Printer Friendly

Age of the O18 site, Hawai'i.

Abstract

Seven new [sup.14]C age determinations on short-lived materials yield a sound evidential basis for the chronology of the O18 site on O'ahu Island, Hawai'i, long thought to be an early settlement site. Calibration within a model-based, Bayesian framework indicates that the site was established in AD 1040-1219, some 260-459 years after the current estimate of first settlement, and abandoned in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries. Previously published age determinations are mostly too old, probably due to the 'old wood' effect. O18 appears to be the oldest site on the Waimanalo Plain, but earlier sites in Waimanalo likely exist inland of the plain.

Keywords: 018 site, Bayesian calibration, 'old wood' effect, settlement

**********

The age of the O18 site has been an important datum in Hawaiian prehistory since the first estimate was published in the pages of this journal nearly 40 years ago (Pearson et al. 1971). Based on an internally inconsistent set of [sup.14]C age determinations, the site was interpreted by its excavators as having been established in the seventh century AD and abandoned by the twelfth century. The estimated date of establishment was subsequently pushed back to the fourth century AD by Kirch (1985), based primarily on volcanic glass hydration dates that are no longer believed to be valid (Tuggle and Spriggs 2001). Kirch considered O18 to be one of only two sites representing the earliest phase of Polynesian settlement of the Hawaiian Islands. This characterization exerted a strong hold on the archaeological imagination. In the early 1980s, it inspired Matthew Spriggs to pull additional samples from storage and have them dated. These samples yielded a stratigraphically inconsistent set of [sup.14]C age determinations that was interpreted more than a decade later with some difficulty by Tuggle and Spriggs (2001) as indicating an occupation span beginning perhaps as early as the eighth century AD and ending in the middle of the fifteenth century AD.

Here, we present the results of nine new [sup.14]C age determinations from O18, most of them on short-lived materials. The age determinations on short-lived materials are internally consistent and provide, for the first time, a sound evidential basis for the site's chronology. The [sup.14]C age determinations are interpreted within a model-based, Bayesian framework. An estimate of site establishment yielded by the model-based analysis, supported by the age of an Aleurites moluccana nutshell dated by Spriggs, indicates that O 18 was established several centuries after the islands were first settled by Polynesians.

The O18 chronology yielded by the site-specific Bayesian model is extended to include [sup.14]C age determinations from four other sites in the region. The chronologies of all five sites are broadly similar. Like these other sites, O18 was abandoned late in traditional Hawaiian times.

The O18 site

Site O18 is located on the Waimanalo Plain, at the coast (Fig. 1). It is a small part of a larger traditional Hawaiian settlement pattern in which the coastal plain was used on a regular basis, primarily for activities associated with fishing and shellfishing, by people who kept more established residences inland on the volcanic soils that supported their food gardens. A large portion of the coastal plain was developed as a military installation in the twentieth century, especially during World War II, and much of the traditional Hawaiian deposit was lost during this development. The pattern of sites on the plain today is probably due more to military development than it is to patterns of traditional activity in the past.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Immediately inland of Site O18, and at one time probably coterminous with it, is Site 50-80-15-4853, a large expanse of discontinuous cultural deposits on the north bank of Puha Stream that represent primarily cooking and eating activities (Tuggle 1997; Desilets and Dye 2002). South of Puha Stream is Site 50-80-15-4851, which is broadly similar to Site--4853, but also includes low-lying swamp deposits in old stream meanders that were used to cultivate taro (Tuggle 1997; Dye 1998). On the north part of the plain, nearer the foothills of Keolu Hills, are Sites 50-80-11-4856 and -4857, which were also likely coterminous, and which appear to represent the same range of activities as Site--4853.

Excavations for cultural resources management carried out at sites on the plain provide data for a model of regional cultural stratigraphy. The model groups deposits into one of three horizons: Horizon 1 is the modern surface consisting of secondarily deposited sand, historic-era and traditional Hawaiian cultural materials, and pockets of volcanic fill material laid down during construction of military facilities; Horizon 2 is the traditional Hawaiian cultural deposit, often truncated by heavy machinery during construction of military facilities; and Horizon 3 is the underlying basal sand that was laid down as local sea level fell from its mid-Holocene + 1.8 m highstand (Fletcher and Jones 1996) prior to settlement of the islands.

