Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
Prepared by
Christopher M. Monahan
Lead Agency:
September 2009
Cultural Resource Evaluations of Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘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!
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
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.
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-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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
SIHP 5381
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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).
Figure 6. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 5381 including SWCA-BAX-TS-10 features within site boundary of SIHP 5381.
SWCA Project No. 15131
Feature 4
Feature 5B
Feature 5C
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 6A
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.
SIHP 5448
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.
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
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
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 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
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.
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
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.
SIHP 6841
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.
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].”
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.
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.
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.
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
39 Stacked boulders Several stacked large boulders; possibly remnant but mostly
collapsed terracing
40 Stacked boulders Several stacked large boulders; possibly remnant but mostly
collapsed terracing
41 Stacked boulders Several stacked large boulders; possibly remnant but mostly
collapsed terracing
46 Terrace --
47 Low mound A few small and medium boulders with cobbles on the top and
middle
Ganda 5 – western Long alignment This is a 75-m extension of Ganda’s Feature 5; consists of a single
extension boulder alignment oriented east-to-west (i.e., upslope-to-
downslope)
Figure 30. GPS-generated sketch map of SIHP 6841 (showing mapped features in western extension).
SWCA Project No. 15131
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.
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.
Figure 44. SIHP 6841, Feature 26, facing south; scale measures 1 m; arrows
indicate location of probable subsurface continuation of rock-structural
elements.
Figure 47. SIHP 6841, Feature 27 (platform), facing south; scale measures 1 m.
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.
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.
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.
Figure 65. SIHP 6841, Feature 35 (alignment), facing east; scale measures 1 m.
Figure 67. SIHP 6841, Feature 36 (small boulder enclosure), facing southeast;
scale measures 1 m.
Figure 69. SIHP 6841, Feature 37 (boulder terrace) showing upper level soil-
sediment area, facing east; scale measures 1 m.
SIHP 6844
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.
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.
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.
SIHP 6846
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.
Figure 80. SIHP 6846, Feature 1, facing east; scale (ends indicated by green
arrows) measures 20 cm.
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
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).
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.
Figure 88. DPW T-6, Feature 4, a boulder terrace oriented east-to-west, facing
south; scale measures 1 m.
DPW T-9
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-2
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-3
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).
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-4
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.
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).
SWCA-BAX-TS-5
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-6
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-7
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).
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).
SWCA-BAX-TS-8
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-9
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-10
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 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.
Figure 143. Stone bowl fragment from ground surface near south end of
Feature 3A, SWCA-BAX-TS-10; scale measures 20 cm.
SWCA-BAX-TS-11
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.
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-12
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 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.
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 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.
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-13
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.
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 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
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.
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-15
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.
SWCA-BAX-TS-16
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 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
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
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.
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
SWCA-BAX-IF-2
SWCA-BAX-IF-3
SWCA-BAX-IF-4
SWCA-BAX-IF-5
SWCA-BAX-IF-6
SWCA-BAX-IF-7
SWCA-BAX-IF-8
SWCA-BAX-IF-9
SWCA-BAX-IF-10
SWCA-BAX-IF-11
SWCA-BAX-IF-12
SWCA-BAX-IF-13
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
SWCA-KTA-TS-1
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.
SWCA-KTA-TS-2
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.
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 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
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.
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.
SWCA-KTA-TS-5
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.
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.
SWCA-KTA-TS-8
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.
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.
SWCA-KTA-TS-9
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.
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.
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 210. SWCA-KTA-TS-9, Feature 2 showing north side, facing east; scale
measures 1 m.
GANDA T-1
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.
GANDA T-2
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 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
GANDA T-7 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-7 to be a non-archaeological site, but noted that cultural monitors believed strongly
that the site has significance to Native Hawaiians.
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
GANDA T-8 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-8 to be a non-archaeological site, but noted that cultural monitors believed strongly
that the site has significance to Native Hawaiians.
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.”
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
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).
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
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).
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.
Figure 235. GANDA T-22, facing west and drop off to ‘Ō‘io Gulch (in
background); 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)
No. of Features 1
Surface Artifacts or None
Midden
Physical Condition / Good to fair (at and above ground surface)
Integrity
NRHP Eligibility Unevaluated (potentially eligible)
Recommendation 1. Avoidance and protection
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.
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).
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
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
SWCA-PTA-TS-1
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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.
