    [From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             -
    22                                                        r4

                  <aa-a                                                                                                                                                                                                   --a-a-x

                                                                                                                                                                                       .a&aQ$?                                                          --->a..a$i2                        *-a-----
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   a----,--

                                                                                                        a N'

                                                                                                                                                                       -.a-Tha,.,-aaa--a.-                                                                                -a---'-  '.a-aa.a,-a'-

                                                                                                                                                                     -                                                                              Na  'Na"a"+a  - a  --a-'-
      -a - ,ataaaa                                                                                                                                        .Vaaa..-a.                                                                    N"ta'-r
                                                                                                 '-a .-- a"- a. a                                                                                              a.                                   -.4--aaa
                                                                         -  a-  -              a--            'a.'  't'a                                                 x't<----..--
                                                                                                                       -   a     -a a-  '-             <a- -          a-,..                     -a-a    Va-a  a' a--   -a-a--a-  -                      a--aa-a.   a-'a'j"-a-'-"aa-'a'\!A"<  - aa-a-aa4ja-a-
                         a-                       '-   a       '                               a         -aa-a--aa-          a$>                'aa-a-                         a     a--a           -aa.-a'-a'-'aaa--  aa'a-'a.                                          <   a>4aa.   a-aaNaaaa aN.               a'.
                           a--a'Na-'-"--"a                                                                                                                                                                                        --Na-'-i  'a-a-'--
                          '-a-  <-a        a                                                                                                                                          a'aaaaa-      a-a                                                                            aa--a-'Na'aafl4a'                ,,
                                                                                                                                             a                                                                           -aa-aaaa- a-a- a-a-a-         --a-a-a-a-----.a-. -.a a-a-  -a a"-- a  -   a-a-a-a'aa-a'a'a'aa-a'
                         'a-iN           a  a-"-                                                                                                                                          aa,  a-         aa"a>a-a'a4a'a'aaa�'                                                        a-aaa--                 a a-a-a-'ai'a -a
                                                                                                               4,                           'a-'aa-aaa-                                                                    <a'aa'a-a-a              a-a-a--a       "a'aaa    >aaaa-a-a,.       a--
               aa'               a--a-.aa-a                                   <a"             '.a   a'-"--a-a-          a- a'    a-a-aaa'"N                                                                                                  '-a-a-ia-a                                   a-a'            a-a-'
                                                                                                                     a                                                                                                                                                                               --'aa  a   -a  a-
                          a  -a-a-a-a.     a'aiN                      2-                                                                                                                                 .-aaa-    -aa    a.a-.-a'ia'a'-a'a-       -aa--aa'aa-aa'a-.'a                                    'a- -a-a-a--
                             "ia-a  a'taaaa    -a"a'a   >.      a  a-                                                                                                          anaa-        aa a-a-,                                -aa'a'aa-a.-p-  ---a aa-N->a.aaN--.aa.'a'-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     >aa-   --aaa-�,-a                                   -a'aa a-        a
    Pa'                             a-a.    a-a            a-a   'a-a-                                            'a     aaa-aa                                                                            -aaa-aWa-aa-aaaaaaa..a-a-a-.a-                   a-a-'- 'a-       N      aaaa. a-a"          'aaa-..aaaaa.-aaaa'a
                          a-aaaa   -   a           -aaaa            Na-a                                                                                  a-      ''a                                                             --N'i'----aa--  --                                                     .a-a-a'aa'
                                                                                                             taa-aa                                                                               a-Na'a-'a'  aaaa-aa'aa-aa       'aa-aa.-aa".a                           a-V-a-          a-a,a4'N'a'a"aa'a-a"a-
    a-a-iNa-a'a   '            a  a-            �                           'aNa-a            -a  '-aa'i"ia      a                 aa"'a-aa-   a           aa-"    a->                                   ."aa-a.   Naa-aa-a-,a'.a-a-,- 4-4--aaaa-a-aaa'-aa-'                                           A..a.aa.a-
                                                                                                                                                 'a -  a-a-aa-'         a-a -" 'aa-"aaaa-                                                                                                                    a-
                                                                        a                                                                                                                             <a-a'aaaa-      ,a-aa.a--a --'-a--a-a--      -a-' a-a-a-a-a--a-a-a-a-  'a"--a-a-a--
                                                                                                  'a  a'a    <a,,   a-"-                         'a-a''a'-a-a'aa--a                              -a-,a.-4-a-'-         a                               'aa-a--aa-a'N   -aaaaa-aaiaaa-a-aaa-aaaa.aaaa.

                                                                                                                            a    'a      <4'                                                       2-'a"                                                                           a-a-a--" a-a-a-aaa-�-aaaaa-a-a-'aa-a-aa
                                                  'a    -a  -a   a-   -a                                                                          'aja-  a'    a--aaaa                                   a'-a-a.-aa.'-N-.a.a--aa'a V'ia-Naaa2N"aa--aa-a-a'aaa-Aa                                    ,a'a�,a-'Na
                                                                                                                                                                                  -'a-a-a'     a-------' -  a-a  a-a                                                                     --
                                                                          -a            -                                                                                                                                                             '-'a'
                                                                                                                 a-                                                                                                                                         .4a'a'a-a                         a-a
    -,a'-a    -aa-'N"       a.    a--"a'-'-                        '-a-         '-"a-   'a    -a--aa-a-"a              a--a-            '-a-                                                            a-
                                                                                                                                              �-a'  '-<iaa                                       ---'a-a --a''--"-aa-"                           a-"a                                              a- -
                               a-a"a-<aaa'   'aa'aa                a                                 a"a'aA    '--"'a    a                                                          ta--     a-a-  'a       'a- a.a-a-aa-aa.'aa-a-'aa-a--a.-aaVaa-aaa-a-a"taa'                               A'aa"a'a-'aaa-a-aaa-aa'aa-aa
                                                                                                                                              a   -   \a a-  '-aa-                                                        -- a-a   .aa-a.a                 a'aa-..-'a>
       a-'a                                                                                                                                                                                                          'aa-aa'a  a
                                                                                                a--a  a-' 'a  a- Va-i  '-a  'a       -aa   'a                                                                              -Na- a'-aa'-a'a-- a--a.-a'-- .'aaaa-aaaa.2a-aa-taK4'a-a--aa--aaaaaaa-aa-"-a
                                                                                                                                                aaa-a-a,-'a, -a a-
          'a-'iaNa-V  '-a'      -                                                                     a-   'aa-'aa                                      aa...'aa-.a-aaa"..aa.."'i                                               a-a'a--aa'aa'-      a"a'aa'a           <a-             a-- a'-   .aaa-.'a
                                                                                                 'a-a---aaa'aa                                                                                                                                                    'a
                                                     'Na                       -"----a       -a'a   --a-     a                                               a'-a-a.--,aa-aa-  -"N'aa-a-4'-'"-   a 'Nta-a"a'-a-aa aa    a-'aa-a L  .'aa-a          -                                                       ,a--aaa
     a-    'aa-Na. 'a'                                                                                                                                  'aa--"--a-N'-a--  a-a'---a-a     -                          <'--'l-   a--a-a----a-"a-a-  -a' a,                          'aaa-Aa'aia4a-a'a-a"a'a'a-at'.a
    a.-N.-aaaa.          -a                                                                                                                            ..a'-a                                                                                                         -       '    Naaaa-.Naa"aaNa-aaaaa'    'a-"'-  a,
    a'aaa'aaaa-aa'aa'aa                                                                                                                                               a-a-faa"                            4aaa'aa-'aaaa-.aa-aa-N4'aa-.  '-aat'a        a-a            -aa-a-                               .aa-aaa'a.a'-aa'aa-
                          ��          -                                     -a-aa-a'  .aa'a-a<a-aa                                                        -                                                                   -a--a-         "a                                 '-'a"'-a.a-a'-''  a
                                                                               a--         a- a--a -'--"a"aa-                                     a'a-.a--a-a  aaaa-.a-a                                                      '"a--a'a-a aa a- NiaNa-aa...aa-
                                                                                                                                               aa--a
                          a--       -'a                                                             'a--a--'--'                                                                    -'-'--a-a  -   --a
    a-      -  ta-a'-           aaa"-a--.                                      "-'a-'-                  a-a- a-a'"                                           '.'''a.        a-a-'<-a4-    aa-aa  ,--- a-a-a-' a-ala-.   a'-a-a-.a--a-a-aaa-a-�, -   a                             a-   a'a-a-t-'aa-sa-a--'a-   aataa-a
                                                                                      u       m        N                                                                    a-a   a-a-a-a-a-aa-aa'a'aa-a-         'aa-'-'a-i,'a-"-    -  a-  "'4'-a'a'-a-       a-aa-   -
                           -a-a                                                                   -                                                                                                                                                                                      'a-a-a-'a a--a-i
        '- a"  a---                                 l    i    i     i                                                                                   NaaAiN'aa'aN'a<aNa'NaNa-'aa'a.a-a-                                    a-aa a"-   'a'a'aaa�a>aa"       '--a-a- --   a-,,ANN 'a'a-'a'a""a<                 aa-a-aaa-.
                                                                                                                                m m                                                                                      a-a-a-'aa--'aaa-a--'N�""'---'-Na-'<                                  a-a.-    -a'
                                                                                                                                --                                                                                                                 <a-a- a-a--a- 'a.a'-'--a-a-a--a
    'aaa'        'a'aa-'-N                                                    N'aa-                                                                     a--a"-"-a'-'-'-'--a                   a-a--a-a                                   a-a-a--    a--'-a-a-a-A  a-a-' a a-a                                 '      -
                                                                                                                                               aa-'a;ala-a-4a-'a'iTha'i'a�                                 .a'a'aaa- a-aa-'a'a-llaaaa-'aa-a-aS'aa-     aa'                                               aaaa-a-'aa-
                                                                                                                                              a-.  a-a  "-a  a-,'.              �               -                      a--a   a-a                               �,  a--Na              a�a�a-.aaa-a-aNa-a"aa
    -                   -'-'-'a'--'                                                  W            W                                   all-a                                                     a''                                                                        a  ."aa-'aa�-iia.
                           aaa-a'                                                                                             -                     a-Na--aa-a'a-aaa-�1a-4 a-'-�,-                                                                                                     'aa--<-a- a-
                                                        N                               a-4a"a-    a-aaa-Va'                    'a                       a-aa'a-aa--a-a    a--a                         '-a-aa-     'a N-    N                  a'a -
    a- a-aaa   -a-aaa"aa.a�a'N   'a                                 a-a-                                                                   -a-a<          Na. - -      -                 'a-    -a-   a"                                                  -'-'-a--a--. -'--a.aaaaa'a->"'-'<   ---a-a-a-a-N'a-a-   -
                              a-   -a                 ______                                                                                                        a                                      a-                                             'a'a.aN'aaNa.aaaa-aa<a.aaa.>aa- a-               aaa-a-a.a"aaaa-
                                                      _______                                                           a-;'                                                  a-aa-'N'aa.a-aaa-a'�aN                                                                                   '--a-a   --'a- a-a-a-- a-a-  -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           -aa-a-'a a-a--h  a-a-a-                a-a-'-   'a'a-'-,',Na
                                                                                                                                                                     aa-'a aa-VaVa'aa-'Na. a'a-i'aa .aa-'a-" a-- 'a ' a-"�a.'- a ''aa"aa- 'N" a- a-, .a.aa-a'aa-aa-'aa-aa'a-a"a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             a                               a-'           a-- -a-a-a-a-A
                                                                                                                                                                                if$a'<a-a4a-- aa-.a-aN2-4a-ia'aaa-a'a-a-a-a-Na.'aia-a'a --a'aaa-'a-a a a-aa
                a-a-       ;aaaa-a-,a-.a-<    'a-a                                                                                                                                             a-a-a--                                    'a-a-a-aa-.-                                                        aa.aa-
                                                     qqii.ippprqiwipq.ijt1I                                                                                                             i a-a-27 --                                                                                        a- a- a-a -aa-aa--a-a
                                                                                                                                                                                   a-a"-'-  -                                  a-.aaa-aa-a-    a-i-   a-a--a-a-'aa-a-a'-a'a  a"<    a- 'aaa-a.aa- aa-,-aa-. a-
                          aaaaa4a--aaa'aa                                                                                                                                                   ata-aa-a-;Na'-?Kaa4                              aa-'aaat -

                                                                                                                                                                                                            a'          a-'a-                 a aa--               a-a-                        'aa-a1Na
                                                                                                                                                                                a<a-'aaa"'aaNa   a-a"-          'a   -a4,-a"a-a a-a--a'                                                         2a-a-a-a-a-Ca
                                                                                                                                                          a-                                   aa-ala-a-a-aa-'aa-    �,'a-a-a  'a'aVa-V'             -'a-a aaa'aa  'a-a   a-   �-a--a-a--a-              aa-a-
                                                                                                                                                                                        a''-�,aa-"aa'aaaa'aaa"-aaa-                                                 aa-aa-iaaaaa-A aaa' a-a a-a-a
                                                                                                                                                                                                   'f-a-a--- - aa-aa-aa-aaaN  'a-<-'a-aa-'-a-a-4'a- a--a-a-Va-' aaa-'�a-'a-fa-tfa-
                           'aa-a-                                                                                                                                                                                  -a-a-a--  aia.,aa-aaa'a-laaa-a-'a                                                       a--a'.
                           --a- a-                                                                                                                                                         -a-a-a-      '-aa"a-- aa-a'a-i  'a-a-a- a'a'a'a  a-a-a-a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        aa-aaa'a'N-aa-'i'a              -'a.aaa--aa-  'a-a-a
                           a-a    aaaN                                                                                            'a                                                         .a.-a-aa--a-a-a-a                   'a'aa-a-a-a-aa-a'a'a-a-aa-a'<a--a-i  aa-a'              -                  a-aa'aa-aa-4
                                --'Na-                                                                                              -                                                       -aa-aa    a                                                    aa'a-a-aa-aa'N'aiaa-aaa-a.aa.a-.a"aa-a
    .a-a,--aa-a�a-aaa   'aaaa-  aN                         '       -       W                                                                                                                -i-a-'- a-a-a-'- 'a a a"a""-aa-Na-'aa-  'a-a'aa-'a2a-a-.a-a'Aa-a-a-a-a-a-Va-aiN�,Na-
     a,              a-a-a a'a'a-"aa-a-4                                                                   '                                                                                 a-a'- -a- a-,                                                                           <2,  2aa-a-�,a-aaia-NaNa-a-'a
                                                                                                                                                                                 a'-    a-Va  ---a--              a-                                            -a'a-aa>.a                      -"a--a-
                                                                                                                                                                                 aa-aa-a'a-- aaa--a---a-  Naaa'aaaa-aa-'-                                  '-a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   --aa--aa-a '2a-a-".a-'4"aAY' a-a-a-a-a-a--aa-a- 'a--a-a-a -a-a-a- a;'--a-
                            'a--" -a- aa- 'aaa a-a---a-a'-"a-- 'a"'a.,a--'a a <-"'a- a-a-a-
                           a a 'a-a-a-  a-aa-.a-a'4a'a a--aa-'-aa-a-

    aN;a'a-aa-aa-'aa-a                                                                                                                                                                                                                              'aaa-aala'aa'aaaa-aa-aaaa  a-a-a-a-a--a .aa-a-a'.a.a-

         aa-a-..a-a-a-'a - U'ffa-i�A& a-a- a-a .-a-aa
                                     -'                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      <a-a -'a'i"N"Naa-'aa'a
              '   a-a-a-N a'N                                                                                                                                                                                                 '-Th'a.-   a--a-a-a a----'a-a--'a a-a a            aa"-a.-aa"--aa-  a--a-,' a-a- - -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                a----' Va--a--a-a -'
                                                                                                                                                                                     -         a    '                a.a-.'a-a-a-a'a--aaa'a   '-'Na'-a    -  --'---'a'a"a-aaaa   --aa a-a--a- -a-
                          a-a-a-ia" ,a-                                                                                                                                        a-a                                                aa-4aZa-a-     a-a a- Kh'a'aN'-aa. -aa--a-'Ma'a            a--a"-a"
         a-as
                                               _____                                                                                                                                          a-.                                �-a-  a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     �-a'a'aaaa"aaa-aNV-a-N' -a - ""a
                           a-aa-<'a-a-      �,  _______                                                                                                                                                                             -aa.aa-iaa--   --aa-N'a'aaa--aaNa'a'aa-a-a-'aa-a--a-          a--a    -aa-'aa-a-a- -a-a'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   <a- <a-a"   a,       a-a-                         -a-a-a-a--a-La-V-
         .a4a-Nia a -aa- -N 'a-aaNa"-a-aaN'af" --'aaa-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  a-a--a-' a-a-a-aL'aa,,a -
    --a--aa--aa---aaa-a    'aa-.<                                                                                                                                                                                                  'a.a'aa.aaaaaa'aa-4'N'a'a-,a-Na-a-N''a"aaa-4a-                            -aa-a-aa-a-"-

