09 monahan report

Cultural Resource Evaluations of Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i

Prepared for

Office of Hawaiian Affairs and U.S. Army

Prepared by

SWCA Environmental Consultants

September 2009

CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS OF STRYKER TRANSFORMATION AREAS IN HAWAI‘I

Submitted to

Office of Hawaiian Affairs U.S. Army

Prepared by

Christopher M. Monahan

SWCA Environmental Consultants 434 NW Sixth Avenue, Suite 304

Portland, Oregon 97209-3652 (503) 224-0333 www.swca.com

Lead Agency:

Office of Hawaiian Affairs U.S. Army

Field Notes: On file at SWCA, Inc., Portland Office

SWCA Project Number 15131

September 2009


SWCA Project No. 15131 i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This was by far the most difficult project I have ever undertaken, for many practical and logistical reasons, not the least of which was surveying around, at times, in military “flack jackets,” ballistic helmets and (thankfully only carrying, not wearing) gas masks, to say nothing of wading through information that sometimes left one scratching one’s head (which is hard to do in a helmet!).

I would not be able to do this work were it not for my beautiful wife and children, who give me strength and purpose, and who had to deal with my multiple extended absences from the family.

I sincerely thank everyone at OHA and the Army who helped make this project happen, and, although I am reluctant to name anyone (for fear of forgetting someone else!), special acknowledgement and thanks must go to Kamoa Quitevas, who has worked tirelessly for years to bring us to this place. Any omissions, errors or inadequacies of this report are entirely my responsibility.

He ‘onipa‘a ka ‘oiā‘i‘o!


SWCA Project No. 15131 ii


SWCA Project No. 15131 iii

ABSTRACT

At the request of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the United States Army (Army), SWCA has produced this report describing a project resulting from a lawsuit settlement that called for an independent, objective “second opinion” regarding the adequacy of cultural resource inventories associated with the Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i. The settlement allowed for up to 50 days of fieldwork by a “third party” archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards escorted by representatives of the two parties.

General results of this project, which are illustrated with specific examples in this document, include the following: First, there are problems with the Army’s definition of project areas and areas of potential effects (APEs). Second, there are problems with the Army’s “due diligence” consideration of cumulative impacts and mitigation commitments at many cultural resources. Third, a significant proportion of archaeological survey work completed several years ago is still only available as draft reports, or, in one specific case at Kahuku Training Area (KTA), not even a draft report. Fourth, due to a general lack of subsurface testing (excavation), many or most of the functional and temporal interpretations presented by previous consultants are mere guesses at this point, and are based on relatively little scientific data. Fifth, the results suggest there are issues with the knowledge, skills, and abilities of field personnel involved in the prior surveys. Finally, in terms of general results, there are numerous issues with prior reporting standards in many of the previous reports.

Forty-one (41) cultural resources from the Schofield Barracks project area (includes one resource from QTR2) were formally described and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. The 41 resources include seven previously identified historic properties with Hawai‘i State Inventory of Historic Properties numbers (SIHP 5381, 5448, 6687, 6688, 6841, 6844 and 6846). New features, not previously identified or evaluated as cultural resources, were documented at all of these seven sites. In some cases, for example, at SIHP 6841, the work described here has more than doubled the known number of features, among them several probable or possible burials. With the exception of SIHP 6688 and 6846, all of these seven previously-identified resources are recommended eligible for the NRHP. The other two, SIHP 6688 and 6846, are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) since their functions are indeterminate without conducting excavation. Three cultural resources (DPW T-6, -9 and -10) had previously been pointed out by cultural monitors to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and / or prior archaeological consultants, but had not been formally documented or evaluated as cultural resources. All three of these resources are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) since their functions are indeterminate without conducting additional fieldwork. Eighteen cultural resources (SWCA-BAX-TS-1 through and including -18) had not been previously documented or evaluated as cultural resources, although some features at some of these resources had been pointed out in the past by cultural monitors to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and / or prior archaeological consultants. These 18 resources include eight petroglyphs or possible petroglyphs and other marked boulders (SWCA-BAX-TS-1 through and including -8). Three of these 18 resources (SWCA-BAX-TS-1, -5 and -18) are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. Seven of these resources (SWCA-BAX-TS-2, -3, -6, -8, -10, -12 and -14) are recommended eligible for the NRHP. And, eight of these resources are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. For these eight resources, more survey is needed to identify all surface features and / or


SWCA Project No. 15131 iv

excavation is needed to complete eligibility evaluations. Finally, at Schofield, thirteen surface artifacts (SWCA-BAX-IF-1 through and including -13) were identified. Five of these were found in close proximity to the site boundary of SIHP 6562, which has been re-defined and enlarged in this study to accommodate these new finds; and seven were found in or near no previously identified site. The five surface finds located within the new site boundary for SIHP 6562 (SWCA-BAX-IF-2, -3, -8, -9 and -10) are recommended eligible in light of their association with SIHP 6562, which has previously been recommended eligible for the NRHP. The remaining eight surface finds (SWCA-BAX-IF-1, -4, -5, -6, -7, -11, -12 and -13) are recommended not eligible for the NRHP.

Fourteen (14) cultural resources from the KTA project area were formally described and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Six of these cultural resources (SWCA-KTA-TS-1, -2, -3, -5, -8 and -9) had not been previously documented or evaluated as cultural resources, but were formally described for the first time in this report. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. The remaining five resources are all recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP because more survey is needed to identify all surface features and / or excavation is needed to complete eligibility evaluations. Six of these cultural resources are re-assessments of sites previously recommended by the Army’s contractor and determined by the Army to be not eligible for the NRHP because they are non-archaeological and / or non-TCP resources. All of these resources are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) based on fieldwork described in this report: excavation is recommended at all of these six potential cultural resources in order to determine if archaeological deposits are present. One cultural resource (SCS T-33) is a re-evaluation of a previously documented site interpreted as a historic-era clearing mound, but more consistent with being a precontact platform of traditional design. SCS T-33 is recommend unevaluated (potentially eligible) pending additional investigation, Phase I excavation is recommended to determine site function; it should be avoided and protected until and pending this additional work. One isolated find (SWCA-KTA-IF-1) was discovered at KTA.This surface artifact is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No further fieldwork is recommended at this find; however, professional curation is recommended for SWCA-KTA-IF-1.

One new cultural resource designated SWCA-PTA-TS-1 was identified at Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). This small temporary shelter is consistent with being a precontact Hawaiian site. It is recommended eligible for the NRHP.

Detailed management recommendations are offered for each of the 56 cultural resources.

In addition to these specific findings, the report also delineates several additional survey areas that were either unavailable for study or are more appropriately evaluated by way of a formal TCP assessment.


SWCA Project No. 15131 v

CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. i ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS ..................................................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF WORK ......................................................................................................... 3 EVALUATION CRITERIA ....................................................................................................... 4 FIELDWORK............................................................................................................................. 4 MITIGATING FACTORS........................................................................................................ 13

RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 15 GENERAL RESULTS OF THE PROJECT............................................................................. 15

Defining project areas and areas of potential effects (APEs) ............................................... 16 Cumulative impacts and mitigation commitments ............................................................... 16 Draft reports .......................................................................................................................... 18 General lack of subsurface testing ........................................................................................ 18 Knowledge, skills, and abilities of field personnel ............................................................... 19 Prior reporting standards....................................................................................................... 20

EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AT SCHOFIELD BARRACKS ................ 20 SIHP 5381............................................................................................................................. 24 SIHP 5448............................................................................................................................. 39 SIHP 6687............................................................................................................................. 45 SIHP 6688............................................................................................................................. 53 SIHP 6841............................................................................................................................. 57 SIHP 6844........................................................................................................................... 103 SIHP 6846........................................................................................................................... 111 DPW T-6............................................................................................................................. 116 DPW T-9............................................................................................................................. 121 DPW T-10........................................................................................................................... 128 SWCA-BAX-TS-1.............................................................................................................. 136 SWCA-BAX-TS-2.............................................................................................................. 137 SWCA-BAX-TS-3.............................................................................................................. 140 SWCA-BAX-TS-4.............................................................................................................. 143 SWCA-BAX-TS-5.............................................................................................................. 145 SWCA-BAX-TS-6.............................................................................................................. 147 SWCA-BAX-TS-7.............................................................................................................. 150 SWCA-BAX-TS-8.............................................................................................................. 152 SWCA-BAX-TS-9.............................................................................................................. 155 SWCA-BAX-TS-10............................................................................................................ 161 SWCA-BAX-TS-11............................................................................................................ 174 SWCA-BAX-TS-12............................................................................................................ 176 SWCA-BAX-TS-13............................................................................................................ 185 SWCA-BAX-TS-14............................................................................................................ 186 SWCA-BAX-TS-15............................................................................................................ 192 SWCA-BAX-TS-16............................................................................................................ 194 SWCA-BAX-TS-17............................................................................................................ 197


SWCA Project No. 15131 vi

SWCA-BAX-TS-18............................................................................................................ 198 SWCA-BAX-IF-1 ............................................................................................................... 201 SWCA-BAX-IF-2 ............................................................................................................... 202 SWCA-BAX-IF-3 ............................................................................................................... 203 SWCA-BAX-IF-4 ............................................................................................................... 204 SWCA-BAX-IF-5 ............................................................................................................... 205 SWCA-BAX-IF-6 ............................................................................................................... 206 SWCA-BAX-IF-7 ............................................................................................................... 207 SWCA-BAX-IF-8 ............................................................................................................... 208 SWCA-BAX-IF-9 ............................................................................................................... 209 SWCA-BAX-IF-10 ............................................................................................................. 210 SWCA-BAX-IF-11 ............................................................................................................. 211 SWCA-BAX-IF-12 ............................................................................................................. 212 SWCA-BAX-IF-13 ............................................................................................................. 213

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN UNSURVEYED AREAS OF SCHOFIELD BARRACKS................................................................................................................................................. 214 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AT KAHUKU TRAINING AREA ......... 215 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS .............................................................................................. 216 SPECIFIC RESULTS ............................................................................................................. 220

SWCA-KTA-TS-1 .............................................................................................................. 222 SWCA-KTA-TS-2 .............................................................................................................. 225 SWCA-KTA-TS-3 .............................................................................................................. 229 SWCA-KTA-TS-5 .............................................................................................................. 236 SWCA-KTA-TS-8 .............................................................................................................. 241 SWCA-KTA-TS-9 .............................................................................................................. 244 GANDA T-1 ....................................................................................................................... 252 GANDA T-2 ....................................................................................................................... 256 GANDA T-7 ....................................................................................................................... 262 GANDA T-8 ....................................................................................................................... 267 GANDA T-12 ..................................................................................................................... 271 GANDA T-22 ..................................................................................................................... 276 SCS T-33............................................................................................................................. 281 SWCA-KTA-IF-1 ............................................................................................................... 286

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN UNSURVEYED AREAS OF KTA................................. 287 EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA.. 288

SWCA-PTA-TS-1............................................................................................................... 293 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................. 298

SYSTEMIC NATURE OF THE PROBLEMS....................................................................... 298 NEED FOR SYNTHESIZING DOCUMENTS ..................................................................... 298 SUBSURFACE TESTING (EXCAVATION) ....................................................................... 299 RETHINKING HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE IN HAWAI‘I ................................................. 300 TCP STUDIES........................................................................................................................ 301

CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................... 302 RESULTS THAT CONFLICT WITH PRIOR REPORTING ............................................... 302

General Results ................................................................................................................... 302 Specific Results................................................................................................................... 303


SWCA Project No. 15131 vii

RESOURCE-SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................... 303 Schofield Project Area ........................................................................................................ 303 Kahuku Project Area........................................................................................................... 305 Pohakuloa Project Area....................................................................................................... 311

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK IN THE SUBJECT PROJECT AREAS............... 311 Schofield Project Area ........................................................................................................ 311 Kahuku Project Area........................................................................................................... 312 TCP Studies ........................................................................................................................ 313

REFERENCES CITED............................................................................................................... 314

Appendices

A. Scope of Work

Figures

1. SIHP 6835, Feature 3, facing east; Feature 1 was interpreted as a “possible burial” but all of these features are still being shot up by ordnance..................................................................... 17 2. SIHP 6835, Feature 3 detail showing extensive recent impacts from small arms fire, facing northwest; scale measures 20 cm.............................................................................................. 17 3. USGS map showing cultural resources at BAX project area discussed in this report.......... 32 4. SIHP 5381 as reported in Robins and DeBaker (2005) and Buffum (2005a). ..................... 33 5. SIHP 5381 as reported in Buffum (2005b). .......................................................................... 34 6. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 5381 including SWCA-BAX-TS-10 features within site boundary of SIHP 5381. ........................................................................................................... 35 7. SIHP 5381, graphic depiction of field sketch map of cross section (profile) of Features 4, 5 and 6.......................................................................................................................................... 36 8. SIHP 5381, showing portions of individual garden plots, facing southwest; red arrows indicate remnant cobble facing on slope down from Feature 5B to 5C; vertical scale measures 50 cm; photograph was taken from lowest (Feature 6) level.................................................... 37 9. SIHP 5381, detail of remnant cobble facing along divide between Feature 5B and C shown above, facing south; scale measures 50 cm. ............................................................................. 37 10. SIHP 5381 showing boulder retaining alignment (red arrows) forming east side of Feature 6A (see text for more explanation), facing north; scales bars measure 50 cm. ........................ 38 11. SIHP 5448 sketch map (Robins and Spear 2002b:70); green arrow and red circle indicate approximate location of newly identified Feature 11. .............................................................. 41 12. SIHP 5448, Feature 6, approximate location of burial indicated by arrow; photograph taken from tree above feature; scale measures 1 m. ................................................................. 42 13. SIHP 5448, Feature 6, detail of burial, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m. ................. 42 14. SIHP 5448, newly identified Feature 11, a boulder terrace, facing southeast; scale measures 1 m............................................................................................................................. 43 15. SIHP 5448, newly identified Feature 11, a boulder terrace, facing east............................. 43 16. SIHP 5448, coral artifact found on the ground surface east of Feature 4. .......................... 44


SWCA Project No. 15131 viii

17. SIHP 5448, ‘ike maka pōhaku (map stone); scale (=north arrow) measures 28 cm in length.................................................................................................................................................... 44 18. SIHP 6687 sketch map (Buffum 2005a)............................................................................. 47 19. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6687 (showing five new mapped features)............... 48 20. SIHP 6687, Feature 6 (terrace enclosure), graphic depiction of field sketch map. ............ 49 21. SIHP 6687, Feature 6, terrace-enclosure, facing north. ...................................................... 50 22. SIHP 6687, Feature 6, terrace-enclosure, facing west. ....................................................... 50 23. SIHP 6687, Feature 7, mound, facing east; scale measures 1 m. ....................................... 51 24. SIHP 6687, Feature 7, mound, facing west; Feature 6 indicated by red arrow in background................................................................................................................................ 51 25. SIHP 6687, Feature 8, boulder terrace, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m. .................. 52 26. SIHP 6687, Feature 9, boulder terrace, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m. .................. 52 27. SIHP 6688 sketch map (Buffum 2005a)............................................................................. 55 28. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6688. ......................................................................... 56 29. SIHP 6841 site map (Buffum 2005b:88); red arrow indicates long alignment (Feature 5) that continues 75 m to the west; green arrow indicates general location of three additional features in DeBaker and Peterson (2007). ................................................................................ 66 30. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6841 (showing mapped features in western extension).................................................................................................................................................... 67 31. SIHP 6841, Features 24 (enclosure) and 25 (probable burial on terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.................................................................................................................... 68 32. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, detail of west side of large walled enclosure, facing west; scale measures 1 m; note large size of hand-placed boulders............................................................ 69 33. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, detail of north side of large walled enclosure, facing north; scale measures 1 m............................................................................................................................. 69 34. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, detail of east side of large walled enclosure, facing east; scale measures 1 m; note large size of hand-placed boulders............................................................ 70 35. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, field sketch profiles of sections of walled enclosure.................... 71 36. SIHP 6841, Feature 24 (enclosure) wall profiles, graphic depiction of field sketch map. . 72 37. SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (probable burial and small terrace), field sketch map showing relationship to and location at northwest corner of Feature 24, the large walled enclosure..... 73 38. SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (probable burial and small terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map. ............................................................................................................................... 74 39. SIHP 6841, Feature 25A, probable burial, facing south; scale measures 1 m; arrows indicate corners of rectangular construction. ............................................................................ 75 40. SIHP 6841, Feature 25A, detail, eastern half of probable burial, facing south; scale measures 50 cm......................................................................................................................... 75 41. SIHP 6841, Feature 25A, detail, western half of probable burial, facing south; scale measures 50 cm......................................................................................................................... 76 42. SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (terrace), field sketch map. ............................................................ 77 43. SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map............................ 78 44. SIHP 6841, Feature 26, facing south; scale measures 1 m; arrows indicate location of probable subsurface continuation of rock-structural elements. ................................................ 79 45. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform) field sketch map. .......................................................... 80 46. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform), graphic depiction of field sketch map......................... 81 47. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform), facing south; scale measures 1 m................................ 82


SWCA Project No. 15131 ix

48. SIHP 6841, Feature 28 (stacked boulders / terrace) field sketch map. ............................... 83 49. SIHP 6841, Feature 28 (terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map............................ 84 50. SIHP 6841, Feature 28, facing south; boulder (left) is 1.20 m high; arrow shows location of probable subsurface continuation of rock-structural elements. ............................................ 85 51. SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (stacked-boulder terrace) field sketch map. .................................. 86 52. SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map............................ 87 53. SIHP 6841, Feature 29, stacked-boulder terrace, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m... 88 54. SIHP 6841, Feature 30, mound, facing southwest; scale measures 1 m............................. 88 55. SIHP 6841, Feature 31 (possible burial and terrace) field sketch map............................... 89 56. SIHP 6841, Feature 31 (mound and terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map......... 90 57. SIHP 6841, Feature 31, showing large boulder and mound designated Feature 31A and possibly a burial, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m. ......................................................... 91 58. SIHP 6841, Feature 31, showing terrace designated Feature 31B directly behind large boulder and mound (Feature 31A), facing southwest; scale measures 1 m.............................. 91 59. SIHP 6841, Feature 31B, detail showing upright slab (arrow) built into terrace face, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................. 92 60. SIHP 6841, Feature 33, showing mound at north end of feature designated Feature 33A, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ............................................................................................. 92 61. SIHP 6841, Feature 33, showing terrace portion of feature designated Feature 33B, facing south; scale measures 1 m......................................................................................................... 93 62. SIHP 6841, Feature 33B, detail showing upright slab built into terrace, facing north; scale (=north arrow) measures 27 cm in length. ................................................................................ 94 63. SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (pair of boulder terraces), facing west; scale measures 1 m.......... 95 64. SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (double terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map................ 96 65. SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (alignment), facing east; scale measures 1 m................................ 97 66. SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (boulder enclosure), graphic depiction of field sketch map. ......... 98 67. SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (small boulder enclosure), facing southeast; scale measures 1 m. 99 68. SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.......................... 100 69. SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (boulder terrace) showing upper level soil-sediment area, facing east; scale measures 1 m. ........................................................................................................ 101 70. SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (boulder terrace) showing rock-structural terrace face, facing north; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................................. 101 71. SIHP 6841, Feature 38 (boulder terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map. ........... 102 72. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6844, 6846, SWCA-BAX-TS-12, and other nearby resources. ................................................................................................................................ 105 73. SIHP 6844, Feature 1 sketch map (Buffum 2005b).......................................................... 106 74. SIHP 6844, Feature 2, rock-defined hearth adjacent to Feature 1; scale measures 0.50 m.................................................................................................................................................. 107 75. SIHP 6844, Feature 3, rectangular boulder terrace, facing south; upper soil-sediment terrace to the right (scale indicated by yellow arrow measures 1 m)...................................... 107 76. SIHP 6844, Feature 3, rectangular boulder terrace, facing north; showing northeast corner (red arrow) and northwest corner (yellow arrow) of feature behind Army medic. ................ 108 77. SIHP 6844, Feature 3, graphic depiction of field sketch map. ......................................... 109 78. SIHP 6844, Feature 4, showing central portion of terrace-retaining wall, facing southwest; note circular puka (hole) on upright basalt slab (red arrow); scale measures 1 m.................. 110 79. SIHP 6846, Features 1 and 2 sketch map (Buffum 2005b). ............................................. 113


SWCA Project No. 15131 x

80. SIHP 6846, Feature 1, facing east; scale (ends indicated by green arrows) measures 20 cm.................................................................................................................................................. 114 81. SIHP 6846, Feature 2, facing north-northeast; Feature 1 indicated by red arrow; Feature 3 (edge of plateau) indicated by yellow arrows; scale (ends indicated by green arrows) measures 20 cm....................................................................................................................................... 114 82. SIHP 6846 overview showing relationship of a portion of Feature 3 (yellow arrows) to Features 1 and 2 (red arrows), facing west-southwest. ........................................................... 115 83. SIHP 6846, Feature 3 detail of uprighted boulders comprising rock wall at the edge of the plateau, facing north; scale measures 20 cm........................................................................... 115 84. DPW T-6, Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch map. ........................................... 118 85. DPW T-6, Feature 1, facing west; scale measures 1 m. ................................................... 119 86. DPW T-6, Feature 2, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m. ........................................... 119 87. DPW T-6, Feature 3, facing west-northwest; scale measures 1 m. .................................. 120 88. DPW T-6, Feature 4, a boulder terrace oriented east-to-west, facing south; scale measures 1 m. ......................................................................................................................................... 120 89. GPS-generated sketch map showing DPW T-9 and SWCA-BAX-TS-14........................ 124 90. DPW T-9 overview, facing west, showing portions of Feature 1A (background, red arrows) and Feature 1B (foreground). .................................................................................... 125 91. DPW T-9 overview, facing north; Kamoa Quitevas is walking along a pathway formed between Feature 1B (left) and Feature 2 (right)...................................................................... 125 92. DPW T-9, showing pathway (arrow) created between Feature 1B (right) and Feature 2 (left), facing south; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................. 126 93. DPW T-9, Feature 3, stacked boulder located within area enclosed by Feature 1, facing north-northwest; yellow arrow points to possible grinding stone; scale measures 1 m.......... 126 94. DPW T-9, Feature 4, stacked boulders located within area enclosed by Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ...................................................................................................... 127 95. Representative adze reduction flake made of basalt observed on the ground surface, north portion of DPW T-9. ............................................................................................................... 127 96. GPS-generated sketch map for DPW T-10. ...................................................................... 130 97. DPW T-10, Feature 1 field sketch map illustrating level soil-sediment area immediately west of boulder terrace and Sub-feature 1A. .......................................................................... 131 98. DPW T-10, Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch. ................................................. 132 99. DPW T-10, Feature 1, facing southeast; vertical scale (indicated by yellow arrow) measures 1 m........................................................................................................................... 133 100. DPW T-10, facing southwest from Feature 1 to Kamoa Quitevas standing on Feature 2.................................................................................................................................................. 133 101. DPW T-10, Sub-feature 1A (foreground), facing northeast, with a portion of Feature 1 (arrows); scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................. 134 102. SWCA-BAX-TS-1, marked boulder interpreted as unlikely to be a petroglyph or traditional human modification; scale measures 20 cm in length........................................... 136 103. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, overview of petroglyph on a large boulder (arrow), facing south; maximum height of boulder is 63 cm. .................................................................................... 138 104. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, petroglyph boulder (marked area within yellow line), facing south; scale measures 20 cm in length............................................................................................... 138 105. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, field sketch of detail shown below................................................. 139


SWCA Project No. 15131 xi

106. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, detail of petroglyph marking shown above; scale measures 20 cm in length....................................................................................................................................... 139 107. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, probable petroglyph on a large boulder (marked area in yellow), facing north-northwest; maximum height of boulder is 85 cm............................................... 141 108. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, detail of probable petroglyph markings (arrows highlight markings shown in field sketch below; scale measures 10 cm in length................................................ 141 109. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, field sketch of detail shown above; arrows in photograph above point to upper corners of triangular symbols. .................................................................................. 142 110. SWCA-BAX-TS-4, overview of possible petroglyph on a large boulder (arrow), facing west; maximum height of boulder is 42 cm............................................................................ 144 111. SWCA-BAX-TS-4, marked boulder (three areas indicated by yellow ovals) interpreted as a possible petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length. ......................................................... 144 112. SWCA-BAX-TS-5, marked boulder with puka (cup-like hole, upper left); scale measures 10 cm in length........................................................................................................................ 146 113. Field sketch of SWCA-BAX-TS-5. ................................................................................ 146 114. SWCA-BAX-TS-6, overview of bird petroglyph, facing north; maximum height of boulder (arrow) is 55 cm......................................................................................................... 148 115. SWCA-BAX-TS-6, three flying birds; arrow shows location of a possible fourth bird on damaged surface; scale measures 10 cm in length.................................................................. 148 116. SWCA-BAX-TS-6, circular marking next to bird images (see arrow); scale measures 10 cm in length............................................................................................................................. 149 117. Field sketch of images at SWCA-BAX-TS-6................................................................. 149 118. SWCA-BAX-TS-7, location of marked boulder (possible petroglyph), facing northwest; maximum height of boulder is 17 cm. .................................................................................... 151 119. SWCA-BAX-TS-7, possible petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length. ................... 151 120. SWCA-BAX-TS-8, location of petroglyph (arrow), facing west; maximum height of marked boulder is 26 cm......................................................................................................... 153 121. SWCA-BAX-TS-8, petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length................................... 153 122. Detail of SWCA-BAX-TS-8, petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length. .................. 154 123. Field sketch of SWCA-BAX-TS-8. ................................................................................ 154 124. GPS-generated sketch map for SIHP 6562 and other cultural resources including SWCA-BAX-TS-9............................................................................................................................... 157 125. SWCA-BAX-TS-9 sketch map....................................................................................... 158 126. SWCA-BAX-TS-9 overview, facing southwest: Feature 1 (red arrows) and Feature 2 (yellow arrows); large boulder (center of image) is 1 m in height. ........................................ 159 127. SWCA-BAX-TS-9 overview, facing south-southwest: Feature 1 (red arrows) and Feature 2 (yellow arrows); large boulder (center of image) is 1 m in height. ..................................... 159 128. SWCA-BAX-TS-9, Feature 1, facing south-southwest, showing level area created by rock stacking and alignment; maximum height of stacking is 0.55 m.................................... 160 129. SWCA-BAX-TS-9, Feature 2, facing south-southwest; showing two upright boulders (yellow arrow) balanced on a massive, partially buried boulder (red arrow); maximum height of largest upright boulder is 0.65 m. ....................................................................................... 160 130. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1 (habitation site complex), graphic depiction of field sketch map. ............................................................................................................................. 164 131. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1 (habitation site) overview, facing north; scale (in front of Kamoa Quitevas) measures 1 m. ............................................................................................ 165


SWCA Project No. 15131 xii

132. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1A, detail of southwest corner of boulder enclosure-alignment, facing south; scale measures 1 m.......................................................................... 165 133. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1B, largest of the four boulder enclosure-alignments at Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m. .......................................................................... 166 134. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1C, facing east; scale measures 1 m................................ 166 135. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1D, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ............................ 167 136. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1E, facing northeast; scale (north arrow) measures 27 cm.................................................................................................................................................. 167 137. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, north (downslope) end of Feature 2, boulder alignment, facing south; scale measures 1 m....................................................................................................... 168 138. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, south (upslope) end of Feature 2, boulder alignment, facing west; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................................. 168 139. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2 (boulder alignment), graphic depiction of field sketch. 169 140. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3 field sketch map. .......................................................... 170 141. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3, overview of soil-sediment ledge above Mohiakea Stream, facing south; scale measures 1 m............................................................................................ 171 142. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3A, facing southeast; scale measures 1 m. ...................... 171 143. Stone bowl fragment from ground surface near south end of Feature 3A, SWCA-BAX-TS-10; scale measures 20 cm.................................................................................................. 172 144. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3C, facing north-northeast; scale measures 1 m.............. 172 145. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 4, possible trail, facing east; scale measures 1 m. ........... 173 146. SWCA-BAX-TS-11, a linear alignment of partially buried / exposed small boulders and cobbles, facing north; arrows indicate approximate location of the alignment before its turns to the east (right). ........................................................................................................................ 175 147. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1, facing south; note cobble facing to right; scale measures 1 m. ......................................................................................................................................... 180 148. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1, facing east; red arrows show base of feature; yellow arrows show top of platform; scale measures 1 m.................................................................. 180 149. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1 (platform), graphic depiction of field sketch map........ 181 150. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1, showing pit / depression (Feature 1A) on top of platform, facing west; scale measures 50 cm. ........................................................................................ 182 151. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1B (cleared area) and Feature 1C (angular boulders behind cleared area), facing east-northeast; scale measures 1 m........................................................ 182 152. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 3A, rock mound, facing west; red arrow indicates location of adze preform; scale measures 1 m...................................................................................... 183 153. Detail of adze preform found on the surface of Feature 3A. .......................................... 183 154. Flaked core of basalt found on the surface of Feature 4. ................................................ 184 155. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 9, circular rock alignment, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ............................................................................................................................................ 184 156. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 1, boulder terrace, facing east; scale measures 1 m. ....... 188 157. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 1, boulder terrace, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ..... 188 158. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 2, boulder terrace, facing south; scale measures 1 m. ..... 189 159. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 2, boulder terrace, facing east; scale measures 1 m. ....... 189 160. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 3, boulder terrace, facing east; scale measures 1 m. ....... 190 161. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 3, boulder terrace, detail of cobble stacking between boulders, facing east; scale measures 50 cm........................................................................... 190


SWCA Project No. 15131 xiii

162. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 4, boulder terrace, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ..... 191 163. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 4, boulder terrace, facing west; scale measures 1 m. ...... 191 164. SWCA-BAX-TS-15, north end of boulder terrace, facing southwest; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................................................................. 193 165. SWCA-BAX-TS-15, north end of boulder terrace, facing west; scale measures 1 m.... 193 166. SWCA-BAX-TS-16, small platform or mound (degraded condition), facing north; north arrow (=scale) measures 26 cm............................................................................................... 195 167. SWCA-BAX-TS-16, small platform or mound (degraded condition), facing east; north arrow (=scale) measures 26 cm............................................................................................... 195 168. Basalt flake from a large polished tool (such as an adze) found on the ground surface at SWCA-BAX-TS-16; scale measures 10 cm. .......................................................................... 196 169. SWCA-BAX-TS-18 showing pile of branch coral. ........................................................ 199 170. SWCA-BAX-TS-18 showing pile of ‘ili‘ili (waterworn cobbles and pebbles).............. 199 171. SWCA-BAX-IF-1; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ..................................................... 201 172. SWCA-BAX-IF-2; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ..................................................... 202 173. SWCA-BAX-IF-3; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ..................................................... 203 174. SWCA-BAX-IF-4 (see text). .......................................................................................... 204 175. SWCA-BAX-IF-5; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ..................................................... 205 176. SWCA-BAX-IF-6; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ..................................................... 206 177. SWCA-BAX-IF-7 (see text). .......................................................................................... 207 178. SWCA-BAX-IF-8; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ..................................................... 208 179. SWCA-BAX-IF-9 (see text). .......................................................................................... 209 180. SWCA-BAX-IF-10; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ................................................... 210 181. SWCA-BAX-IF-11 (see text). ........................................................................................ 211 182. SWCA-BAX-IF-12 (see text). ........................................................................................ 212 183. SWCA-BAX-IF-13; scale measures 10 cm (see text). ................................................... 213 184. Possible phallic stone at GANDA T-13; scale measures 20 cm..................................... 218 185. Incised boulder at GANDA T-13; scale measures 20 cm............................................... 218 186. Portion of SIHP 9509 interpreted in this project as a traditional core-and-fill-style wall, facing south; stream channel is to the right of the image. ...................................................... 219 187. USGS map showing cultural resources at KTA discussed in this report........................ 223 188. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 showing west end of site, facing east-northeast; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................................................................. 224 189. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 showing east end of site, facing south; scale measures 1 m............ 224 190. SWCA-KTA-TS-2, large standing stone, facing north; scale measures 1 m.................. 227 191. SWCA-KTA-TS-2, showing small level soil area and stacked boulders behind main standing stone, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m............................................................ 228 192. SWCA-KTA-TS-3 detail, showing main terrace designated Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch map.................................................................................................................. 232 193. SWCA-KTA-TS-3 detail, showing main terrace designated Feature 1.......................... 233 194. SWCA-KTA-TS-3, west half of Feature 1 (main terrace), facing southwest; scale measures 1 m........................................................................................................................... 234 195. SWCA-KTA-TS-3, east half of Feature 1 (main terrace), facing southeast; scale measures 1 m. ......................................................................................................................................... 234 196. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, showing open space (Feature 2, center of image) and niche under large boulder (Feature 3, behind scale bar), facing south; scale measures 1 m. ..................... 235


SWCA Project No. 15131 xiv

197. SWCA-KTA-TS-3, showing constructed cubby built into auxiliary terrace (Feature 4), facing west-northwest; scale measures 1 m. ........................................................................... 235 198. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, field sketch map.............................................................................. 238 199. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, western portion of terrace, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m. 239 200. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, eastern portion of terrace (note, niche space between and under boulders), facing north; scale measures 1 m........................................................................... 239 201. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, detail of uniquely shaped boulder near western end of terrace; scale measures 1 m........................................................................................................................... 240 202. SWCA-KTA-TS-8, mound (possible burial), facing northwest. .................................... 243 203. SWCA-KTA-TS-8, detail of distinctive boulder slab incorporated into mound (possible burial)...................................................................................................................................... 243 204. GPS-generated sketch map of SWCA-KTA-TS-9. ........................................................ 247 205. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 (rockshelter), facing west; scale measures 1 m. ............. 248 206. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 detail showing rock stacking at north end of rockshelter, facing south; scale measures 1 m............................................................................................ 249 207. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m................................... 249 208. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2, showing south side of rockshelter, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m........................................................................................................................... 250 209. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2, showing north side of rockshelter, facing south; scale measures 1 m........................................................................................................................... 250 210. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2 showing north side, facing east; scale measures 1 m. .... 251 211. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 3, facing west; scale measures 1 m.................................... 251 212. Possible petroglyph at GANDA T-1............................................................................... 253 213. Possible petroglyph at GANDA T-1; scale measures 10 cm.......................................... 254 214. Possible petroglyph at GANDA T-1 consisting of three vertical lines; scale measures 10 cm............................................................................................................................................ 255 215. GANDA T-2, sketch map produced by cultural monitors in 2005................................. 258 216. GANDA T-2 overview facing north. .............................................................................. 259 217. GANDA T-2 showing large rounded coral fragment wedged between boulders comprising part of Feature 4, facing south; scale measures 20 cm. ....................................... 259 218. GANDA T-2 showing rectangular open space between boulders designated Feature 4, facing southwest; scale measures 20 cm................................................................................. 260 219GANDA T-2 showing rectangular open space between boulders designated Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m. ........................................................................................... 260 220. GANDA T-2 with possible kohe (vagina) stone in middle of photograph, facing southeast.................................................................................................................................. 261 221. GANDA T-2 detail of possible kohe stone; scale measures 10 cm. ............................... 261 222. GANDA T-7 sketch map produced by cultural monitors in 2005. Feature 1 (lower right) is the possible archaeological / cultural resource (see text). ................................................... 264 223. GANDA T-7 overview looking downslope from above the boulder concentration, facing east. ......................................................................................................................................... 265 224. GANDA T-7 showing crawl space formed under and between large boulders, facing south; scale measures 20 cm. .................................................................................................. 265 225. GANDA T-7 showing level soil-sediment area in northern portion of feature, facing north; scale measures 20 cm. .................................................................................................. 266


SWCA Project No. 15131 xv

226. GANDA T-7 showing small enclosed space at upper end of feature, facing west; scale measures 20 cm....................................................................................................................... 266 227. GANDA T-8 sketch map produced by cultural monitors in 2005; site inspection by the Lead Archaeologist focused on the lower concentration of rocks to the south (below the “Level Plateau”)...................................................................................................................... 269 228. GANDA T-8 from the south end of the feature showing stacked boulders, facing north.................................................................................................................................................. 270 229. GANDA T-8, detail of upper portion of the feature showing a puka (hole) between boulders, facing west-northwest; scale (near puka) measures 20 cm. .................................... 270 230. GANDA T-12 sketch map produced by cultural monitors; west end of feature has several distinctive upright boulders (see photograph below).............................................................. 273 231. GANDA T-12 detail of middle of feature, facing east and upslope from lower level area; scale measures 20 cm.............................................................................................................. 274 232. GANDA T-12 detail showing two distinctive upright boulders at west end of the feature, facing southeast; scale measures 20 cm.................................................................................. 275 233. GANDA T-22, Feature 1, field sketch map.................................................................... 278 234. GANDA T-22, Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch map................................... 279 235. GANDA T-22, facing west and drop off to ‘Ō‘io Gulch (in background); scale measures 1 m. ......................................................................................................................................... 280 236. GANDA T-22, detail, showing Feature 1 (C-shape), facing northeast; scale measures 1 m. ............................................................................................................................................ 280 237. SCS T-33, looking across the platform from the southwest end, facing east-southeast; scale measures 1 m.................................................................................................................. 283 238. SCS T-33, showing detail of small cobble and pebble size-sorting on top of platform, facing west; scale measures 1 m. ............................................................................................ 284 239. SCS T-33, showing high stacking at west end of the platform, facing east-southeast; scale measures 1 m........................................................................................................................... 284 240. SCS T-33 overview, showing overall crescent shape, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m. ............................................................................................................................................ 285 241. SCS T-33, detail showing distinctive cornerstone boulder (to the left of the scale bar), facing north; scale measures 1 m. ........................................................................................... 285 242. SWCA-KTA-IF-1; scale measures 10 cm. ..................................................................... 286 243. SIHP 18673, single upright on west wall ledge near entrance to north lava tube; scale measures 50 cm....................................................................................................................... 289 244. SIHP 18673, three slabs, one still upright, one toppled on ledge, and one (out of the image) on the floor, north lava tube; scale measures 50 cm................................................... 289 245. SIHP 18673, bird cooking stone from near entrance to north lava tube; scale measures 10 cm............................................................................................................................................ 290 246. SIHP 18673, burned stick from interior of north lava tube. ........................................... 290 247. SIHP 18673, carved wooden dagger-like tool from south lava tube. ............................. 291 248. SIHP 23626, wooden object with burned and beveled tip.............................................. 291 249. SIHP 23626, burned wooden object. .............................................................................. 292 250. USGS map showing location of SWCA-PTA-TS-1....................................................... 294 251. Landscape overview just north of SWCA-PTA-TS-1, facing north............................... 295 252. Overview of SWCA-PTA-TS-1 with Kamoa Quitevas crouching in Feature 1 level soil-sediment area, facing east. ...................................................................................................... 295


SWCA Project No. 15131 xvi

253. SWCA-PTA-TS-1, Feature 1, facing northeast. ............................................................. 296 254. SWCA-PTA-TS-1, Feature 1, facing north-northwest. .................................................. 296 255. Expedient basalt cutting tool found on the surface at SWCA-PTA-TS-1, Feature 1. .... 297

Tables

1. Summary of Fieldwork Conducted for the Subject Project.................................................... 6 2. Summary of Cultural Resource Evaluations at Schofield Barracks ..................................... 21 3. Additional Features at SIHP 6841 ........................................................................................ 65 4. Summary of Cultural Resource Evaluations at Kahuku Training Area. ............................ 221 5. Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project ..................................................................................................................................... 306


SWCA Project No. 15131 1

INTRODUCTION

At the request of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the United States Army (Army), SWCA has produced this report describing a project resulting from a lawsuit settlement between the two parties. The settlement called for an independent, objective “second opinion” regarding the adequacy of cultural resource inventories associated with the Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i. In short, OHA claimed the Army failed to fulfill the basic requirements of applicable federal environmental and historic-preservation laws; and the settlement allowed for up to 50 days of fieldwork by a “third party” archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards escorted by representatives of the two parties.

A complete description of events leading to OHA’s lawsuit in 2006 and the eventual settlement between OHA and the Army in 2008 is beyond the scope and purpose of this document; many aspects of the history of this dispute can be gleaned from local news-source archives such as the Honolulu Advertiser and other media outlets that reported on these events, which came to a head in 2006 with the well-publicized breaching of a preservation buffer (orange construction fencing) surrounding the Hale‘au‘au Heiau complex at Schofield Barracks. It is relevant to note that this entire process likely would not have unfolded as it has had it not been for the presence of Native Hawaiian cultural monitors, working under contract with the Army’s “cultural resource management” contractor. The cultural monitors were largely responsible for calling into question aspects of the cultural resource inventory surveys, and, in the process, for exposing a substantial rift in the Hawaiian Islands between the perspectives, practices and objectives of archaeologists working in the service of “cultural resource management,” on one hand, and Native Hawaiians concerned with preserving and perpetuating their cultural and spiritual legacy, on the other.

The specific scope of work (SOW), which came directly from the settlement language, is described in more technical detail in the Methods chapter. It is very important to make clear at this point that this report is not the result of a formal archaeological or cultural resources inventory survey, or re-survey, of the project areas in question, which would involve millions of dollars, tens of thousands of person-hours, and large field crews to complete. Under the terms of the settlement and the SOW, the author of this report (Lead Archaeologist) was taken to specific locations selected by OHA and agreed upon by the Army. The Lead Archaeologist was asked to investigate certain features and sites, but there were many mitigating factors, including the presence and potential for encountering ordnance, depleted uranium, and other hazardous chemicals, that precluded inspection of all possible areas and relevant questions. In short, this report is a unique and in many way idiosyncratic type of study: more of a selective analysis of certain sites and features than a comprehensive survey.

The SOW called for a “results-based” document, reporting any discrepancies compared with prior surveys and reporting any new finds, in the context of federal standards for evaluating potential historic properties and cultural items. The SOW, and service agreements / contracts describing specific tasks covered under this project, did not include background and archival work, community consultation, interaction with the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), or work at any of the most commonly visited repositories of relevant historic-preservation information (e.g., the Bishop Museum, the University of Hawai‘i, the Hawai‘i State Archives, etc.). As such, this report does not include a contextual / background section one would typically find in a formal archaeological or cultural resource inventory survey.



Given the SOW, this report is also not a formal traditional cultural resource (TCP) evaluation, although several potential TCPs are discussed where appropriate. This is not a TCP evaluation for many of the same reasons it is not a formal archaeological or cultural resources inventory survey: TCP work involves not only the background / archival work and community consultation mentioned above, but also interviews, analysis of Hawaiian language documents, resources for translation services, and accommodations for getting certain community participants into the field to visit sites and features and offer their mana‘o (ideas, beliefs, concerns).

Thus, for example, this report does not formally review the archaeological, historical and cultural significance of many important places and resources such as Līhu‘e, Wai‘anae Uka, the “floating land” of Kahuku or the unique landscape of Pohakuloa Training Area. This report does not systematically explore the myriad connections and associations between and among culturally-significant places and resources. A professional, comprehensive review of the contextual / background information for the subject project areas, which must include an attempt to convey authentic Hawaiian concepts, beliefs and perspectives about the importance of place (rather than simply cutting-and-pasting well-trodden, recycled material), was not included in the SOW and would likely result in a document that is roughly twice as long as the subject report. Such a systematic treatment of all relevant contextual / background information would be most appropriately presented in a formal TCP evaluation of the subject project areas, and must include the additional tasks cited above that were not included in this work (e.g., community consultation, interviews and study / translation of Hawaiian-language documents).

Following the Introduction, a detailed Methods chapter is presented that describes the SOW, the evaluation criteria used to assess potential cultural resources, all fieldwork activities—including a day-by-day accounting of every area, site and feature visited, and mitigating factors that should be taken into account when considering the results of this study.

The Results chapter, which comprises the bulk of this report, begins by discussing some general results that apply to the overall project findings. These general results are followed by three main sections describing specific findings at Schofield Barracks, Kahuku Training Area (KTA), and Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The Schofield and KTA results are followed by a brief listing of some “unfinished business”; that is, survey areas that were unavailable for inspection but that are known to contain significant additional cultural resources that may not have been adequately evaluated or documented.

A Discussion chapter briefly considers some of the main implications of the results, focusing on ways to constructively improve the practice of historic-preservation work in the Hawaiian Islands in order to avoid future disputes.

The Conclusion summarizes three main kinds of information: (1) results of this study that conflict with previous surveys and findings, (2) SWCA’s resource-specific evaluations and recommendations, and (3) suggestions for future work in the subject project areas.



METHODS

The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the methods by which the current project was carried out. As described in the Introduction, the project is the result of a lawsuit settlement calling for the hiring of an independent, objective “second opinion” regarding the adequacy of cultural resource inventories associated with the Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i. STATEMENT OF WORK

The project was guided by a specific Statement of Work (SOW) provided by the clients. The following information is abstracted from the SOW, which is reproduced in Appendix A.

The SOW identified six (6) specific project areas:

1. The Schofield Barracks Battle Area Complex (BAX); 2. Pohakuloa Training Area Ranges 1, 8, 10 and 11T; 3. Qualification Training Range 1 (“QTR1”) at Schofield Barracks; 4. Qualification Training Range 2 (“QTR2”) at Schofield Barracks; 5. KoleKole Ranges 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Schofield Barracks, and; 6. Kahuku Training Area

The SWCA archaeologist was allotted up to 50 days of field surveys accompanied by representatives of the clients, and survey was located at “specific locations chosen by OHA and approved by the Army.”

The primary objectives of the subject survey were,

to perform an independent evaluation of potential “Historic Properties” (as defined by 16 U.S.C. § 470w(5)) and/or “Cultural Items” (as defined by 25 U.S.C. § 3001) observed by Contractor [the SWCA archaeologist] and/or brought to Contractor’s attention by representatives of the Parties [i.e., OHA and the Army]. In his/her evaluation, Contractor shall apply the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation.

And, “[t]o the extent a potential Historic Property or Cultural Item was not identified in prior surveys of the Survey Areas, Contractor shall” provide a standard set of documentation delineated in the SOW, including written descriptions and forms, site and feature sketch maps, geospatial data (e.g., GPS recordation and relevant map projections), and photographs; and, site age, integrity, and significance evaluations.

The SOW also recognized the possibility for re-evaluation of a potential Historic Property or Cultural Item “which was identified or otherwise noticed in a prior survey.”

