Introduction to the Revised Edition by William H

Introduction to the Revised Edition by William H. Davenport

From its inception this book was intended to be a presentation of sculpture from the old cultural regime of the Hawaiian Islands and directed, especially, to those persons who have an interest in so-called primitive or tribal art. J. Halley Cox and I agreed that the publication would be primarily visual, because, from the standpoint of Euro-American aesthetics, Hawaiian sculpture makes such a strong visual impact that it needs little verbal explanation or amplification. We would have liked to present the Hawaiian sculptural tradition fully in the context of the culture and society that produced it, but the necessary ethnographic and historical data for such a study were, and still are, not available. Especially, we wished that we could have offered definitive explanations of the conspicuous iconic and symbolic features, but much of that symbolism is not well understood and still a matter of conjecture, guesswork, and debate among a few concerned persons. Cox, the artist, was adamant that we should rely on photographs to convey the unique formal properties of the sculpture, even though he was a gifted painter and an exceptional draftsman. I deeply regret that I was never able to persuade him otherwise, because I believe that the quality of the book would have been enhanced had some of the statements about form and style been illustrated by his drawings. Nevertheless, we initially settled on a plan to study and photograph only the pieces that were close at hand in the Hawaiian Islands, for we felt that they were sufficient in number and variety to represent the entire group of surviving specimens that are now widely scattered among many museum and private collections. So, in 1954, with an old view camera and working space provided by the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, we went to work. It should be mentioned, too, that we probably would never have embarked on the project were it not for the support and encouragement of Dr. Kenneth P. Emory of the Bishop Museum and a small grant from the University of Hawaii. As the photography progressed another decision was made, to limit the study to figurative sculpture in wood. This limitation has been questioned by some reviewers, because there are some Hawaiian sculptural depictions of animals, as well as some small pieces fashioned from stone, shell, and the spines of the pencil sea urchin. The most significant and spectacular class of images not included here were those constructed of fiber and feathers (figure 42), which the paramount chiefs substituted for a class of wooden images. Also not intended to be included were the marionettes, which are not unlike some of the sculpture in wood. However, by error, one did get into this study. Dr. Katharine Luomala's subsequent research on marionettes (hula ki'iP convincingly shows that figure 3 is a marionette, despite its similarity to some of the images with upright arms in the drawing by Choris reproduced as figure 4. Minor decorative carving that might be seen as an extension of the type we refer to as support and xii

supplementary figures (pp. 109-112, 169-191) was not included in this presentation either. The main reason for the decision to restrict the scope of the study was that such a limitation conferred a degree of unity and coherence on the presentation greater than would have been if everything that could be called "sculpture" were included. Granted, from the cultural perspective of old Hawaii, this was an arbitrary decision, for there are abundant data in the historical sources, limited as they are, to suggest that no justification for such a restric- tion existed in the culture of old Hawaii. Even in hindsight I am certain that were Cox alive to co-author this Introduction to the revised edition, he, like myself, would not regret that decision. As stated before, this book was not intended to be a reconstruction of the ethnography of Hawaiian sculpture. Rather, it was intended to be an essay about a group of objects that have survived the society that fabricated them and from which only a few shreds of culture still persist. The sculpture discussed in this book now exists in another society with a very different culture and definition of art. In this context they can be regarded as belonging to a general cultural category that is called "art," and in a subcate- gory called "primitive art" or "tribal art." We do not know if such a conceptual or cultural category as "art" was ever a part of old Hawaiian culture. This book, then, is mainly a testament to the cultural redefinition and recontextualization of a selected group of objects. The concept of "primitive art," as our culture defines it, refers to objects (or actions) that, first of all, possess some artistic merit, according to our canons of aesthetics. Such objects are "primitive" or "tribal" only because they possess histories that link them to alien societies and cultures that had no writing. Late 18th- and early 19th-century Hawaii was such a society with such a culture. Thus, in putting this book together, we perceived our task as a double one: pointing out the formal properties that, we thought, qualify this group of objects to be