carson _ athens 2006 kualoa

7/28/2019 Carson _ Athens 2006 Kualoa

1/81

Archaeological Monitoring and

Data Recovery at Kualoa Regional Park,Kualoa Ahupuaa, Koolaupoko District,

Oahu Island, Hawaii

Oahu Island Tax Map Key (TMK) 4-9-4:01

Prepared by

Mike T. Carson

J. Stephen Athens

Prepared for

Haitsuka Brothers, Ltd.P.O. Box 30625

Honolulu, Hawaii 96820

INTERNATIONALARCHAEOLOGICALRESEARCHINSTITUTE, INC.

APRIL 2006


2/81

IARII 860009

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING AND

DATA RECOVERY AT KUALOA REGIONAL PARK,

KUALOA AHUPUAA, KOOLAUPOKO DISTRICT,

OAHU ISLAND, HAWAII

Oahu Island Tax Map Key (TMK) 4-9-4:01

Prepared by

Mike T. Carson, Ph.D.J. Stephen Athens, Ph.D.

Prepared forHaitsuka Brothers, Ltd.

P.O. Box 30625


International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.2081 Young Street


April 2006


3/81

ii


4/81


5/81

iv


6/81

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ vii

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................... viii

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1

INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES .............................................................................. 5

PHYSICAL SETTING................................................................................................... 9Geomorphology................................................................................................ 9Water Sources................................................................................................... 16Vegetation Communities.................................................................................. 17

CULTURAL TRADITIONS.......................................................................................... 19

TRADITIONAL AND HISTORIC LAND USE ........................................................... 23

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING ................................................................................. 27

PROJECT AREA STRATIGRAPHY............................................................................ 31

SAMPLED LOCALITIES............................................................................................. 33Monitoring Sample Area 1 ............................................................................... 33

Monitoring Sample Area 2 ............................................................................... 33Monitoring Sample Area 3 ............................................................................... 36Monitoring Sample Area 4 ............................................................................... 36Monitoring Sample Area 5 ............................................................................... 39Monitoring Sample Area 6 ............................................................................... 39Monitoring Sample Area 7 ............................................................................... 41Monitoring Sample Area 8 ............................................................................... 42Test UnitS 1 and 2 ............................................................................................ 42Test Unit 3 ........................................................................................................ 44

ARTIFACTS AND MIDDEN ....................................................................................... 47Basalt Flakes and Shatter.................................................................................. 47Volcanic Glass Flakes ...................................................................................... 48

Basalt Adze....................................................................................................... 48Bone Fishhook Point ........................................................................................ 49Historic Materials ............................................................................................. 49Marine Shellfish Remains ................................................................................ 50Vertebrate Faunal Remains .............................................................................. 51Charcoal............................................................................................................ 53


7/81

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

RADIOCARBON DATING .......................................................................................... 55

CHRONOLOGICAL SYNTHESIS............................................................................... 59Temporal Component One ............................................................................... 59Temporal Component Two............................................................................... 59Temporal Component Three............................................................................. 60Temporal Component Four .............................................................................. 60Temporal Component Five............................................................................... 61Temporal Component Six................................................................................. 61

CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 63

REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 65


8/81

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Location of project area. Base is portion of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)7.5-minute series Kahana quadrangle map....................................................... 2

2. Physical setting of project area................................................................................ 10

3. Photograph of Kualoa, view across Kneohe Bay to northeast.............................. 11

4. Schematic model of sandy coastal plain and peninsula formation.......................... 12

5. Photograph of eroding cultural deposit on east side of project area........................ 14

6. Schematic section view of east side of project area, showing position of

cultural deposit relative to regular tide levels and recent storm surge levels ... 157. Photograph of recent storm-surge deposit on east side of project area ................... 15

8. Archaeological sites in Kualoa................................................................................ 28

9. Distribution of monitoring sample areas and controlled test units .......................... 34

10. Profile of Monitoring Sample Area 1 ...................................................................... 35




14. Profile of MSA-7..................................................................................................... 41

15. Profile of Test Unit 1............................................................................................... 43

16. Photograph of sample of basalt flakes, basalt shatter, and volcanic glass flakes .... 47

17. Photograph of basalt adze, from MSA-5, graded surface of Stratum II .................. 48

18. Photograph of tip component of two-piece bone fishhook, from MSA-4,

firepit in Stratum III.......................................................................................... 49

19. Density of marine shellfish remains........................................................................ 50

20. Density of fish and total animal bones .................................................................... 53

21. Probability distribution of all radiocarbon dates from Kualoa Regional Park ........ 56


9/81

viii

LIST OF TABLES

1. List of land grant, royal patent, and land commission award recordsfor Kualoa Ahupuaa ........................................................................................ 23

2. Archaeological investigations and recorded sites in Kualoa ................................... 29

3. Summary of archaeological materials recovered from

Monitoring Sample Area 4 ............................................................................... 38





6. Summary of archaeological materials recovered from Test Units 1 and 2.............. 44

7. Summary of archaeological materials recovered from Test Unit 3 ......................... 45

8. Detailed identification of marine shellfish remains from selected proveniences .... 52

9. Radiocarbon dating results ...................................................................................... 55


10/81

INTRODUCTION

At the request of Haitsuka Brothers, Ltd., International Archaeological ResearchInstitute, Inc. (IARII) conducted archaeological monitoring and data recovery during road

realignment and associated landscaping at Kualoa Regional Park in Kualoa Ahupuaa of Oahu

Island, Hawaii, in a portion of Tax Map Key (TMK) 4-9-4:01 (Fig. 1). The field investigationrecorded information about the chronology of Hawaiian occupation in the area. The results were

coordinated with coastal geomorphology and oral traditions.

The investigation involved monitoring of trenching and other land-altering activities to

accommodate a realigned entry road and associated new landscaping for Kualoa Regional Park.

Where appropriate, samples of archaeological material were retrieved from exposed profiles. For

data recovery, controlled manual excavations were conducted in areas containing cultural

deposits significant to describe the nature and chronology of prehistoric occupation.

The project area is in a portion of the ahupuaa (traditional Hawaiian land unit) of

Kualoa, listed in its entirety in the Hawaii State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) as

Site 50-80-06-5281) and in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on the basis of its

mythological and legendary significance (Newman 1974). More specifically, subsurface cultural

deposits in Kualoa Regional Park have yielded important information about prehistoric Hawaiian

settlement, land use, and cultural traditions (Gunness 1986, 1987, 1993).

The present investigation recovered evidence of human occupation over several

centuries, spanning prehistoric, historic, and modern periods. Postmolds, firepits, stone paving

remnants, an artificial canal, food debris, and discarded artifacts reflect the range of activities.The earliest cultural deposit dates within the range of cal. AD 1040 to 1280, and the most recentdeposits contain post-Contact materials of the AD 1800s to 1900s. The earliest date

(Beta-28136) is from a firepit in a general habitation context, and it ranks among the earliest

known in the region.

A geoarchaeological study provided better understanding of how human occupation

related to the formation of the peninsula at Kualoa. Substantial geomorphological

transformations occurred during traditional Hawaiian use of the area. Various natural and

cultural processes have affected the form of the archaeological deposits, and some of these

processes continue today.

Oral traditions reflect some of the major events and processes of the geomorphological

sequence. The creation of principal landforms and the effects of high-sea events appear to beencoded in the language of folklore. Integration of this information with archaeological and

geomorphological data yields a richer understanding of the natural and cultural history of the

project area.


11/81

2

Figure 1. Location of project area. Base is portion of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

7.5-minute series Kahana quadrangle map.


12/81

3

The following sections of this report include: a) description of investigative procedures;

b) presentation of the physical setting and its implications for archaeology; c) summary of

cultural traditions of potential archaeological significance; d) assessment of traditional and

historic land use patterns affecting the local archaeological record; e) review of archaeologicalinvestigations in the project vicinity; f) overview of stratigraphy; g) discussion of sampled

localities; h) description and discussion of artifacts and midden; i) radiocarbon dating; j)

synthesis of the chronological sequence; and k) conclusions of the present work.


13/81

4


14/81

5

INVESTIGATIVE PROCEDURES

The project objective was to ensure recovery of significant archaeological and historicmaterial from expected subsurface cultural deposits that would be affected by realignment of the

entry road and associated landscaping at Kualoa Regional Park. Monitoring occurred only after

extensive test excavations had been conducted throughout the park (Ahlo 1980; Barrera 1974;Clark and Connolly 1975, 1978; Connolly 1977, 1978; Gunness1978, 1986, 1987, 1993). Many

of these prior excavations were precisely within the project area.