                           a- --a'-'-                                                                                                      aa-a-                                    -a-                                            -a--,'---a-a-.--a-a'    aa'--a-a'aN-a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       -a--a-a--
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   a'-,-'---a-       '-a--a-a-                       -'  -      aN'>""'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             aa--a- -a

                                                                                           --a a'aa Na- a-a- -a-V-a-a-
                            a-a- aa'a'a                                                                                                                                                                                            a-a  N'-a'Naa-'a  '�,                           ''a-a-a-aa-'aa-a-N'a-a-,a-a--'   -
                              'ia-it'-'--"                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    --a- '---"a,'-
                                                            a-a-                                                                                                                                                                -      -  -         ' 'a-N       aa-'Naa'aa-f�aNaa---a.-   -a-a-aaa
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            a-" aa-'aa'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                a-a  aa.aa-aa.aa.-aa-'aa..a                             .aaa'a--Na-a-t
                  aa'  a-a                                                                                                                                                            a-  -a-a-         a                                                    -'a-aa-----aa'a-aa)aa"a-a-"    'a-a-a-a-ta-a-i   - a-aaa-"a-aaaa'-
                                                                                                                                                                      a--a-'a-a'a  --a '-'-a ,a�-'a-a-a-a--"a--aaa-,aNaaa-'a  a-a-a-  a-V-a                                             aaa-aa-a-a-,,'aaa-.--aa-i
                                                                                                                                                                       a �-a-a-            aaa-       'a'a  a--a -                                                     �,aaaaaffa-'a                a-  'a-a.-
                                                                                  a- a -"a-a-a-a-ati'aaataa-a-aa24. aa-"a'aa-N'Na-aaaata-a a'aa-.aa-aa"a'-aaa'aaa-a'aN'aaa a-a--Va.-
                                                                                                                                                               -a'aa'a-a                      a-a-  -"a---- a.-. -a                                    'i'aaa-aaaaa-a-<aa                 a-a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  a---a---a-a-a'a -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         - -a-a--
                        a-aa-a-  a-                                                                                                       [                       D                       Q                                                                                      �aaa ;a-a-aaaaaa-aa-a-Vaaa'aa-a-a.a-a-a-a-a-a.a- -
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    -a-a--aa--a�,aaa-a.aa'a'ai"a-VVa-aa-<a4a-                                 aa"aa-a- -a-a'-"'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    '-aia-       "                                      a-a-a-a'
          jI-i.I.                                                                                                         a-a"                                                                                                              .aa'a'a-V---a'--aa             'aa--a'a        aaa'aaa. 'aa.aaa-a-aaa-aa
                                                                                                a-a-a-                                                                                                                                                                                    aaN-a-ah'�aa-N'aa-'aa-'VN'a-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    --V-aa-'aa""'aaaa.-- <'a--"-a-a-a- .'aa.aa'a. aa- vj
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         'a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-" aa-aa--a-a-aa'aa---a-a a- a-ia-a-a- a'-' a-'-a-'a'a�,
          393                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         a.-a-a-a-"aaa
                                                               hnical  a-a-S4aa-�-�-a-a-a-a--a

                                                        cOastar Zone Managemeiit Ptogram 1r I4awi V
                    7                                                       -aa-'a-a                                                                                                                                                                                                 'a-a  ZV'aaa-a'a�a- 'a-a-a--a-a--a
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      a-a"a'aa-a-a--a--a-a-'
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       a- a a 'a- a-'---a"- "-�,'
                                                                                                                                                          <a                                                                                                             <---'--a'aa--  - a-ta
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      a-aa-a- -aaaa"---a a-a-a-a aa-'- a.'- < 'N-ala-a
                                                                                                                                                                                                a-                                                          -aaa---aa  -
     a-a-                                                    a-a-a                 a-a-a-                  a-'faa-4'aa-a-'a'a                            a->-             a-a-   a-a-a-a-a'aa-a-.                                             a         a-aaa-a-a'aaaaiN-aaaaa-a-.�a
                                                        ---a-a"'   aN' "a--V  a'aa-  N"a'      a-aaaaaaNa-'aa-<2aV'a'aaN-ata-a-   a  a-a-- a-ia--,   a-a-a--  '-a'  - -a- a-a-a-   a-aaaaa-f-a-aa a-  a-                                                                            a- -a-a---a--    -aa-.
                                                                                  -'-'a                                                                                                                                                                                        -N'a-a-aa' aa.aa-a-'-" -a- 'a
                                                                                 -aaa-a-.'af'aa.a-a-a-'a-a-"a-a-"aa-aa'a'a'a                                                                                          a-.                                                                          -aNN-a-a-a'
                                                                                                'a-'aaa-'a'a-<N'-aa-a-a'a-a'aa<2a-a-a-a-->aa-'Na-'a.
                                                                                                                                                                                                  '<a-                                        a-a>"-a-4i2tai<ka''a-a-'aa-t"aa-a-aa"-    -a-'
                                                                            aaa-afii'a-aaa                                                        a    --a'aa-'-'a-'a---a                            a-V                   N             - aaa-.                                                          a-a -
                                                       a-a-a-a-    a-a-a--                                                                                   a--a-a     a-  "ifa-a-a-a-a-."; a-a-'
                                                                                                                                                           4a-a-a-a--a9 a-a-faa-a-a-a
     ,'aa'aa-aa-           -a--a.,                a-.   a--a-a'-         aa'aa"'a-   -a-- aaaN'a-a-                                                   aa-aa    a-a-      'a                              a- -  a-.
                                --' - - ' a"au.aa Aa.a-.a-a-a---a-a-a--a-)a-a--a'a-a'a-N'aa a'-' ,-a-aa--a- --a a -a--a--a-a a- -a- -aaaaa-aa-a-

                                 INTRODUCTION

           This paper was prepared at the request of the Pacific Urban Studies

    and Planning Program at the University of Hawaii. Its purpose is to

    discusshistorical resources in regard to the management of such resources

    in coastal zones of the Hawaiian Islands. Historical resources are defined

    here as past structures and items (either in use or abandoned). These

    resources, when used in conjunction with historical documents and oral

    traditions, shed light on past lifeways in an area.

           Different scientific disciplines are interested in different

    aspects of Hawaii's historical resources. For example, architects may

    largely be concerned with individual buildings or historic periods of

    building styles. A historian may be interested in these remains as sym-

    bols of past events or time periods (e.g., the Iolani Palace as an

     illustration of the monarchy period). An anthropologist will look at how

     these remains reflect different aspects of past lifeways of an entire

     society (e.g., how subsistence was gained; what the social units were--

     commoners, low chiefs, high chiefs, king--what these social units did and

     how they interacted with each other). As the author was selected from

     the Anthropology Department (University of Hawaii) as a specialist in

     Hawaiian archaeology and 1778-1830 era Hawaiian ethnography (cultural

     anthropology), he is interested in the anthropological value of Hawaii's

     historical resources. Thus, this paper will be an anthropologist's view

     of the historical resources in Hawaii and their management in a coastal

     zone. For any final planning for coastal management, historians,

                                       2

    architects, sociologists, and other1 cholars should be consulted for their

    disciplines' viewpoints on Hawaiian historical resources.

           Anthropology is a broad discipline. In the past, it was largely

    considered to be the study of human cultures other than modern European

    and American culture. Today, however, anthropologists are vitally

    interested in all human cultures--even Western culture (as seen in the

    boom of urban anthropology in the late 1960's). Thus, anthropology laps

    into the area of sociology. In addition, as anthropology includes

    archaeology (the study of past cultures) and physical anthropology (the

    study of human biology), it also spills over into such areas as geography,

    biology, ecology, etc. Anthropology then in a nutshell is the study of

    man.

           One of anthropologyis basic aims is to describe and explain the

    way of life of different human societies (past and present). Theoretical

     approaches vary (e.g., the schools of cultural particularism, functional-

     structuralism, cultural ecology, cultural evolution, and biological

     energetics), but always the crucial focus is the description of the

     society's lifeways. Ethnography is a technique enabling direct observa-

     tion and description of a culture, usually by living in a culture and

     interviewing and/orobserving but also by reading the reports of a culture

     by others. Archaeology, on the other hand, is a technique in which

     indirect observation of a culture occurs by viewing remains and then

     reconstructing lifeways,

             In Hawaii, ethnography (using early historical documents and by

      interviewing people) has been used to reconstruct much of lifeways in

      Hawaii between 1778 and the present (cf Handy and Pukui 1958; Malo 1951;

      Kamakau 1964; Papa Ii 1959; Kelly 1956; Rohsenow 1967; Cordy 1970, 1972;

                                       3

    Handy 1940; Handy and Handy 1972; Howard 1974). Archaeology.(analyzing

    actual remains on the landscape) is being used largely to reconstruct

    Hawaiian lifeways prior to 1778 (although some archaeological work now

    is being done in the post 1778 era to corroborate ethnographic patterns

    or to fill in gaps in the ethnographic record), Thus, as the purpose of

    this paper is to deal with historical remains in the landscape of Hawaii,

    this paper will deal with archaeology, the subdiscipline of anthropology

    which analyzes such remains.

           A number of discussions of historical resources and possible

    programs for their preservation (protection) have appeared in recent

    years (cf Hommon ND; Newman et al. 1972). These reflect a sincere interest

    today among scholars to have a strong plan for management and protection

    of antiquities. Indeed at this time, the two state agencies having

    jurisdiction over historical resources (the Division of State Parks and

    the Foundation for 'History and the Humanities) are finalizing an interim

    proposal for long-range management of antiquities (Newman et al 1972 is

    the draft version of this interim proposal). A number of scholars have

    been involved in the formulation of this interim plan, and the plan is

     quite comprehensive in discussing why such resources should be preserved,

    -what past legislation has been and why it has been inadequate, what

     ongoing agencies and legislation exist, and what the new proposed protection

     plan is intended to be. Supposedly this interim plan is soon to be

     printed and circulated to interested parties (scientific and public) for

     comments and suggestions prior to the production of a final state plan for

     antiquities preservation,

            The aim here is not to duplicate these studies' work. Such things

     as why such resources should be protected and the history of past protection

     will be but briefly discussed here; it is suggested the reader consult

                                        4

    Newman et al (1972) and Hommon (ND) for more comprehensive coverage of

    these subjects. Instead, here the aim is to focus on the following:

           (1)  The nature of historical remains as seen by Hawaiian
                archaeologists and how to delineate a coastal zone in
                regard to these antiquities.

           (2)  The history of archaeological research in Hawaii,
                focusing particularly on the fact that scholars are not
                uniform in their views of which antiquities are
                important due to different theoretical orientations.
                This leads to a rather complex problem for any manage-
                mentplans. For example, if just one sector of the
                scientific community was selected to guide management,,
                they may understand only the resource aspects vital
                to their focus and important resources of interest to
                other sectors of the scientific community may not be
                protected.

            (3) The history of the public's view of historical
                resources and the relation of this view to that of
                the divergent scientific approaches.
            (4) information needed to manage coastal resources for
                archaeological research and public benefit.

            (5) Activities threatening coastal historical remains.

            (6) Present management and preservation.

                       THE NATURE OF HISTORICAL REMAINS

                      AS SEEN BY HAWAIIAN ARCHAEOLOGISTS

          As Hommon (ND: 16-19) clearly pointed out in his discussion,

    archaeologists are not so much interested in single artifacts or

    structural remains as in patterns of these artifacts and remains. Twelve

    fishhooks found in a Hawaiian cave shelter mean very little to the

    archaeologist. But the fact that six of them were small, barbed hooks

    and present at the base of the cave deposits and the other six were large

    and unbarbed and in the upper deposits means a great deal. For example,

    the above pattern could be a reflection of early fishing of only small

    reef fish with a change in later times to deep-sea fishing for larger

    fish. This is but a simple example. Archaeologists also look at stone

    structures in valleys and by noticing differences in the structures can

    tell a number of things such as where the temples, chiefs' houses and

    agricultural fields were located. (A look at Hommon' s valley example

    might be well worth the reader's time, for it is a clear and concise

    example of patterns and archaeological interpretations).

           In sum, it is thus the task of the archaeologist to discover the

    remains and to search for patterning in them. Remains are found through

     surface survey and excavation. Patterning is obtained by analyzing the

     resulting remains under three variables--their form, their spatial

     location, their time of use,

            Form of remains simply refers to characteristics they have. For

     example, fishhooks and files are different based on a number of obvious

    traits, More particularly, fishhook formal traits may be means of line

    attachment, barbs, size, thickness, point shape, and the material they

    are made of. By recognizing similar characteristics in form (or patterns

    of formal traits), the archaeologist groups remains into categories or

    types. Different arachaeologists are interested in different kinds of

    characteristics and thus the types (categories) vary with the researcher's

    interests. For example, a researcher is interested in surveying features

    in an area based on similarities in stone construction. Thus, he may

    lump all stone terraces as one major type, all stone enclosures as

    another type, and so on (see Hommon 1970 for such a typology). Another

    archaeologist may be interested in the former functions of the remains.

    Thus, certain stone enclosures and terraces which share formal character-

    istics of soil behind them and small size may be grouped as agricultural

    features, while other terraces and enclosures with no soil and large

    size may be placed in a dwelling category. Other researchers may be

    interested in recognizing which former social units used the remains.

    Terraces and enclosures with walls of certain construction may be placed

     in a different group than those made by other construction techniques.

            Patterning in remains are also discerned through location. In all

     surveys and excavations, each remain is carefully mapped in space. Then

     when remains are grouped into different categories on the basis of form,

     the archaeologist can analyze the spatial distribution of each category

     in an area of interest. He may choose to spatially plot one or more

     categories. Also he may choose to analyze remains at different spatial

     levels (e.g., a county, an island, a state).

            The importance of the spatial dimension to archaeological analysis

     can be illustrated in an extremely general example from Hawaii Island.

    Using categories of remains indicating similar function, irrigation

    agricultural remains (terraces, pondfields, canals) occur predominantly

    in stream areas from windward Kohala along the east coast to Puna, whereas

    dryfield agriculttwal remains (terraces, walled fields, pits, cleared

    areas) occur throughout the island. Right away this spatial distribution

    orders our data into a pattern that we seek to explain. (In this case,

    the availability of flowing water is in large part responsible for the

    distribution of irrigation agriculture).

