HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-10-01 Draft Archaeological Inventory Survey Ainako Affordable Housing
ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY
FOR THE AINAKO AFFORDABLE
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Tax Map Key (3) 2-3-030 :001(por.), 004, and
(3) 2-3-031:001 (por.)
October 1, 2025
Prepared for:
County of Hawaiʻi Office of Housing and
Community Development
1990 Kino‘ole Street, Suite 102
Hilo, Hawai‘i 96720
and
Okahara and Asssociates, Inc.
200 Kohola Avenue
Hilo, HI 96720
Prepared by:
Benjamin Barna, Ph.D.
Project Number:
093046
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 i
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. I
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... VI
ACRONYMS / ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... VIII
GLOSSARY .............................................................................................................................. IX
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 11
1.1 Project Area Description .............................................................................................................. 15
2 METHODS .................................................................................................................. 23
2.1 Consultation ................................................................................................................................. 23
2.2 Fieldwork ..................................................................................................................................... 23
2.2.1 Pedestrian Survey ....................................................................................................................... 23
2.2.2 Site and Feature Recordation ..................................................................................................... 24
2.2.3 Subsurface Testing ...................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.4 Cultural Material Recordation ...................................................................................................... 24
2.2.5 Post-Fieldwork Analysis .............................................................................................................. 25
3 BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 26
3.1 Culture-Historical Context............................................................................................................ 26
3.1.1 Punahoa in the Precontact Period ............................................................................................... 28
3.1.2 1779-1848: Early contact and Cultural Exchange ....................................................................... 38
3.1.3 1848-1851: The Māhele and the ABCFM.................................................................................... 41
3.1.4 The Late 19th Century: Surrounded by Sugar ............................................................................. 46
3.1.5 The early 20th century: Water Rights and Water Fights .............................................................. 51
3.1.6 Late 20th century: The End of Surface Spring Fed Water and A proposal for a “Wilderness Park”
..................................................................................................................................................... 61
3.2 Prior Archaeological Studies ....................................................................................................... 69
3.2.1 Studies in the Project Area .......................................................................................................... 72
3.2.2 Studies Makai of the Project Area ............................................................................................... 75
3.2.3 Studies Mauka of the Project Area .............................................................................................. 75
3.2.4 Relevant Studies in Piʻihonua ...................................................................................................... 75
4 CONSULTATION ........................................................................................................ 77
4.1 Office of Hawaiian Affairs ............................................................................................................ 77
4.2 State Historic Preservation Division ............................................................................................ 78
4.3 Leilehua Yuen .............................................................................................................................. 78
4.4 Ronald and Doreen Kodani ......................................................................................................... 79
5 PROJECT AREA EXPECTATIONS ............................................................................ 81
5.1 Anticipated Feature Types .......................................................................................................... 81
5.1.1 Feature Types ............................................................................................................................. 82
5.1.2 Complexes ................................................................................................................................... 84
5.2 Temporal Affiliations (Age) of Features ....................................................................................... 85
5.3 Functional Interpretations ............................................................................................................ 86
6 RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 89
6.1 Survey Results ............................................................................................................................ 91
6.1.1 SIHP 50-10-35-14947 (Hilo Boarding School Ditch .................................................................... 91
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 ii
6.1.2 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 (Agricultural Site Complex) ..................................................................... 96
6.1.3 SIHP 50-10-35-T1 (Kaūmana Springs Hilo City Water Works) ................................................. 186
6.1.4 SIHP 50-10-35-T2 (Kupapau Hill Hawaiʻi Trangulation Station) ............................................... 189
7 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 192
7.1 Supplying Water to Punahoa Makai .......................................................................................... 192
7.1.1 The Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947) .......................................................... 192
7.1.2 Hilo City Water Works Kaūmana Springs Intake (SIHP 50-10-35-T1) ...................................... 194
7.2 Agricultural Use of the Upper Kula in Hilo ................................................................................. 196
7.2.1 Determining the Age and Intensity of Agriculture ...................................................................... 196
7.2.2 Re-evaluation of land use history in the Project Area ............................................................... 198
7.3 Land Tenure and Land Survey .................................................................................................. 204
8 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 205
8.1 Significance Evaluations............................................................................................................ 205
8.1.1 SIHP 50-10-35-14947 (Hilo Boarding School Ditch) ................................................................. 206
8.1.2 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 (Agricultural Site Complex) ................................................................... 208
8.1.3 SIHP 50-10-35-T1 (HilO City Water Works Kaūmana Springs) ................................................ 210
8.2 SIHP 50-10-35-T2 (Kupapau Hill Triangulation Station) ........................................................... 211
9 DETERMINATION OF EFFECT AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS............ 213
9.1 Project Effects ........................................................................................................................... 213
9.2 Recommended Project Mitigation ............................................................................................. 213
9.2.1 Preservation Recommendations ............................................................................................... 213
9.2.2 Data Recovery Recommendations ............................................................................................ 214
9.2.3 Archaeological Monitoring Recommendations .......................................................................... 215
10 REFERENCES CITED .............................................................................................. 220
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Land Commission Awards and Claims in Punahoa 2. .................................................................. 44
Table 2. Numbered lots depicted in the project area on Registered Map 2058. ........................................ 52
Table 3. Prior archaeological studies in Punahoa 2 and in the project area vicinity................................... 69
Table 4 Identified Sites ................................................................................................................................ 89
Table 5 SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Stream Bank Reinforcement in the Project Area ....................................... 92
Table 6 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of Archaeological Feature Types by Age .................................. 97
Table 7 Individual Features of SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Identified in the Project Area .................................. 98
Table 8 Features grouped into complexes within SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the Project Area .................. 120
Table 9 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Feature 01-04 Agricultural Complex subfeatures .................................... 124
Table 10 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Feature 08-05 Habitation Complex subfeatures .................................... 137
Table 11 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Feature 14-03 Habitation Complex subfeatures .................................... 141
Table 12 Artifacts identified in Feature 14-05 ........................................................................................... 148
Table 13 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Free Standing Walls .............................................................................. 158
Table 14. Numbered historic lots depicted in the project area on Registered Map 2058. ........................ 159
Table 15 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Modified Outcrops in the Project Area ................................................... 165
Table 16 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Mounds, Mound/Platforms, and Platforms in the Project Area .............. 168
Table 17 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Rock Piles .............................................................................................. 177
Table 18 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Terraces ................................................................................................. 178
Table 19 Isolated Artifacts Associated with SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the Project Area ........................... 180
Table 20 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of features by type in the Project Area .................................. 181
Table 21 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of features by function in the Project Area ............................ 182
Table 22 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of features by age in the Project Area ................................... 182
Table 23 SIHP 50-10-35-T1 Kaūmana Springs Hilo City Water Works Features .................................... 186
Table 24 SIHP 50-10-35-T2 Kupapau Hill Trig. Station Features............................................................. 189
Table 25 Site Signficance Recommendations .......................................................................................... 206
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 iii
Table 26 Mitigation Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 216
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project area location. ................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 2. Tax Map Key ................................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 3. Conceptual Project Design .......................................................................................................... 14
Figure 4. Project area location .................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 5. Surface geology in the project area vicinity. ................................................................................ 18
Figure 6. Soils in the project area vicinity. .................................................................................................. 19
Figure 7. Ainako Stream at the east end of the Project area, view to the northeast. ................................. 20
Figure 8. Gently sloped area in the western end of the Project Area, view to the south. ........................... 21
Figure 9. Project area overview, road corridor, view to the south............................................................... 22
Figure 10. Punahoa 2, Piʻihonua, and other nearby ahupuaʻa ................................................................... 27
Figure 11. Modeled ‘Āīna Momona Shown in Pink (Gon et al. 2018:Figure 7) .......................................... 29
Figure 12. Map submitted in 1849 with Land Commission Award 387, Part 4, ‘Āpana 1 ........................... 33
Figure 13. Detail of named places on Registered Map 1790 (Loebenstein 1895) ..................................... 35
Figure 14. Detail of Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ....................................................................... 36
Figure 15. Named places in the Project Area vicinity ................................................................................. 37
Figure 16. Detail of Malden’s (1841) chart of Waiakea or Byron Bay surveyed in 1825 ............................ 40
Figure 17. Map of Hilo Town Titles (Lyman 1882) with kuleana parcels indicated ..................................... 45
Figure 18. Advertisement for a lease auction of the HEA’s Punahoa 2 lands, including the Project Area . 48
Figure 19. Registered Map 1744 (Lyman 1853) with the Project Area indicated. ...................................... 49
Figure 20. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map 1744 (Lyman 1853) containing the project area. ................ 50
Figure 21. Detail of 1911-1912 Territorial Real Property Tax Ledger ......................................................... 54
Figure 22. Detail of Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ....................................................................... 57
Figure 23. Map of project area circa 1913 with county waterworks and lots indicated .............................. 58
Figure 24. Portion of 1934 Map of the Hilo Sugar Company (courtesy of John Cross). ............................ 59
Figure 25. Survey of Hilo Boarding School Ditch right of way through the Project Area (Newton 1937). .. 60
Figure 26. Aerial photograph of project area in 1954 ................................................................................. 62
Figure 27. Aerial photograph of project area in 1965 ................................................................................. 63
Figure 28. 1977 USGS aerial photograph of the Project Area .................................................................... 64
Figure 29. 1977 USGS aerial photograph of the Project Area .................................................................... 65
Figure 30. Advertisement for Ainako Terrace Subdivision Unit II (RSM, Inc. 1977) ................................... 67
Figure 31. Hilo Boarding School Ditch easement overlain on 1985 aerial imagery.................................... 68
Figure 32. Location of prior archaeological studies in the project area vicinity. ......................................... 70
Figure 33. Location of previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area vicinity ...................... 71
Figure 34. Site location map from Sinoto (1978) with the current project area indicated ........................... 73
Figure 35. Site location map from Sinoto (1978) overlain on 1977 USGS aerial photograph .................... 74
Figure 36. Site location map ....................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 37. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Hilo Boarding School Ditch, artificial segment, view southeast ............. 92
Figure 38. Plan view of Site 50-10-35-14947 Hilo Boarding School Ditch ................................................. 93
Figure 39. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature B stream bank reinforcement, view to the northwest ............... 94
Figure 40. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature C stream bank reinforcement, view to the west ....................... 94
Figure 41. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature D stream bank reinforcement, view to the west ....................... 95
Figure 42. Detail of SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature E stream bank reinforcement, view to the west ......... 95
Figure 43. Identified features in Lot 1 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ................ 103
Figure 44. Features identified in Lot 2 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 104
Figure 45. Features identified in Lot 3 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 105
Figure 46. Features identified in Lot 4 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 106
Figure 47. Features identified in Lot 5 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 107
Figure 48. Features identified in Lot 6 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 108
Figure 49. Features identified in Lot 7 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 109
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 iv
Figure 50. Features identified in Lot 8 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 110
Figure 51. Features identified in Lot 9 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............... 111
Figure 52. Features identified in Lot 10 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............. 112
Figure 53. Features identified in Lot 11 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............. 113
Figure 54. Features identified in Lot 12 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............. 114
Figure 55. Features identified in Lot 13 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............. 115
Figure 56. Features identified in Lot 14 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............. 116
Figure 57. Features identified in Lot 15 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) ............. 117
Figure 58. Identified features in the Road Corridor ................................................................................... 118
Figure 59. Features identified southeast of the ‘Ainakō Stream tributary ................................................. 119
Figure 60. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-04A, view to the west ...................................................... 121
Figure 61. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-04B, view to the west ........................................................ 121
Figure 62. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-04C, view to the west ........................................................ 122
Figure 63. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-04D, view to the west ........................................................ 122
Figure 64. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-09 plan view ...................................................................... 125
Figure 65. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09E, F, and I, view to the west ........................................ 126
Figure 66. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09A, mound, view to the north ........................................ 126
Figure 67. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09C, mound, view to the north ........................................ 127
Figure 68. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09D, mound, view to the north. ....................................... 127
Figure 69. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09G, mound, view to the northeast. ................................ 128
Figure 70. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09H, mound, view to the north. ....................................... 128
Figure 71. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09B remnant wall, view to the southwest. ....................... 129
Figure 72. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09, habitation complex ...................................................... 130
Figure 73. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09, habitation complex, view to the southwest ................. 131
Figure 74. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09, habitation complex plan view ...................................... 132
Figure 75. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09 Subfeature G, rock wall, view to the northwest ............ 134
Figure 76. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-08, mound, view to the northwest ..................................... 135
Figure 77. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-08, mound, planview ......................................................... 136
Figure 78. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05, Habitation Complex, plan view .................................... 138
Figure 79. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05A, terrace, view to the southwest .................................. 139
Figure 80. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05B, terrace, view to the north .......................................... 139
Figure 81. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05C, L-shaped wall, view to the south .............................. 140
Figure 82. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-02, 14-04, and 14-04, habitation complex, plan view ....... 142
Figure 83. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-02, platform, view to the northwest ................................... 143
Figure 84. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03 overview to the southeast ............................................ 144
Figure 85. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03A, view to the southwest ............................................... 144
Figure 86. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03B rock ring, view to the southwest ................................ 145
Figure 87. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03C, view to the northwest ................................................ 145
Figure 88. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03D, view to the southwest ............................................... 146
Figure 89. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03E, view to the northwest ................................................ 146
Figure 90. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-04, platform, view to the west ........................................... 147
Figure 91. Feature 14-05 Artifact Concentration ...................................................................................... 148
Figure 92. Feature 00-04, ditch, view to the southeast ............................................................................. 149
Figure 93. Feature 03-16, wall along bank of drainage, view to the west ................................................ 150
Figure 94. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, habitation terrace, view to the southwest .................... 152
Figure 95. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, enclosure, plan view ................................................... 153
Figure 96. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, historic bottles buried in southern corner of feature ... 154
Figure 97. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, exposed cobble with abrasions on surface ................. 154
Figure 98. Feature 11-04, enclosure interior, view to the south ............................................................... 155
Figure 99. Plan view of Feature 11-04 and nearby features ..................................................................... 156
Figure 100. Feature 05-18, core-filled wall segment, view to the west ..................................................... 159
Figure 101. Feature 11-01, stacked wall segment, view to the west ........................................................ 160
Figure 102. Feature 12-01, piled wall segment, view to the north ............................................................ 160
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 v
Figure 103. Feature 15-01, wall segment damaged by fallen tree, view to the north ............................... 161
Figure 104. Feature 10-06, wall segment damaged by autograph tree roots, view to the west ............... 161
Figure 105. Feature 09-13, wall, view to the northwest ............................................................................ 162
Figure 106. Comparison of walls with Registered Map 2058 historic lot boundaries ............................... 163
Figure 107. Feature 15-01, wall, view to the west .................................................................................... 164
Figure 108. Feature 10-01, wall, view to the west .................................................................................... 164
Figure 109. Feature 13-10, modified outcrop, view to the southeast ....................................................... 165
Figure 110. Feature 03-18, modified spring wall, view to the south ......................................................... 166
Figure 111. Feature 03-18, modified spring plan view with surrounding features .................................... 167
Figure 112. Feature 15-04, piled mound, view to the east ....................................................................... 169
Figure 113. Feature 03-07, mound with well-stacked sides, view to the west .......................................... 170
Figure 114. Feature 03-12, mound/platform, view to the northeast .......................................................... 170
Figure 115. Feature 03-12 plan view ........................................................................................................ 171
Figure 116. Hoe head resting on Feature 09-09 ....................................................................................... 172
Figure 117. Feature 07-02, platform, view to the west ............................................................................. 173
Figure 118. Feature 15-13, platform, view to the south ............................................................................ 173
Figure 119. Feature 15-13, platform in context with surrounding features, plan view .............................. 174
Figure 120. Feature 13-19, retaining wall, view to the southeast ............................................................. 175
Figure 121. Feature 15-26, retaining wall, view to the northwest ............................................................. 176
Figure 122. Feature 15-28, retaining wall, view to the west ..................................................................... 176
Figure 123. Feature 14-02, rock pile, view to the southeast ..................................................................... 177
Figure 124. Feature 15-27, terrace, view to the south .............................................................................. 179
Figure 125. Feature 15-27, northern corner of terrace, view to the southwest ......................................... 179
Figure 126. Feature 09-10, terrace overlooking Ainako Stream tributary (at left), view to the south ....... 180
Figure 127. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Distribution of Features by Type ....................................................... 183
Figure 128. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Distribution of Features by Function .................................................. 184
Figure 129. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Distribution of Features by Age ......................................................... 185
Figure 130. SIHP 50 10-35-T1 Plan View ................................................................................................. 187
Figure 131. SIHP 50 10-35-T1 Feature A, spring house foundation, view to the northeast ..................... 187
Figure 132. SIHP 50 10-35-T1 Feature B, cast-iron water pipe connecting the spring house ................. 188
Figure 133. SIHP 50 10-35-T2 Feature A, Hawaii Triangulation Station, view to the south ..................... 190
Figure 134. SIHP 50 10-35-T2 Feature B, excavated area, view to the north .......................................... 191
Figure 135. SIHP 50 10-35-T2 Feature C, excavated area, view to the north ......................................... 191
Figure 136. Circa 1913 map with identified features of SIHP 50 10-35-T1 .............................................. 195
Figure 137. Comparison of identified feature of SIHP 50 10-35-T1 with Registered Map 2058 .............. 196
Figure 138. Comparison of Sinoto’s (1978) results with the current study ............................................... 201
Figure 139. Features Identified Near Building on ca. 1913 County of Hawaiʻi Public Works Map. .......... 203
Figure 140. Overlay of Proposed Project and Archaeological Sites and Features, Phase 1 ................... 217
Figure 141. Overlay of Proposed Project and Archaeological Sites and Features, Phase 2 ................... 218
Figure 142. Recommended Mitigation Treatments ................................................................................... 219
APPENDIX
A. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area ............................................................................. 231
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 vi
Executive Summary
At the request of Okahara and Associates, on behalf of the Hawaiʻi County Office of Housing and
Community Development (“OHCD”), Stantec GS Inc. (“Stantec”) conducted an Archaeological Inventory
Survey (“AIS”) for the proposed Ainako Development Project (“the Project”) of an approximately 72 acre
project area located in the two ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2nd and Piʻihonua, South Hilo District, Island of
Hawaiʻi. The Project Area includes Tax Map Key (“TMK”) (3) 2-3-030:004, which is owned by Hawaiʻi
County, and a proposed road corridor easement that extends from Waianuenue Avenue across two
State-owned parcels (TMKs: (3) 2-3-030:001 and 2-3-031:001) onto the County-owned parcel. The
OHCD proposes to develop a portion of the Project Area for a workforce housing project, and to construct
a new road in the proposed road corridor.
Background research included archival research conducted using sources from various physical and
digital repositories, and through consultation with groups and individuals with knowledge of the Project
Area and its history. This research indicated a history of agricultural use in the Project Area and historical
incidents related to the protection and expansion of the Hilo town water supply in the early 20th century.
The Project Area was included in a prior archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted by the Bishop
Museum in 1978 as part of a larger study area associated with the County of Hawaiʻi, Department of
Parks and Recreation proposed development of the Kaumana Springs Wilderness Park. The survey
identified six clusters of archaeological features that were interpreted as exhibiting characteristics that are
“more typical of prehistoric construction than of historic construction.”
Archaeological fieldwork for the current AIS consisted of a 100% coverage pedestrian survey. No
systematic subsurface testing was conducted due to generally shallow, but variable sediment and soil
accumulations throughout the Project Area and the presence of numerous surface features suggestive of
agricultural clearing. The current archaeological fieldwork identified portions of two previously recorded
archaeological sites (SIHP 50-10-35-14047 and SIHP 50-10-35-18696) and two newly identified
archaeological sites. A total of 212 archaeological features were identified.
SIHP 50-10-35-14947 is the Hilo Boarding School Ditch. Within the current Project Area, five features
associated with the Hilo Boarding School Ditch were identified. Based on portions of the site recorded
elsewhere, it was previously determined to be significant under Criteria “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”, and “e” (Jensen
1991). The portion of site in the Project Area retains sufficient integrity in all relevant categories to
contribute to the site’s significance under Criteria "a”, “b”, “c”, and “e”. It is recommended for preservation.
SIHP 50-10-35-18696 is an agricultural site complex previously identified by Sinoto (1978). In the Project
Area, 181 individual archaeological features, including 5 complexes with a total of 29 subfeatures, were
identified as part of the site. Features included 5 complexes, 2 ditches, 2 enclosures, 23 freestanding
walls, 5 modified outcrops, 2 modified springs, 111 mounds, 8 mound/platforms, 2 platforms, 3 retaining
wall, 4 rock piles, and 15 terraces. Functions represented by the features included agriculture (n=135),
indeterminate (n=20), boundary (n=15), water infrastructure (n=4), habitation (n=3), clearing (n=2), animal
pen (n=1), and habitation/agriculture (n=1). Age determinations of most features were hindered by a lack
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 vii
of temporally diagnostic features, and as a result the ages of the features were assessed to be a mix of
Historic (n=70) and Precontact/Historic (n=108) aged features, with 3 of indeterminate age. Based on
correlations with features shown on historic maps and an absence of unequivocally Precontact material
culture, SIHP 50-10-35-18696 is interpreted to represent an agricultural landscape last used during the
early 20th century for small-scale agricuture and livestock husbandry by at least four different tenants of
the Hawaiʻi Evangelical Association (HEA). Although no clear archaeological evidence of Precontact use
of the site was identified, the multiple springs in the makai portion of the Project Area area almost
certainly made it a “persistent place” on the landscape and brought Hawaiians to the area. Nearly all
individual features have some amount of damage from tree roots growing in the dry-stacked rock
constructions and shallow surrounding soils. The portion of site in the Project Area retains sufficient
integrity in all relevant categories to contribute to the site’s significance. The site is recommended
significant under Criteria “a” and “d.” A mix of preservation and data recovery is recommended for
selected features of this site.
SIHP 50-10-35-T1 is a portion of the Hilo City Water Works Kaūmana Springs Intake, including the
concrete foundation of a 20th century spring house and a buried water line connected the spring to the
town water supply. The site is in generally fair condition. It is significant under Criterion “a”. It is
recommended for preservation.
SIHP 50-10-35-T2 is the Kupapau Hill Hawaii Triangulation Station is located at the summit of Kupapau
Hill. It is not recommended significant under any criterion.
The current AIS was undertaken to provide information to facilitate the Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (“HRS”)
section 6E-8, review of the Project by the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic
Preservation Division (“DLNR-SHPD”) in accordance with Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (“HAR”) section
13-275, as well as to inform the HRS chapter 343, environmental impact assessment of the project. The
AIS was conducted in accordance with the Rules Governing Standards for Archaeological Inventory
Surveys and Reports as contained in HAR section 13-276.
.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 viii
Acronyms / Abbreviations
AIS Archaeological Inventory Survey
amsl above mean sea level
cm centimeters
DLNR-SHPD Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic
Preservation Division
GPS Global Positioning System
HAR Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules
HEA Hawaiʻi Evangelical Association
HRS Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes
LCAw Land Commission Award
LiDAR Light Direction and Ranging
m meters
OHCD Hawaiʻi County Office of Housing and Development
SIHP State Inventory of Historic Places
Stantec Stantec GS, Inc.
TMK Tax Map Key
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 ix
Glossary
Meanings of terms in ʻolelo Hawaiʻi listed below are generally derived from Pukui and Elbert’s (1986)
Hawaiian Dictionary. Sources used to elaborate on more specialized terms are cited in the list.
‘auwai The artificial diversion of “a flow” of fresh water by means of a ditch or channel, for
purposes of domestic use and irrigation, is ‘auwai (au meaning a flow or current)
(Handy et al. 2020:77)
ahupuaʻa Land division smaller than a moku (district) and made up of several ʻili (smaller
divisions) and under care of a konohiki (chief having charge of the land on behalf of the
king of chief to whom the land was assigned or awarded) (Lucas 1995)
ʻāina Land, earth, "that which feeds"
aliʻi Chief, chiefess
ʻaumakua (ancestral
deity),
Family or personal gods, deified ancestors who might assume the shape of animals or
plants
hale House or building
hānai holoholona Animal husbandry
ha-wai Flume (Handy et al. 2020:85)
ʻili ʻili Pebble
ʻili kūpono Politically independent subdivision within an ahupuaʻa (Lucas 1995)
imu Underground oven
kamaʻāina "Child of the land"; someone native born or one well-acquainted with an area
kanu kipi Creating mounds of soil in marshy land for planting (Handy et al. 2020:747)
kapu Taboo, restriction; the "kapu system" refers to the social-religious-political structures of
traditional Hawaiian culture
kauhale Group of houses comprising a Hawaiian home, formerly consisting of men's eating
house, women's eating house, sleeping house, cook-house, canoe house, etc.
kīhāpai Small land division, cultivated patch, garden, orchard, field, small farm
konohiki Chief having charge of the land on behalf of the king of chief to whom the land was
assigned or awarded (Lucas 1995)
kū Standing upright
kula Plains or sloping land, generally grassland a few stunted trees and shrubs (Handy et al.
2020:74)
kuleana Generally, rights and responsibilities; kuleana parcels are those claimed after the
Enabling Act of 1850 by tenants asserting rights to them (Garavoy 2005)
loʻi Irrigated taro patch
māhele A portion, division, section, etc. The division of lands in 1848 among the mōʻī, aliʻi, and
government is referred to as the māhele of 1848, previously as "the great māhele"
makaʻāinana Commoners in traditional Hawaiian culture
makai Toward the sea
mana Divine power
mauka Toward the mountains
Mōʻī King, sovereign, monarch, majesty, ruler, queen
moku Land division larger than an ahupuaʻa, a "social-ecological region" roughly equivalent to
a modern "district", stewarded by an aliʻi ʻai moku (Beamer and Tong 2016)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 x
moʻolelo Native traditions and historical accounts
ʻolelo Hawaiʻi Hawaiian language
oli Traditional Hawaiian language chant that was not danced to
one Sand, sandy
pāhoehoe Basaltic lava that has a smooth, hummocky, or ropy surface. A pahoehoe flow typically
advances as a series of small lobes and toes that continually break out from a
cooled crust.
pali Cliff
pu‘uhonua Places of refuge
puna wai Freshwater spring
puʻu Geographically, a hill, peak, or cinder cone
wai Fresh water
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 11
1 Introduction
At the request of Okahara and Associates, on behalf of the Hawaiʻi County Office of Housing and
Community Development (“OHCD”), Stantec GS Inc. (“Stantec”) conducted an Archaeological Inventory
Survey (“AIS”) for a proposed workforce housing development (“the Project”) within an approximately 72
acre area (“the Project Area”) located in the two ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2nd and Piʻihonua, South Hilo
District, Island of Hawaiʻi (Figure 1). The Project Area includesTax Map Key (“TMK”) (3) 2-3-030:004,
which is owned by Hawaiʻi County, and a proposed road corridor easement that extends from
Waianuenue Avenue across two State-owned parcels (TMKs: (3) 2-3-030:001 and 2-3-031:001) onto the
County-owned parcel (Figure 2). The OHCD proposes to develop a portion of the Project Area for a
workforce housing project, and to construct a new road in the proposed road corridor. The proposed
project would consist of infrastructure development of single-family and multi-family housing with phased
construction to accommodate timing of funding and housing demand. Phase 1 (pictured at right in Figure
3) would include construction of up to 82 townhomes and 28 flats (110 residential units) in about the
middle third of the Project Area mauka of Kupapau Hill. Phase 2 (pictured at left in in Figure 3) would
include up to 34 single-family units. The total number of units would be up to 144 at final build-out.
The current AIS was undertaken to provide information to facilitate the §6E-8, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes
(“HRS”) review of the Project by the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic
Preservation Division (“DLNR-SHPD”) in accordance with Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules (“HAR”) §13-275,
as well as to inform the §343, HRS environmental impact assessment of the project. The AIS was
conducted in accordance with the Rules Governing Standards for Archaeological Inventory Surveys and
Reports as contained in HAR §13-276. This report presents information regarding the proposed project
and the scope of work for the current AIS, a description of the project area environment, the results of
background research including historic and archaeological contexts, consultation, and the current survey
expectations based on that prior work, followed by an explanation of the archaeological field survey
methods, a description of the field findings, the presentation of significance assessments and treatment
recommendations for the documented historic properties, and recommendations including project effect
and mitigation commitments.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 12
Figure 1. Project area location.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 13
Figure 2. Tax Map Key
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 14
Figure 3. Conceptual Project Design
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 15
1.1 Project Area Description
The project area is located on the lower flank of Mauna Loa (Sherrod et al. 2021) at elevations ranging
between approximately 400 and 700 feet above mean sea level (amsl), approximately 2.0 miles from the
coast at Hilo Bay. The terrain in the project area slopes gently to moderately toward the east, rising
slightly around Kupapau Hill. The moderate eastward slope is occasionally broken by steep declines and
fault scarps, and also by several areas of relatively low slope where soil and water accumulate. Deeply
incised stream channels extend through the project area.
Surface geology (Figure 5) consists of a patchwork tholeiitic basalt lava flows and tephra deposits on
Pleistocene-era (greater than 10,000 years old) lava flows from Mauna Loa (Sherrod et al. 2021). The
majority of the project area is underlain by 11,000- to 30,000-year-old tephra deposits originating from two
puʻu: Kupapaʻu at the eastern end of the project area and Ioane located near the southwest corner. The
basalt flows are pāhoehoe of a similar age. The main channel of the unnamed stream extending near the
southern project area boundary exposes much older (64,000 to 300,000 year old) Hamakua Volcanics
produced by Mauna Kea during its post-shield phase.
Two soil types are present in the Project Area (Figure 6). In the majority of the Project Area
(approximately 47 acres) north of the tributary of ‘Āinakō Stream the soils are classified as Panaewa very
cobbly hydrous loam, 2 to 10 percent slopes. The remainder of the Project Area, south of the stream and
in the northern half of the road corridor, contains Hilo hydrous silty clay loam, 0-10 percent slopes (Soil
Survey Staff 2023). Both of these weathered soil types are derived from regional Pahala Ash deposits
and were often used for sugar cane agriculture in the past and now support diversified agriculture,
secondary forest, or pasture. Based on field observations, soil deposits in the Project Area are localized
within swales and basins among the rolling and faulted exposed pāhoehoe ground surface. Siltation
appears to be occurring on the upslope side of rock walls and outcrops.
The climate at the elevation of the current project area is mild and moist, with weather patterns dependent
on the presence or absence of trade winds. Generally, the trades are relatively light from the east-
northeast and shift to downslope at night. Average annual rainfall in the project area is about 160 to 170
inches (Giambelluca et al. 2013).
The project area is located within the Ainako Stream drainage basin, which feeds into the Wailuku River.
Groundwater flows in the basin alternates from surface to groundwater due to a complex geology
consisting of basaltic lava tubes and intrusive dikes (Paquay et al. 2007). Multiple springs, especially in
the northeastern end of the project area, are present in the project area. The ahupuaʻa name, Punahoa,
evokes these and the many other springs near the project area. Tributaries of Ainako Stream flank the
main portion of the project area on its north and south sides. During the rainy season, the ground is often
saturated and there are several swales within the project area that can contain standing or flowing water.
The project area is heavily forested, with a few clearings and a small area of pasture in the north through
which the proposed road corridor extends (Terry and Hart 2024). Prominent tree species in the upper
canopy are mainly introduced and include very tall albizia trees (Falcataria moluccana), autograph tree
(Clusia rosea), African tulip (Spathodea campanulata) and large stands of Alexandra palm
(Archontophoenix alexandrae), with some kukui (Aleurites moluccana) and Chinese banyan (Ficus
microcarpa). The understory is composed of seedlings of the trees listed above, especially Alexandra
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 16
palm, along with thickets of strawberry guava (Psidium cattleianum), palmgrass (Setaria palmifolia),
Australian tree fern (Sphaeropteris cooperi), warabi fern (Diplazium esculentum), shoebutton ardisia
(Ardisia elliptica) and hare’s foot fern (Phlebodium aureum). Herbs and grasses are uncommon except
near the steeper stream banks, in limited clearings, and at the mauka margin of the property with Kilikina
Street, where a wide variety of weedy species are present. Ainako Stream cuts through the makai tip of
the property, leaving an isolated area that is adjacent to the backyards of homes on Ekaha and Lahaina
Street. Within the proposed road corridor extending from Waiānueue Avenue, the first 400 feet has been
modified heavily by grazing and land clearing for an unpaved road and other uses. The final 300 feet is
heavily wooded with non-native trees including Eucalyptus sp., strawberry guava, deviltree (Alstonia
macrophylla), and mule’s foot fern (Angiopteris evecta). Only two native plant species were identified in
the project area (Terry and Hart 2024), the indigenous (native to the Hawaiian Islands and elsewhere)
and very widespread sedges Cyperus polystachyos and Scleria testacea. No endemic (found only in the
Hawaiian Islands) plants were seen. Several common Polynesian introductions were also present,
namely kukui (Aleurites moluccana), kī (ti, Cordyline fruticosa), kalo (taro, Colocasia esculenta), ‘ape
(Alocasia macrorrhizos) and maiʻa (banana, Musa sp.).
Evidence of prior mechanical ground disturbance is relatively limited; however, observations made during
the current study suggest that there may have been some near the outer fringes of the proposed
development parcel, particularly in the north and west. The road corridor crosses areas formerly planted
in cane and currently used for grazing. Plowing and clearing have occurred in this part of the project area.
The relatively flat terrain in the southeastern corner of the project area (south of Ainako Stream) also
suggests past clearing for agriculture use.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 17
Figure 4. Project area location
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 18
Figure 5. Surface geology in the project area vicinity.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 19
Figure 6. Soils in the project area vicinity.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 20
Figure 7. Ainako Stream at the east end of the Project area, view to the northeast.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 21
Figure 8. Gently sloped area in the western end of the Project Area, view to the south.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 22
Figure 9. Project area overview, road corridor, view to the south.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 23
2 Methods
The current project was conducted under the direction of Principal Investigator Benjamin Barna, Ph.D.
(DLNR-SHPD Permit 25-03). Fieldwork was conducted by ASM Affiliates under subcontract to Stantec.
ASM Affiliates’ field archaeologists were led by Field Director David King, M.Sc. Archaeological fieldwork.
Fieldwork was conducted between March 4 and March 7, 2024, and September 16 through September
20, 2024. The total duration of the fieldwork was 456 person-hours.
Archival Research
Archival research was conducted using sources from various physical and digital repositories. Primary
English language and Hawaiian language resources were found at various state agencies, including the
State Historic Preservation Division, Hawaiʻi State Archives, the Department of Accounting and General
Services Land Survey Division, and the County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department, the Lyman Museum and
Mission House, the Hawaiian Mission Houses Historic Site and Archives, and the Plantation Museum
Archives. In many cases, Hawaiian language texts were previously interpreted into English by other
scholars. Digital collections provided through the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Papakilo and Kīpuka
databases, the Ulukau Hawaiian Electronic Library, and Newspapers.com. Secondary resources in
Stantec’s library were consulted for general information regarding the history of land use, politics, and
culture change in Hawaiʻi.
2.1 Consultation
Consultation with Native Hawaiians and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs concerning historic properties that
might be significant under Criterion “e” was and other potential consulting parties was initiated by email in
late March, 2025. Interviews with consulting parties was conducted in person in an informal “talk-story”
format. During the conversations, visual aids including historic maps, archaeological site maps and
photographs, and other media available on the internet were used to discuss the Project Area and
surrounding locations. The conversations were not recorded, but handwritten notes were taken. Then
notes were transcribed and a summary of the conversation was prepared for the participants’ review. A
copy of the summary was sent to the participants, who were asked to correct, add, or delete any
information they felt was necessary. Copies of the approved summaries were sent to the participants.
2.2 Fieldwork
Archaeological fieldwork consisted of a 100% coverage pedestrian survey. No systematic subsurface
testing was conducted due to generally shallow, but variable sediment and soil accumulations throughout
the Project Area and the presence of surface features suggestive of agricultural clearing. Numerous
shallow roots were present throughout the Project Area, including on and within constructed features,
which also precluded partially dismantling features to inspect their interior.
2.2.1 PEDESTRIAN SURVEY
During the archaeological field survey, the entire (100%) ground surface of study area was visually
inspected by field archaeologists walking transects oriented north-south, spaced at no more than 10
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 24
meters apart, reducing transect spacing to 5 meters when visibility was hindered by thick brush. In
addition to the transects, the interior and sides of gulches project area were investigated by walking
parallel to the gulch.
When archaeological features were encountered, their positions were plotted on a map of the current
study area using Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment that consisted of EOS Arrow 100 Global
Navigation Satellite System receivers connected to handheld tablet computers running ESRI’s FieldMaps
Application set to the North American Datum 83 Zone 5 North. Areas of previous disturbance,
conspicuous landforms, and vegetation patterns were also mapped. Archaeological features were
assigned temporary field numbers. It should be noted that good GPS satellite coverage was difficult to
maintain beneath the thick canopy of guava and albizia. Every effort was made to obtain a <1 meter
accuracy on recorded positions taken; however, this was not always possible.
2.2.2 SITE AND FEATURE RECORDATION
Identified features were then cleared of vegetation, photographed (both with and without a metric scale),
and described using standardized feature record forms. A measuring tape was used to collect metric
feature dimensions (length, width, and height). Canopy and understory trees in the Project Area exceed
15-30 feet in height. During the survey, the size of these standing trees made fully clearing features
difficult, and only trees that could be removed safely without a professional arborist were cut. In some
cases, clusters of autograph trees and guava trees are growing directly from rock mounds and other
features. There are numerous fallen trees, both large individual trees and clusters of smaller trees,
throughout the Project Area. Where these fallen trees lie on top of archaeological features, essentially
burying them beneath hundreds of pounds of dead wood. In these situations, an attempt was made to
observe and document the obscured features as much as possible. Wherever feature descriptions note
that features were obscured by fallen trees, autograph tree roots, and guava stands, removal of those
trees to clear the feature would have required mechanical equipment or the services of arborists, neither
of which were within the scope of work for the current survey. The field archaeologists attempted to
accurately document each identified feature within the limitations of the heavy vegetation overgrowth.
All features that were identifiable as agricultural features, such as clearing mounds, were recorded solely
with GPS, notes, and photographs. Formal features and distinctive feature complexes were recorded with
GPS, notes, photographs, and scaled drafted plan maps.
2.2.3 SUBSURFACE TESTING
No subsurface testing was conducted during the current fieldwork. Although areas within the Project Area
exhibit accumulations of soil and sediment, extensive tree roots.
2.2.4 CULTURAL MATERIAL RECORDATION
Artifacts were documented in the field with written descriptions and photographs. Locations of isolated
artifacts and artifact concentrations were recorded using the GPS equipment. No cultural material was
collected.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 25
2.2.5 POST-FIELDWORK ANALYSIS
All identified features were compared to site and feature descriptions from prior archaeological studies,
(e.g., Jensen 1991; Sinoto 1978) and assigned to a previously recorded State Inventory of Historic Places
(SIHP) number if they were consistent with the site description. Features that did not match the age, type,
or function were assigned temporary Site numbers. Within each identified site, individual features were
assigned alphabetical designations, as in “Site T1 Feature A.”
Features assigned to SIHP 50-10-35-18696 were designated using a different system designed to aid in
locating each feature relative to the 15 historic lots shown on Registered Map 2508. These feature
designations use a prefix corresponding to the lot number and a sequential feature number, such as “15-
01.” Areas outside of the numbered lots were assigned to Lot 0 in the GIS data. The new feature
numbers were appended to the GIS data as a separate attribute field.
Some features within SIHP 50-10-35-18696 were grouped into complexes based on proximity and formal
and functional relationships. These features are given subfeature letters, as in Feature 01-04A, which is
one of three features grouped into the complex represented by 01-04. As a result of post-field analysis,
some combinations of historic lot and feature numbers are not used in the final data; this is due to
grouping some features into complexes or reassigning features to a different site.
Isolated artifacts were designated similarly to the archaeological features but have the letter “A” as a
prefix, as in A10-01, a shovel head identified within historic lot 10. Artifact descriptions and photographs
were compared with standard references for Traditional Hawaiian and historical artifacts to confirm their
identification, when possible. These references are cited in the descriptions of the artifacts in Section 5 of
this report.
An attempt was made to analyze the distribution of features in SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the context of
topography and elevation using the available Geographic Information System data from the State of
Hawaiʻi GIS portal (Hawaiʻi State Office of Planning 2024) and elevation data from the United States
Geological Survey (United States Geological Survey 2023). Light Direction and Ranging (LiDAR) data
from 2020 was used to derive topographic data for the Project Area (e.g., slope and aspect), but the
heavy tree canopy covering the project area during the LiDAR data collection resulted in elevation data of
insufficient resolution to make conclusions.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 26
3 Background
3.1 Culture-Historical Context
The Project Area is located primarily in the ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2nd with a road corridor that extend
through the ahupuaʻa of Piʻihonua, both of which are within the district of South Hilo (Figure 10). The
current judicial district of South Hilo was created in 1909 (State of Hawaii 1909:109), the most recent
subdivision of the traditional moku of Hilo. While the current division of Hilo splits it between north and
south, older poetic descriptions of Hilo in ʻolelo Hawaiʻi refer to three traditional divisions: Hilo Palikū, Hilo
One, and Hilo Hanakahi (Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation 2012). Hilo Palikū extended from the Wailuku
River north to Kaʻula Gulch and is named for its upright cliffs (pali kū) that line the coast. Hilo One
includes the sandy area of Hilo bay between the Wailuku and Wailoa rivers. Hilo Hanakahi extends south
and inland from the Wailoa toward Keaukaha. The project area is located mauka of Hilo One, which was
the most populated portion of the moku. Handy et al. (2020:538) note that:
The population of Hilo was anciently as now concentrated mostly around and out from
Hilo Bay, which is still the island’s principal port. The Hilo Bay region is one of lush
tropical verdure and beauty, owing to the prevalence of nightly showers and moist
warmth which prevail under the northeasterly trade winds into which it faces.
The area between the Wailuku and the Wailoa is divided, from north to south, into the seven ahupuaʻa of
Piʻihonua, Punahoa 2, Punahoa 1, Ponahawai, Kukuau 2, Kukuau 1, and Waiākea. Punahoa 2 begins at
the sea in this way, coming ashore approximately between present-day Kalākaua Street and Hāili Street
and ascending to encompass all or portions of the three Hālaʻi Hills at about 300 feet amsl, and then
continuing mauka into the forest, gradually expanding in width to about 1.5 miles wide at an elevation of
about 3,400 feet amsl. At this point, it is “cut off” by the ahupuaʻa of Piʻihonua.
The ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2 carries a name which translates literally as “companion spring” (Pukui et al.
1974:194). This place name evokes the many fresh water sources (puna wai) found throughout the
ahupuaʻa. These springs and streams that run through Punahoa once provided water for irrigated
agriculture and supplied fresh water supply for the town of Hilo. Some of these springs are located in and
adjacent to the Project Area and have played an important role in its history.
This area of Hilo also served as one of Hawaiʻi Island’s royal seats with chiefly residences that lasted up
through the time of Princess Ruth Ke‘elikōlani in the 1870s (Brandt 2017; Cordy 2000; Kelly et al. 1981).
Coastal settlement Kamakau (1992) writes of the Hilo chief Keawe-hano, whose houses in the year 1773
were “situated on the beach at Punahoa, close to Pi‘ihonua and facing the waves of Huia and Kihanui.”
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 27
Figure 10. Punahoa 2, Piʻihonua, and other nearby ahupuaʻa
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 28
3.1.1 PUNAHOA IN THE PRECONTACT PERIOD
The current archaeological consensus on when Hawaiʻi was first settled by Polynesians derives from
several sources, including archaeological, genealogical, mythological, oral-historical, radiometric data.
Other versions of the peopling of the islands, including various native Hawaiian traditions, place the event
earlier in time—and as early as the creation of the world (e.g., Beckwith 1917; Liliuokalani 1978; Malo
1951). With data from advances in palynology and radiocarbon dating techniques, Kirch (2011) and
others (Athens et al. 2014; Rieth et al. 2011; Wilmshurst et al. 2011) have argued that Polynesians
arrived in the Hawaiian Islands, sometime between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1200 and expanded rapidly
thereafter. After initial migration to Hawaiʻi from Kahiki, the ancestral homelands of Hawaiian akua and
people—most likely the Marquesas Islands (Kirch 2011; Tatar 1982), subsistence agriculture and fishing
sustained the initial populations. Widespread environmental modification followed with the adaptation of
traditional practices and tools to the new environment (Kirch and McCoy 2023; Pogue 1978). According to
Fornander (1969), traditional practices included Polynesian customs and beliefs such as the major gods
Kāne, Kū, Lono, and Kanaloa; the kapu system of law and order; and the concepts of pu‘uhonua (places
of refuge), ‘aumakua (ancestral deity), and mana (divine power). An increasing reliance on agricultural
products may have caused a shift in social networks as well, which increasingly supported the exchange
of upland agricultural products for marine resources.
