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

Archeaological Data Recovery Plan for Site50–30–02–4018 at TMK: (4) 5–9–05:028, Ha‘ena,

Halele‘a, Kaua‘i

omas S. Dye, Ph.D.

August 7, 2008

Contents1 Introduction 2

2 Regional Archaeological Background 22.1 Surveys Near the Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Surveys at Ha‘ena Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.3 SurveysMauka of Kuhio Highway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4 Synthesis of Archaeological Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Elements of the Plan 93.1 Research Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93.2 Data Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 Field Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.4 Laboratory Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113.5 Procedure for Depositing Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Bibliography 11

Abstract

At the request of Landmark Consulting Services, T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archae-ologists, Inc. has prepared an archaeological data recovery plan for site 50–30–02–4018. e research objectives of the plan are to determine the cultural content of thesite, compare it with other coastal sites in the vicinity, and determine its age. eobjectives will be achieved by controlled archaeological excavation of 20–24 m2 intwo areas identi�ed during inventory survey and recommended for data recoveryby the State Historic Preservation Division.

1

2 2 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

1 IntroductionAt the request of Ben Welborn of Landmark Consulting Services, T. S. Dye & Colleagues,Archaeologists, Inc. has prepared an archaeological data recovery plan for site 50–30–02–4018 at a residential beach lot in Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i identi�ed on tax maps as TMK: (4) 5–9–05:028.Site 50–30–02–4018 was identi�ed by Bassford et al. [1] during inventory survey

of the parcel in 2007. It was identi�ed as a layer of charcoal-darkened sand present infour of the ten backhoe trenches excavated during the survey and, in a ��h trench, asan imu excavated from the modern ground surface and not associated with a layer ofcharcoal-darkened sand. Boundaries for the site were not determined during inventorysurvey, but the site was characterized as being present “possibly throughout the entireproperty” [1:27], despite the fact that �ve of the excavated trenches yielded no evidenceof cultural activity. e cultural content of the charcoal-darkened sand is not described in detail, but

apparently included: (i) two pits interpreted as �re-pits; (ii) a third pit of unspeci�edfunction; (iii) pieces of charred kukui nutshell and other plant material; (iv) basalt rocksthat were presumably carried to the site and deposited there; and (v) midden and shellmidden,1 which are not otherwise described. No artifacts were reported. On this basis,the site was interpreted as a “(possibly temporary) habitation” [1:18].A single 14C date was processed on a piece of unidenti�ed wood charcoal collected

from the imu. is sample yielded a calibrated 2σ age range of ad 1520–1950, reportederroneously as ad 1490–1680 [1:23]. e erroneous age range appears to be the sole basisfor the inference that site 50–30–02–4018 belongs to the “traditional pre-Contact” era[1:18]. is is a relatively weak inference:(i) it is not supported by the correct 14C age range,which extends to the modern end of the 14C time scale and thus plausibly dates a modernactivity; and (ii) the imu is not stratigraphically associated with the charcoal-darkenedsand that makes up the bulk of the site, but is instead cut from themodern ground surfaceas would an imu prepared today. e inventory survey report recommends that data recovery be carried out near

the two trenches where pit features were found associated with the charcoal-darkenedsand [1:29]. SHPD concurred with the recommendation to conduct data recovery in itsreview letter accepting the inventory survey report (LOG NO: 2007:2760). Accordingly,this data recovery plan has been prepared by a fully-quali�ed archaeologist pursuantto Hawaii Administrative Rules Governing Standards for Archaeological Data RecoveryStudies and Reports, §13–278–3.

2 Regional Archaeological Background ere have been a great number of small archaeological surveys completed in Ha‘enaahupua‘a near the project area, to the east at Ha‘ena Point, andmauka of Kuhio Highway

1 e termmidden is used loosely and imprecisely by Hawaiian archaeologists to refer to marine shellsand animal bones discarded as the by-products of meals. It should be noted that whole marine shells ofvarious sizes are commonly found naturally deposited in sands on the north coast of Kaua‘i; the inventoryreport does not specify how the “midden” was distinguished from naturally-deposited marine shells.

2.1 Surveys Near the Project Area 3

(�g. 1). ese are reviewed below to determine what types of cultural material are likelyto be found at the project parcel.

Figure 1. Archaeological survey coverage in the vicinity of the project area. See text forresults of inventory surveys at numbered parcels.