classed as art in our culture and to present those fragments of known history that explain how the objects came to be and how they were used. It is important to remember, however, that when Europe- ans first began removing these objects from the Hawaiian Islands, thus increas- ing the chances that some specimens would be preserved, aesthetic merit was certainly not in the minds of the collectors. The concept of "primitive art" had not yet evolved in European culture. Moreover, the word "art" juxtaposed to the word "primitive" at that time would, most likely, have been considered a contradiction of terms. After the photographs of the pieces located in the Hawaiian Islands had been finished and a rough draft of the essay completed, Cox and I realized that we had not restricted ourselves to thinking only about pieces located in Hawaii, because some specimens located elsewhere were already so well known and of such comparative salience that they could not be ignored. Also, at the Bishop Museum was a file compiled by the late Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa) of photographs of Hawaiian sculpture located in other collections. We also knew from our own limited knowledge of Hawaiian collections located elsewhere that Peter Buck's file was incomplete, and many of his photographs were of poor quality. So, we decided to compile a catalog of all the known major pieces that we could locate or find records of and assemble a set of better pictures. During this search, Cox and I were fortunate to experience the thrill that only art and artifact researchers know: discovering pieces that were either incorrectly identi- fied or had lost their identification, hence the owners did not know what they were. While this book started as a joint project, by the time it was published it had become, primarily, the work of J. Halley Cox. In the intervening years Cox had sought out, handled, and studied most of the pieces listed in the Catalog in the first edition. No other person at that time had such extensive, firsthand knowledge of the surviving specimens of Hawaiian sculpture. He was a true connois- seur of the sculpture, not just because he had seen more of it than anyone else and, as an accomplished artist, was especially sensitive to even the most subtle aesthetic nuances of every piece, but also because he had carefully studied the art traditions of all the other cultures of the Pacific region. Therefore, he was acutely aware of the features that made Hawaiian sculpture distinctive with respect to other sculptural traditions in Pacific island cultures. His analyses of Hawaiian sculptural style, both in the section entitled "Style" and in the sub- sections under the heading of "Specialized Sculptural Forms," reveal an ana- lytic sophistication and objectivity that is rarely encountered in descriptive statements about a tradition of so-called primitive art. It goes without saying that Cox also knew the culture of old Hawaii as few people did because he had studied it seriously, had been involved in all of the early archaeological excavations directed by Dr. Kenneth Emory, and had undertaken special research projects for the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Unfortunately, Cox died shortly after Hawai- ian Sculpture was published. One of Cox's insights into Hawaiian sculptural style is the similarity he saw of forms used in the lei niho palaoa and the chin-mouth-tongue complex, which is sometimes repeated in an overhanging brow, of the 'auma/ova-type images (pp. 41-44). This is a matter of visual form alone, and the illustrations clearly docu- ment the point. Ever the historian, Cox points out that while the distinctive Hawaiian shape of the lei niho palaoa evolved late in the Hawaiian Islands, the prototypic form had great antiquity in Polynesia. In point of fact, this protoform persisted into contemporary times in objects from the Fiji Islands, where archaeological research has located evidence of the culture that is ancestral to xiv

all Polynesian cultures. So, the archetype form of the lei niho palaoa appears to have been a trait of Polynesian culture ever since that culture first evolved some 3,000 years ago.2 Another of Cox's observations resulted in his designation of the "Kona style" (pp. 77-81), which he interprets as developing late on the Kona coast of the island of Hawaii. The eminent anthropologist Adrienne L. Kaeppler has questioned the localization of this distinctive style of sculpture in the Kona region, because few examples can be firmly traced to that district, and other images that can be traced to Kona are not in this style.3 Her argument is both logical and accurate. The hypothesis that Cox offers is, however, not that the Kona style was restricted to that area and was the only style to be found there, but rather that the style might have originated there, possibly in some way stimulat- ed by or associated with the rise of the Kamehameha regime. As he puts it, "The resulting stimulation toward one effort, the unity of purpose and concentration of power by a limited number of kahuna sculptors in a relatively small area, seems to have resulted in the dramatic Kona-style images." Kaeppler suggests, "The similarity in style of these images may be owing to the influence of a master carver—all