Voyaging between western and southern Polynesia and Hawaiʻi continued until sometime around the end
of the fourteenth century, which led to a consistent pattern of social and political changes throughout the
islands (Kirch 2010). Hommon (1976) argues that kinship links among coastal settlements became less
important than those with the mauka-makai (upland-coastal) settlements. This shift is believed to have
resulted in the establishment of the hierarchical land tenure system organized by moku (“social-ecological
regions) and ahupua‘a (social-ecological community) and other land divisions sometime during the A.D.
1400s (Kirch and McCoy 2023; Winter et al. 2020), which added another component to an already well-
stratified society. On Hawaiʻi Island, the implementation of the system is attributed to Kalaunuiohua, an
aliʻi descended from Pilikaʻaiea who was brought from Kahiki by the kahuna Pāʻao (Fornander 1996:67;
Kamakau 1991:56). This system divided of the moku of Hilo into the major land units of ahupuaʻa and
smaller subdivisions that were tended by the makaʻāinana (people of the land, or commoners) for the aliʻi
(chiefs) who stewarded the ‘āina (land, “that which feeds”) and its people. Boundaries of ahupuaʻa were
generally defined by topography and natural resources, and extended from the nearshore fishing grounds
toward the mountains to provide access to the range of available resources in a given place (Gonschor
and Beamer 2014; Kamakau 1992:372–377; Malo 1951:63–67).
3.1.1.1 Settlement Patterns and Agricultural Practices
Once established on the land, Hawaiians created an agricultural landscape that extended inland from the
shore. The elevation of the Project Area is located in a part of that landscape that McEldowney
(1979a:18–25) describes as the “Upland Agricultural Zone.” The characteristics she ascribes to the
Upland Agricultural Zone are based on early written accounts of settlement patterns and land use. This
zone consisted of open kula land gently sloping up to the base of the woods, about four to six miles inland
from the coastal village at Hilo Bay. Additional research and modeling since McEldowney’s study have
refined estimates of the extent of the upland kula of Hilo, whether as a natural phenomenon or a
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 29
landscape created through swidden agriculture as the area’s population grew. Gon et al (2018) created a
model of the ʻāina momona (“sweet land” where intensive agricultural was practiced) using updated
ecological and historical data, and devleoped an overall “Hawaiian Footprint” on the island circa 1770
(Figure 10). In this model, the “Hawaiian Footprint” represents the extent of ‘āina that was chronically
occupied, directly manipulated, and significantly changed from pre-existing native ecosystem types into
traditional Hawaiian uses. The Project Area appears very near the margins of the 1770 footprint, on or
just outside of the southern edge of an intensively used area indicated in pink. The modeled footprint
shows ‘āina momona extending mauka in Piʻihonua to elevations of nearly 1,000 feet. The pink “footprint”
ends abruptly at the Punahoa 2 boundary, however. The e and this could be due to a number of factors.
On the one hand, gaps in historic land use descriptions of Punahoa may have left it out of the footprint; on
the other, it may be that the environment of upland Punahoa, particularly the underlying volcanic
substrate, was not suitable for intensive traditional agriculture.
In the Upland Agricultural Zone, gardens and tree crops could be found in the uplands, where dryland
taro and bananas were grown along with crops that were also found in the village: kō (sugarcane,
Saccarum officianum), wauke (paper mulberry, Boussonetia papyifera), irrigated and dryland kalo (taro,
Colocasia esculenta), along with ʻuala (sweet potatoes, Ipomoea batatas) and minor vegetable crops.
Tree crops, such as ʻulu (breadfruit, Atocarpus alitilis) and niu (coconut, Cocos nucifera), ōhiʻa ʻai
(mountain apple, Eugenia malccensis), milo (Pacific rosewood, Thespesia populnea), and kukui (candle
nut, Aleruites moluccana) were also maintained. Along streams, irrigated kalo varieties were grown. Early
descriptions of “neatly laid out fields” among what appeared to be largely uncultivated land (e.g, Malden
1841; Menzies 1920:141) suggests swidden agriculture was practiced, at least early on, consistent with
what Kamakau (1976:31–32) and Handy et al. (2020:103–110) describe.
Figure 11. Modeled ‘Āīna Momona Shown in Pink (Gon et al. 2018:Figure 7)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 30
Several traditional planting methods used in South Hilo are described by Handy, Handy, and Pukui (2020)
1991). For example, dry taro was planted “wherever there was enough soil” (Handy et al. 2020:726).
Another innovation, kanu kipi, involved creating mounds of soil in marshy land for planting:
In lava-strewn South Hilo there were no streams whose valleys or banks were
capable of being developed in terraces, but cuttings were stuck into the ground on the
shores and islets for many miles along the course of the Wailuku River far up into the
forest zone. In the marshes surrounding Waiakea Bay, east of Hilo, taro was planted
in a unique way known as kanu kipi. Long mounds were built on the marshy bottom
with their surface two or three feet above water level. Upon the top and along the
sides of these mounds taro was planted. This swampy land is now [in the 1930s]
abandoned to rank grass. Kipi (mounds) were also formerly made along Alenaio
Stream above Hilo. (Handy et al. 2020:747–748).
Although Handy, Handy, and Pukui specify locations in the two ahupuaʻa of Waiākea and Kukuau, similar
marshy terrain exists just north of the Project Area on the State parcel in Piʻihonua.
The lower lands of Punahoa, makai of Halaiʻi hill, in particluar, lack permanent streams such as Alenaio
and Wailoa. At higher elevations, including the Project Area, surface and underground springs feed
permanent and intermittent streams that wind their way into the Wailuku. The water in these streams and
springs was eventually tapped by the various konohiki of Piʻihonua, Punahoa, and Ponahawai to feed
agricultural fields in the lands under their care (Wolforth 1999). A system of branching ʻauwai is said to
have been begun by the powerful 17th century Hilo aliʻi named ʻĪ. Before this ditch system, inhabitants of
Hilo would come to the Wailuku River, north of the Project Area, to gather water (Kaleioholani quoted in
Kelly 1982:27). The ʻĪ ‘auwai, named after the aliʻi who had it built, brought water from the mauka springs
located in the two ahupua‘a of Punahoa and Pi‘ihonua down to the coast and fed the many irrigated fields
located along its length. It began from a source near Waiale Falls in Punahoa 2, mauka of the Project
Area. The creation of this ditch system likely improved agricultural production and household subsistence.
Even recently, Piʻihonua residents would keep mullet farms and build loʻi off of ʻauwai such as the
Piʻihonua Ditch, or natural streams such as those on the state-owned lands north of the Project Area
(Leilehua Yuen, quoted in Barna and Rechtman 2015; Kodani and Kodani 2025).
Typical irrigation ditches were simply trenches dug in the soil, from the dam in the stream to the area
where its water was used (Handy et al. 2020:83). Where the terrain required it, other engineering
techniques were used. For example, when water had to be carried around or along a hillside, typically on
terraces if the hillside was steep, the embankment beneath the ditch was often faced with stone part or all
the way up. Flumes called “ha-wai” were built to carry water over a depression (Handy et al. 2020:85).
Versions of these included large bamboos split in half, with the inside node walls cut out to allow for water
flow, and long wooden troughs carved like an open-ended canoe hull. The ways in which ʻauwai were
constructed, maintained, and managed are described by Nakuina (1893):
Auwais, were generally dug from makai—seaward or below—upwards. The konohiki
who had the supervision of the work having previously marked out where it would
probably enter the stream, the diggers worked up to that point. The different
ahupuaa's, ili's or ku's taking part in the work, furnished men according to the number
of cultivators on each land. There was no limit though to the number of laborers any
land might furnish, and it often happened that a small ku or ili was sometimes
represented in the auwai making by more men than a much larger land or ahupuaa,
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 31
and would thus become entitled to as much or more water, at the distribution of the
water privileges, than were assigned larger tracts.
The dams were always a low loose wall of stones with a few clods here and there,
high enough only to raise water sufficiently to flow into the auwai, which should enter it
at almost a level. No auwai was permitted to take more water than continued to flow in
the stream below the dam. It was generally less, for there were those living makai or
below the same stream, and drawing water from it, whose rights had to be
regarded…. (79)
Bordering on the upper portions of most auwais are small lois limited in size and
number, generally on a hillside, or on the borders of a gulch. These lois are generally
awarded kulu or drops; that is, they are entitled to continual driblets of water, and no
one having a water share may turn the water entirely away from them unless, in times
of scarcity, it should be seen that these lois or loi were full to overflowing. (81)
Management of the water within an ʻauwai was the kuleana of the konohiki:
The konohiki of each independent land subdivided his water time among the holders
of mooainas (now kuleanas) on his ahupuaa, ili or ku. (80)
Water rights were primarily for lois, that is, for kalo culture. potato patches, bananas or
sugar cane had no recognized claim on a water right in the rotation. The cultivation of
these, regarded as dry land crops, were invariably during the rainy season except in
the Koolau or wet districts. Sugar cane and bananas were almost always planted on
loi banks (kuauna's) so as to ensure a sufficiency of moisture from the seepage or
ooze between them. (83)
In sum, the upland kula of Punahoa where the Project Area can be found was integrated into the moku-
and ahupuaʻa-based social, political, and ecological system practiced during the Precontact era. Current
modeling of the extent of cultivated lands by Gon et al. (2018) suggest that the Project Area is located
near, but outside of, the southern edge of intensive land use at this elevation. Abundant freshwater,
though, may have made the Project Area available for cultivation of both irrigated and rain-fed crops.
3.1.1.2 Kaʻao and Moʻolelo of Punahoa
Unlike neighboring Piʻihonua and the Wailuku River, the ahupuaʻa of Punahoa does not feature in many
of the moʻolelo (native traditions and historical accounts) that have been recorded to date. Perhaps the
most familar of these are the traditions of Hina-a-ke-ahi and her self-sacrifice on Hālaʻi Hill, where, buried
in an imu (earth oven) during a time of famine and draught, she traveled underground toward the shore
and caused springs (puna wai) named Hina ʻAuʻauwai to emerge (Westervelt 1910:155). Maly (2003:6)
suggests that this event may be the source of the place name, as Hina, the origin of the springs, was a
friend and companion of the people of the land. The Hālaʻi Hills are also the setting, in one version of the
story (Westervelt 1910:64) in which Māui wrestles with an ʻalae (Hawaiian Gallinule) bird on the middle hill
known variously as ʻŌpeʻapeʻa, Peʻa, Pōhakunui, Puʻu o Kamaliʻi, or Puʻu Aliʻi (Maly 2003:22).
Other moʻolelo briefly mention the harbor at Punahoa. Kamakau (1991:19, 34) tells of a hunch-backed
aliʻi named Kawau who lived in Hilo and would look out at the surf off Piʻihonua and Punahoa, at a surfing
spot called Huia. The fishing ground for nehu (Hawaiian anchovy, Encrasicholina purpurea) at the shore
of Punahoa is mentined in an oli (chant) of the six moku of the island of Hawaiʻi that appears in the
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 32
Legend of Kuapakaa (Fornander 1918:118–119). In Fornanderʻs (1916:444) version of the story of Kana
and Niheu, the harbor at Punahoa adjoining Kaipalaoa is briefly mentioned, but no other parts of the
ahupuaʻa. Lastly, the Story of Laieikawai, in versions told by Haleole (1863, 1918) and by Kalālaua (1888)
also features action set at the harbor in Punahoa. In “Kaao Hooniua Puuwai no Ka-Miki” (“The Heart
Stirring Story of Ka-Miki”), Punahoa is not named, but events in the story occur nearby (Maly 2003:9). A
search of digitzed nupepa (Hawaiian language newspapers) available on the Ulukau website (Hale
Kuamoʻo 2025) did not find legendary references to Punahoa in Hilo.
The uplands of Punahoa are briefly mentioned in the Legend of Kapuaokaoheloai, a Ku and Hina story
(Fornander 1916:540). In the story, Kū and Hina are said to be living in Waiakea in Hilo with a son and a
daughter. Being of high rank, they raise the two children under a very strict kapu (taboo, restriction) that
kept them separated and secluded indoors for twenty years. The major events of the story begin the
breaking of that kapu by the children when their attendants go to “the uplands of Kaumana, directly above
Punahoa to do farm work” (Fornander 1916:540). No further details about the uplands or the farms are
included in Fornanderʻs version of the story, but the story corroborates the settlement and agricultural
patterns inferred in McEldowneyʻs (1979a) Upland Agricultural Zone. The ahupuaʻa of Kaūmana is
located south and about 360 feet higher in elevation than the Project Area. A portion of that land was
formerly used for sugarcane cultivation. So while the farms in “Kaumana, directly above Punahoa” would
not have been in the immediate vicinity of the Project Area, the Legend of Kapuaokaoheloai suggests that
the Project Area could still have been located at a suitable elevation for agriculture, depending on soil and
terrain conditions.
3.1.1.3 Placenames in the Project Area
The names of places on the ‘āina can often provide information about history and cultural meanings.
Within the Project Area, two place names appear on historic maps, and there are several named places
makai of the Project Area.
The puʻu in the eastern end of the Project Area appears on maps from the twentieth century as “Kupapau
Hill.” Although this is the name of the puʻu used on maps beginning in the twentieth century, older maps
give it a different name. The earliest map to include the Project Area in detail (Figure 12) was made in
1849 from a survey conducted in support of the claim that the ABCFM made before the Board of
Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (more commonly known as the Land Commission) for most of the
land in Punahoa 2 (see Section 3.1.3). The precision of the map is not very good, but it depicts the puʻu
located in the Project Area. The pu’u is drawn mauka of a kukui tree marked with a “B” and was used
during the survey as a triangulation station. The station used is indicated by a circle on the puʻu that is
labeled “Large Rock on Puu Mohihi.” The name given to the pu’u, may refer to a sweet potato variety
named “mōhihi.” Mōhihi is quick growing but dependent on good rain (Handy et al. 2020:169). Mōhihi
keʻokeʻo have white or yellowish flesh and a red skin; mōhihi ʻulaʻula has a reddish or purple flesh
(Kagawa-Viviani 2016:10). This variety has a high sugar content and was the most popular for making
ʻuala ʻawaʻawa, a type of fermented drink (Handy et al. 2020:178). The puʻu’s name suggests that sweet
potatoes, in particular mōhihi, could have been grown on it or nearby, but no explanation for the name
was found during research for this study.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 33
Figure 12. Map submitted in 1849 with Land Commission Award 387, Part 4, ‘Āpana 1 with the
approximate location of the Project Area outlined in orange.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 34
The puʻu, or at least the trigonometry station, appears with the same name on a map produced in 1895
by A. B. Loebenstein (Figure 13). The trigonometry station is indicated with a circle (see inset of Figure
13) and labeled “Moohihi or spring.” It is likely that the double “o” written by Loebenstein is his attempt to
convey the long “o” sound now indicated by the kahakō in “mōhihi.” This method of indicating the long “ō”
sound was sometimes used until macrons (i.e., kahakō) became more prevalent beginning in the late
1980s (Schütz 1994:146–147). Loebenstein may also have tried to write “moʻohihi” as pronounced with
an ʻokina, which was also written with two adjacent vowels at that time. If he intended “moʻohihi”, then the
puʻu’ name could mean something other than sweet potatoes. “Moʻo” has several meanings rooted in the
concept of linear things, such as lizards or serpents including water spirits and dragons, but also lines of
succession and genealogies, narrow strips of land, narrow fragments of things, narrow paths, or ridges on
mountains (Pukui and Elbert 1986). The word “hihi” can refer to “entanglement” as in vines or grass, and
also webs and snares (Andrews 1865; Pukui and Elbert 1986). The word “hīhī” is a reduplication of “hī,”
meaning “to hiss.” During consultation for the current study, one Punahoa 2 resident surmised that a
place name “Moʻohihi” with the ʻokina could be related to entangling of genealogies—moʻo—as in the
intermarriage of chiefly families (Leilehua Yuen, personal communication, 2025).
The earliest documentation of the puʻu as “Kupapau Hill” is from survey notes and a map created six
years later by Erdmann D. Baldwin. The survey was conducted in 1901 to map out a proposed
reservation parcel around several fresh water springs, including one in the Project Area (see Section
3.1.5). The typed survey description shows that Baldwin made one corner of the parcel at a “stone
marked +, on top of old kupapau known as Kupapau Hill Trig. Sta.” (Baldwin 1901b). What this statement
means is that he set the corner at a survey trigonometry station on top of the hill. Based on his map
(Figure 22), this is the same station used in 1849 and 1895. The reason that Baldwin did not use the older
name for the trigonometry station is not known, but it may be that the rock used during the earlier surveys
was not there anymore, or he did not find it, or he may not have known about it. Whatever the reason,
Baldwin’s survey established a trigonometry station on the hill and named it “Kupupau Hill.” Every map
that includes the project area produced after 1901 uses the name “Kupapau Hill” name for the puʻu. This
hill does not appear in Place Names of Hawaii (Pukui et al. 1974) or older gazetteers. The Hawaiʻi Board
on Geographic Names 2018 list of place names on Hawaiʻi Island uses the spelling “Kupapaʻu” but notes
that more research is needed about the name (Office of Planning and Sustainable Development 2025).
Why Baldwin named the station “Kupapau” is not known, nor why he wrote that the station was on top of
an “old kupapau.” There are two other places called “Kupapau” in Soehren’s (2019) compilation of place
names: one on Kauaʻi and one in Puna on Hawaiʻi Island. Soehren offers two translations for the word
“Kupapau” but does not suggest any direct link between the places or meanings. One meaning is
“corpse” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:185), and the other is “deeply engaged, as in an activity; finished;
engrossed, absorbed, united; all, all together” (Pukui and Elbert 1986:319). It is possible that the puʻu or
surrounding area was known to Baldwin to be the location of Hawaiian burials (this was also suggested
by OHA during consultation for this study). Baldwin may have referred to the puʻu itself as a “corpse,”
perhaps meaning an extinct crater. It may also be that the spelling of the Hawaiian language at the turn of
the century obscures the meaning, and that “kupapau” refers to something else entirely. For example, the
top of the puʻu appears “scooped out” with two large depressions at its summit. There are several places
in Hawaiʻi called “paopao,” meaning “scooped out,” that are sometimes spelled “papau” (for example,
Paopao Point on Lānaʻi, see Coulter 1935:107).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 35
Figure 13. Detail of named places on Registered Map 1790 (Loebenstein 1895)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 36
Figure 14. Detail of Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 37
Figure 15. Named places in the Project Area vicinity
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 38
Another named puʻu is located near the southwest corner of the Project Area (Figure 15). This puʻu, “Puʻu
Ioane” also does not appear Place Names of Hawaii (Pukui et al. 1974) or older gazetteers. No
references were found to it in during the review of archival materials conducted for the Project Area.
Ainako Stream extends near the southern boundary of the Project Area and turns north to cross it below
Kupapau Hill. Smaller tributaries of the stream also extend through the Project Area. The stream
originates at about the 820-foot elevation about 0.6 mile mauka of the Project Area in roughly a half-mile
of boggy scrub forest and grasslands immediately below what is now Akolea Road. The stream and its
branches wind through the Ainako Terrace subdivision before reaching the project area. The tributaries of
the stream converge toward the northeast corner of the Project Area and then flow toward the Wailuku.
The stream appears to be named after the Ainako Subdivision, which was created in 1946 by the Hilo
Sugar Company on abandoned sugarcane land south and west of the Project Area. The subdivision
which includes Ainako Street and five side streets, and some of the lots were initially set aside for World
War II veterans. In the Hilo Sugar Company’s announcement of the subdivision’s opening, they stated
that the new neighborhood was named “Ainako (ai-na-ko’) meaning cane land” (Hawaii Tribune-Herald
1946), after the sugarcane fields that were repurposed for housing. The name of the stream is not
mentioned by Solomon P. Kaleoholani in the testimony he gave in 1917 regarding the ditches in
Piʻihonua, Punahoa, and Ponahawai. No other earlier references to the stream by name could be found.
The plat that was drawn for the subdivision (Towill 1947) does not name the stream. The stream is
referred to as “Ainako Stream” in a 1958 newspaper article describing plans to create flood controls on
the stream to address concerns about flooding the Ainako neighborhood (Hilo Tribune-Herald 1958), but
no earlier references to the stream’s name could be found.
3.1.2 1779-1848: EARLY CONTACT AND CULTURAL EXCHANGE
Sustained interaction between Hawaiians and foreigners, which appears to have paused after the arrival
of the various aliʻi associated with the moku and ahupuaʻa system in the 15th century, resumed with the
arrival of HMS Discovery and HMS Resolution, commanded by Captain James Cook, to Kauaʻi in 1778,
and their return the next year to Hawaiʻi Island. Earliest recorded descriptions of the area by foreign
visitors include John Ledyard (1783) and David Samwell (1786), Archibald Menzies (1920), William Ellis
(1825, 1827), Joseph Goodrich (1826, 1833), Titus Coan (1852), and several other. It is from these
descriptions that McEldowney (1979a) and Gon et al. (2018) derive some of their models for Precontact
settlement and land use patterns.
Beginning about 1822, missionaries associated with the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign
Missions (ABCFM) arrived in Hilo to begin converting Hawaiians to their Congregationalist Christian faith
and way of life. In 1823, Reverend William Ellis, one of the first Christian missionaries to arrive in Hilo,
estimated about 2,000 people and 400 dwellings along the coastline at Hilo Bay (Ellis 1825). He arrived in
Hilo by way of Puna and came through Waiākea to Piʻihonua. He describes the river and the coastal
village, along with a description of settled and farmed land in Waiākea and Kūkuau (Ellis 1825:186). He
notes frequent rainfall, light and fertile soil formed from decomposed lava and plant material, and
plantations of “plaintains,” bananas, sugarcane, taro, potatoes and melons along with coconut and ʻulu
(breadfruit) groves. In less soil-prone areas he describes potatoes being grown in mounds built from small
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 39
pieces of lava. Within two years, the ABCFM had established a meeting house and missionary school
under the direction of Joseph Goodrich, had arrived the previous year (Wolforth 1999:11).
The patterns of settlement and agriculture at Hilo shortly after the arrival of missionaries were roughly
captured in on a British chart of Hilo Bay (Figure 12) surveyed in 1825 by C.R. Malden (1841) during the
visit of HMS Bonde commanded by Lord George Anson Byron (Byron 1826). Although the chart’s main
focus is depth soundings of the bay and useful navigational landmarks, it also includes some details as
far as a mile inland. Several small groups of Hawaiian hale (houses) are arranged near the coast, a few in
what appears to be Punahoa, but the majority of land between the shore and Pu’u Hālaʻi (labeled “Green
Hill”) is occupied by agricultural plots, including one on the lower slope of the puʻu. The area depicted on
the chart does not extend far enough mauka to include the Project Area. It does, however, provide an
illustration of the early first-hand descriptions of land by Ellis (1825, 1827), Goodrich (1826, 1833), and
Coan (1852).
Families associated with the Kamehameha line resided near the shore in Punahoa and Piʻihonua as they
were establishing the kingdom in the late 1700s (Maly 2003:180). One major ʻauwai in Piʻihonua is
attributed to Kamehameha’s court requiring a supply of water, near Kaipalaoa. After Kamehameha’s
death, Punahoa 2 was among the earliest lands on Hawaiʻi Island to be given to foreigners. According to
testimony given to the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles (the “Land Commission”) by
members of the ABCFM, the king Kauikeaouli (Kamehameha III) and the kuhina nui Kaʻahumanu gave
nearly the entire ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2 to Joseph Goodrich, on behalf of the ABCFM 1827.
During this period, the ABCFM grew its presence in Punahoa, building meeting houses, establishing
farms and plantations, and after the arrival of the Lyman missionary family in 1832, the Hilo Boarding
school. The school was founded in 1835 by David Lyman and his wife Sarah on the southeast side of the
present-day intersection of Hāili Street and Laimana Street. The Hilo Boarding School obtained its water
through an ‘auwai (the Hilo Boarding School Ditch, SIHP Site 50-10-34-14947) that transported water
from mauka Punahoa. Multiple accounts of the origin of the ‘auwai were included in testimony given
during a legal battle over the water rights in the early 20th century (Kelly 1982; Wolforth 1999). Solomon
P. Kaeloholani testified that it was dug in 1813 under the purview of the konohiki of Punahoa, named Aki.
Another version, provided by Fredrick Lyman and other Hawaiian Evangelical Association leaders,
attributes the construction of the ditch to the Rev. Joseph Goodrich in 1824. Wolforth’s (1999)
interpretation places its origins even earlier in the 17th century as the ‘auwai built under the orders of the
aliʻi ʻĪ, from which the other ditches in Piʻihonua, Punahoa, and Ponahawai branch. Multiple historic maps,
discussed below, show the route of the Hilo Boarding School Ditch passing through the Project Area.
Meanwhile, beginning in the 1830s, the kula lands in Ponahawai were planted in sugar cane under
direction of Benjamim Pitman (Maly 2003:181). To the north of Punahoa, as early as 1843, a Chinese
immigrant by the name of Chee In, called Aʻina in Hawaiian, claimed to own a 4-acre sugar operation,
including a mill in Piʻihonua on the southern bank of the Wailuku (Tam Sing et al. 2017:52). Another
Chinese immigrant, Tang Hun Sin, or Akina, acquired an acre of land in Piʻihonua and partnered with
Pitman to operate the Amauʻulu Plantation (founded by Akina) in Puʻuʻeo across the Wailuku River in
about 1851. These sugar plantations would grow into the dominant agricultural endeavor in Hilo,
ultimately surrounding the Project Area with cane fields and tapping the waters that flow through it.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 40
Figure 16. Detail of Malden’s (1841) chart of Waiakea or Byron Bay surveyed in 1825
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 41
3.1.3 1848-1851: THE MĀHELE AND THE ABCFM
During the 1830s and 1840s, the Hawaiian Kingdom was an established center of commerce and trade in
the Pacific, recognized internationally as a sovereign national by the United States and other nations in
the Pacific and Europe (Sai 2011). Hawaiian political elites sought ways to integrate the kingdom into the
family of nations, and the influence of an increasing population of Western settlers led to major
socioeconomic and political changes. These changes included the formal adoption of a Hawaiian
constitution by 1840, the change in governance from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy,
and the shift towards a Euro-American model of private land ownership. The change in land governance
was partially informed by ex-missionaries and Euro-American businessmen in the islands who were
generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold lands that they feared could be revoked from
them at any time.
Following the Declaration of Rights and Laws of 1839 and the Constitution of 1840, the vested rights of
the Mōʻī (King), aliʻi, and makaʻāinina in the ‘āina needed to be settled, as these documents codified the
concept that these three groups jointly owned the lands of the kingdom, though with differing degrees of
interest (Beamer and Tong 2016). The change in land tenure was further endorsed by missionaries and
Western businessmen in the islands who were generally hesitant to enter business deals on leasehold
lands. It was decided that three classes of people had one-third vested rights to the lands of Hawai‘i: the
Mō‘ī, the ali‘i (chiefs), and konohiki (land agents), and the maka‘āinana (common people or native
tenants) (Chinen 1958). In 1845 the legislature created the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles
(more commonly known as the Land Commission), to develop procedures for dividing the lands and to
grant or reject claims to land titles brought before them. Land claims could be made by chiefs, often for
entire ahupua‘a, or by tenants for their house lots and gardens, with an initial deadline of February 14,
1848. This deadline was extended several times for the ali‘i and konohiki, but not for commoners
(Alexander 1920; Soehren 2005). The Mō‘ī and some 245 ali‘i spent nearly two years trying
unsuccessfully to divide all the lands of Hawai‘i amongst themselves before the whole matter was
referred to the Privy Council on December 18, 1847 (Kameʻeleihiwa 1992; King n.d.; Kuykendall 1938).
Once the Mō‘ī and his ali‘i accepted the principles of the Privy Council, the Māhele ‘Āina (Division of
Land) was completed on March 7, 1848. The names of all of the ahupua‘a and ‘ili kūpono (politically
independent subdivision within an ahupuaʻa) of the Hawaiian Islands and the chiefs who claimed them,
were recorded in the Buke Mahele (Buke Māhele 1848; Soehren 2005). To set aside public lands that
could be sold to raise money for the government or purchased by his subjects to live on, the Mōʻī
commuted about two-thirds of the lands awarded to him to the government (King n.d.). The chiefs who
participated in the Māhele were also required to provide commutations of a portion of their lands to the
government to receive a Royal Patent that gave them clear title to their remaining lands. The lands
surrendered to the government by the Mō‘ī and ali‘i and konohiki became known as “Government Land,”
while the lands that were personally retained by the Mō‘ī became known as “Crown Land” and the lands
received by the ali‘i and konohiki became known as “Konohiki Land” (Chinen 1958:vii, 1961:13). Most
importantly, all lands (whether Crown, Government, or Konohiki lands) identified and claimed during the
Māhele were “subject to the rights of the native tenants” residing therein (Garavoy 2005:524). All lands
awarded during the Māhele were identified by name only, with the understanding that the ancient
boundaries would prevail until the land could be formally surveyed. This process expedited the work of
the Land Commission. Unlike the Mōʻī, the ali‘i and konohiki were required to present their claims to the
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 42
Land Commission to receive title—less than allodial—to their lands via a document known as a Land
Commission Award (LCAw). Punahoa 2 does not appear in the Māhele Book, although a land division
called only “Punahoa” does. The Punahoa in the Māhele Book is the ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 1, which was
given to Enoka Kahakumakaliua (despite also being claimed by Asa Keao). The absence of Punahoa 2 in
the Māhele Book is likely because the land had already been given to the ABCFM by the King and
Kaʻahumanu in about 1827.
As the Mō‘ī and ali‘i made claims to large tracts of land during the Māhele, questions arose regarding the
protection of rights for the native tenants. To address this matter, on August 6, 1850, the Kuleana Act or
Enabling Act was passed, allowing native tenants to claim a fee simple title to any portion of lands that
they physically occupied, actively cultivated, or had improved (Garavoy 2005). Additionally, the Kuleana
Act clarified rights to gather natural resources, as well as access rights to kuleana parcels, which were
typically landlocked. Lands awarded through the Kuleana Act were and still are, referred to as kuleana
awards or kuleana lands. The Land Commission oversaw the program and administered the kuleana as
Land Commission Awards (Chinen 1958). Native tenants wishing to claim land were required to register
their claim in writing (either in the Hawaiian or English language) by submitting a register to the Land
Commission who assigned the claimant a number, and that number was used to track the claimant
through the entire claims process. Subsequently, the claimant had to get supporting testimony from two
individuals (typically neighbors) to confirm their claim to the land. The document generated as part of this
process was known as a Native or Foreign Testimony depending upon the language used by the
claimant. Upon successful submittal of the required documents, the Land Commission rendered their
decision, and if the commission decided in their favor, the tenant was issued the LCAw.
The ABCFM submitted a claim for all of the lands it held throughout the islands. The claim for Punahoa 2,
LCA 387 Part 4 Section 1, was submitted by Titus Coan. It included nearly the entire ahupuaʻa. The
description of the land in the claim provides few details about the Project Area. Coan’s testimony, given
on May 4, 1849, notes that the land was given to Joseph Goodrich by King and Kaʻahumanu in about
1827. He added, “There are some Natives living on the land of Punahoa, some of them are Kamaainas or
descendants of them, and others have leases or permission to live there from the Mission” (Foreign
Testimony 1964:3:136), The testimonies also describe dwellings at the mission station, the school for
boys and the school for girls, the school farm, all makai of Hālaʻi Hill.
In the initial registration of their claim to the Land Commission for the missionary lands in Punahoa under
Claim No. 387 (Foreign Register:45–46), the ABCFM noted:
The boundaries of this land are well understood by natives of the vicinity. All the
dwelling houses at the station, belonging to the Mission are on this land; also the
buildings & yards of the two boarding schools together with all the cultivation
connected with the school for boys, & a considerable portion of that belonging to the
school for girls. A portion of this land is worthless, except for pasturage & is used for
that purpose. A small portion is occupied by natives; another & probably the largest
portion is still a forest.
This does not specify where the Hawaiian tenants were living at the time, but based on the claims made
for house lots, it appears that most if not all were near the coast.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 43
Six claims for native tenant kuleana parcels were filed for lands in Punahoa 2, in addition to the ahupuaʻa-
wide claim by the ABCFM (Table 1). These claims are listed specifically as occurring in Punahoa 2 in the
Native Register, Native Testimony, Foreign Testimony, or Land Commission Award documentation. All
kuleana claims were for lands makai of Hālaʻi Hill, in what was becoming an important part of Hilo Town.
All are more than 7/8 of a mile from the Project Area. This does not necessarily mean that no Hawaiian
tenants were using the Project Area before or after the Māhele, but it complicates the search for
information about how the Project Area may have been used and by whom.
Only two of the Punahoa 2 kuleana claims were awarded, and their locations are shown in Figure 17.
These awards went to Apiki, for two house lots, and to Aipinepine for one.. One claims for a lot in
Punahoa 2 claimed by “John Nomore” was not awarded (it is shaded green in Figure 17.) There appears
to have been some confusion over where the ahupuaʻa boundaries were by the time the claims for these
lands were made. Another lot was initially claimed under claim 3996 by Kahalelepo as being in Punahoa
2, just mauka of “John Nomore’s” lot. The lot was awarded to Kahalelepo, but under LCAw. 4002 and
documented as being in Ponahawai on the award paperwork and Royal Patent Grant 5604. In Piʻihonua,
the situation was similar, with all claims made in the makai portion of the ahupuaʻa. No claims were made
in the vicinity of the Project Area in Piʻihonua. In Figure 17, the location of kuleana parcels in Piʻihonua
are shaded blue, as well as adjacent Punahoa 1 kuleana awards shaded gray. The map indicates that as
late as the 1880s, several traditional ʻili and other smaller land divisions were still intact in downtown Hilo.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 44
Table 1. Land Commission Awards and Claims in Punahoa 2.
Claim Claimant Awarded Location Uses Acres
387-4
part 1
Titus Coan 1849 Ahupuaʻa of
Punahoa 2
Ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2 (note it is
called "Punahoa 1" in LCA claim).
585
makai of
woods
2228 &
8629
Kaapa 1851 Punahoa* and
Ponahawai
2 kīhāpai, 2 dwelling houses 3.9
3769 Apiki k. (for
Kahuhu w.)
1851 1. Punahoa 2 at
Church Street
and beach
2. Punahoa 2 at
Church Street
and Main Road.
1. House lot, 4 houses, enclosed.
2. 1 house enclosed with a wall
1. 0.68
2. 0.34
3779 Aipinepine 1851 Punahoa 2 makai 1 kīhāpai, 1 house 0.86
3867 Puali not
awarded
Punahoa 2, on
Church Street
3 houses, enclosed not
surveyed
3996
(awarded
as 4002)
Nahalelepo 1851 Punahoa 2 makai
in Claim 3996,
Award 4002
places it in
Ponhawai
1 house 0.875
5320 Asa Kaeo Not
awarded
1. Punahoa 1
2. Punahoa 2
Church Street
and the Beach
3. Punahoa 2
Church Street
and main Road
1. House lot “for the Chinese”
2. House lot “for the Chinese”
3. House lot
not
surveyed
11298 John
Nomore
Not
awarded
Punahoa 2, at the
beach makai of
Nahalelepo’s lot
House lot not
surveyed
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 45
Figure 17. Map of Hilo Town Titles (Lyman 1882) with kuleana parcels indicated
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 46
3.1.4 THE LATE 19TH CENTURY: SURROUNDED BY SUGAR
Available late 19th century historical documentation of the Project Area is relatively scarce, in part due to
record-keeping priorities of the ABCFM and its successor organization, the Hawaiʻi Evangelical
Assocation. Based on what is known about the surrounding public and private lands, it is likely that the
major agricultural innovation of the late 19th century, commercial sugarcane, influenced how the land was
used during this period. The Project Area does not appear to have been a good place to grow sugar
cane, although a few early 20th century sources allude to at least some of the land potentially being used
in that way.
Over the next half century, the Project Area came to be surrounded by sugarcane fields that provided
cane for a series of plantations and milling companies that became the Hilo Sugar Company (Dorrance
and Morgan 2000; Kelly et al. 1981; Tam Sing et al. 2017). As mentioned above, experimental sugar
production began in the Hilo area as early as Joseph Goodrich’s small plot of cane and wooden mill in the
1820s, but really began in earnest in the late 1840s when Akina, partnered with Pitman, started growing
cane on Pitman’s lands at Amauʻula with a small mill on the Wailuku River. The Aumauʻula sugar
operation was sold by Pitman to Thomas Spencer in 1860 and renamed as the Amauulu Plantation.
Spencer then purchased the purchased the 4,000 acre Hoon Sing plantation and its mill in 1867, and
1884 Amauulu and Wainaku plantations merged by W. G. Irwin and Clause Spreckels, creating Hilo
Sugar Company. A competitor, the Hilo Mill Company, was formed in 1880 to grow and process cane
grown in Piʻihonua along the Alenaio Stream. Through this time, land suitable for sugarcane was
purchased or leased to the growing sugar companies as well as to farmers working “outside” the
plantations.
In 1853, the members of the ABCFM’s Sandwich Island’s Mission, including Titus Coan and David Lyman
in Hilo, voted to change their organization’s name to the Hawaii Evangelical Association (HEA) (Hawaiian
Evangelical Association 1854), in part to better reflect their integration into Hawaiian society. The Project
Area is depicted on an map (Lyman 1853) prepared from a survey conducted that year documenting the
boundaries of Punahoa 2 makai of the forest. Although the map is generally focused on boundaries, a fee
details of the interior of the Project Area are included. Landmarks shown include Kupapau Hill, which due
to survey error is drawn southeast of its actual position. A spring is shown on the north side of the hill with
a watercourse extending to the north. A trail approaches from Hālaʻi hills and what appears to be a small
building is shown on the trail at the eastern toe of Kupapau Hill. Ainako Stream is shown crossing into the
project area from the south. Prominent kukui trees were used to represent corners on the ahupuaʻa
boundary.
The general vicinity of the Project Area was probably visited briefly during a journey across uplands from
the Kīlauea to Hilo taken by a traveler named Samuel Hill (1856:290). Hill’s ride across he uplands ends
with his emergence into “a piece of meadow land, on which were feeding several head of cattle, with
letters marked upon their skins, which as plainly revealed the fact of their captivity as it assured us of the
near termination of our journey” which was another half-hour by horse down to Bejamin Pitman’s home in
Ponahawai. This suggests that by this time, upland kula lands were being used for pasturage.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 47
In 1862, the Commission of Boundaries (Boundary Commission) was established in the Kingdom of
Hawai‘i to legally set the boundaries of all the ahupua‘a that had been awarded, by name only, as a part
of the Māhele. In 1874, the Boundary Commission was authorized to certify the boundaries for lands
brought before them. As a part of this process, the Boundary Commission gathered testimony from
informants, who were typically elder kamaʻāina (native born or one well-acquainted with an area)
residents who learned of the boundaries from their ancestors, relatives, or neighbors. The boundary
information was collected primarily between 1873 and 1885 and was usually given in Hawaiian and
simultaneously transcribed into English. No boundary commission hearing was conducted for Punahoa 2,
as the boundaries of the ABCFM’s Land Commission Award already included a survey and the
boundaries had been accepted.
The HEA, in possession of over 1,900 acres in Punahoa 2, did not sit idly on their land. At various times,
it was leased to tenants. By the last decade of the nineteenth century, the growth of sugar as an industry
had become a consideration for the HEA as it offered its lands for lease. In January 1891, it auctioned off
a lease of its entire Punahoa 2 holdings mauka of Halai Hill, including the Project Area (The Pacific
Commercial Advertiser 1890). In the advertisement for this auction (Figure 18), the land is offered for a
lease term of 10 or 15 years to begin, presumably, in January of 1891. The entire property was offered at
an upset price of $300 per year. Of the more than 1,900 acres, only 60 to 80 of them were advertised as
good agricultural land, suitable for “cane, bananas, etc.” The Hilo Sugar Company successfully bid on the
land, most likely for its water resources more than its potential for sugarcane cultivation (John Cross,
personal communication, March 21, 2004).
Another glimpse at the Project Area toward the end of this period is provided by Registered Map 1790
(Figure 19) was prepared in 1895 for the layout of the Piʻihonua Road between Hālaʻi Hill and an
elevation of about 600 feet. Although the map is focused on terrain and property boundaries in Piʻihonua,
a few landmarks were surveyed in the Project Area (Figure 20). These include Kupapau Hill, where
Loebenstein set a survey point he called “Moohihi or spring,” portions of Ainako Stream along the
southern boundary of the Project Area, and a few rock piles marking the Piʻihonua-Punahoa 2 boundary.
On the southern boundary of the Project Area southwest of Kupapaʻu, he indicates a dashed line
extending across the boundary and Ainako Stream, labels “Aalakawai”. Next to this he labels “Old Cattle
Pen.” Both labels are outside of the Project Area. Aalakawai could be “the water is fragrant” and could be
a small stream.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 48
Figure 18. Advertisement for a lease auction of the HEA’s Punahoa 2 lands, including the Project
Area (The Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1890).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 49
Figure 19. Registered Map 1744 (Lyman 1853) with the Project Area indicated.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 50
Figure 20. Portion of Hawaii Registered Map 1744 (Lyman 1853) containing the project area.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 51
3.1.5 THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY: WATER RIGHTS AND WATER FIGHTS
During the first half of the 20th century, the Project Area became embroiled in a protracted fight over
ownership and use of the water from the springs located in the makai portion of the parcel. This clash
occurred between the HEA and the County of Hawaiʻi, dragging the Project Area into public view through
a series of newspaper articles, county commission meetings, and eventually legal proceedings. As the
sugar industry and the town of Hilo grew, so did the need for clean, fresh water. At the time, the
Portuguese Mill flume in Piʻihonua was providing a portion of the town’s water supply from a source
located at about 284 ft amsl. The springs in Piʻihonua and Punahoa 2, 123 feet higher in elevation, were
identified as potential sources, both cleaner and capable of providing more water pressure to the system.
On July 22, 1897, Hilo Water Works superintendent Wiliam Vannata began installation of a 8-inch
pipeline to the Piʻihonua springs (Hawaii Herald 1897a). The next week, the county reported that the
entire route for new pipeline had been surveyed (Hawaii Herald 1897b), and at the end of August the
entire line had been installed and connected to the city main (Hawaii Herald 1897c).
With the spring in Piʻihonua tapped, the County sought to protect it by creating a water reservation around
the town’s water source at the Kaūmana Springs, to include the springs it owned in Piʻihonua, the springs
in Punahoa 2, and the surrounding watershed. The proposed extent of the reservation was plotted by E.
D. Baldwin on Hawaiʻi Registered Map 2058 (Figure 15). The proposed reservation included 22.5 acres of
the HEA’s land within the northern portion of the Project Area.
This map depicts several key features of the project area and its surroundings. The Hilo Boarding School
Ditch can be seen entering the project area from the west and exiting through the southern boundary. The
ditch remains outside of the project area and does not join Ainako Stream. A large swamp is shown just
north of the project area with a stream running from it into Ainako Stream. Three springs appear north of
the project area and one within it, just to the northeast of Kupaau Hill. No improvements area drawn at the
springs, other than one waterpipe fed by the two northeasternmost springs.
What is most interesting about this map is that beneath the propsed water reserve boundary, it shows the
HEA’s land subdivided into 15 smaller lots of irregular shape and size. The boundaries of these “historic
lots” are indicatd with a dashed line. Most of them are numbered, but not all. Kupapau Hill appears to be
in a large, unnumbered lot (which will be referred to as “Lot 1” or “historic Lot 1”). The spring located on
the HEA’s land is on historic Lot 2. The lot boundaries extend down to the Hilo Boarding School Ditch or
to ‘Āinakō Stream. Most of the lots are about five acres or less, but the two most mauka historic lots, 14
and 15, are substantially larger than the rest.
Because this map was created to define the proposed watershed boundary and clarify the locations of
waterways and springs, some information about the HEA’s land was not included. For example, the
southern boundary of Lot 15 is not shown, nor is it clear whether more lots extended mauka. There are no
details about land use within the project area other than the delination of the lot boundaries and the spring
in Lot 2. No buildings are shown within the Project Area.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 52
Table 2. Numbered lots depicted in the project area on Registered Map 2058.
Lot Approximate acres Elevation (feet amsl)
1 (Kupapau Hill) 7.8 430-500
2 3.75 400-430
3 5.0 440-480
4 2.0 480-490
5 2.7 490-500
6 3.5 480-540
7 1.3 490-505
8 1.15 505-510
9 2.7 490-510
10 5.4 510-525
11 1.8 525-530
12 3.6 530-550
13 3.4 550-560
14 7.0 540-590
15 >12.0 590-655
In 1905, contamination of Hilo’s water supply from the Kaūmana Springs area led to the acquisition of the
Project Area by the County, but only after several decades of protracted disagreement with the ABCFM
and its successor, the Hawaiʻi Evangelical Association. In the spring of that year, the boilers on the
engines of the Hilo Railroad began to have constant problems with rust (Hilo Tribune 1905). The railroad
was using water from the public water mains, which were fed in part by water from the Kaūmana Springs.
