UNIVERSITY OF HAWAii LiBRARY IN TIIE WAKE OF RULING ClllEFS: FOREST USE ON TIIE ISLAND OF HAWAI'I DURING TIIE TIME OF KAMEHAMEHA I

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO TIIE GRADUATE DIVISION OF TIIE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF TIIE REQUIREMENTS FOR TIIE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PIllLOSOPHY

IN

BOTANICAL SCIENCES (BOTANY)

December 2003

By

Benton K. Pang

Dissertation Committee:

Isabella A. Abbott, Chairperson Kim Bridges Lloyd L Loope Clifford W. Smith Sheila Conant TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 1 Community Ecology : 1 Threats to the Dry Forests of North Kona 8 Ethnohotany 9 LITERATURE CITED 16

CHAPTER 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO HAWAIIAN ETHNOBOTANY AND ETHNOGRAPHY IN THE DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, AND ADJACENT SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI'I 22 INTRODUCTION- Ahupua'a 22 The Hawaiian Diet 24 LITERATURE CITED 37

CHAPTER 3: LIVING OFF THE LAND: THE KONA FIELD SySTEM 40 LITERATURE CITED 46

CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES 49 Discussion ofLowland Lama Dry Forest 49 Geology 50 Climate 52 LITERATURE CITED 62

CHAPTER 5: NA MO'OLELO 'AINA: TRADITIONS OF THE LAND 65 INTRODUCTION 65 METHODS 65 RESULTS 66 Place Names in Ka'upulehu 66 An Overview of Hawaiian Settlement and Land Management Practices. 71 Kekaha-wai-'ole-o-na-Kona in Historic Narratives 73 Traditional and Early Historic Accounts (ca. 1860-1885) 75 Kekaha in the Time of 'Umi-a-Liloa (ca. 16th century) 76 Kekaha: ca. 1740 to 1801: the rise to political power ofKamehameha I. 77 Kekaha: 1812 to 1841 80 Population Records 82 Dry Forests 83 The Mahele of 1848 85 Hoa'aina (Native Tenants) in the Mahele 86 Residency and Land Use (ca. 1850 to 1903) 89 DISCUSSION 93 LITERATURE CITED 96

CHAPTER 6: FOREST STRUCTURE WITHIN A DRYLAND FOREST MOSAIC OF NORTH KONA, HAWAI'I... 99 v INTRODUCTION 99 STUDY SITE 101 METHODS 101 RESULTS 103 DISCUSSION 103 LITERATURE CITED 106

CHAPTER 7: FOREST RESOURCES AND POLITICAL POWER DURING THE TIME OF KAMEHAMEHA I (1775-1796): THE KAUHALE (HOUSING COMPOUND) 115 The Kauhale 115 RESULTS 119 DISCUSSION 121 LITERATURE CITED 125

CHAPTER 8: FOREST RESOURCES AND POLITICAL POWER DURING THE TIME OF KAMEHAMEHA I (1775-1796): THE WA'AKAULUA (WAR CANOE) 127 INTRODUCTION 127 The Hawaiian double hull canoe-Wa'a Kaulua 128 The Peleleu fleet 129 Kamehameha's naval fleet. 132 Parts of the Hawaiian war canoe 135 Platform 136 Mat Cover 137 Paddles 137 Mast and Sail... 137 DISCUSSION 140

CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY OF HyPOTHESES 151 INTRODUCTION 151

APPENDIX A: SPECIES LIST 154 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA TABLES 160

vi LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Ahupua'a of North Kona District, Island ofHawai'i 26 Figure 2: Geology of Ka'iipiilehu Ahupua'a .53 Figure 3: Geology of Ka'iipiilehu Exclosure 58 Figure 4: Relative Density of Trees at Ka'iipiilehu (per hectare) .108 Figure 5: Relative Cover ofTrees at Ka'ilpiilehu (per hectare) 108 Figure 6: Abundance Histogcam for the Most Abundant Species in the Understory .109 Figure 7: Mean Diameter at Breast Height (cm) per hectare for the most common canopy trees 109 Figure 8: Density of Diospyros sandwicensis .110 Figure 9: Density of Santalum paniculatum 110 Figure 10: Density of Nototrichium sandwicense lll Figure 11: Density ofPsydrax odorata 111 Figure 12: Density of Sophora chrysophylla 112 Figure 13: Density of Colubrina oppositifolia l13 Figure 14: Density ofNothocestrum breviflorum .113 Figure 15: Density of Osteomeles anthyllidifolia 114 Figure 16: Density ofPleomele hawaiiensis 114 Figure 17: Kamehameha's kauhale at Kawaihae, Hawai'i in 1819, drawn by by Louis Duperrey (Freycinet 1824-1844) 118 Figure 18: Diagram ofWa'a Kalua (Double Hull Canoe) 138

va LIST OF TABLES

Table I: Place Names of Ka'upUiehu (from Soehren 1963) 67 Table 2: Place names within the boundaries of Ka'upUiehu (Soehren 1963) 67 Table 3: Tools from the Kekaha region, North Kona 84 Table 4: Land Commission Awards 87 Table 5: Land Index Records 88 Table 6: Woods used in a Hawaiian house 123 Table 7: Numbers of trees, branches, and other plants needed for building a chief's house (15 m X 7 m) 124 Table 8: Native trees of Ka'upUiehu available for construction of chiefly kauhale 124 Table 9: Historical Double-Hull Canoe Observations 145 Table 10: Native Hardwoods ofthe Hawaiian Double Hull Canoe 146 Table 11: Number ofdry forest trees necessary to manufacture a Double-Hull Canoe .146 Table 12: Dimensions of a Hawaiian canoe paddle (from Buck 1961) 146 Table 13: Trees at Ka'upUiehu preserve available for canoe making 147 Table 14: Species List ofplants of the Ka'upUiehu Preserve 155

viii Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge Hannah Kihalani Springer and her husband Michael Tomich who first gave me the inspiration for this study at Ka'iipiHehu. I am grateful to Peter Simmons and Kamehameha Schools who provided me access to the Ka'iipiHehu exclosure and to

Dr. Clifford Smith and the Cooperative Parks Studies Unit who provided logistical support. I could not have accomplished my field work without the assistance from: Ane

Bakutis, James Kwon, Kuhilani LeGrande, Steve Montgomery, Ph.D., and Kaleleonalani

Napoleon. Dr. Isabella A. Abbott provided me all the confidence and guidance in the

Botany Department that would make any graduate student feel greatly appreciated. I also wish to acknowledge the exceptional support from my dissertation committee whose patience and support were truly remarkable.