The model was developed to capture variability with distance from the coast, the source of trade wind-driven sand that represents the primary natural mode of deposition since the plain was first inhabited, and the degree to which cultural activities included excavation of pits primarily for cooking fires, but also for posts and trash disposal. Pit excavation is responsible for moving artifacts and other cultural materials down the stratigraphic profile and contributes markedly to the thickness of the cultural deposit (Fig. 2).

At the inland edge of the plain, illustrated by profile A in Figure 2, sand deposition is slight and few pits were excavated in traditional Hawaiian times. The cultural deposit here can be characterized as a paleosol whose surface includes a low density of cultural material that appears to have been discarded upon it in a more-or-less random fashion. Moving toward the coast, through profiles B, C, and D, both the intensity of cultural deposition and pit excavation increases, creating a thicker cultural deposit beneath which individual pit features can be discovered as dark stains in the light-colored basal sands. Closer to the coast, represented in the figure by profile E, the thickness of the cultural deposit reaches a maximum due to a higher intensity of use and a larger volume of aeolian sand deposit from the nearby beach. The frequency of pit excavation here is such that it is rarely possible to identify individual features in the underlying basal sand. Instead, the base of the cultural deposit consists entirely of the bases of pits excavated atop and through one another. At Site 50-80-15-4856, where the stratigraphy corresponded to the model represented by profile E, it was estimated that the number and volume of pits excavated in traditional Hawaiian times were sufficient to turn over the cultural deposit completely three times. Closer to the beach, the level of cultural activity drops somewhat and the influx of aeolian sand increases markedly, creating a relatively complex stratigraphy in which cultural deposits are interspersed with layers and lenses of beach sand. This is the situation encountered during excavations at O18, where two primary traditional Hawaiian cultural deposits, Layers II and III, along with several smaller sub-layers or lenses were identified.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

One implication of the model is that the relatively complex stratigraphy at O18 in comparison to sites farther inland on the plain is not an indication of greater antiquity. Instead, it is a function of the site's proximity to the beach. In this view, the O18 site is the coastal fringe of traditional Hawaiian settlement on the plain, where the focus of activity was a short distance inland, away from the constant influx of windblown sand and from periodic inundation by storm waves.

Age determinations and analysis

The nine new age determinations were processed in two batches independently of one another. Five collections of wood charcoal, two made by Lloyd Soehren of Bishop Museum in 1966 and three by the University of Hawaii field school in 1967, were submitted by Valerie Curtis, then an archaeologist with the U.S. Air Force, to Gall Murakami of the International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. Wood Identification Laboratory for taxon identification. The identified samples were submitted to Beta-Analytic, Inc. for [sup.14]C dating by the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) method (Table 1).

A second set of four age determinations on pearl shell manufacturing waste was selected from the O18 collections held by the U.S. Air Force and submitted by T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists to Beta-Analytic, Inc. for AMS dating (Table 1). Pearl shell, produced by mollusks in the genus Pinctada, was a favored material for fishhook manufacture in traditional Hawai'i. The cross-laminar structure of the shell gives it exceptional strength for applications like fishhooks that generate high levels of stress at the bend. Pinctada shell is a suitable dating material because the animal is a sessile filter-feeder that takes up its carbon from the general ocean water around it, and not from an old limestone substrate (Dye 1994). The current best estimate of the apparent age of the ocean water around Hawai'i yields a reservoir correction factor of 110[+ or -]80. The large standard deviation of this estimate is likely due to regional patterns of variability in the apparent age of surface waters around Hawai'i that are not yet understood completely. Additional information on this variability might make it possible in the future to apply a more precise estimate in the calibration of these samples. This might yield slightly different calibrated ages for the samples, one from Layer II and three from Layer III, but will not alter the fact that these samples returned [sup.14]C age estimates that were internally consistent, a first in the long history of [sup.14]C dating at O18.

Notable features of Table 1 have been set off in boldface. One of the samples, Beta-231224, could not be assigned to either Layer II or Layer III and is not considered further here. The single wood charcoal sample from Layer II is from a tree known in Hawai'i as olopua. Although the life span of olopua is not known, the fact that it is a tree indicates the possibility that the sample has in-built age. In fact, the age determination returned by the laboratory is stratigraphically inverted with two of the Layer III samples. Beta-231220, the age estimate for charcoal from a shrub known in Hawai'i as 'a'ali'i, does not suffer the effects of in-built age and is the most reliable estimate for the antiquity of settlement at O18.

