CHAPTER FOUR FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGES OF THE ANAHULU ROCKSHELTER SITES by Patrick V. Kirch and Sara Collins1 T HE ANAHULUROCKSHBTS yielded small but important assemblages of both vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains, providing significant information on patterns of prehistoric exploitation of both upper valley and coastal environments. Recognizing the problems associated with small sample sizes, our treatment of these assemblages will be primarily nominal, i.e., limited to presence/absence analysis of particular taxa. However, gross quantitative differences-both between the various shelters, and within shelters over time-will also be discussed. METHODS The faunal remains were recovered, in most cases, by sieving the excavated sediment through both 1/4 and 1/8 inch mesh screens. Materials recovered in each of these screen sizes were bagged separately in the field, and raw bone or element counts (NISP) were also tabulated separately by screen size. This permitted some assessment of the importance of using the smaller 1/8- inch mesh screens, which had not been standard practice in Hawaiian archaeology. In this chapter, however, we have combined the two screen-size classes to simplify the presentation of data. In the Bishop Museum laboratory, all vertebrate materials were segregated from other faunal or floral remains recovered in the sieves. The vertebrate faunal bone was then sorted by Collins into various identification categories, based on element type and degree of completeness. Fragmentary bone shafts and other non-diagnostic elements or fragments were sorted into general categories such as "small" or "medium vertebrate," "small" or "medium Aves," or "medium mammal." Elements with diagnostic features were identified with reference to the comparative systematic collections of the Bishop Museum Departnent of Zoology. When identification to species level was not absolutely certain, the closest species in the comparative collection is cited with the qualifier "cf." In some cases, especially with the native birds, identification could be taken only to the family level. Following identification, faunal specinmens were quantified in two ways. All faunal sorting classes were weighed to the nearest 0.1 gn. Specimens which had been identified at least to the family level or below were also counted, with annotations as to element type and age. Invertebrate fauna, consisting primarily of marine molluscs, were atso sorted and identified with reference to the systematic collections in the Bishop Museum Departnent of Zoology. Taxa were quantified by weighing to the nearest 0.1 gn. lSorting and identification of all vertebrate fauna from the Anahulu rockshelters was by Collins, who provided Kirch with raw data. This chapter was authored by Kirch, who bears any responsibility for errors or excesses of interpretation. Anahdul TABLE 4.1 NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED VERTEBRATE TAXA SITE MIAALS BIRDS FISH TOTAL TAXA EX. VOL. (m3) D6-60 6 11 7 24 4.5 D6-58 4 6 7 17 2.0 D6-36 3 5 7 15 1.95 THE VERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGES The rockshelter vertebrate assemblages ranged in number of identified taxa (NTAXA) from 15 in Site D6- 36, to 24 in D6-60 (table 4.1). As is evident in table 4.1, the number of identified taxa correlates with excavated volume, so that differences between the shelter assemblages in terms of the representation of specific taxa are probably not significant. Of the mammals, all sites contained domestic pig (Sus scrofa) and dog (Canisfamiliaris), as well as scattered human remains (primarily isolated teeth). All sites also contained abundant remains of the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans), and in the upper levels, less frequent elements of the historically-introduced Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) and of the European house mouse (Mus domesticus). Aside from one cetacean fragment (A -J 2 a 4 l ZUco 60- 30- 0- from D6-60, the other mammalian taxa are historically- introduced cat, and bovids (goat/sheep and cattle), from the upper cultural deposits. The birds include the domestic jungle fowl (Gallus gallus), represented in all sites, as well as a range of indigenous and endemic land and seabirds. The birds are discussed in further detail below. The fish are all marine