           Perhaps the most important variable necessary to order archaeological

    data, and the most difficult to obtain, is time control. Through excava-

    tions, the archaeologist in Hawaii retrieves (1) charcoal or other remains

    containing organic carbon for carbon-14 dating, (2) volcanic glass for

    hydration dating, or (3) certain artifacts for seriation dating (certain

    types are earlier based on previous excavations). This allows the

    archaeologist to determine when the remain was used. With this control

    Variable, the archaeological data can be ordered not only by the spatial

    distribution of forms, but these spatial distributions can be subdivided

     into time units, The archaeologist then is looking at time-slices of the

     past and begins to see how the people lived at each time period.

           Take the generalized example just given of the irrigated and

     dryfield agricultural remains on Hawaii Island ... Let us suppose all

     these remains were dated. Let us also suppose we find that only dryfield

     agricultural remains were present before AD 1600 and that irrigation

     remains appear only after AD 1600. This would be an important step in

     ordering and understanding-the historical remains, and one that would have

     been missed without time control.

        HOW TO DISTINGUISH A COASTAL ZONE OF HAWAIIAN HISTORICAL RESOURCES

          If the reader has followed the discussion this far, then he (she)

    is well on the way to understanding archaeology. This brings us to the

    question of a coastal resource zone and historical resources in Hawaii.

    Hawaiian historical remains are numerous in kind and in subtypes. They

    include: isolated artifacts (fishhooks, adzes, coral files), oval fire-

    pits, square firepits, stone cairns of various sizes, burials (isolated

    and in cemeteries), stone platforms of various sizes and types, stone

    enclosures (C-shaped, L-shaped, rectangular and oval of various sizes),

    levelled and paved surfaces, stone terraces, stone canals, stone align-

    ments, shell piles, fishponds, stone quarries, etc.

           Few of these remains are isolated in a coastal zone versus other

    zones. At present we archaeologists have plotted in detail spatial

    patterns of certain forms of these historical remains only in small local

     areas (eg., ahupuata, ili kupono, highway corridors).1 And these forms

     are poorly controlled temporally. Indeed, for the era after 1778,

     archaeologists have rarely even shown a concern to plot spatial patterns

     after 1778, anthropological knowledge is restricted largely to documentary

     reconstruction for but'a few small local areas (ahupua'a) (cf Barrera

     1970; Sahlins 1971; Kelly 1971) or to island-wide studies of certain forms

     of remains (cf Cordy 1970 on agricultural remains between 1778-1830). Yet

     despite this paucity of evidence certain spatial patterns are appearing.

            Prior to 1850 when land tenure was altered during the Mahele,

     spatial patterns seem to have altered slightly (other than a loss of

                 Figure 1: Spatial Distribution of Archeological Remains

                           Sketch Examples From Different Areas

                             *     Sites
                                    Trails

                            AdT    Agricultural Remains

            la                                 lb                                       lc

          Dry Slope                       Stream  Valley                       Wet Cliff, Slope, &
                                                                                    Gulley

    eCO.,AST            oo e i

    (e.g., Lapakahi, Kaloko)                   (e.g., Walpio, Halawa,            (e.g., Hamakau, Kohala)
                                             Makaha, Pololu-Honokane)

    population, in the ruralareas to incipient urban centers such as Lahaina

    and Honolulu).  On Hawaii Island in dry slope areas (Kona, leeward Kohala,

    much of Ka'u) permanent dwellings3, temples, shellfish middens, fishponds

    (in Kona), and a few agricultural remains occur on the coast rarely

    extending farther than one-fourth mile inland.4 Behind this coastal zone

    is a barren zone with but a few shelters along inland heading trails. In

    some areas (North Kona from the South Kohala border to near Keahole Airport,

    South Kona south of Honaunau), this zone may be the only interior zone;

    we simply do not know. In other areas (Kohala from Upolu Point to Kawaihae;

    Kaloko and most likely other areas in Kona from Kailua to Honaunau)5 this

    zone is replaced after one-half mile or more by a zone with dryfield

    agricultural remains and temporary use dwellings6 (see Fig. la). This

     zone correlates with adequate rain and soil for agriculture. In wet

     valleys with streams (e.g., Honokane and Pololu in Kohala district),

     permanent settlement seems to have been focused mainly on the coastal

     valley mouths but also scattered amidst agricultural fields up the valleys

     for 1 to 4 miles (Fig. lb). Historic evidence8 indicates in wet areas

     with gulleys and cliffs (windward Kohala, Hamakua, North Hilo) (Fig. lc)

     and on flats (Hilo or Waiakea) permanent settlement also seemed to be

     focused on the coast (within one-fourth to one-half mile) among agricul-

     tural fields and gradually extended inland until sett-lemit$ petered out

      (distances inland are uncertain).

            On the other islands in the Hawaiian chain, our little bit of

      evidence suggests similar patterns.9 However, only Maui (at Kahikinui and

      Palauea)10 and west Molokai11 seem to have a dry environment with the

      coastal zone isolated by an interior barren zone. In addition, historic

      evidence indicates on Kauai, Maui, and Oahu an additional zone of dry area

      streams where permanent settlement was again mainly on the coast among

                   Figure 2: Delineation of a Coastal Boundary in

                             Stream Valley Areas

                                        Arbitrary Boundary

                                         Boundary Based on Site Density
                                           & Density of Site Types

     4of l0 sites in                   8 of 40 sites In 4 of 6 sites in
    Arbitrary Zone (WA)         A rbitrary Zone (20%) Arbitrary Zone (66%)

    agricultural fields but extended inland,12

           These variations have obvious applications to delineation of coastal

    zones in regard to historical resources. Clearly, such zones can be

    distinguished in dry slope areas of Hawaii, Maui, Molokai and probably

    Lanai and Kahoolawe. Here the zones seem no wider than one-half mile.

    But our knowledge is virtually nil in many areas (e.g., Maui, Molokai,

    Lanai, and Kahoolawe), and thus this must be seen as a hypothetical estimate

    that must be verified in each case for management purposes. In contrast

    to such dry slope areas, archaeological resources in the rest of the

    islands' environmental zones seem to run on a density gradient of numbers

    of remains and, more importantly, of functional types of remains (e.g.,

    permanent houses, temporary houses, caves, temples, fishponds, etc.) from

    most dense on the coast to least dense 3 to 7 miles inland. This will

    pose a serious problem for management,

           Three alternatives are seen to solve this problem, One., admit a

    coastal zone cannot be determined, Two, establish an arbitrary boundary.

    Three, establish the coastal zone boundary where the density in remains

    (particularly functional types) greatly drops off. From this archaeolo-

    gist's point of view, the second alternative is untenable. An arbitrary

    boundary will prevent any valid comparisons of remains between areas and

    will often preclude a good sample of coastal remains in some areas. This

    can be seen in Figure 2.  The dotted lines represent the arbitrary boundary.

    In some areas only 50% of the remains will be in the coastal zone versus

     20% and 66% in other areas.  It may well be that a swamp (or some other

     ecological or social factor) sets back sites in one area.  The first

     alternative is also untenable if it means no management protection. The

     third alternative is seen as the best approach, for it will allow more

     equivalent comparisons between different areas because a similar range of

    functional types and the densest resource portions will be under manage-

    ment (see Fig. 2, solid boundary lines). In any case survey of patterns

    of remains in each area is necessary to determine where to establish exact

    coastal zone boundaries.

           As for historical remains post-dating AD 1850 ... To date

    archaeologists have shown almost no interest in this time period,'3 and

    few ethnographers have been interested in spatial patterns.14 Thus,

    virtually no anthropological data are available to distinguish a coastal

    zone for historic remains dating after AD 1850. Geographers and historians

    perhaps should be consulted for this era.

                A HISTORY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACHES IN HAWAII

          There is a great need to manage historical remains in Hawaii so the

    scientific community can make the most of the information and reconstruct

    past Hawaiian lifeways and so the public can see and appreciate the

    Hawaiian heritage to which we are all linked today. Yet as noted in the

    introduction, different Hawaiian archaeologists are interested in different

    problems due to their theoretical training. Thus, they focus on the

    recovery of only certain remains and on the recognition of only certain

    patterns in those remains. These different archaeological approaches must

    be clearly understood for any management plans, and this requires a review

    of archaeological approaches in Hawaii. Similar reviews have been briefly

    done by Newman (1968) and Tuggle (1972b). This departs from Newman's

    version markedly.

           A number of theoretical orientations have been used by researchers

     in Hawaii, These orientations can be called "schools'? (of thought) and

     can be basically divided into Cultural Historical And Settlement Pattern

     schools. (They are by no means mutually exclusive, for many Individuals

     use aspects of both. Yet most individuals usually reflect one approach

     more than the other). Within these schools, there is a further sub-

     division of description (a search for historical sequences of patterns)

     versus additional attempts to explain described patterns. These cross-

     cutting subdivisio ns can be labelled historical and causal, respectively.

     The   Culture  Histrca    ppoc

             Theoretically, the culture historical approach'es initial aims are

    to describe different societies. Each societyrs culture is seen to be

    characterized by certain traits. In ethnography (cultural anthropology),

    the entire range of cultural traits are directly observed, listed and

    described (e.g., much of Buck's, Handy's, and others work in Polynesia).

    In archaeology the remains are listed and described (e.g., Emory's,

    Linton's work in Polynesia). Then once each society's culture was

    determined, comparisons were made. Shared traits were seen to reflect

    migration of people and their culture or diffusion of cultural ideas;

    unique traits were seen to reflect independent invention. Such comparisons

    were made on the basis of a few items (e.g., fishhooks and temples in

    archaeology; kinship and economic traits in ethnography) which were

    subdivided into types by formal characteristics (e.g., knobbed fishhooks

    versus-notched). This latter step (the determination of independent

    invention, diffusion or migration) is often seen as the causal step in

     culture history analysis although much theoretical debate has taken place

     on whether it is a causal step or simply another part of the descriptive

     step.

            In Polynesia, historical sequences of these items per island group

     have been constructed and then sequences from different island chains

     compared, Ethnographically, numerous traits were compared and historical

     connections and independent inventions noted with historical connections

     in the form of migrations emphasized (cf Burrows 1938; Buck 1937; Handy

     1930). Archaeologically, numerous artifdcts were compared and again

     historical connections, largely in the form of migrations, have been and

     are emphasized (cf Linton 1925; Emory 1928, 1933; 1968; 1970; Sinoto

     1972, 1967, 1968, 1970; Kirch 1971, 1973).

             In Hawaii, before 1900 archaeology was predominantly antiquarian

      collecting of artifacts for museums and noting large and/or impressive

    remains (particularly temples? fishponds, petroglyphs). This was not

    true archaeology but rather a form of antiquity collection. After 1900,

    researchers, however, began using the culture history approach. Prior to

    1950, it was widely held that there were no significantly old subsurface

    remains in Polynesia, so it was felt excavation would reveal little. So

    archaeologists concentrated their efforts to describe Hawaiian culture on

    discovery of stone surface structures,

           Surveys were the predominant means used to discover and describe

    the range of Hawaiian surface remains (e.g., recording houses, terraces,

    caves, fishponds, petroglyphs, temples). After 1900 initial surveys

    beganl, became island-wide in the 1920's2, and returned to the small

     region level in the late 1950's through today.3 The quality of these

     surveys vary greatly. Prior to the 1960's the main artifacts used for

     building historical sequences and comparison with other island groups

     were temples, Thus, quite frequently surveys were less concerned'with

     other structures,  (There are exceptions of course).4  After 1960, the

     surveys began to carefully record all features in detail.5 Hommon

     (ND: 20-21) notes that these recent surveys have recovered 20 sites

     for every 1 listed for the same areas in 1930. This author's work at

     Kaloko indicates that even early 1960 reports tend to record few sites.

     For at Kaloko in 1961, 16 sites were recorded (Emory and Soehren 1961).

     Nine years later an intensive survey recorded 89 sites just in the area

      between the sea and the present Kona-Keahole airport highway,(Renger'1970).

      A similar case is illustrated at Lapakah-i 4iUpua:'a (also on HRwaii IsTland)

      where a 1967 survey recorded 106 sites (from Mahukona to Kawaihae)

       (soehren 1967) versus over 182 coastal sites recorded in Lapakahi between

      1968-1970 (tf Connor 1969; Tuggle and Griffin 1973).

          As noted, the culture history school has as an aim the comparison of

    cultures' traits to discover historical ties. This is achieved by

    comparison of certain artifact types. Prior to 1950, temples were the

    main surface remain used for typing and comparison. In the rest of

    Polynesia, historical sequences of temple types were worked on (cf Emory

    1933). In Hawaii a historical typology was not achieved although several

    attempts occurred (e.g., Bennett 1931; Emory 1928, 1940). This temple

    focus continued mainly from 1900 to 1940 in Hawaii and can be seen in the

    surveys of this period6. However, temple historical typology interests

    continue still today (Emory 1970; Ladd 1973).

           Carbon-14 dating did not exist before 1940, so temples were

    arranged along an early to late time scale depending on the simplicity or

    complexity of their construction (cf Emory 1933). Often no time control

    was used at all,. and types from different islands were simply compared

    for similarities regardless of time control. This time control of

     temples is still a big problem in comparison (Emory 1970).

           During this time period (1900-1950), artifacts were also collected

     from the surface of Hawaiian sites during site surveys. Adzes (stone

     axes hafted like hoes) were common and an interest began in comparing

     different formal types of adzes between different island groups to

     discover historical ties (cf Buck 1927; Duff 1959). For each island group,

     the frequency of different adze types were reconstructed from surface and

     museum collections (e.g., most Hawaiian adzes were quadrangular tanged

     with small proportions of other types). These frequences became the

     island group norms. Before 1950 no time control of these adzes existed.

            With the invention of carbon-14 dating in 1949, archaeologists in

     Hawaii and the rest of Polynesia discovered some sites were quite old.

      So steps were made to reconstruct traits inHawaiian culture at

      different time periods.7 Also such sites contained fishhooks and adzes

    which were seen to be potentially inmportant for building historical

    sequences. Thus, since 1950 culture historians have begun to excavate

    sites which promise to have deep and old deposits which would yield fish-

    hooks and adzes and aninventory of other artifacts. Excavations at 01

    (Kuliouou on Oahu), H8 (Waiahukini on Hawaii), and Hi (South Point sand

    dune on Hawaii), are early examples of such a focus, and Halawa Sand Dune

    and Bellows Sand Dune are recent examples.

           Thus, after 1950, adzes were recovered from carbon-14 dated

    excavations, and historical sequences of adze types were reconstructed

    with some time control.8 But with the beginning of dated excavations in

    Hawaii in 1950, fishhooks became the interest of culture historians. In

     the late 1950's a historical sequence of fishhook types was established

     (based on different frequences of different types through time) (Emory,

     Bonk and Sinoto 1959), and in 1962 the line attachment characteristic of

     fishhooks was also typed and placed in a historical sequence (Sinoto 1962).

     Today further work on fishhook typologies continues,9 and fishhooks have

     become the basic item in Polynesia for comparison between island groups

     and reconstructing historical ties.

            Other artifacts in recent years have also been placed in historical

     sequences in Hawaii (e.g., stone net sinkers, tooth pendants, house

      shapes),10 and trait lists for Hawaiian culture at 2 different time

      periods are now becoming recognized (cf Cordy 1974a). Before AD 1200 the

      following were present: fishhooks with HT1 head types, coffee-bean type 1

      octopus lure sinkers, untanged or incipiently tanged adzes with various

      x-sections.ll And from AD 1200-1778 the following: fishhooks with HT4

      head types, coffee-bean type 2-4 sinkers, tanged adzes of quadrangular

      x-section.l2 The period after AD 1778 is largely distinguished by the

      appearance of metal fishhooks, ceramics and metal objects. No

    subdivisions within that era have been made although several have

    suggested how to do so (cf Newman 1970b).

          Historical sequences of artifact types have been used to theorize

    Hawaii's historical ties to the rest of Polynesia. Once Tahiti was seen

    as the Hawaiian ancestral culture on the basis of temples (cf Emory 1959).