A Bayesian model of O18 stratigraphy relates each of the dated samples to the calendric ages represented by the two primary cultural deposits. The symbols [[theta].sub.2-5] represent the calendar ages of the archaeological events associated with burning the four dated wood charcoal pieces and [[theta].sub.1] and [[theta].sub.6-8] represent calendar ages of manufacturing events, presumably of pearl shell fishhooks (Table 1, column j). These are related to the calendar ages of the start and end of deposition of the two primary cultural deposits; [[alpha].sub.3] and [[beta].sub.3] represent the start and end of deposition, respectively, of Layer III, and [[alpha].sub.2] and [[beta].sub.2] represent the start and end of deposition, respectively, of Layer II. The known stratigraphic relations of [[theta].sub.2-8] to the layer boundaries are set out in (1), where > means "is older than" and [greater than or equal to] means "is older than or the same age as".

[[phi].sub.2] [greater than or equal to] [[alpha].sub.3] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.3-8] [greater than or equal to] [[beta].sub.3] > [[alpha].sub.2] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.1,2] [greater than or equal to] [[beta].sub.2] [greater than or equal to] [[phi].1] (1)

For the sake of brevity, (1) groups the [beta] from each layer in an unconventional way; the [beta] are understood to be unordered so there are no stratigraphic relations among them.

The salient points of (1) are:

* the onset of Layer III deposition, [[alpha].sub.3], began either at, or sometime after, the time Hawai'i was colonized by Polynesians, which is modeled here as normally distributed, [[phi].sub.2] = AD 800 [greater than or equal to] 50 (Athens et al. 2002);

* the calendar ages of three dated burning events, [[theta].sub.3-5], and three dated manufacturing events, [[theta].sub.6-8], fall within the period of time represented by the deposition of Layer III;

* the calendar ages of the burning and manufacturing events, [[theta].sub.3-8], are unordered, i.e. there is no stratigraphic information on their ages relative to one another;

* the calendar ages of a burning event, [[theta].sub.2], and a manufacturing event, [[theta].sub.1], fall within the period of time represented by the deposition of Layer II;

* the calendar ages of the burning and manufacturing events, [[theta].sub.2] and [[theta].sub.1], are unordered, i.e. there is no stratigraphic information on their ages relative to one another;

* there is a hiatus between the end of deposition of Layer III, [[beta].sub.3], and the start of deposition of Layer II, [[alpha].sub.2, as indicated by the > symbol; and

* the end of layer II deposition, [[beta].sub.2], was either before or during the time cattle ranching was established on the Waimanalo Plain, which is modeled here as normally distributed, [[phi].sub.1] = AD 1830 [+ or -] 20.

This model was implemented with the BCal software package (Buck et al. 1999) using the most recent atmospheric and marine calibration curves (Reimer et al. 2009). In an effort to identify outliers among the age determinations, each one was assigned an uninformative outlier prior probability of 0.1, following a procedure set out by Christen (1994). The initial run of the software clearly identified Beta-231223 as an outlier; the value of 0.98 in the column, [P.sub.j1] stands out from the rest of the values in the column, which differ little from their initial values. Beta-231223 was omitted from the analysis and a subsequent run of the software failed to detect outliers, as shown in the column, [P.sub.j2], where values are all close to their initial values. The seven age determinations for O18 used in subsequent analyses are one more than the six potentially useful age determinations available previously.

Age estimates returned by the software for parameters of the model establish a chronology for the O18 site and its constituent layers. The 67% highest posterior density region, equivalent to a one standard deviation estimate, for initial settlement of the site, [[alpha].sub.3], is AD 1040-1219 (Fig. 3, bottom left). This initial period of deposition at the site, identified by archaeologists as Layer III, came to an end in AD 1580-1699 (Fig. 3, bottom right). After a hiatus marked stratigraphically by a layer of beach sand, cultural deposition of Layer II began in AD 1670-1789 (Fig. 3, top left) and continued until AD 1770-1859 (Fig. 3, top right). There is little evidence that the site was abandoned in traditional Hawaiian times. For example, the probability that [[beta].sub.2] is older than AD 1778, the year Cook sailed to Hawai'i, is 0.31. Thus, given the present dating evidence and the stratigraphic model of the O18 site, it is more than twice as likely that the site was abandoned sometime after Cook.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