Finally, the SOW also describes (1) reporting standards and timelines, and other specific data sets and materials to be delivered to the clients; and (2) training requirements of the Contractor, all of which were satisfied prior to the start of fieldwork for this project (see Appendix A for



complete details). During the course of the project (between field sessions 2 and 3) some additional safety standards were required by the Army in order to allow access to certain portions of the project areas at the Schofield Barracks Battle Area Complex (BAX) and Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) that have not been systematically cleared of unexploded ordnance (UXO). These additional safety standards were not included in the original SOW.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The criteria for evaluating cultural resources in terms of their potential nominations to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) provide a systematic, definable means to evaluate historic and cultural properties. Site significance was evaluated with regard to the criteria in Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60.4, as follows:

The quality of significance in America history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D) That has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

In addition to these evaluation criteria, and as explicitly stated in the SOW, certain resources may also be eligible for protection as “Cultural Items,” in accordance with 25 U.S.C. § 3001 (Native American Graves and Repatriation Act). Cultural Items are defined as human remains and funerary objects, but also as “sacred objects” and objects of “cultural patrimony.” These two terms are defined in more detail as,

“sacred objects” [are] specific ceremonial objects which are needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present day adherents, and “cultural patrimony” which shall mean an object having ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or cultural itself, rather than property owned by an individual Native American and which, therefore, cannot be alienated, appropriated, or conveyed by any individual regardless of whether or not the individual is a member of the Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization…

FIELDWORK

As summarized in Table 1, fifty (50) days of fieldwork was conducted in three main phases, designated sessions 1, 2 and 3. Session 1 consisted of thirteen (13) days of fieldwork between January 14 and February 21, 2009. Session 2 consisted of eleven (11) days of fieldwork between



March 18 and April 4, 2009. Session 3 consisted of twenty-six (26) days of fieldwork between May 6 and June 18, 2009. The SWCA archaeologist was always accompanied by at least one representative of both the Army and OHA (although most of the time there were two OHA representatives in the field). In some field situations, the SWCA archaeologist was also accompanied by one or more Army Explosive Ordnance Demolition (EOD) personnel, a private-contractor Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) escort, and/or an Army medic.

Several different types of field activities were conducted depending on the specific project area and other objectives determined by OHA, following the language of the SOW.

None of the work described in this report constitutes systematic archaeological inventory survey, which was not one of the main objectives of the study; the original surveys whose results have been questioned by OHA involved millions of dollars of budgeted resources and tens of thousands of person-hours of work.

Cultural resources were mapped with a Trimble GeoXT GPS with GPS Correct 2.42 software. At least 5-10 positions were collected at 1 second intervals for all features. WAAS (Wide Area Augmentations System) was used for real time DGPS (Differential GPS). Field GPS data were differentially corrected using ESRI’s GPS Analyst extension in ArcMap to a CORS (Continuously Operating Reference Station); after post-processing most features are sub-meter accurate. Data were exported into an ESRI ArcGIS 9.3 geodatabase and projected into Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM), Zone 4 for Schofield Barracks and Kahuku Training Area, and Zone 5 for Pohakuloa Training Area, North American Datum (NAD) 1983, using NAD_1983_To_WGS_1984_3 geographic transformation. Data from GPS units were plotted onto the associated georeferenced USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle to ensure accuracy in producing location maps for all resources. In areas of heavy tree canopy, the GPS antenna was mounted on a 15-ft ranging pole in order to obtain better satellite reception.

Subsurface testing (excavation) was not conducted during this project per the SOW; however, as described at length in the Results chapter, Phase I testing is recommended at many of the subject historic properties in order to complete their NRHP evaluations. The Discussion chapter includes recommendations for moving forward with a subsurface testing program that includes community involvement.

Primary field activities conducted during this study included site and feature inspection at previously identified historic properties in order to independently assess prior site evaluations and NRHP eligibility recommendations; site and feature inspection of areas adjacent to previously identified historic properties in order to identify additional (unrecorded) features; and reconnaissance survey of previously undocumented portions of project areas in order to identify new sites and features.

OHA representatives Kamoa Quitevas and Jesse Yorke produced some of the field sketch maps under the direct supervision of the Lead Archaeologist. After the fieldwork was complete, Kamoa Quitevas computer-drafted many of the sketch maps using Adobe Illustrator.

Table 1 includes specific daily methods and activities for all fieldwork.

Cultural Resource Evaluations of Stryker Transform

ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

6

Table 1. Summary of Fieldwork Conducted for the Subject Project Date1 Project

Area2 Personnel3 Activities4 Comments5

1/14 BAX

JY, KQ, JP & LG

1. Orientation / overview reconnaissance of the BAX 2. Visual overview of Hale‘au‘au Heiau site complex from edge of ‘cleared’ UXO grid 3. Reconnaissance survey of area with several petroglyphs and possible petroglyphs on boulders (near SIHP No. 6699) 4. Drove around South Firebreak Road for visual overview of Schofield Barracks and environs

--

1/15 BAX JY, KQ, JP & LG

1. Started documentation of petroglyphs / possible petroglyphs designated SWCA-BAX-TS-1 and -TS-2 near SIHP 6699 2. Reconnaissance survey in and adjacent to SIHP No. 6562 3. Inspected a new (previously unrecorded by any prior study) rock alignment immediately northwest of SIHP No. 6562

1. Severe weather caused suspension of documentation of petroglyphs / possible petroglyphs 2. Discovered three isolated finds (surface artifacts) of traditional Hawaiian design adjacent to SIHP No. 6562 3. New site subsequently designated SWCA-BAX-TS-9

1/20 KTA JY, KQ, JP & LG

1. Orientation / overview reconnaissance of the CACTAF Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTF) project area; all of the “cultural monitor” sites have been determined “not eligible” by DPW 2. Reconnaissance survey of “cultural monitor” sites T-8, T-3, T-12, T-7, T-23, T-24, T-2, T-10 & T-1

1. According to KQ, T-8 was interpreted by former DPW archaeologist (GM) as a military sling-load drop


1. Reconnaissance survey of “cultural monitor” sites T-25, T-11, T-6, T-20, T-21, T-22 & T-5 2. Visited Pu‘ukī 3. Documentation of T-8 4. Visited previously identified archaeological site SIHP No. 9508, 9509 & 2501 for comparative purposes

1. KQ found possible petroglyph upslope and WSW of T-6 [note, subsequent inspection demonstrated it was a name (“FITZ”) rather than a traditional petroglyph] 2. Old maps show area makai of KTA as Ki‘i (see Pu‘ukī) 3. SIHP No. 2501 is Hanaka‘oe Heiau or Platform


1. Visited / inspected “cultural monitor” sites T-13 2. Documentation of T-13, T-2, T-12 & T-1

1. JY and KQ found one isolated find (surface artifact) of possible traditional Hawaiian design near “cultural monitor” site T-6

1/23 KTA JY, KQ & JP

1. Documentation of T-7 & T-24 --

1/29 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Documentation of petroglyphs / possible petroglyphs designated SWCA-BAX-TS-3, -TS-4, -TS-5, -TS-6 & -TS-7 near original location of SIHP 6699

1. Discovered two isolated finds (surface artifacts) of traditional Hawaiian design near SWCA-BAX-TS-7


1. Documentation of petroglyphs / possible petroglyphs designated SWCA-BAX-TS-8 2. Revisited vicinity of SIHP No. 6561

1. Discovered two isolated finds (surface artifacts) of traditional Hawaiian design near SWCA-BAX-TS-7 2. Discovered three isolated finds (surface artifacts) of traditional Hawaiian design near SIHP No. 6562


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

7

Table 1 (continued). Summary of Fieldwork Conducted for the Subject Project Date1 Project


2/4 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Reconnaissance survey near SIHP No. 5381 & 6561 2. Mapping site SWCA-BAX-TS-9

1. Site SWCA-BAX-TS-9 has not been previously documented

2/6 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Mapping site SWCA-BAX-TS-9 --

2/19 BAX JY, KQ & LG

1. Reconnaissance survey near SIHP Nos. 6841 & 6845, including ‘cultural monitor’ sites not been assigned official State site numbers 2. Reconnaissance survey near SIHP No. 6846 (2 features) and a nearby rock alignment designated T-221 3. Inspection of possible petroglyph on a boulder designated “cm [i.e., “cultural monitor” site] 09” 4. Reconnaissance survey near SIHP No. 6844 (T-193) 5. Attempted inspection of T-222 (rock alignment) not possible because site location was at the time ‘off limits’

1. Re-assessed relationship of T-221 to SIHP No. 6846 2. Found previously unidentified hearth feature on the ground surface near SIHP No. 6844 3. Location of T-222 is displaced on the map projection / GIS database by some 20 to 30 meters 4. GANDA’s photograph of SIHP No. 6846 (vol. III) appears to erroneously depict another site


1. Reconnaissance survey of ‘cleared’ UXO areas in the Mohiakea Gulch immediately S of “cm09,” traveling ~200 m upstream to W 2. Reconnaissance survey of upper plateau area immediately adjacent to and N of Mohiakea Gulch

1. Identified (but did not document) previously-unrecorded low terracing on N side of gulch 2. Inspected (but did not document) traditional platform immediately S of stream channel at or near limits of ‘uncleared’ UXO grid 3. Discovered two adze fragments on ground surface immediately adjacent to and N of Mohiakea Gulch; according to KQ, two other adze fragments were previously found here


1. Reconnaissance survey of upper plateau between Kalena and Mohiakea gulches, starting from W limits of the ‘uncleared’ UXO area, heading downslope to E 2. Documented partially exposed rock alignment (SWCA-BAX-TS-17) near W limits of area described above; and just to the E, documented surface scatter (now disturbed by a road cut) of `ili`ili (waterworn pebbles) and coral (SWCA-BAX-TS-18) 3. Documentation of SIHP No. 6835 (T-183), which had recordation deficiencies by GANDA that have been addressed

1. According to KQ, rock alignment (now SWCA-BAX-TS-17) was pointed out to GANDA archaeologists before but not previously documented 2. According to KQ, who visited SWCA-BAX-TS-18 with former DPW archaeologist, it was also associated with bones, which are no longer in evidence 3. There are questions as to the current disposition of SIHP No. 6835 in light of recommendations by GANDA to avoid and protect the site


1. Documentation (mapping) of GANDA “cultural monitor” site T-22 (a small C-shape rock alignment) 2. Inspected possible petroglyph near and uphill from GANDA “cultural monitor” site T-6 (see 1/21 comments above) 3. Revisited GANDA “cultural monitor” site T-21 near base of

1. Subsurface testing would be needed to accurately interpret the function of site T-22 2. Possible petroglyph is a historic / modern name incised in rock (appears to be ‘FITZ’) 3. Site T-21 resembles a collapsed boundary wall; it runs


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

8



“date palm hill” up-and-down the slope, rather than cross-slope; not consistent with a traditional-style construction

3/19 KTA JY, KQ & LG

1. Reconnaissance survey in Kalaeokahipa Gulch near the inland limits of commercial sugarcane operations 2. Documentation of new site designated SWCA-KTA-TS-1, immediately east of unnamed pu‘u (herein referred to as “date palm hill”) in Kalaeokahipa Gulch bottom 3. Documentation of new site designated SWCA-KTA-TS-2, west and uphill of SWCA-KTA-TS-1, on sloping hillside 4. Discovery / preliminary inspection of new site designated SWCA-KTA-TS-3, south of a site complex consisting of SCS sites T-32, -33, and -34

1. Site SWCA-KTA-TS-1, an extensive (~50 m by ~10 m) mound of boulders and cobbles, is consistent with sugarcane-era feature (formed in part by mechanical earthmoving equipment) 2. Site SWCA-KTA-TS-2, a large standing boulder (remnant bedrock exposure) with several smaller stacked boulders against it; subsurface testing would likely yield traditional archaeological deposits 3. Site SWCA-KTA-TS-3, which consists of two large boulder and cobble terraces, and other smaller auxiliary features, is a traditional Hawaiian construction

3/20 KTA JY, KQ & LG

1. Documentation (including representative mapping) of new site SWCA-KTA-TS-3 (see 3/19 activities above) 2. Reconnaissance / inspection of area around SCS site T-34, which has been described as a traditional habitation with an early (c. 12th to 13th century A.D. radiocarbon date)

1. An outstanding question is whether SWCA-KTA-TS-3 is located within a previous SCS project area (Army-DPW unable to provide the answer to this question) 2. Efforts to re-assess SCS site T-34 have been hampered by the lack of SCS’s draft report of this area (Army-DPW unable to produce a draft report of this work)

3/21 QTR2 JY, KQ & LG

1. Inspection of SIHP No. 5448, including an ‘ike maka pōhaku (“map stone”) of Wai‘anae Uka and Kai 2. Reconnaissance / inspection of drainage in southern portion of QTR2, heading up to Hapapa, stopping at SIHP Nos. 6492 & 6491 and environs

1. At SIHP No. 5448, discovered one surface artifact, a coral artifact, possibly an abrader, but indeterminate given its fragmentary nature 2. Discovered a new, previously-undocumented feature (newly designated Feature 11) of SIHP No. 5448 3. We expended much effort trying to ascertain whether Feature 6 at SIHP No. 5448 was or was not described during prior archaeological surveys by SCS as a burial


1. Finished documentation of SWCA-KTA-TS-3 2. Started documentation of SCS site T-33 to re-assess its original interpretation by SCS (i.e., ‘historic clearing mound’)

1. See comment no. 1 for 3/20 (above) 2. SCS site T-33 re-interpreted as a traditional-style platform


1. Completed documentation of SCS site T-33 2. Cleared and inspected portions of SCS site T-32 to re-assess its original interpretation by SCS (i.e. ‘linear rock mound’) 3. Started reconnaissance survey of ‘Ō‘io Gulch (ephemeral, eastern branch) below GANDA ‘cultural monitor’ site T-12

1. SCS site T-32 re-interpreted as collapsed wall 2. Additional features upslope of SCS site T-32 may be part of T-32 or SCS site T-34 3. Extensive groves of hala located in ‘Ō‘io Gulch 4. Identified new site in ‘Ō‘io Gulch, designated SWCA-KTA-TS-5, a long terrace of gray angular basalt boulders 5. Temporary site SWCA-KTA-TS-4 near -TS-5


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

9



determined not to be a cultural resource 3/27 KTA JY, KQ &

LG 1. Reconnaissance survey of short portion of ‘Ō‘io Stream (main, western branch) 2. Documented (mapped) SWCA-KTA-TS-5 3. Reconnaissance survey around SWCA-KTA-TS-5 vicinity

1. Discovered a low mound (later designated SWCA-KTA-TS-8) constructed of the same gray angular basalt boulders as SWCA-KTA-TS-5

3/29 QTR2 JY, KQ & JP

1. Documentation of SIHP No. 5448, including newly-discovered Feature 11 (boulder terrace consistent with representing a traditional house site), and previously-documented Feature 6 (burial), Feature 1, and Feature 10

1. Feature 6 (burial) has been incorrectly oriented in prior, existing reports 2. Feature 1, a very large enclosure complex, re-interpreted (see Results)

4/1 KTA JY, KQ & JP

1. Resumed reconnaissance survey in ‘Ō‘io Gulch 2. Inspected SIHP No. 9509, which has been previously described as a terrace / terrace complex, located immediately downslope from SIHP No. 2501 (Hanaka‘oe Heiau / Platform) 3. Inspected SWCA-KTA-TS-6 and SWCA-KTA-TS-7, and determined both not to be cultural resources

1. Existing GIS data / map projections for 9509 and 2501 are incorrect (i.e., displaced to E by about 150 meters 2. Portions of SIHP No. 9509 along stream channel resemble a boundary wall of traditional design, complete with cobble and pebble fill, possibly associated with SIHP No. 2501

4/2 KTA JY, KQ & ML

1. Continued reconnaissance survey in ‘Ō‘io Gulch downstream of SIHP No. 9509 2. Discovered and started documentation of a new site designated SWCA-KTA-TS-9 located on the west side of the ‘Ō‘io Gulch drainage at the base of a pali (cliff) / outcrop complex

1. SWCA-KTA-TS-9 consists of at least two rockshelter / rock overhang features and may contain substantial archaeological deposits, including burials

4/4 KTA JY & JP 1. Finished documentation of SWCA-KTA-TS-9 2. Returned to inspect possible terrace in main ‘Ō‘io Stream

1. Possible terrace is not a historic property, but some kind of more recent earthmoving equipment push

5/6 KTA JY, KQ & JP

1. Finished gathering some last minute GPS data 2. Reconnaissance survey downstream of SWCA-KTA-TS-9

1. Last day in the field at KTA 2. No new findings

5/7 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Inspected (a) portions of Kalena gulch, (b) area immediately W of SIHP No. 6841 in an unnamed gulch between Kalena and Mohiakea gulches, (c) upper Mohiakea gulch W of SIHP No. 5381, and (d) area immediately W of SIHP No. 5381

1. Inspections were to determine where access was possible given the vegetation and to estimate how much documentation / recording was needed 2. Except for Kalena gulch, which cannot be entered due to high dense grass, the other three areas were accessible and were mapped / described in detail

5/8 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Inspected (a) portions of Hale‘au‘au Stream, (b) plateau area S of Kalena gulch from SIHP Nos. 6686 & 6687 down (E) to limits of cleared UXO grid, (c) plateau area between sites T-9 and T-10 immediately N of Mohiakea gulch, and (d) upper Mohiakea gulch

1. Inspections were to determine where access was possible given the vegetation and to estimate how much documentation / recording was needed 2. Hale‘au‘au Stream is totally inaccessible due to high dense grass 3. Upper Mohiakea gulch is heavily damaged by flood


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

10



damage and no further work was conducted there 4. The two plateau areas were documented in detail

5/9 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Began intensive documentation / mapping of area immediately W of SIHP No. 6841 in an unnamed gulch between Kalena and Mohiakea gulches

1. Discovered a probable burial feature near newly designated Feature 24. Probable burial designated Feature 25 of SIHP No. 6841


1. Continued intensive documentation / mapping of area immediately W of SIHP No. 6841 in an unnamed gulch between Kalena and Mohiakea gulches

--



1. Discovered another probable burial feature designated Feature 28



--



1. Defined numerous features up to Feature 36, which is a possible burial

5/19 PTA KQ & JT 1. Reconnaissance / overview ‘windshield’ survey of (a) Pu‘u Menehune, (b) Range 10 area, (c) Ranges 1 and 8 2. Observed volcanic glass quarries, including SIHP No. 21670

1. Promised Army medivac support, which is a prerequisite of accessing ‘high hazard’ areas, was not provided; thus, we were limited to ‘low hazard’ areas

5/20 PTA KQ & JT 1. Inspected ground surface at SIHP No. 21299, a lava tube in the area of SIHP No. 23463 (‘excavated pits’ site complex) 2. Inspected and entered SIHP No. 18673, a lava tube complex 3. Inspected and entered SIHP No. 21285, a lava tube complex 4. Inspected and entered a series of inter-connected lava tubes between SIHP Nos. 18673 & 21285 5. Inspected and entered SIHP No. 23635, a lava tube complex

1. Did not enter SIHP No. 21299 2. Observed additional surface artifacts in SIHP No. 18673 not previously recorded in prior GANDA report 3. The series of inter-connected lava tubes between SIHP Nos. 18673 & 21285 may be recent ordnance-affected openings and sinks 4. Due to inclement weather, medivac support left at 2:30 pm, thus ending our time in ‘high hazard’ areas prematurely

5/21 PTA KQ & JT 1. Inspected SIHP No. 23465 (basalt quarry) 2. Conducted intensive documentation of SIHP No. 18673 3. Re-inspected SIHP No. 23635

1. Observed an adze preform and other flaking debris and flaked cores on the ground surface 2. Documented new artifacts at SIHP No. 18673 3. Verified accuracy of prior reporting / documentation at SIHP No. 23635

5/22 PTA KQ & JT 1. Reconnaissance / overview of SIHP No. 23621, an ‘excavated pits’ site complex

1. Promised Army medivac support for this day canceled 2. Documented the inadequacy of existing data sets


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

11



2. Discovered and documented a new site, designated SWCA-PTA-TS-1, a temporary habitation shelter 3. Inspected SIHP No. 23626, a lava tube with adjacent and associated rock enclosure

regarding the location of ‘excavated pits’ site complexes, with SIHP No. 23621 as a specific example 3. Documented new artifacts at SIHP No. 23626


1. Began intensive documentation / mapping of western extension of SIHP No. 5381 2. Discovered and began exploration of new site on south side of Mohiakea Stream, designated SWCA-BAX-TS-10

1. Began working with the new extended-height ranging pole with mounted GPS antenna


1. Continued intensive documentation / mapping of western extension of SIHP No. 5381

1. An accurate polygon including the western extent of SIHP No. 5381 existed prior to the current work, but no detailed documentation / mapping has occurred prior to the current study


1. Continued intensive documentation / mapping of western extension of SIHP No. 5381 2. Cleared and inspected SWCA-BAX-TS-10

1. SWCA-BAX-TS-10 had never been identified prior to the current study. SWCA-BAX-TS-10 consists of four features

5/30 BAX KQ & JP 1. Completed intensive documentation / mapping of western extension of SIHP No. 5381 2. Continued documentation / mapping of SWCA-BAX-TS-10

--

6/3 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Completed documentation / mapping of SWCA-BAX-TS-10 2. Documented SWCA-BAX-TS-11

1. SWCA-BAX-TS-11 is a single line of partially buried rocks between SIHP No. 6561 & 5381. SWCA-BAX-TS-11 had never been identified formally by archaeological contractors prior to the current study, although cultural monitors had pointed out the feature

6/4 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Began intensive documentation / mapping of SWCA-BAX-TS-12

1. This site, which had never been identified by archaeological contractors prior to the current study (although it had been pointed out by cultural monitors), consists of a main platform, several terraces, and dozens of low rock mounds

6/5 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Completed documentation / mapping of SWCA-BAX-TS-12 2. Inspected a new site complex designated SWCA-BAX-TS-13 across Mohiakea Stream from SWCA-BAX-TS-12 3. Documented DPW Site T-10

1. Due to time constraints, documentation for SWCA-BAX-TS-13 consisted exclusively of a single GPS point and limited observations in field notes 2. DPW Site T-10 is a boulder terrace complex. Prior to the current study, this site was not formally identified / documented by archaeological contractors

6/6 BAX JY, KQ & JP

1. Documented DPW Site T-9 2. Began clearing and inspecting various rock features in and around “cm364” on the plateau above DPW Site T-9

1. Prior to the current study, DPW Site T-9 was not formally identified / documented by archaeological contractors


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

12



6/10 BAX JY, KQ, JP & LM

1. Documented SWCA-BAX-TS-14, which includes “cm364” and three other nearby terraces including “cm365” 2. Began documenting five additional features associated with SIHP No. 6687

1. The four terraces designated SWCA-BAX-TS-14 were previously identified by cultural monitors, but had not been formally identified by archaeological contractors


1. Completed documentation of several additional features associated with SIHP No. 6687 but not formally identified by prior archaeological contractors 2. Documented additional feature associated with SIHP No. 6688 and re-defined site boundary based on new observations

1. Created new site boundary (GPS polygon) for SIHP No. 6687 to reflect inclusion of new features. There are other features in this area that should be studied in more detail 2. SIHP No. 6688 was only partially identified and documented by prior archaeological contractors

6/12 BAX JY, KQ & LM

1. Completed documentation started but prematurely halted due to prior time constraints at SIHP No. 6846 2. Documented three additional features at SIHP No. 6844

1. See entry for 2/19 above for details on new finds and interpretations at SIHP No. 6846 2. New features at SIHP No. 6844 had not been formally identified by prior archaeological contractors 3. Discovered an isolated find (adze perform) near SIHP No. 6844


1. Resumed intensive documentation / mapping of area immediately W of SIHP No. 6841

1. There are more features within this western extension of SIHP No. 6841 than can be documented by the current study at this time, due to time constraints


1. Completed intensive documentation / mapping of area immediately W of SIHP No. 6841

1. Recommend additional documentation within this western extension of SIHP No. 6841


1. Documented SWCA-BAX-TS-15 2. Documented SWCA-BAX-TS-16 3. Documented DPW Site T-6 4. Obtained a GPS polygon for additional portions of SIHP No. 5381 that we did not have time in the current study to properly document

1. Continued to find new sites and features deserving of formal assessment and evaluation on this final day of fieldwork

1 All dates are calendar year 2009 2 Project Area abbreviations: BAX = Schofield Barracks Battle Area Complex, KTA = Kahuku Training Area, QTR2 = Qualifying Training Range 2, PTA = Pohakuloa Training Area 3 Personnel abbreviations: JY = Jesse Yorke (OHA), KQ = Kamoa Quitevas (OHA), JP = John Penman (Army-DPW), LG = Laura Gilda (Army-RCUH), ML = Moana Lee (Army-RCUH), JT = Julie Taomia (Army-RCUH), and LM = Lauren Morawski (Army-RCUH) 4 SIHP = Hawai‘i State Inventory of Historic Properties 5 Any substantive interpretations or findings mentioned in this column are described in detail in the Results section of this report



MITIGATING FACTORS

As the result of a lawsuit settlement between two parties with markedly different priorities, agendas, and perspectives, and in view of the fact that most of the work was carried out in “live fire” training areas within which were located ordnance and other potential hazards (e.g., depleted uranium, chemical weapons), the subject project was beset with numerous practical challenges and mitigating factors that are worth mentioning because they undoubtedly have had a negative effect on the quality and accuracy of the fieldwork.

1. Defining the project areas and access protocols – From the start of fieldwork, and after contracts and agreements had been finalized, it became clear that the parties had not fully agreed on what precisely constituted the project areas, and where work could and could not take place. OHA wanted access to certain portions of certain project areas (particularly the BAX at Schofield) because of specific knowledge of the location of significant cultural resources; however, for the stated reason of safety and risk potential, the Army was initially unwilling to make available some of these areas. Therefore, much time was spent working out the details of where we could and could not work, which introduced inefficiencies to the project.

2. Scheduling changes – Particularly for the first half of the fieldwork, the project was hampered by frequent scheduling changes that led to inefficiencies and wasted field time.

3. Shifting of fieldwork back and forth between project areas – Because of access issues and scheduling changes, it was necessary in several instances to stop fieldwork in certain places and at specific sites and cultural resources—even when evaluation and documentation was not necessarily finished, and to switch to an entirely different project area; in particular, work was frequently shifted back and forth between the BAX, QTR2, and KTA. These changes led to inefficiencies and wasted field time.

4. Safety requirements – The last half of the fieldwork, which took place in May and June, was conducted under increased safety measures including the use of additional personal protective equipment (PPE): flack jackets, ballistic helmets, gas masks (carried but not worn). The added PPE requirements, in particular, greatly slowed the pace of site recording and evaluation.

5. Understanding previous data sets and reports – A substantial amount of field time and effort was dedicated to trying to make sense of previous data and reports supplied by the Army (and its contractors). For any one given project area, there were typically many different resource numbering systems in use, and it was always challenging to try to figure out what the numbers meant. All parties, including the Lead Archaeologist, OHA representatives, and the Army-DPW Cultural Resources representatives, were challenged to make sense of much of this information. For example, using specific resources described in the results of this report, at Schofield Barracks (BAX), there are official State of Hawai‘i site numbers (e.g., SIHP 215, Hale‘au‘au Heiau), temporary (field) site numbers assigned by previous contractors (e.g., T-222, a Ganda number referring to a rock wall they determined to be natural, but which is clearly human-made), another set of “T” numbers presumably assigned by the Army-DPW Cultural Resources staff (including



what shows up in the GIS/GPS database as T-6, T-9, and T-10—and what the Lead Archaeologist has designated here for the sake of clarity “DPW T-6,” “DPW T-9,” and “DPW T-10”) so as not to be confused with other “T” numbers, and a set of “cultural monitor” sites and features, usually preceded by the letters “cm,” (e.g., cm 364), but sometimes also preceded by “ts” (as in ts 444). Similar issues were encountered at KTA.

6. Draft reports – It was also discovered that some reports by previous consultants at BAX and QTR2 were still in “draft” form, although the fieldwork was completed several years ago; or, the most problematic example, the complete lack of even a draft report for some of the KTA of fieldwork that was completed at least five years ago. In short, a substantial proportion of the overall allotted fieldwork time for this project was actually spent trying to make sense of poorly organized previous data and preliminary draft reports.



RESULTS

The purpose of this chapter is to present the main results of the fieldwork in the context of the goals and objectives of the Scope of Work (SOW) for this project. As discussed in the Methods chapter, it is important to note that this project was not a formal archaeological survey, or a re-survey, of the project areas, which would involve millions of dollars, tens of thousands of person-hours, and large field crews to complete. Rather, these results reflect a variety of data-gathering methods that were dependent on varied field conditions and multiple mitigating factors that have been described in the previous chapter. Even the definition of the “project areas” was not fixed at any time before or during the work described here, but rather evolved as conditions changed and negotiations took place between the Army and OHA. Oftentimes, fieldwork decisions and priorities regarding how much work could be dedicated to which resources were made “on the spot,” in an informal way, rather than being planned well in advance, based on changing conditions, availability and access to different portions of project areas, and other practical considerations. Some prior reports describing major archaeological surveys by Army contractors conducted several years ago are still in draft form or are still unavailable even as a draft document. Thus, many so-called “fieldwork” hours were devoted to tracking down information, planning, and setting priorities as to what would happen next.

This chapter begins with some general results that are relevant to the specific goals and aims of the project. Next, results of the evaluation of cultural resources from the three main project areas are presented. The bulk of the fieldwork, a total of thirty-two (32) days, was conducted at Schofield Barracks (this includes two days at QTR2), which leads off the presentation of cultural resource evaluations. Kahuku Training Area (KTA), at which fourteen (14) fieldwork days were conducted, is the next section. Finally, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), at which only four (4) fieldwork days were conducted, is last. The main results section includes all newly discovered cultural resources, which in some cases refers to entirely new sites (i.e., historic properties), but also includes newly discovered features of existing sites; this main results section also includes re-interpretations of previously evaluated sites.

The Schofield Barracks and KTA sections are followed by a brief discussion of additional survey areas that were not available for inspection during the current study, for reasons of restricted access or time restrictions, but that may contain other as-yet undocumented features and sites.

GENERAL RESULTS OF THE PROJECT

These general results developed primarily out of discussions with OHA representatives about a wide variety of perceived inadequacies with the Army’s (and its contractors) evaluation and documentation of cultural resources in the project areas; and, in the context of the fieldwork described herein, from follow-up research by the Lead Archaeologist including critical analysis of existing reports (mostly archaeological surveys by its contractors), associated data sets, and other controlling documents (e.g., Section 106 consultation letters and Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff memoranda) used by the Army to satisfy its obligations to faithfully carry out relevant environmental assessments and consultation under applicable law. These general findings are supported with specific examples where appropriate.



Defining project areas and areas of potential effects (APEs)

In view of the fact that the intended use of the proposed undertaking includes training of military personnel, driving over the landscape in large all-terrain vehicles, and shooting at targets, and in view of the fact that, by its very nature, training means that people will sometimes drive where they are not supposed to, and shoot in the wrong place, OHA has questioned the concept of narrowly defined project areas and APEs, and there appears to be ample reason for concern based on all available information. For example, in the case of the extensive agricultural site complex of SIHP 5381 in the BAX, a proposed road running along the northern portion of the site (and perhaps even within parts of the northern portion of the site based on the data presented in this report) could easily end up causing vehicles to veer south into and through this important cultural resource. But the most recent report by the Army’s contractor regarding this important cultural resource (SIHP 5381), Ganda’s volume III (Buffum 2005b:41), states, “The lower level [of terraces] continued westward and was observed but not mapped. The area mapped consists only of those areas to be immediately affected by project area construction and design…” The issue of training rounds missing targets and straying into cultural resources is a real concern. Referring to another extensive site complex (SIHP 6841), the same report (Buffum 2005b:87, 92) states, “The site complex measures roughly 250 m long by 60 m wide and extends westward outside of the project area.” But this western extension is immediately adjacent to plateau areas that will be used as targets, and certainly all of SIHP 6841 is at risk of being hit by stray rounds. Hale‘au‘au Heiau and a number of burials and possible or probable burials could also be damaged by stray rounds. A similar situation prevails at KTA where most of the lower-elevation terrain including stream drainages and gulches—the very place where Hawaiians intensively built sites and where cultural resources are still present—has not typically been included in the Stryker project areas and, thus, has not been systematically and completely surveyed.

Cumulative impacts and mitigation commitments

Referring specifically to the BAX, many cultural resources identified by previous contractors are recommended for “avoidance and protection during construction,” rather than “avoidance and protection” (i.e., in perpetuity), which is an important distinction that implies post-construction activities—such as the actual training for which the construction is preparing the landscape, is not being taken into consideration. According to Kamoa Quitevas, Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff has responded to this observation in the past with the information that a separate round of Section 106 consultation will be undertaken at a later date to consider the impact of training activities; if so, this is clearly inappropriate and unfair to the cultural resources, since the necessary infrastructure for training will have already been built. The “avoidance and protection during construction” recommendation also fails to protect cultural resources that may be actively affected by other ongoing impacts, such as stray rounds from other (non-Stryker) training. For example, the Lead Archaeologist visited SIHP 6835 in the BAX project area, previously defined as a precontact site containing three features, including a possible burial designated Feature 1 (Buffum 2005b:75). It is clear at this site that small-arms fire is still actively striking rocks in and around the cultural resource, presumably from the firing range at KR-3 (Figures 1 and 2). It seems only logical and fair that such resources should be avoided and protected against any disturbance, regardless of whether they are Stryker-related or not.



Figure 1. SIHP 6835, Feature 3, facing east; Feature 1 was interpreted as a “possible burial” but all of these features are still being shot up by ordnance.

Figure 2. SIHP 6835, Feature 3 detail showing extensive recent impacts from small arms fire, facing northwest; scale measures 20 cm.



Draft reports

In view of the fact that the EIS and Supplemental EIS processes have been completed for the proposed undertaking, OHA has raised the issue that it seems inappropriate for several key reports describing results of surveys directly affected by the Stryker project to still be in draft form or not even available as a draft. For example, Ganda’s volume III (Buffum 2005b), which contains many NRHP-eligible resources, and the fieldwork for which was conducted in 2005, is still in “preliminary draft” form. Another report by Ganda describing resources in the QTR2 project area, including SIHP 6491 and SIHP 6492, is also still in draft form, although the fieldwork was completed several years ago (it was also discovered while in the field that an Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff member who was an author on the aforementioned report was now reviewing it for the Army!). Finally, and most problematic, while working at KTA, the Lead Archaeologist found a major report by Scientific Consultant Services, Inc. (SCS) was not even available as a draft document, although, once again, the fieldwork was completed several years ago (this work was conducted as Task Order 5). One of the resources the Lead Archaeologist was attempting to evaluate, a precontact habitation complex designated SCS site T-34, apparently has an early radiocarbon date of A.D. 1190 to 1310 from an excavation; however, it was impossible to re-locate the site features due to a lack of appropriate reporting or GPS data, which consisted of a single general site datum.

General lack of subsurface testing

From a scientific, archaeological perspective, independent of historic-preservation and environmental-assessment issues, this is probably the most glaring problem with previous surveys of the subject project areas. The vast majority of archaeological resources at Schofield Barracks and many at KTA have not been tested (excavated) for subsurface deposits; therefore, many or most of the functional and temporal interpretations presented by previous consultants are mere guesses at this point, and are based on very little scientific data. This is a problem for the purposes of making eligibility recommendations to the NRHP, which clearly requires a good faith effort at obtaining scientifically relevant data on function and age of cultural resources. There are numerous examples of ambiguous (for function and/or age) sites at BAX, in particular, that are nonetheless recommended eligible for the NRHP by prior consultants, a practice which is inconsistent with standard operating procedures in either archaeology or historic preservation. Clearly, one needs to know what a resource is—or make a good faith effort to at least attempt to do this—before claiming it is eligible for the NRHP.

Whatever the specific reasons for not testing (excavating) at BAX and at some potential resources at KTA—and they appear to be a combination of the Army’s concerns about safety and costs associated with digging in areas where there might be subsurface ordnance and Native Hawaiian concerns about not damaging or destroying cultural sites (especially when fieldwork is allowed to be conducted by inexperienced technicians with little or no cultural knowledge or sensitivity)—the net effect is that many site interpretations are practically worthless, or at least highly equivocal, from an archaeological perspective.

Furthermore, and this is particularly applicable at the BAX, the lack of subsurface testing appears to have led to a general failure on the part of some prior consultants to consider the potential for intact or partially intact subsurface cultural deposits at sites and features that on the



surface have been impacted or degraded by ordnance and other historic period and modern disturbances. For example, throughout the plateau portions of the BAX, there are many dry-stacked and aligned rock features—especially boulder terraces—that have clearly been extensively damaged at the ground surface, and that have not been recognized by prior consultants as historic properties. Because of the diligence of the cultural monitors, however, dozens of these features have been pointed out as potentially significant cultural resources (for example, see SWCA-BAX-TS-14 and SWCA-BAX-TS-15, discussed in the Results section of this report). Throughout much of the rest of the United States, untold thousands of prehistoric / precontact sites are known only from subsurface deposits and materials, since their surface components have long been obliterated. This common observation appears to have been overlooked or ignored throughout much of the BAX and some of the KTA project areas.

There is one very important data set at BAX that supports the observation that there are extensive and substantial NRHP-eligible cultural deposits just under the ground surface: well over 100 “isolated finds,” that is, surface artifacts not associated with formally-recognized sites, have been reported by Ganda (see Robins and DeBaker 2005; Buffum 2005a and 2005b; DeBaker and Peterson 2007) in the BAX surveys. For a project area of less than 2,000 acres on the island of O‘ahu, this is an impressively high number of surface artifacts, and it suggests most definitely that there are extensive as-yet undiscovered cultural deposits throughout the BAX.

This lack of testing calls into questions many categories of interpretations of the prior consultants. The physical integrity of the resource, commonly called “Condition” in Ganda’s reports, almost exclusively refers only to what is observable at or above the ground surface, thereby missing or ignoring a most basic archaeological premise that there may be associated archaeological deposits under the ground, and that sites in “poor” condition at the surface, or, sites that do not appear to be sites because they are currently barely recognizable due to military and historic impacts (e.g., many of the “cultural monitor” sites at BAX), may contain significant information that is relevant to their eligibility for the NRHP.

Finally, many interpretations of above-ground, dry-stacked rock structures at BAX and elsewhere as exclusively “precontact” is generally based on very little hard evidence; many of these sites may date to the early historic period only, or, many may date to both precontact and postcontact times. This transition period (from the late 18th century to the early 19th century), during which Hawaiians were adapting to and coping with a whole new set of rules and societal changes, is an extremely important time period in Hawai‘i’s past, and one that has, with prominent exceptions (see, e.g., Sahlins 1992), been mostly ignored by archaeologists. It is important to know, for example, if sites of traditional design were still being built into the 19th century, or, if old (precontact) sites were remodeled or reused. However, without explicitly looking for evidence of this type (e.g., by carefully conducting subsurface testing following an excavation plan), there is no way to approach these important questions.

Knowledge, skills, and abilities of field personnel

Particularly at the BAX project area, many features identified by cultural monitors are difficult for inexperienced field personnel to recognize due to the sometimes subtle nature of the evidence; their informal design and construction; and damage at the ground surface from ordnance. A good number of these features can only be recognized by experienced field



archaeologists who have worked in Hawai‘i for a long time and / or by people with other kinds of relevant and practical training (e.g., they worked with kūpuna, or elders, with a kuleana, or responsibility, to teach about wahi pana, or legendary / sacred sites or places). Inexperienced or uninitiated field workers typically look only for the most prominent and obvious constructions about which functional hypotheses can easily be made. This problem, which is not unique to the Stryker project, is inherent to the system of archaeology and historic-preservation work conducted in the service of economic development projects.

Prior reporting standards

There appears to be a nearly universal lack of clearly defined site boundaries for NRHP-eligible cultural resources in the reports of previous consultants who worked at the project areas studied in this report. The typical level of documentation found in most of these reports—consisting of a single data point on GIS/GPS map projections, and perhaps a field sketch map of above-ground, dry-stacked features—does not include this most basic requirement of NRHP eligibility (i.e., clearly defined site boundaries). Finally, there are pervasive issues in prior reports of a general lack of professionalism and problems of consistency and accuracy. One recurring and common example is field photographs without visible scale and / or north arrow.

EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AT SCHOFIELD BARRACKS

A total of 41 cultural resources from the Schofield Barracks project area (includes one resource from QTR2) is described below in varying levels of detail and specificity.

These 41 include seven (7) previously identified historic properties with State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) numbers (i.e., SIHP 5381, 5448, 6687, 6688, 6841, 6844 and 6846). New features, not previously identified or evaluated as cultural resources, were documented at all of these seven sites. In some cases, for example, at SIHP 6841, the work described here has more than doubled the known number of features.

Three (3) cultural resources (here designated DPW T-6, -9 and -10) had previously been pointed out by cultural monitors to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and / or prior archaeological consultants, but had not been formally documented or evaluated as cultural resources.

Eighteen (18) cultural resources (here designated SWCA-BAX-TS-1 through and including -18) had not been previously documented or evaluated as cultural resources, although some features at some of these resources had been pointed out in the past by cultural monitors to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and / or prior archaeological consultants. These 18 resources include eight petroglyphs or possible petroglyphs and other marked boulders (i.e., SWCA-BAX-TS-1 through and including -8).

Finally, thirteen (13) surface artifacts (here designated SWCA-BAX-IF-1 through and including -13) were identified. Six (6) of these were found in close proximity to the site boundary of SIHP 6562, and seven (7) were found in or near no previously identified site.



Table 2. Summary of Cultural Resource Evaluations at Schofield Barracks Formal Description Functional / Temporal Interpretation(s) Level of Reported Evaluation / Documentation2 NRHP Eligibility / Mitigation Recommendation(s)3 Resource No.(s)1 Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study

SIHP 5381 SCS 3 Ganda 150

Complex and / or Field complex

Extensive terrace complex – multi-level soil-sediment / rock field system

Wetland agriculture or Irrigated agriculture or (in Buffum 2005b) Irrigated agriculture / habitation; Precontact

Lo‘i (pond-field gardening complex); Precontact

Inventory survey level documentation; Only a portion of site was documented in previous reports

GPS; feature forms; photographs; cross-section profile of western terrace complex; field notes

Eligible A & D; Avoidance and protection during construction; Additional documentation needed of areas to west and across stream to south

Eligible A, B, C & D; 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey 3. Site development plan 4. Community access

SIHP 5448** SCS 78

Complex of enclosures, mounds, terraces and a stone-lined depression

Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex

“Permanent habitation complex with a burial monument and evidence of dryland agriculture”; Precontact

Habitation site complex, probable gardening features as well, one documented burial feature (F.6); Precontact

Inventory survey level documentation; One additional feature discovered during the current study is described herein

Photographs; feature form; field notes

Eligible A, C, D and E Eligible C & D; Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

SIHP 6687 Complex Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex consisting of at least 10 features

Habitation; Precontact

Multi-purpose including habitation and gardening; Precontact

Inventory survey level documentation; Additional associated features not identified in previous report

GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature forms; field notes

Eligible C & D, at the time of Ganda’s report (Buffum 2005a), only five features were identified; Avoidance and protection during construction

Eligible D; 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey

SIHP 6688 Alignment Large enclosure constructed of dry-stacked and aligned boulders

Undetermined; Precontact / postcontact***

Indeterminate function(s); Indeterminate age

Inventory survey level documentation; Additional associated feature not identified in previous report

GPS; field notes Eligible D, at the time of Ganda’s report (Buffum 2005a), only one feature was identified (now designated Feature 1A); Avoidance and protection during construction

Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

SIHP 6841 Ganda 187, 190

Multi-use complex Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex

Wetland agriculture and repeated-use occupation with possible ceremonial or burial component; Precontact

Multi-purpose including habitation, gardening, burial; Precontact

Inventory survey level documentation; Only a portion of site was documented in previous reports

GPS; multiple sketch maps; photographs; feature forms, field notes

Eligible B & D; Avoidance; Additional documentation needed of areas to west

Eligible C & D; 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey 3. Site development plan 4. Community access

SIHP 6844 Ganda 193

Terrace Three dry-stacked and aligned rock features and one rock-defined hearth

Repeated-use occupation; Precontact

Small habitation site complex; Precontact

Inventory survey level documentation; Previous reports did not include additional features newly documented in the current study

GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature forms; field notes

Eligible D, at the time of Ganda’s report (Buffum 2005b), only one feature was identified (now designated Feature 1); Avoidance

Eligible D; 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. Phase I survey of area to the south that was unavailable for survey due to safety requirements

SIHP 6846 Ganda 195 Ganda T-221 (now designated Feature 3)

Complex and / or habitation complex

Three dry-stacked and aligned rock features

Repeated-use occupation; Precontact

Indeterminate function(s); Precontact

Inventory survey level documentation; Previous report erroneously interprets T-221 (now Feature 3) as natural

GPS; photographs; field notes

Eligible D, at the time of Ganda’s report (Buffum 2005b), only two features were identified; Avoidance


DPW T-6 None Dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex

None Permanent habitation and/or religious site complex; Precontact

No formal evaluation or reporting by prior consultants; GPS only by DPW

Sketch map; photographs; site forms; field notes

n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I survey to identify and evaluate all surface features

DPW T-9 None Dry-stacked and aligned rock enclosure with associated features

None Indeterminate function(s); Precontact


GPS; photographs; feature forms; field notes

n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

DPW T-10 None Boulder terrace with associated features

None Habitation or dryland gardening; Precontact


GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature form; field notes


SWCA-BAX-TS-1 None Marked boulder None Not cultural None GPS; photographs; feature form; field notes

n.a. Not Eligible; No further work



Table 2 (continued). Summary of Cultural Resource Evaluations at Schofield Barracks Formal Description Functional / Temporal Interpretation(s) Level of Reported Evaluation / Documentation2 NRHP Eligibility / Mitigation Recommendation(s)3 Resource No.(s)1 Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study

SWCA-BAX-TS-2 None Petroglyph on boulder None Petroglyph; Precontact

None GPS; photographs; feature form; field notes

n.a. Eligible C; 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. Petroglyph preservation plan

SWCA-BAX-TS-3 None Probable petroglyph on boulder

None Probable petroglyph, but rock is severely degraded; Probably precontact



SWCA-BAX-TS-4 None Possible petroglyph on boulder

None Possible petroglyph; may have other (non-petroglyph) function(s); Indeterminate age


n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); Avoidance and further study of possible function(s)

SWCA-BAX-TS-5 None Incised boulder with puka (symmetrical hole)

None Possible sharpening stone; Probably precontact


n.a. Not Eligible; Preservation / curation of the object and further study of the object to ascertain its function(s)

SWCA-BAX-TS-6 None Petroglyph on boulder None “Bird petroglyph”; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-TS-7 None Possible petroglyph on boulder

None Possible petroglyph; may have other (non-petroglyph) function(s); Indeterminate age


n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); Avoidance and further study of possible function(s)

SWCA-BAX-TS-8 None Petroglyph on boulder None Petroglyph; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-TS-9 None Dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural features

None Indeterminate function(s); Precontact

None GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature form; field notes


SWCA-BAX-TS-10 None Complex of dry-stacked and aligned rock features

None Habitation site complex, probable gardening features as well; Precontact

None GPS; multiple sketch maps; photographs; feature forms; field notes

n.a. Eligible D; Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

SWCA-BAX-TS-11 None Linear alignment of partially buried / exposed cobbles oriented up- and downslope

None Indeterminate function(s) and age



SWCA-BAX-TS-12 None Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex

None Indeterminate function(s): possible burial mound complex or dryland gardening mound complex; Precontact

None GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature forms; field notes

n.a. Eligible C & D; 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

SWCA-BAX-TS-13 None Extensive terrace complex – multi-level soil-sediment / rock field system

None Lo‘i (pond-field gardening complex); Precontact

None GPS; field notes n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I survey to identify and evaluate all surface features

SWCA-BAX-TS-14 cm 364 & cm 365

None Multiple boulder terraces

None Probable dryland gardening; Precontact


GPS; photographs; feature forms; field notes

n.a. Eligible C & D; 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey

SWCA-BAX-TS-15 TS-216

None Single boulder terrace None Habitation or dryland gardening; Probable precontact

No reporting by prior consultants; GPS only by DPW

GPS; feature form; photographs; field notes

n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in



Table 2 (continued). Summary of Cultural Resource Evaluations at Schofield Barracks Formal Description Functional / Temporal Interpretation(s) Level of Reported Evaluation / Documentation2 NRHP Eligibility / Mitigation Recommendation(s)3 Resource No.(s)1 Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study

NRHP eligibility evaluation SWCA-BAX-TS-16 None Remnant – degraded

mound or platform None Indeterminate

function(s); Precontact

None GPS; feature form; photographs; field notes


SWCA-BAX-TS-17 None Linear alignment of partially buried / exposed cobbles


None GPS; field notes n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

SWCA-BAX-TS-18 None Surface scatter of ‘ili‘ili (waterworn pebbles) and branch coral fragments*


None GPS; field notes; photographs

n.a. Not eligible; Monitoring of ground disturbance

SWCA-BAX-IF-1 None Surface find, fragment of adze preform

None Woodworking tool; Precontact


n.a. Not Eligible; 1. No further fieldwork 2. Curation for artifact

SWCA-BAX-IF-2 None Surface find, complete small adze



n.a. Associated w. SIHP 6562 (Eligible D); 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance; 2. Curation for artifact

SWCA-BAX-IF-3 None Surface find, complete small stone bowl

None Possible kukui nut oil lamp; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-IF-4 None Surface find, fragment of adze








SWCA-BAX-IF-6 None Surface find, small utilized blade

None Expedient cutting tool; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-IF-7 None Surface find, fragment of abrading stone

None Grinding, polishing tool; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-IF-8 None Surface find, flaked core

None Source of flakes; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-IF-9 None Surface find, complete slingstone

None Possible bird-hunting tool; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-IF-10 None Surface find, fragment of abrading stone

None Grinding, polishing tool; Precontact















1 Previously identified resources at Schofield have been designated using a variety of different numbering systems that appear in reports and in the GIS/GPS database; see Methods chapter for a discussion of this issue. 2 Previous Level of Reported Evaluation / Documentation describes prior work and data collection at each resource, and also indicates if the information has been included in a formal report satisfying NHPA requirements or whether the information exists only in the GIS/GPS database. 3 See Methods chapter for an explanation of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria. Some entries have “n.a.,” which stands for “not applicable,” since this is a newly discovered resource or one that has not been formally recommended for NRHP eligibility. * According to KQ, he observed large mammal bones, possibly human skeletal remains, at this location in 2006 in the company of previous Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff member. No bones were observed during the current investigation. ** SIHP 5448 is located in the QTR2 project area. *** SIHP 6688 is described as “Pre-Contact/Post-Contact” on some pages in Buffum (2005a) and as only “Post-Contact” or “Historic” on other pages.