IX CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION

The dry forest community at Ka'upfilehu, North Kona was once composed of a forested community of several endemic tree and shrub species. These trees and shrubs became naturally fragmented due to catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions and lightning strikes. In time, Polynesians inhabited the coastal regions and Hawaiian communities eventually developed within North Kona with experts in fishing, planting, bird hunting and traditional medicine and healing. Wood for houses, herbs for medicine, hardwood trees shaped into weapons and fishing implements were all made from plant resources gathered in the upland dry forests. However, since the late 1800's introduced grasses used for fodder for cattle, and cattle ranching have overwhelmed and degraded a once vigorous Hawaiian plant community with a landscape of alien grasses and forbs.

A literature review about dry forest ecology and ethnobotany in Hawai'i is given. The following sections discuss the major tenets derived from this review on plant rarity, community ecology, ethnobotany, and Hawaiian ethnography.

Community Ecology

Community ecology is a science with a legacy of empirical and theoretical aspects. It is a broad science encompassing a diversity of organisms in a multitude of habitats. It is also a dynamic science always formulating new hypotheses, collecting more data and re­ examining previous paradigms. 1 Theophrastus of ancient Greece may have been the first to systematically note the presence of associated plant species (Kendeigh 1954), but Humboldt in his works from

1805 to 1807 is recognized as the first to introduce the idea of communities characterized by their dominant plant species (Whittaker 1965, Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg 1974).

However, Gleason (1939) attributes "the first definite, scientific discussion of the subject" to Grisebach in 1838. Whether in 4th century B.C., the 1800's, or the present botanists do agree that "plant associations exist; we can walk over them, we can measure their extent, we can describe their structure in terms of their component species, we can correlate them with their environment, we can frequently discover their past history and make inferences about their future" (Gleason 1926). The history of plant ecology is replete with controversy about "what is a plant community." Cain (1939), Conard

(1939), Egler (1951), Whittaker (1965), and Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) have reviewed the various approaches to plant community theory. The great diversity in community interpretation may be explained as a result of different levels of discerning within-community variation, different emphases given to variation between communities, different values placed on structure and processes in vegetation, and even different studies of homeland habitats and vegetation types advanced by the various plant ecologists. Thus, various orientations or systems of community identification were developed, such as floristic-systematic, physiognomic, edaphic-environment, successional-dynamic, and mathematical-statistical which mayor may not always correspond to so-called schools or traditions of plant ecology, such as the Zurich­

Montpellier Schools, the Northern or Scandinavian School, the Russian Tradition, the

Chicago or American School, and the British Tradition.

2 The significant ideas or concepts of what is a community persist longer than any label.

Several perspectives dominate the literature: 1) the community as an organism, 2) the community as a quasi-organism, 3) the community as an individual, 4) the community as a working mechanism, 5) the community as a combination of ecological species groups, and 7) the community as a system of interactions.

The community "as an organism...arises, grows, matures, and dies. [It] is able to reproduce itself, repeating with essential fidelity the stages of its development. The life­ history of a [community] is a complex but definite process, comparable in its chief features with the life-history of an individual plant" (Clements 1916). According to

Clements, this community reproduction or succession process is the key to community structure, and the developmental or seral nature of communities is paramount. The climax community, determined by climate and habitat, is the endpoint of succession, the mature organism. Many embraced this theory, some (Phillips 1935) with almost religious fervor, "I have definitely gone further: I have accepted the biotic community as a complex organism (p. 497)....the concept of the individual organism... 'It has not been tried and found wanting: it has been found difficult and not tried'" (p. 504). Others called the organismal concept "a flight of imagination" (Braun-Blanquet 1932), and a "hard­ and-fast crystallization of ecological phenomena into fixed and inviolable laws" (Gleason

1929).

Tansley (1920, 1935) believed that "It is clear that the aggregates of plant individuals which we call units of vegetation or plant communities have some of the characters

3 which we associate with organisms (p. 123)...[and] though less like true organisms than human communities plant communities may still be regarded as quasi-organisms, or organic entities" (p. 125). Nichols (1929) and Conard (1939) supported this idea of a community with organized composition whose members were separate individuals, but part of an inter-related, repeatable whole, a biological entity.

Braun-Blanquet (1932) related the community to a species, both being the basic units of classification schemes. "A community of plants requires for its normal development a minimum area and also upon this area a minimum number of plant species" (Braun-

Blanquet 1932). Of those species, those with high constancy (consistent presence) and fidelity (restricted occurrence) help to distinguish the community.

Gleason (1926, 1929, 1939) did not consider plant communities to be organisms, quasi- organisms nor species, instead he stressed the individuality of each plant community and its development. He presented his facts stepwise, logically:

"Areas of the same association do not always have precisely the same environment" (1926, p. 11).

''Two environments which are identical...may be occupied by entirely different associations" (1926, p. 11).

Spatial boundaries between communities are vague, i.e. transition zones exist.

Plant species identified with one community can be found elsewhere also.

Within a community there is temporal variation in species composition and abundance.

Temporal boundaries of a community can be vague. 4 "The plant individual shows no physiological response to geographical location or to surrounding vegetation per se, but is limited to a particular complex of environmental conditions, which may be correlated with location, or controlled, modified, or supplied by vegetation" (1926, p. 17).

"Every species of plant has reproductive powers in excess of its need" (1939), p.94).

"Every species of plant has some method of migration" (1939, p. 94).

"The environment in a particular station is variable [within a day, seasonally, yearly, and throughout centuries]" (1939, p. 94).

Gleason's conclusion was that a community "is merely the resultant of two factors, the fluctuating and fortuitous immigration of plants and an equally fluctuating and variable environment" (1926), and environment that "selects from all available immigrants those species which constitute the present vegetation" (1939). Heterogeneity within a community may be correlated with "accidents of seed dispersal and...lack of time for complete establishment" (1926). Similarities or differences between communities are related to their patterns of immigration and environmental conditions. Gleason's use of terms such as, "coincidence," "chance," "juxtaposition of individuals," and "continuous variation in space and time" confused and alienated many people of his time. Not until the 1950's did his alternative concept gain acceptance (Egler 1951). Aspects of

Gleason's ideas are incorporated in the continuum concept that views vegetation as a complex continuum of species populations (Whittaker 1967). Now many mainstream ecologists are echoing Gleason's words on the importance of variability in recruitment and the environment. From Gleason, modern ecologists (Connor and Simberloff 1979,

Strong, et al. 1979, Simberloff 1984) have borrowed the idea that communities are

5 assemblages of independently distributed species, and used this idea as the uull hypothesis for testing commuuity organization and species coexistence patterns.