An advantage of a model-based Bayesian calibration is that it is possible to derive estimates for time intervals of interest. The O18 site has figured in interpretations of initial Polynesian settlement of Hawai'i (Kirch 1985); it is interesting to estimate the interval between settlement and establishment of the site. The 67% highest posterior density region for the time interval between [[phi].sub.2] and [[alpha].sub.3] is 260- 459 years (Fig. 4, top left). The initial period of cultural deposition at the site, represented by Layer III, was quite long. The 67% highest posterior density region for the time interval between [[alpha].sub.3] and [[beta].sub.3] is 400-629 years (Fig. 4, top right). In contrast, the hiatus between Layers III and II appears to have been relatively short. The estimated duration of this hiatus, which is represented stratigraphically by a layer of light-coloured beach sand, has a 67% highest posterior density region of 10-109 years (Fig. 4, bottom left). The duration of Layer II was short compared to Layer III. The 67% highest posterior density region for the time interval between [[aplha].sub.2] and [[beta].sub.2] is 10-80 years.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

O18 in regional perspective

The Bayesian model can be extended to include other sites on the Waimanalo Plain. Cultural resources management excavations at sites 50-80-15-4851 and -4853 and 50-80-11-4856 and -4857 have yielded 37 [sup.14]C age determinations, 35 on charcoal from identified short-lived taxa and two on pearl shell manufacturing waste (Table 2). Each of the sites consists of the remnants of a single cultural deposit that typically lacks internal stratification. Because no stratigraphic relationships between the deposits of these sites and the layers of O18 have been established, they are each modeled as single phases independent of one another and of Layers II and III at O18. Using the short-hand described earlier, the model can be extended with the addition of the following inequalities:

[[alpha].sub.4851] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.9-11] [greater than or equal to] [[beta].sub.4851] (2)

[[alpha].sub.4853] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.12-27] [greater than or equal to] [[beta].sub.4853] (3)

[[alpha].sub.4856] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.28-41] [greater than or equal to] [[beta].sub.4856] (4)

[[alpha].sub.4857] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.42-45] [greater than or equal to] [[beta].sub.4857] (5)

Based on the current dating evidence, sites 50-80-15-4851 and -4853 and 50-80-11-4856 and -4857 were all established after O18. Site 50-80-15-4851, located on the opposite bank of Puha Stream from O18, is likely to be the oldest among the four. It was established AD 1160-1429, based on the 67% highest posterior density region (Fig. 5, top left). Penecontemporaneously, Site 50-80-11-4857, located inland and north of O18, was established in AD 1190-1409 (Fig. 5, bottom right). Site 50-80-15-4853, immediately inland of site O18, has been extensively dated and appears to have been established at a later time. The 67% highest posterior density region for the site's establishment is AD 1240-1379 (Fig. 5, top right). Finally, site 50-80-11-4856, located on the coast north of O18, was established in AD 1360-1429 (Fig. 5, bottom left), apparently later than Site 50-80-11-4857 located immediately inland. The probability that 50-80-11-4857 was established earlier than 50-80-11-4856 is 0.88.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

Another way to look at the site establishment estimates is relative to the establishment of O18. All of the posterior probability distributions have left tails that extend past zero and thus each site retains some probability of having been established before O18. These probabilities are all rather slim, however. The site with the greatest probability of having been established before O18, 50-80-11-4851, has a probability of 0.2. Using 67% highest posterior density regions: Site 50-80-15-4851 was settled 10 years earlier than to 349 years after O18 (Fig. 6, top left); site 50-80-11-4857 was settled at the same time as O18 to 319 years later (Fig. 6, bottom right); site 50-80-11-4853 was settled 60-279 years after O18 (Fig. 6, top right); and site 50-80-11-4856 was settled 160-359 years after O18 (Fig. 6, bottom left).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

Summary and conclusion

Seven new [sup.14]C age determinations on short-lived materials yield a chronology for O18 that differs from previous estimates. The results clearly indicate that O18 was settled later than previously estimated. The 67% highest posterior density region for the true age of [[aplha].sub.3] is AD 1040-1219, which is 4-9 centuries younger than previous estimates. The hypothesis that O18 was occupied during an early phase of Polynesian settlement is, on present evidence, false. The best estimate, based on present evidence, places initial site use 260-459 years after the archipelago was discovered and colonized. With this new, 'late' chronology, O18 joins site H1 on Hawai'i Island (Dye 1992) and the Halawa Dune site on Moloka'i (Kirch and McCoy 2007) in a growing group of relatively late sites once believed to have been examples of early Hawaiian settlement.