could have, in fact, been carved by one sculptor." Related to this question, perhaps, is the fact that in the course of Kamehameha's conquest of the islands from Hawaii to Oahu from about 1782 to 1795, he did finally impose a characteristic architectural style on the state religious temples (heiau luakini), presumably, because he employed the same designer (kahuna kuhikuhi- pu'uone) or designers who adhered to the same "school" of design. This might also have occurred in sculpture, so it is quite possible that both Cox and Kaep- pler are correct. One of the conspicuous features of the sculpture is the stance of the figures, which, it is suggested, might be interpreted as the posture taken by wrestlers and boxers preliminary to a match (pp. 45-48). However, Kaeppler suggests that it is also similar to the stance adopted in a style of dance called 'ai ha'a (literally, "low style"), which was used by dancers and in the performance of rituals at a temple.4 Such a stance, back straight with knees thrust forward, suggests vitality and alertness, not strength. Furthermore, she argues, that stance depicted on an image might suggest, or connote, the ritual context, which is the same for live performers and the sculptured depictions of the deities: chanting and singing of prayers, and recitations of poetic texts of praise to the deities— both to the rhythmic accompaniment of percussive music. The faces of the images are dominated by mouth and eye forms. The open mouth, often ringed with teeth, suggests the readiness of the gods to devour the offerings placed before them, for such is the way Hawaiian deities are often XV

depicted in chant and myth. One of the famous temples dedicated to the god Ku at which human sacrifices were made was named Waha'ula ("red mouth"; figure 1, p. 18), signifying the devouring of meat offerings by that great deity. It was said, too, that the eyes of the gods became animated when offerings were presented. Moreover, temple images with inlayed mother of pearl for eyes are called makaiwa (literally, "mysterious eyes").5 Another conspicuous aspect of the images is the way in which the mouth, tongue, jaw, and chin are configured. One variant of these configurations has been briefly mentioned already, in purely formal terms, as the chin-mouth- tongue complex. However, all the configurations can be interpreted as signifying facial expressions. In the Hawaiian language, to stick out the tongue is ho'opake'o; to grimace is ho'ohaikaika; to thrust out the chin or to stick the tongue under the lower lip and form a lump is ho'auwaepu'u, (chin lump); to scowl is ho'oku'eku'emaka. All are gestures regarded by Hawaiians as insulting or signifying contempt, and all can be found on images. Kaeppler has aptly called this "the mouth of disrespect."6 Moreover, standing with hands on hips, termed kuaki'i, is a rude gesture that signifies one wishes to lord over another. It is also found on some images. But why would defiance and contemptuousness be so conspicuously portrayed on some of the figures? Political relationships among chieftainships were more often than not characterized by intense rivalry and warfare. The god Ku, often called a war god by early writers, stood for sovereignty. He was the source of a ruling chief's political power, at least during the period when Europeans first appeared. Assuming that from a political point of view there was some degree of identity between a ruling chief and the deity from which he received his power to rule, the intense sentiments depicted on these images can be interpreted as representing those that characterized the relationships between polities. The prominent sculptural form that surely carried deep meaning is the headdress, which occurs on many images in several shapes. Those that clearly resemble the wicker and feather helmets (mahiole) and those that depict wigs or hairpieces, both of which were worn by aristocratic men on special occasions, are explained in the text (pp. 36-41) along with some speculations about other forms. However, knowing these representations is not much help in under- standing the underlying religious meanings, because the symbolisms of neither the crested helmets nor the hairpieces are precisely understood today. Recently, however, further suggestions about the meanings of some of the headdress forms have been put forward. Kaeppler thinks that all the headdress forms represent the genealogical succession of a god, even of a highborn aristo- crat.7 Her reasoning is based upon the fact that in the Hawaiian language, a genealogy is often likened to the spine or backbone (iwikuamo'o). In old Hawaiian culture the head of a person was sacred, never to be violated. Hence, the symbolism of a backbone rising above or forming a crest over the head suggests the covering and protection of the sacred part of the body by one's pedi- gree. Taken as a sculptural statement, the top of the head dominated by a sym- bol of genealogy suggests the exalted and sacred status of the divine being depicted by the sculpture. Images with tall headdresses are known to have represented the god Lono (figure 31), and they also seem to be associated with the supreme god Ku. So, the elaborate headdress cannot be said to depict mani- festations of only one of the great gods.