    Then the Marquesas became the source area with a secondary and later

    migration from Tahiti on the basis of simialr fishhooks from excavated

    sites.13 And now the theory is beginning to suggest initial settlement

    from either the Marquesas or Tahiti and perhaps no later migrations--until

    more data are recovered.14

    The Settlement Pattern Approach (1966-1975)

           The Settlement Pattern approach is largely restricted to archaeology

     (although ethnography seems to be switching to it of late). It began being

    used by V. G. Willey in Peru and became popular in archaeology in the late

    1950ts.15 This approach reconstructs and describes complexes of spatially

     associated structures (and their artifacts) for specific time periods. To

     do this, detailed surveys of regions are undertaken, followed by excava-

     tion of numerous structures for dating control and artifacts. Thus, its

     descriptive-historical aspect presents patterns in a historical sequence.

     Comparisons are then made between areas within one society or with other

     societies.

            These historical patterns are not always the same, for as noted

     above different researchers are interested in different formal character-

     istics. Some are interested in subsistence, so functional characteristics

      (e.g., agriculture traits, fishing traits, manufacturing and cooking

     traits) are recorded and patterns delineated. Such settlement patterns

     are frequently called settlement-subsistence patterns. Other researchers

    are interested in social structure, so style characteristics representing

    say different households are focused on (e.g., viewing pottery style

    designs), recorded, and patterns recognized.

           Once such historical patterns are obtained, causal explanations of

    the patterns are often attempted. These explanations are oriented towards

    ecological explanations. For example, sudden change to cities caused by

    warfare with other societies, by population growth, by environmental

    degradation, or trade with other societies. These kinds of explanatory

    theories have led to search for such ecological effects in the archaeolo-

    gical remains (e.g., excavation for trade items).

           In Polynesia, the settlement pattern approach began only in the

    late 1960's--first in New Zealand (cf Green 1972; Groube 1965) and Tahiti

    (Green 1967), then in Hawaii (Chapman's work in Kahikinui on Maui in 1966,

    the Makaha project, the Lapakahi projects).16 Settlement pattern studies

    in Hawaii have boomed since 1968. Various regions (of ahupua'a or

    ili kupono size, or smaller) have been intensively surveyed and excavated

    with varying amounts of dates recovered yielding settlement patterns with

    varying degrees of temporal control.17

           Basically, to date the interest has focused on settlement-subsis-

     tence patterns (e.g., at Makaha, South Halawa, Moanalua and Kahana on Oahu;

     Halawa on Molokai; Lapakahi and Kaloko on Hawaii) with agricultural

     patterns of extreme interest. Agricultural patterns have been recorded

     now at numerous small local regions (using agricultural plant remains,

     stone remains, and associated dwelling structures).18 But although

     spatial control of such patterns are good, time control is yet minimal

     (cf Cordy 1973). Besides agricultural patterns, interest has focused on

     social organization patterns (although rarely). At Palauea (Maui) a

     local group was recognized (Kirch 1971), and at Kaloko (Hawaii) local

    groups, community and social ranks were reconstructed (using structure

    sizes and locations, burial patterns) (Tainter 1973; Cordy et al 1975).

    Again our patterns have poor time control as only a few dates have been

    recovered (1 at Palauea and 5 at Kaloko).19 In the last 3 years, island-

    wide patterns have also been theorized, being syntheses of the small

    regions (Cordy 1974a, 1974b.; Kirch 1973; Hommon 1972).

           Attempted explanations of these settlement patterns have been

    extremely rare to date, largely because the patterns are complex and we

    are still trying to date them and expand them to cover wider areas in

    order to understand their exact nature. For the agricultural patterns,

    local ecological conditions, population growth and expansion into dif-

     ferent ecological areas have been offered as possible explanations for

     both the small region level (Tuggle 1972) and the island-wide level

     (Cordy 1974a). In addition, political demand and expansion have been

     suggested (Tuggle 1975, University of Hawaii Department of Anthropology

     Colloquium.) Excavation to test such hypotheses have been undertaken in

     Pololu-Honokane only with attempts to control population and field areas

     temporally.

            For the social organization patterns, population growth and warfare

     or internal reorganization have been theorized at the local region level

      (Rosendahl 1972; Tuggle and Griffin 1973) and at the island-wide level

      (Cordy 1974b). Excavation to test these hypotheses has not occurred

      althoughan aerial photography project is to map social ranking patterns

      in leeward Kohala and North Kona to pinpoint the nature of the social

      ranking change in Hawaii (Cordy ettal 1974). As a final note, these

      explanatory hypotheses are not only relevant to Hawaiian prehistory but

      involve world-wide problems (agricultural change and social change) and

      thus are relevant to anthropologists elsewhere.

    Summary

          This, then, has been ithe histjry of Hawaiian archaeological

    approaches to date. As seen, two different approaches exist today (culture

    history and settlement pattern)--three if one subdivides settlement pattern

    studies into settlement-subsistence and settlement-social orgnaization

    approaches. Each orientation is interested in different aspects of the

    antiquities in the Hawaiian Islands; thus, each has a need for the protec-

    tion of certain resources.

                                          i

                 INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MANAGECOASTAL ZONE

                             HISTORICAL RESOURCES

          Management of coastal historical resources for the public requires

    information on the range and meaning of antiquities in that zone.

    Obviously, we do not yet have such information. It has to be obtained

    by the scientific community and then public management can proceed in

    light of such information. Today, then, management must initially gear

    toward protection of the historical resources so the scientific community

    can provide information for future public management.

           As seen, different research aims in Hawaiian archaeology focus on

    different historical resources. Thus, if each research school is to carry

    on with their studies of Hawaiian lifeways and obtain results benefitting

    the public and scientific communities, management is necessary to protect

    the historical resources that each school studies. An additional

    complexity is that scientific problems change, and in 10 years a

     completely new school of archaeology may develop and be interested in a

     different range of the Hawaiian historical remains.

            Future orientations cannot be predicted, but to obtain the various

     research aims of Hawaiian archaeology today, the following information is

     needed:

            (1) Differences in settlement patterns. (Obtained by
                 detailed surveys in different areas on each island).

            (2) Historical sequences of settlement patterns. (Obtained
                 by excavating samples of remains' within the survey areas
                 and retrieving datable material and artifacts).

            (3) Detailed data on such things as population estimates,

               carrying capacity differences in agricultural
               field yields, social ranking differences, social
               organization patterns, trade patterns, etc.
                (Obtained by detailed mapping and excavation in
               certain survey areas and by detailed laboratory
               analysis).

    The above information covers the culture history school (inventory of

    artifacts and structures at different time periods and historical sequences

    of certain artifacts and stone structures marking the time periods) and

    the two settlement pattern schools (subsistence and social organization).

    If the above information were available, management of coastal resources

    for the public and the scientific community could easily proceed.

           Unfortunately, the above information is far from available. To

    date, we lack detailed knowledge of settlement patterns for many areas

    on every island. For Lanai, Kahoolawe and Niihau no detailed surveys have

    been made. Settlement patterns on Kauai are also virtually unknown with

    Wainiha Valleyl being the exception. On Molokai, only Halawa Valley has

    been surveyed in detail.3 On Maui, Oahu and Hawaii, the picture is some-

    what better, for here archaeological salvage surveys have taken place

    under hire to the state and private corporations in association with hotel

    and highway construction.4 Also several pure research projects (Lapakahi,

    Pololu-Honokane) have occurred on Hawaii Island.5 However, even on these

     islands our knowledge of settlement patterns is still slight. On Hawaii

     Island (the best covered), we know next to nothing of the Hamakua and

    Hilo district settlement patterns and only very little of Ka'u, Puna, and

     Kona (south of Kailua-Kona) districts. On Maui, settlement patterns are

     only known in detail in the small and dry Kahikinui and Palauea areas of

     the east and southeast coasts.6 On Oahu, settlement patterns in detail

     are known only for the non-coastal portions of Makaha, South Halawa and

     Moanalua valleys7 and for Kahana Valley and Barbers Point.8 Quite

    obviously we know very little and lack much information on settlement

    patterns.

           The recent statewide inventory of historical sites (the Hawaii

    Register Program--under the management of the Division of State Parks)

    just being completed may erroneously be assumed by some individuals to be

    a survey and listing of all the sites in the Hawaiian Islands (in sum, a

    massive study of settlement patterns). It is not{!! This is a vital

    point that should be made clear to all management planners. The inventory

    is a record of all known sites (Newman et al 1972). It lists sites

    recorded by spotty 1930 era surveys and recent intensive surveys. As

    seen (pp. 22), the intensive surveys have been in but a few areas. Thus,

    the inventory largely records only the spotty surveys. For example, only

    25 known sites were recorded for the Hamakua coast, and the inventory

    found only 7 of them (Newman et al 1972: 79). In North Hilo, the only

     2 recorded sites were not found during the inventory (Ibid: 79). Hommon

     (ND: 21) suggests that there are 20 sites for every 1 recorded, and this

     suggests that instead of the 461 recorded sites for Oahu there are at

     least 9,220. Obviously then, the statewide inventory is not the detailed

     survey of Hawaiian settlement patterns that the archaeologists need today.

     It would be a serious mistake if the inventory were used as a basis for

     future planning (other than to preserve vital sites already known).

            The second step of information needed for archaeological research

     in Hawaii is historical sequences of settlement patterns. We know even

     less about this, for of the few areas where detailed surveys have been

     made, excavation and dating control has been minimal. Only from Halawa

     Valley (Molokai); Palauea (Maui); and Anaehoomalu, Lapakahi, Pololu-

     Honokane valleys, and Kaloko (Hawaii Island) has some dating control been

      achieved. And even in these cases, I think the excavators (including

    myself) would admit the control is minimal and our historical sequences
                                    I- i
    far from detailed. For example, we have 5 dates from Kaloko (for dwelling

    sites only)9. Only 19 structures are dated from Anaehoomalu.10 In the

    crucial uplands of Lapakahi, only 5 structures are dated, and along

    coastal Lapakahi only 4 structures outside Koaie village.1i This is far

    from adequate time control.

           Under this second step of selected excavation is included the

    recovery of artifacts for building historical sequences (e.g., fishhooks,

    adzes). Additional site excavation in coastal areas has occurred for

    this aim. K3 (Nualolo-kai cave shelter) on Kauai; 01 (Kuliouou cave

    shelter) and 018 (Bellows sand dune) on Oahu; Halawa sand dune on Molokai;

    and H1i (South Point sand dune), H8 (Waiahukini cave shelter), and H65

     (Kahakahakea cave shelter) on Hawaii are the prime examples. In a few of

     these sites carbon dating and/or hydration dating occurred (e.g., K3, 01,

     018, H1I, H8). In others (e.g., H65) a historical sequence of fishhook

     types was used for dating. However, again, as in settlement pattern

     sequences, our dated samples are few and dating control is minimal. K3

     has only 1 date from the middle of a deep sequence12, and the same is

     true for 01.13 Halawa Sand Dune and Bellows Sand Dune have much better

     time control, having a number of carbon-14 and volcanic hydration dates.14

            The final step of information needed in archaeological research is

     to obtain detailed information from certain areas to build a more detailed

     idea of past life and/or to test explanatory hypotheses about why certain

     patterns are present. This is a rare step in Hawaiian archaeology and

     has been taken largely in relation to agricultural problems (e.g.,

     detailed analysis of field areas, former crops, water flow, land tenure,

     associated structures) and only in a few areas (Lapakahi, Makaha, Halawa,

     Pololu-Honokane). Only one attempt to obtain population estimates has

    been made (at Kaloko).15 Only two studies of social organization at the

    community level have been made (kal6ko,! Palauea).16  Only one area has

    seen social ranking analysis (Kaloko).17 No carrying capacity or trade

    studies have yet been made.

           This final step is often overlooked in plans for managing histori-

    cal resources. Hommon (ND: 23-24) suggests two steps--(l) survey and

    (2) selected excavation. And these are the steps seen in most salvage

    projects in Hawaii. Yet to obtain more than a minimal knowledge of

    Hawaiian lifeways, problem oriented excavation following the selected

    excavation step is vital. Only then can the archaeologists begin to tell

    management officials and the public the details of Hawaiian history.

                    THE PUBLIC'S VIEW OF HISTORICAL REMAINS

          At this point, it should be strongly emphasized that historical

    resources should not be managed solely for scientific aims. These resources

    are equally crucial for the public (both in our state and visitors from

    other states) to understand and appreciate the past lifeways in our state.

    The public has strong opinions on what historical remains are important.

    Their opinions are based on a number of reasons, among them are local

    family traditions, cultural traditions, impressiveness of remains, super-

    natural connotations of remains, and awareness of remains important to

    scientific research. Quite frequently, the public's view of what remains

    are important do not match the views of the scientific community, and this

    bears some discussion.

           For years the public has been interested in temples, fishponds,

    certain artifacts (e.g., fisbhooks, adzes, pendants), burial caves, and

    petroglyphs. They have felt these remains were vital for a number of

    reasons. Quite obviously, one reason is that the remains have aesthetic

    aspects. Other reasons (as noted) are sacred connotations, oral traditions,

    and visual impressiveness. A less obvious reason but one that seems

    immensely important is the effect of past scientific popularizations.

           As noted, early archaeological interests in Hawaii focused on

    inventories of remains and historical sequences of certain remains. In

    the inventories, burial caves, temples, fishponds and petroglyphs were

    predominant, and fishhooks and adzes were collected from the surface. The

    historical sequences focused on temples, adzes, and fishhooks with temples

    almost exclusively emphasized for 40 years from 1900-1940.  Only these

    remains were stressed in numerous anthropological publications right

    through until 1960 (e.g., Buck 1974; Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1959;

    Summers 1964). Many of the public have either read these publications or

    read popular extractions of them (e.g., Ancient Hawaiian Civilization).

    In addition, museum collections (e.g., those of the Bishop Museum)

    emphasize these remains. It is, thus, not too surprising that the public

    sees such remains as important. It is perhaps more surprising how closely

    this matches the culture historical viewpoint long predominant in Hawaii.

           Since 1970 the public's viewpoint of historical resources has

    altered slightly. With a more pronounced interest in preserving ethnic

    heritage by Hawaiians, attempts have been to preserve entire areas to

    show the Hawaiian way of life as it was and as a healthy, alternative

    approach to modern living. The Kaloko-Honokohau area on Hawaii Island is

    perhaps the best example of this altered public view (cf Hono-kB-hau

    Study Commission 1974, 1975). Yet this view still strongly reflects the

    scientific viewpoints held from 1900-1960. At Kaloko, crucial resources

    are seen to be temples, fishponds and burial areas. These features and

    house remains are seen to be examples of the 'ohana family living pattern.

    And the 'ohana view is  decidedly a 1900-1960's anthropological view,

    having been first emphasized by E. S. C. Handy and M. K. Pukui in the

    Polynesian Family System in Ka'u based on 1930's research and having

    been accepted by many archaeologists and ethnographers until recently

     (cf Rosendahl 1972 and Kirch 1971 for recent examples).1

            Unfortunately, recent archaeological research emphasis (settlement

     pattern studies) have not been brought directly to the public's attention

     other than in rather detailed scientific publications. Thus, the public

     is holding to old scientific standards as to what remains are vital. This

    is unfortunate and perhaps a disservice to the public on our part.

                        ACTIVITIES PRESENTLY THREATENING

                          COASTAL HISTORICAL RESOURCES

           Four main activities threaten to permanently alter or destroy

    historical resources in Hawaii today--(1) development, (2) agricultural-

    livestock related activities, (3) looters, and (4) natural disasters. Of

    these activities, the last three are minor. Looting and natural disasters

    are common but minor sources which have not changed much over the years.