The situation is similar with respect to when O18 was abandoned. The new dates on short-lived materials, calibrated and interpreted within a Bayesian framework, indicate that the site was abandoned at the end of traditional Hawaiian times in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries, some 3-6 centuries later than earlier estimates. The estimate brings the abandonment of O18 in line with abandonment date estimates for other sites on the Waimanalo Plain.

One reason that previous estimates of O18 chronology were too old by centuries was a failure to control for the potential effects of old wood during the dating process, but errors assigning the dated samples to their correct archaeological contexts in a field school situation, and statistical and other errors in the dating laboratory probably had effects, too. It is worthwhile to emphasize the ill effects of old wood; cultural resources management archaeologists working in Hawaii routinely date unidentified wood charcoal. There is no reason to believe that their age determinations on unidentified wood charcoal will perform any better than those from O18, which proved to be poor estimators of site chronology. They are essentially worthless for establishing archaeological chronologies.

In most cases, the old dates that do a poor job of estimating the age of O18 provide no other useful information. An exception to this is Beta-20852b on A. moluccana nutshell. This age determination does a poor job of estimating the age of its archaeological context in Layer II, but because the identified material derived from a tree introduced to the islands by Polynesians the age estimate itself is of interest. If the calendar age, [[theta].sub.46], of this age determination is associated with the archaeological event of planting kukui trees in Waimanalo and calibrated in the context of a model that specifies only that this event dates to traditional Hawaiian times (6), then the 67% highest posterior density region for [[theta].sub.46] is AD 840-1159, an estimate that has a 70% probability of dating an event older than the establishment of O18. Thus, it is likely that the A. moluccana tree was planted by Hawaiians who lived at some other site in Waimanalo prior to settlement at O18. Because dates from nearby sites indicate that O18 was established before them, this putative earlier settlement is likely to be located somewhere inland, probably on the volcanic soils that supported gardens in traditional Hawaiian times. Whether cultural deposits associated with this putative early settlement still exist is a question for future research.

[[phi].sub.2] [greater than or equal to] [[theta].sub.46] [greater than or equal to] [[phi].sub.1] (6)

Finally, development of an explicit chronological model relating regional archaeological events to one another and set out in inequalities (1-6) means that anyone can replicate the estimate and explore how different parameters of the model affect it. It is not possible to do this in a precise way with an approach that is not strictly model-based. Changes in chronological estimates for sites on the Waimanalo Plain will most likely result from new dates on short-lived materials from secure stratigraphic contexts both on the Waimanalo Plain and beyond. Excavation of deposits at the coastal fringe of Site 50-80-11-4856, for instance, might help clarify the processes responsible for deposition of charcoal in this active and variable environment at the fringe of traditional Hawaiian settlement on the Waimanalo Plain. And certainly, any change in the estimated settlement date of the Hawaiian Islands would have a direct effect on the estimate of the interval between this event and establishment of O18. If the change in the estimated settlement date were sufficiently large, it might even have an effect on the estimate of when Ol8 was established.

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Valerie Curtis for her commitment to this project and her confidence that it would yield interesting results. Dave Tuggle and Matthew Spriggs offered valuable criticism that sharpened the argument considerably. Caitlin Buck offered perceptive advice on Bayesian modeling. Kristin Macak drafted the site map, which was prepared for publication by Eric Komori. Dan Davison and Eric Schulte both provided guidance on the use of Org-babel, a software environment that integrates thinking, analysis, and writing that greatly facilitated production of the paper.

References

Athens, J.S., H.D. Tuggle, J.V. Ward and D.J. Welch (2002). Avifaunal extinctions, vegetation change, and Polynesian impacts in prehistoric Hawai'i. Archaeology in Oceania 37, 57-78.

Buck, C.E., J.A. Christen and G. James (1999, July). BCal: an on-line Bayesian Radiocarbon Calibration Tool. http://bcal. sheffield.ac.uk.

Christen, J.A. (1994). Summarizing a set of radiocarbon determinations: A robust approach. Applied Statistics 43(3), 489-503.