Several ecologists (Gleason 1929, Braun-Blanquet 1932) have recognized that the members of a plant community can cause changes in their immediate environment.

PaviIIard (1935) stressed the importance of the relation of species on their environment and on the rest of their plant society. He defined a community as based on

"dynamogenetics" and behavior, as well as migration and environmental selection. The coexistence of species in a community depends on specific requirements met by the environment or the influence of other plants (PaviIIard 1935). Watt (1947) refined this perspective into the concept of a plant community as a working organism. The community is a mosaic of patches of individuals of a species. These "patches are dynamically related to each other. .. Out of this arises that orderly change which accounts for persistence or the pattern in the plant community" (Watt 1947). Patch size, age, composition, and arrangement influence further establishment and growth, detennine relative proportions of species, their spatial and temporal relations, and "constitute a primary bond in the maintenance of the integrity of the plant community" (Watt 1947).

Harper (1982) extolled Watt's careful work on patch dynamics, and argued for greater concentration on the "lives and deaths of individual plants...to reveal those forces at present operating to determine distribution and abundance ofplants" (Watt 1947).

Mueller-Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) established the concept of the community as a combination of "ecological species groups." Species with similar distribution, with

6 similar ecological behavior or response to environmental conditions, and with similar life-form can be called ecological species groups.

Despite diverse aud sometimes opposmg backgrouuds, many ecologists emphasize interaction as a force that defines a community. Clements (1928) excluded open aggregations from "true" communities because he believed that without interaction, and without competition there is no community. Relationships of dependency, commensalisms and competition were considered intrinsic to communities by Braun­

Blanquet (1932). Tansley (1920, 1935) also described plant communities as "well­ integrated." Gleason (1936) thought the essence of a community to be plant interactions or "physiological interference." In their defmition of a plant community, Mueller­

Dombois and Ellenberg (1974) include the stipulation that a community is composed of a group of plants that interact. Connell and Slayter (1977) have also stated that a community is a "set of organisms that occur together and significantly affect each other's distribution and abundance. It is the interactions that make a community a unit worthy of study" (p. 1120). The concept of a community is sometimes expanded (perhaps too much, see Tansley 1935) as Menges (1979) has done to include all coexisting trophic levels that interact.

Plant community ecology has been enriched by these diverse philosophies on "what is a plant community?" Probably a plant community is a combination of parts of all of these concepts. Mueller-Dombois and Elleuberg (1974) may have best summarized the definition by deriving a formula which concisely expresses the determining factors of any

7 plant community, defined as the sum of its flora, colonizing abilities, ecological plant properties, habitat type, and time.

Using techniques in community ecology, this research will further document the forest structure at Ka'iipillehu in an effort to add to our understanding of lowland dry forest ecology in the tropics.

Threats to the Dry Forests of North Kona

Threats to dry forest are numerous, and have a tremendous cumulative effect on the native plants within the forest. While some of the threats have a much greater effect than the native plants, it is unclear if controlling the major threats alone will result in a regenerating, functioning dry forest. The major threats to dry forest in the North Kona area are fountain grass and the resulting increase in fire, and ungulates, which suppress native plants and increase the disturbed habitat available for fountain grass to invade.

Additional threats include insect and rat predation and other alien plant species (USFWS

1996).

Fountain grass is a fire-adapted bunch grass that has spread rapidly over bare lava flows and open areas on the island of Hawai'i since its introduction as an ornamental in the early 1900's (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). Fountain grass is particularly detrimental to

Hawai'i's dry forests because it is able to invade areas once dominated by native plants, where it carries fires into areas not usually prone to fires, increases the likelihood of fire, and interferes with native plant regeneration (Hughes, Vitousek and Tunison 1991).

While native plants were exposed to volcanic lava flows, fires were rare in the Hawaiian 8 landscape, and most native plants have not evolved the capability to survive fire (Hughes et al. 1991). Many of the introduced plants, especially grasses, are not only adapted to survive fire, but also seem to thrive under regimes where fires are frequent. The elimination of these grasses, including fountain grass is vital to the restoration of the dry forest (Hughes et al 1991). The ranchers are also concerned about the fountain grass, since fires are frequent in the area and cause an economic hardship to the industry.

Ungulates are also a serious threat to the dry forest ecosystem (Cuddihy and Stone 1990).

Ungulates in the North Kona district include, cattle, feral goats, and feral sheep. The ungulates are a threat in several ways: 1) browsing of native plants, especially seedlings,

2) trampling of plants, and 3) aiding in the spread of alien plants by creating disturbed openings for seeds to become established and by transporting seeds to the site on the animals' fur, or in feces (Cuddihy and Stone 1990).

Ethnobotany

In comparison to community ecology, research in ethnobotany is more recent. As early as the 1970's the term ethnobotany was first defined as "the study of the direct interrelations between humans and plants" (Ford 1978a). Because most ethnobotanical studies have emphasized the uses of plants by hunter-gatherer and agricultural societies, it is often assumed that ethnobotany is restricted to those human communities. Actually, ethnobotany encompasses the study of all human societies, past and present, as well as all types of interrelations: ecological, evolutionary, and symbolic. Thus, etimobotany recognizes the reciprocal and dynamic nature of the relationship between humans and

9 plants (Ford 1978a). The term "economic botany" is sometimes used as a synonym for etlmobotany, though generally the former is used to encompass indirect as well as direct use of plants by humans (Wickens 1990). Thus, ethnobotany is often considered a subfield of economic botany, though several authors have underscored the epistemological and philosophical differences between these two fields of study (see

Alexiades 1996).

As Ford indicated, "Ethnobotany lacks a unifying theory, but it does have a common discourse" (1978b). Because plants play an important role in almost every realm of human activity, ethnobotany encompasses many fields, including botany, biochemistry, pharmacognosy, toxicology, medicine, nutrition, agriculture, ecology, evolution, comparative religion, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, cognitive studies, history, and archaeology. The multidisciplinary nature of ethnobotany allows for a wide array of approaches and applications, and it presents a challenge to researchers approaching the field from anyone discipline. For example, botanists recording plant uses have often failed to document cultural data in a meaningful or consistent way, whereas "people­ based" studies related to plant use have often neglected important biological aspects, such as the collection of plant specimens for positive taxonomic identification or the description of important ecological variables (Prance 1991).