Valerio Valeri suggests that the high, barbed type of headdress may also represent the offerings that were attached to small poles and placed at shrines and temples.8 Two of these offerings (of bananas) are shown in the etching of Cap- tain James Cook being honored at a temple dedicated to the god Lono (figure 31, right). The globular objects beneath the offerings of fruit are bottle gourds that function as rat guards. It is not difficult to see their formal similarity to the heads of carved images. The bottle gourd (ipu), which can symbolize both fruit and the womb, is closely associated with the deity Lono in his relationships to agriculture, fertility, and domestic life. The tall, notched or barbed headdress is also quite like the points of Hawai- ian fighting spears of the ¡he type.9 This might appear to be a farfetched association, but the art of using this kind of spear was called lonomakaihe, which is said to derive from Lono-maka-ihe, the name for a manifestation of the god Lono from whom warriors sought power and protection.10 On the subject of the god Lono and representations of him, we are fortunate to have the etchings by John Webber, the artist with Captain James Cook's expedition to the Hawaiian Islands in 1778-1779, in which representations of the god Lono are depicted. Presumably, the two images in "An Offering before Captain Cook . . ." (figure 31) represent the akua loa and the akua poko, the "long god" and the "short god" (cf. p. 91). Both represent Lono, the former symbolizing the god in reference to an entire district or polity and the latter symbolizing the god in reference to a subdivision of a political district. The image known as akua pa'an't ("god of sports") is yet another representation of Lono and is well documented in "Boxing Match before Capt. Cook at Owhy- hee . . ." (figure 45). It shows the complete image (cf. figure 44; cat. no. K1) adorned with dead birds and sheets of bark cloth. The birds are either ka'upu, perhaps an albatross, or kolea, the golden plover (Pluvialis dominica fulvus), a migratory bird whose arrival in the Hawaiian Islands signaled the beginning of the makahiki season and the elevation of Lono as principal deity. Marshall Sahlins thinks that the sheets of bark cloth were not part of the representation of Lono before the arrival of Cook's ships, but rather were imitations of European ship sails added as a tribute to Cook who was seen as an incarnation of Lono11 (cf. pp. 91-94). John Webber also recorded double canoes carrying large wrapped images out to Cook's ships, which were anchored in Kealakekua Bay, and a sailing canoe crewed by masked men, two of whom are carrying portable images. There also appears to be a large pig aboard, probably an offering. It is not unwarranted to assume that the images and the offering, as well as the helmet masks, are all associated with Lono. But, nowhere in the literature is there an explanation of the helmet masks, which, because some survive, we know to have been made of bottle gourd. Webber also did a portrait of a man wearing a helmet mask that clearly reveals the crest, analogous to the crests of wicker and feather helmets as well as those on some images, to be made of foliage. The foliage could be pa/a fern (Marattia douglasii), a plant known for its use in representations of Lono. The front opening in the helmet masks has the shape of the figure 8 on its side, the same shape that occurs as the mouth on many images. The facial features of some images appear to have been reduced to only a gap- ing mouth (figure 43), which gives good reason to suggest that the helmet mask with large mouth and crest represents a deity. Thus, if this reasoning has valid- ity, the helmet masks were another way of depicting a deity—in this case Lono —and the wearing of one signified that the wearer was imitating the god. If this is so, then John Webber's etching of the masked men in a canoe, with two portable images and an offering, captured a ritual in which human beings were substituted for sculptured figures as representations of a deity. Valerio Valeri presents an imaginative interpretation of the meaning of sculpture, one that is both more abstract and more comprehensive than any other.12 All crescentic forms, he assumes, signify rainbows, which stand for high chiefs and the connection between the heavens and earth. In one sense, all images with crests or headdresses refer to the human male as warrior dressed in his feathered helmet and other regalia of rank.13 Even the spiked crests of some images, although representing cockscombs and fighting birds, are but allusions to the more standard arching crest of the fighting helmet, which is the simplest form of a crescent. Rainbows are the means by which gods descented from the heavens, and the many tiers of crescent forms evoke the Hawaiian concept of a multileveled firmament. At the luakini temple, the several layers of the heavens are also represented by the oracle tower (figure 1). The face of the image, dominated by eyes and mouth that indicate consciousness and the consumption of offerings, is a transitional zone that suggests transformation from the deity as an undifferentiated, invisible personality or force in the heavens to a differentiated, tangible anthropomorphic form that can serve as the focus of ritual. According

