Bayes versus pragmatism: a debate about
dating Hawaiian temples
This important discussion about the use of radiocarbon to set up a narrative of temple construction
on Hawai‘i arises from a recent paper published in Antiquity (2011: 927–41). It compares
Bayesian and non-Bayesian solutions, and has implications that reach far beyond the Pacific.
Keywords: Pacific, Hawai‘i, radiocarbon, Bayesian analysis
Hawaiian temples and Bayesian
chronology
Thomas S. Dye
∗
[T]he chronological development of the Kohala, Kona, Waimea, Kahikinui, and
Kalaupapa field systems, spanning three islands, is remarkably congruent. While
there was some low intensity land use in Kohala and Kona prior to AD 1400, in all
cases the onset of major dryland cultivation began around AD 1400. Following
about two centuries of development, a final phase of intensification, typically
marked by highly formalized garden plots and territorial boundaries, commenced
about AD 1600 to 1650, and continued until the early post-contact period.
Unlike the irrigation systems, many of which have continued in use throughout
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the dryland field systems were all rapidly
abandoned within a few decades following European contact (Kirch 2010: 153).
This chronology is adopted in a recent paper by McCoy et al. (2011: 939) as a ‘ruling
theory’ (Chamberlin 1965), part of a larger argument that links field system development
with the rise of elite authority, leading to what the authors refer to as the political elite
“completely subsuming religious authority”. The chronology the authors derive from their
material stretches back to the late fifteenth century, which puts it in broad conformity with
the ruling theory.
The centerpiece of their paper is a seriation of religious temples in the Leeward Kohala
Field System (LKFS) that purports to arrange their construction dates in time. Hawaiian
religious temples are famously variable and more than one attempt to order them formally
has come to nothing (Bennett 1930; Stokes 1991). One reason for the formal variability
was discovered when Kane‘aki Heiau on O‘ahu was excavated and shown to have been
remodelled, often substantially, several times during its history (Ladd 1973). Hawaiian
tradition is clear that remodelling temples was a common practice (Malo 1996: 82, 241).
Features that the authors used to seriate the LKFS temples, and that presumably inform on
∗
T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, 735 Bishop Street, Suite 315, Honolulu, USA (Email: tsd@tsdye.com)
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
ANTIQUITY 86 (2012): 1202–1209 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/086/ant0861202.htm
1202
Debate
Thomas S. Dye
the construction date, were shown at Kane‘aki Heiau to be architectural components that
might be added during a later remodelling stage. Because the seriation method for single
objects dates “the time at which the attributes came together to make up the object” (Dunnell
1970: 307), the seriation proposed by the authors might track a history of remodelling events,
rather than a history of construction.
This potential decoupling of the seriation from construction events is important because
the authors use the seriation results to accept radiocarbon dates from beneath seven temples
and to reject dates from beneath four others. This step is unfortunate because the radiocarbon
dates were collected in a way that established their stratigraphic relationship beneath the
basal stones of structures, a practice frequently ignored in Hawaiian archaeology. Care was
taken to date short-lived woods selected from confidently identified charcoal to control for
the effects of old wood. This careful procedure establishes the stratigraphic boundaries of
two periods, one under the structure that pre-dates construction and another above the basal
stones that post-dates construction. If the start and end dates of these periods are designated
α and β, respectively, then the dating model can be expressed as α
pre
>β
pre
= α
post
>
β
post
= AD 1819, where the symbol > is taken to mean ‘is older than.’ In plain English,
this model says that the pre-construction period began at some unknown point in t he past
and ended when the post-construction period began, and that the post-construction period
lasted until the overthrow of the traditional religion in AD 1819.
This model makes clear that the best estimate of the construction date, α
post
, is the end
of the pre-construction period, or β
pre
. The authors instead use an approximation of α
pre
as
the terminus post quem for the construction date. There is nothing inherently wrong with
this—α
pre
is very likely to be older than the construction date—but it does throw away
potentially useful information and it almost certainly leaves the impression of a construction
date too far in the past.
The use of α
pre
to estimate construction becomes problematic when the authors construct
‘brackets’ for the ages of the construction events. In this bracketing procedure the α
pre
for
the subsequent group in the seriation is used as the upper bound for the age bracket. There
is no stratigraphic warrant for this procedure because t he dated structures are independent
of one another. Its sole basis appears to be the seriation, and an assumption that one temple
form is abruptly replaced by the next.
In any event, the brackets created by the procedure are unlikely to be correct, given
the radiocarbon dates from beneath the structures. The posterior distributions of the
11 estimates of β
pre
are shown in Figure 1, which was created with output from the BCal
software package (Buck et al. 1999). On present evidence, and given the dating model, most
of the structures are likely to have been built in the eighteenth century. Late construction
dates are also possible for the few structures that might have been built earlier than this.
