an archaeological reconnaissance survey ~>. in the

13
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY IN THE GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE SUBZONE OF UPPER KAMAl LL KEHENA AND KI KALA; PUNA; HAVlAII by W ILL IA J. BON K UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT HILO prepared for HAWAII NATURAL ENERGY INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA Hilo, Hawaii September, 1989

Upload: others

Post on 29-Jun-2022

1 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

~; ~~>.

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEYIN THE GEOTHERMAL RESOURCE SUBZONE OF

UPPER KAMAl LL KEHENA AND KI KALA; PUNA; HAVlAII

by

WILL IAl~ J. BON K

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT HILO

prepared for

HAWAII NATURAL ENERGY INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII AT MANOA

Hilo, Hawaii

September, 1989

Page 2: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

INTRODUCTION

In August of 1989 t1r. Mr. Art Sek1 from the Ha\'~ai1

Natural Energy Institute. University of hawaii at Manoa.contacted the writer of this report with a request foran archaeological reconnaissance survey of a geothermalwell site adjacent to land I had already surveyed in 1987(Bonk. 1988). At the time of the request I had just agreedto take on further investigation along the roadway and atthe terminus and therefore was willing to examine thisfairly small additional area. for I knew I would be in theregion. As with the previously examined roadway this plotis on property of the Estate of James Campbell in the PunaDistrict. on the island of Hawaii. Specifically. the areainvestigated is on the north-east rift of Kilauea. southof Kaohe Homesteads (See j~ap 1) and is in the uplands ofKamailL Kehena and Kikala. Puna.

Through the office of Mr. Nobuchila Santo of Island Survey.Inc .• I received pertinent information and copies of aplan showing the location of the project area. On September9th I carried out the field work for this report with theable assistance of my son. Ken.

1

Page 3: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

II

"/I~ ,/

, ,,'toJ ,:'" ".'. \/It'lr\. Ii

'\ "

I

l~

, ,j'.l \

1300

\

"-~

._---) --(---- ... I~ ------~ ) --/--\ \

\

l /---~

II

Page 4: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

AREA

i/1

------ ----.

The area examine'd is on the makai or south s1ue of theroad that links Kaohe Homesteads \'l1th the tlid-PacificGeothermal. Inc. well and reservoir sites at the roadterminal. and about 2.4 miles westward (See Maps 1.2.and 3.) A gate on the road is just beyond a turn in theroadway as it comes out of the homesteads. enters theforest and straightens to run almost 2~ miles to theMid-Pacific well site. About 200 feet mauka of the gate.and on the left or south side of the road. is the sur~

veyor's pin that designates the northeast corner of the0.516 acre project site. The proposed well site is asquare plot. 150 feet on all sides. and with the northside abutting the roadway (See Map 4.)

As already stated. this is Campbell Estate land. Tax~1 ay Key: 1- 2- 10: par. 1.

The parcel was already surveyed and staked prior toour arrival. In so doing. the surveyors had cut narrowlines of sight through the rainforest. The perimeter wasstaked at all four corners (See Figure 1.) However. in

LOCATION MAP5ca\e: I" = 4000'

flap 2

3

,----_._--------------,---'-----

Page 5: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

ROAOv--JAY "TO ~t=LL '5 \TE.--To \Nell

aooIJ')

aoo1/)

-

, WELL 5tTEin (5cientifiC Ob5ervation \-\o\e) ,(\1 0.51Co AcY"eooIf)

<PO" CS' -- 150.00

---.-------o--....;;:...------::--- ---:--=--=-.---~--------------.-

e.40· e.5' -- 150.00 "- 'Z.\~. ~l N.l~je.04.10 N.II""'AL.\U" ,,'\.

PLAN 5HO\N\NGWE.LL 5\TE

C5cientific ObSeyvation Hole)eE1N G A POR'T10N OF PAR.Ce: L C

PORT\ON OF GRANT lS,G.G.(# ,0 TRU5TE.E5

UNOE~ THE V'J\LL OF THE E.5TATE

OF .lAMES CAMPe>ELL) OECEA5E.O

KAMA1Ll) ~E\-\ENA ANt) ~1t')ALA.)

PUNA) 15LA.NO OF HA\t'4All) HA1/'..lAI \

Owner:Eetc;de of Jarne5 Catrlpbell

5urve)' and Plan by ~

l 5 t ~ n d 5 u rv e y, t n c .

f'.O.Bo'X 337) Hi\o ... H-av-../aii

Tax Mpp t")e.'1 : \ - 'Z.- \0; por. t

Map 4

5

Page 6: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

Figure 2Looking south alongone of the survcyor1scuts through thecenter of tile site.

6

Figure 1

Looking south alongthe western borderof the site.

Page 7: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

1­~ :'."

.--.-.

to twenty feet limitation is a more reasonable barrier.

The study area is approximately 1240 feet above sealevel, with' a fairly high amount of rainfall. Through­out the many days in the field during the threeseparate investigations, we did not encounter a moist­ure~free day. Sometimes rain falls constantly, attimes heavily, and at other times periods of light rainand even a mist are interspaced with periods of sun­shine. This, of course, is what results in the rainforest.

Some pockets of soil are seen here and there, some­times in low-lying bowls overlaying pahoehoe. Thisquite often produces very muddy ponds at times of heavyrain and wet-spongy mud during dry periods. These arefavorite wallows for the many wild pigs that frequentthis region. We were forever on the alert for the sur­prise encounter that might occur with a rooting pig,and expecially a boar .

8

--------- - -~- -- ----------- ._.- ---- .. _------------------'----- -----------------..._--_ ..- -----_._- ._..

Page 8: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

Figure 3LooLin!] south at thesoutheast corner ofthe s tUGy a rea.