2.1 Surveys Near the Project AreaKennedy [26] excavated four backhoe trenches in a previously bulldozed lotmakai of makai

Kuhio Highway (�g. 1, 12). A soil horizon was exposed at and near the surface, but noindication is given whether this soil layer represents a cultural deposit. Later, it wasreported that “no signi�cant cultural deposits were present” [33:15, emphasis added] atthe parcel. Moore and Kennedy [33] report results from an additional four backhoetrenches immediately east (�g. 1, 11). Stratigraphic descriptions indicate that they foundwhat appears to be a buried cultural layer in trench 4 and possibly trench 3, but failed torecognize it. Marine shells recovered from the trenches “could not be attributed to an-thropomorphic [sic] activities” [33:15]. Incomplete remains of one individual, presumablyHawaiian, were discovered during house construction [32].Archaeological trenches excavated on the parcels immediately east [9] and west [10]

of the project parcel (�g. 1, textit26, 27), did not identify a cultural deposit. e presence

4 2 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

of extinct Carelia dolei isenbergi land snail shells in the surface deposits was interpretedas indicating a stable land surface from traditional Hawaiian times, because the snail wasextinct by the time of Captain Cook’s visit to Kaua‘i in 1778.Hammatt et al. [19] excavated 17 backhoe trenches, exposing a buried cultural layer

at themauka end of a propertymakai of Kuhio Highway (�g. 1, 17). e cultural layer“probably occurs throughout the property, but is buried . . . by as much as 3 meters ofdune and �ll sand” [19:29]. An imu cut from the cultural layer yielded a 14C date ofimu80�60 indicating either a late prehistoric or historic-era age for the deposit. Althoughthe authors interpret the 14C date to indicate late prehistoric traditional Hawaiian use ofthe area [19:27], the possibility of in-built age for the unidenti�ed wood charcoal makesthis interpretation somewhat tenuous. e cultural layer yielded only three basalt akes.Ostro� and Kennedy [34] excavated four trenches on a beach lot makai of Kuhio

Highway about 250 m west of the project parcel (�g. 1, 25). No cultural material waslocated in the four trenches.McGerty and Spear [30] assign a deeply buried and stratigraphically variable layer of

dark sand at Ha‘ena Beach Park to State Site 50–30–02–788, west of the project parcel(�g. 1, 18). ey provide no evidence that the layer represents a cultural deposit; insteadthey assume that the layer “derived from past human activity in the area” [30:32]. Asample of sediment from the supposed cultural layer yielded a 14C date of 370�70, whichfalls within the traditional Hawaiian period. is result is not interpretable, however,because the sediment is not associated with an archaeological event and the source(s) ofthe dated carbon were not identi�ed. Evidence for cultural activity associated with thisburied layer should be obtained before it is considered a traditional Hawaiian site. edeposit could just as well represent a paleosol, whose presence is due to natural and not

paleosolcultural processes.

2.2 Surveys at Ha‘ena PointDixon et al. [6] and Soldo and Dixon [43] report a concentration of the extinct land snailCarelia dolei isenbergi at site 50–30–10–1031,makai of Kuhio Highway, east of the projectparcel (�g. 1, 7). eC. dolei shells were in a sealed deposit with the Polynesian introducedland snail Lamellidea oblonga, indicating that the C. dolei extinction event occurred a�erPolynesian colonization of the islands. A single 14C date of 1390�60 on C. dolei includesan unknown but potentially substantial in-built age, and the calibrated age of ad 252–549provides a terminus post quem for extinction. us, C. dolei became extinct sometimewithin the last 1,750–1,450 years, well a�er their hypothesized Pleistocene demise [3]. ey also report eleven archaeological features recorded in two stratigraphic layers

in the upper 50 cm of unconsolidated calcareous sand. ese include seven �re-pits, oneimu, two land snail deposits, and one modern trash pit. 14C dates on unidenti�ed woodcharcoal from one of the �re-pits and the imu returned conventional 14C ages of 460�60and 520�80, respectively. ese dates have unknown but potential in-built age of up toabout 200 years due to the possibility that the dated materials were long-lived speciesof relatively great age when they were burned. Interpreted conservatively, the 14C datesindicate use of the coastal plain sometime in the ��eenth to early eighteenth centuries.Hammatt and Shideler [21] and Hammatt [18] excavated 35 m2, revealing a discontin-

uous traditional Hawaiian cultural layer in themakai andmauka portions of the property

2.2 Surveys at Ha‘ena Point 5

(�g. 1, 5). e layer yielded an artifact assemblage dominated by basalt and volcanicglass akes, but also including coral, sea urchin spine and basalt �les, and a cowrie shelloctopus lure. Faunal remains include a relatively large number of seabird and mammalbones, as well as Neritina sp. shells that indicate harvesting in Manoa stream. 14C dateson unidenti�ed wood charcoal yielded calibrated ages ranging from the last half of thethirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. Given the possible in uence of in-built age, aconservative interpretation of the 14C evidence indicates traditional Hawaiian use ofHa‘ena point by the ��eenth century. Denham and Kennedy [4] describe the discoveryof the partial remains of at least 18 individuals from disturbed deposits a�er construc-tion of the Zimmerman house had begun. A large collection of traditional Hawaiianartifacts, also from disturbed contexts, was made. e artifacts include adzes, chisels, amother-of-pearl pendant in the shape of a niho palaoa, and a possible ku‘ula. niho palaoa

ku‘ulaHammatt and Shideler [20] investigated remnants of a truncated traditional Hawaiiancultural layer atHa‘ena Point (�g. 1, 4), recovering a small collection ofmostlymarine shellmidden, a single ake of volcanic glass, and the remains of two individuals, one disturbedby excavation and the other intact at a depth of 2 m below surface. irty-one sets ofhuman remains were discovered during construction, along with a small collection ofburial goods (including two Pinctada shell ornaments), and artifacts including hammer-stones, adzes, basalt and volcanic glass akes, a stone bowl or lamp, cowrie shell octopuslures, coral and sea urchin spine �les, a bone ornament and a �shhook blank [36].Hammatt and Shideler [22] report results of 10.5 m2 excavation at the Rasten property

