2010 Households and Hierarchy: Domestic Modes of Production in Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i Island

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Field, Julie S.]On: 9 April 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 921131111]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Island and Coastal ArchaeologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

Households and Hierarchy: Domestic Modes of Production in LeewardKohala, Hawai'i IslandJulie S. Field a; Patrick V. Kirch b; Kathy Kawelu c;Thegn N. Ladefoged d

a Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA b Department ofAnthropology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California, USA c AnthropologyDepartment, University of Hawai'i, Hilo, Hawai'i, USA d Department of Anthropology, University ofAuckland, Auckland, New Zealand

Online publication date: 09 April 2010

To cite this Article Field, Julie S. , Kirch, Patrick V. , Kawelu, Kathy andLadefoged, Thegn N.(2010) 'Households andHierarchy: Domestic Modes of Production in Leeward Kohala, Hawai'i Island', The Journal of Island and CoastalArchaeology, 5: 1, 52 — 85To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15564890903178663URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890903178663

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t716100767

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564890903178663

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology, 5:52–85, 2010Copyright © 2010 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1556-4894 print / 1556-1828 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15564890903178663

Households and Hierarchy:Domestic Modes ofProduction in LeewardKohala, Hawai‘i IslandJulie S. Field,1 Patrick V. Kirch,2 Kathy Kawelu,3 andThegn N. Ladefoged4

1Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA2Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley,

California, USA3Anthropology Department, University of Hawai‘i, Hilo, Hawai‘i, USA4Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

ABSTRACT

This article describes archaeological evidence for the transformation ofHawaiian society from the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries AD. Usingarchaeological testingofhouseholds coupledwithhigh-resolutionsurveydata, we trace changes in the domestic mode of production in late pre-contact Hawai‘i. These analyses yield insights into the transformationof Polynesia’s most highly stratified society. The traditional land units(ahupua‘a) of Makiloa and Kalala, located on the arid, leeward coastof Kohala, Hawai‘i, are investigated with both survey and excavation,and detailed information pertaining to subsistence, household extent,and material culture are reviewed. Changes in the economy andconfiguration of households from the fifteenth to nineteenth centuriesAD are discussed, as are the appearance of elite residences in thelater periods. This microscale perspective on the evolution of Hawaiianeconomy and society provides a necessary complement to a macroscaleperspective of human ecodynamics in the Hawaiian archipelago.

Keywords pre-contact, agriculture, human ecodynamics, Polynesia

Received 30 October 2008; accepted 13 July 2009.Address correspondence to Julie S. Field, Department of Anthropology, The Ohio State University, 4034Smith Labs, 174 W. 18th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

52

Downloaded By: [Field, Julie S.] At: 19:17 9 April 2010

Domestic Modes of Production in Hawai‘i

INTRODUCTION

Since 2001 the Hawai‘i BiocomplexityProject, a multidisciplinary team includingarchaeologists, ecologists, soil scientists, de-mographers, and quantitative modelers hasinvestigated long-term human ecodynamicsin the Hawaiian archipelago (Kirch 2007a;Kirch et al. 2007). The human ecodynamicsapproach in archaeology rejects the assump-tion that the environment or ecosystemcan be detached from humans and theirbehavior, and argues instead that human-environmental relationships involve the co-evolution of socio-historical and naturalprocesses, resulting in what have beentermed socioecosystems (Barton et al. 2004;McGlade 1995). To that end, the first phaseof the project focused on large-scale spatialdynamics integratingnaturalbiogeochemicalgradients and intensive dryland agriculturalfield systems (Hartshorn et al. 2006; Kirchet al. 2004; Ladefoged and Graves 2008;Vitousek et al. 2004). A second phase, ini-tiated in 2007, now focuses on the non-linear dynamics of population growth, agri-cultural intensification, and sociopoliticalchange.

This requires, in part, the generationof data at multiple scales: the macro scaleof islands, or districts (moku) within is-lands, and the micro scale of householdsand associated land units. In this paper wereport upon the micro scale, in particularthe archaeological correlates of late pre-contact Hawaiian households. Our approachfollows developing trends in anthropologi-cal archaeology, in which households arewidely recognized as fundamental socialunits within traditional societies (e.g., Ash-more and Wilk 1988; Cioleck-Torello 1989;Flannery, 1976; Reid and Whittlesley 1982;WilkandRathje1982).Ourapproachseeks tomodel the social and economic changes thatoccurred at the household level during thelate-prehistoric period. As outlined below,these changes often leave detectable archae-ological signatures, revealing the integrationof independent households into larger socialand economic units.

Hawaiian Households and the DomesticMode of Production

The term ‘household’ refers to a socialunit that can be variably defined by factors ofeconomics and social relations (Levi-Strauss1979:47). Our use of the term ‘household’refers to small social groupings that areunified by bonds of kinship (‘ohana) andothers who are not kin in the usual senseof consanguineal or affinal relations (‘ohua),but who were assigned roles as dependentsor helpers (Handy and Pukui 1958:5). Ouruse of the word ‘household’ also empha-sizes the key role of houses or homesteads(kauhale) as primary organizing structuresin the society. This distinction reflects thewidespread pattern of houses as units ofkinship, following the “house society” modelwhich has been described in linguistic andethnographic studies of Austronesian andPolynesian societies from throughout thePacific (Fox 1993; Kahn and Kirch 2004;Kirch and Green 2001).

Our emphasis is also on the function ofhouseholds as primary economic units. Inhis classic work on Stone Age Economics,which drew heavily upon Hawaiian ethno-history, Sahlins (1972) pointed to the keyrole of households in what he termed thedomestic mode of production (DMP) inpre-industrial societies. The household is“charged with production, with the deploy-ment and use of labor-power, (and) with thedetermination of the economic objective”of society (1972:76–77). The key elementsof the DMP—labor, simple technology, andlimited production objectives—are system-atically interrelated. In small-scale societies,these forces combine to work against theproduction of a surplus greater than thatrequired by each household for its ownautonomous existence (Chayanov 1966). Incomplex chiefdoms, however, and more par-ticularly in the emergence of archaic states,the “anti-surplus” tendencies of the DMP areovercome to forge a larger and integratedpolitical economy. As Sahlins states: “Thepolitical economy cannot survive on thatrestrained use of resources which for the

JOURNAL OF ISLAND & COASTAL ARCHAEOLOGY 53


Julie S. Field et al.

domestic economy is a satisfactory exis-tence” (1972:135), and he points to the caseof Hawai‘i as one which took “the primitivecontradiction between the domestic andpublic economies to an ultimate crisis” be-tween a society organized on the principlesof kinship, and one dictated by the structuresof hierarchy and chiefly power (1972:141).

We hypothesize that as the base eco-nomic units of the society, pre-Europeancontact Hawaiian households would haveundergone a transformation from a largelydomestic mode of production to integra-tion into a larger sociopolitical apparatus inwhich one role was to produce surplus tounderwrite the largerpolitical economy.Thistransformation would have occurred partlyas a product of demographic growth, andpartly through a process of social transitionby which emerging elite were able to em-power themselves in relation to lower-statusindividuals. How this process occurred haslong been of interest to historians and socialscientists (Childe, 1951; Johnson and Earle1987), and has been the subject of numerousstudies inHawai‘i andotherpartsofPolynesia(Cordy 1981; Earle 1997; Kirch 1984, 2006;Ladefoged 1993, 1995; Service 1975). Ourfocus is therefore not on determining thecausal mechanisms for the evolution of socialcomplexity in ancient Hawai‘i, but to exam-ine the variables and complex relationshipsthat developed between people and theirenvironment in the late prehistory of thearchipelago. A conceptual model of ourhuman ecodynamics approach is graphicallydisplayed in Figure 1. This outlines severalkey variables that we seek to investigate andmodel. It is important to note that we distin-guish between classes of variables which canbe potentially studied archaeologically, fromthose which are modeled mathematicallyand quantitatively. In particular, elite andcommoner households are two importantcategories amenable to direct archaeologi-cal investigation. Data obtained from suchfeatures should provide evidence for keyeconomic variables, such as the use of marineresources, pig and dog husbandry, regionalexchange, and surplus extraction.

Because the household is the criticalnexus at which agricultural production, de-

mography, and social organization intersect,we have chosen to focus on the detailed ar-chaeological study of a sample of prehistoricfeatures on the leeward side of KohalaDistrict, Hawai‘i Island. In Hawai‘i, groupsof contiguous stone features such as enclo-sures and terraces are usually interpreted asthe archaeological correlates of households(Cordy and Kaschko 1980; Kirch and O’Day2002; Kolb and Snead 1997; Weisler andKirch1985).Thepresenceofmarinemidden,lithic debitage, shell and bone tools, andsurface scatters of fire-cracked rock are alsokey indicators of archaeological features thatwere used for residence. These features areoften thought to reflect the ethnographicallyattested kauhale habitation system, in whichparticular activities such as cooking, eating,and sleeping were carried out in separatestructures (Handy and Pukui 1958:7–14;Malo 1951:27–30). In the century prior to theoverthrow of the traditional Hawaiian ritualsystem in 1819, the activities of people of dif-ferent genders were also sometimes spatiallysegregated, with separate structures erectedfor particular activities of men and women,such as cooking and eating. In this way a sin-gle household, which could have consistedof several generations of consanguineal andaffinal kin along with their ‘ohua, wouldhave occupied a single kauhale complex.Following the introduction of Christianitythe kauhale system was modified as theprohibitionsonseparategenderactivityareaswere abandoned, and Hawaiian householdsshifted to single-structure residences (Kirch1985, 2006; Ladefoged 1991). However,we argue that archaeological evidence fromHawai‘i suggests that important changes alsooccurred in the organization and structuringof Hawaiian households during the three tofour centuries prior to European contact (ca.AD 1400–1778). These changes reflect theemergent social power of chiefs, and therequirements of surplus production placedon the commoner society.

By excavating a sample of archaeologicalfeatures that meet our criteria for use as resi-dences,andplacingthesewithinachronolog-ical framework through 14C dating, we seekto obtain a data set which spans the criticaltime period over which the Hawaiian DMP

54 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 1. Conceptual model of the demographic, sociopolitical, and economic variables that we seekto investigate in Leeward Kohala. The variables outlined in grey were the focus of the2007–2008 survey and excavations in Makiloa and Kalala.

was transformed through the emergence ofa regionally integrated political economy.Investigation of archaeological residentialfeatures—and through them the changingnature of Hawaiian households—has thepotential to provide a microscale perspec-tive on the evolution of Hawaiian economyand society. We regard this as a necessarycomplement to the macroscale perspectiveprovided by the study of landscape-levelagroecosystems, in particular the leewardKohala field system.

Kohala’s landscape is dominated by anintensive dryland agricultural field systemwhich extended over roughly 60 km2. Thissystem has been studied by several investi-gators, including our own project (see Lade-fogedandGraves2000,2008;Ladefogedet al.1996 for a summary of the early work includ-ing that of Rosendahl 1972, 1994). However,the nature of pre-contact households thatorganized and operated this field system,

including their sizeandstructure,productionand consumption patterns, domestic tech-nology, and contribution to surplus haveremained elusive. This paper summarizesresults from the first of three field seasonsof archaeological investigation of householdfeatures in Kohala, in the adjacent traditionalland units (ahupua‘a) of Makiloa and Kalala.We selected these ahupua‘a because thecorresponding areas of the upland intensiveagricultural field system had already beensurveyed and dated (Ladefoged and Graves2008), and a preliminary seriation analysisof residential features in Makiloa and theadjacent ahupua‘a of Pahinahina and Kahua1 suggested limited interaction between theahupua‘a (Graves et al. 2002; O’Conner1998). In 2007–2008 we investigated resi-dential features within the coastal zone ofMakiloa and Kalala, providing data to com-plement the prior inland studies. Here wereport on intensive survey and excavations




within the coastal region of Makiloa and thesouthern part of Kalala, with an emphasis on14 residential complexes.