The water in the mains was analyzed and it was found that after heavy rains the water containes a large
proportion of impurities traceable to fertilizer. The source of the contamination was found to be a 5-acre
field surrounding the springs where stable manure was being used to fertilize sugarcane. The culprit was
identified only as a Japanese cane farmer who was subleasing the land from a man named Manuel
Aranjo, who in turn was leasing the 5 acres from John Tamatoa Baker, the last governor of Hawaiʻi under
the monarchy and founder of Puʻu Oʻo ranch in Piʻihonua. Although Baker had surrendered 57.5 acres of
leased lands at the headwaters of the water supply back to the government in 1902—in exchange for the
right to clear 300 acres of mauka lands in Piʻihonua (Hilo Tribune 1903)—he apparently had leased some
of these lands to Aranjo without the government’s knowledge.
Meanwhile, across the parcel boundary in Punahoa 2, the Hilo Sugar Company was leasing land from the
ABCFM around the springs. These lands were among 1,932 ½ acres leased by the HEA to the Hilo Sugar
Company beginning in 1891 (Territory of Hawaii 1903:Book 1, page 123). The total value of this land, as
assessed by the Territorial government, was $2,500. By this time, the Hilo Sugar Company owned land
south of the Project Area in Punahoa 1 and was growing sugarcane on portions of it.
The contamination of the water in the Piʻihonua Springs led some County commissioners to propose that
land around the springs be set aside as a water reservation, where restrictions on land use would prevent
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 53
similar problems in the future. In addition to the land in Piʻihonua surrounding the springs, they also
proposed including a portion of the Project Area that was under lease to the Hilo Sugar Company:
These [Punahoa] lands have an area of 22.8 acres belonging to the American Board
of Missions and now under lease to the Hilo Sugar Company. This tract is now under
cultivation and in the opinion of experts should be set aside as government reserve to
preserve the purity of the water supply. (Hilo Tribune 1905)
The 22.8 acres mentioned in the article are the lands included within the proposed reservation are
indicated with a thick black line in Figure 15. The land described as being under cultivation was probably
the where sugar cane was being grown on adjacent parcels. The lands within the Project Area were too
rough and wet to make sugar cane cultivation viable there (John Cross, personal communication, March
21, 2004).
In August of 1910, the County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution to acquire the 22.8 acres that
were under lease to Hilo Sugar Company (Warshauer 2003). This effort would last for several decades.
The first attempt was made the next year, when the Legislature appropriated $7,500 to purchase the land
from the HEA (Hawaii Herald 1911a). The legislature offered to buy the land at $125 per acre and allow
the Hilo Sugar Company to continue using the land for another two years with all rents during that time
paid to the HEA (Hawaii Herald 1911b). The HEA rejected the appraisal of the land’s value and
threatened to take the matter to court. (Hawaii Herald 1911b). This disagreement was documented in the
tax register for 1911 (Territory of Hawaii 1912:Book 1, page 177) as a penciled-in note above the HEA’s
tax assessment reading “Spring offered to County + 56 acre for $20,000 but the would only to sell @
15,000” (Figure 21).At a meeting of the Board of Commissioners, Commissioner Marston Campbell stated
that it appeared as though the HEA’s response would force the County to condemn the land (Hawaii
Herald 1911c). Providing testimony at the meeting, John Scott, the manager of Hilo Sugar Company, said
he was willing to exchange the lease at the spring for ownership of the government-owned house lot at
Reed’s Bay where he lived. The county balked at this offer, and this led to a lively back-and-forth between
the commissioners and Scott, who got the last word in by insisting that the government, if it gave him the
Reed’s Bay property, could always get it back by condemnation.
The County attempted to condemn the water shed property, scheduling a hearing in August of 1912
(Hawaii Herald 1912). HEA countered with a valuation of $20,000 and an asking price of $15,000 (Hilo
Daily Tribune 1914b). The County, of course, disputed this valuation, noting that the HEA was paying
taxes based on a $4,000 valuation of the entire 1,908.98 acre property. Unable to secure a deal with the
HEA, the County arranged with Hilo Sugar Company to use all the water they desired that was not
required by the company (Hawaii Herald 1914). This created peace between the County and the HEA,
but a peace that was short-lived.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 54
Figure 21. Detail of 1911-1912 Territorial Real Property Tax Ledger with note about the attempted
purchase of the spring and 58 acres (Territory of Hawaii 1912:Book 1, page 177)
The County commissioners still wanted to acquire the spring in fee-simple, and appear to have tried
applying financial pressure on the HEA to make that happen. They called the HEA’s bluff on the value of
the spring and raised the taxable value of the HEA’s Punahoa 2 lands, not quite to the entire amount that
the HEA wanted in exchange for the spring, but exactly the price, $15,000, that the county was willing to
pay for it (Territory of Hawaii 1914:Book 1, page 195). The remaining 1,850 acres of agricultural land,
which the county did not want, were taxed the same as before. Meanwhile, in May of 1913, the Hilo Sugar
Company’s lease on the HEA’s 1,908.98 acres ended, and with it the county’s right to buy the spring’s
water from Hilo Sugar Company. This did not stop the County from continuing to draw water from the
spring. Seven months passed before, apparently without warning, the HEA sent the County a bill for
$2,578.80 to cover the 486,000 gallons of water taken between May 1913 and January 1914 (Hawaii
Herald 1914)—the equivalent of roughly $81,388 today (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics 2024).
The County, of course, balked at the price tag (Hilo Daily Tribune 1914a). The HEA justified their position
by noting two facts: that their spring supplied Hilo with one-fourth of its water supply, and that they were
asking for less per gallon than the price the County paid for rest of its water supply. A month later, the
HEA sent a second bill to cover the water taken by the County the month of February 1914.
The county dug in its heels. In response to this second bill, the Deputy County Attorney William Haehae
Heen made a statement that the County did not need the water, but only the land surrounding the spring
to protect the quality of the water taken out at the Piʻihonua springs. Heen added that:
…it will be the cheapest thing to condemn the land about the springs, as it is generally
agreed that it is of no great value, as the Association [the HEA] having in its
correspondence admitted that in arriving at the $15,000 valuation it considered the
springs and not the land as the valuable asset. (Hilo Daily Tribune 1914a)
The next week, the HEA published a letter in response to Heen in the newspaper, asking what value the
County would put on the water from the spring so they could arrive at a price that would be fair to the
consumers of the water in Hilo. The County’s response was also published, and noted that the County
had the HEA at an advantage, pointing out:
…the fact that the owners of the water cannot sell it to any one else, and that they
cannot pipe it to any one across public streets unless they have a franchise, which
they have not. In Hilo [Heen] adds, water is worth practically nothing. What consumers
pay for is not the water but the service and use and maintenance of reservoirs and
pipes. (Hilo Daily Tribune 1914b)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 55
Unsurprisingly, this response did not facilitate a deal between the HEA and the County. The discovery of
additional springs on the Piʻihonua parcel further slowed progress (Hilo Daily Tribune 1914c).
In 1917, the County’s acquisition of the parcel began in earnest after a final judgement was rendered in
the condemnation suit (Hawaii Tribune-Herald 1917). The presiding judge, Clem K. Quinn, ordered the
County to pay $11,500 for a 60.59-acre parcel that comprises the portion of the Project Area in Punahoa
2, not just the 22.5 acres around the springs that it had originally desired for the watershed reservation.
This version of the transfer to the county is described in a note on Map 1 for Land Court Application 292
(Newton 1937), which documents the subdivision of the HEA’s lands above Kaumana Road.
As the County worked to obtain the Punahoa springs, the Territorial government was locked in a court
battle against the Trustees of the Hilo Boarding School over the quantity of water the school was
authorized to take from the Wailuku. The government sought to reduce the amount taken out of the
Wailuku River through the Hilo Boarding School Ditch, a portion of which passes through the southwest
corner of the current project area. The water rights case (Hilo Boarding School v. Territory, 23 Haw. 595)
and the testimony provided during it is summarized and analyzed by (Wolforth 1999). Ultimately, the Hilo
Boarding School’s rights to 5,590,000 gallons per day were affirmed by the court. The court case,
however, included the testimony of Solomon P. Kaleioholani, whose grandmother was the daughter of
George Adams Kuakini 5th and was in charge of land and waters in Piʻihonuna. Kaleioholani’s testimony
describes three large ʻauwai and how they were interrelated. The Hilo Boarding School Ditch, he noted,
was a branch of a ditch attributed to Aki, konohiki in about 1841.
The condition of the Project Area during this time is depicted on a map created in 1913 showoing the Hilo
Boarding School Ditch and surrounding lands (Figure 16). The map is a reproduction of a blueprint copy
on file with the Hawaiʻi County Department of Public Works (see discussion in Kelly 1982:Appendix 2).
The underlying cartography of the map appears to be traced from Registered Map 2058 (see Figure 15)
and includes the 15 lots shown on that earlier map. It also includes updated information about the Hilo
Water Works on both sides of Punahoa 2 boundary. Just outside the northeast corner of the Project Area,
the map shows the “Hilo City Water Works Old Intake” as a spring house. The natural springs inside the
Project Area near the northern flank of Kupapau Hill is shown, along with a spring house labeled “Water
Works New Intake” east of the springs is shown inside the Project Area. Other details are similar to the
earlier map. The swamp still appears near the northwest end of the project area, and the Hilo Boarding
School Ditch appears to be in the same alignment. The gulch banks around the streams are drawn on
this map, which makes the boundaries of the numbered fields more understandable. The layout and
numbering of the fields has not changed from the 1901 map, with the exception of labeling Field 6 (which
had not been labeled before). Another new addition is a building, shown as a solid rectangle in Field 14.
Current Public Works staff did not know the age of the map. Because it shows the Hilo Water Works “New
Intake” but still labels the Project Area as under HEA ownership, it is likely that the map was drawn before
the former HEA parcel was acquired in 1917, but possibly after 1913, when the County began taking
water from the spring through their arrangement with Hilo Sugar Company.
The research conducted by Warshauer (2003) indicates that despite the publicized Judge Clem’s final
order in 1917, full conveyance of the land did not happen right away. He notes that the land was released
on February 25, 1937. This date coincides with the filing of Land Court Application 292, which
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 56
documented the subdivision of the County’s parcel from the HEA’s fee-simple lands. Warshauer
(2003:35) also notes two other transactions, without elaborating. One on November 10, 1947, when the
parcel was transferred to the Territory of Hawaiʻi, and another on January 26, 1951, when the Kaumana
Springs was transferred to the County of Hawaii by Executive Order 1418, signed by Gov. Ingram M.
Stainback.
Other records slightly contradict this timeline. The 1917 tax register (Hawaii Tribune-Herald 1917:Book 1,
page 212) shows the waterhead land (55.8 acres) itemized separately from the HEA’s lands, and 18.50
acres leased to the Hilo Sugar Company. The 1919 the tax register notes “County Hawaii let 58.9 [acres]
for Water Head” (Territory of Hawaii 1919:Book 3, page 50). In 1922, there is no mention in the tax
register of the waterhead land (Territory of Hawaii 1921:Book 2, page 143). Additionally, a 1934 map of
the Hilo Sugar Company’s fields (Figure 17) labels the Project Area parcel “Hilo Water Supply.” These
pieces of evidence suggest that the paperwork on the County’s acquisition was slow to be filed, but
before the 1937 Land Court Application was filed, the transfer of the land was completed. The filing under
Land Court Application 292 also recorded easements for the Hilo Boarding School Ditch across the
County's parcel (Lot 1) and the HEA's (Lot 2) (Figure 25).
The 1934 map (see Figure 17) provides some useful context for the agricultural use of the lands
surrounding the Project Area. It suggests that once the water reservation was made official, agricultural
production likely ceased throughout the parcel. One reason to assume this is the County’s rationale for
acquiring the land in the first place—to prevent pollution of the spring water feeding Hilo’s water supply.
Another is the absence of sugarcane fields within the reservation, while suitable lands surrounding it are
indicated to be cultivated in cane. To the north in Piʻihonua, the Hilo Sugar Company’s Field 2 extends
between the Piʻihonua Road and the northern boundary of the water reservation. To the south, there is a
patchwork of small fields near Ainako Stream. Most telling, however, is an 8-acre field just mauka of the
Project Area on land owned by the HEA. This patch of land, now occupied by the Ainako Terrace
subdivision, is near the mauka boundary of Lot 15 as depicted on Registered Map 2058. This suggests
that the Project Area was considered marginal land for cultivation, at least by the sugarcane industry.
In 1940, drought conditions were so bad that at one point water from the Hilo Boarding School Ditch was
diverted into the Kaumana Springs intakes (Hawaii Tribune-Herald 1940). The seriousness of the drought
prompted the county to begin contemplating development of wells mauka of the watershed. Other
droughts in 1941 and the 1950s led to the eventual development of the current water system and
abandonment of the Kaumana Springs.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 57
Figure 22. Detail of Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 58
Figure 23. Map of project area circa 1913 with county waterworks and lots indicated (Southworth 1913)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 59
Figure 24. Portion of 1934 Map of the Hilo Sugar Company (courtesy of John Cross).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 60
Figure 25. Survey of Hilo Boarding School Ditch right of way through the Project Area (Newton 1937).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 61
3.1.6 LATE 20TH CENTURY: THE END OF SURFACE SPRING FED WATER AND A
PROPOSAL FOR A “WILDERNESS PARK”
During the 1950s, new subdivisions in Waiakea Homesteads and Kaūmana, combined with a series of
drought years, placed new stress on Hilo’s water system. New sources, reservoirs, and transmission
pipelines were planned an constructed to meet the increased demand (Hawaii Tribune-Herald 1950,
1951, 1953). The main sources of water at this time were river intakes at Pukamaui on the Wailuku,
Kahoama and Lyman Springs intakes on Kaumana Stream, but Kaumana Springs were an important if
smaller source. In spring of 1973, a new Piʻihonua Well located at the Department of Water Supply’s
Reservoir No. 3 site below Gilbert Carvalho Park, proved producing 3.5 million gallons per day. With the
well brought online, the Kaūmana Springs were no longer needed to supply the water system. The county
water head designation for the Project Area and neighboring parcels was cancelled in 1973 via Executive
Order No. 02682.
Any cultivated fields that had been used while the ABCFM and HEA owned the Project Area were clearly
abandoned by the 1950s. Aerial photographs from October 1954 (Figure 19), January 1965 (Figure 20),
and January 1977 (Figure 21) show the Project Area increasingly overgrown. With the land no longer
needed as a water source, the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation began developing
a master plan for the Project Area that would convert the property into a park. Initial discussions about the
park occurred as early as 1967 (Hawaii Tribune-Herald 1974a). In 1970, the idea was presented to the
County Council, and funds were sought from the State two years later (Smith 2005). The proposal,
announced in 1974, was based on recommendations in the Hilo Community Development Plan and the
Hawaii County Recreation Plan for more recreation facilities located inland (Hawaii Tribune-Herald
1974b). A master plan for the “Kaumana Springs Wilderness Park” was developed (Figure 29), and an
environmental assessment for the development of the park was conducted under HRS Chapter 343
(Walters, Kimura, and Associates, Inc. 1976). This effort also included an archaeological reconnaissance
of the property.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 62
Figure 26. Aerial photograph of project area in 1954 (United States Geological Survey 1954)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 63
Figure 27. Aerial photograph of project area in 1965 (United States Department of Agriculture 1964)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 64
Figure 28. 1977 USGS aerial photograph of the Project Area (United States Geological Survey 1977)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 65
Figure 29. 1977 USGS aerial photograph of the Project Area (Walters, Kimura, and Associates, Inc. 1976)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 66
The environmental assessment includes the following brief description of the land and history, which
simultaneously acknowledges past land use while reframing the Project Area as a wild place.
The Kaumana Springs Wilderness area consists of 111 acres of undeveloped land
located in the lower Kaumana-Piihonua area, directly above the urban center. In
reality, it is neither a wilderness nor a natural area. Years ago, this area was used for
agriculture and even the casual hiker can see evidence of this use demonstrated by
the furrowed land and the rock mounds and walls which were created when the land
was cleared for cultivation. Today, most of the remaining significant trees are located
in linear bands which designate property boundaries or water courses. The
agricultural land now consists primarily of pastureland and scrub growth which
invaded the area as the fields were abandoned. There are also a few residences
along the periphery of the pasture land. Except for the windrows of trees defining the
park boundaries, most of the vegetation within the proposed park site is of recent
origin, and virtually none is older than 25 years.
The proposed park site already functions in many ways as a “wilderness” park.
Neighborhood children “explore” the gullies and stream beds, and make their own
trails to their favorite haunts. At certain times of the year, other residents venture into
the area to harvest strawberry guavas and bananas. In general, however, utilization of
the area by the greater community is limited because access points are not clearly
defined, and trails appear to the uninitiated as either overgrown or non-existent.
(Walters, Kimura, and Associates, Inc. 1976)
The park facilities that were proposed in the master plan were never constructed, however, apparently
due to lack of funds.
Meanwhile, the former HEA lands immediately mauka of the Project Area were subdivided in the late
1970s to create the Ainako Terrace subdivision. The subdivision created two development increments of
residential view lots extending from Ainako Street down to the mauka boundary of the Project Area. Lots
in the lower portion of the subdivision were sold as Increment II, beginning in the fall of 1977 (Figure 22).
By the mid-1980s, grading for the lower end of Kilikina Street and the subdivision lots destroyed the Hilo
Boarding School Ditch within the subdivision (Figure 23). Although the proposed wilderness park had not
been constructed, it found its way into the local phone book (Smith 2005).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 67
Figure 30. Advertisement for Ainako Terrace Subdivision Unit II (RSM, Inc. 1977)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 68
Figure 31. Hilo Boarding School Ditch easement overlain on 1985 aerial imagery of developed lots
in the Ainako Terrace subdivision (Newton 1937; United States Geological Survey 1985)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 69
3.2 Prior Archaeological Studies
The majority of Punahoa 2 makai of the current project area was developed before the advent of historic
preservation laws, and very few archaeological investigations have taken place within the ahupuaʻa. The
Project Area, however, was included in a reconnaissance survey (Sinoto 1978) that identified
archaeological features thought to represent a portion of a Precontact agriculture area. Elsewhere in
Punahoa 2, remants of historically documented ditches (possibly reused portions of older ʻauwai) have
been recorded, along with Historic features associated with sugarcane cultivation. In the neighboring
ahupuaʻa of Piʻihonua, a few archaeological studies have occured at similar elevations or slightly lower.
These studies also provide information about possible land uses in the Project Area. Table 3 lists relevant
prior archaeological studies, and the locations of those studies are shown in Figure 24.
Table 3. Prior archaeological studies in Punahoa 2 and in the project area vicinity.
Author Year Type Elevation Ahupuaʻa
Relevant findings
(SIHP 50-10-35-)
Barna 2018 Inventory 2200-2560 Punahoa 2 No historic properties
Barna et al. 2023 Inventory 290-380 Piʻihonua Sugarcane complex (T1)
Historic foundation (T2)
Rubbish dump (T3)
Bautista and Hammatt 2021 Field Inspection Piʻihonua
Clark and Rechtman 2005 Inventory 400-440 Piʻihonua No historic properties
Corbin 2006 Field Inspection 525-900 Punahoa1 & 2 AF-1: spring, ditch,
mound
AF-2: wall
AF-3: stone enclosure, C-
shape, terrace, mounds
Jensen and
Rosendahl
1991 Inventory 240-410 Punahoa 2
Punahoa 1
Ponahawai
Hilo Boarding School
Ditch (14947)
Rechtman 2004a Reconnaissance 440-480 Piʻihonua No historic properties
Rechtman 2004b Inventory 580-670 Piʻihonua Wall (24267)
Wall (24269)
Sinoto 1978 Reconnaissance 400-700 Piʻihonua
Punahoa 2
Six clusters of features
Spear 1992 Inventory 325-415 Piʻihonua Retaining wall (18444)
Wall (18443)
Spear 1993a Inventory 335-445 Piʻihonua Rubbish dump (19037)
Portuguese bread oven
(19036)
Spear 1993b Inventory
Walker and
Rosendahl
1996 Inventory 370-385 Piʻihonua None in Site F near
project area
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 70
Figure 32. Location of prior archaeological studies in the project area vicinity.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 71
Figure 33. Location of previously recorded archaeological sites in the project area vicinity
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 72
3.2.1 STUDIES IN THE PROJECT AREA
The Project Area was included in an archaeological reconnaissance survey conducted by the Bishop
Museum (Sinoto 1978) as part of a larger study area associated with the County of Hawaiʻi, Department
of Parks and Recreation proposed development of the Kaumana Springs Wilderness Park. The survey
identified six clusters of archaeological features that were interpreted as exhibiting characteristics that are
“more typical of prehistoric construction than of historic construction.” He briefly described the six clusters,
noting that no portable artifacts were recovered during the survey:
Cluster 1. Near the western end of the survey area, adjacent to the swamp, are several
disturbed terraces and small segments of stone alignments.
Cluster 2. Near the southwestern corner of the survey area are more remnants of
terraces and intact portions of a stone-reinforced ʻawuai (irrigation ditch).
Cluster 3. Centrally located in the southern half of the survey area are several stone
mounds and cairns…, a large elongate platform…, and a low stone wall that parallels the
present fence line along the southern boundary (included int the Preliminary Master Plan
map, Jan. 1974, by George S. Walters and Assoc., Inc.)
Cluster 4. Near the northern boundary of the survey area, immediately south of the
existing residential lots, are several walls, enclosures, terrace and stone reinforced
stream banks.
Cluster 5. Centrally located in the survey area and NE of Cluster 3 are terraces,
platforms, mounds, cairns, and ʻauwai.
Cluster 6. Near the northeastern corner of the survey area, adjacent to the Kaumana
Springs aqueduct and pastureland, are several circular and oblong cairns…and a small,
high-walled enclosure.
The fieldwork involved systematic pedestrian transects walked by Sinoto and Eric Komori. The features
that they observed included ʻauwai, terraces, rock mounds, cairns, and modified stream banks. He also
noted what he described as wild stands of wetland kalo (taro, Colocasia esculenta) and ʻape (Alocasia
macrorhiza). Sinoto uses the term mound to mean “crude amorphous piles”—in other words, rock piles—
and cairn to refer to mounds with “some structural form”—that is, mounds with varying degrees of
structure and stacking. He noted that “cairns” or mounds with structure and stacking, have been used for
boundary marking and burials. Sinoto interpreted the stone walls were to be cattle or boundary walls, and
he considered the rock mounds to be ambiguous in terms of age and function. Sinoto commented on the
dense vegetation that covered portions of the project area, in particular uluhe (false staghorn,
Dicranopteris linearis) and Christmasberry (wilelaiki, Schinus terbinthifolius), that prevented full coverage
of his study area. Sinoto felt that the clusters he observed were probably parts of a continuous distribution
of features, many of which were likely hidden in the areas he was unable to access. He also noted
evidence of past land alterations from plowing on the periphery of his study area and acknowledged that if
there had been associated sites nearby, they were likely destroyed.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 73
Figure 34. Site location map from Sinoto (1978) with the current project area indicated
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 74
Figure 35. Site location map from Sinoto (1978) overlain on 1977 USGS aerial photograph
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 75
3.2.2 STUDIES MAKAI OF THE PROJECT AREA
In 1990, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted an archaeological inventory survey (Jensen
1991) of an approximately 222-acre parcel located about 600 yards makai of the Project Area (see Figure
24). The majority of the survey area included former sugarcane fields and was scarred by numerous haul
roads or bulldozer cuts. During the survey, two a portion of the Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-
35-14947) was identified, along with a shed identified as a “cane house” (SIHP 50-10-35-14946). The Hilo
Boarding School Ditch was recommended for preservation with interpretation was recommended. The
cane house was determined to have been adequately documented, and no further work was
recommended for it.
3.2.3 STUDIES MAUKA OF THE PROJECT AREA
Other than the Sinoto (1978) reconnaissance of the current Project Area, the most pertinent
archaeological project for the current study was field inspection and assessment of a 333-acre project
area (see Figure 24) at the in Punahoa 1 and 2 by Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (Corbin 2006). During
that survey, three “areas of features” found by topographic surveyors were investigated by two
archaeologists. AF-1 was located in Punahoa 2 and contained a spring, a partially rock-lined ditch, and a
7.0 meter long rock mound. AF-2 consisted of a historic rock wall, likely built on a parcel boundary. AF-3
was an area reported to measure 1.0 by 0.75 kilometers containing a stone enclosure, a C-shape, a
terrace, and numerous mounds. It was also reported that at least 100 to 200 more mounds were
scattered on lands surrounding these “areas of features.” The features were identified as likely historic
sugar cane cultivation or ranching features, although it is considered possible that the C-shape and the
terrace at AF-3 could be traditional Hawaiian features. The numerous mounds were probably sugar-cane
clearing mounds or sugarcane loading mounds.
About 6 miles mauka of the current project area, ASM Affiliates conducted an Archaeological Inventory
Survey (Barna 2018) for the Hawai‘i Electric Light 6200 Transmission Line Replacement project. This
project area is not depicted in Figure 24. The survey corridor paralleled Highway 200 and crossed
Punahoa 2 for roughly 0.5 miles between 2,200 and 2,560 feet amsl. Within four corridors ranging
between 50 and 100 feet wide, the pedestrian survey identified no historic properties within Punahoa 2.
3.2.4 RELEVANT STUDIES IN PIʻIHONUA
A series of small surveys have been conducted near the Hilo Medical Center campus north and west of
the Project Area.
In 1992, Scientific Consulting Services (SCS) conducted an inventory survey (Spear 1992) of a 12-acre
parcel located on the south side of Waiānuenue Avenue. Vegetation reported closely resembles that of
the current study property. Spear identified two Historic era stacked stone walls associated with a stream
channel.
In 1993, SCS conducted and archaeological inventory survey (Spear 1993a) of 9.5 acres between
Wāianuenue Avenue and the Hilo Watershed Reservation. No historic properties were identified.
Also in 1993, SCS conducted an archaeological inventory survey (Spear 1993b) of approximately 5 acres
located between Wāianuenue Avenue and Rainbow Road. Two historic properties were identified. SIHP
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
3 Background
Project Number: 093046 76
50-10-35-19036 consisted of the remains of a Portuguese oven. SIHP 50-10-35-19037 consisted of a
historic refuse dump containing material from the 1880s and later. Both sites were considered significant
under Criterion D because of their informational content and no further work was recommended for either.
In 1996, Paul H. Rosendahl Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) (Walker and Rosendahl 1996) conducted an
archaeological inventory survey of a parcel on Waiānuenue Avenue across from the Hilo Hospital
(TMK:2-3-32:1), which included the parcel earlier studied by SCS. After concluding that the 42.3 acres
had likely been impacted by historic sugarcane cultivation, PHRI surveyed only 11% (approximately 4.6
acres) of the property. As a result, they missed the two walls previously documented by Spear (1992) and
neglected to include Spear’s study in their review of previous archaeology. PHRI recorded no sites within
the 4.6 acres they surveyed, concluding that areas outside the streambed were modified by sugarcane
cultivation, whereas areas within the streambed may not have been affected by historic land use and may
therefore contain archaeological remains (Walker and Rosendahl 1996:13)
In 2004, Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological inventory survey and limited cultural
assessment (Rechtman 2004a) of a parcel located along the southern edge of Waiānuenue Avenue
(TMK:[3] 2-3-030:005 por.; see Figure 35) which had been previously surveyed by (Sinoto 1978).
Rechtman recorded two Historic stone wall remnants (Sites 50-10-35-24267 and -24268). The sites
appeared to have been previously disturbed and were interpreted as agricultural and residential features
dating to a time before the development of commercial sugarcane cultivation.
Also in 2004, Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological and limited cultural assessment (Clark
and Rechtman 2004b) of a 5.4-acre parcel for the expansion of the Arc of Hilo facility (TMKs: (3) 2-3-
032:006-008), located to the southwest of the current project area. (see Figure 35). Their survey resulted
in no historic properties.
Also in 2004, Rechtman Consulting conducted an archaeological and limited cultural assessment (Clark
and Rechtman 2004) of 5.4-acres for the expansion of the Arc of Hilo facility (TMKs: [3] 2-3-032:006-008),
located to the south of the current study area within Pi‘ihonua Ahupua‘a. (see Figure 27). As a result of
their fieldwork, RC found no historic properties in the project area, which had been previously bulldozed.
In 2021, Cultural Surveys Hawaiʻi conducted a literature review and field inspection (Bautista and
Hammatt 2021) of a 1.1-acre area located at 1190 Waiānuenue Avenue. No archaeological features were
observed on the ground surface within the project area.
In 2023, ASM Affiliates conducted an archaeological inventory survey (Barna et al. 2023) of a 24.9 acre
parcel located at the historic Hilo Memorial Hospital site. Three historic properties were identified. Site T1
is an agricultural complex created by the late nineteenth and early twentieth century cultivation of
sugarcane. Site T2 is a large refuse concentration associated with the operation of the hospital and later
tenants of the site. Site T3 is the remnant foundations of four buildings formerly located on the hospital
campus. Site T1 was recommended significant under Criterion d for the information provided about
sugarcane cultivation, with no further work recommended. Sites T2 and T3 were not recommended
significant.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
4 Consultation
Project Number: 093046 77
4 Consultation
Consultation included written and in-person communication with knowledgeable individuals and
organizations. Table 4 lists the groups and individuals contacted for consultation and the results of the
invitations to consult. Responses that were received are summarized below. Information obtained through
consultation is incorporated into the text of the CIA report, including background, findings, and analysis.
Table 4 Groups and Individuals Contacted for Consultation
Name Organization Contacted Notes
Kaweni Ibarra Office of Hawaiian Affairs March 25, 2025 Received email
response
Kevin Sullivan,
Kim Tanaka
County of Hawaiʻi Planning Department-
Cultural Resources Commission
March 25, 2025 Requested a
presentation for the
commission
Terri Napeahi Aha Moku Council March 25, 2025,
June 15, 2025
No response
Piʻilani Kaʻawaloa Mokupuni Poʻo, Moku O Keawe, Aha Moku
Advisory Committee
June 25, 2025 No response
Jordan Calpito,
Christian Omerod
Department of Land and Natural
Resources-State Historic Preservation
Division, History and Culture Branch
March 25, 2025 Requested submittal
via Hawaiʻi Cultural
Resources Information
System, March 27,
2025
Noah Gomes Department of Land and Natural
Resources-State Historic Preservation
Division, History and Culture Branch
August 14, 2025 Email conversation
about place names.
Sean Nāleimaile,
Nicole Mello
Department of Land and Natural
Resources-State Historic Preservation
Division, Archaeology Branch
March 25, 2025 Requested submittal
via Hawaiʻi Cultural
Resources Information
System, March 27,
2025
Kiersten Faulkner Historic Hawaiʻi Foundation March 25, 2025,
June 15, 2025
No response
Ronald and Doreen
Kodani
Piʻihonua Hawaiian Homestead Community
residents
March 25, 2025,
June 15, 2025
Interviewed 7/23/2025
Leileihua Yuen Punahoa 2 Resident March 25, 2025 Interviewed 6/17/2025
4.1 Office of Hawaiian Affairs
The OHA was contacted via email on May 16, 2025, and provided with preliminary results of the
archaeological survey and background cultural research. A response was received on June 3, 2025, from
compliance officer Kaweni Ibarra. In the response, OHA thanked Stantec for providing the documents and
commented:
In regards to your inquiry about Puu Kupapau, the name does imply that the area is
associated with burials. In addition to the association of the nearby boarding school
with alii, it is common for chiefly and high ranking burials to be placed in elevated
areas, such as this puʻu. On account of these factors, we recommend consideration of
archaeological monitoring at a minimum for all ground disturbing work on this project.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
4 Consultation
Project Number: 093046 78
4.2 State Historic Preservation Division
Informal consultation was conducted with the State Historic Preservation Division via email in March 2025
and consisted of a request for information from the Archaeology Branch and the Burial Sites Specialists in
the Hilo Office. SHPD responded by acknowledging the request and asking that the county make a formal
submittal in HICRIS. Additional informal consultation in August 2025 was conducted with SHPD
Ethnographer Noah Gomes, again by email. Mr. Gomes provided information obtained from a typescript
of Theodore Kelsey’s notes in the private collection of June Gutmanis. The notes include information from
ethnographic interviews that Kelsey conducted around 1918 with Lameka Ahalau, a resident of Piʻihonua
Ahupuaʻa who lived were the Hilo High School campus now is. Kelsey and Ahulau took a series of trips in
which Ahulau pointed out various places in upper Piʻihonua and especially the Wailuku river. Mr. Gomes
shared the following information:
• Ahulau told Kelsey that the inclusive name for the foothills" near "Molo-kioi" is "Ka-lama."
• Mōhihi or Moʻohihi seems to be a name of either the northernmost or middle spring that originates
in the "Kaʻūmana Springs" area, as depicted on maps and mentioned in old newspaper articles.
Looking at various other sources, it seems that the main stream that currently flows through the
ʻĀinakō Subdivision is named either Malokioi or Molokioi, and that its course may have been
altered at some point to join with Mōhihi spring and another spring named Waipāhoehoe, whose
name dominates the waterflow as the stream continues on through what is now Carvalho Park,
and into the Wailuku. There is at least one more spring in the area that converges with these
three, whose name I have not found. These springs also seem to have contributed to the ʻĪʻauwai
system in Piʻihonua and Punahoa.
• Mr. Gomes was unable to find the names Puʻu Kūpapaʻu or Puʻu Ioane in older sources, but he
has heard from Kale Langlas that Puʻu Ioane may have been named for Ioane Haʻa, a famous
paniolo.
• Kelsey also recorded that there was a place called "Piʻihau" that was a hill on the Puna side of the
road to Piʻihonua around the area of Waiānuenue, but Mr. Gomes is not sure exactly where that
is or if it refers to Puʻu Kūpapaʻu .
4.3 Leilehua Yuen
Leilehua Yuen is a multigenerational resident of Punahoa 2 and a Hawaiian artisan with a background in
hula, music, and storytelling. Dr. Barna met with Ms. Yuen at her home in Punahoa 2 on June 16, 2025,
to discuss potential cultural impacts in the project area.
On June 17, 2025, Leileihua Yuen spoke with the author about the project and potential cultural impacts.
The interview took place at her house in Punahoa 2.
Topics that were discussed included:
• The area is too wet for sugar, but not too wet for growing taro and ʻuala with mounds.
• Looking at 1931 map, Leilehua noted that the area mauka was mostly used for cattle because it
was too wet for other agriculture.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
4 Consultation
Project Number: 093046 79
• “Moohihi or Spring.” Could be related to entangling of genealogies—entangling mo’o—or the
intermarriage of chiefly families. Or “the moʻo grabs.”
• Thinking about Hinakeahi, could Kupapau Hill maybe have been used for cremating criminals?
Maybe cremated with pukiawe wood to destroy the bones? Or maybe removing flesh the pono
way?
• Related three stories of how Hilo was named.
• Puʻu Opeʻapeʻa—she said Puupeʻa—and said that luʻau was Lohiau’s favorite dish. To make it,
you harvest the young tip of the taro leaves. When they are young and thin, they are like bat’s
wings. Taro was grown for that purpose on the puʻu.
• Also mentioned that there used to be many bats at that puʻu, but not as many when she was
young. Hilo High School’s lights for the football field attracted insects and especially termite, and
that helped increase the number of bats.
Recommendations included:
• Keep development out of ditches and streams.
• She stated a preference or hope that community could care for open space.
• Interpretation at the spring would be a good opportunity to tell the story of the whole aquifer, from
Polihale to Hina i ke ahi—story of wai from top to bottom.
• She suggested checking mounds for burials.
4.4 Ronald and Doreen Kodani
Ronald and Doreen Kodani are residents of the Piʻihonua Hawaiian Homestead Community. Both are
active in the native Hawaiian community. Ronald has been a director of Hui Mālama Ola Nā ʻŌiwi and a
community leader with the Sovereign Council of Hawaiian Homestead Associations and the Piʻihonua
Hawaiian Homestead Community Association, among others. Doreen provided childcare as owner and
operator of Hilo Keiki Cares for over a decade. They live makai of State-owned parcel.
On July 23, 2025, Ronald and Doreen Kodani spoke with the author about the project and potential
cultural impacts. The interview took place at their home in the Piʻihonua Hawaiian Homestead
Community.
Topics that were discussed included:
• The history of the Kaumana Springs Wilderness Park and the archaeology survey that was done
in 1978.
• Connections between the neighborhood (Puʻu Hina street), Hina, the Wailuku, and the Hina
stories.
• History of water in the area, including springs, pipelines, and streams. People used to take water
from the area and take it home for drinking.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
4 Consultation
Project Number: 093046 80
• Norman Kalima brought loʻi back to grow taro and other crops in the land behind Henderson’s.
Kalima would tell him about “people who guard the place.”
• The name Puʻu Kupapau or Kupapau Hill was not familiar to them, but moʻolelo or mele might
have more information.
• Has gathered bamboo and hōʻiʻo from across Ainako Stream near the Project Area. Does not
know of others who gather in the Project Area.
• Main concern for the area is gentrification.
Recommendations included:
• Make an effort to notifying neighbors about public meetings and the project, for example, mailing
or stopping by in person.
• Reach out to halaus in area, and people living in older neighborhood across Kuamana Drive.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 81
5 Project Area Expectations
The current Project Area is located at an elevation of elevation of 400 and 700 feet amsl, about 2 miles
inland from Hilo Bay in the ahupuaʻa of Punahoa 2. Some models of Precontact settlement and land use
place the Project Area in the Upland Agricultural Zone, where scattered garden and agroforestry plots
could be found, with some temporary habitations, in the upper kula. More recent modelling suggests that
Punahoa was near the southern edge of a band of intensively utilized lands that extended inland along
the Hilo kula toward Hāmākua. The Project Area in particular, however, has a relative abundance of
freshwater springs and streams, making it possible for rainfed and limited irrigated agriculture. Little
documentary evidence in the form of recorded moʻolelo or 19th century written accounts has been found
to elaborate on land use in the Project Area. The Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947) or
its predecessor, the ʻĪ ʻauwai (or the Kanuha ʻauwai or Aki ʻauwai) is known to pass through the Project
Area. Early 20th century maps indicate the land was divided into 15 historic lots, and that it was unlikely
that the land was used extensively for sugarcane cultivation. The springs in the northeast corner were
hotly contested by the HEA and the County in the early 20th century. Ultimately, at least one spring was
developed to provide water for the Hilo municipal supply.
A reconnaissance survey conducted by the Bishop Museum (Sinoto 1978) identified three clusters of
features he described as resembling traditional Hawaiian construction, along with ranching walls. These
clusters were assigned to SIHP 50-10-35-18696 but were never inventoried.
5.1 Anticipated Feature Types
Archaeological features are quantifiable forms constructed or modified by humans that make up the
archaeological landscape and provide a material record of human activities in a given place. After their
initial construction, various site formation processes related to their use, reuse, abandonment, and
naturally occurring preservation or decay can alter features such that a level of interpretation is necessary
to categorize and explain what they are. Numerous formal feature types have been identified (but not
agreed upon) during the past 100 or so years of archaeological research (augmented by historical
documentation and oral historical accounts) on the island of Hawai‘i. Indeed, as Kirch (1985:36–38)
points out, “given the bewildering variety of forms and permutations that Hawaiian structures take…no
single classification has yet been found to be entirely satisfactory. In fact, Hawaiian archaeologists
commonly use ad hoc combinations of functional and formal types in their survey work, applying
functional terms to sites whose past use seems relatively unambiguous, and using formal, descriptive
terms for sites that might have been used for several alternative purposes.” By nature, this lack of
agreement on feature terminology hinders comparisons between sites and projects, and the “ad hoc”
combination of formal and functional terms used in describing features in the field can preclude innovative
interpretation. As has been documented, similar formal feature types can have diverse functional and
temporal associations.
A set of formal feature definitions is presented below based on prior studies by Cordy (Cordy et al. 1991),
Kirch (Kirch 1985; Kirch and McCoy 2023), and adapted by Rechtman and Clark (e.g., Clark and
Rechtman 2016; Gastilo and Clark 2018). The definitions are purposely devoid of function, and present
only the common attributes that allow for sorting the diverse formal feature types into easily quantifiable
groups. Features, which typically comprise spatially bounded individual deposits or constructions, may
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 82
may stand alone on the landscape or be combined to form compound structures. According to Kirch
(1985:39), “groupings or aggregations of architectural components, features, and compound structures
over the landscape are termed complexes (such as all of the features and structures that make up a
residential unit).”
5.1.1 FEATURE TYPES
Formal feature types expected in the project area are described below. A definition of each feature type,
based on convention, is presented below. In addition to these feature types, complexes composed of
multiple associated features and isolated artifacts were also expected.
Alignment
An alignment is a low-lying, linear or curvilinear arrangement of stones that is considerably longer than it
is wide. Alignments are informally constructed using stones of various type and size depending upon the
source material. Alignments, unlike the walls encountered within the study area, are rarely stacked. In
some cases, alignments may consist of single stones placed end to end in a row. Alignments may form
adjoining or shaped segments (i.e., L-shaped, T-shaped, U-shaped, etc.).
Artifact concentration
An artifact concentration is an accumulation of multiple portable artifacts in reasonable proximity to each
other to be associated with use or depositional events. They may be exposed on the ground surface or
buried. They consist of discarded or abandoned artifacts in primary or secondary depositional contexts.
Unlike a midden, an artifact concentration may not necessarily be the result of intentional dumping or
discard.
Ditch
A long, narrow excavation that provides a channel for moving water. They may be lined (e.g., with rock;
concrete/gunite lining, mortared rock, concrete), but may also be unlined. Ditches may connect in
networks that are dentritic or heiarchical to distribute water. Component features of ditches may include
diversion structures (e.g., weirs dams), conduits (e.g. flumes, tunnels, pipelines), and flow control devices
(e.g., gates). The English term “ditch” is used to avoid functional interpretations, reserving the term
“ʻauwai” for the artificial diversion of “a flow” of fresh water by means of a ditch or channel, for purposes of
domestic use and irrigation (Handy et al. 2020:77).
Enclosure
An enclosure is a collection of walls or alignments that surround an interior space on at least 75% of its
perimeter. The construction may incorporate natural formations (i.e., bedrock outcrops, boulders, etc.) or
other formal feature types into its length. Construction materials are of varying type and size depending
on the source. The shape of an enclosure (i.e. square, rectangular, three sided, many sided, circular,
oval, irregular, etc.) varies considerably depending on the topography, its intended function, and the
amount of land disturbance that has occurred in the vicinity of the feature. Some enclosures completely
surround an interior space with no openings; others have an open side or have an intentionally created
small opening in one or more of the perimeter constructions. The interior of the enclosure may contain
rubble, cleared space, soil, or other feature types depending on the individual purpose of construction.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 83
Freestanding Wall
A wall is a linear or curvilinear alignment of stones (at least two courses high) that is considerably longer
than it is wide. Walls are constructed using stones of various type and size depending upon the source
material. They generally have sloped sides, although in neatly stacked walls the slope approaches
vertical. Walls encountered within the study area take on three general forms; collapsed (no formal
placement of stones evident), stacked (stones placed on top of one another), and core-filled (stacked
along the edges with a fill of smaller, piled stones). Walls may also form adjoining or shaped segments
(i.e., L-shaped, T-shaped, U-shaped, etc.).
Modified outcrop
A modified outcrop is an elevated tumulus (outcrop) of pāhoehoe that has been altered from its natural
form by the addition of a collection (or collections) of stones placed on or against it. The collection of
stones may take the form of any of the other architectural feature types, but the collection must be
significantly smaller than the size of the tumulus, and the outcrop must be integral to the feature’s
architecture and location. Typically, the outcrop itself defines the limits of the feature, rather than the
extent of the modifications.
Modified Spring
A spring is a water resource formed when the ground surface intersects groundwater at or below the local
water table, at a depth where the subsurface material is saturated with water. A modified spring has been
altered from its natural form. Some examples of modifications include excavation of the spring to improve
access to the water source, the addition of constructed features to protect the spring (e.g., lining the
spring with rock, wood, or concrete, enclosing the spring in a wall or fence), or constructing features to
improve access (e.g., leveling the surrounding ground surface, building steps down or up to the spring).
Mound
A mound is a collection of stones with an irregular surface. Mounds can range in size, shape, method of
construction, and type of stone used. They can be constructed from as few as four stones or as many as
the topography and the effort of the individual(s) constructing them allow. The shape of a mound (e.g.,
oval, round, linear, curvilinear, square, crescent, rectangular, or irregular) can vary depending on the
terrain and the needs and preferences of the individual(s) constructing it. Mounds generally have sloped
sides. Mounds are either piled or stacked, or a combination of both. Stacked mounds usually contain a fill
of piled stones contained by an outside layer that is stacked around the edges. The type of stone used in
mound construction reflects the immediately available source material. The size of stone used is also a
function of material availability.
Platform
A platform is a stone construction with a relatively flat upper surface that is elevated above the
surrounding ground surface on all sides. Platforms are usually quadrangular (but may also be rounded or
irregular) with neatly stacked or collapsed edges (stacked edges are generally vertical, while collapsed
edges were formerly stacked, but are now sloped and resemble piled edges). The upper surface of a
platform often consists of smaller stones than are used to construct the rest of the feature.