(�g. 1, 8). Excavations yielded 307 traditional Hawaiian artifacts, primarily basalt akes,many with polish indicating they derived from a �nished tool such as an adze, volcanicglass akes, several adzes, a hammer-stone, basalt, coral and sea urchin spine abraders ofvarious forms, bone and shell �shhooks, and dog tooth and shell ornaments. Historic-eraartifacts were absent. Vertebrate faunal remains include �sh, birds, pig, dog, Polynesianrat, and turtle, and indicate consumption of relatively large numbers of pigs. Historically-introduced taxa were not recovered. Among the birds were bones of albatross and goose,neither of which were known to nest on Kaua‘i during the historic period. Fish bonewas composed primarily of inshore taxa, with a large number of shark or ray vertebrae.Marine invertebrate remains include primarily shells that could have been collected fromthe inshore waters adjacent to the property, but alsoNeritina sp., probably collected fromManoa Stream, and ‘opihi, which might have been collected along the Na Pali coast. Two ‘opihi14C dates on unidenti�ed charcoal yielded calibrated ages ranging from the fourteenth to��eenth centuries. Given the possibility of in-built age, these dates can be conservativelyinterpreted to indicate traditional Hawaiian use of the area by the ��eenth century. A“basalt boulder feature” associated with abundant charcoal was uncovered at the base ofthe cultural layer [22:�g. 9], but it is not interpreted.Kruse [28] presents �eld notes from monitoring house construction at Ha‘ena Point

(�g. 1, 1). e notes record in minimal detail the discovery and reinterment of a singleindividual from burial site 50–30–02–870. Immediately inland, Ostro� et al. [35] carriedout an inventory survey (�g. 1, 22) and did not �nd any signi�cant historic properties orburials.Rosendahl [40] identi�ed “a dark grey to black cultural deposit which evidenced

aboriginal occupation and exploitation of the area” but failed to note the stratigraphicposition of the deposit (�g. 1, 3).

6 2 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

Hammatt [15] discovered a cultural layer in a wave-cut bank within 30 cm of thepresent land surface at Ha‘ena Point (�g. 1, 2). It contained artifacts, marine shell midden,and charcoal. Four years later, Hammatt [17] returned to the parcel, excavated three testpits along the wave-cut bank and reported no indication of buried cultural deposits. Asa result of these investigations, Hammatt concluded that there are “no archaeologicalremains in the dune deposits” and recommended no further archaeological investiga-tions. Subsequently, Hammatt [16] returned to the parcel, excavated six test pits, andrediscovered the cultural deposit which is described as having “fairly heavy middencontent” and which yielded an ‘ulu maika and basalt and volcanic glass cores and akes.

‘ulu maikaMcMahon [31] recorded the remains of possibly four individuals disturbed when a

bulldozer removed ironwood trees from the crest of a “semi-U shape” sand dune on eitherside of Kuhio Highway east of the project parcel (�g. 1, 8). A cultural layer was present,but was disturbed by the tree removal, and was not described in detail. It appears that theindividuals were determined to be Hawaiian, although the basis for this determination isnot speci�ed, and were reinterred in place with the participation of the O�ce of HawaiianA�airs. A short distance west of here, Elmore and Kennedy [13] found no evidence of acultural deposit (�g. 1, 23).Folk [14] found a traditional Hawaiian cultural deposit whosemakai edge is about

100 m from the beach and which runs to Road D-2 at the mauka end of a beachfrontproperty (�g. 1, 9). It is found between 13 cm and 100 cm below surface and has amaximum thickness of at least 54 cm. Pro�les of the cultural deposit [14:�gs. 6 and 7]indicate that it was located on the gently slopingmauka face of the Ha‘ena dune, and thatthe eastern edge of the deposit was possibly truncated by an intermittent stream.Hammatt and Shideler [23] excavated trenches totalling 45.6 m on a parcel on the

makai side of Kuhio Highway (�g. 1, 10). No subsurface cultural remains were found, duepossibly to the erosional e�ects of tidal waves [23:27–29]. However, all of the trencheswere excavated west of the expected location of the cultural deposit, based on the resultsreported by Folk [14].