THE MAKILOA-KALALA STUDY AREA

Makiloa and Kalala are two of 32 ahupua‘aincorporating portions of the leeward Kohalafield system (Figure 2). In the traditionalHawaiian system of land rights that wasdescribed in the early post-contact period, in-dividual ahupua‘a were awarded by the king(ali‘i nui) to chiefs (ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a), whooften appointed land managers or stewards(konohiki) to oversee these estates (Chinen1958; Sahlins 1992). Commoner householdswithin an ahupua‘a paid regular tribute(ho‘okupu) in foodstuffs and other goods;such tribute passed upwards through thehierarchy of konohiki, ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a,and ali‘i nui. With a total area of 15.08km2, Kalala is roughly three times larger thanMakiloa (area 5.12 km2) and extends fartherinto the upland forest zone. Both ahupua‘aincorporated portions of the Kohala fieldsystem, although both were south of themost productive central core (Ladefoged etal. 2008). At the time of the Great Maheleor division of lands in 1846–1852, Makiloaand Kalala were not claimed by any ofthe high chiefs, but rather were designatedas “Government land.” This suggests thatthey were not among the most desirable orproductive ahupua‘a, which tended to beclaimed by the ali‘i nui or ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a.

Makiloa and Kalala span a wide range ofvariation inrainfall and temperature, fromthecoast up across the volcanic flow slopes tothe crest of the Kohala Mountains (reaching amaximum elevation in Kalala of 985 m). Thecoastal sector which was the focus of our2007–2008 fieldwork is arid, with less than250 mm rainfall annually, mostly during thewinter months. Between 6 and 9 km inland,where the field system is located, rainfallis between 750 and 1,800 mm, sufficientto support crops of sweet potato (Ipomoeabatatas), and taro (Colocasia esculenta).

On the coast, aridity combined withhigh temperatures precludes horticulturalactivities (Vitousek et al. 2004). The main

attraction of the coastal zone was there-fore littoral and marine resources, includingshellfish, seaweeds, fish, and turtles. Dueto its relatively young geological age, theMakiloa-Kalala shoreline is dominated by lowlava cliffs; coral reef development is minimal.Two substantial bays, Pohakuloa and Kamilo,offered sheltered landing places for canoes,with gravel and boulder beaches. Shellfishand seaweed could be gathered, and inshorefishes caught, from the low bluffs and rockypromontories along this shoreline. Potablewater was available from small seeps orsprings that issue from the lava rocks at sealevel and would have been accessible at lowtide.

The occupants of the coast presum-ably obtained their subsistence staples fromthe inland field system, either by exchangewith upland households or by cultivatingupland plots themselves. The area of in-tensive field system falling within Makiloaand Kalala ahupua‘a is approximately 475ha. If we assume an average productionvalue of ∼5 mt/ha/yr (following Massal andBarrau 1973:25), and a short fallow regimeof cropping for any given plot every otheryear, then this area could in theory haveproduced as much as 1,187.5 mt/yr. Furtherassuming an average daily per capita con-sumption level of 2.5 kg of starch staple, onecan calculate an order-of-magnitude carryingcapacity for the two combined Makiloa-Kalala ahupua‘a of around 1,300 persons.Hawaiian and other Polynesian householdstypically averaged between 6 and 8 per-sons (Kirch 2007c:100–101); thus the twoahupua‘a might have accommodated on theorder of between 162 and 213 householdsaccording to ideal production estimates.These estimates, however, do not take intoaccount such critical factors as stochasticvariation in yield due to periodic drought, theextraction of surplus for animal husbandry,or direct tribute exactation by non-farmingelites. Thus the number of households actu-ally supported within these two territorieswasalmostcertainly fewer—indeed,perhapsfar fewer—than the range indicated by thiscrude maximal estimate of carrying capacity.A future goal of our research project isto check such theoretical carrying capacity

56 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 2. Map of Kohala, Hawai‘i, showing the traditional land units (ahupua‘a) of Makiloa (MKI)and Kalala (KAL), and the extent of the Kohala field system. Base hillshade obtained fromHawaii Statewide GIS Program (http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/gis/).

estimates with empirical archaeological dataon actual numbers of residential complexes,and to constrain these temporally withchronological data.

Based on a pattern of sequential sub-division of originally larger territories intosmaller units, Ladefoged and Graves (2006)analyzed the formation and temporal fission-ing of ahupua‘a in leeward Kohala. Theyidentify six successive phases of subdivision,with Makiloa first appearing in Level 2, asa segment taken out of an originally largerahupua‘aofKalala (whichadjoins toMakiloaon the north). At an even earlier stage (Level6), Makiloa and Kalala were both part ofan original “proto-ahupua‘a” that includeda large tract from Kehena southwards toMakiloa. Thus, as an independent territorialunit,Makiloapresumablyemerged late, in thesecond to the last phase of subdivision of land

units. Testing this sequence of territorial divi-sion is another objective of our investigation.

MAKILOA-KALALA COASTALSETTLEMENT PATTERNS

Our research commenced with an intensivesurvey of coastal Makiloa-Kalala, recordingall visible surface architecture located be-tween the shoreline and the modern high-way (which varied between 540 and 340m inland). This comprises the main coastalzone of occupation, with a “barren zone”lying between the coast and the upland fieldsystem. The entire coastal sector of Makiloawas surveyed, as well as the southern part ofKalala up to a prominent cinder cone namedPu‘u ‘Ula‘ula (“Red Hill”), an area of about




Table 1. Summary of features recorded in the 2007–2008 survey of Makiloa and Kalalaahupua‘a classified according to morphology and function. The morphologies of thefeatures recorded in the survey are listed in the rows; the columns provideadditional detail for the functional habitation/non-habitation categories.

MorphologyNon-

HabitationPrimary

ResidentialSecondaryResidential Total

Alignment or wall 11 5 16

Curved wall (any shape) 1 33 34

Enclosure 9 15 19 43

High-back terrace w/ enclosing

wall

4 4

Midden and/or lithic scatter 4 4 8

Modified outcrop 14 1 15

Mound 60 60

Not determined/not field checked 22 22

Platform(S) 13 1 1 15

Rockshelter or overhang shelter 1 2 3

Terrace(s) 19 8 27

Total 154 20 73 247

0.64 km2. The area was surveyed by closewalking of transects, using Trimble GeoXHGPS instruments to record archaeologicalfeatures.1 A standardized feature form wasfilled in for each feature, including a mea-sured sketch, dimensions, and other attributedata. Within the surveyed area, a total of 247individual features were identified (Table 1).Feature numbers were prefixed with MKI- orKAL- to designate their ahupua‘a, followedby a unique numeric identifier. Figure 3depicts the distribution and morphology ofarchaeological features in the study area.

Morphological and FunctionalClassification of Components, Features,

and Complexes

Archaeological features in the surveyarea included a variety of stone architecturaltypes. In general, features were constructedof angular ‘al‘a rocks (cobble and boulderfacing with interior rubble fill), to form free-standing walls or terrace retaining walls, withheights up to 1 m or occasionally more.Among the most common morphological

feature types are enclosures of various shapes(“C”, “J”, “U”) and terraces. Some individ-ual features consist of spatially contiguousarchitectural elements, which we define as‘components’, and which were recorded us-ing an additional alphabetical letter. A singlefeaturecancontainoneormorecomponents,and these are termed “multi-componentfeatures”. For example, a multi-componentfeature could contain several spatially con-tiguous terraces with contiguous walls orenclosures (e.g., MKI-2A, -2B, -2C, etc.).Of the 247 features recorded in the studyarea, 11 features were recorded as “multi-component”, although this should be consid-ered a minimum estimate of the number ofmulti-component features as not all compo-nents within features were recorded.

Functional designations were based inpart on the morphology of the architecture,and on the character of visible surface de-posits (e.g., the presence of marine shellmidden, paving, coral pebbles). We acknowl-edge that these functional classifications maybe subject to later reinterpretation, as thesurfacedepositsandsurfacearchitecturemaynot reflect the range of activities recorded in

58 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 3. GIS-generated maps of the Makiloa and Kalala coastline. Map A indicates the morphologyof the features as recorded during the GPS survey. Map B indicates the location of excavatedfeatures mentioned in the text, and also the distribution of sites classified as primary orsecondary residential features, or as heiau. Primary residences are indicated by theiralphanumeric code.

the subsurface deposits. Tentative functionaldesignations were assigned to the morpho-logical categories, and these are summarizedin Table 1. Ninety-three residential featureswere recorded in the study area and thesewere divided into 20 “primary residentialfeatures” and 73 “secondary residential fea-tures”.Ourdesignationof ‘residence’ isbasedon the presence of either an enclosing wallor a raised stone terrace, pavements orplatforms, and also the presence of associ-ated midden and surface artifacts. Primaryresidences were discerned from secondary

residences based upon their size (both insurface area and wall height), the amountand type of associated midden, and themorphology of the walls. For example, theprimary residential features that we referto as a “high-backed terrace with enclosingwall” are rectangular structures with interiorfloor spaces that range in size from 15 to22 m2. A free-standing stacked wall on theup-slope side (hence “high-backed”), offeredprotection from the frequently strong windswhich sweep down the mountain slope. Thedown-slope side is terraced. These structures




usually have substantial deposits of shell andbone midden within and extending beyondthe walls. In contrast, secondary residentialfeatures are smaller in size and include awide range of surface structures, such as‘curved walls’, ‘enclosures’ or ‘lithic scat-ter’. The presence of midden in associationwith these features indicates their use asresidences.

Our survey suggested that primary andsecondary residential features are not evenlydistributed over the coastal landscape (seeFigure 3b), but tend to occur in denseclusters. To test the degree of clustering,we performed a nearest neighbor analysisusing ArcGIS 9.2, which indicates that thisclustering is unlikely to be the result ofchance (Z score = −5.77 sd, significancelevel = .01, critical value −2.58). We alsoperformed a hierarchical distance-based clus-tering analysis, which identified 24 spatiallydistinct clusters, 10 of which were isolatedsingle features or pairs of features. Theseclusters are based on Euclidian distance, andthe features within each cluster are generallywithin 25–100 m of each other. Features thatare further away are in different clusters,or are isolated. Further analyses of theseclusters identified the presence and numberof primary residence features within theclusters, and from this we have defined 14residential clusters along the Makiloa-Kalalacoastline (Figure 4). Each of these clusters isbased upon the original distance-based hier-archical analysis and contains one or moreprimary residences and several secondaryresidences in close proximity. The largestcluster, Cluster 5, consists of 33 featuresspread over an area of 0.9 km2. This cluster isflanked to the north and south by the gulchesthat feed into Pohakuloa and Kamilo Bays,and because of this geographic isolation thefeatures form a single cluster. Because ofits great size and the presence of 5 primaryresidences within it, we performed a densityanalysis of the primary residences in orderto define several sub-clusters. Thus, Figure4 indicates that Cluster 5 consists of sub-clusters, which we define as 5a, 5b, 5c, 5d,and 5e. In two instances (5c and 5e) wedefined a single, isolated primary residenceas residential complexes,despite theabsence

of any secondary residential features. This isdue to the fact that these features are largeresidential and religious structures.

As a result of our analyses of residentialfeature number and proximity, we identify14 of the residential clusters to be potentialresidential complexes. Although it is likelythat the primary and secondary residentialfeatureswithin theclusterswereconstructedat different times, their spatial proximitysuggests that they are associated, and likelyreflect the activities of a single social unit. Inour remaining analyses we will examine thechronology and cultural materials from theresidential features individually, but we willalso examine them as potential members ofcomplexes that were established at differenttimes, and which variably persisted over thecenturies. Thus we will discuss below theattributes of Complexes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5a, 5b, 5c,5d, 5e, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.