Within ethnobotany, Berlin (1992) recognizes two distinct approaches. The first,

"cognitive ethnobotany", deals with how humans view and classify plants; the second,

"economic ethnobotany" focuses on how humans utilize plants (Berlin 1992). Although

10 the two approaches are clearly related, the former has been pursued primarily by linguists and anthropologists, whereas economic ethnobotany has been the focus of a much broader range of specialists, archaeologists, anthropologists, geographers, pharmacologists and biochemists, physicians, foresters, and ecologists. Unlike cognitive studies, which often have employed a theoretical framework and involved the application of rigorous data collection and analytic techniques (see Atran 1985, Berlin, Breedlove, and Raven 1974, Ellen and Reason 1979, Hunn 1982), economic studies have often remained purely descriptive and limited to the compilation of lists of plants. Although notable exceptions exist (see Alcorn 1984, Balee 1994, Bodley and Benson 1979,

Browner 1985, Cunningham and Mbnekum 1993, Denevan and Padoch 1987, Etkin

1992, Harris and Hillman 1989, Johns 1990, Lewis and Elvin-Lewis 1977, Matossian

1989, Moerman 1979, Padoch 1990, Posey and Balee 1989, Schultes, Swain and

Plowman 1977, Turner 1988), all too often, studies in economic ethnobotany have failed to present the data within a broader framework that incorporates the evolutionary, pharmacological, ecological, cultural, historical, or social context of human-plant interactions (Prance 1991). Additionally, there has been a lack of methodological rigor in many studies in economic ethnobotany. These factors, along with the intrinsic resistance within "orthodox" sciences to accept disciplines that challenge traditional boundaries between academic disciplines, may have contributed to the perception among some skeptics of economic ethnobotany as a "pseudoscience" (Phillips and Gentry 1993).

As part of the scientific inquiry, and in order to develop a sound methodology, its was suggested that ethnobotanists need to define the research problem, select a conceptual

11 model, operationalize the chosen variables, and choose adequate field techniques (Pelto and Pelto 1978). Because these decisions determine how and what data will be collected, they need to be made at the outset of the research (Alexiades 1996). The publication,

Selected Guidelines for Ethnobotanical Research: A Field Manual edited by Miguel

Alexiades (1996), attempts to assist ethnobotanists in identifying and implementing field techniques suitable to a research question and field site.

Martin (1995) presented a concise and useful overview of techniques related to cognitive ethnobotany. Also, an extensive body of literature exists pertaining to cognitive anthropology and ethnoscience and the structure of local plant taxonomies are discussed

(e.g., Tyler 1969, Weller and Romney 1988, Werner and Schoepfle 1987).

Ethnobotanical fieldwork presents not only theoretical and methodological challenges but ethical challenges as well (Boom 1990, Brush and Stabinsky 1996, Elisabtsky 1991,

Posey 1990, Thrupp 1989). Ethnobotanists collect both cultural and biological resources between cultures, societies, or nations, and seek to interpret the collected data (Abbott

1992). The very nature of ethnobotanists often intentionally or unintentionally serves as

"brokers of cultural and genetic resources" (Alexiades 1996) and therefore can perform functions in support of political and cultural colonization (Cox and Tavana 2001). As

Brush explains, "this role becomes problematic when knowledge is freely shared in one culture and then commoditized for private profit in another" (Brush 1993).

12 Quantitative ethnobotany or the direct application of quantitative techniques to the analysis of contemporary plant use data has gained wide acceptance among ethnobotanists since the mid-1980's. The techniques mostly take a "plant-centric" approach and are most appropriate for ethnobotanical research primarily oriented toward botanical, conservation, or pharmaceutical, rather than anthropological goals.

Quantitative ethnobotanical techniques are complementary to the more traditional forms of ethnobotanical inventory; they are not alternatives to them. Although quantitative techniques allow an analysis of patterns of plant use knowledge, in a full ethnological study they cannot replace the need for careful qualitative description of indigenous knowledge. Moreover, quantitative analysis cannot eliminate any inherent biases in the data collection process, although statistical analyses can help in assessing the potential influence of such biases.

Quantitative approaches can be grouped into three categories (Phillips and Gentry 1993): informant consensus, subjective allocation, and uses totaled. In the informant consensus method, the relative importance of each use is calculated directly from the degree of consensus in informants' responses. The importance of different plants or uses is assessed by the proportion of informants who independently report knowledge of a given use or who claim to have used a plant in a specific way. In the subjective allocation method, the researcher subjectively assigns the relative importance of each use. The importance of different plants or uses is estimated by the researcher on the basis of his or her assessment of the cultural significance of each plant or use. In the uses totaled method, no attempt is

13 made to quantify the relative importance ofeach use. The number of uses (or "activities")

is simply totaled, by category or plant use, plant taxon, or vegetation type. Though this

has been the most popular approach it has two principal disadvantages. First, minor uses

are treated as equivalent to the most important uses. Second, the total numbers of uses

recorded may be more a function of research effort than of the relative significance of

each use, plant, or vegetation type. Like those for subjective allocation, data for this kind

of analysis are often collected with one or more interview techniques, and sometimes by

direct observation.

Ethnobotanical research in tropical dry forests is in its initial stages. Recent

investigations of Mexican dry forest ethnobotany have indicated that local inhabitants not

only derive a living from commercial resources but also depend upon them as part of

their lifestyle (Bye 1995). It also appears that people with a long cultural tradition in the dry forest (i.e., indigenous) have a closer tie to the forest, especially in terms of the

greater number of species used and a greater contribution of edible plants to their diet

(Bye 1995). When attempting to compare the ethnobotanical flora of wet tropical forests

with dry tropical forests, the analysis is not possible due to drastically different taxa.

Only when comparing similar taxa of both forest types can a pattern emerge.

Research in dry forest ecology and ethnobotany is lacking within the Hawaiians Islands.

With declining forests, the spread of alien grasses, and the risk from fire, it is only a

matter of time when the forest disappears, and ethnobotanical knowledge is lost.

Ethnobotanical research in the past 10 years has developed quantitative methods that may

14 now be applied to Hawai'i for the first time. And restoration studies in dry forest have shown promising results. For the first time, ecology, conservation, and ethnobotany are interwoven into a research study that may help keep some dry forest areas from disappearing and validate the importance of these habitats to the cultural traditions of the

Hawaiian people. The research may also provide important insight to the type of impacts

Hawaiians had on the dry forests which have never been discussed before.

15 LITERATlJRE CITED

Abbott, LA. 1992. La'au Hawai'i-Traditional Uses of Hawaiian Plants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Alexiades, M. N. (ed.). 1996. Selected Guidelines for ethnobotanical research: A field manua!. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.

Atran, S. 1985. The nature of folk-botanical life forms. American Anthropologist 87: 298-315.