Desilets, M.E. and T.S. Dye (2002, January). Archaeological Monitoring and Sampling During Bellows OU7 UST Removal Project Interim Remedial Action, Phase I, Bellows Air Force Station, Waimanalo, Ko'olaupoko, O'ahu. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute.

Dye, K.P. and T.S. Dye (2009, November). Pre-construction Archaeological Resource Survey for the New Civil Engineering Building, Bellows Air Force Station, Waimanalo, Ko'olaupoko, O'ahu, Hawai'i, TMK: (1) 4-1-001:015. Prepared for J.M. Waller Associates. Honolulu: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.

Dye, T.S. (1992). The South Point radiocarbon dates 30 years later. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 14, 89-97.

Dye, T.S. (1994). Apparent ages of marine shells: Implications for archaeological dating in Hawai'i. Radiocarbon 36, 51-57.

Dye, T.S. (1998, September). Archaeological Services in Support of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Expansion of Military Training and the Construction of Improvements to Existing Recreational Resources at Bellows Air Force Station, Waimanalo, Hawai'i. Report prepared for Department of the Navy, Pacific Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute.

Dye, T.S. (2000). Effects of [sup.14]C sample selection in archaeology: An example from Hawai'i. Radiocarbon 42(2), 203-217.

Fletcher, III, C.H. and A.T. Jones (1996). Sea-level highstands recorded in Holocene shoreline deposits on Oahu, Hawaii. Journal of Sedimentary Research 66,632-641.

Kirch, P.V. (1985). Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Kirch, P.V. and M.D. McCoy (2007). Reconfiguring the Hawaiian cultural sequence: Results of re-dating the Halawa Dune Site (Mo-A1-3), Moloka'i Island. Journal of the Polynesian Society 116,385-406.

Lebo, S.A., K.P. Dye and T.S. Dye (2009). Pre-Construction Archaeological Survey for New Recreational Lodging at Bellows Air Force Station. Prepared for AECOM. Honolulu: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.

McElroy, W.K., T.S. Dye and E.H.R. Jourdane (2006, February). Archaeological Monitoring and Investigations During Installation of Leach Fields at Bellows Air Force Station and Hickam Air Force Base, Waimanalo, Ko'olaupoko, and Moanalua, Kona, O'ahu. Prepared for Shaw Environmental. Honolulu: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.

Pearson, R.J., P.V. Kirch and M. Pietrusewsky (1971). An early prehistoric site at Bellows beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 6(3), 204-234.

Putzi, J.L. and T.S. Dye (2005, May). Archaeological Monitoring Report for Replace Military Family Housing Projects at Hickam Air Force Base and Bellows Air Force Station, Hawaii. Prepared for Rim Architects. Honolulu: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists.

Reimer, P.J., M.G.L. Baillie, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, J.W. Beck, P.G. Blackwell, C.B. Ramsey, C.E. Buck, G.S. Burr, R.L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P.M. Grootes, T.P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas, T.J. Heaton,A.G. Hogg, K.A. Hughen, K.F. Kaiser, B. Kromer, F.G. McCormac, S.W. Manning, R.W. Reimer, D.A. Richards, J.R. Southon, S. Talamo, C.S.M. Turney, J. van der Plicht and C. E. Weyhenmeyer (2009). IntCal09 and Marine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves, 0-50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111-1150.

Tuggle, H.D. (1997, June). Archaeological Research of Areas Proposed for Development of Military Family Housing and Expansion of Military Training at Bellows Air Force Station, O'ahu Task 1: Literature Review of the Cultural Resources of the Bellows Area. Prepared for Belt Collins Hawaii. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute.

Tuggle, H.D. and M. Spriggs (2001). The age of the Bellows dune site, O18, O'ahu, Hawai'i, and the antiquity of Hawaiian colonization. Asian Perspectives 39(1-2), 165-188.

TSD: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. (tsd@tsdye. com); JP: USAF PACAF 15 CES/CEVP (jpanta4149@ aol .com)
Table 1. Age determinations on mostly short-lived specimens.