In addition to primary and secondary res-idential features, several other kinds of struc-tures were identified during our survey. Ofparticular interest is a large multi-componentfeature (KAL-1) prominently situated on thenorth side of Kamilo Bay, the largest singlearchitectural feature in the study area (Figure5). Based on its massive size, architecturalmorphology, and other attributes, KAL-1 isclassified as a temple or heiau. Its positionat the ahupua‘a boundary suggests that itfunctioned as a part of the annual Makahiki“harvest festival” undertaken in the nameof Lono, god of dryland agriculture (Valeri1985). The Makahiki ritual involved a clock-wise circuit around the island by the Lonopriests, during which each ahupua‘a wasvisited in order to collect tribute. Open tothe south and situated immediately inside thesouthern boundary of Kalala, KAL-1 may havebeen the site of the tribute collection for thislarge ahupua‘a. Several pits on the northernwall of the large U-shaped enclosure, eachringed with numerous water-rolled whitecoral (Porites sp.) cobbles, are probablyimage holes. The color white was associatedwith Lono, as in the barkcloth and bird’sskins that hung from his image staff (Malo1951:144).

Another morphological feature categorywhich occurs in relatively high frequency

60 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 4. Complexes 1–10 as determined by hierarchical clustering analysis based upon Euclidiandistance. The primary and secondary residential features within each complex areindicated by symbol and alphanumeric code.

is stone mounds or cairns. These range inbase diameter from <1 m up to 4–5 m, withthe larger examples sometimes taking on theappearance of formal platforms with facedsides.Theyoftenhaveoneormorecentralde-pressions, and waterworn coral and/or basaltcobbles are often found on them. Based onsimilar features elsewhere on Hawai‘i Islandwhich have been excavated (Soehren and

Tuohy 1987), most if not all of these are prob-ably burials. Our survey identified 60 suchmounds.

RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX EXCAVATIONS

The complexes of primary and secondary res-idential features identified in our survey and




Figure 5. Plan of the KAL-1 heiau, located on the southern boundary of Kalala ahupua‘a.

confirmed as discrete spatial clusters throughspatial analysis are interpreted as prehistoricHawaiian households (kauhale). Subsurfacetesting of these features was then necessaryto determine whether or not features withina complex were contemporary, or whetherthey represented sequential construction ofnew residential features over time. A furtheraim of excavation was to determine whennew complexes were established, and ifhousehold organization changed over time,as evidenced by temporally linked variationsin structure morphology, size, and culturaldeposits.

Excavation Methodology

Our excavations were designed to obtainsamples of cultural material in order to deter-mine feature function, degree of exploitationof marine resources, consumption of domes-tic animals such as dog and pig, craft or other

activity specialization, andtoobtainmaterialsfor dating. Since the residential complexesconsist of multiple features, it was necessaryto sample several features within each. Testunits ranging in size from0.50×0.50mto2×2 m were excavated. Units were positionedboth inside and outside the features, oftenadjacent to standing stone architecture. Thisplacement allowed for the collection ofculturalmaterials thathadbeensweptagainstwalls and into corners, and to extend underthe walls and retrieve materials that couldindicate the date of initial construction. Intotal, 30 units were excavated, sampling atotal of 16 features, representing 9 of the 14complexes.

Because the shallow cultural depositsusually comprised only a single stratigraphicunit, excavations proceeded in arbitrarylevels (usually 5 cm); subsurface com-ponents such as hearths were excavatedseparately. Artifacts encountered during

62 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



excavationwerepoint-provenienced.All sed-iment was sieved through 1/8 and 1/16inch mesh, with the exception of featuresMKI-1A and 1B, part of which was sievedwith 1/8 inch mesh only. Below we brieflydescribe salient architectural and subsurfaceaspects of the nine residential complexeswe excavated, treating them in geographicsequence from south to north. Followingthese summaries, the indications for spatio-temporal variation in household size arediscussed, along with a comparative analysisof cultural materials using normalized values.Chronological data based on 14C and U/Thdates are also discussed in detail.

Complex 1 (Features MKI -1A, -1B, -144,-148)

Complex 1 consists of two primaryresidences (MKI-148, MKI-1A, 1B) and onesecondary residence (MKI-144). MKI-144consisted of a round enclosure with ap-proximately 10 m2 of floor space. It wasconstructed of stacked cobble walls withrubble-filled interiors, and had no visiblesurface features or associated components.MKI-148 was a large U-shaped enclosure (140m2 in interior floor area) with a paved floorand a raised stone paved platform in onecorner. Its large size and midden suggeststhat it was used as a residence, but part ofthe structure was later transformed into aprobable burial platform. This structure wasnot tested with subsurface excavation.

MKI-1A, 1B was the only feature in thiscomplex to be investigated archaeologically.Located on a slight rise about 55 m inland ofthe shoreline, this multi-component featureis composed of a small (10.39 m2) squareenclosure (Feature MKI-1A) attached to alarger U-shaped enclosure open to the west(Feature MKI-1B). Several pieces of branchcoral (Pocillopora meandrina), an indicatorof ritual use, were noted in the enclosurewalls. A single elongated waterworn basaltboulder is positioned on the southern wall;such waterworn stones often functioned assymbols of the fishing god Ku‘ula (Malo1951:82–84). Surface midden around thestructure consisted of marine shell, fish bone,and flaked stone. The branch coral and

upright waterworn stone, both typical ritualmarkers, suggest that MKI-1A in addition tobeing a primary residential feature, served aspecial function, possibly as a fishing shrine(ko‘a).

Three units were excavated: TU 2 inMKI-1B produced no cultural materials orsubsurface components encountering a nat-ural deposit of pebbles and gravel at 10cmbs. This suggests that the open enclosurehad a specialized function, possibly canoestorage. TU 3, outside the structure, revealeda thin deposit of lithics and midden overlyinga natural layer of gravel and pebbles. Incontrast, TU 1 in the southwest corner ofthe enclosure exposed a 35 cm thick culturaldeposit incorporating a slab-lined hearthdefined by two rock slabs. Between theseslabs and the enclosure wall a 10 cm thickdeposit of ashy midden contained fragmentsof shell, sea urchin spines, charcoal, lithics,and fish bone, and artifacts such as seaurchin spine files, cut bone, and a bonetoggle. A layer of flat slabs formed the hearthfoundation, and two midden/ash depositswere found below this, extending to 42cmbs. The hearth features did not extendunder the wall, and had been built after themain enclosure was constructed. Fragmentsof kukui nutshell were extracted from thisfeatureandsubmitted for radiocarbondating.

Complex 2 (Features MKI-2A, -2B, -2C,-2D, -2E, -2F, -2G, -2H, -2I, -2J, -11, -12,

-13, -17, -18)

Complex 2 consists of 15 features ar-rayed over an area of 0.4 hectare. MKI-2, thefurthest inland, is a large multi-componentfeature with 10 components (Figure 6). Along rectangular terrace (22.75 m2) backedwith a high stacked wall on the upslope side(MKI-2A) was classified as a primary resi-dence; a dense concentration of shell middenand lithics extends downslope. Slightly far-ther down the ridge two circular enclosures(MKI-2B, MKI-2C) and a stone-paved terrace(MKI-2D) are linked by a free-standing wall(MKI-2E) which also encloses three mounds(MKI-2F, MKI-2G, MKI-2H), and a low lyingstone-faced terrace (MKI-2J). The enclosing




Figure 6. Plan of primary residential feature MKI-2. Two excavations were focused on the mainhouse structure, MKI-2A. A third excavation was placed in structure MKI-2C.

wall was probably added later, and maydate to the post-contact period. The mounds(some marked with coral) are most likelypost-contact burials.

Two excavation units were opened inthe MKI-2A terrace exposing an irregularstone pavement that extended to a depthof 35 cmbs. Charcoal fragments retrievedfrom this pavement deposit were identified

as mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), ‘ohemakai (cf. Reynoldsia sandwicensis), andkoa (Acacia koa), all endemic Hawaiiandryland forest trees, no longer found withinthe leeward Kohala region.

We interpret MKI-2 as a residential com-plex with functionally and temporally differ-entiated features. MKI-2A was a primary resi-dential feature most likely built in pre-contact

64 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



times, but was used throughout the historicperiod. MKI-2B and -2C are interpreted ascooking features due to their small sizesand charcoal-rich deposits. A single test unitfrom MKI-2C contained abundant charcoal,dog remains, and fragments of metal. Asdiscussed in the following sections, the laterdate suggests that MKI-2B, -2C, and -2D werebuilt afterMKI-2A, andwereultimately joinedtogetherby theenclosingwall (MKI-2E)prob-ably during the post-contact era. The terracesubdividing the enclosure (MKI-2J) was prob-ably constructed later than the free-standingwall (MKI-2E). The four stone mounds, someof which have waterworn coral and basaltcobbles on them, are probably burials. Theymay well date to the mid-nineteenth centuryand probably mark the final activity on thiscomplex.

MKI-13 is a rectangular enclosure downs-lope from MKI-2. The size of the structure(17 m2), and also the presence of a 20 cm2

cupboard in the northwest corner indicatesthat this was a primary residence. The struc-ture’s northern wall appears to have beenwidened after initial construction, possiblyto incorporate burials, as suggested by twodepressions (ca. 50 cm in diameter) withwaterworn coral and basalt cobbles in closeproximity. An excavation in the northwestcorner of MKI-13 exposed a silty-clay soilwith numerous rock inclusions in a looselymixed matrix, suggesting that a fill was laiddown to create a suitable living surface.This excavation produced shell, sea urchin,animal bone, lithics, and charcoal, but atlower density than in other features. Thesedeposits were not sampled for radiocarbondating.

About 15 m seaward are MK-11 and-12. MKI-12 is a square enclosure (25.44m2) with an entryway in the west wall,and five stone-lined pit features. MKI-11A,immediately north of MKI-12, is a rectangularenclosure (24.99 m2) with an attached L-shaped shelter (MKI-11B), open toward thesea (probably a later addition). The smallersize of these structures, and also the more lim-ited amounts of midden, indicate that thesestructures are probably secondary residentialfeatures. An excavation unit in the enclosureexposed the northern portion of a pit feature.

The limited cultural material included shellmidden, lithics, volcanic glass, and animalbones. Artifacts included a sea urchin spinefile fragment, acoralfile fragment, anawl, anda piece of cut mammal bone, all associatedwith the pit. A fragment of candlenut shell(kukui) was also recovered and submittedfor radiocarbon dating.

Nearby, the feature MKI-17 consists ofa free-standing L-shaped stacked stone wallthat encloses a large area of flat, unpavedground surface (200 m2). No artifacts ormidden were visible on the surface, but thefeature appears to enclose a residential livingsurface. Nearby, feature MKI-18 consistedof a stone-faced terrace with an attached C-shaped stone structure. Although this featurewas badly disturbed by kiawe tree root dam-age, it could have enclosed approximately 40m2 of interior space.

Complex 4 (Features MKI-23A, -23B, -24A,-24B, -19, -21, -22)

Complex 4 consists of a group of primaryand secondary residential features atop aridge overlooking the southern side of Po-hakuloa Gulch and Pohakuloa Bay. MKI-21is a 15 m2 lithic and midden scatter that liesatopaknoll.Althoughnosurfacearchitectureis associated with the scatter, the denseconcentrations of flakes and a basalt awlindicate that the knoll was used as an activityarea. Nearby, features MKI-19 and MKI-22are enclosures that are lightly paved withpebbles, midden, and coral. MKI-19 has anirregular shaped perimeter wall that enclosesa floor space of 37 m2. MKI-22 is rectangularin shape, and is paved with clinker lava (59m2). These features were not tested withsubsurface excavations.