Monitoring was considered an efficient means to document the spatial extent of known

subsurface cultural deposits and to identify possible isolated remains that differed from the prior

documentation in some unexpected manner. This project has been considered among the more

successful implementations of monitoring in Hawaiian archaeology as a secondary discovery

procedure to supplement primary discovery by prior subsurface testing (Athens 1994).

The general approach was to monitor construction activities and to conduct controlled

manual excavations in specific localities as needed. In all monitored areas, stratigraphy and

cultural contents were recorded, and samples were retrieved where appropriate to characterize

deposits. Controlled manual excavation was conducted in representative locations containing

clearly defined postmolds, firepits, or dense concentrations of artifacts and midden.

The field investigation included 44 days of monitoring and nine days of data recoveryfrom March through November 1986. The work was conducted by J. Stephen Athens, Patricia

Beggerly, Michael Kaschko, Kanalei Shun, Farley Watanabe, and Stephen Wickler. Jo Lynn

Gunness provided important information about prior archaeological work in the area.

Original mapping data were generated in 1986, and additions in 2006 enabled

compatibility with current state and federal geographic information system (GIS) standards. A

1986 transit map was created to record locations of the new roadwork, monitored areas, and

controlled excavations. In 2006, a survey-grade Trimble Pro-XR global positioning system

(GPS) was used to record locations of roads, parking areas, and the coastline in the project

vicinity. The GPS data were collected with real-time differential correction for sub-meter

accuracy. The 1986 and 2006 mapping data were incorporated with other information in a GIS,

using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 4 North and the North American Datum of

1983 (NAD-1983).

The controlled excavations were conducted with trowels and other hand-held

instruments, proceeding in artificial levels of 0.1 or 0.2 m within natural strata. Sediments weredescribed in terms of color, texture, consistence, structure, matrix, and lower boundary. All

removed material was measured in volume, then screened through 1/8-inch (3.2-mm) wire mesh,

using water to remove sediment and to maximize visibility of archaeological contents. Artifacts,

midden, and charcoal were collected and placed in bags with individual catalog numbers and


15/81

6

appropriate provenience information. A field catalog list recorded more detailed information

about each bag number. Profiles were drawn of representative excavation areas.

At IARII facilities in Honolulu, the recovered archaeological materials were separatedby material type, and the resulting categories were weighed and tabulated by Patricia Spears in

December 1986. The 1986 laboratory work also involved identification of shellfish remains tothe genus level from two key proveniences in the project area. Artifacts were assessed for

probable function based on morphological characteristics and similarity with other objects of

known function. Charcoal was dried and weighed. In 2006, the artifacts and the vertebrate

faunal remains were identified in finer categories, counted, and weighed. Photographs ofrepresentative artifacts were taken in 2006.

For radiocarbon dating, charcoal samples were selected from five proveniences

important for understanding the chronology of prehistoric occupation. The samples were

analyzed with standard radiometric dating and13

C/12

C isotope correction by Beta Analytic in

1988 as samples Beta-28134 through -28138. In 2006, the dating results were calibrated at

2 sigma (95.4% confidence) with the OxCal program (Bronk Ramsey 2001), using standardatmospheric data (Stuiver et al. 1998).

In general, a possible in-built old wood effect could cause slightly older dating results

for unidentified charcoal if the dated samples happen to be long-lived specimens (Dye 2000). In

2006, wood anatomist Gail Murakami identified the plant taxa in retained portions of charcoal

from the two dating samples that had yielded the earliest dates. The identifiable specimens

consisted entirely ofTetraplasandra sp. (ohe), an endemic Hawaiian shrub or tree.

In 2006, the project area was assessed in terms of its geomorphology and potentialnatural and cultural formation processes, following a general approach designed for Hawaiian

beach sites (Carson 2004). Five sets of observations were made on three days, each six days

apart:

1) Where cultural and natural deposits were exposed by erosion, basic

documentation included color, texture, consistence, structure, matrix, and

lower boundary to compare with the 1986 field observations.

2) Wind direction and approximate speed were noted and verified with the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and effects

of windblown sand and other materials were recorded.

3) High and low tide levels were recorded in relation to the elevation of the

adjacent project area.

4) Locations of recent storm-surge debris were recorded.

5) Onshore-offshore and longshore current directions were noted, and

relative intensities were estimated.


16/81

7

These observations were considered in the context of the low-lying, sandy peninsula landform of

the project area. The results provided a context to interpret the depositional context of natural

and cultural layers as recorded in the 1986 field notes and in other investigations at Kualoa

Regional Park.

The 1986 artifact and midden collections have been prepared to return to KualoaRegional Park. Arrangements for transfer were being made at the time this report was being

prepared.


17/81

8


18/81

9

PHYSICAL SETTING

The project area is a calcareous sand deposit, between 10 and 215 m from the shorelineand 1 to 2.5 m above sea level on the windward (northeast) side of Oahu (Figs. 2 and 3; see also

Fig. 1). The associated landform is a sandy peninsula, accreted southward from a narrow coastal

plain. Low foothills are about 100 m inland of the project area, and steeply-rising cliffs are anadditional 500 m farther inland.

The physical setting is described in terms of three topics: 1) geomorphology; 2) water

sources; and 3) vegetation communities. The geomorphology of the area relates directly to the

potential for land use and the context of cultural deposits at different time intervals. Water

sources are a clear determining factor in human settlement and land use patterns. Vegetation

communities have changed significantly due to pre-Contact and post-Contact anthropogenic

influences.

GEOMORPHOLOGY

Particularly in Hawaiian sandy beach sites, incomplete understanding of geomorphology

and site formation has contributed to faulty interpretation of both site function and chronology

(Carson 2004). After providing an instructive case study for the Wainiha Beach Site in Kauai,

Carson (2004:115) challenged: A growing understanding of sea-level changes, site formation

processes, depositional contexts, and human behavioral patterns in coastal settings will certainly

contribute to more accurate interpretations of these and other beach sites. Peterson (2005) has

answered this call with a geomorphological model of Holocene landscape dynamics in coastalWaimnalo, windward Oahu. Carson (2004:102) suggested that Kualoa Regional Park was

especially deserving of more attentive geomorphological and geoarchaeological study. The

present work responds to these concerns.

The footprint of Kualoa Regional Park coincides with a small peninsula of calcareoussand, modified on its west side by an artificial levee enclosing Molii Pond (see Fig. 2). The

northeast portion has been eroded, and some of the eroded sand has contributed to accretion at the

southern end of the peninsula at Kualoa Point. The west side of the peninsula is sheltered from

erosion on the shore of the enclosed Molii Pond.

The sandy coastal plain and peninsula formed around the volcanic core mass of the

Koolau Mountain Range (Fig. 4). The sand of the coastal plain was deposited during a period of

higher ocean water, and the landform was exposed by a drop in sea level. Both of those eventsoccurred after the Koolau Mountains were formed approximately 1.8 to 2.6 million years ago

(Macdonald et al. 1983:303, 420). The peninsula at Kualoa accreted some time later.


19/81

10

Figure 2. Physical setting of project area.


20/81

11

Figure 3. Photograph of Kualoa, view across Kneohe Bay to northeast. The project area is in

the coastal plain (center of picture). The cliffs and foothills are inland (left side of

picture). Mokolii (also known as Chinamans Hat) is offshore (right side of

picture).

The coastal plain is less than 3.5 m above sea level, and the sand was deposited during

periods of higher sea level. A Pleistocene highstand of 8.5 to 12.5 m likely created a bed of

calcareous sand around Oahu shores approximately 120,000 to 138,000 years ago (Muhs and

Szabo 1994). More recently, a mid-Holocene highstand of 1.4 to 2.8 m began perhaps as early as

5532 to 5295 years BP and ended around 2239 to 1940 years BP or possibly later (Fletcher and

Jones 1996; see also Calhoun and Fletcher 1996; Grossman and Fletcher 1998; Jones 1992).

The sandy peninsula at Kualoa is 2.5 m above present sea level, and this landform must

have accreted after the formation of the coastal plain. The coastal plain itself is mostly 100 to

400 m wide, and the peninsula represents accretion of an additional 900 m southward intoKneohe Bay. Accretion of the sandy peninsula began when a nearshore current transported

sand southward along the windward Oahu coast, and the material settled upon reaching the

sheltered, shallow waters of Kneohe Bay. A similar north-south longshore transport is active

today.

Given its low elevation above sea level, the peninsula probably accreted mostly during

and after the mid-Holocene highstand, possibly overlying a bed of Pleistocene sand. Except for

its most landward portion attached to the coastal plain, the peninsular landform did not exist

above sea level until after drawdown from the mid-Holocene highstand. At least some accretion

occurred after the drawdown, and it continues at a slow rate today.


21/81

12

Figure 4. Schematic model of sandy coastal plain and peninsula

formation.