SIHP 5381

Resource No.(s) SIHP 5381 (SCS 3, Ganda 150) Reference(s) Robins and DeBaker (2005), Buffum (2005a & 2005b), Robins

and Spear (1997a & 2002a) Formal Type Extensive terrace complex – multi-level soil-sediment / rock field

system and habitation features (SWCA-BAX-TS-10) Functional Interpretation Lo‘i (pond-field gardening complex) and habitation features Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 360 by 100 m (8.7 acres—first reported as 0.75-1.00 acres in

earlier report versions—see text below) No. of Features More than 50 individual garden plots arranged in about a dozen

main groups of fields (first reported as approximately 12 individual plots in two main field groups in prior reports) and several habitation features

Surface Artifacts or Midden

None in the lo‘i (but one at SWCA-BAX-TS-10, a stone bowl fragment)

Physical Condition / Integrity

Features, and portions of features, vary from good to fair to poor (at and above ground surface); changed from “good” in earlier prior reports to “poor” in later prior reports

NRHP Eligibility Eligible A, B, C, & D (prior reports have listed A & D only) Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

2. More extensive Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified and included in the site boundary 3. Site development plan 4. Community access

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Although one would not know it from prior reporting, which describes this resource in the same dry prose as any other remnant stone ruins, SIHP 5381 is an extraordinary cultural resource of the highest value, consisting of a more or less continuous lo‘i, or irrigated (pond-field) terrace complex, of many dozens of individual kalo (taro, Colocasia esculenta) gardens, all intricately linked with ‘auwai (irrigation ditches), and all making ingenious and economical use of the natural alluvial floodplain of Mohiakea Stream (Figure 3). All in all, this resource, which is likely associated with some very famous mo‘olelo (oral history) dealing with the royal birthing site of Kūkaniloko and with the wahi pana (legendary place) of Kukui-o-Lono, covers at least 8.7 acres in size. It is also important to remember that, to many Native Hawaiians, very few resources are more culturally and spiritually valued than kalo (taro), which is intimately linked with the god Kāne, and considered in Hawaiian traditions to be a primordial human ancestor.

A proper description and treatment of SIHP 5381 is complicated because it must take into account and review all of the prior evaluations, documentation, and recommendations whose inadequacies and incompleteness are a main source of why the current project has come to be. The past treatment of this outstanding cultural resource illustrates some systemic problems with standard approaches to site documentation, which tend to narrowly focus on recordable details that may not be particularly enlightening in the broader scope of trying to understand and



evaluate cultural resources, and which tend to overlook or omit the wider context within which the cultural resource is located.

For example, SIHP 5381 is flanked on the north side, on a narrow ridge overlooking the central portion of the lo‘i, by a traditional, precontact, permanent habitation site complex (SIHP 6561) inhabited, undoubtedly, by the very same people who constructed, maintained, and cultivated this vast complex of taro gardens. There is no mention in any of the prior reports that these two site complexes are a “stone’s throw” apart, literally right next to each other. During the current study, the Lead Archaeologist documented another traditional, precontact, permanent habitation site complex (SWCA-BAX-TS-10) on a ridge on the other (south) side of Mohiakea Stream, overlooking the western portion of this lo‘i inhabited no doubt by another group of people intimately connected with SIHP 5381. This integrated approach to understanding SIHP 5381—in which at least two adjacent habitation site complexes can be linked to the cultural resource—is a world apart from calling it a 50 by 60 m wetland agricultural site, in a proverbial vacuum, which is how it was originally described in prior reports.

It is important to state at this point that, during the analysis and write-up phase of this work, and after fieldwork was completed, it became clear that the habitation site complex designated SWCA-BAX-TS-10 should be included in the site boundary of SIHP 5381. The narrative write-up, feature descriptions, and other details relating to SWCA-BAX-TS-10 are presented separately for the sake of organizational clarity and for keeping the presentation of information in a logical order.

Size of SIHP 5381

Over the course of several previous reports, the overall size of SIHP 5381 has increased dramatically. It was first reported as 50 by 60 m (3,000 m2 or approximately 0.75 acres) by Robins and Spear 2002a, and this description was carried into Ganda’s first report (volume I) by Robins and DeBaker 2005 (Figure 4). The site size increased to 65 by 60 m (3,900 m2 or approximately 1.0 acres) by the time of Ganda’s volume II (Buffum 2005a), and then increased to >300 by 60 m (>18,000 m2 or approximately 4.5 acres) in the next volume (Buffum 2005b), which also noted the site continues for another 80+ m to the west (Figure 5). The current study demonstrated the site extends over an even larger area than this, encompassing some 8.7 acres.

Number of features at SIHP 5381

The number of features at SIHP 5381 was first reported by Robins and Spear (2002a), Robins and DeBaker (2005), and Buffum (2005a) as “2,” with the recognition that each of these subsumed several individual fields or garden plots. Ganda’s volume III (Buffum 2005b) listed the number of features as “3+.” Depending on how one interprets the narrative descriptions and accompanying sketch maps found in these reports—some of which are difficult to make absolute sense of—the total number of individual fields or garden plots was first depicted as approximately 12 (Robins and Spear 2002a; Robins and DeBaker 2005; Buffum 2005a), then later, in volume III (Buffum 2005b), the addition of a third major set of fields increased the overall number of individuals fields by 20, bring the total to 32. The current study documented another 18 individual fields at the western end of SIHP 5381 and noted numerous others that have still not been documented or even counted between this new section and the end of the



section identified in Ganda’s volume III (Buffum 2005b). Also, as stated above, several habitation features located at the southwestern end of the site complex (designated in the field as SWCA-BAX-TS-10) have been added to SIHP 5381.

The physical condition (i.e., integrity at and above the ground surface) was first reported in Ganda’s volume I (Robins and DeBaker 2005) as “good,” but was later changed to “poor” in subsequent volumes (i.e., Buffum 2005a and 2005b). The current study demonstrates there is a significant degree of variation between features, and portions of features, from good to fair to poor at and above ground surface. As discussed below, there is an area near the southern terminus of Features 4 and 5A (documented and defined during the current study) with excellent excavation potential that might shed light on the integrity of the subsurface component of this site.

Documentation of SIHP 5381 during the current study

The primary objectives at SIHP 5381 during the current study were to demonstrate that it extends far beyond previous evaluations of its overall size, to document a sample of the available evidence, and to place the resource in a wider context that more accurately reflects its relationship to adjacent resources and to Native Hawaiian beliefs about its significance.

Two main field activities were conducted at SIHP 5381: (1) over a period of several days, a previously undocumented portion of the site representing its western terminus was mapped, photographed and described in detail; (2) in a brief inspection on the last day of fieldwork, a GPS polygon was obtained showing a large portion of SIHP 5381 situated between the previous (western) limit of documentation provided in Ganda’s vol. III (Buffum 2005b) and the eastern limit of the detailed documentation generated during the current study (item no. 1, above).

As discussed in the Methods chapter of the current report, SWCA used a GPS antenna mounted on a 15-ft ranging pole to deal with the heavy tree canopy at this site; in this way, the Lead Archaeologist obtained high-quality GPS data where none had been recorded before.

The western end of SIHP 5381 consists of five main features, designated Features 4 through and including 8, consisting of 18 individual garden plots covering of area of approximately 135 by 45 m (1.5 acres) (Figure 6). In order to assist with the future management of this cultural resource, and because previous reports ended with Feature 3, the numbering of features in the western end of SIHP 5381 started with “4.”

The general physical condition of the features within the western end of SIHP 5381 varies from good in most places to fair in others, especially around spillways, where erosion has caused some damage to the soil-sediment. In general, the lowermost features, including most of Feature 7, have experienced the most erosion and damage, and portions of this are in poor physical condition.

The western end of SIHP 5381 is comprised of two main landscape-structural elements. The first is a three-tiered (or leveled) complex of parallel terraces constructed along a north-to-south oriented section of Mohiakea Stream: Feature 4 is the uppermost (western) terrace, Feature 5 is directly below to the east, and Feature 6, the third and lowermost tier of this complex, is located right along the edge of the drop-off down to the Mohiakea Stream channel (Figure 7). The



second main landscape-structural element is a smaller two-tiered (or leveled) complex of terraces (Features 7 and 8) constructed at a sharp bend (meander) in the stream where the flow turns from a north-northeast to a south-southeast direction.

Feature 4, the largest single feature of the western end of SIHP 5381, consists of an earthen terrace that is at least 80 m in length (north-to-south) with relatively little evidence that it was ever extensively reinforced or retained with rocks on its slope down to Feature 5. Feature 4 closely follows the natural terrain, as can be appreciated by inspection of topographic maps, and native planters clearly had a deep understanding of the local topography. There are at least three locations along the length of Feature 4 that appear to be spillways for water flowing down to the next main terrace, Feature 5. Unlike the rest of the terraces at this western end of SIHP 5381, Feature 4 is not subdivided along its length into smaller garden plots, but, rather consists of one long, relatively level terrace. The southern end of Feature 4, where it is closest to the Mohiakea Stream channel, measures some 40-50 m in width (west-to-east); the northern end of Feature 4, before it disappears into tall grass that could not be entered due to safety requirements, measures some 10-20 m in width. The maximum height from the top of the eastern (front) edge of the terrace down to the level soil-sediment area of Feature 5 is 1.00-1.50 m; this slope-front is nearly vertical along most of its length. The southern portion of the front edge of Feature 4 is slightly raised with a low earthen berm 10-20 cm in height; this structural element appears to function to prevent water from emptying off the southern end of Feature 4 into the stream channel, but, instead sending it down (east) to Feature 5 and north to other parts of the rest of the system.

Feature 5, which consists of five individual garden plots designated Feature 5A through and including 5E, is the middle tier of the main three-leveled terrace system at the western end of SIHP 5381 (Figures 8 and 9). Water from Feature 4, located just west of and above Feature 5, was designed to flow down into at least three portions of Feature 5. The five individual garden plots are all roughly rectangular in plan view shape, and step down to the north from Feature 5A to 5B to 5C to 5D, where it steps up, to the north, into the last garden plot, 5E, which must have been watered from the far (northern) end of Feature 4, unlike the rest of the Feature 5 plots that were generally irrigated from the south.

Due to time constraints, Feature 5 is the only complete set of garden plots that were described in relatively fine detail; however, the character and variation exhibited by this set is representative of the remaining features at the western end of SIHP 5381. Feature 5A is approximately 18.0 m in length (north-to-south) by 5.0 m in width (east-to-west); there is a spillway at the north end of Feature 5A, which used to be cobbled-lined, but which is now in disrepair, feeding water down into Feature 5A from Feature 4. There is a gentle 10-15 cm-drop from Feature 5A to the north into Feature 5B. On its east side, Feature 5A drops down towards the stream channel into Feature 6, the lowest of the three-tiered terraces comprising the main set of parallel terraces.

Feature 5B is approximately 7.5 m in length (north-to-south) by 5.0 m in width (east-to-west); there is a spillway at the northeast corner of this garden plot going down into Feature 6. There is a 40-50-cm drop down from this feature into Feature 5C to the north; two short sections of remnant stacked-cobble facing are preserved along the divide between the garden plots designated Feature 5B and C.



Feature 5C is approximately 10.0 m in length (north-to-south) by 5.3 m in width (east-to-west); there is a spillway at the northwest corner of Feature 5C into Feature 5D, the next garden plot to the north. The long axis of Feature 5C pivots slightly to the northwest at the north end of Feature 5C such that it is not precisely rectangular in plan view shape but slanted on the north end. There is a 40-50-cm drop down from this feature into Feature 5D to the north.

Feature 5D is approximately 33.0 m in length (north-to-south) by 5.0-10.0 m in width (east-to-west); this is the largest of the Feature 5 subdivisions; it is irregularly shaped and parts of Feature 5D are relatively damaged by erosion from flowing water coming down a spillway from Feature 4.

Feature 5E is approximately >16.0 m in length (north-to-south) (actual length is longer but unknown as it end in tall grass) by 7.0 m in width (east-to-west); this garden plot continues into heavy grassy vegetation that could not be accessed for safety reasons. As stated above, this is an interesting garden plot because it steps up from Feature 5D; all the others step down steadily from the southernmost Feature 5A to 5D. This northernmost garden plot of Feature 5 must have been irrigated from a different main source compared with the rest of this feature.

Feature 6, which consists of five individual garden plots designated Feature 6A through and including 6E, is the lowest tier of the main three-leveled terrace system at the western end of SIHP 5381 (Figure 10). The southern end of this feature is defined on its east side by the edge of the Mohiakea Stream channel, and the uppermost garden plot (Feature 6A) is actually lower in elevation (i.e., excavated out into a level soil-sediment area) by 15-20 cm compared with the ground surface right to the east and along the south side (abutting Feature 5A). These two sides (along the east and south of Feature 6A) are defined and reinforced by small boulders and cobbles; the function of this design is clearly to keep the water flowing down into the next garden plot, designated Feature 6B, rather than back into the stream. Dimensions for these five garden plots are as follows: Feature 6A is approximately 15.0 (length) by 7.8 m (width); Feature 6B is approximately 10.0 (length) by 6.0-7.0 m (width); Feature 6C is approximately 10.0 (length) by 6.0-7.0 m (width); Feature 6D is approximately 21.0 (length) by 7.0-12.0 m (width); and Feature 6E is approximately >24.0 (length) by 4.0-7.0 m (width).

Feature 7, which consists of five individual garden plots designated Feature 7A through and including 7E, is the lowest set of garden plot features within the western end of SIHP 5381. The uppermost field, Feature 7A, similar to Feature 6A, was excavated out such that its level soil-sediment area is lower than the adjacent ground surface to the east and south; these sides of the features are defined and reinforced by low boulder retaining walls. The lowest of these garden plots, designated Feature 7E, continues beyond its measured dimensions (see below) into tall grass that could not be entered for safety reasons; this lowest field appears to be the ho‘i wai (“water return”) to the Mohiakea Stream channel. In traditional times, it was customary for lo‘i planters to use only a portion of the through-flowing water (typically half). Dimensions for these five garden plots are as follows: Feature 7A is approximately 10.0 (length) by 11.0 m (width); Feature 7B is approximately 5.0 (length) by 8.0-9.0 m (width); Feature 7C is approximately 8.5 (length) by 7.5 m (width); Feature 7D is approximately 15.0 (length) by 7.0-8.0 m (width); and Feature 7E is approximately >5.0 (length) (actual length is longer but unknown as it ends in tall grass) by 11.0 m (width).



Feature 8 consists of two small garden plots southeast of Feature 7; these two are in relatively poor physical condition and are more difficult to interpret and describe with any specific accuracy.

In addition to the sets of parallel terraces arranged into at least 18 individual garden plots, the rock work that defines portions of some of these plots, and the many spillways flowing water from one to the next, there are at least two other types of features that deserve mention; these were not described or interpreted in sufficient detail, due to time constraints, but they are likely associated with the rest of the site complex. First, immediately adjacent to the southern end of Features 4 and 5A, there is some informal alignment of larger boulders that likely represent a place where those who worked the fields rested, socialized, and maintained their tools and relationships. It is highly probable that archaeological excavation at this southern end of these features would yield cultural deposits consistent with temporary habitation / site occupation. The second set of features, located in the vicinity of Feature 7A and 8 are small clusters of large boulders that appear to be positioned around depressions or shallow holes; these boulders are immediately recognizable due to their angular morphology (termed “cracked rock” by Kamoa Quitevas, and this is an excellent description) compared with the rest of the cobbles and boulders at this site, which are all rounded / subrounded. The function of these large angular boulders is indeterminate, but there are other similar examples from the BAX project area (e.g., SWCA-BAX-TS-12-Feature 1, SIHP 6844-Feature 3).

As stated above, there is another major section of lo‘i terrace complex to the east and southeast of the portion described above. Due to limited time and other field priorities, the Lead Archaeologist only had time to record a GPS polygon, and to walk briefly through portions of this additional area, which is located west of the limits of documentation by previous Army contractors. Based on this brief inspection, this additional portion is just as impressive as the one to the west, and it should be documented.

Mo‘olelo (Oral History)

Portions of this subsection have been adapted from Monahan (2009). From a Hawaiian perspective, the traditional practice of gardening—selecting, preparing, and working the land using little more technology than ones hands and feet, the ‘ō‘ō (‘digging stick’), and perhaps the ko‘i (‘stone adze’) to remove trees—has been a highly sacred activity for as long as there have been Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians). Unfortunately, there has been a major ‘disconnect’ and a serious undervaluing by archaeologists and historians of the religious significance of traditional gardens, including earthen terraces, water-management systems, mounds and other seemingly simple constructions.

Other than wai (fresh, clean water) and ‘ohana (‘extended family,’ including past, present, and future members), there is probably nothing more universally sacred in Hawai‘i than kalo. Kānaka Maoli have been masters of, and preoccupied with, kalo cultivation for millennia; kalo is closely associated with Kāne, the oldest of the four primary gods in Hawai‘i (also Kanaloa, Kū, and Lono). Kāne is the original Hawaiian progenitor of people and life, and kalo is one of Kāne’s kino lau (other bodies or earthly manifestations).



Nathaniel Emerson’s 1898 translation of David Malo’s Mo‘olelo Hawai‘i (Hawaiian Antiquities) had this to say about Hawaiian ideas on the origin of taro:

We have a fragment of tradition regarding Haloa. The first-born son of Wakea was of premature birth (keiki alualu) and was given the name of Haloa-naka. The little thing died, however, and its body was buried in the ground at one end of the house. After a while, from the child’s body, shot up a taro plant, the leaf of which was named lau-kapa-lili, quivering leaf; but the stem was given the name Haloa.

After that, another child was born to them whom they called Haloa, from the stalk of the taro. He is the progenitor of all the people of the earth. (Malo 2005:244)

Thus, kalo is Kāne is life is creation is the people, and so on, in a multi-layered and rich tapestry of mo‘olelo that expresses and reflects the primordial supremacy of the food plant. Handy, in his classic study, Native Planters in Old Hawai‘i, pointed out that ‘oha, the taro sprout, is the root of the word ‘ohana. He also discusses the intimate relationship between plants and planter in Hawai‘i. Referring to the mo‘olelo about Hāloa (above), Handy writes,

Thus a personal relationship of taro to man is implicit in the first scene in the drama of creation. Man, then, had a sense of familial relationship with the taro plant. In his cultivation of the taro, the parent plant, like the human parent, was called the makua, parent. The analogy is then extended, and the growth of the human family is likened to that of the taro; human offspring are called ‘oha, which literally means a taro sprout. (Handy and Handy 1972:22)

Abbott’s (1992) Lā‘au Hawai‘i, Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants describes the relationship between plants and planter as follows:

Hawaiian use and understanding of plants was thoroughly and profoundly religious…The land, the sea, the sky, and their creatures were suffused with meaning. Religious beliefs and practices pervaded daily life…They governed, among other things, the use of land, plants, and animals; the foods people could eat; and the time and methods for planting. (ibid.:15)

The gardeners at SIHP 5381, who lived at the nearby site designated SIHP 6561 and at SWCA-BAX-TS-10, were in all likelihood maka‘āinana or hoa‘āina (‘common folk’) supporting and feeding not only themselves but ali‘i (chiefly classes) and religious specialists associated with the nearby wahi pana of Kūkaniloko at Wahiawā, the famous birthing place of Hawaiian royalty established at least as early as the 12th century A.D. There is a large amount of oral-historical information about Kūkaniloko that supports its supremacy as a piko (spiritual center) of O‘ahu (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:138-141). In their discussion of the gardening traditions and sites throughout the islands, Handy and Handy (1972) have this to say about Wahiawā:

Above and west of the site of the present town [of Wahiawā] was Kukui-o-Lono, a place famous in legend. In its vicinity are a number of lo‘i developments. Kukaniloko was the name of an ancient high chief of Oahu who is said to have made the first lo‘i here.



It is highly likely that these lo‘i developments include those in Mohiakea Stream such as SIHP 5381, and perhaps others in Kalena and Hale‘au‘au Streams; however, these were unable for inspection due to safety requirements.

Recommendations for SIHP 5381

SIHP 5381 is clearly eligible for the NRHP under multiple criteria. Prior recommendations by previous contractors have listed Criteria A and D only. SWCA recommends this cultural resource eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A, B, C and D. Criteria A (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history) recognizes the resource’s role in the development of irrigated terrace-complex agriculture in Wai‘anae Uka and Wahiawā. Criterion B (association with the lives of persons significant in our past) recognizes the resource’s connection with the oral-historical chief Kūkaniloko who is said to have first developed the lo‘i in the project area. Criterion C (embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction) recognizes the resource’s masterful use of the landscape to engineer a network of more than 50 garden plots intricately interrelated with an irrigated water-management system. Criterion D (has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history) recognizes the resource’s potential for advancing our understanding of the origins and evolution of irrigated agriculture in the project area.

SWCA recommends: (1) avoidance and protection of SIHP 5381 in perpetuity; (2) more extensive Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified and included in the currently understood site boundary; (3) a site development plan that may include subsurface testing (excavation) and/or rehabilitation of portions of the site that may be used for educational purposes; and (4) a cultural access plan to allow Native Hawaiians opportunities to visit and learn about the site.



Figure 3. USGS map showing cultural resources at BAX project area discussed in this report.



Figure 4. SIHP 5381 as reported in Robins and DeBaker (2005) and Buffum (2005a).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

34

Figure 5. SIHP 5381 as reported in Buffum (2005b).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

35

Figure 6. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 5381 including SWCA-BAX-TS-10 features within site boundary of SIHP 5381.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

36

Figure 7. SIHP 5381, graphic depiction of field sketch map of cross section (profile) of Features 4, 5 and 6.



Figure 8. SIHP 5381, showing portions of individual garden plots, facing southwest; red arrows indicate remnant cobble facing on slope down from Feature 5B to 5C; vertical scale measures 50 cm; photograph was taken from lowest (Feature 6) level.

Figure 9. SIHP 5381, detail of remnant cobble facing along divide between Feature 5B and C shown above, facing south; scale measures 50 cm.

Feature 5B

Feature 5C

Feature 4



Figure 10. SIHP 5381 showing boulder retaining alignment (red arrows) forming east side of Feature 6A (see text for more explanation), facing north; scales bars measure 50 cm.

Feature 6A



SIHP 5448

Resource No.(s) SIHP 5448 (SCS 78) Reference(s) Robins and Spear (1997a, 1997b, 2002a, 2002b) Formal Type Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural complex Functional Interpretation Multi-purpose including habitation, gardening, burial Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 125.0 m (410.1 ft) by 75.0 m (246.1 ft) (9,375 m 2 or 100,925.6

ft2) No. of Features 11 (prior work identified 10; 1 additional feature was identified

during the current project) Surface Artifacts or Midden

Coral artifact of indeterminate function; also, an ‘ike maka pōhaku (“map stone”) of Wai‘anae Uka and Kai


Good to fair (at and above ground surface)

NRHP Eligibility Eligible C & D Recommendation Avoidance and protection in perpetuity *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Aspects of the archaeology of this site, which consists of an extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural complex, have been documented in four prior reports (Robins and Spear 1997a, 1997b, 2002a, 2002b). SIHP 5448 is a multi-purpose site complex with a variety of features consistent with permanent habitation, gardening, and burial. Prior to the current study, a total of 10 features were identified (Figure 11).

As a result of fieldwork conducted during the current project, one additional feature (designated Feature 11 and described below) and one additional surface artifact was found. A considerable amount of time and effort was devoted to Feature 6 (the burial) and an ‘ike maka pōhaku (“map stone”) that had not been previously documented but about which some mana‘o has been shared.

This cultural resource is located in the QTR2 project area.

At the request of the Lead Archaeologist, the original reason for visiting this site was to be able to inspect a documented burial where human remains had been observed and where there was no ambiguity as to the function of the feature. In Hawaiian archaeology, many features are interpreted as “burials,” “probable burials,” or “possible burials,” but few are confirmed burials since this requires excavation and potential damage to human remains. Kamoa Quitevas informed the Lead Archaeologist that SIHP 5448 included an unequivocal burial. He remembered being involved in a ceremony at SIHP 5448 several years ago with some other Native Hawaiians and with some Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff members.

When it came time to visiting the site for the first time, on March 21, 2009, however, Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff informed the Lead Archaeologist and OHA that no burial or human skeletal remains was ever found at this site. This began a series of communications and consultations that went on for a week or more regarding just what had been found here and what was the current disposition of the burial, if there was one. The OHA representatives in the field were concerned about whether the Army followed the NAGPRA (Native American Graves and



Repatriation Act) process. Eventually, and after a substantial amount of additional communications and consultations, Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff stated that, since no actual removal of the human skeletal remains took place (the prior consultant’s report stated the human skeletal remains were left in place and the excavation unit was backfilled / reburied at the time of discovery), and since there was no repatriation of human skeletal remains, the NAGPRA process was not triggered. Several items were found at the ground surface of Feature 6 (Figures 12 and 13) from the ceremony several years ago (e.g., a black kukui shell lei, some branch coral).

One additional feature, designated Feature 11, was identified during the current project (Figures 14 and 15). Feature 11 is a terrace consisting of rounded / subrounded small and medium boulders arranged in a single alignment oriented roughly east-to-west. The rock-structural component of the feature measures approximately 5.0 in length; the level soil-sediment created behind the boulder terrace front measures approximately 5.0 m in width (i.e., back to the west). Maximum height from the tops of the boulders to the ground surface to the east is 0.50 m. Feature 11 is located 22.7 m from Feature 4 at an azimuth of 149 degrees east of true north from Feature 4. It was not possible to obtain GPS data for this new feature given a dense and very high tree canopy.

A fragment of a coral artifact was found on the ground surface east of Feature 4 (Figure 16). The function of this artifact is indeterminate, but it appears to be an abrading tool of some sort. The coral is shaped into a cylindrical form, but its fragmentary state precludes any other description. Maximum dimensions of this specimen are 4.8 cm (length) by 3.1 cm (width) by 2.9 cm (height). This artifact was collected by Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff.

The ‘ike maka pōhaku (“map stone”), located in the eastern portion of the site, has never been documented in reports by prior consultants for the Army; however, according to DPW-Cultural Resources records (Memorandum for the Record by George MacDonell dated 22 November 2004), a cultural access tour to SIHP 5448 with several Native Hawaiians was held on November 21, 2004, and this stone was described as

[a] previously unrecorded ka‘anani‘au stone (boundary marker)…Tradition indicates that the habitations in the vicinity housed the family caretakers of this boundary marker. The stone itself provides a natural relief map of a portion of the Waianae Range. This stone is located at the edge of a steep hillslope and can be used to site back to Maunauna and Kukaniloko…

During the current project, Kamoa Quitevas recounted mana‘o (views or ideas) previously shared by several Native Hawaiians with him about this map stone (Figure 17). This mana‘o indicated the map stone is associated with the Elou Trail, which connects Wai‘anae Uka (the interior) with Wai‘anae Kai (the coast). John Papa ‘Ī‘ī, the famous Native Hawaiian historian, described Elou as leading “to the distant cliffs from Kalena and Hale‘au‘au, on the east side of Ka‘ala down to Wai‘anae” (in Sterling and Summers 1978:3). The mana‘o suggests the map stone is a symbolic representation of the entire Wai‘anae Moku (District), and the following geographic landmarks can be seen on the stone: Hāpapa, Kolekole Pass, Kūmakali‘i, Ka‘ala, Lualualei, and Mauna Lahilahi (to name only some of them).



Figure 11. SIHP 5448 sketch map (Robins and Spear 2002b:70); green arrow and red circle indicate approximate location of newly identified Feature 11.



Figure 12. SIHP 5448, Feature 6, approximate location of burial indicated by arrow; photograph taken from tree above feature; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 13. SIHP 5448, Feature 6, detail of burial, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m. .



Figure 14. SIHP 5448, newly identified Feature 11, a boulder terrace, facing southeast; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 15. SIHP 5448, newly identified Feature 11, a boulder terrace, facing east.



Figure 16. SIHP 5448, coral artifact found on the ground surface east of Feature 4.

Figure 17. SIHP 5448, ‘ike maka pōhaku (map stone); scale (=north arrow) measures 28 cm in length.



SIHP 6687

Resource No.(s) SIHP 6687 (Ganda 153) Reference(s) Buffum (2005a) (only a portion of the resource was identified) Formal Type Dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural features (including

terraces, enclosures, platforms, mounds) Functional Interpretation Habitation and dryland gardening Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 198.1 m (650.0 ft) by 106.7 m (350.0 ft) (21,137.3 m2 or

227,500.0 ft2) (originally reported as 893 m2) No. of Features 10+ (prior report identified 5 features) Surface Artifacts or Midden

None observed during current study; prior report lists an adze preform


Fair to poor (at and above ground surface)

NRHP Eligibility Eligible D Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

2. More extensive Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified and included in the site boundary

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Previous documentation of SIHP 6687 consisted of inventory survey level work (Buffum 2005a) during which five (5) features were identified over a reported site area of 47.0 by 19.0 m (i.e., 893 m2) (Figure 18). The resource was interpreted as a precontact habitation site complex.

Five additional features were identified during the current study, expanding the site boundary to 21,137 m2. It is likely that more features are present in this plateau area. Several other features identified by cultural monitors are located in the vicinity of this cultural resource; this area was subjected to a reconnaissance inspection, but there was not sufficient time to adequately evaluate all the potential resources. Most of these additional features are remnant (damaged) alignments and terrace-like features. Many of these features are subtle and informal in design and construction, however, and can only be recognized by experienced field archaeologists conducting methodical and thorough clearing and exploration; they cannot necessarily be identified by inexperienced field workers, who typically look only for the most prominent and obvious constructions. The site boundary established for SIHP 6687 might increase even further if a systematic survey was undertaken by experienced field archaeologists with a deep understanding of Hawaiian archaeology.

SIHP 6687 is located in an area of low vegetation and ground cover on the plateau immediately adjacent to (and south of) Kalena Stream (see Figure 3; and Figure 19).

In order to assist with the future management of this cultural resource, and because previous reports ended with Feature 5, the numbering of features at the expanded SIHP 6687 started with “6.” Feature 6 is a terrace that is partially enclosed on three sides (Figure 20) located in the southern portion of the newly defined site boundary. The feature is heavily damaged at the ground surface from ordnance and is in fair to poor physical condition. The rock-structural components of Feature 6 are mostly subrounded / subangular boulders and cobbles arranged in a



single alignment of up to 2-3 courses of stacking. The southern portion of the rock structure retains and forms a level soil-sediment terrace to the north; the east and west sides of the structure partially enclose the level area (Figures 21 and 22). The entire feature occupies an area of approximately 7.0 by 7.0 m; the level terrace area is approximately 5.0 by 4.0 m. Maximum heights of the rock-structural components of Feature 6 range from 0.50-0.66 m. This feature may be a habitation structure, and it likely contains subsurface cultural deposits.

Feature 7 is a low mound located just east (downslope) of Feature 6 in the southern portion of the newly defined site boundary (Figures 23 and 24). The mound, which has been damaged by ordnance, is composed of a variety of informally-arranged boulders and cobbles of various morphologies. The mound is roughly circular in plan view shape and measures approximately 2.0 m in diameter and up to 0.40 m in height. It is in poor physical condition. The function of this feature is indeterminate.

Feature 8 is a terrace located immediately upslope of Feature 6 in the southern portion of the newly defined site boundary. The feature is heavily damaged at the ground surface from ordnance and is in poor physical condition. The rock-structural components of Feature 8 are mostly rounded / subrounded boulders and cobbles arranged in a single alignment up to 1-2 courses of stacking (Figures 25 and 26). The terrace is oriented roughly north-to-south; the rock-structural components measure approximately 6.0 m in length; the level terrace area extends approximately 3.0 m to the west. Maximum heights of the rock-structural components of Feature 6 range from 0.30-0.40 m. This feature may be a habitation structure, or, it may be a non-irrigated garden plot given its orientation of the landscape.

Features 9 and 10 are terraces located in the northeast corner of the newly defined site boundary. Both are relatively long and oriented roughly north-to-south. Feature 10 was not described in detail (e.g., no feature form was filled out) due to a lack of time; however, it was photographed and recorded with GPS. Feature 9 is somewhat damaged at the ground surface from ordnance and is in fair physical condition. The rock-structural components of Feature 9 are mostly rounded / subrounded boulders and cobbles arranged in a single alignment of up to 1-2 courses of stacking. The rock-structural components measure approximately 7.0 m in length; the level terrace area extends approximately 4.0 m to the west. Maximum heights of the rock-structural components of Feature 6 range from 0.25-0.30 m. These two long terraces appear to be non-irrigated garden plots.

SWCA recommends SIHP 6687 eligible for the NRHP under Criteria D for its potential to shed further light on settlement and subsistence on the dry plateau immediately south of Kalena Stream. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site in perpetuity and also more extensive Phase I survey by experienced field archaeologists conducting methodical and thorough clearing and exploration within and around the newly established site boundary in order to ensure all features have been identified.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

47

Figure 18. SIHP 6687 sketch map (Buffum 2005a).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

48

Figure 19. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6687 (showing five new mapped features).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

49

Figure 20. SIHP 6687, Feature 6 (terrace enclosure), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 21. SIHP 6687, Feature 6, terrace-enclosure, facing north.

Figure 22. SIHP 6687, Feature 6, terrace-enclosure, facing west.



Figure 23. SIHP 6687, Feature 7, mound, facing east; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 24. SIHP 6687, Feature 7, mound, facing west; Feature 6 indicated by red arrow in background.



Figure 25. SIHP 6687, Feature 8, boulder terrace, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 26. SIHP 6687, Feature 9, boulder terrace, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m.



SIHP 6688

Resource No.(s) SIHP 6688 (Ganda 154) Reference(s) Buffum (2005a) (only a portion of the resource was identified) Formal Type Boulder enclosure-alignment (originally reported as an alignment)Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 42.0 m (137.8 ft) by 40.0 m (131.2 ft) (1680.0 m2 or 18,079.4 ft2)

(total area of enclosed space) (originally reported as 33.6-m long alignment)

No. of Features 2 (prior report identified a portion of one feature—this was more fully documented in the current study, and another adjoining feature was added to the resource)


None observed during current study; prior report describes an ‘ulu maika (gaming stone) near currently configured western boundary of the site


Poor (at and above ground surface)

NRHP Eligibility Unevaluated (potentially eligible) Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection

2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation Previous documentation for SIHP 6688 consisted of inventory survey level work (Buffum 2005a) during which only a portion of the resource was identified; it was described as a 33.6-m long curvilinear rock alignment (Figure 27). The previous report gives contradictory interpretations as to the age and function of this resource: in the site description section (Buffum 2005:39), SIHP 6688 is described as “Pre-Contact/Post-Contact,” with no specific functional interpretation offered. Prior to this site description, however, in the Project Results section (Buffum 2005:20), the resource is described as follows: “The four remaining sites (6688, 6692, 6694, and 6697) are Historic period sites, most likely dating from the ranching and sugar industry eras.” In an accompanying summary table (Buffum 2005:23), SIHP 6688 is listed as “Post-Contact.” Yet another part of the report (Buffum 2005:27) says “The remaining site (Sites [sic] 6688) is historic, most likely dating from the ranching era.”

During the current study, the previously identified portion of the resource (described as 33.6-m in length) was found to be more extensive (i.e., at least twice as long as previously documented), and it was found to link up with another feature; together, the previously identified portion of the resource, its newly recognized extension, and the newly identified feature—which was originally pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and/or previous contractors by cultural monitors—create a large, U-shaped (in plan view) enclosure-alignment that is open-ended on the north side where it abuts the edge of the plateau before it drops into Kalena Stream. It is worth noting that this formal type of U-shaped, open-ended (to the north) enclosure is similar to another resource (DPW T-9) in the BAX project area located to the southeast. Based on some general observation described below, it is highly unlikely that this resource represents a ranching wall; it is certainly possible that the resource dates from precontact times; and it would appear



that subsurface testing (excavation) is needed to make any specific functional interpretations about this resource.

SIHP 6688 is located on the plateau immediately adjacent to (and south of) Kalena Stream (see Figure 3).

As documented during the current study, SIHP 6688 is a large, U-shaped enclosure-alignment constructed of boulders and cobbles (Figure 28). Most of the site consists of a single alignment of rounded / sub-rounded, large boulders, with limited portions of stacking using smaller boulders and cobbles. Overall, the site encloses an area measuring approximately 40.0 m (north-to-south) by 42.0 m (east-to-west), or, 1680 m2 (0.40 acres). Maximum heights of the tops of the boulders to the ground surface range generally from approximately 0.40-0.65 m, with occasional very large boulders up to 1.0 m. The site is in relatively poor physical condition at the ground surface; numerous ordnance impacts to the constituent boulders and cobbles and to the surrounding landscape can be seen. As stated above, the previous survey (Buffum 2005a) recorded only a portion of the site: the original length of the southern portion of the site, now designated Feature 1A, was found to be longer and found to curve around to the west, eventually meeting up with a second main portion of the site, designated Feature 1B. This component feature appears in the DPW GPS/GIS database as a “cultural monitor” site and was pointed out by cultural monitors in or before 2006. The space between the western terminus of Feature 1A and the southern terminus of Feature 1B appears to have been caused by a large tracked vehicle—the ruins of which are currently located adjacent to this breach in the enclosure-alignment; it is clear that these two component features once created a single enclosure-alignment.

The hypothesized functional interpretation of SIHP 6688 as a ranching feature (Buffum 2005a), presumably a walled enclosure, is inconsistent with the available evidence on the ground: the relatively low height of the feature and the lack of evidence of extensive tumble / collapse of additional boulders and cobbles that may have constituted once-higher walls argues against the ranching interpretation. In short, unless some of the constituent rock material was selectively removed from the site, there is simply not enough rock to make walls that would contain large animals.

SWCA recommends site SIHP 6688 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. Unlike other broadly similar resources such as DPW T-9, which clearly exhibit traditional-style uprighting and balancing of boulders, it is difficult if not impossible to evaluate construction technique at SIHP 6688 due to its poor physical condition at the ground surface. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site as defined in its totality in this study; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function and age.



Figure 27. SIHP 6688 sketch map (Buffum 2005a).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

56

Figure 28. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6688.



SIHP 6841

Resource No.(s) SIHP 6841 (Ganda 187, 190) Reference(s) Buffum (2005b), DeBaker and Peterson (2007) Formal Type Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural complex Functional Interpretation Multi-purpose including habitation, gardening, burial Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 450 m (1,395.0 ft) by 50 m (155.0 ft) (22,500 m2 or 216,225 ft2 or

5.0 acres) No. of Features 49+ (prior reports documented 24 features; the current study

documented 25 more, and there are many more as-yet undocumented features)


1 ‘ulu maika reported in Buffum (2005b); 1 flaked basalt core and 1 large basalt flake found at Feature 28 during current study


Portions / features vary from good to fair (at and above ground surface)

NRHP Eligibility Eligible C & D Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

2. More extensive Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified and included in the site boundary 3. Site development plan 4. Community access

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Prior to the current project, SIHP 6841 was first described in Ganda’s volume III (Buffum 2005b), at which time 20 features were identified, and subsequently in Ganda’s volume IV (DeBaker and Peterson 2007), at which time another three features were identified. The current study identified another 25 features west of the western limits of Ganda’s documentation effort, which did not include an additional unsurveyed area of some 80 m in the middle of what they originally mapped (Figure 29).

Based on the fieldwork conducted for this study, which focused on the western extension of SIHP 6841, there are undoubtedly even more than 49 features at this extraordinary site complex, which includes a wide variety of feature types—including burials—and some masterful workmanship of dry-stacked and aligned rock structures. The site, as now understood based on the fieldwork described below, is at least 5.0 acres in total area.

SIHP 6841 is located on an alluvial floodplain of an ephemeral drainage north of Mohiakea Stream that eventually feeds into the main Mohiakea Stream (see Figure 3; Figure 30). The site location was previously and erroneously described as “south of Mohiākea Gulch” in Buffum (2005b:55); it is north of the stream. The terrain upon which SIHP 6841 is located slopes moderately down to the east, from one end of the site to the other, and also slopes in gently to the north and south from either side of the ephemeral drainage.

As discussed in the Methods chapter of the current report, SWCA used a GPS antenna mounted on a 15-ft ranging pole to deal with the heavy tree canopy at this site; in this way, the Lead Archaeologist obtained high-quality GPS data where none had been recorded before.



The physical condition of features documented during the current study in the western portion of SIHP 6841 varies from good to fair. Compared with other areas of the BAX, the gulch system within which this resource is located appears to have been relatively undisturbed by historic and modern activities with surprisingly little evidence of military use (e.g., there is almost no ordnance among these features).

In order to assist with the future management of this cultural resource, and because Ganda’s most recent report ended with Feature 23 (DeBaker and Peterson 2007), the numbering of features in the western end of SIHP 6841 by SWCA started with “24.”

Feature 24 is a very large walled enclosure near the western end of SIHP 6841 (Figure 31). Five other features (including one that is almost certainly a burial) are situated just outside the western and northwestern boundary of the enclosure. Feature 24 is the most extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock structure encountered during the current study. The enclosure is particularly impressive because of its overall size and scale, measuring at least 43 m (144 ft) north-to-south by 37 m (121 ft) east-to-west and enclosing an area of 0.4 acres; and, because of a distinctive construction technique utilized in some portions of the enclosure involving the use of very large boulders that were uprighted by hand and balanced (using shim stones at the base) to create massive walls without stacking rocks (Figures 32-34). The overall (plan view) shape of the enclosure is roughly oval with a more pointed north end and a flatter south end. There are dozens of upright or standing boulders throughout different portions of the enclosure, which has two wide openings or breaks, one on the west (upslope) side and one of the east (downslope) side. These openings seem to line up with a trail that continues downslope to the east through the rest of the site. There is a third opening along the east wall, but more to the north end of the enclosure, that may be more accurately described as tumble / collapse rather than humanly-designed. There are no other features visible at the ground surface within the 0.40-acre interior area of this enclosure, which is generally level in the southern half but slopes up to the north in the northern half. No portable artifacts were observed within the enclosure. The boulders making up the feature are generally subangular / subrounded, and many are blocky or slab-like in shape.

