Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 6, Number 8, 1 August 1989 — Kukui o kane Heiau and its preservation [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Kukui o kane Heiau and its preservation

By Clarence F. T. Ching, Trustee, O'ahu

ln quest ot my Hawaiian-ness, one of the activities that I have ardently pursued is the searching out of Hawaiian habitation and religious sites and attempting to understand the thought and feelings of the ancient culture. The motivation of po'e kaliiko (the people

of old) to build such structures, and their self perception, world view and understanding of cosmic forces when they crafted their monuments out of available raw materials helps me to begin to understand them. Hearing the legendsandstoriesabout the creation of these works adds to the richness of the culture. Because I ean begin to understand them, I ean begin to understand myself. Our sites have been reduced to mere piles of rocks sometimes by the ravages of time, many times by the bulldozer. But even after being reduced to non-descript rock piles, the individual rocks continue to retain the mana absorbed from those who have eome to officiate of worship or die and from the rituals performed upon them through the ages. I have a great respect for those, sensitively tuned to the correct wavelengths of mana and spirituality, who are able to feel and appreciate the combined power of those who have gone before and the sacred 'aina whieh provide the foundation for such structures. In what westerners would deem an unconventional manner of looking at things, Momi Lum, kahu of Mo'okini Heiau on Hawai'i Island has said — that the 'aina is not sacred because a heiau is there, but that the heiau was built there because the 'aina is sacred. Solving the problem of how the physical remains of the past ean fit in with today's developmental enviroment presents many difficult issues. One of the most important cultural and historic preservation issues we are currently struggling with concerns the heiau and other sites either in the path of H-3 or so close that they will be desecrated and destroyed by bulldozer modification. For some of them, it may already be too late. Kahekili Heiau (destroyed), Kane ame Kanaloa Heiau (destroyed), Papua'a a Kane and Kukui o Kane Heiau (destroyed) are Kaneohe and Heeia sites that are either in the general vicinity of windward-Olahu's H-3 construction or directly in its path. In Archaeology of Oahu (1933), J. Gilbert McAllister mentioned that Kahekili Heiau was at "an excellent location on the top of an oblong knoll," but that "nothing now remains except a very large stone tumbled halfway down the hill, whieh has been peculiarly weathered." He also added that "there nothing to indicate the old temple (Kane ame Kanaloa Heiau) site now except an old stone wall whieh may have been built subsequently from the rocks of the heiau." Papua'a a Kane (the pigpen of Kane) was "just beneath Pu'u Keahiakahoe on the side of the pali." it was a "small flat area shere, it is said, that Kane kept his best pigs. At the foot of the pali is a small swale, now covered with a heavy growth of kukui, where Kane and his wife, Mamalahoa, grew awa. It is said that exceptionally good awa ean still be gathered there." Of Kukui o Kane Heiau, McAllister says: "Because of the destruction of this heiau,

whieh was the largest and most important one in the region, by Libby, Meneill & Libby Company, a disease attacked their pineapples and the undertaking was a failure, aecording to the old Hawaiians of the district. The present deserted fields are adequate proof . The structure was said to be very large and if the many stones, some several feet in thickness, scattered throughout the area are any indication of the extent and im Of Kukui o Kane Heiau, McAllister says: "Because of the destruction of this heiau, whieh was the largest and most important one in the region, by Libby, Meneill & Libby Company, a disease attacked their pineapples and the undertaking was a failure, according to the old Hawaiians of the district. The present deserted fields are adequate proof . The structure was said to be very large and if the many stones, some several feet in thickness, scattered throughout the area are any indication of the extent and importance of the former heiau, the native conception is quite justified. The ploughed-up (sic) remains indicate heavy walls and several terraces. It is impossible to obtain dimensions." In their preliminary reports for H-3, except for one reference to Kukui o Kane Heiau, Bishop Museum archaeologists on contract with the state made no menhon of the sites listed above and, of course, made no mention of their locations relative to the layout of the then-proposed highway. It may also be interesting to note here that the state had earlier cut through a corner of the Luluku lo'i terraces in its construction of Likelike Highway, But since environmental impact statements were not required in those days, made no mention of them, and no mention of them was made in the preliminary H-3 reports either. The scarcity of information about the lately-dis-covered and well-preserved Luluku terraces eontinued until the Kaneohe Historical Society made their findings of the terraces'existence known. Because the museum archaeologists and the state failed to acknowledge or protect them, OHA brought a lawsuit to insure their protection. Only after attempting to and failing to keep their reports confidential was the state forced to publicly report the Luluku terraces' existence and significance. The final step eame about when Buddy Neller, now with OHA but the state archaeologist at that time, wrote his own report about the terraces and gave a copy of it to then state Representative Robert Nakata who, in the meanhme, had become concerned about the issue. By coincidence, at the time that Nakata got Neller's report, Senator Inouye for used the Luluku information to support the anti-H-3 posture that he had adopted. used the Luluku information to support the anti-H-3 posture that he had adopted. On the other hand, the state nowacknowledges the significance of the Luluku site and has made alterations to H-3 by routing one of its loops around the main group of terraces instead of bulldozing and constructing through its center. This move by the state was in direct response to the concerns raised by OHA and in eomplianee with the Memorandum of Agreement signed by the state through the State Historic Freservation Office and by OHA as a concurring signatory. In the meanhme, Buddy Neller, now an OHA cultural specialist, as a product of his on-going research, concluded that H-3 will go through the middle of what he believes are the remains of Kukui o Kane Heiau. Upon the urging of interested kupuna, OHA called for a study by an independent archaeologist to confirm whether or not the