22/81

13

Today, longshore (parallel to the shoreline) transport appears more intense than onshore-

offshore transport (perpendicular to the shoreline) around the peninsula at Kualoa. The north-

south longshore transport is eroding sand from the northeast shore and re-depositing it farther

south. Meanwhile, regular onshore-offshore transport in itself has no net gain or loss of sandvolume along the shore, but a potential state of equilibrium has been overpowered by the effects

of longshore transport.

Erosion along the east side of the Kualoa peninsula gradually has removed portions of a

weakly formed beach ridge. In 2006, the beach ridge was just 3 m landward and less than 1 m

above mean high tide level. Periodic high-sea events and regular park use certainly have beeneroding the ridge, causing its incremental landward migration. The beach ridge is more stable on

the south shore of the peninsula.

The sandy peninsula is 1 to 2.5 m above sea level, and it can be altered substantially by

only minor sea-level fluctuations and low-intensity formation processes. The majority of these

processes shaped the shoreward areas and had little or no effect on the landward portions of the

beach. Nonetheless, no high, stabilized dune is available for reliable long-term use.

The shoreline on the east side of the project area has been eroded continually for at least

the past several decades (Fig. 5). In the eroded beach face, cultural deposits are clearly visible

0.1 to 0.8 m deep, and portions of these deposits have been lost to erosion. This erosion may be

attributed to three factors. First, the ocean current is at present very close to the shore at Kualoa,

and a north-south longshore transport removes sand from this area to be re-deposited farther

south. Second, periodic episodes of oceanic overwash (for example, during storm surges or

tsunami) may discharge layers of coarse sand and coral debris, but they also may disturb or even

remove portions of beaches close to sea level. Third, regular park use has entailed both

intentional and inadvertent alteration of the beachfront.

The present condition of erosion along the northeast shore has occurred only since thesouthward accretion of the peninsular landform has brought the shore close to the north-south

ocean current (see Fig. 4). Earlier, when the peninsula was smaller, the beach accreted with no

significant erosion at this location, and erosion may have been farther north along the coastal

plain. After the peninsular accretion created a substantial north-south-trending landform, thislandform was subjected to erosion at its northeast end as seen today. The erosion of an ancient

cultural deposit at this location suggests that this particular locus had been unaffected by wave

erosion at one time, and the presence of eroded stone pavings indicates long-term residence prior

to the onset of present erosion conditions.

Once the longshore transport conditions had eroded a substantial portion of the northeast

beach, this area became exposed to potential effects of regular onshore-offshore transport. The

basic mode of operation of onshore-offshore transport is to establish equilibrium of sand

movement, in this case carving a slope into the northeast shore and eventually creating a more orless stable ridge. However, high tides at present can be very close to the cultural deposit at the

northeast border of the project area.


23/81

14

Figure 5. Photograph of eroding cultural deposit on east side of project area, view to north-

northwest. Scale bar is in 20-cm increments.

Concrete groins or break-water barriers have been installed a few meters from the

shore to minimize immediate threats of erosion by onshore-offshore transport along the eastbeach of Kualoa Regional Park. Unfortunately, these barriers appear to have increased the

intensity of longshore transport occasionally through a narrow foreshore channel, and erosion

continues at a slow rate. Also, when high-sea events occur, their intensity is magnified landwardof the artificial enclosure.

The seaward portion of the cultural deposit is 3 m landward and 0.1 m above the regular

high tide level, and it is 0.1 m lower than most storm surge levels (Fig. 6). Some oceanic

overwash levels may be even higher. The regular high tide level is about 3.5 m landward and

0.45 m higher than mean low tide. Parallel to the north-south-trending shoreline on the east side

of the park, elongate piles of marine debris mark the landward limit of recent high-sea events(Fig. 7). Modern flotsam and jetsam (including plastic and rubber articles with manufacturingmarks post-dating the 1980s) are mixed with coarse-grained sand in a broken line about 5 m

landward and 0.9 m above regular high tide level.


24/81

15

Figure 6. Schematic section view of east side of project area, showing position of cultural

deposit relative to regular tide levels and recent storm surge levels, view to north.

Figure 7. Photograph of recent storm-surge deposit on east side of project area, view to north-

northwest. Scale bar is in 20-cm increments.


25/81

16

The low-lying and nearly level landform could support pond and marsh environments,

and three known ponds include Molii, Apua, and Koholalele (see Fig. 2). Sediments have

accumulated gradually on the bottoms of these ponds. Potentially, other former ponds and

marshes may have been completely filled. A portion of a waterlogged cultural deposit had beendocumented previously in the east part of the project area (Gunness 1993:60). Molii and Apua

ponds were modified (probably in the late prehistoric period) with stone walls to stabilize their

perimeters and to control water flow with the ocean.

Calcareous sand deposits such as in the project area contain only very thin A-horizons of

initial soil development. In areas of long-term human use, organic debris probably contributed tothicker A-horizons. Some of these soils may have been altered or possibly enriched intentionally

for crop growth.

The project area is exposed to northeasterly trade winds, ranging 8 to 18 knots (14.7 to

33.1 kph or 9.2 to 20.7 mph) on the three days of observation, and these winds probably

contribute to significant site deflation. Where vegetation cover is minimal or absent, very fine

(less than 1 mm) and fine (1 to 2 mm) grains of sand move northwest to southeast. Meanwhile,larger particles settle without significant horizontal movement. The net result is deflation of

areas exposed to strong trade winds, entailing removal of small particles and over-representation

of medium and large particles. In seaward areas, deflation has slowed the vertical accumulation

of deposits. Also, scattered and very thin veneer-like lenses of fine sand may be deposited in

some landward areas.

Anthropogenic site formation processes relate to successive re-occupation of finite space

in a loosely consolidated sandy landform (see Carson 2004). Several centuries of human

occupation at the project area resulted in compaction of living surfaces and scattered pit

intrusions. Artifacts, midden, house pavings, postmolds, firepits, and other features from

unrelated events of different dates may be condensed in one or a few thin layers. These effects

are compounded in areas subjected to deflation.

Substantial coastal transformation occurred during the period of prehistoric settlement in

the region. Human occupation in the Hawaiian Islands was definitely established by AD 1000,

and smaller scale use occurred around AD 700 to 800 (Athens et al. 2002; Carson 2005; Masseand Tuggle 1998; Tuggle and Spriggs 2001). The emergence of the peninsular landform began

after drawdown from the mid-Holocene sea-level highstand in the first centuries BC or AD or

possibly later (Fletcher and Jones 1996). Significant southward accretion occurred in the first

millennium AD, and it has continued at a slow rate. Noticeable geomorphological transformation

may have been witnessed by the first generations pf Polynesian settlers. Certainly, storm surges,

tsunami, and other events altered this low-lying sandy area during the time-span of human

occupation.

WATER SOURCES

In Kualoa, fresh water is available through catchment of regular rainfall, but nopermanent streams are present. Permanent water courses are in adjacent land units, and they may

or may not have been accessible by Kualoa residents. The coastal ponds contain salt water.


26/81

17

Kualoa itself contains no defined valleys or permanent streams, unlike the neighboring

land units of Kaaawa (to the northwest) and Hakipuu (to the southwest) (see Fig. 2). In fact,

Kualoa occupies the northeast seaward portion of the valley that defines Hakipuu, east and

southeast of the primary ridge that separates Hakipuu and Kaaawa.

Rainfall is ample and predictable in this windward setting in the humid tropics, with littleseasonal variation. The coastal plain and most of the foothills receive slightly less than 1500 mm

(59 inches) mean annual rainfall, and the remaining foothills and inaccessible high cliffs receive

slightly more than 1500 mm (Giambelluca et al. 1986:138).

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Present vegetation at Kualoa Regional Park reflects historic and modern alterations of

local vegetation. Bermuda grass (Cyndon dactylon) is the dominant ground cover in most of the

park, and rows of trees have been planted for modern landscaping in the 1980s. The areas around

the ponds are overgrown with koa haole (Leucaena sp.) and some other trees.

Historic land use involved industrial-scale plantations for sugarcane and other crops, but

the anthropogenic transformation of local vegetation communities began centuries earlier.

Paleoenvironmental investigations around Oahu have shown a consistent pattern of lowland

forest disappearance very shortly after initial human colonization toward the end of the first

millennium AD (Athens 1997; Athens and Ward 1993; Athens et al. 1992; Athens et al. 2002).

In selected areas of Kualoa Regional Park, attempts have been made to grow native

plants and Polynesian introductions, including candlenut (kukui orAleurites moluccana), kamani

(Calophyllum inophyllum), coconut (niu or Cocos nucifera), water hyacinth (Eichhorniacrassipes), wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis), hala (Pandanus tectorius), and milo (Thespesia

populnea). At least some of these taxa probably grew in the area during the pre-Contact

occupation period.