2.3 SurveysMauka of Kuhio HighwayEarle [12] mapped the lo‘i system on the west bank of Manoa stream (�g. 1, 19). e lo‘iare associated with dry terraces, mounds, and an enclosure on the talus slopes and witha heiau at the top of the system near the origin of the ‘auwai [12:�g. 6.6]. No excavationswere undertaken.Shun [42] excavated four long trenches across a propertymauka of Kuhio Highway

(�g. 1, 14). No cultural materials were found in the surface alluvium or in the basalcalcareous sand. Similarly, Rechtman [37], found no cultural deposit on a parcel nearby(�g. 1, 24).Kennedy [27] excavated four backhoe trenches immediatelymauka ofKuhioHighway

(�g. 1, 13). e trenches exposed calcareous sand, which is not further described in thereport. Presumably, the sand is light-colored because “no cultural material of any kindwas present” [27:2], although the dog skeleton recovered from a depth of about 1 mpresumably represents an intentional burial and not natural deposition.Dye [7] recorded three sites on a propertymauka of Kuhio Highway adjacent to the

project area (�g. 1, 15). Two stone structures, sites 50–30–02–1994 and –1996, are located

2.4 Synthesis of Archaeological Information 7

at themauka end of the property at the base of the talus slope. Site 50–30–02–1994 is aheiau. Site 50–30–02–1995 is a remnant cultural deposit exposed at themakai east cornerof the property, near Kuhio Highway.Wickler [46] carried out an extensive program of auger and shovel testing west of

the project parcel, immediately inland of Kuhio Highway (�g. 1, 16). A basal deposit ofcalcareous sand was found near the surface near the highway and at increasing depthstoward themauka edge of the property. It was buried by alluvial sediments containingsome charcoal and modern cultural material, such as glass and plastic. No traditionalHawaiian cultural deposit was found.Rechtman and Clark [38] recorded the burial crypt of Tutu Kealoha, state site 50–

30–02–1872 (�g. 1, 20) and discovered an unmarked historic-era burial in a neighboringparcel (�g. 1, 21) that was assigned state site 50–30–02–2071. e historic-era burial wasinterred in a pit about 1 m deep that had been �lled with charcoal-rich sand, covered bywater-worn cobbles, and subsequently covered by approximately 25 cm of dark brownsandy loam. No traditional Hawaiian deposits were found on either parcel.McElroy [29] found no signi�cant historic properties during a subsurface inventory

survey of a parcel 175 mmauka of Kuhio Highway (�g. 1, 29). Traditional Hawaiian andhistoric-era artifacts were found as secondary deposits in a �ll material that coveredmuch of the parcel. Dye [8] completed an archaeological assessment without excavationat a parcelmakai of this (�g. 1, 28).

2.4 Synthesis of Archaeological InformationArchaeological investigations in Ha‘ena ahupua‘a near Manoa Stream have revealed thepresence of a widespread buried traditional Hawaiian cultural layer in the sandy soils nearthe shore, stone structures including a heiau at the base of talus slopes near themountains,and agricultural �elds, heiau, shelters and enclosures in the Manoa Stream valley. Notraditional Hawaiian sites have been found on the former pasture lands between the baseof talus slopes and the sandy soils mostlymakai of the highway. e discontinuous traditional Hawaiian cultural layer at Ha‘ena Point is listed as site

50–30–02–1809 [45] in the SHPD geographic information system database. is sitewas probably established by the ��eenth century ad; claims for an earlier settlementdo not take into account the likely e�ects of in-built age on unidenti�ed wood charcoalused in 14C dating. e wide range of traditional Hawaiian artifacts recovered from thesite indicate use for habitation and burial. Subsurface archaeological features associatedwith habitation are present and include imu and stone structures. ese have receivedrelatively little attention, despite their importance in reconstructing traditional Hawaiiansettlement at Ha‘ena Point. e site has yielded a wide range of faunal material indicatinganimal husbandry of pig, dog, and chicken and �shing in the shallow and deep watero�shore. It has been suggested that ‘opihi were brought to the site from the Na Palicoast and that inhabitants of the settlement at Ha‘ena Point regularly harvested snailsfrom Manoa Stream. Recovery of bones from a seabird and a goose not known to neston Kaua‘i during the historic period indicate either di�erent environmental conditionsin the past, or possible inter-island transport of birds. Dates for the presence of thesebirds at Ha‘ena can be established by dating the bones directly, using sample preparationtechniques described by Sta�ord et al. [44].

8 2 REGIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND

e discontinuous nature of site 50–30–02–1809 is explained as a result of twentiethcentury land modi�cations and erosion due to tsunami. Coastal sand deposits generallydevelop as a series of ridges and swales that parallel the coast; landmodi�cations typically atten this undulating topography by pushing the crests of ridges into the swales. Inplaces, this creates a discontinuous cultural deposit buried in former swales and absent onformer ridges. e situation at Ha‘ena Point might be more complex than this, however,and awaits a more detailed analysis. e e�ects of tsunami are believed to have beengreatest at the western edge of the site [23]. Records of the 1946 tsunami indicate waveheights up to 14 m behind the channel in the coral reef at Manoa Stream (�g. 2). ewave had devastating e�ects on the land. Cultural deposits are found in the sandy soilshere, but they haven’t been explored in depth so it is not possible to specify what e�ects,if any, tsunami have had on them.

