Perhaps as a result of its prominence, isolation, and extreme environmental conditions, Mauna Kea’s place in the culture and history of the Hawaiian people is significant. This "cultural significance" extends beyond a physical setting, sites or particular features which have been previously identified in archaeological site studies. Mauna Kea is a prominent feature on the cultural landscape of Hawai‘i which has been and continues to be, viewed from afar, and to which spiritual and cultural significance is attributed.

Archaeological surveys (see DLNR-SHPD and PHRI documentation cited in the Master Plan) have recorded a number of significant cultural sites in the summit region of Mauna Kea. Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) archaeologists note that nearly all of the identified sites are shrines, burials, or are associated with adze manufacture practices. This "cultural landscape" has been determined to be eligible for the National and State Register of Historic Places, under multiple criteria, including cultural significance to the native Hawaiian people (cf. letter of D. Hibbard to R. Evans, September 12, 1991). As a result, archaeologists with DLNR-SHPD have referred the summit region of Mauna Kea as a "ritual landscape," with all of the individual parts contributing to the integrity of the whole summit region (pers comm. P. McCoy and H. McEldowney; Group 70 meeting of September 10, 1998).

The present study area contains approximately 11,000 acres. It includes a portion of the southern flank (Hale Pôhaku vicinity) of the mountain and the entire summit region-the zone at approximately the 11,500 foot elevation and higher-of Mauna Kea. Documentation found in native traditions, historic accounts, and oral history interviews (cited in this study), and the presence of cultural features on the ground all speak to the uniqueness of, and significance of Mauna Kea. Yet, while there is much that has been recorded, there is more that remains unanswered. Thus, it is in this light, that wise use of, and care for Mauna Kea takes on a greater urgency in these times of change. A number of participants in the oral history and consultation phases of this study, recommend that the DLNR and University form a partnership with knowledgeable individuals descended from families with generations of experience on Mauna Kea and others, who can help protect and interpret the landscape that is Mauna Kea.

Overview: Study Guidelines and Presentation

The oral historical and archival research conducted for this study was performed in a manner consistent with Federal and State laws and guidelines for such studies. Among the referenced laws and guidelines were the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended in 1992; the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s "Guidelines for Consideration of Traditional Cultural Values in Historic Preservation Review" (ACHP 1985); National Register Bulletin 38, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties" (Parker and King 1990); the Hawai‘i State Historic Preservation Statute (Chapter 6E), which affords protection to historic sites, including traditional cultural properties of ongoing cultural significance; the criteria, standards, and guidelines currently utilized by the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) for the evaluation and documentation of cultural sites (cf. Title 13, Sub-Title 13:274-4,5,6; 275:6 - Dec. 12, 1996); and guidelines for cultural impact assessment studies, adopted by the Office of Environmental Quality Control (November 1997).

While the scope of work for this study did not include conducting a detailed review of, and writing a summary of previous archaeological work performed on Mauna Kea, the author met with state and project archaeologists on several occasions. The author also reviewed several primary archaeological studies as a part of the research. Archaeologists with the Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division, who have been working on Mauna Kea for more than 15 years, and the consulting firm of Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) present detailed documentation on past and present archaeological studies on Mauna Kea. It is further noted that information collected as a part of this study will be taken into consideration by the archaeologists in determining recommendations for site protection, interpretation, and treatment (see reports prepared by DLNR-SHPD and PHRI as a part of the present Master Plan project).

In summary, this study presents readers with information collected from two primary resources - oral historical and consultation narratives, and archival literature. Cited documentation has been recorded over and period of more than 170 years, and covers many centuries of traditions. It will be seen that there is continuity and a number of similarities shared between both forms of documentation. The continuity in the written and oral historical accounts, suggests that there is time-depth in many aspects of the cultural knowledge expressed and practiced by members of the present generation.

^{Oral History Interviews and}

^{Consultation Records of the Mauna Kea Study}

Oral history interviews for the Mauna Kea study were conducted between September 25th- December 21st, 1998. Maly (the author) conducted a total of fifteen tape recorded and supplemental oral history interviews with twenty-two participants. The interviews were transcribed and returned to each of the interviewees and follow up discussions were conducted in review each of the typed draft-transcripts. The latter process resulted in the recording of additional narratives with several interviewees. Following completion of the interview process, all of the participants in the tape recorded oral history interviews gave their written permission for inclusion of portions of their transcripts in this study (Appendix A). Additionally three historic interviews (recorded between 1956 to 1967) were translated from Hawaiian to English by the author and transcribed. Those interviews were located in the collection of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and personal collection of Larry Kauanoe Lindsey Kimura, Chairman of the Hawaiian Studies Department, University of Hawai‘i-Hilo. With those interviews, representing three primary interviewees, the total number of interviewees represented in this study is twenty-five.

Also, as a part of the present study, more than 100 individuals and representatives of native Hawaiian organizations were contacted, told about the present study, and invited to provide input into development of the study and its report of findings. Narratives recorded as a part of the interview program and references from the consultation process are presented in the following section of the study. The detailed communications of the consultation program are cited in Appendices B & C. During the interviews and other communications, several historic maps were referenced, and when appropriate, the general locations of sites referenced weremarked on the maps. That information was in turn compiled on one map, which is cited as Figure 2, an annotated interview map at the end of this study.

Archival Research

The primary sources of archival literature were five previously published studies, which in-turn cited primary sources of historical documentation. One of the most recent studies that included detailed historical documentation recorded by native Hawaiian authors and historic documentation compiled in the late 1800s and early 1900s, was researched and written by the author of the present study (Maly, published May 1998). Titled "Mauna Kea - Kuahiwi Ku Ha‘o i ka Mâlie: A Report on Archival and Historical Documentary Research; Ahupua‘a of Humu‘ula and Ka‘ohe, Districts of Hilo and Hâmâkua, Island of Hawai‘i," the study was conducted at the request of Lehua Lopez, President of the Native Lands Institute. That work was conducted primarily in the period from August 1996 to March 1997, with supplemental information added through final publication in May 1998. As a result of having undertaken that study, the author has compiled and referenced a significant collection of archival literature on Mauna Kea.

An overview of the archival and historical documentary research is reported in Appendix D. In preparing Appendix D, I have not attempted to rewrite all that has been previously reported in literature on Mauna Kea. Instead, I have cited verbatim and annotated excerpts of the original documentation. The original studies (McEldowney and McCoy 1982; Cordy 1994; Kanahele and Kanahele 1997; Langlas {draft-February 1997}; and Maly 1998) provide readers with a foundational understanding of various facets of the history and cultural significance of Mauna Kea. The full reports should be referenced for a complete record of their archival resources.

Finally, as a part of this work, I have conducted further limited archival research, in follow up to leads revealed during the oral history interview phase of the study. That research was conducted between October 5th and November 24th, 1998, in the collections of the Hawai‘i State Archives, Bishop Museum, Bureau of Conveyances, and Land Management Division.

To Study Background