27/81

18


28/81

19

CULTURAL TRADITIONS

The project area is in the ahupuaa (traditional Hawaiian land unit) of Kualoa (formerlyknown as Palik) in the Koolaupoko District of Oahu Island. The older name Palik referred to

the vertical cliff characterizing this land, and the newer name Kualoa refers to the long back

of a moo ormoko (giant lizard) slain by Hiiaka (Pukui et al. 1974:118,177). Kualoa (or Palik)is mentioned as a place of special significance in Hawaiian traditions, and the project area can be

understood in this context.

Kualoa is situated in Koolaupoko (short windward) District, near the border with

Koolauloa (long windward) District (Pukui et al. 1974:117). This distinction refers to the

short and long ways around the island during the annual makahiki procession that visited and

collected tributes from the ahupuaa (literally pig altars) of each land unit.

Kualoa Ahupuaa is now in two sections (Kualoa 1 and 2), and the project area is part of

Kualoa 1. Ideally, an ahupuaa supports a variety of economic and other activities in a spectrum

of ecological zones from the mountain to the sea (Lyons 1875:104). In addition to its economic

practicalities, an ahupuaa carries implications for social and political organization

(Malo 1951:142).

According to Hawaiian mythology, when Kualoa was formerly known as Palik, the

goddess Haumea and her husband Wkea were the progenitors of the Hawaiian people, and theymade their home at Palik. This place can be associated with the beginning of human life, the

founding generations of certain Hawaiian genealogies, and the formation of traditional religious

practices. Handy and Handy (1972:447) offered:

The land now called Kualoa was formerly Paliku (Upright cliff), for its salient feature,

the great cliff at its back. It was here that the primordial goddess Haumea battled alone

against the warriors of Kumuhonua in legendary times preceding the great tidal wave

that inundated all the coast from Kualoa south to Heeia. Here was built the high shrine

to Lono, the god of storm, who saved Wakea and Haumea in the flood.

Palik is recognized as the place of the first heiau (traditional Hawaiian religious

temple), during the time of Haumea and Wkea. When a great tidal wave swept Haumea,

Wkea, and all of their followers out to sea, Wkea was instructed to cup his hands together to

represent a heiau, then he caught a humuhumu-nukunuku-apuaa fish [a form of Kamapuaa or

Lono, god of storm and rain] and stuck it head first into the cupped hands to represent a pig

(Handy and Handy 1972:449). The followers repeated W

keas actions, and then the sea washedall of them ashore. In gratitude to Lono, a temple was constructed at Palik, and an order of

priests called Moo-kuauhau-o-Lono (literally genealogical line of Lono) was responsible for

religious proceedings at this temple (Malo 1951:159, 210). Handy and Handy (1972:447)reported that the priestly order known as Palik performed rituals at temples called mpele.


29/81

20

Kualoa is in some traditions remembered as the sacred land of Haloa, referring to

Haloa as the first human being born to Haumea and Wkea, presumably when the land was still

known as Palik (Handy and Handy 1972:447). Haloa is also associated with the origin of taro in

Hawaii.

The newer name of Kualoa relates to a battle between Hiiaka and a moo ormoko. Inordinary speech, a moo most often refers to a lizard, reptile, or dragon-like creature (Pukui and

Elbert 1986:253; see also Best 1988). Metaphorically, the moo may refer to an older lineage that

was overthrown, as the word also refers to a genealogical line (Pukui and Elbert 1986:253). For

instance, the Moo-kuauhau-o-Lono (genealogical line of Lono) was the ancient order ofpriests in this area when it was known formerly as Palik. In many parts of Polynesia and

elsewhere in Oceania, lizards are perceived as ancestors (Best 1988).

After Hiiaka killed the formidablemoo, she reportedly set up his flukes as a landmark

which now forms the rock known to this day as Mokolii, and she disposed the body in such a

way that it formed the coastal plain and foothills of Kualoa (Emerson 1915:91). The offshore

islet of Mokolii (literally little lizard, today also known as Chinamans Hat) represents partof the lizards tail. The coastal plain and rugged foothills represent the broken and flattened long

back of the lizard, giving Kualoa its new name.

Raphaelson (1925:30-31) offered a story about a strange demi-god in the form of a

shark, the son of a shark and a human girl at Kualoa. The shark gods son would act kindly

toward people as long as they fed him fish from a pond at Kualoa. Eventually, a new chief

refused to feed the shark. When the shark father learned that his son was starving because of the

chiefs refusal to feed him, then the shark god flooded the land with a tidal wave. The people

escaped safely, but the pond and the selfish chief were not seen again.

At the point of land marking the boundary between Kualoa and Kaaawa, the place-

name Lae o ka oio (literally point or cape of the night marchers) presumably relates totraditions of spirits marching at night. Near this same place, Kamakau (1991:38) describes a

spectacular cave called Pohukaina:

There is only one famous hiding cave, ana huna, on Oahu. It is Pohukaina. The

opening on Kalaeoaoio that faces toward Kaaawa is believed to be in the pali of

Kanehoalani, between Kualoa and Kaaawa, and the second opening is at the spring

Ka-ahuula-punawai. This is a burial cave for chiefs, and much wealth was hidden

away there with the chiefs of old. On the Kona side of the island the cave had three

openings, one at Hailikulamanu - near the lower side of the cave of Koleana in

Moanalua - another in Kalihi, and another in Puiawa. There was an opening at

Waipahu, in Ewa, and another at Kahuku in Koolauloa. The mountain peak of

Konahuanui was the highest point of the ridgepole of this burial cave house, which

sloped down toward Kahuku. Many stories tell of people going into it at Kahuku.

Within this cave are pools of water, streams, creeks, and decorations by hand of man(hana kinohinohiia), and in some places there is level land.

Lae o ka oio also was the traditional ending point for the annual makahiki circuit

around Oahu, described by Kamakau (1991:20):


30/81

21

After the akua paani came the akua kapala alaea, a god painted (pena ia) red with

alaea earth. On one side he was kapu, and on one side, free. After him came the akua

loa, who was the Makahiki god, and most of the other gods. The akua loa made a right

circuit of the island. Afterward the akua poko appeared with the female gods, and his

procession went to the left, along the beach of Waikiki. The akua loa and the akua

poko met at Kalaeokaoio, the cape of Kaoio [the dividing line of Koolaupoko and

Koolauloa districts] at Kualoa and Kaaawa. This is the reason for the names

Koolaupoko and Koolauloa. At the spot where the companies of the two god-images

met, the images were furled up and the kaupu bird ensigns twisted around (papio ke

akua a owili ka hae kaupu).

According to Kamakaus (1991:20-21) account, the tributes collected at each of the islands

ahupuaa were amassed at Kualoa for direct consumption, indefinite storage, sacrificial offerings,

or redistribution. Pohukaina Cave somehow may have been involved in these traditions.

At Kualoa Point, very close to the project area, the pig-god Kamupuaa is said to have

secreted himself when chased by Pele. According to Raphaelson (1925:28), his hiding place is

called Halo-a-pee, literally run and hide. After exiting his hiding place, Kamapuaa is said tohave went through the mountain, making holes in the cliff face (Sterling and Summers

1978:183).

Pohukaina Cave and the Kamapuaa story may relate to the notion of Kualoa as a placeof refuge. Kamakau (1991:18) remarked that Kualoa was one of a few ahupuaa regarded as a

puuhonua (place of refuge or sanctuary) in its entirety:

The puuhonua in ancient times was an ahupuaa portion of a district (ahupuaa

okana), like Kailua and Waikane for Koolaupoko District on Oahu, and also Kualoa,

which was a very sacred land and a true puuhonua, where persons marked for death

were saved if they entered it.

Kualoa is revered in Hawaiian traditions for a number of reasons, and the respect for thisplace took a variety of forms. As Handy and Handy (1972:448) reported, this land was so highly

esteemed that no canoe could pass by at sea without lowering its sails. Perhaps this practice

reflects the manner in which Haumea and Wkea were saved from the sea by creating a proxy

temple for Lono. According to popular belief today, Kamehameha I is said to have observed this

custom.

Also probably out of reverence for Kualoa as a special place in Oahu, it was reportedlya place where the children of chiefs were trained in the arts of war and the ancient traditions of

Hawaiian chiefs (Raphaelson 1925:28-29). Presumably, Kualoa was perceived as possessing

and potentially imparting a sense of deeply embedded sanctity suitable for high-ranking chiefs.