Figure 2.Wave heights in Ha‘ena during the 1946 tsunami. Source: Shepard, Macdonald,and Cox [41].

9

Human burial remains are numerous in the sandy coastal soils of Ha‘ena Point. In gen-eral, archaeological inventory survey techniques employed to date have been unsuccessfulin locating or predicting the locations of burial sites at Ha‘ena Point. ese techniques,which include augering, excavation of small test pits, and backhoe trenching, are alldesigned to yield stratigraphic information and concentrate on the vertical dimension,rather than the horizontal. An alternative technique that has been used successfully toidentify burial sites elsewhere in the islands maximizes horizontal exposure by scrapingthe surface. e goal of this technique is to expose the tops of possible grave sha�s, whichcan be identi�ed by the mixed sediment used to �ll them, without exposing humanremains.In summary, the cultural deposits and traditional Hawaiian burials in Ha‘ena have

been foundmakai of Kuhio Highway and mostly on the section of Ha‘ena Point frontedby relatively shallow coral reef, starting about 300 m northeast of the project parcel. earea between Ha‘ena Point and the project parcel has yielded only a possible culturaldeposit, which hasn’t been investigated thoroughly, and a single human burial discoveredduring construction activities. e situation is somewhat similar along the coast tothe west. Here, the only unequivocal cultural deposit described in the archaeologicalliterature is a deeply buried imu that yielded a recent 14C age interpreted here as dating tothe historic era and not to traditional Hawaiian times. us, archaeological work in thevicinity of the project parcel yields almost no information that might be used to predictthe cultural content or age of site 50–30–02–4018.

3 Elements of the Plan

is section sets out the elements of the data recovery plan pursuant to H.R.S. §13–278–3.

3.1 Research Objectives

Bassford, Dagher, and Dega [1] do not set out research objectives for the data recoveryproject they recommend. Typically, archaeological data recovery is designed to collectinformation that is needed to answer speci�c questions about a particular period of thepast from a site whose basic characteristics have been investigated reasonably thoroughlyand are well understood. Such a design is not possible for site 50–30–02–4018, becausebasic characteristics of the site, including: (i) the location of its boundaries; (ii) the natureof its cultural content; and (iii) its age. have not been successfully investigated, and thereis almost no information from investigation of cultural deposits in the vicinity. us, theresearch objectives of data recovery investigation are necessarily less speci�c than usualbecause basic characteristics of the site must �rst be established.

• What is the cultural content of site 50–30–02–4018? Is it similar to the culturalcontent of deposits at Ha‘ena Point, or does it re ect a di�erent set of activities?

• What is the age of site 50–30–02–4018? Does the deposit date to the traditionalHawaiian period, or is it more recent?

10 3 ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN

3.2 Data Needs

Successful implementation of the research design will require that a su�cient sample ofthe cultural content be collected to characterize the site as a whole and to document vari-ability in the content from one place to another. e sample size should be comparable tosamples collected from other sites along the north coast of Kaua‘i to facilitate meaningfulcomparisons. Excavation of relatively large, contiguous areas is important primarily toexpose clusters of features that might contain information on the spatial organization ofactivities. is type of data is di�cult to acquire in small exposures. Data from the arealexcavation must be collected from centare units or smaller to ensure compatibility withexisting data and maximize interpretive potential of spatial analyses. Using mathematicaltechniques proposed by Rogers [39], Desilets and Dye [5] have shown that centare unitspreserve su�cient spatial data to discriminate artifact clusters associated with the typesof traditional Hawaiian features likely to be encountered in coastal sites. Provenience ofcultural materials must indicate layer, spit within layer, or feature, as appropriate. To thefullest extent possible, stratigraphic relations of collection units must be established inthe �eld so that materials from collections can be placed in temporal order for analysis.Suitable dating material will be needed to determine the age of the site. e material

must come from a context, such as a �re-pit feature, that is associated with an archaeo-logical event related to de�nite cultural activity. e material submitted for dating mustcontrol for the e�ects of in-built age.

