| Abstract: |
Introduction: Archaeological research in Hawai'i stands at an important juncture. The rate at which prehistoric and historic properties are being discovered and investigated is rapidly increasing due to land development within the state. As a result, more archaeological work is being done in Hawai'i than ever before, and the number of individuals employed in archaeology is at an all-time high. The kinds of problem domains that Hawaii archaeologists now study are more plentiful, and these domains have considerably enlarged the array of potential archaeological topics. Thus both the role of archaeology in native Hawaiian history and its scholastic significance would seem to be the source of little debate. Unfortunately, this is not the case. As archaeological work has expanded in Hawai'i, so too has the rate and scale at which archaeological resources are being destroyed. Increasingly, the Hawaiian community finds itself at odds with archaeologists over issues pertaining to interpretation, historic preservation, and control of what were once viewed as exclusively "archaeological" resources. Today, the archaeological community varies widely in its training and interests and in its interpretation of the culture history of the Islands. The institutional setting in which archaeological research is pursued has shifted from the Bishop Museum and the University of Hawaii to private archaeological consulting firms. Funding for archaeological projects comes largely from private firms or public agencies whose impetus for archaeological research lies in the planning and management of historic resources. Archaeology has become a commodity. These developments suggest that archaeological praxis in Hawai'i cannot continue to be conducted or described as it has in the past. This juncture provides a useful opportunity to observe and comment on two related aspects of Hawaiian archaeology because they pertain to both the past andpresent of the discipline. They are the role of theory and method in archaeology, and prominent archaeological research themes in Hawai'i. The history of Hawaiian archaeology, as it is presented here, will illuminate some of the ways in which method, theory, and archaeological facts are or have been articulated. Their relatedness and their effects on our construction of Hawaiian prehistory have not always been recognized by archaeologists. Consequently, methods (and to some extent theory) have proliferated in Hawaiian archaeology in the absence of critical examination. We argue for a more self-conscious archaeology, one in which archaeologists acknowledge their responsibility and their position with respect to the archaeological record and various interested audiences.
|