taxa, primarily reef or inshore species; these are also discussed further below. Total weights of major vertebrate faunal sorting categories are provided in table 4.2. As can be seen from these figures, the percentage of identifiable mammal bone in each site was significantly greater than the percentages of identifiable bird or fish bone. That relatively little fish bone could be identified is a reflection of both the inadequate reference collections available, and the difficulty with which the most commoxly occuring elements (vertebrae, scales, and 4 4 2 CD ) a a s a 4 . C (A < a a U. a I (I) U. D6-60 D6-58 (A) a n co S n U. D6-36 Figure 4.1. Composition of vertebrate faunal assemblages by weight. 62 Rockshelter Faunal Assemblages TABLE 4.2 WEIGHTS OF VERTEBRATE FAUNAL ASSEMBLAGES BY MAJOR FAUNAL CATEGORIES CATEGORY D6-60 D6-58 D6-36 gm % gm % gm % MAMMALS Identified Mamnal 128.7 182.9 21.4 Unidentified Medium Mammal 81.1 109.8 24.4 Total Mammal 209.8 61 292.7 73 45.8 54 BIRDS IdentifiedBird 14.6 5.4 4.1 Medium Bird (unid.) 24.0 16.8 7.1 Small Bird (unid.) 1.6 0.5 0.3 Total Bird 40.2 12 22.7 6 11.5 14 LAMNIFORMES 3.0 <1 1.4 <1 0.1 <1 FISH Identified Fish 12.5 12.3 4.4 Unidentified Fish 75.9 71.9 22.1 Total Fish 88.4 26 84.2 21 26.5 31 SMALL VERTEBRATE 0.8 0.4 MEDIUM VERTEBRATE 2.2 1.4 TOTALS 344.4 402.4 84.3 Excavated volume (m3) 4.5 2.0 1.95 xi bone gm/m3 deposit 76.5 201.2 43.2 rays) can be identified beyond the level of class. The relative composition of each rockshelter assemblage, by weight, in terms of the major categories "mammal," "bird," and "fish" is fairly consistent, as shown diagrammatically in figure 4.1 Mammal bones constitute from 54 to 73% of assemblages by weight; fish bones constitute from 21 to 31%, and bird bones from 6 to 14% by weight. While the total number of taxa in each assemblage clearly correlates with excavated volume of rockshelter sediment, this is not the case with the gross size of vertebrate assemblages as measured by total weight (table 4.2). Although Site D6-58 had an excavated volume of less than one-half than at Site D6-60, the D6-58 vertebrate sample is significantly larger. These differences between rockshelter assemblages are evident when one compares the mean weight of vertebrate bones per cubic meter of excavated deposit (table 4.2). The differences between Sites D6-36 and -60 are probably not statistically significant, but Site -58 clearly contrasts with the former two. The density of vertebrate remains in Site D6-58 is 2.6 times that of Site D6-60, and 4.7 imes that of D6-36. This suggests that the human behavioral patterns responsible for deposition of the faunal assemblages in these sites differed in some important way. Duration of occupation could account in part for these contrasts, but the most likely explanation is the intensity of occupation of Site D6-58 63 64 Anahu TABLE 4.3 NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED SPECIMENS OF VERTEBRATE FAUNA TAXON D6-60 D6-58 D6-36 MAMMALS Sus scrofa 27 43 18 Canis familiaris 34 20 21 Felis catus 1 Ovis/Capra sp. 2 Bovidae 1 Cetacea (Delphinidae) 1 Homo sapiens 4 2 3 Advanced artiodactyl 4 BIRDS Procellariid cf. P. phaeopygia 4 1 1 Procellariid cf. P. pacificus 1 Procellariid cf. P. auricularis 5 2 Procellariid cf. B. bulwerii 3 1 Procellariid cf. P. hypolenuca 9 8 Medium Procellariid 4 3 1 Small Procellariid 2 Nycticorax nycticorax 1 1 Gallus gallus 9 6 4 Muscicapidae 5 1 Laridae cf. S. pomarinus 1 Stumidae cf. A. tristis 2 Meliphagidae cf. Chaetoptila spp. 1 Drepanidinae cf. Psiuirostra sp. 1 Drepanidinae, Hemignathini, Loxops spp. 2 Small Passeriform 4 FISH Mullidae 1 Labridae, Bodianus sp. 2 5 4 Labridae, Thalassoma sp. 1 Labridae, Coris sp. 1 3 Scaridae, Scarus sp. 4 3 1 Scaridae, Calotomus sp. 5 3 3 Acanthuridae, Naso sp. 6 Monocanthidae, Pervagor sp. 29 19 13 Carangidae (Caranx sp.) 5 Sparidae, Monotaxis grandoculis 1 Acanthuridae 1 4 LAMNIFORMES 14 6 3 127 94 XTAL NISP 180 Rockshelter Faunal Assemblages during the late prehistoric period. As noted elsewhere, artifactual and stratigraphic evidence suggests that this site may have been pennanently occupied during the one to two centuries prior to European contact, whereas the other shelters probably continued to be used on a temporary basis. Permanent utilization of Site D6-58 (associated with the "upper cultural deposit," see chapter 2) is the most likely