3.3 Field Methods

If human remains are encountered, the State Historic Preservation Division will becontacted immediately. Human remains will be treated as inadvertent discoveries underthe appropriate state laws and administrative rules. Stratigraphic pro�les will be drawnof all excavations that expose cultural deposits. e contents of features exposed duringthis work will be collected using standard archaeological techniques for analysis andinterpretation as appropriate.Following the recommendation of the inventory survey, data recovery will take place

in two locations, each of which yielded evidence of pit features. An area of approximately10–12 ,2 will be excavated at each of the areas. e cultural layer will be exposed overthe entire excavation grid using a backhoe to remove overburden. A centare grid andexcavation datum will be established. e upper surface of the cultural layer and allsubsequent cultural and natural layers will be mapped relative to datum. Excavationwill employ at-bladed shovels in a skimming motion, trowels, and whisk brooms, asappropriate. Features will be isolated as soon as they appear in plan and excavatedseparately from the general cultural layer matrix. Vertical control will be achieved byexcavation of 10 cm spits within natural layers. Excavation records will be kept followingthe methods set out by Harris [24]. All excavated sediments will be passed through0.125 in. mesh sieves to facilitate collection of artifacts and vertebrate faunal remains.Marine invertebrate remainswill be collected from0.25 in.mesh sieves. Culturalmaterialsfrom the excavations will be placed in appropriately labeled plastic bags for transport tothe laboratory for identi�cation and analysis.

3.4 Laboratory Analyses 11

3.4 Laboratory AnalysesLaboratory analyses are a primary component of the research design. ey include iden-ti�cation and analysis of materials collected during �eldwork, and data entry, statisticalanalysis, and interpretation of collected materials. Marine invertebrate remains will beidenti�ed in the T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. laboratory with referenceto Kay [25]. Fish remains will be identi�ed against the reference collection describedby Dye and Longenecker [11]. Selected samples of wood charcoal will be identi�ed byGail Murakami of the International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Wood Identi-�cation Laboratory. Two suitable dating samples will be sent to Beta-Analytic, Inc. foraccelerator mass spectrometry dating.Data on artifacts and faunal remains collected in the �eld will be entered into a

relational database designed speci�cally for archaeological excavation data. is databaseis the source of information for text tables and appendices that appear in the data recoveryreport and for statistical analyses carried out on those data. is sole-source approachensures data consistency and integrity; all of the data used in statistical analyses will bepresented in the report.A variety of statistical techniques will be used to search for spatial and temporal

patterning in artifacts and faunal remains at the level of the centare excavation unit. eseinclude multivariate exploratory methods [2] such as spatial star plots, correspondenceanalysis, and principal components analysis. Spatial star plots provide an easily readgraphical display of cultural remains from each centare; these can be arranged to searchquickly for patterning in the distribution of cultural materials. Correspondence analysisand principal components analysis are closely related techniques that compare collectionsof objects to one another. ey provide an objective technique to establish the similarityof collections.A data recovery report describing all of the �eldwork and laboratory results will be

produced. e report will interpret �nds in the context of the research design.

3.5 Procedure for Depositing Collections e collections made during data recovery are the property of the landowner and will bereturned at the end of the project. All records, notes, and databases will be archived inthe o�ces of T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc.

Bibliography[1] Bassford, S. Q., C. A. Dagher, and M. Dega (2007, May). An Archaeological InventorySurvey of a 2.0 Acre Beachfront Property in Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a, Halele‘a District, Kaua‘iIsland, Hawai‘i (TMK: (4) 5–9–005:028. Prepared for Glen Schot and Kendall-Jackson.Honolulu: Scienti�c Consulting Services.

[2] Baxter, M. J. (1994). Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.

[3] Cooke, Jr., C. M. (1931). e Land Snail Genus Carelia. Number 85 in B. P. BishopMuseum Bulletin. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

12 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[4] Denham, T. and J. Kennedy (1993, June). Remedial Archaeological InvestigationsandMonitoring Report Following the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains on theZimmerman Property at TMK:5–9–02:34, Haena Ahupua‘a, Hanalei District, KauaiIsland. Prepared for Stuart Zimmerman. Hale‘iwa, HI: Archaeological Consultants ofHawaii.

[5] Desilets,M. E. andT. S.Dye (2002, January).ArchaeologicalMonitoring and SamplingDuring Bellows OU7 UST Removal Project Interim Remedial Action, Phase I, BellowsAir Force Station, Waimanalo, Ko‘olaupoko, O‘ahu. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute.

[6] Dixon, B., D. Soldo, and C. C. Christensen (1997). Radiocarbon dating land snailsand Polynesian land use on the island of Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i. Hawaiian Archaeology 6,52–62.

[7] Dye, T. S. (1998, March 3). Archaeological survey of property at Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i(TMK:5–9–5:1). Letter to Karen Sherwood in State Historic Preservation DivisionLibrary, Kapolei, HI.

[8] Dye, T. S. (2002, February). Archaeological Assessment for a Residential Lot atHa‘nea,Kaua‘i. Prepared for Marilyn Browning. Honolulu: T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeol-ogists, Inc.

[9] Dye, T. S. (2005, July). An Archaeological Assessment of a Coastal Lot, TMK:(4)5–9–05:029, at Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i. Prepared for Landmark Consulting Services Inc.Honolulu: T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.