Both MKI-23A and -24 are primarilyrectangular features made of stacked cobblesand boulders. MKI-23A has an interior areaof 30 m2, post-contact sawn timber postsset in the interior corners, and a rangeof late nineteenth-century Euro-Americanartifacts scattered on the surface. MKI-23Bis a large enclosing wall that surrounds MKI-23A. Surface shell midden within MKI-23Aand -23B included specimens of unusually




large size (e.g., Drupa sp. and Cellana sp.exceeding 10 cm in diameter), in contrastwith the smaller size ranges typically seenin marine mollusk assemblages from pre-contact midden contexts.

An excavation unit (TU 1) in the floorof MKI-23A revealed milled wood slats lyingatop a layer of water-rounded stone pebblesand coral (‘ili‘ili) containing metal nails andmetal fragments, shell, charcoal, and brokencoral. At 10–15 cmbs large cobbles wereencountered, the foundation stones for thehistoric period floor. Below this (at 25 cmbs)was a fine, silty matrix of loose midden,devoid of historic artifacts and containingcharcoal, shell, sea urchin spines, fishboneand scales, candlenut endocarp, a fragmentof a coral abrader, and a piece of brokencoral. This stratigraphic sequence thus re-veals both pre-contact and post-contact occu-pation phases. A fragment of kukui nutshellfrom this deepest pre-contact deposit wassubmitted for radiocarbon dating.

MKI-24 consists of a large rectangularenclosure (52.52 m2) and a paved terrace(MKI-24B) on a promontory overlookingPohakuloa Bay. The enclosure wall is unusualin reachingaheightof1.75m,whichsuggeststhat the roof of the building may have alsobeen quite high. Two excavations units inthe structure revealed a layer of ‘ili‘ili pavingjust below the surface. Mixed in this depositwere shell, sea urchin, fishbone, lithics, andone metal square-cut nail. Below this noEuro-American artifacts were encountered,suggesting an earlier occupation that pre-dates the construction of the high stonewalls. Due to the presence of Euro-Americanartifacts from the eighteenth century, thesedeposits were not radiocarbon dated.

Complex 5a (Features MKI-25A, -25B,-25C, -25D, -25E, -25F, -25G)

Complex 5a lies northeast of PohakuloaBay, and is a cluster of ridgeline featuresincluding primary and secondary residences.The primary residence feature MKI-25A isa rectangular enclosure (15.76 m2) with anattached rectangular enclosure on the inlandside (MKI-25B). To the northeast, MKI-25C,-D, -E, and -F are raised stone platforms and

mounds atop natural boulder outcrops. Mid-den was scattered across the surface of thesefeatures, indicating a range of subsistenceand cooking activities at the features. To thesouth, MKI-25G is a high (1.6 m), conical,stone mound, probably a post-contact burial(Figure 7).

Excavations within MKI-25A and -25Brevealed a deposit containing marine mid-den and artifacts but no historic-era Euro-American items. While the deposits withinMKI-25A were thin, those in MKI-25B ex-tended to a depth of 37 cmbs, with ahigh density of lithics including fire-crackedrock and volcanic glass, as well as charcoal,pig bone and pig teeth, branch coral, andshell and sea urchin midden. A fragment of‘ulei wood charcoal was recovered from thedeepest midden deposit in MKI-25B, and wassubmitted for radiocarbon dating.

Complex 5e (Feature MKI-56)

Complex 5e is the most northerly res-idential complex in Makiloa, consisting ofa large rectangular multi-component feature(MKI-56) with three internal spaces and anup-slope wall nearly 2 m thick (Figure 8).On the south, this is joined to a small “spacecell” which probably was the foundation fora separate thatched superstructure. On thenorth is a separate terrace, its interior floorwell paved with waterworn pebbles (‘ili‘ili).A large upright slab and pieces of branchcoral suggest that this terrace functioned asa shrine. Several large artifacts were foundon the surface, including a fragmented Cha-ronia sp. shell, waterworn stones, branchcoral, Porites sp. coral, basalt flakes, seaurchin spine files, and a hammerstone. Thefeature is in close proximity to a series ofretaining walls and platforms and commandsan excellent view of Kamilo Bay. The north-ern edge of this bay marks the boundarybetween Makiloa and Kalala ahupua‘a, andimmediately beyond it in Kalala is the largeKAL-1 heiau. In total, the interior space ofMKI-56 is the largest in the study, at 84.8 m2.The size and complexity of MKI-56 and thepresence of midden and artifacts suggestedthat this large feature was an elite primary

66 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Figure 7. Plan of primary residential feature MKI-25. Two excavations were placed in featuresMKI-25A, B. A third was placed in the midden that stretched across the center of thecomplex.

residence, either that of the konohiki (landmanager) or the ali‘i ‘ai ahupua‘a chief.

Time constraints limited excavation atMKI-56 to a single 0.50 × 0.50 m test unit(TU 1) in the northeast corner of the centralenclosure, revealing a dense midden deposit

extending to 47 cmbs. The uppermost 10cm of compact sediment included charcoal, ashell scraper, sea urchin spine files, volcanicglass, lithics, coral abraders, bone fragments,candlenut endocarp, a bone fishhook, andvolcanic glass. Below 10 cm the deposit




Figure 8. Plan of primary residential feature MKI-56. A single test unit was placed in the northeasterncorner of the central portion of the structure.

was loose and fine, possibly suggesting adeposit that had accumulated in the cornerof the structure. Cultural materials includedurchin spine files, coral abraders, coral files,lithics, a basalt file, two bone fishhooks,volcanic glass fragments, cut bone, pearlshell, candlenut shell, branch coral, and acowry shell octopus lure. Two fragments ofcandlenut shell (kukui)wererecovered fromlevels 2 (10 cmbs) and 6 (30 cmbs), and thesewere submitted for radiocarbon dating.

After reaching the natural subsurface, TU1 was expanded to expose the face of themain wall forming the rear of MKI-56. Thisextended for three stacked courses belowgroundsurface.A10cmpieceofbranchcoralwas recovered from the base of the loweststone course. This branch coral displayedintact verrucae (and hence had not beenabraded in the surf zone), indicating it was

harvested from the ocean and placed underthe wall during construction.

Complex 7 (Features KAL-10A, -10B, -10C,-10D)

The southernmost ridgeline complex inKalala includes four enclosures (KAL-10A,-10C, -23A, -23B), a C-shaped feature (KAL-10B), and a natural outcrop of boulderswith a paved surface that may have been ashrine (KAL-10D). KAL-10A is interpreted asa primary residence of Complex 7. It is a largeenclosure (72.8 m2) with a unique shape:two rectangles joined at the corner. A linearstorage compartment, capped by a series offlat lintel slabs, is evident on the enclosure’snortheastern external side. Two units exca-vated in the western end and center of the

68 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



enclosure revealed thin cultural deposits thatcontainedmarinemidden,volcanicglass, andbone fishhooks.

KAL-10B, 15 m south of KAL-10A, is a C-shaped secondary residence feature locatedin the middle of a large midden scatter. Asingle unit, TU 3, in the southern portionof the feature revealed a rich assemblageof tools and manufacturing debris, includingpearl shell, cut bone, sea urchin spine files,and an adze fragment. A fragment of woodcharcoal recovered from the deepest portionof this deposit was submitted for radiocarbondating.

KAL-10C is a large rectangular enclosure(68.75 m2) with an attached J-shaped featureon the south and a linear storage cupboardcapped with flat slabs on the southernexterior. This feature is also large and hassubstantial surface midden, which suggeststhat it too was a primary residence. ThreeunitswereplacedinKAL-10C:TU4containedmoderate amounts of midden to a depth of40 cm; TU 5 and 6 had denser midden andalso several tools, including coral abraders,sea urchin spine files, fire-cracked rock, cutbone, and pearl shell.

KAL-10D incorporates a boulder outcropand a layer of stone paving and artifacts.Some of these artifacts include branch coral(Pocillopora sp.), water-rolled Porites coral,water-rolled basalt pebbles, and shell mid-den. This feature may have been a shrine,or possibly a burial.

Complex 8 (KAL-23A, -23B)

Complex 8 lies along the same ridgelineas Complex 7, and consists of a primaryand a secondary residential feature. KAL-23Ais a moderate-sized (21.25 m2) enclosure.Two test excavations in the floor of thefeature revealed thin (15 cm) deposits, anda moderate amount of marine midden. Glassand ceramic beads dating to the early contactperiod were also found in each unit. Nearby,KAL-23B is a rectangular enclosure approx-imately 5 m long and 4 m wide, orientedon the same axis as KAL-23A. Similaritiesin construction style and size suggest thatthey are contemporaneous. A well-preservedcupboard with a large slab lintel is located in

the southeast interior corner. A test unit, TU2, placed in front of the cupboard reacheda depth of 45 cmbs, and revealed a densemidden deposit and yellow beach sand withlithics, historic glass, historic ceramic beads,and metal down to a depth of 35 cmbs. Due tothe presence of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Euro-American artifacts in KAL-23Aand -23B, no charcoal was submitted forradiocarbon dating.

Complex 9 (KAL-30A, -30B, -37)

Complex 9 consists of two primary res-idences, two of which (KAL-30A, KAL-37)are rectangular high-backed terraces with en-closing walls. A single secondary residentialfeature (KAL-30B) lay within a few meters ofKAL-30A(Figure9).KAL-30Awasamoderate-sizedprimaryresidence,withan interiorfloorspace of 20 m2. Half of the interior floorspace of this feature was excavated withtwo adjacent ∼2 m2 units. The excavationrevealed a dense deposit of midden, adzeflakes, coral abraders, sea urchin spine files,shell scrapers, bone fishhooks, and also twoslab-lined fire hearths at a depth of 15 cmbs.Fragments of koa wood were identified fromthe southernmost fire hearth, and submittedfor radiocarbon dating.

KAL-30B consisted of an enclosure withthree interior space cells, a high-backedwall, and an open front terrace. Severaldepressions in the upper portions of thewalls may have been post-holes for woodenimages. The presence of coral in the base ofthese depressions suggests that this structureserved as a religious shrine (possibly a ko‘a)for the adjacent main residence. The threespace cells and the terrace would haveprovided approximately 33 m2 of interiorliving space. Half of the interior of thenorthernmost space cell of KAL-30B wasexcavated, revealing an extremely dense butfragmented midden deposit. The conditionof the midden suggests that this floor wasrepeatedly trampled. Sea urchin spine files,coral abrader, a shell scraper, and bonefishhook were recovered from the depositsof KAL-30B, and also a portion of a bronzecoin inscribed with the words ‘TOTUM’and‘BRASIL’.Numismaticcatalogues identify




Figure 9. Plan of residential feature KAL-30. Two test excavations were placed in KAL-30A, and athird excavation bisects the northern space cell in KAL-30B.

this coin as a colonial currency that wasminted in Brazil between 1750 and 1777(American Numismatic Society 2008). Thiscoin had been cut, probably in order toutilize the bronze for a tool or ornament. Inaddition to a relative age of post-1777 for thisdeposit, a fragment of wood charcoal fromthe candlenut (kukui) tree was extractedfrom a depth of 15 cmbs and submitted forradiocarbon dating.

KAL-37 was not investigated archaeolog-ically, as it has been disturbed considerablyby modern camping and trash dumping.

Although portions of the stone walls havebeen knocked down, it had a high-backedwall which enclosed a flat, open terrace. Thefeature would have had a living space ofapproximately 20 m2.