to Valeri, the sacrificial rituals at the temples are enactments that bring about the transformation of a deity from transcendence to imminence. Thus, the image is an equivalent of and a memorial to the ritual process of sacrifice that merge gods, sculptured forms, and the persons who offer sacrifices into a single mystical entity. The classification of images in the Catalog into four types—temple images (T series), akua ka'ai (K series), 'aumakua images (A series), and support figues (S series)—has provoked uneasiness among some experts.14 Nevertheless, the cultural justification for this division is quite clear, and I review it now. There are good data, some of which are summarized in the text, consisting of both historical accounts and lithographs, for establishing a temple type of sculpture. All such images would have been utilized in the worship of the great deities Ku, Kane, Kanaloa, and Lono at the temples dedicated to them. There is also ample justification for separating out those images that were carved atop a pointed support or prop and called akua ka'ai, because some of the rituals in which they were used are well described. It is true, however, that the akua ka'ai were also representations of the great gods Ku, Kane, Kanaloa, and Lono, so the distinction between them and the temple images is based upon ritual use and loca- tion, not representation or theology. In contrast to both the temple and the akua ka'ai types are those images used in rituals involving the 'aumakua, and all research on Hawaiian religion is in agreement that worship of the 'aumakua and the great gods amounted to two separate cults.15 Thus, the distinction between 'aumakua images, on the one hand, and temple images and the akua ka'ai together, on the other hand, has sound theological and ritual justification. Unfortunately, there is less information on 'aumakua ritual and the objects used in them than there is on the worship of the great gods. This causes a serious problem for assigning specific objects to the 'aumakua type. On the other hand, the type called "support figures" needs very little justification, because either they are attached to recognizable objects, such as drums, bowls, and carrying poles, or they have a feature that indicates they were not primarily depictions of deities nor were they foci for propitiatory rites. Within the temple type of image, there were figures that clearly functioned in several different ways other than representing deities in the proximity of the altars on which offerings were placed. For example, some were placed near or as part of fences and walls, some marked entrances to the temple, and some appear to have marked important places, or perhaps boundaries of the ritual spaces, in the temple. Very little is known about such things, and it is quite possible that both formal and iconic features are related to these matters of place- ment within the sacred precincts of the temple. It is also quite possible that there are no iconographic, or stylistic, features that were used to depict specific deities. Hawaiian sculptors might never have intended their works to be repre- sentational in such a way. The fact that an image was located in a temple dedicated to a particular god might have been sufficient indication of what deity was indicated. We know that the temples dedicated to Ku, Lono, and Kane, together with Kanaloa, were different structures and that the priests (kahuna) who presided at them belonged to separate orders. Moreover, there is historical evidence revealing that separate resources were allocated to the different priestly orders, so there is good reason to assume that the orders and their temples were sociologically separate, even though the gods they venerated were related by a common theology.16 So, the iconography may have referred to either generalized concepts about divine personages, rather than to particular- ized aspects of a single deity, orto segments of the ritual within which an image was utilized. In the text of this book the akua ka'ai are assumed to be personal and portable images that are roughly analogous to the temple images that are associated with a collectivity and fixed in place as markers of the ritual space. We know, too, that personal images (the ruling chiefs' feather-covered images were a type of these) were used both away from and within the precincts of the temple. It is amply documented in many prayers used in temple rituals that several or all of the great gods were invoked at once, even though the ritual in which the prayer was recited was directed to but one of the gods. Thus, the portable images, or some of them at least, may never have been intended to represent one god to the exclusion of the others. The term ka'ai is explained (p. 81) as referring to a sash, and it is suggested that, perhaps, this alludes to the way in which some images on staffs were carried into battle. However, Valeri points out that the lexeme ka'ai is used not only to designate a sash and images with props (akua ka'ai) but also in reference to the wrapping of images, and perhaps the clothing of them as well, which is part of a sacralizing ritual.17 He would translate akua ka'ai not literally as "sash image" but more metaphorically as "sacralized image." He further suggests that divinity can be expressed as something obscured or