explanation of the significantly higher concentration of vertebrate fauna in this site. Numbers of identified specimens (NISP) of vertebrate fauna for those elements or element fragments that could be identified to the family level or below are quantified in table 4.3. (Faunal elements belonging to Rattus spp. or to Mus were quantfied only by weight, and thus are not included in table 4.3.) These faunal categories are discussed further below. Mammals The most important mammalian remains from the rockshelters, in terms of cultural significance, are those of the pig and dog, both of which were transported to the Hawaiian Islands by Polynesian colonizers (Kirch 1985). Other than the small bones of Rattus exulans, dog and pig skeletal elements were the most commonly identified mammal bones in the assemblages (table 4.3). The cultural significance of dogs in early Hawai'i has been summarized by Tomich (1986:88-9), and dealt with more extensively by both Luomala (1960) and Titcomb (1969:2-24). The raising of dogs for food is clearly documented in a variety of early historic sources. The missionary William Ellis provides a typical account: "...in their feasts the flesh of the dog constitutes the principal meat" (1963:247). "Numbers of dogs, of rather a small size, and something like a terrier, are raised every year as an article of food. They are mostly fed on vegetables; and we have sometimes seen them kept in yards, with small houses to sleep in" (1963:249). Pigs were equally an important food item (Tomich 1986:120-21), but of greater cultural significance as pig flesh, unlike that of dog, could be consumed only by males and was frequendy offered as an item of sacrifice in temple ritual (Valeri 1985:118- 19, 228-29). The relative proportions of pig and dog bones in the three rockshelters vary considerably, although given the small sample sizes the significance of this variation is uncertain. However, Site D6-58 is unique in the substantially greater numbers of pig than dog bones. The ages of both pig and dog faunal elements were recorded whenever possible, using the general age categories "juvenile," "immature," and "adult." The frequency distributions by age category were remarkably consistent in all site assemblages. For pigs, approximately 25% of all specimens are of adults (over 3 years), with 75% from immature (ca. 6-36 months) or juvenile (less than 6 months) animals. In contrast, 65% of the dog faunal specimens from the rockshelters are of adults (over 18 month), with only 35% from immature (6-18 months) to juvenile (under 6 months) animals. Site D6-60 yielded a single tooth of an unidentified member of the Delphinidae (dolphins and affies), from 3540 cm in Unit D20. Eleven indigenous species of dolphins and killer whales inhabit the Hawaiian Islands (Tomich 1986:134), and the tooth is presumably from one of these species. Dolphin teeth are known to have been used as ornaments (Kirch 1985), and it is unlikely that the single tooth should be interpreted as signifying the consumption of dolphin flesh at this site. Tomich (1986:175) observes that the cetaceans were, at best, a minor food source for prehistoric Hawaiians, as evinced by "the lack of a distinctive nomenclature for the many species." Bones of the Polynesian rat (Rattus exulans) were found throughout the cultural deposits in all sites. This species is known to have been transported by Polynesians throughout the Pacific (Tate 1951). The Hawaiians hunted rats for sport, with a miniature bow and arrow (Tomich 1986:42-3), but apparendy did not eat them. Birds The most frequendy represented bird species in the rockshelter assemblages is the Jungle Fowl, Gallus gallus. The species was purposely introduced by early human colonists throughout Oceania (Ball 1933), and in Hawai'i was used not only for food, but for ritual sacrifice, and for the sport of cock fighting (Berger 1981:177). Equally important, and actually out-numbering Gallus as a combined category, are five species of procellariid seabirds (petrels and shearwaters). In the historic period, these species have been largely confined-as nesting populations-to the smaller offshore islets, and to the leeward chain (Nihoa to Kure Islands), where they are not subject to predation or habitat disturbance. However, recent paleontological and archaeological excavations on the main Hawaiian Islands have yielded large numbers of procellariid and other seabird skeletal remains (Olson and James 1982). This suggests that prior to the Polynesian colonization of the archipelago, and even well into the period of Polynesian occupation, substantial breeding populations of these birds were present on the main islands as well. Indeed, evidence from a number of archaeological sites (Kirch 1982) documents the heavy exploitation of seabird populations during early occupation phases. 