    Initial results from the 1971 inventory of known sites on Oahu indicate

    that of sites recorded in 1930 only 2% have been destroyed by looting and

    another 2% by natural disasters (Newman et al 1972). Agricultural-live-

    stock related activities destroyed much of the historical resources of

    Hawaii in the past (12% of the sites recorded on Oahu in 1930-Newman

    et al 1972) through clearing activities for HatWiian kuleanas after 1850

    and for cane and pineapple cultivation. But these activities are now

    minor threats because kuleana and agricultural-livestock industries are

     largely contracting rather than expanding into yet undestroyed areas.

            The prime source of activities threatening historical remains on

     the coast today is development. This heading includes urban sprawl, hotel

     construction, highway construction, boat harbor construction, and the

     like. Such development either permanently' destroys or covers historical

     remains, Of the sites on Oahu recorded in 1930, by 1971 38% had been

     destroyed by urbanization (Newman etaal 1972). Sixty percent of the sites

     destroyed since 1930 were lost between 1960 and 1971 (Hommon ND: 20) with

     the average number of sites destroyed per year jumping to 11 during that

    period compared to 2 per year in the previous 30 years (Newman et al 1972).

            Urban sprawl is most serious on Oahu and Maui. On Oahu, urban

    growth since 1960 has covered much of the Ewa and Hawaii Kai areas, and

    there is no sign that urbanization is letting up (witness the activities

    in the Campbell estate areas in Ewa; Mililani Town; downtown Honolulu;

    Punchbowl and MoililMi, and windward areas from Kailua to Haleiwa). The

    same threat is taking place today on Maui in the Kihei area.

            Hotel construction is equally as serious a threat to coastal

    historical remains. The recent hotel boom at Kaanapali on Maui is a good

    example. Their remains are largely destroyed or covered along a large

    coastal strip. The same threat is presently likely along the Kona coast

    of Hawaiian Island and around Kihei on Maui.

            In sum, the antiquities in these areas (Kihei on Maui, the Kona

    coast on Hawaii, and all of undeveloped Oahu)-are currently threatened.

    Remains in areas already within urban or hotel areas (e.g., Honolulu,

     Kahului, Kaanapali) are largely lost. Antiquities in areas not presently

     threatened may soon be threatened if development spreads into those areas

     with minimal or no control.

             In the light of the two ongoing approaches in Hawaiian archaeology,

     what does this mean? Culture historical approaches basically require

     only individual sites of good depth to recover artifacts. Such sites are

     usually cave sites or dune sites. Cave sites are frequently undestroyed,

     even in urban areas (e.g,, 01 in Honolulu), so urbanization is not a major

     threat to such sites.  Dune sites, however, are highly vulnerable to

     bulldozing and levelling, Thus, they are lost in urban areas and threaten-

     ed in areas of ongoing development. So, as a crude estimate, the culture

     historian has one-half of the range of his vital sites threatened.

             For the Hawaiian archaeologist interested in settlement patterns,

    the situation is more critical. This approach, as seen, requires intensive

    surveys and excavations of entire regional areas (of ahupua'a size) from

    the coast to the mountains, so the nature of settlement can be determined.

    In urban areas, this cannot be done-the data are irrevocably lost (particu-

    larly on the coast). In threatened areas, the data are soon to be lost.

    In unthreatened areas, the data are present in varying degrees depending

    on the extent of past agricultural-livestock activities.

            When the archaeologist is interested in island-wide settlement

    patterns, the picture is even worse. Island-wide patterns must be based

    (at the least) on representative region samples from each ecological or

    social area on each island. At present we have total (but insufficiently

    known) region samples only from Halawa Valley (Molokai), Kahana Valley

    (Oahu), Lapakahi (Hawaii), Anaehoomalu (Hawaii), Kaloko (Hawaii), and

    Pololu-Honokane valleys (Hawaii),2 On Oahu, most of the dry leeward

    ecological area is under modern Honolulu and most of the windward Koolau-

    poko piains are under rapidly expanding Kailua, Kaneohe, and Waimanalo.

    On Hawaii Island, most of the windward Hamakua and North Hilo coasts have

    long been cleared for cane, and much of the fertile Kona coast is going

    under hotel development or expanding housing. Effective management control

    of anything that is left is, thus, vital and must occur soon if adequate

    island-wide archaeological patterns are ever to be obtained in the Hawaiian

     Islands.

                      HOW ARE HISTORICAL RESOURCES MANAGED?

           Newman et al (1972) in their interim report draft document in

    depth past legislation and agencies managing antiquities. The reader

    should consult that report. Here management as of 1972 as documented by

    Newman et al will be briefly summarized.

            At the federallevel, federal agencies involved in any project

    had to submit environmental impact statements outlining the effects of

    the project on historical resources (Section 106 of National Historic

    Preservation Act of 1966; Public Law 91-190 known as the National Environ-

    mental Policy Act of 1969). If any significant site were threatened then

    the project was to be halted and hearings on the threat and alternative

    solutions- held. The public hearings at the state and national level

    concerning development threats to the Kaloko-Honokohau area (Hawaii

    Island) are an example of this. Of course, the National Park Service is

    in control of historical sites in park landS, but in Hawaii such lands

    including historical remains are minimal (Honaunau City of Refuge largely;

    Hawaii Volcanoes National Park has some remains).

            At the state governmental level, two. eogdni'zat  ns have the most

    responsibility--the Division of State Parks (in the Department of Land and

    Natural Resources) and the quasi-official Foundation for History and the

    Humanities. All state projects had to have environmental impact state-

     ments (Office of Environmental Quality Control established in 1971). Also

     the state under various general plans noted that preservation, restoration

     and access to historic sites was vital and that significant sites should

    be marked on .zoning maps and placed as conservation zones (1967
                                        I  I
    Revised Hawaii Geh'eral.Pla'n)   The administration of these tasks lay

    (and lies) with the Division of State Parks. This agency also regulates

    the use of antiquities on state lands (through providing research permits,

    enforcing protection laws, reviewing public works' plans which might

    affect sites, registering sites, and conducting archaeological survey and

    salvage when needed). In addition, some control over private land existed

    in 1972, for 3 months notice of alteration of historical resources on

    private land was to be given to allow review (Section 6-11 of Chapter 6

    of Hawaii Revised Statutes) and lands undergoing zoning changes were to

    be reviewed for historic value (Section 6-11.1 of Chapter 6 of Hawaii

    Revised Statutes).

            In the Interim Report draft, a new management program is formulated

    by the Division of States Parks. This consists of (1) an inventory of

    known sites (Hawaii Register Program), (.2) an overseeing of use of

    antiquities on state lands (noted above) (Review Program) and (3) the

    interpretation of historic sites and their development into state historic

    parks (Interpretive Program) (Newman et al 1972, Part I: pp 71-72). The

    inventory has been undertaken to record known sites as the start of a

    long-range preservation plan. Significant sites are to be interpreted

    from the survey, (and gaps where no sites are known to be discovered and

    filled.)

            The Foundation for History and the Humanities is a non-profit

    organization established to evaluate antiquities sites in the state and

    enter into the Hawaii Register of Historic Places (and to nominate

    important sites to the National Register), to develop museum activities

    for the public, and to preserve Hawaiian heritage In general..  Tho Iounda-

    tion membership is open to the public of Hawaii and the Board of trustees

    is elected by the members. A separate Review Board now of 10 members

    (2 archaeologists, architects, Hawaiianists, historians, and sociologists)

    reviews all sites inventoried by the Division of State Parks for placement

    and ranking on the Hawaii Register and National Register of Historic Places.

            At the county level in 1972, other than general statements that

    antiquities should be protected, only Hawaii and Maui counties had

    additional management legislation. The Hawaii County General Plan stated

    public and private developers had to provide for surveys of antiquities

    if they were thought to be present. Maui County had two historical

    districts (one in Lahaina and one in Wailuku) where activities were over-

    seen by a commission.

            In the nongovernmental sector, numerous interest groups have been

    actively campaigning for preservation in recent years. For example, the

    archaeologists of Hawaii banded together and pressed for additional

    legislation in the late 1960's (Coordinating Committee for Hawaiian

    Archaeology). Today, various public groups (e.g., Life of the Land,

    Hawaiian Civic Clubs, etc) are active., The private sector is also becoming

    aware of the value of antiquities in lands under their control, and hiring

    archaeologists to do salvage work and some preservation. Also, of course,

     there are private institutions such as the Bishop Museum and public

     institutions such as the University of Hawaii which also play a role in

     preserving artifacts and information from historical resources.

                              PRESERVATION TO DATE

           Prior to the late 1960's governmental management of historical

    resources (when it occurred) largely had followed the culture history

    school's view of what was important. Temples had been protected by state

    agencies (e.g., Ulupo Heiau State Monument, Puu O Makuha State Monument--

    both on Oahu) and by federal agencies (the City of Refuge National

    Historical Park and Wahaula heiau in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park-both

    on Hawaii). Burial areas, fishponds and petroglyphs had been protected

    to a much lesser degree. Artifacts had been preserved largely by the

    Bishop Museum.

            In the late 19601s the settlement pattern school's view influenced

    state agencies and federal agencies. Yet the public has not yet been

    made aware of these recent activites. For example, Bellows site (018) and

    adjacent areas on Bellows Air Force Base (Oahu) are now protected as a'

    national historic register site. It is the oldest archaeological site yet

    excavated in the Hawaiian Islands, yet no displays or exhibits are anywhere

    available to the public.  Lapakahi ahupuaia (Hawaii) and Kahana Valley

     (Oahu) are two future state parks emphasizing historical resources.

    Lapakahi has had 3 years of excavation, and presently reconstruction

    activities are ongoing there under the Division of State Parks.  It has

    been one of the most productive areas for Hawaiian archaeologists to date

     in learning about later agricultural patterns and settlement, yet it has

     largely been inhibited (except in a few newspaper articles). The Kahana

     Park is also largely inhibited, and little excavation has taken place.

           Private management of archaeological resources for the public has

    long lagged behind governmental endeavors. Prior to the late 1960's

    developers had little concern for preserving antiquities on their lands.

    Antiquities were sometimes removed by contracted archaeologists (particu-

    larly when burials were found) if their discovery was a hindrance to

    development work. In the alte 1960's, however, developers began to see

    the economic attraction of having historical sites reconstructed on their

    grounds and the public service attraction of having archaeologists come in

    and survey and remove remains. The Mauna Kea Beach Hotel was one of the

    first cases of such contract (or salvage) archaeology. Since then govern-

    mental laws and public pressure have made this contract archaeology vir-

    tually a necessity rather than an option. The contract work to date has

    been done by both schools of Hawaiian archaeology represented in various

    archeological agencies (e.g., the Bishop Museum, the University of Hawaii,

    Archaeological Research Center Hawaii, the Division of State Parks). The

    work largely consists of inventory and selected excavation. In Makaha

    Valley, Anaehoomalu-Waikaloa, and Kaloko settlement pattern approaches were

    used. Elsewhere inventories and their dating have been the focus. The

    remains to be preserved and reconstructed are largely the impressive ones

     (e.g., temples, large houses, fishponds, and petroglyphs).

             In sum, at present, management of historical resources for the

     public has been done by governmental and private sectors. The remains

     protected have largely been those of interest to the culture history

     school of Hawaiian archaeology. A few protected areas reflect the interest

     of the settlement pattern school of archaeology (Bellows, Lapakahl,

     Kahana), but the public is largely unaware of these areas or the settlement

     pattern approach. Thus, it is not surprising that the public's view of

     historical remains is largely a culture historical view.

                 THE AUTHOR'S OPINION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF

               PRESENT MANAGEMENT AND WHAT IS NEEDED FOR EFFECTIVE

                                FUTURE MANAGEMENT

           It is obvious that all sectors of our society in Hawaii are aware

    of the need to preserve and manage historical resources. But how effective

    is management today and what is needed to make management effective in the

    future?

            At the national government level, Newman et al (.1972) have clearly

    pointed out that in 1972 only officially designated significant sites

    were protected. AT the state level, they have noted that projects still

    proceeded without regard to antiquity preservation because their own

    Division of State Parks staff was not large enough or well-funded enough

    to oversee many projects. Indeed their discussion of progress on the

    Division.of State Parks' 3-point future program illustrates this. The

    statewide inventory had to be delegated out to other archaeological agencies

    (the Bishop Museum, Archaeological Research Center Hawaii) to be completed

    as the State Parks had but two archaeologists (Newman and J. Martin.) The

    normal overseeing function had no staff funding and had to use the inventory

    staff. The development of state historic parks was "extremely limited" in

    1972.

            The other agency at the state level also had problems as of 1972.

     The Foundation for History and the Humanities was not funded until 1971

     (it was established by the legislature in 1969) and then concentrated

    much of its early work on ethnic studies. In 1972 tie Review Board had

    assigned a number of sites to the Hawaii Register, but apparently the

    significant sites had not been placed on the tax maps due to surveying

    costs, and only those sites on the tax maps were officially protected.

            I would add further comments to Newman et al based on my personal

    knowledge of ongoing archaeology in Hawaii. The Division of State Parks

    seems to be in even worse straights as far as staffing. Only one

    archaeologist (to my knowledge) is on the staff (J. Martin). And although

    the inventory is largely completed, staffing is inadequate for other tasks.

    Funding and other problems have created havoc with the State Parks' develop-

    ment of the historic park at Lapakahi.

            I have already noted problems in using the statewide inventory as a

    basis for future planning of antiquities managment in Hawaii (pp. 23).

    It does protect individual known sites, but the inventory does little to-

    wards achieving an intensive knowledge of settlement patterns in Hawaii.

    The claim that only investigation in unknown geographic gaps needs to

    follow the inventory to provide a picture of Hawaiian antiquities (Newman

    et al., 1972, Part 1: pp. 74-75) is fallacious, unless it is clearly stated

    that the gaps in our knowledge of sites are virtually island-wide. And

     this acknowledgment would be tantamount to admitting that the inventory's

    worth is little more than an easy means to review old work and rank sites

     already known. Quite frankly, I feel that the inventory is only that. It

     should not be used for planning.

             Archaeological salvage projects are ccrstantly ongoing in threatened

     areas today (undertaken by the state, the Bishop Museum, Archaeological

     Research Center Hawaii and others and contracted by the state and private

     sectors). As such they are stop-gap forms of management. Yet there is

     no coordination for such salvage; instead, it is handled by each archaeo-

     logical institution in their own way. Also the salvage projects vary

    greatly in quality. These two points have led to quarrels among the

    different Hawaiian archaeological institutions. More vitally, in my

    opinion, these salvage projects at best cover only intensive survey and

    selected excavation (sometimes only survey), and then the developer is

    allowed to alter the areas and their historical remains and the archaeo-

    logical institutions write up their results. I have tried to clearly

    point out under the sections on research approaches (pp. 12-20) and informa-

    tion needed to manage historical resources (pp. 21-25) that detailed

    problem-oriented studies are a necessary final step in archaeological

    research. Without such a step, the details can never be recovered to

    explain the patterns obtained from survey and selected excavation. And

    without detail and explanations, much of the past is lost. The inclusion

    of this research step would require an additional delay in development

    while archaeologists analyze their survey and selected excavation data to

    determine whether further problem-oriented excavation is needed. While

     the delay might be irritating, it is crucial, for otherwise the informa-

     tion would be lost.

             Finally, it is also necessary to return to the problem of the

     divergent schools and institutions of archaeological research in Hawaii.