Alcorn, J.B. 1984. Huastec Mayan ethnobotany. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Balee, W. 1994. Footprints in the forest: Ka'apor ethnobotany-The historical ecology of plant utilization by an Amazonian people. Columbia University Press, New York. Baskin, J.M., and c.c. Baskin. 1986. Some considerations in evaluation and monitoring populations or rare plants in successional environments. Natural Areas Journal 6: 26-30. Baskin, J.M., K.M. Snyder, J.L. Walck, and c.c. Baskin. 1997. The comparative autecology of endemic, globally-rare, and geographically-widespread, common plant species: three case studies. The Southwestern Naturalist 42: 384-399.

Berlin, B. 1992. Ethnobiological classification: Principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.

Berlin, B., D.E. Breedlove and P.H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal plant classification: An introduction to the botanical ethnography of a Mayan speaking people of highland Chiapas. Academic Press, New York.

Bevill, R.L., and S.M. Louda. 1999. Comparisons ofrelated rare and common species in the study of plant rarity. Conservation Biology 13: 493-498.

Bodley, 1.H. and F.C. Benson. 1979. Cultural ecology ofAmazonian palms. Reports of Investigations No. 56. Laboratory of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman.

Boom, B. 1990. Ethics in Ethnopharmacology: Implications and applications. Proceedings of the First International Congress of Ethnobiology, Belem, Para, July 1988. Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Belem.

Braun-Blanquet,1. 1932. Plant sociology: the study of plant communities. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 439 pp. (trans!. By G.D. Fuller and H.S. Conard).

Browner, C.H. 1985. Criteria for selecting herbal remedies. Ethnology 24: 13-32.

Brush, S.B. 1993. Indigenous knowledge of biological resources and intellectual property rights: The role of anthropology. American Anthropologist 95: 653-686.

16 Brush, S.B. and D. Stabinsky (eds.). 1996. Valuing local knowledge. Indigenous people and intellectual property rights. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Bye, R. 1995. Ethnobotany of Mexincan tropical dry forests. In Seasonallyh dry tropical forests, S.H. Bullock, H.A. Mooney, and E. Medina (eds). Cambridge University Press, New York.

Cabin, R.I., S.G. Weller, D.H. Lorence, T.W. Flynn, A.K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, and 1.1. Hadway. 2000. Effects oflong-tenn ungulate exclusion and recent alien species control on the preservation and restoration of a Hawaiian tropical Dry Forest. Conservation Biology 14: 439-453.

Cabin, R.I., W.G. Weller, D.H. Lorence, S. Cordell, and L.I. Hadway. 2002. Effects of microsite, water, weeding, and direct seeding on the regeneration of native and alien species within a Hawaiian dry forest preserve. Biological Conservation 102: 181-190.

Cain, S.A. 1939. The climax and its complexities. American Midland Naturalist. 21: 146­ 181. Clements, F.E. 1916. Plant succession: an analysis of the development of vegetation. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publications 242: 1-512.

Clements, F.E. 1928. Plant succession and indicators. H.W. Wilson, New York, 453 pp.

Conard, H.S. 1939. Plant association on land. American Midland Naturalist 21:1-27.

Connell, I.H. and R.O. Slayter. 1977. Mechanisms of succession in natural communities and their role in community stability and organization. American Naturalist 111: 1119-1147.

Connor, E.F. and D. Simberloff. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Ecology 60: 1132-1140.

Cox, P. and G. Tavana. Ethnotaxonomy as a key to indigenous conservation strategies. Building Bridges with Traditional Knowledge, May 28-June 2, 2001, Honolulu, Hawaii.

Cunningham, A.B. and F.T. Mbenkum. 1993. Sustainability ofharvesting Prunus africanus bark in Cameroon: A medicinal plant in international trade. People and Plants Working Paper 2. UNESCO, Paris.

Denevan, W.M., and C. Padoch (eds.) 1987. Swidden-fallow agroforestry in the Peruvian Amazon. Advances in Economic Botany 5. The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.

Egler, F.E. 1951. A commentary on American Plant ecology, based on the textbooks of 1947-1949. Ecology 32:673-695.

17 Elisabetsky, E. 1991. Sociopolitical, economical and ethical issues in mediciual plant research. Journal of Ethnophannacology 32: 235-239.

Ellen, RF. and D. Reason. 1979. Classifications in their social context. Academic Press, New York.

Etkin, N.L. (ed.) 1992. Plants in indigenous medicine and diet: Biobehavioral approaches. Redgrave, Bedford Hills, N.Y.

Falk, D.A., and K.E. Holsinger. 1991. Genetics and conservation of rare plants. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Fielder, P.I. 1987. Life history and population dynamics of rare and common mariposa lilies (Calochortus Pursh: Liliaceae). Taxon 35: 502-518.

Ford, R.L 1978a. Ethnobotany: Historical diversity and synthesis. In, R.I. Ford, ed., The nature and status of ethnobotany. Pages 33-49. Anthropological Papers No. 67. Museum of Anthropology, University ofMichigan, Ann Arbor.

Ford, R.L 1978b. Introductions. In, RL Ford, ed., The nature and status of ethnobotany. Pages 29-32. Anthropological Papers No. 67. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Gaston, K.G. 1994. Rarity. Chapman and Hall, London.

Gleason, H.A. 1926. The individualistic concept of the plant association. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 53: 7-26.

Gleason, H.A. 1929. Plant associations and their classification: a reply to Dr. Nichols. Proceedings ofthe International Congress of Botany 1: 643-646.

Gleason, H.A. 1936. Is the synusia an association? Ecology 17: 444-451.

Gleason, H.A. 1939. The individualistic concept of the plant association. American Midland Naturalist 21: 92-110.

Harper, J.L. 1982. After description. In, E.I. Newman, editor. The plant community as a working mechanism. British Ecological Society, London, pp. 11-25. Harris, D.R and G.c. Hillman (eds.) 1989. Foraging and fanning: The evolution ofplant exploitation. Unwin Hyman, London.

Hunn, E. 1982. The utilitarian factor in folk biological classification. American Anthropologist 84: 830-847.

Johns, T. 1990. With bitter herbs they shall eat it: Chemical ecology and the origin of human diet and medicine. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Kendeigh, S.c. 1954. History and evaluation of various concepts of plant and animal communities in North America. Ecology 35:152-171.

18 Kunin, W.E., and K.J. Gaston. 1993. The biology ofrarity: patterns, causes and consequences. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8: 298-301. Lande, R. 1988. Genetics and demography in biological conservation. Science (Washington) 241: 1455-1460.