Sample         Unit     Material          [[delta].sup.13]C

Layer II

Beta-248821    B-20     Pearl shell       -1.6
Beta-231223    A-3      Nestegis          -23.5
                          sandwicensis
Layer III

Beta-231220    EE-15    Dodonaea          -24.6
                          viscosa
Beta-231221    EE-15    Diospyros         -26.2
                          sandwicensis
Beta-231222    C-5      Canthium          -26.5
                          odoratum
Beta-248818    C-6      Pearl shell       +0.5
Beta-248819    C-6      Pearl shell       +2.3
Beta-248820    A-6      Pearl shell       +1.5

Layer not
identified

Beta-231224    A-3      Canthium odoratum -24.0

Sample         CRA                Age (AD) *    j

Layer II

Beta-248821    620 [+ or -] 40    1670-1859     [[theta].sub.1]
Beta-231223    710 [+ or -] 40    --            [[theta].sub.2]

Layer III

Beta-231220    870 [+ or -] 40    1060-1279     [[theta].sub.3]

Beta-231221    680 [+ or -] 40    1260-1399     [[theta].sub.4]

Beta-231222    490 [+ or -] 40    1310-1499     [[theta].sub.5]

Beta-248818    820 [+ or -] 40    1430-1689     [[theta].sub.6]
Beta-248819    840 [+ or -] 40    1420-1679     [[theta].sub.7]
Beta-248820    790 [+ or -] 40    1440-1699     [[theta].sub.8]

Layer not
identified

Beta-231224    690 [+ or -] 40    -             --

Sample         [Pj.sub.1]    [Pj.sub.2]

Layer II

Beta-248821    0.14          0.05
Beta-231223    0.98          --

Layer III

Beta-231220    0.10          0.09

Beta-231221    0.11          0.11

Beta-231222    0.14          0.15

Beta-248818    0.12          0.08
Beta-248819    0.11          0.08
Beta-248820    0.15          0.09

Layer not
identified

Beta-231224    --            --

* = 95% highest posterior density region.

Table 2. [sup.14]C ages of short-lived materials from other sites
on the Waimanalo Plain.

Laboratory           Fire-pit    Material                [[delta]
                     (feature                            .sup.13]C
                     no.)

Site 50-80-1511851

Beta-111023 (1)      (3)         cf. Rauvolfia           -26.9
                                 sandwicensis

Beta-111024 (1)      (2)         Sida cf. fallax         -26.8

Beta-111025 (1)      (1)         Sida cf. fallax         -24.2

Site 50-80-15-4853

Beta-101869 (1)      (6)         Chamaesyce sp.          -12.9

Beta-101871 (1)      (9)         cf. Osteomeles          -25.3
                                 anthyllidifolia

Beta-101872 (1)      (10)        cf. Osteomeles          -24.7
                                 anthyllidifolia

Beta-111022 (1)      (1)         Sida cf. fallax         -27.5

Beta-120317 (1)      (1)         Sida cf. fallax         -21.3

Beta-120318 (1)      (5)         Sida cf. fallax         -26.1

Beta-120319 (1)      (9)         Aleurites molucanna     -25.9
                                 nutshell,
                                 Chenopodium
                                 oahuense,
                                 Sida cf. fallax

Beta-120320 (1)      (13)        Aleurites molucanna     -25.6
                                 nutshell

Beta-120321 (1)      (15)        Aleurites molucanna     -25.0
                                 nutshell

Beta-120322 (1)      (16)        Chamaesyce sp.          -16.8

Beta-120323 (1)      (17)        Aleurites molucanna     -27.5
                                 nutshell,
                                 Chenopodium
                                 oahuense,
                                 Sida cf. fallax

Beta-120324 (1)      (18)        Aleurites molucanna     -25.2
                                 nutshell

Beta-120325 (1)      (19)        Aleurites molucanna     -25.2
                                 nutshell

Beta-120326 (1)      (20)        Aleurites molucanna     -14.0
                                 nutshell,
                                 Chenopodium
                                 oahuense,
                                 Sida cf. fallax

Beta-120327 (1)      (24)        Aleurites molucanna     -23.0
                                 nutshell

Beta-120328 (1)      (25)        Sida cf. fallax         -25.5

Site 50-80-1111856

Beta-208589 (2)                  Chenopodium             -26.6
                                 oahuense
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-208590 (2)                  Sida cf. fallax         -24.9
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-208591 (2)                  Aleurites moluccana     -25.7
                                 nutshell

Beta-246786 (3)      (4)         Sida cf. fallax         -25.4
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-251245 (3)      (5)         Chenopodium             -24.5
                                 oahuense wood
                                 charcoal