Complex 10 (KAL-2, -5, -6, -9)

Complex 10 is the northernmost com-plex in the Kalala survey area, and it is definedtopographically by a steep-sided ridgelinethat marks the edge of the Pololu volcanic

70 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



substrate. The complex consists of three sec-ondary residences (KAL-2, -6, -9) and a singleprimary residence (KAL-5). This residencehas two large interior space cells and a longL-shaped back wall that enclosed a partiallypavedterrace.Thetotal interior livingarea forthis feature totaled 40 m2. Several Cypraeaspp. shells that had been perforated foruse as octopus lures were found on thesurface of the site, along with abundant flakesand cores of volcanic glass. A single 2.2 ×1.5 m2 excavation unit was placed in thenorthernmost space cell, revealing a thinlayer of midden with abundant Cellana sp.shell scrapers and coral abraders to a depthof 35 cmbs. A fragment of corroded metalwas recovered from 30 cmbs, suggestinga late post-contact era occupation for thisresidence.

KAL-2 is located due north of KAL-5, andconsists of an oval-shaped enclosure with afloor area of 18 m2. This feature was likelyused for a small residence, as evidenced bythe thick midden deposit on the outsideand inside of the walls. This feature wasnot investigated archaeologically. Lastly, Fea-tures KAL-6, and -9 consist of enclosures andterraces that may have been used for smallshelters and cooking structures. Feature KAL-9 is directly south of KAL-5 and consists of a 3m wide C-shaped enclosure. Further downthe ridgeline, KAL-6 was composed of anL-shaped wall and a small terrace (6 m2).Neither of these structures was investigatedarchaeologically.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF COMPLEXARCHITECTURE AND CULTURAL

CONTENT

Residential complexes defined by our surveyinclude the presence of both primary andsecondary residential features. However, thecharacter and quantity of architecture anddeposits within each complex are diverse,and we argue that this variability is informa-tive for understanding the transition from aDMP to a more integrated political economy.In the following discussion we compare thesize,configuration,andpresumedfunctionofarchitectural features within the complexes

that were investigated archaeologically, fol-lowed by a comparative analysis of theircultural content.

Primary and Secondary Residence Sizeand Number

A critical factor that we believe is in-dicative of the transition from domestic tosurplus production is the number and sizeof the primary residences, and the numberand size of secondary residences that areassociated with the primary structure. Wehypothesize that under the DMP, householdswould have been smaller in terms of numberof residents, and required fewer and smallerstructures for tool making, cooking, andother activities. A single, small-sized centralprimary residence would have sufficed formany of the activities related to householdeconomics, and fewer secondary residentialfeatures would be required. We hypothe-size that with the transition to a surplus-generating mode of production householdswould have increased in size, in turn ne-cessitating additional and frequently largerstructures. Primary residences would havebecome larger, and associated secondaryresidenceswouldhavebeenmorenumerous.This hypothesis suggests that a classificationof complexes according to residence size andnumber may be indicative of the transitionfrom a DMP to supra-household surpluseconomy.

Our survey identified a wide range offloor areas among the individual features inthe complexes, from 10 to 1350 m2. Whencompared by complex, the median value forthe individual feature floor areas ranged from15.86 to 135.75 m2, with standard deviationsbetween 2.86 and 124.8 m2 (Table 2). Wesuggest that two groups are apparent in thisdistribution: complexes with median floorareas of 40 m2 or less and relatively lowstandard deviations, and those with medianvalues of 70 m2 or greater and relatively highstandard deviations. Complexes 2, 3, 4, 5a,5b,8,9, and10 fallunder the lattercategoryofsmaller-sized residences. We infer that thesecomplexes are likely to represent smallerhouseholds that were autonomous and didnot produce a surplus. Along those same




Table 2. List of primary and secondary residential features and their total interior floor area(m2). The median and standard deviation (SD) for the features in each complex islisted in the final column.

ComplexPrimary

Residential m2SecondaryResidential m2

Median and SDfor Complex

1 MKI-1A 10.39

MKI-148 140 Median = 75.19

MKI-144 10 SD = 91.64

2 MKI-2A 22.75

MKI-13 17

MKI-12 25.44

MKI-11 24.99

MKI-17 200 Median = 19.87

MKI-18 40 SD = 4.06

MKI-2D 7.87

MKI-2C 2.62

MKI-2B 6.2

3 MKI-107 50

MKI-111 12.5

MKI-108 12 Median = 31.20

MKI-110 12 SD = 26.51

MKI-109 12

MKI-106B 1350

4 MKI-23A 30

MKI-24 52.52

MKI-19 37 Median = 41.26

MKI-21 15 SD = 15.92

MKI-22 59

5a MKI-25A 15.76

MKI-25B 42

MKI-25C 21 Median = 28.88

MKI-25D 6 SD = 18.55

MKI-25E 5

MKI-25F 18

5b MKI-79 60

MKI-80 8 Median = 34

MKI-81 12 SD = 36.76

MKI-82 7.5

5c MKI-68 144 single feature

5d MKI-195 224

MKI-69 47.5

MKI-55C 75 Median = 135.75

72 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Table 2. List of primary and secondary residential features and their total interior floor area(m2). The median and standard deviation (SD) for the features in each complex islisted in the final column. (Continued)

ComplexPrimary

Residential m2SecondaryResidential m2

Median and SDfor Complex

MKI-55B 20 SD = 124.80

MKI-54 25

5e MKI-56 84.8 single feature

6 KAL-26 189

KAL-21 50 Median = 119.50

KAL-25 9 SD = 98.28

7 KAL-10A 72.8

KAL-10C 68.75 Median = 70.77

KAL-10B 6.5 SD = 2.86

KAL-10D 8

8 KAL-23A 21.25 Median = 15.62

KAL-23B 10 SD = 7.95

9 KAL-30A 20

KAL-37 20 Median = 20

KAL-30B 33 SD = 7.50

10 KAL-5 40

KAL-2 18 Median = 29

KAL-6 6 SD = 15.55

KAL-9 3

lines, the complexes with larger residences(Complex 1, 7, 5c, 5d, 5e, and 6) werelikely involved in surplus production. Wetested this hypothesis through our analysis ofmaterial culture and subsistence activities, asdescribedbelow. Inseveralcases thequantityand kind of cultural items recovered fromthe residences contradicts the hypothesis ofsurplus production for the complexes thatcontained larger residences. It is importantto note that some of the complexes mayhave spanned the transition from a largelyDMP to a surplus economy, and thus thearea of the residences visible through surfacesurvey may not be indicative of the earlierhistoriesofeachhousehold.Thecomparativeanalysis of cultural content and also the suiteof radiocarbon dates obtained for severalof the residences in the sample provide amore rigorous analysis of the economics ofhouseholds on the Kohala coast.

Comparative Analysis of Cultural Content

Interpreting the Makiloa and Kalala resi-dential complexes also depends on evidencederived from cultural content. All excavatedfeatures yielded charcoal, invertebrate andvertebrate faunal materials, and artifacts rang-ing from lithics to rarer categories such asabrading tools and fishhooks. Both richnessof cultural content (numbers of differentfaunal and artifact classes represented) anddensity of cultural materials varied signifi-cantly between features, offering importantevidence for feature function and householdactivities. In Table 3 we summarize somekey indices of invertebrate and vertebratefauna, along with several artifact categories.Because excavation areas and volumes dif-fered between features, we calculated thetotal volume of cultural deposit excavated ateach feature, and standardized the reported



Ta

ble

3.

No

rmal

ized

valu

es(0

.1m

3)

for

arti

fact

sre

cove

red

fro

mth

eM

akil

oa

and

Kal

ala

exca

vati

on

s,2

00

7–2

00

8.A

rtif

acts

fro

min

div

idu

alte

stex

cava

tio

ns

are

aggr

egat

edb

yfe

atu

re.

Co

mp

lex

1C

om

ple

x2

Co

mp

lex

4C

om

ple

x5

aC

om

ple

x5

eC

om

ple

x7

Co

mp

lex

8C

om

ple

x9

Co

mp

lex

10

Cat

ego

ries

MK

I-1A

MK

I-2A

MK

I-2C

MK

I-11

MK

I-23A

MK

I-24

MK

I-25A

,BM

KI-

56

KA

L-10A

KA

L-10B

KA

L-10C

KA

L-23A

,BK

AL-

30

KA

L-5

Are

a(m

2)

0.6

10.

250.

250.

250.

50.

750.

250.

50.

250.

750.

758.

93.

3

Dep

tho

fdep

osi

ts(m

)0.

350.

290.

330.

350.

350.

50.

650.

470.

450.

150.

80.

670.

750.

34

Cu

bic

volu

me

(m3)

0.21

0.29

0.08

250.

0875

0.08

70.

250.

4875

0.11

750.

225

0.03

750.

60.

5025

6.67

51.

122

To

tals

hel

lmid

den

wei

ght(

g)

1341

2298

858

362

329

328

1896

1510

1988

1464

1290

2346

no

tco

l-

lect

ed

713

To

talb

on

eN

ISP

1635

825

560

190

1699

158

1074

4050

2920

3003

5412

3519

902

274

Pig

/do

g/m

ediu

m

mam

mal

NIS

P

2224

1473

34

8155

3648

309

904

8

Fish

bo

ne

NIS

P15

9880

054

611

716

9015

699

339

0527

7429

3650

8234

1479

826

5

To

tala

dze

flak

es1

10

00

00

00

30

01

0

To

tall

ith

ics

109

147

917

1482

312

149

8016

589

487

24

To

talfi

shh

oo

ks

(wh

ole

,fra

g.,t

ab)

11

40

00

03

45

00

11

To

talc

ora

lab

rad

er1

10

11

03

302

512

01

1

To

tals

eau

rch

infi

les

86

41

00

013

027

30

21

To

tals

crap

ers

00

00

00

01

00

03

11

To

talh

isto

ric

arti

fact

s0

119

20

569

20

02

00

361

1

74



Figure 10. Photographs of selected artifacts from the 2007–2008 Makiloa and Kalala excavations.A: imported Euroamerican clay trade beads, ca. 1850s; B: sea urchin (Heterocentrotusmammillatus) spine files; C: coral abraders; D: shell scraper (Cellana sp.); E: polished adzefragment; F: fishhook portions and fragments.

values for all recovered materials in termsof standardized counts or weights per 0.1m3. This allows for direct comparisons be-tween features despite differences in samplesizes.

The Makiloa and Kalala residential fea-ture deposits are dominated by marine mid-den, but also yielded a suite of tools that aretypical for coastal features in Hawai‘i. Themost commonly found remains across all fea-tures were fish bones, marine mollusk shells,and sea urchin spines and tests, followed bysmall amounts of medium mammal (pig anddog). Adze fragments or flakes were relativelyrare, but tools such as urchin spine files,abraders, cut bone, and fishhooks occurredin several contexts (Figure 10).

The primary residences of Complexes7 and 8 produced the highest quantity ofshell midden by weight, followed by the

primary residences of Complex 2 and 5a.These are interesting findings, as the size ofthe residences varies considerably betweenthese complexes (15–22 m2 for the resi-dences of Complexes 2, 5a, and 8, and 72m2 for Complex 7). However, as we cannotdiscern whether these differences are due tolength of occupation, foraging intensity, orresource abundance, we cannot attribute anysignificance to these differences that pertainto a DMP or to surplus production. However,as it is more likely that residences that wereoccupied for the longestdurationwouldhavethe densest and heaviest deposits, we arguethat residential features that have relativelyshort chronologies and large amounts ofmarine midden may indicate instances ofsurplus production.

The normalized total bone NISP countindicates abundant animal remains at




Complexes 5e, 7, and 8. When broken downby taxa, Complex 7, 8, and 5e have thegreatest amount of fish as well as pig, dog,and medium mammal bone (the “mediummammal” class is probably almost exclusivelypig and dog bone as well). This abundance ofanimal remains reflects a greater productionand collection of protein by households thatwe believe post-date the transition to a sur-plus mode of production. In the case of 5e thegreater amounts fish and domestic animalslikely reflects the higher consumption ofmeat and richer food stuffs by elites, a patternsimilarly noted by Kirch and O’Day (2002) forhigh-status residential features in Kahikinui,Maui. When compared to residence size,the higher proportion of fish and mediummammal bone corresponds well to larger-sized households; in this case, Complexes 5e,7, and 8 had interior floor spaces that rangedfrom a total of 31 to 156 m2.