     I have noted the different schools (pp, 12-20) and in the above paragraph

     I have indicated there is considerable bickering between institutions

     (e.g., the Bishop Museum, the University of Hawaii, Archaeological

     Research Center Hawaii, the Division of State Parks). While this is normal

     in any science, in this case it is not healthy for any management program

     of historical resources in Hawaii. All schools and institutions should be

     represented in managing activities (either on a 1-to-i basis or be skewing

      to most adherents) or else serious omissions of needed data and knowledge

     may be lost.  The Coordinating Committee for Hawaiian Archaeology offered

    a chance to coordinate these divergent views. Unfortunately, this committee

    is virtually defunct and has done little in the last two years (although

    it is not dead and could be revived). In the existing agencies, only

    one archaeologist is on the State Park's staff and only two on the Review

    Board of the Foundation for History and the Humanities. Are these archaeo-

    logists representing all schools of thought? The same could be asked of

    nongovernmental archaeological institutions when they undertake salvage

    excavations; do they represent all schools or only some when they save

    historical data? This is a serious problem and should be carefully con-

    sidered in any management plans.

            Also the entire range of historical remains reflecting the work

     of both schools of Hawaiian archaeology should be preserved for and brought

     to the attention of the public. As noted the culture historical view is

     the only school widely known to the public (through published material

     and illustrative protected remains). It is the task of managers of

     historical resources to illustrate to the public the range of antiquities

     the settlement pattern school sees vital for understanding the past in

     Hawaii. This would require the promotion of the Bellows, Lapakahi, and

     Kahana areas, It would also require the preservation of other remains

     reflecting aspects of settlement approaches yet unpreserved. For example,

     nothing is preserved concerning social ranking (e.g., areas where several

      levels of social ranks--commoners, low chiefs, high chiefs-can be seen

      in remains) or social groups (e.g., areas where groups--bouseholds, local

      residence groups, communities-and their interrelations could be seen in

      remains), I for one think the Kaloko-Honokohau coastal area (Hawaii

      Island) would be an excellent example of these patterns. In addition,

      management policy might consider showing the range of remains on each

      island.

            In sum, as an archaeologist and one that has been trained by and

    worked for several of the archaeological institutions in Hawaii (the

    Bishop Museum, the State, and the University of Hawaii), I feel some

    coordinating group consisting of the divergent archaeological views in

    Hawaii is necessary for aiding management plans. A comprehensive manage-

    ment plan is needed in Hawaii to preserve historical remains; archaeologists

    all realize that. The public needs its interests protected, and archaeo-

    logists are best qualified to do that in regard to historical resources.

    Perhaps it is time for archaeologists to put aside some of their quabbles

    and attempt to formulate a program acceptable to all factions for manage-

    ment of historical resources in regard'to preservation, research, and

    salvage work.

                                 SUMMARY

           This brings this paper to an end. The author hopes the ramblings

    have made the reader aware of the nature of archaeological research in

    Hawaii and archaeologists' interests in historical resources. The knowl-

    edge archaeologists gain from the resources can greatly benefit the pub-

    lic's understanding of the history of our state, and historical remains

    should be protected to allow adequate scientific research to obtain such

    knowledge and illustrate it in the form of preserved remains to the public.

    In sum, coastal management of historical resources in Hawaii hinges on

    two points--delineation of coastal historical resources and obtaining the

    knowledge of divergent research approaches in archaeology. It has been

    suggested both points can be achieved, but additional work is needed in

    both cases for successful management of historical resources.

     Note: Again, this is only an anthropologist's view of historical remains.
            Other disciplines should be  consulted4 for any actual planning.

                                FOOTNOTES

    How to Distinguish a Coastal Zone of Hawaiian Historical Resources

    1.   Exceptions are the plotting of temples for the entire island of
         Kauai (Bennett, 1931) and the island-wide plotting of fishponds
         (Kikuchi, 1973) and general agricultural patterns (Cordy, 1974a).

    2.  Nothing yet has been published on these remains in either area.

    3.   Archaeologically, the argument for permanent dwellings can be argued
         on structures' (e.g., platforms, paved areas, enclosures) floor area
         being larger than 10 meters squared (based on cross-cultural studies
         by two anthropologists--Naroll and LeBlanc).  Also the association
         of temples and other special purpose structures of day-to-day life          N
         can be an argument for permanence.  Rosendahl (1972) has suggested
         each family had 2 permanent dwellings at Lapakahi for use during
         different seasons--one inland in the agricultural fields and one on
         the coast.  My research with contact historical material (Cordy, 1970,
         1973) and with archaeological material at Kaloko (Cordy et al., 1975)
         however, suggest dwellings inland among agricultural fields were
          small (often less than 10 meters squared) and were used sporadically
         'when visiting the fields for vegetables every few days. This explana-
          tion seems to fit the data and the Polynesian data much better. Only
          perhaps around Kawaihae where agricultural fields were 7+ miles inland
          near Waimea, does it seem likely that dual permanent dwellings occurred.

     4.   Kaloko in Kona 1/4 mile inland (Cordy   al., 1975), Anaehoomalu in
          Kohala less than 1/4 miles (Barrera, 1971).  Hon1aoiOau in Konaless
          than 1/2 mile (Cluff, 1969). Lapakahi in Kohala less tFian 1/4 mile
          (Newman, 1970).  See Appendix 1 for maps of Kaloko, Anaehoomalu and
          Lapakahi showing this pattern.

     5.   M, Kaschko of the Dept. of Anthropology (University of Hawaii) did
          research in several aohupua'a in leeward Kohala and C. Sugiyama's
          rough map from aerial photos (on file Dept. of Anthropology, Univer-
          sity of Hawaii) show this pattern in Kohala. See Cordy et al., 1975
          for Kaloko and Cordy, 1970 for historical evidence on Kona.

      6.   Temporary use dwellings are less than 10 meters squared in floor
           area. See footnote 3.

      7.  H. David Tuggle, 1975, Dept. of Anthropology Colloqiuum talk (U. of
           Hawaii) (unpublished).

      8.   Cordy, 1970.  There is no archaeological data for this area.

    9.   Halawa Valley on Molokai (a wet stream valley) has continuous
         dwellings to ca 1 mile inland (cf Kirch, 1971c). Kahana Valley
          (also a wet stream valley) on Oahu has continuous sites ca 3 miles
         inland (cf Hommon and Barrera, 1971). See map of Kahana in
         Appendix 1.

    10.   Chapman's Kahikihui work is unpublished.  See Kirch (1971b) for
         Palauea. Coastal remains less than 1/2 mile inland.

    11.   Bonk, 1954.  Coastal remains right on the shore (less than 1/4 mile
          inland).

    12.   Makaha's coastal section is destroyed; 1 mile inland where archaeo-
          logical analysis began only sporadic temporary dwellings were found
          (Green, 1969, 1970). See Sahlins (1971) for historical plotting of
          Moanalua Valley (see map Appendix 1). See Cordy, 1970.

    13.   Tuggle's unpublished work in Pololu (Hawaii) is an exception.  There
          remains seem localized in the lower valley less than 1/2 mile from
          the shore. Timothy Earle (Dept. of Anthropology, UCLA) has done
          recent work in Wainiha Valley on Kauai which is: unpublished.

    14.   Barrere's (1970a, 1970b) research for Makaha and Moanalua Valleys
          (Oahu) shows a spatial scattering into the upper valleys in each
          case--distances vary from 3 to 5 miles from the sea.

     A History of Archaeological Approaches in Hawaii

     1.   See Newman (1968) for listing.

     2.   E.g., McAllister on Oahu'(1933a) and Kahoolawe (1933b), Bennett on
          Kauai (1931), Emory on Lanai (1924) and Necker and Nihoa (1928).
          see Newman (1968) for additional listings.

     3.   E.g., Makaha (Green, 1969, 1970) and Kahana (Hommon and Barrera, 1971)
          on Oahu; Lapakahi (Rosendahl, 1972; Tuggle and Griffin, 1973),
          Kaloko (Renger, 1970), Honokohau (Cluff, 1969), and Anaehoomalu
           (Barrera, 1971) on Hawaii. See the Bishop Museum's Dept. of Anthro-
          pology Reports and the Division of State Parks' former Hawaii State
          Archaeological Journal for other cases.

     4.   Emory's work on Kaunolu village on Lanai (1924), although the bulk
          of his survey is temple-oriented,

      5.   See Footnote 3.

      6.   See Footnote 2.

      7.   These results of such endeavors can be seen in Emory, Bonk and Sinoto
           (1959); Pearson et al. (1971); Kirch (1971, 1973); Cordy (1974a).

      8.   Emory, 1970; Pearson et al., 1971; Kirch, 1973; Cordy, 1974a.

      9.   Pearson et al., 1971; Kirch, 1971.

    10.   Emory, Bonk and Sinoto, 1959; Sinoto, 1967, 1970; Kirch, 1971.

    11o   Cordy, 1974a.

    12.   Cordy, 1974a.

    13.   Emory, 1963; Emory and Sinoto, 1964; Sinoto, 1967, 1968, 1970.

    14.   Bellwood, 1970; Kirch, 1971a, 1974; Cordy, 1974c.

    15.   Parsons, 1972.

    16.   For Makaha see Green (1969, 1970), Ladd and Yen (1972) and Ladd (1973).
          For Lapakahi see Newman (1970) and Tuggle and Griffin (1973).

    17.   See Footnote 3.

    18.   See Rosendahl (1972), Rosendahl and Yen (1971), Yen et al. (1972),
          Riley (1973), Hommon and Barrera (1971), Tuggle (1972), Cordy et al
          (1975).

    19.   In addition to these archaeological studies, recent enthnographic
          work with archival resources dating 1850 have led to reconstruction
          of social organization in several areas (Moanalua and Anahulu valleys
          on Oahu and Wainiha valley on Kauai). Some archaeological work (by
          Kirch and Earle but unpublished) to corroborate aspects of this
          enthnographic work has also occurred.

     Information Necessary to Manage Coastal Zone Historical Resources

     1.   Earle unpublished.

     2.   Kirch, 1971c; Riley, 1973

     3.   For Maui, Kirch (1971).  For Oahu, Kahana Valley (Hommon and Barrera
          1971; Hommon and Bevacqua, 1973). For Hawaii, Anaehoomalu (Barrera
          1971), Kaloko (Renger, 1970; Cordy et al., 1975)

     4,   Newman, 1970; Tuggle and Griffin, 1973 for Lapakahi.  The Pololu-
          Honokane data are not published yet.

     5.   Chapman's Kahikinui work is unpublished.  Kirch (1971) on Palauea.

     6.   Makaha (Green, 1969, 1970; Ladd and Yen, 1972; Ladd, 1973), South
          Halawa (Ayres, 1970; Denison and Forman, 1971) and Moanalua (Ayres,
          1970).

     7.   Kahana (see footnore 4), Barbers Point (Le.is, 1970).

      8.   Cordy et al., 1975.

      9.   Barrera, 1971

     10.   See Rosendahl (1972) for uplands and Tuggle and Griffin (1973) for
           coast.

    11.  Emory, Bonk and Sinoto, 1959.

    12.  Emory and Soehren, 1961.         |

    13.  Kirch, 1971, 1974; Pearson et al., 1971.

    14.  Cordy et al., 1975.

    15.  Cordy et al., 1975; Kirch, 1971.

    16.  Tainter, 1973, 1974; Cordy et al., 1975.

     The Public's View of Historical Remains

     1. Sahlins' (1971) recent work has shown the 'ohana was definitely a
         post-1850 phenomenon. Prior to 1850, local residence groups (of
         blood relatives, in-laws, and friends--not just blood relatives as
         in the 'lohana) were present and then communities (ahypua'a, often
         with the chief a nonrelative and with internallocal residence
         groups unrelated). In sum, there was no branching 'ohana type
         structure for commoners, rather each individual had his network of
         alliances built through blood, marriage, and friendship.

     Activities Presently Threatening Coastal Historical Resources

     1. An exception may be the looting along the Napali Coast of Kauai by
         helicopter during recent years.

     2. Makaha Valley on Oahu has its coastal portion destroyed by urbaniza-
         tion and is thus not a total region,

                              REFERENCES

    Ayres, William. Archaeological Survey and Excacations, Kamana-Nui Valley,
        Moanalua Ahupua'a, South Halawa Valley, Halawa Ahupua'a, Dept. of
        Anthropology Reports, 70-8. Bishop Museum, 1970.

    Barrera, William. Anaehoomalu: A Hawaiian Oasis. Pacific Anthropology
        Records, #15. Bishop Museum, 1971.

    Bellwood, Peter. "Dispersal Centers in East Polynesia, With Special
        References to the Society and Marquesas Islands." In R. Green and
       M. Kelley (eds.), Oceanic Culture History: Vol. 1, pp. 93-104.
        Pacific Anthropology Records, #11, 1970.

    Bennett, Wendell. Archaeology of Kauai. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 80,
        1931.

    Bonk, William.  Archaeological Excavations on West Molokai.  Unpublished
       MA thesis, University of Hawaii, 1954.

    Buck, Peter.  The Material Culture of the Cook Islands (Aitutaki).
        Memoirs of the Board of Maori Ethnological Research #1. New
        Plymouth (NZ), Thomas Avery and Sons, 1927.

                    Vikings of the Sunrise.  New York, Frederick A. Stokes,
        Co., 1938.

                    Arts and Crafts of Hawaii.  Bishop Museum Special
        Pub. #45, 1964.

    Burrows, Edwin. Western Polynesia: A Study in Cultural Differentiation.
        Ethnologiska Studier. 7:1-192, 1938.

    Cluff, Deborah. An Archaeological Survey of the Seaward Portion of
        Honokohau #1 and #2, North Kona, Hawaii Island. Dept. of Anthropology
        Reports, 69-5. Bishop Museum, 1969.

    Connor, Douglas.  "A Surface Survey of the Area Near the Village Nucleus."
       Hawaii State Archaeological Journal, 69-2, 1970.

    Cordy, Ross. Pre-European Hawaiian Agricultural Systems: Their End-
        Point. Manuscript, on file Dept. of Anthropology, University of
        Hawaii.

                    "The Effects of European Contact on Hawaiian Agricultural
        Systems--1778-1819".  Ethnohistory, 19(4):  393-418, 1972.

                    Regional Design:  The Need to Look at a Total Socio-
        Political System.  Paper read at the semi-annual meeting of the
        Coordinating Committee for Hawaiian Archaeology.  Honolulu, 1973.

                    Intra-site Analysis in the Hawaiian Islands:  Activity
        Areas, Structure Types, and Site Types.,  Manuscript, on file Dept.
        of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, 1973.

    Cordy, Ross. "Cultural Adaptation and Evolution in Hawaii: A Suggested
       New Sequence." J. of the Polynesian Society. 83(2): 180-191,
        1974a.

                 . "Complex Rank Cultural Systems in the Hawaiian Islands:
        Suggested Explanations for Their Origin."  Archaeology and Physical
        Anthropology in Oceania. 9(2): 89-109, 1974b.

                 . "The Tahitian Migration to Hawaii ca 1100-1300 AD--AD
        Argument Against Its Occurrence." New Zealand Archaeological Associa-
        tion Newsletter. 17(2): 65-76, 1974c.

    Cordy, Ross and Michael Kaschko and Robert Hitchcock. "An Archaeological
        Investigation of Prehistoric Hawaiian Chiefdoms and Communities Using
        Aerial Photography." Grant proposal submitted to The McInery
        Foundation, 1974.

    Cordy, Ross and Robert Renger, Robert Hitchcock, Joseph Tainter.
        Archaeology of Kaloko: A Generalized Model of a Hawaiian Community's
        Social Organization and Adaptation. Manuscript undergoing final
        draft, 1975.

    Denison, David and Arthur Forman. Archaeological Investigations in South
        Halawa Valley, Oahu:  Phase II.  Dept.  of Anthropology Reports, 71-9.
        Bishop Museum, 1971.

    Duff, Roger. Neolithic Adzes of Eastern Polynesia. In J. Freeman and
        W. Geddes (eds.), Anthropology in the South Seas, 1959.

    Emory, Kenneth. The Island of Lanai: A Survey of Native Culture. Bishop
        Museum Bulletin, #12, 1924.