Beta-251243 (3)      (9)         Aleurites moluccana     -24.9
                                 nutshell charcoal

Beta-251244 (3)      (10)        Sida cf. fallax wood    -24
                                 charcoal

Beta-251242 (3)      (12)        Sida cf. fallax wood    -24.4
                                 charcoal

Beta-251246 (3)      (17)        Chenopodium             -21.9
                                 oahuense wood
                                 charcoal

Beta-251247 (3)      (22)        Cordyline fruticosa     -22.6
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-251248 (3)      (23)        Aleurites moluccana     -25.6
                                 nutshell charcoal

Beta-200230 (4)      (22)        Chamaesyce sp.          -11.3
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-208588 (2)                  Pearl shell             -0.1

Beta-208587 (2)                  Pearl shell             -2.7

Site 50-80-11-4857

Beta-200229 (4)      (11)        Sida cf. fallax         -25.6
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-200228 (4)      (12)        Chamaesyce sp.          -25.7
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-260904 (5)      (12)        cf. Chamaesyce sp.      -23.4
                                 wood charcoal

Beta-260905 (5)      (13)        Sida cf. fallax         -26.4
                                 wood charcoal

Laboratory           CRA *              j

Site 50-80-1511851

Beta-111023 (1)      310 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.9]

Beta-111024 (1)      140 [+ or -] 60    [[theta].sub.10]

Beta-111025 (1)      540 [+ or -] 50    [[theta].sub.11]

Site 50-80-15-4853

Beta-101869 (1)      230 [+ or -] 60    [[theta].sub.12]

Beta-101871 (1)      720 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.13]

Beta-101872 (1)      680 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.14]

Beta-111022 (1)      150 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.15]

Beta-120317 (1)      140 [+ or -] 50    [[theta].sub.16]

Beta-120318 (1)      150 [+ or -] 50    [[theta].sub.17]

Beta-120319 (1)      350 [+ or -] 80    [[theta].sub.18]

Beta-120320 (1)      230 [+ or -] 50    [[theta].sub.19]

Beta-120321 (1)      110 [+ or -] 70    [[theta].sub.20]

Beta-120322 (1)      310 [+ or -] 60    [[theta].sub.21]

Beta-120323 (1)      170 [+ or -] 60    [[theta].sub.22]

Beta-120324 (1)      250 [+ or -] 50    [[theta].sub.23]

Beta-120325 (1)      270 [+ or -] 70    [[theta].sub.24]

Beta-120326 (1)      330 [+ or -] 60    [[theta].sub.25]

Beta-120327 (1)      400 [+ or -] 70    [[theta].sub.26]

Beta-120328 (1)      220 [+ or -] 50    [[theta].sub.27]

Site 50-80-1111856

Beta-208589 (2)      140 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.28]

Beta-208590 (2)      90 [+ or -] 40     [[theta].sub.29]

Beta-208591 (2)      140 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.30]

Beta-246786 (3)      380 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.31]

Beta-251245 (3)      260 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.32]

Beta-251243 (3)      350 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.33]

Beta-251244 (3)      250 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.34]

Beta-251242 (3)      200 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.35]

Beta-251246 (3)      240 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.36]

Beta-251247 (3)      450 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.37]

Beta-251248 (3)      390 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.38]

Beta-200230 (4)      550 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.39]

Beta-208588 (2)      630 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.40]

Beta-208587 (2)      630 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.41]

Site 50-80-11-4857

Beta-200229 (4)      170 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.42]

Beta-200228 (4)      200 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.43]

Beta-260904 (5)      580 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.44]

Beta-260905 (5)      400 [+ or -] 40    [[theta].sub.45]

* = conventional [sup.4]C age (Stuiver and Polach 1977); (1) Dye (2000);
(2) McElroy, Dye and Jourdane (2006); (3) Lebo, Dye and Dye (2009);
(4) Putzi and Dye (2005); (5) Dye and Dye (2009).
COPYRIGHT 2010 Blackwell Publishing Limited, a company of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

 
Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Dye, Thomas S.; Pantaleo, Jeffrey
Publication:Archaeology in Oceania
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1U9HI
Date:Oct 1, 2010
Words:5696
Previous Article:New Directions in Archaeological Science.
Next Article:Chemical characterization of sources of obsidian from the Sepik coast (PNG).
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters