Honu'apo Park Resource Management Plan

Recommendations

Info

jealous husband, who resided a short distance from the place, murdered his wife in a cruel manner with a stone, and afterwards dragged her down to the place where we stood, and threw her into the sea; that she fell on the rock which we saw, and, immediately afterwards, while he stood ruminating on what he had done, called out to him in the most affectionate and lamentable strains, attesting her innocence of the crime for which she had been murdered. From the rock, which is still called by her name, they said her voice was often heard calling to her husband, and there her form was sometimes seen. They also informed us, that her lamentations were considered by them us [sic] ominous of some great disaster; as of war, or famine, or the death of a distinguished chief (Ellis 2004:190). Soon after Ellis’s visit to Honu‘apo there was an influx of Westerners. The ever-growing population of Westerners throughout Hawai‘i forced socioeconomic and demographic changes that promoted the establishment of a Euro-American style of land ownership, and the Māhele became the vehicle for determining ownership of native lands. As a result of the Māhele, Honu‘apo was awarded to Lunalilo as konohiki land (Land Commission Award [LCAw.] 8559) and consisted of 2,200 acres (Kelly 1980:51). In addition, there were a total of nineteen kuleana. awarded in Honu‘apo, with five of these in the coastal portion of the ahupua‘a, makai of Highway 11 and one straddling the Highway. Three of the kuleana awardees claimed house lots (9564-B, 9212, and 10516:1), one claimed a potato field (9564-B), one claimed goats (10516:1), one claimed kihapai (10008:2), one claimed a salt basin (10516:1), and one claimed two ponds and three salt cellars (9955B). There was no information concerning land use for LCAw. 10323. There were no land grants in the coastal portion of Honu‘apo. By the end of the 1800s Honu‘apo Bay was deepened and turned into a wharf to serve the needs of a growing sugarcane industry in the area. The sugar industry quickly set down roots in Honu‘apo and erected a sugar mill, a large sugar warehouse to go along with the mill, and various out buildings. All of these developed areas were connected with a small gauge railroad network. Honu‘apo was transformed into a major port of call, serving the needs of the sugar industry and the communities of Wai‘ōhinu, Nā‘ālehu, Hīlea, and Honu‘apo. The wharf at Honu‘apo Bay ceased operations in 1942 during WWII. After the closing of the wharf, sugar was sent to Hilo for off-island shipment. The first mention of archaeological resources in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a comes from Stokes (Stokes and Dye 1991). John Stokes worked for the Bishop museum beginning in 1899 managing the museums library and assisting in superintending the collections. In 1906 Stokes came to the Island of Hawai‘i and began recording heiau and documenting native stories and/or traditions associated with them. He recorded one heiau in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a and one heiau at the border of Honu‘apo and Hi‘ona‘ā: Kamala‘i Heiau Heiau of Kamala‘i, land of Honu‘apo, Ka‘ū. Now entirely destroyed, the site is on the point northeast of Honu‘apo harbor. It was said to have been a sacrificial heiau for human victims and to have been an enclosure. It was thought to have been dedicated to Kane and Lono. There has also been a heiau kū‘ula between Kamala‘i and the harbor. My informant had put fish there for luck, placing them on the walls on the east side, without prayer. The destruction of these places was by tidal waves. Auolele Heiau Heiau of Auolele, near the boundary of Honu‘apo and Hi‘ona‘ā. It said to have been for human sacrifice. Not seen (Stokes and Dye 1991:126). 8
The Kamala‘i Heiau may be the one that Ellis described as “the ruins of a heiau, on a point of lava near our lodgingg” (Ellis 2004:191,192). He states that this heiau “had been dedicated to Tairi, and was thrown down in the general destruction of idols in 1819” (Ellis 2004:191, 92). Following the heiau survey conducted by Stokes, three other archaeological surveys have been conducted on the coastal portion of Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a: Ayres (1970); Rosendahl (1986); and Haun et al. (2004). In 1970, the Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology conducted a preliminary report on the archaeological survey of coastal areas of Honu‘apo, Hi‘ona‘ā, and Hōkūkano ahupua‘a, in Ka‘ū, Hawai‘i (Ayres 1970). Within Honu‘apo a total of seventy-three sites were recorded. Twenty-two of these sites were stone walled houses or shelters, thirteen were stone platforms (likely house foundations), sixteen were stone wall sections, seven were modified depressions (likely agricultural), two were ahu, four were modified outcrops (likely shelters), one was a natural depression with a stone path through it, one was a possible burial, one was the Government Road, one was the fishpond, and two were the heiau sites associated with Honu‘apo mentioned above (see Stokes and Dye 1991:126). The heiau are no longer present. Most of the archaeological sites were concentrated along the elevated pāhoehoe pressure ridges that follow the coastline. Archaeological sites that may have once existed makai of the pressure ridges were likely destroyed by tsunami action. In 1986, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc (PHRI) conducted an archaeological reconnaissance of 25 acres of coastal land in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a (Rosendahl 1986). The surveyed area consisted of pasture and former cane land. As a result of their survey they recorded three sites with five component features The features were comprised of a planting area, an ahu, a mound and two walls. The planting area and ahu correspond to two sites (Sites B13-60 and –64) that were previously identified by the Bishop Museum in 1970 (Ayres 1970). In 2004, Haun & Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of TMK: 3-9-5-14: 6, por. 7, 29 in Honu‘apo Ahupua‘a (Haun et al. 2004). The survey area included approximately 129 acres of the 253.579 acre TMK: 3-9-5-14:7 and two smaller interior parcels (TMK: 3-9-5-14:6 and 29). As a result of their survey they identified thirty-two sites comprising seventy-six features. The sites included eleven complexes of features and twenty-one single feature sites. Feature types included enclosures, mounds, concrete slabs, stone walls, historic artifact scatters, platforms, petroglyphs, modified outcrops, and several miscellaneous types. The sites include seventeen that were considered Precontact to early Historic, fourteen that were associated with Historic to modern use of the area, and one site (fishpond) that was utilized during Precontact times through the Historic Period. The Precontact sites consisted of permanent and temporary habitations, agricultural features, petroglyphs, two burials, and the fishpond. These sites represent the remains of the Honu‘apo coastal village that dates to at least the 1400-1500s, was described in the 1800’s by early visitors, and was nearly wiped out by a tsunami and modern land alterations. The Historic sites included mostly structural remains of the former Hutchinson Sugar Company, which began in 1884. These sites were generally concentrated around the fishpond and wharf. There were no archaeological features associated with kuleana lands located within their project area. Seven sites were recommended for preservation, seven sites were assessed as having no significance, and the other eighteen were adequately mapped, described, and photographed as to have mitigated all potential adverse effects. The Haun et al. (2004) report included a portion of the areas surveyed by Ayres (1970) and Rosendahl (1986). Of the 73 sites identified by Ayres (1970), thirty-two sites were found to have been destroyed, twenty-nine were recorded and given State Inventory of Historic Places (SIHP) site numbers, and the remaining sites were either located outside the Haun et al. (2004) project area or did not appear to have been modified and were therefore not designated as sites. Hi‘ona‘ā Ahupua‘a Hi‘ona‘ā literally translates as “rocky appearance” (Pukui et al. 1974:46). Much of the coastal portion of Hi‘ona‘ā fronts a low cliff and is composed of ‘a‘ā lava rock. Hi‘ona‘ā was not mentioned in any of the 9
Page 1 and 2:
Honu‘apo Park Resources Managemen
Page 3 and 4:
This page intentionally left blank.
Page 5 and 6:
Honuÿapo Park Final Resources Mana
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
2 HONUÿAPO PARK PROFILE Honuÿapo
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
2.2 Regional Setting Honuÿapo Park
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
2.3 Environmental Setting Honuÿapo
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
King, who accompanied Cook on the v
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
2.6 Historic Sites Honuÿapo Park F
Page 35 and 36:
2.9 Visual Resources Due to the rel
Page 37 and 38: Honuÿapo Park Final Resources Mana
Page 41 and 42: presented in Figure 3-3 below. Honu
Page 57 and 58: This page intentionally left blank
Page 61 and 62: Phasing Park Area Project III IV NC
Page 67 and 68: 6.4 Phase IV Projects Q. Paved Park
Page 75 and 76: September 28, 2009 geometrician A S
Page 78 and 79: Plant Species Recorded at Honuÿapo
Page 80 and 81: APPENDIX B Cultural Resources of th
Page 82 and 83: It is not only by far the worst par
Page 84 and 85: …After traveling some time over a
Page 86 and 87: were “subject to the rights of th
Page 90 and 91: legendary literature reviewed for t
Page 92 and 93: In 1976, two graduate students (Her
Page 94 and 95: LCAw. 9225-B, 10190, and 7733 are a
Page 96 and 97: There were three land grants (821,
Page 98 and 99: Trails and Roads Extending north/so
Page 100 and 101: Ellis, W. 2004 [1825] A Journal of
Page 102 and 103: Schmitt, R. 1973 The Missionary Cen
Page 104 and 105: Coastal and Estuarine Land Conserva
Page 134 and 135: APPENDIX D Honuÿapo Park Implement
show all

Honu'apo Park Resource Management Plan

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?