removed, and that "wrapping" a representation of a deity achieves just this. So, it is not surprising that akua ka'ai and temple images cannot be clearly dis- tinguished from each other on the basis of formal sculptural features alone. When an image is relatively small, hence portable, and is carved atop a pointed prop, then there is some assurance that it belongs to this type, as designated by Hawaiian commentators. Moreover, the props often, but not always, have jointlike forms carved along them. However, some akua ka'ai are as large as some images known to have been installed in temples, and many temple images have post bases for mounting into the ground. However, the mounting posts do not have carved joints. Thus, if an image of a size that could be either a small temple figure or an akua ka'ai has a damaged base (such as T29), there is no certain way to assign it to one or the other of the two classes. It is indeed unfortunate that there are no firm historical data making a definite visual association between a specific image and the worship of an 'aumakua. Many of the forms that 'aumakua took are known, and most of them are animal, not anthropomorphic, but the nature of the sculpture that represented these personal and family deities is not known. However, there are several images that are attributed to use in "sorcery," which in Hawaiian ritual usually refers to practices termed 'ana'ana,18 and especially to the deity Kalaipahoa. 'Ana'ana, which includes both sorcery and antisorcery magic, is associated with the veneration of 'aumakua deities, of which there are many kinds. The deity Kalaipa- hoa was the focus of a separate cult that appears to have come into prominence in the generations just before the arrival of Europeans and the rise of Kameha- meha. The best documented figure of Kalaipahoa (A4) is free-standing, has human hair attached to the head instead of a carved headdress, and has facial features that are represented by different sculptural forms than those that appear on the temple and akua ka'ai types (pp. 94-95). Since there are other figures that share some of these formal features, but for which there is no documentation as to function or kind of deity represented, it has been assumed that all belonged to the 'aumakua type. Obviously this was, in effect, the assignment of a residual group of sculpture to a single type on the basis of probability rather than firm documentation. Perhaps it would have been better had all the free- standing images that could not be associated with sorcery been assigned to a special type or several types of unknown use. It is possible that all of the images classified as belonging to the 'aumakua type might be so-called sorcery-antisorcery images and not representations of other kinds of 'aumakua deities. Contrary to the statement (p. 29) that no examples of complete hafted stone adzes survive, there are a few in museum collections.19 However, at the time of Captain James Cook's arrival in the Hawaiian Islands, Hawaiians knew about iron, apparently from bits of it that had come to them imbedded in driftwood, possibly from Asia, but there had not been enough of this metal to be used gen- erally in tools. From the moment of first European contact that situation changed, and the basic stone tool technology (pp. 24-35) underwent a rapid transformation to metal. Since the religion continued more or less unaltered for another three decades, it is quite certain that many images that were carved with iron tools were used in traditional rituals. It is quite possible, too, that this change from stone to iron cutting tools influenced sculptural style. The so- called Kona style may be one manifestation of such a change resulting from the use of iron. Unfortunately, there is no sure way of determining whether a specific image was carved by stone or iron tools, except by assuming that the fine surface features of some sculpture could only have been cut by metal blades. It is certain, however, that many of the most distinctive characteristics of Hawaiian sculpture persisted through the change in technology, because the pictorial records and objects dating from Cook's voyage (figures 26, 31) show features that are present on objects collected later. But, as Kaeppler has suggested, it is quite possible that some of the images that came back with the early European voyages may have been made expressly for trade to Europeans rather than for religious or other traditional uses.20 Thus, most of the surviving specimens present problems in determining whether they were carved with stone tools and whether they were used in traditional ways. In the text (pp. 25-26) the two traditional woods mentioned as having been used are the 'ohi'a lehua (Metrosideros macropus; M. collina) and kauila (Colu- brina oppositifolia and Alphitonia ponderosa). It is now clear that other woods were used as well. Adrienne Kaeppler, Dorota Starzecka, and Paula Rudall are currently cooperating on the identification of the species used for different kinds of sculpture and sculptured objects. The cultural upheaval of 1819 (p. 21) most certainly put an end to those parts of Hawaiian religion that pertained to the large temples and the priesthoods of Ku, Kane, and Lono, which were closely aligned with governance.21 By 1819 the several polities of the islands had been