Lewis, W.H. and M.P.F. Elvin-Lewis. 1977. Medical botany: plants affecting man's health. Wiley, New York.

Louda, S.M. 1994. Experimental evidence for insect impact on populations of short-lived, perennial plants, and its application in restoration ecology. Pages 118-138 in M.L. Bowles and CJ. Whelan, editors. Restoration of endangered species. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. United Kingdom.

Loveless, M.D., and J.L. Hamrick. 1984. Ecological detenninants of genetic structure in plant populations. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 15: 65-95. Martin, G.J. 1995. Etbnobotany: A methods manual. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Matossian, M.A.K. 1989. Poisons of the past: Molds epidemics and history. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn.

Menges, B.A. 1979. Coexistence between the sea stars Asterias vulgaris and A. forbesi in a heterogeneous environment: a non-equilibrium explanation. Oecologia 41: 245-272.

Menges, B.S. 1990. Population viability analysis for an endangered plant. Conservation Biology 4: 52-62.

Moennan, D.E. 1979. Symbols of selectivity: A statistical analysis of Native American medical ethnobotany. Journal ofEthnopharmacology 1: 111-119.

Mueller-Dombois, D. and H. Ellenberg. 1974. Aims and methods of vegetation ecology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, 547 pp.

Nichols, G.E. 1929. Plant associations and their classification. Proceedings ofthe International Congress of Botany 1:629-641.

Padoch, C. 1990. Santa Rosa: The impact of the forest products trade on an Amazonian place and population. Advances in Economic Botany 8: 151-158.

Pavillard, J. 1935. The present status of the plant association. Botanical Review 1: 210­ 232.

Pelto, PJ. and G.H. Pelto. 1978. Anthropological research. The structure of inquiry. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Phillips, J. 1935. Succession, development, the climax, and the complex organism: an analysis of concepts. Part III. The complex organism: conclusions. Journal of Ecology 23:488-508. 19 Phillips, O.L.B. and A. Gentry. 1993. The useful woody plants ofTambopata Peru. I: Statistical hypotheses tests with a new quantitative technique. Economic Botany 47:15-32.

Posey, D.A 1990. Intellectual property rights: What is the position of ethnobiology? Journal of Ethnobiology 10: 93-98.

Posey, D.A., and W. Balee (eds.) 1989. Resource management in Amazonia: Indigenous and folk strategies. Advances in Economic Botany 7,The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx.

Prance, G.T. 1991. What is ethnobotany today? Journal ofEthnopharmacology 32: 209­ 216.

Rabinowitz, D. 1981. Seven forms or rarity. Pages 205-217 in H. Synge, editor. The biological aspects ofrare plant conservation. Wiley, New York.

Schemske, D.W., B.C. Husband, M.ll. Ruckelhaus, C. Goodwillie, I.M. Parker, and J.G. Bishop. 1994. Evaluating approaches to the conservation of rare and endangered plants. Ecology 75: 584-606.

Schultes, R.E., T. Swain and T.C. Plowman. 1977. Virola as an oral hallucinogen among the Boras ofPeru. Botanical Museum Leaflets 25: 259-272.

Simberloff, D. 1984. Properties of coexisting bird species in two archipelagos. In, D.R. Strong, D. Simberloff, L.G. Abele, and A.B. Thistle, eds. Ecological communities: conceptual issues and the evidence. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 234-253.

Strong, D.R., L.A Szyska, and D. Simberloff. 1979. Tests of community-wide character displacement against null hypotheses. Evolution 33: 897-913.

Tansley, A.G. 1920. The classification of vegetation and the concept of development. Journal of Ecology 8:118-149.

Tansley, AG. 1935. The use and abuse ofvegetational concepts and terms. Ecology 16: 284-307.

Thrupp, L.A 1989. Legitimizing local knowledge: From displacement to empowerment for Third World people. Agriculture and Human Values (Summer 1989): 13-24.

Turner, N.J. 1988. Ethnobotany ofconiferous trees. In Thompsons and Lillooet Interior Salish of British Columbia. Economic Botany 46: 177-194.

Tyler, S.A. 1969. Cognitive anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.

Watt, A.S. 1947. Patteru and process in the plant community. Journal of Ecology 35: 1­ 22.

20 Weller, S.C. and A.K. Romney. 1988. Systematic data collection. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Werner, O. and G.M. Schoepfle. 1987. Systematic fieldwork. Ethnographic analysis and data management. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

Whittaker, R.H. 1965. Dominance and diversity in land plant communities. Science 147: 250-260.

Whittaker, R.H. 1967. Gradient analysis ofvegetation. Biological Review 42: 207-264.

Wickens, G.E. 1990. What is economic botany? Economic Botany 44: 12-28.

Wright, S. 1969. Evolution and the genetics of populations. Volume 2: The theory of gene frequencies. 2nd edition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

21 CHAPTER 2: AN INTRODUCTION TO HAWAIIAN ETHNOBOTANY AND ETHNOGRAPHY IN THE DISTRICT OF NORTH KONA, AND ADJACENT SOUTH KOHALA, HAWAI'I

A review of land use and their management practices in Hawai'i is provided in this chapter. The historical events that occurred in the North Kona district of the island of

Hawai'i resulted in sometimes dramatic landscape changes and long lasting impacts to the topography that remain today. The information and observations were found through archival research at the State of Hawai'i library, Bishop Museum, and the Hawaiian collection of the University of Hawai'i Hamilton library.

INTRODUCTION- Ahupua'a

During the rule of the chief Kamehameha I (Pai'ea) from 1782-1819, the lands of

Hawai'i Island were divided into six districts, the moku of Hilo, Puna, Ka'ij, Kona and

Kohala. These lands covered areas from the ocean to the summits of the interior mountains. Each moku was divided into 70-100 ahupua'a, each of those belonging to an individual community (Cordy 2000). The ahupua'a were roughly triangular or rectangular portions of land running lengthwise from near-shore ocean, inland through cultivated lands, and up into the forest.

In the moku of Kona, over 100 ahupua'a were present in the more fertile central Kona area. Many ahupua'a were narrow and included basic fishery, coastal, upland fields, and forest lands. In the arid areas north of Keahole Point, most ahupua 'a had low human populations but were broad in size. Pu'uanahulu, Ka'iipiilehu, and Pu'uwa'awa'a were 8,

8.9, and 8.2 km (5.0, 5.6, and 5.1 mi) wide respectively at the shore and they extended far 22 inland (8-9.5 kIn or 5-6 mi), reaching the ahupua'a to the east of Hamiikua and Ka'ohe

(Cordy 2000).

The size and shape of Hawai'i Island's ahupua'a are cultural features. They reflect a mixture of historical factors keyed to handle special resources (fisheries, bird feathers, hardwoods, cordage, medicine, etc.), population, and political factors. Size does not necessarily reflect population size or power of a community (Cordy 2000) although the power of the local chiefs was acknowledged by the placement of local heiau. Rather, in some cases it simply means that the resident or absentee landlord--the ruler or high chief, controlled special resources.

Land patterns in Kamehameha's time were linked closely to the major land units. The popular image of traditional Hawaiians as fishermen and users of the sea was true, but

Hawaiians were equally dependent, if not more so, on agriculture and raising animals, and were quite skilled in these practices (Handy and Handy 1972).

The boundaries of the ahupua'a followed topographic features on the land, such as ridge1ines. In many ahupua'a, a rock altar was constructed under which the head of a pig was placed·thus the name "ahu" (altar), "pua'a" (pig). During the time of Makahiki, a procession of chiefs would pass by this altar to receive offerings from the ahupua'a

(Abbott 1990). Because the ahupua'a included a land and coastal component, an exchange, or bartering system was developed called "ko kula uka-ko kula kai" (belonging to the uplands, belonging to the ocean). In this way, taro farmers living in the uplands

23 could trade taro, sweet potato, and bananas with fishennen living on the coast for fish, and limu.

The Hawaiian Diet

The basic Hawaiian diet consisted of "fish" and cultivated agricultural products (Abbott

1992). Staple crops were kalo (taro, Colocasia esculenta (L.) Schott.), 'uala (sweet potatoes, Ipomoea hatatas (L.) Lam.), and mai'a (bananas, Musa X paradisiaca L.) and to a lesser extent 'uhi (yams, Dioscorea species), 'ulu (breadfruit, Artocarpus altitis S.

Parkinson ex Fosb.), ko sugarcane (, Saccharum officinarum L.), and coconuts (niu,

Cocos nucifera L.). The diet was also supplemented with shellfish and seaweeds (Abbott

1992).

Hawaiian historians considered farming of taro in two contexts (Malo 1951, Handy and

Handy 1972, Abbott 1992). One with flowing water and a year long growing season, the other in the dry leeward areas where moist soil was less extensive. Droughts and other factors, such as poor soil development and scarcity of streams, were encountered (Malo

1951).

"Kona...frequently suffered from famine in that district. In time of famine the people of Kona performed religious ceremonies with great diligence and carefully recognized the months in which to plant." David Malo in 1838 (1951, p. 206).

In this leeward setting, kalo was cultivated in the well known "dryland taro" context.

Here, kalo was not irrigated due to the absence of pennanently flowing streams.

Alteruatively, it was grown on dry land areas in areas of high rainfall (more than 76 centimeters (cm) or 30 inches (in) of rainfall annually). Various devices were used to

24 impound water from ram or seasonal streams, as well as preservmg moistures by covering low crops including taro with banana or fern leaves during the hottest days

(Handy and Handy 1972). Sweet potatoes grow in areas to dry for taro to do well, but low rainfall tolerant varieties of both dryland taro and sweet potatoes were selected for dry areas.

In some leeward areas, formal rectangular field systems existed. For example, in Kana, about 1-3 kilometers (1-2 mil inland, a series of walled field systems were constructed.

Areas had been cleared of stones that were then laid in long, low mounded walls called iwi 'aina (or kualwi in the archaeologicalliterature)(Kelly 1983, and Cordy 2000). These walls ran perpendicular to the sea for long distances with cross-walls forming individual fields.

Another kala system combined irrigated and dry cultivation methods. The best example is in Waimea in the uplands of southern Kohala. The kala fields are low-walled plots or unwalled plots in predominantly natural swales or terraced slopes with water supplied by rainfall (25-102 cm or 10-40 in annually), and by supplemental irrigation canals which tapped the streams of Waimea (Cordy 1988, 1989). These canals supplied water which spread out and soaked into the fields rather than flowing through as in the classic pond field (lo'i) setting. This kind of kala cultivation also appears in Ka'fi at Wai'ohinu, fed by springs, and in the uplands of Mohokea and Punalu'u (Cordy 1986). Archaeologists in a few places in upland Kana, where intermittent streams were channeled, also have identified it recently.

25 Figure 1: Ahupua'a ofNorth Kona District, Island of Hawai'i

KtlUploolrIltIlJ-np....." P'I.l1,i~w..dj\4w oon.....hp North Itona Ahupua"a "",lIIull-..hp _~.bl~..R\p _I\"'-~"" CJ Ku.la2...st'lp _ P!J.u~lIhulu..shp PoJoM.lJa:~ ..hp P.uU...... WH~p AClmll'dlltrlll.... bOyntl-tlu'tOm Qu.ts :;; COufiln.(tlJCClIudlno Cl"dJ.or.l5tandsJ

N

10 o 20

26 In areas where rainfall was lower than 762 mm (30 in) annually, sweet potatoes were the preferred crop (Abbott 1992). Some sweet potatoes (Ipomoea) and yams (Dioscorea) can thrive in arid conditions, with sweet potatoes maturing in 4-6 months (Malo 1951). In windward areas, they were grown in well-drained soils, often in less formal fields near houses and in mounds of soil and rock, which would drain welL In wet, windward lands, sweet potatoes and yams were secondary to taro. In dry leeward lands, however, sweet potatoes were an important crop, rivaling kalo as the staple and often surpassing kalo in very dry areas (Abbott 1992). Clark, in Clark and Kirch (1985) reported a carbonized sweet potato that was found by archaeologists during the construction of the Kuakini

Highway in South Kohala. It was the second carbonized sweet potato found along the leeward coast of Hawai'i Island, the first one reported from Lapakahi (Rosendahl and

Yen 1971). Both sweet potatoes were carbon-dated to 1500-1600, thus establishing its prehistoric presence. Apparently, sweet potatoes were grown on an equal basis with kalo in the upland stone-walled fields of Kona in the higher rainfall zones, but they were the dominant crop in the less formal, scattered fields down to the coast. In Ka'u, a special variety of dryland kalo was the dominant crop in upper elevations, but sweet potato was the main crop planted at lower elevations to the coast (Handy and Handy 1972). In the arid slopes of Kohala, sweet potatoes were the major crop in the upland field systems.

Here, low stone alignments, perhaps once planted with sugarcane as windbreaks formed the field borders (Soehren and Newman 1968).