Artifact content reveals other trendspertaining to fishing, food processing, andtool making. No whole basalt adzes wererecovered during the 2007–2008 seasons,but adze fragments were recovered fromComplex 1, 2, 7, and 9. These fragments pre-sumably derived from use on site, althoughadze chips were sometimes later reused ascutting tools. All of these adze fragmentsare made from dense, fine-grained basalt notlocally available in Makiloa or Kalala. Thepresence of adzes at these features suggestswoodworking activities (such as carvingcanoes, bowls, or working other woodenimplements), while the presence of non-localbasalt implies an interaction network withregions where basalt quarries were located.Other lithic artifacts such as flakes, cores,and volcanic glass were most abundant atComplexes 5a and 7, and were found in highnumbers in Complexes 1, 2, and 5e. Adzefragments and lithics were recovered fromresidences of all sizes, and do not indicate anyvisible trends towards increased productionof canoes or other work wood items.

Tools related to the manufacture offishhooks and fishing equipment were foundat all of the excavated features, but were mostcommon at Complex 2, 5e, and 7. Abradersmade from coral, followed by the spines ofthe slate pencil sea urchin (Heterocentrotus

mammillatus) were the most common (seeSinoto 1967 for descriptions of these com-mon Hawaiian artifact classes), suggestinga focus on fishing for these households. Inthe case of 5e, the manufacture of fishhookswas likely done by specialists residing in thehousehold of the chief or konohiki. A totalof 21 whole fishhooks and fishhook partswere recovered in the excavations, and nor-malizing their counts by excavated volumeindicates that Complexes 5e and 7 producedthemost, followedbyComplex2.Complexes1, 9, and 10 produced one fishhook each. Wesuggest that the abundance of fishhooks atComplexes 5e and 7 are indicative of surplusproduction. In the case of Complex 5e and 7,this corresponds well with the increased sizeof these households. The fishhooks includeboth one- and two-piece forms, as well astwo points that are probably from octopushook rigs (Emory et al. 1959:28–29). With theexception of a single one-piece shank of pearlshell, all of the hooks are of mammal bone.No trolling lures or points were recovered.All of the fishing gear is consistent withinshore angling, either from the rocky coastor in the shallow benthic zone immediatelyoffshore.

Imported Euro-American and Asian ar-tifacts were also recovered from some fea-tures, serving as a temporal marker for post-contacthabitation.Complexes2,4, and8hadthe most Euro-American artifacts, includingmilled wood, metal nails, fragments of glassbottles, trade beads, and a percussion capfrom a muzzle-loading firearm. The age ofthese items suggests occupation during themid to late 1800s. The absence of Euro-American artifacts at other features impliesthat these residences were abandoned priorto the late 1800s. This likely represents arapid depopulation of Makiloa and Kalalasoon after contact with the West, a patternwell documented from early historic records(Bushnell 1993; Schmidt 1968).

RADIOCARBON DATING AND FEATURECHRONOLOGY

Our third approach to analysis of the residen-tial features of Makiloa and Kalala focused

76 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010


Ta

ble

4.

Rad

ioca

rbo

nd

ates

fro

mM

akil

oa-

Kal

ala

feat

ure

s.

Lab

No

.Lo

cati

on

Mat

eria

lM

easu

red

Rad

ioca

rbo

nA

ge

13C

/12C

Rat

io

Co

nve

nti

on

alR

adio

carb

on

Age

Cal

ibra

ted

Age

Ran

geB

P(1

σp

rob

abil

itie

s)∗

Cal

ibra

ted

Age

Ran

geB

P(2

σp

rob

abil

itie

s)∗

Bet

a-25

6577

KA

L-1

ben

eath

no

rth

wal

l15

cmb

s

Ah

eah

eaw

oo

d42

0±

40−2

6.5

400

±40

1442

–151

2(5

7.4%

)

1600

–161

6(1

0.8%

)

1432

–152

6(6

6.6%

)

1556

–163

3(2

8.8%

)

Bet

a-24

3703

MK

I-2A

TU

115

cmb

sM

aman

ew

oo

d36

0±

40−2

6.4

340

±40

1485

–152

8(2

3.2%

)

1551

–163

4(4

5%)

1462

–164

2(9

5.4%

)

Bet

a-24

3704

MK

I-25

TU

335

cmb

s‘U

leiw

oo

d23

0±

40−2

4.1

240

±40

1529

–154

0(3

.8%

)

1634

–167

8(3

5.9%

)

1766

–180

0(2

1.4%

)

1940

–195

3(7

.1%

)

1520

–159

3(1

4.5%

)

1619

–168

5(4

0.1%

)

1732

–180

8(3

1.3%

)

1928

–195

5(9

.5%

)

Bet

a-25

6572

KA

L-30

AT

U1B

Feat

ure

115

cmb

s

Ko

aw

oo

d19

0±

40−2

1.8

240

±40

1529

–154

0(3

.8%

)

1634

–167

8(3

5.9%

)

1766

–180

0(2

1.4%

)

1940

–195

3(7

.1%

)

1520

–159

3(1

4.5%

)

1619

–168

5(4

0.1%

)

1732

–180

8(3

1.3%

)

1928

–195

5(9

.55)

Bet

a-24

0446

MK

I-1A

,Hea

rth

feat

ure

20cm

bs

Ku

kuin

uts

hel

l18

0±

40−2

1.9

230

±40

1641

–168

0(3

2.3%

)

1764

–180

1(2

6.7%

)

1939

–195

3(9

.2%

)

1521

–157

5(7

.4%

)

1584

–159

0(.

4%)

1626

–169

2(3

6.9%

)

1728

–181

1(3

8.3%

)

1921

–195

5(1

2.4%

)

Bet

a-24

0674

MK

I-2C

Co

okh

ou

se

hea

rth

feat

ure

15

cmb

s

Ku

kuin

uts

hel

l19

0±

40−2

3.1

220

±40

1645

–168

0(2

8.6%

)

1764

–180

1(2

9.2%

)

1939

–195

3(1

0.4%

)

1515

–155

8(3

.1%

)

1631

–169

5(3

3.1%

)

1726

–181

4(4

3.6%

)

1839

–184

2(.

2%)

1853

–186

7(.

6%)

1918

–195

5(1

4.9%

)

(Con

tin

ued

on

nex

tpa

ge)

77


Ta

ble

4.

Rad

ioca

rbo

nd

ates

fro

mM

akil

oa-

Kal

ala

feat

ure

s.(C

on

tin

ued

)

Lab

No

.Lo

cati

on

Mat

eria

lM

easu

red

Rad

ioca

rbo

nA

ge

13C

/12C

Rat

io

Co

nve

nti

on

alR

adio

carb

on

Age

Cal

ibra

ted

Age

Ran

geB

P(1

σp

rob

abil

itie

s)∗

Cal

ibra

ted

Age

Ran

geB

P(2

σp

rob

abil

itie

s)∗

Bet

a-25

6595

KA

L-30

BT

U2

Feat

ure

1

15cm

bs

Ku

kuiw

oo

d22

0±

40−1

2.6

220

±40

1645

–168

0(2

8.6%

)

1764

–180

1(2

9.2%

)

1939

–195

3(1

0.4%

)

1515

–155

8(3

.1%

)

1631

–169

5(3

3.1%

)

1726

–181

4(4

3.6%

)

1839

–184

2(.

2%)

1853

–186

7(.

6%)

1918

–195

5(1

4.9%

)

Bet

a-24

0448

MK

I-56

TU

1Le

vel6

30

cmb

s

Ku

kuin

uts

hel

l18

0±

40−2

4.3

190

±40

1662

–168

3(1

3.4%

)

1735

–180

5(4

1.7%

)

1930

–195

2(1

3.1%

)

1644

–170

6(2

2.4%

)

1721

–181

9(4

8.3%

)

1832

–188

0(6

.9%

)

1915

–195

5(1

7.8%

)

Bet

a-24

0447

MK

I-23A

TU

135

cmb

sK

uku

inu

tsh

ell

160

±40

−23.

718

0±

4016

64–1

685

(12.

1%)

1732

–180

8(4

2.5%

)

1928

–195

2(1

3.6%

)

1648

–170

6(2

0.4%

)

1720

–182

0(4

7.6%

)

1832

–188

3(9

.6%

)

1914

–195

4(1

7.8%

)

Bet

a-24

0675

MK

I-11A

TU

135

cmb

sK

uku

inu

tsh

ell

150

±40

−24.

915

0±

4016

69–1

697

(11.

6%)

1726

–178

0(2

4.4%

)

1798

–181

4(7

.0%

)

1836

–184

5(3

.4%

)

1851

–187

7(9

.7%

)

1917

–194

5(1

2.1%

)

1665

–178

5(4

6.0%

)

1795

–189

3(3

2.6%

)

1906

–195

2(1

6.9%

)

Bet

a-24

0449

MK

I-56

TU

1Le

vel2

10

cmb

s

Ku

kuin

uts

hel

l10

0.2

±0.

5p

MC

−21.

240

±40

1699

–172

2(1

7.9%

)

1817

–183

4(1

2.2%

)

1879

–191

6(3

8.1%

)

1690

–173

0(2

3.5%

)

1810

–192

5(7

1.9%

)

Bet

a-24

3702

KA

L-10

BT

U3

15cm

bs

Pu

akia

we

wo

od

141.

4±

0.5

pM

C−2

1.2

140.

3±

.5P

mc

Po

st–0

BP

(wit

hin

the

last

50ye

ars)

Po

st–0

BP

(wit

hin

the

last

50ye

ars)

∗ Cal

ibra

tio

ns

per

form

edw

ith

Ox

Cal

4.1

(Bro

nk

Ram

sey

2001

)u

sin

gth

eIn

tCal

04at

mo

sph

eric

curv

e(R

eim

eret

al.2

004)

.

78



Figure 11. Calibrated radiocarbon dates from the 2007–2008 excavations in Leeward Kohala.Calibrations performed with OxCal 4.1 using the IntCal04 atmospheric curve (BronkRamsey 2001; Reimer et al. 2004).

on the absolute age of the features. Theutility of 14C age determinations in Hawai‘i ishampered by the relatively short chronologyfor human occupation, and the ‘flatness’ ofthe IntCal 04 radiocarbon calibration curvefor the last three centuries. We focused onretrieving samples for dating from activityareas or combustion features, as these weremost likely to reflect the use of the featuresas residences. Twelve samples of carbonizedplant material were selected for radiocarbondating. Samples were identified by M. Jeraj(U. Wisconsin) using Hawaiian botanicalreference materials. Most samples consistof candlenut (kukui, Aleurites moluccana)endocarp, which was chosen to avoid theproblem of in-built age associated with long-lived wood taxa. Candlenuts were used byHawaiians both as a source of light within

houses (igniting the oily kernels) and as arelish. The other samples were fragmentsof wood charcoal from mamane (Sophorachrysophylla), ‘ulei (Osteomeles anthyllidi-folia), ‘aheahea (Chenopodium ohauense)puakiawe (Styphelia tameiameiae) koa(Acacia koa), and kukui (Aleurites moluc-cana). Excepting koa and kukui, all of thesesamples are from shrubs or small trees thatwould have been native to the Kohala coast.Our selection of these samples was basedon the fact that these shrubs are shorter-lived than larger trees, but this does notpreclude the possibility that the wood fromthese shrubs could have preserved in the dryenvironment of leeward Kohala for severaldecades. Although we feel that it is unlikelythat these shrubs persisted as dead woodfor more than a few decades, we cannot




exclude the possibility that they may havebeenpreservedformuchlonger.Thesampleswere dated by accelerator mass spectrometry(AMS) through Beta Analytic, Inc. Results arepresented in Table 4, and an OxCal plot ofprobability distributions for these dates at 2σis provided in Figure 11.