65 Anahldu TABLE 4.4 NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED SPECIMENS OF MAJOR VERTEBRATE CLASSES FOR UPPER AND LOWER CULTURAL DEPOSITS OF SITE D6-58 SUS CANIS BIRD FISH TOTALS Upper Cultural Deposit 34 14 5 24 77 Lower Cultural Deposit 4 3 6 12 25 Volumes: Upper - 0.6 m3 Lower- 0.67 m3 Puffinus pac#ficus, the Wedge-Tailed Shearwater, is represented by a single distal right ulna from Site D6- 58. More frequendy represented in both Sites D6-58 and -60 is Puffinus auricularis, Newell's (Townsend's) Shearwater, a species thought to be formerly "a common nesting bird on Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Kauai" and probably other islands (Berger 1981:45). All three sites yielded representative specimens of Pterodroma phaeopygia, the Dark-rumped Petrel. Hawaiians considered the birds a delicacy, and obtained them by netting (Munro 1944:26 in Berger 1981). Of particular interest is the presence of substantial numbers of specimens of Pterodroma hypoleuca, the Bonin Petrel, from Sites D6-36 and -60. The Bonin Petrel's historically-documented range is limited to the Leeward Islands, as well as the Bonin and Volcano Islands (Berger 1981:48). Olson and James (1982:32) r a few specimens from archaeological sites on Kaua'i, O'ahu, and Moloka'i. The presence of substantial numbers of this species in the Anahulu rockshelters further confims the former extension of its breeding range to the main Hawaiian chain. A few specimens of Bulweria bulwerii, Bulwer's PetreL were recovered from Sites D6-36 and -60. This species is known to nest on offshore islands throughout the mainHawaiian group (Berger 1981:49). Sites D6-60 and -58 each yielded a single specimen of Nycticorax nycdicorax, the Black-crowned Night Heron. This species is found on all of the main Hawaiian Islands, where it "inhabits marshes, ponds, streams, and lagoons" (Berger 1981:67). The rockshelters also yielded small numbers of specimens of several endemic Hawaiian land birds. Sites D6-60 and -36 both produced specimens referrable to the family Muscicapidae (Old World Flycatchers). In Hawai'i, this family contains the single endemic species Chasiempis sandwichensis, or Elepaio, a common inhabitant of the native forests. Olson and James (1982:38) do not report any muscicapids from the archaeological deposits examined by them. Of substantial interest is a single anterior mandible of a Honeyeater (Meliphagidae), apparently from a species in the genus Chaetoptila. Historically, only a single species of Chaetoptila (C. angustipluma, the Kioea), is recorded from the archipelago, its range restricted to the island of Hawai'i. However, Olson and James discovered the bones of a "large meliphagid, presumably Chaetoptila," in limestone sinks at Barbers Point, O'ahu (1982:39). Thus, the genus was evidently formerly present on O'ahu, although whether the O'ahu bird was a distinct species has not been determined. No group of Hawiian birds has occasioned greater ornithological and evolutionary attention than the Honeycreepers (Subfamily Drepanidinae), which had radiated into more than 28 endemic species (Berger 1981:108-11). The Anahulu rockshelter deposits yielded three drepanid specimens. The two elements from Site D6-60 (a left and a right humerus, from different stratigraphic levels and units, and certainly representing two separate individuals) are both from species of the genus Loxops, within the tribe Hemignathini. Historically known members of the genus Loxops on O'ahu include the Akepa (L. cocineus) and the Amakihi (L. virens, now renamed Hemignathus virens). The Amakihi tends to inhabit ohia forests of elevations above 1,000 feet ASL, and especially prefers to feed on the nectar of the mamani (Berger 1981:129). The Akepa-now nearly extinct on O'ahu-prefers koa forests, also at higher elevations (Berger 1981:151). The Amakihi is now uncommon on O'ahu, but was formerly abundant within its