat and curved fragments unidentified heavy metal fragment unidentified heavy metal fragments unidentified heavy metal fragment crown bottle cap fragments with plastic liners bastard file, now in seven pieces Volkswagen car key; embossed: V8I W Taylor U.S.A. Fits VW Beginning Date ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 1894 ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c End Date ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c ca. 20th c
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 botanical remains collected from fire features. No identification of this material has been done so far, but it is a possibility for the future. It is likely that fire features at Site 4483 contain woods similar to those identified 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 from Layer 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 pollen from eight different taxa, five of which are either endemic or indigenous to Hawaii. In addition, the sample contained Araliaceae (Ginseng family) and Euphorbia (a genus of shrubs), which also have species endemic to Hawaii. The anomaly of the presence of a very small amount of modern Schinus pollen in Layer III can perhaps be explained by the evidence of bioturbation in the form of a rodent burrow in the west wall of Unit 49. Cordyline fruticosa (ti), a Polynesian introduction to Hawaii, is present in sample 4, from the lower portion of Layer IIb, indicating a cultural presence during the time when this layer was being
130
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
deposited. Sample 3, from the interface of Layers IIa and IIb, exhibits evidence of a variety of starch granules. Samples 1 and 2 from Layer IIa show an abundance of European- and Asian-introduced plants, 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 IIb suggests that this is probably the initial cultural layer. Starch grains appear in only one sample, that for the Layer IIa/IIb transition. The fact that starch grains occur only here seems to preclude the possibility of 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 large agricultural 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 and probably represent modern refuse. Pig, cow, sheep/goat, and medium mammal are the identified categories (Table 3.16).
DISCUSSION
Taken together, the imu, firepits, postmolds, lithic artifact scatters, kiln, and other features are indications of heavy and extensive use throughout Site 4483. When the archaeological data are combined 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 in Layers II and III contexts on the north ridge, produced dates ranging from the early fifteenth century to the twentieth century. Thus, Kirchs (1985:303309) Expansion Period and Proto-Historic Period are both represented here, as is the post-Contact era. In addition, these dates/ranges from the north ridge are comparable to seven of the 16 dates obtained on charcoal from the nearby agricultural terraces at Site 1887 (Allen, ed. 1987:175176), thus supporting the likelihood of a temporal relationship between the two sites. The very proximity of Site 4483 to the Site 1887 agricultural terrace complex lends strong support to the possibility, hinted at by pollen analysis, that crops were being harvested from the terraces and brought to the site area to be processed and prepared for consumption. The proximity of Site 1887 also lends support to our proposal that Site 4483 was temporarily and intermittently occupied over a period of several centuries, because it is becoming increasingly clear, as more and more subsurface features are discovered near buried fields, that agricultural exploitation of an area generally involved at least temporary habitation nearby (Allen 1992a:58). Also, the adze that elicited a positive reaction to fern antiserum may have been used to cut ferns for construction of a temporary dwelling. The use of an adze (Artifact 50-Oa-G5-27) for cutting ferns seems to indicate that tree ferns were being utilized, rather than ground ferns. If such was the case, 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*

Sample No. 247 157 173 208 97 176 664 566 506 697
*
Feature ---------------------
Unit 23 2 Grid 2 8 103 3 Loihi Road TC 1 + 45 TC 1 + 50
Layer/ Level Surface Surface Grubbed Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface Surface
Taxon Sus scrofa Medium Mammalia unid. Medium Mammalia unid. Medium Mammalia unid. Bos taurus Bos taurus Capra hircus/ Ovis aries Bos taurus Bos taurus Sus scrofa
Element Description Permanent right upper canine Cranial fragment Bone fragment Cranial fragments Rib fragments Rib section cut at both ends with metal tool Right humerus Left femur Right femur Left mandibular corpus
Wt (gm) 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 11.6 23.2 39.3 756.5 983.8 33.7
NISP 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
MNI 1 ------1 1 1 1 1 1
Age at Death Minimum of 6 months ------Juvenile to adult Juvenile to adult Juvenile to adult Minimum of 3.5 years Minimum of 3.5 years Between 12 and 16 months
Near Surface Unit 14
Compiled by Lonnie Somer.
132
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
al. 1995) is that of amau (Sadleria cyatheoides), one of several species belonging to a genus endemic to the Hawaiian Islands (Neal 1965:22). Pukui and Elbert (1986:23) and Neal (1965:23) elaborate on the use of amau as stuffing for pillows and mattresses, as trim for house thatching (also see Fornander 19161920:654), and in times of famine, as a survival food. Also, the stems of this fern were used as sizing 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 Fornanders (19161920: 654) description of a temporary dwelling called a fern house. The house thatched with amau has no real post, no battens, no ridge; but in its construction, simply break the amau midrib and all, and stick them in the ground on that side and this side, leaving a place in the middle for occupation, then bring the tops of the leaves together, and lash them with cords. Even though evidence of amau fern stems would long since have disappeared in the acidic soils so typical of windward Oahu, the positive reaction of a microadze to fern antisera, 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 klea (Athyrium microphyllum), another tree fern known for its use in pre-Contact times, may have been the source of the fern residue on the adze. Both amau and klea could have been procured from forests above Site 4483. Other indications of native use of the area are the six imu found at Site 4483. These imu are of an adequate size for cooking animals for sacrifice and consumption. Evidence from the residues found on three of the artifacts submitted for CIEP analysis indicates that both pig and dog were prepared for cooking 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 preContact period (Malo 1951:29; Titcomb 1969:68). In addition, pigs, and less frequently dogs, served as sacrificial animals during religious ceremonies at heiau, and as offerings to the gods for the harvest of crops, for ceremonies for the dead, for rituals performed during medical treatment for the ill, and whenever a canoe was to be built (Malo 1951:100103, 107109, 126130; 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 family member. Another use of a small firepit occurred following the planting of taro, when the farmer would light a small fire to offer thanks to the gods and prayers for a bountiful harvest (Kamakau 1976:3435; Handy et al. 1972:98). The large lithic collection recovered is a key element of this site; it indicates numerous activities involving tool use and production. The preponderance of formal tools, flakes, and debitage recovered from 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, as well as the procurement of a variety of forest products including those used for medicinal purposes, the manufacture of kapa cloth, the capture of forest birds, or, perhaps, the construction of canoes and dwellings. Local informants noted what are believed to be two very old rock quarries, possibly dating to the pre-Contact era, located to the west of Kamehameha Highway in Kneohe, south of Halekou Roadabout a mile from the site area (Klieger and Miller 1991). These may constitute the east-central Koolau range source location identified for several of the lithic artifacts from Site 4483. With the Waianae 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 no data now available that indicate large-scale trade before Contact. This is not to suggest that trade beyond the intra-ahupuaa level did not take place before Contact but simply to note that the
Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483
133
ethnohistoric evidence for such a practice is not clear. The Waianae basalts and volcanic glass may reflect inter-ahupuaa exchange, collection under supervision, or perhaps an individual or several individuals making the trip to the Waianae region of their own volition to procure what they may have considered superior material for the production of lithic artifacts. It is possible also that an ohana, or kin group, had members living both in Kneohe and in the leeward areas of the Waianae range who were in the habit of exchanging goods among themselves. Utilization of the area continued during the post-Contact era. The individuals who constructed the large charcoal kiln (Feature 15) also exploited the areas natural resources of guava wood; ethnographic accounts indicate the possible use of a portion of the site by Libby, McNeill & Libby for stabling their mules; and agriculture remained an endeavor into the modern era with the cultivation of introduced species of plants, particularly new types of banana.
CONCLUSION
Radiocarbon dating at Site 4483 suggests a pattern of intermittent but continued site use covering a period 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 the site. Many of the feature types described for this site are also found at Site 4484, to the north, and Site 4485, to the south, and it is probable that activities at these three sites were very similar (see Chapters 4 and 5). A chronological relationship also exists with the agricultural terrace complex at Site 1887 (Allen, ed. 1987:175176). We have indicated the possibility of small, temporary dwellings at Site 4483, and documented multiple, noncontemporaneous imu and other firepits, with possible evidence of reuse (Feature 2)all potential indicators of a temporary, shifting settlement pattern (Clark and Kirch 1983:14). Site 4483 lies close enough to Kneohe Bay to have allowed early area inhabitants to both maintain their permanent dwellings near the shore, as well as to use temporary habitations on the ridges and slopes at Site 4483 while 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 the site has been useful in answering the research questions posed above. Site significance here is 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 Interior 1981).
CHAPTER 4
SITE 50-80-10-4484
ite 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153) consists of subsurface features only, found during monitoring of earth-moving activities related to highway construction. Radiocarbon evidence suggests that the 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-term work 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 ridge in the northern section of the Kneohe Interchange project area. The area is approximately 3.5 km inland from Kneohe Bay (see Figure 1.1). The western boundary of Site 4484 (Figure 4.1) is artificially set at Likelike Highway, which is also a boundary for the project area. The eastern boundary lies 20 m east of the base of the ridge, the farthest point at which artifacts were recovered from the bulldozed surface. Sites 50-80-10-1889 and 50-80-10-1898 (50-Oa-G5-87 and 50-Oa-G5-96) bound the site on the north and south, while Sites 50-80-10-1888 and 50-80-10-2038 (50-Oa-G5-86 and 50-OaG5-106) lie upslope and to the west, across Likelike Highway (Allen, ed. 1987; Williams 1992a). All of these sites will be discussed in separate forthcoming reports.
ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY
Handy et al. (1972:455) describe Kneohe as an area of little hills with many small streams between them, which is a good description of this site in relation to the rest of the Kneohe
135
Figure 4.1.
Site 4484, plan view showing excavation units and features.
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
137
Interchange project area. The site is located on a low, broad ridge about 250 m from the base of Red Dirt Hill, a foothill of the Koolau 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:56) and Allen (ed. 1987:1518). Soils for the site area fall into the Lolekaa series of silty clays (sloping 1525%), which are well-drained soils developed in old, gravelly colluvium and alluvium Runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate (Foote et al. 1972:8384). Three stratigraphic layers were recorded for Site 4484. Soil layers in the units were fairly consistent except for the varying thicknesses of Layers I and II, which were heavily affected in different areas by grubbing, and localized differences in the number of colluvial cobbles in Layer III for Units 7 and 9. Soil descriptions for Unit 3 (Table 4.1) represent soils across the whole site. Cultural materials including 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 I Thickness (cm) <3 Description Dark brown (7.5YR 3/2, moist) silt; strong, medium, subangular blocky structure; very firm when moist; nonsticky and nonplastic when wet; common, fine and medium roots; <3% pebbles; abrupt, smooth boundary. 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 medium roots; <3% decomposing pebbles; abrupt, wavy boundary. Dark brown/dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4, moist) silty clay; weak, medium, prismatic structure; friable when moist; slightly sticky and plastic when wet; rare, fine roots; 30% pebbles and cobbles; base not reached.
II
1520
III
>80

Average annual rainfall in the windward area that includes this site is 1,905 mm, occurring mostly from October to March (Armstrong 1983:62). Native Hawaiians may have considered the Site 4484 ridge to be kula land (defined by Pukui and Elbert [1986:178] as dry field, plain, or pasture) rather than wet or irrigated land. Handy et al. (1972:456) mention various cultivated plants that were grown in Kneohe, and state that here The kula lands between the streams were planted in pandanus, wauke, bananas and sweet potatoes. Kalo maloo (dry taro) was not planted here. This well-watered and sheltered zone at the base of the mountains was ideal for yams, wild bananas, wauke, olona and kukui. Before the Kneohe Interchange project began, bananas were being commercially cultivated at the site, so the predominant vegetation is Musa spp. Nearby, to the north and south of the ridge, are clusters of introduced species such as common guava (Psidium guajava) and Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius), and isolated mango (Mangifera indica), umbrella (Schefflera actinophylla), and hia ai (mountain apple, Syzygium malaccense) trees. Ground cover includes
138
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
wedelia (Wedelia trilobata), impatiens (Impatiens sp.), pkake 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 agricultural terrace 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 had probably begun in the lower terraced area by A.D. 500 (Allen, ed. 1987:229). Kalo cultivation was abandoned sometime after the sixteenth century (Allen, ed. 1987:255).
FAUNA
No birds or other animals were recorded at this site.

The only previous archaeological research conducted in the immediate vicinity of Site 4484 has been in 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 Kneohe Interchange project area in 1985 included the ridge, but there were no indications that it contained cultural deposits (Allen, ed. 1987). A survey specifically of the ridge segment conducted in 1989 by Riford revealed some loose basalt cobbles on the slopes and an area of soil, crushed gravel, and rounded cobbles by Likelike Highway. No cultural patterning other than a banana road was observed (Riford 1989:2). Although surface cultural remains were not visible, evidence from similar areas (e.g., Sites 5080-10-4483 and 50-80-10-4485 [50-Oa-G5-152 and 50-Oa-G5-154], this volume; Williams 1992b:6869; Williams 1993:1213), plus historical references, suggested that upland ridges like this one were likely to contain archaeological sites. The overall pattern of pre-Contact land use in Kneohe Ahupuaa that is being developed from archaeological sources is one of initially temporary or short-term habitation on the mauka ridges above stream valleys, with permanent habitation perhaps closer to the coast. Stream valleys were used for cultivating crops such as wetland kalo, while the ridges may have provided work areas, natural resource collection sites, dryland cultivation spots, and/or places to rest and eat (Malo 1951:20, 37, 48, 51, 127). Permanent habitation inland followed as agriculture intensified (Williams 1992b:7374). Allen (1992b) summarizes all the archaeological research conducted in and around the Kneohe Interchange project area until 1990. Recorded sites dating to the pre-Contact period include: Kukuiokne Heiau; traditionally important streams and springs; habitation sites; burial sites; trails; rock alignments, rock mounds, and free-standing walls; ditches; terrace complexes; stream facings; imu (the Hawaiian earth oven that uses heated rocks to steam food) and firepits; and artifact
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
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 area belonged to Queen Kalama at the time of the Great Mahele of 18481853. The ahupuaa of Kneohe, minus individually awarded lands, was granted to her as Land Commission Award 4452, pana 13 (Indices of Awards 1929:220; see also Devaney et al. 1982:25, 27; Kelly 1987:289). A complete description of the results of research into the oral history, traditions, and written records relating to Kneohe Ahupuaa land use and site settlement patterns, conducted as part of the Interstate Highway H-3 project, is presented in Klieger (1996). At the present time, there are no known traditional cultural properties 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), and across the highway to the west. Interviews with Edmund Haitsuka and Richard Miller of Kneohe indicate 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 archaeobotanical collections there (see Chapter 6). The presence of the kiln indicates that the natural resources of the area were being exploited before commercial banana cultivation began. The most recent use of the site area is for banana farming. Modern banana farm roads (part of Site 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 (Kelly 1987:296). Discussions with local informants revealed that the ridge was grubbed sometime between 1970 and 1980 in order to plant bananas. The grubbed material was pushed west, up to Likelike Highway and to the north, over the edge of the ridge. The informants expressed familiarity with the stone features at nearby Site 1892 (low facings and mounds), but made no mention of ever having seen any 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 unpaved access roads used by farmers (Allen, ed. 1987; Riford 1989), test excavation totaling 10 m2 was recommended (Allen 1990a) because of the proximity of several archaeological sites (including Kukuiokne Heiau), and because the area was to be destroyed during highway construction. An examination of aerial photos taken between 1926 and 1928 (Allen 1990a:3, 13; U.S. Geological Survey ca. 19261928) indicated that the ridge may have been the site of the downslope portion of a square area that may represent an archaeological site (Allen 1990a:3). The first item to be addressed by the testing was to determine whether initial Likelike Highway construction fill had
140
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
covered possible archaeological features on the ridge. Additionally, testing was proposed to determine if any subsurface deposits or materials could connect this area to any of four nearby sites: Site 1892 to the 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 portions of Kukuiokne Heiau).
MONITORING
Archaeologists monitored construction work at a stockpile area and future bridge site beside Likelike Highway between April 1990 and January 1991 to collect information from any subsurface features that might be exposed during bulldozing. They also monitored the backhoe excavation of two long trenches (Units 101102) set up to examine the stratigraphy of the area. No cultural material was found in Unit 101, but a post-Contact-period postmold feature was observed in Unit 102. The feature was interpreted as part of the Site 1889 fence line, and will be discussed in a forthcoming separate report. The monitors reported seven charcoal-related featuresFeatures 1, 5, and 7 through 11. They also collected some isolated post-Contact-period artifacts, and flagged two artifact scatters for later mapping 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 12 artifact scatter).
EXCAVATION
Ten test units (Units 110), representing the 10 m2 of test excavations called for in the supplemental mitigation plan (Allen 1990a:13), were placed near Likelike Highway to look for fill deposits and buried archaeological features. Five additional units (Units 1115) were set up to investigate the central part of the ridge and the subsurface features that were uncovered there. These excavations took place between 27 August and 26 September 1990. Five final units (Units 1620) were excavated over 13 days between 10 December 1990 and 22 January 1991 to explore subsurface features uncovered during bulldozer grubbing. In all, 22 units were excavated by several different methods in the affected ridge area. Five of the 22 units (Units 1, 2, 4, 10, and 102) were later reassigned to other sites (Sites 1889 and 1898), based on unit content and proximity to site boundaries; these units will be discussed in forthcoming site reports. Thirteen people worked on the site at various times, with the standard crew consisting of eight excavators and monitors. Black-and-white photographs and color slides were taken of all units and features. The site was mapped 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 120 were excavated 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. Units 17, 9, and 10 were not screened. Unit 8, which was set up to examine Feature 1, was screened through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh; the contents of Units 1116, 18, and 19 were also screened. 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
141
Initial units (Units 15, 101, 102) were excavated or augered to 1 m or more below surface (190 cmbs in the case of the units excavated by backhoe). Examination of the stratigraphy demonstrated the generally consistent nature of the layers, and the lack of any highway fill deposits overlying and protecting 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 most cases, features were bisected to define their shapes, examine their contents, and obtain charcoal samples for radiocarbon dating and wood identification. Flotation samples were taken from Features 2, 3, and 4. 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 by construction needs, not archaeological criteria. Monitoring (of grubbed surface areas and machine excavations) was therefore conducted on an archaeologically random sample of the project area. Initial excavations at Site 4484 were placed beside the highway, forming a biased or stratified sample, to answer specific questions about the stratigraphy of the area in relation to previous construction activities. Later excavation focused only on the features that were exposed by bulldozers, and formed another 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.

No surface features or artifacts were found. All features and recovered artifacts were identified after heavy construction machinery had altered or removed the existing ground surface.
SUBSURFACE FINDS
Overview Results from 17 excavation units (Units 3, 59, 1120, and 101) are presented here, including the 13 subsurface features uncovered at the site. As indicated, Units 1, 2, 4, 10, and 102 have been reassigned to other sites. Twelve of the 13 features excavated at Site 4484 are considered cultural. These are interpreted as four imu, one imu discard pile, three firepits, one possible postmold, one lithic scatter/activity area, one post-Contact-period artifact scatter/refuse area, and one post-Contact-period charcoal kiln. One feature is interpreted as a recent plant/root mold. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 summarize the feature and unit information for Site 4484. Unit 101, which contained no features and no cultural materials, is listed in Table 4.3 but not discussed further.
142
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
Fe.+
Feature Size* (m) L x W or diam. Depth (min.) 0.08 0.45 0.25 0.15 0.4 0.15 0.5 0.65 0.65 0.4 0.3 surf. surf. Associat ed Layer II? II/III II/III II/III Feature Form Feature Function
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
+
0.35 0.55 0.15 0.75 1.2 x 0.8 0.5 1.9 x 1.15 2.1 1 3.3 x 2 1 x 0.5 80 x 20 80 x 7
unknown prob. circular pit; poss. bowl base circular pit; flat base circular pit; tapered base circular pit; round base circular pit; round base
poss. firepit/food preparation plant mold poss. postmold firepit/food preparation imu/food preparation firepit/food preparation imu/food preparation imu/food preparation imu/food preparation charcoal kiln imu discard pile ? activity area refuse or discard area/banana road
unknown oval pit; round base unknown oval pit; funnel base unknown circular pit; round base unknown circular pit; funnel base unknown walled, circular pit remnant; flat base unknown rock concentration II? II? artifact scatter artifact scatter
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 Length 3 5 6 7 8 9 11 12 13 14(J1) 14(J2) 15 16 17 18 19 20 101
*
Unit Size (m) Width 1.5 1 1 1 0.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.5 0.85 1 0.55 2.5 1.2 1 Depth (max.) 1 0.6 0.35 0.65 0.15 0.35 0.5 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.4 0.5 0.65 0.4 0.65 0.4 1.9
Unit Volume* (m3) 2.25 0.6 0.35 0.65 0.07 0.35 0.5 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.25 0.07 0.13 0.36 0.06 6.5 0.9 28.5
Associated Feature
1.5 1 1 1 0.7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.4 1.15 2.1 1.05 4 1.5 15
1 2, 3
4 6 5 7 8 9 10 11
Area of Units 1518 = 1/2 (pi x R2), estimated as a half circle or oval, following bisected feature outline; volume of Units 1518 = 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
143
Most of the features were exposed and partially removed by bulldozers. For these remnant features, the measurements given in Table 4.2 do not reflect the total feature size, and the originating layer is unknown. The bases of all the pit features lie within Layer III. Feature 3, the possible postmold, was indistinct and noted only in profile; again, originating layer is uncertain. Features 4 and 6 were recovered intact, so correct size and originating layer can be determined. The artifacts recovered from Features 12 and 13 may have been associated with Layer II. No bone or shell midden was recovered 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 organic remains, mainly fragments of wood and kukui (candlenut, Aleurites moluccana) seed coats. The statement of function as food preparation for most of the fire features is tentative; other possibilities will be mentioned later (see also Chapter 5). Nothing remains of the features now, as the area has been bulldozed and filled. Table 4.4 summarizes some of the characteristics most commonly observed in the field for pit features containing charcoal (excluding the post-Contact-period charcoal kiln). This table is an attempt to 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. These characteristics, which are described below, should also be useful in comparing the features within and between sites. The larger features at Site 4484 that are interpreted as imu are at least 1 m in diameter, even when truncated by bulldozing. Feature 11 is also large, but it is amorphous and lacks burnt earth; it is interpreted instead as an imu discard pile. Smaller features at this site are less than 1 m across (between 30 and 80 cm), and are shallower than the larger fire features. These smaller features are interpreted as firepits used for grilling or roasting food, or for heat or light; alternatively, they may have functioned as 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 most cases proved to have a rounded base forming a bowl shape. However, in several cases the pit becomes abruptly deeper in the middle bottom, forming a lower, tapered section surrounded by an upper, broader shelf. These funnel shapes are found in the larger features, but not in the smaller ones. Most of the larger and smaller fire features at Site 4484 have rounded, bowl-shaped bases. Feature 3 is elongated with 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 of the rocks being up to small boulder size. The smaller features contain fewer rocks, mostly pebbles or small cobbles. Not all of the rocks are fire-affected. The artifact category refers to artifacts within the feature and to artifacts surrounding the feature at (or near) original ground surface. Kukui seed coats are easily 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 was also a trait consistently noted by the excavators. Stratigraphic evidence of reuse, in the form of banding or 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 found in a large imu.
144
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
Table 4.4. Characteristics of Pit Features (Field Observations), Site 4484

Fe. Size (diam)
*
Shape
Rock
Artifacts within feature outside feature
Charred Burnt Reuse Location kukui earth seed coats** yes no no yes no yes no no no no no no no no no ridge top ridge top ridge top ridge top ridge top ridge side ridge top ridge top ridge top
1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11
* **
prob. <1m <1m <1m >1m <1m >1m >1m >1m >1m
unknown bowl? circular bowl oval, bowl circular, bowl oval, funnel circular, bowl? circular, funnel amorphous
few, decayed pebbles, cobbles yes yes yes few, not fire-affected, above feature yes, fire-affected yes, above feature yes, fire-affected, tightly packed many, fire-affected yes yes yes yes
circular, tapered one pebble
yes
no yes yes yes no
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 feature fill Description 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 (or abrupt, wavy boundary in overall landscape). 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).
burnt earth
All of the fire features at this site (excluding Feature 10, the charcoal kiln at the base of the slope) are considered to be on top of or on the side of the ridge. Location information for any one site would probably be fairly consistent. This characteristic might become more significant when comparing features from many different sites.

Preliminary excavations at Site 4484 revealed little; Units 3, 5, and 9 produced no cultural material, and no evidence of highway fill deposits was seen. Traces of charcoal were noted (but not collected) in Layers I and II of Unit 6, while a small amount of charcoal was collected from Layer II of Unit 7. Two wood specieslama (Diospyros sp.) and ulu (breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis)were tentatively identified from the Unit 7 collections (all wood identifications are discussed in detail in Chapter 6).
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
145
Unit 8 was set up to investigate a charcoal stain (Feature 1) on the grubbed surface. Only a small part of the feature remained after previous and recent ground alterations (Figure 4.2a). It may have been the bottom of a firepit (or perhaps a refuse pit) dug into Layer III, similar perhaps to Features 4 and 6. The feature contains charred kukui seed coats and fragments that have been identified preliminarily as uala (sweet potato, Ipomoea batatas). Charred wood from the feature appears to be k (ti, Cordyline fruticosa), lama, and ulu. No other cultural material was found in or around the feature. When it was determined that few cultural deposits remained near the highway, attention was turned to a portion of the ridge extending south and west from Feature 1, where monitors had noted and flagged cultural materials exposed by bulldozer grubbing. Finds included charcoal stains; pieces of basalt, 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 the lithic artifacts was later designated Feature 12, and the predominantly post-Contact-period artifact scatter was labelled Feature 13. Unit 11 was located in an area where three pieces of volcanic glass had been collected from the grubbed surface. The purpose of the unit was to discover if any remnant deposits bearing in-situ archaeological materials could be identified on this portion of the ridge. A small amount of charcoal was recovered 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, k, lama, ulu, and possibly guava (Psidium sp.). The outlines of two features were revealed at the bottom 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 feature produced 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 local informants. Feature 3 is also circular, but smaller and narrower with a rounded, tapered bottom (Figure 4.2c). The indistinct feature, which may represent a postmold, contained small, scattered pieces of charcoal and one pebble. Charred kukui seed coat fragments were recovered from the Feature 3 flotation sample. Units 12 and 13 were set up at the northeast and southwest ends of the lithic artifact scatter (see Figure 4.1). Unit 12, to the north, revealed stratigraphy similar to that in Unit 11, with no trace of the Layer I deposit seen in ungrubbed areas and with less than 10 cm of Layer II remaining. A small amount of charcoal (including pieces resembling charred sap) and two pieces of volcanic glass were recovered from the grubbed surface (Layer II). Layer III produced traces of charcoal (more charred sap and 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, Layer III was encountered just under the grubbed surface. No artifacts were found in the unit. Ulu was identified 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 was now 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 was set up as a 9 by 6 m grid (Figure 4.3), roughly centered on Unit 11 and Feature 3 (the possible postmold), in order to look for any other features that may have been cut into the Layer III deposit. The grubbed 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
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
similar to Feature 2; these were not excavated further. One piece of volcanic glass was recovered from Layer 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 of Feature 3. Both are small (< 1 m diameter), shallow, roughly circular, bowl-shaped pits; neither exhibited 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 produced wood pieces that may have been used for kindling, as well as a possible fruit stalk. The field-screened sample produced a relatively large quantity of kukui seed coat fragments and a few charred pieces identified as kalo. Charred sap, similar to that seen in Unit 12, was also present. Wood tentatively identified from this feature includes k, lama, hia ai (mountain apple, Syzygium malaccense), ulu, and lapalapa (Cheirodendron sp.). A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1492; Beta 74100) consisting of wood charcoal from Feature 4 produced an age of 470 50 years B.P. Feature 6 (Figure 4.2e) is filled with charcoal and covered with cobbles (not fire-cracked). Fragments of charred kukui seed coats were collected, as well as probable k, lama, hia ai, ulu, and oheohe (Tetraplasandra sp.). Ulu was the dominant wood type 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 are interpreted as probable firepits. It is interesting to note that at this site there appeared to be relatively more kukui in the smaller firepits, especially Features 4 and 6, than in the much larger imu. Charred and burnt kukui seed coats are commonly found in Hawaiian archaeological sites. Kirch (1985:210), describing kukui in the midden at the coastal site of Hwea Point, Maui, suggests that it could represent the remains of a Hawaiian procedure that uses kukui and green seaweed to ferment and preserve fish. Such a use could be envisioned for Features 4 and 6, with fish brought from the coast. Another possible use might be the preparation of inamona, a relish made of cooked kukui and salt (Pukui and Elbert 1986:100). The possibility of a relationship between kukui nut processing and smaller fire features should be investigated. 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 along the edges of the feature. Most of the botanical remains collected from this feature are in deteriorated condition. 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 k and ulu wood. No artifacts were found in or around the feature. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1457; Beta 55839) consisting of wood charcoal provided an age of 210 90 years B. P. for this feature. The size and contents of the feature indicate that 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 the eastern 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 the edge of the ridge. It is an oval, funnel-shaped pit surrounded by a band of burnt earth (Figures 4.4b and 4.5; see Table 4.5), filled with charcoal, and with a distinct layer of charcoal at the base. The feature contains numerous fire-cracked cobbles and small boulders, but no artifacts. Charred wood collected from this feature includes a predominance of hia (Metrosideros polymorpha), as well as lama, koa (Acacia koa), ulu, oheohe,and lapalapa. A leaf, possibly k, 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
151
this feature. The size and contents of the feature indicate that it is probably an imu. Feature 7 had been buried under a substantial amount of sediment; it was only uncovered after repeated bulldozing and grading. The feature is one of the oldest ones dated at this site, with a radiocarbon age of 560 90 years B.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-shaped fire feature (Figures 4.4c and 4.6). The pit is lined with burnt earth, and contains charcoal, numerous fire-cracked cobbles, and small boulders. A charcoal layer was found at the bottom of the feature. hia ai was the dominant wood type recovered; other tentatively identified woods include k, koa, ulu, and hia. No artifacts were recovered from the feature. The size and contents of Feature 8 indicate that it is probably an imu. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1459; Beta 55841) consisting of wood charcoal 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-shaped pit (Figure 4.4d) had been exposed. The base of the feature contains fire-cracked cobbles, boulders, and some charcoal. Burnt earth is visible along the sides of the pit. Charred remains recovered from the feature include kukui seed coat fragments and probable kukui, k, lama, hia ai, ulu, and lapalapa wood. 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 radiocarbon date 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 III soils and sediments of the slope at the base of the ridge (Figures 4.7 and 4.8). One piece of postContact-period glass and a porcelain button were found inside the feature fill. Much of the area had been bulldozed, so it is possible that these artifacts are out of context. When the fill was removed, the remains of an earthen floor and a semi-circular rock lining (representing about one-third of the original kiln) were visible. The rock lining consists of four to five rows of rounded and angular fire-affected cobbles, not uniformly placed. There were no indications left of the kiln roof or any holes or pipes to regulate 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 reused here to support a roof. Ninety percent of the charred wood recovered from the feature has been identified as guava (Psidium sp.); oheohe and a conifer species were also present. The presence of extensive burnt earth deposits and ash indicates that air had gotten into the kiln, causing combustion and failure of 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 and 8, and buried approximately 1.5 m below surface. The feature is irregularly shaped, with numerous rocks and pockets of charcoal, but no clear boundaries or burnt earth outlines. The feature produced one edge-altered basalt flake. The small botanical collection from this feature yielded a relatively large number of plant types. Identified remains include kukui seed coat fragments, and wood fragments that appear to be k, lama, hia ai, ulu, and oheohe. 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 artifacts collected from this site were retrieved from the grubbed, bulldozed surface rather than from excavated units or pit features. They include tools, flakes, and fragments of basalt and volcanic glass, one piece of 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
155
were recovered from the central ridge, the sides of the ridge, and from the flat area extending east from the base of the ridge. The main concentration of artifacts is on the central ridge, with the numbers dropping off on the sides and base. Feature 12 is the designation for the lithic artifact scatter on the grubbed surface of the central portion of the ridge, which could have functioned as an activity area. The 25 artifacts recovered from this scatter appear to be lying at the base of Layer II or the top of Layer III; cultural deposits may have been thicker before the various grubbing and grading episodes. The majority of the artifacts are small flakes and fragments of basalt and volcanic glass. Other basalt tools or tool fragments include a flake with polish, edge-altered flakes, a hammer/polishing stone, and a grinding stone fragment. Volcanic glass cores were also collected from this feature. The hematite artifact is an unusual piece for this upland area. Hematite, which has localized source areas (Kirch 1985:32), is often used for octopus lure sinkers (Kirch 1985:106, 204). Feature 13 produced 54 post-Contact-period glass and ceramic fragments, as well as one volcanic glass core. Most of these artifacts turned up after an existing banana road was grubbed. This banana road extended from the south edge of the ridge down toward Site 1898. The available manufacture dates for most of the artifacts are relatively recent, although the two ceramic pieces could have been manufactured before 1900. Overall, there is little spatial or chronological connection between the post-Contact-period artifacts at Feature 13 and the traditional-type artifacts and features at the rest of the site.
RESULTS OF LABORATORY ANALYSES

All artifacts from this site are numbered with the Bishop Museum site number (50-Oa-G5-153-) as a prefix; 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 materialsno 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 glass selvage, and one unusual hematite artifact (Table 4.6). Of these artifacts, 13 (32%) are tools or tool fragments; measurements in Table 4.7 list the maximum dimensions for these pieces. The following paragraphs describe the formal tools and diagnostic artifacts as an aide to interpretating activities in the Site 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 original slab. The fragment may have been used later as a whetstone; however, there is no visible usewear (at 10X 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, is a dense, waterworn, basalt pebble containing three very distinct areas of pitting, and one relatively
156
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
Table 4.6. Artifacts, Site 4484

Provenience Unit 11, L. III Unit 12, L. II Unit 12. L. III Unit 12, L. III Unit 14 (R1), L. III Unit 14 (J1), Fe. 4 fill Unit 19, Fe. 10 fill Unit 19, Fe. 10 fill Unit 19, Fe. 10 kiln floor Unit 19, Fe. 10 kiln floor Material volcanic glass flake volcanic glass 1 flake; 1 fragment volcanic glass 1 flake; 1 fragment clear glass fragment volcanic glass flake volcanic glass 1 flake; 1 flake fragment aqua glass ceramic, porcelain metal metal prob. soda bottle fragment button bar tin can fragments double seam sanitary can, c. 1900 Fig. 4.12 Fig. 4.10, 4.11 Fig. 4.10, 4.11 Fig. 4.12 poss. adze blank; Fig. 4.10, 4.11 mold blown; 18801910 Specimen Notes++ Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-15341 Lot 5 Lot 1 2 76 Lot 31 6 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 17
sew through, single 7 element; 4 holes 8 Lot 2
Unit 20, Fe. 11 grubbed surface, Fe. 12, Layer II/III?
basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt basalt
edge-altered flake flake with polish hammer/polishing stone grinding stone fragment edge-altered flakes edge-altered flake flakes fragment negative residue results
79 74 67 24 29, 68, 69 72 10, 11, 20, 21, 23 14 35, 36, 40 4 5, 33, 37, 38, 39, 70, 77 poss. sinker; Fig. 4.10 volcanic glass formed on basalt ABM; 195420th century ABM; 196120th century 30 34 28 66
1 1 1 1 3 1 5 1 3 1 7 1 1 1 1
volcanic glass cores volcanic glass flake volcanic glass flakes hematite grubbed surface, Fe. 13, Layer II? modified artifact
volcanic glass core clear glass clear glass soda bottle fragment soda bottle fragment
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
157
Provenience grubbed surface, Fe. 13, Layer II?
Material
Specimen
Notes++
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-1531 4 1 2 5 8 8
emerald green beer/soda bottle glass fragment amber glass amber glass clear glass clear glass clear glass clear glass gray glass clear glass light blue glass ceramic, porcelain ceramic, earthenware beer bottle fragments beer/whiskey bottle fragment bottle/jar fragments culinary jar fragments possible jar fragments possible jar fragments fragments fragments fragment rice bowl fragment
ABM; embossed; 61 195420th century ABM; 194020th century embossed; 20th century 26, 27 60, 63 65
machine made; Lot 18 191020th century ABM; 192420th century Lot 28
possibly ABM; Lot 24 191020th century ABM; 192420th century Lot 21
machine made; ca. Lots 4, 19, & 23 10 191520th century 20th century 20th century prob. Japan; post1880; underglaze transfer print Lots 22, 27, & 29 64 16 10 1 1
cup/bowl fragment
England/US; hand 17 painted underglaze; ca. 18901950; floral design ABM; embossed; 18 Diamond Head Beverages; made in Japan; 196120th century
grubbed surface, by hwy., clear glass to N
soda bottle, whole
grubbed surface, to E
++
volcanic glass 4 flakes; 1 flake fragment; 1 fragment
32, 73, Lots 3 & 6 6
Date ranges indicate beginning and ending manufacture dates.
158
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
Table 4.7. Measurements of Lithic Tools, Site 4484