[10] Dye, T. S. and E. K. Komori (2007, September). An Archaeological Assessment of aCoastal Lot, TMK: (4) 5–9–05:027, at Ha‘ena, Halele‘a Kaua‘i. Prepared for LandmarkConsulting Services. Honolulu: T. S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc.

[11] Dye, T. S. and K. Longenecker (2004). Manual of Hawaiian Fish Remains Identi�-cation. Number 1 in Special Publication. Honolulu: Society for Hawaiian Archaeologyand Bishop Museum Press.

[12] Earle, T. (1978). Economic and Social Organization of a Complex Chiefdom: eHalelea District, Kaua‘i, Hawaii. Number 63 in Anthropological Papers. Ann Arbor,MI: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan.

[13] Elmore, M. and J. Kennedy (1999, August). An Inventory Survey with SubsurfaceTesting Report for a Property Located at TMK:5–9–02:44 in Ha‘ena, Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a,Hanalei District, Island of Kauai. Prepared for Dean Ornish. Hale‘iwa, HI: Archaeo-logical Consultants of the Paci�c.

[14] Folk, W. H. (1990, July). Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Paskal ResidentialProperty atHa‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i (TMK:4–5–002:048). Prepared for Joseph S. Paskal.Kailua, HI: Cultural Surveys Hawaii.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 13

[15] Hammatt, H. H. (1980, September 9). Archaeological reconnaissance of a proposedhouse lot, TMK: 5–9–02:22, Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i Island. ARCH 14–205. Letter toJohn Whitaker in State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei, HI.

[16] Hammatt, H. H. (1984a, December 9). Archaeological subsurface testing, Lot 3Haena Hui Lands, Haena, Kauai. TMK: 5–9–02:22. Letter to Dr. Gary Stice in StateHistoric Preservation Division library, Kapolei, HI.

[17] Hammatt, H. H. (1984b, September 27). Archaeological survey and subsurfacetesting of Lot 3, Haena Hui Lands, Haena, Kauai, Hawaii. TMK 5–9–02:22. Letter toDr. Gary Stice in State Historic Preservation Division library, Kapolei, HI.

[18] Hammatt, H. H. (1989, January). Archaeological Reconnaissance of a ResidentialProperty, Haena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i. Prepared forClearwindBuilder. Kailua, HI: CulturalSurveys Hawaii.

[19] Hammatt, H. H., B. L. Colin, and E. Novack (1993, November). Archaeological In-ventory Survey with Subsurface Testing at the CookeHouselot, Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i (TMK:5–9–5:23). Prepared for Mary Cooke. Kailua, HI: Cultural Surveys Hawaii.

[20] Hammatt, H. H. and D. W. Shideler (1989a, October). Archaeological Investigationsat Site 50–30–02–1809 at a Residential Property (TMK:5–9–02:31), Ha‘ena, Halele‘a,Kaua‘i (Anawalt Property). Prepared for Design Associates. Kailua, HI: CulturalSurveys Hawaii.

[21] Hammatt, H. H. and D. W. Shideler (1989b, August). Excavations at Site 50–30–02–1809 at a Residential Property (TMK:5–9–02–34), Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i (Zim-merman Property). Prepared for Clearwind Builder. Kailua, HI: Cultural SurveysHawaii.

[22] Hammatt, H. H. and D. W. Shideler (1989c, October). Excavations at Site 50–30–02–1809 at a Residential Property (TMK:5–9–02:35), Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i (RastenProperty). Prepared for Kjell Rasten. Kailua, HI: Cultural Surveys Hawaii.

[23] Hammatt, H. H. and D. W. Shideler (1998, November). Archaeological InventorySurvey for a 43,598 Ft.2 Property in the Ahupua‘a of Ha‘ena, District of Halele‘a, Islandof Kaua‘i (TMK:5–9–02:50). Prepared for Jackie Yellin. Kailua, HI: Cultural SurveysHawaii.

[24] Harris, E. C. (1989). Principles of Archaeological Stratigraphy (Second ed.). London:Academic Press.

[25] Kay, E. A. (1979). Hawaiian Marine Shells. Number 64 in B. P. Bishop MuseumSpecial Publication. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

[26] Kennedy, J. (1989a, May 10). Preliminary surface survey and limited subsurfacetesting at TMK:5–9–02:51, Haena, Halelea, Kaua‘i. Letter to Diane Faye in StateHistoric Preservation Division Library, Kapolei, HI.

14 BIBLIOGRAPHY

[27] Kennedy, J. (1989b, July 18). Survey and subsurface testing of residential propertylocated at TMK:5–9–5:03, Haena, Kauai. Letter toMs. Nadine LaCock in State HistoricPreservation Division Library, Kapolei, HI.

[28] Kruse, J. A. P. (1994, February 21). Monitoring report. Photocopy of manuscript inState Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei, HI.

[29] McElroy, W. K. (2003, November). Archaeological Inventory Survey of the PaviaProperty, Ha‘ena, Kaua‘i. Prepared for Landmark Consulting Services. Honolulu: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc.

[30] McGerty, L. and R. L. Spear (1999, May). An Archaeological Inventory Survey ofHa‘enaBeach Park, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i, Hawai‘i (TMK:5–9–05:19) (Revised ed.). Preparedfor Dept. of Public Works, Division of Parks and Recreation. Honolulu: Scienti�cConsulting Services.

[31] McMahon, N. ([1988]). Human remains exposed by bulldozer, CDUA KA–319878–2016 (E. Bryant Smith Property), TMK:5–9–02:41 lot 23. Memorandum to �le, StateHistoric Preservation Division, Kapolei, HI. DOC: 0954W.

[32] McMahon, N. A. (1996, June). Report on Inadvertent Human Skeletal Remains (50–30–02–1986) Found During the Construction of Single Family Residence on the FayeProperty Located at TMK: 5–9–02:52, Haena, Halelea, Kaua‘i. Prepared for DianeFaye. Koloa, HI: Exploration Associates.

[33] Moore, J. R. and J. Kennedy (1995, March). An Archaeological Inventory Surveywith Subsurface Testing Report for a Property Located at TMK:5–9–02:52 in Ha‘enaAhupua‘a, Hanalei District, Island of Kauai. Prepared for Diane G. Faye. Hale‘iwa, HI:Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii.

[34] Ostro�, B. and J. Kennedy (2001, May). An Inventory Survey with Subsurface testingReport for a Propoerty Located at TMK:5–9–05:20 inHa‘ena, Ha‘enaAhupua‘a, HanaleiDistrict, Island of Kaua‘i. Prepared for Edi Bender. Haleiwa, HI: ArchaeologicalConsultants of the Paci�c.

[35] Ostro�, B., J. R. Moore, and J. Kennedy (2001, May). Archaeological InventorySurvey Report for a Property Located at TMK:5–9–02:19 in Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a, HanaleiDistrict, Island of Kaua‘i. Prepared for Keith Roueche. Haleiwa, HI: ArchaeologicalConsultants of the Paci�c.

[36] Rechtman, R. B. (1994, October). Archaeological Monitoring Report for Construc-tion Activities Associated with the Residential Development of TMK:5–9–02:31, Lot 14(Anawalt Property), Ha‘ena, Halele‘a, Kaua‘i. Prepared for Fred Anawalt. RedondoBeach, CA: Robert Rechtman, Ph.D., Consulting Archaeologist.

[37] Rechtman, R. B. (2004, March). Archaeological Inventory Survey of (TMK:4-5-9-2:58), Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a, Halele‘a District, Island of Kaua‘i. Prepared for Noel Ochwat.Kea‘au, Hawaii: Rechtman Consulting.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

[38] Rechtman, R. B. andM.R.Clark (2002, October).Archaeological Inventory Survey ofTwo Residential Lots at Ha‘ena (TMK:4–5–9–2:69, 70). Prepared for Michael Schmidt.Kea‘au, HI: Rechtman Consulting.

[39] Rogers, A. R. (1982). Data collection and information loss in the study of spatialpattern. World Archaeology 14(2), 249–258.

[40] Rosendahl, P. H. (1989, March 1). Haena development parcel �eld inspection, landof Haena, Hanalei District, Island of Kauai (TMK:4–5–9–2:30). Letter to David Breenin State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei, HI.

[41] Shepard, F. P., G. A. Macdonald, and D. C. Cox (1950). e Tsunami of April 1, 1946.Number 441 in Contributions from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NewSeries. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Reprinted fromBulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California,LaJolla, California, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 391–528.

[42] Shun, K. (1994). Archaeological Investigation, Parcel TMK:5–9–02:056, Haena,Hanalei, Island of Kauai. Prepared for Brian Krone. Kailua, HI: Archaeological Asso-ciates Oceania.

[43] Soldo, D. J. and B. Dixon (1994, December). Archaeological Monitoring DuringConstruction of a Single Family Residence (TMK:5–9–02:36), Ha‘ena Ahupua‘a, Kaua‘iIsland, Hawai‘i (Revised ed.). Prepared for Richard Harder, General Contractor.Honolulu: Anthropology Department, B. P. Bishop Museum.

[44] Sta�ord, Jr., T. W., P. E. Hare, L. Currie, A. J. T. Jull, and D. J. Donahue (1991). Accel-erator radiocarbon dating at the molecular level. Journal of Archaeological Science 18,35–72.

[45] State Historic Preservation Division (2001). Kaua‘i sites. http://tako.icsd.hawaii.gov/~ckomoek/jshape/kauai/kauai.htm. Dra� data for general infor-mation only.

[46] Wickler, S. K. (1989, September). Archaeological Survey with Subsurface Testing, Lot50, HaenaHui Subdivision (TMK:5–9–05:7), Haena, Island of Kauai, Hawaii. Preparedfor Mr. and Mrs. William Kellie. Honolulu: International Archaeological ResearchInstitute.