The radiocarbon dates under the structures indicate that they were constructed late in
traditional Hawaiian times, much later than the chronology proposed by the authors. The
probability that β
pre
is older than the late bound of its bracket is shown in the column
labelled ‘Probability’ in Table 1, which was calculated by the BCal software package using
the probability query indicated in the column labelled ‘Query’, where the symbol > is taken
to mean ‘is older than’ and the symbol < means ‘is younger than.’ There is a 4 per cent
probability that structures KAL-26 and KAL-27 in seriation group A are older than AD
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1203
Hawaiian temples and Bayesian chronology
Figure 1. Posterior probabilities of temple construction events.
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1204
Debate
Thomas S. Dye
Table 1. The fit of data to chronological model.
Temple Seriation Query Probability
KAL-27 A β
pre
> 1522 0.04
KAL-26 A β
pre
> 1522 0.04
MKI-125 B β
pre
> 1647 0.01
MKI-124 B β
pre
> 1647 0.06
MKI-122 B β
pre
> 1647 <0.01
KHO-1 B β
pre
> 1647 0.17
KH2-2 C β
pre
> 1680 0.60
MKI-123 C β
pre
> 1680 0.03
KOL-2 C β
pre
> 1680 <0.01
KH1-3 C β
pre
> 1680 0.07
KAL-24 D β
pre
< 1680 0.99
1522, a nil to 17 per cent probability that the four structures in seriation group B are older
than AD 1647, and a nil to 60 per cent probability that the four structures in seriation
group C are older than AD 1680. Only seriation group D, whose bracket ends with the
overthrow of traditional religion in AD 1819, seems a reasonable fit with the data. The
high probability that structure KAL-24 was constructed after AD 1680 is an artefact of
theauthors’useofα
pre
, rather than β
pre
, as the construction date estimate. In fact, given the
stratigraphic model and the evidence of the young radiocarbon date beneath the structure,
it is likely that the temple was built well after AD 1680 (see Figure 1).
The conclusion that the radiocarbon dates are too young to support the ruling theory
seems inescapable. If the functional attributes that the authors speculate for the various
temple classes have any basis, then both the emergence of a “cross-polity sect of priests
dedicated to Lono” and “a shift to an emphasis on authority derived from monumentality”
(McCoy et al. 2011: 939) are eighteenth-century phenomena, rather than the seventeenth-
century trends suggested by the authors under the influence of the ruling theory.
The sophisticated dating program carried out in the LKFS has produced a large corpus of
stratigraphically secure and reliable age determinations. Model-based calibrations of these
dates yield results that consistently contradict the ruling theory. The young dates beneath
the foundation stones of the LKFS temples support the idea, based on a Bayesian calibration
of radiocarbon dates on short-lived materials collected from beneath agricultural walls and
trails, that imposition of elite authority in the LKFS was a late phenomenon, possibly
contingent on events of the historic period (Dye 2011).
It is time to break free of the ruling theory and generate alternative working hypotheses
consistent with the facts on the ground.
References
BENNETT, W.C. 1930. Hawaiian Heiaus. Unpublished
PhD dissertation, The University of Chicago.
B
UCK, C.E., J.A. CHRISTEN &G.JAMES. 1999. BCal:
an on-line Bayesian radiocarbon calibration tool.
Available at: http://bcal.sheffield.ac.uk (accessed 17
April 2012).
C
HAMBERLIN, T.C. 1965. The method of multiple
working hypotheses. Science 148(3671): 754–59.
D
UNNELL, R.C. 1970. Seriation method and its
evaluation. American Antiquity 35: 305–19.
DYE, T.S. 2011. The tempo of change in the leeward
Kohala field system, Hawai‘i Island. Rapa Nui
Journal 25(2): 21–30.
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1205
The value of an “eclectic and pragmatic” approach to chronology building
KIRCH, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine
kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient
Hawai‘i. Berkeley (CA): University of California
Press.
L
ADD, E.J. 1973. Kaneaki temple site—an excavation
report, i n E.J. Ladd (ed.) Makaha Valley Historical
Project: interim report no. 4 (Pacific anthropological
records 19): 1–30. Honolulu (HI): Anthropology
Department, B.P. Bishop Museum.
M
ALO, D. 1996. Ka Mo‘olelo Hawai‘i: Hawaiian
traditions. Translated by M. Naea Chun. Honolulu
(HI): First People’s Productions.
M
CCOY , M.D., T.N. LADEFOGED,M.W.GRAVES &
J.W. S
TEPHEN. 2011. Strategies for constructing
religious authority in ancient Hawai‘i. Antiquity 85:
927–41.
S
TOKES, J.F.G. 1991. Heiau of the island of Hawai‘i: a
historic survey of native Hawaiian temple sites
(Bishop Museum bulletin in anthropology 2).