preferred habitats (Pratt et al., 1987:300). Olson and James (1982:41) reported fossil specimens referred to Loxops spp. and Hemignathus spp. from Moloka'i, O'ahu, and Maui. The dtird drepanid specimen is a distal left tibiotarsus from the basal level of Unit 011 in Site D6-58, and 66 Rockshelter Faunal Assemblages may be referred to a species of Psittirostra (in the tribe Psittirostrini). The only species of this genus known historically from O'ahu is the O'u (P. psittacea), which was extinct by the end of the last century (Amadon 1950:170-72; Berger 1981:119). However, Olson and James (1982:40) report the fossil bones of at least one, and possibly more than one, undescribed extinct species of the genus Psittirostra from O'ahu localities. At this point, our Anahulu specimen cannot with confidence be referred to as a particular species of Psittirostra. Berger, quoting Wilson and Evans, notes that the feathers of the O'u were used by Hawaiians in their necklaces or lei (1981:119). Site D6-60 also yielded a single specimen of the Pomarine Jaeger, Stercorarius pomarinus, a migratory species "regularly seen over offshore waters near the main Hawaiian Islands" (Berger 1981:232). The Common Myna, Acridotheres tristis tristis, introduced to Hawai'i in 1865 (Berger 1981:2003), is represented by two bones from the upper levels of Site D6-60. Fish The majority of fish bones, consisting of vertebrae, spines, and small cranial bones, could not be identified to a more precise taxonomic level than class. However, the distinctive dentaries, premaxillaries, and pharyngeal grinders of some labrids, scarids, and sparids, as well as the caudal tangs and dorsal spines of acanthurids and monocanthids, could be identified at least to generic level using a skeletal reference collection developed by the Bishop Museum Archaeology Laboratory. NISP of fish from the Anahulu rockshelters are given in table 4.3. The assemblage consists almost wholly of inshore reef species which could have been taken by a variety of fishing techniques, including angling, netting, and spearing. Caranx tends to frequent slightly deeper waters, such as the bays at Waialua and Waimea, and can be taken by shore casting where there is no reef. Of particular note is the large number of Pervagor specimens. Gosline and Brock (1960:295-96) report that Pervagor spilosoma "appears at certain times in great numbers." Titcomb (1972:119) said that the Hawaiians also knew of the occasioned mass appearances of monocanthids, and considered the phenomenon as a prophecy of the death of a great person. The rockshelters also yielded a number of shark teeth, of indeterminate species. Tenmpral Trends The usual cautions conceming small sample sizes must apply when attempting to detennine any temporal trends in the Anahulu rockshelter faunal assemblages. However, certain major changes are evident in the deeper sequences from Sites D6-58 and -60. Table 4.4 summarizes the combined NISP values for major faunal categories from excavation units K10 and 011 in Site D6-58, segregated by upper and lower cultural deposits (see chapter 2). As the excavated volumes of the upper and lower deposits were nearly equal (0.6 and 0.67 m3 respectively), differences in NISP between these deposits must reflect changing activity patterns, or depositional factors. As seen in table 4.4, the most significant difference is the substantial increase in numbers of pig and dog bones in the upper cultural deposit. Fish bones also increase by a factor of two, but the numbers of bird bones are nearly constant. These figures would support the interpretation that the lower and upper cultural deposits represent quite different kinds of occupation and use of the D6-58 shelter. The greater TABLE 4.5 NUMBER OF IDENTIFIED SPECIMENS OF MAJOR VERTEBRATE CLASSES IN UNIT D20, SITE D6-60 DEPTH (cm) SUS CANIS GALLUS OTHER BID FISH 0-25 1 0 0 2 2 2540 5 2 0 5 8 40-60 4 1 1 2 7 60-80 0 0 0 5 7 67 Anahulu density of bone, in itself, supports the interpretation of the upper cultural deposit as resulting from a more intense, perhaps permanent, occupation of the site. Such permnument occupation may have been associated with husbandry of pigs and dogs in the vicinity of the site, as is documented for the upper Anahulu Valley during the later, historic period (see Sahlins and Kirch, in prep.) Notably, however, the exploitation of wild birds