                  . Archaeology of Nihoa and Necker Islands.  Bishop Museum
         Bulletin, #53, 1928.

                  . Stone Remains in the Society Islands. Bishop Museum
         Bulletin, #116, 1933.

                   . "Origins of the Hawaiians." J. of the Polynesian Society.
         68(1);:29-35, 1959.

                   . "East Polynesian Relationships: Settlement Pattern and
         Time Involved as Indicated by Vocabulary Agreement." J. Polynesian
         Soc. 72(2): 78-100, 1963.

                    . East Polynesian Relationships as Revealed Through Adzes.
         In I. Yawata and Y.H. Sinoto (eds.), Prehistoric Culture in Oceania,
         pp. 151-170. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 1968.

                    . "A Re-Examination of East Polynesian Marae:  Many Marae
         Later." In R. Green and M. Kelley (eds.), Prehistoric Culture in
         Oceania:  Vol. 1, pp. 73-92.  PacificAnthropology  Records, #11,
         Bishop Museum, 197Q,

    Emory, Kenneth and William Bonk and Y.H. Sinoto. Fishhooks. Bishop
       Museum Special Publication, #47, 1959.

    Emory, Kenneth and Lloyd Soehren. Archaeological and Historical Survey,
       Honokohau Area, North Kona, Hawaii. Dept. of Anthropology Reports,
        61-1. Bishop Museum, 1961.

    Emory, Kenneth and Y.H. Sinoto. "Eastern Polynesian Burials at Maupiti."
        J. Polynesian Soc.  73(2): 143-160.

    Green, Roger. A Review of the Prehistoric Sequence in the Auckland
        Province. Auckland Arch. Assoc. Publica. #1, 1962.

                 . Archaeology on the Island of Mo'orea, French Polynesia.
        Amer. Museum National Hist. Anthro. Papers, 51(2): 111-230, 1967.

                   Makaha Valley Historical Project:  Interim Report #1.
        Pacific Anthro. Records, #4. Bishop Museum, 1969.

                    Makaha Valley Historical Project:  Interim Report #2.
        Pacific Anthro.Records, #10. Bishop Museum, 1970.

    Handy, E.S.C. "The Problems of Polynesian Origins." Bishop Museum
        Occasional Papers, 9(8), 1930.

                    The Hawaiian Planter.  Bishop Museum Bulletin, #161,
        1940.

    Handy, E.S.C. and M.K. Pukui.  The Polynesian Family System in Ka-u,
        Hawaii, The Polynesian Society, Wellington, 1958.

    Handy, E.S.C. and Handy. Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore,
        and Environment. Bishop Museum Bulletin, #233, 1972.

    Hommon, Robert. "Notes on a 'Formal Classification of Hawaiian Archaeolo-
        gical Features". Hawaii State Archaeological Journal, 70-2, 1970.

                    Hawaiian Cultural Systems and Archaeological Site Patterns.
        Unpublished MA thesis, University of Arizona, 1972.

                    ND.  "What is Archaeology?"  In Endangered Hawaiian Archaeo-
        logical Sites Within Maui County.  Bishop Museum.  (Reprinted in
        Newman et al., 1972.)

    Hommon, Robert and William Barrera.  Archaeological Survey of Kahana
        Valley, Koolauloa District, Island of Oahu. Dept. of Anthro. Reports,
         71-3, Bishop Museum, 1971.

     Hommon, Robert and Robert Bevacqua. Excavations in Kahana Valley, Oahu,
         1972. Dept. of Anthro. Reports, 73-2. Bishop Museum, 1973.

     Howard, Alan.  Ain't NO Big Thing:  Coping Strategies in a Hawaiian-
         American Community.  University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1974.

    Kamakau, Samuel.  Ka po'e kahiko:  The People of Old, Bishop Museum
        Special Publications, #51, 1964.

    Kelly, Marion.  Changes in Land Tenure in Hawaii, 1778-1850.  Unpublished
        MA thesis, University of Hawaii, 1956.

                    Historical Background of the South Point Area, Ka'u,
        Hawaii. Pacific Anthro. Records, #6, 1971.

    Kikuchi, William. PhD thesis on Fishponds, title unknown. Unpublished,
        University of Arizona, 1973.

    Kirch, Patrick. "Halawa Dune Site (Hawaiian Islands): A Preliminary
        Report." J. Polynesian Soc. 80(2):228-236., 1971a.

                 . "Archaeological Excavations at Palauea, South-East Maui,
        Hawaiian Islands."  Archaeology and Physical Anthro. in Oceania.
        6(1): 62-86, 1971b.

                 . "The Halawa Valley Project: Two Field Seasons in Retro-
        spect."  New Zealand ArchaeologiCal Assoc. Newsletter.  14(2): 47-61,
        1971c.

                  : Early Settlements and Initial Adaptational Modes in the
        Hawaiian Islands.  Paper read at the 1973 Annual meetings of the Soc.
        for American Archaeology, San Francisco, 1973.

                    The "Chronology of Early Hawaiian Settlement."  Archaeo-
         logy & Physical Anthro. in Oceania. 9(2): 110-119, 1974.

    Ladd, Edmund.  Makaha Valley Historical Project:  Interim Report #4.
         Pacific Anthro. Records, #19.  Bishop Museum, 1973.

     Ladd, Edmund and Douglas Yen.  Makaha Valley Historical Project:  In-
         terim Report #3. Pacific Anthro. Records, #18. Bishop Museum, 1972.

     Lewis, Henry. Manuscript on survey work in the barbers point area, Oahu.
         On file, Dept. of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, 1970.

     McAllister, J. Gilbert. Archaeology of Oahu. Bishop Museum Bulletin,
         #104, 1933a.

                     Archaeology of Kahoolawe.  Bishop Museum Bulletin, #115,
         1933b.

     Malo, David.  Hawaiian Antiquities.  Bishop Museum Spec. Publ #2, 1951.

     Newman, T. Stell.  "Hawaiian Archaeology; An Historical Review."  New
         'Zealand ArchaeologicalA8soc. Newsletter. 11(4): 131-149, 1968.

                     Hawaiian Fishing and FarnMig on the Island of Hawaii in
         AD 1778.  Honolulu, Division of State Parks, 1970.

    Newman, T. Stell. "A Dating Key for Post-Eighteenth Century Bottles."
        Historical Archaeology, 1970b.

    Papa Ii, John.  Fragments of Hawaiian History.  Honolulu, Bishop Museum,
        1959.

    Parsons, Jeffrey.  Settlement Pattern Archaeology.  Annual Review of
        Anthropology, 1972.

    Pearson, Richard and Patrick Kirch and Michael Pietrusewsky. "An Early
        Prehistoric Site at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands."
        Archaeolog  & Physical Anthro. in Oceania.  6(3): 204-234, 1971.

    Renger, Robert. Archaeological Reconnaissance of Coastal Kaloko and
        Kukio I, North Kona, Hawaii. Dept. of Anthro. Reports, 70-10.
        Bishop Museum, 1970.

    Riley, Thomas, Wet and Dry in a Hawaiian Valley: The ArchaeoloRy of
        an Agricultural System.  Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
        Hawaii, 1973.

    Rohsenow, Hill-Gates. Hawaiian Social Organization. Unpublished MA
        thesis, University of Hawaii, 1967.

    Rosendahl, Paul.  Aboriginal Agriculture and Residence Patterns in Upland
        Lapakahi, Island of Hawaii.  Unpublished PhD thesis, University of
        Hawaii, 1972.

                    Archaeological Salvage of the Hapuna-Anaehoomalu Section
        of the Kailua-Kawaihae Road (Queen Kaahumanu Highway), Island of
         Hawaii.  Hawaii Historical Preservation Report, 72-1.  Dept. of
         Transportation, 1972b.

                     Archaeological Salvage of the Ke-ahole to Anaehoomalu
         Section of the Kailua-Kawaihae Road (Queen Kaahumanu Highway), Island
         of Hawaii. Hawaii Historical Preservation Report, 73-2. Dept. of
         Transportation, 1973.

     Rosendahl, Paul and Douglas Yen. "Fossil Sweet Potato Remains from
         Hawaii." J. Polynesian Soc. 80(3): 279-285, 1971.

     Sahlins, Marshall.  "An Interdisciplinary Investigationof Hawaiian Social
         Morphology and Economy in the Late Prehistoric and Early Historic
         Periods." Grant proposal submitted to the National Science Founda-
         tion, 1971.

     Sinoto, Y.H.  "Chronology of Hawaiian Fishhooks."  J. Polynesian Society.
         71(2): 162-166, 1962.

                     "Artifacts From Excavated Sites in the Hawaiian Marquesas,
         and Society Islands: A Comparative Study." In G. Highland et al.,
          (eds.), Polynesian Culture History: Essays in Honor of K.P  Emory,
         pp. 341-362. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 1967.

    Sinoto, Y.H. "Position of the Marquesas Islands in East Polynesian Pre-
       History."  In I. Yawata and Y.H. Sinoto (eds.), Prehistoric Culture
       in Oceania, pp. 111-118. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 1968.

                    "An Archaeologically Based Assessment of the Marquesas
        Islands as a Dispersal Center in East Polynesia." in R. Green and
        M. Kelley (eds.), Oceanic Culture Hisotory: Vol. 1, pp. 105-132.
        Pacific Anthropology Records, #11.  Bishop Museum, 1970.

    Soehren, Lloyd.  Hawaii Excavations, 1965.  Preliminary report for the National
        Science Foundation, on file Bishop Museum Dept. Anthro, 1966.

                    An archaeological reconnaissance of Parker Ranch coastal
        lands, North Kohala. Manuscript, on file Bishop Museum Dept. Anthro-
        1967.

    Summers, Catherine.  Hawaiian Fishponds.  Bishop Museum Spec. Pub. #52,
        1964.

    Tainter, Joseph. "The Social Correlates of Mortuary Patterning at
        Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii." Archaeology & Physical Anthro. in
        Oceania. 8(1): 1011, 1973.

                  . An Archaeological Analysis of the Structure and Organiza-
        tion of Hawaiian Communities. Manuscript, personal copy, 1974.

    Tuggle, H. David. Grant proposal on agricultural change as seen in Pololu-
        Honokane valleys, North Kohala. Submitted to National Science Founda-
         tion, 1972.

                     Ua mau ke ea o ka 'aina i ka  pono:  An Examination of the
         History of Hawaiian Archaeology. Paper read at the annual meetings
         of the American Anthropology Assoc., Toronto, 1972b.

     Tuggle, H. David and P. Bion Griffin, 1973. Lapakahi, Hawaii: Archaeo-
         logical Studies. Honolulu, Social Science Research Institute, 1973.

     Yen, Douglas and Patrick Kirch, Paul Rosendahl, Thomas Riley, "Pre-
         historic Agriculture in the Upper Valley of Makaha, Oahu." In Ladd
         and Yen (eds.), Makaha Valley Historical Project:  Interim Report #3,
         Pacific Anthro. Records, #18, 1972.

                                  OMISSIONS

     Barrera, Dorothy. "An Historical Sketch of Makaha Valley." In R. Green
          (ed.), Makaha Valley Historical Project:  Interim Report #2., 1970.

                     "A Survey of Moanalua History."  In Ayres 1970., 1970b.

     Linton, Ralph.  Archaeology of the Marquesas Islands.  Bishop Museum
          Bulletin, #23, 1925.

      Hono-ko-hau Study Advisory Commission & National Park Service, 1974. The
          Spirit of Ka-loko Hono-ko-hau.

    Hono-ko-~hau Study Advisory COmmis,'iIfl &'National Park Service. ,   Lo
        the Interior'Draft Environmental Stjtemieut, Des 75-12: Proposed
        Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hauNational Cultural Park, Hawaii., 1975.

                               APPENDIX 1

                  MAPS OF SPECIFIC ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

    Map 1--Kaloko (Renger 1970)

    Map 2--Anaehoomalu (Barrera 1971)

    Map 3--Lapakahi (Newman 1970)

    Map 4--Kahana (Hommon and Barrera 1971)--archival map.

    Map 5--Kahana (Hommon and Barrera 1971)

    Map 6--Moanalua (Sahlins 1971)--archival map.

    Map 7-Halelea district (Earle 1973. Unpublished PhD thesis, U. of
        Michigan).

    Note: These maps have been xeroxed, and permission from authors and
        publishers should be obtained if they are reproduced for publication.

                      MAP 1 -- KALOKO
                        (Renger 1970)

    Map is self-explanatory. Scale is in feet with scale
               marked in 200 foot intervals.

               * *- - \EA 6

                  ~~~~~~~RAI

             Fig. 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES IN THE COASTAL PORTION OF KALOKO.
    -4-

                 MAP 2 --ANAEROOMALIJ
                     (Barrera 1971)

       Map is self-explanatory.' The boxed areas
    (e.g., Ridge Cluster, Anaehoomalu Point Cluster)
    refer to complexes of structures in those loca-
     tions which are mapped elsewhere by Barrera.

                                                 A-oeh0V0-Iu  Pcint

                 Awlhoo--W          S         a         y         nt                                                                                                    ��.r..,-~

                  A~~~.ehQ00~~~~~OI04 -o                                                                  - ----
                                                                                                                                                               ar~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l
                                                                        Wow c

                                                     1.Fi1gur ANAEHOOMAALU BSIE  MAP.
                                                                        I.                                                                                                                                        0
                                                                                                                -L                                                                                             0 ���

           Ans~hoanal    '         fin20                                                             C, I                                                                                                             a
                                                                            0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~                                                                                                           0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"
                                                                       -,                                                                                                                                        0o    I.0 SC.O
                                                                                                                                                                                 e~~~~~~~~

                                         0Su    �.i                                                                                                                                                                      LEdtWD   M
                                  0'~~(~~uu -'rlooonu

    s                                     I 00~  -  :    O

                                 5 - . i      ..      *                 -             -
                                         i                                                                                                                                                                          L   L-�19�II�YMM- *0
        .b~~~~~~~Z ~                     -              -                                                                                                                                                                      00
                   ��   P                                                    �4,,                                                                                                                                          msla*-Pn~~~~~~~~~~AIKLO

                        i~ ~ ~~Fgr 1~�                         ANEHOML  SIE  A

                             I~~~~~~~~n~~ ~                          167

                MAP 3 -LAPAKAHI
                   (Newman)

    Map is self-explapatory. Inland fields are
      to the left and the coast to the right.

         MAP 4  -AHN
    (HoDmmou and Barrera 1971)

    Map is self-exp~aflatorJy,

    (                                      (~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---

    FRO' A@  byMDMOSAR 4r901  Gl

                       Figue 8.MAP  F LWER KAHANA VALLEY SHWN  MAJOR, IRRIGATION
                              CANAL (WAIL`UA) AN]) 2ZBUDARE,10

         MALP 5 --KAHMAA
    (ilommon and Barrera 1971)

    Map is self-explanatory.

                                                                                                              m~ommllp  il

                                                                                      -~~~~~~~~~~am NowS~

                                                                                        ~~~z-~~~~-~~~                 -~-w-

                         _      ___                j~~~~~~~Aw,"
                                                     PISA~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~-4i                       _

        list.;~A

                                                                                                                        A.          '1   ~~~~~a

                                                                        V~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~A -    MI 'BI

    -o'-

                  MAP 6 -- MOANALUA
                    (Sahlins 1971)

    This map is a historical document of land plots
     in the lower valley of Moanalua. Although it
    does not show the upper valley, it illustrates
     the nature of settlement in historic times and
     the nature of recent ethnographic study in Hawaii.

          BO) TTOM LANDS
                                                     N
                            of

    N/10ANAI-A-UA
                                                                    PI
             0 A- I 11-T

             y and //at) by S.]','. Rish0j)
                                                                         kk,
              Sca I C.,

           (I CA

                 Aft

           N 'W

                                                             %
                         1;,tet

                                                                         N4 L

          MAP 7 -- HALELEA DISTRICT
                  (Earle 1973)

    This map is a reconstruction from a study
     of historical documents. It shows the
     location of irrigation systems along
     the coast. The map refers to post-
                   1850 time.