consolidated by Kamehameha, who transformed the government into a centralized monarchy. However, the down- fall of the state religion did not necessarily bring an end to the religion as far as families and individuals were concerned. In particular, the veneration of 'aumakua was slow to succumb to Christian teaching, which commenced in 1820; some of these beliefs survive even today. Thus, the so-called cultural revolution of 1819 did not necessarily bring an end to all Hawaiian religious practices and the making of religious sculpture. This is probably the reason why so many personal images of both the akua ka'ai and 'aumakua survived. It is likely that some of the specimens presented here were made and used after 1820. There were some attempts to revive or perpetuate some aspects of the old religion and carvings used in them. One group of these carvings survives, but none was included in this book because we did not wish to address the complex matters of Hawai- ian cultural survival after the official acceptance of Christianity by the Hawaiian government and the majority of the aristocratic social class.22 In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in awareness of Hawai- ian sculpture among connoisseurs and scholars as well as heightened interest among collectors of tribal art. Since most of the known pieces have been in museums or established private collections for some time, the competition among collectors for the few pieces that turn up on the art market for sale is xxiv

intense. Also, several hitherto unknown pieces have come to light as a conse- quence of the greater awareness and rising market value of Hawaiian sculpture, and some of these pieces are without documented histories of either the cir- cumstances of their collection or their previous ownership. Naturally, this raises questions about their genuineness. Determining whether a piece of sculpture is "genuine" is not simple. As Kaeppler has pointed out, there are specimens representing the "traditional art" that were produced at the time of first European contact.23 After contact and the introduction of metal tools and perhaps foreign materials, there is an "evolved traditional art" that shows some changes while still retaining traditional style, structure, and significations. With further foreign influences and adaptation to changed social and cultural conditions a "folk art," combining traditional and nontraditional ideas, values, and techniques, was produced. It is not difficult to distinguish the traditional and the evolved traditional from folk art; it is, however, difficult to distinguish between traditional and evolved traditional. Futhermore, a gifted copier, with modern tools and contemporary materials, can master evolved Hawaiian sculptural techniques, or some aspects of it, well enough to make a piece appear as if it were carved two centuries ago. There are many recent copies, made openly as reproductions or contemporary copies, that attest to the fact that criteria of style are not always sufficient to identify deceptions. Positive identifications of the wood can be made, but only a few laboratories have the necessary facilities. Even so, some of the native woods used by old Hawaiian sculptors can still be obtained, if only with great difficulty. Nevertheless, exotic woods reached the Hawaiian Islands as driftwood even before European contact, and after foreign vessels commenced call- ing frequently at Hawaiian ports all kinds of woods from ships, cargoes, and containers came ashore. Even Captain Cook's expedition left pieces of exotic wood behind. It is quite possible, even, that a sculptor-kahuna might have used a piece of European wood for an image that was used in ritual. There is some evidence, too, that Hawaiians carved curios, among which were "idols," for sale to the crews of European ships as early as 1825. Finally, the technique for determining the age of wood is not precise enough to constitute a definitive test when dealing with specimens that are only two centuries old at most. More- over, such a test requires the removal of a relatively large sample from the specimen, and in the case of the smaller images this is very destructive. So, in the final analysis, the best evidence for the authenticity of a specimen is to be found in the documented history of that specimen. The immediate corollary to this is that authenticity, however defined, of pieces without well-documented histories that go back to a time before private collectors and public institutions began placing such high value on Hawaiian sculpture must be regarded with suspi- cion. Since the initial publication of this book in 1974 several important pieces of sculpture have come to light, and additional information on other images has been uncovered. It is gratifying to be able to include these additions in the Revi- sions to the Catalog in this revised edition. I wish to thank all those persons- private collectors, curators, and art dealers—too many to mention here, who have provided information about specific objects that I have enquired about. My special thanks go to Mrs. Adria Katz, Dr. Adrienne L. Kaeppler, Mr. Douglas Newton, Dr. Edmond Carpenter, and Charles W. Mack for their generous assis- tance, and especially, I wish to thank Dr. Roger C. Rose for his help in tracking down some illusive pieces.