Table 5. Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project
Resource No. Project Formal Description Functional / Temporal NRHP Eligibility Mitigation
Area Interpretation Recommendation Recommendation
SIHP 5381 Schofield Extensive terrace complex – Lo‘i (pond-field gardening Eligible A, B, C & D 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity
(BAX) multi-level soil-sediment / rock complex); 2. More extensive Phase I survey
field system Precontact 3. Site development plan
4. Community access
SIHP 5448 Schofield Extensive dry-stacked and Habitation site complex, Eligible C & D Avoidance and protection in perpetuity
Table 5 (continued). Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project
Resource No. Project Formal Description Functional / Temporal NRHP Eligibility Mitigation
Area Interpretation Recommendation Recommendation
SWCA-BAX-TS-3 Schofield Probable petroglyph on boulder Probable petroglyph, but Eligible C 1. Avoidance and protection in perpetuity
(BAX) rock is severely degraded; 2. Petroglyph preservation plan
Probably precontact
SWCA-BAX-TS-4 Schofield Possible petroglyph on boulder Possible petroglyph; may Unevaluated (potentially Avoidance and further study of possible
(BAX) have other (non- eligible) function(s)
Table 5 (continued). Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project
Resource No. Project Formal Description Functional / Temporal NRHP Eligibility Mitigation
Area Interpretation Recommendation Recommendation
SWCA-BAX-TS-16 Schofield Remnant – degraded mound or Indeterminate function(s); Unevaluated (potentially 1. Avoidance and protection
(BAX) platform Precontact eligible) 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP
eligibility evaluation
SWCA-BAX-TS-17 Schofield Linear alignment of partially Indeterminate function(s) Unevaluated (potentially 1. Avoidance and protection
(BAX) buried / exposed cobbles and age eligible) 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP
SWCA-BAX-IF-9 Schofield Surface find, complete Possible bird-hunting tool; Associated w. SIHP 6562 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance;
(BAX) slingstone Precontact (Eligible D) 2. Curation for artifact
SWCA-BAX-IF-10 Schofield Surface find, fragment of Grinding, polishing tool; Associated w. SIHP 6562 1. Monitoring of ground disturbance;
(BAX) abrading stone Precontact (Eligible D) 2. Curation for artifact
SWCA-BAX-IF-11 Schofield Surface find, fragment of adze Woodworking tool; Not Eligible 1. No further fieldwork
(BAX) Precontact 2. Curation for artifact
SWCA-BAX-IF-12 Schofield Surface find, fragment of adze Woodworking tool; Not Eligible 1. No further fieldwork
(BAX) Precontact 2. Curation for artifact
SWCA-BAX-IF-13 Schofield Surface find, fragment of adze Woodworking tool; Not Eligible 1. No further fieldwork
(BAX) preform Precontact 2. Curation for artifact
SWCA-KTA-TS-1 Kahuku Large mound built of very large Clearing mound; Not eligible No further fieldwork
boulders Sugarcane era
308
SWCA Project No. 15131
Table 5 (continued). Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project
Resource No. Project Formal Description Functional / Temporal NRHP Eligibility Mitigation
Area Interpretation Recommendation Recommendation
SWCA-KTA-TS-2 Kahuku Natural rock outcropping with Possible shrine or “god Unevaluated (potentially 1. Avoidance and protection
informal boulder stacking stone”; eligible) 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP
Precontact eligibility evaluation
SWCA-KTA-TS-3 Kahuku Terrace complex Possible habitation Unevaluated (potentially 1. Avoidance and protection
complex; eligible) 2. Phase I excavation to assist in NRHP
Table 5 (continued). Summary of SWCA’s Cultural Resource Evaluations and Recommendations for the Stryker Project
Resource No. Project Formal Description Functional / Temporal NRHP Eligibility Mitigation
Area Interpretation Recommendation Recommendation
SWCA-KTA-IF-1 Kahuku Stone bowl preform Indeterminate; Not Eligible 1. No further fieldwork
Precontact 2. Curation for artifact
SWCA-PTA-TS-1 Pohakuloa Modified outcrop Temporary shelter; Eligible D Avoidance and protection in perpetuity
Precontact
* 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
STATEMENT OF WORK
Cultural Resource Evaluations of Stryker Transformation Areas in Hawai‘i
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.
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);
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:
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.