The oldest sample from a residenceconsists of mamane wood charcoal whichwasextracted fromthefloorpavingof featureMKI-2A, in Complex 2. This sample (Beta-243703), produced the calibrated date of AD1462–1642 at 2σ , indicating that this was theearliest residence in our excavated sample tobe established within coastal Makiloa. This isalso a feature that we have identified basedupon its architecture and associated surfacemidden to be a primary residential feature.As described above, it is small in size butassociated with other secondary residentialfeatures. Overlapping in age with MKI-2A is asample of ‘aheahea wood charcoal obtainedfrom a test excavation positioned against thenorth wall of the large heiau feature KAL-1.The charcoal was obtained from underneaththe structure’s wall, and yielded two inter-cept age ranges of cal AD 1432–1526 and1556–1633(Beta-256577).Sincethecharcoalwas obtained from beneath the wall, thisprovides a terminus ante quem for the dateof wall construction.

The next five samples are statis-tically indistinguishable. Samples Beta-243704, 256572, 240446, 240674, and256595 all have multiple calibration inter-cepts, with the highest probability interceptsfalling in the mid-seventeenth to late eigh-teenth centuries. They consist of ‘ulei wood,charcoal kukui wood, koa wood, and kukuinutshell, and were obtained from a hearthrake-out in the primary residence of Complex5a (MKI-25, TU 3), the hearth feature inComplex 1 (MKI-1A), the cookhouse hearthfeature in Complex 2 (MKI-2C), and thehearth and feature deposits in KAL-30A and-30B. As before, the absence of post–AD 1880material suggests that these features wereabandoned by the early nineteenth century.In the case of Complex 2, the potentially laterdate for the cookhouse lends some supportto the hypothesis that this complex had alengthy period of occupation, although there

is still significant overlap between the Beta-243703 and Beta-240674 dates. However, thebreakdown of 2σ probabilities suggests thatthis feature dates to sometime after AD 1630.

The most recent group consists of sam-ples from Complex 2, 4, 5e, and 7. Beta-240448 and 240449 consisted of kukui nut-shell from the single excavation of Complex5e (the elite residence MKI-56, from levels2 and 6, 20 cm apart in depth). Beta-240448has a highest probability intercept of cal AD1721–1819 while Beta-240449 has a highestprobability intercept fromcalAD1810–1925,and lesser probability intercept from cal AD1690–1730. However, the absence of post-contact materials in this feature allows us toreject a post-contact date, and together thetwo dates suggest occupation of this featurein the eighteenth century. Beta-240447, thesample from Complex 4 (MKI-23A), wasobtained from a midden deposit that lay di-rectly below a layer of milled-Euro-Americanwooden slats, and has a highest probabilityintercept range of cal AD 1720–1820. Thesedeposits, in tandem with the large amountsof other Euro-American artifacts at the resi-dence, suggest an age of post–AD 1778.

Similarly young ages are also suggestedfor the deposits within the secondary resi-dences of Complex 2 (MKI-11A) and Com-plex 7. Beta-240675 consisted of a sampleof kukui nutshell, which was recoveredfrom a hearth deposit in the floor of theMKI-11A residence. The highest probabilityintercept range for this sample is cal AD1665–1785.SampleBeta-243702consistedofpuakiawe wood sampled from the deposit ofmidden, tools, and lithic debris in KAL-10B ofComplex 7. This resulted in a ‘post-bomb’age, suggesting that the sample may havederived from a relatively recent brush firethat had intruded into the shallow culturaldeposit.

In addition to 14C dating, we are alsousingU-seriesdatingofbranchcoralobtainedfrom cultural contexts to establish a chrono-logical framework for our features, followingmethods reportedbyKirchandSharp (2005).A branch coral offering from the heiau siteKAL-1 yielded a 230Th age of AD 1600 ± 12(2σ ). Together with the radiocarbon datefrom under the heiau wall (Beta-256577),

80 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



this indicates a likely construction date forthe temple around AD 1600. A second 230Thage of AD 1623 ± 5 (2σ ) was obtained froma piece of branch coral directly under thefoundation wall of feature MKI-56, the eliteresidence situated on the opposite side ofKamilo Gulch from the KAL-1 heiau. Thissuggests initial construction of this residenceearly in the seventeenth century, while thetwo radiocarbon dates from the occupationdeposit at MKI-56 indicate continued occu-pation of the feature into the eighteenthcentury, a reasonable interpretation giventhe depth of the cultural deposit in thisfeature. Additional U-series dates currently inprocesswillbereported ina laterpublication.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The survey and excavation of residentialcomplexes within the ahupua‘a of Makiloaand Kalala reveal the changing dynamicsof population size, resource extraction, andsocial hierarchy during the late pre-contactperiod (ca. AD 1460–1880). We have identi-fied 14 residential complexes in this sectorof the Kohala coastline, and have determinedthe age of 10 of the primary and secondaryresidential features based on 14C and U-seriesdates and associated post-contact artifacts.These results indicate that the area wasfirst occupied between AD 1460 and 1640,initially by only a single household (MKI-2A)at Complex 2. Although the error rangesassociated with our 14C determinations donot allow us to trace with great precisionthechronological establishmentof additionalhouseholds during the following centuries,it seems likely that Complexes 1, 5a, and9 were established as a product of popu-lation growth between AD 1520 and 1680.During this period these new householdswere established near bays that affordedcanoe access. Preexisting households, suchas Complex 2, were expanded and newsecondary residences were constructed inthe immediate area of the primary residence.Based upon the close proximity of thesestructures, the small size of the primaryresidences, and the moderate amounts ofmarine midden and pig and dog bone, we

argue that these complexes were producedbyhouseholdsoperating largely inadomesticmode of production.

Based upon our survey data and 14C datesfrom Makiloa and Kalala, we argue that thetransition from a DMP to a surplus-generatingeconomy occurred after about AD 1650. Itwas during this period that many new pri-mary residences were established, and mul-tiple secondary residences were establishedwithin pre-existing complexes. The primaryresidences were now generally larger in size,and their component structures exhibit awider range of architectural forms, includinginterior divisions, attached enclosures, andadjacent shrines. Marine midden densitiesat primary residences also increase duringthis period, as do the amounts of pig, dog,and large fish bones. Prime examples areComplexes 5e, 7, and 8, which consist ofsequences of large residences with a varietyof associated components. Based upon oursurvey and excavation data, we suggest thatComplexes 3, 4, and 10 were establishedduring or after the transition to a surpluseconomy, resulting in a total populationof 12–15 households on the Makiloa-Kalalacoastline at the time of initial Europeancontact. This represents a roughly three-foldincrease in households from the earliest set-tlement period, with perhaps a simultaneousdoubling or tripling of the population alongthe coast.

These transformations match our expec-tations for the transition fromaDMP inwhichhouseholds acted as largely autonomouseconomic units, to a regionally integratedpolitical economy. While it is likely thatthe increase in numbers of archaeologicalfeatures during this period was in part a re-flection of population growth (Kirch 2007b),the morphology and size of primary andsecondary residences is also indicative ofchanging patterns of residence. We attributethischange to the transformationofHawaiianhouseholds, and an emphasis on surplusproduction of food and material goods, alongwith increased specialization and probablyalso the gender differentiation in activitiesdescribed from the contact period. Fishingand the exploitation of marine resourceswas common to all of the households along




this leeward coast, but NISP counts of fau-nal remains demonstrate an increase in thecollection of fish at complexes that date tothe late phase (post–AD 1650). Dog and pigappear to have been consumed rarely by theearlier households, but increase in frequencyin the late period.

A final issue is whether the householdsthat occupied the coastal residential featuresin Makiloa-Kalala were strictly specializedin marine exploitation, exchanging marineproducts with farming households whichresided permanently in the upland fieldsystem; or, whether these coastal featuresrepresent only the marine-focused parts ofhouseholds that integrated both farmingand marine exploitation into their domesticeconomies. These two opposed models havebeen debated for many years in Hawai-ian archaeology (e.g., Tuggle and Griffin1973). Our 2007–2008 coastal feature ex-cavations do not as yet support either ofthese two models exclusively. Excavations inupland residential complexes, to be under-taken as a part of our continuing research,may yield evidence to help resolve thisdebate.

Our data also imply a differentiationbetween commoner and elite householdssometime after ca. AD 1650. The single elitehousehold in the sample, MKI-56 (Complex5e), liesat theboundarybetweenMakiloaandKalala, directly opposite the KAL-1 heiau,and Kamilo Bay, and based on the datedcoral sample from under the wall foundationwas first constructed sometime after AD1623. As described above, the position of anelite residence at this important ahupua‘aboundary line, as well as the abundanceof artifacts, marine midden, and domesticanimal fauna suggests that this particularhousehold participated in the collection oftribute from Makiloa and Kalala ahupua‘a.This residential complex also exhibits unusu-ally elaborated architecture for the Makiloaand Kalala survey sample, as it includes mul-tiple internal divisions within a single largestructure, an attached shrine with branchcoral, and a possible canoe shed. Otherresidential complexes in Kalala and Makiloaare smaller and simpler, more often com-posed of single-room structures, C-shapes,

and structures with attached semi-circularenclosures.

The 14C and U-series dates from theMKI-56 elite residence and from the KAL-1 heiau, which straddle the importantahupua‘a boundary between Makiloa andKalala, indicate that the temple was probablyconstructed around AD 1600, while theresidence site was constructed a few decadeslater in the early to mid seventeenth century.These key dates thus allow us to proposewith some confidence that the fissioningof an originally much larger territorial unitoccurred at the beginning of the seventeenthcentury.

In sum, the results of our survey andexcavation of residential features in Makiloa-Kalala have begun to offer several linesof evidence that we expect will allow usto begin to parameterize the key variablesdefined graphically in Figure 1. The resultssummarized here are only the first in aprojected three seasons of fieldwork. Ourfuture plans include expanding work to twosample ahupua‘a in the central core ofthe Kohala region, as well as to residentialfeatures situated within the upland fieldsystem. Our eventual goal is to trace howchanges in the domestic mode of productionin late pre-contact Hawai‘i may yield furtherinsights into the transformation of this mosthierarchical and stratified of all Polynesiansocieties.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The 2007–2008 survey and excavationsin Makiloa-Kalala were funded by Na-tional Science Foundation Human SocialDynamics program grant BCS-0624238.Additional financial support was providedby the Class of 1954 Fund of the UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeleyand theUniversityofAuckland. We thank the State of Hawai‘i De-partment of Land and Natural Resources,and the State Historic Preservation Officefor permission to carry out archaeologicalresearch on State lands. Students from theUniversity of Auckland and the Univer-sity of Hawai‘i HARP field school projectassisted with the survey and excavations,

82 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



and students from The Ohio State Univer-sity assisted with the laboratory analyses.Robin Connors assisted throughout theexcavations. Warren Sharp of the BerkeleyGeochronology Center carried out the U-series dating of coral samples. We also wishto thank Michael Graves and Mark McCoyof the HARP project.

END NOTE

1. Throughout thispaperweusetheterm‘feature’rather than the term ‘site’. This is in contrast tomany conventional approaches in archaeologywhere ‘sites’ contain ‘features’. Our use of theterm ‘feature’ is an intentional rejection ofthis conventional site-based approach (sensuDunnell and Dancey 1983; Kirch 1985; Weislerand Kirch 1985). Recording the archaeologicalrecordat thefeaturescaleallowsforgreaterpre-cision, and it removes the problems associatedwith over-applying a functional classificationto spatially contiguous or adjacent features.This is particularly useful for the Hawaiianarchaeological record, in which many features(such as the kauhale residential system) hadspecific functions, but were often in closespatial proximity to one another.