The extraordinary significance of Kualoa Ahupuaa is unmistakable in Kamakaus

(1992:129) account of what happened when Kahahana, ruling chief of Oahu in 1773, asked the

advice of a Ka-opulupulu concerning a suspicious request by his uncle Kahekili (chief of

Maui) to be granted the lands of Kualoa. As Kamakau (1992:129) recounted, Kualoa was

essential for the ruling chief of Oahu, and Kahekilis treacherous request was unequivocally

denied:


31/81

22

The kahuna bowed his head, then, looking up, said. O chief! if you give away these

things your authority will be lost, and you will cease to be a ruler. To Kualoa belong

the water courses of your ancestors, Ka-lumalumai and Ke-kai-hehee; the sacred

drums of Ka-pahu-ulu, and the spring of Ka-ahu-ula; the sacred hill of Ka-ua-kahi

son of Kahoowaha of Kualoa. Without the ivory that drifts ashore you could not offer

to the gods the first victim slain in battle; it would be for Ka-hekili to offer it on Maui,

and the rule would become his. You would no longer be ruler. Had the country been

yours by conquest, it might be proper for you to reward your uncle, but your authority

was given you by the chiefs because of your uncle Ku-mahanas mismanagement. Any

other requests of Ka-hekili you might have granted, but not this. And be sure not to

conceal from me any further secret messages that Ka-hekili may send. Having heard

these words of the kahuna, Ka-hahana and the chiefs and counselors congratulated

themselves upon their escape from losing the dominion to Ka-hekili.

The Palik and Kualoa traditions convey a sense of chronological change of the physical

landscape and cultural perceptions of the landscape. In particular, these traditions may relate to

substantial formation of the sandy peninsula at Kualoa very early in the human occupation

sequence. Gunness (1987:250) remarks that the older Palik traditions refer to Haumea andWkea living on the cliffs (emphasis in original), whereas only some time later did Hiiaka

create the foothills and lowlands of Kualoa. Also, occasional high-sea events affected the low-

lying coastal landform, and these events have made enough of an impression to be incorporated

into oral traditions (Gunness 1987:250). Specifically, high-sea events may have filled some

former ponded areas, and certain of these events caused memorable devastation.

The Palik traditions are associated with origins of people and cultural practices,

overlain and to some extent replaced by the Kualoa traditions. The older stories concern

Haumea, Wkea, their son Haloa, and the god Lono in mostly benevolent terms, although the god

Lono clearly has the potential for both nurturing and destructive forces. The newer storiesconcern Hiiaka, a monstrous lizard, Pele, and Kamapuaa in violent confrontations.


32/81

23

TRADITIONAL AND HISTORIC LAND USE

The project area is part of a larger setting that combines several favorable conditions fortraditional land use, according to Handy and Handy (1972:436):

(a) bay and reef coast line which make cultivation feasible right to the shore where

coconuts thrive; (b) extensive wet-taro plantations with ample water; (c) swampy areas

where taro and fish were raised; (d) sloping piedmont and level shore-side areas well

adapted to sweet-potato farming; (e) ample streams whose mouths are ideal seaside

spawning pools; (f) fishponds in which systematic fish farming was practiced; (g)

upstream terraced stream-side loi; (h) accessible forested slopes and uplands, for

woodland supplies and recourse in famine times.

In brief, the surroundings were ideal for traditional food production.

Hawaiian government land records of the middle 1800s indicate several family

residences and cultivation plots in Kualoa, including some in the project area and vicinity

(Table 1). The records include one Land Grant (LG), 33 Royal Patents (RP), and 32 Land

Commission Awards (LCA) in Kualoa Ahupuaa (Waihona Aina 2006; see also Makekau 1986).

Land records pertaining to parcels in Kualoa Regional Park include RP 0492 (awarded to

Nawahinekaunu), RP 0620 (awarded to Mahiole) RP 6952 (awarded to Kamakai), LCA 02296

(awarded to Nawahinekaunu), LCA 03011 (awarded to Mahiole), LCA 03043 (awarded to

Kapiipo), LCA 03044 (awarded to Kamakai), and LCA 05614 (awarded to Kepaa).

Table 1. List of land grant, royal patent, and land commission award records for Kualoa

Ahupuaa. Data compiled from Waihona Aina (2006).

Record Number Claimant

Land Grant

7997 (also in Hakipuu) Swanzy, Julie J.

Royal Patent

0290 Kamalii

0291 Kepaa

0481 Kailihewa

0482 Konaaihele

0483 Pupuka

0484 Kau

0485 Kukola

0486 Poohiwi

0487 Kuewa


33/81

24


Ahupuaa. Data compiled from Waihona Aina (2006) (continued).

Record Number Claimant0488 Kanakanui

0489 Kua

0490 Ululani

0491 Konohili

0492* Nawahinekaunu

0493 Nalino

0615 Kamakaohao

0616 Kekihe

0617 Maalea

0618 Kae

0619 Aihulu0620* Mahiole

0621 Keliikuiau

0622 Mahoe

0623 Aweau

0624 Kauaiwahine

0626 Maliu

0627 Keanu

1126 Kamanu

1431 (also in Hakipuu) Laumania

6950 Keliookahonua

6952* KamakaiLand Commission Award

02786 Maalea

02987 (also in Hakipuu) Laumanea

02996* Nawahinekaunu

03011* Mahiole

03043* (also in multiple other areas) Kapiipo

03044* Kamakai

03045 Keliiokahonua

03046 Kamanu

03047 Kauawahine

03048 Kekihe

03056B Konaaihele

03058 (also in Hakipuu) Kuewa

03066 Kae

03115 (also in Hakipuu) Namakaohao


34/81

25


Ahupuaa. Data compiled from Waihona Aina (2006) (continued).

Record Number Claimant03118 Haole

05597 Keanu

05598 Kanakanui

05599 Kua

05600 Konohili

05601 Kau

05613 Kamalii

05614* Kepaa

05916 Pupuka

05917 Poohiwi

05961 Mahoe05962 Maliu

06037 Aweau

06095 Ululani

08007 (also in Kaaawa) Aihulu

10388 (also in Hakipuu) Nalino

Note: * indicates land parcel in Kualoa Regional Park.

The land records provide a general picture of settlement and land use patterns in themiddle 1800s in Kualoa. Houses were described almost exclusively near the beach, including

some in and around the project area. Sweet potatoes and wauke (paper mulberry, used for bark

cloth) were grown in the coastal plain, and some loi (irrigated ponds and terraces for growingtaro) were mentioned. Farther inland, the mountain slopes were described as places for varioustree and root crops, and additional loi were probably present.

In 1850, Dr. Gerrit P. Judd purchased much of Kualoa from Kamehameha III, and

Dr. Judds descendants have owned the land since that time, now comprising about 4000 acres of

Kualoa Ranch. Although not directly related to the project area, potentially informative historical

references about the Judd family may be found in a biography of Dr. Judd (G. P. Judd 1960) and

in two Judd family chronicles (A. F. Judd 1928, 1930).

Three ponds near the shore undoubtedly were fishponds, and these include Apua,

Koholalele, and Molii close to the project area. Molii Fishpond is by far the largest of the set,

but all three would have provided reliable stocks of fish.

Specifically in the project area, Gunness (1986:9-10) described later historic land use:

Beginning as early as the 1860s, and continuing periodically for a century, the area was

plowed for agricultural systems. Then, at the beginning of World War II, an airfield

was constructed parallel to the beach by bulldozing and grading a strip 6,000 feet long,


35/81

26

and 150+ feet wide from Apua Pond north, across Kamehameha Highway, and a short

distance toward the mountains. Coral fill was brought in and laid down as part of the

construction process. Local residents have reported that in bulldozing for the airstrip, a

number of human burials were disturbed; but unfortunately, no records were kept

concerning their discovery and disposal. Comparison of aerial photographs taken in

1945 and 1974 show that coastal erosion has brought the beach edge along the northern

section of the east beach to within a few feet of what was the eastern edge of the

airstrip. The present park road follows on top of what would have been the approximate

center of the airstrip.

In 1986, local residents recalled houses and gardens in the project area in the 1920s and

prior to the World War II (WW II) airfield. A family of Japanese farmers reportedly occupied

part of the project area.

At present, the project area is within Kualoa Regional Park, managed by Honolulu City

and County Parks. The City and County of Honolulu began condemnation proceedings in 1966

to acquire this land, and the process was complete in 1974. Part of the mission of the park is to

preserve its natural and cultural resources for public appreciation. Regular activities includerecreation and landscaping maintenance.

The traditional and historic uses of the project area suggest widespread cultural deposits

relating to family residences and cultivation areas, although these deposits very likely were

disturbed in the late 1800s through middle 1900s by large-scale agricultural plowing and

substantial WW II activities. Late pre-Contact and early post-Contact deposits probably have

been disturbed or entirely removed. Earlier pre-Contact deposits may have been deeper than the

historic plowing and WW II intrusions, but they may have been affected by other cultural and

natural processes in the late pre-Contact and early post-Contact periods.