Description Basalt grinding stone fragment hammer/polishing stone edge-altered flakes 10.5 5.1 6.8 6.3 4.1 3.3 3 flake with polish Volcanic glass cores 5 1.6 1.5 1.2 Hematite modified artifact 3.4 3.3 1.7 27.6 30 2.5 1.1 1.6 1.1 2.2 0.6 0.9 0.5 33.5 1.2 2.9 0.8 34 36 40 35 2.4 9.4 6 4.9 6.7 8.1 5.2 6.1 2.2 4.5 4 2.4 1.7 1 2.2 1.1 0.6 416.9 265.5 72.5 81.4 62.9 56.1 29.9 2.8 24 67 72 29 79 69 68 74 Length (cm) Width (cm) Thickness (cm) Weight (gm) Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-153-
flat, polished face. The pitting is evidence for the hammerstone interpretation. There is some form of unidentified 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 artifact collection). Artifact 72 (Figures 4.9c and 4.10c) may be an adze blank; the dorsal surface exhibits multiple flake scars and there is continuous marginal scarring on nearly half of the ventral surface. The entire 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 on the edges may be the result of natural weathering, although the rounding on the left lateral edge near the proximal end could be interpreted as usewear. Artifact 69 (Figure 4.11b) exhibits marginal scarring on the left lateral edge. Artifacts 68 (Figure 4.11d) and 79 exhibit continuous marginal scarring along the 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 one side and the fine-grained material of the piece indicate that the flake was created during reworking of an adze. Five basalt flakes and one fragment make up 15% of the lithic artifact collection. Four of the five complete basalt flakes at Site 4484 range in length from 2.6 to 5.7 cm. These flakes have feather terminations and no cortex. The other flake, Artifact 23, is a blade flake with a length of 16.1 cm, more than twice the length of the next smallest flake. The dorsal ridge was a platform for flake removal prior to detachment of the blade. Three of the four volcanic glass cores at Site 4484 are small, a little over 1 cm in length. The fourth core, Artifact 34, is more than three times the length of other cores from Site 4484. Raw material for the core is a basalt/volcanic glass selvage; only the volcanic glass segment of the artifact has been used 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, edge altered, possible adze blank (G5-Oa-153-72), and lower right) hematite fragment, possible sinker (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) hematite fragment, 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), upper right) basalt flake, edge-altered (50-Oa-G5-153-69), lower left) basalt flake with polish (50Oa-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
161
A total of 22 volcanic glass flakes, flake fragments, and fragments (53% of the lithic artifact collection) was collected from the site. Volcanic glass flakes range from 0.9 to 1.9 cm in length. One of these flakes, Artifact 4, was sent for residue analysis, but no residues were detected. However, use cannot 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 toola 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 as a fishing sinker. It is likely that a fragment of a larger, broken sinker was polished and reworked into the current form. The lithic materials described here indicate that tool production, tool use, and tool maintenance and repair were occurring at Site 4484. Artifacts include tools to fashion and refine other tools, plus simple tools for cutting. The activities that these tools suggest are similar (although on a much smaller scale) to those proposed for nearby Site 4483, and are compatible with the idea of an upland resource extraction/exploitation area. The hematite sinker is an unusual find for this area, and may indicate a coastal connection of some kind.
Only two excavated units produced nonindigenous, post-Contact-period materials. The small, clear glass fragment from Unit 12 retains no diagnostic features. The layers in this unit seemed affected and perhaps mixed by various bulldozing activities. Items in Unit 19, Feature 10 (the charcoal kiln), include a 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 natural resources in the area before the establishment of commercial banana farms and banana roads. Artifact 7, a porcelain or white china button found in the feature fill, is a sew-through, single element piece with four holes and a convex back, sized at 18 lines. Artifact 8, a large, rusted metal bar found on the kiln floor, may have come originally from a vehicle of some kind, and been reused here as part of the kiln structure. Monitors flagged 54 glass and ceramic artifacts on the grubbed surface of Feature 13. The fragmentary 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 information about manufacturing technique, and broad ranges of earliest and latest dates of manufacture. More precise information can be supplied for larger pieces. Most of the glass fragments from Feature 13 (45 of 52) are probably from bottles produced by automatic bottle machine; none exhibits attributes of mold-blown bottles. All are twentieth century pieces, with earliest manufacture dates ranging between 1910 and 1924. Seven pieces, fragments of beer or soda bottles produced by automatic bottle machine, have earliest manufacture dates between 1940 and 1961. Two of the fragments are from Diamond Head soda bottles, probably post-1950 (Millar 1985:17). Place of manufacture for most of the glass pieces is unknown. The United States is identified as place of manufacture for three fragments. One of these, Artifact 61, an emerald green, probable beer bottle fragment, has an Owens trademark embossed on the base, identifying bottles made by the Owens Glass Co., Illinois, since 1954 (Toulouse 1972:403).
162
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
Artifact 16, a rice bowl fragment, exhibits part of an underglaze transfer print. The design may represent stylized bamboo leaves or grass stems, and part of a flower. This porcelain piece is probably from Japan, and dated post-1880. It could have been made in the late nineteenth or twentieth centuries (Costello and Maniery 1988:1925). The English or American whiteware fragment, Artifact 17, is from either a cup or a bowl. One portion exhibits a handpainted underglaze design, possibly a leaf that may be part of a larger floral pattern (Majewski and OBrien 1987:120, 157). This fragment probably dates to the late nineteenth to twentieth centuries. The Feature 13 artifacts are most likely twentieth century discards at Site 4484. None of the pieces 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 is doubtful that the artifacts represent habitation at the site; casual discard along a banana road is a more likely explanation for the deposition of these recent artifacts. Monitors also recovered a modern (1962) soda bottle, Artifact 18, near Likelike Highway. This bottle was made in Japan, but the contents were bottled for the local Diamond Head Beverages company (Millar 1985:17;plates 5254).
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. Discussions of 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 and Polynesian introductions. Ulu, lama, and k appear most frequently in the fire features. The presence of probable food remains (uala and kalo) in Features 1 and 4 strengthens the interpretation of these small features being firepits used for cooking, rather than as pits used for refuse. Although no specific food remains were recovered from the larger fire features, Features 5, 8, and 9 contain possible tubers or corms. Also, the presence of k leaf in Feature 7 is reminiscent of imu cooking techniques. Feature 11 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 feature is a discard pile, possibly containing material from several other features, is enhanced by the sense of diversity 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 for twentieth-century charcoal production. The grass and sedge seeds from the Feature 2 flotation sample 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 wet environments. The inclusion of koa in two of the features is interesting. It is possible that a mesic-to-wet subtype of the Koa (Acacia koa) Mesic Forest (Wagner et al. 1990:81), which also would have included Metrosideros polymorpha and Diospyros sp., could have existed at this site or nearby. Most of the identified native species at this site (Metrosideros polymorpha, Cheirodendron sp., Diospyros sp., and Tetraplasandra sp.) occur together in the hia Lowland Wet Forest vegetation community (Wagner et al. 1990:90). The two forest types can be found in adjacent areas, with the koa forest generally lower than the hia forest; Many of the species present in the mesic-to-wet subtype (of the Koa Mesic Forest) extend into hia Lowland Wet Forest (Wagner et al. 1990:81).
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
163
When the features at Site 4484 were in use, the surrounding vegetation may have composed an interface between these two regimes.
RADIOCARBON DATING
Charcoal samples were collected in the field with clean trowels and forceps, then placed in clean foil packets. 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 for eventual wood species identification. The splitting technique was done with gloves and metal tools on a glass surface. Care was taken to avoid contamination of the samples. Identification of the dated samples 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 the intercept 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, and two small bowl-shaped pits. The six features were chosen to test whether the differences noted in feature shape 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 is located on the central part of the ridge. Features 7 and 9, the large funnel-shaped pits, have virtually identical 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 somewhat bowl-shaped profile, is probably from the sixteenth century. These three features are found at the east edge or side of the ridge. All four features would fit into Hommons (1976:225) Phase II (inland expansion), dated from A.D. 14001550, and Kirchs (1985:303) Expansion period (A.D. 11001650). Calibrations for Features 5 and 6, using the intercept method (Method A) at two standard deviations, give wide ranges that end at A.D. 1954/1955. To make the dates somewhat more meaningful, an additional method (Method B) was used for these features, relying on the relative area under a probability distribution curve for each sample. For Feature 5, assuming that the date is between A.D. 1512 and 1955 at two standard deviations, 88% of the area under the probability distribution curve falls within the period between A.D. 1617 and 1955. For Feature 6, assuming that the date ranges from A.D. 1470 to 1955 at two standard deviations, 65% of the area under the probability distribution curve falls 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 within the eighteenth- to nineteenth-century time period, possibly in the initial Contact period. This feature is on 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 earlier than Feature 5. Although the date for this feature could fall anywhere from the late fifteenth to the early eighteenth 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
CALIBRATED DATE AND RANGE A.D. Stuiver and Reimer (1993) Unit Fe* Context/ Depth cmbs** Measured 14 C Age B.P.
* 13C
C-Adjusted (Conventional) 14 C Age B.P.
13
Date
Range -- Method A: Intercepts (1F ) (2F )
Range -- Method B: Relative area under probability distribution curve 68.3% area enclosed (1F ) 95.4% area enclosed (2F ) 13961519 .93 15761625 .07 14701705 17151820 18391869 19161955 .65 .24 .02 .09
HRC No.
Lab No.
14 (J1) 14 (J2)
4 6
fe. fill/ 1525 fe. fill/ 921
510 50 ---
-27.8 ---
470 50 260 70 (AMS)
1438 1654
14201454 14021489 14131469 1.00 16091688 15251559 14711702 17181819 16311675 18571861 19171954 17761798 19431954 15151591 16211680 17521804 19371955 .34 .34 .23 .09
1492 1456
Beta-74100 Beta-55838; CAMS 3734
15
fe. fill/ 015
250 90
-27.3
210 90
1669, 1786, 1793, 1949, 1952 1405 1525, 1558, 1631 1410
16411702 14771955 16401705 .27 17181819 17151820 .46 18591860 18381872 .10 19171954 19151955 .17 13051368 12831483 13071362 .47 13721439 13771436 .53 14821647 14481663 15091602 .78 16141642 .22 13101354 12881511 13071362 .40 13851444 16001616 13771447 .60
15121599 .12 16171955 .88
1457
Beta-55839
16 17
7 8
fe. fill/ 1522 fe. fill/ 6069 fe. fill/ 1042
560 90 370 50
-25.2 -27.6
560 90 330 50
12781514 .98 15951619 .02 14611656 1.00
1458 1459
Beta-55840 Beta-55841
18
*
580 90
-27.5
540 90
12841519 .95 15771625 .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
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 late thirteenth century. The calibrated ranges at two standard deviations overlap, spanning the period from the thirteenth to the twentieth centuries. However, since each of the five features dated probably represents a single use, a continuous 700-year period of use for the site is not advocated. The proposed dates for Features 4, 7, 8, and 9 belong generally to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, which fit within the later portion of the main period of use of the agricultural terraces at Site 1887 (Allen, ed. 1987:175176). Feature 6 is later, probably used during the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. Feature 5 is possibly linked to initial Contact and post-Contact times. A tentative case could be made for more frequent 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 in excavated 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 heating foods (probably Features 1, 49); for preparing other raw materials such as kukui (possibly Features 4 and 6) and guava (Feature 10, the charcoal kiln); or possibly as a discard area for ashy remains removed from other features (Feature 11). Lithic tool production and maintenance were also probably occurring at the site (Feature 12). Cooking and tool working may have taken place in the vicinity of a small or temporary 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) and modern artifact discard (Feature 13).
FIRE FEATURES
The fire features (and probable fire features) uncovered at this site, excluding the Feature 10 charcoal kiln, can be divided into three main groups based on physical characteristics uncovered through excavation (see Table 4.4): large, bowl-shaped pits with many rocks and burnt earth (Feature 5 and probably Feature 8); large, funnel-shaped pits with many rocks and burnt earth (Features 7 and 9); and small, bowl-shaped pits with few rocks and little or no or burnt earthsome of these small pits have noticeable amounts of charred kukui seed coats (Features 4 and 6, and perhaps Feature 1). These three types also appear in Sites 4483 and 4485 (see Chapters 3 and 5). A statement of the formal characteristics of the features in these and future sites could be an aid in discussing their probable functions and relationships to other features within a site, as well as making comparisons between the features of different sites.
166
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 than those for the large bowl-shaped imu (Features 5 and 8). There are not enough dated funnel-shaped features yet to tell whether there is a consistent link between chronology and feature form. Botanical identifications and residue analyses on the contents of funnel-shaped versus bowl-shaped imu could help determine whether there are any differences in kinds of plants and/or animals processed in the different imu forms. Preliminary work on wood identifications suggests that the smaller, firepit features have relatively more burnt kukui seed coats than do the larger imuperhaps indicating a specific use for small features that was not provided by the larger features. It is possible that the imu could have had specific ceremonial purposes in addition to, or instead of, a food preparation function. Offerings of cooked food were prepared for many different events in Hawaiian lifewhen a tree was cut to make a canoe (Malo 1951:127), during heiau construction (Malo 1951:165), after agricultural terrace construction and after harvesting (Kamakau 1876:34), to name a few. Any of these activities might have occurred 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 part of this periodthe radiocarbon dates indicate that the earliest features of Site 4484 were probably being used by A.D. 1400 (or perhaps even earlier). Williams (1992b:7074) finds that isolated imu in the nearby Windward Highway corridor peak around A.D. 13001450, and begin to decline after A.D. 1500. Several feature dates from Sites 4483 and 4485 also fall into this period. Williams suggests that these isolated earth ovens represent short-term excursions to the inland area by cultivators or collectors who lived close to the coast. When permanent habitation, represented by earth ovens, hearths, or occupation layers within formal domestic features such as platforms, pavements, or terraces (Williams 1992b: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 fire feature groups; it is possibly a discard area composed of materials removed from other features. It may be worthwhile to suggest that other large subsurface features with amorphous or irregular outlines, no burnt earth, and charcoal collections showing a very high degree of species diversity are likely candidates for the discard/trash pit functional designation. The presence at Feature 12 of the multi-use hammerstone, grinding stone fragment, flake with polish, 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 of small flakes also occurred in this area. The polishing stone and edge-altered flakes represent tool use unrelated to the production of other stone tools. Woodworking is probably one of the polishing functions of the multi-use hammerstone/ polishing stone. The edge-altered flakes exhibit marginal scarring 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 use of the tools. The other flakes and flake fragments at this site could have been used as tools for shortterm cutting and scraping on soft materials leaving no visual evidence of use (under 10X microscopic magnification); alternatively, they could be unused debitage. Finally, finding a possible piece of fishing
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
167
gear (the hematite tool) in this upland agricultural area is of interest, and could indicate links with the coast 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 similar features 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 small or temporary shelter of some kind. If these elements are temporally related, they may represent a shortterm or temporary habitation and work area, with perhaps a small, post-supported shelter and firepits for preparing modest meals. It is interesting to note that a similar association of small firepits, a possible posthole, and a lithic scatter is seen at Site 4483. It is likely that temporary field shelters were commonly used by people working in the upland fields and forests. Site 4484 may be somewhat similar to Site 50-80-10-2046 (50-Oa-G5-37), located along Kamooalii Stream to the southeast of the current project area. Layer III deposits at the site, dated between A.D. 1390 and 1656, include various firepits and imu, postmolds, and artifacts. The site is interpreted as a habitation temporarily abandoned and reoccupied several times during the phase of site development represented by Layer III. Site habitation was probably associated with local dryland cultivation and/or the exploitation of natural forest resources (Rosendahl 1976:692). Feature 10, the post-Contact-period charcoal kiln, was presumably in use at the turn of the twentieth century. Nearby agricultural fields were probably abandoned by this time. This kiln is one of several in the upland Kneohe area (Dolan 1992), and very similar to one uncovered at Site 4483 (Feature 15) in terms of construction, dimensions, geographic placement, and associated artifacts (see Chapter 3). Feature 13 represents a modern discard area, with fragmented artifacts of ceramic and glass scattered beside a banana road. The estimated dates of manufacture for these small pieces are generally consistent with a post-World War I date for the banana farms and linking road system (Site 2463; see Chapter 2). Feature 2 was identified as a noncultural feature, probably a banana plant mold. A flotation sample 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 Interior 1981). Although the site is now destroyed, information gathered from the site has provided some answers to the research questions posed earlier. The first question involved the nature of the nearby square area, tentatively identified from aerial photographs as an archaeological site. Excavations revealed no features corresponding to this photographic image. An examination of the site stratigraphy indicated that this portion of the ridge downslope from Likelike Highway had not been covered by construction fill. The square area, whether a cultural or a natural feature, may have been removed during Likelike Highway construction.
168
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
Subsurface features not visible in the aerial photo did, however, exist in the area and were uncovered at Site 4484. These deposits can be used to answer the second research question, which deals with relationships or connections between this area and surrounding sites. Site 4484 is linked by a banana road to Site 50-80-10-1892 (50-Oa-G5-90), which lies to the north. Both have a scatter of postContact-period artifacts of glass and ceramic. The report on data recovery excavations at Site 1892 will reveal whether the artifact assemblages are stylistically or chronologically related. Recent excavation at Site 1898, to the south, has revealed a charcoal kiln there (Dolan 1992), probably similar to Feature 10 at Site 4484. Details of the kiln at Site 1898 will be presented in a separate forthcoming data recovery report. The terraces at Site 1888, upslope and across the highway, show three stratigraphic layers with Munsell colors similar to those for layers at Site 4484, and somewhat comparable characteristics 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 include several fire features (Williams 1992a). Radiocarbon samples from one imu, three firepits, and two occupation layers from Site 2038 were dated. The site appears to date from possibly the thirteenth century to the twentieth centurythe same time span proposed for use of Site 4484. Some of these dates probably point to a period before the construction of the Site 2038 surface features, which have been interpreted as portions of the Kukuiokne Heiau complex. Plant species found in the fire features at Site 2038 include several that were also found in fire features at Site 4484ulu, lama, k, kukui, hia, hia ai, hala, and kalo. It is interesting to note that 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 134 volcanic glass artifacts (Williams 1992a). Basalt and volcanic glass flakes make up the bulk of this collection (76%). The collection includes edge-altered flakes and polished flakes, as at Site 4484, but also contains such tools as adzes, poi pounders, abraders, awls, and flaked cobbles that were not recovered from Site 4484. Although Sites 2038 and 4484 have some elements in common, Site 4484 is not interpreted as having 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 recognition of the ridge as a religious site. Its relation to Site 2038 is more in terms of similar environment and contemporaneous 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 all along the Interstate H-3 corridor on the windward side of Oahu (Williams 1992b:75). The features that form this upland ridge site had been buried (by up to 1.5 m of overlying deposits), and had not been identified through traditional surface survey. It is important to note once more that this site was only
Chapter 4: Site 50-80-10-4484
169
discovered during archaeological monitoring of construction activities. Results from this site are strong evidence that monitoring is a useful and necessary archaeological tool. Analysis of the features at Site 4484 has yielded information and ideas concerning fire feature typologies, possible functional clustering of certain kinds of features, lithic and organic resource utilization, and elements of pre-Contact forest type in this upland region. The fire features, in particular, have provided useful chronological and environmental information, as well as materials for future work on botanical identifications that may lead to more secure interpretations of feature function. Research from this site provides clues to aid in understanding the role of upland areas in the overall settlement pattern in Kneohe. It should prove useful in discussing various archaeological research problems proposed for the Kneohe Interchange project as a whole, and particularly those related to changes in land use and tenure, population change in pre-Contact Hawaii, landscape change, and post-Contact changes (Allen 1987:1014).
CHAPTER 5
SITE 50-80-10-4485
ite 50-80-10-4485 (50-Oa-G5-154) consists of nine subsurface features with dates that extend over 500 years of Hawaiian history. The approximately 0.16-ha site is located in banana fields within the ili of Luluku (TMK 4-5-41:1), about 3.8 km inland from Kneohe Bay, in the southeast portion of the Kneohe 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 Luluku Stream lie to the north (see Figure 1.1). The site was discovered during monitoring of construction for a temporary connector road that linked Likelike Highway for a short time with the completed portion of the H-3 Highway at Halekou Interchange and Kamehameha Highway. Features and artifacts at this site were found in an area 80 m long by 20 m wide, on an approximate northeast-southwest axis (Figure 5.1). The northeast end of the site is marked by Feature 1, and the southwest end of the site is defined by Feature 7. The east and west boundaries of the site as shown in Figure 5.1 are somewhat arbitrary, since there may be undiscovered subsurface features outside the bulldozed path of the connector road.
ENVIRONMENT TOPOGRAPHY
As discussed in previous chapters, the terrain of the project area in upland Kneohe is hilly, with small ridges extending from the base of the Koolau Mountains. These ridges are separated by
171
Figure 5.1.
Site 4485, plan view showing excavation units and features.
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
173
valleys, many with streams running through them. A portion of one of these ridges, situated between Luluku Stream to the north and the Kuou Stream drainage to the south, forms the location for the nine features 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. 1987:1518), specifically the Lolekaa silty clays (Foote et al. 1972:83) also seen at Site 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153; see Chapter 4). Table 5.1 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 and III at this site.
Table 5.1. Stratigraphy and Soils, Units 101105, Site 4485*
Layer Thickness (cm) I 015 Description 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; few rocks; clear, smooth to wavy boundary. 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, wavy boundary. Brown to dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; weak, fine, prismatic structure; friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; no roots; few decayed rocks; gradual to clear, wavy boundary. Brown to dark brown (10YR 4/3, moist) silty clay; weak, fine, prismatic structure; friable when moist, sticky and plastic when wet; no roots; 20% decayed rocks; base not reached.
II
1540
III IV
*
58108 > 100

This site is located on the windward side of Oahu in an area that receives an average annual rainfall of 1,905 mm, occurring mostly from October to March (Armstrong 1983:62). Rainfall in the higher elevations 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 alien species is difficult to obtain. Wagner et al. (1990:67) state that Most native communities below 450 m elevation were adversely affected by ancient Hawaiian agricultural practices, and where these sites have been abandoned, primarily alien communities have replaced them. It is interesting to note that the 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 (1990:173179) discusses the kinds of disturbances that affect plant communities, including intentionally set fires, forest clearing, and introduction of new and competing plants and animals. Cuddihy and Stone (1990:8, citing Jacobi) note that because of long-term anthropogenic disturbance, lowland wet vegetation is particularly difficult to reconstruct and characterize, especially on the older, more dissected Hawaiian Islands like Oahu. It may be possible
174
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
to determine some of the early vegetation for the Luluku area archaeologically, based on identifications of pollen, wood charcoal, and other botanical remains.
FAUNA
Shama thrushes (Copsychus malabaricus) and mongooses (Herpestes javanicus) were the only wildlife seen at the site.

Previous archaeological research in the vicinity of Site 4485 consists of four initial surface surveys that were conducted for the Interstate Highway H-3 project (Allen, ed. 1987; Cleghorn and Rogers-Jourdane 1976; Dye 1977; Streck 1982). No surface indications of any archaeological sites were found in the current site area. Chapter 4 provides a brief list of archaeological site types found elsewhere in the project area and surrounding sections of upland Kneohe. Although there were no cultural remains on the surface, evidence from similar areas plus historical references suggested that this ridge was likely to contain buried archaeological deposits. Other ridge sites in the project area and elsewhere in Kneohe have revealed subsurface lithic scatters suggesting tool use and/or manufacture (see Chapters 3 and 4), as well as fire features of varying shapes and sizes (Williams 1992b:69; Williams 1993:1213). Upland areas such as the one discussed here might 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 trade winds and offers a view of Kneohe Bay. All these factors lead to a preliminary interpretation of Site 4485 as a location where planters and/or collectors could relax, eat, and gather and process natural or cultivated resources.

The site area was not specifically awarded as an individual Land Commission Award (LCA); therefore, it was considered a part of LCA 4452, pana 13the 9,500-acre parcel of Kneohe Ahupuaa belonging to Queen Kalama (Indices of Awards 1929:220; see also Devaney et al. 1982:25, 27; Kelly 1987:289). There are no other specific historical or legendary references to any use of Site 4485 before banana farming began, although some informants speculate that portions of the site may have been used for brewing the alcoholic beverage kolehao (Miller 1992:2830). Klieger (1996) presents full details of land use and site settlement patterns for Kneohe Ahupuaa, based on oral and documentary history.
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
175
Currently visible on the surface of the site are modern banana farm roads (part of Site 50-80-102463 [50-Oa-G5-146]; see Chapter 2). One area near the site has been used as a cemetery for pets belonging 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 zone between the proposed route of the H-3 Highway and Hoomaluhia Park (Miller 1992:2830).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, METHODS, AND SAMPLING

No site-specific research design was prepared prior to the discovery of the subsurface features during monitoring. When excavation of the exposed charcoal-filled pit features revealed differing shapes and sizes similar to those seen at Site 4484, they became the focus of several research questions:
1) What was the chronological relationship between the featureswere they all used during a 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 featureswere they trash pits or did they reflect in-situ burning? Were they used for cooking plant and/or animal foods, or processing other natural resources? Were they related to habitation sites, field shelters, or extraction locales? 3) Did the morphological variations observed in the features relate to any chronological or functional differences? 4) What did the features contain, and were there any differences in content related to morphology, 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 and record any subsurface features revealed by earth-moving activities. Subsurface features, especially firepits, have been uncovered often in the monitoring stages of other archaeological projects in the H-3 Highway corridor (e.g., Williams 1992b:69) and were expected in this portion of the Kneohe Interchange project area as well. Five long trenches (Units 101105 in Figure 5.1) were machine excavated as the first part of the road-building procedure. These were monitored and examined by archaeologists, but produced no cultural materials. Next, archaeologists monitored bulldozing of the temporary connector road within the Kneohe Interchange area, providing 100% surface coverage. The monitors retrieved a few scattered, isolated glass bottles and ceramic pieces, and also reported eight subsurface features that had been exposed by bulldozing (Features 1, 2, 49). Excavation of Feature 2 revealed underneath it an additional, intact subsurface feature (Feature 3).
176
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
EXCAVATION
A rotating crew of nine people conducted 20 days of feature excavations (Units 19) between September 1990 and April 1991, with two to three excavators per feature. The features were photographed and measured as they were uncovered. Mapping was done at various times with either an alidade or tape and pocket transit, backsighting and converting sloped distances to horizontal distances. Excavation was by trowel, and proceeded by natural and cultural layers. The contents of Features 3, 7, 8, and 9 were screened through 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh. Construction activity and time constraints 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 charcoal samples 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 samples were collected and sent to Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory for cataloging, analysis, and curation.
SAMPLING
As with Site 4484, the bulldozed and monitored area at Site 4485 could be considered as part of an archaeologically random sample of the project area. Within the site, however, excavation by trowel was conducted on a biased or stratified sample, namely the exposed features. The excavated units and features total 281.4 m2. Backhoe-excavated units account for 271 m2, but 239 m2 of that total actually lie outside the boundaries of the site as defined by the nine subsurface features (see Figure 5.1). Within the site boundaries, approximately 2.65% of the site area was excavated (42.4 m2). A total volume of approximately 425 m3 was excavated; 52.6 m3 was excavated within the site boundaries.

No surface features or artifacts were found. All the features and recovered artifacts were identified after heavy 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 of the nine subsurface features encountered at the site are fire features and probable fire features; the other feature (Feature 2) is a scatter of post-Contact-period artifacts. Table 5.2 summarizes the feature information for the site, and Table 5.3 summarizes the unit excavation information. Some excavated unit dimensions are less than the associated feature dimensions, indicating that the feature
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
177
Table 5.2. Feature Summary, Site 4485

Fe.+ Feature Size (m) L x W or Diameter 2.1 1 x 0.8 2.1 x 1.7 0.8 1.8 0.7 1.25 0.35 x 0.25 1 Depth (min.) 0.75 0.2 0.95 0.05 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.1 Associated Layer unknown II top of III unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown Feature Form Feature Function
*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
+ *
circular pit; bowl base artifact scatter oval pit; funnel-base circular pit; funnel base circular pit; bowl base circular pit; bowl base oval pit; bowl base prob. circular pit(s); bowl base
kolehao production? discard/refuse area imu/food preparation imu/food preparation firepit/food preparation imu/food preparation prob. firepit/food preparation (or poss. trash pit) prob. firepit/food preparation (or poss. trash pit)
prob. pit; shape unknown imu?/food preparation?
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

Unit Size (m) Unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101 102 103 104 105
*
Length 2.1 1.5 1.7
Width 1.2 0.8 1
Diam.
Depth (max.) 0.75 0.30 1.05
Unit Volume* (m3) 1.89 0.36 1.58 0.008 0.04 0.61 0.008 0.09 112 134.4 31.2 69 73.2
Associated Feature 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2
0.8 1.8 0.7 1.25 0.35 1 28 42 12 23 30.5 0.7 0.25 0.6 2 2 2 2 2

2
0.05 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.15 2 1.6 1.3 1.5 1.2
Area of Units 46 = pi x R , following feature outline; volume of Units 46 = pi x R x D/3, estimated as a cone, following feature shape; area for other units is L x W; volume for other units is L x W x D.
178
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
was bisected instead of completely excavated. Units 101105, which contained no features and produced 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 the dimensions and thicknesses provided in Table 5.2 do not represent the whole feature. Sometimes, so much material had been removed that the only reliable information (based on remains of charcoal, burnt earth, and/or rock) was that a fire feature had once existed in that location. Approximately half of the Feature 1 remnant still exists unexcavated; all the other features were destroyed during the road building process. The earth-moving activities that led to the discovery of the subsurface features removed all of Layer I and most, or in some areas all, of Layer II. No fire features were seen in the remnants of Layer II. Most hand-excavated units in the bulldozed areas revealed only one layer, the brown to dark brown silty clay with decomposed pebbles labeled Layer III (see Table 5.1) that forms the base for all the fire features. Therefore, except for Feature 3, which was initially excavated and used during the period represented by Layer III, original ground surface for these features is unknown. Few artifacts were 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 Feature 3 fill gave pH values between 5.4 and 5.8 (strongly acid to medium acid), while Feature 7 fill produced a pH value of 5.2 (strongly acid). The most frequently recovered items from the pit features were charred organic remains, mainly wood and kukui (candlenut, Aleurites moluccana) seed coats. The identification of feature function as food preparation is tentative; other possibilities have been suggested in Chapters 3 and 4. Table 5.4 is a summary of several characteristics (described in Chapter 4) that were consistently noted in the field for the charcoal-related pit features. These traits can be used to more closely define feature types.
Table 5.4. Characteristics of Pit Features (Field Observations), Site 4485
Fe. Size* diam (m) Shape Rock Charred Kukui Burnt within outside seed** Earth feature feature coats yes yes yes yes yes yes little yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no no Artifacts Reuse Location
1 >1 3 >1 4 ca. 1 5 >1 6 <1 7 >1 8 <1 9 ca. 1

* **
oval, bowl oval, funnel unknown circular, bowl circular, bowl oval, bowl circular, bowl
few; smooth, rounded & fire-affected many, angular & subangular, fire-affected yes few few few, fire-affected no
no no
ridge top ridge top
unknown ridge top no no no no no ridge top ridge top ridge top ridge top ridge top
circular, funnel yes
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
179