did not change appreciably over time. The situation in Site D6-60 is summarized in table 4.5, using only the NISP values from the deep, continuous sequence in Unit D20. This sequence also shows some increase in the deposition of domestic pig and dog bone (the absence of any dog or pig in the deepest 20 cm is notable), but the differences between higher and lower deposits do not contrast markedly as they do in Site D6-58. The faunal evidence from D6-60, as limited as it is, would tend to suggest that there was not any major change in the occupation or behavioral patterns at the site over time. Furthermore, the entire sequence in D6-60 (Unit D20) is more comparable to the lower cultural deposit at D6-58, than it is to the upper cultural deposit at the latter shelter. THE INVERTEBRATE ASSEMBLAGES The invertebrate faunal assemblages from all rockshelters were dominated by molluscs, with smaller quantities of sea urchins (Echinoidea) and of crustacea. The assemblages include at least 17 species of gastropods, 9 species of bivalves, and 7 species of sea urchin. The crustacean remains could not be identified more defmitively. All of these taxa are either marine or estuarine in origin, and were brought to the sites from the coast and lower valley region. Invertebrate remains were recovered from all excavated units, and were further sorted and weighed by taxonomic category in the laboratory. As the frequencies of particular categories are fairly consistent between units and sites, however, we have confined the presentation of data to those from three sample units, one from each rockshelter (table 4.6). (The volumes of the three units are as follows: K17, 0.6 m3; K10, 0.55 m3; D20, 0.8 m3.) The density of invertebrate faunal remains varied considerably between rockshelters, mirroring the situation with the vertebrate fauna. Sites D6-36 and -60 have very nearly identical densities per cubic meter of cultural deposit 177 gm/im3 for D6-36 and 166 gm/in3 for D6-60. The contrast with Site D6-58, which has 632 gm/m3, is notable. Most of the high density in D6- 58 derives from the upper cultural deposit. As noted above, the higher density of both vertebrate and invertebrate faunal remains in Site 58 is strong evidence of more intensive, and probably permanent, occupation, in contrast to less intensive and probably intermittent occupation at the other two shelters. The invertebrate asssemblages are dominated by a small number of taxa, with five species of molluscs accounting for 55% or more of each assemblage by weight. These are the smaUll cowrie Cypraea caputserpentis, and the bivalves Brachiodontes cerebristriatus, Pinctada spp., Isognomon spp., and Tellina palatam. All other molluscan species account for between 13 and 22% of assemblages by weight, while the crustacea account for only 1-2%. The relative composition of the three rockshelter invertebrate assemblages is diagranmmed in figure 4.2. Molluscs The molluscan taxa represented in the rockshelters occur in a variety of marine and estuarine environments. The limpet Cellana exarata, or opihi, a delicacy at Hawaiian feasts even today, inhabits exposed rocky shores. Many of the gastropods, such as Cypraea caputserpentis, Trochus intextus, and Turbo intercostalis, are found on reef platforms, or in somewhat protected areas with a rocky substrate. The bivalve Brachiodontes cerebristriawus, which is plentiful in the rockshelter deposits, frequents limestone shorelines, and can tolerate considerable freshwater outflow, as at the mouth of the Anahulu Stream (Kay 1979:51). Tellina palatam, also a dominant in the rockshelter assemblages, is "found in silty sand inshore on fringing reefs and at depths of from 2 to 3 m" (Kay 1979:563). A number of taxa derive from estuarine, brackish, or freshwater habitats. Among these is the gastropod Theodoxus vespertinus, which occurs "near the mouths of rivers and streams, in freshwater and in low salinity parts of estuaries" (Kay 1979:67)..Macoma dispar is abundant in the silty bottoms of bays where there is a high freshwater discharge (Kay 1979:559), as at Anahulu. The gastropodNeritina granosa, an endemic to Hawai'i, is diadromous, with "larvae developing in the ocean and the young migrating upsteam, where they setde on boulders" (Kay 1979:66). The species is no longer present in the Anahulu Stream, probably due to the heavy sediment load and