Retaining wall
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 84
A retaining wall is a linear or curvilinear alignment of stones (at least two courses high) that is
considerably longer than it is wide. Unlike a freestanding wall, a retaining wall is constructed to support
nearly vertical slopes of earth or rock and prevent erosion and collapse of the material. Retaining walls
are constructed using stones of various types and size depending upon the source material. They
generally have sloped sides, although in neatly stacked retaining walls the slope can approach vertical.
Rock pile
A rock pile is a collection of stones with an irregular surface. Rock piles may be intentionally constructed
by heaping or stacking stones at a specific location or could be incidentally created by mechanical
disturbance to another feature type that deposited the stones in a pile, rendering any previous formal
traits unrecognizable. Rock piles range considerably in size and shape depending on the number of
stones they contain. The type and size of stone found in a rock pile reflects the immediately available
source material. Incidentally created rock piles are always loose collections of stones that lack any formal
architectural traits. Intentionally created rock piles are either piled or stacked, or a combination of both. All
rock piles, as dictated by gravity, have sloped sides, although rock piles with stacked sides may have
edges that approach vertical. Stacked rock piles usually contain a fill of piled stones with an outside layer
of stacked stones around the edges.
Rock ring
A rock ring is an arrangement of rocks around the perimeter of a circular or roughly circular area. Unlike
an enclosure, the arrangement does not form a wall but is generally built as an alignment of single rocks
or exposed on the ground surface.
Terrace
A terrace is a stone surfaced area, level with the surrounding ground surface on at least one side.
Typically, a terrace consists of a linear or curvilinear stone construction built perpendicular to the natural
slope of the terrain that retains a fill of stones behind it with an artificially leveled surface. The stones of
the retaining edge may be piled, stacked, or collapsed (piled edges are sloped, stacked edges are nearly
vertical, while collapsed edges were formerly stacked, but now resemble piled edges). The retaining edge
is generally constructed of larger cobbles, while the fill (behind the retaining edge against the slope) is
made up of variously sized source material, but often has a paving of small (cobble to gravel size) stones
on the surface. Terraces vary in size and shape depending on the terrain and the individual purpose of
construction.
5.1.2 COMPLEXES
Multiple features that appear to be associated spatially, functionally, and temporally can be interpreted to
comprise a “complex” that could have been used in a coordinated and interdependent manner. Within a
complex, the individual features that comprise it are considered to be “subfeatures.” A complex could be
considered a “site” or a “feature” depending on the larger archaeological context. A classic example of a
complex as a site might be a kauhale (Ladefoged 1991; Vacca 2019) that includes several features and
activity areas (e.g., enclosures or platforms) that were used by a household as their residence. Within the
context of a larger site, an example of a complex could be multiple connected platforms and terraces
used as a foundation of a building.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 85
5.2 Temporal Affiliations (Age) of Features
Individual features identified in the field were examined for indicators of their temporal affiliation or age.
Ideally, these indicators would provide information about the entire history of the feature, from its initial
creation to its ultimate abandonment and any episodes of use, reuse, or modification in between. More
often than not, this level of detail is not possible, but a general idea of a feature’s age may be determined.
Using a diverse set of criteria, an attempt was made to assign each feature to one or more generic
periods commonly used to describe sites in Hawaiian archaeology. The earliest period, “Precontact,”
describes the years between the arrival of the first Polynesian voyagers to the Hawaiian Islands and the
arrival of the first European explorers in C.E. 1778. The second period, “Historic,” describes the years
after the arrival of the first European explorers until the “Modern” period, which begins fifty years before
the preparation of this report. If more specific temporal information is available, other designations may be
made, such as “nineteenth century.” Some isolated and remnant features may lack clear evidence of
temporal affiliation. The age of these features is considered “Indeterminate.”
Due to current scope and budget limitations, no radiometric dating was conducted during the current
survey, and so other lines of evidence were used to assign temporal affiliation. These included the
accumulated archaeological data, historical documentary research, the Māhele and grant records, and
oral historical information. One common indicator of Historic period utilization of a feature is the presence
of artifacts known to be manufactured during that period. The presence (or absence) of Historic artifacts
is often used as a relative dating technique in Hawaiian archaeology. The identification of such artifacts in
association of a feature suggests that the feature was used when those artifacts were available to its
occupants. Precontact use can be suggested by the presence of traditional Hawaiian artifacts with or
without accompanying Historic period artifacts. Artifacts alone, however, cannot definitively rule out the
use of a feature during either the Precontact or Historic periods, as several studies have demonstrated
(e.g., Bayman 2009; Kirch 1992). Features that lack Historic Period artifact types and construction styles
may still be assigned to the Historic Period based on their associations with, or locations relative to,
places or features known to have been used during the Historic Period.
Some architectural attributes and construction materials can also be indicative of temporal affiliation. In
general, Historic walls may be distinguished from Precontact walls by construction technique. Evidence of
core-filled construction outside of the special contexts cited by Cordy et al. (1991) is a strong indicator
that the wall was built during the Historic Period. As Cordy et al. (1991:460) state, “It has long been
realized in Hawaiian archaeology that high (1.0+ meter), vertically faced, and core-filled walls are
common architectural features of the late 1800s—seen in the form of kuleana house lot walls, house
walls themselves, and in ranch and ahupua‘a border walls.” These types of walls are occasionally found
in Precontact sites, but were not common and seem to be restricted to certain site types such as heiau
(Cordy et al. 1991). Often, the materials used to construct the Historic walls were pirated from older
Precontact features. Occasionally, the Historic walls even follow the alignments of older walls. Features
built using mortar, concrete, metal, or milled lumber are also easy to distinguish as Historic (or Modern)
Period constructions.
Absent chronometric data or documentary evidence of their creation, it can be difficult to assess the age
of rock mounds. Techniques for clearing agricultural fields of stone during both the Precontact and
Historic periods often create rock mounds. Based on interviews with former sugarcane field workers, Hunt
and McDermott (1993:31) suggest that the edges of rock mounds found in South Hilo in former
sugarcane fields were stacked “to increase the efficiency and holding capacities of the piles, thereby
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 86
allowing more cleared space for sugarcane.” The rock mounds were dismantled and rebuilt each planting
season to reduce weeds and pests. They go on to relate that the rock mounds known to have been built
by plantation workers tended to lack the stable, weight-bearing vertical faces and top surfaces paved with
stones that are more commonly associated traditional Hawaiian architecture (Hunt and McDermott
1993:90). Additionally, they noted an absence of traditional Hawaiian artifacts and activity area features
such as paving stones, ʻili ʻili (pebble) pavements, or imu (earth ovens), but the presence of Historic
Period artifacts. Their findings create a model for assessing the age rock mounds in agricultural contexts
that has been useful in South Hilo (e.g., Clark and Rechtman 2016).
A feature containing evidence of Historic Period use may also be older than this. Some features may
have been used, continually, periodically, or episodically, from Precontact times into Historic times.
Evidence of continued use, or reuse, of a feature through time can be identified by absolute dating
techniques, or by examining the cultural material remains, architectural elements, and associations with
known loci of human occupation. Features with indicators of use or the potential for use during both
Precontact times and Historic times are assigned to both relative time periods. Some isolated and
remnant features with forms that permeate the span of human settlement in the islands, or which have
been so badly disturbed by Historic/Modern land clearing activities that they are only small remnants of
what once existed, often lack clear evidence of temporal affiliation. The age of these features is
considered “indeterminate.” Likely scenarios for the construction of features with indeterminate ages are
discussed in the text, but they are not assigned to a particular time period. The remaining features, with
forms and associated cultural deposits indicative solely of use prior to the Historic Period, are considered
the vestiges of the Precontact archaeological landscape, and they too are grouped into sites (see
Defining Site Boundaries below).
“Modern” features that are less than 50 years old are not considered to be historic properties (HRS
Chapter 6E-2) by DLNR-SHPD. Features of this age, as determined in the field, were noted but not
recorded in detail. The criteria used to assign features to a particular time period include architectural
style, construction materials, location, proximity and similarity to other features, associated cultural
material, the accumulated knowledge of Hawaiian archaeological forms, and when possible historical
documentary research and oral historical information.
5.3 Functional Interpretations
Functional interpretations are derived by considering a features form, likely age, and the historical and
environmental context in which it is identified. Expected functions are listed below.
Agriculture
Features are assigned an agricultural function when they are recognizable as a component of an
agricultural system known or likely to have been used in the Project Area. Agricultural systems used in
Precontact and early Historic Periods, including their component features and technologies used within
them are described by Handy et al. (2020), and details of Historic agricultural systems are found in
various oral histories, historical documents, and archaeological, cultural, and reports. In Hilo, and in South
Hilo in particular, agricultural features would be associated with the garden and tree crops in the Upland
Agricultural Zone (see McEldowney 1979a:18–25) and the planting methods described by Handy et al.
(2020) that included planting dry taro wherever soil was available (which would have entailed clearing
stones from the soil), kanu kipi or planting taro in soil mounded above marsh bottoms. Historic farming
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 87
methods included manual or mechanized clearing of stone from soil and plowing using hand tools, draft
animals, or machinery. Thus, an agriculture feature is any feature that, based on the presence of soil is
interpreted as having been used primarily in the service of cultivating plant crops. These could include
clearing mounds and rock piles, terraces, loʻi, and fields, as well as features constructed to facilitate
harvesting such as loading ramps.
Animal Husbandry
Animal husbandry or hānai holoholona (Pukui and Elbert 1986:56) entails the care of animals, a practice
that Hawaiians did since they arrived in the islands with pigs, chickens, and dogs. An archaeological
feature commonly associated with animal husbandry is an animal pen—a walled construction that was
used for containing livestock. Animal pens are known to have been used in both Precontact and Historic
periods. In Precontact times, for example, pigs were maintained in pens, except when they were let loose
to root in fields (Cordy 1972; Kirch 1992; Lockwood 2009; Newman 1970:130, 219; Sahlins 1992). The
introduction of other livestock species during and after the eighteenth century necessitated the
construction of other types of animal enclosures (Barna 2013; Langlas 2022). Constructions used as pens
could include enclosures, modified outcrops, modified overhangs, modified sinks, walls, or combinations
of any of these. They may or may not have an entrance. Animal pens can usually be associated with a
nearby Historic residence. Animals kept in pens may have included pigs, cows, horses, goats, sheep,
donkeys, chickens, etc., but typically not more than a few to a pen, and the benefits obtained from the
animals directly supported the people caring for them. Larger scale features used for livestock ranching
such as paddocks and catch pens, and rock walls that comprise them would also be categorized as
animal husbandry.
Boundary
Walls or alignments that based on their locations and associations appear to mark or define the edge of a
utilized space are assigned a boundary function. Boundary walls, when core-filled, are typically Historic
Period constructions that follow known land (parcel or ahupua‘a) boundaries, while boundary alignments,
or in some cases low, stacked walls, are thought to be Precontact constructions that define the space
around sites or features used by individuals for a specific functional purpose such as an alignment or wall
marking the boundary of a habitation area. Some historic walls served additional functions, such as
animal husbandry when used to contain livestock along property boundaries.
Clearing
Clearing features are those that are the result of attempts to clear land of vegetation or stones to make
the land fit for some purpose other than agriculture. For example, a push pile of rocks created while
mechanically grading or grubbing land intended for residential or commercial development would be
associated with clearing.
Habitation
Habitation features are those that, based on their formal attributes, associated cultural material, or their
associations with known locations of habitation, appear as though they were once occupied by humans
as dwelling places. Complexes of multiple features often comprise a habitation site or a locus of
habitation within a larger site. Habitations can date to both the Precontact and Historic Periods. In
addition to constructed surface features, lava tubes, modified sinks, modified overhangs, and modified
outcrops can also be habitation sites. A specific type of habitation, “refuge,” can occur within lava tubes.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
5 Project Area Expectations
Project Number: 093046 88
Habitation sites, with the exception of lava tubes and modified overhangs, typically contain one or more
features that served as the foundation for a roofed structure. Sites interpreted as having been used for
habitation purposes can include other functional feature types, as well, but the primary use must have
been as a dwelling location, with the other features serving ancillary functions. The duration and type of
occupation at a habitation site can vary widely depending on its location, associations, and intended
purpose of construction. In the Hawaiian archaeological literature there is a significant amount of attention
devoted to qualifying habitation sites into permanent and temporary categories, using variables such as
structure size, substantiveness, and other contextual information, but with differing results (Cordy 1981,
1995; e.g., Haun et al. 2006; Kirch 1985; Ladefoged 1991, 1998; Vacca 2019; Van Gilder and Kirch
1997). While aspects of these approaches were used to assess and discuss the permanence of
habitation that occurred at sites and feature recorded within the Project Area, separate categories of
temporary and permanent habitation were not used in this report.
Indeterminate
The function of a site for which the use cannot be accurately determined through Direct Informant
Information, Direct Ethnographic Analogy, General Analogy, or Logical Supposition, or for which
numerous possible uses exist, is considered “indeterminate.” Likely scenarios for the use of indeterminate
sites are discussed in the text, but they are not assigned to a particular functional category. In most
cases, remnant features in poor condition or features for which multiple possible functions could exist are
assigned to this category.
Water Infrastructure
Water infrastructure refers to systems used to manage the supply and flow of water. This functional
category is used regardless of the ultimate use of the water (e.g., agricultural, domestic, hydroelectric
generation, etc.). Feature types that are likely to be associated with a water infrastructure function include
diversion structures such as weirs, dams, or pumping stations; conduits such as ditches or ʻauwai, flumes,
tunnels, or pipelines; flow control devices such as gates, gauges, valves, head boxes, forebays and
intakes, outlets and spillways, and drops and chutes; and cleaning devices such as trash gates (JRP
Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation 2000; Wilcox 1996). In Hilo,
the incorporation of natural drainage channels into ʻauwai and ditch systems has been documented
archaeologically (Barna 2017; Barna and Rechtman 2015; Kelly and Athens 1982; Wolforth 1999).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 89
6 Results
The current archaeological fieldwork identified portions of two previously recorded archaeological sites
and two newly identified archaeological sites. A total of 212 archaeological features were identified. Table
4 lists the identified sites. Figure 36 depicts the locations of these features relative to the entire Project
Area. On the map, the locations of individual features are shown, generalized to “discrete features” (e.g.,
mounds, terraces), walls, and complexes. More detailed maps of the locations of the identified features
are shown as Figure 16 through Figure 32. The four sites are described below.
Table 4 Identified Sites
SIHP No. Type Function Age No. of
Features
50-10-35-14947 Hilo Boarding School Ditch Water infrastructure Precontact/Historic 5
50-10-35-18696 Kaūmana Springs
Archaeological Site Complex
Agriculture,
Habitation
Precontact/Historic 202
50-10-35-T1 Kaūmana Springs Hilo City
Water Works
Water infrastructure Historic 2
50-10-35-T2 Kupapau Hill Hawaii
Triangulation Station Land Survey Historic 3
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 90
Figure 36. Site location map
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 91
6.1 Survey Results
The results of the field survey are presented below. Field data also includes six features or isolated
artifacts determined to be younger than 50 years. These modern features and artifacts are not considered
components of any of the historic properties that were identified. The identified sites are described below.
Details about individual features are presented in the Appendix, where they are organized by site.
6.1.1 SIHP 50-10-35-14947 (HILO BOARDING SCHOOL DITCH
SIHP 50-10-35-14947 is the Hilo Boarding School Ditch. Portions of this ditch have been recorded
archaeologically makai of the project area (Athens 1982; Jensen 1991; Wolforth 1999). The portion of the
site located in the current Project Area is newly recorded.
Within the current Project Area, five features associated with the Hilo Boarding School Ditch (Site 50-10-
35-14947) were identified (Figure 38, Table 2). These features are located near the southwestern end of
the Project Area and consist of the ditch itself (Feature A, consisting of one artificial segment that has
been dug into the ground and one segment of the ditch that uses the natural channel of a tributary of
Ainako Stream) and four rock retaining walls (Features B, C, D, and E) located on the banks of tributary
of Ainako Stream. The total length of the site within the project area is approximately 354 meters. Its
width varies between 2 meters and the width of the stream banks, approximately 10 meters at its
maximum.
The artificial segment of the ditch extends in a northwest-southeast direction, then empties into the
tributary of Ainako Stream. This segment begins approximately 2 meters makai of TMK: (3) 2-5-059:014.
This portion of the ditch is excavated into the surrounding soil and exposed pāhoehoe Figure 37). It
extends 49 meters and varies in width from 2 to 4 meters, and in depth between 0.8 and 2 meters. In
some places, the banks of the ditch are lined with cobbles and boulders, sometimes with stacked cobble
riprap to mitigate erosion. The ditch bottom is exposed pāhoehoe with some accumulations of
decomposing leaves and soil. The excavated portion of the ditch enters the tributary of Ainako Stream
near the southern end of the Project Area at the end of the documented segment. There is no constructed
spillway or other reinforcement; the ditch simply merges into the stream.
Inside the tributary of Ainako Stream, the Hilo Boarding School Ditch is assumed to follow the bottom of
the stream within the historically documented right of way (see Figure 18). The stream has cut a deep
gulch through the silty clay loam soils in this part of the Project Area. The stream varies considerably in
width and depth. The majority of the stream banks appear to be unmodified. Four locations where the
bank has been reinforced were observed (Table 2, see Figure 10). These locations were designated
Features 13-12, 13-13, 13-14, and 14-06. All are constructed of stacked small boulders and large cobbles
and generally extend from the top to the bottom of the stream bank. Feature 14-06 was obscured by a
large fallen stand of guava trees. Site 50-10-35-14947 extends within the stream for approximately 305
meters and then exits the southern boundary of the Project Area. Historic maps depict the Hilo Boarding
School Ditch continuing to the southeast, then east, across what is now Kaūmana Drive, never re-
entering the Project Area.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 92
There is substantial disturbance at the mauka end of the ditch. The artificially excavated portion of the
ditch abruptly ends at rubble that appears to have been deposited during the grading for the house lots in
the Kilikina Estates subdivision, which borders the Project Area a few meters to the west of this location.
Overall, the condition of Site 14947 within the Project Area is good. The site has previously been
determined to be significant under Criteria “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”, and “e” (Jensen 1991). The portion of site in
the Project Area retains sufficient integrity in all relevant categories to contribute to the site’s significance
under Criteria a,” “b,” “c,” and “e.”
Table 5 SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Stream Bank Reinforcement in the Project Area
Feature Type Construction Bank Length
(meters)
Photograph
B Retaining wall Stacked boulders and cobbles North 3.2 Figure 39
C Retaining wall Stacked boulders and cobbles South 18.0 Figure 40
D Retaining wall Stacked boulders and cobbles North 4.5 Figure 41
E Retaining wall Stacked boulders and cobbles North 5.4 Figure 42
Figure 37. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Hilo Boarding School Ditch, artificial segment, view southeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 93
Figure 38. Plan view of Site 50-10-35-14947 Hilo Boarding School Ditch
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 94
Figure 39. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature B stream bank reinforcement, view to the northwest
Figure 40. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature C stream bank reinforcement, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 95
Figure 41. SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature D stream bank reinforcement, view to the west
Figure 42. Detail of SIHP 50-10-35-14947 Feature E stream bank reinforcement, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 96
6.1.2 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 (AGRICULTURAL SITE COMPLEX)
SIHP 50-10-35-18696, an agricultural site complex, was identified by Sinoto (1978) during a
reconnaissance survey of the Project Area and adjacent land. The site was recorded as six clusters of
archaeological features that he described as “more typical of prehistoric construction than of historic
construction” (Sinoto 1978) The SIHP number was assigned to an area enclosing the six clusters of
archaeological features as they were mapped by Sinoto (compare [REPLACE] and [REPLACE]) As a
result of the current study, 181 individual archaeological features, including 5 complexes with a total of 29
subfeatures, were identified as part of the site within the Project Area (Table 3). It should be noted that
the area inspected by Sinoto extended beyond the Project Area, and not all of the clusters he reported
were visited during the current survey. The revised site boundary presented in this report was derived
from the extent of features identified during the current fieldwork and the extent of feature clusters noted
by Sinoto (1978) outside of the current Project Area.
Within the current Project Area, the site boundary begins at the northwestern corner of TMK (3) 2-3-
030:004 and follows the western parcel boundary south to the Hilo Boarding School Ditch. It follows
northern bank of the ditch until the ditch enters the tributary of Ainako Stream located near the southern
parcel boundary. At this point, the site boundary extends along the top of the stream bank generally
toward the east. After reaching Feature 01-02 (a mound), the boundary turns toward the north and then
follows the western foot of Kupapau Hill around to the northern side of the hill. From there, it extends
northeasterly to enclose Feature 02-03 (a mound), and then extends north across the parcel boundary,
where it joins the boundary of Sinoto’s (1978) Cluster 6 on TMK (3) 2-3-030:001. The boundary then
follows the boundary of Cluster 6 and connects to Cluster 5. It follows the northern boundary of Cluster 5
until it intersects the northern boundary of TMK (3) 2-3-030:004, which it follows to the area of “Dense
Vegetation” not surveyed by Sinoto (1978). From this point, it extends northwesterly to encompass
Sinoto’s Clusters 4 and 1, and then to the northwest corner of TMK (3) 2-3-030:004. In addition to this
area (roughly 57.4 acres), there is a group of features located in the southwest corner of the Project Area.
Soils and sediments observed throughout the portion of the site in the Project Area are a patchy
distribution of Panaewa very cobbly hydrous loam, which is developing and accumulating in swales and
low spots on the landscape. The potential for buried archaeological deposits is highly variable throughout
the site due to this distribution of soils and sediments.
In the site description below, individual archaeological features have been assigned feature numbers that
consist of two parts. The first part of the feature number refers to the historic lots depicted on Registered
Map 2058 (see Figure 15). The second part is a sequential number for each feature. Thus, the first
feature recorded in historic Lot 1 is designated “01-01.” The locations of the identified features are
depicted on the maps shown in Figure 45 through Figure 59. Individual features are listed in Table 3.
Twenty-eight of these features were grouped into complexes. The component features of these complex
are given letters, as in Features 01-04A, 01-04B, 01-04C, and 01-04D. Features located outside of the
historic lots shown on Registered Map 2058 are prefixed with “00-.” Four isolated artifacts were identified
(see Section 5.1.2.12).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 97
Overall, the condition of Site 18696 within the Project Area is good. The portion of site in the Project Area
retains sufficient integrity in all relevant categories to contribute to the site’s significance. The site is
recommended significant under Criteria “a” and “d.”
The identified archaeological features are summarized below, organized by feature type (see Table 3).
Features that are included in complexes are discussed as elements of those complexes. Notable
examples of features are described in more detail. All individual features are described in Appendix A.
Table 6 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of Archaeological Feature Types by Age
Feature Type
Precontact/
Historic Historic Indeterminate Total
Complex 1 4 0 5
Ditch 0 1 1 2
Enclosure 1 1 0 2
Freestanding Wall 8 15 0 23
Modified outcrop 3 2 0 5
Modified spring 1 0 0 1
Mound 75 35 1 111
Mound/platform 8 0 0 8
Platform 0 0 2 2
Retaining wall 3 0 0 3
Rock pile 2 2 0 4
Terrace 2 13 0 15
Total 104 73 4 181
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 98
Table 7 Individual Features of SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Identified in the Project Area
Feature Type Function Age Location map
00-01 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 59
00-04 Ditch Water infrastructure H Figure 59
01-01 Wall Water infrastructure P/H Figure 43
01-02 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 8
01-04 Complex Agriculture P/H Figure 8
01-05 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 8
01-09 Complex Agriculture I Figure 8
02-03 Mound Agriculture H Figure 44
03-01 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-02 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-04 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-05 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-06 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-07 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-08 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-09 Complex Habitation H Figure 45
03-11 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-12 Mound/platform Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-13 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-14 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-15 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-16 Wall Water infrastructure H Figure 45
03-17 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-18 Modified spring Water infrastructure P/H Figure 45
03-19 Retaining Wall Agriculture P/H Figure 45
03-21 Wall Boundary H Figure 45
04-01 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 46
04-02 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 46
04-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 46
04-04 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 46
04-05 Wall Agriculture P/H Figure 46
04-06 Wall Agriculture P/H Figure 46
04-07 Wall Boundary P/H Figure 46
05-01 Enclosure Habitation H Figure 47
05-02 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
05-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 99
Feature Type Function Age Location map
05-04 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-05 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-06 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-07 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-08 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-09 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
05-10 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
05-11 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-12 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
05-13 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
05-14 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-15 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-16 Mound Agriculture H Figure 47
05-17 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 47
05-18 Wall Boundary H Figure 47
06-01 Wall Boundary H Figure 48
06-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 48
06-04 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 48
06-05 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 48
06-06 Rock pile Clearing H Figure 48
06-07 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 48
06-08 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 48
06-09 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 48
07-01 Mound Agriculture H Figure 49
07-02 Platform Agriculture P/H Figure 49
07-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 49
07-04 Wall Boundary H Figure 49
07-05 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 49
07-06 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 49
07-07 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 49
07-08 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 49
08-01 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 50
08-02 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 50
08-03 Mound Indeterminate P/H Figure 50
08-04 Terrace Agriculture H Figure 50
08-05 Complex Habitation/Agriculture H Figure 50
08-06 Wall Indeterminate P/H Figure 50
08-07 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 50
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 100
Feature Type Function Age Location map
08-08 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 50
09-01 Wall Agriculture H Figure 51
09-02 Mound Agriculture H Figure 51
09-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 51
09-04 Mound Agriculture H Figure 51
09-05 Mound Agriculture H Figure 51
09-06 Terrace Water infrastructure H Figure 51
09-07 Terrace Water infrastructure H Figure 51
09-08 Terrace Water infrastructure H Figure 51
09-09 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 51
09-10 Terrace Water infrastructure H Figure 51
09-11 Mound Agriculture H Figure 51
09-12 Mound Agriculture H Figure 51
09-13 Wall Boundary H Figure 51
10-01 Wall Boundary H Figure 52
10-02 Mound Indeterminate P/H Figure 52
10-03 Wall Habitation P/H Figure 52
10-04 Mound Indeterminate H Figure 52
10-05 Mound Indeterminate P/H Figure 52
10-06 Terrace Habitation P/H Figure 52
10-07 Wall Boundary H Figure 52
11-01 Wall Boundary H Figure 53
11-02 Mound Agriculture H Figure 53
11-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 53
11-04 Enclosure Animal husbandry H Figure 53
11-05 Mound Agriculture H Figure 53
12-01 Mound Agriculture H Figure 54
12-02 Wall Water infrastructure P/H Figure 54
12-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-04 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-05 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-07 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-08 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-06 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-09 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-10 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-11 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-12 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 101
Feature Type Function Age Location map
12-13 Mound/platform Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-14 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-15 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
12-16 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 54
13-01 Mound Agriculture H Figure 55
13-02 Mound Agriculture H Figure 55
13-03 Mound Agriculture H Figure 55
13-04 Mound Agriculture H Figure 55
13-05 Mound Water infrastructure P/H Figure 55
13-06 Mound Agriculture H Figure 55
13-07 Mound Agriculture H Figure 55
13-08 Rock pile Clearing P/H Figure 55
13-09 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 55
13-10 Modified outcrop Agriculture/Habitation H Figure 55
13-11 Wall Boundary P/H Figure 55
13-15 Mound/platform Indeterminate P/H Figure 55
13-16 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 55
13-17 Terrace Agriculture P/H Figure 55
14-01 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-02 Platform Habitation H Figure 56
14-03 Complex Habitation H Figure 56
14-04 Platform Habitation P/H Figure 56
14-05 Artifact concentration Habitation/Agriculture H Figure 56
14-07 Mound/platform Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-08 Mound/platform Indeterminate P/H Figure 56
14-09 Mound/platform Indeterminate P/H Figure 56
14-10 Mound Indeterminate P/H Figure 56
14-11 Mound Indeterminate H Figure 56
14-12 Mound/platform Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-13 Mound Indeterminate I Figure 56
14-14 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-15 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-16 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-17 Modified outcrop Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-18 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-19 Wall Boundary H Figure 56
14-20 Mound/platform Agriculture P/H Figure 56
14-21 Mound Boundary H Figure 56
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 102
Feature Type Function Age Location map
14-22 Wall Boundary H Figure 56
14-23 Rock pile Clearing P/H Figure 56
15-01 Wall Boundary H Figure 57
15-02 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-03 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-04 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-05 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-06 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-07 Modified outcrop Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-08 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-09 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-10 Mound Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-11 Terrace Agriculture H Figure 57
15-12 Modified outcrop Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-13 Mound Agriculture H Figure 57
15-14 Mound Agriculture H Figure 57
15-15 Mound Agriculture H Figure 57
15-16 Mound Agriculture H Figure 57
15-17 Mound Agriculture H Figure 57
15-18 Mound Agriculture H Figure 57
15-19 Wall Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-20 Wall Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-21 Rock pile Indeterminate H Figure 57
15-26 Retaining wall Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-28 Retaining wall Agriculture P/H Figure 57
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, I = Indeterminate
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 103
Figure 43. Identified features in Lot 1 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 104
Figure 44. Features identified in Lot 2 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 105
Figure 45. Features identified in Lot 3 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 106
Figure 46. Features identified in Lot 4 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 107
Figure 47. Features identified in Lot 5 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 108
Figure 48. Features identified in Lot 6 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 109
Figure 49. Features identified in Lot 7 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 110
Figure 50. Features identified in Lot 8 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 111
Figure 51. Features identified in Lot 9 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 112
Figure 52. Features identified in Lot 10 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 113
Figure 53. Features identified in Lot 11 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 114
Figure 54. Features identified in Lot 12 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 115
Figure 55. Features identified in Lot 13 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 116
Figure 56. Features identified in Lot 14 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 117
Figure 57. Features identified in Lot 15 as depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 118
Figure 58. Identified features in the Road Corridor
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 119
Figure 59. Features identified southeast of the ‘Ainakō Stream tributary
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 120
6.1.2.1 Complexes
Five feature complexes were recorded in the Project Area. These complexes are composed of multiple
features that appear to be associated spatially, functionally, and temporally. These complexes are listed
in Table 5 and described below. Four of the complexes were designated by a single Feature Number. In
the case of Features 14-02, -03, -04, and -05, post-fieldwork analysis indicated that they are more
appropriately considered a single feature complex rather than separate features.
Table 8 Features grouped into complexes within SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the Project Area
Feature Complex Type Number of
Subfeatures
Age Location Map
01-04 Agricultural 4 P/H Figure 43
01-09 Agricultural 9 P/H Figure 43
03-08 and 03-09 Habitation 2 H Figure 45
08-05 Habitation/Agriculture 3 H Figure 50
14-02, -03, -04, and -05 Habitation 5 H Figure 56
6.1.2.1.1 Feature 01-04
Feature 01-04 is a complex consisting of four agricultural features in close proximity, oriented roughly
north-south, located near the northwestern corner of Lot 1 depicted on Registered Map 2058, immediately
south of Feature 03-18. It measures 14 m north-south by 4 m east to west. Feature 01-04A (Figure 60) is
a terrace measuring 3.1m by 4m and standing 15cm above the surrounding ground surface. It is
constructed with small to large subangular cobbles. Glass bottles and ceramic fragments were observed
on the north side of the terrace. Feature 01-04B (Figure 61) is a terrace measuring 2.6 m by 2.9 m and
standing 30 cm above the surrounding ground surface. It is constructed with a low retaining wall of small
to large subangular cobbles stacked 2 courses high. Feature 01-04C (Figure 62) is a mound measuring
2.7 m by 0.7 m and standing 60 cm above the surrounding ground surface. It is constructed with a low
retaining wall built with piled small to large subangular cobbles. Feature 01-04D (Figure 63) is a mound
that measures 1.7 m by 1.7 m and stands 50 cm above the surrounding ground surface. It is constructed
with piled small to large subangular cobbles. Based on the presence of historic artifacts and construction
techniques, it is interpreted to be historic in age and associated with agricultural use of the Project Area.
All four features are in generally poor condition, exhibiting collapse. There may be some potential for
buried deposits within the two terraces, Features A and B. The mounds, Features C and D, resemble
clearing mounds.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 121
Figure 60. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-04A, view to the west
Figure 61. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-04B, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 122
Figure 62. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-04C, view to the west
Figure 63. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-04D, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 123
6.1.2.1.2 Feature 01-09
Feature 01-09 is a complex consisting of 9 subfeatures (A-I, see Table 6) located near the northern edge
of Lot 1 (see Figure 43). The complex includes four mounds, a short wall segment, and a modified spring
that is flanked by two terraces (Figure 64). The features are arranged in a roughly linear configuration,
oriented east-west. The surrounding terrain slopes upward to the north away from a natural drainage near
the northern toe of Kupapau Hill. Autograph tree, guava, and palms grow within the feature, and all
features are impacted by root growth. It is interpreted to be a collection of agricultural features associated
with a modified spring (Feature 01-09E). Although there are no datable artifacts or deposits directly
associated with this complex, the presence of the modified spring suggests that it could have been used
during the Precontact period and was almost certainly used during the Historic period.
The focal point of the complex appears to be the modified spring (Feature E; Figure 65). It is a roughly
circular excavation into the sloping ground, apparently over a natura spring. At various times during the
survey, water was observed collecting inside the well, but on dry days it was not. The interior walls of the
excavation are lined with rough-stacked small to large cobbles. Sediment has collected in the bottom of
the well. The well is accessible from two level soil covered terraces (Features F and I) on its downhill and
uphill sides (see Figure 65). The remaining features are dry-stacked surface rock features. Feature A
(Figure 66), Feature C (Figure 67), and Feature D (Figure 68) are mounds built of neatly stacked and
faced small to large subangular cobbles, all located on exposed pāhoehoe. These are roughly in an east-
west oriented line with the modified spring. On the north side of the modified spring, Feature G (Figure
69) and Feature H (Figure 70) are linear rock mounds flanking the level terrace (Feature F). They are also
roughly oriented east-west. Feature G is in better condition than Feature H and exhibits some stacking
along its edges. Feature B (Figure 71) appears to be a remnant wall segment.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 124
Table 9 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Feature 01-04 Agricultural Complex subfeatures
Subfeature Type Function_ Age L W H Notes
A Mound Agriculture P/H 2.8 1.8 130 Neatly stacked and faced small to
large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 6
stones tall on exposed bedrock.
B Wall Agriculture P/H 4.1 1.2 75 Stacked small to large subangular
pāhoehoe cobbles, two medium
boulders at west end. East end is
slightly collapsed. Stacked 3 courses
tall.
C Mound Agriculture P/H 2.9 2.7 110 Neatly stacked and faced small to
large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 6
stones tall on exposed bedrock.
D Mound Agriculture P/H 3.2 3.1 135 Neatly stacked and faced small to
large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 6
stones tall on exposed bedrock.
E Modified
spring
Water
infrastructure
P/H 3.0 2.7 100 Western (uphill) edge of depression is
reinforced with stacked small to large
subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and a
few small boulders.
F Terrace Agriculture P/H 6.2 2.5 30
Northeast end is defined by a single
course of stones exposed above the
ground surface.
G Mound Agriculture P/H 9.5 2.6 75 Linear mound constructed with piled
small to large subangular pāhoehoe
cobbles. Some collapsed areas.
H Mound Agriculture P/H 6.1 3.5 61 Linear mound constructed with piled
small to large subangular pāhoehoe
cobbles. Some collapsed areas.
I Terrace Agriculture P/H 4.7 4.0 25 End is lined with small to large
subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and a
few small boulders. This retaining wall
has collapsed due to tree fall.
Legend: L = Length (m), W = Width (m), H = Height above ground surface (cm)
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 125
Figure 64. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 01-09 plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 126
Figure 65. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09E, F, and I, view to the west
Figure 66. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09A, mound, view to the north
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 127
Figure 67. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09C, mound, view to the north
Figure 68. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09D, mound, view to the north.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 128
Figure 69. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09G, mound, view to the northeast.
Figure 70. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09H, mound, view to the north.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 129
Figure 71. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Features 01-09B remnant wall, view to the southwest.
6.1.2.1.3 Features 03-08 and 03-09
Features 03-08 and 03-09 comprise a complex (Figure 72) located on gently sloping ground
approximately 45 m west-northwest of the base of Kupapau Hill. Feature 03-09 appears to be the main
feature of the complex and consists of multiple connected platforms, terraces, and a wall. Feature 03-08
is a mound and based on its form and proximity to Feature 03-09 appears to be the foundation of an
ancillary structure. The two features together are interpreted to be the remains of a Historic Period
habitation. The extent is approximately 50 m north-south by 15 m east-west. It is situated in undulating,
swampy flats on slightly raised ground between tributaries of Ainako Stream. Vegetation in the immediate
vicinity includes autograph trees, palms, guava, and ferns. Because it is the main feature in the complex,
Feature 03-09 is described below, followed by Feature 03-08.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 130
Figure 72. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09, habitation complex
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 131
Feature 03-09 (Figure 73) consists of five component subfeatures (Figure 74): two platforms (Subfeatures
A and D) on its northern end that flank two connected terraces (Features B and C), a rock wall
(Subfeature E) that encloses Subfeature C, and a low wall (Subfeature F) that extends from the southern
end of Subfeature E. Only one artifact, a historic glass bottle, was observed. Based on its form, Feature
03-09 is interpreted to be the foundation of a habitation likely associated with agricultural use of the Lot 3
depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a).
Figure 73. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09, habitation complex, view to the southwest with
Subfeature A at left
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 132
Figure 74. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09, habitation complex plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 133
Subfeature A is a platform located on the northeast side of the complex. It is a semi-circular raised
platform constructed of stacked subangular cobbles and small boulders standing 4-8 courses tall. It
measures 5.5 meters by 4.7 meters and stands 190 centimeters tall. All sides of the platform are faced,
and the top is slightly mounded. The northeast side of the platform has slightly collapsed. Based on its
structure, Subfeature A is interpreted to be the foundation for a water catchment tank that would have
been used at the residence.
Subfeature B is a low terrace located between Features A and D. It is defined by a low retaining wall of
stacked subangular cobbles extending 2.7 meters from Feature A and connecting to Feature D. The wall
is faced and stands 70 centimeters tall. Behind the retaining wall the terrace measures roughly 2.7 meters
by 3.5 meters and is roughly rectangular in plan. The surface of the terrace is covered with soil. The
southern end of the terrace is defined by the retaining wall that creates the northern end of Feature C.
Subfeature C is a retaining wall located at the southern end of Subfeature B, creating a step-up to
Subfeature E, the large central enclosed terrace. It is defined on its northern end by a retaining wall
constructed of stacked subangular cobbles and small boulders. The wall extends between Subfeatures A
and D for a distance of 2.7 meters, incorporating exposed pahoehoe adjacent to Subfeature A. It stands
2-3 courses high, 50 centimeters tall.
Subfeature D is a nearly circular platform constructed of stacked subangular cobbles and small boulders
located at the northwest end of Feature 03-09. It measures 3.65 meters by 3.6 and stands 160
centimeters tall on the northern side and 20 centimeters tall on the southern side. The top of the platform
slopes toward the northwest. Subfeature C extends off its northeast side, and one enclosure wall of
Subfeature E extends from its southwestern side. An autograph tree is growing out of the platform.
Subfeature E is a relatively large terrace centrally located within Feature 03-09. The terrace extends
toward the south from the Subfeature C retaining wall. It measures 8 m north-south by 6 m east-west. The
surface of the terrace is composed of soil. The terrace is enclosed by a rock wall that measures between
1.2 and 1.7 meters wide and 70 to 140 centimeters tall. The wall is constructed of stacked and faced
subangular cobbles and small boulders. It extends along the southwestern side of the terrace from
Subfeature D for 8 m and then curves sharply to the northeast and wraps around to connect to
Subfeature A. The wall construction is fairly uniform for most of its length, with the exception of a segment
measuring approximately 3.9 meters that incorporates exposed pāhoehoe near Subfeature A. A historic
glass bottle was observed resting on the surface of this terrace next to Subfeature C.
Subfeature F is an enclosed area created by a rock wall 0.4 meters wide by 20 to 100 centimeters tall, 2
to 4 courses high. The wall’s condition varies along its length; some portions are faced but others appear
mounded and have likely collapsed. The enclosed space measures 5.5 m north-south by 11.5 m east-
west, and the surface of its interior includes accumulated soil. Trees are growing in the enclosed area.
Subfeature G is a rock wall (Figure 75) extending toward the southeast from Subfeature E. The wall is
constructed of stacked subangular cobbles and small boulders. It measures 1.4 meters wide by 27
meters long and stands between 20 and 100 centimeters tall. It is in fair to poor condition, partially
collapsed along most of its length and disturbed by autograph trees and guava. The space on either side
of the wall does not appear to have been modified other than by clearing rock.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 134
Figure 75. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-09 Subfeature G, rock wall, view to the northwest
Feature 03-08 (Figure 76) is a mound located 12 meters northeast of Feature 03-09. It is a large
rectangular mound with a large depression in the center. It is oriented northeast-southwest and measures
7.6 m long by 4.4 m wide and stands 280 cm tall (Figure 77). Its east wall is face and stacked, but its south
and west faces are mounded and partially collapsed. The stacked walls are built with 4-10 courses of
subangular cobbles and small boulders. On the top surface there is a roughly square-shaped depression in
the cobble surface. The depression measures 1.8m by 1.4 and extends 40-100 cm below the top surface of
the mound. An autograph tree is growing out of the north end of the feature and its roots have caused
substantial damage to that end. No cultural material was observed at the feature. Based on its proximity to
the habitation Feature 03-09, Feature 03-08 is interpreted to be an ancillary structure to the habitation,
possibly the foundation for a water catchment tank.
Feature 03-09 is interpreted to have been a foundation for a habitation, likely used in a permanent
fashion. It is possible that Feature 03-08, located 13 meters to the northeast, is associated with this
habitation, and could have been a foundation for a cistern or water tank. It is in relatively good condition,
and soil accumulations in and around the feature may have potential for buried archaeological deposits.
No cultural material diagnostic of age was observed. Its size and form suggest that it is historic in age.
The complex containing Feature 03-09 and Feature 03-08 is interpreted to be a Historic period habitation.
The reason this is interpreted to be a Historic period feature is that with the possible exception of Feature
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 135
03-08 (which may be a cistern or outbuilding), there do not appear to be any other features resembling
habitation or activity areas typical of multi-feature kauhale associated with traditional residences built to
be compatible with traditional gender restrictions (see discussions in Handy and Pukui 1998; Ladefoged
1991; Malo 1951), and the presence of a historic glass bottle . This does not by itself rule out possible
Precontact use; however, there are a few early maps that do not include it but do show other features
nearby. These include Registered Map 1744 (Lyman 1853), Registered Map 1790 (Loebenstein 1895)
prepared in 1895, and Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a) prepared in 1901.
Figure 76. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-08, mound, view to the northwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 136
Figure 77. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 03-08, mound, planview
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 137
6.1.2.1.4 Feature 08-05
Feature 08-05 is a complex composed of two terraces built against a pāhoehoe outcrop and an L-shaped
wall that appears to be a remnant of a structure (Figure 78; Table 7). It is located in the northern portion
of Lot 8 (see Figure 50) and is in poor condition. It is interpreted to be a Historic period habitation.
Subfeature A is a terrace (Figure 79) that extends the east side of a natural pāhoehoe outcrop. It is
constructed of subangular cobbles and small boulders, which are stacked and faced on the outer edge of
the terrace. The stacked edge is approximately 8 m long. The terrace wall stands 120 to 130 cm above
the ground surface. Behind the stacked and faced wall, the terrace is filled with this same material,
creating a roughly level surface that connects to the natural outcrop behind it. On its southeast side, the
construction ends abruptly and appears to have been deliberate, possibly creating an entry route onto the
leveled area on the outcrop from below. No cultural material was observed on this terrace.
Subfeature B is a terrace (Figure 80) that extends the northwest side of the pāhoehoe outcrop. It is
constructed with stacked and faced subangular cobbles and small boulders and stands 95 cm above the
ground surface. The constructed edge is approximately 4 m in total length. Behind the stacked and faced
wall, the terrace is filled with this same material, creating a roughly level surface that connects to the
natural outcrop behind it. The north side of terrace wall is in good condition, but the west side is
collapsing. No cultural material was observed on this terrace.
Subfeature C is an L-shaped wall (Figure 81) located on the pāhoehoe outcrop about 10 m southwest of
Subfeature A. It is constructed of subangular cobbles and small boulders and appears to be core-filled. It
is oriented with what is assumed to be the interior space facing north, which could make this the
southeast corner of the structure. The wall remnant that is oriented north-south measures 2.5 m long and
the east-west oriented remnant measures 2.0 m long. Both are roughly 0.8 m wide and stand 80 cm
above the ground surface. The interior space is cleared, and 2 historic bottles were observed.
The surface of the pāhoehoe outcrop is roughly level and covered in soil. It is heavily disturbed by guava
trees. Subfeature C appears to be the remnant of a structure, potentially a habitation site based on the
presence of glass bottles. The terraces formed by Subfeatures A and B appear to have been constructed
to expand the living surface of the outcrop to accommodate its use. The presence of the historic bottles
and artifacts of a similar age suggests that this feature was occupied during the early twentieth century
but could have been used earlier. Although soil accumulation may be shallow, there could be potential for
additional archaeological deposits associated with the structure and its use. Feature 08-05 is interpreted
to have been used for habitation during the twentieth century.