REFERENCES

American Numismatic Society. 2008. Web site,http://numismatics.org/collection/1940.88.650(accessed April 2009).

Ashmore, W. and R. Wilk. 1988. House andhousehold in the Mesoamerican past: An In-troduction. In Household and Community inthe Mesoamerican Past (W. Ashmore and R.Wilk, eds.):1–27. Albuquerque: University ofNew Mexico Press.

Barton, C. M., J. Bernabeu, J. E. Aura, O. Gar-cia, S. Schmich, and L. Molina. 2004. Long-term socioecology and contingent landscapes.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory11:253–295.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2001. Development of theradiocarbon calibration program OxCal. Radio-carbon 43(2A):355–363.

Bushnell, O. A. 1993. The Gifts of Civilization:Germs and Genocide in Hawai‘i. Honolulu:University of Hawai‘i Press.

Chayanov, A. V. 1966. The Theory of PeasantEconomy. Homewood, IL: American EconomicAssociation.

Childe, V. G. 1951. Social Evolution. London:Watts and Co.

Chinen, J. J. 1958. The Great Mahele: Hawai‘i’sLand Division of 1848. Honolulu: University ofHawai‘i Press.

Ciolek-Torello, R. S. 1989. Household, floor assem-blages, and the “Pompeii Premise” at Grasshop-per Pueblo. In Households and Communities:Proceedings of the Twenty-first Annual Con-ference of the Archaeological Association ofthe University of Calgary. (S. MacEachern, D.Archer, and R. Garvin, eds.):201–208. Calgary:The University of Calgary.

Cordy, R. 1981. A Study of Prehistoric SocialChange: The Development of Complex Soci-eties in the Hawaiian Islands. New York:Academic Press.

Cordy, R., M. Kaschko. 1980. Prehistoric ar-chaeology in the Hawaiian Islands: Land unitsassociated with social groups. Journal of FieldArchaeology 7:403–416.

Dunnell, R. C. and W. S. Dancey. 1983. The sitelesssurvey: A regional scale data collection strategy.In Advances in Archaeological Method andTheory (M. B. Schiffer, ed.): (6):267–287. NewYork: Academic Press.

Earle, T. 1997. How Chiefs Come to Power:The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford:Stanford University Press.

Emory, K. P., W. J. Bonk, and Y. H. Sinoto.1959. Hawaiian Archaeology: Fishhooks. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 47.Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Flannery, K. V. (ed.). 1976. The Early Mesoamer-ican Village. New York: Academic Press.

Fox, J. J. (ed.).1993. Inside Austronesian Houses:Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living.Canberra: Australian National University.

Graves, M. W., B. V. O’Connor, and T. N. Lade-foged. 2002. Tracking changes in community-scaled organization in Kohala and Kona, Hawai‘iIsland. In Pacific Landscapes: ArchaeologicalApproaches (T. N. Ladefoged and M. W. Graves,eds.):231–254. Los Osos: Easter Island Founda-tion Press.

Handy, E. S. C. and M. K. Pukui. 1958. ThePolynesian Family System in Ka‘u, Hawai‘i.Wellington: The Polynesian Society.

Hartshorn, A. S., P. V. Kirch, O. A. Chadwick, andP. M. Vitousek. 2006. Prehistoric agriculturaldepletion of soil nutrients in Hawai‘i. Proceed-ings of the National Academy of Sciences103:11092–11097.

Johnson, A. W., T. Earle. 1987. The Evolution ofHuman Societies: From Foraging Groups toAgrarian State. Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.




Kahn, J. G. and P. V. Kirch. 2004. Ethnographieprehistorique d’une “societe a maisons” dansla vallee de ‘Opunohu (Mo‘orea, ıles de laSociete). Journal de la Societe des Oceanistes119:229–256.

Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of PolynesianChiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks:An Introduction to Hawaiian ArchaeologyandPrehistory.Honolulu:UniversityofHawai‘iPress.

Kirch, P. V. 2006. From Chiefdom to ArchaicState: Sociopolitical Evolution in Hawai‘i.Schalitt Memorial Lecture. Provo: BrighamYoung University.

Kirch, P. V. 2007a. Hawai‘i as a model systemfor human ecodynamics. American Anthropol-ogist 109:8–26.

Kirch, P. V. 2007b. “Like shoals of fish”: Archae-ology and population in pre-contact Hawai‘i.In The Growth and Collapse of Pacific Is-land Societies: Archaeological and Demo-graphic Perspectives (P. V. Kirch and J.-L. Rallu,eds.):52–69. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘iPress.

Kirch, P. V. 2007c. Paleodemography in Kahik-inui, Maui: An archaeological approach. InThe Growth and Collapse of Pacific IslandSocieties: Archaeological and DemographicPerspectives (P. V. Kirch and J.-L. Rallu,eds.):90–107. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘iPress.

Kirch, P. V., O. Chadwick, S. Tuljapurkar, T. Lade-foged, M. Graves, S. Hotchkiss, and P. Vitousek.2007. Human ecodynamics in the Hawaiianecosystem, 1200–200 BP. In The Model-BasedArchaeology of Socionatural Systems (T. A.Kohler and S. E. van der Leeuw, eds.):121–139.Oxford: Oxford University Press (for Santa FeInstitute).

Kirch, P. V. and R. C. Green. 2001. Hawaiki,Ancestral Polynesia: An Essay in Historical An-thropology. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Kirch, P. V., A. Hartshorn, O. Chadwick, P.Vitousek, D. Sherrod, J. Coil, L. Holm, and W.Sharp. 2004. Environment, agriculture, and set-tlement patterns in a marginal Polynesian land-scape. Proceedings of the National Academyof Sciences, U.S.A. 101:9936–9941.

Kirch, P. V. and S. O’Day. 2002. New archae-ological insights into food and status: A casefrom precontact Hawai‘i. World Archaeology34:484–497.

Kirch, P. V. and W. D. Sharp. 2005. Coral 230Th dat-ingof the impositionofa ritualcontrolhierarchy

in precontact Hawai‘i. Science 307:102–104.Kolb, M. J. and J. E. Snead. 1997. It’s a small world

after all: Comparative analyses of community or-ganization inArchaeology.AmericanAntiquity62:609–628.

Ladefoged, T. N. 1991. Hawaiian architecturaltransformations during the early historic era.Asian Perspectives 30(1):57–69.

Ladefoged, T. N. 1993. Evolutionary Process inan Oceanic Chiefdom: Intergroup Aggressionand Political Integration in Traditional Ro-tuman Society. Doctoral Dissertation, Depart-ment of Anthropology, University of Hawai‘i,Honolulu. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.

Ladefoged, T. N. 1995. The evolutionary ecol-ogy of Rotuman political integration. Jour-nal of Anthropological Archaeology 14:341–358.

Ladefoged, T. N. and M. W. Graves. 2000. Evolu-tionary theory and the historical developmentof dry land agriculture in North Kohala, Hawai‘i.American Antiquity 65:423–448.

Ladefoged T. N. and M. W. Graves. 2006. The for-mation of Hawaiian territories. In Archaeologyof Oceania (I. Lilly, ed.):259–283, New York:Blackwell Press.

Ladefoged, T. N., M. W. Graves. 2008. Variabledevelopment of dryland agriculture in Hawai‘i:A fine-grained chronology from the Kohala FieldSystem, Hawai‘i Island. Current Anthropology49:771–802.

Ladefoged, T. N., M. W. Graves, and R. P. Jennings.1996. Dryland agricultural expansion and inten-sification in Kohala, Hawai‘i Island. Antiquity70:861–880.

Ladefoged, T. N., C. Lee, and M. W. Graves.2008. Modeling life expectancy and surplusproduction of dynamic pre-contact territoriesin Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i. Journal of Anthro-pological Archaeology 27:93–110.

Levi-Strauss, C. 1979. Nobles Suavages. In Cul-ture, Science, et Developpement: Contributiona une Histoire de l’Homme: Melanges enl’Honneur de Charles Moraze, pp. 41–55.Toulouse: Privat.

Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities. BerniceP. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 2.Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.

Massal, E. and J. Barrau. 1973. Food Plants of theSouth Sea Islands. South Pacific CommissionTechnical Paper No. 94. Noumea: South PacificCommission.

McGlade, J. 1995. Archaeology and the eco-dynamics of human modified landscapes. An-tiquity 69:113–132.

O’Connor,B.V.1998.Spatial and Temporal Vari-ation in Hawaiian Residential Architecture: A

84 VOLUME 5 • ISSUE 1 • 2010



Seriation Study of Selected Coastal Settlementsin Northern Hawai‘i Island. Unpublished M.A.thesis, University of Auckland.

Reid, J. J. and S. M. Whittlesley, 1982. Householdsat Grasshopper Pueblo. American BehavioralScientist 25:687–704.

Reimer, P., M. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J. Beck,C. Bertrand, P. Blackwell, et al. 2004. Intcal04terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration 0–26 calkyr bp. Radiocarbon 46:1029–1058.

Rosendahl, P. H. 1972. Aboriginal Agricultureand Residence Patterns in Upland Lapakahi,Island of Hawai‘i. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univer-sity of Hawai‘i.

Rosendahl, P. H. 1994. Aboriginal Hawaiian struc-tural remains and settlement patterns in theupland agricultural zone at Lapakahi, Island ofHawai‘i. Hawaiian Archaeology 3:14–70.

Sahlins, M. D. 1972. Stone Age Economics.Chicago: Aldine.

Sahlins, M. D. 1992. Historical Ethnography. Vol.2 of Anahulu: The Anthropology of History inthe Kingdom of Hawai‘i (P. V. Kirch and M. D.Sahlins). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schmidt, R. C. 1968. Demographic Statistics ofHawai‘i, 1778–1965. Honolulu: University ofHawai‘i Press.

Service, E. 1975. Origins of the State and Civi-lization: A Process of Cultural Evolution. NewYork: Norton.

Sinoto,Y.H.1967.Artifacts fromexcavatedsites inthe Hawaiian, Marquesas, and Society Islands. In

Polynesian Culture History: Essays in Honorof Kenneth P. Emory (G. A. Highland, R. Force,A. Howard, M. Kelly, and Y. Sinoto, eds.):341–361. Bernice P. Bishop Museum SpecialPublication 56. Honolulu: Bishop MuseumPress.

Soehren, L. J. and D. P. Tuohy, 1987. Archaeolog-ical Excavations at Pu‘uhonua o HonaunauNational Historical Park, Honaunau, Kona,Hawai‘i. Department of Anthropology Report87–2. Honolulu: Bishop Museum.

Tuggle, H. D. and B. P. Griffin (eds.) 1973.Lapakahi, Hawai‘i: Archaeological Studies.Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No. 5.Honolulu: Social Science Research Institute.

Valeri, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritualand Society in Ancient Hawai‘i. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Vitousek, P. M., T. Ladefoged, A. Hartshorn, P. V.Kirch, M. Graves, S. Hotchkiss, S. Tuljapurkar,and O. Chadwick. 2004. Soils, agriculture,and society in precontact Hawai‘i. Science304:1665–1669.

Weisler, M. and P. V. Kirch. 1985. The struc-ture of settlement space in a Polynesianchiefdom: Kawela, Molokai, Hawaiian Islands.New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 7:129–158.

Wilk, R. R. and W. L. Rathje. 1982. Archaeol-ogy of the Household: Building a Prehistoryof the Domestic Life. Beverley Hills: SagePublications.



2010 Households and Hierarchy: Domestic Modes of Production in Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i Island

Documents

Transcript of 2010 Households and Hierarchy: Domestic Modes of Production in Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i Island