irregularity of flow resulting from use of stream water for sugar cane plantation irrigation. However, at the time of prehistoric occupation of these sites, it is probable that N. granosa was present in the Anahulu Stream for a considerable distance inland. The molluscan taxa present in the Anahulu rockshelters were thus collected from a full range of subtidal and supratidal marine habitats, as well as from the estuarine environments at the mouth of the Anahulu 68 Rockshelter Faunal Assemblages TABLE 4.6 WEIGHTS OF INVERTEBRATE FAUNAL REMAINS (gm) TAXON Site D6-36 Site D6-58 Site D6-60 Unit K17 Unit K10 Unit D20 GASTROPODS Diodora spp. 0.0 0.6 0.0 Cellana exarata 0.4 0.8 Trochus intextus 0.0 1.7 1.2 Turbo intercostalis (shell) 0.5 3.8 0.3 Turbo intercostalis (operculae) 0.0 4.1 0.1 Neritapicea 1.6 7.3 1.6 Nerita granosa 0.1 2.7 0.5 Theodoxus vespertinus 2.8 0.0 0.2 Littorina pintado 0.0 0.4 0.0 Planaxis labiosa 0.0 0.2 0.0 Strombus spp. 0.0 5.0 3.0 Hipponix imbricatus 0.0 0.0 0.1 Cypraea caputserpentis 14.6 37.1 18.1 Cypraea maculifera 0.0 4.7 0.0 Drupa ricinus 0.7 3.8 1.2 Arachis miser 0.1 0.0 0.1 Mitra assimilis 0.1 0.8 0.3 Conus spp. 0.7 5.3 6.4 BIVALVES Brachiodontes cerebristriatus 15.7 68.4 24.9 Pinctada spp. 7.1 15.3 2.8 Isognomon spp. 6.4 22.9 7.3 Codakiapunctata 0.0 6.5 0.0 Ctena bella 0.0 0.3 0.0 Macoma dispar 0.0 0.5 0.0 Tellina elizabethae 0.0 1.5 0.0 Tellina palatam 27.8 101.3 20.8 Periglypta reticulata 0.0 2.8 0.0 POLYPLACOPHORA 0.0 0.0 0.1 UNIDENTEFIEDMOLLUSCA 6.4 13.6 12.7 TOTALMOLLUSCA 85.0 311.4 101.7 ECHINOIDEA Echinothrix diadema 0.0 0.7 0.0 Echinothrix calamaris 0.0 0.5 0.4 Echinometra mathaei 0.2 0.0 0.4 Echinometra oblonga 0.0 0.4 0.0 Pseudoboletia indiana 0.0 0.6 0.1 Heterocentrotus mammillatus 4.6 2.6 0.0 Colobocentrotus atratus 0.0 0.1 0.1 Echinoid test fragments 8.6 20.7 21.6 Echinoid mouth parts 6.2 7.4 6.1 TOTALECHNOIDEA 19.6 33.0 28.7 CRUSrACEA 1.5 3.4 2.8 TOTALINVERTEBRATE 106.1 347.8 133.2 69 Anahdu 30- D6-60 20- 10 30 D6-58 20- 10- 30- D6-36 20 10- n~~~~ 0 0 XP o X X - C0 sz 0 . 0 C QEc = U O ax ' E * - 2 . 0 -. I. 0w Figure 4.2. Relative frequencies of dominant invertebrate faunal categories in the rockshelter sites. 70 Rockshelter Faunal Assemblages Stream, and in the case of N. granosa, from the stream bed itself. Echinoidea Only the spines of sea urchins present in the rockshelter deposits could be identified with confidence to the specific level. Small test fragments, and the calcareous jaws (known as "Aristotle's lantern," Edmonson 1946:86), actually constitute the bulk of echinoid remains by weight. All of the species represented in the Anahulu sites are common on Hawaiian reefs, or on rocky shorelines. The large spines of Heterocentrotus mammillatus were used as abraders by the the Hawaiians, although no abraded spines were recovered during our excavations. The other species doubtless represent food remains, as the soft parts of all sea urchins were regularly consumed. Crusta The small and-fragmented remains of crustacea from the Anahulu sites could not be further identified, owing to a lack of adequate reference collections or specialists willing to undertake this difficult task. They likely include grapsid or xanthid crabs of the Brachyrhyncha, and possibly spiny lobsters (Panulirus spp.). Tenporal Trends Neither sites D6-36 or -60 display any significant temporal trends in the species distribution or quantity of invertebrate remains. In Site D6-60, the deep D20 unit shows a relatively uniform stratigraphic distribution of invertebrate remains. In Site D6-58, however, there is a significant difference in the density of invertebrate fauna between the upper and lower cultal deposits (table 4.7). This is especially so with the molluscs, which are about 2.5 times more densely concentrated in the upper cultural deposit than in the lower cultural deposit. This evidence reinforces our intepretation of a shift in the behavioral patterns at this shelter from earlier to later occupation phases. SUMMARY The rockshelter faunal assemblages provide significant information on the behavioral patterns of the Anahulu rockshelter occupants, and on the environment of the upper valley in prehistoric times: (1) The occupants of all three shelters brought a variety of items from the coast, presumably for TABLE 4.7 INVERTEBRATE FAUNA FROM UPPER AND LOWER CULTURAL DEPOSITS, SITE D6-58 Shell Echinodea