WILLIAM H. DAVENPORT 1988

NOTES

1. Luomala, Katharine. 1984. Hula Ki'i: Hawaiian Puppetry. Honolulu: Institute for Polynesian Studies. 2. Edge-Partington, James. 1890. An Album of the Weapons, Tools, Ornaments, Arti- cles of Dress of the Natives of the Pacific Islands, Part One. Manchester: J. C. Norburg, p. 116, no. 7; Oldman, W. O. 1953. Polynesian Artifacts: The Oldman Collection. Mem- oirs, Polynesian Society, vol. 15, 2d éd., PI. 63. 3. Kaeppler, Adrienne L. 1979. Eleven Cods Assembled: An Exhibition of Hawaiian Wooden Images. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, p. 6. 4. Kaeppler, Adrienne L. 1982. "Genealogy and Disrespect: A Study of Symbolism in Hawaiian Images." Res 3 (Spring): 94-95. 5. Valeri, Valerio. 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. Translated by Paula Wissing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 252. 6. Kaeppler, "Genealogy and Disrespect," 97. The interpretation of the "mouth of disrespect" that I offer relies heavily upon Kaeppler's but is slightly different from hers. 7. Ibid., 96-97. 8. Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice, 1. 9. Kaeppler, Adrienne L. 1978a. "Artificial Curiosities:" Being an Exposition of Native Manufacture Collected on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain Cook, R.N., Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication, no. 65. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, fig. 183, 185, pp. 111-112; Oldman, Polynesian Artifacts, PI. 129, nos. 305a, b; Peter H. Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa). 1957. Arts and Crafts of Hawaii, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publi- cation, no. 45. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, pp. 421 -422. 10. Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H. Elbert. 1971. Hawaiian Dictionary. Hono- lulu: University Press of Hawaii, pp. 195, 393. 11. Sahlins, Marshall. 1979. "L'apothéose du Capitaine Cook." In La fonction symbo- lique: Essais d'anthropologie. Edited by Michel Izard and Pierre Smith. Paris: Gallimard, pp. 319-320. 12. Valeri, Kingship ànd Sacrifice, 250-253, 345. 13. The crescentic designs of feather cloaks have also been interpreted as representations of rainbows. Cummins, Tom. 1984. "Kinshape: The Design of the Hawaiian Feather Cloak." Art History 7 (1): 1-20. 14. Rose, Roger C. 1978. "Reconstructing the Art and Religion of Hawaii." journal of the Polynesian Society 87 (3): 267-268. 15. Valeri, Kingship and Sacrifice, 20. 16. Ibid., 3-36. 17. Ibid., 301-302. 18. Kamakau, Samuel Manaiakalani. 1964. Ka Po'e Kahiko: The People of Old. Translated by Mary Kawena Pukui, edited by Dorothy B. Barrere. Bishop Museum Spe- cial Publication, no. 51. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, pp. 117-141. 19. Kaeppler, "Artificial Curiosities," Fig. 187, pp. 112-113. 20. Kaeppler, Eleven Cods, 5. 21. This event has been presented in detail by the following authors: Davenport, Wil- liam H. 1969. "The Hawaiian 'Cultural Revolution': Some Political and Economic Con- siderations." American Anthropologist 71 (91): 1-20; Fischer, J. L. 1970. "Political Fac- tors in the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Taboo System." Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum, 19:161-167; Handy, W. S. C. n.d. Cultural Revolution in Hawaii. Hono- lulu: Institute of Pacific Relations; Levin, Stephanie Seto. 1968. "The Overthrow of the Kapu System in Hawaii." journal of the Polynesian Society 77 (4): 402-430; Webb, M. C. 1965. "The Abolition of the Taboo System in Hawaii." journal of the Polynesian Society 74(1): 21-39. 22. This point is summarized in Rose, Art and Religion, 268-269. 23. Kaeppler, Adrienne L. 1978b. "L'Aigle and HMS Blonde: The Use of History in the Study of Ethnography." The Hawaiian journal of History 12 (1978): 28-44.