Unit 1 was set up to investigate the grubbed remnant of Feature 1, a very large, circular, bowl-shaped fire feature. It contained abundant charcoal and many small, rounded boulders and cobbles, as well as fire-affected rock (Figures 5.2a and 5.3). Several small boulders were wedged in the bottom of the firepit; burnt earth was visible underneath the rocks. Three artifacts (one basalt flake, one volcanic glass flake, and one volcanic glass fragment) were recovered from the feature, 15 cm below the grubbed surface. Almost 60% of the recovered botanical materials from this feature consist of charred wood. Half of this wood sample is composed of k (ti, Cordyline fruticosa) stems; other woods present include kukui, ulu (breadfruit, Artocarpus altilis), and hia ai (mountain apple, Syzygium malaccense) (see Chapter 6). Over 28% of the charred, nonwood remains from Feature 1 have been identified as root material from the k plant; no other feature at this site produced k root. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1394; 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 that the pit may have been used as an imu, the Hawaiian earth oven that uses heated rocks to steam food. Ethnographic references indicate that k root was baked and eaten as a sweet, as well as being used for a famine-diet (Malo 1951:4344; Handy and Pukui 1991:239); it is also used to make the alcoholic drink known as kolehao (Handy et al. 1972:224). Combining the k root identification with the post-Contact date and informants comments on the site area leads to an interpretation of kolehao production for the probable function of this feature. The feature was discovered in the middle of a banana road; after it was bisected, the excavated half was backfilled. The road has not been altered further, so half the feature is still in situ (although truncated), and is potentially accessible for future archaeological investigation. A highly disturbed scatter of post-Contact-period glass artifacts turned up in Layer II during bulldozing south of Feature 1; this scatter was designated Feature 2. Only approximate dimensions are available for the feature, as it was discovered when a grubbing pile was moved. Excavation of Units 2 and 3, centered over the exposed scatter, produced 17 fragments of glass on the grubbed surface and 186 glass fragments between 1 and 22 cm below the grubbed surface in Layer II. The small charred wood collection from this unit contained a high proportion of conifer wood, closely resembling Douglas fir (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 came from the crushed coral/shell base of a nearby banana road. The feature exhibited no observable pit outline, and was perhaps a surface discard site. Unit 3, in addition to providing information on Feature 2, bisected Feature 3, the only fire feature at this site that was discovered intact. It is an oval, funnel-shaped fire feature (Figures 5.2b 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 that there is no cultural or temporal connection between the two features. The feature contains medium to large subangular basalt cobbles and fire-affected rock, with a dense band of charcoal at the center bottom. Reddish, burnt soil is visible along the edges of the pit. One volcanic glass flake was recovered outside the feature in Layer III at a depth of 20 cmbs. A small quantity of kukui seed coat fragments was recovered from the feature. Identified charred wood species from this feature include k, ieie (Freycinetia arborea), ulu, lama, and hia ai. The dominant wood species in the charred sample 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 5.3.
Feature 1, Site 4485. View to west. BM Neg. No. Oa(a)663:15.
Figure 5.4.
Feature 3, Site 4485. View to northeast. BM Neg. No. Oa(a)686:17.
182
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 probably functioned as an imu. Unit 4 was set up to examine the remnant of Feature 4, which had been almost totally destroyed by 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 fireaffected rock, and exhibits red, burnt earth along the sides of the pit. No artifacts were recovered from Feature 4. Most of the botanical collection from this feature consists of undiagnostic plant fragments and ash. Kukui, lapalapa (Cheirodendron sp.), lama, and hia ai wood was collected, in addition to kukui 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, funnelshaped fire feature (Figure 5.2c). Red, burnt earth lines the feature, which contains large cobbles and charcoal. No artifacts were recovered. Ashy conglomerations form the largest part of the botanical collection from this feature. The identifiable portion of the botanical remains includes ieie, lama, and hia h (Syzygium sandwicensis). A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1396; Beta 63311) consisting of wood charcoal from Feature 5 produced another early age, 470 50 years B.P. The size and contents of the feature 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. Unit 6 showed it to be a small, bowl-shaped feature (Figure 5.2d) containing several small boulders and some charcoal; there was little burnt earth showing. No artifacts were recovered. Seven unidentified species of wood were collected in the botanical sample from this feature, in addition to eroded, ashy conglomerates similar to those in Features 4 and 5. The smaller size and depth of the feature (Figure 5.5) 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. There is 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 basalt fragment from 40 cm below the grubbed surface. A few kukui seed coat fragments were recovered from the feature fill. Identified charred woods include k, kukui, ulu, lama, hia (Metrosideros polymorpha), and hia h. A radiocarbon sample (HRC 1397; Beta 63312) consisting of wood charcoal 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, very small, 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, k stem fragments, and ulu and lama wood. A volcanic glass core was found on the grubbed Layer III surface nearby. 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 smaller features superimposed, or one feature that has been deformed by bulldozing. The feature contains one volcanic glass flake, some pebbles, and charred remains of kukui seed coats, k stems, hala (screwpine, Pandanus tectorius) stems, and ulu, lama, hia, hia ai, and oheohe (Tetraplasandra sp.) wood. The feature lacks fire-affected rock and burnt earth. It is interpreted as a firepit, although it could also have functioned as a trash or refuse pit.
Figure 5.5.
Feature 6, Site 4485. View to north. BM color slide.
184
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 a prefix. 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 lithic artifacts were recovered (Table 5.5). One piece (Artifact 12) is a volcanic glass core exhibiting at least one complete negative flake scar and several fragmentary negative scars. The other pieces are small complete flakes and nondiagnostic fragments of basalt and volcanic glass. The volcanic glass core is 1.3 cm in length; all volcanic glass flakes are smaller than the core. The basalt flakes range between 2.1 and 4.3 cm in length.
Table 5.5. Lithic Artifacts, Site 4485
Context Unit 1, Fe. 1 fill, 15 cmbs* Unit 3, Layer III, 20 cmbs Unit 7, Fe. 7 fill, 40 cmbs outside Fe. 8, grubbed surface, Layer III Unit 9, Fe. 9 fill, 028 cmbs
*
Material basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass volcanic glass basalt basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass
Specimen flake flake fragment flake flake fragment core flake
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-15410 7 14 11 15 16 12 13 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Below grubbed surface in all cases.
One of the flakes is of particular interest. Artifact 10, recovered from Feature 1, is a fine-grained basalt. 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 and thinning stage of adze manufacture or rejuvenation. The sparse lithic material at the site is not concentrated in any one area. Only three of the eight pit features at the site (Features 1, 7, and 9) produced lithic artifacts. Two artifacts were found outside of featureson the grubbed surface (Layer III) near Feature 8, and at the top of Layer III in Unit 3. The lack of clustering of artifacts of similar material makes it unlikely that the lithic artifacts at this site represent a tool production or repair area. It is possible that the flakes may have been used as informal cutting tools. No alteration was observed (with microscopic magnification at 10X) on the edges of flake artifacts from Site 4485, but short-term use and use on soft materials is not discounted. The small number of artifacts and their
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
185
seemingly unpatterned spatial associations indicate that the production, use, and/or discard of stone tools was not a common occurrence at this site.
Monitors collected a small number of isolated artifacts. Glass objects included a fragment of an olive green, spirits bottle lip with applied, tapered or sloping collar and flared ring, ca. 18151885 (Artifact 8), and a modern, clear glass, continuous-thread-lip juice bottle (Artifact 9) (Toulouse 1972). Two ceramic fragments were of white earthenware, probably flatware, decorated with underglaze transfer prints in Blue Willow border patterns (Artifacts 1 and 2). These pieces are probably from England or the mainland United States, manufactured in the nineteenth century (Gatson 1990; Majewski and OBrien 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). All the 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 window glass (Fike 1986; Moir 1987; Newman 1970; Toulouse 1972). The sherds are too small to differentiate between mold blown or automatic bottle machine technology, so the dates of manufacture could range from the late nineteenth century to the twentieth century. Place of manufacture is unknown. The feature may represent a small trash deposit.
ORGANIC MATERIALS
Charcoal collected from units and features forms an important component of the information retrieved from this site. kolehao production as the functional interpretation for Feature 1 is based on identification of charred k (especially k root) from the feature. Identification of imported conifer fragments agrees with the other post-Contact-period contents in Feature 2. Fuel for imu and firepits includes native species and Polynesian introductions, with no clear differences related to feature form or 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 interface between 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, Syzygium sandwicensis, and Tetraplasandra sp.) occur together in the hia Lowland Wet Forest vegetation community (Wagner et al. 1990:90). The identification and analysis of the charred remains from Site 4485 is presented in Chapter 6. Further work involving the unidentified wood types is planned for the future, as is identification of the 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 food resource. The lack of any additional shell, bone or other fragile organic materials from the excavated units may be due to the acidic nature of the soils.
186
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
Table 5.6. Post-Contact-Period Glass Artifacts, Units 2 and 3, Feature 2, Site 4485
Context at grubbed surface, Layer II Material aqua glass clear glass lt. green glass aqua glass 110 cmbs+, Layer II 222 cmbs , Layer II
+
Specimen* unknown unknown unknown bottle unknown unknown unknown bottle bottle bottle or flask possible vase window unknown unknown window
Notes** 4 mold/ABM; 188020th century mold/ABM; 19th20th century mold/ABM; late 19th century-ca. 1915 mold/ABM; ca. 188020th century mold/ABM; 19th20th century; burned mold/ABM; 19th20th century mold; ca.18801915 mold/ABM; ca. 188020th century mold/ABM; ca. 188020th century mold/ABM; late 19th20th century 2.232.85 cm thick; 20th century 188020th century 19th20th century 3.17 cm thick; 20th century
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-1541 1 1 12 2 1 5 110 2 5 1 3 2 30 14 3 4 6 Lot 3 Lot 3 Lot 1 Lot 2 6 Lot 11 Lot 5 Lot 12 Lot 8 5 Lot 10 Lot 7 Lot 4 Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 9 Lot 6
white milk glass probable bowl mold/ABM; ca. 18801960 clear glass lt. green glass lt. green glass aqua glass clear glass clear glass lt. green glass aqua glass clear glass aqua glass aqua glass
*
white milk glass probable bowl mold/ABM; ca. 18801960; burned
white milk glass probable bowl mold/ABM; ca. 18801960
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 foil packets. Samples were taken to the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory to be oven-dried, weighed, and curated. Each charcoal piece selected for dating was splitone piece for the dating laboratory, and one piece for eventual wood species identification. The splitting technique was done with gloves and metal tools on a glass surface; care was taken to avoid contamination of the samples. Identification of the 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 or provenience problems affect three; Feature 6 is the only other readily useful sample for dating). The four dated samples come from two of the large (>1 m diameter) funnel-shaped pits and two of the large bowl-shaped pits. They were chosen to test the possibility, observed in the dating results for fire features 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
Calibrated Date and Range A.D. Stuiver and Reimer (1993) Unit Fe* Context Depth cmbs** Measured * 13C 14 C Age B.P. C-Adjusted(Conventional) 14 C Age B.P.
13
Date
Range -- Method A: Intercepts (1F ) (2F )
Range -- Method B: Relative area under probability distribution curve 68.3% area enclosed (1F ) 16911729 .25 18141900 .59 19001923 .16 95.4% area enclosed (2F ) 16761774 .36 18001942 .64
HRC No.
Lab No.
fe. fill/ 3550
120 50
-25.8
110 50
1710, 16831745 16691786 1822, 18071933 17921950 1833, 19541955 19521955 1882, 1912, 1954 1426 1438 14051441 13201341 13921467 14201454 14021489 16091611 16471678 15251559 17721801 16311695 19401954 17251816 19211954
1394 Beta63309
3 5
3 5
fe. fill/ 95105 fe. fill/ 055 fe. fill/ 070
540 50 500 50
-26.6 -27.0
510 50 470 50
14011446 1.00 14131469 1.00
13091356 .12 13831480 .88 13291332 .00 13961519 .93 15761625 .07 15181579 16241706 17141820 18381873 19151955 .08 .33 .41 .03 .16
1395 Beta63310 1396 Beta63311 1397 Beta63312
260 50
-26.9
230 50
1663
16421682 .37 17471805 .46 19351955 .17
**
Features 1 and 7 are bowl-shaped; Features 3 and 5 are funnel-shaped. Below grubbed surface in all cases.
188
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, give wide date ranges that end at A.D. 1954/1955. To make the dates more meaningful, an additional method is used for these features, relying on the relative area under a probability distribution curve for each sample. 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 between A.D. 1800 and 1942. For Feature 7, assuming that the date ranges from A.D. 1525 to 1954 at two standard deviations, 74% of the area under the probability distribution curve falls within the period from A.D. 1624 to 1820. Even at two standard deviations, Features 3 and 5 (funnel-shaped features) have radiocarbon dates that are earlier than Features 1 and 7 (bowl-shaped features). Features 3 and 5 appear to be of the fifteenth century, and fit into Hommons (1976:225) Phase II (inland expansion), dated from A.D. 14001550, and Kirchs (1985:303) Expansion Period (A.D. 11001650). Feature 7 is probably from the seventeenth or eighteenth century, perhaps best fitting into Hommons (1976: 226) Phase IV from A.D. 1650 to 1778, and Kirchs (1985:306) Proto-Historic period dating from A.D. 1650 to 1795; the feature may represent use during the initial Contact period (ca. 17781820). Feature 1 probably postdates Contact. The radiocarbon dates for Site 4485 indicate that the area might have been used as early as the fourteenth century. The proposed dates for Features 3 and 5 belong generally to the later period of main use of the agricultural terraces at Site 1887. Features 1 and 7 are later, possibly linked to initial Contact and post-Contact times. Although the calibrated dates seem to indicate that a gap occurred in the use of the site between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries, the calibrated ranges at two standard deviations overlap from the fourteenth to the twentieth centuries. However, as noted for Site 4484, since each of the four features dated probably represents a single use, a continuous 600-year period of activity at the site is not advocated. A weak case could be made for more frequent use of the site during the fifteenth century, when terraced cultivation was in effect; the later dates for Features 1 and 7 indicate that 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 (Features 7 and 9) that produced radiocarbon ages of over 500 years B.P., and large bowl-shaped imu that are more recent. The similarities between the two sites in terms of certain feature types and feature dates could indicate that the two sites had similar functions.
DISCUSSION
Information gathered from the features uncovered at Site 4485 reveals that this is yet another upland ridge that was the scene of cultural activities in the past, activities that left only a few signs in an archaeological context. There is no recovered evidence, either surface or subsurface, pre- or postContact, for permanent or temporary architecture. There is no evidence of agricultural terracing or
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
189
production on the ridge. There are no signs of burials. No real evidence for tool manufacture was uncovered here, although eight small lithic artifacts were found. The main activity evidenced at the site has 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 feature types has been conducted by Allen for Kahoolawe (1992) and Anahulu Valley, Oahu (1989). When Kahoolawe sample contents were compared based on feature size, large features interpreted as earth ovens presented greater species diversity or taxonomic richness than smaller features. Anahulu feature samples also showed differences in number of specimens identified and in taxonomic richness, although the pattern was different. Sources of variation could be functional differences between the features or variable preservation contexts. Allen (1989:101) concludes that In order to address questions of the relationship between plant remains and feature functions, for example, feature types will need to be rigorously 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 feature characteristics 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 between feature size or shape and charred botanical remains found in these features (see Chapter 6), there does appear to be a chronological change in plant use or availability. There are some indications of increasing use of Polynesian introductions for fuel through time, and a decrease in the presence of native species in the fire features. This trend is shown most clearly in Table 6.6 in Chapter 6, with a decreasing number of features containing ieie, koa, lapalapa/lapa, and lama woods, and an increasing number of features containing k stem, kukui wood, and ulu wood. Identification of possible plant and animal foodstuffs cooked in the firepits might in the future provide evidence for any functional differences between the feature types. Potential analyses include identification of tubers and corms, and identification 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 this project. The locations of the features at Site 4485 may be an indication of how they were used. The lack of any evidence for habitation structures here, and the lack of stratigraphic indications of reuse of the features, suggest that the features were not part of an ongoing domestic routine; rather, they may have been 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 the nearby agricultural terraces is of interest. Kamakau (1976:34), describing the process of constructing new loi, 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 the loi 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 built nearby, because On the day of treading the loi was filled with water, and the owner of the patch made ready plenty of food (poi), pork, and fish (Kamakau 1976:34). It is possible that the large, early fire features at Site 4485 could have been used for a ceremonial event of this kind.
190
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 Interior 1981). Although most of the site is now destroyed, information gathered from its features, and the resulting analysis of that information, holds the potential to yield information on such things as the preContact environment and Native Hawaiian resource utilization. Information gathered from the site has already provided some answers to the research questions posed earlier. Radiocarbon dating of the features shows that they probably represent separate, isolated instances of use over a long span of time. The post-Contact period is represented at the site by Feature 1, which was probably used for preparing kolehao, and by Feature 2, a surface discard area containing glass bottle and window fragments. At least two of the features (Features 3 and 5) are dated to the preContact period, when a nearby agricultural terrace site was still in use. A radiocarbon date for Feature 7 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 that two small features (Features 8 and 9) that do not exhibit burnt earth may be trash pits instead. Features 3 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 sites of temporary, short-term habitation locations. It may also be that the features are related to activities occurring 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 of the feature and how it was used. There is also no evidence of a relation between feature shape and feature contents. The features contain a variety of woods including native species and Polynesian introductions, but few artifacts. There is some indication that earlier features used native species more than later features. As at Site 4484, lama, ulu, and k 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, possibly with an hia 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 for archaeological monitoring during the initial earth-moving phases of a construction project. No features other than modern banana roads had been found during surface survey; nevertheless, subsurface features were expected because of the ridgetop location, as seen in other recent projects in windward Oahu.
Chapter 5: Site 50-80-10-4485
191
Without the predictive model to go by, monitoring might not have been approved. Without the monitoring, these featuresand therefore this sitewould not have been documented. The site has already provided suggestive, new information concerning feature age/form differentiation. It is proposed that 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.
CHAPTER 6
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS COLLECTED AT SITES 4484 AND 4485

Heidi A. Lennstrom
seful insights into the resources utilized at Sites 50-80-10-4484 (50-Oa-G5-153) and 50-80-104485 (50-Oa-G5-154) can be gained through a close examination of the macrobotanical materials 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 the direct end product of burning activities, they are a good source of complementary data for comparisons with other information from archaeological features and other paleoenviron-mental studies. The information in this chapter is limited to analysis of a portion of the archaeobotanical remains from Sites 4484 and 4485. Plant materials from Site 4484 include those recovered from Features 1 through 11, and nonfeature areas associated with the features (Units 7, 11, and 12). Site 4485 is 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, no uncharred materials are thought to date to the premodern periods under consideration. As noted above, plant remains were recovered from both feature and nonfeature contexts. This is a common phenomenon because plant materials are normally distributed widely in sites and are not confined to well-defined features such as firepits or trash dumps (Pearsall 1989:95).
193
194
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 and flotation. 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 [6mm and 3-mm] screens, only portions were collected for dating and identification. Because of this partial collection, the quantified values presented in this text may be biased and must be compared carefully (Appendix I:Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3). Individual proveniences (features or units) contained varying amounts of plant remains, and often produced several subsamples of materialseach collected and recorded as an individually numbered 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 a provenience; 2) numerous subsamples may be the result of multiple days of excavation; and 3) dense botanical remains simply may require more than a single subsample bag. The third circumstance appears to be the case most often, making each individual bag a somewhat random subsample of the archaeobotanical content of a feature or unit. The collection of site sediments for flotation was only possible for a few locations, as time did not permit regular, systematic sampling. Flotation samples examined here are of a standard 2.5-liter size. The samples were processed in the Museums mechanized flotation device, which passes light fraction 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 time these samples were processed. Three of the 11 features from Site 4484 (Features 2, 3, and 4) and two of nine feature from Site 4485 (Features 3 and 7) were sampled this way. These types of collections can allow for fuller quantitative analyses (Appendix I:Table I-4).
ANALYSIS OF ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS

Archaeobotanical remains recovered from field-screening were examined under a low-power stereoscopic 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 of materials examined at each of the stages often decreased to avoid excessive costs and redundant information. First, all >2 mm plant materials were examined under the microscope and divided into general anatomical categories (wood and stems; seeds and fruits; tubers, corms, and roots; and unidentified plant tissues). Second, seeds and fruits were identified, and an attempt made to subdivide the wood and tubers/corms/roots further into types that may represent different plant taxa. Wood was normally examined only in transverse sections along fresh fractures; radial and tangential sections were rarely observable. Third, the type categories that could be defined were compared to modern comparative specimens (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 specialists G. Murakami (International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc., Honolulu) and J. Hather (Institute of Archaeology, London). In the case of wood types, Murakami identified many unidentified specimens, corrected inaccurate identifications, and confirmed the tentative identifications of some specimens. In the case of the possible corms and tubers, Hathers results are not yet available, and the identifications
Chapter 6: Archaeobotanical Materials Colleted at Sites 4484 and 4485
195
of possible taro and sweet potato made by the author must be considered tentative. The final results of Hathers analysis will be presented in a later volume; identifications currently available from Murakami are incorporated into this document. Flotation samples were sorted, and the resulting materials identified under a low-power stereomicroscope (6.480X). For rapidity of sorting and comparability of results, each light and heavy fraction was dry-screened into standard size-grades, and all >0.5 mm materials were examined. Several samples of <0.5 mm materials were examined, but they were found to be devoid of identifiable plant parts, 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 comparisons with modern materials housed at Bishop Museum. Plant remains recovered from flotation samples are reported here as counts because this method keeps weights of small seeds from becoming overwhelmed by large amounts of wood charcoal from the same sample.
QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENTS OF ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS

Archaeobotanical materials from Hawaii traditionally have not been collected and analyzed in a systematic 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 of recovery and the difficulties of identifying tropical woods and the soft tissues of tubers, corms, and roots (Allen 1984; Murakami 1983; Hather and Kirch 1991; Rosendahl 1972:383). Methods for sampling, subsampling, quantifying, and interpreting plant remains in Hawaii (and most of the Pacific Basin tropics) are therefore not as well developed as they are in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Hawaii and Pacific archaeologists often choose small amounts of plant remains for identification without consideration of their relation to the overall archaeobotanical content of the site or feature. The resulting difficulty in assessing whether the remains are representative of a single feature or an entire site makes interpreting quantitative results problematic. The analysis outlined below is an attempt to begin unraveling methodological issues for Hawaiian paleoethnobotany. While it is not possible to investigate all aspects of paleoethnobotanical methods 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 archaeobotanical remains, is determining what proportion of the materials must be examined in order to obtain representative results, without wasting time and effort on redundant information. Quantitative sampling and subsampling techniques have been widely discussed in the archaeological literature (Leonard and Jones 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 of materials, which will be made at three different levels. First, what proportion of a subsample needs to be examined to accurately assess its taxonomic richness (the number of different taxa)? Second, in a stratigraphic context, which is represented by multiple subsamples, is it necessary to examine all the subsamples? Third, how do the results of a single feature represent a site as a whole? In addition to these questions, this discussion touches upon quantitative methods that display data in forms that are comparable within and amongst sites, as well as the relationship between counts and weights as methods of recording archaeobotanical remains. As this was the authors first large-scale attempt at interpreting Hawaiian plant remains, these questions shaped the analytical process, which evolved and
196
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 Hawaiian sites).
Development of Subsampling Strategies Initially, all subsamples from each provenience were examined, materials were categorized into general anatomical categories (wood, seeds, soft tissues, etc.), and their counts and weights were recorded. The next step was to divide the materials in each category into types that could be matched to modern reference specimens or sent to other specialists for identifications and/or confirmations of identifications. Sorting, categorizing, and identifying all >2 mm botanical remains recovered from each feature were very time consuming. Features at Site 4484 produced as many as six subsamples each, with total botanical weights over 170 gm. Because this was the first site examined, all available subsamples 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 for all field-screened archaeobotanical materials. Plant remains from Site 4485 were even more plentiful; one feature was represented by 34 bags (having a total weight of over 5,000 gm), with nearly all the remains being charred wood. Changes in strategy then took place, based on the following experiments, and although Sites 4484 and 4485 were not processed in exactly the same manner, the data are fairly comparable. The first level of investigation centered on the amount of wood (the main component of fieldscreened materials) per subsample needed to accurately represent the overall diversity (taxonomic richness or number of different taxa) of the entire bag. Because of the similarity between Sites 4484 and 4485 and their features (mostly firepits and imu), it was predicted that the results of a test on one feature could be extrapolated for all the materials from these two sites. Feature 9, Site 4485, was randomly selected, then subjected to the following procedure to determine the point at which the total diversity within each subsample would be recorded. Following the originally outlined steps, one bag from Feature 9 was examined completely, with all archaeobotanical materials placed into general anatomical categories. There was a total of 100 >2 mm wood fragments, which was analyzed in individual lots of 20 fragments each. That is, the wood was randomly split into five lots of 20 fragments each, and each lot was sorted into types and recorded separately. When the results of individual lots were compared to the total subsample (of 100), 40 was determined as the minimum number of pieces needing to be examined to represent the overall diversity and relative proportion of the different wood types. This was determined by two factors. First, none of the individual lots of 20 fragments contained all the different wood types recorded (total = 9), but nearly any combination of two 20-fragment lots did contain all nine. 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 for the entire 100-fragment subsample, but again, a combination of any two lots did produce relative proportions that matched the overall subsample pattern. Therefore, examining 40 fragments of wood from each subsample would save time and avoid redundancies, but still capture the total variability.
197
Determining the number of subsamples to examine per feature was performed at a feature-byfeature level. All bags from Site 4484 were examined, and most showed similar patterns. This suggested not much internal differentiation within the features, and that one or two subsamples might produce an accurate representation of the entire feature. Yet, this was not always the case, and multiple subsamples from each feature in Site 4485 were also examined to insure a representative pattern for the feature as a whole. To determine the number of bags necessary to represent the feature as a whole, subsamples were selected randomly, analyzed separately, and tallied separately. When the patterns of the cumulative results stabilized, no further subsamples were examined. Assessing whether or not a single feature can accurately represent an entire site will be discussed in the following sections that describe the results from each site. It is sufficient to say, at this point, even similar types of features at a single site can vary widely in the types and amounts of plant remains they contain, and using a single feature to represent plant use at a site must be interpreted with caution. To investigate the relationship between recording plant remains by weight and by count, a comparison was made between the rank order of the plant taxa by each recording technique. A Spearmans rank order correlation test (Freund 1979:405) showed an average positive correlation value of +0.81, indicating that either quantification scheme should present similar results. In light of this finding, the values provided for field-screened materials are presented as weights (see Appendix I:Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3); in paleoethnobotany it is most common to present plant parts such as tubers and 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 are presented in a variety of ways, in addition to their raw form (see Appendix I). For each feature, fieldscreened macrobotanical materials are expressed as percentages (relative percentage of the total by weight). The percentage values are useful when comparing samples and features of differing size, as they standardize results. This routine is also useful because it allows the information to be presented in easily read pie charts. However, the two sites presented here were analyzed differently, and care must be 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 the occurrence 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 k stems are found in three of six features, that taxon receives a frequency score of 50%. This measure can be used for comparisons between the two sites, as quantified results for individual taxa do not enter into its calculation. 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 (Grayson 1984:132). In this chapter the concept of Ntaxa is used somewhat loosely, as the term taxon is applied to categories of materials that may not actually be identified. For example, charred plant tissue and unidentified wood are considered to be taxa in the Ntaxa count, because they are important categories in and of themselves.
198
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS FROM SITE 4484

Below is a listing of plant parts and taxonomic identifications for the archaeobotanical materials at Site 4484. This includes archaeobotanical materials from the features and nonfeatures from both pre- and post-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. As noted above, wood was categorized into types and compared against a small wood collection at the Museum. Examples of the most common types then were sent to Murakami for thin-sectioning and identification 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 identified securely. Possible tuber and corm remains are also listed as cf. because Hathers final identifications are not yet available.
PLANT REMAINS RECOVERED

Seeds and Fruits Aleurites moluccana (L.) Willd. (kukui, candlenut), seed coat Pandanus tectorius S. Parkinson ex Z (hala, screw pine), drupe (key) Unknown, seed Tubers, Corms, and Roots cf. Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.(uala, sweet potato), tuber cf. Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott (kalo, taro), corm Tuber/corm/root, tuber/corm/root Identified Wood and Stems Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. (k; ti) Monocot cf. 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,lapa) cf. Diospyros sp. (lama, lama) cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud. (hia, hia lehua) cf. Psidium sp. (guava) cf. Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr & Perry (hia ai, mountain apple) cf. Tetraplasandra sp. (oheohe) Coniferophyta (conifer)
199
Unidentified Wood and Stem Types Type #W-4 Type #W-7 Type #W-8 Type #W-11 Type #W-13 Type #W-14 Leaf cf. Cordyline fruticosa (k, ti), leaf Other Organic Materials Shiny organic materialIn 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 physically altered, perhaps caramelized by fire. It may be sap (e.g., sugar cane [k, Saccharum officinarum L.] or k) or tissue with destroyed cellular structure. Charred plant tissueIn many samples there are fragments of charred plant remains that possess some cellular structure, but which are too eroded to determine exact plant part. These types of materials are common archaeologically, and in this site most are probably wood, although a small portion 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. Type #W-16 Type #W-18 Type #W-19 Type #W-20 Type #W-22 Type #W-23 Type #W-24 Type #W-25 Type #W-26 Type #W-27 Type #W-28 Type #W-29
DISCUSSION
The plants listed above are typical for the study area. Indeed, charred wood and food remains are exactly what were predicted for this site, which is made up primarily of fire features. Other paleoethnobotanical studies from Hawaii have recovered many of the same species (e.g., Allen 1984, 1992; Murakami 1983, 1987, 1989, 1992b). The taxa are from indigenous, endemic, Polynesian-introduced, and alien species, but the latter come only from post-Contact contexts within the site. In general, these remains are indicative of Hawaiian utilization of the native forest and plant species brought in for subsistence or other purposes (kalo, uala, kukui, ulu and k). The only tree types that are slightly out of their defined modern range are lapalapa and oheohe. These trees are now reported in areas above 310 m and 150 m, respectively (Wagner et al. 1990:226228, 234237). It may be that these taxa were brought in 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 uses in 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 main pre-Contact staple, with uala as a secondary resource, so there is no need to elaborate here. The traditional 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,
200
surfboards, calabashes, and more were commonly made from these trees. Only the oheohe seems to have had no known use and possesses wood which was not good for any particular use (Lamb 1981:102). When assessing the occurrence of charred wood in firepits and imu, it must be kept in mind that its presence may not directly relate to these defined ethnographic uses, as there is no evidence that any of the materials found had been worked in any way. The remains under discussion here are left from fires. There is mention that hia and hia 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 Hawaiian criteria for selecting fuels used for different types of firing activities. Contrary to this lack of information being a detriment, it offers the paleoethnobotanist an opportunity to contribute previously undocumented information concerning native selection and use of fuel types. Additional sources of information on pre-Contact plant distribution are available to contrast with these archaeobotanical macrofossils, including the fossil pollen record and other accounts of archaeobotanical materials. Palynological research has been conducted at neighboring Sites 50-80-101887 (50-Oa-G5-85), 50-80-10-1888 (50-Oa-G5-86) (Bennett 1987), and 50-80-10-4483 (50-OaG5-152) (Cummings, Appendix H). Murakami (1987) has published results of charcoal analysis from Sites 1887 and 1888. Bennetts (1987) analysis shows a dominance of grasses and sedges from a wide variety of samples that are associated with conventional radiocarbon ages between 290 60 B.P. and 880 90 B.P. (Allen, ed. 1987:175176). Evidence for grasses and sedges is (not surprisingly) absent from the archaeobotanical materials, most of which were collected from 1/4-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] screens at this site. Arboreal species recorded in Bennetts analysis include hia and lapalapa, as well as taxa from the Moraceae family (which includes ulu) and additional members of the Myrtaceae family (which includes hia, hia ai, and hia h). These occurrences coincide with some of the most commonly found taxa in the macrobotanical remains recovered from Site 4484. Cummings (Appendix H) suggests that by the post-Contact period the area was probably a sparse 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 the pre-Contact macrofloral remains such as oheohe, hala, and Myrtaceae family from Site 4484. This demonstrates that certain elements of the native forest survived the changes in landscape that occurred over this extended period of time. Murakamis (1987) published account of wood charcoal from neighboring Sites 1887 and 1888 lists some of the same taxa encountered in Site 4484. These include probable examples of lama, kukui, hia, and hia h. These similarities suggest that these types of trees were probably widespread and commonly used during the pre-Contact period. Overall, the summary botanical data from Site 4484 are compatible with the environmental pattern outlined for the area by other paleoecological work. Many of the tree taxa are the same as those represented by pollen and wood charcoal from neighboring sites. As noted above, the inclusion of lapalapa (seen also in Bennett 1987: 210, 212) may indicate that it grew below 310 m in the preContact era. The inclusion of koa, lama, and hia may indicate some type of Lowland Wet Forest (Wagner et al. 1990:8993) was present during the early habitation of Site 4484. In some contrast to the work of Bennett, macroremains from Site 4484 suggest that wood was plentiful, and that mature wood was used as fuel; this pattern does not suggest an environment that was poor in forest resources.
201
It is obvious that a good deal of the local landscape was cultivated, or was being converted to agricultural use, but this does not mean that forest resources were at all difficult to come by for everyday use. If indeed the identifications of kalo and uala are verified, we will again be able to confirm their importance in the pre-Contact subsistence of the region, which is implied by the architectural remains of many nearby sites. The inclusion of ulu wood may indicate the use of this fruit for food (though cutting 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 six subsamples. As noted in Chapter 4, this feature was badly damaged, but the small total weight of the remains (9.1 gm) does not diminish their importance. This feature contains the most robust evidence for 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 and plant parts (Ntaxa = 14). Feature 1 contains several types of wood, the possible uala, other tubers or corms, 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 k remains are probably stem fragments, not roots, and therefore do not directly indicate cooking of k for consumption. More likely these stems represent the remnants of branches that would have been attached to leaves commonly layered over food and fuel in imu. The possible uala and the kukui seed coats may both be indicative of foods that were being utilized, although the kukui could have been charred purposefully for soot to make dye, or simply may have been thrown in as fuel. In comparing the six subsamples collected, it is obvious that the feature contained highly variable materials. No stratigraphic layering was observed during excavation, and the subsamples are not recorded as being collected from discrete horizontal locations within the feature. The subsamples are marked according to northern and southern areas of the 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 that either a single firing activity involved a wide variety of different plants, or that the materials recovered may be the result of several burning events. Analyzing any single bag from this feature might have given a biased impression of the overall botanical makeup of the fill, and, in fact, there is no guarantee that the total materials retrieved represent the feature as a whole, because much of the fill was lost to the bulldozer before the feature was identified. The inclusion of both food remains and wood charcoal support 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 remains collected from this feature include two flotation samples from the upper and lower portions of the
Wood #19 (7.7%) Wood #28 (1.1%) Wood #18 (6.6%)
Char. Tissue (9.9%) Kukui seed (1.1%)
Uala (16.5%)
Wood #16 (17.6%) Tuber/corm/root (1.1%) Ulu (1.1%) Lama (1.1%) Monocot stem (1.1%) Unid. Twig (1.1%) K stem (7.7%)
Unid. Wood (26.4%)
Site 4484 Total 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.
203
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 has not 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-Contact postmold. Botanical materials in the sample include 13 charred kukui seed coat fragments, 13 small fragments of wood charcoal, and one small fragment of a charred twig (see Appendix I:Table I-4). No identification of the wood was attempted because the fragments were too small; therefore, it is not possible to determine whether any of the species present might suggest a post-Contact date. Burnt wood and kukui are among the most common archaeobotanical materials in Hawaii, and their presence alone does 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 from overlapping depths. The general stratigraphic order that can be inferred for the samples shows no vertical 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). These probably represent fuel remains; the twigs and stalks might be evidence of kindling, something not seen in most features where flotation samples were not collected. A single small (<2 mm) charred seed was recovered, but it is too eroded for further identification. As in Feature 1, the weight of macroremains collected from on-site screening of Feature 4 was not great (total 16.3 gm), but this feature has remains that are currently the most securely identified as kalo (awaiting confirmation by Hather) from Sites 4484 and 4485. These remains indicate food preparation. The large amount of charred kukui shell (Figure 6.2), 34.4% of the feature remains by weight (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 preparation of 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 Hawaii, it must be assumed that at least a small number are background noise that occur regardless of the specialized activities occurring at any given site. Yet, it appears that the kukui concentration was more substantial in this feature than in other features; therefore, it is suggested that one or more special kukui-related activities 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 to identify 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 difficult to categorize with any degree of confidence. This fact may result from heavy weathering of feature
Wood #27 (4.3%) Wood #26 (0.6%) Ulu (4.3%) hia ai (1.8%) Lapalapa (0.6%) Lama (4.3%) Monocot stem (2.5%) Wood #24 (0.6%)
Char. Tissue (5.5%) Shiny organic (0.6%)
Kukui seed (34.4%)
Unid. Wood (36.8%) Kalo (1.8%) K stem (1.8%)
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 seed coats.
205
contents during use or after abandonment. Wood taxa that can be matched with identified types are the same as in many other firepits and imu at Sites 4484 and 4485, such as probable k stem, lama, ulu, and hia ai. Comparison of the plant remains from the six subsamples collected from the feature shows that each is somewhat different (Ntaxa = 14). As with Feature 1, this may be indicative of remnants from several separate events; yet, no layering was recorded during excavation. Conversely, it may be that the firing activity represented called for layers of different fuel types, or that this pattern is the result of indiscriminate fuel use. Feature 5 Feature 5, described as a large, bowl-shaped imu, produced archaeobotanical remains that are plentiful and varied (Ntaxa = 13). Nearly 150 gm of archaeobotanical materials were recovered in six, somewhat stratified, subsamples. Unfortunately, most of these materials are very badly eroded, so badly that it is not even possible to determine what type of plant tissues they are. Approximately 75% of the plant fragments have had to be classed simply as charred tissue (Figure 6.3). It is likely they are charred wood, but activities during or after use of this feature destroyed the anatomical structure of the materials. Many of the pieces that could be identified as wood are too badly damaged to categorize or identify more precisely. This destruction is not due to excavation, collection, or storage; nor is it limited to one or two of the subsamples. All six of the subsamples showed the same pattern. This suggests that whatever damaged the materials was very thorough and not limited to one area (e.g., the top or bottom portion of the feature). In spite of the deteriorated condition of most of the remains, those which are identifiable do add unique 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 (Appendix H) finding that hala pollen increased at and after European contact. It is almost certain that this plant was widely used during the pre-Contact and post-Contact periods. Activities could have included the use of hala keys as paint brushes and lauhala for matting and baskets, both of which might leave no archaeological traces in this wet/acidic environment. If hala keys were used as a famine food they might have 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 were not unlike those used in other fire features at the site, which vary widely in size, shape, and phase of occupation. Wood and stem fragments of k and ulu are known from many of these features, as are the ubiquitous 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 subsamples of archaeobotanical remains, yielding a total of 14 different taxa. Fortunately, a comparison of the materials in each resulted in very similar results, suggesting that they may indeed be sufficient to represent accurately the feature as a whole (see Appendix I:Table I-1 and Figure 6.4). The three subsamples cannot be distinguished vertically, as they are recorded as having overlapping depth measurements. Ulu is the most common wood taxon in each of the three subsamples; ulu makes up over 65% of the materials in two cases. The similarity of the sample contents and the
Other (1.8%) Ulu (2.8%)
(Other=M onocot Stem, Tuber/corm/root, Wood #4, Wood #18, Wood #19, Wood #22, and Wood #26)
Unid. Wood (19.1%)
Hala key(0.4%) K stem (0.3%) Kukui seed (0.2%)
Char. Tissue (75.4%)
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.
Other (2.4%) Oheohe (0.7%) (Other=Wood #4, Wood #7, Wood #8, and Wood #29) Char. Tissue (19.9%)
Kukui seed (4.6%) Tuber/corm/root (0.4%) K stem (0.7%)
Ulu (54.5%)
Unid. Wood (8.2%) Monocot stem (0.4%) Lama (7.5%) hia ai (0.7%)
Figure 6.4.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 6, Site 4484. Note large proportion of ulu.
207
dominance of a single wood type may be explained in at least two ways: 1) these remains represent a single event; and 2) these remains may be left from a repeated activity, for which ulu was continually selected as the desired fuel source. The other wood types identified from this probable sixteenth- to mid-seventeenth century feature include k stem, lama, hia ai, and oheohe. Again, these species seem to be used consistently in many features of varying shapes and sizes, dating to both early and late pre-Contact contexts. It is likely that these trees produced favorite firewoods and were easily obtained. As seen in many of the features in this site, there are also fragments of kukui seed coats and some charred fragments that might be from a tuber or corm. These remains may be indicative of food preparation or another 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 the feature, and were utilized for radiocarbon analysis. This left only two subsamples for identification, both from 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 a similarity (see Appendix I:Table I-1). Both subsamples displayed a dominance of hia, with a combined total over 34 gm. Feature 7 is unique in this aspect, as it is the only one from this site with such a large inclusion of this wood type (Figure 6.5). Again, the preponderance of a single taxon may be the by-product of a single firing event, or of repeated activities involving the use of the same wood type. Feature 7 contained lama and ulu, as do many of the features at Site 4484, but the inclusion of oheohe, koa, and lapalapa is a little more unusual. There are two possible explanations for the pattern of one dominant species and many traces of other taxa: 1) the fire may have been built mostly of one species, perhaps a single tree, with the other, sparser materials being incidental or used as kindling; and 2) the remnants of the other species might have been left from previous firings. One subsample (Bag 115) contains a large percentage of unidentifiable materials, suggesting that only part of the feature had undergone substantial deterioration. This subsample is recorded as coming from the highest part of the feature, and the damage may be due to construction activities. The bag also contains one small leaf fragment that is probably from the k plant. Leaves are not normally preserved well enough to be identified, but this rare specimen may hint that k leaves were layered in the upper portion of this fourteenth- to fifteenth-century imu. This would demonstrate the long-standing tradition of this ethnographically documented practice. Feature 8 This large, bowl-shaped imu displays a very distinctive botanical pattern. Four subsamples of botanical materials were collected in situ or from on-site screening, though the precise coordinates of these remains were not recorded. One of the subsamples was used to obtain a radiocarbon date that places this feature in the mid-fifteenth to mid-seventeenth century. All three remaining subsamples were 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% hia ai (Figure 6.6), a s pecies thought to be introduced by the Polynesians and widely cultivated for its wood, bark, and fruit (Wagner et al.
Other (1.9%) Oheohe (0.4%)
(Other=Monocot stem, Wood #8, Wood #13, and Wood #14)
hia (44.2%)
Lapalapa (0.1%)
Unid. Wood (27.5%) Ulu (0.3%) Koa (0.9%) Lama (1.4%)
Figure 6.5.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 7, Site 4484. Note large proportion of hia.
Ulu (0.3%) Tuber/corm/root (1.6%) Char. Tissue (2.8%) Koa (0.9%) K stem (1.2%) Wood #20 (0.6%)
Unid. Wood (27.5%)
hia (0.1%)
hia ai (58.6%)
Figure 6.6.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 8, Site 4484. Note large proportion of hia ai.
209
1990:976). The similarity of the three subsamples indicates that the distribution of materials throughout the feature is fairly homogeneous (see Appendix I:Table I-1), suggesting that these remains are probably a 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 hia suggest that native forest elements 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 little direct evidence of food preparation. Feature 8 contains a small amount of charred materials that might be tubers, roots, or corms, but these fragments are far less diagnostic than those recovered from Features 1 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 one subsample and a portion of the other, leaving only 7 gm of materials to examine. For this reason, the information 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 that they are charred plant tissue (Figure 6.7). Yet, the nine taxa that are recognizable are the same as in other features: k stem, and wood fragments of ulu, lapalapa, hia ai, and lama. The inclusion of kukui seed coats in this feature, along with kukui and ulu wood and the large proportion of hia ai, demonstrates the availability of these Polynesian-introduced species for use in one of the older features on this site. Again, this is not unusual, but this information can help us to document the timing of the spread of these species.
Feature 10 The plant remains recovered from Feature 10, a post-Contact charcoal kiln, are generally quite different from the remains recovered from the other features discussed in this chapter (Figure 6.8). This is to be expected as the kiln dates to a much later period of history, and had a very different function than all the other fire features from the site. Excavation of the kiln produced six separate subsamples, totalling over 77 gm in weight. Yet this feature had very homogeneous contents, and the diversity of the taxa encountered was lower (Ntaxa = 6) than might have been expected for such a large deposit. At least 84% of the materials in each of the six subsamples are guava, a tree with two species (P. cattleianum Sabine and P. guajava L.) introduced to the Hawaiian Islands around A.D. 1825 (Nagata 1985). The pieces of guava are mostly small trunk or branch sections, some 1 to 1.5 cm in diameter, fractured into disks no more than .5 cm in length. This fracturing might have been intentional, or simply the result of the charcoal production process. As noted by Allen (Allen, ed. 1987:281), area residents specify guava as a preferred source of charcoal in the late post-Contact period. The ring patterns visible in some specimens suggest that the trees might have been only a few years old. However, these specimens may represent branches, or the ring-count may be inaccurate, given the variability of growth patterns seen in other types of tropical trees (Lamberton 1955:92).
Ulu (15.7%)
Kukui seed (1.4%) Tuber/corm/root (1.4%) K stem (1.4%)
Kukui (wood) (1.4%)
hia ai (22.9%)
Unid. Wood (47.1%)
Lapalapa (1.4%) Lama (7.1%)
Site 4484 Total weight = 7 gm
Figure 6.7.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 9, Site 4484. Note Polynesian-introduced taxa.
Wood #11 (0.3%) Wood #10 (6.1%) Conifer (0.1%)
Oheohe (1.2%) Unid. Wood (1.6%)
Guava (90.8%)
Figure 6.8.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 10, Site 4484. Note large proportion of guava and inclusion of conifer.
211
In addition to the guava there are two other identified taxaone small fragment of conifer wood suggests outside contact, though the inclusion of oheohe demonstrates some continuing use of native flora. Feature 11 This feature differs from those previously discussed in that it is not clearly a firepit or imu that includes charred plant remains as a result of normal use. Instead, Feature 11 is more ambiguous in shape and function. Trash disposal, possibly resulting from the cleaning of fire features, may have led to the deposition of the charred botanical remains in this feature. The botanical materials available for analysis were limited to two subsamples, having a total weight 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, even while being smaller and less numerous than the subsamples from all the other features. The relative proportions of plants recovered from this feature show no dominant taxon (Figure 6.9), and the two separate subsamples are not particularly similar to one another. These characteristics lend credence to the interpretation that this might have been a discard area for ash and burned materials derived from imu and other fire features. Whereas this is a suggestion, it must be kept in mind that there is not a clear distinction between this area and all fire features. As noted, many of the fire features display a diversity of taxa similar to that of Feature 11, and they too may represent the end result of numerous activities over 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 subsamples collected outside the boundaries of the defined firepits, imu, and kiln. These materials were recovered from Units 7 and 12 (where no features are recorded), as well as areas of Unit 11 that lay outside Features 2 and 3. Unit 7 This unit contains no features and was excavated to help establish stratigraphic relationships. The deposit from the unit was not screened systematically, but charcoal was noted and two subsamples were collected 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, field notes suggest that the area where these plant remains were collected might have been disturbed. It is therefore of cautionary interest that the pattern displayed by the small amount of charcoal (1.2 gm) from Unit 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 plant materials (Ntaxa = 5 versus Ntaxa = 14 from Feature 6), but if the differences in depositional history and disturbance had not been known, one might have suggested that the same type of function or activity produced the patterning observed in both. Of course, disturbed materials originate as in-situ deposits, and it may be that the disturbed sediment in Unit 7 had once been in a firepit, not unlike Feature 6.
Wood #23 (3.6%) Wood #22 (3.4%) Wood #20 (1.8%) Wood #16 (1.8%)
Char. Tissue (5.4%) Kukui seed (1.8%) K stem (1.8%)
Wood #8 (19.6%) Unid. Wood (26.8%)
Oheohe (1.8%)
Ulu (25.0%)
Monocot stem (3.6%) Lama (1.8%) hia ai (1.8%)
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.
Unid. Wood (8.3%)
Ulu (58.3%)
Monocot stem (8.3%)
Lama (8.3%)
Figure 6.10.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Unit 7, Site 4484. Note large proportion of ulu.
213
Unit 11 Two subsamples of archaeobotanical remains were collected from Layers II and III of Unit 11, in areas surrounding 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 single wood type, which unfortunately has not yet been identified (#W-25). This appears to be the only unit or feature in which this type occurs (unless this type is actually the same as one of the others). Both subsamples are dominated by this taxon, ranging from 62 to 87% of the total subsample by weight. The other plant materials recovered in this unit varied greatly, and the unit contains a total of 12 different taxa. Most of the variability comes from Layer III (Bag 61), suggesting this is the main source of plant remains. Again, the archaeobotanical pattern in Unit 11 is similar in many ways to some of the welldefined features (e.g., Feature 8 in Figure 6.6). Each has a single dominant taxon, and a wide variety of 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 (Freund 1979:275). Minor taxa recorded in this unit also overlap with many of the fire features, for example, ulu, guava, lama, k, 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 charred materials originate in the firepits and imu, and ultimately become spread throughout the site. It would only be through the identification of #W-25 that this deposit might be defined as representing a unique activity. Yet, the mix of materials in this unit may be meaningless. Field notes suggest that the charcoal may have been disturbed by bulldozer activities. A possible sign of this disturbance is the inclusion of charred 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 unit isonly 2.4 gm, and most of it is the same shiny organic material seen in Feature 4 (Figure 6.12). All three of the subsamples contain a high proportion of this substance, suggesting that it characterizes the plant remains for the unit. Field notes and site maps show that the layers represented by botanical remains from this unit contain some post-Contact materials, and that the unit falls within the boundaries of Feature 12, a scatter of lithic artifacts. The inclusion of the shiny organic material (possibly burned sap) along with lama does nothing to determine the age of the deposit, as these plants could relate to either pre- or postContact activities.
SUMMARY OF BOTANICAL DATA FROM SITE 4484