site is Kukui o Kane or not. The state had the done by archaeologist Bert Davis as a consultant. With Davis' recently announced finding that tend to confirm the theory that the structures are probably agricultural (ag) terraces, archaeologists are now polarized on the issue, most of them believing that the subject site is not the heiau and a very few believing that it is. A segment of the interested public, including the kupuna, eonhnue to believe that the alleged site is indeed the heiau. The alleged site is large (McCallister said Kukui o Kane was large), covering 9,400 square meters, and while part of it has been destroyed (McCallister said Kukui o Kane was destroyed), other parts are relatively well-preserved. It is situated on a gentle 1 1 degree slope just above Likelike Highway and is made up of a number of terraces. The better-preserved terraces, whieh don't seem to affect the slope of the land very mueh, seem to be made up of the simple piling of stones against an embankment. The area between the terraces is mostly barren of rocks and in some places the terraces are in such good shape they look as if they could have been constructed a scant 50 years ago. Another argument the museum archeologists rely on is that McCallister said that Kukui o Kane was destroyed. They say that the alleged site cannot be the heiau because parts of it are in excellent condition. Whether or not a site is "destroyed" because parts of it are intact may be debatable. The question is: what did McCallister mean when he said that the heiau was destroyed? Dr. Marion Kelly, an anthropologist who has eome in contact with archaeological sites for years, believes the site to be Kukui o Kane. However, she further argues that if the site is indeed agricultural terraces as the state claims, that they are the most unusual dryland agncultural terraces in the state. If only for that reason, she argues, the site shoud be preserved. After an intensive search, Neller located McAllister in Austin, Texas. Those who thought that he culd solve the mystery of Kukui o Kane have been disappointed that his present health does not permit him to travel to Hawai'i. Other questions have subsequently been asked. If these are agricu!tural terraces, then what crops would have been planted there? Bananas don't need terracing. Wauke prefers the banks of streams. It is too wet for sweet potatoes. Awa and olona are possible but probably prefer a wetter situation. Kou is a possibility, but it is more of lowland tree. Dryland taro is a possibility, but Handy says that there was no dryland taro in Kaneohe. The archeologists simply don't have any idea what the answer is. Paul Cleghorn, a Bishop Museum archaeologists, claims that the terraces are agricultural, and willingly calls them significant. But whether they are significant enough to save, he does not know. Richard Paglinawan, OHA Administrator, eall the site a significant agricultural site. The archaeologists are searching for the "real" Kukui o Kane close to the alleged site and are excavating what seems to be a religiousshrine. They have found some branch coral. Although branch coral is usually associated with religious Hawaiian sites,no coral has been found on the alleged site. The only artifacts found there seem to be a few voleanie glass flakes. Wherever the museum archaeologists may want to locate the Kukui o Kane site on the ground, the chosen site must be large since that is what McCallister said it was. There are not very many possible large areas left in the general vicinity except for the alleged Kukui o Kane Heiau. continued on page 23

Trustee's View from page 22

On the other hand, if McCallister indeed made a thorough survey of the Kukui o Kane area, why did he fail to mention the present terraces that cover a large area and are being classified agricultural by the museum's archaeologists? Even a blind archeologist couldn't have missed the terraces because they are just too prominent. So did McCallister really see the Kukui o Kane site? The "X" that he placed on his small map correlates with the alleged heiau site, but could also plaee the site a number of feet away.

Because almost all players agree that the alleged site is indeed significant whether it is Kukui o Kane or not, I have asked state transportation officials whether a vertical realignment of H-3 is possible in that area; in other words, that the surface of the highway be raised enough so that the ground and structures below are protected. Although present state plans are to fill in the area, Department of Transportation engineers have agreed to iook into the requested change. This would mean that a structure will have to be built to bridge over the alleged site, therefore preserving it. Except for the expected claims that the modification may be unreasonably expensive, I would venture that the site could eventually be saved. The state would furthermore have to be very careful in construction to minimize any heavy equipment damage. Action taken in OHA's External Affairs Commettee the week of July 10, 1 hope, will formalize these concerns eventually. Whether the site is Kukui o Kane or not should be verified. But its significance, whether it is agricultural terracing or a heiau, will probably mean that it will be preserved. In its attempt to create some certainty regarding historic sites and the preservation of Hawaiian culture, OHA has complied with its policy "to seek full consideration of traditional cultural values in the review of all projects affecting Native Hawaiian historic properties" and has stood by its "eommitment to preserve and protect Native Hawaiian historic sites" and to implement "formal mitigation (procedures) through Memoranda of Agreement." A big mahalo goes to all those who have raised concerns over Kukui o Kane and its preservation. Our best wishes go to those in Texas whose eoncerns are with us. Maybe further efforts should be made to assess the actual locations of the other sites mentioned above and Pule Heiau whieh are somewhere in the general area.