The west side of the enclosure consists mainly of medium to large boulders, many of which have been placed in upright positions (Figures 35 and 36). The west side is mostly built of 1-2 courses of dry-stacked boulders, with occasional sections of a single alignment of boulders. Maximum height of the west side of the enclosure, where it is still reasonably intact and has not collapsed / tumbled, generally ranges from 0.60-0.90 m. The north side consists of mainly small to medium boulders, many of which have been placed in upright positions. Balancing rocks, or shims, are visible at the base of many of these balanced and uprighted boulders, which are generally built of 2-3 courses, with single-alignment (i.e., non-stacked) sections. Maximum height of the north side of the enclosure, where it is still reasonably intact and has not collapsed / tumbled, generally ranges from 0.20-0.60 m, measured from the interior side of the wall. It is important to note that, along most of the north side of Feature 24, the ground surface level is at or near the top of the wall on the north (exterior) side, and lower on the interior, giving this portion of the feature a sunken or depressed character from the perspective of being inside the wall. The north wall slopes down to the east from the high point of the feature, and of the entire site, near Feature 25 (discussed below). The south and southeastern sides of the enclosure are generally built of 1-2 courses, or a single alignment, of very large to massive boulders with maximum heights of 1.0-1.5 m. There are several sections along the south side where the enclosure wall has been built



against and upon massive boulders that seem too big to have been moved by people. Beyond the southern limits of the south side of the wall, the level terrain continues for a short distance to the ephemeral (dry in May and June) stream channel, but is not enclosed by the feature.

In terms of its possible function, Feature 24 is something of an enigma. On one hand, and if it were not for the numerous dry-stacked and aligned rock features in the immediate vicinity, this large walled enclosure might be a ranching structure (e.g., a cattle enclosure). However, the clear association of several other traditional-style features, including a probable burial, makes the ranching interpretation seem less likely. There is a good possibility that this enclosure, with its distinctive building style, represents a ceremonial or ritual space (e.g., a hula pā, or place to dance the hula). There is another possible interpretation of this enigmatic feature, as suggested by Kamoa Quitevas, which may be part or all of a purportedly destroyed heiau (temple) known as “Kumakalii” (or Kūmakali‘i, which translates roughly as “rising Pleiades,” as in the star). Sterling and Summers (1978) Sites of Oahu list Kumakalii Heiau as site 213 and place it on their map in the upper reaches of the Mohiakea Stream system, on the north side of the main channel, very close to the location of the western end of SIHP 6841. It is important to understand that this possibility of misplaced, or displaced, heiau is not mere speculation but, rather, documented fact at BAX: Hale‘au‘au Heiau is a case in point, and it was reported to be substantially further away from its actual location by McAllister (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:136) compared with Kumakalii and SIHP 6841. In short, this possible association between the large distinctive enclosure at SIHP 6841 and Kumakalii Heiau should be investigated, rather than simply dismissed. McAllister, reproduced in Sterling and Summers (1978:134), described the heiau as follows:

Site 213. Kumakalii heiau, once located in Pukaloa Gulch, not far from Kolekole Pass. Nothing remains of the heiau now, for the stones were used in the building of the Wahiawa dam. Thrum says: “An important heiau in its day, and of large size; visited by [King] Kalakaua in the ‘70’s [1870s].”

The Lead Archaeologist believes carefully conceived, problem-oriented subsurface testing following an excavation plan would undoubtedly contribute quality information about the function of this feature.

Feature 25 consists of a small terrace (designated Feature 25B) built in a westerly orientation off the north end of the main enclosure (Feature 24). A small rectangular rock enclosure (designated Feature 25A), which appears to be a burial, is located on top of the terrace (Figures 37-41). The soil-retaining component of the terrace is mainly composed of subrounded / subangular small boulders and cobbles stacked 2-3 courses high; where the terrace connects with the main enclosure, there are some larger boulders. The soil-retaining component of Feature 25B is approximately 4.0 m in length, 0.5 m in width, and varies in height above the ground surface to the south from 0.30-0.50 m. There is some collapse / tumble of rocks down to the south and some damage from trees and tree roots growing up through the feature. The stacked rocks working together with the natural terrain creates a level soil-sediment area measuring approximately 4.0 by 4.0 m. Upon this spot, which is the high elevation point of the entire (SIHP 6841) site, rests the probable burial designated Feature 25A.



Feature 25A is constructed of carefully selected subrounded small boulders and cobbles arranged in a rectangle measuring approximately 1.70 m (east-to-west) by 0.80 m (north-to-south). The boulders and cobbles are all columnar (or “bread loaf”) in shape, and some have been dislodged by tree and tree-root growth. The tops of these boulders and cobbles, which are partially buried, are a maximum of 10 cm above the surrounding ground surface. This feature should be treated as a burial.

Four other features (designated Features 26 through and including 29) were identified just downslope (south) of Feature 25, along the western side of the walled enclosure. Feature 26, which is located approximately 2 m west of the western wall of main enclosure, appears to be the northeast corner of a low terrace that is only partially exposed at the ground surface (Figures 42 and 43). If correct—and the only way to confirm this is to excavate—this feature resembles house sites identified throughout the BAX (see, e.g., SIHP 6561, SWCA-BAX-TS-10, SIHP 6844, and SIHP 5448), and may represent a partially buried temporary or permanent habitation. The low terrace creates a level soil-sediment area extending several meters back to the west, and extending into a much larger level soil-sediment area to the south and southwest. The rocks that make up the inferred corner of this feature are subrounded / subangular small boulders and cobbles extending approximately 2 m to both the west and south (Figure 44). Maximum height from the tops of the rocks to the adjacent ground surface to the east is 20 cm. This feature likely contains significant subsurface cultural deposits.

Feature 27, which is located near the southwest corner of the walled enclosure, appears to be a small platform in relatively poor physical condition at the ground surface (Figures 45-47). There is a large piece of shrapnel on the surface of the platform, which has clearly been damaged, perhaps by a direct ordnance hit. Some kukui nut shells were observed on the surface of the feature, although no kukui trees are located nearby. Most of the top of the feature was covered in a thick forest duff, with a little soil, that, upon removal, revealed an relatively rough / uneven surface of subrounded / subangular small boulders and cobbles. The remnant platform is at least 4.0 m (east-to-west) by 2.5 m (north-to-south). Maximum height from the tops of the rocks to the adjacent ground surface is 25 cm. The feature’s function is indeterminate given the available evidence.

Feature 28, which is located approximately 8.5 m west of the western wall of main enclosure, is a small terrace created by a front, or downslope face, of two very large boulders with smaller boulders and cobbles stacked upon and between them; and two sides consisting each of a single alignment of small boulders built back to the west (Figures 48-50). A large basalt flaked core and a large basalt flake were identified on top of the stacked cobbles and small boulders between the large boulders making up the front of the feature. The stacked and aligned rocks create a level soil-sediment area measuring approximately 2.0 (north-to-south) by 3.5 (east-to-west) m. The boulders are 0.90-1.20 m high (measured from the east ground surface). The alignment making up the north side consists of mostly embedded (i.e., buried) boulders that appear to be tightly fitted into place and selected for their similar shapes (which is block-like and flat on top). Their maximum height is only 3-5 cm. This boulder alignment may continue beneath the ground surface to the west. The south alignment is in relatively poor condition and has partially tumbled / collapsed down to the southeast. Maximum heights of this portion of the feature are 12-15 cm. The large boulder to the north has been damaged by ordnance and there is substantial tumble / collapse at this corner of the feature. The feature’s function is indeterminate given the available



evidence. Portions of the top of the terrace and the north alignment are in relatively good physical condition.

Feature 29, located several meters due west of Feature 28, is another small terrace formed by stacked and aligned small subrounded / subangular boulders and cobbles against and on top of two large boulders (Figures 51-53). The north end of the feature consists of small boulder and cobble stacking 1-2 courses high. The constructed rocks create a level soil-sediment area measuring approximately 2.50 (north-to-south) by 1.70 (east-to-west) m. The boulders are up to 0.60 m high (measured from the east ground surface). The feature’s function is indeterminate given the available evidence. Overall, this small feature is in relatively good physical condition.

A pair of mounds, designated Features 30 and 34, is located approximately 50 m east-southeast of the southeast corner of the main enclosure. Prior to vegetation clearing, these mounds appeared to be relatively amorphous / lacking formal structure; however, upon clearing, both mounds—and particularly Feature 30, appear to have some definite structure reflecting formal construction (rather than haphazard piling of rocks). Feature 30 is constructed of a variety of sizes of mostly subrounded / subangular clasts (Figure 54). The mound measures approximately 2.5 by 2.5 m in plan view and is up to 60 cm high in some places. The south side of the mound is formed by several medium to large boulders, two of which appear to have been uprighted / balanced boulders; other large boulders are placed around the sides of much of the mound. The top and middle of the feature is filled with small boulders, cobbles and pebbles. The feature is in relatively good physical condition. The mound seems too large to be a planting mound; it appears to have too much formal structure to be a clearing mound, particularly with its uprighted / carefully balanced large boulders. It is possible that this feature represents a burial mound.

Another nearby mound (Feature 34), located approximately 15 m to the northwest, is somewhat smaller and less formally structured compared with Feature 30. This mound is also in relatively poorer physical condition with areas of tumble / collapse on the north, east, and southeast sides. There is also a wider variety of rock morphologies at Feature 34 with all major descriptive types (rounded / subrounded / angular / subangular) well represented. The mound is built on and around a few large boulders with abundant cobble-sized clasts in the middle and on top. It measures 1.65 by 1.40 m and is up to 75 cm high. The same comments regarding its functional interpretation for Feature 30 apply to this mound as well.

Downslope from this pair of mounds, to the east and east-southeast, and continuing to the western limits of the documented features identified by Ganda (Buffum 2005b), there is a dense concentration of dry-stacked and aligned features numbering at least 18 and most likely exceeding this number. Due to time constraints, and due to the fact that the SOW for this project was not to conduct a systematic archaeological survey or a re-survey—which would have been impossible given the resources dedicated to this project, the Lead Archaeologist did not document and evaluate all of these features. Accurate GPS data, however, was obtained for all of these newly discovered 18 features. There are most certainly additional features not yet located that can only be adequately assessed with a systematic Phase I survey with a large field crew. Many of these features are subtle and informal in design and construction, and can only be recognized by experienced field archaeologists conducting methodical and thorough clearing and exploration; they cannot necessarily be identified by inexperienced field workers, who typically look only for the most prominent and obvious constructions. Finally, before describing this dense



concentration of features, it is worth pointing out that, prior to starting the inspection and evaluation of the western portion of SIHP 6841, it was first necessary, using Ganda’s site map (Buffum 2005b:88), to identify the western terminus of their previous documentation, which was a linear construction designated Feature 5. It was eventually discovered that this feature does not end as depicted in the prior map, but continues west for another 75 m, as depicted in the site sketch map produced for the current study.

Feature 31 is a unique and distinctive rock construction with two main components (Figures 55-59). Feature 31A is a mound built against and directly in front of (to the east) a very large boulder; the mound, which includes what appears to be a large cap stone in the middle, may be a burial; Feature 31B is a boulder terrace directly abutting the very large boulder on the west (upslope) side; the terrace includes two upright boulders incorporated into its design. The mound designated Feature 31A is constructed of mostly rounded / subrounded (with a few subangular) boulders and cobbles stacked 1-2 courses high around the east side of a very large boulder measuring approximately 2 m (maximum length) by 1.5 m (maximum width) by 1.3 m (maximum height). The top surface of the mound is filled with cobbles and pebbles; some of the soil-sediment and vegetation on top of the mound was left in place because its complete removal might damage the feature in places due to extensive Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius) roots. A large circular boulder, consistent with representing a burial cap stone, is located near the center of the mound, which is in good to fair physical condition with at least three areas of tumble / collapse. Not including these tumbled areas, the mound has maximum dimensions of 3.5 m (length) by 3.5 m (width) by 0.3 m (maximum height). There is a small kī (or tī, Cordyline fruticosa) plant at the north end of the mound. Directly behind the very large boulder, a terrace is constructed in a roughly north-to-south orientation; the terrace is somewhat damaged with tumble / collapse at the north end, but the rest of the feature is in relatively good physical condition. The mostly rounded / subrounded (with a few subangular) boulders and cobbles comprising the terrace are stacked 1-2 courses high and include two upright boulders, one of which is a distinctive flat slab supported at its base by a shim stone (one traditional term for this shimming technique is niho, a word for “tooth” in the Hawaiian language). The rock-structural component of Feature 31B measures approximately 5.0 m (length) by 1.5 m (width) by 0.60-0.67 m (height from tops of highest boulders to adjacent ground surface to the east), and retains a level soil-sediment area extending several meters to the west, northwest, and west-northwest that eventually grades back into the natural eastward (downsloping) ground surface that defines this site area. It is likely that this terrace was constructed in order to support, retain, and protect the sloping ground around the possible burial mound from soil-sedimentary erosion. This terrace may also have served as a non-irrigated garden plot.

Another mound-terrace feature, designated Feature 33, is located immediately north and east of the aforementioned possible burial mound and terrace (Feature 31). Feature 33 consists of two main components: Feature 33A is a mound located a few meters north of the north end of Feature 31 that grades into a long boulder terrace (Feature 33B) stretching back to the south and located a few meters below Feature 31A. The mound designated Feature 31A is constructed of rounded / subrounded boulders and cobbles stacked 1-2 courses high (Figure 60). The top surface of the mound is filled with cobbles and pebbles. Not including some tumbled areas, the mound has maximum dimensions of 3.5 m (length) by 2.75 m (width) by 0.5 m (maximum height, measured from the ground surface to the northeast). There is a small kī plant growing from the mound. A terrace is constructed from the southeast corner of the mound to the south in



a roughly north-to-south orientation; the terrace is somewhat damaged with a few sections of tumble / collapse, but portions of the feature are in relatively good physical condition (Figure 61). The rounded / subrounded boulders and cobbles comprising the terrace are stacked 1-2 courses high and include one distinctive upright boulder (Figure 62). The rock-structural component of Feature 33B measures approximately 11.0 m (length) by 3.0 m (width) by 0.65 m (height from tops of highest boulders to adjacent ground surface to the east), and retains a level soil-sediment area extending several meters to the west, back to the base of Feature 31. The mound and terrace designated Feature 33 may represent another burial feature. The terrace may also have served as a non-irrigated garden plot.

Immediately downslope from Feature 33, Feature 32 is a pair of terraces directly abutting each other and sharing a rock-structural wall-alignment (Figures 63 and 64). The terraces are built of subrounded / subangular (with occasional rounded) medium and large boulders; small boulders and cobbles are used as balancing elements at the base of some balanced and uprighted rocks, which is a characteristic construction style at SIHP 6841 and at others in and around Mohiakea Stream. The rock-structural elements comprising this feature are generally 1-2 courses high with some single-boulder alignment portions. The upper and larger terrace is roughly semi-circular in plan view shape; the lower and smaller terrace is roughly rectangular. Overall, the feature—included both terraces—measures approximately 10 m (length) by 7.0 m (width) with maximum heights from the tops of boulders to the adjacent ground surface of approximately 0.50 m. The physical condition of this feature is relatively good with little evidence of tumble / collapse. The function of Feature 32 is consistent with non-irrigated garden plots.

An alignment of small boulders and cobbles, designated Feature 35, is located west of the mound-terrace features (Features 31 and 33); the alignment is oriented east-to-west (upslope-to-downslope direction), roughly parallel to another substantially longer alignment (partially documented by Ganda and designated Feature 5, and more completely mapped during the current study) to the north. Feature 35 is at least 10.7 m in length and may once have been longer; portions of the alignment have been damaged, and, overall, the feature appears to be in relatively fair physical condition. The rocks, some of which are partially buried / embedded in the ground surface, vary from 0.20-0.35 m in width and 10-15 cm in height (Figure 65). Feature 35 may be a remnant portion of trail and/or a boundary marker. There is no difference in ground surface elevation on either side of the feature, which does not appear to represent a gardening structure.

A small rectangular feature comprised of boulders and cobbles, designated Feature 36, is located between the aforementioned alignment (Feature 35) and the mound-terrace features (Features 31 and 33). Feature 36 measures 2.20 m (length) by 1.55 m (length) by 0.30 m (maximum height of top of boulders to the adjacent ground surface); its long axis is oriented from east-to-west (Figures 66 and 67). The physical condition of this feature is good to fair with the possibility that a few boulders / cobbles once present have been removed; there is a prominent gap or space in the southeast corner that may represent a design aspect of the feature or may be the result of damage. Given the size and plan view shape of this feature, it is difficult to rule out the interpretation that it may represent a burial.

Feature 37 is a terrace comprised of exceptionally large boulders creating a level soil-sediment area that is relatively high above the adjacent (downslope) area to the east (Figures 68-70). The main structure of the terrace is formed by several very large rounded / subrounded boulders



abutting each other with at least two places where cobbles have been stacked in between boulders to help establish the front (face) of the rock structure. The rock-structural components are approximately 6.0 m in length; the level soil-sediment area retained by the boulders measures approximately 4.75 m in width; the maximum height from the tops of boulders down to the adjacent ground surface to the east is 1.35 m. The physical condition of the feature is generally good, although there are some portions of the face (front) that have tumbled to the east. One likely functional interpretation for this feature is that it represents a non-irrigated garden plot.

Feature 38 is a terrace with three small tiers of level soil-sediment (Figure 71) adjacent to the (dry at the time of recording) ephemeral stream channel. Much of the structure of Feature 38 is formed by exceptionally large rounded / subrounded stacked and aligned boulders. Overall, the entire feature occupies approximately 7.0 (east-to-west) by 5.0 (north-to-south) m; maximum heights from tops of the boulders down to the adjacent ground surface to the east and south range from 0.32-0.68 m. The three small level areas created by the stacked and aligned boulders and cobbles measure a few square meters each.

The remaining features, designated Features 39-49, have not been documented or assessed in sufficient detail to warrant extensive description. However, as stated above, all of these—plus the extension of Feature 5 not previously recorded in total by Ganda (Buffum 2005b)—have been mapped with accurate GPS. Table 3 summarizes what is known of these additional features, which should be thoroughly inspected and evaluated.

Recommendations for SIHP 6841

SIHP 6841, consisting of at least 49 known features over an area of at least 5.0 acres, is clearly eligible for the NRHP under multiple criteria. Prior recommendations by previous contractors have listed Criteria B and D (the former is stated as “persons; associated with the incarnation of gods in their human forms,” and seems to refer to several possible ahu, or ceremonial altars, identified by Ganda).

SWCA recommends this cultural resource eligible for the NRHP under Criteria C and D. Criteria C (embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction) recognizes the resource’s masterful use of the “Mohiakea style” of balancing upright boulders of a very large size, sometimes using shim stones (one traditional term for this shimming technique is niho, a word for “tooth” in the Hawaiian language) at the base, in order to create walls and enclosures and terraces with a single alignment of very large boulders. Criterion D (has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history) recognizes the resource’s potential for advancing our understanding of human settlement and use of the project area.

SWCA recommends: (1) avoidance and protection of SIHP 6841 in perpetuity; (2) more extensive Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified and included in the currently understood site boundary; (3) a site development plan that may include subsurface testing (excavation) and/or rehabilitation of portions of the site that may be used for educational purposes; and (4) a cultural access plan to allow Native Hawaiians opportunities to visit and learn about the site



Table 3. Additional Features at SIHP 6841 Feature No. Formal

Interpretation Comments

39 Stacked boulders Several stacked large boulders; possibly remnant but mostly collapsed terracing



42 Stacked boulders 2-3 sets of a few large stacked boulders

43 Boulder terrace Single-course boulder terrace oriented NNW-SSE in relatively poor physical condition with several collapsed sections

44 Boulder terrace Single-course boulder terrace oriented NNW-SSE in relatively poor physical condition with several collapsed sections

45 Terrace Large-boulder terrace with stacking in relatively poor physical condition

46 Terrace --

47 Low mound A few small and medium boulders with cobbles on the top and middle

48 Boulder alignments Several small boulders resembling a short alignment; may be a degraded portion of terrace

49 Stacked boulders Several stacked boulders on larger boulders

Ganda 5 – western extension

Long alignment This is a 75-m extension of Ganda’s Feature 5; consists of a single boulder alignment oriented east-to-west (i.e., upslope-to-downslope)


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

66

Figure 29. SIHP 6841 site map (Buffum 2005b:88); red arrow indicates long alignment (Feature 5) that continues 75 m to the west; green arrow indicates general location of three additional features in DeBaker and Peterson (2007).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

67

Figure 30. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6841 (showing mapped features in western extension).


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

68

Figure 31. SIHP 6841, Features 24 (enclosure) and 25 (probable burial on terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 32. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, detail of west side of large walled enclosure, facing west; scale measures 1 m; note large size of hand-placed boulders.

Figure 33. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, detail of north side of large walled enclosure, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 34. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, detail of east side of large walled enclosure, facing east; scale measures 1 m; note large size of hand-placed boulders.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

71

Figure 35. SIHP 6841, Feature 24, field sketch profiles of sections of walled enclosure.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

72

Figure 36. SIHP 6841, Feature 24 (enclosure) wall profiles, graphic depiction of field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

73

Figure 37. SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (probable burial and small terrace), field sketch map showing relationship to and location at northwest corner of Feature 24, the large walled enclosure.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

74

Figure 38. SIHP 6841, Feature 25 (probable burial and small terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 39. SIHP 6841, Feature 25A, probable burial, facing south; scale measures 1 m; arrows indicate corners of rectangular construction.

Figure 40. SIHP 6841, Feature 25A, detail, eastern half of probable burial, facing south; scale measures 50 cm.



Figure 41. SIHP 6841, Feature 25A, detail, western half of probable burial, facing south; scale measures 50 cm.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

77

Figure 42. SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (terrace), field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

78

Figure 43. SIHP 6841, Feature 26 (terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 44. SIHP 6841, Feature 26, facing south; scale measures 1 m; arrows indicate location of probable subsurface continuation of rock-structural elements.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

80

Figure 45. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform) field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

81

Figure 46. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 47. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform), facing south; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

83

Figure 48. SIHP 6841, Feature 28 (stacked boulders / terrace) field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

84




Figure 50. SIHP 6841, Feature 28, facing south; boulder (left) is 1.20 m high; arrow shows location of probable subsurface continuation of rock-structural elements.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

86

Figure 51. SIHP 6841, Feature 29 (stacked-boulder terrace) field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

87




Figure 53. SIHP 6841, Feature 29, stacked-boulder terrace, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 54. SIHP 6841, Feature 30, mound, facing southwest; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

89

Figure 55. SIHP 6841, Feature 31 (possible burial and terrace) field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

90

Figure 56. SIHP 6841, Feature 31 (mound and terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 57. SIHP 6841, Feature 31, showing large boulder and mound designated Feature 31A and possibly a burial, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 58. SIHP 6841, Feature 31, showing terrace designated Feature 31B directly behind large boulder and mound (Feature 31A), facing southwest; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 59. SIHP 6841, Feature 31B, detail showing upright slab (arrow) built into terrace face, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 60. SIHP 6841, Feature 33, showing mound at north end of feature designated Feature 33A, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 61. SIHP 6841, Feature 33, showing terrace portion of feature designated Feature 33B, facing south; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 62. SIHP 6841, Feature 33B, detail showing upright slab built into terrace, facing north; scale (=north arrow) measures 27 cm in length.



Figure 63. SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (pair of boulder terraces), facing west; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

96

Figure 64. SIHP 6841, Feature 32 (double terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 65. SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (alignment), facing east; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

98

Figure 66. SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (boulder enclosure), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 67. SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (small boulder enclosure), facing southeast; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

100




Figure 69. SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (boulder terrace) showing upper level soil-sediment area, facing east; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 70. SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (boulder terrace) showing rock-structural terrace face, facing north; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

102

Figure 71. SIHP 6841, Feature 38 (boulder terrace), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



SIHP 6844

Resource No.(s) SIHP 6844 (Ganda 193) Reference(s) Buffum (2005b) (Feature 1 only) Formal Type Dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural features with a rock-

defined hearth Functional Interpretation Habitation and possibly dryland gardening (original

interpretation—Feature 1 only—“Repeated-Use Occupation”) Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 40.2 m (132.0 ft) by 24.1 m (79.2 ft) (968.8 m2 or 10,454.4 ft2) No. of Features 4 (prior report identified only one feature; three additional

features added in the current study) Surface Artifacts or Midden

None observed at site (but SWCA-BAX-IF-13, a basalt adze preform, was found approximately 32 m (150 ft) to the west



NRHP Eligibility Eligible D Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

2. Phase I survey of areas immediately adjacent to the site to the south that were covered in tall grass and unavailable for survey due to safety requirements

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Previous documentation for this resource consisted of inventory survey level work (Buffum 2005b) during which only one feature was identified (Feature 1). During the current study, three additional features were added to the site, which was originally interpreted as a “repeated-use occupation,” with no specific functional interpretation beyond this. The discovery of the additional features, including a probable house site (Feature 3) and hearth (Feature 2), suggest more specifically that SIHP 6844 is a permanent habitation of traditional design.

SIHP 6844 is located on a narrow plateau between two branches of Mohiakea Stream (see Figure 3). This resource consists of three dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural features and one rock-defined hearth (Figure 72). Feature 1, which has been documented by Buffum (2005b:96-99), is a single alignment of small boulders and cobbles forming a low level soil-sediment terrace on the west (upslope) side; the rock alignment defining this terraced area is approximately 13 m in length, although the narrative discussion in Buffum (2005b:96) erroneously describes the site as 7 m long (Figure 73). Feature 1 is in fair physical condition only as portions have clearly been impacted by ordnance. Based on its current appearance and conditions at the ground surface, Feature 1 is likely a dryland gardening terrace associated with the probable house site to the east (i.e., Feature 3).

The hearth designated Feature 2, located approximately 6 m east of Feature 1, and between it and the probable house site (Feature 3), is constructed of small basalt boulders and cobbles arranged in a rough circle measuring approximately 0.75 m in diameter (Figure 74). The outer portion of the hearth is defined by unmodified boulders while the inner portion consists of fire-affected (reddened) cobbles; all boulders and cobbles are partially buried / exposed at the ground surface. Maximum height of the tops of the boulders is 5 cm. Other than the fire-affected cobbles, there



are no associated artifacts or midden materials on the ground surface; however, it is likely that cultural materials are located in subsurface context at this feature.

Feature 3 (Figures 75 and 76), located east of Feature 2, is a rectangular terrace of level soil-sediment approximately 7.0 m in length and 4.7 m in width; the level area is formed by a single alignment of rounded / sub-rounded boulders with some limited stacking of 1-2 courses of smaller clasts, including cobbles, in some places; maximum height from the top of the main boulder alignment to the adjacent ground surface to the east is 0.35 m. The three-sided boulder structure is oriented roughly north-to-south, and there are a few locations of rock tumble / collapse along its length. No portable cultural materials were observed on the ground surface, although there are three large angular boulders located within and atop the level soil-sediment area, as depicted in the sketch map for this feature (Figure 77). The function of these boulders, which have also been damaged and broken by ordnance impact, is unknown, but it is significant that similar evidence has been noted at other sites in the BAX project area (e.g., SIHP 5381-near Feature 7A and 8; SWCA-BAX-TS-12-Feature 1).

In its overall structure, plan-view shape, and orientation on the landscape, Feature 3 resembles several other house-site features inspected during the current study of the BAX, including examples at SIHP 6561, SWCA-BAX-TS-10, and SIHP 5448 (especially Feature 10). Although subsurface testing of this feature has not been conducted, it is highly likely that it represents a permanent habitation of traditional design. Based on surface observations only, Feature 3 likely dates to precontact times, but may have been occupied into early historic times as well.

Feature 4, an irregularly shaped rock-structural feature forming a terrace-retaining wall in front (to the east) of the house site, is composed of rounded / sub-rounded boulders of all sizes and cobbles. Overall length of the rock work comprising Feature 4 is approximately 21.0 m; the width of the level soil-sediment area formed by the terrace-retaining wall, extended back (to the west) to the house site (Feature 3) ranges from 2.5-5.0 m; maximum height measured from the top of the rock work comprising Feature 4 to the adjacent ground surface to the east ranges from 0.50-1.0 m. Feature 4 follows the natural slope of the ground surface, which is higher to the south and lower to the north, eventually dropping down close to the bottom of the drainage located immediately north of the site. There is a possible pathway / opening to the house site near the south end of Feature 4. The north end of the feature may represent a pathway down to the drainage bottom. The central portion of Feature 4 (Figure 78) is comprised of formal stacking of small to medium-sized boulders 4-6 courses high; at the top of this more formal section of the feature, which is approximately 3.5 m in length, sits an upright basalt slab with a circular puka (hole) on its face.

SWCA recommends SIHP 6844, including the three new features identified during the current study, eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding precontact settlement of the plateau area adjacent to Mohiakea Streams. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the entire site in perpetuity. In addition, SWCA recommends Phase I survey of areas immediately adjacent to the south that were covered in tall grass and unavailable for survey during the current study due to safety requirements. Subsurface testing (excavation) might contribute to more precise temporal interpretations of this resource; however, since its function as a traditional habitation site is fairly certain, it does not seem necessary to excavate.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

105

Figure 72. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6844, 6846, SWCA-BAX-TS-12, and other nearby resources.



Figure 73. SIHP 6844, Feature 1 sketch map (Buffum 2005b).



Figure 74. SIHP 6844, Feature 2, rock-defined hearth adjacent to Feature 1; scale measures 0.50 m.

Figure 75. SIHP 6844, Feature 3, rectangular boulder terrace, facing south; upper soil-sediment terrace to the right (scale indicated by yellow arrow measures 1 m).



Figure 76. SIHP 6844, Feature 3, rectangular boulder terrace, facing north; showing northeast corner (red arrow) and northwest corner (yellow arrow) of feature behind Army medic.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

109

Figure 77. SIHP 6844, Feature 3, graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 78. SIHP 6844, Feature 4, showing central portion of terrace-retaining wall, facing southwest; note circular puka (hole) on upright basalt slab (red arrow); scale measures 1 m.



SIHP 6846

Resource No.(s) SIHP 6846 (Ganda 195 & 221) Reference(s) Buffum (2005b) (Features 1 and 2 only) Formal Type Dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural features Functional Interpretation Indeterminate (prior report interpreted 6846 as “Repeated-use

occupation,” “Habitation complex”) Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 43.5 m (142.6 ft) by 20.9 m (68.6 ft) (909.2 m2 or 9,782.4 ft2) No. of Features 3 (prior report identified only two features; one additional feature

was added in the current study) Surface Artifacts or Midden

None observed during current study, but prior report describes two adzes within 25 m




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Previous documentation for this resource consisted of inventory survey level work (Buffum 2005b); two features (Features 1 and 2) were formally recognized as constituting the site (Figure 79). A third feature, described as “[a] possible wall remnant” just north of Feature 2, was discounted as being part of the site due to the “random placing of the cobbles and boulders,” which “suggest that it may be natural in formation” (Buffum 2005b:105, italics added for emphasis). This wall feature was inspected during the current study, in the context of the other features at this resource, and in the context of other dry-stacked and aligned features and sites in the project area, and found to be unequivocally human-made, rather than natural, based on characteristic construction techniques that have been described elsewhere in this report as the “Mohiakea style.” This wall feature should be formally designated Feature 3. In addition, the original functional interpretations of this resource, listed as “repeated-use occupation” and “habitation complex” appear to be questionable or in need of greater specificity based on inspection of Features 1 and 2. Buffum (2005b:105, Ganda’s Figure 98) erroneously depicts a feature from a different site.

SIHP 6846 is located on a narrow plateau between the main Mohiakea Stream channel (to the south) and an ephemeral tributary (to the north) (see Figure 3; see Figure 72).

Feature 1 (Figure 80) was previously described as a “remnant platform,” but is may be a small terrace, perhaps a dryland gardening feature. Feature 2 (Figure 81) was previously described as a “remnant C-shape,” and this may be a temporary shelter (typically referred to as “temporary habitation site” by many contractors). There is no discussion in Buffum (2005b) about permanent versus temporary habitation, but this distinction is important to issues of Hawaiian land use and settlement in the area. Feature 3 is a wall constructed of boulders, most of which are aligned in a single row (with limited instances of one stacking course in a few places), and many of which have clearly been purposefully uprighted and balanced against each other by hand (Figures 82 and 83). This is not a natural feature, but a human-made construction. The wall designated



Feature 3 is located right at the edge of the drop-off from the plateau into the ephemeral drainage to the north. The wall is in relatively poor physical condition, with abundant tumble / collapse in several sections; however, there are a few places (particularly where uprights can be observed stacked in next to each other) where the physical condition is fair.

SWCA recommends SIHP 6846 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate or in need of greater clarity. Previous consultants have interpreted it as “repeated-use occupation,” which is not really a functional interpretation and could mean a variety of things; in other places of the report (Buffum 2005b), it is called a “habitation complex.” This interpretation, however, seems unlikely, or at least questionable, based on the lack of resemblance of Features 1 and 2 to others at Schofield Barracks that clearly are house sites of traditional design (e.g., SIHP 6844, SIHP 6561, SWCA-BAX-TS-10, SIHP 5448), and appear to be what most archaeologists would call “permanent habitation” features. Feature 2 at SIHP 6846 may be a temporary shelter (or habitation), but more work is needed to address these questions. SIHP 6846 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the area adjacent to Mohiakea Stream, but clearly the site’s functions need to be understood before it can contribute in a meaningful way to any furtherance of knowledge. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

113

Figure 79. SIHP 6846, Features 1 and 2 sketch map (Buffum 2005b).



Figure 80. SIHP 6846, Feature 1, facing east; scale (ends indicated by green arrows) measures 20 cm.

Figure 81. SIHP 6846, Feature 2, facing north-northeast; Feature 1 indicated by red arrow; Feature 3 (edge of plateau) indicated by yellow arrows; scale (ends indicated by green arrows) measures 20 cm.



Figure 82. SIHP 6846 overview showing relationship of a portion of Feature 3 (yellow arrows) to Features 1 and 2 (red arrows), facing west-southwest.

Figure 83. SIHP 6846, Feature 3 detail of uprighted boulders comprising rock wall at the edge of the plateau, facing north; scale measures 20 cm.



DPW T-6

Resource No.(s) DPW T-6 Reference(s) None (resource has not been described in prior reports) Formal Type Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 40.0 m (131.2 ft) by 35.0 m (114.8 ft) (1,400.0 m2 or 15,061.8 ft2) No. of Features 6+ Surface Artifacts or Midden

None




2. Phase I survey to identify and evaluate all surface features *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. The only previous documentation for this resource was GPS recording (a general site datum only) and the designation of a site number, “T-6” (herein designated “DPW T-6”). Attempts by the Lead Archaeologist to obtain additional detailed mapping data using the GPS antenna mounted on a 15-ft ranging pole failed due to dense, high tree cover including massive banyans (Ficus benghalensis). Otherwise, no documentation or evaluation was made for this resource previous to the current study.

DPW T-6 is located just off the South Fire Break Road in the forested uplands between Kalena and Mohiakea Streams (see Figure 3).

Due to time constraints and other fieldwork priorities, there were only 2-3 hours to work at this cultural resource; thus, its evaluation is currently incomplete. A significant factor in completing the evaluation of this resource involves the need to clear substantial amounts of vegetation including downed trees, limbs, and branches that must be carefully removed (chain saws will be needed) since they rest directly on some of the features. The information provided here is preliminary and the interpretations are conservative because much more time is needed to work this site.

DPW T-6 consists of at least six (6) features and probably more currently obscured by downed trees, limbs, and branches. The features that can be observed at this time are in relatively poor physical condition at the ground surface, which seems primarily to be a function of their relative antiquity, but also has been caused by falling trees, branches, and limbs as well as tree root growth into the features. The following four features were formally designated and described in field notes.

Feature 1 is a rectangular soil-sediment mound bordered around the perimeter and defined by discontinuous, low, dry-stacked sub-angular and sub-rounded boulders and cobbles (Figures 84 and 85). This feature is in relatively poor physical condition at the ground surface, and a very large tree has fallen directly on top on a portion of the feature.



Feature 2 is a rock mound several meters northwest of Feature 1. The mound, which measures approximately 3.0 (east-to-west axis) by 2.0 (north-to-south axis) m, is roughly rectangular in plan view; it is defined on the perimeter by medium and large sub-rounded and sub-angular boulders, and filled in and on top with a variety of small boulders, cobbles, and pebbles (Figure 86).

Feature 3 is a relatively massive and extensive rock construction that is unfortunately in very poor physical condition; the central area of this feature may consist of two levels of large boulder platforms, but it is difficult to interpret because of extensive damage from tree root growth and tree, branch, and limb fall. There are several portions of this feature with clear evidence of dry-stacked rocks at least 2-3 courses high (Figure 87).

Feature 4 is a boulder terrace retaining a level soil-sediment area approximately 20 m north of the giant banyan tree in the northeast corner of DPW T-6 (Figure 88).

SWCA recommends DPW T-6 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP pending additional work at the site. It is likely the resource is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding precontact settlement of the lowland forest above the plateau area upslope of SIHP 6841. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be fully evaluated. SWCA recommends Phase I survey of the entire site in order to identify and evaluate all surface features. This process will require substantial vegetation clearing, and it must be conducted under the direct supervision of an experienced field archaeological; otherwise, site features may be further damaged or destroyed in the process. Subsurface testing (excavation) might be necessary at a later time, pending the results of the completion of Phase I surface survey.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

118

Figure 84. DPW T-6, Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 85. DPW T-6, Feature 1, facing west; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 86. DPW T-6, Feature 2, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 87. DPW T-6, Feature 3, facing west-northwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 88. DPW T-6, Feature 4, a boulder terrace oriented east-to-west, facing south; scale measures 1 m.



DPW T-9

Resource No.(s) DPW T-9 Reference(s) None (resource has not been described in prior reports) Formal Type Boulder enclosure-alignment with associated features Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 33.5 m (110.0 ft) by 19.8 m (65.0 ft) (663.3 m2 or 7,150 ft2) No. of Features 4 Surface Artifacts or Midden

Several basalt flakes and debitage, including adze reduction flakes (according to Kamoa Quitevas, an adze was found on the ground surface here in or before 2006)




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. The only previous documentation for this resource was GPS recording by DPW and the designation of a site number, “T-9” (herein designated “DPW T-9”). The previously recorded GPS center point of the resource was found to be accurate; a GPS polygon recorded by DPW, however, omitted portions of the south end of the resource, which has been more accurately mapped during the current study. No other documentation or evaluation was made for this resource previous to the current study.

DPW T-9 is located in an area of low vegetation and ground cover near the access road from gate KR-3 on the plateau between Kalena and Mohiakea Streams (see Figure 3). The south end of this resource is immediately adjacent to (and north of) a small ephemeral drainage whose name is currently unknown.

DPW T-9 consists of two main rock-structural features that create a large, open-ended, U-shaped (in plan view) boulder enclosure-alignment with a pathway or trail on the east side to the north portion of the enclosed area (Figure 89). The boulders are typically rounded / sub-rounded and vary in size from small to very large. DPW T-9 also includes two smaller features, both consisting of small boulders and cobbles stacked atop one or two very large boulders (Figures 90-94). Several basalt flakes and debitage, including adze reduction flakes, were found on the ground surface at the north end of DPW T-9 (Figure 95). According to Kamoa Quitevas, an adze was found on the ground surface here in or before 2006.

Feature 1 is subdivided into two components because there is a short break of a few meters in the enclosure-alignment at its south end; this break may be the result of recent damage (i.e., collapse / tumble of the boulders) or may be a design feature (e.g., a functional gap in the boulder alignment). There are several large boulders immediately south of this break that may have tumbled down. The western (upslope) portion of this feature, designated Feature 1A, is approximately 36.2 m in length, 0.50 m in width, and 0.40-0.65 m in height; the eastern (downslope) portion of this feature, designated Feature 1B, is approximately 23.0 m in length,



0.50 m in width, and 0.30-0.75 m in height. Taken together, the two portions of Feature 1 create an elongated enclosed area open to the north.

Several direct impacts from ordnance have damaged much of this resource at the ground level. However, in places where it can be observed in an undamaged condition, the construction technique of Features 1 and 2 is noteworthy because it resembles other features throughout the BAX, particularly in areas of Mohiakea Stream that were studied in detail during the current project (e.g., SIHP 6841-Feature 24, SIHP 6846-Feature 3, SWCA-BAX-TS-10-Feature 2), that are undoubtedly traditional in design and precontact in terms of their temporal designation. This specific building technique, referred to elsewhere in this document as the “Mohiakea style,” involved the use of large and very large boulders positioned by hand into a single row or alignment; many of these boulders have slab-like or tabular dimensions, or are otherwise elongated, are they are placed into upright positions using their own inherent shapes and character and using smaller boulders and cobbles as shims at their bases in order to stabilize and balance them. According to Kamoa Quitevas, one traditional term for this shimming technique is niho, a word for “tooth” in the Hawaiian language. Close inspection of Feature 1 reveals numerous examples of large and very large boulders that appear to have once been balanced upright in this manner, but have since been toppled to the east (downslope) side.

In some places, the enclosure-alignment designated Feature 1 consists of smaller boulders stacked 2-3 courses high. The landscape within the area enclosed by Feature 1 is not particularly level, but slopes gently down to the east like the rest of the natural plateau upon which DPW T-9 is located. The south end of the resource slopes moderately down to the adjacent drainage to the south. There is one place, along the main western (upslope) enclosure-alignment (Feature 1A), where the ground surface is slightly (10-20 cm) higher on the upslope side compared with the downslope (east) / interior side. With this single exception, and unlike other terraced sites and features in the BAX, there is no artificial leveling of the ground surface at this resource.

Feature 2, which is similar to Feature 1 in terms of constituent materials and construction technique, forms a kind of pathway or trail along the southeastern portion of the resource by creating two parallel boulder alignments, approximately 1-m in width (interior dimensions). Feature 2 is damaged at several places along its length, but can be traced for at least 23.0 m in length; maximum heights of the boulders comprising Feature 2 range from approximately 0.20-0.45 m.

Features 3 and 4 are small boulders and cobbles stacked atop one or two very large boulders located within the main enclosed area. In and of themselves, and viewed in isolation, neither of these features is particularly formal or intricately constructed; and it is probably not possible to determine with any degree of certainty how old these features are or who built them; however, the more important observation, especially from a Hawaiian perspective, is the context in which these features occur, including the fact that numerous other similar features are located on the plateau immediately upslope and adjacent to DPW T-9. These similarly modest rock-stackings have been pointed out by cultural monitors in the past, but have not been evaluated as significant historic properties or cultural resources by prior consultants.

Feature 3 consists of one very large sub-rounded boulder with maximum dimensions of 1.40 (l) by 1.20 (w) by 0.60 (h) m with approximately one dozen rounded / sub-rounded cobbles and a



few small boulders placed on top. One of the small boulders is a possible grinding stone. This feature is in fair physical condition having been impacted by ordnance.

Feature 4 consists of two small sub-rounded boulders stacked atop and wedged between the tops of two large boulders. The two large boulders constituting the base of this feature have maximum dimensions of 2.20 (l) by 1.10 (w) by 0.55 (h) m. This feature is in fair physical condition having been impacted by ordnance.

SWCA recommends site DPW T-9 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the plateau areas between Kalena and Mohiakea Streams. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site (including the stacked boulders designated Features 3 and 4); and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

124

Figure 89. GPS-generated sketch map showing DPW T-9 and SWCA-BAX-TS-14.



Figure 90. DPW T-9 overview, facing west, showing portions of Feature 1A (background, red arrows) and Feature 1B (foreground).

Figure 91. DPW T-9 overview, facing north; Kamoa Quitevas is walking along a pathway formed between Feature 1B (left) and Feature 2 (right).



Figure 92. DPW T-9, showing pathway (arrow) created between Feature 1B (right) and Feature 2 (left), facing south; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 93. DPW T-9, Feature 3, stacked boulder located within area enclosed by Feature 1, facing north-northwest; yellow arrow points to possible grinding stone; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 94. DPW T-9, Feature 4, stacked boulders located within area enclosed by Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 95. Representative adze reduction flake made of basalt observed on the ground surface, north portion of DPW T-9.



DPW T-10

Resource No.(s) DPW T-10 Reference(s) None (resource has not been described in prior reports) Formal Type Boulder terrace with two associated features Functional Interpretation Indeterminate (habitation and/or dryland gardening) Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 27.4 m (90.0 ft) by 13.7 m (45.0 ft) (375.4 m2 or 4,050 ft2) No. of Features 3 Surface Artifacts or Midden

None observed




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. The only previous documentation for this resource was GPS recording of the main boulder terrace and the designation of a site number, “T-10” (herein designated “DPW T-10”). The previously recorded GPS location of the main terrace was found to be accurate. Otherwise, no documentation or evaluation was made for this resource previous to the current study.

DPW T-10 is located in an area of low vegetation and ground cover on the upper plateau between Kalena and Mohiakea Streams (see Figure 3; Figure 96). It is worth noting that, unlike all other upper plateau areas in the BAX, the plateau on which DPW T-10 is located is almost entirely devoid of larger rocks, including anything larger than a small boulder; given the lack of evidence for systematic mechanical ground disturbance (e.g., bulldozing or roads), it appears this upper plateau has been hand-cleared at some point on the past.

DPW T-10 consists of two main features and one sub-feature.

Feature 1 is a 13.5-m long boulder terrace built across (i.e., perpendicular to) the moderately sloping plateau; the largest boulders making up the terrace range in maximum width from 0.60-0.85 m, and range in height from 0.30-0.55 m as measured from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surface directly downslope to the east (Figures 97 and 98). The boulder terrace creates a level soil-sediment area on its upslope / west side measuring approximately 14.5 by 4.0-5.5 m (Figure 99). The naturally sloping ground surface directly behind the boulder terrace has been excavated into in order to help create the level soil-sediment area. The boulders making up the terrace front have a rounded / sub-rounded morphology. Most of Feature 1 consists of a single alignment of boulders, but in places, smaller clasts are stacked 1-2 courses high. Feature 1 is generally in good physical condition, but portions are in poor condition as evidenced by several areas of collapse / tumble.

Feature 2 is a smaller level soil-sediment area with no rocks defining or shaping the terraced area (Figure 100); this level soil-sediment area measures approximately 8.0 by 4.0 m and is located



approximately 25 m to the southwest of Feature 1. Feature 2 was constructed by excavating into the naturally sloping ground surface.

Sub-feature 1A is located on the level soil-sediment area at the south end of Feature 1 (Figure 101). Sub-feature 1A consists of two columnar small boulders, partially buried / exposed, arranged to form a right angle; these rocks, which have been damaged by ordnance, may originally have functioned as a windbreak, hearth, storage cubby, or workspace area. Subsurface testing (excavation) of Sub-feature 1A might help determine its function.

Without excavating at DPW T-10, it is difficult to make definitive statements about site function. Were it not for the presence of Sub-feature 1A, this resource would at least superficially resemble a pair of non-irrigated (dryland) gardening plots. The presence of Sub-feature 1A, however, raises the possibility that DPW T-10 is a habitation or workspace (e.g., resource processing) site of some type. Phase I testing of the area in and around Sub-feature 1A would assist in making a more informed functional interpretation of DPW T-10.

SWCA recommends site DPW T-10 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the upper plateau areas between Kalena and Mohiakea Streams. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site (including the level soil-sediment area designated Feature 2 southwest of the main boulder terrace); and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

130

Figure 96. GPS-generated sketch map for DPW T-10.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

131

Figure 97. DPW T-10, Feature 1 field sketch map illustrating level soil-sediment area immediately west of boulder terrace and Sub-feature 1A.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

132

Figure 98. DPW T-10, Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch.



Figure 99. DPW T-10, Feature 1, facing southeast; vertical scale (indicated by yellow arrow) measures 1 m.

Figure 100. DPW T-10, facing southwest from Feature 1 to Kamoa Quitevas standing on Feature 2.



Figure 101. DPW T-10, Sub-feature 1A (foreground), facing northeast, with a portion of Feature 1 (arrows); scale measures 1 m.



PETROGLYPHS, POSSIBLE PETROGLYPHS, AND OTHER MARKED BOULDERS (SWCA-BAX-TS-1 THROUGH SWCA-BAX-TS-8) The next eight narratives describe eight (8) boulders located in the general vicinity of SIHP 6699 (a petroglyph boulder that was eventually moved to SIHP 5381), on the plateau area between Kalena and Hale‘au‘au Streams, that were evaluated as potential cultural resources (see Figure 3).

As described below, these include three (3) definite petroglyphs (TS-2, -6, and -8), one (1) probable petroglyph (TS-3) whose surface is in relatively poor physical condition (and is thus difficult to definitely interpret), two (2) possible petroglyphs (TS-4 and -7) whose markings may represent other utilitarian functions, one (1) portable artifact (TS-5, a probable sharpening stone, rather than a petroglyph), and one non-cultural boulder (TS-1) that is not a cultural resource.

Several of the boulders are small and relatively portable. All descriptions of the boulders below are based on their positioning as of the January, 2009, evaluation.

It appears that none of these eight boulders were recorded in previous archaeological surveys. The area within which the eight boulders are located has been subject to a substantial amount of ground disturbance by mechanical earth-moving equipment such as bulldozers and excavators. Most or all of the boulders appear to have been recently moved from their original provenience, but a few are at least partially buried and / or very large and may be near or at their original locations.



SWCA-BAX-TS-1

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-1 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Marked boulder Functional Interpretation Not cultural Temporal Interpretation Not applicable Maximum Size of Boulder 0.65 (l) by 0.39 (w) by 0.23 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Boulder has been damaged by ordnance and/or earth-moving equipment

NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation No further work SWCA-BAX-TS-1 is a rounded boulder located next to a mauka-makai access road. This area has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities. At the time of inspection, the boulder had been recently unearthed by mechanical earth-moving equipment. The reddish-orange color of its surface suggests the boulder has been buried until very recently; at the same time, however, there are old bullet holes (that had to have been inflicted when it was on top of the ground surface) and other scars on the boulder that suggest it has had a complex history of exposure, burial, and re-exposure (Figure 102). Taken together, these observations—particularly the old bullet holes on the lower portion of the boulder in the photograph—suggest that the reddish-orange color may develop in subsurface environments in a relatively short time (e.g., a few to several decades). Several linear markings resembling incision-style etchings are observable on the surface of the rock. These marks do not appear to be purposeful, human-made modification, and it is the professional opinion of the Lead Archaeologist that this boulder is neither a petroglyph nor an artifact. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-1 is not eligible for the NRHP. SWCA recommends no further work at this resource.

Figure 102. SWCA-BAX-TS-1, marked boulder interpreted as unlikely to be a petroglyph or traditional human modification; scale measures 20 cm in length.



SWCA-BAX-TS-2

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-2 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Petroglyph on boulder Functional Interpretation Petroglyph Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Boulder 1.10 (l) by 0.50 (w) by 0.63 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Boulder has been damaged by ordnance and by earth-moving equipment

NRHP Eligibility Eligible C Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

2. Petroglyph preservation plan *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this. SWCA-BAX-TS-2 is a partially buried sub-rounded boulder (Figure 103). The area in and around the boulder has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities. At the time of visiting this location, the boulder had been recently damaged by mechanical earth-moving equipment (Figure 104), as evidenced by the light-colored scarring visible in the photograph. The boulder had been recently moved and re-deposited in its present location. There is also damage from ordnance impact on portions of the boulder. The petroglyph markings consist of a series of linear incisions or grooves produced by a back-and-forth sawing / etching motion with a sharp edge, presumably a bevel-edge rock. Some of the marks near the bottom of the boulder in its current provenience are difficult to observe given the somewhat degraded condition of the surface of the boulder. The most prominent and visible markings are at the top of the boulder, and consist of a possibly anthropomorphic figure (Figures 105 and 106). All together, the marked surface covers an area of approximately 70 by 70 cm on the north side of the boulder. These markings are consistent with the petroglyph boulder being precontact in age. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-2 eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. SWCA recommends the resource be avoided and protected in perpetuity, and be included in a preservation plan that includes the other NRHP-eligible petroglyphs discussed in this report.



Figure 103. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, overview of petroglyph on a large boulder (arrow), facing south; maximum height of boulder is 63 cm.

Figure 104. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, petroglyph boulder (marked area within yellow line), facing south; scale measures 20 cm in length.



Figure 105. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, field sketch of detail shown below.

Figure 106. SWCA-BAX-TS-2, detail of petroglyph marking shown above; scale measures 20 cm in length.



SWCA-BAX-TS-3

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-3 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Probable petroglyph on boulder Functional Interpretation Probable petroglyph Temporal Interpretation Probably precontact* Maximum Size of Boulder 1.10 (l) by 0.50 (w) by 0.63 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Boulder has been damaged by ordnance and by earth-moving equipment


2. Petroglyph preservation plan *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this. SWCA-BAX-TS-3 is a large sub-rounded boulder. The area in and around the boulder has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities. At the time of visiting this location, the boulder had been recently moved by mechanical earth-moving equipment, as evidenced by the color (reddish-orange brown) and texture (relatively soft / friable) of most of its surface (Figure 107). There is also major damage from ordnance impact on portions of the boulder (e.g., upper left of the boulder in the aforementioned photograph).

As illustrated above in the context of describing another marked boulder (SWCA-BAX-TS-1), the reddish-orange color of most of this rock does not necessarily mean it has been buried for millennia, and, therefore, that the marks cannot possibly be human-made, as is often argued or implied in such cases. On the contrary, the presence of bullet-marked reddish-orange rock surface at SWCA-BAX-TS-1 demonstrates that rocks can acquire this coloring and patina within decades. Thus, for example, boulders such as these may well have been on the ground surface until the time of military occupation of the project area (approximately 100 years ago at Schofield), subsequently bulldozed and buried, then re-exposed only recently by the current proposed undertaking.

The petroglyph markings at SWCA-BAX-TS-3 occur on a relatively small area of the boulder, measuring approximately 30 by 30 cm, on its south end. The marks are difficult to interpret because of the relatively degraded nature of the surface and because there appear to be other partially superimposed and adjacent marks in addition to those that appear to be unequivocal petroglyph markings (Figure 108). Nonetheless, there are at least two recognizable images that resemble common motifs on Hawaiian petroglyphs; namely, the “stick figure” triangular symbols used to depict a stylized human form (Figures 109). The triangles are approximately 4.5 cm in width, and there may be others, in addition to the two that are readily visible, that are harder to discern. The method of production of these marks appears to have been via direct percussion (i.e., pecking and tapping using a stone).

SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-3 eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. SWCA recommends the resource be avoided and protected in perpetuity, and be included in a preservation plan that includes the other NRHP-eligible petroglyphs discussed in this report.



Figure 107. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, probable petroglyph on a large boulder (marked area in yellow), facing north-northwest; maximum height of boulder is 85 cm.

Figure 108. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, detail of probable petroglyph markings (arrows highlight markings shown in field sketch below; scale measures 10 cm in length.



Figure 109. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, field sketch of detail shown above; arrows in photograph above point to upper corners of triangular symbols.



SWCA-BAX-TS-4

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-4 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Possible petroglyph on boulder Functional Interpretation Possible petroglyph (incisions on boulder may have other non-

petroglyph function) Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size of Boulder 0.70 (l) by 0.65 (w) by 0.42 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Boulder has been damaged by small-arms fire

NRHP Eligibility Unevaluated (potentially eligible) Recommendation Avoidance and further study of possible function(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-4 is a rounded boulder in an area that has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities (Figure 110). The boulder is partially embedded in the soil-sediment, with no obvious damage from mechanical earth-moving equipment, but several older impacts from small-arms fire. The surface of the boulder does not have any of the reddish-orange color or friable character indicative of recent removal from a subsurface context. The markings on SWCA-BAX-TS-4 occur on an area of the boulder measuring approximately 40 by 30 cm on its north side. The marks are linear incisions or grooves and occur singly or in sets of two or three; there are at least three, and perhaps four, distinct marks or mark sets (Figure 111). The marks are certainly older than 50 years—which is generally the threshold for consideration as a historically-significant resource, but it is unclear if they represent an unequivocal petroglyph. All of the marks are oriented in roughly the same direction, that is, from east-to-west, on the same (north) side of the boulder. It is possible that these marks represent use wear of the boulder for other utilitarian reasons. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-4 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. SWCA recommends the resource be avoided and studied further in order to more accurately interpret its function(s).



Figure 110. SWCA-BAX-TS-4, overview of possible petroglyph on a large boulder (arrow), facing west; maximum height of boulder is 42 cm.

Figure 111. SWCA-BAX-TS-4, marked boulder (three areas indicated by yellow ovals) interpreted as a possible petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length.



SWCA-BAX-TS-5

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-5 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Incised boulder with symmetrical puka (hole) Functional Interpretation Possible sharpening stone Temporal Interpretation Probably precontact* Maximum Size of Boulder 0.65 (l) by 0.63 (w) by 0.26 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Relatively undamaged

NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation Preservation / curation of the object and further study of the

object to ascertain its function(s) *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this. SWCA-BAX-TS-5 is a rounded boulder with a flat (slab-like) overall shape (Figure 112); although this boulder is located in an area that has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities, it is relatively undamaged. The boulder is resting on top of the ground surface, and is not embedded in the soil-sediment. The surface of the boulder does not have any of the reddish-orange color or friable character indicative of recent removal from a subsurface context. The markings on SWCA-BAX-TS-5 occur on the top surface of the boulder within an area measuring approximately 40 by 25 cm. The markings are unique, compared with other marked boulders described herein, and do not appear to represent a petroglyph; rather, this resource appears to be a traditional utilitarian object of some kind, such as a sharpening stone. The marks occur as densely-packed, parallel linear incisions oriented southwest-to-northeast. Well-defined beveling can be observed in several places (Figure 113), and the edge of the boulder on its north side (i.e., to the right in the images below) has been worn down by repeated back-and-forth action with a sharp-edged instrument. There is a symmetrical puka (hole) forming a small cup-like feature (diameter of 11 cm) on the top of the boulder. This object probably dates to precontact times, and may have been used to create and maintain sharp edges on adzes and other tools with similar morphologies. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-5 not eligible for the NRHP given the fact that it is a surface artifact lacking specific archaeological context. At the same time, however, this is a unique object that should not be damaged or destroyed. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-5 be preserved / curated and studied further (e.g., residue analysis of its surface) in order to more accurately interpret its function.



Figure 112. SWCA-BAX-TS-5, marked boulder with puka (cup-like hole, upper left); scale measures 10 cm in length.

Figure 113. Field sketch of SWCA-BAX-TS-5.



SWCA-BAX-TS-6

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-6 (bird petroglyph) Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Petroglyph on boulder (with three flying bird images) Functional Interpretation Petroglyph Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Boulder 1.55 (l) by 1.20 (w) by 0.55 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Some old small arms damage including some damage to petroglyph images


2. Petroglyph preservation plan *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this. SWCA-BAX-TS-6 is a large rounded boulder with remarkable petroglyph markings of flying birds; the boulder is partially embedded in the soil, with several areas of damage from ordnance. The area has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities. The lower portions of the boulder upon which the bird images are located have been recently exposed by hand digging. The surface of this part of the boulder is slightly reddish-orange in color (Figure 114).

There are two sets of petroglyph markings at SWCA-BAX-TS-6 in an area measuring approximately 50 by 25 cm. The first image (Figure 115), on the south side of the boulder, is a set of three birds flying in formation to the west and in the direction of the second image, on the southwest side, which is a circular / spiraling mark (Figure 116).

The birds are depicted in a stylized manner evoking flight and motion; the lower wing of the lead bird (to the left in the images below) is lengthened and extended as a sweeping line back to the third bird. Two other parallel lines below the first bird’s extended wing line appear to emphasize the motion of flight. Two techniques appear to have been used to make the bird images: first, the birds appear to have been produced by a chiseling action (i.e., indirect percussion using a hammerstone implement tapping on a sharp-edged chisel-like stone); second, the lower pair of lines appears to have been produced by a back-and-forth sawing / etching motion. It appears that a fourth bird may have once been located to the right of the third (last) bird; however, the rock surface at this location has been damaged by small-arms fire and has exfoliated. From wingtip to wingtip the birds are approximately 7.0 cm in length; the overall length of the stylized windswept lower wing of the first bird measures approximately 17.0 cm (Figure 117).

The circular / spiraling image towards which the birds are flying was produced by a cutting motion with a sharp-edged implement. The upper “tail end” of the circular image is difficult to see as it has faded and worn somewhat through natural weathering of the rock surface. The diameter of this image is approximately 15.0 cm.

Overall, this is a most extraordinary cultural resource, and one that should be treated with utmost care and respect. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-6 eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. SWCA recommends the resource be avoided and protected in perpetuity, and be included in a preservation plan that includes the other NRHP-eligible petroglyphs discussed in this report.



Figure 114. SWCA-BAX-TS-6, overview of bird petroglyph, facing north; maximum height of boulder (arrow) is 55 cm.

Figure 115. SWCA-BAX-TS-6, three flying birds; arrow shows location of a possible fourth bird on damaged surface; scale measures 10 cm in length.



Figure 116. SWCA-BAX-TS-6, circular marking next to bird images (see arrow); scale measures 10 cm in length.

Figure 117. Field sketch of images at SWCA-BAX-TS-6.



SWCA-BAX-TS-7

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-7 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Possible petroglyph on boulder Functional Interpretation Possible petroglyph (incisions on boulder may have other non-

petroglyph function) Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size of Boulder 0.34 (l) by 0.26 (w) by 0.17 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Boulder has been damaged in the past by ordnance and recently by mechanical earth-moving equipment and by a metal hand tool (see discussion below)

NRHP Eligibility Unevaluated (potentially eligible) Recommendation Avoidance and further study of possible function(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-7 is a small sub-rounded boulder in an area that has been heavily impacted by recent construction activities (Figure 118). The boulder is resting on top of the ground surface, and is not embedded in the soil-sediment. It appears to have been recently moved by mechanical earth-moving equipment, and exhibits several older impacts from small-arms fire and a major breakage (fracture) imparted some time ago (probably a few to several decades) but clearly after the possible petroglyph markings were made. The surface of the boulder does not have any of the reddish-orange color or friable character indicative of recent removal from a subsurface context. According to Kamoa Quitevas, a private contractor field archaeologist, during recent vegetation clearing to set up and / or maintain the protective resource buffer, damaged the boulder with a machete (visible as a light-colored area in the photograph below). The markings on SWCA-BAX-TS-7 occur on an area of the boulder measuring approximately 20 by 5 cm on its top surface. The marks consist of at least three parallel curvilinear (nearly straight) incisions or grooves (Figure 119). The marks are certainly older than 50 years—which is generally the threshold for consideration as a historically-significant resource, but it is unclear if they represent an unequivocal petroglyph. The maximum length of the longest mark is approximately 17.0 cm; they are oriented from northwest-to-southeast. It is possible that these marks represent use wear of the boulder for other utilitarian reasons. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-7 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. SWCA recommends the resource be avoided and studied further in order to more accurately interpret its function(s).



Figure 118. SWCA-BAX-TS-7, location of marked boulder (possible petroglyph), facing northwest; maximum height of boulder is 17 cm.

Figure 119. SWCA-BAX-TS-7, possible petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length.



SWCA-BAX-TS-8

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-8 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Petroglyph on boulder (possible honu, green sea turtle, image) Functional Interpretation Petroglyph Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Boulder 0.83 (l) by 0.51 (w) by 0.26 (h) m Physical Condition / Integrity

Some recent mechanical earth-moving equipment damage


2. Petroglyph preservation plan *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this. SWCA-BAX-TS-8 is a small sub-rounded boulder with unique petroglyph markings (Figure 120). The Lead Archaeologist believes the image may represent a stylized honu (green sea turtle, Chelonia mydas), which is an ‘aumakua, or “family deity,” to some Hawaiians, based on other similar examples from the Hawaiian Islands (see, e.g., Ching 2001). Kamoa Quitevas believes this petroglyph may represent a spirit rising. In either case, this is an important cultural resource that deserves the utmost care and respect. The boulder is resting on top of the ground surface, and is not embedded in the soil-sediment. It appears to have been recently moved by mechanical earth-moving equipment, and exhibits several recent scars and damage caused by construction equipment (Figure 121). The surface of the boulder does not have any of the reddish-orange color or friable character indicative of recent removal from a subsurface context.

The petroglyph markings consist of a single image measuring approximately 25 by 15 cm on the top surface of the boulder (Figure 122). The method of production appears to have been via direct percussion (i.e., pecking and tapping using a stone) (Figure 123).

This cultural resource should be treated with utmost care and respect. SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-8 eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C. SWCA recommends the resource be avoided and protected in perpetuity, and be included in a preservation plan that includes the other NRHP-eligible petroglyphs discussed in this report.



Figure 120. SWCA-BAX-TS-8, location of petroglyph (arrow), facing west; maximum height of marked boulder is 26 cm.

Figure 121. SWCA-BAX-TS-8, petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length.



Figure 122. Detail of SWCA-BAX-TS-8, petroglyph; scale measures 10 cm in length.

Figure 123. Field sketch of SWCA-BAX-TS-8.



SWCA-BAX-TS-9

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-9 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural feature Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 10.0 m (32.8 ft) by 5.0 m (16.4 ft) (50.0 m2 or 537.9 ft2)

No. of Features 2 Surface Artifacts or Midden

None


Good (at and above ground surface)


2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. No previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study.

SWCA-BAX-TS-9 is located adjacent to and just above (in elevation) the south banks of Kalena Stream, immediately northwest of the large site complex SIHP 6562 (see Figure 3 and see Figure 124). The resource is located in an area of previously dense but now dying Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius).

There are ‘ala‘alawainui (Peperomia cookiana) plants, an endemic rock climber identified in the Kumulipo (the famous Hawaiian creation chant) as a guardian of the forest, growing on this site. There is also a large kī (or tī, Cordyline fruticosa) plant growing at the northwest end of Feature 1.

This resource consists of a small area of stacked and aligned rocks around and atop several large boulders measuring approximately 10.0 m (32.8 ft) by 5.0 m (16.4 ft). Two features have been defined. Feature 1 is a small area of rock stacking on top of a mostly buried (subterranean) boulder (Figure 125). This stacking, along with the naturally occurring large boulder, creates a relatively level soil-sediment area of approximately 4 m2 (Figures 126 and 127). The stacked portion of feature is approximately 2.0 m in length. Maximum heights of the stacked rocks, which are predominately subangular / subrounded boulders, range from 0.45-0.55 m.

Feature 2 is a pair of uprighted, balanced boulders, positioned against each other, located just south of the level area designated Feature 1 (Figures 128 and 129). These two uprights are 0.55-0.65 m above the adjacent ground surface. The northernmost boulder is balanced on a distinctive, partially buried / exposed very large boulder.

Taken together, the available evidence regarding site function is ambiguous. The level area seems too small to be either a planting garden or a habitation shelter.



SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-9 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of areas adjacent to Kalena Stream. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

157

Figure 124. GPS-generated sketch map for SIHP 6562 and other cultural resources including SWCA-BAX-TS-9.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

158

Figure 125. SWCA-BAX-TS-9 sketch map.



Figure 126. SWCA-BAX-TS-9 overview, facing southwest: Feature 1 (red arrows) and Feature 2 (yellow arrows); large boulder (center of image) is 1 m in height.

Figure 127. SWCA-BAX-TS-9 overview, facing south-southwest: Feature 1 (red arrows) and Feature 2 (yellow arrows); large boulder (center of image) is 1 m in height.



Figure 128. SWCA-BAX-TS-9, Feature 1, facing south-southwest, showing level area created by rock stacking and alignment; maximum height of stacking is 0.55 m.

Figure 129. SWCA-BAX-TS-9, Feature 2, facing south-southwest; showing two upright boulders (yellow arrow) balanced on a massive, partially buried boulder (red arrow); maximum height of largest upright boulder is 0.65 m.



SWCA-BAX-TS-10

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-10 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex Functional Interpretation Habitation site complex with gardening features and possible trail

features Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 99.1 m (325.0 ft) by 44.2 m (145.0 ft) (4,380.2 m2 or 47,125.0 ft2) No. of Features 4 Surface Artifacts or Midden

1 stone bowl fragment found near south end of Feature 3A



NRHP Eligibility Eligible D Recommendation Avoidance and protection in perpetuity *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. Before the current study, no prior work had been conducted at SWCA-BAX-TS-10, which is a newly discovered cultural resource not previously observed or reported by cultural monitors. Due to the dense tree canopy (especially Christmas berry, Schinus terebinthifolius), SWCA used a GPS antenna mounted on a 15-ft ranging pole to obtain high-quality GPS data.

SWCA-BAX-TS-10 is located on a narrow ridge immediately south of and above Mohiakea Stream, just across the stream channel from the western (upslope) end of the major irrigated-taro site complex of SIHP 5381 (see Figure 3).

SWCA-BAX-TS-10 consists of four (4) main features located on two main levels: the upper set of features, consisting of a group of house sites (Feature 1) and a possible trail (Feature 2), is located approximately 10 m elevation above the Mohiakea Stream; the lower set of features, consisting of a non-irrigated (dryland) gardening feature (Feature 3) and another set of trail features (Feature 4), is located northwest of and downslope from the house sites, at the top of a steep bank of the stream, approximately 3 m above the channel (see Figure 6).

SWCA-BAX-TS-10 is almost certainly the location of a cluster of small house sites inhabited by Native Hawaiians in precontact and perhaps early historic times who worked the lo‘i at SIHP 5381. There is relatively little damage from ordnance at this resource, where a fragment of a traditional stone bowl was identified on the ground surface near the south end of the gardening plot designated Feature 3A (see below).

Feature 1 is a set of four (4) boulder enclosure-alignments (Features 1A-D) consistent with representing house site foundations, and a small, circular rock alignment (Feature 1E) whose function is indeterminate (Figure 130). Collectively, these five features occupy an area measuring approximately 20.0 (north-to-south) by 5.0 (east-to-west) m (100 m2). Maximum height from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent downslope ground surface is approximately 0.30 m.



The probable house site features are similar to others documented during this project, including features at SIHP 6561, SIHP 6844, and SIHP 5448 (especially Feature 10). The long axes of all four of the boulder enclosure-alignments at SWCA-BAX-TS-10 are oriented north-to-south, parallel to the narrow ridge upon which they are located (Figures 131-135). All of the four probable house sites are constructed of a single main alignment of rounded / sub-rounded medium and large boulders, with smaller rocks occasionally used to fill gaps, forming a three-sided rectangular foundation that is infilled with soil-sediment raising and leveling the interior surface compared with the adjacent ground surface. The largest and best-preserved of these, Feature 1B, measures approximately 6.0 by 3.0 m; the other three are smaller and generally less well-preserved.

A small rock alignment designated Feature 1E is located at the southern end of this feature (Figure 136); it is constructed of small boulders, partially buried / exposed, arranged in semi-circle with a diameter of approximately 0.50 m and maximum height above ground surface of approximately 0.10 m. One or two boulders appear to have been moved away from their original location, suggesting this feature once formed a complete circle. There is no evidence of burning and the rocks are not fire-affected (e.g., reddened, blackened, cracked or exfoliated), thus, this feature does not appear to represent a hearth or fire-pit feature.

Feature 2 is a single alignment of large, uprighted boulders at its north (downslope) end, grading into smaller boulders and cobbles constructed as a single alignment and stacked 1-2 courses high in places at its south (upslope) end (Figures 137 and 138). The middle portion of Feature 2 could not be inspected due to thick, tall, grassy vegetation (through which field personnel were prohibited to travel under terms of the Scope of Work for this project); thus, it is unclear how this feature makes the transition from two markedly different construction styles at its north and south ends. Overall, the feature is approximately 30 m in length. The north (downslope) end, which terminates at the edge of the steep drop-off down to Features 3 and 4 and Mohiakea Stream, is constructed using a building technique referred to elsewhere in this document as the “Mohiakea style.” This technique involves the use of large and very large boulders that are positioned by hand into a single row or alignment; many of these boulders have slab-like or tabular dimensions, or are otherwise elongated, are they are placed into upright positions using their own inherent shapes and character and using smaller boulders and cobbles as shims at their bases in order to stabilize and balance them (Figure 139). Other examples of this building style were observed at SIHP 6841 (especially Feature 24), SIHP 6846 (Feature 3), and DPW T-9. The function of this feature is indeterminate; it may represent a trail leading down to the stream channel, or perhaps a portion of a boundary wall.

Feature 3, located northwest of and downslope from the probable house site features (Feature 1) at SWCA-BAX-TS-10, consists of two non-irrigated (dryland) gardening terraces (designated Features 3A and 3C) with a short section of rock-retained trail (Feature 3B) located at the base of the slope break heading back up the hill to Feature 1 (Figure 140). Collectively, the three sub-features making up Feature 3 occupy an area measuring approximately 19.0 (north-to-south) by 4.0-6.0 (east-to-west) m. This feature represents an economical and ingenious use of space, essentially a narrow soil-sediment ledge located approximately 3 m above the current stream channel (Figure 141). Feature 3A is a low, dry-stacked retaining wall, L-shaped in plan view, that supports a level, roughly rectangular soil-sediment terrace (gardening plot) measuring approximately 8.0 by 5.0 m. The retaining wall is constructed of rounded / sub-rounded cobbles



and small boulders, stacked 1-2 courses high, with a maximum height above the adjacent ground surface to the north (channel side) of 0.45 m (Figure 142). A stone bowl fragment was found near the south end of Feature 3A (Figure 143). Feature 3A is in relatively good physical condition with minimal collapse / tumble to the north. The second terrace (Feature 3C), which is more irregular in plan view shape, is formed by another low, dry-stacked retaining wall of rounded / sub-rounded boulders with some cobbles, stacked 1-2 courses high in some portions but also consisting of a single line of boulders in other portions, with a maximum height above the adjacent ground surface to the north (channel side) of 0.35 m (Figure 144). This second terrace is in relatively fair physical condition with more areas of collapse / tumble. Feature 3B, which is in relatively poor physical condition, appears to represent a trail traveling south-to-north along the ledge upon which the gardening plots are located.

Feature 4 is located approximately 7.0 m north of the north end of Feature 3 following the ledge as it curves around the base of the narrow ridge (Figure 145). This feature appears to be a section of paved trail. The feature is constructed of rounded / sub-rounded boulders and cobbles, and measures approximately 9.0 m in length, 2.5 m in width, and 0.30-0.55 m in height. The roughly paved section consists of partially buried / exposed small boulders and cobbles with heights above the ground surface of 0.10-0.15 m. The width of this roughly paved section is approximately 0.8-1.0 m.

SWCA-BAX-TS-10 is an excellent example of a traditional-style permanent habitation, and SWCA recommends it eligible for the NRHP under Criteria D for its potential to provide information about precontact land use, settlement, and subsistence. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection for this resource in perpetuity. This resource should be considered part of SIHP 5381, as depicted in Figure 6.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

164

Figure 130. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1 (habitation site complex), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 131. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1 (habitation site) overview, facing north; scale (in front of Kamoa Quitevas) measures 1 m.

Figure 132. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1A, detail of southwest corner of boulder enclosure-alignment, facing south; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 133. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1B, largest of the four boulder enclosure-alignments at Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 134. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1C, facing east; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 135. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1D, facing north; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 136. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 1E, facing northeast; scale (north arrow) measures 27 cm.



Figure 137. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, north (downslope) end of Feature 2, boulder alignment, facing south; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 138. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, south (upslope) end of Feature 2, boulder alignment, facing west; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

169

Figure 139. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 2 (boulder alignment), graphic depiction of field sketch.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

170

Figure 140. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3 field sketch map.



Figure 141. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3, overview of soil-sediment ledge above Mohiakea Stream, facing south; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 142. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3A, facing southeast; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 143. Stone bowl fragment from ground surface near south end of Feature 3A, SWCA-BAX-TS-10; scale measures 20 cm.

Figure 144. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 3C, facing north-northeast; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 145. SWCA-BAX-TS-10, Feature 4, possible trail, facing east; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-BAX-TS-11

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-11 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Linear alignment of small boulders and cobbles, partially buried /

exposed at and above ground surface Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) This linear feature is approximately 34.0 m (111.5 ft) in length


None




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation No previous work has been conducted at this resource. According to Kamoa Quitevas, this feature was identified by cultural monitors in or before 2006 and pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and/or prior contractors; in other such cases, the resource would typically have a temporary field site designation and GPS. In the case of SWCA-BAX-TS-11, however, no evidence of prior documentation could be found.

SWCA-BAX-TS-11 is located on the slope of a hill leading up to SIHP 6561 (a precontact habitation site complex) from the Mohiakea stream bottom within which is located SIHP 5381 (an extensive lo‘i, or wet-taro gardening complex) (see Figure 3).

This resource consists of a linear alignment of partially buried / exposed small boulders and cobbles oriented up- and downslope (see Figure 6). Overall, the alignment is approximately 34.0 m in length; from the bottom of the slope of the hill, the alignment goes upslope for approximately 26.0 m before it turns to the east heading cross-slope for another 9.0 m (Figure 146). Without subsurface testing, it is difficult to make any specific functional interpretations: the resource may represent all or part of a trail or pathway from the bottom of the hill to its flanks; it may represent the base of a boundary marker of some kind.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-BAX-TS-11 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the area adjacent to Mohiakea Stream. Particularly given its location between the precontact habitation site complex (SIHP 6561) and the extensive lo‘i system (SIHP 5381), SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function and age.



Figure 146. SWCA-BAX-TS-11, a linear alignment of partially buried / exposed small boulders and cobbles, facing north; arrows indicate approximate location of the alignment before its turns to the east (right).



SWCA-BAX-TS-12

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-12 Reference(s) None (resource has not been described in prior reports) Formal Type Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex Functional Interpretation Indeterminate: possible burial-mound complex or gardening-

mound complex Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 112.7 m (369.6 ft) by 51.5 m (169.0 ft) (5,804.1 m2 or 62,462.4

ft2) No. of Features 9 (however one of these features is a concentration of at least 38

small low rock mounds) Surface Artifacts or Midden

1 adze preform on Feature 3A; 1 flaked basalt core on Feature 4


Features vary from good to fair to poor (at and above ground surface)

NRHP Eligibility Eligible C & D Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection

2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. The only previous documentation for this resource was some GPS recording by Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff of features pointed out by cultural monitors. Field checking of the previous GPS data during the current study suggests it is relatively inaccurate, most likely due to the dense tree canopy (especially Christmas berry, Schinus terebinthifolius). As discussed in the Methods chapter of the current report, SWCA used a GPS antenna mounted on a 15-ft ranging pole to overcome this issue and thereby obtained relatively higher-quality GPS data. Other than GPS recording, no other documentation has been reported for this resource previous to the current study.

SWCA-BAX-TS-12 is located in riparian woodland vegetation on a natural alluvial terrace of Mohiakea Stream, on the north side of the channel about halfway between the major site complexes of SIHP 5381 (to the south) and SIHP 6841 (to the north) (see Figure 3). The alluvial terrace slopes gently down to the east. Directly across the stream channel from SWCA-BAX-TS-12 is an extensive complex of mostly soil-sediment (with limited rock facing) terraces designated SWCA-BAX-TS-13 (summarized elsewhere in this chapter).

SWCA-BAX-TS-12 is a very unique site complex consisting of nine (9) features; however, one of these (Feature 3) is comprised of at least thirty-eight (38) small rock mounds that—with a single exception—have not been individually numbered. The boundary for the entire concentration of mounds been documented with a GPS polygon (see Figure 72). As described below, the largest of these mounds, upon which was found an adze preform, has been designated and mapped as Feature 3A. There is relatively little damage from ordnance at this resource.

Feature 1 is a soil-sediment and rock platform measuring approximately 9.0 by 9.0 m square and 0.50-0.60 m in height on the north and east sides, which are faced with rounded / sub-rounded cobbles (with some small boulders and pebbles) and slope down to the surrounding ground



surface (Figures 147 and 148). The level top surface of the platform grades into the surrounding ground surface on the west and south sides (Figure 149). The physical condition of Feature 1 is fair in some places but relatively poor in others; the basic integrity of the introduced soil-sediment used to build up the north and east sides of the platform is more or less intact, but much of the cobble facing used to reinforce the sloping north and east sides has collapsed / tumbled. Despite its partially degraded condition, it is clear that the original construction of this feature included a pavement of predominantly small boulder- and cobble-sized clasts on the top surface and facing of predominantly cobble-sized clasts on the north and east sides.

There are three sub-features located on the top surface of Feature 1. Feature 1A is a circular pit / depression on the southeast quadrant of the top surface of the platform; the pit / depression measures approximately 0.75 m in diameter and 0.27 m in depth (Figure 150). Feature 1B is a roughly square cleared area on the west side of the top of surface of the platform; the cleared area measures approximately 4 m2 (Figure 151). Feature 1C is a group of three angular large boulders located in the middle of the top of the platform. The presence of these three boulders is noteworthy given that all the others at this feature are rounded / subrounded. This observation was noted at other sites in the BAX project area (e.g., SIHP 5381-near Feature 7A and 8; SIHP 6844-Feature 3). Without investigating further into the subsurface of the top of Feature 1, it is not possible to make any definitive functional interpretations of these sub-features. The functional interpretation of the platform, itself, is also an open question, and depends to a certain extent on the functional interpretation of other features at this resource including, most especially, Features 3 and 8, as described below. It is possible that Feature 1 represents an agricultural heiau (religious shrine), a domestic structure (i.e., house site), or a burial.

Features 2, the lowermost (easternmost) feature at SWCA-BAX-TS-12, is a low, cobble-faced soil-sediment terrace approximately 15.0 m in length; the level area behind (west of) the cobble facing leading back up to the base of the platform designated Feature 1 measures approximately 5.5 m in width. Feature 2 is only 0.10-0.15 m in height. The rounded / sub-rounded cobbles (with some small boulders) making up the retaining element of the terrace (i.e., the “front”) are in relatively poor condition with significant tumble / collapse along most of its length. Feature 2 does not appear to be a typical irrigated terrace, despite its proximity to the Mohiakea Stream; e.g., there are no obvious drainages or ‘auwai feeding onto the level soil-sediment area, nor evidence of spillways or breaks along the terrace that typically indicate past erosion from flowing water. It is possible—and this is true of all the other terraces at SWCA-BAX-TS-12 (there are four more)—that Feature 2 functioned primarily as a stabilizing / retaining feature of the gently sloping landscape in support of other features at this resource; specifically, the low terrace designated Feature 2 appears to support and stabilize the platform (Feature 1).

Feature 3 is one of the most unique finds of this entire study, and consists of a concentration of at least thirty-eight (38) low rock mounds distributed over an area measuring approximately 45.0 m by 45.0 m (2,025.0 m2 or 0.5 acres) (see Figure 72). The mound complex is bounded to the west (upslope) by a series of three low terraces (Features 4, 5 and 6); to the south and between it and the stream channel by a boulder terrace (Feature 7) that retains and supports the soil-sediment upon which the mounds are built; to the east (downslope) by the main platform feature (Feature 1); and to the north by a steep rise upslope to the adjacent plateau. Taken together, the numerous natural and artificial features surrounding this mound complex give the impression it has been set aside and protected from erosional processes. Other than the largest mound, designated Feature



3A and discussed below, the individual mounds, which are generally circular to oval in plan view shape, have diameters ranging from 0.50-1.70 m and heights ranging from 0.05-0.15 m. The mounds are primarily comprised of rounded / sub-rounded cobbles and pebbles with occasional small boulders. There is a significant amount of variability in terms of the physical condition of the mounds: several are in relatively good condition, others that have been severely impacted by vegetation growth are in relatively poor condition; most are in fair condition, somewhere between these two extremes. The relative lack of ordnance damage, as stated above, is noteworthy.

The largest mound (Feature 3A) measures approximately 2.30 m in diameter (not including some limited collapse / tumble around the perimeter) and 0.30 m in height; a basalt preform was found on the top surface of this mound (Figures 152 and 153).

Features 4, 5 and 6 are a series of three, parallel terraces located immediately upslope (west of) the mound complex described above. The three terraces are similar in design and construction to Feature 2. Each exhibits facing of predominantly rounded / sub-rounded cobbles with some pebbles and small boulders retaining a level soil-sediment area upslope (to the west). All are oriented more or less on a north-to-south axis. A flaked core of basalt was found on the surface of the cobble facing of Feature 4 (Figure 154). Feature 4 is approximately 25.0 m in length, creates a level soil-sediment area back to the next terrace of approximately 5.0 m in width, and ranges in height from 0.35-0.45 m. Feature 5 is approximately 20.0 m in length, creates a level soil-sediment area back to the next terrace of approximately 7.0 m in width, and ranges in height from 0.10-0.20 m. Feature 6 is approximately 20.0 m in length, creates a level soil-sediment area back to the base of steep rise to the west (up to a dirt access road) of approximately 7.0 m in width, and ranges in height from 0.30-0.35 m. The rocks making up the retaining element of these terraces are in fair condition with some tumble / collapse along portions of their length. As stated above, these terraces do not seem to have characteristics indicative of having been irrigated; there are no ditches or ‘auwai leading onto the level soil-sediment areas and there is a conspicuous absence of erosional breaks or breaches that one typically sees in irrigated lo‘i terrace complexes.

Another terrace, designated Feature 7, is located along the south side of the mound complex, between it and the channel below. This terrace is constructed differently and oriented more or less perpendicular (i.e., east-to-west) to the others at SWCA-BAX-TS-12. Rather than using the reinforced cobble-facing technique, Feature 7 is more properly described as a boulder alignment-terrace, where most of the structure of the feature is provided by a single line of large boulders with some limited infilling of smaller material. This boulder terrace supports and retains the natural landscape to the north within which the mound complex is located. The rock structure of this terrace is approximately 17.0 m in length, 1.0 m in width, and ranges in height (measured from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surface to the south) from 0.30-0.40 m.

Feature 8, an irrigation ditch (‘auwai) or erosional drainage leading from the Mohiakea Stream into the upper (southwest) corner of the mound complex designated Feature 3, is an odd element of SWCA-BAX-TS-12, and may post-date construction of the other features. Feature 8 may be the result of one or more relatively recent major overbank flooding events in the Mohiakea system. Feature 8 is approximately 15.0 m in length, 1.0 m in width, and 0.50 m in depth. As stated elsewhere in the description of this resource, there are no other ditches leading onto terrace



flats at this resource, which is typically where water is diverted for wetland gardening using traditional Hawaiian practices. One of the possible interpretations of the mound complex—that it represents an extensive sweet-potato-growing area—is complicated by the presence of this ditch, since it is widely documented that sweet potatoes were traditionally grown in low rock mounds in non-irrigated settings. However, Handy’s classic study of variation in Hawaiian planting traditions (cf. Handy 1940; Handy and Handy 1972) provides an interesting observation that may be relevant to the functional interpretation of these features. He writes, “It [Wahiawā area] is one of the few places where sweet potatoes are known to have been irrigated” (Handy and Handy 1972:464).

Feature 9 (Figure 155), a small rock alignment located a few meters west of Feature 1, is constructed of small boulders, partially buried / exposed, arranged in semi-circle. The feature measures 1.10-1.20 m in diameter and approximately 0.10 m in height. One or two boulders appear to have been moved away from their original location, suggesting this feature once formed a complete circle. There is no evidence of burning and the rocks are not fire-affected (e.g., reddened, blackened, cracked or exfoliated), thus, this feature does not appear to represent a hearth or fire-pit feature.

SWCA-BAX-TS-12 is one of the most intriguing cultural resources documented during the current study. Regardless of its specific functional interpretation, it is certainly a precontact Hawaiian site complex of significant value and importance. SWCA recommends it eligible for the NRHP under Criteria C (embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction) based on the complex of at least 38 mounds that are individually unimpressive but collectively a rare find; and eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information about land use, subsistence, and settlement of the Mohiakea Stream drainage. Specific functional interpretations of this resource, however, depend, in large part, upon learning more about the mound complex (Feature 3), which may be a rare example of an irrigated sweet potato garden. Because the mounds may also represent burials, SWCA is reluctant to recommend subsurface testing of these features, and, instead, recommends Feature 1 (the platform with three sub-features on the surface) be further investigated by conducting careful, limited, subsurface testing based on an excavation plan (see the Discussion chapter for specifics). Subsurface testing of Feature 1 must be guided by specific test implications—i.e., expectations of finds that will help distinguish between different possible functional interpretations, in keeping with standard archaeological procedures; if mutually exclusive test implications cannot be developed, SWCA does not recommend digging into this feature. Other than this possible limited Phase I testing, SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of this resource.



Figure 147. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1, facing south; note cobble facing to right; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 148. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1, facing east; red arrows show base of feature; yellow arrows show top of platform; scale measures 1 m.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

181

Figure 149. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1 (platform), graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 150. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1, showing pit / depression (Feature 1A) on top of platform, facing west; scale measures 50 cm.

Figure 151. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 1B (cleared area) and Feature 1C (angular boulders behind cleared area), facing east-northeast; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 152. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 3A, rock mound, facing west; red arrow indicates location of adze preform; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 153. Detail of adze preform found on the surface of Feature 3A.



Figure 154. Flaked core of basalt found on the surface of Feature 4.

Figure 155. SWCA-BAX-TS-12, Feature 9, circular rock alignment, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-BAX-TS-13

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-13 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Extensive terrace complex Functional Interpretation Lo‘i (pond-field gardening complex) Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) Unknown at this time No. of Features Unknown at this time Surface Artifacts or Midden

None




2. Phase I survey to identify and evaluate all surface features *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. No previous work has been conducted at this resource. According to Kamoa Quitevas, it may have been identified by cultural monitors in or before 2006 and pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and/or prior contractors; however, no evidence of prior documentation could be found.

SWCA-BAX-TS-13 is located in riparian woodland vegetation on a natural alluvial terrace of Mohiakea Stream, on the south side of the channel about halfway between the major site complexes of SIHP 5381 (to the south) and SIHP 6841 (to the north) (see Figure 3). The alluvial terrace slopes gently down to the east. Directly across the stream channel from SWCA-BAX-TS-13 is the extensive terrace and mound site complex designated SWCA-BAX-TS-12 (see Figure 72).

Due to time constraints and other fieldwork priorities, we had only minutes to work at this cultural resource (a general GPS site datum and some field notes were recorded); thus, its evaluation is currently incomplete. The information and interpretations provided here are preliminary because much more time is needed to work this site.

SWCA-BAX-TS-13 is formally similar to SIHP 5381, with multiple levels of soil-sediment terraces, some with cobble facing and other rock-structural elements used to define, retain, and reinforce irrigated garden plots. This resource likely dates from precontact times. As with SIHP 5381, the large size of this resource (which is probably at least one acre in size) and dense tree canopy are a challenge to accurate GPS recording of site features. Also, there are relatively substantial impacts from military uses of this general site area including an old bulldozed road and some large bomb craters.

SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-13 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. Phase I documentation of all surface features should be completed in order to accurately define site boundaries at SWCA-BAX-TS-13. Until this work is completed, it will not be possible to avoid or preserve this resource, since its boundaries have not yet been determined.



SWCA-BAX-TS-14

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-14 (cm364 & cm365) Reference(s) None (resource has not been described in prior reports) Formal Type Boulder-terrace complex Functional Interpretation Probable dryland gardening Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 106.7 m (350.0 ft) by 19.8 m (65.0 ft) (2,112.7 m2 or 22,750.0 ft2) No. of Features 4+ Surface Artifacts or Midden

None observed



NRHP Eligibility Eligible C & D Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

2. More extensive Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified and included in the site boundary

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. The only previous documentation for this resource was some GPS recording by DPW and the designation of several “cultural monitor” field numbers, including “cm364” (now designated Feature 1) and “cm365” (now designated Feature 2). This treatment of the features implies they were evaluated as not constituting historic properties or cultural resources; presumably, this evaluation was due to the relatively degraded condition of portions of boulder terraces at the ground surface. Other than GPS recording, no other documentation has been reported for this resource previous to the current study.

SWCA-BAX-TS-14 is located in an area of low vegetation and ground cover immediately upslope (west of) the access road from gate KR-3 on the plateau between Kalena and Mohiakea Streams (see Figure 3; see Figure 89). This resource is immediately adjacent to (and north of) a small ephemeral drainage whose name is currently unknown.

SWCA-BAX-TS-14 consists of four terraces constructed of rounded / sub-rounded boulders and cobbles. All of the terraces are in relatively fair to poor physical condition due to numerous impacts from a variety of ordnance. All of the terraces have some portions of collapse / tumble, yet all also have some relatively intact portions. The intact portions exhibit a common construction style for “boulder terraces” in plateau settings at BAX (e.g., see also DPW T-10, SIHP 6687, SWCA-BAX-TS-15); that is, a single alignment of large boulders retaining a level soil area on the upslope side, using smaller boulders and cobbles to fill in spaces between the larger clasts; stacking of smaller clasts is typically only 1-2 courses high, and the overall appearance of these boulder terraces is informal with little or no well-defined vertical facing.

Feature 1 (also known as “cm364”) has been hit by ordnance in several places. The intact portion of this boulder terrace is approximately 6.0 m in length; maximum heights from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surface to the east (downslope) range from 0.40-0.60 cm. The width of the level soil-sediment area created by the boulder terrace on its west (upslope) side is approximately 4.0 m (Figures 156 and 157).



The intact portion of the boulder terrace designated Feature 2 (also known as “cm365”) is approximately 9.0 m in length; maximum height from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surface to the east (downslope) is approximately 0.50 cm. The width of the level soil-sediment area created by the boulder terrace on its west (upslope) side is approximately 3.0 m (Figures 158 and 159).

The intact portions of the boulder terraces designated Features 3 and 4 are approximately 10.0 m in length; maximum height from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surfaces to the east (downslope) is approximately 0.50 cm. The width of the level soil-sediment areas created by the boulder terraces on their west (upslope) sides is approximately 4.0 m (Figures 160-163).

Many other features identified by cultural monitors are located in the vicinity of this cultural resource, particularly to the north; this area was subjected to a reconnaissance inspection, but there was not sufficient time to adequately evaluate all the potential resources. Most of these additional features are informal stackings of small boulders and / or cobbles on large and very large boulders; there are some remnant alignments and terrace-like features similar to the four identified as SWCA-BAX-TS-14. Many of these features are subtle and informal in design and construction, however, and can only be recognized by experienced field archaeologists conducting methodical and thorough clearing and exploration; they cannot necessarily be identified by inexperienced field workers, who typically look only for the most prominent and obvious constructions. In all likelihood, the site boundary established for SWCA-BAX-TS-14 would increase if a systematic survey was undertaken by experienced field archaeologists with a deep understanding of Hawaiian archaeology.

SWCA recommends the terrace complex designated SWCA-BAX-TS-14 eligible for the NRHP for its potential to shed further light on the development and character of non-irrigated cultivation on the dry plateau between Mohiakea and Kalena Streams. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site in perpetuity and also more extensive Phase I survey by experienced field archaeologists conducting methodical and thorough clearing and exploration of the plateau area north of the site in order to ensure all features have been identified and included in the currently understood site boundary. Given the fact that it is reasonably certain that the four features at SWCA-BAX-TS-14 are non-irrigated gardening plots, subsurface testing (excavation) is not recommended.



Figure 156. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 1, boulder terrace, facing east; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 157. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 1, boulder terrace, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 158. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 2, boulder terrace, facing south; scale measures 1 m.





Figure 161. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 3, boulder terrace, detail of cobble stacking between boulders, facing east; scale measures 50 cm.



Figure 162. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 4, boulder terrace, facing north; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 163. SWCA-BAX-TS-14, Feature 4, boulder terrace, facing west; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-BAX-TS-15

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-15 (Ganda 216) Reference(s) None (resource has not been described in prior reports) Formal Type Boulder terrace Functional Interpretation Indeterminate (habitation and/or dryland gardening) Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 13.0 m (42.7 ft) by 3.0 m (9.8 ft) (39.0 m2 or 418.5 ft2) No. of Features 1 Surface Artifacts or Midden

None observed


Fair (north end at and above ground surface) to poor (south end at and above ground surface)


2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. The only previous documentation for this resource was GPS recording and the designation of a temporary field site number “TS-216” (this appears to be a Ganda number). The previously recorded GPS location of the boulder terrace was found to be accurate. Given the existence of a Ganda temporary field site number (TS-216), it appears this resource was identified but evaluated as not constituting a historic property or cultural resource; presumably, this evaluation was due to the relatively degraded condition of the boulders at the ground surface.

SWCA-BAX-TS-15 is located in an area of low vegetation and ground cover just below (east of) the north-to-south access road from gate KR-3, and near the end of this access road, on the plateau adjacent to and south of Kalena Stream (see Figure 3).

This resource consists of a single boulder terrace oriented across (i.e., perpendicular to) the moderately sloping plateau (Figures 164 and 165). The ground surface and constituent rocks comprising SWCA-BAX-TS-15 have been severely damaged by ordnance. The north end of the resource is the best-preserved / least damaged portion of the terrace; this portion consists of rounded / sub-rounded boulders with a few cobbles in a mostly single-rock alignment (with low stacking of 1-2 courses in places). The intact portion of boulder terrace is approximately 3.5 m in length; maximum heights from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surface to the east (downslope) range from 0.35-0.45 cm. The boulder terrace continues, but is heavily damaged at the ground surface, to the south approximately another 9.2 m beyond the southern terminus of the intact section. The width of the level soil-sediment area created by the boulder terrace, and still observable along the entire intact and heavily damaged length, ranges from 2.0-3.0 m.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-BAX-TS-15 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the plateau areas near Kalena Stream. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function.



Figure 164. SWCA-BAX-TS-15, north end of boulder terrace, facing southwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 165. SWCA-BAX-TS-15, north end of boulder terrace, facing west; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-BAX-TS-16

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-16 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Small platform or mound (degraded condition) Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 5.0 m2 (53.3 ft2) No. of Features 1 Surface Artifacts or Midden

1 basalt flake from a large polished tool, consistent with a large adze




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. No previous work has been conducted at this resource. According to Kamoa Quitevas, this feature was identified by cultural monitors in or before 2006 and pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and/or prior contractors; in other such cases, the resource would typically have a temporary field site designation and GPS. In the case of SWCA-BAX-TS-16, however, no evidence of prior documentation could be found. It is also worth mentioning that, according to Kamoa Quitevas, another stacked or aligned rock feature was once located nearby, but could not be found during the current project.

SWCA-BAX-TS-16 is located at the edge of the current tree line between the open-vegetation upper plateau upon which is located SIHP 6561 (a precontact habitation site complex) and the Mohiakea stream bottom within which is located SIHP 5381 (an extensive lo‘i, or wet-taro gardening complex) (see Figure 3 and see Figure 6).

This resource consists of a small platform or mound in poor physical condition (Figures 166 and 167). It appears there are currently two to three portions of the rock feature that retain some physical integrity such that rocks are stacked and aligned against each other in a formal fashion Otherwise, the rocks from much of the rest of the feature have been disturbed. Maximum dimensions of SWCA-BAX-TS-16 are 2.20 m (north-to-south) by 2.25 m (east-to-west) by 0.15 m (height of the center of the slightly raised sediment compared with the adjacent ground surface to the south). The precise agent of site disturbance (e.g., earth-moving equipment such as road building or ordnance) is indeterminate, although there do not appear to be any bulldozer scars on the rocks.

A basalt flake from a large polished tool (such as an adze) was found on the ground surface at SWCA-BAX-TS-16 (Figure 168). The presence of this lithic artifact is consistent with the interpretation that this badly degraded surface feature may contain intact precontact cultural materials in subsurface context, and that this possibility—particularly given the proximity of two major site complexes (SIHP 5381 and 6561)—should be investigated before the resource can be fully evaluated (see Figure 6).



SWCA recommends site SWCA-BAX-TS-16 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the area adjacent to Mohiakea Stream. Particularly given its location between the precontact habitation site complex (SIHP 6561) and the extensive lo‘i system (SIHP 5381), SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function.

Figure 166. SWCA-BAX-TS-16, small platform or mound (degraded condition), facing north; north arrow (=scale) measures 26 cm.

Figure 167. SWCA-BAX-TS-16, small platform or mound (degraded condition), facing east; north arrow (=scale) measures 26 cm.



Figure 168. Basalt flake from a large polished tool (such as an adze) found on the ground surface at SWCA-BAX-TS-16; scale measures 10 cm.



SWCA-BAX-TS-17

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-17 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Linear alignment of small boulders and cobbles, partially buried /

exposed at and above ground surface Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) Feature is approximately 8.0 m in length


None


Poor (at and above ground surface)—resource is located on an unpaved access road and has been driven over many times


2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation No previous work has been conducted at this resource. According to Kamoa Quitevas, this feature was identified by cultural monitors in or before 2006 and pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and/or prior contractors; in other such cases, the resource would typically have a temporary field site designation and GPS. In the case of SWCA-BAX-TS-17, however, no evidence of prior documentation could be found.

SWCA-BAX-TS-17 is located on an unpaved access road heading up the plateau adjacent to, and immediately south of, Kalena Stream (see Figure 3).

This resource consists of a linear alignment of partially buried / exposed small boulders and cobbles oriented perpendicular to the road and slope of the plateau. Overall, the alignment is approximately 8.0 m in length. Without subsurface testing, it is difficult to make any specific functional interpretations of SWCA-BAX-TS-17; however, it may be the exposed portion of an otherwise buried rock-structural feature. The resource is clearly damaged and in poor condition as it has been driven over by vehicles and heavy machinery many times.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-BAX-TS-17 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. The resource may represent the visible (at the ground surface) portion of a subsurface cultural deposit of unknown size. Given the available information, it is not possible to make any specific functional or temporal interpretations. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the area adjacent to Kalena Stream, yet more work needs to be done. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site; and Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function and age.



SWCA-BAX-TS-18

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-TS-18 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Surface scatter of ‘ili‘ili (waterworn pebbles and cobbles) and

branch coral (according to Kamoa Quitevas, large mammal bones were once located here as well)

Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) Indeterminate—accurate surface provenience unknown


‘Ili‘ili (waterworn pebbles and cobbles) and branch coral


Poor (precise provenience unknown)

NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation Monitoring of ground disturbance by an experienced

archaeological professional and a Hawaiian cultural specialist No previous work has been conducted at this resource. According to Kamoa Quitevas (KQ), this feature was identified by cultural monitors in or before 2006 and pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and/or prior contractors; in other such cases, the resource would typically have a temporary field site designation and GPS. In the case of SWCA-BAX-TS-18, however, no evidence of prior documentation could be found. SWCA-BAX-TS-18 is located on an unpaved access road on the plateau adjacent to, and immediately south of, Kalena Stream (see Figure 3).

This resource consists of a surface scatter of ‘ili‘ili (waterworn pebbles and cobbles) and branch coral (Figures 169 and 170). According to KQ, large mammal bones, possibly human skeletal remains, were once located here as well; however, no bones were observed during the current study. These finds may be a portion of an undiscovered subsurface cultural deposit in the vicinity, or, all that is left of a completely damaged resource. Regardless, the ‘ili‘ili have been transported to this spot from at least as far away as Kalena Stream; the coral has been carried many miles to this spot. ‘Ili‘ili are well documented in Hawaiian archaeology and cultural history as having been used to finish off living spaces and structures of all types; coral is well known as having been incorporated into a variety of shrines and altars (e.g., heiau and ko‘a).

It appears that, at the time of their original discovery by cultural monitors in or before 2006, the materials constituting SWCA-BAX-TS-18 had already been displaced by mechanical earth-moving equipment, making determination of accurate resource size (e.g., overall area of the scatter) or provenience impossible. Inspection of this resource during the current study found the materials in piles moved off to the side of the dirt road from which they seem to have originated.

SWCA recommends SWCA-BAX-TS-18 not eligible for the NRHP, but, given the potential that these materials come from a nearby subsurface cultural layer of significance to Hawaiians, SWCA also recommends monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity by an experienced archaeological professional and a Hawaiian cultural specialist.



Figure 169. SWCA-BAX-TS-18 showing pile of branch coral.

Figure 170. SWCA-BAX-TS-18 showing pile of ‘ili‘ili (waterworn cobbles and pebbles).



SURFACE ARTIFACTS (ISOLATED FINDS SWCA-BAX-IF-1 THROUGH SWCA-BAX-TS-13)

Thirteen (13) isolated finds (IF) consisting of single artifacts found on the ground surface, but not within the boundaries of an existing archaeological site, were identified and documented in the BAX project area. Because they were discovered on the surface, all of these artifacts lack specific archaeological / geological context.

Five of these surface finds (IF-2, -3, -8, -9 and -10) were found near the perimeter of the large NRHP-eligible site complex SIHP 6562. As a result of these new discoveries, SWCA recommends the site boundary of SIHP 6562 be expanded as shown in Figure 124. SWCA recommends monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity of these five new surface finds by an experienced archaeological professional and a Hawaiian cultural specialist. Another surface find, SWCA-BAX-TS-1, was found just north of the site boundary for SIHP 6562; however, it was located at the bottom of a steep slope leading back up to the established site boundary, and clearly originally derived from this existing (northern) site boundary.

The other eight (8) IFs (including SWCA-BAX-IF-1) are not eligible for the NRHP as they occur well away from the boundaries of existing sites and / or they have clearly been moved from their original positions. No further fieldwork is recommended at these eight surface finds.

All thirteen (13) artifacts were collected by DPW Cultural Resources staff. SWCA recommends all of these artifacts be curated with professionalism and care since each is significant and valuable in its own right to the Native Hawaiian community.



SWCA-BAX-IF-1

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-1 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Adze preform-fragment of base (hafted end) Functional Interpretation Woodworking tool Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 5.0 (l) by 2.2 (w) by 1.6 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt Figure References in this Report

Figure 3 and Figure 124

Physical Condition Artifact snapped in half Comment(s) Found at base of hill immediately north of SIHP 6562 NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation 1. No further fieldwork

2. Curation for artifact *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this.

Figure 171. SWCA-BAX-IF-1; scale measures 10 cm (see text).



SWCA-BAX-IF-2

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-2 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Adze, complete Functional Interpretation Woodworking tool-light duty Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 4.0 (l) by 2.4 (w) by 1.0 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt (fine-grained) Figure References in this Report


Physical Condition Artifact is in excellent condition Comment This artifact was found 1 m S of the stone bowl designated

SWCA-BAX-IF-3; found in association with some volcanic glass flakes, debitage, and angular waste; found adjacent to SIHP 6562

NRHP Eligibility Artifact is associated with SIHP 6562, which is Eligible D Recommendation 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity by

an experienced archaeological professional and a Hawaiian cultural specialist. 2. Curation for artifact

*It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this.




SWCA-BAX-IF-3

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-3 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Stone bowl, complete Functional Interpretation Possibly a kukui nut oil lamp Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 6.0 (l) by 6.0 (w) by 4.7 (h) cm Raw Material Vesicular basalt Figure References in this Report


Physical Condition Artifact is in excellent condition Comment(s) This artifact was found 1 m N of the adze designated SWCA-

BAX-IF-2; found in association with some volcanic glass flakes, debitage, and angular waste; found adjacent to SIHP 6562

NRHP Eligibility Artifact is associated with SIHP 6562, which is Eligible D Recommendation 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity by






SWCA-BAX-IF-4

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-4 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Adze-fragment of base (hafted end) Functional Interpretation Woodworking tool-heavy duty Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 5.8 (l) by 5.3 (w) by 4.0 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt (fine-grained) Figure References in this Report

Figure 3

Physical Condition Artifact is snapped near base end Comment(s) This relatively thick adze was fully finished / polished prior to

breaking, after which time it was used as a battering / hammer stone

NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation 1. No further fieldwork


Figure 174. SWCA-BAX-IF-4 (see text).



SWCA-BAX-IF-5


Figure 3

Physical Condition Artifact is snapped near base end Comment(s) -- NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation 1. No further fieldwork





SWCA-BAX-IF-6

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-6 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Utilized flake (of blade proportions) Functional Interpretation General cutting Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 5.6 (l) by 2.5 (w) by 0.5 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt (fine-grained) Figure References in this Report

Figure 3

Physical Condition Artifact is complete (with well-defined striking platform, bulb of percussion, and distal end)

Comment(s) -- NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation 1. No further fieldwork





SWCA-BAX-IF-7

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-7 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Abrading stone fragment Functional Interpretation Grinding / polishing Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 7.4 (l) by 5.6 (w) by 1.4 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt Figure References in this Report

Figure 3

Physical Condition Artifact is a fragment from a tool of indeterminate overall size Comment(s) -- NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation 1. No further fieldwork





SWCA-BAX-IF-8

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-8 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Flaked core Functional Interpretation Source of flakes Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 9.5 (l) by 7.7 (w) by 6.0 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt Figure References in this Report

Figure 3 and 124

Physical Condition Informal flaked core Comment(s) Found adjacent to SIHP 6562 NRHP Eligibility Artifact is associated with SIHP 6562, which is Eligible D Recommendation 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity by






SWCA-BAX-IF-9

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-9 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Slingstone, complete Functional Interpretation Bird hunting Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 4.4 (l) by 2.8 (w) by 2.5 (h) cm Raw Material Vesicular basalt Figure References in this Report

Figure 3 and 124

Physical Condition Artifact is in excellent condition Comment(s) Found adjacent to SIHP 6562 NRHP Eligibility Artifact is associated with SIHP 6562, which is Eligible D Recommendation 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity by






SWCA-BAX-IF-10

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-10 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Abrading stone fragment Functional Interpretation Grinding / polishing Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 5.7 (l) by 2.9 (w) by 1.7 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt Figure References in this Report

Figure 3 and 124

Physical Condition Artifact is a fragment from a tool of indeterminate overall size Comment(s) Artifact is perfectly smooth and worn on both flat sides; found

adjacent to SIHP 6562 NRHP Eligibility Artifact is associated with SIHP 6562, which is Eligible D Recommendation 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity by






SWCA-BAX-IF-11

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-11 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Adze-fragment, distal (cutting) end Functional Interpretation Woodworking tool-light duty Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 3.3 (l) by 2.6 (w) by 0.7 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt Figure References in this Report

Figures 3 and 72

Physical Condition Artifact surface is slightly degraded (pitted due to weathering) Comment(s) Tip is beveled; found several meters from SWCA-BAX-IF-12;

found in association with some volcanic glass flakes, debitage, and angular waste; according to Kamoa Quitevas, two other adze fragments were found in this area in or before 2006


2. Curation *It is possible this was produced in the historic period, but there is no way to determine this.




SWCA-BAX-IF-12

Resource No.(s) SWCA-BAX-IF-12 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Adze-fragment of base (hafted end) Functional Interpretation Grinding / polishing Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 5.0 (l) by 2.8 (w) by 0.9 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt (fine-grained) Figure References in this Report

Figures 3 and 72

Physical Condition Artifact is snapped near base end Comment(s) Found several meters from SWCA-BAX-IF-11; found in

association with some volcanic glass flakes, debitage, and angular waste; according to Kamoa Quitevas, two other adze fragments were found in this area in or before 2006






SWCA-BAX-IF-13


Figures 3 and 72

Physical Condition Artifact is snapped near base end Comment(s) Found near SIHP 6844 NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation 1. No further fieldwork





ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN UNSURVEYED AREAS OF SCHOFIELD BARRACKS

Based on detailed discussions with Kamoa Quitevas, who has personal knowledge of the location of additional specific cultural resources we were unable to observe, based on analysis of available maps, GIS/GPS data, and previous reports, and based on several attempts to access other portions of the BAX project area during the fieldwork described in this report, it is clear that the same kinds of results obtained for Mohiakea Stream would also be obtained for much of Hale‘au‘au, Kalena, and lower Mohiakea Stream. All of these places were inaccessible, even with the elevated safety measures followed during the second half of the current project, due to high grass and ground cover that made it impossible to see the ground surface and too dangerous to walk through.

The following specific areas should be surveyed in detail:

1. Areas in and around the site complex SIHP 6830 and numerous “ts” site numbers (which seem to refer to what are labeled “cm” site numbers elsewhere, that is, “cultural monitor” features and sites pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff by cultural monitors in or before 2006) from “ts434” through and including “ts438.”

2. Areas in and around the site complex SIHP 6563 and SIHP 6564, which are represented by individual data points only, and “cm444.” Collectively, these sites likely represent an extensive lo‘i (pond-field taro-growing) complex similar or even more extensive than SIHP 5381, which cultural monitors pointed out, and the current study has demonstrated, is many times larger than documented in previous reports by other contractors.

3. A mound and terrace complex located immediately west of SIHP 6695 but east of Hale‘au‘au Heiau site complex. This area is depicted in the Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database as two unlabeled blue triangles.

4. A lo‘i complex located immediately north of Hale‘au‘au Heiau site complex, which appears in the Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database as a series of blue (i.e., “cultural monitor” sites and features) lines and points.

5. A swale located immediately south of Kalena Stream, and containing a dense concentration of “cultural monitor” sites and features (including a number series of “ts” designations in the 270s, 280s, and 290s). This area appears to contain many mounds and stacked rock features that may be burials, similar to SIHP 6562 to the east.

6. An extensive grove of kukui (Aleurites moluccana) located in the Kalena Stream bottom adjacent to SIHP 6561. It is likely that this resource, whose boundaries could not be inspected or accurately mapped on the ground, represents a traditional cultural property associated with Kukui-o-Lono. In their discussion of the gardening traditions and sites throughout the islands, Handy and Handy (1972) have this to say about Wahiawā: “Above and west of the site of the present town [of Wahiawā] was Kukui-o-Lono, a place famous in legend. In its vicinity are a number of lo‘i developments.



Kukaniloko was the name of an ancient high chief of Oahu who is said to have made the first lo‘i here.”

7. Possible lo‘i complex in lower Mohiakea Stream immediately south of SIHP 6838 and 6689.

8. Another site and feature complex in and around SIHP 5379, SIHP 5380, and 6694, which are represented on Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database maps as point data only, but which may contain more extensive cultural resources only partially documented by prior consultants.

9. Another site and feature complex in and around SIHP 6553 (represented on Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database maps as point data only) and extending down to the site complexes of SIHP 6554 and SIHP 6555. It is likely that much of this area contains more extensive cultural resources only partially documented by prior consultants.

EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AT KAHUKU TRAINING AREA

One of OHA’s primary objectives at KTA was to obtain a “second opinion” on potential cultural resources identified by archaeological and / or cultural monitors in the summer of 2005 within or near the construction footprint of the proposed Combined Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTAF). In two documents (Goo 2006; Descantes et al. 2008), the Army’s contractor (Ganda) and the Army recommended / determined (respectively) only a portion of one of these 25 potential cultural resources (i.e., T-3, a historic-era roadbed or trail) constituted an archaeological site worthy of protection under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); and that none of these sites met the requirements of a traditional cultural property (TCP). In essence, 24 of the 25 “cultural monitor” sites have been written off by the Army and its contractor as non-archaeological entities with no documented cultural information that might qualify them as significant cultural resources to Native Hawaiians. It is important to note that these recommendations / determinations of “not eligible” as archaeological sites and not TCPs contrast with the write-ups and interpretations of the cultural monitors in Ganda’s 2005 cultural monitor site forms (2005).

GANDA “T” sites 1 through and including 13 and 20 through and including 25 were visited, although in some cases for only a very brief amount of time. No work was conducted at GANDA T-14 through and including T-19, which were not visited or inspected during this project.

In addition to focusing on the CACTAF project area at KTA, several days of field time were allotted to the nearby upper Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch where an extensive permanent habitation (SCS T-34) with an early radiocarbon date had previously been identified; and to portions of the ‘Ō‘io Stream / Gulch system to the west, within which is the impressive Hanaka‘oe Heiau (SIHP 2501).

Presentation of the KTA cultural resources is divided into two subsections. The first subsection includes some general observations, descriptions, and comments on cultural resources, possible



cultural resources, and non-cultural resources for which formal / systematic documentation was either not collected or not worth presenting (since the sites are clearly not cultural and can be explained in a few sentences). In some cases, for example SIHP 9509 and SCS T-32, a site was inspected for only a brief time, given other fieldwork priorities and practical limitations of the project, thus, no formal evaluation was made; however, even some of these brief inspections yielded relevant observations that contrast with prior interpretations, and these comments are worth including in this report because the resources in question should be re-assessed in the future.

The second subsection is a formal presentation of cultural resources following the format and standards used above for the Schofield project area.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

CACTAF Area Sites

In his professional judgment, the Lead Archaeologist concludes GANDA T-9, -11, -20, -21, -23, -24 and -25 are either not cultural resources or are of such marginal potential significance that they are not worth formal documentation in this report. GANDA T-9 is probably a military training feature. GANDA T-11 was previously identified by cultural monitors as a pair of possible burial mounds, which they do superficially resemble; however, upon closer inspection, this potential resource consists of natural bedrock decomposing in place, giving the appearance of rock mounds. GANDA T-20 is a push-pile of modern and / or barely historic-age garbage and debris including chunks of concrete. GANDA T-21 is probably a degraded ranching feature. GANDA T-23 appears to be a mechanically leveled soil area. GANDA T-24 is an informal concentration of rounded / subrounded boulders in an ephemeral drainage bottom; there is no specific structure to this boulder concentration, and—particularly given its location and orientation within and parallel to the long axis of the dry stream bed, it does not resemble a traditional feature of Hawaiian design (e.g., an agricultural terrace or an ‘auwai, or irrigation channel), but seems likely to be a more recent, historic (perhaps military) site. GANDA T-25 consists of several massive boulders on a hillslope that do not appear to exhibit human modification or potential for archaeological (subsurface) deposits.

Several other “cultural monitor” sites—specifically GANDA T-4, -5, -6 and -13, are located right along main roads that have been established for decades and that typically include substantial soil-sediment and rock berms; these four “T” sites are all at least partially within or atop these road-side berms. All four of these potential sites have clearly been impacted by prior earth-disturbing activities—including bulldozing and road-grading that formed the berms, such that it is more or less impossible at this point in time to decipher evidence of traditional, hand-stacking and alignment of rocks from mechanical positioning of rocks; or to unequivocally distinguish intact soil-sediments from redeposited / disturbed areas. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that whatever hand-stacking and alignment may be present is relatively informal and subtle to recognize (even if the sites had not been disturbed by road building). One possible approach to addressing this issue—to conduct extensive, problem-oriented subsurface excavation in the form of long trenches that cut across the site areas in order to identify intact natural deposits, if any—seems somewhat unrealistic as a quality use of resources. Such a geoarchaeological study, however, might prove one or two of these four sites have some intact



archaeological deposits in subsurface contexts. There are two distinctive boulders at GANDA T-13 (Figures 184 and 185) that should be protected from damage, if possible. Site forms and sketch maps produced by Ganda cultural monitors in 2005 accurately depict the location of these two unique boulders.

Two sites, GANDA T-3 and -10, were briefly visited and, in the professional judgment of the Lead Archaeologist, may contain NRHP-eligible cultural resources; however, due to a lack of fieldwork time, it was not possible to adequately evaluate these two sites, which should be the subject of additional work in the future.

Other Sites

SIHP 9509, described as a “terrace / terrace complex” in the Army’s GIS / GPS database, is located immediately downslope from Hanaka‘oe Heiau (SIHP 2501) close to ‘Ō‘io Stream. The main purpose of this inspection was to take a look at features nearby the impressive heiau structure. During this process, it became clear that the map projections for SIHP 9509 and 2501 in the Army’s GIS / GPS database are incorrect; the sites are displaced approximately 150 meters to the east compared with their actual location. In any case, portions of SIHP 9509 located along the stream channel appear to be a wall of traditional design, complete with cobble and pebble fill (Figure 186), perhaps representing a boundary wall associated with the heiau just upslope, but looking nothing like a terrace.

During the evaluation and documentation of SCS T-33 (described in detail in the next section), the nearby SCS T-32 was briefly inspected following some limited vegetation clearing. Information provided by the Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff about prior work at SCS T-32 describes the resource as a “linear rock pile” and / or a “linear rock mound” with “no formal construction,” interpreted as a clearing mound from the historic period. Based on the site inspection conducted for this project, SCS T-32 appears more accurately to be a collapsed rock wall. There is evidence of formal construction, although the feature is clearly degraded. It is likely that this resource, along with SCS T-33, should be associated as a single site entity with the nearby permanent habitation site complex (SCS T-34) of traditional design dating from precontact times.

Efforts to re-evaluate the habitation site complex designated SCS T-34 were frustrated by a lack of suitable documentary information indicating the location or spatial relationship of the many identified features. The Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff provided some unlabeled feature sketch maps on separate sheets of paper, but these could not be used to unequivocally re-locate any specific feature.



Figure 184. Possible phallic stone at GANDA T-13; scale measures 20 cm.

Figure 185. Incised boulder at GANDA T-13; scale measures 20 cm.



Figure 186. Portion of SIHP 9509 interpreted in this project as a traditional core-and-fill-style wall, facing south; stream channel is to the right of the image.



SPECIFIC RESULTS

This subsection includes a total of fourteen (14) cultural resources from the KTA project area (Table 4). Six (6) of these cultural resources (here designated SWCA-KTA-TS-1, -2, -3, -5, -8 and -9) had not been previously documented or evaluated as cultural resources, but are formally described for the first time in this report. The three missing numbers in this series of “temporary site” numbers (i.e., SWCA-KTA-TS-4, -6 and -7) were determined by the Lead Archaeologist not to be cultural resources and are not discussed further in this report. Six (6) of these cultural resources (GANDA T-1, -2, -7, -8, -12, and -22) are re-assessments of sites previously recommended by the Army’s contractor and determined by the Army to be not eligible for the NRHP. One (1) of these cultural resources (SCS T-33) is a re-evaluation of a previously documented site. Finally, one (1) isolated find (IF) is described.



Table 4. Summary of Cultural Resource Evaluations at Kahuku Training Area. Formal Description Functional / Temporal Interpretation(s) Level of Reported Evaluation / Documentation2 NRHP Eligibility / Mitigation Recommendation(s)3 Resource No.(s)1 Previous4 Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study Previous Current Study

SWCA-KTA-TS-1 None Large mound built of very large boulders

None Clearing mound; Sugarcane era (late historic)


n.a. Not eligible; No further fieldwork

SWCA-KTA-TS-2 None Natural rock outcropping with informal boulder stacking

None Possible shrine or “god stone”; Precontact



SWCA-KTA-TS-3 None Terrace complex None Possible habitation complex; Precontact

None GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature forms; field notes


SWCA-KTA-TS-5 None Terrace None Gardening / agriculture; Historic

None GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature form; field notes


SWCA-KTA-TS-8 None Small rock mound None Indeterminate-possible burial; Historic

None GPS; photographs; field notes n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

SWCA-KTA-TS-9 None Rockshelter complex None Indeterminate – temporary habitation / possible burial; Precontact

None GPS; photographs; feature forms; field notes

n.a. Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I survey to identify all features 3. Limited Phase I excavation to assist in evaluating the age of this resource

GANDA T-1 GA = Natural boulder concentration; GC = Hilltop formation of boulders

Concentration of naturally occurring large boulders

GA = Non-cultural; GC = Hawaiian cultural site

Indeterminate—possible gathering spot in antiquity; Indeterminate

GPS; photographs; sketch map (in Descantes et al. 2008), and site visit transcript of Keona Mark’s mana‘o

GPS; photographs; field notes Not eligible Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

GANDA T-2 GA = Cobble and boulder assemblage; GC = No specific formal description

Boulder concentration with informal alignments and enclosures

GA = Modern, recent-historic rock pile; GC = Women’s heiau

Indeterminate; Indeterminate

GPS; photographs; sketch map (in Descantes et al. 2008), and site visit transcript of Keona Mark’s mana‘o

GPS; photographs; feature form; field notes

Not eligible Unevaluated (potentially eligible); 1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

GANDA T-7 (Feature 1 only)

GA = Natural boulder concentration; GC = n.a.

Concentration of naturally occurring large boulders

GA = Non-cultural GC = n.a.


GPS; photographs; sketch map (in Descantes et al. 2008)



GANDA T-8 GA = Large stone pile; GC = n.a.

Possible platform or mound

GA = Recent historic rock pile; GC = n.a.


GPS; photographs; sketch map (in Descantes et al. 2008)



GANDA T-12 GA = n.a. GC = No specific formal description

Platform GA = n.a. GC = Heiau

Indeterminate—possible shrine; Indeterminate

Site visit transcript of Keona Mark’s mana‘o



GANDA T-22 GA = n.a. GC = No specific formal description

C-shape (three-sided rock alignment)

GA = n.a. GC = Possible burial

Indeterminate – possible military training / possible burial; Indeterminate

Site visit transcript of Keona Mark’s mana‘o

GPS; sketch map; photographs; feature form; field notes


SCS T-33 Rock mound Platform Clearing mound; Historic

Indeterminate; Precontact

Standard archaeological survey GPS; photographs; feature form; field notes

Unavailable – no draft report provided


SWCA-KTA-IF-1 None Stone bowl preform None Indeterminate; Precontact



1 Previously identified resources at Kahuku Training Area have been designated using a variety of different numbering systems that appear in reports and in the GIS/GPS database; see Methods chapter for a discussion of this issue. 2 Previous Level of Reported Evaluation / Documentation describes prior work and data collection at each resource, and also indicates if the information has been included in a formal report satisfying NHPA requirements or whether the information exists only in the GIS/GPS database. 3 See Methods chapter for an explanation of National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility criteria. Some entries have “n.a.,” which stands for “not applicable,” since this is a newly discovered resource or one that has not been formally recommended for eligibility. 4 GA = Ganda archaeologist, GC = Ganda cultural monitor; both are from Descantes et al. (2008).



SWCA-KTA-TS-1

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-TS-1 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Large mound built of very large boulders Functional Interpretation Mechanically-constructed clearing mound Temporal Interpretation Late historic period (commercial sugarcane times) Maximum Size (Area) 50.0 m (164.0 ft) by 10.0 m (32.8 ft) (500 m2 or 5,379.2 ft2)


None



NRHP Eligibility Not eligible Recommendation No further work To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It is possible the site was previously identified or evaluated by SCS; however, the Lead Archaeologist was unable to obtain a draft copy of their report from the Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff.

SWCA-KTA-TS-1 is located in Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch near the mauka (inland) limits of commercial sugarcane operations and near a documented system of flumes identified as “aqueduct” on some USGS maps (Figure 187).

The site consists of a single mound constructed of very large, subrounded boulders and smaller boulders and cobbles (Figures 188 and 189). The feature is irregular in plan view shape and top surface morphology, and major portions of it appear to have been formed by mechanical earth-moving equipment; some portions have probably been constructed by hand stacking. Maximum dimensions are approximately 50.0 m in length (east-to-west) by 10.0 m in width (north-to-south) by 2.0 m in height. In terms of site function, this feature appears to date from commercial sugarcane times and may be a clearing mound with clasts having been removed from the fields to the north. It is also possible, although there is no specific additional evidence to this effect, that this feature represents some remnant of a loading structure for a small railroad spur that moved cane out of the gulch to the main railroad to the north (near the present-day Kamehameha Highway).

SWCA recommends this site not eligible for the NRHP. The story of commercial sugarcane in and around Kahuku is well-known and has been documented in several prior reports (see, e.g., O’Hare et al. 2006). SWCA recommends no further work at this resource.



Figure 187. USGS map showing cultural resources at KTA discussed in this report.



Figure 188. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 showing west end of site, facing east-northeast; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 189. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 showing east end of site, facing south; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-KTA-TS-2

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-TS-2 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Natural rock outcropping with informal boulder stacking Functional Interpretation Possible shrine or “god stone” Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 2.5 m (8.2 ft) by 2.0 m (6.6 ft) (5.0 m2 or 54.1 ft2)


None




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It is highly unlikely that any prior archaeological consultant would have recognized this site as a potential cultural resource, given the tendency for such inventories to look for only the most obvious, formal and unequivocal features. Nonetheless, there is sufficient evidence at this site to warrant avoidance and protection of this resource and additional investigation.

SWCA-KTA-TS-2 is located in a dense cover of ‘ūlei (Osteomeles anthyllidifolia), a native spreading shrub, on a small finger ridge above the Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch, about halfway between the gulch bottom to the northeast and the upper plateau area to the southwest (see Figure 187). The site is also located on a more or less straight line between two local topographic highs: Pu‘ukī (also Pu‘u Ki‘i or Pu‘u Kī) to the southeast, and an unnamed (or, currently, unknown name) pu‘u (hill) to the northwest we called “Date Palm Hill” for the large trees growing atop it.

The site consists of a single large boulder, with several associated smaller boulders, that appears to be a bedrock outcrop, but may be a purposefully balanced and uprighted stone (Figures 190 and 191). The only way to determine which of these is correct is to excavate around the base of this boulder, which is located on a moderately sloping (to the northeast) terrain. There is a small level soil area behind the boulder on its west side, and several small, possibly hand-stacked boulders are located around the level soil area. The boulder measures approximately 1.0 m in height on its upslope side and 1.5 m in height on its downslope side. The small level area behind the standing boulder has excellent archaeological potential for containing subsurface cultural deposits. Overall, SWCA-KTA-TS-2 occupies an area of some 2.5 m by 2.0 m.

In terms of site function, this feature may be a shrine or “god stone” of some type. There is some mo‘olelo (oral-historical information) relevant to its possible status as a Kāne or Kanaloa pōhaku (stone). McAllister, reproduced in Sterling and Summers (1978:151) described the following large stone in the vicinity (mapped as Site 3):



Kane and Kanaloa lived in the vicinity of the ridge (Kalaiokahipa ridge, site 267); but that was at the time when the Kahuku plain was still under water, and waves lapped about Kalaiokahipa. The brothers are said to have obtained fish by dipping into two holes on opposite sides of a large rock which now lies in the cane field.

The gulch above which SWCA-KTA-TS-2 is located is called Kalaeokahipa, the very same mentioned in the mo‘olelo above. There is a substantial amount of oral-historical information about this general locale, which is also associated with the mythical woman or goddess, Lewa, with the mythical warrior or god, Lono-ka-‘eho (who was said to have eight stone foreheads) (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:151-153).

SWCA recommends site SWCA-KTA-TS-2 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact use of the area above Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch. Particularly given its location on a prominent finger ridge with a view to the sea, SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site, which should be treated as a possible shrine. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine site function and confirm its age.



Figure 190. SWCA-KTA-TS-2, large standing stone, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 191. SWCA-KTA-TS-2, showing small level soil area and stacked boulders behind main standing stone, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-KTA-TS-3

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-TS-3 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Terrace complex Functional Interpretation Possible habitation site Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 20.0 m (65.6 ft) by 10.0 m (32.8 ft) (200 m2 or 2,151.7 ft2)


None




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It is possible the site was previously identified or evaluated by SCS—since several sites identified by SCS are located just north of SWCA-KTA-TS-3; however, the Lead Archaeologist was unable to obtain a draft copy of their report from the Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff.

SWCA-KTA-TS-3 is located on a moderately sloping hill side above the Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch, between the edge of the gulch to the east and the upper plateau area to the west and southwest (see Figure 187). This site is located approximately 6-7 m west of a steep drop off down into Kalaeokahipa Gulch. Vegetation at SWCA-KTA-TS-3 includes a dense mix of ‘ūlei (Osteomeles anthyllidifolia), a native spreading shrub, and Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius). There is a mature ‘alahe‘e (Psydrax odorata) tree in the western portion of the site.

Several other NRHP-eligible sites, including a traditional, precontact habitation complex (SCS site T-34) with a radiocarbon date of A.D. 1190 to 1310, were identified by SCS immediately north of SWCA-KTA-TS-3. Because there is no draft report available describing the previous survey work by SCS, which was completed at least five years ago, it was impossible to evaluate and document the relationship between SWCA-KTA-TS-3 and these other sites. The Lead Archaeologist was provided with some minimal information about these SCS sites (e.g., tables and lists of temporary site numbers with a few words or phrases about the site, unlabeled sketches of individual features at T-34 with no indication of their spatial relationship or actual location of the landscape, etc.), which proved to be inadequate for the purposes of this study.

It is likely, although impossible to unequivocally argue given the lack of hard data from the previous survey, that SWCA-KTA-TS-3 should be considered part of an extensive site complex including SCS T-32, -33, and -34.



The site consists of two main boulder and cobble terraces (designated Features 1 and 4) forming an approximate right angle and retaining two areas of level soil to the south (behind Feature 1, which extends from east-to-west) and to the west (behind Feature 4, which extends from north-to-south). Five additional addition features were identified, as described below, including several small niches and cubby-hole spaces. It is likely there are additional undocumented features at this site, especially to the east and northeast. Practical limitations of fieldwork time and other priorities precluded a complete and exhaustive recordation, which will require a relatively massive vegetation-clearing effort, in addition to the approximately 24 person hours already devoted to brush and tree removal at this site. The northeast portion of the site, between Features 4 and 6, is covered not only by the dense vegetation found throughout the area, but also the cleared material from the rest of the site, which had to be put somewhere. This whole area needs to be cleared. Also, there appears to be some informal terracing / retaining features going east of site down into the gulch bottom, which is another 30-40 ft in elevation below the main terrace (Feature 1). As currently understood and described below, SWCA-KTA-TS-3 occupies an area of some 20.0 m (north-to-south) by 10.0 m (east-to-west), but is probably larger.

There is no obvious evidence of scarring or damage to the rocks from mechanical earth-moving equipment, and the site appears to be located in an area that has been relatively undisturbed compared with many other parts of the project area.

Feature 1 is a terrace constructed of rounded / subrounded boulders and cobbles; some of the boulders are very large, and the main retaining rock-structural component is built against and atop several very large boulders, which are probably bedrock outcrops, but may have been positioned into place (Figures 192 and 193). Most of the boulders and cobbles are covered in lichen and appear to be relatively weathered (Figures 194 and 195). The construction is relatively informal, with little evidence of well-defined facing; stacking is typically 1-2 courses, but is up to 3-4 courses in a couple places. Maximum dimensions of Feature 1 are 10.0 (length, east-to-west) by 5.0 m (width of the level upper soil level to the south of the rock-structural components) by approximately 1.5 m (height from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent surface to the north). The ground surface at the top of the feature is 1.5-2.0 m above the adjacent ground surface to the north. There is a kind of natural seat on one of the very large boulders at the east end of the site. There is a symmetrical puka (hole) atop one of the very large boulders.

Features 2 and 3 are located along the front (north side) of the main terrace (Figure 196). Feature 2 is a rectangular space formed on three sides by several large boulders that slopes down to the north; its function is indeterminate, but it appears to be a constructed feature. The space is measures approximately 1.70 m (length, north-to-south) by 0.70 m (width, east-to-west) by 0.60-1.00 m (height). Feature 2 may have originally been finished with small boulders along the front (north) side that have since tumbled down; it may also have once had a more level interior space. Feature 3 is a small cubby hole under one of the large boulders forming Feature 2. Maximum dimensions of Feature 3 are 0.60 m (front to back) by 0.30 m (width of opening and main chamber) by 0.30 m (height); its function is indeterminate, but it may have served as a dry storage place. In addition to these features and a constructed cubby-hole-like space on Feature 4, there are a few other small cubby-hole-type features and niche spaces located throughout the site that have not been assigned formal feature numbers.



Feature 4 is a second auxiliary terrace oriented more or less perpendicular to Feature 1, and constructed of similar materials in a similar fashion. Feature 4 is somewhat lower on the landscape compared with Feature 1. Maximum dimensions of Feature 4 are 9.0 m (length, north-to-south) by 5.0 m (width of the level upper soil level to the west of the rock-structural components) by approximately 1.5 m (height from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent surface to the east). No detailed map was made of Feature 4 since it would require an entire day of clearing by a crew of 3-4 people. There is a constructed rectangular cubby hole in the front (east side) of Feature 4 (Figure 197). The interior dimensions of the created space, which may have served for storage, are 0.90 m in depth (east-to-west) by 0.25 in width (north-to-south) by 0.30 m (height).

Feature 5 is a level soil area with few rocks measuring approximately 10.0 m by 5.0 m located in the western portion of the site, between Features 1 and 4. This appears to be a non-irrigated gardening plot. Feature 6, which is mostly covered in heavy vegetation, is another level soil area with some rocks in the northeast portion of the site. This feature is located near the edge of the drop off down into the gulch to the east. Due to heavy obscuring vegetation, no other observations are available for this feature, which should be investigated thoroughly. Feature 7 is a relatively degraded / collapsed area of possible rock alignments near the base (front) of Feature 1. This feature occupies an area measuring approximately 3.0 m by 3.0 m. Due to the degraded physical condition of this feature, archaeological excavation is needed to make any specific statements about its function.

In terms of site function, SWCA-KTA-TS-3 appears to be a permanent habitation with possible areas of non-irrigated garden plots. The several small niche spaces and cubby holes seem to be consistent with this interpretation, which should be further investigated / confirmed with subsurface testing (excavation). Excavation is also needed to address the precise age of this resource, which may date anywhere from earlier precontact times to the early 19th century. Particularly given the site’s proximity to SCS site T-34, located on the adjacent hill side to the north, it is possible that SWCA-KTA-TS-3 represents one of several traditional, precontact habitation sites in the immediate vicinity. This hypothesis can only be evaluated if the prior survey work is made available in a formal report.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-KTA-TS-3 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function is somewhat provisional and its precise age is indeterminate. It may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding the precontact settlement and land use of the area above Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

232

Figure 192. SWCA-KTA-TS-3 detail, showing main terrace designated Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

233

Figure 193. SWCA-KTA-TS-3 detail, showing main terrace designated Feature 1.



Figure 194. SWCA-KTA-TS-3, west half of Feature 1 (main terrace), facing southwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 195. SWCA-KTA-TS-3, east half of Feature 1 (main terrace), facing southeast; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 196. SWCA-BAX-TS-3, showing open space (Feature 2, center of image) and niche under large boulder (Feature 3, behind scale bar), facing south; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 197. SWCA-KTA-TS-3, showing constructed cubby built into auxiliary terrace (Feature 4), facing west-northwest; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-KTA-TS-5

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-TS-5 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Terrace Functional Interpretation Gardening / agriculture Temporal Interpretation Historic era* Maximum Size (Area) 10.0 m (32.8 ft) by 7.0 m (23.0 ft) (70 m2 or 754.4 ft2)


Several toppled wooden fence posts with rusted wire attached




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out site use in precontact times. To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It appears that the drainage within which the site is located, depicted as East ‘Ō‘io Gulch on some USGS maps, has not been formally surveyed.

SWCA-KTA-TS-5 is located in ‘Ō‘io Gulch, which is an ephemeral drainage not to be confused with ‘Ō‘io Stream, located the next drainage over to the west (both drainages were dry during the fieldwork described herein) (see Figure 187). This cultural resource was discovered by hiking into ‘Ō‘io Gulch, starting about ½ mile south of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 and heading north. Much of this section of the gulch south of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 is distinctive for the large number of mature and very tall hala (Pandanus tectorius) trees, for which Kahuku is famous as recorded in numerous oral-historical accounts (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:148-149).

