Cited by 43Pacific and Southeast Asian StudiesArchaeology and ancient environmental studiesHistorical Studies in Central America

The Age of the Bellows Dune Site O18, O'ahu, Hawai'i, and the Antiquity of Hawai'ian Colonization

Open access
Tuggle, H. David, Spriggs, Matthew·2000·Asian Perspectives

Abstract

The Bellows Dune site was excavated more than three decades ago (Pearson et al. 1971), and has been generally considered one of the earliest settlement sites in the Hawaiian cultural sequence. More than ten years later, in the now-classic summary of Hawaiian archaeology, Kirch (1985) considered it to be one of only two sites firmly identified as belonging to the Colonization phase in Hawai'i. This status has remained largely intact. Working independently, the authors of the present article found problems with the interpretations of the dating of this site. Combining our efforts and reviewing the general debate over the timing of human colonization of the Hawaiian archipelago, we suggest that the oft-quoted early dates for the Bellows site are in error, and that a site-based argument for pre-A.D. 800 settlement of Hawai'i is approaching a case list of zero. The most supportable conclusion is that of the two main layers at O18, the lower one (L. III) pre-dates A.D. 1000, and the upper one (L.II) post-dates A.D. 1000. The Bellows Dune site dating is deconstructed, dates from Bellows that have not been published are presented, the Bellows dates are placed in the context of new information from other sources on the date of Hawaiian colonization, and a new hypothesis for the age of the Bellows Dune site is proposed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/asi.2000.0015

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Hawaiian archipelago now indicates a much shorter chronology (EAEM-LAEM range A.D. ∼1219-1266), some 200-500 y later than widely accepted.

    “More striking are the results from the Marquesas and Hawaiian archipelagos which now indicate a much shorter chronology (EAEM–LAEM range: A.D. 1200–1277. and A.D. ∼1219–1266, respectively), some 200–500 y later than widely accepted (16, 17), placing them in close agreement with both New Zealand and Rapa Nui.”

    From High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia (2011) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Abstract and Conclusions and Implications support a shorter Hawaiian chronology than the previously accepted one: the paper questions an A.D. 300–600 colonization period and discusses a possible A.D. 800–900 date. They do not support the attributed A.D. ∼1219–1266 range; the conclusions instead describe the Bellows site as poorly dated. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Marquesas archipelago now indicates a much shorter chronology (EAEM-LAEM range A.D. 1200-1277), some 200-500 y later than widely accepted.

    “More striking are the results from the Marquesas and Hawaiian archipelagos which now indicate a much shorter chronology (EAEM–LAEM range: A.D. 1200–1277. and A.D. ∼1219–1266, respectively), some 200–500 y later than widely accepted (16, 17), placing them in close agreement with both New Zealand and Rapa Nui.”

    From High-precision radiocarbon dating shows recent and rapid initial human colonization of East Polynesia (2011) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Abstract and Conclusions and Implications discuss later settlement chronologies for Hawai‘i and eastern Polynesia generally, but give no Marquesas chronology. A search for “Marquesas” and the A.D. 1200–1277 range found no passage supporting the claimed date or 200–500-year shift. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 29 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 13

  1. In fact the association of this child (Burial 4) with L. II itself has always been in question, with a strong possibility that it is later than L. II. The excavators expressed a good deal of uncertainty about this, and in several places suggested that it is "intrusive into" L. II, that is, not originating in it, but above it (see, for example, Pearson et aI., 1971, table 1, 214, 232).
  2. T. Akazawa and E.J.E. Szathmary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  3. P. V. Kirch and T. L. Hunt. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  4. CACHOLA-ABAD, C. K. 1993 Evaluating the orthodox dual settlement model for the Hawaiian Islands: An analysis of artifact distribution and Hawaiian oral traditions, in The Evolution and Organization of Prehistoric Society in Polynesia: pp. 13-32, ed.
  5. CLEGHORN, P. C. 1992 A Hawaiian adz sequence or just different kinds of adzes? New Zealand Journal of Archae- ology 14: 129-149.
  6. M. Davidson, G. Irwin, B. F. Leach, A. Pawley, and D. Brown. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication.
  7. DYE, T., AND E. KOMORI 1992 A pre-censal population history of Hawai'i. New Zealand Journal ofArchaeology 14: 35-43.
  8. EMORY, K. P. 1959 Radiocarbon dates from Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian Society 68: 240-241.
  9. GUNNESS, J. 1. 1987 Archaeological investigations at Kualoa regional park, 1975-1985, an overview. M.A. thesis in Anthropology, University of Hawai'j, HALL, E. O. 1839 Notes of a tour around Oahu. Hawaiian Spectator 2: 94-112.
  10. MASSE, B., AND D. TUGGLE 1998 The date of Hawaiian colonization, in Easter Island in Pacific Context South Seas Sympo- sium: Proceedings ofthe Fourth International Conference on Easter Island and East Polynesia: 229- 235, ed.
  11. TOMONARI-TUGGLE, M.]., H. D. TUGGLE, AND J. S. ATHENS 1999 Archaeology on a south coast landscape: Hulopo 'e, Lana'i, Hawai'i, Vol. 1: Background and Synthesis. Prepared for Lanai Company, Inc. Honolulu: International Archaeological Re- search Institute, Inc.
  12. D.Jennings. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press. 1997 Archaeological Research of Areas Proposed for Development of Military Family Housing and Ex- pansion of Military Training at Bellows Air Force Station, 0 'ahu, Literature Review of the Cul- tural Resources of the Area. Final Report. Prepared for Belt Collins Hawai'i. Honolulu: International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc.
  13. TUGGLE, H. D., AND L. OLSON 1978 A Review of "Hydration Dating" of Hawaiian Volcanic Glass. Ms. on flie, Historic Pres- ervation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tuggle, H. D., & Spriggs, M.
Affiliations
  • International Archaeological Research Institute (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Venue
Asian Perspectives
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2000-03
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
165-188
ISSN
  • 0066-8435 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-8283
OpenAlex
W2088560501
Cited by
43
References
29
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
13.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Asian perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Hawai'i
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Historical Studies in Central America
Keywords
chronology, site dating, Oahu, Hawaiian archaeology

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review