Table 10 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Feature 08-05 Habitation Complex subfeatures
Subfeature Type Function_ Age
A Terrace Living surface H
B Modified
outcrop
Terracing H
C L-shaped
wall
Corner of structure or enclosure H
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 138
Figure 78. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05, Habitation Complex, plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 139
Figure 79. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05A, terrace, view to the southwest
Figure 80. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05B, terrace, view to the north
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 140
Figure 81. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 08-05C, L-shaped wall, view to the south
6.1.2.1.5 Features 14-02, 14-03, 14-04, and 14-05
Features 14-02, 14-03, and 14-04 comprise a complex (Figure 82) located in the northern portion of Lot
14 (see Figure 56). The complex is situated on flat, soil-covered ground. It consists of two low platforms
(Features 14-02 and 14-04), a terrace complex (Feature 14-03), and an artifact accumulation (Feature
15-05). The overall dimensions of the complex are 28 m north-south by 8 m east-west. Cultural material
observed is limited to historic period artifacts dating to the early twentieth century or later. It is interpreted
to be the remnants of a Historic period habitation associated with Lot 14 depicted on Registered Map
2058. It is in good to fair condition.
Feature 14-02
Feature 14-02 (Figure 83) is a platform located between Features 14-03 and 14-04. It is a constructed on
exposed pāhoehoe of stacked small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. It measures 4.9 m by 4.1
meters and stands 70 cm tall, or 2-5 courses high. The surface of the platform is level and covered in leaf
litter. A possible entryway is located on the east side of the platform, where two short walls measuring 1.5
m long by 0.7 m wide and standing 70cm tall create a 1 m wide corridor. Some collapse is noted
throughout, especially along its north edge. Its south edge has more intact stacking. A tree has uprooted
the northeast edge.
Feature 14-03 is located to the west of Feature 14-02. Its overall dimensions are approximately 6 m
north-south by 9 m east-west. It consists of five subfeatures (A – D, see Table 11) as shown in Figure 84.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 141
It is located in close proximity to Features 14-2, 14-4, and 14-5, which could be functionally associated
with the habitation.
Table 11 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Feature 14-03 Habitation Complex subfeatures
Subfeature Type Function_ Age
A Terrace Habitation, temporary H
B Rock ring Cooking/fire pit H
C Wall Indeterminate P/H
D Retaining
wall
Indeterminate H
E Retaining
wall
Indeterminate H
Subfeature A (Figure 85) is a terrace defined by retaining walls on two sides. The terrace is oriented with
its long edge facing north. The retaining wall on the north side measures 2.4 meters long and stands 36
centimeters above the ground surface. The other retaining wall is located on the east side of the terrace.
It measures 1.9 meters long and stands 23 centimeters above the ground surface. Both retaining walls
are built of angular small to large cobbles and extend 1 to 2 courses above the ground surface. The
space behind the retaining walls is filled with cobbles and built up to be level with the ground level to the
southwest. At the west end of the northern retaining wall there is a small circular depression in the
cobbles. Feature A is interpreted to have been constructed to extend the level ground surface to the
south to accommodate a habitation structure.
Subfeature B (Figure 86) is a rock ring located about 2 m south-southwest of Feature A. It is built with
small to large angular cobbles and measures 1.1 m north-south by 1.2 m east-west, standing 24 cm
above the ground surface. Its interior space measures 60 cm north-south by 30 cm east-west. This space
is defined by an alignment of upright basalt blocks, which are braced on the outside of the ring with
cobbles, some of which are laid flat. The ring opens to the north. Inside the ring is one broken aqua glass
bottle that is missing its finish, has a round body and cup-mold scars, and has a base mark that reads
“[AB ligature]/HI 14”. Based on its size and form, Feature B is interpreted as a hearth or a fire ring.
Subfeature C (Figure 87) is a rock wall abutting the north end of Feature A. The wall is built of small to
medium cobbles on intermittently exposed pāhoehoe. It measures up to 1.0 m wide and stands up to 20
cm above the ground surface. It extends roughy toward the north for 3.1 m. Its condition degrades
increasingly toward the north. Feature C is interpreted to be a remnant of a boundary wall associated with
the habitation complex, similar to the wall at Feature 03-09.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 142
Figure 82. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-02, 14-04, and 14-04, habitation complex, plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 143
Figure 83. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-02, platform, view to the northwest
Subfeature D (Figure 88) is a retaining wall that abuts the east side of Feature A, opposite Feature C. It is
composed of roughly piled small and medium angular cobbles. It extends roughly east to west, and
measures 0.3 m wide and stands 40 cm above ground surface. Soil is retained behind the wall. This
feature, along with Feature E, helps to define the leveled surface that makes up the habitation site.
Subfeature E (Figure 89) is a retaining wall located about 5 to 6 m south-southeast of Feature D. It is built
of nicely stacked and faced small angular cobbles with some medium cobbles as well. It measures 0.2 m
wide and 35 cm above the ground surface, extending 3.2 m toward the southwest away from a pahoehoe
outcrop. There is a faint rock ring built into the soil about 1 m northwest of this retaining wall. There are
several guava trees growing from the northeast end of the retaining wall. This feature, along with Feature
D, helps to define the leveled surface that makes up the habitation site.
Cultural material observed at Feature 14-03 includes historic glass bottles (e.g., aqua crown finish
beverage bottles with AB ligature base marks, brown crown finish beverage bottles, green case gin
bottle), metal pots, a fragment of sheet metal, and a few scattered cobbles. The AB ligature base mark
was used by the American Bottle Co. between 1905 and 1909 in their Belleville, Illinois factory (Lockhart
et al. 2021). Along with the age of the glass bottle, the presence of sheet metal suggests that Feature 14-
03 was the location of a habitation occupied during the late 19th or early 20th century.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 144
Figure 84. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03 overview to the southeast
Figure 85. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03A, view to the southwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 145
Figure 86. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03B rock ring, view to the southwest
Figure 87. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03C, view to the northwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 146
Figure 88. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03D, view to the southwest
Figure 89. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-03E, view to the northwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 147
Feature 14-04
Feature 14-01 is a platform (Figure 90) located to the east of Feature 14-02, adjacent to a remnant
segment of Feature 13-11 (the boundary wall between Lots 13 and 14). It is built with subangular cobbles
to small boulders. It measures 5. 1 m by 4.0 m and stands between 10 and 50 cm above the ground
surface. The feature is heavily obscured by deadfall, autograph tree, and albizia, but appears to be level
on top. There is extensive root growth within the feature. Tumbled cobbles have accumulated next to the
east side of the platform. Historic bottles were observed on the southeast side of platform.
Figure 90. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 14-04, platform, view to the west
Feature 14-05 is an artifact concentration (Figure 91) located16 meters south of Feature 14-03 (a
habitation complex). The artifact concentration measures approximately 2 meters by 2 meters. It is
composed of a low-density accumulation of historic artifacts. Artifacts observed include those listed in
Table 9. These artifacts appear to date to the early twentieth century or later and are consistent with
those observed at Feature 14-03.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 148
Table 12 Artifacts identified in Feature 14-05
Material Type Age Function Notes Reference
Glass Bottle Early 20th century Pharmaceutical Konishi & Co/
Apothecary/
Doshumachi
(Konishi Co.,
Ltd. 2021)
Steel Hoe 20th century Tool Head only
Steel Hook 20th century Tool
Steel Hook 20th century Tool
Iron Pipe fitting 20th century Water infrastructure? Embedded in
ground
Steel Chain 20th century Tool
Figure 91. Feature 14-05 Artifact Concentration
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 149
6.1.2.2 Ditches
Two ditches were identified as part of Site 50-10-35-18696.
6.1.2.2.1 Feature 00-04
Feature 00-04 (Figure 92) is a ditch that extends between tributaries of Ainako Stream in the southeast
portion of the Project Area (see Figure 59). The ditch is excavated into the surrounding soil and extends
roughly southeasterly direction before exiting the Project Area. Within the Project Area it measures
approximately 47.0 m long by 2.0 meters wide along its bottom. The ditch is roughly 60 centimeters deep
below the surrounding ground surface. Subangular pahoehoe cobbles irregularly line the banks of the
ditch and ditch bottom. The banks are eroded, and the occasional palm tree is growing within the ditch.
This ditch does not appear on any historic maps that were consulted for the current study, and so its age
is indeterminate but assumed to be older than 50 years given the history of land use in the Project Area.
Figure 92. Feature 00-04, ditch, view to the southeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 150
6.1.2.2.2 Feature 03-16
Natural drainages in the Project Area may have been used as ‘auwai to transport water for agricultural or
other purposes. Feature 03-16 (Figure 93) may represent a feature built to enhance a natural drainage’s
ability to function as an ʻauwai or irrigation ditch. The feature is a low stacked and faced wall built along
the western bank of a drainage near the western end of Lot 3 (see Figure 37). The drainage extends in a
north-northeasterly direction. The wall is constructed of 3-4 courses of subangular cobbles and exhibits
only some facing but is clearly stacked. The wall extends for at least 8.5 m but becomes obscured
beneath a fallen tree on its southwestern end. It measures 3.7 m wide and stands 70 cm tall above the
top of the drainage bank. The drainage bottom is 1.0 m below the top of the bank. On the north side of
wall it descends into streambed, creating a paved bank. The addition of this wall to the drainage bank
suggests the drainage was used as an ʻauwai. This feature does not appear on historic maps that were
consulted for the current study. Its age is assumed to be older than 50 years given the history of land use
in the Project Area.
Figure 93. Feature 03-16, wall along bank of drainage, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 151
6.1.2.3 Enclosures
Two enclosures (Features 05-01 and 11-04) were identified within the Project Area.
6.1.2.3.1 Feature 05-01
Feature 05-01 (Figure 94) is a remnant enclosure located on relatively flat ground just above the north
bank of the tributary of Ainako Stream that extends near the southern Project Area boundary (see Figure
47). The remnant enclosure is defined by a low rock wall of piled subangular cobbles surrounding a
roughly level cleared area. It measures 5.4 m north-south by 4.15 m east-west (Figure 95). The low rock
wall on the northwest side of the feature stands 35 cm tall and is constructed of 2-3 courses of
subangular pahoehoe. In the southern corner, a small segment of the wall stands 110 cm tall. The walls
on the northeast and southwest sides of the feature are primarily mounded soil with 1 course of cobbles
exposed. There is no wall on the southeast side, which is directly above the stream bank and is eroding
into the stream. The interior of the feature is roughly level with a thin deposit of organic soil and exposed
subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. In the southern corner, 2 historic glass bottles are
partially buried and a third bottle is embedded in the in structure (Figure 96). All three are colorless round
beverage bottles with crown finishes and automated bottle machine scars up the neck to the finish. In the
west corner of the feature, a flat cobble is exposed on the ground surface. It has possible abrasions on
the exposed surface (Figure 97), suggesting mechanical disturbance. Based on its form and the presence
of historic artifacts, Feature 05-01 is interpreted to be the remnants of a habitation feature used during the
Historic period, specifically the early twentieth century. It was likely used in association with agricultural
use of the Lot 5 depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a). It is in relatively poor condition, but
the presence of partially buried artifacts suggests that it may have potential to yield additional
archaeological evidence of its use and age.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 152
Figure 94. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, habitation terrace, view to the southwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 153
Figure 95. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, enclosure, plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 154
Figure 96. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, historic bottles buried in southern corner of feature
Figure 97. SIHP 50 10-35-18696 Feature 05-01, exposed cobble with abrasions on surface
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 155
6.1.2.3.2 Feature 11-04
Feature 11-04 (Figure 98) is an enclosure located at the western end of Lot 11 (see Figure 53). The
enclosure is situated near the junction of three historic lot boundary walls (Features 06-01, 11-01, and 14-
22), with several features in Lots 6 and 13 nearby (Figure 99). The enclosure is defined by a roughly-U-
shaped wall built off of the east side of Feature 11-01 (the boundary wall between Lots 11 and 12). It is
constructed of dry-stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. The wall measures 1m wide by
130cm tall and has a total length of 27 meters. The interior of the enclosure is roughly 12 m by 12 m, with
a cleared and roughly level surface covered with leaf litter and soil. There are no deliberately constructed
openings in the enclosure wall. Guava and autograph trees are growing inside the enclosure and
adjacent to the enclosure wall, causing root damage. Because the ends of the wall forming this enclosure
about Feature 11-01, it is interpreted to be Historic in age, contemporaneous if not younger than that the
adjacent historic lot boundary wall. The absence of entrances suggests that the enclosure was used as
an animal pen, possibly for pigs based on the height of the walls. The enclosure is in fair shape. No
cultural material was observed at this feature. The interior of the enclosure may have potential for buried
archaeological, paleoenvironmental, or soil chemistry information related to its use.
Figure 98. Feature 11-04, enclosure interior, view to the south
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 156
Figure 99. Plan view of Feature 11-04 and nearby features
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 157
6.1.2.4 Free-standing Walls
A free-standing wall is a linear or curvilinear alignment of stones (at least two courses high) that is
considerably longer than it is wide, and the majority of both long sides are not attached to another artificial
or natural feature, nor is it designed to retain material on any side. Twenty-three features (Table 10) in the
Project Area were identified as free-standing rock walls that are not part of a feature complex.
Descriptions of individual wall features are provided in Appendix A.
Construction techniques observed included core-filled (Figure 100), stacked (Figure 101), and piled
(Figure 102). Intact segments of wall features sometimes included a mix of these construction techniques,
and this appeared to be a result of the available material. The material used in the walls appears to have
been obtained from the immediate vicinity. Thus, when rocks of comparable size were available nearby,
the wall appears to be stacked. When a mix of large and small material was nearby, the wall construction
appears core-filled. In several cases, surviving wall segments consist of a single row of cobbles exposed
above the ground surface, and construction techniques could not be determined.
The condition of most wall segments was relatively poor, and accurate measurement of wall segments
was often hindered by fallen trees (Figure 103) and extensive autograph tree root growth (Figure 104).
The walls themselves are intermittent—the solid lines shown in the GPS maps prepared for this report
represent the alignments marked by intermittent segments. The mean width of the rock walls is 1.7 m,
with individual wall segments measuring between 0.4 m and 7.1 m. Note that widths greater than about 1
m include the rubble that fallen from the walls. Mean wall height was 73 cm and varied from 20.0 cm to
210.0 cm above the ground surface. This tallest, most intact wall is Feature 15-01, which is located north
of the Project Area boundary according to the GPS data collected in the field (see Figure 57). Walls
oriented across the prevailing slope retained sediments on their uphill sides. In some cases, such as
Feature 09-13, the remnant wall stands only a few stones above the ground surface on its downslope
side, and the trapped sediments on the upslope side make it appear that the wall is a very low terrace
(Figure 105).
A comparison of the identified rock walls with Registered Map 2058 demonstrates that most of the
historically documented lots had walls on at least a portion of their boundaries (Table 11). In Figure 106,
walls that were identified on or near historic lot boundaries are represented by solid red lines, with the
historic lot boundaries indicated on the map by gray dashed lines. Partial boundary walls were identified
on at least one boundary of all historic lots except for Lot 2 and the unnumbered historic lot containing
Kupapau Hill. The intact segments of Feature 15-01 (Figure 107) approximate the northern boundary of
TMK (3) 2-3-030:004 (the County parcel comprising most of the project area), but only in historic lot 15.
No other wall segments were observed separating the County parcel from the State parcel. Feature 10-01
(Figure 108) is interesting because it is located inside Lot 10 and extends parallel to that lot’s mauka and
makai boundary walls but is not depicted on Registered Map 2058.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 158
Table 13 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Free Standing Walls
Feature Function_ Age Construction
Total
Lenth
(m)
Mean
Width
(m)
Mean
height
(cm) Notes
Location
map
01-01 Indeterminate P/H Piled 25.5 0.7 20 Remnant Figure 35
03-21 Boundary H Mixed 201.0 1.0 150 Intermittent Figure 37
04-05 Boundary P/H Piled
1.8 1.6 50
Remnant of 03-
21 wall
Figure 38
04-06 Boundary P/H Piled
2.8 1.4 70
Remnant of 03-
21 wall
Figure 38
04-07 Boundary P/H Core-filled 129.6 1.1 60 Intermittent Figure 38
05-18 Boundary H Core-filled 160.8 0.6 80 Intermittent Figure 39
06-01 Boundary H Stacked 270.0 3.3 60 Intermittent Figure 40
07-04 Boundary H Piled 4.0 0.6 50 Remnant Figure 41
08-06 Indeterminate P/H Core-filled 5.0 2.8 85 Remnant Figure 42
09-01 Agriculture H Stacked 5.1 1.7 120 Remnant Figure 43
09-13 Boundary H Stacked? 14.9 0.4 25 Remnant Figure 43
10-01 Boundary H Stacked 96.3 1.7 45 Intermittent Figure 44
10-03 Indeterminate P/H Stacked
3.1 2.9 90
Remnant L-
shaped
Figure 44
10-07 Boundary H Stacked 138.1 1.1 70 Intermittent Figure 44
11-01 Boundary H Stacked 104.0 1.1 110 Intermittent Figure 45
12-02 Indeterminate P/H Core-filled
18.7 1.5 110
Remnant above
drainage
Figure 46
12-07 Boundary H Core-filled 95.7 2.3 100 Remnant
13-11 Boundary P/H Core-filled 5.9 5.4 190 Intermittent Figure 47
14-15 Boundary H Indeterminate 4.5 3.7 80 Remnant Figure 48
14-19 Boundary H Stacked 39.5 1.0 50 Remnant Figure 48
14-22 Boundary H Stacked 80.7 3.2 210 Intermittent Figure 48
15-01 Boundary H Core-filled 24.5 3.6 80 Intermittent Figure 49
15-19 Agriculture P/H Core-filled
23.6 7.1 120
Low wall
extending
roughly east-
west
Figure 49
15-20 Agriculture P/H Core-filled
10.3 2.0 70
Low, wide wall
above change
in slope
Figure 49
15-24 Boundary H Piled 6.4 1.5 70 Very rough Figure 49
Notes: m = meters, cm = centimeters
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 159
Table 14. Numbered historic lots depicted in the project area on Registered Map 2058.
Lot Approximate acres Associated Walls
Unnumbered, with Kupapau Hill 7.8 None identified
2 3.75 None identified
3 5.0 03-21, 04-05, 04-06
4 2.0 04-05, 04-06, 04-07, 06-01
5 2.7 04-07, 05-18
6 3.5 05-18, 06-01, 14-22
7 1.3 06-18. 07-04
8 1.15 06-01, 08-06
9 2.7 05-18, 09-13
10 5.4 06-01, 09-13, 10-07
11 1.8 6-01, 10-07, 11-01
12 3.6 06-01, 11-01, 12-07, 13-11
13 3.4 06-01, 12-07, 13-11
14 7.0 13-11, 14-19, 14-22, 15-01
15 >12.0 14-19, 15-01
Figure 100. Feature 05-18, core-filled wall segment, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 160
Figure 101. Feature 11-01, stacked wall segment, view to the west
Figure 102. Feature 12-01, piled wall segment, view to the north
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 161
Figure 103. Feature 15-01, wall segment damaged by fallen tree, view to the north
Figure 104. Feature 10-06, wall segment damaged by autograph tree roots, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 162
Figure 105. Feature 09-13, wall, view to the northwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 163
Figure 106. Comparison of walls with Registered Map 2058 historic lot boundaries
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 164
Figure 107. Feature 15-01, wall, view to the west
Figure 108. Feature 10-01, wall, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 165
6.1.2.5 Modified outcrops
Five modified outcrops were identified in the Project Area. Full descriptions are presented in Appendix A.
In general, these features consisted of either stacked or piled cobbles on exposed pāhoehoe outcrops. All
are heavily disturbed by autograph trees, guava, or alibizia roots. No cultural material was observed at
these features. They are interpreted to be clearing piles created during agricultural use of the Project
Area during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century but could be older. An example of a modified
outcrops observed in the Project Area is shown in Figure 109 See Appendix A for full descriptions. All five
are interpreted to have been created during agricultural clearing, moving rocks from nearby areas with
soil to pāhoehoe outcrops.
Table 15 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Modified Outcrops in the Project Area
Feature Function Age Notes Location
Map
13-10 Agriculture H Figure 55
14-17 Agriculture P/ H Figure 56
15-07 Agriculture P/ H
Linear construction suggests this could be a remnant of a
wall.
Figure 57
15-12 Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-29 Agriculture H Potentially connects to Feature 15-28. Figure 57
Figure 109. Feature 13-10, modified outcrop, view to the southeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 166
6.1.2.6 Modified Spring
One modified spring (independent of complexes) was identified in the Project Area. Feature 03-18 (Figure
110) is a spring set near the southern end of Feature 03-19, a low retaining wall, just west of Feature 02-
04A (Figure 111, see Figure 45). The spring appears to have been excavated and modified by the
addition of a lining build with subangular cobbles on the east, south, and west sides of the excavation.
The lining is a cleanly faced wall, stacked 3 courses above the ground surface. The feature measures
0.7m in diameter and extends 54 cm below the ground surface. The age of the spring is indeterminate.
Figure 110. Feature 03-18, modified spring wall, view to the south
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 167
Figure 111. Feature 03-18, modified spring plan view with surrounding features
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 168
6.1.2.7 Mounds and “Mound/platforms”
A mound is a collection of stones with an irregular surface. A platform is a stone construction with a
relatively flat upper surface that is elevated above the surrounding ground surface on all sides. Although a
mound in good condition may be easily distinguishable from a platform in good condition based on the
diagnostic characteristics discussed in Chapter 4, site formation processes and similarities in construction
can also make it difficult to tell one from another in the field. Within the Project Area, the extensive root
disturbance observed on nearly all of the identified features has altered mounds and platforms. Because
of this disturbance, several features are ambiguous in form, exhibiting some characteristics of mounds
but also some typical of platforms. These features are identified as “mound/platforms.” Only mounds and
mound/platforms identified as individual features are discussed below. Those that are included as
subfeatures within complexes are discussed with those complexes. A total of 111 mounds and 8
“mound/platforms (Table 13). The discussion below summarizes the mounds, mound/platforms, and
platform identified. More detailed descriptions of individual features are presented in Appendix A.
Table 16 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Mounds, Mound/Platforms, and Platforms in the Project Area
Type Function Precontact/
Historic
Historic Indeterminate Total
Mound Agriculture 71 32 0 102
Mound Boundary 0 1 0 1
Mound Indeterminate 4 2 1 7
Total Mounds 111
Mound/platform Agriculture 5 0 0 5
Mound/platform Indeterminate 3 0 0 3
Total Mound/platform 8
Total 84 35 1 119
Mounds were the most common feature type within SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the Project Area. The
mounds vary in shape (circular, oval, rectilinear, linear, and irregular) and exhibit two methods of
construction: piling and stacking. The lengths of the mounds varied from 1.0 m to 15.0 m, with a median
length of 3.9 m. Widths varied from 0.7 m to 8.5 m, with the median 2.8 m. Mound heights varied from 26
cm to 280 cm above the ground surface, with a median height of 105.0 cm). Footprints of the mounds
varied between 1.0 m2 and 90.9 m2 with a median area of 10.3 m2. Volumes were similarly variable,
ranging from 0.3 m3 to 181.7 m3 with a median of 23.8 m3. The construction method of the majority of the
mounds (n= 76) was piling in which the rocks used to construct them were simply heaped together in an
informal pile, like the mound shown in Figure 112. These mounds typically have sloped edges and
mounded, sloped, or irregular top surfaces. Another 36 mounds exhibited stacking on one or more sides.
The stacked mounds, like those shown in Figure 113, have top surfaces that range from irregular to
sloped to almost level. The condition of the top surfaces of stacked mounds could have been a result of
root disturbance. Some of the stacked mounds may have begun as piled mounds, but at some point the
stones were stacked along the exterior edges of the piles, creating nearly vertical edges (see Clark and
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 169
Rechtman 2016:42). Based on their locations relative to cleared soil areas and pāhoehoe outcrops, the
mounds in the Project Area are interpreted to have been constructed as a result of agricultural clearing.
The 8 features categorized as “mound/platform” all exhibit stacking on one or more edges and tend to
have smaller material filling their interior. Their shapes vary in shape (circular, oval, rectilinear, and
linear). Top surfaces are not quite flat, nor are they deflated, and they tended to have a more formal
appearance than the stacked mounds (for example, Figure 114 and Figure 115). They measure from 2.3
m to 9.8 m long, with a median length of 5.0 m. Widths vary between 2.2 m and 5.7 m, with a median
length of 3.4 m. Heights of these features ranged from 90.0 m to 200.0 m, with a median height of 110.0
m. Footprints of the mounds varied between 5.1 m2 and 55.9 m2 with a median area of 19.5 m2. Volumes
were similarly variable, ranging from 6.1 m3 to 111.7 m3 with a median of 18.0 m3. As with mounds,
extensive root disturbance has caused these features to partially collapse or to distort their shape. In
most cases, no cultural material was observed at the mound/platform features to assist with interpretation.
In general, the function of these features is considered indeterminate.
Cultural material was not observed at most of these features. A single glass bottle was present at
Features 05-08, 05-10, and 13-05—all mounds—and at 03-12, a mound/platform. At Feature 09-09, a
steel field hoe head was resting on the side of the mound (Figure 116).
Figure 112. Feature 15-04, piled mound, view to the east
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 170
Figure 113. Feature 03-07, mound with well-stacked sides, view to the west
Figure 114. Feature 03-12, mound/platform, view to the northeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 171
Figure 115. Feature 03-12 plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 172
Figure 116. Hoe head resting on Feature 09-09
Platforms
Two features (Features 07-02 and 15-13) were identified as platforms based on their form.
Feature 07-02 (Figure 117) is a small platform located in the northern end of Lot 7 shown on Registered
Map 2058, near the proposed road corridor (see Figure 49). It is low and oval in plan, faced and stacked
walls and a flat top. It measures 2.0 m by 1.3 m and stands 60 cm tall. The stacked sides consist of 2-3
courses of subangular cobbles and are neatly stacked compared to the sides of the surrounding mounds.
The top surface consists of small cobbles, while walls are built with larger cobbles. No cultural material
was observed at this feature. Its age and function are considered to be indeterminate.
Feature 15-13 (Figure 118) is a large, somewhat rectangular platform located near the northwestern
corner of the Project Area (see Figure 57), surrounded by multiple smaller mounds, rock piles, terraces,
and walls (Figure 119). It is built of small subangular cobbles and small boulders. It measures 6.2 m by
4.7 m and stands 190 cm tall. The platform is neatly stacked on the north side, but its structure becomes
rougher as the feature extends to the south. The top of the platform is slightly mounded but clearly
flattened off. It has been disturbed by an albizia growing out of the south side and a guava out of north.
No cultural material was observed at this feature. Although its form resembles stacked clearing mounds
found elsewhere in Hilo, its age and function are considered indeterminate because it appears so
different from the surrounding rock mounds.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 173
Figure 117. Feature 07-02, platform, view to the west
Figure 118. Feature 15-13, platform, view to the south
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 174
Figure 119. Feature 15-13, platform in context with surrounding features, plan view
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 175
6.1.2.8 Retaining walls
Three retaining walls were identified in the Project Area, two on slopes in the western portion of the
Project Area and one near a modified spring.
Feature 03-19 (Figure 120) is a very low retaining wall located immediately uphill from Feature 03-18, a
modified spring (see Section 5.1.2.4). It is constructed with subangular cobbles and small boulders; 1-3
courses are exposed, some stacked and some piled. It measures 1.8 m wide by 30 cm tall. It is likely
Precontact to Historic in age and associated with agricultural production.
Feature 15-26 is a retaining wall (Figure 121) located in the western end of the Project Area (see Figure
57). It is built of roughly piled subangular cobbles and boulders along the edge of a drainage, following a
slope contour. It measures 10.6 m by 1.7 m and stands 100 cm above the ground surface on the downhill
side. It is in poor condition. It is interpreted to have been built to mitigate erosion along the contour into
the drainage. It is likely Precontact to Historic in age and associated with agricultural production.
Feature 15-28 is a retaining wall (Figure 122) located in the western end of the Project Area see Figure
57). It is built of subangular cobbles and small boulders, set at the base of hill and wrapping around the
hill. It measures 8.1 m by 0.9 m and stands 70 cm above the ground surface, with 2-4 courses of stacked
rock visible. This feature is heavily obscured by vegetation and deadfall and may be an extension of the
retaining wall that supports the terrace Feature 10-27. It is in fair condition. It is likely Precontact to
Historic in age and associated with agricultural production.
Figure 120. Feature 13-19, retaining wall, view to the southeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 176
Figure 121. Feature 15-26, retaining wall, view to the northwest
Figure 122. Feature 15-28, retaining wall, view to the west
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 177
6.1.2.9 Rock piles
Rock piles are accumulations of rock that have even less formal appearance than mounds (for example,
Figure 123). They are presumed to have been constructed in this informal manner. Four rock piles were
identified in the Project Area. Descriptions are presented in Appendix A. Two of the rock piles (Features
13-08 and 14-23) are interpreted to be associated with agricultural clearing. Features 06-06 and 15-21
are interpreted as push piles from mechanical clearing.
Table 17 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Rock Piles
Feature Function_ Age Notes Location
map
06-06 Clearing H Dozer push. Figure 48
13-08 Clearing P/H Close to edge of drainage Figure 55
14-23 Clearing P/H Figure 56
15-21 Unknown H Pushed up on bedrock lobe. Figure 57
Figure 123. Feature 14-02, rock pile, view to the southeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 178
6.1.2.10 Terraces
A terrace is a stone surfaced area, level with the surrounding ground surface on at least one side and
supported by at least one retaining wall. Fifteen terraces were identified in the Project Area. Only terraces
identified as individual features are discussed below. Those that are included as subfeatures within
complexes are discussed with those complexes. Descriptions of individual terraces are presented in
Appendix A. A total of 14 terraces (Table 15) were identified in the Project Area. The length of each
terrace varied from 3.1 m to 24.3 m, with a median length of 8.9 m. Widths of the terraces ranged from
0.9 m to 4.0 meters, with a median width of 2.8 m. The surface area of the terraces varied from 3.4 m2 to
80.2 m2 with a median area of 21.8 m2. All were constructed with stacked or piled cobble retaining walls,
with the terraced surface generally covered with sediment or soil. Eight of the terraces are located near
western end of Project area, where terrain is generally steeper than most of the Project Area (with the
exception of Kupapau Hill). Some of these terraces, like Feature 15-27 (Figure 124 and Figure 125) are
built along a moderate to steep slope. Five terraces are built along tributary of ‘Āinakō Stream, where
they extend relaltively flat ground all the way to the top of the stream bank (for example, Figure 126).
Unlike the retaining walls associated with the Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947), the
retaining walls of these features are located high on the stream bank and generally do not extend down to
the level of running water. These are reminiscent of terraced features observed in former sugarcane fields
near the Wailuku (Barna et al. 2023:50), and although no record of sugarcane production has been found
for the Project Area, this technique of reinforcing the top of the stream bank against erosion to enhance
planting could have been used for other kinds of agriculture. The terraces are likely associated with
Historic Period agriculture conducted within the historic lots shown on Registered Map 2058, although it is
possible that they could be older.
Table 18 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Terraces
Feature Function Age Notes Location
map
08-04 Agriculture H Figure 50
09-06 Agriculture H Above of the north bank of the tributary of Ainako Stream. Figure 51
09-07 Agriculture H Along north edge of the tributary of Ainako Stream. Figure 51
09-08 Agriculture H Along north edge of the tributary of Ainako Stream. Figure 51
09-10 Agriculture H Along north edge of the tributary of Ainako Stream. Figure 51
13-17 Agriculture P/H Figure 51
15-11 Agriculture H Above Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-34-14947). Figure 57
15-22 Agriculture H Along south bank of tributary of Ainako Stream. Figure 57
15-23 Agriculture P/H Figure 57
15-25 Agriculture H Remnant. Figure 57
15-27 Agriculture H Figure 57
15-30 Agriculture H Figure 57
15-31 Agriculture H Figure 57
15-32 Agriculture H Heavily disturbed by fallen trees and tree roots. Figure 57
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 179
Figure 124. Feature 15-27, terrace, view to the south
Figure 125. Feature 15-27, northern corner of terrace, view to the southwest
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 180
Figure 126. Feature 09-10, terrace overlooking Ainako Stream tributary (at left), view to the south
6.1.2.11 Isolated Artifacts
Four isolated artifacts were identified. A10-01 is a steel shovel head found resting on the ground surface
in Lot 10. Artifact A10-02 is a brown glass bottle with a tooled ring finish, round body, and cup-bottom
base. It has an embossed logo for the Buffalo Brewing Company of Sacramento, California on its side. It
resembles bottles sold between 1890 and ca. 1910, when automatic bottle machines became widespread
(Sacramento Public Library n.d.). A14-01 is a rounded basalt small cobble found near the northern
boundary of the Project Area parcel. It was found outside of a stream context and may have been
intentionally moved to its current location. A14-02 is an olive-green glass bottle. It is missing its finish, has
a round body, and appears to be turn-molded in a cup mold. It likely dates to the mid to late 1880s and
late 1910s, after which automatic bottle machines dominated the market (Lindsey 2016).
Table 19 Isolated Artifacts Associated with SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the Project Area
Field Number Material Type Age Function Location map
A10-01 Steel Shovel head Historic Tool Figure 52
A10-02 Glass Bottle 1890-ca.1910 Beverage Figure 52
A14-01 Basalt Waterworn (possible) Precontact/historic? Tool Figure 56
A14-02 Glass Bottle >1906 Beverage Figure 56
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 181
6.1.2.12 Summary
Within the current Project Area, SIHP 50-10-65-18696 consists of 181 individual archaeological features,
including 5 complexes (which have a total of 29 subfeatures). Together, these features are interpreted to
be the remnants of agricultural activities conducted in the Project Area during the early twentieth century,
and almost certainly before.
6.1.2.12.1 Summary by Type
The majority of Site 18696 features (62.2%, n= 112) in the Project Area are rock mounds (Table 17). The
next most common type of feature (13.3%) is a freestanding rock wall. Agricultural terraces comprise
7.8% of features, and all other feature types account for less than 5% each of the total feature count. The
spatial distribution of feature types is shown in Figure 127.
Table 20 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of features by type in the Project Area
Feature Type Number of Features
Mound 112
Wall 24
Terrace 16
Mound/platform 8
Modified outcrop 5
Rock pile 3
Retaining wall 3
Platform 3
Enclosure 2
Ditch 2
Complex 2
Modified spring 1
Grand Total 181
6.1.2.12.2 Summary by Function
Of the 181 features (including complexes), the majority of features (74.4%, n= 135) are agricultural in
function (Table 18). These features include mounds, terraces, free-standing walls, modified outcrops,
retaining walls, and platforms. Another 11.1% of features (8 mound/platforms, 7 mounds, 4 walls, and a
rock pile) were assigned an indeterminate function. Features assigned to a boundary function, primarily
walls but also one rock mound that appeared to be a stockpile of wall material, comprised 7.8% (n=15) of
identified features. The remaining features each comprised 2% or less of the totals, and were assigned
functions of water infrastructure, habitation, clearing, and animal pen. Four habitation features were
identified. The spatial distribution of features by function is shown in Figure 128.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 182
Table 21 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of features by function in the Project Area
Function Number of Features
Agriculture 135
Indeterminate 20
Boundary 15
Water infrastructure 4
Habitation 3
Clearing 2
Animal pen 1
Habitation/Agriculture 1
Grand Total 181
6.1.2.12.3 Summary by Age
Determining the age of most features was made difficult by a paucity of diagnostic characteristics and
associated material culture. The appearance of features on historic maps and the few associated late
nineteenth and early twentieth century artifacts were used to assign features to the Historic period,
especially boundary walls that are depicted on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a). Additionally,
information developed by Hunt and McDermott (1993) and Clark and Rechtman (2016) regarding
agricultural clearing mounds was used to assess the potential age of rock mounds and platforms. Of the
181 features (including complexes) identified within SIHP 50-10-35-18696 in the Project Area (Table 19),
70 are assessed to date to the Historic period, in particular to the period when the Project Area had been
divided into the 15 historic lots shown on Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a). Based on their
appearance on that map, the historic lots are thought to date to before the turn of the twentieth century
but after the 1850s due to their absence from earlier maps. Another 108 features, again mostly mounds,
have been assessed to possibly date to the Precontact era, but could also be younger. In most cases,
these mounds are in poor shape and badly damaged by tree roots or fallen trees. Another 3 features
were designated “indeterminate” due to extremely poor condition and possibility that they are either
modern or natural formations too obscured by fallen vegetation to accurately assess. The distribution of
features by age is shown in Figure 129.
Table 22 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Summary of features by age in the Project Area
Age Number of Features
Historic 70
Indeterminate 3
Precontact/Historic 108
Grand Total 181
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 183
Figure 127. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Distribution of Features by Type
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 184
Figure 128. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Distribution of Features by Function
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 185
Figure 129. SIHP 50-10-35-18696 Distribution of Features by Age
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 186
6.1.3 SIHP 50-10-35-T1 (KAŪMANA SPRINGS HILO CITY WATER WORKS)
SIHP 50-10-35-T1 is a portion of the Kaūmana Springs Hilo City Water Works that is shown on historic
maps (e.g., Figure 16). It is located in the northeast end of the Project Area (Figure 130) and consists of
two features (Table 20). The site, as observed during the current survey, measures approximately 15 m
north-south by 85 m east-west. These dimensions are based on the portions of a partially buried water
pipeline that are visible on the ground surface. The buried pipeline extends farther to the east, but
because it was buried its exact location was not determined. The site is situated on the gentle northeast
slope of Kupapau Hill, surrounded by palm and guava trees.
Feature A is a concrete foundation (Figure 131) that encloses the developed spring and supported a
superstructure (the spring house). The spring house was a watertight structure built to protect the spring
and its intake from contaminated surface runoff. The foundation measures 6.6 meters by 3.4 meters. It
has three standing formed concrete walls. The eastern wall, the most complete of the three, measures
about 75 centimeters above the ground surface. The southern wall has partially collapsed. The interior of
the foundation is flooded with water and partially filled with silty clay. Historic aerial photographs (e.g., see
Figure 20) show that this structure previously had a roof; however, no remnants of the superstructure
were observed. Feature B is a buried cast-iron water pipe (Figure 132), intermittently exposed by erosion.
It is 12 inches in diameter, and the intermittently exposed portion extends 32 meters roughly eastward
between Feature A (the spring house foundation) and Ainako Stream. The current site boundary includes
the concrete foundation and the exposed pipe segments. The spring house and pipe were installed ca.
1917 and operated as part of the Hilo water system until 1973 when the Piʻihonua Well near Gilbert
Carvalho Park replaced it.
The site is in generally fair condition. It is significant under Criterion “a” for its association with the
development and operation of the Hilo water system during the period ca. 1912 to 1973, a period when
surface springs were used as the town’s water source.
Table 23 SIHP 50-10-35-T1 Kaūmana Springs Hilo City Water Works Features
Feature Type Function Age
A Concrete foundation
Water
infrastructure
Historic
B Cast-iron water pipe
Water
infrastructure
Historic
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 187
Figure 130. SIHP 50 10-35-T1 Plan View
Figure 131. SIHP 50 10-35-T1 Feature A, spring house foundation, view to the northeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 188
Figure 132. SIHP 50 10-35-T1 Feature B, cast-iron water pipe connecting the spring house (Feature
B) to the Hilo town water system, view to the northeast
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 189
6.1.4 SIHP 50-10-35-T2 (KUPAPAU HILL HAWAIʻI TRANGULATION STATION)
Site T2 is the Kupapau Hill Hawaii Triangulation Station0F
1. The site is located at the summit of Kupapau
Hill at an elevation of 499 feet amsl. The site measures approximately 8 meters by 8 meters. The summit
of Kupapau Hill moderately vegetated with guava and palms, with a few large albizia trees. The site
consists of three features (Table 21). All three features appear to date to the Historic period. No artifacts
or other cultural material were observed at this site.
Table 24 SIHP 50-10-35-T2 Kupapau Hill Trig. Station Features
Feature Type Function Age
A
Hawaii Triangulation
Station Land Survey
Historic
B Excavated area Indeterminate Historic
C Excavated area Indeterminate Historic
Feature A (Figure 133) is a triangulation station used for land surveys. It consists of a 4-inch diameter
galvanized pipe embedded in a formed concrete foundation. The feature is located at the summit of
Kupapau Hill. The foundation measures 1.4 m by 1.4 m and stands 30 cm above the ground surface. The
pipe is centered within the foundation and extends 15 cm (6 inches) centimeters above the foundation.
The ground surface surrounding the feature consists of clay loam heavily infiltrated by guava roots.
Subangular to subrounded basaltic cobbles and small boulders lie on the ground surface and are
embedded in the surrounding soil. The foundation is being undercut by erosion where it abuts Feature B,
an excavated area.
Features B and C are irregularly shaped excavated areas located on the summit of Kupapau Hill. Feature
B (Figure 134) measures 3.5 m by 3.5 m and is excavated approximately 100 centimeters below the
surrounding ground surface. Feature C (Figure 135) measures 2.5 m by 25 m and is excavated
approximately 70 cm below the surrounding ground surface.
Triangulation stations like this one are used to mark known points on the geodetic system for land survey.
Although the puʻu is indicated in the 1849 map prepared for the ABCFM’s Land Commission claim (and
named “Puu Mohihi” on that map), the earliest reference to a triangulation station on Kupapau Hill was
found on Registered Map 1790 (Loebenstein 1895). That map, which was prepared for improvements to
Piʻihonua Road, names the station “Moohihi or Spring” and appears to refer to name given in the Land
Commission claim. The current name appears to date to a survey conducted in 1901 (Baldwin 1901b), for
the Hilo City Water Head Reservation, which refers to the station as:
…a stone marked +. on top of old kupapau known as Kupapau Hill Trig. Sta…
The map derived from that survey, Registered Map 2058 (Baldwin 1901a), labels the station “Kupapau
Hill.” The station was also used during the survey for Land Court Application 292 Map 1 (Baldwin 1914),
which was prepared for a petition by the Hawaii Evangelical Association’s that year to record their title to
1 This triangulation station should not be confused with the Kupapau 1914 horizontal control, which is
located on Kupapau Point, 3 miles southwest along the coast from the village of Kalapana (Mitchell
1930:212–213).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 190
the land. The survey notes on that map indicate that the station was marked with a galvanized pipe.
Based on these maps, Feature A appears to have been installed between 1901 and 1914, before which
time the station was marked with a “+” carved into a rock. , although the location was used as early as
1895. The station does not appear in the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey’s 1930 publication
Triangulation in Hawaii (Mitchell 1930). This suggests that it was only used for local surveys within the
surrounding area.
Although Site T2 is a triangulation station used by land surveyors during the late nineteenth and early
twentieth century, research conducted for the current study does not suggest that it was used during the
critical period between the Māhele of 1848 and the Boundary Commission hearings of the 1870s, when
the Hawaiian government transitioned from the traditional Hawaiian land tenure system to modern land
tenure system that uses cadastral surveys to define land parcel boundaries. It is not recommended
significant under any criteria.
Figure 133. SIHP 50 10-35-T2 Feature A, Hawaii Triangulation Station, view to the south
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
6 Results
Project Number: 093046 191
Figure 134. SIHP 50 10-35-T2 Feature B, excavated area, view to the north
Figure 135. SIHP 50 10-35-T2 Feature C, excavated area, view to the north
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 192
7 Discussion
Two previously identified sites and two newly identified sites were identified in the Project Area. Together,
they document the connection of the Project Area to three historic themes: augmentation of water
resources in Punahoa makai, agricultural use of the upper kula in Hilo, and changes in land tenure.
7.1 Supplying Water to Punahoa Makai
The people who lived in Hilo One were able to depend on rain-fed agriculture to support themselves for
centuries. The organized system of kalo and other fields depicted on Malden’s (1841) chart of Hilo were
likely watered naturally by rainfall, but by the 1820s may have been augmented by irrigation.
Augmentation of the rainfed agriculture in Punahoa may have happened in response to a variety of
factors, including population growth in the late Precontact period as well as the increasing urbanization of
Hilo Town in the 19th and 20th centuries. The testimony provided by Kaleioholani in the 1917 Hilo
Boarding School Ditch water rights case suggests that by 1825, when Malden surveyed for the chart, two
major ʻauwai were already in place. These were the 17th century ʻĪ ʻauwai, which furnished water to the
village of Hilo, and the early 19th century Kamehameha ʻauwai, which suppled the Mōʻī’s court near the
mouth of the Wailuku. At this time, according to William Ellis (1825), some 2,000 people lived along Hilo
Bay. The springs and streams in the project area were a part of the larger ʻauwai network (Noah Gomes,
personal communication, August 19, 2025). The stream now known as Ainako Stream was known as
either “Malokioi” or “Molokioi,” and that its course may have been altered to join with Mōhihi spring and
another spring named Waipāhoehoe, and flow north through what is now Carvalho Park towards the
Wailuku River. In doing so, these springs also seem to have contributed to the ʻĪʻauwai system in
Piʻihonua and Punahoa. A different history of water development, however, was given by Frederick
Lyman in the 1917 Hilo Boarding School Ditch water rights case. Lyman claimed that the Hilo Boarding
School Ditch was created in 1813 when Joseph Goodrich improved an ʻauwai built by the konohiki named
Aki.