The site consists of an angular / subangular boulder and cobble terrace measuring approximately 10.0 m in length and retaining a level soil-sediment area measuring approximately 7 m in width (Figure 198). The terrace is oriented roughly from east-to-west, and retains an upper alluvial flat several meters north of the ‘Ō‘io Gulch. The rock material constituting the terrace is unique and distinctive compared with other basalt observed in the KTA project area; it is gray in color, and has relatively good flaking qualities. Many of the boulders and cobbles appear to have been split or cracked, perhaps with a mechanical device; this observation, along with several old toppled fence posts with rusted wire, suggests the site dates from historic times, perhaps (given the preservation of the wood posts and wire) as recently as the early to middle 20th century. The terrace is constructed of informally stacked material, typically no more than 2-3 courses high, and in some places, only 1-2 courses high (Figures 199 and 200). Maximum height from the tops of the boulders to the adjacent ground surface, which slopes down to the south in the dry gulch channel, is 0.40-0.50 m. Near the western end of the site, there is a distinctively shaped boulder, superficially phallic in design, that has clearly been intentionally shaped (Figure 201). There are several large boulders that may represent additional features of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 located in heavy vegetation several meters west of the western end of the terrace. Due to time constraints



and other fieldwork priorities, this area to the west was not systematically cleared and inspected; however, this work should be conducted prior to making any final evaluations / recommendations about this cultural resource.

In terms of site function, this feature seems to be a non-irrigated gardening plot, and the aforementioned area in dense vegetation to the west may represent a temporary habitation / shelter area for those working the terrace feature. In terms of age, the cultural resource appears to have been used during historic times, and perhaps as recently as the early to middle 20th century. However, in the absence of subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out an earlier (precontact) construction date.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-KTA-TS-5 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its precise age is indeterminate. It may be part of a 19th century kuleana parcel (i.e., small family plot), or it may be more recent. SWCA-KTA-TS-5 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the ‘Ō‘io Gulch. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the precise age of the resource, and vegetation clearance of the area to the west of the western end of the site in order to determine if there are additional features present.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

238

Figure 198. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, field sketch map.



Figure 199. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, western portion of terrace, facing northwest; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 200. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, eastern portion of terrace (note, niche space between and under boulders), facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 201. SWCA-KTA-TS-5, detail of uniquely shaped boulder near western end of terrace; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-KTA-TS-8

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-TS-8 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Mound Functional Interpretation Indeterminate – possible burial Temporal Interpretation Historic era* Maximum Size (Area) 1.5 m (4.9 ft) by 1.5 m (4.9 ft) (2.3 m2 or 24.0 ft2)


One toppled wooden fence post with rusted wire attached




2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out site use in precontact times. To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It appears that the drainage within which the site is located, depicted as East ‘Ō‘io Gulch on some USGS maps, has not been formally surveyed.

SWCA-KTA-TS-8 is located in ‘Ō‘io Gulch, which is an ephemeral drainage not to be confused with ‘Ō‘io Stream, located the next drainage over to the west (both drainages were dry during the fieldwork described herein). This cultural resource was discovered by hiking into ‘Ō‘io Gulch, starting about ½ mile south of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 and heading north. Much of this section of the gulch south of SWCA-KTA-TS-5 is distinctive for the large number of mature and very tall hala (Pandanus tectorius) trees, for which Kahuku is famous as recorded in numerous oral-historical accounts (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:148-149).

The mound designated SWCA-KTA-TS-8 is located approximately 38.2 m north-northwest of the terrace designated SWCA-KTA-TS-5 (see Figure 187); and both are constructed of the same distinctive gray angular basalt, which suggests the features are related.

The site consists of an angular / subangular boulder and cobble mound measuring approximately 2.0 m in diameter and up to 0.50 m in height. The rock material constituting the mound is unique and distinctive compared with other basalt observed in the KTA project area; it is gray in color, and has relatively good flaking qualities. The material is the same as that used to construct the terrace designated SWCA-KTA-TS-5. One toppled fence post with rusted wire was observed a few meters away from the mound; this is the same post and wire material found at the terrace located 38.2 m to the south-southeast. These observations suggest SWCA-KTA-TS-8 dates from historic times, perhaps (given the preservation of the wood posts and wire) as recently as the early to middle 20th century. The mound is constructed of informally stacked material, typically no more than 2-3 courses high. (Figure 202). One of the boulders incorporated into the mound is a distinctive square-shaped, or rectangular-shaped (its edges were not completely exposed since



this would have entailed dismantling portions of the mound), slab with a different color and appearance compared with the rest of the mound’s constituent material (Figure 203).

The rock slab built into the top of the mound is consistent with a functional interpretation of SWCA-KTA-TS-8 as a possible burial feature. This cultural resource is almost certainly the same age as the terrace designated SWCA-KTA-TS-5. Further investigation at the nearby terrace may help determine its and the mound’s age.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-KTA-TS-8 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function and age are indeterminate. It may be part of a 19th century kuleana parcel (i.e., small family plot), or it may be more recent. SWCA-KTA-TS-8 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the ‘Ō‘io Gulch. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends limited and careful Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation should be located next to the mound, not within or on top of it, and careful hand digging should be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of a sedimentary profile indicating the presence or absence of a filled pit, which can be easily accomplished without damaging or disturbing human skeletal remains—should they be present—by experienced and professional field archaeologists working in a careful, problem-oriented manner. No inexperienced archaeologist should be allowed to conduct this work.



Figure 202. SWCA-KTA-TS-8, mound (possible burial), facing northwest.

Figure 203. SWCA-KTA-TS-8, detail of distinctive boulder slab incorporated into mound (possible burial).



SWCA-KTA-TS-9

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-TS-9 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Rockshelter complex Functional Interpretation Indeterminate – temporary habitation / possible burial Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 50.0 m (164.0 ft) by 20.0 m (65.6 ft) (1,000 m2 or 10,758.4 ft2)

No. of Features 5 (but there are probably more—extensive vegetation clearing needed to document all features)


None




2. Phase I survey to ensure all features have been identified 3. Limited Phase I excavation / partial dismantling of features to assist in evaluating the age of this resource

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out site use in precontact times. To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It appears that the drainage within which the site is located has not been formally surveyed.

SWCA-KTA-TS-9 is located in the main ‘Ō‘io Stream drainage, just makai (seaward), downstream, and north of the confluence of the East ‘Ō‘io Gulch and ‘Ō‘io Stream proper (see Figure 187). This cultural resource is located on a narrow alluvial terrace between the ephemeral stream channel (which was dry during the fieldwork described herein) to the east and a steep pali (cliff) rising up to the west. The impressive and well-preserved precontact site known as Hanaka‘oe Heiau (also spelled Hanakaoe in Pukui et al. 1974, who stated that its precise pronunciation and meaning are uncertain) is located across the ‘Ō‘io Stream to the southeast (see Figure 187).

This rockshelter complex is located in the vicinity of a wahi pana (legendary place) known as Waikane (a fresh water spring emanating from a boulder) described in Sites of Oahu as site 259 (Sterling and Summers 1978:148). There is an erosional feature (a deep, narrow ditch coming out of a hole in the ground) just in front of, and immediately east of, the site that may be an old pūnāwai (fresh water spring).

At the time of the fieldwork described here, much of the landscape at SWCA-KTA-TS-9 was blanketed in dense ground cover vegetation that was only partially cleared given limited available time and other fieldwork priorities. As recommended below, this site needs additional systematic Phase I survey with an appropriately large field crew in order to ensure that all features have been identified. The following description should be viewed as a preliminary evaluation based on limited observations.



SWCA-KTA-TS-9 consists of two main rockshelter features (designated Features 1 and 2) and several smaller stacked and aligned rock features (designated Features 3-5) (Figure 204). The two rockshelters are composed of massive sections of bedrock that cleaved off the adjacent cliff system in antiquity and came to rest in stable positions just above the ‘Ō‘io Stream channel on relatively level ground near the base of the cliff. Both of the rockshelter features consist of relatively small crawl spaces that may have functioned as temporary shelters or burials. Both rockshelter features have also been modified with small sections of stacked and aligned boulders and cobbles. The other smaller stacked and aligned features are located just to the north of the two rockshelters, and extend up the steep slope heading west and up the lower reaches of the cliff system.

The cliff system above the rockshelter complex was inspected by the Lead Archaeologist and by Kamoa Quitevas; two areas of shallow ledges were inspected but no evidence of cultural materials or modification was observed in this upper cliff area, which extends even higher (but was not inspected above this first ledge complex).

Feature 1 is a crawl-space rockshelter formed under the east side of a massive section of cliff that fell and came to rest on a gentle slope near its base (Figure 205). There is an ‘ala‘alawainui (Peperomia cookiana) plant, an endemic rock climber identified in the Kumulipo (the famous Hawaiian creation chant) as a guardian of the forest, growing on top of Feature 1. The interior crawl space measures 1.5 m in length (north-to-south) by 1.5 m in depth (east-to-west) by 1.0 m in height. Portions of the northern level soil-sediment area under the rock overhang have been built up and retained by several hand-stacked and aligned boulders and cobbles (Figure 206). The front (east) side of the level soil-sediment area appears to have been terraced and retained by small boulders and cobbles that have mostly tumbled / collapsed downslope to the east (Figure 207). All in all, Feature 1 appears to be more than just a natural crawl space, but rather, seems clearly to have been modified by hand-placement of rocks to create a level soil-sediment area protected by the small overhang. In this respect, Feature 1 is consistent with being a possible burial site, and should be treated as such until and unless other data or observations suggest otherwise.

Feature 2, located approximately 20 m northeast of Feature 1, is another massive section of cliff that tumbled down and came to rest between the base of the cliff (to the west) and the stream channel (to the east). There are rockshelter / overhang features on both the south (Figure 208) and north sides (Figures 209 and 210) of this feature. The south-side rockshelter is the larger of the two, with a level, partially protected soil-sediment area measuring approximately 2.5 m (east-to-west) by 1.5 m (north-to-south) by 1.4 m (maximum height). The north-side area measures approximately 1.6 m (east-to-west) by 1.0 m (north-to-south) by 1.2 m (maximum height). Native plants, including noni (Morinda citrifolia) and kī (or tī, Cordyline fruticosa), are located on the north side of Feature 2. The south-side rockshelter area appears to be unmodified from its natural state, and is the best place to get out of the elements; the north-side shelter area appears to have been modified with some rock stacking and alignment that extends the level soil-sediment area several feet to the north. This north-side area may represent another prepared burial feature (similar to Feature 1).

Three additional features, designated Features 3-5, were identified to the north of the two rockshelters on a hillslope extending back up to the top of the cliff system. All of these features



are relatively small, informally stacked cobbles and boulders on top of larger boulders and bedrock exposures. All of these incorporate naturally-eroding and decomposing rocks with stacked material; in some cases, what appear to be stacked rocks, on closer inspection, are in fact, decomposing along fracture lines that resemble stacked and fitted material. After extensive vegetation clearing and careful observation, however, it is clear that these are humanly modified features. Feature 3 (Figure 211) is representative of these informally stacked constructions. It consists of subrounded / subangular cobbles and small boulders stacked 2-3 courses high on and against large and very large boulders. This stacking creates a level but uneven mound or platform of rocks with an uneven surface. This and the other stacked features appear to consist exclusively of rocks with little to no soil-sedimentary matrix visible at or near the surface. Maximum dimensions of Feature 3 are 1.7 m (length) by 1.7 m (width) by 0.6 m (height). Without conducting subsurface testing or dismantling activities, the function of this and the other stacked features is indeterminate.

As stated above, Sterling and Summers (1978:148), quoting McAllister’s “Archaeology of Oahu,” recount the mo‘olelo (oral history) of site 259, shown to be located near SWCA-KTA-TS-9, a stone known as Waikane:

Large stone, known as Waikane, beside the stream bed on the mountain side of Kawela Bay and at the foot of the palis [cliffs] in the land of Hanakaoe.

Long ago the Hawaiians had to go far up the valley in order to get fresh water, but when Kane [one of the Hawaiians’ primary gods] struck the stone, water flowed from it and continued to flow up to the time the plantation built a pump just below the rock.

In light of this oral-historical information, it is worth discussing the erosional feature just in front of, and immediately east of, Feature 2. This ditch feature is approximately 1.0 m deep and 1.0 across and it disappears into the ground surface a few meters upslope. It does not appear to be a drainage for surface water coming down the cliff system to the stream, but rather an underground seep or spring that no longer flows (at least at the time of the fieldwork described here). It is possible this represents an old pūnāwai (fresh water spring), and that it is associated with the Waikane stone designated site 259 by McAllister.

SWCA recommends site SWCA-KTA-TS-9 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP, since much more vegetation clearing is needed of the hillside to the north of the rockshelters in order to ensure that all modifications have been identified. SWCA-KTA-TS-9 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the ‘Ō‘io Stream. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends limited Phase I testing of the south side of Feature 2 (which appears to be a temporary shelter) following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to more accurately evaluate the age of this cultural resource. Excavation is not recommended at Feature 1 or the north side of Feature 2, both of which may be burials. SWCA recommends at least one of the other stacked-rock features (e.g., Features 3-5) be partially dismantled in order to evaluate their function (which is currently indeterminate). Excavation and / or dismantling work should only be conducted by an experienced professional archaeologist.



Figure 204. GPS-generated sketch map of SWCA-KTA-TS-9.



Figure 205. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 (rockshelter), facing west; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 206. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1 detail showing rock stacking at north end of rockshelter, facing south; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 207. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 208. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2, showing south side of rockshelter, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 209. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2, showing north side of rockshelter, facing south; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 210. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2 showing north side, facing east; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 211. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 3, facing west; scale measures 1 m.



GANDA T-1

Resource No.(s) GANDA T-1 Reference(s) Descantes et al. (2008); Goo (2006); Ganda site forms (2005) Formal Type Concentration of naturally occurring large boulders Functional Interpretation Indeterminate—possible gathering spot in antiquity Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 70.0 m (229.7 ft) by 40.0 m (131.2 ft) (2,800.0 m2 or 30,136.6 ft2)

No. of Features 3 (possible petroglyphs) Surface Artifacts or Midden

None (not including military garbage)




2. Limited Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

GANDA T-1 is one of several potential cultural resources in the KTA project area for which cultural monitors working for Ganda and Ganda’s principal archaeologists reached different conclusions about site type, interpretation, and significance (see, e.g., Descantes et al. 2008; Goo 2006; Ganda site forms 2005). Ganda’s archaeologists, with which the Army concurred, found GANDA T-1 to be a non-archaeological site, but noted that cultural monitors believed strongly that the site has significance to Native Hawaiians.

GANDA T-1 is located on a small hilltop east of the main road for the CACTAF project area (see Figure 187). The site consists of a concentration of large naturally occurring boulders, some of which are actively eroding out of the ground surface, clear indication that these rocks have been in place since antiquity and not transported here or moved by mechanical means. Bulldozer scars and other evidence of damage to the boulders are not apparent. There is a bulldozed area in the eastern portion of the site, but most of the site area is generally undisturbed. An accurate site sketch map and a GPS polygon are provided in Descantes et al. (2008), and are not reproduced here.

Several boulders are marked with possible petroglyphs as well as more recent “graffiti-style” markings (i.e., initials and letters carved into the rock and imitations of petroglyphs). Three examples are possibly genuine petroglyphs, but all are somewhat ambiguous given the patina and weathering of the marks compared with the rest of the rock surface (Figures 212-214). These possible petroglyphs have been interpreted by Ganda as modern markings. One interpretation that has not been considered by prior workers is that they may represent markings made only 100 or 150 years ago, rather than in precontact times, and perhaps this accounts for their intermediate level of weathering. If so, these marks are old enough to qualify for NRHP eligibility, but the question of the age of GANDA T-1 has not been addressed.

Site visits to GANDA T-1 by the Lead Archaeologist suggest this location has almost certainly been visited for many years by local residents in and around the project area, given its inherent physical characteristics: numerous large boulders, many of which are ideal for resting against or



atop, situated on a small hilltop with a view of the ocean. This observation was also made by the Army in their Section 106 consultation letter (Goo 2006:2). After commenting that the “site has no surface indication of being an archaeological site,” [italics added for emphasis] the letter continues, “However, the site’s location on a hilltop overlooking the ocean and the distinctive presence of the large boulders suggest that the site would be eligible as a TCP.”

It is important to note, as stated in the Introduction to this report, that the work described here does not qualify as a TCP evaluation, since many of the fundamental components of TCP work—including community consultation, interviews with potentially knowledgeable individuals, archival/background research, and Hawaiian language records analysis and translation—were not part of the subject SOW. The Lead Archaeologist does not believe there has yet been an adequate TCP study of the subject project area, a topic that is revisited in the Discussion section of this report.

SWCA recommends site GANDA T-1 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. GANDA T-1 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the project area. In terms of function, it would be extremely surprising if GANDA T-1 were not an ancient location at which people rested and socialized given its inherent characteristics. In terms of age, the site may be extremely ancient. In the absence of subsurface testing, it is impossible at the present time to determine whether this interpretation is accurate. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation units should be located against and beside large boulders with vertical faces and areas against which people may have rested.

Figure 212. Possible petroglyph at GANDA T-1.



Figure 213. Possible petroglyph at GANDA T-1; scale measures 10 cm.



Figure 214. Possible petroglyph at GANDA T-1 consisting of three vertical lines; scale measures 10 cm.



GANDA T-2

Resource No.(s) GANDA T-2 Reference(s) Descantes et al. (2008); Goo (2006); Ganda site forms (2005) Formal Type Boulder concentration with informal alignments and enclosures Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 25.0 m (82.0 ft) by 15.0 m (49.2 ft) (375.0 m2 or 4,034.4 ft2)

No. of Features 6+ Surface Artifacts or Midden

One piece of coral wedged between two boulders; some military garbage


Fair (at and above ground surface)



GANDA T-2 is one of several potential cultural resources in the KTA project area for which cultural monitors working for Ganda and Ganda’s principal archaeologists reached different conclusions about site type, interpretation, and significance (see, e.g., Descantes et al. 2008; Goo 2006; Ganda site forms 2005). Ganda’s archaeologists, with which the Army concurred, found GANDA T-2 to be a non-archaeological site, but noted that cultural monitors believed strongly that the site has significance to Native Hawaiians. For reasons explained below, some cultural monitors and community members brought to the site by cultural monitors believe GANDA T-2 is a “women’s heiau,” such as a shrine dedicated to childbirth or to women’s reproductive power.

GANDA T-2 is located immediately adjacent to and west of the main CACTAF road (see Figure 187). Native and / or Polynesian-introduced plants in and around this resource include laua‘e (Phlebodium aureum), moa (Psilotum spp.), ‘iliahi (Santalum spp.), and ‘ākia (Wikstroemia spp.).

The surface structure of the site is difficult to unequivocally characterize. Descantes et al. (2008) and Goo (2006) describe it as an “assemblage of large and small cobbles and boulders” or a “surface scatter of rocks and boulders” with little to no formal shape or structure; the former also notes the site’s superficial relationship to a platform, but then point out the fact that “[t]he cobbles are not particularly well joined…and have a jumbled appearance (Descantes et al. 2008:34). Ganda’s cultural monitors (Ganda site forms 2005) described it as a “large platform” with several small constructed spaces or enclosed areas within the main platform space (Figure 215). Observations by the Lead Archaeologist at this potential cultural resource suggest it is not consistent with a platform, but, rather is best described as a boulder concentration (Figure 216) with several intriguing features, including a large rounded piece of coral wedged between two boulders (Figure 217); several relatively small spaces and enclosed areas between boulders (Figures 218 and 219); a unique and distinctive boulder interpreted by cultural monitors as a



kohe (vagina) stone (Figures 220-221); and several other distinctively shaped boulders that may have served as places to sit atop or against.

There is no disputing the fact that substantial ground disturbance has occurred on virtually all sides of the main concentration of boulders. Descantes et al. (2008) and Goo (2006) have also raised the objection that the site includes numerous boulders with a characteristic orange-colored patina, indicative of recent removal from a subsurface geological context, and with evidence of recent breakage (see, e.g., Descantes et al. 2008:34). Observations by the Lead Archaeologist at this resource suggest the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the site has been fundamentally disturbed; or whether it may consist entirely or mostly of introduced rocks that have nothing to do with a traditional Hawaiian construction. The obvious solution to this situation is to conduct archaeological excavation.

Descantes et al. (2008:34) concludes, “[i]t is possible that the site is a traditional Hawaiian feature that has been impacted by twentieth century activities. A more likely explanation, however, is that the cobbles are in fact a direct result of historical activities such as pasture improvements and/or military construction. Although Site T2 shows evidence of human construction, it is most likely late historic in nature.” Goo (2006:3) concludes GANDA T-2 is not an archaeological site or a significant cultural resource, but states “[t]he site has not been subsurface tested to determine if an archaeological component exists.”

SWCA recommends site GANDA T-2 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. GANDA T-2 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the project area. Without conducting subsurface testing, the function of this possible archaeological site is indeterminate, as is its age. It is important to note that Ganda’s archaeologists (Descantes et al. 2008:34) considered their recommendation of “not eligible” for the NRHP as “preliminary pending subsurface testing.” GANDA T-2 may be a shrine with relatively degraded surface architecture due to historic and / or modern impacts. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation units might be located within the several small enclosed spaces which are depicted in the sketch map and photographs (see Figures 215, 218-219).



Figure 215. GANDA T-2, sketch map produced by cultural monitors in 2005.



Figure 216. GANDA T-2 overview facing north.

Figure 217. GANDA T-2 showing large rounded coral fragment wedged between boulders comprising part of Feature 4, facing south; scale measures 20 cm.



Figure 218. GANDA T-2 showing rectangular open space between boulders designated Feature 4, facing southwest; scale measures 20 cm.

Figure 219. GANDA T-2 showing rectangular open space between boulders designated Feature 1, facing north; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 220. GANDA T-2 with possible kohe (vagina) stone in middle of photograph, facing southeast.

Figure 221. GANDA T-2 detail of possible kohe stone; scale measures 10 cm.



GANDA T-7

Resource No.(s) GANDA T-7 (Feature 1 only) Reference(s) Descantes et al. (2008); Goo (2006); Ganda site forms (2005) Formal Type Concentration of naturally occurring large boulders Functional Interpretation Indeterminate—possible gathering spot in antiquity Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 15.0 m (49.2 ft) by 5.0 m (16.4 ft) (75.0 m2 or 806.9 ft2) (Feature

1 only)

No. of Features 3+ Surface Artifacts or Midden

One fragment of coral wedged between boulders






The site was originally described in Ganda site forms (2005) as consisting of three features, but inspection of GANDA T-7 by the Lead Archaeologist clearly shows that two of these (originally designated Features 2 and 3) are definitely not archaeologically or culturally significant. Feature 2 is recent military training feature (small fighting position); Feature 3 is a natural drainage slope with abundant rocks, not an ‘auwai (traditional irrigation ditch). For the purposes of this report, GANDA T-7 consists only of Feature 1.

GANDA T-7 is located on a small hilltop adjacent to, and just north of, an east-to-west oriented switchback access road for the CACTAF project area (see Figure 187). The site consists of a concentration of large naturally occurring boulders, some of which are actively eroding out of the ground surface, clear indication that these rocks have been in place since antiquity and not transported here or moved by mechanical means (Figure 222). There is no evidence of ground disturbance at GANDA T-7. In addition to the documentation provided here, an accurate GPS polygon has been included in Descantes et al. (2008).

There are several small level soil-sediment areas in and around the large boulders comprising GANDA T-7 (Figures 223-226). Previous reporting on this aspect of the feature is somewhat contradictory. Descantes et al. (2008:46) describes the feature as having “no clear internal structure, nor do they form any pattern in their arrangement.” Goo (2006:3), on the other hand, recognizes “a natural niche located among the rocks.” The cultural monitors (Ganda site forms 2005) noted a niche space (probably the one illustrated below in Figure 224).



Site visits to GANDA T-7 by the Lead Archaeologist suggest this location has almost certainly been visited for many years by local residents in and around the project area, given its inherent physical characteristics: numerous large boulders, many of which are ideal for resting against or atop, situated on a small hilltop with a view of the ocean. While there is no evidence of stacked or aligned rocks at this feature, at least some of the small level soil-sediment areas likely contain subsurface archaeological deposits (see, e.g., Figure 225).

It is important to note, as stated in the Introduction to this report, that the work described here does not qualify as a TCP evaluation, since many of the fundamental components of TCP work—including community consultation, interviews with potentially knowledgeable individuals, archival/background research, and Hawaiian language records analysis and translation—were not part of the subject SOW. The Lead Archaeologist does not believe there has yet been an adequate TCP study of the subject project area.

SWCA recommends site GANDA T-7 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. GANDA T-7 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the project area. In terms of function, it would be extremely surprising if GANDA T-7 were not an ancient location at which people rested and socialized given its inherent characteristics. In terms of age, the site may be extremely ancient. In the absence of subsurface testing, it is impossible at the present time to determine whether this interpretation is accurate. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation units should be located within the several level soil-sediment areas illustrated below.



Figure 222. GANDA T-7 sketch map produced by cultural monitors in 2005. Feature 1 (lower right) is the possible archaeological / cultural resource (see text).



Figure 223. GANDA T-7 overview looking downslope from above the boulder concentration, facing east.

Figure 224. GANDA T-7 showing crawl space formed under and between large boulders, facing south; scale measures 20 cm.



Figure 225. GANDA T-7 showing level soil-sediment area in northern portion of feature, facing north; scale measures 20 cm.

Figure 226. GANDA T-7 showing small enclosed space at upper end of feature, facing west; scale measures 20 cm.



GANDA T-8

Resource No.(s) GANDA T-8 Reference(s) Descantes et al. (2008); Goo (2006); Ganda site forms (2005) Formal Type Possible platform or mound Functional Interpretation Indeterminate Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 6.9 m (21.4 ft) by 5.3 m (16.4 ft) (36.6 m2 or 351.0 ft2)


None






GANDA T-8 is located between Drum Road and a road leading to the Nike Missile launch area on a hillslope near a road cut (see Figure 187). Two portions of this site were mapped by cultural monitors (Figure 227), but only the southern half of this mapped area is considered in this evaluation (i.e., the feature south of the “Level Plateau” in Figure 227). Native and / or Polynesian-introduced plants in and around this resource include laua‘e (Phlebodium aureum), moa (Psilotum spp.), and ‘ākia (Wikstroemia spp.).

The surface structure of the site is difficult to unequivocally characterize. Descantes et al. (2008) and Goo (2006) describe it as a “large rock pile” or “large stone pile”; Ganda’s cultural monitors (Ganda site forms 2005) described it as a “rectangular platform.” Observations by the Lead Archaeologist at this potential cultural resource suggest it most resembles a platform or mound, and there appear to be two levels; however, owing to its relatively fair to poor physical condition, at least above the ground surface, it is hard to definitively assign this feature a formal type, and this formal interpretation should be considered provisional. The two levels are depicted in Figure 227 as stippled areas (a larger one at the north or top of the feature, and two smaller ones near the lower or southern end). There is evidence of 2-3 courses of stacking at the lower end of the feature (Figure 228), and a small puka (hole) at the upper end (Figure 229). The main outstanding question regarding the surface architecture of this feature is whether it was created by hand-stacking or by mechanical means.

Descantes et al. (2008:46) state, “[t]he site exhibits what may be three-course stacking at its downslope end…It may, alternatively, be incidentally structured piling” [italics added for



emphasis]. The writers go on to say, “[m]uch of the pile’s constituent rock lacks the patina formed by exposure to the elements and rather appears only recently removed from the local sediments.” The character of the surfaces of the rock is also mentioned by Goo (2006:3), who states, “[a] large number of the rocks [at GANDA T-8] remain orange stained as if they have been recently unearthed.” The Lead Archaeologist’s site inspection does not support this observation, as can clearly be seen in the photographs below (see Figures 228 and 229). These images have not been altered or adjusted in any way.

Another piece of evidence used by prior report writers to support the hypothesis that GANDA T-8 is not an archaeological site or a cultural resource of significance to Native Hawaiians is the presence of “[r]ecent breakage … on much of the rock” (Descantes et al. 2008), interpreted by Goo (2006:3) as follows: “[C]loser examination of the rocks within the pile shows that many of the rocks have been broken or scarred by machinery.” Observations by the Lead Archaeologist suggest many of the rocks are angular or subangular in shape, but relatively free from recent breakage (which would appear as relatively lighter-colored areas of the surface of the rocks). One of the fieldwork activities conducted during this project was to visit known archaeological sites in and around the CACTAF area that are not controversial and that no one questions are actual historic properties from precontact times. In particular, we visited Hanaka‘oe Heiau (SIHP 2501) and SIHP 9508, a large platform-terrace with an attached enclosure / pit feature. Both of the unequivocal sites incorporate many of the same characteristics seen at GANDA T-8, including abundant use of angular / subangular rock arranged in relatively informal stacking with lots of spaces and voids between loosely-arranged rocks.

Descantes et al. (2008:46) concludes GANDA T-8 is a “recent historical rock pile, possibly deposited from the plateau immediately upslope.” Goo (2006:3) concludes GANDA T-8 is not an archaeological site or a significant cultural resource, but states “[n]o testing has been conducted at the site to determine if a subsurface cultural component exists.”

According to Kamoa Quitevas, previous Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff George MacDonell interpreted GANDA T-8 as a “sling load” drop from a helicopter.

Current Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff Laura Gilda (personal communication with the Lead Archaeologist) cited the presence of aerial imagery from the middle 20th century showing this site area as utterly devoid of vegetation or rocks. The Lead Archaeologist has not seen the image in question, which, if accurately described, would nullify the recommendations presented below.

SWCA recommends site GANDA T-8 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. GANDA T-8 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the project area. Without conducting subsurface testing, the function of this possible archaeological site is indeterminate, as is its age. GANDA T-8 may be a shrine or a house platform with relatively degraded surface architecture. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing, which might include partial dismantling of a portion of the feature, following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation units might be located in or adjacent to the level areas depicted (by stippling) in the accompanying sketch map.



Figure 227. GANDA T-8 sketch map produced by cultural monitors in 2005; site inspection by the Lead Archaeologist focused on the lower concentration of rocks to the south (below the “Level Plateau”).



Figure 228. GANDA T-8 from the south end of the feature showing stacked boulders, facing north.

Figure 229. GANDA T-8, detail of upper portion of the feature showing a puka (hole) between boulders, facing west-northwest; scale (near puka) measures 20 cm.



GANDA T-12

Resource No.(s) GANDA T-12 Reference(s) Descantes et al. (2008); Goo (2006); Ganda site forms (2005) Formal Type Platform Functional Interpretation Indeterminate-possible shrine Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 9.0 m (29.5 ft) by 6.0 m (19.7 ft) (54.0 m2 or 581.2 ft2)


None





GANDA T-12 is not included in the archaeological presentation of the report by Descantes et al. (2008); nor is it included in the Section 106 consultation letter regarding the CACTAF project (Goo 2006). This resource is briefly described by cultural monitor Keona Marks (in Descantes 2008:82-83), who interpreted it as a heiau (traditional Hawaiian religious shrine). The absence of GANDA T-12 from the archaeological portion of Ganda’s report and from Goo’s consultation letter appears to reflect the fact that it is located to the west of the proposed construction footprint of the CACTAF project.

GANDA T-12 is located at the edge of ‘Ō‘io Gulch, just along its eastern margin (see Figure 187). This resource was mapped by cultural monitors in 2005 (Figure 230). Native and / or Polynesian-introduced plants in and around this resource include alahe‘e (Canthium odoratum), ‘ākia (Wikstroemia spp.), and kī (or tī, Cordyline fruticosa).

The surface structure of the site is difficult to unequivocally characterize because it is in relatively fair to poor physical condition. Observations by the Lead Archaeologist at this potential cultural resource suggest it most resembles a platform or mound, and there appear to be two levels separated by approximately 50 cm in elevation (Figure 231); however, owing to its relatively fair to poor physical condition, at least above the ground surface, it is hard to definitively assign this feature a formal type, and this formal interpretation should be considered provisional. The most distinctive characteristic of this resource is a group of three upright boulders at the west end of the feature with a distinctive triangular shape (Figure 232), an observation first made by cultural monitor Keona Marks, who also suggested several other similarly-shaped boulders at the west end may have once also been uprights. The feature is located several meters west of an off-road dirt track or trail, but there is little evidence in the immediate vicinity of the boulders, or on the boulders themselves, of mechanical disturbance or damage such as might be caused by earth-moving equipment.

Descantes et al. (2008:46) concludes GANDA T-8 is a “recent historical rock pile, possibly deposited from the plateau immediately upslope.” Goo (2006:3) concludes GANDA T-8 is not



an archaeological site or a significant cultural resource, but states “[n]o testing has been conducted at the site to determine if a subsurface cultural component exists.”

SWCA recommends site GANDA T-12 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. GANDA T-12 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the project area. Without conducting subsurface testing, the function of this possible archaeological site is indeterminate, and is its age. Given the several distinctive upright boulders at the west end, this site may have functioned as a shrine; or, it may represent a house or workspace platform of some kind. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends Phase I testing, which might include partial dismantling of a portion of the feature, following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation units might be located along the western edge of the rock-structural components of this feature.



Figure 230. GANDA T-12 sketch map produced by cultural monitors; west end of feature has several distinctive upright boulders (see photograph below).



Figure 231. GANDA T-12 detail of middle of feature, facing east and upslope from lower level area; scale measures 20 cm.



Figure 232. GANDA T-12 detail showing two distinctive upright boulders at west end of the feature, facing southeast; scale measures 20 cm.



GANDA T-22

Resource No.(s) GANDA T-22 Reference(s) Descantes et al. (2008); Goo (2006) Formal Type C-shape (three-sided rock alignment) Functional Interpretation Indeterminate – possible military training / possible burial Temporal Interpretation Indeterminate Maximum Size (Area) 3.0 m (9.8 ft) by 2.0 m (6.6 ft) (6.0 m2 or 64.7 ft2)


A few small-arms casings




2. Limited Phase I excavation / partial dismantling of feature to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation

GANDA T-22 appears to have been originally identified by cultural monitor Keona Mark in 2006. A few sentences about a site visit to this cultural resource by the cultural monitor appear in Descantes et al. (2008); the site was interpreted by the cultural monitor as a “possible burial.” GANDA T-22 also appears on a map of “possible cultural resources” identified by GANDA in Goo (2006), but the resource is not otherwise included in this letter memo. These observations suggest GANDA T-22 may have been inspected / evaluated during prior archaeological surveys, but was determined not to be an archaeological site or significant cultural resource.

Observations made during the current study suggest additional work is warranted at this resource before eliminating it from consideration as a significant historic property.

GANDA T-22 is located near the edge of a gently sloping plateau east of, and overlooking, the ‘Ō‘io Gulch, which is an ephemeral drainage not to be confused with ‘Ō‘io Stream. GANDA T-22 is also located along the boundary between Kahuku and Hanaka‘oe Ahupua‘a (see Figure 187).

The site consists of two main features, a small C-shape rock alignment designated Feature 1, and a bedrock outcropping with several stacked boulders on top designated Feature 2 (Figures 233-236). Feature 2 is located approximately 1.0 m to the southwest of the C-shape. Feature 1 is constructed of subrounded / subangular small boulders and cobbles aligned and balanced against each other with some low stacking at the west end. Maximum dimensions of Feature 1 are approximately 2.0 m (length, east-to-west, measured from the outside of the rocks) by 1.2 m (width, north-to-south, measured from the outside of the rocks) by 0.35 (height). The aligned and stacked rocks define an internal space measuring approximately 1.5 m in length by 0.50-0.65 m in width. The slope drops off sharply just to the west of this feature. The area of soil-sediment defined by the rocks is slightly concave, rather than level, which is one of the reasons the feature may represent a military training structure (i.e., the concavity accommodated a prone solider shooting out to the west).



Based on all available evidence—except subsurface excavation and / or partial dismantling of a portion of the surface architecture, neither of which has been conducted—this site could be either a military training feature (i.e., a place from which military personnel fired small arms) or possibly a burial.

SWCA recommends site GANDA T-22 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP since—in the absence of subsurface data, its function and age are indeterminate. GANDA T-22 may be eligible under Criterion D for its potential to provide additional information regarding local use of the plateau adjacent to ‘Ō‘io Gulch. In terms of function, it may be a military training feature (e.g., a shooting position); it may be a traditional Hawaiian construction, such as a burial; or, it may be a military feature built upon and modified from a traditional Hawaiian site. In terms of age, even if it is only a military feature—and has no traditional Hawaiian component—it may be 50 years in age, given the history of military use of the project area (which, according to Descantes et al. 2008, began as early as 1956). In the absence of subsurface testing or partial dismantling of the above-ground architecture, it is impossible at the present time to determine whether GANDA T-22 represents a historic modification and re-use of an earlier Hawaiian site. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site until it can be further investigated. SWCA also recommends limited and careful Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation should be located next to the rock alignment at Feature 1, not within the enclosed space of the feature, and careful hand digging should be conducted in order to determine the presence or absence of a sedimentary profile indicating the presence or absence of a filled pit, which can be easily accomplished without damaging or disturbing human skeletal remains—should they be present—by experienced and professional field archaeologists working in a careful, problem-oriented manner. No inexperienced archaeologist should be allowed to conduct this work.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

278

Figure 233. GANDA T-22, Feature 1, field sketch map.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

279

Figure 234. GANDA T-22, Feature 1, graphic depiction of field sketch map.



Figure 235. GANDA T-22, facing west and drop off to ‘Ō‘io Gulch (in background); scale measures 1 m.

Figure 236. GANDA T-22, detail, showing Feature 1 (C-shape), facing northeast; scale measures 1 m.



SCS T-33

Resource No.(s) SCS T-33 (SIHP unknown due to lack of draft report) Reference(s) None available Formal Type Platform (previously described as Rock Mound) Functional Interpretation Indeterminate (previously interpreted as Clearing Mound) Temporal Interpretation Precontact* (previously interpreted as Historic) Maximum Size (Area) 8.0 m (26.2 ft) by 7.0 m (23.0 ft) (56.0 m2 or 602.6 ft2)


None




2. Limited Phase I excavation adjacent to the platform to assist with NRHP eligibility evaluation

*Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out continuing site use into the historic period. SCS T-33 was originally identified, documented, and interpreted by SCS during an archaeological survey conducted approximately five years ago. As discussed in the General Results portion of this chapter, the Army DPW-Cultural Resources could not produce a copy of a report describing the prior survey work (Task Order 5) by SCS. The SIHP number of this resource is unknown since no report has been produced for the previous work. The Lead Archaeologist was provided with some minimal information (lists and tables, schematic sketches, and site datum-map location) about selected sites. The subject cultural resource (T-33) was described as a “clearing mound” dating to the “historic period.” It is located just east of SCS T-34, a permanent habitation site complex which yielded a radiocarbon date from excavated sediments of A.D. 1190 to 1310, which is quite significant in the context of the early precontact settlement of Kahuku.

In addition to listing the site as a historic-era clearing mound in one table made available to the Lead Archaeologist, other SCS observations provided describe T-33 as follows:

A large rock mound with soils within. A small circular depression is on top of the mound which might have been a fox hole but is now covered in a dense growth of laua‘e [fern]. This mound is thought to be historic and might be a clearing mound.

T-33 is also described as “partially faced.”

Observations made during the current fieldwork (e.g., construction methods and spatial patterning in rock size of the constituent materials) suggest SCS T-33 is a platform of traditional design consistent with a precontact Hawaiian structure, rather than a historic clearing mound; it is likely that SCS T-33 is associated with the permanent habitation site (T-34) and another nearby site (T-32) as described below.



Part of the confusion by prior archaeologists may be a function of the fact that the feature was never completely exposed. Observations made during this fieldwork suggest only portions of the west side were completely visible to prior workers. Working together, the Lead Archaeologist, the OHA representatives, and the Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff systematically removed vegetation from representative portions of the entire feature, which allowed for more accurate observations to be made regarding its construction materials and style.

SCS T-33 is located in a low-lying area of dense Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius) near Kalaeokahipa (also Kalae o Kahipa) Gulch (see Figure 187); and is covered by a dense mat of laua‘e (Phlebodium aureum) fern. In addition to SCS sites T-32 and -34, this cultural resource is also near SWCA-KTA-TS-3, a traditional-style terrace complex located approximately 150 m to the southwest.

The site designated SCS T-33 consists of one feature, a platform constructed of basalt boulders, cobbles, and pebbles (Figures 237-240). Maximum dimensions of the platform are approximately 8.0 m (east-to-west, measured from the outer limits of the rocks) by 7.0 m (north-to-south, measured from the outer limits of the rocks) by 1.5 m (height). While originally interpreted as a historic clearing mound, the feature is almost certainly a traditional-style platform structure, in part due to the obvious clast-size sorting with the largest boulders placed around the perimeter and smaller and smaller clasts towards the middle / top, which is dominated by the smallest rocks including abundant pebbles. This size-sorting is characteristic of Hawaiian platform preparation. The level top formed by pebbles and small cobbles measures approximately 3.0 m by 2.0 m (6 m2); the platform appears to have been built to support this level area. In plan view, the platform has a crescent shape, with the convex side facing northeast and the concave side to the southwest.

The platform is defined by stacking on all sides; stacking is lowest (1-2 courses) on the southwest side, but it is still well-defined around the entire perimeter. The western terminus of the crescent-shaped platform appears to have tumbled / collapsed to some extent. Stacking in the highest portions of the platform, especially on the northwest, north, and northeast portions, is up to 5-7 courses high. Most of the largest boulders are at the base of the platform, but there are also some larger boulders visible on the top and higher than the base. There is a distinctively shaped boulder at the base of the south-southeast end of the feature; this elongate cornerstone has been balanced and fitted on its edge (Figure 241). There is a small circular depression on the top level area of the platform. This was described by prior consultants as a “possible fox hole,” which seems highly unlikely based on the fact that it is located on a large pile of rocks. If this resource is a burial feature, or if there are significant cultural materials contained or embedded in this platform, it is likely they can be accessed by digging into, or investigating, this depression (an activity the Lead Archaeologist does not recommend or endorse).

Based on all available evidence—except subsurface excavation and / or partial dismantling of a portion of the surface architecture, neither of which has been conducted—the function of SCS T-33 is indeterminate. It is almost certainly not a historic clearing mound, and may be a burial platform. The distinctive crescent-shaped feature has a commanding view of the ocean.

SWCA recommends site SCS T-33 unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP, since its function and age have not been evaluated. The platform may be eligible under criterion D, given



the evidence suggesting it is a traditional, precontact platform of a unique (crescent-shaped) design. At the same, however, many important details about this site have yet to be addressed, and can only be addressed by conducting problem-oriented research, including limited Phase I excavation. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection of the site in perpetuity. SWCA also recommends limited and careful Phase I testing following an excavation plan described in the Discussion chapter of this report in order to determine the function and precise age of the resource. Excavation should be located in the level soil-sediment area immediately southwest of the platform, the formal structure of which should not be breached or partially dismantled.

Figure 237. SCS T-33, looking across the platform from the southwest end, facing east-southeast; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 238. SCS T-33, showing detail of small cobble and pebble size-sorting on top of platform, facing west; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 239. SCS T-33, showing high stacking at west end of the platform, facing east-southeast; scale measures 1 m.



Figure 240. SCS T-33 overview, showing overall crescent shape, facing northeast; scale measures 1 m.

Figure 241. SCS T-33, detail showing distinctive cornerstone boulder (to the left of the scale bar), facing north; scale measures 1 m.



SWCA-KTA-IF-1

Resource No.(s) SWCA-KTA-IF-1 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Stone bowl preform Functional Interpretation Raw material for making a stone bowl Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size of Artifact 6.8 (l) by 6.5 (w) by 6.2 (h) cm Raw Material Basalt Figure References in this Report

Figure 187

Physical Condition The artifact is in the early stages of pecking to produce a bowl shape

Comment(s) Personal communication with Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff indicates they do not believe this is an artifact



Figure 242. SWCA-KTA-IF-1; scale measures 10 cm.



ADDITIONAL RESOURCES IN UNSURVEYED AREAS OF KTA

Based on analysis of available maps, GIS/GPS data, previous reports, and the results described above for KTA, the following specific areas should be surveyed in detail:

1. All areas west of ‘Ō‘io Stream previously surveyed by SCS—and for which no draft report was available for the subject project.

2. All stream and gulch bottoms and adjacent alluvial flats in the KTA, many of which have not been recently surveyed in conjunction with Stryker-related projects since they have been defined as being out of the areas of potential effects (APE), which is clearly illogical since training will undoubtedly result in personnel, vehicles and perhaps training rounds ending up in the wrong place (i.e., out of construction footprints and / or out of supposedly designated training areas).

3. As stated in the Introduction, the work described in this report does not qualify as a TCP evaluation, since many of the fundamental components of TCP work—including community consultation, interviews with potentially knowledgeable individuals, archival/background research, and Hawaiian language records analysis and translation—were not part of the scope of work. At a minimum, the Lead Archaeologist believes Pu‘ukī and the ‘Ō‘io Gulch would satisfy the requirements of TCPs if they were adequately investigated. The coastal area makai (seaward) of Pu‘ukī was once known as (and is depicted on some historical maps as) Kii (or Ki‘i), and there are undoubtedly important cultural associations and connections between these places that have yet to be investigated. Likewise, the ‘Ō‘io Gulch, within which we observed a large number of mature and very tall hala (Pandanus tectorius) trees, for which Kahuku is famous as recorded in numerous oral-historical accounts (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:148-149), should be properly evaluated as a TCP.



EVALUATION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES AT POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA

Four days were spent at PTA, however, all of these days were abbreviated (5-6 hours of fieldwork time) for logistical reasons. Also, fieldwork on two of the four days was restricted to a small area designated “Low Risk” (for ordnance); thus, only two days were spent in the much larger “High Risk” area, for which there was not sufficient time to inspect much of the landscape. Access to “High Risk” areas was dependent on helicopter support from the Army; three days of support were planned, but one of these days was canceled at the last minute.

One new cultural resource was identified at PTA. See Table 1 in the Methodology chapter for a complete list of activities and inspected areas and resources. Before presenting the evaluation and documentation for SWCA-PTA-TS-1, some observations, comments, and documentation regarding other sites and resources are presented.

Lava tubes SIHP 18673 and 23626

Additional artifacts were documented in the lava tube system designated SIHP 18673. According to Ganda’s 2006 survey report, which in addition to the Army’s GIS/GPS database, constituted the primary comparative document used during the PTA fieldwork, the additional items described below have not been previously documented, although they may have been observed by previous field workers. Two prominent upright slabs (Figures 243 and 244) are located along the west wall / ledge of the north portion of the lava tube. These sacred objects were noted in the prior report by Ganda but no photographs were included. Several bird cooking stones were found near the opening to the north portion of the lave tube (Figure 245). Several partially burned wooden sticks were observed (Figure 246). Other organics such a gourd and animal hide fragments were observed. In the south portion of the lava tube, a distinctive carved wooden implement, possibly a stabbing dagger-like tool, was observed near the entrance (Figure 247).