36/81

27

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING

The entirety of Kualoa Ahupuaa (including Kualoa 1 and 2) is listed as a historic districtin the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and at least eight other site areas have been

identified within the historic district boundary (Fig. 8, Table 2). The project area is in a portion

of the historic district (Site 50-80-06-528) that has not been assigned any additional site number.

The Kualoa Ahupuaa Historic District was listed in the NRHP as Site -528 in

recognition of its legendary and mythological significance (Newman 1974). At the time of the

listing, archaeological surface ruins and subsurface deposits were known in the area, but they

were not part of the official site register.

The first island-wide archaeological survey in Oahu recorded six sites in Kualoa

(McAllister 1933:166-168), now listed in the Hawaii State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP)

as Sites 50-80-06-307 through -312 (see Fig. 8).

1) Site -307 refers to the legendary Pohukaina Cave, although its entrance

has not been documented.

2) Site -308 is an artificially faced terrace with two pieces of coral.

3) Site -309 includes three rock formations, said to represent a woman and

her two children who metamorphosed into stone when struck by sunlightafter a long night of collecting crabs.

4) Site -310 refers to Niuolaa Heiau, which no longer exists.

5) Site -311 is Mokolii Islet (also known as Chinamans Hat),

representing part of the tail of a giant lizard slain by Hiiaka.

6) Site -312 is Koholalele Pond, an artificial pond a few meters west of the

project area.

More recent surveys have focused on small land parcels or corridors of planned

construction work or where natural erosion has exposed cultural material. About 500 m inland

(northwest) of the project area, two surface sites include a complex of historic walls and one long

wall (McIntosh and Pantaleo 1997). All other archaeological findings have been in subsurface

contexts in sandy coastal deposits.

Several archaeological investigations have included surveys, subsurface testing,

construction monitoring, and data recovery throughout Kualoa Regional Park, and much of this

work occurred within the project area (Ahlo 1980; Barrera 1974; Borthwick et al. 1999; Clark

and Connolly 1975, 1978; Cleghorn 1996; Colin and Hammatt 1997; Colin et al. 1995; Connolly


37/81

28

1977, 1978; Goodman and Cleghorn 1991; Gunness 1978, 1986, 1987, 1993; Hammatt and

Shideler 2001; Lee 1994; Meeker 1991; Perzinski et al. 2000). The prior investigations

documented widespread but discontinuous subsurface cultural deposits, dating to pre-Contact

and post-Contact periods. Some areas had been severely disturbed, but others were intact andexceptionally well preserved.

Figure 8. Archaeological sites in Kualoa.


38/81

29

Table 2. Archaeological investigations and recorded sites in Kualoa.

Reference Type of Work Sites or Other Findings

Newman 1970 NRHP nomination Site 50-80-06-528: Kualoa AhupuaaHistorical District

Site -307: Pohukaina Cave, entrance notfound

Site -308: artificially faced terrace with two

pieces of coral

Site -309: three rock formations associatedwith oral tradition

Site -310: Niuolaa Heiau, no longer existing

Site -311: Mokolii Islet, associated with oral

tradition

McAllister 1933:166-168 Island-widereconnaissance

Site -312: Koholalele Pond, few meters west

of project areaComplex of historic wallsMcIntosh and Pantaleo 1997 Surface survey

One long wall

Ahlo 1980; Barrera 1974;

Clark and Connolly 1975,

1978; Colin and Hammatt

1997; Connolly 1977, 1978

Surface assessment and

subsurface testing

Widespread cultural deposit throughout

Kualoa Regional Park

Gunness 1978, 1986, 1987,

1993

Extensive subsurface

testing

Widespread cultural deposit throughout

Kualoa Regional Park; one area withwaterlogged component

Cleghorn 1994; Colin,

Borthwick, and Hammatt

1995; Douglas 1990, 1991;Dye 1995; Kawachi 1990;

Pietrusewsky and Douglas1989

Inadvertent discovery of

human remains

Burials mostly near eastern border of project

area

Lee 1994 Discovery of eroding

deposit

Cultural deposit eroding on east beachfront of


Dye 1996a Inadvertent discovery ofhuman remains

-5361: burial

Dye 1996b; Spear 1996 Inadvertent discovery of

human remains

-5376: burial

Borthwick et al. 1999;Cleghorn 1996; Goodman and

Cleghorn 1991; Hammatt and

Shideler 2001; Meeker 1991;

Perzinski et al. 2000

Monitoring Widespread cultural deposit throughoutKualoa Regional Park

Colin et al. 1995 Data recovery Cultural deposit with firepit and postmolds in



39/81

30

In scattered places along the sandy coastal plain and also in the sandy peninsula of the

project area, at least 50 individual burials have been exposed by natural erosion and by modern

construction activities (Cleghorn 1994; Colin, Borthwick, and Hammatt 1995; Douglas 1990,

1991; Dye 1995, 1996a, 1996b; Kawachi 1990; Pietrusewsky and Douglas 1989; Spear 1996).Some of the burials are clearly of post-Contact age, found in wooden coffins or with foreign

clothing buttons.

Specifically in the project area, prior excavations documented a single cultural layer,

usually 0.15 to 0.5 m thick. In one area 1 m below the surface, a waterlogged component yielded

preserved organic materials (Gunness 1993:60). The cultural deposit had been disturbed orcompletely removed in some locations. At least 40 of the more than 50 known burials in Kualoa

were found near the eastern edge of the project area.

The discontinuous cultural deposit in and around the project area yielded artifacts of pre-

Contact, early post-Contact, and modern time periods. Fourteen radiocarbon dates range from

modern to 420 70 years BP (Colin et al. 1995; Gunness 1987:264-266). Eight are modern, and

another four range 50 60 to 230 90 years BP. Only two dates (340 80 and 420 70 yearsBP) are clearly of pre-Contact age. Five new dates from the present (1986) investigations are

reported in the Radiocarbon Dating section of this report.

The project area appears to contain a rich but irregular subsurface cultural layer with

components of varied time periods. A number of natural and cultural formation processes have

caused site deflation, disturbance, and partial removal. Waterlogged deposits may be present in

scattered loci more than 1 m below the surface. Burials may be present almost anywhere in the

sand but especially in the eastern portion of the project area.


40/81

31

PROJECT AREA STRATIGRAPHY

The monitoring and data recovery documented four major stratigraphic units, with somehorizontal variation across the project area:

Stratum I: Dark grayish brown (10 YR 4/2) manufactured road fill mixed

with white (10 YR 8/1) crushed coral; weakly cemented; very

abrupt, wavy lower boundary; no roots; 0.15 m thick; modern road

fill, possibly mixed with remnant of WW II airstrip

Stratum II: Dark reddish brown (5 YR 2.5/2) sandy loam; moist, friable

consistence; slightly plastic; very abrupt, wavy lower boundary;

common roots; 0.05 to 0.2 m thick; post-Contact agricultural layer

Stratum III: Black (10 YR 2/1) loamy sand, fine calcareous grains; dry, softconsistence; non-plastic; clear, smooth lower boundary; very few

or no roots; 0.1 to 0.8 m thick, mostly 0.15 to 0.5 m; pre-Contact

and post-Contact cultural deposit

Stratum IV: White (10 YR 8/2) sand; fine and medium calcareous grains; dry,

loose consistence; non-plastic; lower boundary not reached; no

roots; at least 0.4 m thick; no cultural material

The horizontal variation involves five stratigraphic combinations:

1) Strata I through IV;

2) Strata II through IV;

3) Strata II and IV;

4) Strata III and IV; and

5) Stratum IV only.

Stratum I corresponds to the old park entry road in the middle of the project area,

possibly mixed with a remnant portion of the WW II airstrip. Manufactured road fill clearly

relates to the former road, overlaying and partially mixed with crushed coral likely from theWWII airstrip.

Stratum II is a historic agricultural layer, documented in scattered portions of the west

side of the project area. Land records and local residents indicate sugarcane and other industrial

crops at occasional short-lived intervals from the 1870s or 1880s through the 1930s.


41/81

32

Stratum III is the primary cultural deposit, representing several centuries of occupation.

It is present in most places, but its thickness varies 0.1 to 0.8 m, mostly 0.15 to 0.5 m. In one

known case, a deep (below 1 m) waterlogged deposit formed a lower portion of Stratum III

(Gunness 1993:60), probably in a former ponded area prior to filling by sand.

Stratum IV is in all parts of the project area, and it represents the natural formation of thesandy peninsula at Kualoa. It was interrupted in some places by cultural deposits.

The formation of each successive layer had disturbed and in some cases completely

removed its immediately preceding layer. Very abrupt, wavy lower boundaries for Strata I and II

indicate disturbance of underlying deposits. The underlying deposits in these areas are

consistently thinner than in other areas, suggesting that they were partially truncated by the

overlying strata. In some cases, Stratum III likely was removed entirely.

