Abstract

Seven new

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.

alibration 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

Waimānalo Plain, but earlier sites in Waimānalo likely exist inland

of the plain.

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

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

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

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

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 O18 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

C age determina-

tions 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 Waimānalo 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.

Archaeol. Oceania 45 (2010) 113–119

113

Age of the O18 site, Hawai’i

THOMAS S. DYE and JEFFREY PANTALEO

Keywords: O18 site, Bayesian calibration, ‘old wood’ effect, settlement

TSD: T.S. Dye & Colleagues, Archaeologists, Inc. (tsd@tsdye.

com); JP: USAF PACAF 15 CES/CEVP (jpanta4149@

aol.com)

Figure 1. Traditional Hawaiian sites on a portion of the

Waimanalo Plain.

Immediately inland of Site O18, and at one time probably

oterminous with it, is Site 50–80–15–4853, a large expanse

of discontinuous cultural deposits on the north bank of Puhā

Stream that represent primarily cooking and eating activities

(Tuggle 1997; Desilets and Dye 2002). South of Puhā

Stream is Site 50–80–15–4851, which is broadly similar to

Site –4853, but also includes low-lying swamp deposits in

ld stream meanders that were used to cultivate taro (Tuggle

997; 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

urface 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

ark stains in the light-colored basal sands. Closer to the

oast, 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.

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.

114

Figure 2. Regional cultural

stratigraphy along a

hypothetical transect

running inland from the

beach, showing the relative

effects of ongoing sand

deposition and traditional

Hawaiian pit excavation.

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 Gail Murakami of

the International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.

Wood Identification Laboratory for taxon identification. The

identified samples were submitted to Beta-Analytic, Inc. for

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±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

C age estimates that were

internally consistent, a first in the long history of

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 θ

2-5

represent the

calendar ages of the archaeological events associated with

burning the four dated wood charcoal pieces and θ

and θ

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; α

and β

represent the start and end of deposition, respectively, of

Layer III, and α

and β

represent the start and end of

deposition, respectively, of Layer II. The known

stratigraphic relations of θ

2-8

to the layer boundaries are set

out in (1), where > means “is older than” and ≥ means “is

older than or the same age as”.

≥ α

≥ θ

3–8

≥ β

> α

≥ θ

1,2

≥ β

≥ φ

(1)

For the sake of brevity, (1) groups the θ from each layer

in an unconventional way; the θ 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, α

, began either at, or

sometime after, the time Hawai’i was colonized by

Polynesians, which is modeled here as normally

distributed, φ

= AD 800±50 (Athens et al. 2002);

• the calendar ages of three dated burning events, θ

3-5

, and

three dated manufacturing events, θ

6-8

, fall within the

period of time represented by the deposition of Layer III;

• the calendar ages of the burning and manufacturing

115

Sample Unit Material δ

C CRA Age (AD)* j Pj

Layer II

Beta-248821 B-20 Pearl shell -1.6 620±40 1670–1859 θ

0.14 0.05

Beta-231223 A-3 Nestegis sandwicensis -23.5 710±40 —θ

0.98 —

Layer III

Beta-231220 EE-15 Dodonaea viscosa -24.6 870±40 1060–1279 θ

0.10 0.09

Beta-231221 EE-15 Diospyros sandwicensis -26.2 680±40 1260–1399 θ

0.11 0.11

eta-231222 C-5 Canthium odoratum -26.5 490±40 1310–1499 θ

.14 0.15

Beta-248818 C-6 Pearl shell +0.5 820±40 1430–1689 θ

0.12 0.08

Beta-248819 C-6 Pearl shell +2.3 840±40 1420–1679 θ

0.11 0.08

Beta-248820 A-6 Pearl shell +1.5 790±40 1440–1699 θ

0.15 0.09

Layer not identified

Beta-231224 A-3 Canthium odoratum -24.0 690±40 ————

* = 95% highest posterior density region.

Table 1. Age determinations on mostly short-lived specimens.

events, θ

3-8

, are unordered, i.e. there is no stratigraphic

nformation on their ages relative to one another;

• the calendar ages of a burning event, θ

, and a

manufacturing event, θ

, fall within the period of time

represented by the deposition of Layer II;

•

the calendar ages of the burning and manufacturing

events, θ

and θ

, 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

II, β

and the start of deposition of Layer II, α

indicated by the > symbol; and

• the end of layer II deposition, β

, was either before or

during the time cattle ranching was established on the

Waimānalo Plain, which is modeled here as normally

distributed, φ

= AD 1830±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

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

, 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, α

, 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

D 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

raditional Hawaiian times. For example, the probability that

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.

n 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 φ

and α

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 α

and β

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 α

and β

is 10–80 years.

O18 in regional perspective

The Bayesian model can be extended to include other sites

on the Waimānalo Plain. Cultural resources management

excavations at sites 50–80–15–4851 and –4853 and

50–80–11–4856 and –4857 have yielded 37

C age

determinations, 35 on charcoal from identified short-lived

116

Figure 3. Estimated ages of Layers II and III at O18: top

left, early boundary of Layer II; top right, late boundary of

Layer II; bottom left, early boundary of Layer III; bottom

right, late boundary of Layer III.

Figure 4. Time intervals at O18: top left, the interval

between Polynesian settlement of Hawai’i and

establishment of O18; top right, duration of Layer III;

bottom left, duration of hiatus between Layers II and III;

bottom right, duration of Layer II.

taxa and two on pearl shell manufacturing waste (Table 2).

Each of the sites consists of the remnants of a single cultural

eposit 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

ddition of the following inequalities:

851

≥

–11

≥

851

(

853

≥θ

2–27

≥β

853

(3)

856

≥θ

8–41

≥β

856

(4)

857

≥θ

2–45

≥β

857

(5)

Laboratory Fire-pit Material δ

C CRA* j

(feature

no.)