Another, much smaller lava tube (SIHP 23626) containing the previously-reported find of a kī (or tī, Cordyline fruticosa) leaf sandal was inspected and found to contain several previously unreported items, including several wooden objects (Figures 248 and 249).

Excavated pits and volcanic glass quarries

There are hundreds of features at PTA identified as “excavated pits” whose functional interpretation is a matter of debate; it is likely that some are related to bird hunting (i.e., by creating micro-habitats / nesting places for birds), but other functions such as water collection are also possible. During the fieldwork described in this report, it was observed that there are so many of these features, literally several hundreds, typically occur in clusters or groups that have been aggregated by previous archaeologists for the purposes of mapping, recording, and managing them, that it is impossible at any one location on the landscape to know precisely where you are in relation to these features. There are no on-the-ground markings showing where site or feature boundaries are. A similar problem was encountered with the volcanic glass quarries. One obvious management implication of this problem is how to protect these features that have been recommended for preservation if it is not even possible for trained archaeologists and field personnel to locate them.



Figure 243. SIHP 18673, single upright on west wall ledge near entrance to north lava tube; scale measures 50 cm.

Figure 244. SIHP 18673, three slabs, one still upright, one toppled on ledge, and one (out of the image) on the floor, north lava tube; scale measures 50 cm.



Figure 245. SIHP 18673, bird cooking stone from near entrance to north lava tube; scale measures 10 cm.

Figure 246. SIHP 18673, burned stick from interior of north lava tube.



Figure 247. SIHP 18673, carved wooden dagger-like tool from south lava tube.

Figure 248. SIHP 23626, wooden object with burned and beveled tip.



Figure 249. SIHP 23626, burned wooden object.



SWCA-PTA-TS-1

Resource No.(s) SWCA-PTA-TS-1 Reference(s) None (there is no prior existing information on this resource) Formal Type Modified outcrop Functional Interpretation Temporary shelter / resting place Temporal Interpretation Precontact* Maximum Size (Area) 8.0 m (26.2 ft) by 3.0 m (9.8 ft) (24.0 m2 or 256.8 ft2)


One expedient basalt cutting tool



NRHP Eligibility Eligible D Recommendation Avoidance and protection *Without subsurface testing (excavation), it is not possible to rule out site use in precontact times. To the best of the Lead Archaeologist’s knowledge, no previous work has been conducted at this resource, which was newly discovered during the current study. It appears that this area has been surveyed before, and the resource must have been overlooked. The local landscape around this small temporary shelter is most forbidding as it is dominated by pāhoehoe lavas with very little vegetation cover, shade, or access to water.

SWCA-PTA-TS-1 is located approximately 0.5 miles due south of Pu‘u Menehune (also known locally and on some USGS maps as the Cinder Pit), northwest of the Engineer Trail (Figure 250). This cultural resource is located up against one of several large blocks of outcropping basalt in an otherwise featureless landscape of gently undulating scrubland (Figure 251).

SWCA-KTA-TS-9 is a small modified outcrop on the west side of a large section of uplifted basalt (Figure 252). Informal rock stacking and alignment along the west side of the site creates two small level soil-sediment areas against the base of the outcrop. Feature 1, the larger of the two, is located to the north, and measures approximately 4.0 m (north-to-south) by 1.0-1.5 m (east-to-west) (Figures 253 and 254). Feature 2, the smaller of the level soil-sediment areas, is located to the south and is slightly elevated above Feature 1. Feature 2 is about half the overall area of Feature 1. There is a small cubby hole constructed of boulders at Feature 2. The north and west sides of the site are retained by informal stacking and alignment of mostly angular / subangular vesicular basalt. An expedient basalt cutting tool was found on the ground surface of Feature 1 (Figure 255).

SWCA recommends site SWCA-PTA-TS-1 eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. This cultural resource is an excellent example of a traditional Hawaiian temporary shelter in the PTA region. The site probably dates from precontact times but its occupation and use may have also extended into early historic times. The site almost certainly contains intact subsurface deposits of archaeological and cultural significance. SWCA recommends avoidance and protection in perpetuity.



Figure 250. USGS map showing location of SWCA-PTA-TS-1.



Figure 251. Landscape overview just north of SWCA-PTA-TS-1, facing north.

Figure 252. Overview of SWCA-PTA-TS-1 with Kamoa Quitevas crouching in Feature 1 level soil-sediment area, facing east.



Figure 253. SWCA-PTA-TS-1, Feature 1, facing northeast.

Figure 254. SWCA-PTA-TS-1, Feature 1, facing north-northwest.



Figure 255. Expedient basalt cutting tool found on the surface at SWCA-PTA-TS-1, Feature 1.



DISCUSSION

The purpose of this discussion is to expand upon several issues and topics that have arisen during the course of this project and as a direct result of its findings. Using the subject project as an example, the focus here is on ways to constructively move forward and change the way historic-preservation work is conducted in the Hawaiian Islands in order to avoid future disputes, which are costly and which detract from the main missions of both clients. This is by no means an exhaustive treatment of these issues, but, rather, is intended to serve as a constructive outline of some areas of concern that need to be improved in order for OHA and the Army to more productively and effectively work together to preserve and protect Hawai‘i’s cultural resources.

SYSTEMIC NATURE OF THE PROBLEMS

It is first and foremost important to state that most of the specific problems uncovered during the subject project are by no means unique to the Army, but are widespread and prevalent throughout much of the historic-preservation and “cultural resource management” community of practitioners in the Hawaiian Islands (see, e.g., Monahan 2007). This in no way absolves the Army from its responsibility to fix what is wrong, and there is ample room for improvement based on the results section of this report, which documents numerous specific examples of incompletely documented sites and features, overlooked features and sites, dubious interpretations of sites and features, and various reporting inadequacies. At the same time, it is a mistake, or at least an oversimplification, to argue that the Army is alone in this respect. The Lead Archaeologist has seen similar problems with state and county agencies in the Hawaiian Islands, as well as with large private landowners and developers, and the dysfunctional and ineffective Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) is a big part of the problem. The subject project is one example—albeit a very expensive and highly visible one given the amount of money at stake on the Stryker project, of a systemic problem that will take many individuals and organizations working together to improve. It is the professional opinion of the Lead Archaeologist that, of all the agencies and land managers involved in historic-preservation work in the Hawaiian Islands, the Army, working with the community, is in the unique position of having sufficient resources to actually affect meaningful change in the system.

NEED FOR SYNTHESIZING DOCUMENTS

After just a couple days working at Schofield, and then again at KTA, it became immediately apparent that the project areas suffer greatly from a lack of synthetic, analytical studies that integrate the results of multiple, prior surveys and other area-specific research (e.g., historical, cultural and environmental). The current standard operating procedure, which is to conduct project-specific assessments on a case-by-case basis, generally results in reports that amount to lists of resources that are not integrated with each other in any meaningful way. This is a serious shortcoming in Hawai‘i, in particular, since associations and relationships and connections among and between resources and people is deeply rooted in Hawaiian world views, community values, and beliefs about significance of place. As such, these viewpoints are supposed to be included in resource evaluations such as NRHP eligibility recommendations and determinations. Separating and isolating sites and features into “bite sized” pieces may serve the interests of getting development projects completed, but does not fully capture the reality of the evidence. Many or most of the reports produced for the subject project areas, for example, fail to develop



the bigger picture of cultural landscapes and an authentically Hawaiian sense of what is most important or interesting about a site or a feature on the landscape. For example, as described in detail in the Results section, the extensive pond-field taro-growing site complex designated SHIP 5381 is flanked on the north side, on a narrow ridge overlooking the central portion of the site, by a traditional, precontact, permanent habitation site complex (SIHP 6561) inhabited, undoubtedly, by the very same people who constructed, maintained, and cultivated this vast complex of taro gardens. There is no mention in any of the prior reports that these two site complexes have anything to do with each other even though they are a “stone’s throw” apart, literally right next to each other.

This more inclusive recognition of Hawaiian values and beliefs does not necessarily preclude the Army from doing what it wants to do with the land it controls, but it does mean that a more accurate and balanced picture of Hawai‘i’s natural and cultural resources will emerge. Synthesizing studies analyzing specific data from archaeological and cultural resource inventory surveys conducted by experienced, well-trained, professional anthropologists, archaeologists, historians and cultural specialists would be an important step in the right direction.

SUBSURFACE TESTING (EXCAVATION)

One of the recurring recommendations for many or most of the cultural resources described in the Results chapter is the need for subsurface testing (excavation) in order to meaningfully evaluate NRHP eligibility. At the present time, many of the archaeological sites included in this report are not understood in enough detail to make even basic functional and temporal interpretations, or, at least, to make scientifically valid hypotheses that can be tested. While it may be more important to some people to have a site recommended or determined eligible for the NRHP than to actually obtain good information about what it is and how old it is, this seems entirely inadequate for the purposes of satisfying the basic requirements of the applicable environmental and historic-preservation laws.

On the mainland (or continental) United States, it would be unthinkable—and totally inadequate regarding the NRHP—to evaluate archaeological sites similar to the typical old Hawaiian constructions without doing some kind of digging. Many Hawaiian sites that consist of stacked and aligned rocks could be 100 years old, that is, historic in age; or 230 years old, that is, right at the transition between “precontact” and “historic”; or 500 years old or more; and the differences between these time periods to Hawaiians and to American history, which is the focus of the NRHP and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), are profound. Particularly given the propensity for people to build on top of older structures and locations, which is extremely common in the Hawaiian Islands, where level land for houses and gardens has always been at a premium, there is a good chance that many substantially older sites are simply not being discovered (and thus not being preserved) because consulting archaeologists and agencies are allowed to stop and move on—without excavating—once a site appears at the surface to be “only historic.” There is a tremendous amount of “guess work” in prior evaluations and reporting from the subject project areas, and a great deal of equivocal / ambiguous evidence that would typically be addressed by conducting excavation.

Unfortunately, archaeology and archaeological excavation have developed a rather negative reputation in the Hawaiian Islands, in large part, because most of those who oppose it the



strongest have only experienced “cultural resource management”-style archaeology and excavation, conducted in the service of a market economy, in which expediency and a general lack of concern for authentic cultural knowledge and cultural sensitivity are the norms. A full discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this report; however, it is important to point out that the “cultural resource management” model of fieldwork typically places inexperienced or less than adequately trained people who get paid the least in the position of deciding where to dig, how to do it, what to record, what to ignore, and so on. Many states require an excavation permit, which must be reviewed by native organizations who may request to be present during the work, before such work can proceed. Speedy or hasty digging, which is valued by the current economic system, is less likely to occur if appropriately trained native persons and other community members are included in the process. The “industry standard” of haphazard digging is not the archaeology that most people learn in graduate schools or in field schools, where the emphasis is on careful, problem-oriented excavation using not shovels or pickaxes or backhoes, but trowels and brushes and even dental tools or tooth picks!

Both the Army and OHA have their own reasons to oppose excavation at the project areas described in this report. The Army has to mitigate safety issues and the high costs associated with testing in places where there may be ordnance. Many of OHA’s beneficiaries do not approve of archaeological investigations of cultural sites because of its inherently destructive techniques. But surely excavation can be conducted in a manner that is more professional, more careful, and less destructive than the typical “industry standards” as generally practiced in the Hawaiian Islands by “cultural resource management” firms. Quality excavation is not difficult to achieve, but it cannot necessarily be effectively and faithfully accomplished by hiring the cheapest or the biggest firm, at least not without a detailed scope of work that outlines professional standards and expectations.

The Lead Archaeologist recommends the Army develop a program of subsurface testing at the subject project areas, particularly for cultural resources at Schofield and KTA that have been recommended for Phase I excavation in this report. Testing should be based on and guided by a planning document developed in consultation with relevant community groups and individuals, including OHA, and appropriately trained Hawaiian cultural specialists. Excavation should be conducted with specific research objectives that vary from resource to resource depending on a comprehensive understanding of what is known about a site, what needs to be addressed, and what areas of the site should be avoided at all costs. Testing should be based on hypotheses with clear test implications, in keeping with standard operating procedures in research archaeology. Testing should be designed and conducted in a culturally sensitive manner.

RETHINKING HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE IN HAWAI‘I

Most professional conclusions about what is, or is not, ‘historically significant’ in the Hawaiian Islands, including in and around the subject project areas, have been based on studies that lack meaningful input from Kānaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians). Most previous archaeological and cultural resource studies that have been conducted in the subject project areas, furthermore, are grounded in a scientific, western perspective that does not necessarily attach the same values to phenomena that indigenous people may value highly.



For example, at Schofield, the Mohiakea Stream drainage has never been considered a ‘historic property,’ and has certainly never been assigned a site number. But in the course of the fieldwork described in this report, it was quite obvious that the entire Mohiakea Stream drainage, including its smaller (ephemeral) tributary containing SIHP 6841, is one extensive site complex, or, a group of site complexes from the Wai‘anae Mountains to Kūkaniloko. A proper evaluation and documentation of an authentically Hawaiian sense of the historic and cultural significance of this stream drainage system is most effectively accomplished by way of the Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) paradigm, which has yet to be faithfully applied to the subject project areas. It is likely that these same observations apply to Kalena and Hale‘au‘au Streams. At Kahuku, as mentioned briefly in the Results chapter, it is likely Pu‘ukī and ‘Ō‘io Gulch are other examples of ‘historic properties’ that have special significance to Native Hawaiian perspectives that have not yet been developed and formalized in reports and documents.

The point here is not to criticize previous archaeological or historical studies, per se, but to illustrate the inadequacies of approaches that grossly undervalue natural resources and environmental features that Kānaka Maoli certainly view as sacred and ‘historically significant.’

The critical importance of obtaining native input regarding historic significance assessments goes straight to the heart of who gets to decide what is important about the past, and these are not insignificant issues or minor academic details. Rather, who gets to decide what is important about the past directly conditions present and future decisions about what we can preserve, what we can rebuild and focus on in our educational programs, and what we are willing to sacrifice for development and material progress. There is much work to be done on improving the extent to which Hawaiian ideas are incorporated into the wider societal discourse about cultural and historic significance. Advancing these objectives is critical to the cultural and spiritual sustainability of Hawai‘i Nei.

TCP STUDIES

As stated in the Introduction, and in several appropriate places in the Results chapter, the project described in this report is not a TCP study, which cannot effectively be conducted concurrently or simultaneously with an evaluation of archaeological resources since the two approaches are based on completely different paradigms. A full discussion of TCPs is beyond the scope of this report, however, such studies are needed at Schofield, KTA and PTA. At the same time, there is a tremendous amount of misinformation and misunderstanding as to what TCPs are, and what a TCP evaluation consists of. The reader is referred to two examples (Monahan and Silva 2007; Monahan 2009) for more information; both of these studies were contracted through, and are the property of, OHA, which should be contacted for information about obtaining copies. In a Section 106 consultation letter by Goo (2006) regarding the proposed CACTAF project at KTA, it was stated several times that a recent TCP evaluation of the area was conducted by another company but no TCPs were identified in or around the CACTAF project area, which seems an almost impossibility given the fact that there are numerous Hawaiian-named physiographic features in and around the CACTAF area, some with easily-obtainable mo‘olelo (oral-historical information) published in widely circulated sources such as Sites of Oahu (Summers and Sterling 1978). Rather, the apparent lack of TCPs in and around CACTAF, to take just one example, is more likely a result of the fact that TCP paradigm has yet to be faithfully and accurately applied at Kahuku. The same situation undoubtedly likely applies at Schofield and PTA.



CONCLUSIONS

At the request of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and the United States Army (Army), SWCA has produced this report describing a project resulting from a lawsuit settlement between the two parties. The settlement called for an independent, objective “second opinion” regarding the adequacy of cultural resource inventories associated with the Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i. In short, OHA claimed the Army failed to fulfill the basic requirements of applicable federal environmental and historic-preservation laws; and the settlement allowed for up to 50 days of fieldwork by a “third party” archaeologist meeting the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s professional standards escorted by representatives of the two parties. The project objectives, scope of work, methods, specific results and a brief discussion have been included in previous chapters. This chapter summarizes three main kinds of information: (1) a general characterization of results of this study that conflict with previous surveys and findings, (2) SWCA’s resource-specific evaluations and recommendations, and (3) suggestions for future work in the subject project areas.

RESULTS THAT CONFLICT WITH PRIOR REPORTING

General Results

The results chapter of this report began with several types of general findings that are relevant to the objectives of this project. These general findings, which have been described in detail using examples from the project areas, can be organized into six main categories.

Defining project areas and areas of potential effects (APEs)—In view of the fact that the intended use of the proposed undertaking includes training of military personnel, driving over the landscape in large all-terrain vehicles, and shooting at targets, and in view of the fact that, by its very nature, training means that people will sometimes drive where they are not supposed to, and shoot in the wrong place, OHA has questioned the concept of narrowly defined project areas and APEs, and there appears to be ample reason for concern based on all available information.

Cumulative impacts and mitigation commitments—Many cultural resources identified by previous contractors are recommended for “avoidance and protection during construction,” rather than “avoidance and protection” (in perpetuity), which is an important distinction that implies post-construction activities—such as the actual training for which the construction is preparing the landscape, is not being taken into consideration. The “avoidance and protection during construction” recommendation also fails to protect cultural resources that may be actively affected by other ongoing impacts.

Draft reports—In view of the fact that the EIS and Supplemental EIS processes have been completed for the proposed undertaking, OHA has raised the issue that it seems inappropriate for several key reports describing results of surveys directly affected by the Stryker project to still be in draft form or not even available as a draft. Some key reports for the Schofield project area are still in draft form. The work described here was also hampered by the lack of even a draft report for portions of the KTA project area.



General lack of subsurface testing—From a scientific, archaeological perspective, independent of historic-preservation and environmental-assessment issues, this is probably the most glaring problem with previous surveys of the subject project areas. Most archaeological resources at Schofield Barracks and many at KTA have not been tested (excavated) for subsurface deposits; therefore, many or most of the functional and temporal interpretations presented by previous consultants are mere guesses at this point, and are based on relatively little scientific data

Knowledge, skills, and abilities of field personnel—Many features identified by cultural monitors are difficult for inexperienced field personnel to recognize due to the sometimes subtle nature of the evidence; their informal design and construction; and damage at the ground surface from ordnance. A good number of these features can only be recognized by experienced field archaeologists who have worked in Hawai‘i for a long time and / or by people with other kinds of relevant and practical training (e.g., they worked with kūpuna, or elders, with a kuleana, or responsibility, to teach about wahi pana, or legendary / sacred sites or places).

Prior reporting standards—There appears to be a nearly universal lack of clearly defined site boundaries for NRHP-eligible cultural resources in the reports of previous consultants who worked at the project areas studied in this report. The typical level of documentation found in most of these reports—consisting of a single data point on GIS/GPS map projections, and perhaps a field sketch map of above-ground, dry-stacked features—does not include this most basic requirement of NRHP eligibility. There are also pervasive issues in prior reports of a general lack of professionalism and problems of consistency and accuracy. One recurring and common example is field photographs without visible scale and / or north arrow.

Specific Results

The work described in this report includes several different kinds of specific results that conflict with previous surveys and findings. These results include the following: (1) new cultural resources not identified in previous studies, (2) newly identified features at previously identified sites that expand the site boundary, (3) new interpretations of previously identified sites and features that differ with prior evaluations, and (4) different NRHP eligibility recommendations at sites where insufficient prior information has been obtained—mostly owing to a lack of subsurface testing (excavation). RESOURCE-SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Schofield Project Area

Forty-one cultural resources from the Schofield Barracks project area (includes one resource from QTR2) were formally described in varying levels of detail and specificity and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Management recommendations for each resource have also been presented.

The 41 cultural resources include seven (7) previously identified historic properties with State Inventory of Historic Properties (SIHP) numbers (SIHP 5381, 5448, 6687, 6688, 6841, 6844 and 6846). New features, not previously identified or evaluated as cultural resources, were documented at all of these seven sites. In some cases, for example, at SIHP 6841, the work described here has more than doubled the known number of features. With the exception of SIHP



6688 and 6846, all of these resources are recommended eligible for the NRHP (Table 5). SIHP 6688 and 6846 are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) since their functions are indeterminate without conducting additional fieldwork in the form of Phase I excavation. These two unevaluated resources should be avoided and protected until and pending further investigation. The other five sites should all be avoided and protected in perpetuity. No further work is recommended for SIHP 5448 located in the QTR2 portion of the project area. Additional Phase I survey to ensure a complete inventory of surface features is recommended for SIHP 5381, 6687, 6841 and 6844. Phase I excavation is recommended at SIHP 6846 to investigated its function(s). Additional recommendations have been presented for the two extensive site complexes designated SIHP 5381 and 6841. Given their large size and unique character, particularly in the middle of a training area that most people assume is bereft of historic properties, these two resources should be the subject of a site development plan including a community access component in order to educate and share with the public these extraordinary resources. Such a plan should include extensive consultation with relevant individuals and organizations, including OHA.

Three (3) cultural resources (DPW T-6, -9 and -10) had previously been pointed out by cultural monitors to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and / or prior archaeological consultants, but had not been formally documented or evaluated as cultural resources. All three of these resources are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) since their functions are indeterminate without conducting additional fieldwork. These three unevaluated resources should be avoided and protected until and pending further investigation. Additional Phase I survey to ensure a complete inventory of surface features is recommended for DPW T-6. Phase I excavation is recommended at DPW T-9 and T-10 to investigate their function(s).

Eighteen (18) cultural resources (SWCA-BAX-TS-1 through and including -18) had not been previously documented or evaluated as cultural resources, although some features at some of these resources had been pointed out in the past by cultural monitors to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff and / or prior archaeological consultants. These 18 resources include eight petroglyphs or possible petroglyphs and other marked boulders (SWCA-BAX-TS-1 through and including -8). Three of these resources (SWCA-BAX-TS-1, -5 and -18) are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No further work is recommended at SWCA-BAX-TS-1. Preservation / curation of the portable artifact designated SWCA-BAX-TS-5 is recommended along with further study to investigate its function. Archaeological and cultural monitoring of future ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity of SWCA-BAX-TS-18 is recommended. Seven resources (SWCA-BAX-TS-2, -3, -6, -8, -10, -12 and -14) are recommended eligible for the NRHP (see Table 5). Avoidance and protection in perpetuity is recommended for SWCA-BAX-TS-2, -3, -6 and -8, which are all petroglyphs. In addition, all of these resources should be included in a petroglyph preservation plan. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity is also recommended for SWCA-BAX-TS-10, which has been included in the site boundary for SIHP 5381. No further work is recommended for SWCA-BAX-TS-10. The last two eligible resources, SWCA-BAX-TS-12 and -14 should be avoided and protected until and pending further investigation. Phase I excavation is recommended at SWCA-BAX-TS-12 to investigate its function(s). Additional Phase I survey to ensure a complete inventory of surface features is recommended for SWCA-BAX-TS-14.



Finally at Schofield, thirteen (13) surface artifacts (here designated SWCA-BAX-IF-1 through and including -13) were identified. Five of these were found in close proximity to the site boundary of SIHP 6562, which has been re-defined and enlarged in this study to accommodate these new finds; and seven were found in or near no previously identified site. The five surface finds located within the new suite boundary for SIHP 6562 (SWCA-BAX-IF-2, -3, -8, -9 and -10) are recommended eligible in light of their association with SIHP 6562, which has previously been recommended eligible for the NRHP. Archaeological and cultural monitoring of future ground disturbance in the immediate vicinity of SWCA-BAX-IF-2, -3, -8, -9 an d-10 is recommended. The remaining eight surface finds (SWCA-BAX-IF-1, -4, -5, -6, -7, -11, -12 and -13) are recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No further fieldwork is recommended at these eight surface finds. Professional curation is recommended for all thirteen surface artifacts described in this report (SWCA-BAX-IF-1 through and including -13).

Kahuku Project Area

As summarized in Table 5, a total of 14 cultural resources from the KTA project area were formally described in varying levels of detail and specificity and evaluated for NRHP eligibility. Management recommendations for each resource have also been presented.

Six (6) of these cultural resources (SWCA-KTA-TS-1, -2, -3, -5, -8 and -9) had not been previously documented or evaluated as cultural resources, but were formally described for the first time in this report. The three missing numbers in this series of “temporary site” numbers (SWCA-KTA-TS-4, -6 and -7) were determined by the Lead Archaeologist not to be cultural resources and were not discussed further in this report. SWCA-KTA-TS-1 is recommended not eligible for the NRHP, and no further work is recommended. The remaining five resources are all recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) for the NRHP. Avoidance and protection of all of these resources is recommended until and pending further investigation. Phase I excavation is recommended at SWCA-KTA-TS-2, -3, -5 and -8 to investigate their function(s). Additional Phase I survey to ensure a complete inventory of surface features and Phase I excavation to determine site age is recommended for SWCA-KTA-TS-9.

Six (6) resources (GANDA T-1, -2, -7, -8, -12, and -22) are re-assessments of sites previously recommended by the Army’s contractor and determined by the Army to be not eligible for the NRHP because they are non-archaeological and / or non-TCP resources. All of these resources are recommended unevaluated (potentially eligible) based on fieldwork described in this report. Avoidance and protection of all of these resources is recommended until and pending further investigation. Phase I excavation is recommended in order to determine if archaeological deposits are present. TCP evaluation is also recommended for these potential resources.

One (1) cultural resource (SCS T-33) is a re-evaluation of a previously documented site interpreted as a historic-era clearing mound, but more consistent with being a precontact platform of traditional design. Phase I excavation is recommended to determine site function. SCS T-33 is recommend unevaluated (potentially eligible) pending additional investigation, and should be avoided and protected until and pending this additional work. One (1) isolated find (SWCA-KTA-IF-1) was discovered at KTA. This surface artifact is recommended not eligible for the NRHP. No further fieldwork is recommended at this find; however, professional curation is recommended for SWCA-KTA-IF-1.


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

306

Table 5. Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project Resource No. Project

Area Formal Description Functional / Temporal

Interpretation NRHP Eligibility Recommendation

Mitigation Recommendation

SIHP 5381 Schofield (BAX)



Eligible A, B, C & D 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey 3. Site development plan 4. Community access

SIHP 5448 Schofield (QTR2)


Habitation site complex, w. gardening features as well, one documented burial feature (F.6); Precontact

Eligible C & D Avoidance and protection in perpetuity


Extensive dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex consisting of at least 10 features

Multi-purpose including habitation and gardening; Precontact

Eligible D 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey


Large enclosure constructed of dry-stacked and aligned boulders

Indeterminate function(s); Indeterminate age

Unevaluated (potentially eligible)

1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP eligibility evaluation



Multi-purpose including habitation, gardening, burial; Precontact

Eligible C & D

1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey 3. Site development plan 4. Community access


Three dry-stacked and aligned rock features and one rock-defined hearth

Small habitation site complex; Precontact

Eligible D

1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. Phase I survey of area to the south that was unavailable for survey due to safety requirements


Three dry-stacked and aligned rock features




DPW T-6 Schofield (BAX)

Dry-stacked and aligned rock site complex

Permanent habitation and/or religious site complex; Precontact


1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I survey to identify and evaluate all surface features


Dry-stacked and aligned rock enclosure with associated features





Boulder terrace with associated features

Habitation or dryland gardening; Precontact



SWCA-BAX-TS-1 Schofield (BAX)

Marked boulder Not cultural Not Eligible No further work


Petroglyph on boulder Petroglyph; Precontact

Eligible C

1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. Petroglyph preservation plan


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

307

Table 5 (continued). Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project Resource No. Project





Probable petroglyph on boulder Probable petroglyph, but rock is severely degraded; Probably precontact

Eligible C



Possible petroglyph on boulder Possible petroglyph; may have other (non-petroglyph) function(s); Indeterminate age


Avoidance and further study of possible function(s)


Incised boulder with puka (symmetrical hole)

Possible sharpening stone; Probably precontact

Not Eligible

Preservation / curation of the object and further study to ascertain its function(s)


Petroglyph on boulder “Bird petroglyph”; Precontact

Eligible C 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. Petroglyph preservation plan


Possible petroglyph on boulder Possible petroglyph; may have other (non-petroglyph) function(s); Indeterminate age


Avoidance and further study of possible function(s)


Petroglyph on boulder Petroglyph; Precontact

Eligible C



Dry-stacked and aligned rock-structural features





Complex of dry-stacked and aligned rock features

Habitation site complex, probable gardening features as well; Precontact

Eligible D

Avoidance and protection in perpetuity


Linear alignment of partially buried / exposed cobbles oriented up- and downslope

Indeterminate function(s) and age





Indeterminate function(s): possible burial mound complex or dryland gardening complex; Precontact

Eligible C & D






1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I survey to identify and evaluate all surface features


Multiple boulder terraces Probable dryland gardening; Precontact

Eligible C & D

1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity 2. More extensive Phase I survey


Single boulder terrace Habitation or dryland gardening; Probable precontact




ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

308






Remnant – degraded mound or platform





Linear alignment of partially buried / exposed cobbles





Surface scatter of ‘ili‘ili (waterworn pebbles) and branch coral fragments*


Not Eligible Monitoring of ground disturbance

SWCA-BAX-IF-1 Schofield (BAX)

Surface find, fragment of adze preform

Woodworking tool; Precontact

Not Eligible

1. No further fieldwork 2. Curation for artifact


Surface find, complete small adze


Associated w. SIHP 6562 (Eligible D)

1. Monitoring of ground disturbance; 2. Curation for artifact


Surface find, complete small stone bowl

Possible kukui nut oil lamp; Precontact




Surface find, fragment of adze Woodworking tool; Precontact

Not Eligible





Not Eligible



Surface find, small utilized blade

Expedient cutting tool; Precontact

Not Eligible



Surface find, fragment of abrading stone

Grinding, polishing tool; Precontact

Not Eligible



Surface find, flaked core Source of flakes; Precontact




Surface find, complete slingstone

Possible bird-hunting tool; Precontact




Surface find, fragment of abrading stone

Grinding, polishing tool; Precontact





Not Eligible




Not Eligible





Not Eligible


SWCA-KTA-TS-1 Kahuku Large mound built of very large boulders

Clearing mound; Sugarcane era

Not eligible

No further fieldwork


ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

309





SWCA-KTA-TS-2 Kahuku Natural rock outcropping with informal boulder stacking

Possible shrine or “god stone”; Precontact



SWCA-KTA-TS-3 Kahuku Terrace complex Possible habitation complex; Precontact



SWCA-KTA-TS-5 Kahuku Terrace Gardening / agriculture; Historic



SWCA-KTA-TS-8 Kahuku Small rock mound Indeterminate-possible burial; Historic



SWCA-KTA-TS-9 Kahuku Rockshelter complex Indeterminate – temporary habitation / possible burial; Precontact


1. Avoidance and protection 2. Phase I survey to identify all features 3. Limited Phase I excavation to assist in evaluating the age of this resource

GANDA T-1 Kahuku Concentration of naturally occurring large boulders




GANDA T-2 Kahuku Boulder concentration with informal alignments and enclosures




GANDA T-7 (Feature 1 only)

Kahuku Concentration of naturally occurring large boulders




GANDA T-8 Kahuku Possible platform or mound Indeterminate; Indeterminate



GANDA T-12 Kahuku Platform Indeterminate—possible shrine; Indeterminate



GANDA T-22 Kahuku C-shape (three-sided rock alignment)

Indeterminate – possible military training / possible burial; Indeterminate



SCS T-33 Kahuku Platform Indeterminate; Precontact




ation Areas in Haw

ai‘i

SWC

A Project No. 15131

310





SWCA-KTA-IF-1 Kahuku Stone bowl preform Indeterminate; Precontact

Not Eligible


SWCA-PTA-TS-1 Pohakuloa Modified outcrop Temporary shelter; Precontact

Eligible D Avoidance and protection in perpetuity

* According to KQ, he observed large mammal bones at SWCA-BAX-TS-18, possibly human skeletal remains, at this location in 2006 in the company of previous Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff member. No bones were observed during the current investigation.



Pohakuloa Project Area

As summarized in Table 5, one new cultural resource designated SWCA-PTA-TS-1 was identified at PTA. This small temporary shelter is consistent with being a precontact Hawaiian site. It is recommended eligible for the NRHP, and should be avoided and preserved in perpetuity.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE WORK IN THE SUBJECT PROJECT AREAS

Schofield Project Area

Based on detailed discussions with Kamoa Quitevas, who has personal knowledge of the location of additional specific cultural resources we were unable to observe, based on analysis of available maps, GIS/GPS data, and previous reports, and based on several attempts to access other portions of the BAX project area during the fieldwork described in this report, it is clear that the same kinds of results obtained for Mohiakea Stream would also be obtained for much of Hale‘au‘au, Kalena, and lower Mohiakea Stream. All of these places were inaccessible, even with the elevated safety measures followed during the second half of the current project, due to high grass and ground cover that made it impossible to see the ground surface and too dangerous to walk through.

The following specific areas should be surveyed in detail:

10. Areas in and around the site complex SIHP 6830 and numerous “ts” site numbers (which seem to refer to what are labeled “cm” site numbers elsewhere, that is, “cultural monitor” features and sites pointed out to Army DPW-Cultural Resources staff by cultural monitors in or before 2006) from “ts434” through and including “ts438.”

11. Areas in and around the site complex SIHP 6563 and SIHP 6564, which are represented by individual data points only, and “cm444.” Collectively, these sites likely represent an extensive lo‘i (pond-field taro-growing) complex similar or even more extensive than SIHP 5381, which cultural monitors pointed out, and the current study has demonstrated, is many times larger than documented in previous reports by other contractors.

12. A mound and terrace complex located immediately west of SIHP 6695 but east of Hale‘au‘au Heiau site complex. This area is depicted in the Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database as two unlabeled blue triangles.

13. A lo‘i complex located immediately north of Hale‘au‘au Heiau site complex, which appears in the Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database as a series of blue (i.e., “cultural monitor” sites and features) lines and points.

14. A swale located immediately south of Kalena Stream, and containing a dense concentration of “cultural monitor” sites and features (including a number series of “ts” designations in the 270s, 280s, and 290s). This area appears to contain many



mounds and stacked rock features that may be burials, similar to SIHP 6562 to the east.

15. An extensive grove of kukui (Aleurites moluccana) located in the Kalena Stream bottom adjacent to SIHP 6561. It is likely that this resource, whose boundaries couldn’t be inspected or accurately mapped on the ground, represents a traditional cultural property associated with Kukui-o-Lono. In their discussion of the gardening traditions and sites throughout the islands, Handy and Handy (1972) have this to say about Wahiawā: “Above and west of the site of the present town [of Wahiawā] was Kukui-o-Lono, a place famous in legend. In its vicinity are a number of lo‘i developments. Kukaniloko was the name of an ancient high chief of Oahu who is said to have made the first lo‘i here.”

16. Possible lo‘i complex in lower Mohiakea Stream immediately south of SIHP 6838 and 6689.

17. Another site and feature complex in and around SIHP 5379, SIHP 5380, and 6694, which are represented on Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database maps as point data only, but which may contain more extensive cultural resources only partially documented by prior consultants.

18. Another site and feature complex in and around SIHP 6553 (represented on Army DPW-Cultural Resources GIS/GPS database maps as point data only) and extending down to the site complexes of SIHP 6554 and SIHP 6555. It is likely that much of this area contains more extensive cultural resources only partially documented by prior consultants.

Kahuku Project Area

Based on analysis of available maps, GIS/GPS data, previous reports, and the results described above for KTA, the following specific areas should be surveyed in detail:

4. All areas west of ‘Ō‘io Stream previously surveyed by SCS—and for which no draft report was available for the subject project.

5. All stream and gulch bottoms and adjacent alluvial flats in the KTA, many of which have not been recently surveyed in conjunction with Stryker-related projects since they have been defined as being out of the areas of potential effects (APE), which is clearly illogical since training will undoubtedly result in personnel, vehicles and perhaps training rounds ending up in the wrong place (i.e., out of construction footprints and / or out of supposedly designated training areas).

6. As stated in the Introduction, the work described in this report does not qualify as a TCP evaluation, since many of the fundamental components of TCP work—including community consultation, interviews with potentially knowledgeable individuals, archival/background research, and Hawaiian language records analysis and translation—were not part of the scope of work. At a minimum, the Lead Archaeologist believes Pu‘ukī and the ‘Ō‘io Gulch would satisfy the requirements of



TCPs if they were adequately investigated. The coastal area makai (seaward) of Pu‘ukī was once known as (and is depicted on some historical maps as) Kii (or Ki‘i), and there are undoubtedly important cultural associations and connections between these places that have yet to be investigated. Likewise, the ‘Ō‘io Gulch, within which we observed a large number of mature and very tall hala (Pandanus tectorius) trees, for which Kahuku is famous as recorded in numerous oral-historical accounts (see, e.g., Sterling and Summers 1978:148-149), should be properly evaluated as a TCP.

TCP Studies

Given the scope of work for this project, this report is not a formal traditional cultural resource (TCP) evaluation, although several potential TCPs are discussed where appropriate. This is not a TCP evaluation for many of the same reasons it is not a formal archaeological or cultural resources inventory survey: TCP work involves not only the background / archival work and community consultation mentioned above, but also interviews, analysis of Hawaiian language documents, resources for translation services, and accommodations for getting certain community participants into the field to visit sites and features and offer their mana‘o (ideas, beliefs, concerns).



REFERENCES CITED

Abbott, I.A. 1992 Lā‘au Hawai‘i, Traditional Hawaiian Uses of Plants. B.P. Bishop Museum,

Honolulu.

Buffum, A. L. 2005a Intensive Archaeological Survey of McCarthy Flats and Battle Area Complex (BAX)

Training Range Construction Projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), U.S. Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawā District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7-01). Volume II: 2004 Survey Results. Final Report. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.

2005b Intensive Archaeological Survey of McCarthy Flats and Battle Area Complex (BAX) Training Range Construction Projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), U.S. Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawā District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7-01). Volume III: 2005 Survey Results. Preliminary Draft. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.

Ching, P. 2001 Sea Turtles of Hawai‘i. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

DeBaker, C. R., and J. A. Peterson 2007 Archaeological and Cultural Monitoring of McCarthy Flats and Battle Area Complex

(BAX) Training Range Projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) U.S. Army Hawai‘i, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawā District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7-01). Volume IV: 2006 Monitoring Results. Draft. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.

Descantes, C., M. Orr, and M. Desilets 2008 Archaeological and Cultural Monitoring Report for Unexploded Ordnance Clearance

at the Proposed Combined Arms Training Facility, Kahuku Training Area, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i, TMKs 5-6-08:2, 3, and 4, 5-7-02:4. Draft. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.

Ganda site forms 2005 Cultural monitor site forms provided by Kamoa Quitevas. Most of all of these forms

were filled out by Ganda archaeologist Brad Ostroff working with cultural monitors including Kamoa Quitevas and Keona Marks.

Goo, A. 2006 Section 106 Consultation Letter re “potential archaeological sites at the Combined

Arms Collective Training Facility (CACTAF), a Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) related project at the Kahuku Training Area (KTA).” Department of the Army, Directorate of Public Works, Schofield Barracks, Hawai‘i.

Handy, E. S. C. 1940 The Hawaiian Planter—Volume 1. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161, Honolulu.



Handy, E. S. C., and E. G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii, Their Life, Lore, & Environment. Bishop Museum

Press, Honolulu.

Malo, D. 2005 Hawaiian Antiquities, Mo‘olelo Hawai‘i, 2nd ed., Translated by N.B. Emerson, B.P.

Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Monahan, C. M. 2007 The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Critical Assessment of the Historic Preservation

Program and its Effectiveness in Protecting Traditional Hawaiian Cultural Resources. TCP Hawai‘i LLC for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs-Native Rights, Land and Culture, Honolulu.

2009 Nā Wahi Pana o Waimea (O‘ahu): A Traditional Cultural Property Study of Waimea. TCP Hawai‘i LLC for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs-Native Rights, Land and Culture, Honolulu.

Monahan, C. M., and A.P. Silva 2007 New Perspectives in Historic Preservation in Hawai‘i: Using the ‘TCP Paradigm’ to

Benefit the Hawaiian People and Environment: A Traditional Cultural Property Study of Kāne‘ikapualena (Kamaile), Wai‘anae, O‘ahu, with Recommended Changes to State of Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Chapters 6E & 343. TCP Hawai‘i LLC for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs-Native Rights, Land and Culture, Honolulu.

O’Hare, C. R., D. Shideler, and H. H. Hammatt 2006 Documentation of the Kahuku Sugar Mill, Kahuku Ahupua‘a, Ko‘olauloa District,

Island of O‘ahu TMK: (1) 5-6-002:017. Cultural Surveys Hawai‘i, Inc., Kailua, Hawai‘i.

Pukui, M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. T. Mookini 1974 Places Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Robins, J. J., and C. R. DeBaker 2005 Intensive Archaeological Survey of McCarthy Flats and Battle Area Complex (BAX)

Training Range Construction Projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT), U.S. Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawā District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7-01). Volume I: 2003 Survey Results. Final Report. Garcia and Associates, Kailua, Hawai‘i.

Robins, J. J., and R. L. Spear 1997a Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and Limited Testing of the Schofield Barracks

Training Areas for the Preparation of a Historic Preservation Plan for U.S. Army Training Ranges and Areas, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-6-01 and 7-7-01). SCS / CRMS, Inc., Honolulu.

1997b Research Design for a Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and Limited Testing, Phase II, of the Schofield Barracks Training Areas for U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Ecosystem Management Program, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i(TMK 7-6-01 and 7-7-01). SCS / CRMS, Inc., Honolulu.



2002a Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and Limited Testing, Phase I, of the Schofield Barracks Training Areas for the Preparation of a Cultural Resource Management Plan for U.S. Army Training Ranges and Areas, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-6-01 and 7-7-01). Final Report. SCS / CRMS, Inc., Honolulu.

2002b Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and Limited Testing, Phase II, of the U.S. Army Schofield Barracks Training Areas for U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Ecosystem Management Program, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Final Report. SCS / CRMS, Inc., Honolulu.

Sahlins, M. 1992 Anahulu, The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, Vol. 1, Historical

Ethnography. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Sterling, E.P., and C.C. Summers 1978 Sites of Oahu. Department of Anthropology, Department of Education, B.P. Bishop

Museum, Honolulu.

APPENDIX A

STATEMENT OF WORK


SWCA Project No. 15131 A-1

STATEMENT OF WORK Work for Cultural Property Reconnaissance

in Designated Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i

The Contractor archeologist ("Contractor") shall assist OHA and the ARMY (the "Parties") with the implementation of a survey process set forth in the Parties' Settlement Agreement, relevant portions of which are attached hereto. In accordance with a survey schedule developed by the parties, Contractor shall participate in up to 50 days of field surveys performed by OHA representatives, divided between the following "Survey Areas" , as designated by the Parties: 1. The Schofield Barracks Battle Area Complex (BAX).

2. Pohakuloa Training Area Ranges 1, 8, 10 and 11T.

3. Qualification Training Range 1 ("QTR1") at Schofield Barracks.

4. Qualification Training Range 2 ("QTR2") at Schofield Barracks.

5. KoleKole Ranges 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Schofield Barracks.

6. Kahuku Training Area. Contractor's role in the field surveys will be to accompany representatives of the Parties to specific locations chosen by OHA and approved by the Army in accordance with the Settlement Agreement to perform an independent evaluation of potential "Historic Properties" (as defined by 16 U.S.C. § 470w(5)) and/or "Cultural Items" (as defined by 25 U.S.C. § 3001) observed by Contractor and/or brought to Contractor's attention by representatives of the Parties. In his/her evaluation, Contractor shall apply the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. To the extent a potential Historic Property or Cultural Item was not identified in prior surveys of the Survey Areas, Contractor shall:

1) Mark the location of the Historic Property or Cultural Item on a USGS or comparable topographic map;

2) Document each additional Historic Property or Cultural Item according to: a. temporary inventory numbers, b. type; c. probable function; d. size, shape, type of building materials, heights, widths; e. absence or presence of surface artifacts and midden;

3) Take representative photographs with a photo scale; 4) GPS recordation (center point or at datum if Historic Property or Cultural Item is

mapped in plan view);


SWCA Project No. 15131 A-2

5) Evaluate site age and integrity (if possible); 6) Evaluate significance; 7) GPS and photograph all surface artifacts encountered; and 8) Immediately report the discovery of any Cultural Items to the Army in accordance

with the procedures in 43 C.F.R. § 10.4 for inadvertent discoveries.

In some instances, OHA may deem it necessary to reevaluate a potential Historic Property or Cultural Item which was identified or otherwise noticed in a prior survey. When this occurs, Contractor shall examine the subject property or item and evaluate its potential as an Historic Property or Cultural Item.

Report of Historic Properties evaluation Within thirty (30) days of OHA’s completion of the last of its surveys, OHA shall deliver its analyses, surveys, and all related information and documents relied upon and considered by OHA to Contractor and the Army. The Army may also submit analysis and supporting documentation within this timeframe for consideration by Contractor. Upon review of the parties’ submissions and the information obtained and notes made by Contractor in the field, Contractor shall prepare a report of Contractor’s findings, analysis and conclusions, and shall deliver said report in the quantities and format specified below to the Army and OHA within ninety (90) days of completion of the last survey. If appropriate, Contractor shall request that the Army evaluate the historic significance of the potential Historic Properties identified in the Contractor's report in accordance with 36 C.F.R. 800.4(c). Within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Contractor’s report, OHA may submit supplemental findings and analysis if it disagrees with Contractor’s findings and conclusions. Contractor shall provide 15 full color hard copies of the report, appropriately bound, and 2 electronic copies of the report on CD, to both OHA and the Army. . Contractor shall also provide OHA and the Army:

1) all GIS files and photographs on CD/DVD; 2) a photolog listing and appropriately describing tall photographs taken; 3) a hard copy of all field notes; 4) site forms on CD/DVD and hard copy; and 5) a copy of all maps and aerials used during fieldwork.

Required Training In order to access the Survey Areas identified above, the Contractor must first complete and/or provide documentation to support current certification for, the following training: Unexploded Ordnance Identification/Awareness, CPR/First Aid, and Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) training. Additionally, in order to access the Schofield Barracks BAX, the Contractor must first complete Radiation Awareness Training, an approximately 1 hour block of training that will be provided by the Army at no charge to the Contractor.

09 monahan report

Documents

cultural monitors

cultural resources dpw

cultural resources swcabaxts

hawaii swca project

difficult project

united states army army

hawaii abstractat

hawaii acknowledgementsthis