Several subsurface features are evident in Stratum III, and very few are in Stratum II.

Their vertical distribution indicates use at different time intervals during the formation of Strata II

and III. These features mostly are postmolds, and a few firepits were documented. Pavings ofwaterworn basalt and coral pebbles are rare in Stratum III and absent from Stratum II. In one

case, an artificial canal feature was documented in Stratum III.

Also within Strata II and III, scattered lenses of natural marine sand indicate periodic,

short-term episodes of natural deposition interspersed throughout the extended cultural use of thearea. Continued use of Strata II and III, however, obliterated these sandy layers in most places,

and only traces of scattered lenses remain. Where they are present, these intermittent lenses

provide a means for chronological distinction within the cultural layers.

The sand lenses are generally fine-grained or very fine-grained in landward areas,

whereas they are generally of mixed grain sizes in seaward areas. The landward sand lenses

probably are the result of windblown sand deflated from seaward areas. The seaward lenses

likely are from high-sea events. In some cases, predominance of coarse grains and coral debris

suggests high-energy oceanic overwash, perhaps from a powerful storm surge ortsunami.

Artifacts and midden indicate pre-Contact and post-Contact associations for Stratum III

and entirely post-Contact association for Stratum II. Stratum III contains tools and food refuse

typical of residential areas, present in variable density horizontally and vertically. The firepits,

stone pavings, and numerous postmolds also indicate residential activities. Stratum II appears to

be a historic agricultural layer, and it contains very few material remains.

Stratum III corresponds to the primary cultural deposit documented by almost every

investigation at Kualoa Regional Park. It exhibits the same general characteristics as have been

reported previously, including multiple pre-Contact and post-Contact components, scattered

artifacts and midden, postmolds, firepits, and stone pavings (Gunness 1986, 1987, 1993).However, no burials or waterlogged components were exposed in the project area.


42/81

33

SAMPLED LOCALITIES

During the archaeological monitoring, eight monitoring sample areas (MSA-1through-8) were identified as containing cultural deposits representative of the stratigraphic

sequence. Three controlled test units (TU-1 through -3) were excavated for data recovery of

significant posits for documenting the nature and chronology of human occupation in the area(Fig. 9).

MONITORING SAMPLE AREA 1

MSA-1 was the south face of a 2-m section of a trench for a water sprinkler line,

excavated 0.75 to 0.78 m deep (Fig. 10). This 2-m section displayed Strata II, III, and IV.

Stratum III contained remnants of a stone paving. Some of these stones were set on-end, possibly

around former posts, but no postmolds were evident.

The Stratum III stone paving may include two horizontal components (one seaward and

another landward), both built after Stratum III had already accumulated at least 0.05 to 0.1 m

vertically. The pavings may have been constructed after 0.2 to 0.25 m of Stratum III sediment

accumulation, intruding into older portions of the deposit.

In the seaward (east) part of MSA-1, two sand lenses (lenses i and ii) overlay Stratum

III, emplaced probably around the abandonment of the seaward stone paving feature. The grain-size distribution suggests oceanic overwash from a high-sea event, such as a storm surge or

tsunami. Both lenses include mostly medium and coarse calcareous grains. Few fine and no veryfine grains are present, indicating probable deflation by wind.

The deposition of Stratum II appears to have involved disturbance and partial removal of

Stratum III, as indicated by the very abrupt, wavy stratigraphic interface. The sand lenses

between Strata II and III suggest that the deposition of Stratum II may have removed more

extensive lenses or a more widespread sandy layer.


MSA-2 was the south face of a 2-m section of a trench for a water sprinkler line,

excavated 0.4 to 0.52 m deep (Fig. 11). This 2-m section revealed Strata II, III, and IV. Stratum

III contained several small sand lenses and one large firepit.


43/81

34

Figure 9. Distribution of monitoring sample areas and controlled test units.


44/81

35

Figure 10. Profile of Monitoring Sample Area 1, view to south.

Figure 11. Profile of Monitoring Sample Area 2, view to south.


45/81

36

The firepit was identified by its dense charcoal and ash content, fire-altered heating

stones, and surrounding fire-hardened sediment. It was a basin-shaped pit, 1.1 m in diameter and

0.2 m deep, originating at the base of Stratum III. It contained at least 30 basalt cobbles that

resembled heating stones, and at least ten were fire-cracked.

Five sand lenses (lenses i through v) were identified in the south profile of Stratum III.Their vertical distribution suggests that they are the remnants of at least two and possibly three

oceanic overwash episodes, such as from a storm surge ortsunami. The grain-size distribution

is mostly medium and coarse. Very few fine grains and no very fine grains indicate probable

deflation by wind action. Continued deposition of Stratum III probably removed more extensivelenses or a more widespread sandy layer.

The very abrupt, wavy interface between Strata II and III indicates disturbance and likely

truncation of the upper portion of Stratum III. The effect appears greater in the seaward (east)

portion of Stratum III. However, the landward (westward) thickening and incline of Stratum III

are consistent with the Stratum IV incline, and these conditions could relate to a former beach

ridge about 92 m from the present shoreline.

If the truncation of Stratum III was consistent horizontally within this 2-m section at

MSA-2, then a former beach ridge is very likely to have been at this location. The possible

former beach ridge would have existed prior to the inception of the Stratum III deposit. It could

relate to the initial emergence of the peninsular landform above sea level after the drawdown

from the mid-Holocene highstand. The distance of 92 m from the present shoreline indicates

substantial coastal progradation since whenever the ridge had formed.


MSA-3 was the west face of a 2-m section of a trench for a water sprinkler line,

excavated 0.7 to 0.8 m deep. No profile was drawn, but field notes indicate the presence of StrataII (0 to 0.2 m below surface), III (0.2 to 0.5 m), and IV (0.6 m and deeper). This portion of

Stratum III reportedly included at least two postmolds.


MSA-4 was the west face of a 4-m section of a trench for a water sprinkler line,

excavated 0.64 to 1.41 m deep (Fig. 12). This section disclosed portions of Strata II, III, and IV.

In one area, Strata II and III were mottled. A firepit was in the base of Stratum III. Artifacts and

midden were visible in the exposed profile of Stratum III, the firepit, and the mottled area of

Strata II and III. The Stratum III firepit contained the densest cultural material in the entire

project area, and it also yielded evidence of the earliest human activity.


46/81

37

Figure 12. Profile of Monitoring Sample Area 4, view to west.

Stratum III intruded into a portion of Stratum IV, and it included significant variation

within this 4-m section. The north portion of Stratum III at this location may have been on the

seaward (south) side of a former beach berm. The south portion includes a step-like outer edge,

possibly reflecting gradual southward expansion of the Stratum III occupation between the lower

and upper steps of the deposit.

The mottling of Strata II and III is confined to a 2.4-m section, and it could represent athird step in the southward horizontal expansion of Stratum III. In other areas, a very abrupt,

wavy boundary between Strata II and III indicates disturbance and partial removal of Stratum III.

The mottling in this particular locality suggests intrusion into Stratum III but not its removal.

Samples of artifacts and midden were retrieved from the exposed west profile of the

mottled Strata II and III, Stratum III, and the firepit at the base of Stratum III (Table 3). From the

mottled Strata II and III, a 64-liter bulk sample was wet-screened, yielding 55.9 g of charcoal, 29

animal bones, 236.9 g of marine shellfish remains, and 20 basalt flakes or shatter. From Stratum

III, artifacts and midden scraped from the exposed profile included 33 mammal bones, two

Isognomon sp. marine shells, and five basalt flakes. From the firepit at the base of Stratum III, a

37-liter bulk sample was wet-screened, yielding 16.6 g of charcoal, 9.6 g of charred kukui

(candlenut orAleurites moluccana) nutshells, 18 mammal bones, seven chicken bones, three

Rattus exulans bones, 114 fish bones, 288.6 g of marine shellfish remains, six basalt flakes, and

the tip component of a two-piece bone fishhook.

The firepit originated from the base of the earliest portion of Stratum III. The firepit was

identified by its dense charcoal and ash content and by fire-reddening and hardening of

surrounding and underlying sand. It was 0.6 m in diameter and 0.2 m deep. Artifacts andextremely dense midden in the firepit probably represent unusable remnants of tools and

discarded food remains.


47/81

38

Table 3. Summary of archaeological materials recovered from Monitoring Sample Area 4.