Site 50–80–15–4851

Beta-111023

(3) cf. Rauvolfia -26.9 310±40 θ

sandwicensis

Beta-111024

(2) Sida cf. fallax -26.8 140±60 θ

Beta-111025

(1) Sida cf. fallax -24.2 540±50 θ

Site 50–80–15–4853

Beta-101869

(6) Chamaesyce sp. -12.9 230±60 θ

Beta-101871

(9) cf. Osteomeles -25.3 720±40 θ

anthyllidifolia

Beta-101872

(10) cf. Osteomeles -24.7 680±40 θ

anthyllidifolia

Beta-111022

(1) Sida cf. fallax -27.5 150±40 θ

Beta-120317

(1) Sida cf. fallax -21.3 140±50 θ

Beta-120318

(5) Sida cf. fallax -26.1 150±50 θ

Beta-120319

(9) Aleurites molucanna -25.9 350±80 θ

nutshell,

Chenopodium

oahuense,

Sida cf. fallax

Beta-120320

(13) Aleurites molucanna -25.6 230±50 θ

nutshell

Beta-120321

(15) Aleurites molucanna -25.0 110±70 θ

nutshell

Beta-120322

(16) Chamaesyce sp. -16.8 310±60 θ

Beta-120323

(17) Aleurites molucanna -27.5 170±60 θ

nutshell,

Chenopodium

oahuense,

Sida cf. fallax

Beta-120324

(18) Aleurites molucanna -25.2 250±50 θ

nutshell

Beta-120325

(19) Aleurites molucanna -25.2 270±70 θ

nutshell

Beta-120326

(20) Aleurites molucanna -14.0 330±60 θ

nutshell,

Chenopodium

oahuense,

Sida cf. fallax

Beta-120327

(24) Aleurites molucanna -23.0 400±70 θ

nutshell

Beta-120328

(25) Sida cf. fallax -25.5 220±50 θ

Site 50–80–11–4856

Beta-208589

Chenopodium -26.6 140±40 θ

oahuense

wood charcoal

Laboratory Fire-pit Material δ

C CRA* j

(feature

no.)

Beta-208590

Sida cf. fallax -24.9 90±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-208591

Aleurites moluccana -25.7 140±40 θ

nutshell

eta-246786

(

4) Sida cf. fallax -25.4 380±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-251245

(5) Chenopodium -24.5 260±40 θ

oahuense wood

charcoal

Beta-251243

(9) Aleurites moluccana -24.9 350±40 θ

nutshell charcoal

Beta-251244

(10) Sida cf. fallax wood -24 250±40 θ

charcoal

Beta-251242

(12) Sida cf. fallax wood -24.4 200±40 θ

charcoal

Beta-251246

(17) Chenopodium -21.9 240±40 θ

oahuense wood

charcoal

Beta-251247

(22) Cordyline fruticosa -22.6 450±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-251248

(23) Aleurites moluccana -25.6 390±40 θ

nutshell charcoal

Beta-200230

(22) Chamaesyce sp. -11.3 550±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-208588

Pearl shell -0.1 630±40 θ

Beta-208587

Pearl shell -2.7 630±40 θ

Site 50–80–11–4857

Beta-200229

(11) Sida cf. fallax -25.6 170±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-200228

(12) Chamaesyce sp. -25.7 200±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-260904

(12) cf. Chamaesyce sp. -23.4 580±40 θ

wood charcoal

Beta-260905

(13) Sida cf. fallax -26.4 400±40 θ

wood charcoal

* = conventional

C age (Stuiver and Polach 1977);

Dye (2000);

McElroy, Dye and Jourdane (2006);

Lebo, Dye and Dye (2009);

Putzi and Dye (2005);

Dye and Dye (2009).

Table 2.

C ages of short-lived materials from other sites

on the Waimanalo Plain.

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 Puhā 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

117

immediately inland. The probability that 50–80–11–4857

was established earlier than 50–80–11–4856 is 0.88.

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).

Summary and conclusion

Seven new

C age determinations on short-lived materials

ield 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 α

is AD 1040–1219,

which is 4–9 centuries younger than previous estimates. The

ypothesis 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 Hālawa 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

Waimānalo 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 estima-

ting 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, θ

, of this age determination is

associated with the archaeological event of planting kukui

trees in Waimānalo 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 θ

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

Waimānalo prior to settlement at O18. Because dates from

nearby sites indicate that O18 was established before them,

118

Figure 5. Initial site use on the Waimanalo Plain: top left,

50–80–15–4851; top right, 50–80–15–4853; bottom left,

50–80–11–4856; bottom right, 50–80–11–4857.

Figure 6. Sequence of site establishment – the interval

between establishment of O18 and other sites: top left,

Site 50–80–15–4851; top right, Site 50–80–15–4853;

bottom left, Site 50–80–11–4856; bottom right,

Site 50–80–11–4857. Note that there is a small

probability that each of the sites was established

before O18.

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.

≥ θ

≥ φ

(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

he estimate and explore how different parameters of the

odel 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 Waimānalo Plain

will most likely result from new dates on short-lived

materials from secure stratigraphic contexts both on the

Waimānalo 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 Waimānalo 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 O18 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, Waimānalo, Ko’olaupoko, O’ahu. Prepared for U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers. Honolulu: International Archaeo-

logical 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, Waimānalo, 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

rchaeological 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

xpansion of Military Training and the Construction of

Improvements to Existing Recreational Resources at Bellows

Air Force Station, Waimānalo, 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

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 Hālawa 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, Waimānalo, 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, Waimānalo, 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.

119