Figure 4

'a::.Ja plant nearsouthern Lorder.

10

Page 9: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

I, .

METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS

While in t~e field we followed basic reconnaissancesurvey procedure. Visual observation and recordingwhile following transect lines throu~h the area tobe investigated is normally part of the field methodo­logy.

In this case my son, assisted me with the field exami­nation. After locating the pins and survey linesalon0 the east and west borders, we followed thelines cut by the survey crew until we located thesoutheast and southwest pins marking the southerncorners of the area. Next we followed the four north­south transect lines already cut through the vegetationin the interior of the study area. As these lines wereapproximately 30 feet apart we wer.eeas1Jy able to seethe necessary 15 feet on either side Of the transect.In addition we followed a transect outside and to thewest and east of the border line. Finally, we examinedan area of between 25 to 30 feet south of the well site.In carrying out this work we covered a land area ofslightly over one acre during a period of one day or 16person-hours in the field.

Throughout the field investigation we found no arti­facts or other cultural indicators with two exceptions.One kI plant and an 'awa shrub wert founti in the south-

ern portion of the study area within ten to twenty feetfrom the southern border. We carefully examined thearea aroun~ these traditionally useful plants but foundnothing else of cultural significance.

--------------

Page 10: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

-'.. "~

":'~ .

-.';;'

;-=

SUr~MARY, COllCLUSIONS AND RECO~lr1EtlOATION

No archaeological sites or features were found withinthe stu dy are a • HO\'I eve r, the pre sen ceo f k1. and ' a lJa .I

even though singular plants in both cases, gives so~e

support to the belief that we should find additionalcultural use indicators within the Geothermal ResourceSubzone and most likely in the lower elevations andtoward the south.· The present research \'Ias carriedout toward the lower elevations of the roadway and theprevous1y examined drill and reservoir sites. If I amright in my summary and concluding statements in pre­vious reports for the area (Bonk, 1988,1989) than wenow have some additional cultural evidence to supportforest use in the area. Both ~i and 'alJa had multi­ple uses and were culturally important plants in thepast and therefore their presence may well provide thebeginning of cumulative evidence that will help us infurthering knowledge of prehistoric forest usage.

Finally, and in conclusion, let me again state thatno artifactual material was found during our surveyor this drill site. However, the presence of non­artifactual cultural indicators may well prove usefulas we have an opportunity to gain quantitative dat~

for a larger area. I therefore recommend that a bufferzone of rainforest be oreserved alona the southernboundary. This should include the location of the, alJa p1ant.

Finally, as I see no additional benefit derived fromfurther examination of the project area, I thereforerecommend that ground surface alteration be allowed toproceed but with the one restriction mentioned above.

12

Page 11: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

fI

i

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bonk, H1111am J.

1988 An Archaeo10a1ca1 Reconnaissance Survey inthe Geothermal Resource Subzone of Opper~aimu and Makena, Puna Hawaii. Reportpre pared for rH d- Pac 1f fc Ge0the rm a1, (1 nc .

1989 An Archaeological Monitoring and AdditionalReconnaissance Survey in the GeothermalResource Subzone of Upper Ka1mu Makuu,Ka0he t:-'S-{! hen a, Kaapahu and Kama ~ 11 I Pun a ,Hawa1 . Report prepared for Mid-PacificGe 0 the rm a 1, Inc.

13

Page 12: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

'a' a

, 1IIJa

hapu'u

'ie'ie

ki

maiZe

makai

mauka

'ohi 'a

pahoehoe

:.<.Zuhe

GLOSSARY OF HAWAIIAN WORDS

Lava, stony, rough clinker type.

A shruc four to twelve feet tall with greenjointed stems and heart-shaped leaves,nativein Pacific lands, the root being the sourceof a narcotic drink used for ceremonies.(Piper methysticum)

An ~ndemic tree fern (Cibotium Sp.) commonin many forests of Hawaii.

An endemic woody, branching climber {Freyci­netia arborea}growing luxuriantl,Y in ""fo-re"s"tsat a't~tudes of about 1500 feet.

Ti, a \1oody rlant, (Cordyline terminalis)

A native twining shrub (Alyxia olvine-formix)with shiny fragrant leaves used for decora­tion and leis.

Lowland, toward the ocean.Inland, upland, to~ards the mountain, uplands.

A t r ee (t1 e t r 0 sid er 0 s ~ ac r 0 pus, ~L Colli ns )

Smooth, unbroken, type of Lava. As contrasted\'/ith 'a'a.

All Hawaiian species of false staghorn fern(Dicranopteris linearis).

14

~-~'_._~~_ .._"".._---~--~-----~--,-,,~----_._--~-~-_._---_._-----_._----------~--------_._--- ----------_._._- - ---------_.._---------

Page 13: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY ~>. IN THE

Si~7!1~~Iv~' ~ffi~

Wi 11 i am J. 0 nk

In response to a question put to me by one of your staff regarding thepresence of maile at the UH-Manoa test drill site in Puna, Hawaii, Iwould like to elaborate with the following.

On page 7 of my report I state: "In this area we also encounte~~ed (Sic)a much heavier amount of maile than was present in the adjacent road­way survey. /I Thi s was genera lly the case for the roadway, however itmost likely is fairly typical for the general area. In looking aboutthe Mid-Pac drill siteregion,beyond the area covered by my report,I found a similar degree of presence. This does not mean, however, thatI am suggesting cultivation of maile for the region. It means only some­what more in one area than another. I view·the presence of maile asfairly typical for the general area.

Mr. Duane KanuhaPlanning DirectorCounty of HawaiiHilo. Hawaii

Dear Mr. Kanuha:

Box 1648Kamuela, Hawaii 96743November 9, 1989

Attention Mr. Rodney Nakano

,----------- •......_._", "" •.._--_ .