Crustacea Upper 223.8 gm 16.0 gm 2.8 gm Lower 87.3 12.2 0.5 consumption in the shelters. These included fish, marine and estuarine molluscs, sea urchins, and crustacea. Clearly, the shelter occupants had regular access to th* coast and to marine resources, although whether by direct exploitation, or by exchange with lowland residents, cannot be determined from the archaeological data It is likely, however, that the shelter occupants were lowland residents, who utilized the interior rockshelters on a temporary basis, and thus carried marine foods with them when staying at the shelters for a period of time. The exception is the upper cultural deposit of D6-58, which appears to signal a permanent occupation. In this case too, continued access to coastal resources is also evident. (2) The presence of skeletal elements from a number of seabird species whose moden breeding ranges are limited to small offshore islands suggests that these species were formerly present in the Anahulu Valley and adjacent environments, very likely on the cliffs of the middle and upper valley. Similarly, the presence of endemic landbirds such as honeycreepers, indicates an environment with substantial native forest habitat. It is likely that the rockshelters themselves served as base camps for the exploitation of nesting seabirds and forest birds in the middle and upper valley. (3) Temporal trends witfin sites D6-36 and -60 do not show major differences in the faunal assemblages from lower and upper stratigraphic levels. However, a significant change has been documented between the lower and upper cultural deposits in D6-58. We believe that this supports the interpretation advanced elsewhere in this volume (chapter 2), that there was a shift from temporary use to permanent occupation of Site D6-58 in late prehistory. The quantitative differences between faunal assemblages in the three rockshelters also suggests that neither D6-36 nor -60 were at any period occupied as intensively as D6-58 in its later stages. 71 Anahidu REFERENCES CITED Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian Honeycreepers. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History 95:151-262. New York. Ball, S.C. 1933. Jungle Fowlsfrom Pacific Islands. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 108. Honolulu. Berger, A.J. 1981. Hawaiian Birdlife. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. (Reprint of 1972 edition.) Edmonson, C.H. 1946. Reef and Shore Fauna of Hawaii. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 22. Honolulu. Ellis, W. 1963. Journal of William Ellis. Advertiser Publishing Co. Honolulu. (Reprint of 1827 London edition.) Gosline, W.A., and V.E. Brock. 1960. Handbook of Hawaiian Fishes. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Kay, E.A. 1979. Hawaiian Marine Shells. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 64(4). Honolulu. Kirch, P.V. 1982. The impact of the prehistoric Polynesians on the Hawaiian ecosystem. Pacific Science 36(1):1-14. . 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu. Luomala, K. 1960. The native dog in the Polynesian system of values. In S. Diamond, ed., Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin, pp. 190- 240. Columbia University Press. New York. Olson, Sl., and H.F. James. 1982. Prodromus of the Fossil Avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 365. Washington D.C. Pratt, H.D., Pl. Bnr, D.G. Berrett. 1987. A Field Guide to the Birds of Hawaii and the Tropical Pacific. Princeton University Press. Princeton. Sahlins, M., and P.V. Kirch. in prep. Anahulu: The Archaeology of History in the Early Sandwich Islands Kingdom Tate, G.HMH. 1951. The Rodents of Australa and New Guinea. Bulletin American Museum of Natural History 97(4):187-430. Titcomb, M. 1952. Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. Memoir 29, Polynesian Society. Wellington. . 1969. Dog and Man in the Ancient Pacific. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 59. Honolulu. ____. 1972. Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. 2nd edition. University Press of Hawaii. Honolulu. Tomich, P.Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawai'i: A Synopsis and Notational Bibliography. 2nd edition. Bishop Museum Special Publication 76. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu. Valeri, V. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 72