Ka Wai Ola - Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Volume 7, Number 1, 1 January 1990 — Saving Kukuiokane heiau [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Saving Kukuiokane heiau

By Clarence F. T. Ching Trustee, O'ahu Since the emergence of the H-3 highway as a major issue in the state of Hawai'i, the identification and preservation of the sacred and historic Hawaiian sites along its proposed route have also heeome issues, especially to Hawaiians. Kukuiokane Heiau is such a site. My general views about our Hawaiian sacred sites, and specifically about the loeahon and preservation of Kukuiokane Heiau, were expressed in this eolumn last August. The overriding question was whether the site labeled G5-86 was or was not the site of Kukuiokane. The OHA trustees decided not to take an official position this past summer until further work on the suspected site and a eouple of adjacent sites could be completed. In the article, I pointed out a statement by Momi Lum, kahu of Mookini Heiau, that the 'aina (land) is not sacred because a heiau is there, but thatthe heiau was built there because that 'aina is sacred. In trying to make a case for the preservation of G5-86 as either the heiau or as significant agricultural terraces, I mentioned in the article that, in some places, "the terraces are in such good shape they look as if they could have been constructed a scant 50 years ago." In mid-November, archaeologists from Bishop Museum who were contracted by the state met at OHA to update the trustees, staff and others on their progress at the site(s). In mterviewing an individual whose family had farmed the area, one of the archaeologists unearthed new information indicating that one of the family's farming practices (back to the 1930s) was to pile the rocks and stones they encountered in the planting areas on top of the terraces. No wonder the terraces looked so new. Interestingly, even though they hold themselves out to be experts on such sites, none of the contract archaeologists had picked up this elue. The archaeologists' present position is that

these "new" terraces cannot possibly be those of Kukuiokane. They continue to hold that they are agricultural terraces. What they don't give mueh significance to is an older wall lying beneath and along the entire length of the "new" terrace, predating the "new" terrace. They don't say whether the "old" wall might have been a part of the heiau. As to agricultural terraces, most of the archaeologists admit that the terraces are unique and significant. If they are indeed unique and significant, then there is every reason they should be preserved. Whether they are preserved as agricultural terraces or as the heiau makes little differenee to me. That they are preserved is all that matters. Another argument that the archaeologists use to "prove" that G5-86 is not Kukuiokane is that no coral has been found within the site's physical eonfines. They tell us that the occurrence of coral usually indicates a religious site. What they haven't considered is that not all religious sites contain coral. However, they eonhnue to insist that if G5-86 is indeed Kukuiokane, coral has to be found there. Regardless of what they say, the absence of coral at G5-86 is not conclusive'proof of whether or not the site is Kukuiokane. It is interesting that the area the archaeologists have been studying has been designated by them as three distinct sites and that they have identified a wall between Site G5-86 and the other two as a boundary dividing two ili. An ili is a section of land next in importance to an ahupua'a, and is usually a subdivision of an ahupua'a. As one might guess, since these archaeologists work for the state and the state would not want to elevate any site within the proposed H-3 right of way to high historical significance, the "ili" wall is being characterized as dividing any function that might have taken plaee on Site G5-86 from the functions on the other two. In other words, they want to limit any functional association that one site may have with any other. This argument is relevant because Site 106, one of the other sites, contains some coral and, because of the resultant religious connection, the archaeologists are claiming that it is probably

Kukuiokane. This elaim is convenient for the state because most of the site lies outside the boundaries of the H-3 right-of-way. Until the writing of this article, no one has questioned whether the archaeologist-defined "ili wall" dividing G5-86 from 106 is indeed an ili wall. I raise the question now. If the structure is indeed an ili wall, is there any indication that it continues down along the entire boundary of the ili into the lowlands? There doesn't seem to be any such indication. Of course, this brings on the possible counter-argument that continued page 23

i II \$ V) -2 I O £

What may be two akua are on the site designated G5-110. A small part of G5-86 is visible at the top right of the picture. The question is: should these stones have their own site number?

The tree and stone wall in the center of this picture demark site G5-86 (on left) and site

G5-10 (on right). The question is: is this all one site?

The highest stone wall (pictured here) is on the site designated G5-86. The question is: is the wall part of Kukuiokane Heiau or an agricultural terrace?

Trustee Ching from page 21 the area below (makai) these sites has been so thorough!y altered over the years that no trace has survived. Are these indeed three distinct discontiguous (unconnected) sites? When asked, two of the archaeologists involved could not say with certainty that the sites being dealt with are indeed three distinct sites. It is possible that all three sites are indeed one associated site with three different functions. If this theory is not accepted, the same mistake that was made by the initial archaeological survey that separated the Luluku terraces from these and other sites would have been committed. As ean be expected, there continues to be many who feel that a grave error was made in designating the entire area (Luluku and the others) as discontiguous. We cannot make the same error again. Relative to the three sites, I am and will be adopting as my official OHA stance the position that they are all one-and-the-same site. Therefore, if any one of the "sub-sites" is Kukuiokane, then the entire site is Kukuiokane and must be protected. Although construction has not commenced on any of the subsites in question, the highway continues to be built towards the area. It may be too late for any surface modification to bypass what I am concluding to be Kukuiokane. The other problem is that any modification of the planned surface alignment will have an impact on the loop that is planned to go around, and protect, the Luluku terraces. At this time, the only possible realignment, other than scrapping the entire highway, wouldbe to elevate the highwayto passoverthissacredand significant area of Kukuiokane. However, the state has already announced that elevating the highway could add $5 million to the highway's total cost. It ean be argued that $5 million is a small amount to save such a significant site as Kukuiokane. It is less than one percent of the highway's $880 million planned budget.

On the other hand, what are our sacred sites worth? They are priceless. Some would argue that even if the highway were elevated that the heavy machinery needed for eonstruction would destroy the site anyway. 1 believe, however, that with the use of creative design and methods of construction, that such destruction ean be held to a minimum and, even if such destruction took plaee, that the surface could still be restored to its present situation. After all, going one step beyond the lesson that Momi Lum teaches us, even if a site is destroyed, it continues to be sacred. If these structures are indeed the remains of Kukuiokane, then this sacred site must be preserved.