While each individual deposit and feature at Site 4484 has its own character, there are certain patterns that emerge from this analysis. First and foremost, wood remains are the most common archaeobotanical 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
Char. Tissue (1.3%)
Lama (5.1%) Wood #24 (7.7%) Kukui seed (1.3%) K stem (1.3%) 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%)
Figure 6.11.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Unit 11 from Site 4484. Note large proportion of wood type #25.
Wood #16 (4.2%) Unid. Wood (8.3%)
Lama (8.3%)
Shiny organic (79.2%)
Figure 6.12.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Unit 12 from Site 4484. Note large proportion of shiny (unidentifiable) organic material.
215
3-mm] screens. The virtual absence of charred seeds or other small plant parts in the flotation samples is surprising and disappointing because nearly all archaeological sites contain some amounts of these materials. It may be that the samples collected do not accurately represent the features or the site; there were only four flotation samples recovered, and only one of these is from a fire feature (see Appendix I:Table I-4). It is also possible that the Museum's flotation equipment permitted small plant parts such as seeds to escape recovery, as its inner screen size was 1 mm at the time these materials were processed. 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 as firepits and imu used in cooking. Most common wood types used in these pits are ulu, k, lama, and hia ai, each of which occurred in over half of the features (Table 6.1). The use of ulu is particularly robust, as it is found in 100% of the pre-Contact features. This suggests that the site inhabitants made regular use of trees and shrubs they introduced to the islands, as well as some native species. Overall there is a strong complement of Polynesian-introduced species (ulu, k, hia ai, and kukui) along with native taxa (koa, lapalapa, lama, hia, and oheohe). This suggests that the species brought by Polynesians were either well-established during the periods represented or that these species were preferred by the site's inhabitants for fuel. When the species frequency values are observed in rough chronological order (Table 6.2), it is of interest that three of the five native species (koa, lapalapa, and hia) occur only in the earlier features. This pattern may hint at the continuing replacement of native forest by tree species brought by the original Polynesian settlers. Most striking is the pattern for lapalapa. This species is found in all three of the earliest features, but in none of the later ones. As noted earlier, lapalapa is the furthest outside its modern reported range. Lapalapa (or lapa) is the common Hawaiian name for species of the genus Cheirodendron, which is made up of five endemic species that are now known from elevations between 310 and 2,190 m, most commonly on ridges and mountain summits (Wagner et al. 1990:226228). The inclusion of lapalapa in only the three earliest features may suggest this species had a wider range and grew at lower elevations in the past, and that it was replaced in these areas by Polynesian-introduced species. The inclusion of oheohe in one of the earliest features (7) also suggests that past forest composition was different than present day plant associations. The modern range of the six known species of Tetraplasandra is 150 to 1,600 m (Wagner 1990:234237). All other species found could easily grow in the Mesic and Wet Lowland Forest that is 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 in environmental conditions, instead it would appear that any changes in evidence are related to human intervention. A comparison of archaeobotanical materials from features of different sizes and shapes shows little patterning that might suggest activities that are characterized by different fuel types. That is, there does not appear to be a link between the differences in appearance of the pit and the wood types recovered. A cursory examination of Table 6.1 might lead one to suggest that koa and hia are found only in large imu-type pits, yet, while that is the only place these two species are found, only two of these four large features contain these species. It might appear that the temporal element is a better explanation for the pattern observed for these native species (see Table 6.2).
216
Table 6.1. Frequencies of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Remains in Pre-Contact Archaeological Features at Site 4484 by Size, Shape, and Form
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials All Fire Features1 (n = 7) 71.4 14.3 14.3 14.3 71.4 14.3 85.7 14.3 100 71.4 85.7 28.6 14.3 100 42.9 71.4 28.6 57.1 28.6 28.6 14.3 28.6 28.6 14.3 14.3 28.6 28.6 14.3 14.3 --14.3 Lrg. Funnelshaped2 (n = 2) 50 ------50 50 50 --100 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 50 50 50 ----50 50 50 -------------Lrg. Bowlshaped3 (n = 2) 50 50 ----100 --100 --100 50 100 50 --100 ----50 50 --50 ----50 ----50 50 50 50 ----Sml. Bowlshaped4 (n = 3) 100 --33.3 33.3 100 --100 33.3 100 100 100 ----100 33.3 100 --66.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 ----33.3 33.3 33.3 ------33.3 Trash Scatter (n = 1)5 100 ----------100 --100 100 100 ----100 --100 --100 100 ----100 ----100 ----100 100 100 ---
Kukui seed coats Hala keys cf. uala tubers cf. kalo corms cf. tuber/corm/root cf. k leaf Unidentifiable plant tissue Shiny organic material Unidentifiable wood/stem Monocot stem cf. k stem cf. koa wood cf. kukui wood cf. ulu wood cf. lapalapa/lapa wood cf. lama wood cf. hia wood cf. hia ai wood cf. oheohe wood Unknown wood type #4 Unknown wood type #7 Unknown wood type #8 Unknown wood type #13 Unknown wood type #14 Unknown wood type #16 Unknown wood type #18 Unknown wood type #19 Unknown wood type #20 Unknown wood type #22 Unknown wood type #23 Unknown wood type #24
217
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials All Fire Features1 (n = 7) 28.6 14.3 14.3 14.3 Lrg. Funnelshaped2 (n = 2) --------Lrg. Bowlshaped3 (n = 2) 50 ------Sml. Bowlshaped4 (n = 3) 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 Trash Scatter (n = 1)5 ---------
Unknown wood type #26 Unknown wood type #27 Unknown wood type #28 Unknown wood type #29
1 2 3
=Features 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. =Features 7 and 9. =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
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials Kukui seed coats Hala keys cf. kalo corms cf. tuber/corm/root cf. k leaf Unidentifiable plant tissue Shiny organic material Unidentifiable wood/stem Monocot stem cf. k stem cf. koa wood cf. kukui wood cf. ulu wood cf. lapalapa/lapa wood cf. lama wood cf. hia wood cf. hia ai wood cf. oheohe wood cf. guava Conifer Unknown wood type #4 Unknown wood type #7 Unknown wood type #8 Unknown wood type #10 500s B.P. (n = 3) --33.3 33.3 33.3 66.7 33.3 100 66.7 66.7 33.3 33.3 100 100 66.7 33.3 66.7 33.3 --------33.3 --1
300s B.P.2 (n = 1) ------100 --100 --100 --100 100 --100 ----100 100 ---------------
200s B.P.3 (n = 2) 100 50 --100 --100 --100 100 100 ----100 --50 --50 50 ----100 100 50 ---
Post-Contact4 (n = 1) --------------100 ------------------100 100 100 ------100
66.7
218
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials Unknown wood type #11 Unknown wood type #13 Unknown wood type #14 Unknown wood type #18 Unknown wood type #19 Unknown wood type #20 Unknown wood type #22 Unknown wood type #24 Unknown wood type #26 Unknown wood type #27 Unknown wood type #29
1
500s B.P. (n = 3) ---
300s B.P.2 (n = 1) --100 ------100 -----------
200s B.P.3 (n = 2) ------50 50 --50 --50 --50
Post-Contact4 (n = 1) 100 ---------------------
33.3 33.3 --------33.3 33.3 33.3 ---
=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 sorely lacking. Given that the Hawaiian diet was presumably based on the corm kalo and the tuber uala, it is not surprising that there is little remaining evidence. Corms and tubers are made up of tissues that are notoriously fragile once charred, and soft tissues also contain less diagnostic features than seeds or wood. There has been progress on soft tissue identification (Hather 1991; 1994) through the use of diagnostic anatomical characters, but this requires special expertise and a wide range of reference specimens. 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 chemical identification techniques show that these methods too, hold great promise for the identification of Pacific foodstuffs (e.g., Allen et al. 1995; Fankhauser 1994). These techniques, though, are still experimental, and some are only at the stage of developing reference standards and are not yet widely available. In spite of the fact that most of the fire features might relate to food preparation, there is very little direct evidence of this activity. Unidentifiable charred tissue that could conceivably be some type of food was found in nearly all the features, but it is probable that many of these fragments are highly eroded 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). K leaf fragments, probably a by-product of food preparation, occurred in one of the older, funnelshaped 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-shaped firepits (in the form of probable kalo and uala remains), not the larger imu-type pits. This suggests that these smaller features were used to cook food as well. Because food remains are so scarce, it is unwise to read too much into these data. It is sufficient to note that food remains do occur, and that there are many potential samples for examination by other more sophisticated methods. Any type of quantitative analyses will require far more data and more secure identifications.
219
ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS FROM SITE 4485

Site 4485 is located approximately 0.7 km from Site 4484. Archaeobotanical materials from Site 4485 were recovered from nine features, and are dominated by wood and stem fragments (Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3). Eight of the features are firepits or imu, and one (Feature 2) appears to be a post-Contact refuse area. Field-screened materials are available for each of the nine features, and two features are represented 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 differently than equivalent materials from Site 4484. It was not feasible to categorize all these materials into species or types. As outlined previously, each subsample (bag) was examined in its entirety, but only to the general anatomical level (see Appendix I:Table I-2). Once the contents had been inventoried, an attempt was made to identify all nonwood remains, while the wood was subjected to further subsampling. Based on trial results, 40 pieces of randomly selected wood is thought to accurately reflect the overall subsample contents. As was done for Site 4484, materials tentatively identified by the author were 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 coat cf. Chenopodium sp. (heahea, goosefoot), seed Unknown seed Tubers, Corms, and Roots cf. Cordyline fruticosa (k, ti), root Unidentified soft tissue, tuber/corm/root Identified Wood and Stems Cordyline fruticosa (L.) A. Chev. (k, ti) Monocot cf. Freycinetia arborea Gaud. (ieie) 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, lapa) cf. Diospyros sp. (lama, lama) cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud. (hia, hia lehua)
220
cf. Syzygium sandwicensis (A. Gray) Nied (hia h) cf. Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr & Perry (hia ai, mountain apple) cf. Tetraplasandra sp. (oheohe) Coniferophyta (conifer) Unidentified Wood and Stem Types Type #W-4 Type #W-10 Type #W-18 Type #W-20 Type #W-24 Type #W-25 Type #W-26 Type #W-27 Type #W-29 Other Organic Materials Charred plant tissueIn many samples there are fragments of charred plant remains that possess some cellular structure, but they are too eroded to determine the exact plant part represented. These types of materials are common archaeologically, and in this site most are probably wood, although a small portion 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. Type #W-30 Type #W-31 Type #W-32 Type #W-33 Type #W-34 Type #W-35 Type #W-36 Type #W-37 Type #W-38 Type #W-39 Type #W-41 Type #W-42 Type #W-43 Type #W-44 Type #W-45 Type #W-46 Type #W-47
DISCUSSION
Plant remains recovered from Site 4485 are very similar to those recovered from Site 4484 (see Appendix I:Tables I-1, I-2, and I-3). This is not surprising as the sites are fairly close together, have similar types of features, and date to contemporaneous time periods. Overall, each assemblage is dominated by wood and stem fragments; remains of foods are scarce. In the case of Site 4485, there are no materials that could even tentatively be identified as kalo or uala, and only four of the eight fire features contained fragments that could even be classed as possible roots, tubers, or corms. But not all the information from this site is a simple replication of the information from Site 4484. A large piece of k root recovered from Feature 1 at Site 4485 is the only example from either site, and may represent an activity not recorded at Site 4484. Site 4485 also has examples of possible hala and ieie stems, which were not recovered from Site 4484. The hala evidence fits with Cummings's (Appendix H) assertion that hala was a major component of the vegetation that increased throughout the later periods of occupation of this area. It is interesting that, although both Bennett (1987) and Cummings (Appendix H) suggest an open environment with many grasses and sedges, the inhabitants who utilized these areas apparently had easy access to mature trees of many types. Another plant type not recorded at Site 4484 is the endemic hia h. This species is currently defined as occurring above 230 m (Wagner et al. 1990:976). The recovery of hia h from Site 4485, along with lapalapa and oheohe from Site 4484, suggest a wider lowland distribution
221
of certain native trees. The occurrence of hia h, along with hia and hia ai, coincides with the pollen spectra from nearby sites. Sites 1887, 1888, and 4484 all include some amounts of Myrtaceae pollena plant family that includes hia h, hia, and hia ai, as well as guava and eucalyptus (Bennett 1987; Cummings, Appendix H). Other plant macrofossils recovered from Site 4485 that are also represented in local pollen deposits are: Moraceae (the family including ulu), lapalapa or lapa (Cheirodendron), and oheohe (Tetraplasandra). The wood remains from this site are also similar to those recorded by Murakami (1987) at neighboring Sites 1887 and 1888, which include lama, kukui, hia, and either hia ai or hia h. These continuities suggest similar activities and a consistent use of a somewhat uniform environment, or that even in a varied environment, cultural dictates for resource utilization did not vary greatly over time in this area. These new data add to the existing evidence that the landscape was culturally 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 11 subsamples. Of these, three subsamples from different vertical locations were selected to represent the overall variability within the feature. The plant remains from these three subsamples total over 40 gm of 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 2535 cmbs, Bag 10 from 3550 cmbs, and Bag 5 from 5070 cmbs. This feature dates to post-1800 A.D. (Chapter 5), and has a botanical signature that differs from all others at the site. This feature contained large fragments (11.7 gm) of what is likely a k root; all other k 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 k root in this feature. First, it may represent the remnants of okolehao (alcohol) distilling activities (Handy et al. 1972:224). Local informants have described the production of okolehao from k 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). K also figures prominently in the wood and stem fragments that were examined. A total of 120 fragments (14.8 gm) was examined from the three subsamples. Of this, 50% is made up of k stem (Figures 6.13 and 6.14). Interestingly, all the materials that are identified in this feature are Polynesian introductions: k, kukui, ulu, and hia ai. It may be that by this late occupation, these species had successfully replaced much of the native vegetation. The three different subsamples taken from this feature are quite distinctly different. The lower area produced a subsample that is mainly k stem, with some soft tissue fragments that may represent tubers, corms, or roots. The center subsample is made up of a wide variety of different materials, including wood and stems of k, kukui, ulu, and three unidentified taxa, as well as soft tissues that might be tubers, corms, or roots, and kukui seed coat fragments. As noted above, the uppermost sample is dominated by a large piece of k root. In addition, this subsample includes a small amount of k 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 three subsamples 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%)
Wood/stems (59.7%)
Tuber/corm/root (10.2%)
Figure 6.13.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 1, Site 4485. Note k root and large proportion of wood.
Wood #47 (2.7%) Wood #46 (18.9%)
Unid. Wood (9.5%) Monocot stem (1.4%)
Wood #45 (6.1%)
Wood #20 (3.4%) hia h (1.4%) Ulu (6.1%) Kukui (wood) (0.7%) K stem (50.0%)
Figure 6.14.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 1, Site 4485. Note large proportion of k stem and presence of Polynesianintroduced taxa.
223
and food associated with a single event. Yet, it is unlikely that the feature was abandoned without the removal of the materials that were being prepared, so the strata observed may not reflect exactly the original 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 from those collected from fire features (see Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3), as well as those collected from the trash feature at Site 4484 (Appendix I:Table I-1:Feature 11). Two subsamples were collected from on-site screening, which together contained a total of 9.2 gm of charred wood. Bag 14 was collected at the surface of the feature and Bag 16 was collected between 2 and 22 cmbs. The two bags are dominated 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 species known to have been brought by the original Polynesian settlers. The remains recovered from Feature 2 do not appear to be one of the more common naturalized post-Contact conifer species, such as Norfolk Island pine or its relatives (Araucaria spp.). Instead, these specimens most closely resemble Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirabel] Franco.), a common timber used in post-Contact construction. All the materials here are charred, suggesting that these fragments might have been used as fuel once they no longer served their original purpose. Or it may be that these remains represent burned trash that included scrap lumber. In any event, it is unlikely that Douglas fir would have been imported as firewood. In addition to the conifer wood, there are small fragments of lama and kukui, as well as two unidentified types of wood recovered from one of the subsamples. Their inclusion in the feature suggests that these native and Polynesian-introduced species continued to be available during the later occupation of the area. Feature 3 Because this large, funnel-shaped imu was recovered intact, the amount of plant materials collected was much greater than for any of the other features. This fifteenth-century feature produced 33 subsamples from 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. Four charred seeds recovered from one of the samples (Bag 55) are not very diagnostic, and could not be identified with any degree on certainty. Oddly, they do not appear to be grasses or sedges (both of which produce readily identifiable seeds); this is contrary to what would be predicted from local palynological studies (Bennett 1987; Cummings, Appendix H). In order to best assess the botanical materials collected from this feature, as well as to save time and keep the results comparable with other features, only certain of the field-screened remains were analyzed. After an examination of three subsamples from the feature, the botanical patterns appeared to repeat themselves, and no further analysis was deemed necessary. Given that most of the other features at this site produced only two or three subsamples each, it also seemed best not to complicate quantitative comparisons amongst them by analyzing 10 times as much of the materials from this feature as had been done for the others. Unfortunately, because the subsamples were selected randomly, they do not represent the vertical distribution of plant samples available as well
Wood/stems (100.0%)
Figure 6.15.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 2, Site 4485. Note wood only.
Wood #44 (6.7%) Wood #42 (4.4%)
Unid. Wood (8.9%) Kukui (wood) (4.4%) Lama (2.2)
Conifer (73.3%)
Figure 6.16.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 2, Site 4485. Note large proportion of conifer.
225
as they could have. There are subsamples collected between 18 and 109 cmbs, but the three examined here cluster between 25 and 35 cmbs. Future research will have to be conducted to fully explore this intact feature for forthcoming synthetic reports. The three subsamples analyzed contain a total of 206.3 gm of charred botanical remains. Nearly all 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 of the 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 been identified. This wood makes up 33 to 77% of each individual subsample. hia ai also occurs in all three subsamples and ulu is found in two. As seen at Site 4484, even the earliest dated features contain substantial amounts of Polynesian-introduced species, and they seem to have been preferred fuel sources. Another unique aspect of the botanical materials from Site 4485 is the inclusion of ieie in Feature 3. This native, woody climber produces aerial roots that were used by the Hawaiians for baskets (Krauss 1993:29). Ieie has thick woody stems, which may have been burned as fuel; it is also a sacred plant (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 been almost 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 was over 116 gm. Unfortunately, most of these archaeobotanical materials lack distinguishing characteristics. They do not appear to be simply eroded wood or soft tissue; instead, most of these materials are in the form of ash and plant fragments pressed together, as if they had been under pressure or wet. These ashy conglomerates are not identified from features at Site 4484, and are limited to three features in Site 4485 (see also Features 5 and 6, below). These materials account for more than 88% of the three subsamples (Figures 6.19 and 6.20). Interpretation is uncertain, but this feature may have been used or reused 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 (Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3). Materials that can be identified from this feature include a small number of the ubiquitous kukui seed coats, and a few fragments that might possibly be tubers, corms, or roots. Wood specimens identified are predominantly those thought to be hia ai, with a small percentage that compare well with kukui, lapalapa, and lama. Feature 5 Feature 5 is a large, fifteenth-century (probable) imu that produced six subsamples of archaeobotanical materials, none of which is recorded with precise vertical coordinates. Of these, the three subsamples that were split for identification and radiocarbon dating were selected for investigation. These subsamples contain a total of 86 gm of charred remains, and have a total Ntaxa of 12. As in Feature 4, this feature contains a large fraction of eroded, ashy botanical materials, mixed together with small fragments of wood, rocks, and soil. Each subsample is dominated (>45%) by these 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%)
Figure 6.17.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 3, Site 4485. Note large proportion of wood.
Wood #45 (1.1%)
Unid. Wood (9.8%) Monocot stem (1.5%) K stem (1.9%) Ieie (0.6%) Ulu (4.8%) Lama (0.4%)
Wood #44 (56.9)
hia h (23.0%)
Figure 6.18.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 3, Site 4485. Note large proportion of wood type #44.
Wood/stems (11.4%) Tuber/corm/root (0.4%)
Kukui seed (0.1%)
Figure 6.19.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 4, Site 4485. Note large proportion of unidentifiable plant tissue.
Wood #31 (1.6%) Wood #30 (7.8%) Wood #27 (1.6%) Unid. Wood (18.8%)
Wood #25 (12.5%) Kukui (wood) (1.6%) Lapalapa (1.6%) Lama (3.1%)
Wood #4 (10.9%)
hia h (40.6%)
Figure 6.20.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 4, Site 4485. Note large proportion of hia h.
228
(4, 5, and 6) were used and reused over a longer period of time than other features in Sites 4485 and 4484. 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 6.21 and 6.22). Soft tissue fragments that might be tubers, corms, or roots were rare; no kukui seed coats were collected.
Feature 6 The interpretation of this feature suggests that it may be a small firepit. Only two subsamples of plant remains (totalling 29.2 gm) are available from this feature, and both were analyzed; no differentiation in depth is recorded for the two subsamples. The feature remains undated, and contained a total Ntaxa of 10. Like Features 4 and 5, many of the archaeobotanical materials in this feature are badly eroded and compressed into ashy conglomerates. These unidentifiable materials make up 68.5% of the total weight 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 been more heavily utilized, reused, or used for different activities than other features. Conversely, their original use may have been comparable to other features, but this location may have suffered from greater 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 identified from this feature. Both of the subsamples collected share one pattern in common: over 40% of the wood examined was unidentifiable. Wood types that are defined do not occur in both subsamples, suggesting that this feature is highly variable in content and that the samples available may not accurately represent the feature as a whole (Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3). Most wood types from this feature have not yet been 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 from many 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 of the 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 horizontal differentiation is possible. Together the subsamples contained 7.8 gm of charred materials and 13 different types of plant remains. Like most other features from Sites 4485 and 4484, Feature 7 contained a high proportion of wood (Figure 6.25). There are no remains of soft tissues, and possible food remains are limited to kukui seed coat fragments. An examination of wood types shows that the subsamples are not very similar in content (Appendix I:Table I-2 and I-3), implying that the total variability of the feature may be poorly represented. But even if the overall pattern has not been captured, the presence of native taxa such as hia h, lama, and the less commonly recorded hia document the continued utilization of indigenous and endemic forest elements alongside Polynesian introductions, such as k, kukui, and ulu into the later part of the archaeological sequence of the area (Figure 6.26).
Wood/stems (28.4%)
Tuber/corm/root (0.1%)
Figure 6.21.
Wood #43 (3.2) Wood #42 (10.5%) Wood #41 (1.1%) Wood #35 (1.1%) Wood #29 (1.1%)
Unid. Wood (30.5%)
Wood #20 (33.7%)
Ieie (1.1%) Lama (1.1%)
hia ai (16.8%)
Figure 6.22.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 5, Site 4485. Note variety of plant types.
Wood/stems (31.5%)
Figure 6.23.
Wood #35 (7.4%) Wood #34 (3.7%) Wood #33 (3.7%)
Wood #32 (14.8%)
Unid. Wood (44.4%)
Wood #27 (3.7%)
Wood #26 (11.1%) Wood #10 (7.4%) Monocot stem (3.7%)
Figure 6.24.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 6, Site 4485. 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.
232
In addition to materials recovered from on-site screening, there was one flotation sample collected 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 to identify, but there is one possible Chenopodium oahuense seed (see Appendix I:Table I-4). As noted by Allen (1992), these seeds are ubiquitous in most archaeological sites in Hawaii, and may be an indicator of disturbed habitats. A suggestion that the area was disturbed is complementary to most available palynological data. Feature 8 Only one botanical subsample was available from this small, bowl-shaped firepit. Field notes attest that not all charred plant remains were collected, and that some number of kukui seeds coats that had been collected 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 is represented, 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, k stem fragments, and wood from ulu and lama (Figures 6.27 and 6.28). Unlike the materials recorded for some of the other features at Site 4485, most of the archaeobotanical remains in Feature 8 still possess anatomically diagnostic features, suggesting less destruction during the use of the feature or after subsequent abandonment. The mix of native and Polynesian-introduced species is consistent with other fire features from Sites 4485 and 4484. Feature 9 Details concerning the size and shape of this feature were difficult to define after its disturbance during construction activity, but it was possible to remove three subsamples of botanical materials, totalling 14.5 gm. One subsample was collected with radiocarbon dating in mind, one subsample was earmarked for identification, and one subsample was made up solely of kukui seed coats; all three come from roughly the same location within the feature fill. These remains are not highly eroded, and all are classified 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 and Polynesian-introduced species present (Figure 6.30). A detailed analysis of the two subsamples containing wood showed similar contents (Appendix I:Tables I-2 and I-3). These samples look very much like many of the samples from other fire features at the two sites under consideration. Both subsamples contain k stem, ulu, lama, hia, and hia ai in similar proportions. Neither subsample is dominated by a single taxon, and each contains some amount of unidentifiable wood. The subsamples, however, are by no means identical, even though they were collected from the same location. One subsample contains oheohe, whereas the other includes an unusual find of a hala stem fragment. Both hala and oheohe are noted in Cummings's (Appendix H) palynological analysis of Site 4483, but neither are commonly recovered from fire features in this area. This may indicate that these trees were rarely used for firewood, the wood preserves poorly, the wood is difficult to identify, or that these species are not as widespread as the pollen work might suggest.
Wood #39 (3.3%) Wood #38 (10.0%) Wood #37 (3.3%) Unid. Wood (33.3%) Wood #36 (10.0%)
hia ai (5.0%)
hia (11.7%) Lama (3.3%) Ulu (3.3%)
Monocot stem (6.7%) K stem (8.3%) Kukui (wood) (1.7%)
Figure 6.26.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 7, Site 4485. Note variety of plant types with no dominant type.
Kukui seed (20.0%)
Wood/stems (70.0%)
Figure 6.27.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 8, Site 4485. Note large proportion of wood and stems.
Lama (14.3%)
Ulu (14.3%)
Unid. Wood (42.9%)
K stem (14.3%)
Monocot stem (14.3%)
Figure 6.28.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 8, Site 4485. Note few wood types.
Kukui seed (4.8%) Tuber/corm/root (1.4%)
Wood/stems (93.8%)
Figure 6.29.
Percentages of total botanical material by weight for Feature 9, Site 4485. Note large proportion of wood and stems.
Wood #24 (1.2%) Oheohe (7.1%)
hia ai (11.9%)
Wood #18 (1.2%)
Unid. Wood (39.3%)
hia (9.5%)
Lama (21.4%)
K stem (2.4%) Hala (2.4%) Ulu (3.6%)
Figure 6.30.
Percentages of wood types in subsample by weight for Feature 9, Site 4485. Note variety of wood types and large proportion of unidentifiable wood.
236
SUMMARY OF BOTANICAL DATA FOR SITE 4485