The testimonies by Kaleioholani testimonies, though conflicting in their history and details, illustrate a shift
in water needs in Hilo Town by the early nineteenth century. For example, Kaleioholani states that when
the ABCFM approached his grandmother for the right to dig the Hilo Boarding School Ditch, it was for
household purposes, a need beyond traditional irrigation for agriculture. The water from the ditch was
eventually used for a variety of industrial purposes as well, for example to power a sugar mill and
hydroelectric generators. The timing of the construction of the ʻauwai built by Aki coincides with Hilo’s
growth as an emerging commercial port. This shift, from ʻauwai for irrigation to ditches for domestic and
industrial use, occurred as part of a long-term process changing motivations, and technological evolution
from open traditional ʻauwai to spring-fed buried water mains, and ultimately to the system of wells that
provide to the system today. Two sites identified in the Project Area, the Hilo Boarding School Ditch
(SIHP 50-10-35-14947) and the Kaūmana Springs Hilo City Water Works (SIHP 50-10-35-T1) illustrate
this long-term process.
7.1.1 THE HILO BOARDING SCHOOL DITCH (SIHP 50-10-35-14947)
The Hilo Boarding School ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947) is a long, linear historic property that extended
both mauka and makai of the Project Area. Only a relatively short portion of the ditch is present in the
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 193
Project Area, but this portion demonstrates some engineering techniques typical of ʻauwai in Hilo.
Additionally, the testimony of Kaleioholani in the 1917 water rights case strongly suggests that this portion
of the ditch, located above the Hālaʻi Hills, could be a part of the ʻĪ ʻauwai originally dug in the 17th century.
The ditch, based on historic maps, the ditch was approximately 4 miles long, extending from Waiele Falls
to the Hilo Boarding School makai of Hālaʻi Hill. Some portions of the ditch outside the Project Area have
been documented archaeologically. A portion of the ditch at the base of Hālaʻi Hill documented by Athens
(1982:8) during a reconnaissance survey about 1 kilometer makai of the current project area:
… still visible running along the base of Hala'i Hill. In this remnant section it measures
approximately 1 meter wide at the top and is 40 cm deep.
Another portion of this ditch was identified approximately 700 meters makai of the project area, by
(Jensen 1991). That portion of the ditch was described as:
Site 14947 is a ditch system with one primary channel which remains partially intact.
The primary channel is the Hilo Boarding School and Old Mission Ditch previously
documented by Kelly and Athens during their study of the proposed Alenaio Stream
Flood Damage Control Project Area (Kelly and Athens 1982 Figures 11-12). The ditch
is early historic and probably also prehistoric.
The intact ditch segment enters the project area immediately west of the uppermost of
the three Hala'i Hills (Puuhonu) (see Figure 1). The ditch, which averages 1 to 1.25 m
in width and from 0.40 to 0.75 cm in depth, follows the approximate 304 contour line
around the base of Puuhonu cinder cone, and then proceeds easterly around the
base of Ope'ape'a, the second of the three Hala'i Hills. Portions of the ditch within
Ope'ape'a area have been stone- and concrete lined in order to prevent down-cutting
and erosion adjacent to existing residential subdivisions. No features of any kind and
no artifact concentrations were observed along this segment of ditch, which
terminates within the northeastern comer of the project area at a point just south of
the intersection of Komohana and Waianuenue Streets. (Jensen 1991:5)
Wolforth (1999:29) inspected a portion of the Hilo Boarding School between Hālaʻi Hill and Puʻu Honu
(the farthest mauka of the three Hālaʻi hills, which he called Pōhakunui):
The HBS Ditch is clearly present along the northern one-quarter of Hala'i Hill starting
near the intersection of Hala'i and Haili Streets, and ending at the medical center
parking lot facing Komohana Street. This roughly 200 meter segment of the HBS
Ditch is not at the base ofHala'i Hill Rather, it is at a contour of the hill where the steep
upper slope changes to a more gentle lower slope. The flat terrain at the base ofHala'i
Hill is about 3.5 meters lower than, and 10 meters beyond, the HBS Ditch. Due to its
location tangent to the sloping terrain, the lower bank of the roughly 2-meter-wide
channel is about 50 centimeters high, and the upper bank is about two meters high.
An alignment of rocks along the lower bank is occasionally visible above the silts in
the channel. It is likely that the channel was deeper prior to abandonment and
siltation, and that in situ rock linings occur elsewhere along the ditch.
The portion of the ditch documented in the Project Area helps to archaeologically confirm the physical
extent of the ditch. Most historic maps generalize and simplify the ditch’s course, and a full representation
of the ditch based on metes and bounds does not appear to be available. The current fieldwork confirms
that the ditch exits the County-owned parcel by joining the tributary of Ainako Stream that flows south of
the Project Area. It also the mapped extent of the ditch right of way documented in Land Court Application
292. Furthermore, the current fieldwork demonstrates the integration of natural watercourses into the
ditch design. This is similar to the Piʻihonua Ditch, which similarly takes advantage of a natural drainage
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 194
channel above Hilo Intermediate School (Barna 2017; Barna and Rechtman 2015; Wolforth 1999). Lastly,
the current fieldwork documents the fate of the ditch after it was no longer needed to supply water to the
Hilo Boarding School in the mid-20th century. The portion in the Project Area was isolated from its source
and any surviving upstream segments by the construction of the Ainako Terrace subdivision, which
graded and filled over the ditch while creating residential lots and the bottom end of Kilikina Street.
Similarly, development downstream in the Kaumana Gardens, Crescent City Heights, adjoining
subdivisions, and the neighborhood makai of Hālaʻi Hill likely altered or destroyed portions of the ditch.
7.1.2 HILO CITY WATER WORKS KAŪMANA SPRINGS INTAKE
(SIHP 50-10-35-T1)
This unassuming concrete foundation and buried water pipe are located at the focal point of decades-long
tension between a large landowner, the Hawaii Evangelical Association, and the local government over
the needs of the growing town and fair compensation. Local scholars have given some attention to the
1913 lawsuit between the Hilo Boarding School and the Territorial government over the amount of water
taken out of the Wailuku through the Hilo Boarding School Ditch (Canevali 1977; Wolforth 1999), but the
related conflict between the County and the Hawaii Evangelical Association over the spring water at Site
T1 remains something of a footnote to this history. The most recent attention given to the incident was
Warshauer’s (2003, 2005a, 2005b) brief newspaper pieces from two decades ago.
The conflict had its roots in the discovery of contaminated spring water used by the Hilo Railroad in 1905,
which prompted the County to consider acquiring the land surrounding the springs to prevent future
contamination of the water supply. Increased needs over the following decade led County officials to
attempt an end-run around the Hawaii Evangelical Association first by purchasing the spring’s water from
the association’s tenant, the Hilo Sugar Company, and then continuing to take the water after the Hilo
Sugar Company’s lease had ended. The conflict grew to a decades-long legal fight, ultimately resolving in
the County’s favor with the acquisition of the 60 acres that make up most of the Project Area. The site
was ultimately abandoned in the early 1970s when the County water system brought the Piʻihonua Well
on line to replace the surface waters sources at Kaūmana Springs.
The results of the current study at Site T1 clarify one detail on the circa 1913 map provided by the County
of Hawaiʻi Department of Public Works (Figure 130), which has been used by several researchers (Barna
2017; Barna and Rechtman 2015; Jensen 1991; Kelly and Athens 1982; Wolforth 1999). Who produced
the map and why remains unknown. Inquiries at the Hawaiʻi County Department of Public Works were
unsuccessful in answering this question. Three different age estimates have been given for the map by
archaeological researchers. Marion Kelly thought the undated map was prepared in the early 1900s (Kelly
and Athens 1982). Peter Jensen (1991) estimated that it was produced circa 1913. Tom Wolforth (1999)
understood the map to have been produced around 1920. Assuming that the new intake for the Hilo
Water Works was drawn on the map at the time it was produced (not added later), it is likely that the map
was drawn between 1913 and 1917, when the County began taking water from Hilo Sugar Company’s
lease of the spring, but before the County acquired the parcel. The archaeological evidence, however, is
related to the way the map depicts the “New Intake” for the Hilo Water Works. As recorded during the
current study, Feature A (the spring house foundation) is located about 80 meters to the west of the
building that is depicted on the map (Figure 136) as the “New Intake.” No archaeological or architectural
remains were found in that location. By contrast, Registered Map 2058 (Figure 137) (and the Public
Works map) both show the spring to be in the location where Feature A was identified, allowing for some
variance due to GPS and surveying accuracy. It is possible that the map pre-dates the creation of the
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 195
water shed at Site T1 and shows a proposed location for the new intake. Despite its current condition, the
spring house foundation and piping that are visible in Project Area offer a unique opportunity for public
storytelling about wai, the public trust, and early 20th century politics in Hilo. Although one wall of the
foundation is partially collapsed and the superstructure is missing, its location makes it a good candidate
for preservation and interpretation. Public interpretation of an interpreted or restored spring house could
be included in a recreational trail. Additional archival research may reveal more details about the conflict
and negotiations between the HEA and the County over the springs.
Figure 136. Circa 1913 map with identified features of SIHP 50 10-35-T1
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 196
Figure 137. Comparison of identified feature of SIHP 50 10-35-T1 with Registered Map 2058
(Baldwin 1901a)
7.2 Agricultural Use of the Upper Kula in Hilo
McEldowney’s (1979b) model of settlement patterns and land use in Precontact Hilo places the Project
Area in the “Upland Agricultural Zone,” where scattered huts with adjacent garden plots and small groves
economically beneficial trees ascended to the edge of the forest. Her model is based on the earliest
descriptions of the area from 1820. More recent modeling by Gon et al. (2018) suggests that Project Area
was on the margins of intensive traditional land use. Estimates of how far inland the forest edge was in
the past vary slightly. In 1826, Joseph Goodrich (1826:4), writing generally of the Hilo area, placed it at 5
or 6 miles inland, while Titus Coan (1882:46) recounted a distance of 3 to 5 in 1837 or 1838, likely in
Punahoa. It should be noted that these estimates were made in the latter years of Hawaiʻi’s sandalwood
trade, and after the introduction of ungulates—note the account by Samuel Hill of meeting branded cattle
near the Project Area elevation in 1848 (Hill 1856:290), almost two decades after the depredations of wild
cattle had led to the introduction of ranching on Hawaiʻi Island (Barna 2013; Bergin 2004; Wellmon 1973).
The distances to the forest edge that were noted by Goodrich and Coan are consistent with the Māhele
era survey of Punahoa prepared for the ABCFM on Registered Map 1790 (Lyman 1853). Thus, it is
unknown whether this forest edge was the same as before the 1790s, but the potential existed for
traditional agricultural use in the Project Area.
7.2.1 DETERMINING THE AGE AND INTENSITY OF AGRICULTURE
Only one archaeological study has been conducted near the Project Area in a location with comparable
elevation, soils, and terrain to the Project Area. A reconnaissance survey of a property below ‘Ākōlea
Road by Corbin (2006). found similar features to those in the current Project Area: numerous mounds, a
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 197
stone enclosure, a C-shape, and a terrace, along with 100 to 200 more mounds in the surrounding area.
While Sinoto (1978:3) proposed that the most of the features he observed in the current project area were
“characteristic of an aboriginal (prehistoric) agricultural complex”, Corbin (2006) interpreted features that
were not mounds as potentially be left over from Precontact use of the area, but the mounds were
interpreted to be more recent, likely created by clearing sugarcane fields. Because the surrounding lands
in Piʻihonua, Punahoa 2, and Punahoa 1 that had sufficient arable soil were used for sugarcane
cultivation there are no comparative studies to rule out, or to confirm, that Precontact archaeological sites
have survived in this part of Hilo.
The majority of the identified features in the Project Area, being rock mounds, provide limited diagnostic
characteristics that can be used to determine age of SIHP 50-10-35-18696. The age of a mound is
difficult to determine based on form alone, despite some attempts to correlate the quality stacked edges
with different agricultural contexts such as Historic sugarcane fields or Precontact agriculture (Clark and
Rechtman 2016; Hunt and McDermott 1993). Multi-generational Punahoa resident Leilehua Yuen
(personal communication, June 17, 2025) noted that in a relatively wet location like the Project Area, taro
and sweet potato could be grown in rock mounds as long as proper drainage could be maintained around
the plants, to “keep their feet dry.” Radiocarbon dating of appropriate organic material recovered from the
right kinds of stratigraphic contexts associated with the construction of the mounds may provide a range
of years in which they may have been built (Rieth and Athens 2013) —the best chance of this would be to
find organic deposits created during a vegetation-clearing event just prior to mound’s construction.
Budget limitations for the current study did not permit this type of data collection, but future data recovery
could potentially provide information to address this question.
Whenever the native forest in the Project Area was opened up into the upland kula, agricultural practices
would have had to been adapted to the wet conditions typical of the area. Planting methods for dryland
kalo and ʻuala would have needed to provide adequate drainage to prevent damage to corms and tubers.
Rock planting mounds and earthen mounds are a documented method for planting in such conditions
(Handy et al. 2020:141, 173, 726). Tenant farmers might also have taken advantage of the springs and
streams to grow irrigated kalo and other crops as part of the larger integrated agricultural system within
Punahoa. Small ʻauwai would have been built to distribute the water from these sources. It is likely that
the people tending these crops would have built small hale or shelters in these fields. Meanwhile, from
the 17th century on, the ʻĪ Ditch (i.e., the Hilo Boarding School Ditch) would have augmented the flow of
the stretch of the Ainako Stream tributary at the southern end of the Project Area.
At some point, possibly during the tenure of the ABCFM/HEA, the Project Area was divided into lots for
tenant farmers. The lots depicted on the turn-of-the-century maps might use boundaries of traditional
kīhāpai that went unclaimed in the 1850s. The rock walls that were used to define the lots, however,
seem to be more recently constructed and suggestive of Western conceptions of property boundaries. It
is interesting to note the presence of an “extra” wall not shown on historic maps extending through Lot 10.
In building these walls, it is possible that older archaeological features were robbed of stone. Planting and
maintenance of the fields may have involved dismantling and rebuilding clearing mounds, as described by
(Hunt and McDermott 1993). Another piece of information suggesting a more recent origin of the walled
lots is that they are numbered on the historic maps, not named as a traditional kīhāpai or other planting
area would have been.
The results of the current field work support a scenario in which the features observed reflect late
nineteenth century and early twentieth century tenant farming on lots leased out by the HEA. The artifacts
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 198
found throughout the site only provide evidence of use during the end of the nineteenth century and the
decade or so before the parcel was made part of the Hilo Water Reservation in 1917. The presence of
metal farming tools (Isolated artifact A10-1 and the hoe head found at Feature 09-09) clearly indicate
Historic period farming was conducted here, which undoubtedly required field clearing and maintenance.
The features built of stacked rock—the mounds, platforms, modified outcrops, etc.—are all consistent in
their construction and placement on the landscape to be evidence of clearing for agriculture, but not in
any way that distinguishes itself from Historic period agricultural practices. The terraces constructed near
the edges of the Ainako Stream tributary (Features, 05-03, 09-06 through 09-10, 10-06, 13-14, 13-08, 14-
06, 15-22, and 15-23) resemble erosion control modifications observed at the edges of sugarcane fields
elsewhere in Hilo, for example, on former cane fields behind the old Hilo Hospital site (Barna et al. 2023).
This does not rule out the possibility that they are older.
There is more concrete evidence of when the Project Area was inhabited than when agricultural use
began. Of the habitation features (Features 03-09, 08-05, the 14-03 complex, and possibly 05-01) none
were associated with typical Precontact cultural material (at least on the surface).Again, artifacts
associated with habitation features indicate that they were occupied during the late nineteen and early
twentieth century. At least one building or structure appears on the circa 1913 map of the Project Area.
While no archaeological feature was found in the exact location indicated by the map, the habitation
complex composed of Features 14-02, 14-03, 14-04, and 14-05 is situated nearby, about 35 meters to the
east. Given some of the other apparent inaccuracies on this map (e.g., the location of the water works
intake, see Section 6.1.2 above), it is reasonable to infer that the building shown on the map is this
habitation.
7.2.2 RE-EVALUATION OF LAND USE HISTORY IN THE PROJECT AREA
Sinoto’s (1978) reconnaissance survey was an important first step toward reconstructing the history of the
Project Area. The writers of the environmental assessment for the Kaumana Springs Wilderness Park
(Walters, Kimura, and Associates, Inc. 1976) described the area as extensively altered by historic-period
agricultural activities, which they posited had destroyed any archaeological or historical sites in the area.
This flawed conclusion was based on a lack of actual archaeological fieldwork, as well as an assumptioni
that only “ancient” archaeological sites had any value. On the basis of a one-day reconnaissance
conducted with Eric Komori, Sinoto (1978:2) came to the opposite conclusion:
… much of the interior area is unaltered, and that some of the remains, such as walls
and mounds, exhibit characteristics that are more typical of prehistoric construction
than of historic construction.
Sinoto’s survey was essential to debunking the idea that there were no archaeological remains, but the
conditions on the ground made it difficult for him and Komori to survey all 117 acres of the proposed park
area. Many portions were covered with impassable thickets of uluhe and Christmasberry (wilelaiki), which
hindered their ability to walk the entire area, let alone identify and document features:
Although the clusters of sites appear as discrete, spatially isolated units, the sited
areas are probably continuous and could be considered as components of a single
extensive complex. The apparent discontinuity of sites as described in this report is
primarily the result of the physical limitations imposed on the survey by dense
vegetation cover. The false staghorn fern (Dicnanopteris linearis) and wilelaiki
(Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi), in particular, were often impenetrable and prevented
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 199
continuous transects. Thus, more sites may be present within those areas that are
densely vegetated.(Sinoto 1978:3)
Without the benefit of relatively open ground beneath today’s alibiza and guava canopy, Sinoto and
Komori were only able to obseve a small portion of the features present in the Project Area (Figure 138).
The poor visibility also made it difficult for them to accurately map the locations of the features they were
able to find. Their difficulties appear to have been substantial. Only 30 of the features identified during the
current study are contained with the cluster areas that they mapped. Another 58 features are located in
the areas marked “dense vegetation” by Sinoto; that they would go undetected is no surprise. What was
unexpected were the 93 additional features identified by the current study outside of Sinoto’s clusters and
vegetated areas. Sinoto’s report alludes to the possiblity of undetected features, but is phrased in such a
way to imply that they would primarily be expected in the vegetated area. Perhaps he simply understated
how poor the visibility was outside of the six clusters he identified.
Despite the difficulty in moving through their survey area, Sinoto and Komori were able to identify a fairly
good representative sample of the features in the Project Area. In Sinoto’s Cluster 2, for example, the
remnants of terraces and intact portions of a stone-reinforced ʻauwai are a decent description of some of
the features identified in Lots 14 and 15. Based on the current results, the stone-reinforced ʻauwai may
have been the Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-18696).
The location of Cluster 3 does not match very well with the major grouping of mound features in Lot 12,
but the description of “several stone mounds and cairns” aptly summarizes this grouping, and the large
elongate platform he lists could be Feature 12-13, but the feature is too covered in ferns in his photograph
to make a positive identification. Sinoto also mentions a low stone wall that parallels the present fenceline
along the southern boundary; the current survey did not encounter such a wall in that location.
The large Cluster 5, simply summarized by Sinoto as terraces, platforms, mounds, cairns, and ʻauwai,
maps onto the locations of 29 features identified in Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Eight other features are within a
few meters of the cluster as it appears on the site location map. With the exception of ʻauwai, which were
not observed in this area, the current study and Sinoto’s generally match up in terms of what was
observed in Cluster 5.
What is interesting, and perhaps telling of the difficulties of the 1978 reconnaissance survey, is the
amount of features encountered outside of the clusters. Most notably, the relatively dense collection of
features in Lot 3 and the northern edge of Lot 1 were not reported. These include the distinctive habitation
feature 03-09 and the modified springs Features 03-08 and 01-09E. It is also notable, but not surprising
given the ground cover, that no portable artifacts were recovered. It is likely that none were observed.
Another element of the built landscape in the Project Area that is absent from Sinoto’s site map are the
rock wall segments identified during the current study. At least some of these were observed and noted
as historic cattle or boundary walls.
The preliminary conclusions of Sinoto’s reconnaissance reflect his goals to reassess the initial
representation of the proposed Wilderness Park parcel’s lack of archaeological potential. By identifying
mounds, plaforms, terraces, and ʻauwai, he established a hypothesis that, contrary to the environmental
assessment’s conclusion, it was possible that evidence of a deeper past in the Project Area had survived
in the archaeological record than had been assumed. He encouraged additional documentation and study
of the features in the Project Area, but ultimately concluded that the mounds, terraces, and platforms are
fairly common features with little additional research potential. He did, however, recognize their potential
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 200
for public interpretation, given the opportunity to incorporate the features into a minimally-developed
public park.
The current study builds on the results of Sinoto’s (1978) reconnaissance to present a more nuanced
interpretation of the archaeological features of SIHP 50-10-35-18696. There are several reasons for this.
One of them is that the current study benefits from a more complete survey coverage than Sinoto and
Komori could accomplish in the dense uluhu and Christmasberry. Another is that over the past 45 years,
cultural resource management professionals have researched sugarcane and other historic period
agricultural clearing features from an archaeological perspective (Clark and Rechtman 2016; Hunt and
McDermott 1993). Much of Sinoto’s limited observations remain valid. Considered holistically, however, the
features in the project area more closely resemble the material of expressions of late-19th and early 20th
century agricultural practices and livestock management, with a few features serving to contribute to
make this a “persistent places” (Schlanger 1992).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 201
Figure 138. Comparison of Sinoto’s (1978) results with the current study
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 202
At the heart of this interpretation is the combination of the archaeological evidence of rock walls and the
documentary evidence of the division of the Project Area into lots, first depicted around the turn of the
20th century on Registered Map 2058. This alone does not mean that all features withint he project area
must date to the same period as the walls; the islands are criss-crossed with rock walls built around, over,
and with rocks taken from older archaeological features. If there were older built features in the project
area, it is almost certain that the rock walls in the current Project Area were built in part from material
robbed from them. Additionally, any existing features inside the lots that were useful or at least not in the
way might be retained. If, on the other hand, the older constructed features were incompatible with the
tenant’s plans, those features would likely be dismantled and the rocks either reused or disposed of.
The differential distribution of rock mounds and other features within the walled historic lots suggests that
it is ths latter scenario that occurred. Some historic lots, like the southern half of 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and
11, are almost are fully cleared, while others such as 12, 14, and 15 are relatively packed with mounds
and other agricultural feaures. The flattest land appears to be the most cleared. It could be that these
historic lots were the ground under cultivation described by the Hilo Tribune in 1905, possibly for
sugarane if the soil depths and quality were adequate then. Other historic lots, with less soil, may have
been cleared for pasture, as suggested by the mid-19th century observations of Samuel Hill (1856), the
statements made by the Deputy County Attorney William Heen that the land was of “no great value” (Hilo
Daily Tribune 1914a), and recollections of Leileihua Yuen (personal communication, July 17, 2025).
Another line of reasoning in support of a more recent age for some of the mounds comes from Hunt and
McDermott’s (1993) documentation of rock mound maintenance by plantation workers. Their
conversations with plantation works found that healthy field maintenance involved dismantling and
rebuilding clearing mounds to rid them of vermin and rubbish. Thus, it is likely that the arrangement of
mounds in the Project Area observed today was created during the early 20th century by the tenants of
the 15 historic lots.
Another line of evidence about the relatively recent occupation of the Project Area are the habitation
features. At least one (the complex containing Features 14-02, 14-03, 14-04, and 14-05) is close to a
building that is drawn on an early 20th century map (Figure 139), but no other early map. In the case of
that feature, it can be confidently asserted that the habitation was used at that time. At all the other
habitation features, no Precontact artifacts were observed, nor were surface expressions of middens.
Only late 19th and early 20th century artifacts were found in assocaition with habitation features. This
indicates that these features were also occupied during that period. Other evidence would be needed to
determine how much older the habitation features might be.
Water features, though, seem to hint at older past. The puna wai in the Project Area could very well have
made for a persistent place here. In this case, the spatial relationship between the springs and other
features suggests the possibility that they have a deeper history of use than the Historic agricultural lots.
This is because the historic lot boundaries do not appear to structure the distribution of the features near
the springs. The features near the modified springs 01-09E and 03-18 appear to be built without regard
for the historic lot boundary between Lots 1 and 3. They effectively form their own cluster that extends
across the artificial lines that create each historic lot. These features may predate the division of the
Project Area into lots, and that features in Lots 1 and 3 may be associated with an older occupation
related to the springs. The material evidence at the habitation feature 03-09 only demontstrates Historic
period use of the site, but additional investigation of that feature or others in this part of the Project Area
could be useful to clarify this question.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 203
Based on the evidence and this line of reasoning, SIHP 50-10-35-18696 is interpreted to represent an
agricultural landscape last used during the early 20th century for small-scale agricuture and livestock
husbandry by at least four different tenants of the Hawaiʻi Evangelical Association. These small-scale
agrictultural operations occurred on fifteen historic lots that had been used to divide up the HEA’s land on
the located between ‘Āinakō Stream and the Government land in Piʻihonua. This land was not optimal for
growing sugarcane, and the mauka boundary of Lot 15 likely coincided with the beginning of more
suitable lands. The Historic period agricultural practices, however, do not preclude earlier use of the land.
The multiple springs in the makai portion of the project area almost certainly made it a “persistent place”
on the landscape with its readily available fresh water. It stands to reason that there would have been a
human presence at the springs, and it is possible that one or more of the habitation sites could also have
been used much earlier than the surface archaeological expressions suggest. A more complete
understanding of the time depth of Hawaiian use of the Project Area would require additional
archaeological investigation, as well as additional archival and possibly oral history research as well.
Figure 139. Features Identified Near Building on ca. 1913 County of Hawaiʻi Public Works Map.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
7 Discussion
Project Number: 093046 204
7.3 Land Tenure and Land Survey
The Kupapau Hill Triangulation Station (50-10-35-T2) is clearly documented by 19th and early 20th century
maps as a local survey control point. It does not appear in lists of survey controls managed by the Coast
and Geodetic Survey or its successor the National Geodetic Survey. The station is apparently not used
anymore. The station represents a small part of the geodetic system established to measure land after
the Māhele of the history of land use, ownership, and geodesy.
Nothing observed archaeologically seemed to indicate why the hill is known as Kupapau Hill. If burials are
present, they are well concealed and only consultation or systematic archaeological testing would seem
to be capable of locating them. The two excavated areas at the summit of the hill are not readily
explained, either, although one would hope they are not related to the name of the hill.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 205
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
8.1 Significance Evaluations
Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules Chapter 13 Section 13-275-6 requires that once a historic property is
identified, an assessment of significance shall occur. To be significant, a historic property shall possess
integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and shall meet one
or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion “a”. Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad
patterns of our history;
• Criterion “b”. Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Criterion “c”. Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
represent the work of master, or possess high artistic value;
• Criterion “d”. Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or
history; or
• Criterion “e”. have an important value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of
the state due to associations with cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out at the
property or due to associations with traditional beliefs., events, or oral accounts—these
associations being important to the group’s history and cultural identity.
HAR 13-275 does not provide guidance for how to apply the criteria and assess integrity; however,
National Register Bulletin No. 15 (National Park Service 1997) recommends determining the following
things when conducing a similar evaluation for National Register eligibility:
• The facet of prehistory or history of the local area, State, or the nation that the property
represents;
• Whether that facet of prehistory or history is significant;
• Whether it is a type of property that has relevance and importance in illustrating the historic
context;
• How the property illustrates that history; and finally
• Whether the property possesses the physical features necessary to convey the aspect of
prehistory or history with which it is associated.
In other words, the significance evaluation considers these two questions: does the property represent an
important aspect of the area's history or prehistory and does it possess the requisite quality of integrity to
convey that history? If so, the property is significant. Significance evaluations for the identified historic
properties are listed in Table 25 and discussed below.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 206
Table 25 Site Signficance Recommendations
Site Type Function Age Significance* Recommendation
14947
Hilo Boarding
School Ditch
Water
infrastructure
Historic a, b, c, e Preservation
18696
Kaumana
Springs
Agricultural Site
Agriculture,
Habitation
Precontact/Historic a, d Limited
Preservation and
Data Recovery
T1
Kaumana
Springs Hilo
Water Head
Water
Infrastructure
Historic a, c Preservation
T2
Kupapau Hill
Trig Station Land Survey Historic Not Significant No Further Work
Legend: * = Significance to which the elements in the Project Area contribute.
8.1.1 SIHP 50-10-35-14947 (HILO BOARDING SCHOOL DITCH)
The Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947) was inventoried makai of the Project Area by
Jensen (1991) and was assessed for significance before the adoption of the current HAR 13-275 rules,
which occurred in 2002. Jensen’s (1991:8) assessment was “based on the National Register criteria for
evaluation, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60),” which at the were the
criteria used by the DLNR Historic Preservation Program, the predecessor to DLNR-SHPD. Jensen also
elaborated on the assessment by including PHRI’s in-house “Cultural Resource management value
modes” to assign a research-, interpretive-, and cultural value to the property. Although he did not
explicitly state which criteria apply to the site or discuss aspects of integrity as they relate to the site’s
significance, Jensen (1991:8) assessed the Hilo Boarding School Ditch to be significant “as an excellent
example of a site type”, for “information content”, and for “cultural value.” Jensen (1991:8) also notes:
The background information suggests this site was initially built during
prehistoric/protohistoric times by an important Hilo chief, I. Further, the same
background information suggests that this feature was subsequently associated with
persons who were important in local and regional history, as well as events and
organizations which were significant in the social and political evolution of Hilo. This
latter conclusion is based on the discovery that this ditch may represent the single
most important initial capital asset of the Hilo Electric Light Company, Ltd.
Applying the current significance criteria to Jensen’s assessment, it appears that Jensen intended to
determine the site significant under Criterion “a” for association with significant events related to early
electrification of the Hilo Boarding School and the founding of Hilo Electric Light company; under Criterion
“b” for its association with the Hilo aliʻi named ʻĪ; under Criterion “c” as an excellent example of a site type;
under Criterion “d” for unspecified research value; and under Criterion “e” for unspecified for unspecified
cultural value. In the HICRIS database, SIHP 50-10-35-14947 is listed as significant under Criteria “c”, “d”,
and “e.” Within the current Project Area, the site is considered significant under Criteria "a,” “b,” “c,” and
“e.”
Under Criterion “a” the Hilo Boarding School Ditch significant for its role in the growth and development of
the town of Hilo during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and possibly even earlier.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 207
Historically documented accounts of its origins, primarily from the 1917 water rights dispute, disagree
about when and by whom it was created. Regardless of its origins, once under control of the ABCFM the
ditch’s role in Hilo evolved. Beginning as a source of water for domestic uses and farming at the Hilo
Boarding School, in 1895 it provided water to an early hydroelectric generator for what became Hilo
Electric and Light Company, Ltd. The ditch, with the Hilo Boarding School holding rights to its water until
1943, was not a primary source of water for the Hilo municipal water supply during the 20th century, but
on several occasions was used to supplement water from the Kaūmana Springs during drought years.
Under Criterion “b” the site is significant for its association with at least four historically important people.
Based on Solomon P. Kaleioholani’s testimony, as interpreted by Wolforth (1999), suggests that ditch in
the Project Area may be part of the ‘Ī ditch ordered built by that aliʻi in the 1600s or the Kanuha ʻauwai
built in the in the 1830s or 1840s built at that aliʻi’s command (Kelly 1982:25; Wolforth 1999:10). Fredrick
Lyman’s testimony states that the Konohiki of Punahoa named Aki commissioned the ditch during the
time of Kamehameha I, but Joseph Goodrich improved it after 1822.
Under Criterion “c”, the site is significant for its design and construction, which is similar to portions of the
Piʻihonua Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35- 21228), which was documented to the north and east of the Project
Area. The upper portions of this ditch consists of artificially-dug segments that connect with natural
drainages, taking advantage of the topography and surface hydrology to deliver water from the Wailuku in
an efficient way (Wolforth 1999). Lower portions of the ditch, on more developed parcels tend to rely on
concrete and rock masonry rather than dry stack, as documented by Barna and Rechtman (2015), Barna
(2017), and Wilkinson and Hammatt (2009). The designers and maintainers of the Hilo Boarding School
Ditch improved the natural drainages where necessary to counteract erosion using dry-stack masonry, a
technique that was also used on several larger ditches on Hawaiʻi Island, such as the Upper Hamakua
Ditch (Barna 2020)) and the Lower Hamakua Ditch (Haun and Henry 2013). The portion of the ditch that
is present in the Project Area provides an example of these design and construction techniques that could
readily be interpreted to the public.
This portion of the ditch is not considered to be significant under Criterion “d.” No additional historically
important information not already known from historical documents was yielded during the archaeological
fieldwork. Based on the findings of the current fieldwork, the portion of the site in the project area does
not possess the potential to yield additional historically important information.
Under Criterion “e”, the ditch is considered significant for its association with traditional Hawaiian cultural
practices related to irrigation and the conveyance of wai once carried out with the property. The testimony
of Solomon P. Kaleioholani in 1917 clearly establishes this cultural use through his description of how
rights to the water in the ditch were allocated under his grandmother’s, and later his own, authority.
With respect to the property’s overall integrity, the Hilo Boarding School Ditch has experienced major
alterations along its entire length that leave it only partially intact. The ditch is fragmentary and portions of
it have been destroyed by development above and below the Project Area. Immediately above the Project
Area, grading for house lots and roads in the Ainako Terrace subdivision demolished a 165 meter-long
portion of the ditch. Another 175 meters have been rechannelized downstream from the Department of
Water Supply reservoir on Waiānuenue Avenue (Rechtman 2004). To date, no archaeological survey has
documented the ditch upstream of this reservoir. Downstream from the Project Area, LIDAR data (United
States Geological Survey 2023) suggests that some of the ditch is still present between Lahaina Street
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 208
and Kaūmana Drive, and some is present on Hālaʻi Hill. Makai of Hālaʻi Hill, the ditch appears to no
longer exist.
Within the current Project Area, the ditch retains sufficient integrity to convey the aspects of history with
which it is associated. As a water conveyance feature, aspects of integrity that are important to convey
significance include design, materials, workmanship, and setting. Overall, the portion of the property in
the Project Area retains sufficient integrity in all of these categories, with its integrity of design and setting
diminished.
Integrity of design within the Project Area appears to be relatively unchanged. The upper 56 meters
extending makai from the parcel boundary still appears to hand-dug with occasional stone reinforced
embankments. The lower portion, assumed to have flowed directly within the branch of Ainako Stream
(i.e., not in a flume), remains relatively natural-looking but with some of its distinctive stream bank
reinforcement of stacked stonework still intact (Features B, C, D, and E). One degradation of design
occurs at the mauka parcel boundary, where grading for the development of the lowest parcels in the
Ainako Terrace development (Lots, 192, 193, 194, and 197, plus Kilikina Street) destroyed the ditch. This
diminishment of integrity of design negatively affects its significance under Criterion “c” because the ditch
no longer carries water from upstream and, visually, it ends abruptly near the parcel boundary.
The site’s integrity of materials appears to be relatively unchanged from the time when the ditch was
used. The ditch bottom and banks have not been lined with modern materials, and the stacked rock
reinforcement of the ditch banks all appear to be built with dry-stacked locally-sourced uncut stone.
Integrity of workmanship is also consistent with the period of significance for the site, as evidenced by the
intact sections of stacked rock reinforcement on the ditch banks.
Overall, the integrity of setting has been altered from the upland kula and agricultural landscape that
surrounded the ditch during its period of significance. The Project Area is overgrown with introduced
vegetation and currently appears as a forested landscape. It should be noted as well that the current
vegetation community is different than the one encountered by Sinoto (1989).
Based on the analysis presented above, SIHP 50-10-35-14947 is considered significant per HAR 13-275-
6 under Criteria “a,” “b,” “c,” and “e”.
8.1.2 SIHP 50-10-35-18696 (AGRICULTURAL SITE COMPLEX)
SIHP 50-10-35-18696 was identified in 1978 during a reconnaissance level survey (Sinoto 1978) that
preliminarily interpreted the site to contain features resembling traditional Hawaiian stacked rock
architecture. No formal site significance evaluation was conducted at the time, as the study pre-dated
such requirements. The current study has found that the site appears to be more complex temporally and
structurally than what Sinoto (1978) was able to observe. It is assessed to be significant under Criteria “a”
and “d.”
The site is associated with the historic theme of the development and evolution of agricultural systems
beginning in the Precontact period and extending through the 20th century (Criterion “a”). The modified
springs contained within the site were likely used during the Precontact and Historic periods to provide
fresh water for agricultural use and domestic use by those who were farming and inhabiting the site. The
various agricultural features, such as mounds, terraces, platforms, and rock piles, are likely the final
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 209
expression of changing agricultural practices in the Project Area, which unlike much of the surrounding
landscape, appear to have not been part of large-scale sugarcane production. The Project Area’s limited
capacity for growing sugarcane resulted in the land being divided into the 15 historic lots that are depicted
on Registered Map 2058 and delineated on the ground by Features 03-10, 03-21, 04-07, 05-18, 06-01,
07-04, 09-13, 10-01, 10-07, 11-01, 12-7, 13-11, 14-19, 14-21, 14-22, and, 15-01. Within these historic
lots, smaller scale agriculture was conducted into the early 20th century, until the land was set aside as a
reservation to protect Hilo’s water supply. It represents a pocket of smaller scale, possibly subsistence
tenant farming surrounded by commercial sugarcane cultivation.
The site also has the potential to yield information important for research in history (Criterion “d”). There
are multiple habitation features within the site, of which only one (the complex containing Features 14-02,
14-03, 14-04, and 14-05) appears on a historic map. Additional information about their age and
household composition may be available in subsurface deposits at these sites. This information would be
useful for evaluating models of the “Hawaiian Footprint” (Gon et al. 2018) and Precontact settlement
patterns (McEldowney 1979b) of the upper kula in Hilo. Among the agricultural sites are numerous
mounds and similar features. While most of these, especially the clearing mounds, are unlikely to contain
additional information, the outward appearance of some differs enough from typical clearing mounds to
suggest other possible functions or motivations for their construction. Additionally, subsurface deposits
beneath agricultural clearing mounds may contain datable material that might be associated with the
initial vegetation clearing event(s) that transformed the Project Area into an agricultural landscape. Such
material could be used to determine, in absolute terms, when farming was brought into the Project Area.
Additionally, accumulated sediments in the animal pen (Feature 11-04) identified in the Project Area may
contain chemical residues capable of indicating what kinds of animals were kept there, and when.
As an agricultural complex, aspects of integrity that are important to convey the site’s significance include
design, materials, workmanship, and setting. Of these, design and materials are most important. Overall,
the portion of the property in the Project Area retains sufficient integrity in all of these categories.
Component features of the property, however, vary widely in their integrity due to widespread damage to
individual features from tree roots and fallen trees.
The site’s overall integrity of design appears to be relatively intact, primarily due to the survival of portions
of the rock walls that were used to divide the Project Area into 15 historic lots. These walls still express
the spatial organization behind the agricultural activities on the land. Within the historic lots, agricultural
clearing features are distributed unevenly, primarily on exposed pāhoehoe in a way that stores the
cleared rock away from arable soil deposits. The organization of these features can be contrasted with
clearing pile organization in more soil-prone areas, which tends to be more regular and influenced by the
distance it is practical to carry rock (see, for example, the site location map in Clark and Rechtman,
2006).
The site’s integrity of materials appears to be relatively intact, with the exception of missing
superstructures at habitation sites or other structures. The agricultural features, including rock-lined
springs, terrace retaining walls, free-standing boundary walls, and mounds and platforms, retain their
original materials with no added modern materials other than the occasional discarded beverage can or
bottle.
Integrity of workmanship varies widely among the individual features, and on the whole is fairly
diminished due to the widespread damage caused by the incursion of albizia, guava, and autograph tree
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 210
roots into nearly every feature. This has resulted in partial collapse of many features as roots grow within
the spaces between rocks. A number of features were also impacted by trunks and branches of trees,
which have dislodged rocks from them, or by roots that pulled rocks from the features as the trees fell
over. Any preservation of features within the Project Area will need to address the problems of stopping
further damage from living roots and the degree to which the feature might be further damaged by
removing roots and fallen trees.
Overall, the integrity of setting has been altered from the upland kula and agricultural landscape that
surrounded the ditch during its period of significance. The Project Area is overgrown with introduced
vegetation and currently appears as a forested landscape. The land immediately to the north and south is
now in pasture, which somewhat resembles the rural setting of the period of significance. The land mauka
and makai are now residential subdivisions.
Based on the analysis presented above, SIHP 50-10-35-18696 is considered significant per HAR 13-275-
6 under Criteria “a” and “d.”.
8.1.3 SIHP 50-10-35-T1 (HILO CITY WATER WORKS KAŪMANA SPRINGS)
SIHP 50-10-35-T1 (Hilo City Water Works Kaūmana Springs Intake) was used to supply water to the town
of Hilo between 1912 and 1973. It consists of a buried cast iron water pipe (Feature B) and the concrete
foundation of the spring house (Feature A) that covered the water works intake. The site is assessed to
be significant under Criterion “a” for its association with the development and operation of the Hilo water
system during the period ca. 1912 to 1973, a period when surface springs were used as the town’s water
source.
The site is associated with the historical development of public water supply for Hilo Town in the early
20th century (Criterion “a”). Hilo’s growth as a town, along with the growth of the sugar industry, relied on
adequate sanitary fresh water being brought into residences and businesses. Although the site is nether
the first nor the last surface spring water source to be used in the old Hilo water system, this particular
spring was at the center of a decades-long legal battle over the spring between the County of Hawaiʻi and
the Hawaiʻi Evangelical Association. In the opening decades of the twentieth century, the spring was
desired by the County as a source of fresh water to meet the growing demands of the town. The HEA,
knowing that the County could only acquire it through condemnation procedures, sought to maximize their
returns. The County ultimately acquired the spring and a 60-acre parcel containing it. In this conflict
between the public interest (the County) and private rights to the spring (the HEA), both sides attempted
to use their advantages against the other party. The County, for example, helped itself to the spring’s
water without the HEA’s permission for eight months in 1912. Once the condmenation negotiations
began, the County Commissioners played hardbal with the HEA, using the HEA’s own low opinion of the
land’s value as the basis for their low-ball price. The HEA, on the other hand, was not afraid demand a
higher price, using the publicly known rates paid that the County was paying for water from other sources
as leverage. Nor were they shy about hitting the County with a punishingly high bill for the water taken
without their permission in 1912. The negotiations required intervention of the courts, but in the end the
spring became a part of the Hilo water system, and supplied water to the town until it was rendered
obsolete in 1973 by the Piʻihonua Well installed near Gilbert Carvalho Park. The incident is especially
interesting when compared with testimonies of historically known wai luna such as Solomon P.
Kaleioholani (Kelly 1982) and Emma Nakuina (1893).
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 211
To convey its significance under Criterion “a,” the site’s integrity of design, materials, and workmanship
should be adequate to convey that the site is the developed Kaūmana Spring. Although missing its
superstructure, the extant concrete foundation and cast-iron pipe the site retains integrity of design and
materials, but its integrity of workmanship is noticeably diminished. It also retains integrity of location,
feeling, and setting, and its integrity of association is excellent as this site is the spring that was at the
heart of the legal standoff between the County and the HEA.
Based on the analysis presented above, SIHP 50-10-35-T1 (Kaūmana Springs Hilo City Water Works) is
considered to be significant under Criterion “a”.
8.2 SIHP 50-10-35-T2 (Kupapau Hill Triangulation Station)
Triangulation stations set by the government survey and independent surveyors were used to establish
old and new boundaries within the allodial land tenure system created by the Māhele ʻĀina of 1848.
Stations that can be associated with very early land surveys, or played a prominent role in land surveys
that made important changes to land divisions could be considered significant under Criterion “a” within
the historic context of the transition from traditional Hawaiian land tenure system to modern land tenure
system. To be considered significant under Criterion “b” the site would need a strong and important
association with a historically important surveyor. To be considered significant under Criterion “c” the
station would need to exhibit distinctive design and construction characteristics that are unique to the
location or importance of the station.