Honolulu (HI): Bishop Museum Press.
The value of an “eclectic and pragmatic”
approach to chronology building
Mark D. McCoy
1
, Thegn N. Ladefoged
2
, Simon H. Bickler
3
,
Jesse W. Stephen
4
& Michael W. Graves
5
We are in complete agreement with Dye that multiple working hypotheses are valuable to
advancing science and his alternative chronological model in which “most of the [temple]
structures are likely to have been built in the eighteenth century” does offer a second reading
of our primary data. But, while we welcome new scholarship, we reject the notion that our
interpretations derive from a slavish adherence to a “ruling theory.” The real issue here is
the appropriateness of different statistical methodologies.
Archaeology has been held up as a field where “[t]he sense of a holy war between the
Bayesians and their classical enemies, so prevalent in the philosophy of science literature,
is almost entirely absent” (Steel 2001: S162–63). Instead, we exemplify the willingness of
modern scientists to be “eclectic and pragmatic” in the application of statistics (Steel 2001:
S163). In other words, we use particular statistical models on a case by case basis given
the evidence at hand. This is true of our own work, and indeed we have chosen to use
Bayesian statistical models when appropriate (Field et al. 2011a), but it is untenable to
believe Bayesian methods are the right fit for every case.
1
Department of Anthropology & Archaeology, University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand
(Author for correspondence; email: mark.mccoy@otago.ac.nz)
2
Department of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand
(Email: t.ladefoged@auckland.ac.nz)
3
Bickler Consultants, Epsom, Auckland 1023, New Zealand (Email: arch@bickler.co.nz)
4
Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai‘i, 2424 Maile Way, Saunders Hall 346, Honolulu, Hawai‘i
96822–2223, USA (Email: jstephen@hawaii.edu)
5
Department of Anthropology, MSC01–1040, Anthropology 1, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM
87131, USA (Email: mwgraves@unm.edu)
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1206
Debate
Mark D. McCoy et al.
To address the research presented in our original paper, we first note that Dye accepts
our radiocarbon dates on the charcoal of short-lived plant taxa. The main difference is
that he would have us treat each of the temples dated as constructions that occurred
“independent of one another.” While construction events were independent in the strictest
sense of the word, we should not assume that they were built without regard to pre-
existing and contemporary religious structures. There is an abundance of anthropological
and religious studies literature that point to the importance of creating and manipulating
symbols through religious architecture, in addition to specific ethnohistoric data from
nineteenth-century Hawai‘i that describes a formal priestly class whose domain included
designing the architectural layout of temples before European contact. Once the first temple
was constructed in the study area, subsequent religious structures were not independent.
Rather their form and location reflects a host of historically contingent factors and it would
be a mistake to ignore the roles of social structure, tradition and agency. As a correlate to
Dye’s assumption of independence, he proposes that temple rebuilding was so great that
it completely obliterated all possibility of the survival of stylistic groupings. We recognise
that reconstruction over the lifetime of a structure is inherently problematic and explicitly
make room for this in our interpretations to help explain dates that are true outliers (McCoy
et al. 2011: 932). But, we also note that an extensive search of relevant documented cases
of rebuilding of Hawaiian temples would likely show that large, complex sites were more
commonly subject to renovation than a set of small temples found in upland agricultural
fields. More importantly, if rebuilding is such a large issue, we find it a remarkable coincidence
that the relative order of the groups derived from architectural elements fits so well with
the completely independent evidence provided by the analysis of territorial boundaries
(Ladefoged & Graves 2006).
We understand the appeal of the apparent security in dating afforded by Dye’s particular
model but in this case it comes at a cost, specifically the failure to recognise the most likely
time period for the construction of architecture.
To demonstrate how bias is introduced in his Bayesian model consider the site KAL-24.
In our original paper, we use a radiocarbon date to bracket the absolute range of possible
construction dates for the site to between AD 1680 and 1819, the latter marking the year that
traditional Hawaiian religion was ended by royal decree. Dye would place the construction
“well after AD 1680,” and presents a posterior probability curve sharply peaked leading up
to AD 1819.