     I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                 ~~~~~~~2                                        ;&;   , I     I
                                        ~~~ c~~~~.',s  ji~~~~~~~~~~~~~13;~~~~~~ ~~~  231 23 -   -.~~~~~~~~~~~~~l

                                                 N-~IAIIPA,,

                                                    L+U AHAI                               -

    FIg u r  13.- D ist r but icn of Ir r Igato 10n systems,                          *4hs...
                              Hoi.Iea district, Kauai

                               APPENDIX 2

             SUMMARY OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESEARCH WORK TO DATE

          Part of this paper is to "include summaries or abstracts of research

    work that has been done." A summary with cited references has been given

    in the text. Any attempt to summarize or abstract each research project

    in Hawaii to date would be an onerous and nerve-grinding task, and one

    this author feels is beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, here the

    reader will be given the sources where certain kinds of information can

    be obtained. Only synthetic and critical research work is abstracted.

          There are two past brief published listings of research undertaken

    in Hawaii (Bonk 1961 and Newman 1968). Newman's publication is a good

    source for listings of work through 1967, and his bibliography shows

    where this research is located. Bonk's publication is more a summary of

    sites excavated as of the 1950's. If the reader is well acquainted with

    Hawaiian references and knows the author of a work but not the work it-

    self, he can also use Newman et al's (1970) "Bibliography of Hawaiiana"

    (published in the Hawaii State Archaeological Journal, 70-3).

          The early research work done in Hawaii (as noted, pp. 12-17) was

    survey and artifact descriptions. Newman (1968) lists these surveys and

    their published locations. The reports are largely descriptions of site

    appearance and dimensions with some oral history and history of the survey

    areas summarized occasionally. Examples range fron Thrum through Bennett

    (1931), McAllister (1933a, 1933b) and Emory (1924, 1928) to Emory and

    Soehren (1961) and Soehren's (1967) work in the early 1960's. The detailed

    surveys of recent salvage projects largely continue in the same site des-

    criptive framework (e.g., Barrera, 1971; Cluff, 1969; Ching, 1971; Rosendahl,

    1972b, 1973; Renger, 1970). Also consult the Dept. of Anthropology Reports

    of the Bishop Museum and the former Hawaii State Archaeological Journal

    of the Division of State Parks for additional research.

          Excavation research work has largely occurred since 1950 (excep-

    tions are McAllister's excavation of a site on Kahoolawe and listing of

    its artifacts, McAllister, 1933b. Also excavations at Mokapu on Oahu

    where burials were recovered. Only manuscript data in the Bishop Museum

    and some data in Bowen, 1961, exist on that project). Excavation through

    the mid-1960's centered on single sites and is often unpublished (e.g.,

    South Point on Hawaii, Kualolo-kai on Kauai, and M8 on Maui which exist

    in note form in the Bishop Museum and the University of Hawaii at Hilo).

    Excavations are published for the Kuliouou area (Emory and Sinoto, 1961),

    west Molokai (Bonk, 1954), and various Hawaii Island sites (Soehren, 1966;

    Emory, Bonk and Sinoto, 1959, 1971; Wallace and Wallace, 1969). These

    largely describe the nature of the sites, how they were excavated, food

    remains and artifact distributions, and artifact descriptions. Interpre-

    tation of lifeways at the sites are rare.

          Excavation since the mid-1960's has also focused on individual

    sites and included similar information (Halawa Sand Dune and Bellows Sand

    Dune reported by Kirch, 1971, Pearson, et al., 1971, Kirch, 1974), but

    these reports have also carefully reconstructed the subsistence patterns

    at these sites (e.g., agriculture, shellfish collecting, and fishing).

    Other excavation has been in conjunction with intensive surveys and

    settlement pattern studies (e.g., Anaehoomalu, Lapakahi, Kaloko, Waiahu-

    kini, Kahaluu, and-Pololu7Honokane on Hawaii Island; Kahikinui and Palauea

    on Maui; Halawa on Molokai; Kahana, Makaha, and Moanalua, and South

    Halawa on Oahu). Here site descriptions are largely done as before, but

    all sites are interpreted within an economic and/or social organization

    framework.  (See Barrera, 1971 for Anaehoomalu, Newman, 1970, Rosendahl,

    1972, Rosendahl and Yen, 1971, Tuggle and Griffin, 1973, Griffin et al.,

    1971 for Lapakahi; Tainter, 1973, 1974 and Cordy et al., 1975 for Kaloko;

    Sinoto and Kelly, 1970 for Waiahukini; Kirch, 1973, Emory et al., 1971,

    Crozier, 1971a, 1971b, and Barrera 1971b for Kahaluu; Tuggle's notes at

    the University of Hawaii for Pololu-Honokane; Chapman's notes at the

    Bishop Museum for Kahikinui; Kirch, 1971b for Palauea; Kirth, 1971a,

    1971b, 1973 and Riley, 1973 and Griffin et al., 1971 for Halawa; Hommon

    and Barrera, 1971, Hommon and Bevacqua, 1973 for Kahana; Green, 1969, 1970

    and Ladd and Yen, 1972 and Ladd, 1973 for Makaha; Ayres, 1970, Denison

    and Forman, 1971 for Moanalua and South Halawa).

         Synthetic research in Hawaii has been rare. Artifact sequences have

    been developed and compared to other areas in Polynesia, leading to the

    formulation of theories on historical ties (see pp. 12-17 of text).*

    Emory, Bonk and Sinoto (1959) developed a historical sequence of fishhook

    types using hooks from H2, H8 (Waiahukini) and Hi (South Point Dune) sites

    in the South Point area. Notched hoods were found to be early (pre-1200)

    and knobbed hooks late (post-1650) with an intermediate transition

    period (1200-1650). Sinoto later (1962) further developed this typological

    sequence (focusing on line attachment traits) and incorporated hooks from

    the K3 site on Kauai. Work at 018 Dune on Oahu (Pearson et al., 1971) and

    Halawa Dune on Molokai (Kirch, 1971a) revealed a new early type of hook

    (simple knobbed) which dated pre-1200 in both these areas and at site

    M8 on Maui. Emory has discussed adze types (1967) and temple types (1970)

    and has found the latter to be temporarily uncontrolled to date. Emory

    (1967), 1970), Emory and Sinoto (1964), and Sinoto (1967, 1968, 1970) in

    *Often the pre-1950 survey publications end with a section on comparisons
     in which items (such as temples) are compared with those of other island
     groups to formulate historical ties (cf Emory 1928: 106-122).

    recent years have argued that these artifact sequences parallel those of

    the early Marquesas and later Tahiti, indicating Hawaii was occupied in

    2 migrations--one early from the Marquesas and one late from Tahiti.

    Sinoto has emphasized fishhook, pendant, and other similarities, while

    Emory has emphasized adzes and temples.

         Syntheses of economic patterns have only recently occurred (Kirch,

    1973; Cordy, 1974a) as have those concerning social ranking patterns (cf

    Cordy, 1974a, 1974b; Tainter, 1974). Cordy (1974a) reviewed the archaeo-

    logical record in Hawaii up to 1972 and suggested occupation occurred

    first in optimal agricultural areas on the wet windward sides of islands

    in Hawaii followed by expansion to drier areas less favorable to agricul-

    ture in leeward areas. Dates from sites seemed to support this shift

    with windward areas generally occupied pre-l000 AD and leeward areas

    after AD 1000. Kirch (1973) also corroborates this early windward pat-

    tern related to economies in this review of archaeological material from

    Halawa Dune, 018 Dune, 01 cave shelter, and H8 cave shelter.

         Social ranking changes were also observed during Cordy's review

    of the pre-1972 archaeological data (Cordy, 1974a). The change was seen

    to be one from simple, minimally ranked societies to complex societies

    with several levels of chiefs. The sudden appearance of large temples,

    houses and graves after AD 1600 seemed to mark this change. Later data

    pushed this date back to AD 1500 (Cordy, 1974b), and it seems likely to

    go back even earlier. One other social ranking synthetic paper exists,

    and it is presently unpublished (Tainer, 1974). In it, Tainter expanded

    his analysis of social ranking seen in grades of graves from the small

     region level (Kaloko) to include 3 small regions (Kaloko, Anaehoomalu,

     and L.apakalhi).  He concluded similar levels of social ranks were present

     in Kaloko and Lapakahi (including chiefs) while at Anaehoomalu only lower

     social ranks (commoners) were present.

         Two papers have discussed synthetic sequences for the entire time-

    span of prehistoric occupation in the Hawaiian Islands (Newman, 1969;

    Cordy, 1974a). Newman argues for an initial Marquesan settlement in lee-

    ward areas with a marine-oriented economy (Initial Settlement Period),

    followed by later Tahitian immigration and the development of an agricul-

    tural-oriented economy and expansion into windward areas (Early Swidden

    and Late Swidden periods), followed by the development of irrigation and

    large dryfield areas and marked differences in social rank (Permanent

    Agriculture period) based on minimal excavations prior to 1968. Cordy

    (using the large amount of excavation material recovered between 1968-

    1972) suggests only 1 migration occurred (the initial settlement) with a

    minimally ranked society dependent on agriculture and fishing occupying

    first the agriculturally optimal windward areas (Initial Settlement

    Period) and then expanding into the less optimal leeward areas (New Adap-

     tation Period) and finally the alteration of these small societies into

     larger complex ranked societies (Complex Chiefdom Period).

          Finally, a few initial synthetic explanatory papers have occurred

     attempting to explain in ecological terms (e.g., population growth, war-

     fare, political expansion) some of the island-wide patterns. Cordy (1974)

     suggested population growth induced the development of complex societies

     via warfare or internal reorganization. Evidence was indicated from the

     archaeological reocrd, but it was noted that hardly any detailed, time

     controlled evidence is available to make any firm statements. Tuggle in

     an unpublished presentation (1975, Dept. of Anthropology--University of

     Hawaii--colloquium) has suggested politically induced expansion into

     unoccupied areas was a means of relieving population pressure and explained

      the sudden and late occupation of some marginal agricultural areas (such

      as Pololu-Honokane valleys on Hawaii).

         Papers critically (but constructively) reviewing past archaeological

    research in Hawaii are even rarer than syntheses (in recent years). To

    this author's knowledge, there are only 4 papers which have this as their

    main aim. Green (1971) critically reviews problems with the carbon-14

    dating and the fishhook sequences at South Point. He argues clearly that

    most of the archaeological layers used to compare hook types were not of

    comparable time span. He concludes carbon-14 dates clearly show a dif-

    ferent sequence than the fishhook seriation of Emory, Bonk and Sinoto

    (1959).

         Another paper (Cordy, 1973) reviews the interpretations concerning

    work at Lapakahi (Rosendahl, 1972; Tuggle and Griffin, 1973) and points

    out the lack of dating control makes some of these interpretations quite

    shaky. It concludes by suggesting that archaeologists should shift their

    focus from small regions to larger areas in order to recover remains more

    significant to social organization reconstruction.

         The third paper (Cordy, 1974c) reviews the claim (based on archaeo-

    logical sequences, linquistics, and oral traditions) that Hawaii was

    subject to a secondary migration from Tahiti and concludes that the claim

    is not supported by present data.

         The final critical paper (Cordy, 1975) argues that methods used to

    interpret certain historical structures to be certain structure types

    noted at contact (e.g., temples, men's houses, fishing shrines) are not

    good. Structures intepreted as men's houses are discussed, and the in-

     terpretations are shown to be weak. A different method for interpreta-

     tion (rigorous use of historical documents) is suggested.

          This ends the summary of research in Hawaiian archaeology to date and

     should allow access into the material for anyone wishing to obtain addi-

     tional detail.

    References Not Included in the References Cited At the End of the Text

    Barrera, William. Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou,
         North Kona, Hawaii. Dept. Anthropology Reports, 71-10. Bishop
        Museum, 1971b.

    Bonk, William. "Prehistoric Man in Hawaii." Archaeology. 14(2): 88-94,
         1961.

    Bowen, Robert. Hawaiian Disposal of the Dead. Unpublished MA thesis,
         University of Hawaii, 1961.

    Ching, Francis. "The Archaeology of South Kohala and North Kona: Sur-
         face Survey Kailua-Kawaihae Road Corridor (Sect. III)." Hawaii
         State Archaeological Journal, 71-1, 1971.

    Cordy, Ross. Problems in the Use of Ethnoarchaeological Models: A
         Hawaiian Case. Manuscript draft, personal copy, 1975.

    Crozier, S. Neal. Archaeological Survey of Kamehameha III Road, North
         Kona, Island of Hawaii. Dept. Anthro. Reports, 71-5. Bishop

                    Archaeological Excavations at Kamehameha III Road, North
         Kona, Island of Hawaii. Dept. Anthro. Reports, 71-11. Bishop Museum,
         1971b.

    Emory, Kenneth and Y.H. Sinoto. Oahu Excavations. Bishop Museum Special
         Publ. #49, 1961.

    Emory, Kenneth and William Bonk and Y.H. Sinoto. Age of the Sites in
         the South Point Area, Ka'u, Hawaii. Pacific Anthro. Records, #8.
         Bishop Museum, 1971.

    Emory, Kenneth and Patrick McCoy and Dorothy Barrera. Archaeological
         Survey: Kahaluu and Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Dept. Anthro.
         ReportsL #71-4. Bishop Museum, 1971.

    Green, Roger. "The Chronology and Age of Sites at South Point, Hawaii."
         Archaeology and Physical Anthro. in Oceania. 6(2): 170-176, 197].

    Griffin, P. Bion and Thomas Riley, Paul Rosendahl, H. David Tuggle.
          "Archaeology of Halawa and Lapakahi: Windward Valley and Leeward
          Slope." New Zealand Archaeological Assoc, Newsletter. 14(3):
          101-112, 1971,

     Newman, T. Stell. "Cultural Adaptations to the Island of Hawaii Eco-
          system:   The Theory Behind the 1968 Lapakahi Project."  In R.
          Pearson (ed.), Archaeology on the Island of Hawaii, pp. 3-14.
          Honolulu, Social Science Research Institute.

     Newman, T. Stell and L. Sekido, J. Amesbury, J. Martin, D. Riconda, J.
          Watts. "Hawaii Register of Historic Places Bibliography of
          Hawaiiana."  Hawaii State Archaeological Journal, 70-3,  1970.

    Sinoto, Y.H. and Marion Kelly. "Archaeological and Historical Survey
        of Pakini-Nui and Pakini-Iki Coastal Sites, Waiahukini, Kailikii,
        and Hawea, Ka'u, Hawaii. Dept. Anthro. Reports, 70-11. Bishop
        Museum, 1970.

    Wallace, William and Edith Wallace. Pinao Bay Site (H24). Pacific
        Anthro. Records, #2. Bishop Museum, 1969.

                                 HAWAII COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

                                       Technical Supplement No. 7

                            Coastal Zone Management and Historical Resources
                                As Seen From An Anthropological Viewpoint
                                                   by
                                               Ross Cordy

                                      U.  S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                                      COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                                      2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                                      CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413

                                  This document was eownmissianed for the
                      State of Hawaii Department of Planning and Economic Development
                                                  by the

                      Pacific Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of Hawaii

                            The preparation of this report was financed in part
                        through a Coastal Zone Management Program Development Grant
                               from the United States Department of Commerce

                                               August, 1975

     _ N
    ,r--
    ,w%-y

        Reoren-Insert Do Not Scan
               Document Here

    Document ID: DA Pw AH

     aoc- #4AW   n C-,iOUML   uRkVcvS

    Page #: Map I