Mottled

Strata II and III Stratum III

Firepit, base of

Stratum III

Material64-liter

bulk sample

Scraped from

west profile

37-liter

bulk sample

Charcoal 55.9 g 16.6 g

Nutshells, kukui (candlenut or

Aleurites moluccana) 9.6 g

Bone, pig or dog 9

Bone,Rattus exulans 6 3

Bone, unidentified mammal 33 18

Bone, chicken 7

Bone, unidentified bird 3

Bone, fish 11 114Marine shellfish remains 236.9 g 2.7 g 288.6 g

Basalt flake or shatter 20 5 6

Fishhook, tip portion of two-

piece bone hook 1

Radiocarbon dating sample

Beta-28136:

840 40 years BP

From the firepit at the base of Stratum III, a sample of 15.1 g of the 16.6 g of charcoal

was submitted for radiocarbon dating. Sample Beta-28136 produced a conventional age of 840

40 years BP, calibrated (at 2 Sigma) in three possible ranges: 1) AD 1040 to 1090 (7.4%); 2)

AD 1120 to 1140 (2.1%); or 3) AD 1150 to 1280 (85.8%). This result is the earliest radiocarbondate for the project area, and it is among the earliest dates from secure archaeological context in

the Hawaiian Archipelago.

The apparent step-like horizontal expansion of Stratum III involved a narrow band along

an east-west axis with three components: 1) 1.6 m north-south by an unknown distance east-

west; 2) 2 m north-south by an unknown distance east-west; and 3) 3.2 m north-south by and

unknown distance east-west. The earliest component is associated with the date of 840 40

years BP. The later components are of unknown age, but absence of post-Contact materials

suggests dates prior to the AD 1800s.

The Stratum III occupation in this part of the project area probably was elongated east-

west, parallel to a south-facing shore. The east-west extent of the occupation is unclear. Possiblehorizontal expansion may have followed a prograding shoreline. Mostly, the progradation wasdue to southward accretion of the sandy peninsula.


48/81

39


MSA-5 was approximately 1 by 1 m in an area grubbed and graded to a depth of about

0.5 m for road realignment. This activity exposed portions of Strata I (ca. 0 to 0.1 m belowsurface), II (ca. 0.1 to 0.25 m), III (ca. 0.25 to 0.3 m), and IV (below ca. 0.3 m). A firepit was

reported in Stratum III. Historic and possible prehistoric materials were recovered (Table 4). No

profile was drawn. Imprecise documentation was probably due to discovery during mass

excavation that disallowed clear horizontal and vertical control.

Table 4. Summary of archaeological materials recovered from Monitoring

Sample Area 5.

Stratum II Stratum III

Material Graded surface 15-liter bulk sample

Charcoal 15.1 g

Marine shellfish remains 3.8 gBasalt flake 11

Basalt adze 1

Stoneware ceramic plate fragment 1

From near the surface of Stratum II, a stoneware ceramic plate fragment, eleven basalt

flakes, and one complete small basalt adze (less than 5 cm length) were recovered. The plate

fragment appears to be of early to middle 20th century age. The basalt artifacts almost certainly

pre-date the middle 19th century.

From the reported firepit in Stratum III, a 15-liter bulk sample was wet-screened,

yielding 15.1 g of charcoal and 3.8 g of marine shellfish remains. Nearly all of the shellfishremains (3.7 of 3.8 g) consisted of crab claws, possibly intrusive into the deposit. The firepit

characteristics, dimensions, and position within Stratum III are unknown.


MSA-6 was approximately 1 by 1 m in an area grubbed and graded to a depth of 0.4 to

0.48 m for road realignment (Fig. 13). This activity exposed portions of Strata I though IV.

Stratum II contained materials of mixed age, and Stratum III contained a definite prehistoric

deposit (Table 5). Stratum II included numerous sand lenses. Stratum III was present in

scattered pockets, and one pocket included a firepit. A 1 by 1 m portion of the mass-excavated

area was cleaned manually to document west and north profiles.


49/81

40

Figure 13. Profile of Monitoring Sample Area 6, views to west and north.

Table 5. Summary of archaeological materials recovered from Monitoring Sample Area 6.

Stratum II Stratum III

Material 30-liter bulk sample 15-liter bulk sample Firepit

Charcoal 11.1 g 13.2 g

Marine shellfish remains 32.5 g 1.7 g

Plastic fragments < 1 g

Radiocarbon sampleBeta-28134:

410 40 years BPBeta-28135:

650 40 years BP

Apparently from near the surface of Stratum II, one basalt flake and one flaking core

were recovered during monitoring of the mass-grading. A 30-liter bulk sample from Stratum II

was wet-screened, yielding 11.1 g of charcoal, 32.5 g of marine shellfish remains, and less than

1 g of plastic fragments. The plastic fragments clearly are modern. The other materials are ofunknown age.

The multiple sand lenses in Stratum II indicate periodic short-term interruptions of

Stratum II, possibly relating to periods of inactivity in the historic era agricultural fields at

Kualoa. The grain-size distribution included mostly fine and very fine calcareous particles, few

medium-sized grains, and no coarse grains. The sand probably was wind-blown from thenortheast during multiple events.

The scattered small remnants of Stratum III suggest large-scale removal by later natural

and cultural processes, probably during the emplacement of Stratum II. The abrupt, wavy lower

boundary of Stratum II indicates partially removal of whatever had underlain it.


50/81

41

A 15-liter bulk sample from a remnant pocket of Stratum III was wet-screened, yielding

13.2 g of charcoal and 1.7 g of marine shellfish remains. These materials likely represent general

habitation debris.

A firepit originated at the base of Stratum III, about 0.6 m in diameter and 0.1 m deep. It

contained dense charcoal and ash. The surrounding and underlying sand was fire-reddened andhardened. No heating stones, artifacts, or midden were reported.

Two charcoal samples from MSA-6 were submitted for radiocarbon dating. From

Stratum III above the firepit, sample Beta-28134 returned a conventional age of 410 40 years

BP, calibrated (at 2 Sigma) within the range of AD 1420 to 1530 (71.8%) or AD 1550 to 1640

(23.6%). From the firepit, sample Beta-28135 returned a conventional age of 650 40 years BP,

calibrated (at 2 Sigma) within the range of AD 1270 to 1400.

The radiocarbon dates from MSA-6 indicate at least two prehistoric occupation

components in a rather thin (less than 0.1 m) portion of Stratum III. The dates are in stratigraphic

order, and their 2 Sigma ranges do not overlap.


MSA-7 was approximately 1.5 by 1.5 m in an area grubbed and graded to a depth of 0.68

m for road realignment (Fig. 14). This activity disclosed portions of Strata III and IV. Part of acanal extended from the surface and intruded through both strata. Multiple sand lenses were

noted within the canal feature fill.

Figure 14. Profile of MSA-7, view to west.


51/81

42

The stratigraphic origin of the canal feature is unclear, but it may have been toward the

top of Stratum III. The upper portion of Stratum III may have been removed by grading or other

land-altering activities. In any case, the canal feature intrudes through the remaining portion of

Stratum III and part of Stratum IV.

The multiple sand lenses in the canal feature represent intermittent, gradual naturalfilling of the canal. The lenses almost certainly were deposited after abandonment of the canal,

or else they would have been removed during periodic cleaning to facilitate water flow. The sand

grains are almost entirely fine and very fine, indicating windblown deposition.

Observations at MSA-7, MSA-8, and TU-3 collectively indicate that the canal feature

was aligned east-northeast to west-southwest. The canal may have connected Koholalele Pond to

the ocean.


MSA-8 was approximately 1.5 by 1.5 m in an area grubbed and graded to a depth of

about 0.75 m for a road realignment. This activity disclosed portions of Strata III and IV. Part of

a probable canal feature extended from the surface and intruded through both strata.

In this area, the canal feature was unclear, and no profile was drawn. Better

documentation was achieved at MSA-7 and TU-3.

TEST UNITS 1 AND 2

TU-1 was approximately 1.15 by 0.6 m, excavated manually prior to grubbing and

grading for a road alignment, placed adjacent to a partial backhoe trench. TU-2 was about thesame size, and it was essentially an expansion of the same excavation area on the opposite side of

the backhoe trench. The excavation was 0.64 to 0.66 m deep, and it revealed portions of Strata II

through IV (Fig. 15). Stratum III contained a firepit and a few postmolds.

Stratum III included three components of step-like horizontal expansion, incrementally

expanding eastward. The lowest component was partially disturbed by a sand lens. The next

component included three small postmolds. The upper component contained the firepit and one

postmold.

An eastward expansion of Stratum III suggests probable eastward progradation of the

beach at this location, reflecting a localized irregularity in the shoreline. The overall accretion of

the peninsula was southward. When the earliest portions of Stratum III were deposited, the

former shoreline curved slightly landward in the area between TU-1 and MSA-4.


52/81

43

Figure 15. Profile of Test Unit 1, views to west, north, and east.

Sand lenses in the south edge of

carson _ athens 2006 kualoa

Documents