To expose how sensitive his proposed chronological model is to his choice of cut-off date,
we compared three models created in BCal: (A) one that constrains the latest construction
to AD 1778, the time of European contact; (B) one representing Dye’s model that uses
AD 1819 as a cut-off; and (C) one that does not constrain the date of construction (e.g.
uses a cut-off of just before radiocarbon present, 1949). Figure 1 shows that each model
yields quite different, and largely incongruent, posterior probabilities. In model A, on the
left, there is a multi-peaked area of highest probability in the 50 years leading up to AD
1778. In the centre we see Dye’s model (model B), where an unusual spike in probability
is created primarily because AD 1819 just happens to fall on the beginning of the later of
the two radiocarbon intercepts. In model C, the late intercept again has greatest sway and
we find a relatively uniform area of high probability in the 150 years before radiocarbon
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1207
The value of an “eclectic and pragmatic” approach to chronology building
Figure 1. Various Bayesian models for site construction. In our original study, we bracketed temple construction based on the
earliest end of a calibrated radiocarbon date on material from under foundation stones of KAL-24 as a TPQ, and AD 1819
as TAQ. Here we show alternative Bayesian models (BCal, Buck et al. 1999). Model A applies a cut-off date of AD 1778
(European contact), forcing an exaggeration of probability corresponding to the late end of the first radiocarbon intercept. In
model B, a representation of Dye’s model, the start of the second radiocarbon intercept forces a ramp up in the decade leading
up to AD 1819. Model C, with a cut-off at radiocarbon present, simply pushes the curve to correspond to the entire second
intercept. Each leads to the erroneous conclusion that construction must have occurred in the years immediately prior to the
given cut-off date.
present. In each of the three scenarios presented, the area of highest probability is an artefact
of the decision regarding the cut-off date. Clearly, the apparent security and precision of the
posterior probability is something we should not take at face value.
This is not an isolated case, indeed in another Bayesian re-analysis Dye (2011) has
somewhat arbitrarily created late posterior probability for agricultural development for the
same study area and then argued that “...the main thrust of field system intensification
can be dated to t he eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Much of it seems to be a
post-[European] contact phenomenon” (Dye 2011: 29). He comes to this conclusion using
a boundary for the last period of agricultural construction based on a “normal curve with
a ten year standard deviation centered at AD 1850,” a date meant to represent the historic
era Mahele land redistribution act. However, there is no historic evidence that agricultural
development occurred this late in the post-contact era, and the effect of choosing AD 1850
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1208
Debate
Mark D. McCoy et al.
is the same as we see for KAL-24, it forces the posterior probability to ramp up, making it
appear as if all activity in the field system occurred in the years immediately prior.
The construction of features in leeward Kohala occurred over an extended period of time
and an entirely late chronology contradicts even the most conservative interpretation of
radiocarbon dates from the area. Radiocarbon dates from temple excavations, which Dye
does not dispute, likely represent 15 agricultural clearing events, with only 7 definitively
post-dating AD 1650 (2σ ) (i.e. 200 BP or later). This is consistent with other studies in
which 16 out of 31 dates (Ladefoged & Graves 2008), and 23 out of 49 dates (Field et al.
2011b) were found to be 200 BP or later. Clearly there was a lot of activity in leeward
Kohala after AD 1650, but there is very little archaeological or historical evidence that this
occurred after c. AD 1820. Dye’s models have led him to the incorrect conclusion that
the leeward Kohala field system was abuzz with activity in the early nineteenth century; a
proposition that if it were the case would be even more remarkable given the overall trend of
post-contact rural depopulation due to introduced disease and migration to nineteenth-
century port towns.
References
BUCK, C.E., J.A. CHRISTEN &G.JAMES. 1999. BCal:
an on-line Bayesian radiocarbon calibration tool.
Internet Archaeology 7. Available at:
http://intarch.ac.uk/journal/issue7/buck
index.html
(accessed 17 April 2012).
D
YE, T.S. 2011. The tempo of change in the leeward
Kohala field system, Hawai‘i Island. Rapa Nui
Journal 25(2): 21–30.
F
IELD, J.S., T.N. LADEFOGED &P.V.KIRCH. 2011a.
Household expansion linked to agricultural
intensification during emergence of Hawaiian
archaic states. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the USA 108(18): 7327–32.
F
IELD, J.S., T.N. LADEFOGED,W.D.SHARP &P.V.
K
IRCH. 2011b. Residential chronology, household
subsistence, and the emergence of socioeconomic
territories in Leeward Kohala, Hawai‘i Island.
Radiocarbon 53(4): 605–27.
L
ADEFOGED,T.N.&M.W.GRAVES. 2006. The
formation of Hawaiian territories, in I. Lilley (ed.)
An archaeology of Oceania: Australia and the Pacific
Islands: 259–83. Oxford: Blackwell.
– 2008. Variable development of dryland agriculture in
Hawai‘i: a fine-grained chronology from the Kohala
Field System, Hawai‘i Island. Current Anthropology
49(5): 771–802.
M
CCOY , M.D., T.N. LADEFOGED,M.W.GRAVES &
J.W. S
TEPHEN. 2011. Strategies for constructing
religious authority in ancient Hawai‘i. Antiquity 85:
927–41.
S
TEEL, D. 2001.Bayesian statistics in radiocarbon
calibration. Philosophy of Science 68(3): S153–64.
C
Antiquity Publications Ltd.
1209