Many of the botanical patterns exhibited by these features are similar to those demonstrated for Site 4484. There is a wide variety of tree taxa used as fuel in the area, the most common being lama, ulu, hia ai, kukui, and k. Table 6.3 displays frequency values for all taxa recovered, and demonstrates that these five taxa are most widespread (frequencies vary between 37 and 75%). The fact that four of the five most commonly found species are Polynesian-introduced (only lama is endemic) suggests that the surrounding forest was dominated by species brought by the Polynesians, or that these trees were preferred over others as fuel. Other native plants, such as ieie, hala, lapalapa, hia, hia h, and oheohe 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 highly eroded and cannot be identified by anatomical structures. These charred materials seem to represent conglomerations of materials turned completely to ash. This suggests these features were used more heavily, or that post-depositional deterioration was greater in Features 4, 5, and 6, all of which are located in a cluster near the center of the site. The other features, though, have abundant identifiable plant materials. There are even a few features that contain large deposits dominated by one or two taxa. Feature 1 contains mainly k root and k stem fragments; Feature 3 remains are composed mainly of one unidentified type and hia ai; and Feature 4 is dominated by hia ai. These may represent singleuse activities or repeated use of a feature for a similar purpose with the same fuel type. The archaeobotanical remains from Feature 2, the post-Contact trash area, are almost exclusively conifer wood, 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 to repeated 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 (see Table 6.3 and Table 6.4). As seen for Site 4484, there appear to be few clear trends that are linked to the size and shape of the features (see Table 6.3). Most species appear to be randomly distributed throughout features of varying sizes and shapes. Some possible links might be proposed between large, funnel-shaped features and the native ieie, between bowl-shaped features and hia, and between hia h and large features. Unfortunately, the number of each type of feature is small, and it is difficult 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 Site 4484. Clearest is a pattern that shows increasing use of Polynesian-introduced species and a decrease in the use of indigenous and endemic taxa. Again, these trends are possibly the causal factors for some of the botanical trends noted by shape and sizeas the large funnel-shaped features are the earliest at the site. In Table 6.4, features with known dates are displayed chronologically, and a subtle shift seems to be present. This trend is a gradual transition from the use of more native species towards the use of more introduced species. During the period of 500s B.P. the ratio of native to Polynesian-introduced wood 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:Polynesianintroduced:post-Contact-introduced taxa.
237
Table 6.3. Frequencies of Archaeobotanical Remains in Archaeological Fire Features from Site 4485 by Size and Shape
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials All Features1 (n = 8) 75 50 12.5 75 100 62.5 62.5 25 12.5 37.5 62.5 12.5 75 25 25 50 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 25 12.5 12.5 12.5 25 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 25 12.5 12.5 Lrg. Funnelshaped2 (n = 2) 50 50 --100 100 50 50 100 ----50 --100 --50 50 --------50 --------50 ----------50 ----Lrg. Bowlshaped3 (n = 2) 100 50 50 50 100 100 100 ----100 100 --50 50 50 50 --------50 ----------------------50 50 Sml. Bowlshaped4 (n = 3) 66.7 33.3 --66.7 100 66.7 66.7 --33.3 --66.7 --66.7 33.3 --33.3 33.3 --33.3 33.3 --33.3 --33.3 33.3 ------33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 ----Size & shape unsure5 (n = 1) 100 100 --100 100 --------100 --100 100 ----100 --100 --------100 --100 --100 100 -------------
Kukui seed coats cf. tuber/corm/root cf. k root Unidentifiable plant tissue Unidentifiable wood/stem Monocot stem cf. k stem cf. ieie stem cf. hala stem cf. kukui wood cf. ulu wood cf. lapalapa/lapa wood cf. lama wood cf. hia wood cf. hia h wood cf. hia ai wood cf. oheohe wood Unknown wood type #4 Unknown wood type #10 Unknown wood type #18 Unknown wood type #20 Unknown wood type #24 Unknown wood type #25 Unknown wood type #26 Unknown wood type #27 Unknown wood type #29 Unknown wood type #30 Unknown wood type #31 Unknown wood type #32 Unknown wood type #33 Unknown wood type #34 Unknown wood type #35 Unknown wood type #36 Unknown wood type #37
(continued)
238
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials All Features1 (n = 8) 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 25 12.5 12.5 Lrg. Funnelshaped2 (n = 2) ----50 50 50 50 50 ----Lrg. Bowlshaped3 (n = 2) 50 50 --------50 50 50 Sml. Bowlshaped4 (n = 3) ------------------Size & shape unsure5 (n = 1) -------------------
Unknown wood type #38 Unknown wood type #39 Unknown wood type #41 Unknown wood type #42 Unknown wood type #43 Unknown wood type #44 Unknown wood type #45 Unknown wood type #46 Unknown wood type #47
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
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials Kukui seed coats cf. tuber/corm/root cf. k root Unidentifiable plant tissue Unidentifiable wood/stem Monocot stem cf. k stem cf. ieie stem cf. kukui wood cf. ulu wood cf. lama wood cf. hia wood cf. hia h wood cf. hia ai wood Conifer Unknown wood type #10 Unknown wood type #20 Unknown wood type #29 Unknown wood type #36 Unknown wood type #37 500s B.P. (n = 1) 100 ----100 100 100 --100 --100 100 ----100 ------------1
400s B.P.2 (n = 1) --100 --100 100 ----100 ----100 --100 ------100 100 100 ---
200s B.P.3 (n = 1) 100 ------100 100 100 --100 100 100 100 100 ----100 ----100 100
100s B.P.4 (n = 1) 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 --100 100 ------100 ----100 -------
Recent5 (n = 1) --------100 100 100 --100 --100 ------100 -----------
239
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials Unknown wood type #38 Unknown wood type #39 Unknown wood type #41 Unknown wood type #42 Unknown wood type #43 Unknown wood type #44 Unknown wood type #45 Unknown wood type #46 Unknown wood type #47
1 2 3
500s B.P. (n = 1) ----------100 -------
400s B.P.2 (n = 1) ----100 100 100 ---------
200s B.P.3 (n = 1) 100 100 ---------------
100s B.P.4 (n = 1) ------------100 100 100
Recent5 (n = 1) ------100 --100 -------
=Feature 3. =Feature 5. =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 broad generalizations. In addition, it is apparent that there is often as much archaeobotanical variability within each category as there is between the categories. That is, it is not possible to make generalizations about large, bowl-shaped features because there is as much variation amongst the four examples of these feature types as there is between these features and (for example) large funnel-shaped fire features. To lump them together as a category, at least paleoethnobotanically, makes little sense (compare Tables 6.1, 6.3, and 6.5). The chronological presentation of data from Sites 4484 and 4485 confirms the pattern of replacement of native taxa by Polynesian-introduced species, and the eventual use of post-Contact introductions for firing activities (Figure 6.31). While this trend appears genuine, there are at least four cautionary notes to keep in mind: 1) the trend is not perfectly smooth; 2) there are Polynesianintroduced elements that are found in the earliest features; 3) at least one native taxon persists to the most recent deposits; and 4) the number of dated features is small, especially given the amount of variability in contents of pits with similar and dissimilar morphologies. An additional insight from this study, to contrast with pollen studies, is that there was a wide variety of locally-available trees to be used without many restrictions, and that at no time under consideration did agricultural practices cause a shortage of mature trees used for fuel. The forest types represented throughout the sequence at these two sites are also of interest. For example, the earliest phase (500s B.P.) shows high frequencies of ulu, lama, lapalapa, and hia ai associated with lower frequencies of koa, kukui, and hia (Table 6.6), suggesting a forest dominated by the first four taxa with a minor component of the other three. Such a combination is not described in modern vegetation zones known for the Hawaiian Islands (e.g., Gagn and Cuddihy 1990:45115).
Figure 6.31.
Percentages of native, Polynesian-Introduced, and post-Contact- introduced tree taxa through time.
241
Table 6.5. Frequencies of Field-sorted Archaeobotanical Remains in Fire Features from Sites 4484 and 4485 by Size and Shape
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials Unidentifiable wood/stem cf. ulu wood Unidentifiable plant tissue Kukui seed coat cf. lama wood cf. k stem Monocot stem cf. tuber/corm/root cf. hia ai wood Unknown wood #26 cf. kukui wood cf. lapalapa/lapa wood cf. hia wood Unknown wood #4 Unknown wood #27 cf. oheohe wood Unknown wood #20 Unknown wood #18 Unknown wood #8 Unknown wood #24 Unknown wood #29 Unknown wood #35 Unknown wood #13 Unknown wood #19 cf. ieie stem cf. koa wood Unknown wood #45 cf. hia h wood Unknown wood #44 Unknown wood #34 Unknown wood #47 Unknown wood #32 Unknown wood #46 Unknown wood #33 Unknown wood #37 Unknown wood #38 Unknown wood #39 Lrg. Funnel (n = 4)1 100 75 75 50 100 50 50 50 50 --25 50 25 ----25 25 --25 --25 25 25 --50 25 25 25 25 ----------------Lrg. Bowl (n = 4)2 100 100 75 75 25 100 75 75 50 50 50 --50 25 ----50 25 --------25 25 --25 25 25 ----25 --25 --25 25 25 Sml. bowl (n = 6)3 100 83 83 83 83 83 83 67 50 33 --17 17 17 33 33 --33 17 33 17 17 --17 ----------17 --17 --17 ------Other (n = 1)4 100 --100 100 100 ----100 100 --100 100 --100 100 --------------------------------------------Total (n = 15)5 100 80 80 73 73 73 67 67 53 27 27 27 27 20 20 20 20 20 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
242
Percent presence in samples from Archaeobotanical Materials Unknown wood #36 Unknown wood #43 Unknown wood #42 Unknown wood #41 Unknown wood #31 cf. k leaf Shiny organic material cf. hala stem cf. k root Hala key cf. uala tuber cf. kalo corm Unknown wood #7 Unknown wood #25 Unknown wood #28 Unknown wood #30 Unknown wood #22 Unknown wood #10 Unknown wood #14 Unknown wood #16
1 2
Lrg. Funnel (n = 4)1 --25 25 25 --25 ------------------------25 ---
Lrg. Bowl (n = 4)2 25 --------------25 25 ------------25 -------
Sml. bowl (n = 6)3 ------------17 17 ----17 17 17 --17 ----17 --17
Other (n = 1)4 --------100 ----------------100 --100 ---------
Total (n = 15)5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
=Site 4484: Features 7 & 9 and Site 4485: Features 3 & 5. =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
Archaeobotanical Materials Kukui seed coats Hala keys cf. kalo corms cf. k root cf. tuber/corm/root cf. k leaf Unidentifiable plant tissue Shiny organic material Percent presence in samples from 500s B.P. (n = 4) 75 --25 --25 25 75 25
1
400s B.P.2 (n = 1) --------100 --100 ---
300s B.P.3 (n = 1) --------100 --100 ---
200s B.P.4 (n = 3) 33.3 33.3 ----66.7 --66.7 ---
100s B.P.5 (n = 1) 100 ----100 100 --100 ---
Recent (n = 1)6 -----------------
243
Archaeobotanical Materials Unidentifiable wood/stem Monocot stem cf. ieie stem cf. k stem cf. koa wood cf. kukui wood cf. ulu wood cf. lapalapa/lapa wood cf. lama wood cf. oheohe wood cf. hia wood cf. hia ai wood cf. hia h wood cf. guava Conifer Unknown wood type #4 Unknown wood type #7 Unknown wood type #8 Unknown wood type #10 Unknown wood type #11 Unknown wood type #13 Unknown wood type #14 Unknown wood type #18 Unknown wood type #19 Unknown wood type #20 Unknown wood type #22 Unknown wood type #24 Unknown wood type #25 Unknown wood type #26 Unknown wood type #29 Unknown wood type #35 Unknown wood type #36 Unknown wood type #37 Unknown wood type #38 Unknown wood type #39 Unknown wood type #41 Unknown wood type #42
Percent presence in samples from 500s B.P. (n = 4) 100 75 25 75 25 25 100 75 75 25 25 75 ----------25 ----25 25 --------25 25 25 ----------------1
400s B.P.2 (n = 1) 100 --100 ----------100 ------100 ----------------------100 --------100 100 --------100 100
300s B.P.3 (n = 1) 100 ----100 100 --100 ------100 100 ----------------100 ------100 -------------------------
200s B.P.4 (n = 3) 100 100 --100 --33.3 100 --66.7 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 ----66.7 33.3 33.3 --------33.3 33.3 --33.3 --33.3 ------33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 -----
100s B.P.5 (n = 1) 100 100 --100 --100 100 --------100 ------------------------100 -------------------------
Recent (n = 1)6 100 ----------------100 ------100 100 ------100 100 ----------------------------------(continued)
244
Archaeobotanical Materials Unknown wood type #43 Unknown wood type #44 Unknown wood type #45 Unknown wood type #46 Unknown wood type #47
1 2 3
Percent presence in samples from 500s B.P. (n = 4) --25 25 ----1
400s B.P.2 (n = 1) 100 ---------
300s B.P.3 (n = 1) -----------
200s B.P.4 (n = 3) -----------
100s B.P.5 (n = 1) ----100 100 100
Recent (n = 1)6 -----------
=Site 4484: Features 4, 7, & 9 and Site 4485: Feature 3. =Site 4485: Feature 5. =Site 4484: Feature 8 4 =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 indicate one of at least three scenarios. First, it may be that the vegetation communities that inhabited the area over the past 500 years are no longer in existence. The lack of modern analogs for prehistoric vegetation types is not unprecedented, even in Hawaii. For example, Athens et al. (1992) have suggested that there were substantial Pritchardia forests on Oahu prior to human occupation. These Pritchardia forests have not been documented in the configuration they describe, nor has widespread occurrence of the dominant 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 and not the actual frequencies of the different taxa in the surrounding vegetation. Humans are not always generalists, 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 plant species utilized over the past 500 years in the area. Another interesting aspect of materials from these sites is the occurrence of oheohe, lapalapa, and hia h below their current elevational ranges. This fact documents species that probably had a wider 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 the differences 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 more robust data sets and a longer time span, it may be possible to chart changes in the ecosystem brought about by settlement and agricultural intensification. Additional studies of materials from other imu and firepits of known shapes and sizes may also allow the discovery of different functions or characteristic plant types that were not obvious from this small sample. Information concerning tuber, corm, and root materials may also help identify differences in feature function. Also, taking advantage of the 33 subsamples of charred botanical materials from Feature 3 at Site 4485 might allow for an in-depth stratigraphic understanding of the archaeobotanical content of such features.
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
Jane Allen
his 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 Kneohe sites and the surrounding physical environment. One problem noted in the field, as explained in earlier chapters, is that overlying layers were often stripped away by heavy equipment before a cultural deposit could be recognized in the field, as is common during monitoring projects. The result is that the layer associated with a specific imu or other feature, the layer that was being deposited when the feature was in use, could not always be securely identified. Although every attempt was made to identify precisely the layers of origin for imu and other features (see feature tables and text, Chapters 35), many features discovered during grubbing actually could not be sourced to layer. This situation results in certain layer entries in the tables (e.g., Table 3.3) appearing as unknown.
245
246
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 at the 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, without exception. In order to test earlier suggestions (M. S. Allen 1989, 1992) that feature size and diversity of botanical contents might be interrelated, and might relate in turn to feature function or preservation or both, a program was initiated to describe as precisely as possible several attributes that might distinguish 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, k, kukui) that were used as fuels; this information proved very helpful in identifying as firepits, as opposed to refuse pits, certain features such as Site 4484 Features 1 and 4, which produced apparent food remains such 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 be helpful in distinguishing firepits, for which lower diversity might be predicted, from features used as refuse or imu clean-out areas. As an example, Site 4484 Feature 11 lacks clear food remains and produced a diversity of taxa within the upper range seen at these sites; it is tentatively interpreted as an imu discard area (Chapter 4). No clear differences in botanical composition of pit contents could be distinguished for large features of the two shapes; Lennstrom (Chapter 6) points out that variability among bowl-shaped fire feature 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 the difference may be temporal. Of six feature fill samples submitted for radiocarbon dating analysis from Site 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-shaped pits (Features 4, 6) crosscut the two categories, dating to the fifteenth century or later. At Site 4485 three imu samples (the fourth sample submitted probably represents an kolehao still, not an imu) produced probable fifteenth-century dates for the two funnel-shaped pits (Features 3, 5) and a seventeenth-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
247
century; and two small bowl-shaped pits (Features 7, 13.1), as at Site 4484, date to the fifteenth century or later. Future research projects should continue to document pit feature morphology and internal characteristics carefully in order to test whether large funnel-shaped pits generally predate large bowlshaped 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 excavated around 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 may reflect the type of vegetation at the site at the time the feature was used, and the extent to which the area had been cleared.
SITE CHRONOLOGY, USE, AND PATTERNS THROUGH TIME: THE EVIDENCE APPLIED TO THE GENERAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following evaluation of site evidence in terms of the research questions interprets temporal sequences, 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 postContact evidence, under Questions 7 and 8.
CHRONOLOGY
The first research question asked:
1) When were the sites occupied? Were the occupations at these sites contemporaneous with use of agricultural areas nearby, especially during the peak period of agricultural activity ca. A.D. 12501450? 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 twosigma, Method B calibrated ranges (Stuiver and Reimer 1993, as cited in Chapters 35). The three sites are discussed in numerical order; the dates, from earliest to latest at each site. Developments in surrounding areas, including agricultural sites and sites of other types, are then reviewed; and the three ridge 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; Feature 13.1 firepit fill, 2355 cmbs); and 310 50 B.P. (Unit 14, 3042 cmbs). Feature 13 Layer III, part of the lithic concentration, is interpreted as contemporaneous with Unit 14 Layer III. The two Layer III ages 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. (Feature 2 firepit fill, 4855 cmbs); 180 60 B.P. (Units 7 and 8 Layer II Level 1, 1222 cmbs); and 160 60
248
B.P. (Unit 14 Layer IIa, 1023 cmbs, associated with the upper Feature 13 lithic deposit). The Layer II ages provide probable mid-seventeenth- to nineteenth-century ranges. Feature 7 (Layer II or III, 2429 cmbs) produced a 160 70 B.P. age, for a seventeenth- to late nineteenth-century range. Finally, the Feature 25 imu, of unknown provenience (425 cmbs, the layer indicated in Table 3.6 is internal, within the feature), produced an 80 80 B.P. CAMS age and a probable late eighteenth- to twentieth-century range. Overall, this site was probably occupied between the late fifteenth or sixteenth and the late nineteenth 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 original proveniences (originating layers), produced the following conventional ages: 560 90 B.P. (Feature 7; 1522 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 540 90 B.P. (Feature 9; 1042 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 470 50 B.P. (Feature 4; 1525 cmbs, lower Layer II or upper Layer III; see Chapter 4); 330 50 B.P. (Feature 8; 6069 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 260 70 B.P. (CAMS; Feature 6; 921 cmbs, lower Layer II or upper Layer III; see Chapter 4); and 210 90 B.P. (Feature 5; 015 cmbs, originating layer unknown). The site may have been occupied as early as the late thirteenth century, and was almost certainly in use by the late fourteenth or fifteenth century. Leidemann suggests sixteenthor 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 eighteenth or nineteenth centuries. At Site 4485 three imu and a pit possibly associated with an kolehao still (Feature 1) (not an imu; cf. Table 5.7) produced the following dates: 510 50 B.P. (Feature 3; 95105 cmbs, upper Layer III); 470 50 B.P. (Feature 5; 055 cmbs, originating layer unknown); 230 50 B.P. (Feature 7; 070 cmbs, originating layer unknown); and 110 50 B.P. (Feature 1; 3550 cmbs, originating layer unknown). Features 3 and 5, both funnel-shaped imu, may have been used by the late fourteenth century and were almost certainly in use by the fifteenth. Feature 7, a bowl-shaped imu, was probably used between 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, with the kolehao feature used more recently. Dating Evidence and Sociopolitical Developments at Other Sites in the Area As explained in Chapter 1, Kirchs (1985:297308) model for the sequence of cultural change in preContact Hawaii includes Colonization ca. A.D. 300600, a Developmental Period from A.D. 600 to 1100, an Expansion Period from A.D. 1100 to 1650, and a Proto-Historic Period from A.D. 1650 through 1795. Hommons (1976:224278, revised 1986) includes Colonization and Coastal Settlements from ca. A.D. 500 through 1400, Inland Expansion from A.D. 1400 to 1600, and Political Expansion from A.D. 1600 to 1778. As indicated, both researchers predicted that it would eventually be possible to refine these models. As the result largely of agricultural archaeology conducted in windward Oahu, Hommons A.D. 5001400 Colonization and Coastal Settlements phase, and Kirchs A.D. 11001650 Expansion Period can now be subdivided. I have introduced elsewhere (Allen et al. 2002:Chapter 9) a revised sequence that takes into consideration five watershed events that are reflected by recent agricultural and other data. These events, slightly revised here, are: A.D. 500600 (Colonization); 1100 (Accelerating Inland Expansion); 1300 (Coordination of Economic Resources); 1600 (Ahupuaa Fully Developed); and
249
1778 (Initial Contact). As suggested in Chapter 1, certain important developments such as the formalization of the ahupuaa as a basic sociopolitical and economic unit supervised by konohiki for higher-level alii, now appear likely to have taken place earlier than had been thought. The revised model includes Colonization and Initial Inland Expansion, A.D. 5001100; Accelerated Inland Expansion, A.D. 11001300; Coordination of Economic Resources, A.D. 13001600; Ahupuaa Fully Developed/Political Expansion, A.D. 16001778; and Initial Contact, A.D. 1778. Pondfield cultivation at Site 1887, the extensive Luluku terrace site, may have begun by A.D. 500600, shortly after initial colonization. Both dryland and irrigated cultivation were well underway in Luluku and Punaluu 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 revised sequence (Allen 1992; Allen, ed. 1987:174179, 2002: Chapter 9; Williams 1992b). Activities of some sort in the area later occupied by Kukuiokne Heiau may have begun as early as A.D. 1000 (Williams 1992a:Chapter 8), predating Hommons post-A.D. 1400 Inland Expansion phase and even Kirchs earlier, post-A.D. 1100 Expansion Period. Again, the suggested A.D. 5001100 Initial Inland Expansion phase seems to fit. By ca. A.D. 1400, Kukuiokne, a large and impressive heiau, had been built and was in use; construction had almost certainly been supervised by alii, and the heiau may possibly have been used by alii as well. Site 2397 (G5-101), the lithic workshop at the coast in Kneohe town (Clark and Riford 1986), by A.D. 1200 produced tools made of rock that included material from Waihole Quarry, an inland quarry several valleys to the north. Whether collection of distant materials was coordinated at this early date or accomplished by individual effort remains uncertain. Coordination of pondfield agriculture is suggested by evidence for architectural standardization and by the need for water use regulation at Site 1887 by A.D. 1250 (Allen 1991), probably through supervision by konohiki representing upper alii. Agricultural production and water use may have been among the first activities to be coordinated in land units that would eventually become ahupuaa. Supervision of other economic activities such as forest product collection and possibly quarrying and toolmaking may have been slightly later, as suggested by the A.D. 13001600 Coordination of Economic Resources phase in the revised model. The land unit that was developing into Kneohe ahupuaa was now probably governed by alii, and the elaboration of the bureaucratic hierarchy that eventually led to state development was underway. As indicated earlier, pondfield production at Site 1887 apparently peaked in some areas before ca. A.D. 1500, and before the suggested date for full development of the ahupuaa land system. The development of the control structures that were needed for coordination of pondfield construction, water use, and collection and redistribution of agricultural produce probably contributed importantly to ahupuaa and later state development. The latest period of terrace use at this site may, as suggested in Chapter 1, have occurred during the reign of Kamehameha I, when large supplies of taro and other foods were needed for retainers and foreign visitors.
Ridge Site Chronology and the Local Mauka-Makai Network As explained earlier, it was expected that any habitation-related evidence in this agriculturally dominated area would date to a period after A.D. 1200 or 1300 when collection and redistribution
250
of goods throughout the mauka-makai network were politically coordinated, and cultivators may have been required to live near their fields for purposes of maximal productivity (Allen 1987:1011). Although that is the period represented at the ridge sites, the three sites did not produce any evidence for coordination of activities. Botanical finds and dating evidence suggest either that forest collection of wood for fuel entailed trips upslope in the thirteenth or fourteenth century or that the native forest extended downslope, near the site, at that time. The plants identified include lapalapa, which tends to grow today on ridges and mountain summits (Lennstrom, Chapter 6). Two species mentioned by Wagner et al. (1990:226228) for Oahu are typically found between 310 and 2,190 masl, although, as Lennstrom points out, the tree may have grown at lower elevations at one time. Other forest plants that suggest collection in areas near the sites include oheohe, koa, and lama, which are known to occur on lower slopes. The tree taxa recovered suggest that firewood was always available, although the individual species 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 the three sites. No clearly coastal plants were identified, although certain taxa such as Scaevola, present in the pollen collection from Unit 49 Layer III (Cummings, Appendix H), includes both coastal and inland members. Except for a marine shell fragment in post-Contact roadbed fill at Site 4885 and a hematite sinker found at Site 4484 but presumably used at the coast, no coastal materials were recovered, either as 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 who used the sites lived at the coast and prepared most meals there, eating only foods collected in inland areas when they stayed in Luluku. As suggested, collection of either mauka or makai resources would not necessarily represent political coordination, especially at early dates. The clearest and earliest evidence for coordination of resources remains the evidence for craft standardization and controlled production and water use by A.D. 1300 at Site 1887 and other windward agricultural sites, and the collective, supervised effort that presumably went into construction of Kukuiokne Heiau before A.D. 1400. Of 17 dates processed for the three ridge sites, only fiverepresenting two imu and one firepit at Site 4484 and two imu at Site 4485suggest occupation between A.D. 1250 and 1450, the probable peak production period at Site 1887. Otherwise, occupation at the three sites, as reviewed below, seems to have been later. Sites 4484 and 4485 continued in use after the apparent peak agricultural period, while, at Site 4483, the earliest occupation may have taken place during the late fifteenth or sixteenth century. One lithic workshop (i.e., as defined in Chapter 1, a discrete area where lithic reduction or specialized tool manufacture, or both, took place) may have been in use by that time at Site 4883, but the other appears later. Quarrying (see Chapter 3, Appendix D) and probably specialized tool manufacture at Site 4483 seem to have begun during the modeled post-A.D. 1400 period of sociopolitical control over production, although coordination of activities at the site remains problematic. By A.D. 1650, the area was almost certainly integrated within an ahupuaa-based economic and sociopolitical system, with processing and redistribution of harvested and finished products supervised within an ahupuaa-wide network. The likely quarrying of rock from the Waianae Range by the occupants of Site 4483 is thus far documented only for contexts postdating A.D. 1500 or more likely A.D. 1600. It is likely that the site was by now involved in cross-island economic and sociopolitical networks.
251
SITE USE AND UPLAND RESIDENCE PATTERNS

Questions 2 and 3 concern whether the three ridge sites represent habitation and, if so, whether permanent or temporary; whether contemporaneous feature distribution across the site suggests specific residential 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, or short-term? Is there evidence for occupation by more than one social class, for example, by konohiki who supervised agricultural activities nearby? And 3) Does the evidence suggest a change in residential pattern at any point in the agricultural site sequence? 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?
The Evidence for Habitation As discussed in Chapter 1, several archaeological characteristics are thought to differentiate permanent from temporary habitation sites in Hawaii. To review briefly, suggested permanent house site traits include large platforms and terraces, large walled enclosures and other walled structures, and pavements; dense, thick midden and artifact deposits; fire features in or near the main house in a compound, with deposits suggesting continual use over a long period; thick, continuously used midden deposits 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-status compounds. Temporary shelters may incorporate small enclosures, terraces, or platforms; shallow cultural deposits; 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 such as ulu maika (gaming stones) and bowls have been recorded in domestic, habitation-related, contexts in Hawaii (e.g., Kirch 1985:189193). Although permanent and temporary patterns are not yet clear, Clark (1987:197198, 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 apparently involved in toolmaking, however, the tool evidence is inconclusive concerning length of habitation at that site. Neither Site 4483 nor the other two current sites produced clear pre-Contact architectural or depositional evidence for permanent habitation, although all produced abundant evidence for temporary occupation and meal preparation, including cultural layers, lithic concentrations, firepits and imu, and postmolds that suggest shelters or possibly more substantial structures. The only possible, weak, feature evidence recognized at the three sites for occupation that lasted longer than a single mealtime, or perhaps overnight, is provided by postmolds and large imu. The postmolds probably represent only overnight shelters but could suggest more substantial wood structures. Imu, which require longer to prepare than shallow firepits and which cook larger amounts of food, might possibly be associated with stays of a few days, rather than with single-meal or overnight use. Imu could also, however, provide food for many people at a single meal, and, as suggested by Leidemann (Chapters 4, 5), could also have been connected with agricultural or other ceremonies.
252
The Sites Occupants: Status No signs of high-status residence were recognized at the sites. Although, as discussed, evidence from the agricultural sites nearby suggests that cultivation was supervised throughout the period of use at the three ridge sites, and the construction of Kukuiokne Heiau nearby suggests supervision by alii, no high-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 makainana (commoners, literally, people who attend the land; Pukui and Elbert 1986:224). As will be discussed (Questions 4 and 5), it remains unclear whether they were cultivators of the fields nearby. Other possible explanations for site use include collection of forest products including either plants or bird feathers or both; association with the building, maintenance, or use of other sites nearby (e.g., Kukuiokne Heiau); and possibly location near local sources for basalt and volcanic glass, which were collected and turned into tools at two of the sites. 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 sequential placement in the other. Only those features whose layer attributions are clear are considered more than briefly in this section and the one that follows. Features in uncertain stratigraphic contexts, found at all three sites, are considered only briefly, since their temporal associations are not known, and patterns cannot be predicted with confidence. The scant, possible evidence for habitation longer than a single meal or an overnight stay is emphasized here. That evidence, as discussed above, might include imu and postmolds. Imu in secure contexts were encountered only in upper layers at Site 4483, in Layers I and II (Features 18, 26), which probably postdate A.D. 1650. No imu with clear layer associations were encountered at Site 4484. At Site 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 Site 4484. 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; those are 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 Layer II features at Site 4483 and for the lower Layer II or upper Layer III features, Features 4 and 6, at Site 4484, the two contexts that produced datable features in sufficient numbers to suggest patterning. At Site 4483, where the features occupy portions of two ridges, one in the north and one in the south, 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, are located 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 residue identified on an adze recovered from a firepit (Feature 7; Layer II, seventeenth to nineteenth
253
centuries) near the postmolds may represent a tree fern. Since, as will be discussed, certain tree ferns are known to have been used to build shelters, this finding might suggest construction of a shelter connected with workshop use. Feature 26, an imu in Layer II, was located some distance away, at the far north end of this large, approximately 200-m-long, site. Feature 18, an imu in Layer I and probably postdating workshop abandonment, is located southwest of the two postmolds, near the old Feature 32 workshop, on the south ridge. Several fire features of unknown original proveniences are surrounded by the lithic debris of the two workshop features; others occur on the edges of the concentrations or between the two, near the Layer II postmold. Of all the Site 4483 firepits and imu assignable to Layer II, the locations of only the two imu, at the far north end of the site and on the south ridge, suggest possible connections with features or areas other than the Feature 13 and 32 lithic workshops. In particular, when imu of unknown original proveniences are considered, the northern area around Feature 26 becomes a distinct activity area, with four imu and two smaller fire features, at what was apparently the least used end of the Feature 13 workshop (Dolan et al., Chapter 3:Figure 3.12; also, see orienta-tion and tie-ins provided by Mary Clarkes 1990 field map, on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). The cluster of fire features, especially if all are contemporaneous, could be a habitation area associated with other, probably off-site, activities. Site 4883 is located near Site 1887, and the overall date range overlaps the later end of the agricultural date range. One piece of evidence may connect this site with the agricultural sites: starch grains recovered from Unit 49 Layer II (Cummings, Appendix H), suggest that Site 4483s occupants were 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 a possible postmold (Feature 3) originated, respectively, in lower Layer II or upper Layer III (see Chapter 4, Table 4.2), and in an uncertain Layer II or III context. Those contexts might be approxi-mately contemporaneous, although the two dates from Features 4 and 6 barely overlap at two sigma and may span the period from ca. A.D. 1400 to 1700. The three features cluster within the (Layer II) Feature 12 lithic concentration and may be entirely associated with the workshop. Imu at the site, all of unknown original proveniences, ring this workshop feature. Site 4485s features may have been used in connection with off-site activities. Only one imu could be assigned to layer (Feature 3, Layer III). It and Feature 5, of unknown original provenience but funnel-shaped like Feature 3, produced probable fifteenth-century dates contemporaneous with the later part of the probable peak period of use of fields nearby, and could have been used to prepare meals for cultivators; as part of the ceremony to celebrate the opening of newly constructed loi nearby; or for other 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 the feature 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 dating to the sixteenth or the seventeenth century, and located at the south edge of the north ridge, between the two (Layer II and Layer II or III) workshops. Since the same firepit was the site of each reuse, it seems likely that little time passed between uses. Although no clear evidence for feature reuse was encountered at Site 4485, a charcoal lens in Feature 7, an imu at the south end of that site (Figure 5.1.e), might possibly reflect a second use of that feature.
254
Lennstrom (Chapter 6) makes the very useful suggestion that features such as Site 4484 Feature 1 and Site 4485 Features 59, which contain many botanical taxa, sometimes as ash or very small fragments, might possibly reflect repeated use without complete cleaning between uses. This sort of reuse is not readily visible stratigraphically and may depend on studies like the current macrobotanical studies for recognition. The Site 4484 Feature 11 assemblage, which, as noted earlier, contains no known food remains and shows high diversity, may have resulted from multiple cleanings or sweepouts. Finally, as pointed out in Chapter 1, it is often difficult to differentiate between specialized work areas and temporary habitation sites, because, as explained by Cordy (1981:54), temporary occupation 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 buried deposits have been removed. Nonetheless, the stratigraphic evidence that could be documented, in combination 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, suggesting brief, 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 represent not toolworking use but rather site use in another connection, possibly by forest product collectors or by cultivators of the fields nearby. Occupation at Site 4483, whatever its purpose, seems to have been brief during the late part of the peak agricultural period at Site 1887. Inland residence near fields certainly 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, many probably in use into the early post-Contact period, as was Layer II itself, may have served collectors or cultivators producing supplies, or the tools used to produce those supplies, that were necessary to support the retainers of the alii in the Hawaiian state, and, after Contact, the new foreign trading partners of Kamehameha I. The Layer I and II imu and postmolds discussed earlier were the only pit features that might, weakly, suggest habitation over longer periods and that were assignable in the field to clear stratigraphic contexts. Although it remains possible that residence near fields or rock sources was encouraged at this later time, it seems more likely that inland residence for a few days or weeks at a time was simply more productive, and that, for that reason, the individual toolworkers chose to stay for slightly longer periods. In either case, the surviving evidence at Site 4483 suggests that toolworking may have been the main activity of interest. Basalt microdebitage, which suggests lithic manufacture, was found in all layers from III to I (Dolan et al., Chapter 3). Although such fine fragments could have been translocated downward in the soil after deposition, explaining their occurrence in Layer III, Layer II and an uncertain Layer II or Layer III context produced both microdebitage and actual tools. The grubbed Layer IIb/III surface at Feature 13 also produced three post-Contact artifacts. All tools recovered outside the workshops come from Layer II or I. The site may not have been used as a workshop prior to the seventeenth century or so. Scott Williams (personal communication, 1996) suggests two possible implications of the sizes and densities of the workshop deposits at Site 4483, and for the fact that so much glass
255
reduction and reworking of basalt adzes are indicated. Either workshop could represent the destroyed house site of a stoneworker. And either could have been involved in the working of wood for construction at Kukuiokne Heiau (Site 2038; G5-106), which is located a little more than 100 m upslope. At Site 4484 Layers II and III produced traditional lithics, and Layers I and (probable) II produced post-Contact artifacts. The two early, funnel-shaped imu and the Feature 4 (lower Layer II or upper 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 the eastern slope and could have been located for convenient access to some off-site area; aside from Site 1887, agricultural fields (undated) once occupied areas downslope (Allen, ed. 1987:Figures 98, 100; U.S. Geological Survey ca. 19261928) 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 postmold seem to cluster within the Layer II activity area; these features were probably used to provide shelter and cook meals for the sites toolworkers, who may have increased in number or may have stayed longer than previously. As was suggested for Site 4483, if stays were longer now, to provide access to quarries or other resources, the choice may have been entirely individual. No direct archaeological evidence 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 single feature, 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. 1450 to 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 very temporary, at least until shortly before Contact. And even at this late time, long-term residence at these sites is problematic. Evidence from other inland windward sites suggests that residential patterns during this late period may have varied. A lithic site in upper Maunawili Valley, Kailua, and six or more house sites in upland Kneohe and Haik Valley seem to represent long-term habitation (Williams et al. 1995; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). Yet the evidence from Luluku suggests few residents for the period. And in middle Maunawili Valley (Allen et al. 2002:Chapter 9), where agriculture seems to have contracted by this time, as is suggested for Luluku, only two recognized and dated features even suggest temporary occupation between A.D. 1650 and A.D. 1778. Although certain inland areas may have continued in use as habitation sites, it seems possible that concentration of the population in coastal settlements may have been preferred generally during this late period of growing conflict, increasing social stratification, political elaboration, and state development.
TOOL USE AND OTHER EVIDENCE FOR SITE-ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES

Questions 4 and 5 are concerned primarily with site relationships with other areas nearby and with economic uses of those areas:
256
4) Is there evidence for tool manufacture or other activities accessory to cultivation or habitation or both at the sites? Does the evidence at the three ridge sites suggest that the occupants of the sites were cultivators of fields nearby? And 5) Were the sites alternatively in use primarily for non-agricultural purposes such as forest product 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 as cultivation or forest collection; and evidence that the tools produced at the sites were used in one or more of these activities. This section discusses these sets of evidence, and concludes by considering the roles 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 a possibility, the artifact densities themselves, and mixed artifact sizes that did not suggest sorting by gravity, water, or other natural agent, suggested strongly that these features were in-situ, although probably 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 Oahu, since natural occurrences of gabbro, the material believed represented (Chapter 3), are not reported for Oahu in the available literature. A coarse-grained, intrusive, igneous rock type, gabbro is found primarily in continental areas; it is also known to form as shallow units in Maui and as xenoliths in the 1801 flow from Hualalai on the Big Island (Macdonald et al. 1983:124, 126, 128, 130131; Prinz et al. 1978:285286). Although its mineral composition is similar to that of basalt, gabbro is not a type of basalt, which is a fine-grained, extrusive rock (cf. lithic discussion, Chapter 3; also, Appendix A). It would be useful to source this rock, since it may have been imported from Maui or Hawaii Island or may have been quarried at an unidentified source on Oahu, suggesting either inter-island procurement or collection beyond Koolau Poko. Such patterns may affect not only the current sites but also sites in areas including Kualoa and Mkua Valley, where gabbro artifacts have reportedly also been recovered (Scott Williams, personal communication, 1996). At Site 4483, although most materials were recovered after bulldozing and the layer of origin is often unknown, the grinding stones and other tools used in lithic manufacture, as well as the varied assemblages of formal and informal tools and debitage recovered all reinforce identification of Features 13 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 Van Brunt, Appendix B) to identify sand-sized and finer lithic fragments, which are typically produced during lithic manufacture but are lost through most archaeological screening (Fagan 1985:179180; 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. Basalt flakes interpreted as debitage are smaller on the south ridge and made of finer-grained basalt than is the case on the north ridge, while the north ridge was the focus for volcanic glass toolworking.
257
Different manufacture techniques or stages in the lithic manufacture process may have been emphasized in 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 which the 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 construction of shelters, or may have been intended for use elsewhere, for example at Kukuiokne Heiau, just upslope. The relatively diverse lithic assemblage, if found in domestic contexts, could represent the diverse 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 requiring particular 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 Hawaiian studies until recently focused on potential uses of the basalt and volcanic glass flakes that account for the vast majority of the artifacts found at many Hawaiian sites. Use wear and residue studies now suggest 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 by historical sources. Agriculture and Forest Collection. Formal tools in Hawaii include most prominently adzes, which were most commonly used in woodworking, but which may have been used both agriculturally and during forest collection. Flakes and fragments are also found in agricultural contexts. Based on their large numbers in various contexts, common signs of edge wear, and adhering residues of certain substances, flakes were certainly used as tools in Hawaii and were almost certainly produced intentionally for that purpose. The common assumption that flakes are simply debitage (discard) needs careful reassessment. The following paragraphs summarize certain information concerning flake sizes analyzed for agriculturally associated sites on Oahu and Kauai, in the hope that it will eventually be possible to distinguish size ranges likely to represent agricultural, as compared with domestic, uses. Basalt and volcanic glass flakes have been recovered from pondfields and other agricultural contexts in Hanalei, Kauai (Athens 1983); and Kawai Nui Marsh, Maunawili, and the current project area, especially at Sites 1887 and 1888, on Oahu (Allen et al. 2002; Allen-Wheeler 1981). Suggested uses include cutting and sharpening , cutting taro corms for vegetative reproduction, harvesting plant parts, mounding earth around taro or other plants, and weeding. Athens (1983:48; also, Figure 10), recovered diagnostic basalt flakes <19 cm long, and suggested that, although flakes <5 cm long were too small for agricultural uses, flakes >5 cm long may have been integral to some aspect of agricultural production. Flakes 2.1>10 cm long have been recovered from clearly agricultural contexts in Kawai Nui Marsh and Luluku on Oahu, 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 Marsh pondfields measure 2.17.8 cm. Four flakes (two diagnostic, one non-diagnostic, one modified) from
258
pondfield and dryland fields at Sites 1887 and 1888 in the Kneohe Interchange project area measure 4.1>10 cm in length, three of them between 4 and 5 cm. A single volcanic glass flake fragment, 1.1 cm long, was recovered from a probable pondfield context at Site 1887; volcanic glass flakes tend to be very small, and correlation with specific function on sizing grounds will be even more difficult than that for basalt. At Site 4483, 25 basalt flakes with (intentional) polish and broken flakes with polish, all probably representing adze flakes, range from 0.9 to 5.4 cm in length; 23 edge-altered flakes and flake fragments measure 2.58.7 cm; and diagnostic flakes (count not provided) measure 0.759.82 cm. Nondiagnostic flakes were not measured. The range is approximately 19.8 cm, much like those just mentioned. Thirty-seven edge-altered volcanic glass flakes and fragments range from 0.8 to 2.2 cm, but measurement 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 largest possibly an adze blank, measure 36.8 cm; four complete flakes measure 2.65.7 cm; and a single, rare blade flake is 16.1 cm long. Omitting the possible adze blank and the blade flake, these flakes are quite small, between 2.4 and 6.3 cm long. Twenty-two volcanic glass flakes and fragments are 0.9 to 1.9 cm long, 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 first mentioned 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 agricultural connections. At this point, all that can be said concerning the sizing evidence is that the range could include agricultural as well as domestic uses. While it seems reasonable that larger flakes would be more useful in the field, where they would likely be hand-held, agricultural and probable domestic size ranges probably overlap. Much additional study, to include residue analysis and other use studies, 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 44834485 as actual cultivators of the fields nearby has proven difficult. Large quantities of the remains of crop plants such as kalo and uala, which might suggest 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 relationships with agricultural sites nearby is the recovery of a variety of starch grains from Unit 49 Layer II (Cummings, Appendix H:79), which suggests that the site occupants were harvesting crops for food and transporting them to this site. At Site 4484 kalo and uala have been tentatively identified in samples collected respectively from Features 4 and 1, two firepits (see Chapter 6). K pollen was recovered from Site 4483 Unit 49 Layers IIa and IIb (Cummings, Appendix H); k parts were recovered by Lennstrom from several contexts at Sites 4484 and 4485 (including the post-Contact probable kolehao still, to be discussed). Ulu, a cultivated tree, was recovered from all features at Site 4484 (Lennstrom, Chapter 6) and most at Site 4485. Kukui shell was commonly recovered from deposits at all three sites. Although kukui is certainly not specific to agricultural contexts and was also used domestically, for instance to ferment and preserve fish, as mentioned by Leidemann (Chapter 4, citing Kirch), it frequently grew in pondfield complexes, and its leaves were used as mulch (Allen 1992a:48, citing Malo 1951:205, among others). Even at the earliest dates, when forest plants were collected commonly (see below), the collectors also brought to Sites
259
4484 and 4485 cultivated and tended plants including kukui, probably kalo, k, ulu, and hia ai; these plants were therefore being managed from the earliest period represented. The very limited faunal remains recovered at the sites are uninformative regarding the site occupants possible involvement in either agriculture or forest collection prior to Contact. At Site 4483 most represent post-Contact introductions, and all were surface or grubbed surface finds. The only other faunal material recovered is a Cymatium (marine) shell fragment in roadbed fill at Site 4485. No remains of pig or dog, the two mammals that were traditionally associated with agriculture in Hawaii (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 from the Feature 13 workshop but three that could represent either workshop or other associations, are more promising. These suggest, tentatively, both agricultural associations and forest collection. The residues on 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 reacted to dog antiserum; and a small adze reacted to common fern antiserum. Domesticated pigs (puaa) and dogs (lio) were raised for food in Hawaii and were cooked in imu; dogs were also often considered pets. Both were closely associated with agriculture; the two were typically left to herd together and were fed vegetables including sweet potato and poi. Young pigs were allowed to run free in gardens (Handy and Handy 1972:245, citing Pukui; Titcomb 1969:34, 67). Since agricultural fields were presumably readily available nearby at the time of Layer IIs probable deposition, between the mid-seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, domesticated animals might be 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, a microadze, showed a positive reaction to common fern antiserum (Pteridium sp., a member of Family Polypodiaceae at the time of analysis; now assigned to Hypolepidaceae [Valier 1995:54]). This microadze might represent forest collection, or could be associated with either agriculture or domestic activities. Family Polypodiaceae, as discussed by Allen et al. (1995, reporting the current results and results for Site 1899, nearby), formerly included smaller ferns and also two tree ferns, amau (Sadleria cyatheoides) andklea (Athyrium microphyllum; Neal 1965:2223) that were considered possible sources for this residue when the 1995 article was submitted for publication. These tree ferns are now assigned to Blechnaceae and Athyriaceae or Dryopteridaceae (Valier 1995:63, 78). It now seems unlikely 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 botanical families, 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 fern juice used to soak basalt before flaking left the residue, also appears unlikely. The fern mentioned by Malo (1951:5152) is palae, apparently an early spelling of palai (also palapalai: Neal 1965:12; now Microlepis strigosa, in Family Dennstaedtiaceae). The flaking and polishing that followed any initial soaking of the raw basalt would almost certainly have removed all traces of such a vegetable mixture. The fern residue identified appears likely to represent adze use, not the initial stage in adze manufacture. If fern families are eventually found to exhibit cross-reactions during CIEP analysis, this fern residue might conceivably represent any of a number of ground or tree ferns that were used traditionally in Hawaii. To use as examples the tree ferns mentioned above, the starchy pith and young shoots of amau were eaten as famine food (Cuddihy and Stone 1990:34; Handy and Handy 1972:234); the plant
260
was also used for agricultural mulching and other purposes. klea was often cleared from hia groves (which grow upslope even today) in preparation for taro planting (Fornander 19161920:654, 686; Handy and Handy 1972:234; Kamakau 1976:103; Neal 1965:2223; 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 and 4485; although pollens recovered at Site 4483 represent forest plants, these small grains may well have been transported to the site by wind or rain. The macrobotanical evidence is especially interesting in the three earliest features at Site 4484, which produced lapalapa wood, representing a tree that, as indicated, often grows today at upper elevations, although it might have grown closer to the sites formerly. Other forest plants identified for Sites 4484 and 4485, suggesting either wider distributions of the plants in the past or collection upslope by the sites occupants, include ieie, oheohe, koa, and lama. hia, another forest tree, still grows a short distance above the three sites. But, at these same sites, Polynesian-introduced plants appear even in the earliest dated contexts, and introductions progressively replace native taxa upward through time in the macrobotanical samples. The impression is 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 agricultural sites 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 Kneohe sites in ahupuaa-wide and broader networks is suggested by lithic sourcing results from Sites G5-101, near the coast; Site 2038, Kukuiokne Heiau; and Site 4483. At Site G5-101 (Clark and Riford 1986), petrographic and dating results suggest that basalt was collected at Waihole Quarry, five ahupuaa north of Kneohe, as early as A.D. 10701390. At Site 2038, as explained in Chapter 1, certain tools had been made from basalts possibly quarried in the Waianae Range on Oahu, on the south shore of Kauai, and on Mauna Kea on Hawaii 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 basalt and volcanic glass probably quarried in the Waianae Range (see Appendix D). As suggested, collection may have been accomplished by coastal residents themselves or may have been part of the mauka-makai exchange networks that later gave rise to the ahupuaa as a land unit. The fact that the items sourced to the Waianae volcano are finished products could relate either to preferential collection supervised by alii or to individual preferences to carry back to Koolau Poko only material useful for the manufacture of formal tools. By the seventeenth century, the period represented at Site 4483, although supervision cannot be inferred from the site evidence, Kneohe ahupuaa was probably well established as an economic and sociopolitical land unit, and the island of Oahu had already been unified under at least one leader, Kalaimanuia, who, according to available genealogical information, ruled in the sixteenth
261
century (Klieger 1996). The various districts across the island were increasingly brought into contact as state development advanced, and later leaders began to have greater success ruling Oahu as a unified polity. The gabbro used for a chisel at Site 4483 may even suggest inter-island exchange at this time.
LANDSCAPE CHANGE
One of the most important bodies of evidence produced during earlier research in the H-3 corridor includes pedological, sedimentological, and botanical evidence for dramatic landscape change in the area during the cultural era. Question 6 is concerned with that change:
6) Is there evidence for landscape change over time? Is there evidence for increasing deposition due to erosion upslope during or after the period(s) of cultural activities at the sites?
As indicated in Chapter 1, two main sedimentary changesmassive erosion of soils and sediments upslope and their redeposition in lowland areashave apparently affected Kneohe and other areas in windward Oahu dramatically through the centuries since the first Polynesian colonists arrived. As discussed, major changes have also taken place in the botanical environment. Erosion on inland hillsides and infilling of low-lying areas with new sediments is by now well documented for areas including the Luluku area (Allen 1997; Allen, ed. 1987:256260; Williams 1992b; Williams et al. 1995; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 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, Waimnalo (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 ridges closer to the pali, where cultural deposits were found buried as deeply as 150 cmbs beneath more recent sediments (Williams 1992b; Scott Williams, Tomasi [Kilino] Patolo, and Richard Nees, 19891993 field notes, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu). Much stratigraphic and soil/sedimentary evidence had been removed before site and off-site deposits could be inspected closely, and, except for the profiles examined in the exploratory stratigraphic trenches and units, most cultural sequences were truncated, lacking at least Layer I. Although nearly all the cultural features and 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 pali of the Koolau Range. Sediments exposed during the excavations, whether underlying or overlying the site deposits, were predominantly colluvial; some rock fragments in the basal colluvial layer had partially decomposed, indicating that these ridges have existed for a very long time. In contrast with evidence from the lower area at Site 1887 nearby (Allen, ed. 1987; Chapter 1 here), no evidence was recognized 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 and deposition may nearly have been equal through the years. Disregarding recent fill, Layer I is the main layer overlying the main occupation deposits. It is generally thin, ranging up to 20 cm thick (e.g.,
262
Figure 3.3). Layer II or IIa, generally less than 20 cm thick but up to 40 cm at Site 4485, had buried Layer III, earlier. Although evidence for erosion was difficult to assess because of the truncation and compaction of the sequences, the abrupt, wavy boundaries described in soil profiles presented in Chapters 35 suggest strongly that erosion has occurred regularly. One of the main reasons for the erosion that did occur was undoubtedly the eventual removal of 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 open areas is demonstrated by the results of Cummings analysis of pollen grains, spores, and starch grains collected at Site 4483 (Appendix H); and Lennstroms macrobotanical analysis of materials collected at 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). K at the Layer IIb/IIa interface, presumably postdating A.D. 1600, reinforces archaeological evidence from surrounding areas that by that time cultural plants and plantings were common where native plants had once grown. In (post-Contact) Layer IIa, interestingly, Pandanus increases in prominence; at the same time, however, grasses dominate, and post-Contact introductions appear (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 areas had been replaced by grassy areas even before the earliest period represented. Culturally influenced landscape change had probably been underway for several centuries. At Sites 4484 and 4485 Lennstrom (Chapter 6) recovered plant parts representing native forest trees, shrubs, and vines in highest frequencies from contexts that produced conventional ages >500 years B.P. The plants identified, as reviewed earlier, include ieie, koa, lama, lapalapa, oheohe, and hia lehua. Polynesian introductions including kalo, k, kukui, uala, and ulu dominate later counts, replaced after Contact by exotics. At both sites, within contexts relatively securely assignable to Layer II, the later of the two cultural layers, (possible) lama may be the only tree identifiable to genus that represents the former native forest (Chapters 46, Appendix I). It is nonetheless interesting that native forest still thrived nearby during the later portion of the peak period of agricultural production in Luluku, as late as the thirteenth or fourteenth century, as suggested by the evidence from Sites 4484 and 4485, and possibly even later around Site 4483. As mentioned earlier, (endemic) hia lehua and (probably indigenous) hau are the only native trees known to grow nearby today.
Evidence for Changing Sedimentary Regimes Through Time The windward Oahu studies cited earlier not only document significant landscape change since the arrival 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 arable soils that were then intensively cultivated. Valleys filled with fertile new soils; and coastlines prograded. The possibility that increasing sedimentation in Pacific areas during the later pre-Contact era may have resulted from overuse of slopes for dryland cultivation has been discussed by many
263
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 above the current sites (e.g., at Site 1888), and it is likely that additional dryland gardens or fields exist, buried under more recent sediments, on upper slopes beneath the pali. Whether as the result of overly extensive cultivation practices or other processes, large volumes of sediment reached Site 1887, near the current sites, over time, until terrace construction excluded new sediments 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 possible at Site 1887 to detect, although not to quantify (because of missing information lost during agricultural maintenance and erosion), increasing sedimentary rates and velocities that ultimately deposited colluvial boulders 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 Nui Marsh, and in Maunawili at both valley and ridge sites. At the current ridge sites, no intervals of renewed sedimentation are clear, a finding that is somewhat surprising, since periods of abandonment must have occurred if the sites were used only temporarily. Although the initial impression might be that little sedimentation took place here, the lack of evidence for sedimentary lenses and beds more likely reflects the fact that the site areas have been traversed repeatedly by heavy machinery, which almost undoubtedly compacted and obscured some information. Changes in the sedimentation patterns and rates could not be detected directly at these sites, in part because of truncation and compaction, and in part because virtually all layers are cultural. Cultural deposition of materials including organics develops sediments into soils, which result in chemical weathering and obscuring of sedimentary structures, and also, importantly, in stability of the surface. The soil profiles presented in Chapters 35 describe either rock frequencies and sizes that remain similar throughout the sequence, as at Site 4483, or frequencies and sizes that actually decrease upward through the profile, as at Sites 4484 and 4485. Stability is suggested. Interestingly, cultural modification 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 and cultural 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 Kneohe 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 use elsewhere in Kneohe? Is there evidence that the cultivators of upland Kneohe by now resided at the coast?
The evidence that can be used to address these questions includes both archaeological and historical data. The archaeological finds are discussed first here, followed by summaries concerning the various types of land use suggested by available historical documents.
264
Archaeological Evidence for Post-Contact Site Use The archaeological evidence from Sites 2463 and 44834485, including features and especially datable portable items, suggests site occupation during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The archaeological evidence noted at Site 2463 and other roads in the Kneohe Interchange project area (e.g., oil drums, ruts probably carved by pineapple carts, bottle glass) points to early twentieth-century use, although historical maps describe certain roads as early as 1876 (Chapter 2, citing Lyons 1876). At the three ridge sites, late nineteenth-century or turn-of-the-century features include the charcoal kilns at Sites 4483 and 4484, and the possible kolehao still at Site 4485. Possible late nineteenth-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/American and possibly Japanese ceramic fragments from Site 4484; and mold-blown or ABM-produced bottle glass from Site 4485. No hand blown black (dark olive) glass, which generally predates 1870, was recovered. Most post-Contact materials found at the three ridge sites were manufactured during the twentieth century. No clear archaeological evidence for occupation of the four sites during the initial Contact era or the early post-Contact period, ca. 17801850, was recognized, although the mix of traditional Hawaiian artifacts and post-Contact items recovered, for example, from Site 4483 Feature 13 Grids 3 and 11 (Layer II/III or IIb/III: Chapter 3, Appendix F), and possibly from Site 4484 Layer III (Table 4.6), might represent the initial period after Contact. Other items that might possibly predate 1850 include two Blue Willow ceramic sherds collected at Site 4485. Blue Willow wares have been manufactured in Europe since before 1790 (Miller 1991:8); the current examples are thought to date to the nineteenth century. The radiocarbon dating results are uninformative regarding post-Contact occupation. Although they include post-Contact ranges, the most reliable, two-sigma, ranges span at least the entire nineteenth century 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 work activities; overnight stays associated with agriculture, forest product collection, or other activities; or longer residence. The domestic items left beside the Site 2463 roads may have been thrown from carts or 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 made available in the Highway H-3 windward history that is currently being completed. This section provides a brief overview of general nineteenth-century trends and patterns as they were represented at Mahele, and summarizes related patterns that characterized upland Kneohe around the turn of the century. Agriculture. Basically, upland Kneohe remained a prime agricultural area after Contact, while Kneohes population center developed nearer the coast. Taro lands were claimed at Mahele in Luluku, as they were in other inland areas in Kneohe and Heeia.
265
In low-lying areas in Luluku and elsewhere, rice was cultivated, primarily by Chinese immigrants who had arrived initially to work on sugar plantations, from ca. 1860 until sometime after 1910, when the market for local rice began to decline. During the rice years, water buffalo and oxen were used in plowing and cultivation in Kneohe, Kailua, and other areas, and the fields themselves very closely resembled Asian paddies. Old taro fields were converted to rice, and old auwai were extended into extensive systems. Rice, as explained in the background information in Chapter 1, was replaced 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 it failed in this wet, windward area. The effects of pineapple cultivation in the Kneohe area reflect sharp breaks with Hawaiian tradition, and marked acculturation: Klieger (n.d.) lists for the area four heiau and a hlua slide (sledding run) described by McAllister (1933) as destroyed for pineapple cultivation. The four heiau, as indicated earlier, included Kukuiokne Heiau in the Interchange project area. Pineapple was eventually replaced by bananas (Allen, ed. 1987:Appendix I), which still thrive today, both on slopes and in the old taro terraces at Site 1887. Urbanization, Transportation and Marketing. Although, as will be seen, roads probably began to serve houses in the Interchange project area after Mahele, it was the transportation needs of commercial agriculture that was apparently responsible for most roads in upland Kneohe. The needs of pineapple and later banana cultivation probably explain most features at Site 2463, which incorporates Luluku and Kapalai Roads and an intricate network of unpaved and paved roads that connect 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 undoubtedly crisscrossed the area for centuries, connecting villages, fields, and the coast. Since the early nineteenth century, when windward farmers took their poi, uala, fruits, and pigs to market in Honolulu along a precipitous and winding trail across the Nuuanu pali (Devaney et al. 1982:163), the marketing of agricultural produce has been a driving force behind the construction of most trails and roads in windward Oahu. The needs of sugar transportation and marketing resulted in the widening and rock paving of the pali road by 1845, and further improvements have been made regularly since. In Kneohe, in the 1920s and probably earlier, Luluku Road (Site 2463 Feature 2) was used to haul pineapple. Kapalai Road (Site 2463 Feature 3) was probably also used in the same way, and roads including Site 1887 Feature 103 were used by mule-drawn drays with hard rubber tires, which left still-visible ruts, to haul pineapple 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 adjacent areas were stabled in the lower part of the Interchange project area, above the Shiroma house, near todays Hoomaluhia Botanical Garden (Allen n.d.). Many of todays banana road networks probably began as pineapple haul roads. Others, like Site 1897 Feature 9 may have begun instead as driveways and roads serving house sites, which became more common in the area after A.D. 1850. Once commercial agriculture and the need to get produce to local and international markets in large part had brought roads to Kneohe, the roads themselves, especially the paved roads,
266
probably made the most important and lasting change in the character of the area. Traditionally, Kneohe had been favored by alii, but must have been a rural, somewhat isolated, location for the makainana who had worked the land prior to Contact. In the nineteenth century, the rural landscape began to change, as roads made upland residence simpler and probably more attractive. Increasingly, houses were built, and Kneohe became ever more closely connected to Honolulu and the outside world as urbanization proceeded. Late Nineteenth-Century Residential Patterns. Land Commission Award records suggest that the farmers of upland Kneohe were, from the time of the mid-nineteenth-century Mahele on, more likely to live permanently near their fields than had been the case before Contact. The popularity of upland areas as habitation areas has increased from ca. 1850 to the present. As reviewed by Klieger and Parry (1995), LCAs in the five ili that make up the Interchange project area contained not only extensive agricultural lands, but also house lots. In the north, Keaahala Mauka 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 three LCAs and three additional claimed parcels. Several house sites were claimed, including house lots in all three properties awarded as LCAs; interestingly, none of the house lots were awarded. Punaluu Mauka contained a single LCA, which included a house site. Of the ten kuleana awarded in Luluku, however, only two contained house lots: one near Luluku Stream and the other southeast, near the ili boundary with Kahuauli. As mentioned in Chapter 1, not a single LCA, with or without a house lot, was located in the northern part of the ili, where the three ridge sites are located, although a small amount of archaeological evidence may suggest that one or more residences were located near Sites 44834485 by the later nineteenth century. Examples include the charcoal kilns, which, as indicated in Chapter 1, were commonly built by families in Kneohe to supply charcoal for heating; and portable post-Contact artifacts such as sanitary (food) cans, and Blue Willow ware and rice bowl fragments, which suggest domestic activities. Many of the bottles recovered and the nails may also reflect household use. While other parts of upland Kneohe have increasingly combined agricultural lands with suburban housing since 1900, Luluku has remained almost exclusively agricultural. In contrast to the pattern at Mahele, no permanent houses were located in areas surveyed in Luluku west (mauka) of Hoomaluhia 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 of Historic Places Criterion D: that is, they have yielded or have the potential to yield information important for our understanding of history or prehistory (Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and GSA Training Center 1990:Section II, 36 CFR Part 60, National Register of Historic Places; Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources 1989:10). Sites 4483, 4484, and 4485 have produced important new information regarding pre-Contact site use in a portion of upland Kneohe where, as explained earlier, almost exclusively agricultural
267
evidence had been recovered prior to the current project. The sites incorporate lithic workshops, two of them extensive, that suggest a type of local resource collection that had not been documented as an important pre-Contact activity in Luluku previously. All three sites were also occupied during either the main period or the later period of cultivation at nearby Site 1887, and agricultural connections remain 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 LCAs are recorded for this portion of Luluku at Mahele, by the late nineteenth century charcoal kilns and certain portable artifacts suggest permanent residence nearby. Each of the three sites has supplied information that addresses, at least in part, the research questions guiding the project. As reviewed by Leidemann (Chapter 4), excavation of ten recommended units at Site 4484 revealed no features corresponding to a puzzling square area indicated in earlier twentieth-century aerial photographs (U.S. Geological Survey 19261928; see Allen 1990a:3, 13), and it seems possible that any surface features had been removed during construction of Likelike Highway. Testing identified no connections with Kukuiokne Heiau, across the highway to the west. It appears likely that, as suggested by Dolan and Leidemann (Chapters 35), most significant data have been collected from these sites. Most site areas have now been destroyed, and it appears unlikely that further archaeological information will be forthcoming. Any further ground disturbance in areas not investigated, however, should be monitored by a qualified archaeologist in order to ensure that any unusual deposits are recognized and investigated. Site 2463, the road network has been adequately documented with archaeological and archival research.
CONCLUDING SUMMARY
The four sites that produced the evidence presented in this report represent activities and patterns that have not been documented previously for this area of upland Kneohe. At the three traditional Hawaiian sites, Sites 4483, 4484, and 4485, imu, firepits, and postmolds suggest that, as had been expected but not confirmed during earlier research in the area, temporary habitation did indeed take place in this upland area during the pre-Contact period. Overnight or longer stays 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. 12501450 peak period of pondfield cultivation nearby, but apparently postdating the peak period at Site 4483. Although agriculture remains both archaeologically and historically the dominant activity represented in Luluku ili, it remains uncertain that the domestic features at the ridge sites represent field shelters used by cultivators. One of the main contributions of this project is that the three ridge sites provide archaeological, botanical, and lithic sourcing evidence for a broader range of activities in this upland area than had been expected. At a minimum, the activities pursued by the occupants of the sites, between ca. A.D. 1300 and Contact apparently included harvesting of agricultural foods,
268
collection of forest products including woods for fuel and perhaps other purposes, quarrying of local basalt, and manufacture of a wide range of stone tools. The presence of lithic workshops at Sites 4483 and 4484 suggests that local sources for basalt and volcanic glass may have provided as great an attraction for upland location as agricultural lands and forest resources, even as early as A.D. 1300. These three activity areas provide the first evidence that craft specialization in Luluku may not have been exclusively agricultural. As suggested, it also seems possible that tool production at these sites was related to construction, maintenance, and use of Kukuiokne Heiau, a short distance upslope. Most firepits at the two sites seem spatially associated with workshop activities, although stratigraphic associations remain unclear in many cases. During the later period of workshop use at Site 4483, collection of basalt as far away as the Waianae Range suggests that Luluku participated not just agriculturally but in other ways in the island-wide economic and sociopolitical network that is represented in genealogy and legend by ca. A.D. 1600. Gabbro may possibly have been imported at this time from Maui or Hawaii Island, suggesting inter-island exchange. Botanical information suggests that replacement of the native forest with Polynesian introductions had either begun before the earliest-recognized cultural deposits were laid down at the three sites or was occurring as they were deposited. Soil and sedimentary deposition and erosion at these three sites may nearly have canceled each other out. The site surfaces suggest relative stability throughout the cultural era, the probable result of the deposition of organics, and subsequent soil formation, during site occupation. Site 2463, and certain features including charcoal kilns and the probable kolehao still at the ridge sites, represent the nineteenth- and twentieth-century opening up of Kneohe to urban influences and the world market. Certain road segments also suggest earlier patterns, following ahupuaa and ili boundaries, and possibly built over old trails that may have led from the coast to the mountains even before the ahupuaa and ili existed as formal land units. After Contact, the pattern of land use in upland Kneohe remained dominated by cultivation of agricultural producetraditional taro, then rice, then pineapple, then commercial taro, and finally bananas. Houses were apparently present in Luluku at Mahele, probably situated for access to adjacent fields; later residences may be suggested by at least some of the turn-of-the-century charcoal kilns that dot the archaeological landscape, although others may have operated by residents of Kneohe town. Today, no permanent houses, and few buildings of any kind, are present in Luluku ili above Hoomaluhia Botanical Garden. The area is nearly entirely devoted to agriculture, which has always dominated the fertile slopes and valleys of upland Kneohe.
APPENDIX A
LITHICS GLOSSARY
Mary Riford
he following glossary is divided into two sections: 1) Tool Glossary, defining form, material, and function of formal tools, and 2) Lithic Terminology, defining general lithic terms. The Lithic Terminology 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, showing distinctive wear to one or more convex or flat surfaces. These tools were put to many uses, including removing edges between adze marks during woodworking, removing the singed hair of pigs before cooking (Buck 1957:257258, 385), bath rubbers (Brigham 1974:1718), cleaning out gourds (Handy et al. 1972:217), and as a general sandpaper (Gunness 1987:220). Buck reports several gradations of canoe rubbers based on material used: elek for those of vesicular basalt; io for those of close- or fine-grained basalt; puna for those of fine coral; ana for those of large pieces of pumice; ahi for those of dense coral reef rocks (Buck 1957:25758). Adze (complete) Tool of rock, shell, or any equally hard substance, that is longer than it is wide, with one 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 in function to an axethe difference being the bevel (working) end cross section of an adze is asymmetrical, and that of an axe is symmetrical (Cleghorn 1982:1). Adzes in Hawaii were manufactured primarily from volcanic andesite and basalt (Kirch 1985:6); raw material was procured from quarries as well as naturally occurring boulders, waterworn stones, and basalt outcrops. Adzes were hafted to wooden handles, with the cutting edge perpendicular to the plane of the handle (Buck et al. 1930:175). The adze was used in pre-Contact Hawaii for chopping trees, manufacturing canoes, and cutting and hewing all kinds of timber used in every sort of wood work (Malo 1951:51). This
269
270
Appendix A: Lithics Glossary
multipurpose tool was manufactured in many sizes, from very large heavy adzes to microadzes. The method of measuring adzes follows that of Cleghorn (1982:67). Adze blank Manufactured block or flake produced from outcrops, boulders, and cobbles (Cleghorn 1982:7). 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 also Flake, . . . with polish. Adze preform Unfinished tool where the final cross section is evident (Crabtree 1972:85). An adze preform is one stage closer to a complete adze than a blanka blank is flaked into a preform in several manufacturing steps, after which the different component parts of the adze are apparent (Cleghorn 1982:7, McCoy 1986:11). The preform becomes a completed adze after grinding and polishing. See also Preform. Anvilstone Basalt stone (usually a cobble or boulder) exhibiting a pitted, roughly circular depression on 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 a bipolar or direct rest technique (Cleghorn 1982:185). Awl Nonhafted flake or core tool that has one or more points formed by modification (reduction) of one or two adjacent edges (Clark 1979:1). Although primarily basalt, awls made from cryptocrystalline silicate (CCS), limestone, and volcanic glass have also been recorded. Awls function as gravers and perforators 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 carving images or the like (Brigham 1974:91). A chisel fragment with polish can be distinguished from an adze fragment with polish because the chisel exhibits a convex surface, the remnant of the cylindrical shape of the tool. Edge-altered flake, broken flake, or fragment A flake, broken flake, or fragment with one or more edges 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 or more surfaces with polish. These types of artifacts have been purposely removed from a tool, have broken 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 the original 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 fragments exhibiting three surfaces with polish. Coarser-grained basalt artifacts with polish include grinding stone and whetstone fragments. A flake, broken flake, or fragment with polish is distinguished from an artifact with a polished area. The term with polish represents a tool or tool fragment, whereas, the term polished represents usewear. A distinguishing characteristic of with polish is a sharp margin along the edge of the polish.
271
Grinding stone Usually a boulder or cobble that has one or more surfaces worn down primarily by the back-and-forth rubbing motion used during the creation or resharpening of stone tools (e.g., adzes, sling stones, ulu maika, etc.). Can be flat slab or area on larger boulder (Brigham 1974:1415; Gunness 1987:219). The worked surfaces become smooth, and a well-used grinding stone develops concave surfaces. Hammerstone Generally a cobble (often waterworn) of various lithic materials that was used in percussion (as opposed to pressure) manufacture of lithic tools. Displays concentrations of small indentations 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 complete artifact than a blank (Crabtree 1972:34). In general, larger than, and without the refinement of, the completed tool (Crabtree 1972:85). When referring to adzes, the term preform denotes that the final form and cross section are identifiable. Sinker A fishing accessory manufactured from vesicular basalt and other materials, including sandstone and hematite (Buck 1957:342346; Kirch 1985:204). Variations of stone sinkers include grooved, perforated, coffee-bean, bread-loaf, and plummet. The distinguishing feature of a sinker is the presence of 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 thin cylinders with rounded edges. The slightly convex side surfaces allowed the disk to travel in a straight line (Brigham 1974:69, Buck 1957:372).
LITHIC TERMINOLOGY
Anterior Top. End opposite the posterior (Crabtree 1972:34). Used with posterior to describe the opposite ends of nonflake artifacts such as poi pounders (e.g., the knobbed end, or top, of a poi pounder is 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 detached from two directions (Crabtree 1972:38). Bidirectional flaking technique is the preferred strategy during thinning and straightening of quadrangular cross section adze preforms (Cleghorn 1982:196). An examination of flake scars produced during bidirectional flaking suggests a majority will have the following characteristics: width greater than length, abrupt terminations (hinge, step), and a 90 degree platform/ventral surface angle (sheared bulb of percussion). Most likely, adze preform bidirectional flakes will have flake scars on the dorsal surface (no cortex) reflecting previous reduction during the blank stages of adze manufacture. Flakes with 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 the core with a percussor (Crabtree 1972:42). Cleghorn (1982:15253) found extensive evidence of flakes
272
with diffused bulbs of force in the early stage of adze manufacture, possibly associated with the bipolar technique. Blank A usable piece of lithic material of adequate size and form for making a lithic artifact . . . the shape or form of the final product is not disclosed in the blank (Crabtree 1972:42). The term blank identifies 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 15 inches); 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 the striking 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, and sheared (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 (Wentworth 1922:381). Core Piece of natural raw material exhibiting negative flake scars reflecting the deliberate detachment of 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 is manufactured 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 (displaying one 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 (Addington 1986:104). Cortex results from a combination of mechanical and chemical weathering. In contrast to cortex is weathering rind, which is chemical weathering of interior cracks, cleavage surfaces or former interior surfaces exposed for long periods of time. See Primary, Secondary and Tertiary flakesclassified 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 (McCoy 1991:91). Cross section provides a technique for identifying blank type. With adzes, triangular cross sections often represent adze flake blanks. Rectangular or square cross sectioned adzes were produced from 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 secondary deposits 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 contains very little quartz or silica, CCS is found in Hawaii in basalt veins and vesicles as a result of water
273
leaching silicate from the rock through time. It also appears as introduced material (e.g., gun flints and ship ballast). Debitage Residual lithic material resulting from tool manufacture (Crabtree 1972:58; Muto 1971:124). 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 (Addington 1986:105). The bevel/edge/blade portion when referring to an adze made from a flake. Same as termination end. Dorsal surface Outer surface removed from a core (cf. McCoy 1991:90). The dorsal surface of an artifact is the exterior flake face of a core prior to detachment (Crabtree 1972:59). The dorsal surface of 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 to adzes, 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. Usually adheres to the core in the bulbar scar. (Crabtree 1972:60). Exhausted Used up. Consumed (Crabtree 1972:62). Synonymous with spent; used to describe a core that has become too small to successfully detach additional flakes. Feathering, feather termination A technique producing a flake which terminates in an edge with a minimal margin. Produces blades or flakes with edges and distal ends which are very sharp (Crabtree 1972:64). Feather terminating flakes occur throughout the different stages of adze manufacture, although they are more prevalent during the earlier (blank) stages (Cleghorn 1982:156159). Flake Any piece of stone removed from a larger mass by the application of forceeither intentional, accidentally, or by nature. A portion of isotropic material having a platform and bulb of force at the proximal end (Muto 1971:124). Flake (diagnostic, complete) A flake having identifiable ventral and dorsal surfaces, and complete proximal (striking platform) and distal (termination) ends. The lateral edges (sides) may be complete or broken. Flake, bipolar Flake that results from implementing the bipolar technique. The most diagnostic result of bipolar technique is one or twin bulbs of percussion located at both proximal and distal ends. Also diagnostic 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 of the 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; one or 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.
274
Flake, primary Flake bearing 90 to 100% cortex on the dorsal surface. This is a flake removed early in 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 of percussion (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 not exhibit general flake characteristics at the macroscopic level. Gabbro Coarse-grained igneous rock, similar to basalt, composed mainly of plagioclase feldspar and pyroxene, often with olivine (Macdonald and Abbott 1974:111). Gabbro and Hawaiite are described as having a salt and pepper appearance. Hinge fracture A fracture that terminates the flake at right angles to the longitudinal axis and the break 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 the environment in which it is found. Manuports were brought onto the site either inadvertently, for spiritual 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 striking platform. Width Measurement taken by rotating the artifact 90 from the longitudinal plane (maximum length) (Y axis). Flake artifact width is the maximum dimension perpendicular to the length. Thickness Greatest vertical measurement (Z axis). Flake artifact thickness is a dorsal/ventral measurement taken as a maximum depth measured perpendicular to the general plane of percussion.
Microscar A small flake scar. Microscars can be produced during use of a lithic tool. Microscars also result from spontaneous retouch (occurring at the same time that the flake is removed from a core) or natural causes. The location and description of the microscars can sometimes be used to suggest a cultural or natural origin. Multidirectional flake scars The result of flaking from more than one direction (see also Schousboe
275
et al. 1983:363). Pebble A rock 0.40 to 6.40 cm (approximately .25 to 2.5 inches) in length, following the Wentworth scale (Wentworth 1922:381). Platform The table, or surface area, receiving the force necessary to detach a flake. Can be either natural or prepared (Muto 1971:125). Prepared platforms exhibit grinding, polishing, faceting, or beveling on the end to receive the force that strengthens the platform, allowing a larger flake to be removed (Crabtree 1972:84). Polish The sheen of polish on an artifact develops in two ways. Polish develops on a plane surface by deliberate or unintentional abrasion of an object with another object of equal or greater density. Polish also 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 (Addington 1986), and striking platform. This is opposite the distal end. Retouching A technique used to thin, straighten, sharpen, smooth, and make the artifact more regular in 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 through the gradual removal of fine particles or single grains (Brink 1978:47). Rounding is characteristic of use. 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 of truncation. 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 occur when 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). Techniques may be used to manufacture different desired terminations. Feathering creates a sharp end with a limited margin, while other techniques produce abrupt terminations known as hinge, reverse hinge, step, and snap fractures (Crabtree 1972:92). Some snapping may be unintentional, but it is difficult to distinguish between 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 against another 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).
276
Polished flakes, broken flakes, fragments, or other forms of basalt artifacts will characteristically have a 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 core and, as a result, has (or once had) a bulb of percussion. It is the opposite of dorsal surface (Addington 1986:110). Weathering rind Weathering formed on interior surfaces. See also Cortex. Weathered surface Surface that was once interior, since exposed and subjected to weathering processes.
EXPERIMENTAL MICROARTIFACT ANALYSES, SITE 4483

Frank R. Thomas Jahn E. Van Brunt
APPENDIX B
eature 32 (see Figure 3.2) is a collection of 92 traditional lithic artifacts recovered from the grubbed road surface on the south ridge of Site 4483. The two roads involved here were graded to 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 to whether 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 was carried out from 22 October to 10 December 1992, and focused upon three objectives: 1) to locate and identify microartifacts within the site area; 2) to correlate the distribution and provenience of microartifacts with macroartifacts to provide supplementary (and we hoped, complementary) data; and 3) to enhance our understanding of the applicability and the feasibility of this type of analysis in Hawaiian 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-inch and 1/8-inch [6-mm and 3-mm] mesh. Layer designations and soil descriptions correspond to those found throughout the site (Table B-1). Cultural material recovered from this unit included: one basalt flake from Layer I; one piece of historic glass, one basalt fragment, one edge-altered basalt flake, one fragment of volcanic glass, and
277
278
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 I Thickness (cm) .51.5 Description Very dark grayish brown (10YR 3/2, moist) silt; strong, medium, granular structure; friable when moist, slightly sticky and nonplastic when wet; common, fine roots; few, very fine, vesicular pores; small flecks of charcoal; abrupt, wavy boundary. 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 basalt fragments; abrupt, wavy boundary. 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, vesicular pores; charcoal; abrupt, wavy boundary. Dark yellowish brown (10YR 3/4, moist) silty clay; moderate, angular blocky, very fine to fine structure; very firm when moist, very sticky and very plastic when wet; few, fine roots; few, fine, vesicular pores; no cultural material.
IIa
20
IIb
1013
III
+15
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 can be traced to Fladmarks (1982) efforts in reconstructing lithic reduction systems. His ground-breaking research not only resulted in the delineation of activity areas, but also provided a line of evidence concerning postdepositional disturbance. The guiding principle behind this avenue of research is the fact that microdebitage (i.e., one of the forms of primary refuse left over from lithic reduction activities) is not likely to be cleaned away or removed. More likely these sand-sized particles become trampled into the dirt by normal foot traffic. Thus, even when the tools and the larger debitage associated with their manufacture 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 relationship to 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 on a presence/absence basis. Microartifacts are defined as traces of human activity (artifacts and byproducts) with a diameter of 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).
279
Theoretically, artifacts are detectable to ionic sizes, as in concentrations of culturally deposited phosphorus. However, in light of the difficulties in identifying distinctive physical properties for both fine 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 from all 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 indicative of either the primary depositional nature of the site (i.e., nondisturbed, and thus cultural) or the secondary nature of the deposits (i.e., disturbed, possibly being the result of recent construction activities).
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, avoiding layer boundaries. Excavation notes provided the information for the layer designations. After cleaning the west wall, approximately 35 ml of soil were collected for each sample and stored in a plastic photographic 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 entitled Microartifact Project.
LABORATORY PROCEDURES
The collected soil samples were taken to the laboratory and air-dried in clean paper bags. It was noted that soil aggregates remained, which required further processing time. The additional processing included 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 and clays from the samples followed. This was achieved through wet-sieving, which involved pouring the samples into a series of nested geological screens attached to a portable shaker. Each sample was processed for 15 minutes. Particles remaining in the coarsest screen (2 mm or -1 phi) were examined for 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 graph paper attached beneath at the base. The use of a Petri dish is preferred over a glass slide with doublesided tape, for the latter does not permit the manipulation of individual grains required for making detailed observations. All grains were counted on a wide focus 10X stereo microscope to determine quantitatively the relative abundance of various compositional classes (cf., Galehouse 1971:390).
280
Examined materials were labelled with dots on the individual vials, and placed in paper bags. Although this method may not permit as easy access to the data as does the use of slides, the potential to damage artifacts 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 proceeded according to compositional class. Stein and Telster (1989:11) found that a density of about 100 grains/1 cm2 was the maximum that could be accurately counted. Samples containing compositional classes of interest, such as charcoal, volcanic glass, post-Contact glass, or shell, as well as questionable materials were 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 in the 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 cumulative percentages of each compositional type should be calculated. When the cumulative percentages of all compositional types are within .1% of the respective previous cumulative percents, statistical redundancy is reached and counting may cease (Madsen 1992:198199). Several more lots of 100 particles 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, was indeed identified at the micro level (see Table B-2 for specific percentages). Included was: 1) historical glass recovered from Layers I and IIa; 2) volcanic glass recovered from Layer IIb; and 3) charcoal recovered from Layers I, IIa, and III. All of the cultural material identified at the micro level correlates with the cultural material recovered at the macro level, namely, charcoal being present throughout all layers, with historic glass being found in the more recently deposited stratigraphic horizons (i.e., Layers I 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 was found that both the volcanic glass core and the volcanic glass fragment (Artifacts 50-Oa-G5-152-293 and 50-Oa-G5-152-294, respectively) were recovered from Layer IIa, whereas the evidence on the micro level for volcanic glass was recovered from Layer IIb. This supports the original line of reasoning and principle behind the study of microartifactsthat it is likely the microdebitage was literally trampled into 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 Layer III had been found at the termination of excavation. However, microanalysis later showed that charcoal was indeed present, further helping us in our understanding of human occupation of the site.
281
Table B-2. Contents of Soil Samples from Unit 49, Site 4483*
Layer I I I IIa IIa IIb III
*
Type Seed Charcoal Historical Glass Charcoal Historical Glass Volcanic Glass Charcoal 1 1 1
Depth cmbs
0 phi .17 .33 .67 .50
1 phi
2 phi .29 .29
11 14 25 35
1.60 .50
.33 .25 .07 .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 identified as Feature 32 were not the result of recent construction activities, but were the remains of cultural activity left undisturbed until the present time. To conclude, the experimental microartifact analysis conducted indicates that this type of study is both feasible and applicable to Hawaiian and Pacific archaeology, 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 conducted in the Hawaiian Islands, in particular, offers the archaeologist no sequence of metallurgy for comparisons, no terra cotta figurines to identify, and no ceramics to piece together and place in seriation. In short, the avenues of research currently available are limited. The fact that the study of microartifacts opens a new avenue for researchers to further study and interpret prehistory is pertinent not 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 Petri dishes, and containers previously used for other purposes should be avoided, as information can be lost or inadvertently added (a random check of empty, but previously used, film canisters confirmed the presence of residual marine shell fragments); 2) Air-drying prior to wet-sieving is not recommended. All samples should be processed while moist to facilitate the breakdown of particles; 3) A peptizing solution should be used to prevent clays from flocculating. Distilled water is also preferred to tap water; 4) Some particles (e.g., charcoal) tend to fragment as they are being manipulated, thus skewing results. Careful handling of the samples after processing should minimize further biases; 5) In an environment where silt and clay-sized particles abound, larger samples (greater than 35 ml) should be taken to obtain a sufficient number of sand-sized particles for statistically valid results.
IMMUNOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF ARTIFACTS FROM SITE 4483

Margaret Newman
APPENDIX C
ecent studies have demonstrated that lithic artifacts often retain traces of organic residue resulting 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 animal of origin can be identified to at least the family level of identity. This information can be used in the reconstruction of prehistoric subsistence patterns, and possibly in identifying artifacts used for specific tasks. Immunological tests have been used for many years to characterize bloodstains in medicolegal work. Since the introduction of the precipitin test for the medicolegal identification of bloodstains at the turn of the century (Culliford 1964; Gaensslen 1983), several new techniques have been introduced. However, the basis of all subsequent immunological tests remains the antigenantibody reaction first observed in the classic precipitin test (Gaensslen 1983:53). The successful identification of residues by this method is dependent upon the amount and condition of antigen retained in the stain. However, forensic studies have demonstrated that blood proteins can generally withstand 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 extremely effective 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 is based on the work of Culliford (1964), with minor changes made following the methods of the Royal
283
284
Appendix C: Immunological Analysis of Artifacts from Site 4483
Canadian Mounted Police Serology Laboratory, Ottawa (Royal Canadian Mounted Police 1983), and the Centre of Forensic Sciences, Toronto. The test is extremely sensitive and can detect 10-8gm of protein (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. Because contaminants in the soil, such as bacteria, tannic acid, and iron chlorates, may result in nonspecific precipitation 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 hydroxide solution. 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 Cleevely 1969). The artifacts were placed in shallow plastic dishes, and 0.5 cc of the 5% ammonia solution applied with a syringe and needle. Initial disaggregation of residue is carried out by floating the plastic dish and its contents in an ultrasonic cleaning bath for two to three minutes. Extraction is continued by placing the boat and contents on a rotating mixer for 30 minutes. The resulting ammonia solution is removed with a pipette, placed in a numbered plastic vial, and refrigerated prior to further testing. Approximately 1 ml of Tris buffer (pH 8.0) was added to the soil samples, mixed well, and allowed to extract for 24 hours at 4oC to prevent bacterial contamination. The resulting supernatant fluid 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 a nonimmunized animal). A positive result against preimmune serum could arise from nonspecific protein interaction not based on the immunological specificity of the antibody (i.e., nonspecific precipitation). No positive results were obtained. All artifact samples were then tested against the antisera 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 anti-dog anti-pig anti-chicken anti-rat anti-mouse anti-human anti-duck anti-fern anti-shark anti-sturgeon Source Organon\Teknika Forensic medicine Forensic medicine Forensic medicine Forensic medicine Forensic medicine Nordic immunological University of Calgary Dr. J. Lowenstein Dr. J. Lowenstein
Except where noted, the animal antisera used in this analysis are primarily obtained from commercial sources, and are developed specifically for use in forensic medicine. These antisera are polyclonal, that is, they recognize epitopes shared by closely related species. For example, the antiserum 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
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 classification scheme 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-G5-15223 172 26 27 Flake, basalt Flake with polish, basalt Micro-adze, basalt Artifact Type Adze fragment, basalt Result pig pig dog fern
Positive reactions to pig antiserum were obtained on two artifacts. These results imply the processing 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 previously discussed, any member of the Canidae family may be represented by these results. Cross-reactions with other families are not known to occur. A positive reaction to fern antiserum was obtained on one other artifact, a micro-adze. This antiserum was raised against bracken fern (Pteridium spp.), and will elicit positive reactions with all members of that family. The absence of identifiable proteins on the other six artifacts may be due to poor preservation of protein, or to the possibility that the artifacts were used on species other than those covered by the antisera. It is also possible that the artifacts were not utilized.
APPENDIX D
GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ARTIFACTS COLLECTED AT SITE 4483

Kevin Johnson
ight samples of basaltic rock and volcanic glass were selected for geochemical analysis to determine 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 from the artifact for microanalysis. The samples were analyzed by either X-ray fluorescence (XRF), following procedures 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 a representative analysis from Waihole (Oahu) 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 those of 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 components analysis, along with comparison plots of representative elements, artifact provenance was assigned. Because of insufficient geological sample coverage for some volcanoes, determination of precise sources within a volcano is not always possible. However, in some cases it is, and these are shown in the 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 compositional range. Based on geochemistry alone, the samples consistently plot in well-defined fields for Oahu volcanoes. Four of the samples, 65, 108, 175, and 205, are probably from the east-central Koolau Range and show similarities to samples from the Waihole Quarry. Samples 171, 209, 213, and 260 plot within the broad range of Waianae lavas, but their precise provenance is uncertain. While there is some overlap with data from other Hawaiian volcanoes in some projections, this is not systematic, and it is most probable that the rocks are from Oahu.
287
288
Appendix D: Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483
Table D-1. Geochemical Composition of Artifacts, Site 4483

Sample G5-15265 SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MnO MgO CaO Na2O K2O P2O5 LOI Total Zn Cu Ni Co Mn Cr V Sr Y Zr Nb U Rb Th Pb La Ce Nd Sm Dy Er Yb 9.0 23.7 15.3 4.2 3.8 2.2 1.8 3.13 7.2 19.8 13.6 3.6 3.1 1.8 1.5 4.4 13.2 10.3 2.9 2.7 1.7 1.3 1.7 7.3 50.42 2.26 15.70 12.23 0.14 6.39 9.78 2.52 0.20 0.32 0.02 99.98 116 79 119 53 1095 211 282 463 60 167 13.3 108 51.73 2.18 13.94 11.85 0.15 6.97 9.85 2.57 0.53 0.30 0.07 100.14 104 123 101 63 1129 284 258 401 27 161 17.8 243 234 313 16 147 11.4 2.20 171 175 51.99 2.36 14.04 11.05 0.14 5.75 9.58 2.67 0.41 0.39 1.77 100.16 106 93 78 53 1081 158 289 594 25 189 16.5 1.7 14 24 210 223 270 15 130 11.0 424 293 278 12 128 10.4 99.63 205 52.62 1.94 14.21 11.38 0.14 6.69 9.30 2.62 0.48 0.27 1.83 2.13 209 213 260 52.14 2.50 14.00 11.18 0.14 5.68 9.23 2.92 0.59 0.39 1.30 100.07 108 108 81 56 1063 159 290 537 27 194 17.2 226 265 441 24 160 10 <2 10 <2 <2 Waihole Quarry 53.01 2.14 13.88 11.21 0.14 6.54 9.10 2.65 0.72 0.32 0.54 100.25 102 111 125
Major Elements (weight percent)
Trace Elements (ppm)
Appendix D: Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483
289
Table D-2. Probable Source Area for Artifacts, Site 4483

Sample G5-152 65 108 171 175 205 209 213 260 Source Area Koolau Range, probably east-central Koolau Range, probably east-central Waianae Range Koolau Range, probably east-central Koolau Range, probably east-central Waianae Range Waianae Range Waianae Range
INVENTORY OF LITHICS FROM UNITS AND AUGER BORES, SITE 4483

Mary Riford
APPENDIX E
Table E-1. Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483*
Unit 1 Layer/ Level IIa III Fe. 4 I Material volcanic glass basalt basalt basalt volcanic glass Fe. 2 II 3 4 6 7 IIa IIb II II/1 basalt basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass basalt volcanic glass basalt Specimen debitage flake with polish debitage edge-altered flake edge-altered flake, brkn. debitage debitage debitage ulu maika/hammerstone debitage debitage debitage debitage adze flake with polish debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage Notes flake 1 brkn. fl., 1 frag. Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-15260 375 Lot 150 63 62 Lot 17 25 64 65 78 61 Lot 20 77 27 26 67 66 Lot 18 68 69 70 28 163 236 Count 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
II/2
volcanic glass basalt
volcanic glass
*
frags. flake; negative CIEP results brkn. fl. vesicular; sourced to Koolau Range frag. flake flakes frag. positive CIEP results positive CIEP results flake brkn. fl. 1 flake, 1 brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. flake; negative CIEP results frag.
From transect/auger bores south of Unit 14.
291
292
Appendix E: Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483
Unit 8
Layer/ Level II/1
Material basalt
Specimen debitage debitage edge-altered flake
Notes brkn. fl. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. positive CIEP results brkn. fl. dike rock frag. flake frag. flake flake flake flake; negative CIEP results frag.; negative CIEP results flake frag.
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-15271 Lot 19 172 72 73 74 75 76 79 80 242 364 363 165 81 82 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 10 22 7 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 13 6 3 2 8 10
volcanic glass II/2 basalt
debitage debitage debitage debitage
volcanic glass 9 IIa/2 basalt volcanic glass
core debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
IIb 14 grubbed surface IIa
basalt volcanic glass basalt basalt
debitage debitage adze blank adze fragment flake with polish debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
blade end frag. 6 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. 4 flakes; 3 brkn. fls. 6 flakes; 4 brkn. fls. 10 flakes; 10 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. 2 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.
211 381 Lot 100 Lot 107 Lot 115 Lot 121 Lot 127 Lot 113 204 Lot 21 Lot 132 389 206 86
volcanic glass
cores core cores core edge-altered frag. edge-altered flake edge-altered frag. debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage 1 flake; 2 brkn. fls. brkn. fl. 7 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. 5 flakes; 1 frag. 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. frags. 4 flakes; 4 brkn. fls. 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 5 frags.
Lot 93 87 Lot 101 Lot 106 Lot 114 Lot 123 Lot 126 Lot 132
293
Unit 14
Layer/ Level IIb
Material basalt
Specimen chisel flake with polish flake with polish flake with polish debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
Notes polished; sourced to Waianae Range
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-152213 201 384 386 1 1 1 1 1 14 13 4 1 8 12 4 1 3 1 1 1 1 27 20 40 17 22 2 1 1 5 2 2 1 1 3 5 3 6
flake 7 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. 8 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. 1 flake; 3 brkn. fls. flake 5 flakes; 3 brkn. fls. 6 flakes; 6 brkn. fls. sourced to Koolau Range
83 Lot 104 Lot 108 Lot 128 207 Lot 120 Lot 122 Lot 102 205 Lot 117 208 Lot 116 212
volcanic glass
cores core cores core core edge-altered flake, brkn. edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage edge-altered flake sourced to Waianae Range 9 flakes; 11 brkn. fls.; 7 frags. 10 flakes; 8 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. 17 flakes; 14 brkn. fls.; 9 frags. 8 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. 12 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 6 frags. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.
209 Lot 109 Lot 103 Lot 118 Lot 129 Lot 124 Lot 116 210 202
III/1
basalt
flake with polish, brkn. debitage debitage 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.
Lot 112 Lot 131 Lot 110 Lot 125 203
volcanic glass
cores core edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. 4 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. 3 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 2 frags.
Lot 105 Lot 111 Lot 119 Lot 125
(continued)
294
Unit 14 15
Layer/ Level III/1 grubbed surface grubbed surface IIa IIb
Material volcanic glass volcanic glass
Specimen debitage core debitage debitage
Notes 4 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. frag. frag. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. flake flake flake flake flake flake flake flake brkn. fl. frag. flake flake flake 2 brkn. fls. frags. flake 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. frag.
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-152Lot 130 160 167 388 187 189 190 191 182 379 192 214 217 218 222 219 220 221 225 227 Lot 142 226 Lot 140 224 Lot 139 Lot 141 228 284 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 2
18
basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass basalt basalt
debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage flake with polish debitage debitage
19 20
II/2 IIa
IIb 21.2 IIa
basalt basalt volcanic glass
debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
IIb 21.6 IIa
basalt basalt
volcanic glass IIb basalt volcanic glass 25 26 28 30 31 grubbed surface Fe. 21 Fe. 23 fill grubbed surface grubbed surface IIa volcanic glass basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass volcanic glass volcanic glass
edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage edge-altered flake debitage debitage edge-altered flake debitage core debitage debitage debitage debitage flake 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 4 frags. 1 flake, 1 brkn. fl. brkn. fl. flake brkn. fl.
285 232 231 230 234 233 Lot 143 Lot 144 Lot 146
295
Unit 31
Layer/ Level IIb
Material volcanic glass
Specimen debitage debitage debitage
Notes 1 brkn. fl. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. flake frag. flake 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. frag.
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-152362 Lot 145 361 251 266 267 Lot 157 268 270 269 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1
36 37
grubbed surface grubbed surface of IIa IIa
volcanic glass basalt volcanic glass basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass
debitage debitage flake with polish debitage debitage edge-altered flake core
38 41
IIa grubbed surface of IIa IIa IIb
42
basalt basalt basalt volcanic glass basalt
flake with polish debitage debitage flake with polish debitage debitage flake with polish debitage debitage edge-altered flake brkn. fl. 7 flakes; 4 brkn. fls. flake flake brkn. fl. flake flakes 3 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. flake brkn. fl. flake
288 290 289 299 Lot 165 309 387 301 Lot 163 300 304 305 307 303 Lot 166 Lot 167 302
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1
44
surface I IIa
IIa
volcanic glass
debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
cryptocrystalline silicate IIb Fe. 35 fill 45 IIa/1 basalt basalt basalt volcanic glass
flake
debitage debitage debitage core debitage debitage debitage
1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. flake 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. flake brkn. fl. flake
Lot 164 308 Lot 159 277 278 276 365
2 1 2 1 1 1 1
(continued)
296
Unit 45 46 47 48 49
Layer/ Level IIa/2 IIa/1 IIa/1 IIa/2 I IIa/1
Material volcanic glass basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass basalt basalt volcanic glass
Specimen core debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage edge-altered flake core debitage
Notes
Artifact No. Count 50-Oa-G5-152286 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 279 Lot 160 292 18 310 295 293
1 brkn. fl. flakes flake brkn. fl. flake
flake brkn. fl. flake flake sourced to Koolau Range flake
294 312 311 313 314 175 358 355 357
49 50 51.1 51.2
IIa/2 IIa/2 IIb I IIa/1 IIb/1
basalt volcanic basalt basalt volcanic glass basalt basalt basalt basalt
debitage debitage edge-altered flake debitage adze preform debitage edge-altered flake flake with polish, edgealtered debitage debitage flake with polish
3.1* 4.5
*
IIa IIb IIb
flake flake
185 186 223
5.5*
INVENTORY OF LITHICS FROM FEATURE 13 GRIDS, SITE 4483
APPENDIX F
Mary Riford
Table F-1. Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Grubbed Surface Collections Layer II/III, Site 50-80-10-4483
Grid 1 Material basalt Specimen adze blank adze fragment adze fragment edge-altered flake flaked cobble hammerstone hammerstone fragment debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage volcanic glass core edge-altered flake edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage 1.1 basalt edge-altered flake adze blank flake with polish flake 6 flakes; 3 frags. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. 7 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. flakes flakes 3 flakes; 6 brkn. fls. brkn. fl. flake core frag. fragment with negative scars modified flake positive CIEP results Notes Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152101 23 102 99 98 97 183 Lot 77 Lot 91 Lot 25 100 92 94 95 96 93 Lot 24 Lot 92 Lot 73 Lot 89 89 374 195 Count 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 2 15 2 1 1 1
297
298
Appendix F: Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Site 4483
Grid 1.1
Material basalt
Specimen debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
Notes 3 flakes; 1 frag. brkn. fl. flake 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. secondary brkn. fl. flake 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. secondary flake 1 flake; 2 frags.
Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152Lot 79 193 166 Lot 74 Lot 23 90 91 194 Lot 26 Lot 26 Lot 86 103 104 184 Lot 88 109 106 107
Count 4 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 4 1 9 1 1 2 6 47 6 3 1 3 3 1 4 1 26 15 1 1 1
volcanic glass
core debitage debitage
basalt
core debitage debitage
volcanic glass
core core debitage debitage
basalt
adze fragment edge-altered flake edge-altered flake grinding stone fragment debitage debitage sourced to Koolau Range 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. brkn. fl.
108 Lot 27 117 Lot 36 115 116
volcanic glass
cores edge-altered flake edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. 5 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. 18 flakes; 14 brkn. fls.; 15 frags. 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl. flake
Lot 78 Lot 134 Lot 37 Lot 28 Lot 29 179 Lot 30 Lot 149 196
basalt
debitage debitage debitage
volcanic glass
cores cores core cores edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage 19 flakes; 4 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. 6 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. flake flake brkn. fl. 1 fragmentary
Lot 84 110 Lot 31 Lot 80 240 241 Lot 181
299
Grid 4 5
Material volcanic glass basalt
Specimen debitage core pebble tool hammerstone/abrader debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
Notes 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. with multiple grooves 2 flakes; 2 frags. 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. flake flake brkn. fl. brkn. fls.
Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152Lot 95 114 113 112 Lot 35 Lot 34 173 188 215 Lot 137 Lot 32 Lot 33 271 Lot 136 111
Count 7 1 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 34 1 14 9 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 2 14 49
volcanic glass
cores cores core core edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage 13 flakes; 6 brkn. fls.; 15 frags. flake 3 flakes; 7 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. 6 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. tabular piece 5 flakes; 3 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. frag.
Lot 33 174 Lot 136 Lot 135 124 123 Lot 39 239 125 119 272 238 197
basalt
hammerstone hammerstone debitage debitage debitage
volcanic glass
core core core core core core edge-altered flake edge-altered fragment edge-altered flake edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage 5 flakes; 6 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. 1 flake; 1 frag. 5 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 4 frags. 23 flakes; 6 brkn. fls.; 20 frags. frag.
237 Lot 38 198 122 120 121 Lot 96 Lot 148 Lot 85 Lot 38
(continued)
300
Grid 6
Material volcanic glass
Specimen debitage debitage debitage flake
Notes
Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152273 Lot 138 Lot 147 126 Lot 40 356 127 274 Lot 41 176 257 Lot 133 367 199 135 385
Count 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 30 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 9 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 48 123 1 6
2 flakes; 1 frag. 2 brkn. fls. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. flake flake 10 flakes; 11 brkn. fls.; 9 frags. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. brkn. fl. flakes
basalt
edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage
volcanic glass
core fragment debitage debitage debitage debitage
basalt
edge-altered flake edge-altered flake, brkn. flake with polish flake with polish debitage debitage debitage 4 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. flake 1 flake; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag.
Lot 44 216 Lot 82 Lot 43 Lot 48 Lot 42 235 360 131 132 129 130 134 133 128 256
volcanic glass
cores cores core core edge-altered flake edge-altered flake, brkn. edge-altered flake edge-altered flake edge-altered flake edge-altered flake edge-altered flake edge-altered flake, brkn. edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage frag. 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. 17 flakes; 12 brkn. fls.; 19 frags. 48 flakes; 27 brkn. fls.; 48 frags. flake 1 brkn. fl.; 5 frags.
366 Lot 97 Lot 83 Lot 42 291 Lot 47
basalt
debitage debitage
301
Grid 9
Material volcanic glass cores
Specimen
Notes
Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152Lot 45 136
Count 2 1 18 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 32 29 90 1 3 1 5 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 16 1 1 1
edge-altered frag. debitage debitage 10 basalt adze blank flake with polish, brkn. flake with polish flake with polish edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage volcanic glass cores core core edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage 11 basalt volcanic glass 12 basalt volcanic glass debitage debitage core debitage edge-altered flake debitage cores edge-altered flake, brkn. edge-altered flake edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage 13 basalt edge-altered flake edge-altered flake hammerstone discoid flake brkn. fls. 8 flakes; 7 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. frag. 2 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. 12 flakes; 8 brkn. fls.; 12 frags. 11 flakes; 12 brkn. fls.; 6 frags. 41 flakes; 27 brkn. fls.; 22 frags. frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl.; 1 frag. flakes flake flake brkn. fl. 7 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 10 frags. 2 flakes; 1 frag. very battered
Lot 46 Lot 90 138 372 373 380 Lot 49 Lot 49 Lot 99 180 317 250 Lot 50 Lot 98 Lot 51 181 Lot 87 Lot 98 Lot 51 139 Lot 54 Lot 52 Lot 53 141 142 Lot 55 315 143 140 316 Lot 94 Lot 56 145 144 146
(continued)
302
Grid 14
Material basalt
Specimen anvil/hammerstone core edge-altered flake, brkn. edge-altered flake debitage debitage flake
Notes elongated cobble
Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152147 85 318 148 84 Lot 58 Lot 57 Lot 59 150 149 Lot 81 156 155
Count 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 5 2 1 1 13 9 5 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 11 5 3 1 3
3 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. 2 flakes; 2 frags. battered flakes
volcanic glass 15 16 basalt basalt volcanic glass 17 basalt volcanic glass 18 basalt volcanic glass
debitage debitage adze edge-altered flake debitage adze fragment core debitage adze debitage cores core edge-altered flake debitage debitage
2 flakes; 1 frag. sourced to Waianae Range 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. fragment of core tool frags. 2 flakes; 5 brkn. fls.; 2 frags. 2 flakes; 1 brkn. fl.; 2 frags. frags. 4 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. with groove and polish brkn. fls. frag. brkn. fls. flake 4 flakes; 2 brkn. fls.; 5 frags. 2 brkn. fls.; 3 frags. flakes brkn. fl. 1 flake; 2 brkn. fls.
Lot 63 171 Lot 68 Lot 66 162 161 Lot 65 Lot 67 Lot 71 Lot 70 Lot 69 158 159 Lot 64 Lot 64 243 390 Lot 60 152 Lot 61 154 Lot 62 Lot 22 Lot 76 88 Lot 75
19
basalt volcanic glass
debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage core debitage debitage waterworn pebble tool debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
20
basalt volcanic glass volcanic glass
22
23
24 25
volcanic glass basalt volcanic glass
SUMMARY OF LITHICS FROM FEATURE 32, SITE 4483
APPENDIX G
Mary Riford
Table G-1. Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Grubbed Surface Collections (Layer II, Outside Units), Site 4483
Material basalt adze frag. adze preform awl hammerstone grinding stone grinding stone edge-altered flake, brkn. edge-altered flake flake with polish, brkn. flake with polish flake with polish flake with polish debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage frag. flake brkn. fl. flakes 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. 1 flake; 1 frag flakes flakes brkn. fl. brkn. fl. rounded, polished point pitted areas on large, waterworn pebble frag. frag. Specimen Notes cutting edge; sourced to Waianae Range Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152 260 263 391 321 258 264 333 352 261 262 371 383 245 248 382 Lot 151 Lot 154 Lot 155 Lot 156 Lot 158 280 282 Count 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 12 3 1 1
303
304
Appendix G: Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Site 4483
Material basalt debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage
Specimen 3 flakes; 2 brkn. fls. flake flake flake. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. 2 brkn. fls.; 1 frag. flake flake flakes brkn. fl. flake
Notes
Artifact No. 50-Oa-G5-152 Lot 161 320 325 326 327 328 329 Lot 168 330 332 Lot 169 334 335 336 337 338 Lot 170 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 Lot 171 348 349 350 Lot 172 353 378 322 331 323 351 229 324
Count 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
brkn. fl.; fire-affected? flake flake flakes brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. brkn. fl. frag. frag. brkn. fl. flakes flake flake frag. 1 flake; 1 brkn. fl. flake frag. secondary brkn. fl. frag. frag. frag.
edge-altered flake debitage debitage debitage flake with polish debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage debitage volcanic glass core core debitage debitage debitage debitage
STRATIGRAPHIC POLLEN ANALYSIS AT SITE 4483

Linda Scott Cummings
APPENDIX H
METHODOLOGY
The organic-rich clay samples were placed in a solution of sodium hexametaphosphate to disaggregate the clays and liberate the organics, including pollen. Lycopodium tablets were added to the samples at this stage, after which the samples were screened through 150-micron mesh. After the samples had been rinsed and the majority of the clay removed, small quantities of hydrochloric acid 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 inorganics in the same sample. This step was repeated using two separate applications of zinc bromide at a density of 2.0. The organic matter recovered during this separation was retained, rinsed, and centrifuged. All samples received a short (10 minutes) treatment in hot hydrofluoric acid to remove inorganic particles. The samples were then acetolated for five minutes to remove organic matter. The samples were examined microscopically at this time, and a single reference slide was made. The samples were then acetolated for an additional five minutes to remove more of the voluminous organic matter present. The samples were processed at an elevation of 5,400 famsl, where the acetolysis 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 rinse to 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 glycerol to facilitate counting. A light microscope was used to count the pollen to a total of 100 to 200 pollen grains at a magnification of 500X. Pollen preservation in these samples varied from good to poor. Comparative reference material collected at Bishop Museum Herbarium was used to identify the pollen to the family, genus, and species level, where possible.
305
Figure H-1. Pollen diagram of Site 4483.
Appendix H: Stratigraphic Pollen Analysis at Site 4483
307
Pollen aggregates were recorded during identification of the pollen. Aggregates are clumps of 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 of aggregates 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 vegetation in the vicinity of the site includes weeds, grasses, vines, and banana (Mary Riford, personal communication, 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
Sample No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Layer IIa IIa IIa/IIb IIb III III Sample Depth (cmbs) 10 20 23 28 35 43 Dark brown silty clay/Charcoal Dark yellowish-brown silty clay/No cultural materials Dark yellowish-brown silty clay/No cultural materials Description/ Cultural materials Dark brown silty clay/Volcanic glass fragments, basalt, charcoal, postContact glass fragments Dark brown silty clay/Volcanic glass fragments, basalt, charcoal, postContact glass fragments Pollen Count 200 200 200 100 71 Insuff
The pollen record indicates that, for the time period represented by the strata sampled, this area supported a variety of Cyperaceae (sedges), Poaceae (grasses), and ferns (Table H-2). This vegetation, whether locally abundant or covering a relatively large area, would have resulted in a relatively open appearance. There is evidence in the pollen record of a variety of trees growing either sparsely within the area dominated by grasses, sedges, and ferns, or as a more densely forested area surrounding an opening. Shrubs are also noted. Vegetation is noted to have changed through time at this site. Layer III is represented by pollen recovered from sample 5. Sample 6 exhibited too few pollen to provide a statistically accurate count, and the pollen that were present exhibited severe erosion and deterioration, making identification nearly impossible. Local trees and shrubs in Layer III included Araliaceae, Myrsine, Pandanus, Pelea, Cyrtandra, Euphorbia, and Scaevola. These trees and shrubs are typical of expected vegetation on the windward side of Oahu. The presence of a small quantity of Schinus pollen 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
Table H-2. Pollen Types Observed in Samples from Site 4483

Scientific Name TREES: Araliaceae cf. Tetraplasandra Casuarina Myrtaceae Myrsine Pandanus tectorius Pelea sandwicensis Pritchardia Reynoldsia sandwicensis Rhamnaceae Colubrina Schinus Xanthoxylum SHRUBS: Cheno-ams Cyrtandra Euphorbia Scaevola HERBS: Low-spine Asteraceae High-spine Asteraceae Liguliflorae Pilea Rumex Stenogyne Cordyline fruticosa GRASSES: Cyperaceae Poaceae STARCHES: Poaceae-type starch Hollow starch Irregular starch Dot starch Sedge family Grass family x x x x x x Ti, k x Curly or yellow dock, bitter dock Sunflower family, includes ragweed, and others Sunflower family, includes Bidens Sunflower family, Lactuceae tribe x x x x x x x x x x x x Goosefoot family and pigweed (amaranth) Haiwale, kanawao keokeo Spurge, kaliko, Mexican fireplant, wild poinsettia Naupaka, naupaka kuahiwi, ohe naupaka, huahekili, naupaka kai x x x x x x x Loulu palm Ohe, ohe kukulueo, ohe makai, ohekai Buckthorn family napanapa, kauila napanapa Christmasberry Ae, mnele, heae, kwau, kwau kua kuku kapa, prickly ash x x x Ginseng family Oheohe, ohe mauka Australian pine Myrtle family Myrsine Hala, p hala x x x x x x x x x x x x x Common Name Native Polynesia Endemic Indigenous
309
Scientific Name SPORES: Monolete bumpy Monolete smooth Lycopodium sp. Lycopodium cernuum Cibotium Trilete smooth Trilete spiny
Common Name
Native Polynesia Endemic Indigenous
x Tree fern
Information from Wagner et al. (1990).
Table H-3. Pollen Counts from Site 4483

Sample Scientific Name TREES: Araliaceae cf. Tetraplasandra Casuarina Myrtaceae Myrsine Pandanus tectorius Pelea sandwicensis Pritchardia Reynoldsia sandwicensis Rhamnaceae Colubrina Schinus Xanthoxylum SHRUBS: Cheno-ams Cyrtandra Euphorbia Scaevola HERBS: Low-spine Asteraceae High-spine Asteraceae Liguliflorae Pilea Rumex Stenogyne Cordyline fruticosa 1.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1 2 3 4 5
(continued)
310
Sample Scientific Name GRASSES: Cyperaceae Poaceae STARCHES: Indeterminate Poaceae-type starch Hollow starch Irregular starch Dot starch SPORES: Monolete bumpy Monolete smooth Lycopodium sp. Lycopodium cernuum Control Lycopodium Cibotium Trilete smooth Trilete spiny 0.0 85.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 110.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 177.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 38.0 0.0 0.0 52.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 31.0 15.0 0.0 264.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 7.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.0 2.0 9.0 2.0 6.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 112.0 42.0 106.0 85.0 74.0 34.0 43.0 24.0 24.0 1 2 3 4 5
forested areas in this vicinity. Cyperaceae and Poaceae pollen dominate the record, indicating that at 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 this area. The combined pollen record suggests scattered forests here, with abundant grasses, sedges, and ferns as the understory. Strata IIb and IIa are similar to one another, both being dark brown silty clays containing charcoal. In addition, Layer IIa contained volcanic glass and basalt fragments and pieces of postContact glass. Pollen sample 4, from the lower portion of Layer IIb, exhibits many similarities to Layer III. The Cyperaceae, Poaceae, and monolete smooth spores remain relatively unchanged in abundance. Cyrtandra is no longer present in the vegetation, and there is no further evidence of Araliaceae, Myrsine, or Scaevola. Asteraceae, including both Low-spine and High-spine, enter the record at this point, as does Cordyline. The interface between Layers IIa and IIb is represented by pollen sample 3. This sample exhibits the first presence of Myrtaceae pollen, the presence of Colubrina, and the first presence of Cheno-am pollen. Cordyline continues in the pollen record and monolete smooth fern spores are very abundant. This transitional sample also exhibits evidence of a variety of starch granules, including those attributable to grasses (Poaceae-type starch) and a starch that, as yet, cannot be attributable to any roots or seeds (hollow starch). This hollow starch exhibits an apparent depression in the hilum area, but no clear hilum; an additional starch recovered has a very irregular shape and exhibits a central hilum with no fissures. Also found is a dot starch, which has a more regular, almost circular shape, and exhibits a central hilum, again with no fissures. This latter starch type is recorded in grass seeds, and is reported in nongrass roots. At present, it is not possible to 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
311
contact between Layers IIa and IIb. The processing of grass seed is a possible activity, because both starch granules with central hila and dot starches are typical of starch granules produced by grass seeds. 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 1 in 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 decline in sample 2, then disappears from the record in sample 1. This may be the result of post-Contact forest clearing activities in the area. With the exception of Pandanus and Myrtaceae pollen, pollen evidence from trees declines in the upper post-Contact portion of the record. It appears that conditions for continued abundance of the vine Stenogyne deteriorated in the upper portion of this stratigraphic record. Sample 2, representing the lower portion of Layer IIa, exhibits the greatest variety of tree and herb pollen, including Tetraplasandra, Casuarina (an exotic tree), Myrtaceae, Pandanus, Pritchardia, Reynoldsia, Rhamnaceae, High-spine Asteraceae, Pilea, Rumex, and Stenogyne. 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 between Layer III and Layer IIa, grasses, sedges, and ferns were relatively abundant, with grasses increasing in dominance in Layer IIa, and sedges and ferns decreasing. Initially, they may have occurred as a dense understory in an area that supported sparse forest, or as clearings between areas that were more densely forested. The presence of Stenogyne pollen throughout most of the record indicates that vines were once very abundant in this area and were probably most abundant in the lower portion of Layer IIb. 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, Pelea sandwicensis, Pritchardia, Reynoldsia, Rhamnaceae, and Colubrina. Trees of the Myrtaceae family have 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 have been relatively abundant shrubs in this area at one time, but disappeared as part of the local vegetation after Layer III. Members of the High-spine Asteraceae group have also increased slightly in abundance near the present. Cordyline appears to have been introduced or grown in this area during Layer IIb, but did not survive much past the transition to Layer IIa. Recovery of a variety of starch granules at the interface of Layers IIb and IIa suggests the possibility that this locality may have been used for agriculture or food processing at the time represented. Identification of the specific crops is not yet possible because two of the starches cannot be associated with probable groups of foods, and dot starch cannot be identified as associated with a single specific food because this morphology is noted in several foods examined. A variety of ferns has been present, or even very abundant, in the local vegetation.
RAW WEIGHTS FOR ARCHAEOBOTANICAL MATERIALS FROM SITES 4484 AND 4485
Heidi A. Lennstrom
APPENDIX I
Table I-1. Raw Weights of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Materials from Site 4484 by Individual Bag Number
Feature Unit Layer/Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 North North South South South South South South South South South South South South South South North North North Bag 20 20 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 Plant Charred plant tissue Unidentifiable wood Charred plant tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. Ipomoea batatas tuber Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentified wood Monocot stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #16 Wood #18 Wood #19 cf. tuber/root/corm Unidentifiable wood cf. Diospyros Wood #28 cf. Ipomoea batatas tuber Unidentifiable wood Wood #16 Weight (gm) 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 1.4 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2
313
314
Appendix I: Raw Weights for Archaeobotanical Materials from Sites 4484 and 4485
Feature Unit Layer/Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 North North North North North North South South South South
Bag 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 25 25 25 93 93 94 94 94 94 94 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 96 97 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Wood #19
Plant Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Wood #16 Wood #18 Wood #19 Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Unidentifiable twig Wood #18 Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. Artocarpus altilis Aleurites moluccana seed coat Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #27 Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. Colocasia esculenta Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #27 Aleurites moluccana seed coat Unidentified charred tissue Shiny organic material Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. Colocasia esculenta Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Artocarpus altilis
Weight (gm) 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.2 1.4 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.1 2.3 0.1 0.2 4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.4
314
315
Feature Unit Layer/Area 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15
Bag 98 98 98 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 86 86 86 86 87 87 87 87 87 87 87 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 90 Wood #24 Wood #26 Wood #27
Plant cf. Cheirodendron
Weight (gm) 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.2 49.6 0.4 4 0.1 1.8 0.1 8.5 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.3 3 0.1 0.6 0.1 3.7 0.1 0.4 24.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 3.5 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.5
Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. Colocasia esculenta Unidentifiable wood cf. Diospyros Wood #27 Unidentified charred tissue Pandanus tectorius drupe Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem Unidentified charred tissue Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #4 Wood #26 Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. tuber/corm/root Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Unidentified charred tissue Pandanus tectorius drupe cf. tuber/corm/root Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #18 Wood #22 Unidentified charred tissue
(continued)
316
Feature Unit Layer/Area 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 16 16 16 16
Bag 90 90 90 91 91 91 91 91 91 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 101 102 102 102 102 102 102 102 115 115 115 115
Plant Aleurites moluccana seed coat Unidentifiable wood Wood #26 Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #19 Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. tuber/corm/root Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood cf. Diospyros cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #29 Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood cf. Diospyros cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #4 cf. Tetraplasandra Wood #7 Unidentified charred tissue Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #4 cf. Tetraplasandra Wood #8 Unidentified charred tissue cf. Cordyline fruticosa leaf Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem
Weight (gm) 0.1 5.5 0.4 33.4 0.1 3.3 0.1 1.2 0.1 2.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 2.2 1 1.4 0.2 2.9 0.7 0.1 0.1 1 0.2 11.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 2.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 24.1 0.1 7.1 0.2
317
Feature Unit Layer/Area 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18
Bag 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 115 116 116 116 116 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 121 122 122 122 122 122 124 124 124 124 124 120 120 120 120 120 cf. Diospyros
Plant cf. Acacia koa cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Tetraplasandra Wood #8 cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Wood #13 Wood #14 cf. Cheirodendron Unidentifiable wood cf. Diospyros cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Unidentified charred tissue cf. tuber/corm/root Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Acacia koa cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #13 Wood #20 Unidentifiable wood cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Acacia koa cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #13 Unidentified charred tissue Unidentifiable wood cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Wood #13 Aleurites moluccana cf. tuber/corm/root Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood cf. Diospyros
Weight (gm) 1 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.2 16.9 0.4 0.7 0.1 8.3 0.1 0.1 17.4 0.6 2.7 2.1 12.5 41 0.6 0.2 3.6 1.1 20.5 34.5 1 0.4 7.5 4.2 14.6 26.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.3 0.5
(continued)
318
Feature Unit Layer/Area 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Bag 120 120 120 120 126 126 126 126 126 127 127 127 128 129 129 129 129 137 137 137 138 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 140 140 140 140 140
Plant cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Aleurites moluccana (wood) cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Cheirodendron Unidentifiable wood cf. Psidium Coniferophyta Wood #10 Wood #11 Unidentifiable wood cf. Psidium cf. Tetraplasandra cf. Psidium Unidentifiable wood cf. Psidium cf. Tetraplasandra Wood #10 Unidentifiable wood cf. Psidium cf. Tetraplasandra cf. Psidium Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Tetraplasandra Wood #8 Wood #16 Wood #20 Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #8 Wood #22
Weight (gm) 1.6 0.1 1.1 0.1 0.1 23.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 7.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 32.1 0.5 4.5 0.1 2.3 0.3 4.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 1 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2
319
Feature Unit Layer/Area 11 20 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 II II II II II II II II II II II III III III III III III III III III III III III IIIIIa IIIIIa II II II IIIa IIIa
Bag 140 26 26 26 28 28 28 28 60 60 60 60 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 61 3 3 4 4 4 6 6 Wood #23
Plant Unidentified charred tissue cf. Artocarpus altilis Unidentifiable wood Unidentified charred tissue Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Artocarpus altilis Unidentifiable wood cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #24 Wood #25 Unidentified charred tissue Aleurites moluccana Cordyline fruticosa stem Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Psidium cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #22 Wood #23 Wood #24 Wood #25 Shiny organic material Unidentifiable wood Shiny organic material Unidentifiable wood Wood #16 Shiny organic material cf. Diospyros
Weight (gm) 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 3.4 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.2
320
Table I-2. Raw Weights of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Materials from Site 4485 by Individual Bag Number (Anatomical Categories)
Feature 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Unit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 Bag 5 5 5 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 14 16 25 25 25 35 45 45 57 57 57 58 58 58 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 62 62 64 64 65 65 66 67 67 Plant Charred plant tissue cf. tuber/corm/root Wood and stems cf. Cordyline fruticosa root cf. tuber/corm/root Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat cf. tuber/corm/root Wood and stems Wood and stems Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat Wood and stems Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat Wood and stems Charred plant tissue cf. tuber/corm/root Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Wood and stems Charred plant tissue cf. tuber/corm/root Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Wood and stems Charred plant tissue Wood and stems Wood and stems Aleurites moluccana seed coat Wood and stems Weight (gm) 0.2 3.4 11.7 11.7 0.7 7.3 0.1 0.4 0.1 5.6 2.5 6.7 1.3 0.1 39.1 44.9 27.1 93.8 7.2 0.1 3.3 8.2 0.5 1.3 87.4 8.7 39.7 4.6 7.5 0.1 2.6 14.3 17.2 17.5 6.7 2.5 2.5 3.4 0.1 4.2
321
Feature 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9
Unit 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9
Bag 69 71 71 71 84 84 85 85 86
Plant Aleurites moluccana seed coat Charred plant tissue Aleurites moluccana seed coat Wood and stems Aleurites moluccana seed coat Wood and stems cf. tuber/corm/root Wood and stems Aleurites moluccana seed coat
Weight (gm) 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.1 8.7 0.2 4.9 0.6
Table I-3. Raw Weights of Field-Sorted Archaeobotanical Materials from Site 4485 by Individual Bag Number (Wood Subsamples Only: 40 Fragments Per Bag)
Feature 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Unit 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Bag 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 14 16 16 16 16 16 16 Plant cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Syzygium malaccense Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #20 Wood #45 Wood #46 Wood #47 Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Aleurites moluccana (wood) cf. Artocarpus altilis Wood #45 Wood #46 Wood #47 Coniferophyta Unidentifiable wood cf. Aleurites moluccana (wood) cf. Diospyros Coniferophyta Wood #42 Wood #44 Weight (gm) 5.2 0.2 0.6 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 2.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.7 0.2 0.3
(continued)
322
Feature 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Unit 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Bag 25 25 25 25 25 25 35 35 35 35 35 45 45 45 45 45 57 57 57 57 57 58 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 60 61 61 61 62 62 62 62
Plant Unidentifiable wood cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Freycinetia arborea Artocarpus altilis Syzygium malaccense Wood #44 Unidentified wood cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Syzygium malaccense Wood #44 Wood #45 Unidentified wood Monocot stem cf. Diospyros cf. Syzygium malaccense Wood #44 cf. Diospyros cf. Syzygium malaccense Wood #27 Wood #30 Wood #31 Unidentifiable wood cf. Syzygium malaccense Unidentifiable wood cf. Aleurites moluccana (wood) cf. Cheirodendron cf. Diospyros Wood #4 Wood #25 Unidentifiable wood Wood #20 Unidentifiable wood Wood #20 Wood #35 Unidentifiable wood cf. Freycinetia arborea cf. Diospyros cf. Syzygium sandwicensis
Weight (gm) 2.3 1 0.3 0.4 4.8 4.3 0.5 2.2 0.6 13.6 0.7 2.5 0.8 0.2 7 12.8 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 1 0.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.3 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.1 2.2 0.1 0.1 1.6
323
Feature 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
Unit 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
Bag 62 62 62 62 62 64 64 64 64 64 64 65 65 65 65 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 66 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 71 71 71 71 71 84 84 Wood #20 Wood #29 Wood #41 Wood #42 Wood #43
Plant
Weight (gm) 1.3 0.1 0.1 1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.1
Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem Wood #10 Wood #27 Wood #32 Wood #33 Unidentifiable wood Wood #26 Wood #34 Wood #35 Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Cordyline fruticosa cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Syzygium sandwicensis Wood #36 Wood #38 Wood #39 Unidentifiable wood cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Aleurites moluccana cf. Diospyros cf. Metrosideros polymorpha Wood #36 Wood #37 Unidentifiable wood Monocot stem cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Diospyros Unidentifiable wood cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem
(continued)
324
Feature 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Unit 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
Bag 84 84 84 84 84 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 cf. Diospyros
Plant cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Metrosideros polymorpha cf. Syzygium malaccense cf. Tetraplasandra Unidentifiable wood cf. Cordyline fruticosa stem cf. Pandanus tectorius cf. Artocarpus altilis cf. Diospyros cf. Metrosideros polymorpha cf. Syzygium malaccense Wood #18 Wood #24
Weight (gm) 0.2 0.6 0.3 0.7 0.6 2.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.2 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1
Table I-4. Raw Archaeobotanical Data from Flotation Samples from Sites 4484 and 4485 SITE 4484 Feature 2 Bag 12 (From lower portion of feature)
Identification charred plant tissue-unidentifiable charred wood-unidentifiable Count 2 4 Weight (gm) <0.1 0.1
Feature 2 Bag 13 (From upper portion of feature)

Identification charred plant tissue-unidentifiable charred Cyperaceae achene (seed) uncharred Cyperaceae achenes uncharred Malvaceae seeds uncharred cf. Poaceae caryopsis (seed) uncharred seeds-unidentifiable charred stem-unidentifiable charred wood-unidentifiable Count 3 1 3 3 1 2 1 4 Weight (gm) 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1
Feature 3 Bag 63
Identification charred plant tissue-unidentifiable charred Aleurites moluccana seed coat fragments charred wood-unidentifiable charred twig-unidentifiable Count 4 13 13 1 Weight (gm) 0.1 2.0 0.9 <0.1
325
Feature 4 Bag 92
Identification charred plant tissue-unidentifiable charred seed-unknown type #1 charred wood-unidentified charred monocot stalk charred twig-unidentifiable Count 9 1 ca. 700 27 3 Weight (gm) 0.1 <0.1 15.2 0.7 0.1
SITE 4485 Feature 3 Bag 55

Identification charred plant tissue--unidentified charred seed-unknown type #4 charred wood-unidentified charred monocot stalks charred twigs Count 75 4 191 3 2 Weight (gm) 2.3 <0.1 2.1 0.1 0.1
Feature 3 Bag 56
Identification charred plant tissue-unidentifiable charred wood-unidentified Count 5 3870 Weight (gm) <0.1 75.0
Feature 7 Bag 76
Identification charred plant tissue--unidentified charred seed--cf. Chenopodium oahuense charred seeds--unidentified uncharred seed--Cyperaceae charred wood--dictolyledons charred stalk or petiole charred twigs Count 40 1 6 1 272 16 2 Weight (gm) 0.5 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 6.0 0.5 0.1
REFERENCES
Abbott, Isabella A. 1992 Lau Hawaii: 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 Center 1990 Participants Desk Reference: Legislation, Regulations, Guidelines, and Related Information About Historic Preservation Policies and Requirements Under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. A Section 106 [Workshop] Training Publication. Aiu, Joseph 1933 Allen, Jane 1987 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. Attachment A: Archaeological Mitigation Plan, Kneohe Interchange, Interstate H-3 Highway, Oahu. Ms. appended to Memorandum of Agreement for construction in the Interchange. On file, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office, Honolulu. Supplementary Mitigation Plan, Sites 50-Oa-G5-85, 50-Oa-G5-95, and Unsurveyed Areas, Kneohe Interchange, Interstate H-3 Highway, Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Preliminary Report: Subsurface Testing Results, Sites 50-Oa-G5-88 and G5-89, Punaluu Mauka Ili, Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1990a
1990b
327
328
References
1990c
Research Design for Subsurface Testing, Sites 50-Oa-G5-88 and 50-Oa-G5-89, Punaluu Mauka Ili, Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. The Role of Agriculture in the Evolution of the Pre-Contact Hawaiian State. Asian Perspectives 30(1):117132. Farming in Hawaii from Colonisation to Contact: Radiocarbon Chronology and Implications for Cultural Change. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:4566. Archaeological Inventory Survey Site 50-80-10-2462 (Bishop Museum Site 50-Oa-G5-155) H-3 Highway KM Ramp Project Area Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Interview with Richard Miller. Appendix C Part I in H Ka Ipu o Oahu: The History of Kneohe and Heeia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation. Pre-Contact Landscape Transformation and Cultural Change in Windward Oahu, in Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric Environmental and Landscape Change, edited by Patrick V. Kirch and Terry Hunt, pp. 230247. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
1991 1992a 1992b
N.d.
1997
Allen, Jane (editor) 1987 Five Upland Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kneohe Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of Oahu, edited by Jane Allen. Departmental Report Series 87-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Allen, Jane, Margaret Newman, Mary Riford, and Gavin Archer 1995 Blood and Plant Residues on Hawaiian Stone Tools from Two Archaeological Sites in Upland Kneohe, Koolau Poko District, Oahu Island. Asian Perspectives 34:283302. Allen, Jane, Mary Riford, Gail M. Murakami, Linda Scott Cummings, Paul Brennan, and Carol Kawachi 2002 Kula and Kahawai: Geoarchaeological and Historical Investigations in Middle Maunawili Valley, Kailua, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Prepared for Royal Hawaiian Country Club, Honolulu. Allen, Jane, and Allan J. Schilz 1997 Archaeological Monitoring and Emergency Data Recovery, Repair Water Lines and Install Water Pumping Station for Weapons Range (REWAT), Marine Corps Base Hawaii Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii. 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. Allen-Wheeler, Jane 1981 Archaeological Excavations in Kawainui Marsh, Island of Oahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Planning and Economic Development, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
References
329
1984
Luluku: An Upland Agricultural System in Kaneohe, Koolaupoko District, Oahu. First preliminary report. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Luluku: An Upland Agricultural System in Kneohe, Koolaupoko District, Oahu. Second preliminary report. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Research Design for Kneohe H-3 Interchange Project, Testing Phase. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
1985a
1985b
Allen, Melinda S. 1984 A Review of Archaeobotany and Paleoethnobotany in Hawaii. Hawaiian Archaeology 1(1):1930. 1989 Archaeobotanical Assemblages from the Anahulu Rockshelters. In Prehistoric Hawaiian Occupation in the Anahulu Valley, Oahu Island: Excavations in Three Inland Rockshelters, edited by Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 83102. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 47. Archaeological Research Facility, Anthropology Department, University of California, Berkeley. Kahoolawe Archaeobotanical Materials. In Kahoolawe Excavations, 198283 Data Recovery Project Island of Hawaii, by Paul H. Rosendahl, Alan E. Haun, Joseph B. Halbig, Michael Kaschko, and Melinda S. Allen, pp. A1A35. Prepared for Department of the Navy, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. Report #48-011592.
1992
Applied Research Group 1985 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 Hawaii State 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 Asch 1975 Plant Remains from the Zimmerman SiteGrid A: A Quantitative Perspective. In The Zimmerman Site: Further Excavations at the Grand Village of Kashakia, edited by M. K. Brown, pp. 116120, Reports of Investigations 32. Illinois State Museum, Springfield. Athens, J. Stephen 1983 Prehistoric Pondfield Agriculture in Hawaii: Archaeological Investigations at the Hanalei Wildlife Refuge, Kauai. Submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
330
References
1988
Archaeological Survey and Testing for Airfield Perimeter Fence Project, Bellows Air Force Station, Oahu, Hawaii. International Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu. Submitted to 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 Ward 1993 Environmental Change and Prehistoric Polynesian Settlement in Hawaii. Asian Perspectives 32(2):203223. Athens, Stephen J., Jerome Ward, and Stephen Wickler 1992 Late Holocene Lowland Vegetation, Oahu, Hawaii. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:934. Bar-Yosef, Ofer 1987 Late Pleistocene Adaptations in the Levant. In The Pleistocene Old World: Regional Perspectives, edited by O. Soffer, pp. 219236. Plenum Press, New York. Barrera, Jr., William, and Patrick V. Kirch 1973 Basaltic Glass Artifacts from Hawaii: Their Dating and Prehistoric Uses. Journal of the Polynesian Society 82(2):176187. Beggerly, Patricia E. Price 1990 Kahana Valley, Hawaii, 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 Hawaii, Honolulu. Bennett, Thecla 1987 Palynological Analysis of Selected Archaeological Sites along the H-3 Kneohe Interchange Project. In Five Upland Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kneohe Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of Oahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 209217. Departmental Report Series 87-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Bishop Museum 1995 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 19901991 Field notes and Illustrations Prepared by Monitoring and Excavation Crews at Sites 44834485. On file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, and Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu. Blumenstock, David I., and Saul Price 1972 Climates of the States: Hawaii. In A Natural History of the Hawaiian Islands, edited by E. Alison Kay, pp. 155204. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
References
331
1994
Climates of the States: Hawaii. In A Natural History of the Hawaiian Islands: Selected Readings II, edited by E. Alison Kay, pp. 94114. University of Hawaii 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. Originally published 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 41:478484. Broderick, Michael 1979 Ascending Paper Chromatographic Technique in Archaeology. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by Bryan Hayden, pp. 375383. Academic Press, New York. Bryan, Jr., E. H. 1945 Bryans Sectional Map of Honolulu with Index of All Streets in the City of Honolulu and Rural Oahu, and Street Numbers. Tongg, Honolulu. 1950 1959 1964 Bryans Sectional Map of Honolulu and Rural Oahu with Index of All Streets in the City of Honolulu and Rural Oahu, and Street Numbers. Tongg, Honolulu. Bryan's Sectional Map of Honolulu and the Hawaiian Islands. South Sea Sales, Honolulu. 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. Stokes 1930 Terminology for Ground Stone-Cutting Implements in Polynesia. Journal of the Polynesian Society 39:174180. Bushnell, O. A. 1993 The Gifts of Civilization: Germs and Genocide in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Clague, David A., and G. Brent Dalrymple 1994 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. 540. University of Hawaii 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):3037.
332
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 Hawaii: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect. Departmental Report Series 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 Riford 1986 Archaeological Salvage Excavations at Site 50-Oa-G5-101, Waikalua-Loko, Kneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu Island, Hawaii. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to RYM, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Clarke, David 1976 Mesolithic Europe: The Economic Basis. In Problems in Economic and Social Anthropology, edited by G. de G. Sieveking, I. Longworth and K. Wilson, pp. 449481. Unwin Brothers, Old Woking, England. Clarke, Mary 1990 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, Paul 1982 The Mauna Kea Adze Quarry: Technological Analyses and Experimental Tests. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Mnoa. Cleghorn, Paul L., and Elaine Rogers-Jourdane 1976 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 and Oahu. Soil Survey Series 1939, No. 25. U.S. Department of Agriculture and Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Cooper, Will J. 1933 The Lure of Windward Oahu. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1933, edited by Thomas G. Thrum, pp. 120123. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu.
References
333
Cordy, Ross 1981
A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press, New York.
Cordy, Ross, and Michael W. Kaschko 1980 Prehistoric Archaeology in the Hawaiian Islands: Land Units Associated with Social Groups. Journal of Field Archaeology 7(4):403416. Costello, Julia G., and Mary L. Maniery 1988 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. Stone 1990 Alteration of Native Hawaiian Vegetation: Effects of Humans, Their Activities and Introductions. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Parks Resources Unit. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Culliford, Bryan J. 1964 Precipitin Reactions in Forensic Problems. Nature 201:10921094. Davis, Bertell D. 1988 Progress Report on Archaeological Excavations at Site Oa-G5-86 in the Ili Lele of Punaluu Mauka, Kneohe, Oahu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. 1989 Interim Report on Archaeological Excavations at Site Oa-G5-86 in the Ili Lele of Punaluu Mauka, Kneohe, Oahu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
Davis, Bertell, Tom Dye, and Wendell Kam 1976 Archaeological Investigations at the Kailua Effluent Force Main, Site 50-OA-G5-67, Kaneohe, Oahu, Hawaii. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum. Submitted to City and County 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. Motteler 1982 Kneohe: A History of Change. Bess Press, Honolulu. Dixon, Boyd, and Maurice Major 1993 Kapukahehu to Puuhakina: An Archaeological Inventory Survey of Southwest Molokai, Hawaii. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report submitted to Alpha USA, Honolulu.
334
References
Dixon, Boyd, Maurice Major, and Darin Lazzaro 1992 Kaunol: An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Mapping of State Site 50-40-98-25, Kaunol and Keliakapu Ahupuaa, Lnai, Hawaii. Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report submitted to Lanai Company and Castle and Cooke, Honolulu. Dolan, Barbara 1992 Charcoal Kilns of Windward Oahu: Construction and Use. Paper presented at the American Anthropological Association annual meeting, San Francisco. Dorrill, Marion, and P. H. Whitehead 1979 The Species Identification of Very Old Human Bloodstains. Forensic Science International 13:111116. 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 and Ethnology, 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, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Eisele, J. A., D. D. Fowler, G. Haynes, and R. A. Lewis 1995 Survival and Detection of Blood Residues on Stone Tools. Antiquity 69(262):3646. Emory, Kenneth P., William Bonk, and Yosihiko H. Sinoto 1968 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. 161185. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Fankhauser, Barry 1994 Protein and Lipid Analysis of Food Residues. In Tropical Archaeobotany, edited by Jon Hather, pp. 227250. 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 9:205220. Fletcher, Roland 1977 Settlement Studies (Micro and Semi-Micro). In Spatial Archaeology, edited by David L. Clarke, pp. 47162. Academic Press, London.
References
335
Folk, R. 1980
Petrology of Sedimentary Rocks. Hemphill, Austin.
Foote, Donald E., Elmer L. Hill, Sakuichi Nakamura, and Floyd Stephens 1972 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 19161920 Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore, edited by Thomas G. Thrum. B. P. Bishop Museum Memoirs Vols. 46. 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. Gagn, Wayne C., and Linda Cuddihy 1990 Vegetation. In Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii, by Warren Wagner, Derral Herbst, and S. Sohmer, pp. 45115. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Galehouse, J. S. 1971 Procedures in Sedimentary Petrology. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Gatson, Mary Frank 1990 Blue Willow: An Identification and Value Guide. Collector Books, Paducah, Kentucky. Grayson, Donald K. 1984 Quantitative Zooarchaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Green, Roger C. 1980 Mkaha Before 1880 A.D. Pacific Anthropological Records 31. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Groupe d'Etude de Epipalolithique et Msolithique (G.E.E.M.) 1969 Epipalolithique-Msolithique: Les Microlithes Gomtriques. Bulletin de la Societ Prhistorique Franaise 66:355366. 1972 Epipalolithique-Msolithique: Les Armatures Non-Gomtriques-1. Bulletin de la Societ Prhistorique Franaise 69:364375.
Gunness, Jo Lynn 1987 Archaeological Investigations at Kualoa Regional Park, 19751985: An Overview. Masters thesis, University of Hawaii at Mnoa. Hammatt, Hallett H., Douglas Borthwick, William H. Folk, and Mark Stride 1990 Archaeological Inventory Survey of the 300-Acre Rural District, Plwai, Lnai. Cultural Surveys Hawaii. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
336
References
Handy, E. S. Craighill 1940 The Hawaiian Planter. Volume 1. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Mary Kawena Pukui 1991 The Polynesian Family System in Kau, Hawaii. Reprinted. Charles E. Tuttle, Rutland, Vermont. Originally published in 1958. Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Elizabeth Green Handy, with Mary Kawena Pukui 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Hather, Jon 1991 1994 The Identification of Charred Archaeological Remains of Vegetative Parenchymous Tissue. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:661675. The Identification of Charred Root and Tuber Crops from Archaeological Sites in the Pacific. In Tropical Archaeobotany, edited by J. Hather, pp. 5164. Routledge, London.
Hather, Jon, and Patrick Kirch 1991 Prehistoric Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas) from Mangaia Island, Central Polynesia. Antiquity 65:887893. Hawaii Audubon Society 1975 Hawaiis Birds. Hawaii Audubon Society, Honolulu. Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources 1989 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 Museum 1984 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 the Intersection (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. Hyndman 1996 Roadside Geology of Hawaii: Mountain Press Publishing Company, Missoula, Montana. Healan, Dan M. 1995 Identifying Lithic Reduction Loci with Size-Graded Macrodebitage: A Multivariate Approach. American Antiquity 60(4):689699.
References
337
Hole, Frank 1994
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. 101116. Studies in Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 1. Ex oriente, Berlin.
Hommon, Robert 1976 The Formation of Primitive States in Pre-Contact Hawaii. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson. 1986 Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii. In Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, edited by Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 5568. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Hyland, David C., J. M. Adovasio, and M. I. Siegel 1990 Identification of the Species of Origin of Residual Blood on Lithic Material. American Antiquity 55:104112. Indices of Awards 1929 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 Hawaii. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Mnoa.
Johnson, Kevin T. M. 1994 Geochemical Analysis of H-3 Corridor, Kneohe, 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. Shimizu 1990 Melting in the Oceanic Upper Mantle: An Ion Microprobe Study of Diopsides in Abyssal Peridotites. Journal of Geophysical Research 95: 26612678. Kabat, E. A., and M. M. Meyer 1967 Experimental Immunochemistry. Thomas, Springfield, Illinois. Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani 1976 Na Hana a Ka Poe Kahiko: The Works of the People of Old. Translated by Mary Kawena Pukui. Edited by Dorothy Barrre. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 1991 Ka Poe Kahiko: The People of Old. Reprinted. Translated by Mary Kawena Pukui. Edited by Dorothy Barrre. Originally published in 1964. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Rev. ed. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.
1992
338
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. 127144. Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Keeley, Lawrence 1980 Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kelly, Marion 1987 Land Use in the Ili of Luluku, Kneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. In Five Upland Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kneohe Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of Oahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 285304. Departmental Report Series 87-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kelly, Marion, and Jeffrey T. Clark 1980 Kawainui Marsh, Oahu: Historical and Archaeological Studies. Departmental Report Series 80-3. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kind, S. S., and Rosalyn M. Clevely 1969 The Use of Ammoniacal Blood Stain Extracts in ABO Groupings. Journal of Forensic Sciences 15:131134. 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. 1770. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 29. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1979 Marine Exploitation in Prehistoric Hawaii: Archaeological Investigations at Kalhuipuaa, Hawaii Island. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 29. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. The Impact of the Prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian Ecosystem. Pacific Science 36(1):114. Transported Landscapes. Natural History 91(12):3235. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. The Archaeology of History. Volume 2 to Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, by P. V. Kirch and Marshall Sahlins. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1982a 1982b 1985 1992
Klieger, P. Christiaan 1995 N Maka o Hlawa: A History of Hlawa Ahupuaa, Oahu. Bishop Museum Technical Report 7. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Klieger, P. Christiaan (editor) N.d. H Ka Ipu o Oahu: The History of Kneohe and Heeia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu.
References
339
Klieger, P. Christiaan, and Helen Leidemann 1992 Luluku Ethnographic Interviews: Richard Miller of Mahinui, Kneohe, Oahu, Hawaii, Part II. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Klieger, P. Christiaan, and Lynn Miller 1991 Luluku Ethnographic Interviews: Japanese Farmers of the Halekou Interchange Area, Oahu, Hawaii. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1992 Luluku Ethnographic Interviews: Ah Moy Young of Kahaluu, Oahu, Hawaii. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Klieger, P. Christiaan, and Scot Parry 1996 Human Settlement Patterns in the Kneohe H-3 Corridor. Chapter 2 in H Ka Ipu o Oahu: The History of Kneohe and Heeia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Kooyman, Brian, Margaret E. Newman, and Howard Ceri 1992 Verifying the Reliability of Blood Residue Analysis on Archaeological Tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 19:265269. Kozlowski, Stefan 1994 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. 143171. 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, Oahu. Ms. on file, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. 1980b Letter report to Ed Marcus, Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development, re: Coring results, Kawai Nui Marsh, Kailua, Oahu. Ms. on file, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
Krauss, Beatrice 1993 Plants in Hawaiian Culture. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kurashina, Hiro, Helen Leidemann, and Marion Kelly 1986 Archaeological Survey of Lands at Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu (TMK 4-5-8:1, 4-5-9:1, and 4-5-30:Portion 1). Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to RYM, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Ladefoged, Thegn N. 1991 Hawaiian Architectural Transformations During the Early Historic Era. Asian Perspectives 30:5769. Lamb, Samuel H. 1981 Native Trees and Shrubs of the Hawaiian Islands. Sun Stone Press, Santa Fe.
340
References
Lamberton, Alastair R. H. 1955 The Anatomy of Some Woods Utilized by the Ancient Hawaiians. Masters thesis, University of Hawaii at Mnoa. 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, Hawaii. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum. Report prepared for McCormack Properties Ltd., Honolulu. Leonard, Robert D., and George T. Jones 1989 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 Surveyors Report for 1902. Hawaiian Gazette, Honolulu.
Macdonald, Gordon A., and Agatin T. Abbott 1974 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):191193. 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. 193210. Academic Press, San Diego. Majewski, Teresita, and Michael J. O'Brien 1987 The Use and Misuse of Nineteenth-Century English and American Ceramics in Archaeological Analysis. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 11:97209, edited by M. B. Schiffer. Academic Press, Orlando. Malo, David 1951 Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Translated by Nathaniel B. Emerson. Bishop Museum Special Publication 2, 2nd ed. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Originally published in 1898.
McAllister, J. Gilbert 1933 Archaeology of Oahu. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 104. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
References
341
McCoy, Patrick C. 1976 Report 4. Intensive Survey. Archaeological Investigations Along Upper Kamooalii stream, Kaneohe, Oahu. In Archaeological Investigations in Upland Kaneohe, edited by P. Rosendahl, pp. 41 to 428. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1986 Archaeological Investigations in the Hopukani and Liloe Springs Area of the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry, Hawaii: A Data Summary Report. Ms. in Archives, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Survey and Test Excavations of the Puu Kalepeamoa Site, Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Ms. on file, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
1991
McCoy, Patrick C., and Aki Sinoto 1976 Reconnaissance SurveyEnvironmental Inventory. In Archaeological Investigations in Upland Kaneohe, edited by Paul H. Rosendahl, pp. 3:ii3:24. Departmental Report Series 761. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. McMahon, Nancy 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for the Proposed Kahekili Highway Widening and Interchange, Kneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu Island. Submitted to DHM, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Meeker, Virgil 1995 From Firepits to Charcoal Kilns: Resource Procurement and Land Use in the Upland Kneohe Catchment. International Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu. Submitted to Minami Group, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Millar, Jim 1985 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 25:125. Miller, Lynn 1992 Archaeological Monitoring Report, Project 451: Kneohe Interchange, Interstate H-3 Temporary Connector Road, Luluku Ili, Kneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. 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 Randall W. Moir, pp. 7381. Richland Creek Technical Series Vol. V. Archaeology Research Program, 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
References
Munsell Color 1990 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 Hawaii: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect, edited by J. T. Clarke and P. V. Kirch, pp. 514524. Departmental Report Series 83-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. 1987 Identification of Charcoal from Archaeological Sites in Upland Kneohe, Oahu. In Five Upland Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kneohe Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of Oahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 219227. Departmental Report Series 87-1, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Identification of Charcoal from Kuolulo Rockshelter. In Prehistoric Hawaiian Occupation in the Anahulu Valley, Oahu Island: Excavation in Three Inland Rockshelters, edited by P. V. Kirch, pp. 103220. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 47. Archaeological Research Facility, Anthropology Department, University of California, Berkeley. Charcoal Identification. In Archaeological and Historical Investigations of Kukuiokne Heiau and the Kukuiokne Complex (Site 50-80-10-340), Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu, edited by Scott S. Williams. Draft ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Identification of Charcoal from Kahoolawe. In Kahoolawe Excavations, 198283 Data Recovery Project, Island of Kahoolawe, edited by P. Rosendahl, pp. H1H15. P. H. Rosendahl, Inc., Hilo. A Technological Analysis of the Early Stages in the Manufacture of Lithic Artifacts. Masters thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello.
1989
1992a
1992b
Muto, Guy 1971
Nagata, Kenneth M. 1985 Early Plant Introductions in Hawaii. Hawaiian Journal of History 19:3561. Neal, Marie 1965 Neller, Earl 1985 In Gardens of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Special Publication 50. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. The Luluku Settlement: Site 50-Oa-2914. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of a Hawaiian Agricultural Settlement in Kaneohe, Oahu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.
Newman, Margaret E. 1990 The Hidden Evidence from Hidden Cave, Nevada. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto.
References
343
Newman, Margaret E., and P. Julig 1989 The Identification of Protein Residues on Lithic Artifacts from a Stratified Boreal Forest Site. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 13:119132. Newman, T. Stell 1970 A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles. Historical Archaeology 4:7075. Norrish, K., and J. T. Hutton 1969 An Accurate X-ray Spectrographic Method for the Analysis of a Wide Range of Geologic Samples. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 33:431451. Pearsall, Deborah M. 1989 Paleoethnobotany. Academic Press, San Diego. Pearson, Richard J., Patrick V. Kirch, and Michael Pietrusewsky 1971 An Early Prehistoric Site at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 6(3):204234. Pope, Willis T. 1911 Geography of the Mountaintops. Mid-Pacific Magazine. May 1(5):533549. Popper, Virginia 1988 Selecting Quantitative Measurements in Paleoethnobotany. In Current Paleoethnobotany: Analytical Methods and Cultural Interpretations of Archaeological Plant Remains, edited by C. Hastorf and V. Popper, pp. 5371. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Price, Saul 1983 Climate. In Atlas of Hawaii, 2nd ed., edited by R. Warwick Armstrong, pp. 5961. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Price-Beggerly, Patricia 1987 Archaeological Monitoring at Nuupia Ekolu Pond and Paakai Pond/Salt Works, During Nuupia Pond Improvement Project, Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe, Oahu, Hawaii. Submitted to U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific Division, Pearl Harbor. Copies available, U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. Prinz, Martin, George Harlow, and Joseph Peters (editors) 1978 Simon and Schusters Guide to Rocks and Minerals. Simon and Schuster, New York. Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert 1986 Hawaiian Dictionary. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini 1974 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 Hawaii, edited by Jeffrey T. Clark and Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 181239. Departmental Report Series 83-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
344
References
Rhode, David 1988 Measurement of Archaeological Diversity and Sample Size Effect. American Antiquity 53:708716. Riford, Mary 1986a Annotated Reference List for Iolani School Kaneohe Project, Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. 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. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Reconnaissance Survey Northwest and South of the Kneohe Interchange Project Area. In Five Upland Ili: Archaeological and Historical Investigations in the Kneohe Interchange, Interstate Highway H-3, Island of Oahu, edited by Jane Allen, pp. 285304. Departmental Report Series 87-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Luluku Field Check Summary, 30 June 1989. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1987
1989
Ripperton, J. C., and E. Y. Hosaka 1942 Vegetation Zones of Hawaii. Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 89. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Rose, Roger G. 1996 Myths, Legends, and Traditions of Heeia, Kneohe, and Kailua. Chapter 2 in H Ka Ipu o Oahu: The History of Kneohe and Heeia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Rosendahl, Paul H. 1972 Aboriginal Agriculture and Residence Patterns in Upland Lapakahi, Island of Hawaii. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Mnoa. 1976 Archaeological Investigations in Upland Kaneohe, edited by Paul H. Rosendahl. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police 1983 Methods Manual, Serology Section. Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Ottawa, Ontario. Schick, Kathy D., and Nicholas Toth 1993 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
345
Schilt, Rose 1984
Subsistence and Conflict in Kona, Hawaii: An Archaeological Study of the Kuakini Highway Realignment Corridor. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
Schilz, Allan J., and Jane Allen 1995 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 Kaneohe Bay, Oahu, Hawaii. 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. Kirch 1983 Volcanic-Glass Flaked Stone Artifacts. In Archeological Investigations of the MudlaneWaimea-Kawaihae Road Corridor, Island of Hawaii: An Interdisciplinary Study of an Environmental Transect, edited by Jeffrey T. Clark and Patrick V. Kirch, pp. 348370. 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 Hawaii, Honolulu. Shun, Kanalei, Patricia Price-Beggerly, and J. Stephen Athens 1987 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. Kirk 1971 Protein Stability in Preserved Biological Remains. International Journal of Biochemistry 2:545568. Shafer, Harry H., and Richard G. Holloway 1979 Organic Residue Analysis in Determining Stone Tool Function. In Lithic Use-Wear Analysis, edited by B. Hayden, pp. 385399. 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):69110. Slaughter, Mark C., Lee Fratt, Kirk Anderson, and Richard V. N. Ahlstrom 1992 Making and Using Stone Artifacts: Lithic Sites in Arizona. SWCA Archaeological Report No. 92-5.
346
References
Spriggs, Matthew 1991 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 Anderson 1993 Late Colonization of East Polynesia. Antiquity 67:200217. 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 the Interior, Honolulu. Stearns, Harold T., and Knute N. Vaksvik 1935 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. Telster 1989 Size Distributions of Artifact Classes: Combining Macro- and Micro-fractions. Geoarchaeology 4:130. Sterling, Elspeth, and Catherine C. Summers 1978 Sites of Oahu. Departments of Anthropology and Education, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Streck, Charles 1982 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Route H-3 (Alternative A), Kneohe, Oahu, Hawaii. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Stuiver, Minze, and Paula J. Reimer 1993 Extended 14C Data Base and Revised CALIB 3.0 14C Age Calibration Program. Radiocarbon 35(1):215230. Sullivan, III, Alan P., and Kenneth C. Rozen 1985 Debitage Analysis and Archaeological Interpretation. American Antiquity 50:755779. Szabian, John, James Landrum, and Paul L. Cleghorn 1989 A Reconnaissance Survey of the Proposed Pikoiloa Cemetery, Kneohe, Oahu 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 of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land Development. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1894. Tam Sing, Tracy Leo 1996 Laiki: The Story of Rice Production in Hawaii and Kneohe. Chapter 9 in H Ka Ipu o Oahu: The History of Kneohe and Heeia, edited by P. Christiaan Klieger. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Draft report prepared for Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu.
References
347
Taylor, R. E. 1987
Radiocarbon DatingAn 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. 3648. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. 1915 1917 1938 Completing Oahus Heiau Search. In Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1916, compiled by T. G. Thrum, pp. 8791. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Retrospect for 1916: Road Tests. In Hawaiian Annual and Almanac for 1917, edited by T. G. Thrum, pp. 172173. Thos. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Complete List of Heiaus (Temples) and Sites. In Hawaiian Annual for 1938, pp. 121142. The Printshop Company, Honolulu.
Titcomb, Margaret 1969 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. Whitman 1974 Experimentation in the Formation of Edge Damage: A New Approach to Lithic Analysis. Journal of Field Archaeology 1(1/2). Tuggle, H. David 1994 Archaeological Research of Areas Proposed for Development of Military Family Housing and Expansion of Military Training at Bellows Air Force Station, Oahu. Task 1: Literature Review of the Cultural Resources of the Bellows Area. Draft final report. International Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu. Submitted to Belt Collins Hawaii, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Tuggle, H. David, and Robert J. Hommon 1986 Historic Property Inventory, Marine Corps Air Station, Kaneohe Bay. U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pacific Division, Pearl Harbor. Copies available, U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Pearl Harbor. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Survey Staff 1951 Soil Survey Manual. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1962 Supplement replacing Soil Survey Manual pp. 173188. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Interior 1981 36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places, Section 60.4 Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Geological Survey ca. 1926 Aerial photograph, Oahu. On file, USGS Water Resources Division, Honolulu. 1928 Map of Kaneohe Quadrangle, Island of Oahu, City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii. Scale 1:20000.
348
References
1983
Kaneohe Quadrangle. Map, 1:24,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
U.S. War Department 1940 Aerial Photograph, Kaneohe Quadrangle, Oahu, T. H. Scale 1:10000. Valier, Kathy 1995 Ferns of Hawaii. University of Hawaii 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. Sohmer 1990 Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 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. 5385. University of Hawaii Press, 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, Kaneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. 1989b Data Recovery Plan, Site 50-Oa-G5-116, Kaneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Data Recovery Plan, Site 50-Oa-G5-119, Kneohe, Koolaupoko, Oahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Data Recovery Plan, Site 50-Oa-G5-130, Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Preliminary Report: The Archaeology of Haik Valley, Heeia Ahupuaa, Koolau Poko District, Oahu Island. Applied Research Group, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to U.S. Coast Guard, Environmental Division, Honolulu. Ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.
1989c
1990
1991
References
349
1992a
Archaeological and Historical Investigations of Kukuiokne Heiau and the Kukuiokne Complex (Site 50-80-10-340), Kneohe, Koolau Poko, Oahu. Draft ms. on file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Early Inland Settlement Expansion and the Effect of Geomorphological Change on the Archaeological Record in Kneohe, Oahu. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14:6778. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing for Proposed Family Housing Construction, U.S. Coast Guard Omega Transmitter Site Heeia, Koolaupoko District, Island of Oahu, Hawaii (TMK 4-6-15). Draft final report. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, Honolulu. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter. On file, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Shafter.
1992b 1993
Williams, Scott S., Peter R. Mills, and Jane Allen 1995 Archaeological Investigations in the Luluku Banana Farmers Relocation Area, Maunawili Valley, Kailua Ahupuaa, Oahu, Hawaii. Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Submitted to Hawaii State Department of Transportation, Honolulu. Copies available, Hawaii State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. Williams, Scott S., Tomasi (Kilino) Patolo, and Jane Allen 19891993 Interstate Highway H-3 Windward Highway Segment Project Field Notes (Report Pending). On file, Anthropology Department, Bishop Museum, and Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, 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. Schneider 1991 Immunological Identification of Small-Mammal Proteins on Aboriginal Milling Equipment. American Antiquity 56(4):659666.

Four Sites in Upland Kaneohe

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Four Sites in Upland Kaneohe

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FOUR SITES IN UPLAND KNEOHE

SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR INTERSTATE ROUTE H-3

FOUR SITES IN UPLAND KNEOHE

Archaeobotanical Materials Collected at Sites 4484 and 4485

269 277 283 287 291 297

Experimental Microartifact Analyses, Site 4483

Immunological Analysis of Artifacts from Site 4483

Geochemical Analysis of Artifacts Collected at Site 4483

Inventory of Lithics from Units and Auger Bores, Site 4483

Inventory of Lithics from Feature 13 Grids, Site 4483

Summary of Lithics from Feature 32, Site 4483

303 305 313

Stratigraphic Pollen Analyses at Site 4483

The eleven ahupuaa of Koolaupoko District, Oahu.

OVERVIEW: PROJECT HISTORY AND SCOPE OF WORK

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

THE PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

GEOLOGY, CLIMATE, AND HYDROLOGY

TOPOGRAPHY, LANDFORMS, AND SEDIMENTS

VEGETATION AND FAUNA

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH IN THE AREA: LEGENDARY AND TRADITIONAL SITES

EARLY FINDS AND REPORTS OF LEGENDARY SITES

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FINDS SINCE 1970

ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR NEW TYPES OF LAND USE FOLLOWING CONTACT

RESEARCH GOALS AND QUESTIONS, AND EVIDENCE NEEDED

RESEARCH PROBLEMS AND GOALS

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND EVIDENCE NEEDED

PROJECT LOGISTICS, PERSONNEL, METHODS AND TERMINOLOGY

FIELD METHODS AND METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN TERMS

alii pana heiau heiau luakini ili imu kalo k

kuleana lele loi loi kalo mahele

EXPLANATIONS OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

CIEP cm cmbs HRC LCA m masl mm sp. spp.

Helen Higman Leidemann

Site 2463, plan view showing roads and excavation units.

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

SITE 2463 FEATURE 2: OLD LULUKU ROAD

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

SITE 2463 FEATURE 3: OLD KAPALAI ROAD

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

MODERN DEVELOPMENT OF LULUKU AND KAPALAI ROADS

Chapter 2: Site 50-80-10-2463

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

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

CLIMATE AND VEGETATION

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGY

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

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Table 3.2. Vegetation List, Site 4483 and Surrounding Areas

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

HISTORY AND ETHNOHISTORY

METHODS, SAMPLING, AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS MONITORING METHODS

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483

RESULTS SURFACE FINDS

UNIT AND FEATURE DESCRIPTIONS

Chapter 3: Site 50-80-10-4483