The site is not considered significant under Criterion “a.” Some triangulation stations have been more
important than others in the process of formalizing boundaries within the allodial land tenure system
created by the Māhele ʻĀina of 1848. The station on Hālaʻi Hill, for example, is a centrally located station
that is the basis for much of the platting of properties in Hilo town. Kupapau Hill Triangulation Station
played a much smaller role, providing a spatial reference for lands mauka of Hālaʻi. The station, in the
form of a rock on “Puʻu Mohihi,” was used in 1849 to survey the ABCFM’s holdings in Punahoa 2, but
apparently not for the survey shown on Registered Map 1744 (Lyman 1853). It was used during the 1895
survey that produced Registered Map 1790 (Loebenstein 1895)—again called “Moohihi or spring” instead
of “Kupapau.” It was used more regularly in the earliest part of the 20th century, as seen on Registered
Map 2508 (Baldwin 1901a) where it was given the name Kupapau, the ca. 1913 Hilo Boarding School
Ditch map, and maps prepared for Land Court Application 292 (Baldwin 1914). By the 1930s, it appears
to have fallen out of use and was not incorporated into the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey’s
network of triangulation stations. Although the triangulation station was used as early as 1849 to further
the transition from traditional Hawaiian land tenure system to modern land tenure system, its use appears
to be limited to local surveys, and as such, its association under Criterion “a” is not significant.
The site is not considered significant under Criterion “b.” Even though it was used by at least two well-
known surveyors, namely Alexander B. Loebenstein and Erdmann D. Baldwin, it was one of many such
trangulation stations used by them during their careers as surveyors. This association with either of the
two surveyors is not considered an important historical association.
The site is not considered significant under Criterion “c.” It is simply constructed in a common and fairly
rudimentary manner. The concrete base appears to have been formed on-site, and the pipe lacks any
additional embellishments. There is no plaque, engraving, or other marking on the concrete or pipe.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
8 Significance Evaluations and Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 212
Because it lacks distinctive characteristics of design or construction, it is not considered significant under
Criterion “c.”
The sites is not considered significant under Criterion “d.” The information yielded by the site is limited to
its current condition, which indicates that at some point in the twentieth century the existing triangulation
station monument replaced the marked stones described in older survey documents. The site also has no
potential to yield additional information from archaeological study.
Based on the analysis presented above, Site 50-10-35-T2 is not considered significant under any
criterion.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 213
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation
Recommendations
9.1 Project Effects
The proposed project will require grading and will create a modern residential neighborhood on what
historically was an agricultural landscape. This would occur in both the Phase 1 development area
(Figure 140) and the Phase 2 development area (Figure 141).
The proposed action would result in physical damage to features of SIHP 50-10-35-18696. This physical
damage will adversely affect aspects of integrity of design, workmanship, and setting that are important
for conveying the site’s significant association under Criterion “a” to the history of agricultural
development and under Criterion “d” for the information potential related to the timing and nature of
agricultural development and habitation at this site.
Effects to SIHP 50-10-35-14847, and T1 would be limited to effects to the setting of these sites, in which
additional residential development would be imposed on a formerly rural setting. This by itself, however,
would not be enough to be considered adverse, as the integrity of design, workmanship, and materials of
the portion of the sites within the Project Area would still be sufficient to convey its significance.
The recommended effect determination for the proposed project is “Effect, with proposed mitigation
commitments.”
9.2 Recommended Project Mitigation
A combination of Preservation, Historical Data Recovery, Archaeological Data Recovery, and
Archaeological Monitoring are recommended as mitigation for the proposed project effects to the three
significant historic properties in the Project Area. Specific mitigation recommendations are listed in Table
4. Recommended preservation areas are outlined in orange in Figure 142, and recommended data
recovery sites are outlined in purple. A preservation plan in compliance with HAR Section 13-277, a Data
Recovery Plan in compliance with HAR Section 13-178, and an Archaeological Monitoring Plan in
compliance with HAR Sectin 13-279 should be prepared and submitted to SHPD for review and
acceptance.
9.2.1 PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
9.2.1.1 Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947)
Preservation is recommended for the Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-35-14947). Within the
Project Area, this would include both parts of Feature A (the artificially excavated portion and the portion
within the ‘Āinakō Stream tributary) and Features B, C, D, and E.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 214
9.2.1.2 Agricultural Complex (SIHP 50-10-35-18696)
Preservation is recommended for select features of the agricultural site complex (SIHP 50-10-35-19686)
to convey the history of the Project Area within the context of the proposed subdivision and development.
Five archaeological preservation areas with potential for public interpretation are recommended.
A proposed “Historic Agricultural Feature Preserve” at the mauka end of the Project Area would focus on
the agricultural history of the Project Area. This area would preserve 16 agricultural features
representative of the types of features found throughout the site, along with the setting of the portion of
the Hilo Boarding School Ditch located in the Project Area.
A proposed “Kaūmana Springs Historic Preserve” would be located immediately east of the proposed
development area, north of Kupapau Hill. It would focus on preserving and interpreting the modified
springs identified in the Project Area. Nine features would be included in this presrvation area, including
modified springs (Features 01-09E and 03-18), as well as surrounding constructed features. This
preservation area would also include features of Site T1 (see below).
Preservation areas focused on historic habitation would be created around Features 03-09 and 05-08.
In addition to formal preservation of the above named features, the design of open spaces and parks
within the subdivision could incorporate features for passive or informal preservation as well.
9.2.1.3 Hilo City Water Works Kaūmana Springs Intake Site T1
Site T1 is recommended for preservation, in particular the spring house foundation (Feature A) and if
possible, the exposed portions of the water line (Feature B). Preservation and interpretation of Site T1
could be integrated with the proposed “Kaūmana Springs Historic Preserve” described above, which
would create an opportunity to present the history of puna wai in a context that extends from the
Precontact period to the 1970s, and possibly incorporating information about local hydrology and geology
as well.
9.2.2 DATA RECOVERY RECOMMENDATIONS
9.2.2.1 Historical Data Recovery
Historical Data Recovery is recommended to mitigate effects that would occur site-wide. Information gaps
remain concerning how the Project Area was managed by the ABCFM, HEA, and County, including the
timing of the creation of the 15 historic lots and names of people or families that may have been tenants
on the land. Additional archival research at the archives consulted for the current study and others may
yield this and other information. Results of the research could be made available to the residents and the
general public, and could also be incorporated into the final project design, for example, to name public
spaces such as parks and the community center.
9.2.2.2 Archaeological Data Recovery
Archaeological data recovery is recommended for select formal features with indeterminate functions and
habitation features with limited interpretation potential. The indeterminate features recommended for data
recovery are Features 07-02, a platform; 14-11, a circular mound; 14-08, a mound; and 14-09, also a
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 215
mound. These features resemble other agricultural clearing features but exhibit more formal construction
methods. Recovery of data related to their age and internal structure may add to the discussion of
correlations between mound form and age (Clark and Rechtman 2016; Hunt and McDermott 1993).Habitation
features that are recommended for data recovery are Features 03-08, 05-01, and the complex comprised
of 14-02, 14-03, 14-04, and 14-05. Data recovery could focus on research questions related to confirming
or refining the age and duration of their occupation.
Data recovery is recommended for Feature 11-04, an enclosure that is interpreted to be an animal pen.
Investigations could focus on research questions related to the timing and nature of animal husbandry
practices in the Project Area (Lockwood 2009). Analysis of the soil chemistry within and outside of the
feature could potentially yield evidence of its use, including what types of animals, if any, were kept in the
enclosure. Datable material could also potentially provide information on the age of the feature and
periods when it was used.
9.2.3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS
9.2.3.1 Topographic Survey
The thick tree canopy in the Project Area hindered the ability of the field archaeologists to obtain high-
precision GPS signals during portions of the survey. It is recommended that an archaeologist work with
surveyors during on-the-ground topographic surveying for during additional design or pre-construction
phases of the project to ensure that project engineering drawings accurately include archaeological
features designated for preservation or data recovery. The survey-grade locational information for the
archaeological features could be used to update SHPD’s records.
9.2.3.2 Vegetation Clearance
Due to the heavy overgrowth in some portions of the Project Area, archaeological monitoring is
recommended during vegetation clearance prior to development activities. The monitor would be used to
help clearance crews avoid damaging preservation and data recovery features, as well as identify
features that had been obscured by vegetation during the current field work.
9.2.3.3 Ground Disturbing Activities During Project Implementation
The Ground disturbance during project implementation. The monitor would be used to help construction
crews avoid damaging preservation and data recovery features.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 216
Table 26 Mitigation Recommendations
SIHP No. Features Mitigation
Commitment Notes Area in
Figure 142
50-10-35-14947 All features in Project Area Preservation Hilo Boarding
School Ditch. Good
candidate for
interpretation
2
50-10-35-18696 15-2, 15-3
15-4, 15-5
15-7, 15-8
15-11, 15-13
15-14, 15-15
15-16, 15-17
15-19, 15-11
15-22, 15-23
15-24
Preservation Historic Agriculture
Preserve. Good
candidate for
preservation.
1
50-10-35-18696 01-01, 01-04
01-05, 01-09,
02-03, 03-18
03-19
Preservation Kaumana Springs
Historic Preserve.
Good candidates for
interpretation with
Site T-1.
13
50-10-35-18696 03-09 Preservation Example of Historic
Habitation. Good
candidate for
interpretation.
11
50-10-35-18696 08-05 Preservation Example of Historic
Habitation. Good
candidate for
interpretation.
8
50-10-35-18696 11-04 Data Recovery Timing and nature
of animal
husbandry.
Preservation could
depend on data
recovered.
7
50-10-35-18696 All features in Project Area Historical Data
Recovery
Additional research
into ABCFM, HEA,
and County uses to
aid interpretation.
n/a
50-10-35-18696 Habitation Features:
03-08,
05-01
14-02, 14-03, 14-04, 14-05
Archaeological
Data Recovery
Potential to learn
about timing and
nature of habitation.
5, 10, 12
50-10-35-18696 07-02, Platform
14-08, Mound
14-09, Mound
14-11, Circular Mound
Archaeological
Data Recovery
Potential to learn
about timing and
nature of
agricultural
activities.
2, 3, 4, 9
50-10-35-T1 All Features in Project Area Preservation Kaumana Springs
Historic Preserve.
Good candidates for
interpretation.
13
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 217
Figure 140. Overlay of Proposed Project and Archaeological Sites and Features, Phase 1
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 218
Figure 141. Overlay of Proposed Project and Archaeological Sites and Features, Phase 2
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
9 Determination of Effect and Mitigation Recommendations
Project Number: 093046 219
Figure 142. Recommended Mitigation Treatments
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 220
10 References Cited
Alexander, Arthur C. 1920. Land Titles and Surveys in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Plantersʼ Record XXIII:67–
78.
Andrews, Lorrin. 1865. A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language, to Which Is Appended an English-
Hawaiian Vocabulary and a Chronological Table of Remarkable Events. Henry M. Whitney,
Honolulu.
Athens, J. Stephen. 1982. Report 2. Cultural Resources Reconnaissance. Edited by Marion Kelly and J.
Stephen Athens. Archaeological and Historical Studies for the Alenaio Stream Flood Damage
Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawaiʻi.
Athens, J. Stephen, Timothy Rieth, and Thomas S. Dye. 2014. A Paleoenvironmental and Archaeological
Model-Based Age Estimate for the Colonization of Hawaiʻi. American Antiquity 79(1):144–155.
Baldwin, E. D. 1901a. Plan of Proposed Hilo City Waterhead Reservation. Hawaiʻi Registered Map No.
2058, 1:2,400.
Baldwin, E. D. (Department of Accounting and General Services Survey Division). 1901b. Hilo City Water
Head Reservation. Notes of Survey of the Part on Punahoa 2nd. C.S.F. 1112. Department of
Accounting and General Services Survey Division.
Baldwin, E. D. (Hawaiʻi Land Survey Division). 1914. Land Court, Territory of Hawaii, Map and Description
with Petition No. 292. Petitioner: Board of Hawaiian Evangelical Association. Hawaiʻi Land Survey
Division.
Barna, Benjamin. 2013. Ethnogenesis of the Hawaiian Ranching Community: An Historical Archaeology
of Tradition, Transnationalism, and Pili. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Nevada, Reno. ProQuest
LLC, Ann Arbor, MI.
Barna, Benjamin. 2017. An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Hilo Intermediate School
Repair/Replace Building A (Phase 1), DOE Project No. Q11000-16, TMK: (3) 2-3-021:058 (Por.),
Piʻihonua Ahupuaʻa, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaiʻi. Fung Associates Inc., Honolulu.
Barna, Benjamin. 2018. An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Hawaiʻi Electric Light 6200
Transmission Line Replacement, Portions of TMKs: (3)2-4-006, -008; (3)2-5-001, -002, -003, -
004, -005, 038, -041, -044, -046, -053, -054, -055, -057, -061, -062; (3)2-6-018; (3)3-8-001; (3)4-
4-015, -016; (3)6-7-001, -004, -005, -006; and (3)6-8-002, Waikōloa, Kaʻohe, Humuʻula,
Piʻihonua, Punahoa 2nd, Kaūmana, and Waiākea Ahupuaʻa, South Kohala, Hāmākua, North Hilo,
and South Hilo Districts, Island of Hawaiʻi. Stantec, Hilo, HI.
Barna, Benjamin. 2020. Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Roughly 4,700-Acre Harvest Area TMK: (3)
4-4-014:005 (Por.) and (3) 4-4-015:003 (Por.) Pāʻauhau and Pā‘auhau Mauka Ahupua‘a
Hāmākua District Island of Hawai‘i. CN Renewable Resources LLC, Hilo, HI.
Barna, Benjamin, Candace Gonzales, and Amy Ketner. 2023. Archaeological Inventory Survey for the 34
Rainbow Drive Rehabilitation and Master Plan, TMK: (3) 2-3-026:008, Piʻihonua Ahupua‘a, South
Hilo District, Island of Hawaiʻi. Fung Associates Inc., Honolulu.
Barna, Benjamin, and Robert B. Rechtman. 2015. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of a State-Owned
Drainage Easement Across TMK: (3) 2-3-023:006. Engineering Partners, Inc., Hilo, Hawaii.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 221
Bautista, Olivier, and Hallett H. Hammatt. 2021. Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection for
the Hilo Medical Center Hospital Expansion Project, Pi‘ihonua Ahupua‘a, South Hilo District,
Hawai‘i Island TMK: [3] 2-3-027:002 Por. Final. Munekiyo and Hiraga on behalf of Hawaii Health
Systems Corporation.
Bayman, James M. 2009. Technical Change and the Archaeology of Emergent Colonialism in the
Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. International Journal of Historical Archaeology 13(2):127–157.
Beamer, Kamanakaikalani, and N. Wahineʻaipohaku Tong. 2016. The Mahele Did What? Native Interest
Remains. Hulili: Multidisciplinary Research on Hawaiian Well-Being 10:20.
Beckwith, Martha Warren. 1917. Hawaiian Shark Aumakua. American Anthropologist N.S. 19:503–517.
Bergin, Billy. 2004. Loyal to the Land: The Legendary Parker Ranch, 750-1950. University of Hawaii
Press, Honolulu.
Brandt, Lokelani M. P. 2017. Through the Lens of the ʻIli Kūpono: Re-Establishing Connections to Piʻopiʻo,
Waiākea, Hilo, Hawaiʻi through Ethnohistory, Archaeology, and Community. M.A. Thesis,
University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo, Heritage Management, Hilo.
Buke Māhele. 1848. Buke Kakau Paa No Ka Mahele Aina i Hooholoia Iwaena o Kamehameha III a Me
Na Lii a Me Na Konohiki Ana. Hale Alii, Honolulu.
Byron, G. 1826. Voyage of the H.M.S. Blonde to the Sandwich Islands, in the Years 1824-1825. John
Murray, London.
Canevali, Ralph C. 1977. Hilo Boarding School - Hawaii’s Experiment in Vocational Education, Vol. 11.
Hawaiian Journal of History.
Chinen, J. J. 1958. The Great Mahele: Hawaii’s Land Division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press,
Honolulu.
Chinen, J. J. 1961. Original Land Titles in Hawaii. Privately published.
Clark, Matthew R., and Robert B. Rechtman. 2004. An Archaeological and Limited Cultural Assessment
for the Arc of Hilo Property (TMKs:3-2-3-32:6, 7, and 8), Piʻihonua Ahupuaʻa, South Hilo District,
Island of Hawaiʻi. Geometrician, LLC, Keaʻau, HI.
Clark, Matthew R., and Robert B. Rechtman. 2016. Archaeological Inventory Survey of a Roughly 26-
Acre Parcel Located at the Corner of Haihai Street and Ainaola Drive, TMK: (3) 2-4-039:025,
Waiākea Ahupuaʻa, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaiʻi. Roy Sonomura, Hilo, HI.
Coan, Titus. 1852. Eruption from the Summit of Mauna Loa, Hawaii. American Journal of Science Series
2-14(40–52):219–224.
Coan, Titus. 1882. Life in Hawaii: An Autobiographic Sketch of Mission Life and Labors 1835-1881.
Electronic edition. Randolph, New York.
Corbin, Alan B. 2006. Archaeological Field Inspection and Assessment of Previously Identified Features,
Punahoa Mauka Parcel, Lands of Punahoa 1-2, South Hilo District, Island of Hawai’i (TMK:3-2-5-
08:3,24).
Cordy, Ross. 1972. The Effects of European Contact on Hawaiian Agricultural Systems - 1778-1819.
Ethnohistory 19(4):393–418. https://doi.org/10.2307/481442.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 222
Cordy, Ross. 1981. A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the
Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press, New York.
Cordy, Ross. 1995. Central Kona Archaeological Settlement Patterns. Planning Department, County of
Hawaii.
Cordy, Ross. 2000. Exalted Sits the Chief, The Ancient History of Hawaiʻi Island. Mutual Publishing,
Honolulu.
Cordy, Ross, Joseph Tainter, Robert Renger, and Robert Hitchcock. 1991. An Ahupuaʻa Study: The 1971
Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupuaʻa, North Kona, Island of Hawaiʻi. Western Archaeological
and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology 8. U.S. Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Tucson, AZ.
Coulter, John Wesley. 1935. A Gazetteer of the Territory of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Research
Publications Number 11. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Dorrance, W., and F. Morgan. 2000. Sugar Islands: The 165-Year Story of Sugar in Hawaii. Mutual
Publishing, Honolulu.
Edith Kanakaʻole Foundation. 2012. Ethnohistorical Study of Honohononui, Hilo, Hawaii Island.
Kamehameha Schools, Land Assets Division, Honolulu.
Ellis, William. 1825. Journal of William Ellis, Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee; with Remarks on
the History, Traditions, Manners, Customs and Language of the Inhabitants of the Sandwich
Islands. Cocker and Brewster, Boston.
Ellis, William. 1827. Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyee; with Observations on the Natural History of
the Sandwich Islands, and Remarks on the Manners, Customs, Traditions, History, and
Language of Their Inhabitants. Second. H. Fisher, Son, and P. Jackson, London.
Foreign Register. Register of Claims to Land. Hawaii State Archives (Digital Archives of Hawaiʻi).
Foreign Testimony. 1964. Dept. of Land and Natural Res. Foreign Testimony Microfilmed 1964 Originals
in State Archives, Vol. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. MFL 91–2. Hawaii State Archives.
Fornander, Abraham. 1916. Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore. 9 vols. Bishop
Museum Press, Honolulu.
Fornander, Abraham. 1918. Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore. Memoirs of the
Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Volume V. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Fornander, Abraham. 1969. An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins and Migrations, and the
Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Edited by John F. G.
Stokes. Charles Tuttle & Co., Inc., Tokyo.
Fornander, Abraham. 1996. Ancient History of the Hawaiian People, Vol. II. Mutual Publishing, Australia.
Garavoy, J. 2005. “Ua Koe Ke Kuleana o Na Kanaka” (Reserving the Rights of Native Tenants):
Integrating Kuleana Rights And Land Trust Priorities in Hawaii. Harvard Environmental Law
Review 29.
Gastilo, Joshua, and Matthew R. Clark. 2018. An Archaeological Inventory Survey of the 2,296-Acre
Waikapuna Property, TMK: (3) 9-5-007:016, Kāhilipali Nui, Kāhilipali Iki, and Kahaea Ahupuaʻa,
Kaʻū District, Island of Hawaiʻi. Kaʻū Mahi, LLC, Denver, CO.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 223
Giambelluca, Thomas W., Qi Chen, Abby G. Frazier, Jonathan P. Price, Yi-Leng Chen, Pao-Shin Chu,
Jon K. Eischeid, and Donna M. Delparte. 2013. Online Rainfall Atlas of Hawaiʻi. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society 94(3):313–316. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00228.1.
Gon, Samuel, Stephanie Tom, and Ulalia Woodside. 2018. ʻĀina Momona, Honua Au Loli—Productive
Lands, Changing World: Using the Hawaiian Footprint to Inform Biocultural Restoration and
Future Sustainability in Hawai‘i. Sustainability 10(10):3420. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103420.
Gonschor, Lorenz, and Kamanamaikalani Beamer. 2014. Toward an Inventory of Ahupuaʻa in the
Hawaiian Kingdom: A Survey of Nineteenth- and Early Twentieth-Century Cartographic and
Archival Records of the Island of Hawaiʻi. The Hawaiian Journal of History 48:53–87.
Goodrich, Joseph. 1826. Notice of the Volcanic Character of the Island of Hawaii. American Journal of
Science and Arts 11:2–7.
Goodrich, Joseph. 1833. Notices of Some of the Volcanos and Volcanic Phenomena of Hawaii,
(Owyhee,) and Other Islands in That Group, in a Letter from Mr. Joseph Goodrich, Missionary,
Dated Nov. 17, 1832. American Journal of Science and Arts 25:199–203.
Hale Kuamoʻo. 2025. Ka ʻOhina Nūpepa ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi | Hawaiian Newspaper Collection. Ulukau.
https://nupepa.org/, accessed March 20, 2025.
Haleole, S. N. 1863. Ke Kaao o Laieikawai: Ka Hiwahiwa O Paliuli, Kawahineokaliula. Henry M. Whitney,
Honolulu.
Haleole, S. N. 1918. The Hawaiian Romance of Laieikawai with Introduction and Translation by Martha
Beckwith. Translated by Martha Beckwith. Reprinted from the Thrity-Third Annual Report of the
Bureau of American Ethnology. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Handy, E. S. Craighill, Elizabeth Green Handy, and Mary Kawena Pukui. 2020. Native Planters in Old
Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Digital. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233.
Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Handy, E. S. Craighill, and Mary Kawena Pukui. 1998. The Polynesian Family System in Kaʻu, Hawaiʻi.
Mutual Publishing, Honolulu.
Haun, Alan E., and Dave Henry. 2013. Archaeological Inventory Survey, TMK: (3) 4-7-07:108,
Waikoʻekoʻe Ahupuaʻa Hamakua, District, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 3-4-8-06:8, 9, 11, 13, 43, and
44). Gault’s Gulch, LLC, c/o Edmund W.K. Haitsuka, Carlsmith Ball LLP, Kailua-Kona, HI.
Haun, Alan E., Dave Henry, and Dianne Berrigan. 2006. Volume I: Archaeological Inventory Survey TMK:
(3) 9-5-11:01, 04-06; 9-5-12:01 Land of Kaunamano, Kaʻu District, Island of Hawaiʻi, Vol. I.
Sunrise Oceanfront Farms, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI.
Hawaiʻi State Office of Planning. 2024. Hawaiʻi Statewide GIS Program Geospatial Data Portal.
https://geoportal.hawaii.gov/.
Hawaii Herald. 1897a. Increased Water Supply. Hawaii Herald, July 22.
Hawaii Herald. 1897b. Local Brevities. Hawaii Herald, July 29.
Hawaii Herald. 1897c. Local Brevities. Hawaii Herald, September 2.
Hawaii Herald. 1911a. What Hawaii Will Get During Coming Year. Hawaii Herald, May 11.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 224
Hawaii Herald. 1911b. To Refuse Good Price. Hawaii Herald, October 5.
Hawaii Herald. 1911c. Large Contracts In General Favor. Hawaii Herald, October 12.
Hawaii Herald. 1912. The County of Hawaii vs. The Board of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association, a
Corporation; John Doe, May Doe, and Richard Roe, Unknown Owners and Claimants. Hawaii
Herald, July 12.
Hawaii Herald. 1914. County Gets Water Bill for $2,578.80. Hawaii Herald, February 6.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1917. Decision Is Given On Watershed Land Suit. Hawaii Tribune-Herald,
February 1.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1940. Water Supply Is Very Low. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, March 1.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1946. Veterans Village Lots Are Ready; Selections Tonight. Hawaii Tribune-
Herald, November 15.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1950. Isemoto Awarded Kaumana Water System Contract. Hawaii Tribune-
Herald, September 16.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1951. Water Improvements Keynote Fire Prevention Week. Hawaii Tribune-
Herald, October 7.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1953. Hilo’s Water Supply Adequate For Time Being. Hawaii Tribune-Herald,
February 4.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1974a. Unique Hilo Park Proposed. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, February 27.
Hawaii Tribune-Herald. 1974b. Planning Under Way For Wilderness Park. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, March
10.
Hawaiian Evangelical Association. 1854. Minutes of the Meeting of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association,
Held at Honolulu, May and June 1854. Mission Press, Honolulu.
Hill, Samuel S. 1856. Travels in the Sandwich and Society Islands. Chapman and Hall, London.
Hilo Daily Tribune. 1914a. May Soon Settle Spring Question. Hilo Daily Tribune, March 17.
Hilo Daily Tribune. 1914b. Water Controversy Gets Interesting. Hilo Daily Tribune, March 24.
Hilo Daily Tribune. 1914c. Vannatta Makes Fine Discovery. Hilo Daily Tribune, April 21.
Hilo Tribune. 1903. Reservoir Site. Hilo Tribune, January 16.
Hilo Tribune. 1905. Hilo’s Polluted Water. Hilo Tribune, February 28.
Hilo Tribune-Herald. 1958. Army to Study Ainako Stream Flood Project. Hawaii Tribune-Herald,
September 26.
Hommon, Robert. 1976. The Formation of Primitive States in Pre-Contact Hawaii. Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Arizona, Department of Anthropology, Tucson, AZ.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 225
Hunt, Terry, and Matthew J. McDermott. 1993. Archaeological Inventory Survey Puʻainako Street
Extension Project, Lands of Waiakea, Kukuau 1 and 2, and Ponahawai, South Hilo District, Island
of Hawaiʻi. Okahara and Associates.
Jensen, Peter. 1991. Archaeological Inventory Survey Komohana Golf Course, Lands of Ponahawai and
Punahoa 1-2, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 3-2-44:09). KTA Consulting Group c/o
The Keith Companies-Hawaii.
JRP Historical Consulting Services and California Department of Transportation. 2000. Water
Conveyance Systems in California: Historic Context Development and Evaluation Procedures.
Caltrans Environmental Program, Sacramento, CA.
Kagawa-Viviani, Aurora. 2016. Untangling ‘Uala: Toward Re-Diversifying and Re-Placing Sweet Potato
in the Hawaiian Landscape. E Kūpaku Ka ʻĀina – The Hawaiʻi Land Restoration Institute,
Wailuku, HI.
Kalākaua, L. D. 1888. The Legends and Myths of Hawaii. The Fables and Folk-Lore of a Strange People.
Charles L. Webster & Company, New York.
Kamakau, Samuel M. 1976. The Works of the People of Old, Na Hana a Ka Poʻe Kahiko. B.P. Bishop
Museum Special Publication 61. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Kamakau, Samuel M. 1991. Tales and Traditions of the People of Old, Nā Moʻolelo a Ka Poʻe Kahiko.
Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Kamakau, Samuel M. 1992. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Revised. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.
Kameʻeleihiwa, Lilikalā. 1992. Native Land and Foreign Desires: Ko Hawaii ʻĀina a Me Nā Koi Puʻumake
a Ka Poʻe Haole, Pehea Lā e Pono Ai? How Shall We Live in Harmony? Bishop Museum Press,
Honolulu.
Kelly, Marion. 1982. Report 1. Background History. Archaeological and Historical Studies for the Alenaio
Stream Flood Damage Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawaiʻi.
Kelly, Marion, and J. Stephen Athens. 1982. Archaeological and Historical Studies for the Alenaio Stream
Flood Damage Reduction Study, Hilo, Hawaiʻi. U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean
District.
Kelly, Marion, Barry Nakamura, and Dorothy Barrere. 1981. Hilo Bay: A Chronological History, Land and
Water Use In The Hilo Bay Area, Island of Hawaiʻi. U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu.
King, Robert. n.d. Hawaiian Land Titles.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology
and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton. 1992. Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii, Volume II:
The Archaeology of History. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in
Ancient Hawaiʻi. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kirch, Patrick Vinton. 2011. When Did the Polynesians Settle Hawaiʻi? A Review of 150 Years of
Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer. Hawaiian Archaeology 12:3–26.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 226
Kirch, Patrick Vinton, and Mark D. McCoy. 2023. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: The Archaeology of
Ancient Hawai’i. 2nd revised edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Kodani, Ronald, and Doreen Kodani. 2025. Interview with Ronald and Doreen Kodani Interview by
Benjamin Barna, July 22.
Konishi Co., Ltd. 2021. Company Profile. Konishi Co., Ltd.
Kuykendall, Ralph. 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778–1854. Foundation and Transformation, Vol. 1. 3
vols. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Ladefoged, Thegn. 1991. Hawaiian Architectural Transformations during the Early Historic Era. Asian
Perspectives 30(1):55–70.
Ladefoged, Thegn. 1998. Spatial Similarities and Change in Hawaiian Architecture: The Expression of
Ritual Offering and Kapu in Luakini Heiau, Residential Complexes, and Houses. Asian
Perspectives 37(1):59–73.
Langlas, Charles M. 2022. A History of Ranching Operations in the Saddle Region of Hawai’i Island.
Hawaiian Journal of History 56(1):113–141. https://doi.org/10.1353/hjh.2022.a907634.
Ledyard, John. 1783. A Journal of Captain Cookʼs Last Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, and in Quest of a
North-West Passage, Between Asian & America. Nathanial Patten, Hartford.
Liliuokalani (editor). 1978. The Kumulipo: An Hawaiian Creation Myth. Pueo Press, Kentfield, Calif.
Lindsey, Bill. 2016. Bottle Bases. Historic Glass Bottle Identification & Information Website.
Lockhart, Bill, Pete Schulz, Bill Lindsey, Carol Serr, David Whitten, and Beau Schriever. 2021. The
American Bottle Co.: A Study in Contrasts and Contradictions. In Encyclopedia of Manufacturer’s
Marks on Glass Containers, edited by The Bottle Research Group, pp. 333–380.
Lockwood, Christopher. 2009. Pigs, Dryland Agriculture and Social Complexity in Precontact Hawai’i:
Assessing Surplus Production through Landscape Geochemistry. Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Washington, Seattle.
Loebenstein, Alexander B. (Hawaiʻi Land Survey Division). 1895. Piihonua Road. 1:2,400. Hawaiʻi Land
Survey Division.
Lucas, Paul. 1995. A Dictionary of Hawaiian Legal Land-Terms. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation.
University of Hawaiʻi Committee for the Preservation and Study of Hawaiian Language, Art and
Culture, Honolulu.
Lyman, F. S. (Hawaiʻi Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 1062). 1882. Hilo Town Titles. Hawaiʻi
Land Survey Division, Registered Map No. 1062.
Lyman, H. M. (Hawaii Land Survey Division). 1853. Survey of That Portion of Punahoa 2nd Lying Makai
of the Woods. Registered Map No. 1744, 1:6336. Hawaii Land Survey Division.
Malden, C. R. (Hydrographic Office of the Admiralty). 1841. Sandwich Islands, Waiakia or Byron Bay on
the North-East Side of Owyhee Survyed By Lieut C. R. Malden R.N. 1825. Hydrographic Office of
the Admiralty.
Malo, David. 1951. Hawaiian Antiquities. Translated by Nathaniel B. Emerson. Second. B. P. Bishop
Museum Special Publication 2. B. P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 227
Maly, Kepā. 2003. He Wai Moʻolelo No Ponahawai A Me Punahoa Ma Hilo: A Collection of Traditions and
Historical Accounts for Ponahawai and Punahoa, District of HIlo, Island of Hawaiʻi. Kimura
International, Honolulu.
McEldowney, Holly. 1979a. Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava
Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawaiʻi. the U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean.
McEldowney, Holly. 1979b. Inventory of Archaeological and Historical Resources, Lava Flow Control
Study, Hilo, Hawaiʻi. U.S. Army Engineer Division, Pacific Ocean Honolulu.
Menzies, Archibald. 1920. Hawaii Nei, 128 Years Ago. Honolulu, T.H., Honolulu.
Mitchell, H. 1930. Triangulation in Hawaii. Special Publication No. 156. U.S. Department of Commerce,
Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, D.C.
Nakuina, Emma. 1893. Ancient Hawaiian Water Rights and Some of the Customs Pertaining to Them. In
The Hawaiian Annual 1894, pp. 79–84. Press Publishing Company Steam Print, Honolulu.
National Park Service. 1997. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register
Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.
Newman, T. Stell. 1970. Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A.D. 1778. Department
of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, State of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Newton, H. E. (Hawaiʻi Land Survey Division). 1937. Land Court, Territory of Hawaii, Subdivision of Land
Court Application 292, as Shown on Map 1 Field in the Office of the Assistant Registrar of the
Land Court into Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4. Hawaiʻi Land Survey Division.
Office of Planning and Sustainable Development. 2025. Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names. Hawaii
Statewide GIS Program. https://planning.hawaii.gov/gis/hbgn/.
Paquay, François S., Fred T. Mackenzie, and Alberto V. Borges. 2007. Carbon Dioxide Dynamics in
Rivers and Coastal Waters of the “Big Island” of Hawaii, USA, during Baseline and Heavy Rain
Conditions. Aquatic Geochemistry 13(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10498-006-9005-5.
Pogue, John F. 1978. Moolelo of Ancient Hawaii. Translated by Charles W. Kenn. Topgallant Press,
Honolulu.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-
Hawaiian. Revised and english. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Pukui, Mary Kawena, Samuel H. Elbert, and Edwin Moʻokini. 1974. Place Names of Hawaii. Revised and
Expanded. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Rechtman, Robert B. 2004. Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Cultural Assessment for a
Proposed Department of Water Supply Reservoir, TMK:3-2-3-30:5 (Por.), Piʻihonua Ahupuaʻa,
South Hilo District, Island of Hawaiʻi. Ron Terry, Geometrician, Keaʻau, HI.
Rieth, Timothy, and J. Stephen Athens. 2013. Suggested Best Practices for the Application of
Radiocarbon Dating to Hawaiian Archaeology. Hawaiian Archaeology 13:3–29.
Rieth, Timothy M., Terry L. Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Janet M. Wilmshurst. 2011. The 13th Century Polynesian
Colonization of Hawai’i Island. Journal of Archaeological Science 38(10):2740–2749.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.06.017.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 228
RSM, Inc. 1977. Open House: Ainako Terrace Subdivision Unit II. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, September 9.
Sacramento Public Library. n.d. Buffalo Brewing Co. Sacramento Room Digital.
https://sacroom.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/p15248coll1/id/4112, accessed March 3,
2025.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1992. Historical Ethnography. In Anahulu, The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom
of Hawaiʻi, edited by Patrick Kirch and Marshall Sahlins, 1:. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Sai, David Keanu. 2011. Ua Mau Ke Ea Sovereignty Endures: An Overview of the Political and Legal
History of the Hawaiian Islands. Pūʻā Foundation, Honolulu.
Samwell, David. 1786. A Narrative of the Death of Captain James Cook, to Which Are Added Some
Particulars, Concerning His Life and Character, and Observations Respecting the Introduction of
the Venereal Disease into the Sandwich Islands. G.G. J. and J. Robinson, London.
Schlanger, Sarah H. 1992. Recognizing Persistent Places in Anasazi Settlement Patterns. In Space,
Time, and Archaeological Landscapes, edited by Jacqueline Rossignol and LuAnn Wandsnider,
pp. 91–112. Plenum Press, New York.
Schütz, Albert J. 1994. The Voices of Eden: A History of Hawaiian Language Studies. University of
Hawaiʻi Press, Honolulu.
Sherrod, David R., John M. Sinton, Sarah E. Watkins, and Kelly M. Brunt (U.S. Department of the Interior,
U.S. Geological Survey). 2021. Geologic Map of the State of Hawaiʻi. USGS Numbered Series,
1:100,000 and 1:250,000. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, VA.
Sinoto, Aki. 1978. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey of Proposed Kaumana Springs Wilderness
Park. Hilo, Island of Hawaii. Division of Parks and Recreation County of Hawaii, Hilo, HI.
Smith, Dave. 2005. County Land Not for Sale. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, November 9.
Soehren, Lloyd. 2005. A Catalog of Hawaiʻi Place Names Compiled from the Records of the Boundary
Commission and the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Title of the Kingdom of Hawaii. Part
1: Puna and Hilo.
Soehren, Lloyd. 2019. Hawaiian Place Names. Ulukau: The Hawaiian Electronic Library.
http://ulukau.org/cgi-bin/hpn?, accessed September 15, 2016.
Soil Survey Staff. 2023. Web Soil Survey. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Southworth, E. A. (Hawaiʻi County Department of Public Works). 1913. Hilo Boarding School Ditch from
the Wailuku Water Head to the Hilo Boarding School, Showing the Wailuku Drainage Basin and
the Plantation Land, Hilo, Hawaii. 1:2400. Hawaiʻi County Department of Public Works. Hilo, HI.
Spear, Robert L. 1992. An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the H.C.E.O.C. Project, Hilo. Island of
Hawaiʻi (TMK: 2-3-32:1B). Neil Erickson, AIA, Kaneohe, HI.
Spear, Robert L. 1993a. An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Hilo Health Care Center, Island of
Hawai‘i (TMK: 2-3-31:1). Mr. Roy Takemoto.
Spear, Robert L. 1993b. An Inventory Survey of the H.C.E.O.C (Option II) Parcel, Piihonua Ahupua’a,
South Hilo District, Hilo, Hawai’i [TMK:2-3-32:4]. Stuart/Erickson and Associates.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 229
State of Hawaii. 1909. Laws of the Territory of Hawaii Passed by the Legislature at Its Regular Session.
Hawaiian Gazette Co., LTD., Honolulu.
Tam Sing, Lauren M. U. K., Teresa Gotay, Lokelani Brandt, and Robert Rechtman. 2017. A Cultural
Impact Assessment for the Renewal of Hawaiʻi Electric Light’s Wailuku River Water Lease, TMK:
(3) 2-6-009 (Por.), Piʻihonua and Puʻuʻeo Ahupuaʻa, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaiʻi. SSFM
International, Honolulu.
Tatar, E. 1982. Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Chant. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum.
Territory of Hawaii. 1903. Dept. of Taxation (3rd Div.) Real Property Tax Ledgers South Hilo (1902-1903).
Digital Archives of Hawaiʻi.
Territory of Hawaii. 1912. Dept. of Taxation (3rd Div.) Real Property Tax Ledgers South Hilo (1911-1912).
Digital Archives of Hawaiʻi.
Territory of Hawaii. 1914. Dept. of Taxation (3rd Div.) Real Property Tax Ledgers South Hilo (1913-1914).
Digital Archives of Hawaiʻi.
Territory of Hawaii. 1919. Dept. of Taxation (3rd Div.) Real Property Tax Ledgers South Hilo (1919).
Digital Archives of Hawaiʻi.
Territory of Hawaii. 1921. Dept. of Taxation (3rd Div.) Real Property Tax Ledgers South Hilo (1921).
Digital Archives of Hawaiʻi.
Terry, Ron, and Patrick J. Hart. 2024. Biological Survey TMKs: (3) 2-3-030: 004 & Portions of 2-3-030:001
and 2-3-031:001 Hilo, Island of Hawai‘i.
The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. 1890. Lease at Auction! The Pacific Commercial Advertiser,
December 23.
Towill, R. M. (Department of Accounting and General Services Survey Division). 1947. Ainako
Subdivision Series 2. File Plan 427. Department of Accounting and General Services Survey
Division. Honolulu.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2024. CPI Inflation Calculator. U.S. Bureau of Labor Staistics.
https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm.
United States Department of Agriculture (United States Department of Agriculture). 1964. Aerial
Photograph EKL-6CC-14. Aerial Photograph. United States Department of Agriculture.
United States Geological Survey. 2023. USGS 1 Meter 5 X27y219
HI_Hawaii_Island_Lidar_NOAA_2017_B17. https://prd-
tnm.s3.amazonaws.com/StagedProducts/Elevation/1m/Projects/HI_Hawaii_Island_Lidar_NOAA_
2017_B17/TIFF/USGS_1M_5_x27y219_HI_Hawaii_Island_Lidar_NOAA_2017_B17.tif.
United States Geological Survey (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey). 1954.
Aerial Photograph 1HAI000080008. Aerial Photograph. Department of the Interior, United States
Geological Survey.
United States Geological Survey (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey). 1977.
Aerial Photograph 1VEEC00040138. Aerial Photograph. Department of the Interior, United States
Geological Survey.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
10 References Cited
Project Number: 093046 230
United States Geological Survey (Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey). 1985.
Aerial Photograph AR5880038310330. Aerial Photograph. Department of the Interior, United
States Geological Survey.
Vacca, Kirsten Marquise Garwood. 2019. A Question of Design: The Investigation of Space and Structure
in Hawaiian Kauhale. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Van Gilder, Cindy, and Patrick Vinton Kirch. 1997. Household Archaeology in the Ahupuaʻa of Kipapa and
Nakaʻohu. In Na Mea Kahiko o Kahikinui: Studies in the Archaeology of Kahikinui, Maui. Oceanic
Archaeology Laboratory Special Publication 1. Archaeological Research Facility, University of
California, Berkeley.
Walker, Alan, and Paul H. Rosendahl. 1996. Archaeological Assessment Study Hilo Judiciary Complex
Project, Lands of Wainaku, Pōnohawai, Piʻihonua, and Waiākea, South Hilo District, Island of
Hawaiʻi (TMK: 2-6-15:1,2; 2-6-16:2; 2-4-49:18,19; 2-2-15:33; 2-4-1:12). State of Hawaiʻi,
Honolulu.
Walters, Kimura, and Associates, Inc. 1976. Environmental Assessment for Kaumana Springs Wilderness
Park (Oct. 19, 1976). the County of Hawaii.
Warshauer, Kent. 2003. Kaumana Springs Once Supplied Hilo with Water. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, July 3.
Warshauer, Kent. 2005a. Water: From Buckets and Pumps to Turning the Tap. Hawaii Tribune-Herald,
August 14.
Warshauer, Kent. 2005b. Hilo’s Sanitary Water System Was a Long Time Coming. Hawaii Tribune-
Herald, August 21.
Wellmon, Bernard. 1973. Frontier Traders and Pioneer Cattlemen: A Hawaiian Perspective. Hawaiian
Journal of History 7:48–54.
Westervelt, William Drake. 1910. Legends of Ma-Ui--A Demi God of Polynesia and of His Mother Hina.
The Hawaiian Gazette Co., Ltd., Honolulu.
Wilcox, Carol. 1996. Sugar Water: Hawaii’s Plantation Ditches. University of Hawai’i Press, Honolulu.
Wilkinson, Sarah, and Hallett H. Hammatt. 2009. Archaeological Field Inspection and Literature Review
Report for the DOE Hilo High School Gymnasium Project Piʻihonua Ahupuaʻa, South Hilo District,
Island of Hawaiʻi TMK [3] 2-3-015:001. Kober/Hanssen/Mitchell Architects.
Wilmshurst, Janet, Terry Hunt, Carl Lipo, and Atholl Anderson. 2011. High-Precision Radiocarbon Dating
Shows Recent and Rapid Colonization of East Polynesia. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 108:1815–1820.
Winter, Kawika B., Noa Kekuewa Lincoln, Fikret Berkes, Rosanna A. Alegado, Natalie Kurashima, Kiana
L. Frank, Puaʻala Pascua, et al. 2020. Ecomimicry in Indigenous Resource Management:
Optimizing Ecosystem Services to Achieve Resource Abundance, with Examples from Hawaiʻi.
Ecology and Society 25(2):art26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11539-250226.
Wolforth, Thomas R. 1999. Data Recovery for the Housing Facility at the Hawaiʻi Community Correctional
Center: Investigation into the Network of Ditches in the Hālaʻi Region of Hilo. Land of Piʻihonua,
South Hilo District, Island of Hawaiʻi (TMK:3-2-3-23:Por.5). Architects Hawaii Ltd., Hilo, HI.
Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ainako Affordable Housing Development Project
Project Number: 093046 231
APPENDIX A
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 1
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 00-01 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.5 m 1.5 m 40 cm Fair
Description: Small linear mound of roughly piled small to large sized subangular pahoehoe cobbles. Located close to ditch (Feature 00-04). Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 00-04 Ditch H Water infrastructure
Length Width Height Condition 47.0 m 2.0 m -60 cm Fair
Description: Ditch extending between tributaries of ʻĀinakō Stream. Measures approximately 47.0m x 2.0m x 0.6m depth. Subangular pahoehoe cobbles irregularly line the banks of the ditch and ditch bottom. Banks are eroded. Length was
measured only in project area. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: None. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-01 Wall P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 25.5 m 0.7 m 20 cm Poor
Description: Remnant of wall extending roughly east-west near improved springs. Potentially connected to terrace just west of wall. Only the base is left, but it could be retaining wall. About .7m wide and .2m tall. Constructed with sm to lrg subang phh
cobbles roughly piled. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: d s w f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 2
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-02 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.5 m 1.5 m 50 cm Fair
Description: Mound constructed with small to large sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles and a few small boulders that have been roughly piled up to at least 2-3 stones high. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-04A Terrace P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.0 m 3.1 m 15 cm Poor
Description: Terrace constructed with small to large subangular cobbles. Surface is relatively level with few jumbled cobbles. On north side of terrace glass bottle fragments and ceramic fragments were observed. Cultural Material: Glass bottle fragments, ceramic fragments Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: d s w f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-04B Terrace P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.9 m 2.6 m 30 cm
Description: Small terrace behind a retaining wall built with faced, stacked small to large subangular pahoehoe cobbles. The wall measures 2.6 meters long by 0.9 meters wide and stands 30 centimeters (2 courses) above the ground surface Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: d s w f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 3
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-04C Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.7 m 2.7 m 60 cm
Description: Mound constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: d s w f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-04D Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.7 m 1.7 m 50 cm
Description: Mound constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: d s w f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.7 m 2.0 m 65 cm Poor
Description: Small mound constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. Possibly stacked, some facing visible. Disturbed and obscured by fallen tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 4
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09A Mound I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.8 m 1.8 m 130 cm Fair
Description: Neatly stacked and faced small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 6 stones tall on exposed bedrock. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09B Wall I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.1 m 1.2 m 75 cm Fair
Description: Stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, two medium boulders at west end. East end is slighltly collapsed. Stacked 3 courses tall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09C Mound I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.9 m 2.7 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Neatly stacked and faced small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 6 stones tall on exposed bedrock. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 5
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09D Mound I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.2 m 3.1 m 135 cm Fair
Description: Neatly stacked and faced small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 6 stones tall on exposed bedrock. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09E Modified spring I Water infrastructure
Length Width Height Condition 3.0 m 2.7 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Appears to be a natural depression exposing a spring. Western (uphill) edge of depression is reinforced with stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and a few small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09F Terrace I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 0.0 m 0.0 m cm
Description: Northeast end is defined by a single course of stones exposed above the ground surface. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 6
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09G Mound I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 9.5 m 2.6 m 75 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. Some collapsed areas. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09H Mound I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.1 m 3.5 m 61 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. Some collapsed areas. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 01-09I Terrace I Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.7 m 4.0 m 25 cm Fair
Description: End is lined with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and a few small boulders. This retaining wall has collapsed due to tree fall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 7
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 02-03 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.0 m 1.0 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Located on slope west of spring house foundation (02-02). Constructed with small to large subangular sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles. Northeast edge collapsed. May
have been a small terrace but has collapsed. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-01 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.7 m 2.3 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Small oval rough mound, with stacked facing on south side, 4-5 courses subangular cobbles. Tumbled on north, east, and west. Sitting on slight pāhoehoe outcrop. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-02 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.1 m 1.7 m 110 cm Poor
Description: Irregular/rectangular mound with stacked facing 4-5 courses of subangular cobbles on southeast side, all other sides tumbled. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 8
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.3 m 1.1 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Small rough mound, stacked facing on east side. 3-4 courses subangular cobbles. Under fallen tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-04 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.6 m 1.9 m 40 cm Poor
Description: Small, low rough mound. Tumbled subangular cobbles, about 4-5 courses. Looked to have facing at one point as bottom edge on E is aligned. Sitting on pāhoehoe outcrop. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.0 m 3.5 m 180 cm Poor
Description: Rough disturbed mound on high rise. Minimal facing remnant on east side, but heavily disturbed by collapsed trees and uprooting Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 9
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-06 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.9 m 1.9 m 90 cm Fair
Description: Rough oval mound, set on edge of drainage on pāhoehoe outcrop. Waiwi trees growing out of it. 3-4 courses subangular cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-07 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.7 m 3.1 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Large, stacked mound built with subangular cobbles to small boulders. Walls are slightly angled outwards at bottom, while top of mound is slightly mounded but generally
flat. West and south walls are most faced, east is slightly
collapsed and north has banyan growing .out of it. West wall has slight rim on top Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-08 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 7.6 m 4.4 m 280 cm Fair
Description: Large rectangular mound with large depression in center. East wall is face and stacked, but south and west are mounded/tumbled and are higher. North has autograph tree growing out of it and is mounded, extending to north. 4-10
courses of subangular cobbles and small boulders. Depression is square and offset to W, and interior walls seem to be faced and stacked. Depression measures 1.8m n/s, 1.4 e/w, 40-100cm deep. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 10
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-09 Complex H Habitation
Length Width Height Condition 15.0 m 10.0 m 100 cm Good
Description: Large irregular shaped habitation complex. 2 high stacked faced platforms on N side with a double terrace between them. To SW L-shaped wall extends from W platform
to create semi enclosure to south of terraces, level with second terrace, cleared interior. Small low enclosure wall extends from S of L-shape to create a soiled ‘garden’ area. All walls except enclosure are stacked and faced. Enclosure wall is core-filled, faced and stacked. 2-4 courses of subangular
cobbles and small boulders. 1.9m wide, .8m tall. Bottle found in
void in wall, early 20th century. Cultural Material: Glass bottle Data Potential: Information on household and timing of occupation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-11 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition
2.0 m 1.0 m 40 cm Poor
Description: Small linear mound, roughly piled but disturbed by vegetation as well. 1-4 courses of subangular cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-12 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition
6.5 m 3.4 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound or platform built on outcrop. Slightly mounded on top but clearly flattened, with rounded corners. 4-8 courses subangular cobbles and small boulders, stacked
and faced walls. Distinct round bulge at south end which cuts inwards on SE side. Guava growing near center has caused some collapse. Autograph tree growing out of NE end. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 11
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-13 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.4 m 0.9 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Small rough oval mound, subangular cobbles and small boulders. 2-3 courses, no stacking or facing. Set on exposed pāhoehoe outcrop. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-14 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.0 m 1.2 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound with clear facing on south side but tumbled and disturbed on north, stacked. Curved edges, rounded on south. 4-8 courses of subangular cobbles and small boulders, most clean on SE side. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-15 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 10.5 m 4.4 m 90 cm Fair
Description: Triangular mound set on NW edge of drainage, with stacked facing on NW side. SE side collapsed and tumbled towards stream. Mound was originally linear along stream but seems tumbled. Autograph trees and palms
growing out of mound. 3-6 courses subangular cobbles and boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 12
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-16 Ditch H Water infrastructure
Length Width Height Condition 18.5 m 3.7 m 70 cm Fair
Description: Stacked and faced wall along south edge of a drainage. P 3-4 courses subangular cobbles, some facing but clearly stacked. At least 8.5m long but more is hidden under a
fallen tree, 3.7 wide, .7m tall at top of bank but 1.7m from bottom of bank to top. The addition of this wall to the drainage bank suggests the drainage was an 'auwai. Wall extends along drainage until it disappears under collapsed trees. On north side of wall it descends into streambed,
creating a paved bank. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696
03-17
Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition
1.9 m 1.7 m 30 cm Fair
Description: Small mound, roughly piled. Subangular cobbles, 2-4 courses. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696
03-18
Modified
spring
P/H Water infrastructure
Length Width Height Condition
0.7 m 0.7 m -54 cm Fair
Description: Spring set within the southern edge of Feature 03-19, a low retaining wall. The spring is lined with a cleanly faced wall of subangular cobbles stacked 3 courses above the ground surface. The wall opens to the north. Spring is .7m diameter, .54m deep. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 13
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-19 Retaining wall P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 27.0 m 1.8 m 30 cm Fair
Description: Retaining wall, very low and only visible as a risen mound with 1 course of cobbles at times. Some parts are more piled. Subangular cobbles and small boulders, 1-3 courses. 1.8
wide, .3 tall. Feature 03-18, a spring, is located on the southern edge of this feature. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 03-21 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 201.0 m 1.0 m 150 cm Fair
Description: Wall extending roughly north-south between the tributary of Ainako Stream at the southern end of the parcel to a junction with Feature 06-01, another wall. Varies between 3-8
courses, from .5-1.5m tall and .4m-1m wide. Form varies along
its, length, at times appearing as a retaining wall with soil accumulated behind it and others standing free. Condition varies between fair and poor due to collapse and root disturbance. This wall matches the boundary between Lots 3 and 4 on Registered Map 2508, and despite its condition
problems clearly defines the boundary on the ground. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-01 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 9.7 m 2.6 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulders, 4-8 courses. Mound is oriented parallel to the edge of an east-west trending drainage. Slightly larger and higher on east end Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 14
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-02 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.4 m 3.3 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Mound built of roughly piled subangular cobbles to small boulders, 6-9 courses high. Possibly stacking and facing on west side but very tumbled on most sides. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.5 m 1.0 m 60 cm Poor
Description: Mound built of roughly piled subangular cobbles to small boulders, heavily distrubed by fallen trees and root disturbance. Two smaller mounds to north. Possibly a disturbed wall or terrace. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-04 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.0 m 1.0 m 30 cm Fair
Description: Mound built of roughly piled subangular cobbles to small boulders. Root disturbance. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 15
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-05 Wall P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.8 m 1.6 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Remnant of 03-21 wall. Appears as small rough mound, piled subangular cobbles. 3-4 courses, under fallen trees. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-06 Wall P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.8 m 1.4 m 70 cm Fair
Description: Remant of 03-21 wall. Appears as mound built of roughly piled of subangular cobbles and small boulders. Oval shaped, stands 3-6 courses. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 04-07 Wall P/H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 129.6 m 1.1 m 60 cm Poor
Description: Discontinuous wall extending roughly north-south. Some sections are clearly stacked and faced walls with 3-4 courses of subangular cobbles and some sections are low mounded soil with only a few inset cobbles visible. Dimensions
range between .2m and .6m in height, .3m wide and 1.1m wide. This correlates to boundary between Lots 4 and 5 on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 16
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-01 Enclosure P/H Habitation
Length Width Height Condition 5.4 m 4.2 m 110 cm Poor
Description: Possible remnant enclosure, roughly rectangular, located just above north bank of 'Āinakō Stream tributary. But located near pipeline on 1930 TMK map. Interior is roughly level
and cleared. Exterior is defined by a rock wall of piled subangular cobbles 2-3 courses tall on NW side, the NE and SW sides are mounded soils with 1 course of cobbles exposed, the SE side is eroded into drainage. S corner 4 courses is built up with 2 historic glass bottles partially exposed in ground and
1 in structure. In the W corner a flat cobble exposed with
possible abrasions on face. 5.4 n/s, e/w 4.15, .35m n wall, S corner 1.1m. Cultural Material: Three glass bottles. Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-02 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition
2.5 m 2.2 m 70 cm Fair
Description: Rough oval mound of piled subangular cobbles, 4-6 courses high, located on north edge of drainage. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition
5.5 m 1.3 m 70 cm Fair
Description: Disturbed mound built on the edge of the north bank of 'Ainako Stream tributary. Built of piled subangular cobbles and small boulders 2-3 courses high with larger
material on perimeter and smaller inside. Erosion of bank has undermined part of the mound, which has collapsed down the bank wall a distance 5.1 meters. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 17
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-04 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.1 m 2.1 m 93 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound of piled subangular cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-05 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.0 m 3.7 m 170 cm Fair
Description: Large oval mound, roughly piled subangular cobbles to small boulders, 10-12 courses. Autograph trees growing in mound. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-06 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.0 m 2.9 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Rough oblong mound, some stacking and slight facing on south side but tumbled on other sides. 4-8 courses, subangular cobbles to small boulders. Autograph tree and guava growing out of it Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 18
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-07 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.1 m 3.8 m 175 cm Fair
Description: Rough oval mound, piled subangular cobbles and small boulders 4-8 courses. Autograph tree growing out of mound. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-08 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.6 m 4.8 m 210 cm Fair
Description: Rough oblong mound, tumbled on all sides. 8-12 courses, subangular cobbles to small boulders. Autograph and waiwai growing out of it, particularly on e/w sides Cultural Material: Glass bottle. Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-09 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.9 m 1.8 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Small mound, stacked and faced on north side, stacked on south side. Set on pāhoehoe outcrop, 2-6 courses subangular cobbles Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 19
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-10 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.4 m 2.3 m 120 cm Poor
Description: Rough piled mound with trees and roots covering it. Very disturbed on southwest side, probably due to tree fall. 4-8 courses of subangular cobbles and boulders, historic bottle
in voids. Cultural Material: Glass bottle. Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-11 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.7 m 2.7 m 130 cm Fair
Description: Small mound, roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulders. 6-8 courses, oval. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-12 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 7.9 m 5.5 m 210 cm Fair
Description: Large, very overgrown mound, with some stacking on NE side. 10-15 courses of subangular cobbles and small boulders, tumbled on most sides. Mounded on top, large autograph tree growing out of most of mound. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 20
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-13 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.6 m 4.6 m 75 cm Fair
Description: Large mound, overgrown with autograph trees. Almost square in shape with stacked and faced walls where visible. 4-6 courses, subangular cobbles to small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-14 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.2 m 1.8 m 30 cm Fair
Description: Small roughly piled mound, sitting on pāhoehoe outcrop. Small subangular cobbles to medium, 3-5 courses Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-15 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.4 m 2.8 m 90 cm Poor-fair
Description: Mound set on edge of pāhoehoe outcrop. Roughly piled but with some facing on south side, heavily overgrown with autograph trees. 4-5 courses subangular cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 21
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-16 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.9 m 2.0 m 85 cm Poor
Description: Rough mound set on pāhoehoe outcrop. Piled and stacked along east side, but tumbled down on west side. 3-5 courses, subangular cobbles and small boulder Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-17 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.2 m 2.2 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Roughly piled rounded mound, 6-8 courses of subangular cobbles Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 05-18 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 160.8 m 0.6 m 80 cm Fair
Description: Discontinuous wall of varying construction extending roughly north - south, turns east at northern end. Varies between freestanding and retaining. Some stacked and faced sections and some mounded, appears core filled in
parts. Varies in height from 0.3m to 0.8m, width 0.3m to 0.6m. 1-5 courses. Some sections well preserved, other smashed by fallen trees. Located on boundary between Lot 5 and Lots 7 and 9 on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 22
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-01 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 270.0 m 3.3 m 60 cm Poor
Description: Discontinuous rock wall extending roughly west-southwest from the northern parcel boundary, then turning north after 247 meters and extending another 39 meters
before ending. Construction varies along length but material is small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. Where stacked, up to 3 courses are extant. Some segments of the wall are mounded, some faced, and there are occasional gaps between segments and there is a high degree of disturbance
from fallen trees and tree roots. Wall width varies between
1.14m and 3.3m wide by 20cm to 60cm tall. Located on boundary between Lot 6 and Lots 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, and 14 depicted on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition
5.7 m 3.2 m 160 cm Poor-fair
Description: Large rectangular mound at the end of rock wall,
constructed with sm-lrg sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles and a
few small boulders that have been piled between 6-8 courses high. N face neatly faced Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-04 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition
1.0 m 1.0 m 55 cm Poor
Description: Square mound constructed with small and medium subangular pāhoehoe cobbles along the W edge of
a drainage/stream. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 23
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.2 m 2.2 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Small rough mound constructed with small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles that have been neatly stacked to at least 6 courses high. Situated at the S edge of
stream/drainage. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-06 Rock pile H Clearing
Length Width Height Condition 4.8 m 4.2 m 175 cm Poor
Description: Looks like dozer push. Linear pile of small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles jumbled on top. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-07 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.2 m 2.6 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound constructed with small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles that have been neatly stacked at least 4-5 courses high. N face is neatly faced. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 24
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-08 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.6 m 2.1 m 80 cm Fair
Description: Piled mound with potential facing on south side, long and rounded. Constructed with rougly piled small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. Another
push pile direct SE of it. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 06-09 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.2 m 2.8 m 100 cm Poor
Description: Large rectangular rock mound almost completely covered by fallen trees, with new trees growing from it. Constructed with small to large sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles that have been piled up to 5-6 courses high. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-01 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.0 m 2.1 m 80 cm Poor
Description: Roughly piled mound, very moss covered. 4-8 courses subangular cobbles, irregular shape but appears stacked in small sections Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 25
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-02 Platform P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.0 m 1.3 m 60 cm Good
Description: Low oval platform, faced and stacked walls and flat top. 2-3 courses, subangular cobbles, noticeably cleanly stacked and built compared to surrounding mounds. Surface is
small cobbles, while walls are larger cobbles. Slightly sloped on north end. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of agricultural use Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 11.8 m 7.7 m 200 cm Fair
Description: Two tiered mound, built on pāhoehoe outcrop. Smaller tier to east is very rough, small subangular cobbles to small boulders, 3-5 courses.. Split by multiple small guava trees growing from center. Larger tier is to west, very large and
rough with autograph trees growing out of it. 10-12 courses, 10.2m e/w, 5.6 n/s, 2m tall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-04 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 4.0 m 0.6 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Wall remnant consisting of roughly piled subangular cobbles, 3-6 courses high. Located on boundary between Lots 7 and 8 on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 26
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 10.0 m 8.5 m 180 cm Poor
Description: Mound constructed of subangular cobbles and small boulders, 6-10 courses. Sloping tumbled sides, flattened top. Obscured by fallen trees and disturbed by tree roots. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-06 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 11.7 m 3.5 m 200 cm Fair
Description: Remnant of a linear mound constructed of subangular cobbles to small boulders. Some stacking and facing on north and east sides, very degraded on west and south sides. Fallen trees obscure much of south and west side. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-07 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.7 m 1.7 m 80 cm Fair
Description: Circular mound constructed with stacked and faced subangular cobbles. Covered by a fallen tree with other trees growing out of it. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 27
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 07-08 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.2 m 3.1 m 140 cm Poor
Description: Mound constructed of subangular cobbles and small boulders, aligned cobbles are visible at base, suggesting that at one point maybe had facing and stacking. Heavily
disturbed by fallen tree. South side pulled apart by fallen tree, north side more intact. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-01 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 7.0 m 3.5 m 130 cm Poor
Description: Large rough clearing mound constructed of subangular cobbles to medium boulders on pāhoehoe outcrop. Irregular shape, disturbed by vegetation and treefall uprooting. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-02 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.9 m 1.8 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Small roughly square mound constructed of subangular cobbles, possible remnants of facing on south side. Fallen trees have impacted. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 28
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-03 Mound P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 1.9 m 1.7 m 120 cm Good
Description: Well stacked and faced circular mound with larger subangular cobbles and small boulders around perimeter and smaller material inside. Upper surface slopes to
southeast, almost like a truncated cone. Sloping to SE, core filled. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-04 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.6 m 1.9 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Terrace built up on east side of outcrop with roughly piled subangular cobbles along edge, 3-4 courses Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-05 Complex H Habitatation/Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 11.5 m 4.0 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Large terrace, set around natural pāhoehoe rise and with two separate wall sections and a L shaped wall built on rise. See feature form for map and details. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Information on animal husbandry and timing of occupation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 29
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-06 Wall P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 5.0 m 2.8 m 85 cm Poor
Description: Constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles that have been stacked been 4 courses high. Oriented east-west. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-07 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.3 m 2.4 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 08-08 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.0 m 3.1 m 120 cm Constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small
boulders Description: Constructed of roughly piled small to large
subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulder on exposed
bedrock. Large autograph tree growing out of the center of feature. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 30
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-01 Wall H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.1 m 1.7 m 120 cm Poor-fair
Description: Wall constructed of subangular cobbles and small boulders, 1-8 courses high perpendicular to Feature 06-18 (Lot boundary wall). North side is tumbled and south side is stacked
and faced, but heavily obscured by treefall. Could be linear mound. Slight turn to north at eastern end. Wall is 4.1m e/w, 1.7m n/s, 1.2 tall. L hook is 1m long n/s, .7m e/w, .3m tall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-02 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.2 m 2.6 m 200 cm Fair
Description: Large mound covered by autograph tree except for squared off north end. Near pipeline on 1930 TMK map. North end is constructed of stacked and faced subangular cobbles and small boulders, 3-4 courses high. Remainder is
obscured by fall trees. Roughly parallel to Feature 09-01 (Lot boundary wall) with a narrow band of raised soil between them. Visible north side is 2.6 e/w, 1.2 n/s, .5m tall. Under autograph tree 7m n/s, 2m tall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.2 m 1.4 m 45 cm Fair
Description: Small mound of roughly piled mound subangular cobbles, 3-4 courses tall, very tumbled. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 31
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-04 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.3 m 2.0 m 75 cm Poor
Description: Rough oblong mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulders, 6-8 courses high, tumbled on all sides and disturbed on south side by guava growth. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-05 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.0 m 3.5 m 60 cm Fair
Description: Mound built of roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulders, 3-4 courses high. Low and tumbled but wide, Located just to the west of south end of Feature 05-18 (Lot boundary wall), on north edge of drainage. South side of
mound is undermined and collapsing into the drainage. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-06 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 7.0 m 3.1 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Large pile of subangular and angular cobbles and small boulders, 4-6 courses high, along the top of the north bank of the tributary of 'Ainako Stream near the southern Project Area boundary. Autograph trees obscure a portion of
it, but a portion measuring 3.1 m wide n/s and .2m tall is exposed at its western end. This end is stacked and faced. Appears to be a clearing pile built at edge of stream. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 32
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-07 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.1 m 1.1 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Section of terracing along north edge of the tributary of 'Ainako Stream. Retaining wall above stream bank is stacked and faced subangular cobbles and small boulders,
4-6 courses vertically. Pocket of soil between natural pāhoehoe edge and built terrace. Dimensions are retaining wall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-08 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.7 m 2.0 m 120 cm Poor
Description: Remnant terracing along north edge of the tributary of 'Ainako Stream. Retaining wall on stream bank is very degraded but a few areas of intact stacked and faced subangular cobbles to small boulders are present. Collapsed
rocks extend at least 5m down stream bank. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-09 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.0 m 3.8 m 170 cm Fair
Description: Large oval mound constructed of subangular cobbles and boulders, 10-12 courses highg. Located above north bank of tributary of 'Ainako Stream. Iron hoe head embedded in mound. Cultural Material: Field hoe head Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 33
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-10 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 9.9 m 3.0 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Terracing along north edge of the tributary of 'Ainako Stream. Retaining wall on stream bank is constructed of 1-2 courses of stacked subangular cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-11 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.4 m 2.3 m 90 cm Fair
Description: Rough oval mound built of piled subangular cobbles and small boulders, 4-6 courses high. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-12 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.0 m 3.5 m 185 cm Fair
Description: Large rough circular mound of piled subangular cobbles and small boulders. Very tumbled on all sides, maybe some remnant facing on N side. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 34
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 09-13 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 14.9 m 0.4 m 25 cm Poor
Description: Cobble alignment exposed above ground surface, 1-3 cobbles wide and 1-2 cobbles tall. Location correlates with boundary between Lots 9 and 10 on Registered
Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-01 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 96.3 m 1.7 m 45 cm Fair
Description: Low discontinuous wall extending roughly north - south within Lot 10. Constructed with piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. Mounded top surface on wall. Does not correlate with lot boundaries on Registered Map
2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-02 Mound P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 15.0 m 2.9 m 170 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound constructed of stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders, up to 7 courses high. Obscured by fallen trees, overgrown and impacted by roots. Possibly a wall segment. Does not correlate
well with lot boundaries on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 35
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-03 Wall P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 3.1 m 2.9 m 90 cm Fair
Description: Small L-shaped wall constructed with small to large sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles stacked courses high. Curvature at each end fo wall suggests it could be a remnant
of an enclosure. Majority of feature is obscured by autograph tree roots. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-04 Mound H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 9.0 m 4.0 m 230 cm Poor
Description: Large mound constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium to large boulders. Stacking visible on NW and NE side up to 6 courses high.
Partially obscured by large fallen trees, autograph tree roots. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-05 Mound P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 5.0 m 4.0 m 130 cm Poor
Description: Mound constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 36
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-06 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 20.9 m 4.0 m 250 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound located above north bank of the tributary of 'Ainako Stream at southern end of Project Area. Constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles
and small boulders. Some segments are stacked between 3 to 4 courses high, others are either collapsed or piled Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 10-07 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 138.1 m 1.1 m 70 cm Poor
Description: Discontinuous wall extending roughly north-south. Constructed of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, stacked 4-5 courses high. Significantly collapsed throughout its length due to large fallen trees and overgrowth. Correlates
with boundary between Lots 10 and 11 on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 11-01 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 104.0 m 1.1 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Discontinuous wall extending roughly north-south. Constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. Portions are neatly stacked up to 6 courses high, especially northern segments, and portions are only
roughly stacked, up to 4 courses high. Feature 11-04 is built off of the east side of this wall. Correlates with boundary between Lot 11 and 12 on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 37
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 11-02 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition #VALUE! m #VALUE! m 0 cm Poor
Description: Feature number changed Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 11-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.0 m 2.5 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Large rough mound of piled small to large pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. Located on an exposed pāhoehoe flat. Guava and autograph tree growing from it. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 11-04 Enclosure P/H Animal pen
Length Width Height Condition 5.5 m 5.1 m 115 cm Fair
Description: Enclosure constructed with small to large sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles that have been stacked up 5 courses high. Roughly U-shaped, it is built off the east side of Feature 11-01 (Boundary wall between Lots 11 and 12). No
deliberately constructed openings. Field notes describe this as 11-1, T-9. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Information on household and timing of occupation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 38
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 11-05 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.3 m 1.3 m 150 cm Poor
Description: Mound constructed of piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. In thick vegetation east of Feature 10-07 (Boundary wall between Lots 10 and 11). Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-01 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.0 m 4.0 m 100 cm Poor
Description: Large low mound constructed of roughly stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders, at least 8 courses high. Obscured by roots of large autograph tree. It is difficult to discern the extent of this
mound. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-02 Wall P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 18.7 m 1.5 m 110 cm Poor
Description: Wall remnant constructed along the NW edge of a small drainage. Built of roughly stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders, 2-5 courses high. Southeast side of wall appears faced. A large tree has
uprooted the southwest end of wall. Ground surface directly above wall is relatively level and consists of soil and leaf debris and duff. There is an 0.8m-wide gap in the wall, appears to be pig damage. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 39
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.8 m 0.7 m 100 cm Poor
Description: Mound built of piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. Located on small east-west trending ridge. Damaged by large fallen guava tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-04 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.4 m 2.1 m 70 cm Fair
Description: Mound constructed of roughly piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.2 m 3.1 m 50 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large sub angular pāhoehoe cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 40
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-06 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.3 m 3.2 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small to medium boulders, at least 5 courses high . Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-07 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 1.4 m 1.3 m 70 cm Good
Description: Circular mound of stacked small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders top of exposed pāhoehoe bedrock. Faced on east, west, and south sides. The surface of the mound is covered with small cobbles and few
pebbles; not paved, slightly mounded. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-08 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.3 m 2.5 m 150 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders on exposed bedrock. Some collapse evident. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 41
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-09 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.8 m 4.8 m 240 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-10 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.7 m 4.9 m 260 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-11 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.4 m 4.0 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders, at least 5 courses high . Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 42
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-12 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.5 m 5.5 m 220 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-13 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 5.0 m 3.9 m 90 cm Fair
Description: Oval mound, just outside of group of 7 mounds (Features 12-06 A-E and G-H). Constructed with small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders that have been roughly piled. Somewhat faced on N side. Distinct in
shape and construction from other mounds in group in that it is not as deflated and perimeter is largely small boulders Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-14 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.9 m 4.4 m 180 cm Poor
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders. Uprooted by autograph tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 43
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-15 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.0 m 2.2 m 85 cm Fair to poor
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders. Uprooted by autograph tree Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-16 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.1 m 3.0 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular cobbles and small boulders. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 12-7 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 6.4 m 1.5 m 70 cm Poort
Description: Remnant core-filled wall of small to large cobbles and small boulders. Located on boundary between Lots 12 and 13 on Registered Map 2058. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: d w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 44
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-01 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.6 m 5.8 m 153 cm Fair
Description: Oblong mound of piled subangular cobbles, 5-10 courses high. Section on southeast side appears stacked and maybe faced but tumbled. Very disturbed buy autograph
trees and guava. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-02 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.4 m 2.0 m 63 cm Poor
Description: Mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles on pāhoehoe outcrop, 2-3 courses. Very tumbled and deflated. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-03 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.9 m 1.1 m 40 cm Poor
Description: Small linear mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulders, 2-3 courses. Disturbed by guava growth. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 45
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-04 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.1 m 2.1 m 80 cm Poor
Description: Slightly curved linear rock mound of roughly piled angular to subangular cobbles, with stacking in southeast corner. Sits on pāhoehoe outcrop. Disturbed and covered by
guava. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 7.5 m 4.5 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Large linear mound of stacked subangular cobbles to small boulders located above the tributary of ʻĀinakō Stream. Disturbed by autograph tree roots on south end. Historic bottle observed in void in mound. Cultural Material: Glass bottle. Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-06 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.9 m 6.0 m 130 cm Poor
Description: Roughly rectangular mound of subangular and angular cobbles and small boulders, deflated. The north and middle of mound appear the most disturbed and tumbled. Mango tree on south side disturbing corner with roots and
growth, palm growing out of middle most likely doing same. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 46
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-07 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.6 m 2.9 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Oval mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulders on a pāhoehoe outcrop. Extends off Feature 13-11 (Boundary wall between Lots 13 and 14). Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-08 Rock pile P/H Clearing
Length Width Height Condition 2.0 m 1.7 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Small mound of piled small to medium subangular cobbles. Close to edge of drainage. Guava trees growing around perimeter. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-09 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.6 m 3.5 m 80 cm Poor
Description: Mound of piled small to medium subangular cobbles piled together. Heavily disturbed by guava and autograph tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 47
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-10 Modified outcrop H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.0 m 1.5 m 110 cm Poor-fair
Description: Piled cobbles along ege of pāhoehoe outcrop, with aPāhoehoe outcrop with piled cobbles along wedges and a small low wall extending north-south. Ground surface on
outcrop is generally cleared with some scattered cobbles. small low wall extending from south ending in mound. Guava trees growing around perimeter. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d e. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-11 Wall P/H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 95.7 m 2.3 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Discontinous wall constructed with stacked small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles, 4-6 courses high. Faced on downslope side. Location correlates to boundary between Lots 13 and 14 on Registered Map 2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-15 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition n/a m n/a m 0 cm Poor
Description: Large mound/platform with tree growing out of it, possible facing on south side. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 48
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-16 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.5 m 1.9 m 100 cm Fair
Description: Mound constructed of stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and small boulders, t least 5 courses high. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 13-17 Terrace P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 15.2 m 3.3 m 160 cm Poor-fair
Description: Terrace built of piled angular small to large cobbles. Retains slope at top of ridge. Piled angular small to large cobbles. 330 cm wide, 160 cm high from bottom of descent to top of ridge. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Poor Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-01 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.8 m 1.8 m 26 cm Poor
Description: Linear mound of small and medium angular cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 49
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-02 Platform H Habitation
Length Width Height Condition 4.9 m 4.1 m 70 cm Fair to good
Description: Rectangular platform constructed of stacked small-large subangular Rectangular platform constructed of stacked small-large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles that have
been, 2-5 courses high on exposed bedrock. A possible entryway (1m at its widest) @ E side two short walls, semi-parallel (1.5m longX0.7m wideX70cm tall). Surface area is level. Some collapse is noted throughout. A tree has uprooted the northeast edge. The north edge is more piled/jumbled than
south edge, where stacking is more intact. May be functionally
related to Feature 14-03 habitation complex Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-03A Terrace H Habitation
Length Width Height Condition 2.4 m 1.9 m 23 cm Good
Description: See Feature 14-3 site description. Cultural Material: Bottles, steel pot fragment. Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-03B Rock ring H Cooking/Fire pit
Length Width Height Condition 1.2 m 1.1 m 24 cm Fair
Description: See Feature 14-3 site description. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 50
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-03C Wall P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 3.1 m 2.0 m 20 cm Fair to poor
Description: See Feature 14-3 site description. Cultural Material: Glass bottles and metal pot . Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-04 Platform P/H Habitation
Length Width Height Condition 5.1 m 4.0 m 50 cm Fair
Description: Large, generally square platform. Set along remnants of Feature 13-11 (Boundary wall between Lots 13 and 14). Platform is heavily obscured by deadfall, autograph tree,
and albizia, but appears to be level on top and consists of
subangular cobbles to small boulders, with sharp defined edges. Only 1-2 courses, no facing. Almost a second small lower terrace on E side, but could be tumbled cobbles. Historic bottles observed on southeast side of platform. Cultural Material: Glass bottles. Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-05 Artifact concentration H Habitation/Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.0 m 2.0 m 0 cm Fair
Description: Concentration of historic artifacts. Includes 1 green bottle, ‘konishi & co apothecary’ with Japanese writing on bottom. Metal hoe head, metal hook. To south of that group, large pipe fitting halfway exposed out of ground,
oxidized chain, another hook and one unidentified piece. All within 2m zone. Cultural Material: Glass bottle, iron farmign hoe head, chain, pipe fitting Data Potential: Timing and nature of habitation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 51
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-07 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 5.7 m 5.6 m 140 cm Fair
Description: Round mound constructed of piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders, roughly stacked in places. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-08 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 4.6 m 3.3 m 90 cm Good
Description: Mound constructed of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Perimeter is neatly stacked, up to 5 courses high. Interior is filled
with piled small cobbles. Surface is mounded. A ti plant is
growing out of surface. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of agricultural use Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-09 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 9.8 m 5.7 m 200 cm Fair
Description: Mound constructed of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Perimeter is stacked at least 8-10 courses high, interior is filled with smaller material. Partially collapsed. Autograph trees
growing at south end of feature. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of agricultural use Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 52
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-10 Mound P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 4.4 m 4.2 m 155 cm Fair
Description: Mound constructed of roughly piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Partially collapsed throughout. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-11 Mound H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 6.7 m 6.2 m 210 cm Fair
Description: Large circular mound constructed of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. . Heavily disturbed by autograph tree roots and fallen trees Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Timing and nature of agricultural use Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: DR
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-12 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 4.3 m 3.0 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Oblong shaped mound. Perimeter of stacked small boulders and medium cobbles, filled with small and medium cobble, flat top surface. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 53
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-13 Mound I Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 5.7 m 4.3 m 170 cm Poor
Description: Large circular mound, heavily disturbed by autograph tree roots. Composed of primarily large cobbles and small boulders Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-14 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 9.4 m 4.5 m 220 cm Fair to poor
Description: Linear mound of piled large boulders near base and cobbles progressively smaller toward the top of construction. Oriented roughly east-west. Has appearance of roughly leveled transect down length of mound where smaller
material is flanked by boulder-sized material. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-15 Wall P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.9 m 5.4 m 190 cm Poor
Description: Somewhat circular accumulation of large boulders and small to large cobbles piled together. Almost entirely disturbed by autograph tree and aerial roots. Aligned with boundary between Fields 14 and 15 on Registered Map
2508. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 54
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-16 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.7 m 3.8 m 160 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Partially obscured by thicket of fallen guava trees. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-17 Modified outcrop P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 9.0 m 5.0 m 140 cm Fair
Description: Outcrop modified with stacked small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. South end of construction is collapsed. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-18 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.5 m 4.0 m 135 cm Fair
Description: Mound constructed of stacked subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Heavily disturbed by autograph tree roots and guava trees. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 55
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-19 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 4.5 m 3.7 m 80 cm Good nice stacked edges. Platform? Description: Two remnant segments of wall separated by approximately 5 meters. Constructed of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and a few small boulders, roughly stacked. Located near boundary of Lots 14 and 15 on
Registered Map 2508. Heavily disturbed by uprooting and fallen guava trees. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-20 Mound/platform P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 2.3 m 2.2 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Roughly circular mound of boulders and small to large cobbles. Perimeter is stacked and faced. Filled with smaller cobbles. Top is mounded. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696
14-21
Mound H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition
3.6 m 3.2 m 170 cm Fair
Description: Large mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles and small boulder. Located at junction of the alignments of Features 14-22 and 06-01, both boundary walls of lots depicted on Registered Map 2508. Possibly stockpile of rock from walls or for repair of walls. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 56
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-22 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 39.5 m 1.0 m 50 cm Fair
Description: Wall built of stacked subangular cobbles and boulders. Stacked and faced near junction with Feature 06-10 wall, but condition degrades toward north. Wall is catching soil
on west side. Separates Lots 6 and 14 on Registered Map 2058. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 14-23 Rock pile I Clearing
Length Width Height Condition 2.5 m 2.5 m 40 cm Poor
Description: Small rough pile of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-01 Wall H Boundary
Length Width Height Condition 80.7 m 3.2 m 210 cm Poor-fair
Description: Wall approximating northern boundary of parcel. Very roughly piled and mounded subangular cobbles and boulders. North side shows more evidence of stacking and facing, and north side ground is set higher than south side
ground as well. As well reaches eastern extent, it ends at natural drainage where the same line of wall turns into modified north bank of drainage which continues onward out of project area. As tall as .7-2.1m, wide as 1.1m-3.15m, 2-20 courses. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 57
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-02 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.4 m 4.1 m 80 cm Poor, poss dozed
Description: Mound of piled small boulders, medium to large angular cobbles. Heavily disturbed by albizia and guava, and possibly bulldozing on the west side. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-03 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.1 m 3.3 m 130 cm Fair
Description: Mound of roughly piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Disturbed by albizia and guava. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-04 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.2 m 3.3 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Round mound of roughly piled small to medium subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Disturbed by albizia and guava Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 58
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-05 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.9 m 6.0 m 130 cm Fair
Description: roughly piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders. Disturbed by guava. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-06 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.2 m 3.0 m 90 cm Poor
Description: Somewhat oval mound of piled large and medium subangular cobbles, filled with small cobbles. Disturbed by fallen guava trees. Ti plants observed nearby. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-07 Modified outcrop P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.0 m 5.8 m 130 cm Poor
Description: Mound of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders on exposed bedrock. Roughly piled, with some stacked edges. Disturbed by albizia and guava. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 59
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-08 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 7.4 m 4.2 m 70 cm Poor
Description: Mound of small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders on exposed bedrock. Piled, with some stacked edges. Disturbed by
autograph tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-09 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.2 m 3.1 m 80 cm Fair
Description: Mound of piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles and medium and large boulders on exposed bedrock. Disturbed by uprooted guava tree. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-10 Mound P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.1 m 2.6 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Oval mound of piled small to large subangular pāhoehoe cobbles on exposed bedrock. Northeast end stacked and minimally faced. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 60
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-11 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 5.9 m 3.3 m 140 cm Fair
Description: Terrace formed behind stacked and faced retaining wall of 5-8 courses subangular cobbles. Both ends are collapsed. Overlooks Hilo Boarding School Ditch (SIHP 50-10-34-
14947). Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-12 Modified outcrop P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.4 m 130.0 m 80 cm Fair to poor
Description: Outcrop modified with linear construction oriented east-west, possibly a wall segment. Composed of medium and large angular cobbles. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-13 Platform H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.2 m 4.7 m 190 cm Good
Description: Large, somewhat rectangular platform built of small subangular cobbles to small boulders. Platform is neatly stacked on the north side, with clean facing but becomes rougher as the feature extends to the south. Slightly mounded
on top but clearly flattened off. Disturbed by albizia growing out of south side, guava out of north. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 61
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-14 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.7 m 3.5 m 140 cm Fair
Description: Oval mound of roughly piled subangular and angular cobbles and small boulders. Obscured by fallen trees. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-15 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 4.3 m 4.1 m 170 cm Poor
Description: Mound of roughly piled subangular cobbles and angular small boulders. Oblong with no defined shape, very disturbed by albizia and guava. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-16 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.2 m 2.1 m 50 cm Poor
Description: Mound of subangular cobbles set on pāhoehoe outcrop. Very degraded, particularly on south and east edges. North and west edges are more intact but covered by trees Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 62
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-17 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 3.1 m 1.3 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Linear mound of stacked subangular cobbles and small boulders. Possible facing on north and west sides. East end is collapsed. Disturbed and covered by fallen and
uprooted trees. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-18 Mound H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 2.2 m 1.2 m 110 cm Fair
Description: Mound of stacked and faced subangular cobbles. Heavily disturbed by fallen trees. South wall is stacked and faced, bowed inwards to north, aperture to south, almost c shaped. North side is disturbed and covered by uprooted
tree and deadfall. Tumbled on west, east and north sides. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-19 Wall P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 24.5 m 3.6 m 80 cm Poor
Description: Low wall extending roughly east-west in northwest corner of Project Area. Constructed of small boulders to small angular cobbles. Heavily impacted by autograph tree roots. West end impacted by bulldozer disturbance, push pile
observered to the west. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 63
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-20 Wall P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 23.6 m 7.1 m 120 cm Poor
Description: Low, wide piled wall of angular boulders and small to large cobbles above change in slope. Somewhat c shaped with opening to the east. Heavily disturbed by vegetation. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-21 Rock pile P/H Indeterminate
Length Width Height Condition 25.4 m 0.0 m cm Poor, remnant
Description: Jumbled linear arrangement of scattered boulders and cobbles on edge of cleared area. Pushed up on bedrock lobe. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-22 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.1 m 3.5 m 290 cm Fair
Description: Terracing along south bank of tributary of 'Ainako Stream. Built with subangular cobbles to small boulders. One portion of retaining wall is faced and stacked, remainder is collapsed. Roughly piled on top of bank. From bottom of
drainage to top is 2.9m height, width 3.5m Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 64
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-23 Terrace P/H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 12.2 m 1.8 m 120 cm Fair
Description: Terrace built into side of drainage with stacked and faced subangular cobbles and small boulders, 4-6 courses. Heavily disturbed by trees. Generally even on top but
sloping east as if creating walkway into drainage. Located near southern boundary of parcel. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-24 Wall H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 10.3 m 2.0 m 70 cm Poor
Description: Very rough wall of piled subangular cobbles to small boulders extending north from west side of terrace (Feature 15-11). Construction style is very different than 15-11, suggesting they are not contemporary. Obscured by dense
mat of fallen guava. Tumbled and mounded, 3-5 courses. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Interpretation Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: P
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-25 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 9.0 m 0.9 m 80 cm
Description: Remnant of a small terrace feature built of stacked angular and subangular cobbles to small boulders. Extends to southeast from Feature 15-01 Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 65
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-26 Retaining wall H Water infrastructure
Length Width Height Condition 10.6 m 1.7 m 110 cm Poor
Description: Roughly piled subangular cobbles and boulders lining edge of a drainage, following contour. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a c. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-27 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 16.2 m 4.0 m 250 cm Fair
Description: Extremely large faced terrace extending along slope. 5-15 courses subangular cobbles to small boulders. As wide as 4m in sections, no narrower than 3. 2.5m tall from bottom of structure to top, .4 on top of ridge. On south end,
tumbled and collapsed and looks like lined drainage extends south. On north, distinct end with gap before another modified edge begins. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-28 Retaining wall H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 8.1 m 0.9 m 70 cm Fair
Description: Low retaining wall, possible remnant edge of terrace, extending at slope change. Possibly extension of Feature 10-27. surrounding terraces. 2-4 courses subangular cobbles and small boulders, set at base of hill and wraps
around hill. Heavily obscured by vegetation and deadfall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 66
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-29 Modified outcrop H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 10.7 m 2.8 m 150 cm Fair
Description: Roughly piled terrace or retaining wall sitting on top of natural pāhoehoe ridge, potentially connecting to Feature 15-28. Roughly piled and mounded, no facing or
stacking appears like in nearby features. 4-6 courses of subangular cobbles and boulders, soil is retained on north side. South side is 1.5 tall, north side is .3m tall. 2.8m wide n/s. Gradually ends on west side, drops off on east. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-30 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 6.1 m 2.5 m 130 cm Fair
Description: Roughly piled and somewhat tumbled, subangular and angular cobbles and small boulders. 1.3m tall, 2.5m wide. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s f. Recommendation: NFW
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-31 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 24.3 m 3.3 m 170 cm Poor-fair
Description: Terrace stretching across hill and intersecting Feature 15-01 (Boundary wall on north end of Project Area). Appears as line of subangular and angular cobbles and boulders set into soil. Roughly built, a few sections of facing
remain but the majority of the feature is disturbed. Varies in height and width, on south end 3.3m e/w, 1.7m tall, north end 1.8m wide, 1m tall. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW
Appendix A: SIHP 05-10-35-18696 Features in the Project Area
Age: P = Precontact, H = Historic, M = Modern, I = Indeterminate. m = meters, cm = centimeters. Negative heights are depth below ground surface. n/a = not applicable Significance: A, B, C, D, E. Integrity issues: l = location, d = design, s = setting, m = materials, w = workmanship, f = feeling, a = association
Recommendations: BTP = Burial Treatment Planning, P = Preservation, DR = Data Recovery, NFW = No Further Work.
Project Number: 093046 67
Feature Type Age Function Photo
18696 15-32 Terrace H Agriculture
Length Width Height Condition 11.3 m 2.1 m 130 cm Poor
Description: Small terrace wall built of subangular and angular cobbles to medium boulders. Extends northeast from Feature 15-31 toward Feature 15-01 (Boundary wall). Terrace is
disturbed, with a few small sections of stacking and facing remaining. Boulders from Feature 15-01 have fallen onto terrace. Heavily disturbed by fallen trees and tree roots. Cultural Material: None Data Potential: Low Contributes to: a d. Integrity issues: s w f. Recommendation: NFW