In Kamehameha's time, fields were used by individual family groups dispersed within the ahupua'a. Individual plots within irrigated taro systems were called lo'i. Dryland 27 plots or sets of fields were called mala and ldhapai among other terms (Handy and Handy

1972, Pukui and Elbert 1987). Individual family groups were responsible for a number of plots in different environmental zones. For example, in valleys, a family's holding might include lo'i and killapai. In leeward lands, plots might include low elevation sweet potato fields, upland kalo fields, some breadfruit trees, and bananas near the forest boundary.

Use-rights were inherited, but they also had to be reaffirmed by the chief's resident representative, the konohiki (Sahlins 1992).

Vegetable food was also collected. In forest areas, mountain apples ('ohi'a 'ai, Syzygium malaccense (L.) Merr. and Perry), arrowroot (pia, Tacca leontopetaloides (L) Kuntze), and 'ape (Alocasia macrorrhiza (L.) Schott.) were gathered. Native ferns including hapu'u (Cibotium species), and ho'i'o (Diplazium sandwichense) were collected for their starch filled rhizomes and young edible fronds. Many of these foods were important during times of famine caused by drought, fire, looting, or the lack of taro (Malo 1951,

Abbott 1992).

A wide range of marine resources was collected. The "fish" of the Hawaiian diet consisted of fresh (e.g., living) species, mostly reef fish (Titcomb 1972) which were consumed raw (i'a maka), cooked on coals (pUlehu) or lightly salted for consumption in few days, or heavily for storage for up to several months (i'a malo'o). The diet included many kinds of invertebrates of which snails (leho) of various kinds, but especially cowries, were highest on the list at Kalahuipua'a in nearby Kohala (Kirch 1979). This area of Kalahuipua 'a was apparently a "summer fishing" site for mauka inhabitants such

28 as those at Ka'iipUlehu and Waimea. It also appears, that gathering of shellfish was quite varied--a wide range of species being collected, not just the large "meaty" species that are used today. Seaweeds (called limu) of all varieties were collected primarily by women

and used as a type of relish seasoning for every Hawaiian meal (Abbott 1984, Abbott

1992).

Importantly, nearshore marine resources were communally accessible to all residents of an ahupua'a within the land's fisheries, which extended to a short distance offshore

(Campbell 1967, Abbott 1992). These resources were not accessible to residents of other ahupua'a without permission. Pelagic and benthic resources which were located well offshore seem to have been open to all members of the island, although some benthic fishing grounds (ko'a) were considered property of a specific ahupua'a (Hommon 1975).

The konohiki of the ahupua'a could restrict communal access to the ahupua'a fisheries by placing specific fish under kapu (restrictions) for a period of time (Barrere 1970).

Another restriction on communal ahupua'a fishing rights was whale teeth or large trees that washed ashore. These items were restricted resources reserved for the gods and thus the high chief, with the whale teeth made into elaborate pendants (lei niho palaoa) and the trees into large hulls for double canoes (Malo 1951, Buck 1957).

Fish such as mullet ('ama'ama: Mugulidae) and milkfish ('awa: Chanidae) were also raised in fishponds (loko i'a). Fishponds varied considerably in form and location, depending upon the location (coastal and inland) and substrate at the part of the island where they were constructed. In northern Kona, bays and shallow reef areas were

29 enclosed with large stone walls in the more commonly known form of fishponds. One of

these, built by Kamehameha around 1805, was at Kinolo Bay in ahupua'a of

Pu'uwa'awa'a. It had immense walls running offshore. Another large fishpond was

Pa'aiea, extending north of present day Keahole Airport for several miles (Kamakau

1961). And another fishpond enclosed a bay in Kaloko ahupua'a to the south. Both

Kiholo and Pa'aiea fishponds were covered by lava flows, in 1859 and 1801: Kaloko

fishpond is still present within the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park.

Large anchialine or tidal ponds were also modified into fishponds--most notably along the arid south Kohala and north Kona shores. Examples can still be seen today at Kuki'0 in Kona and at 'Anaeho'omalu and Kaliihuipua'a in Kohala.

Water was a limiting resource in the Kona district, especially at elevations below 500 meters. In very general terms, West Hawai'i comprises the leeward side of the island, extending from 'Upolu Point on the north to Ka Lae at the southern tip. The rugged

volcanic masses of Kohala, Mauna Kea, Hualiilai, and Mauna Loa separate this region from the wetter, windward side of the island to the east. Because it seldom rains on the

leeward coast, West Hawai'i is characterized by a paucity of stream drainages and a tendency to aridity - any loose water is quickly absorbed in the porous earth.

The Reverend William Ellis observed this water problem, finding on his journey that:

Kaifua [Kailua], though healthy and populous, is destitute of fresh water, except what is found in pools, or small streams, in the mountains, four or five miles from the shore.... The late king Tamehameha used frequently to beg a cask of water from the captains of vessels touching at Kairua; and it is one of the most acceptable presents a captain going to this station could make, either to the chiefs or missionaries (Ellis 1963).

30 Missionary Henry Cheever noted wryly that "On that part [leeward coast] of the great

Island of Hawaii there is not a brook that runs into the sea for more than a hundred miles of coast. At Kealakekua ships can hardly get a cask of genuine fresh water for fear, love, or money" (Cheever 1851). He noted that Captain Cook had to acquire his supply from natives who brought it in calabashes from the mountains, four miles away. Missionary stations, he said, had to be supplied in the same manner. The natives, however, could drink from the brackish springs on the coast, "the water of which is almost as nauseous and purgative, with a stranger, as a dose of salts." (Cheever 1851). While farming, fishing, raising livestock, and collecting were critical food gathering activities, another lesser-known food source was wild birds. In the interior of the island and on the upper slopes of Mauna Loa, flightless geese (nene) and dark-rumped petrel ('ua'u) nestlings were hunted. Wild ducks (koloa, Anas wyvilliana) and plovers (kolea, Pluvialis fulva) were also caught and eaten, as were numerous smaller forest, grassland, and shore birds

(Malo 1951).

Archaeological evidence shows wide varieties of birds were taken, with large meat birds dominating the remains in the Saddle area (Athens and Kascko 1989). Research at

Pohakuloa suggest human made pit features were commonly employed by bird hunters to capture dark-romped petrels which both facilitated hunting and expanded artificial habitats into the uplands (Moniz-Nakamura 1998). Bird hunters used different techniques ranging from rock pits, poles and snares, to lime and stoning (Malo 1951,

Moniz-Nakamura 1999). Hunting rights for certain birds-particularly the large, meaty nene were vested in the residents ofcertain ahupua'a.

31 Other nonfood resources existed that were critical for daily life. Clothing was made in

the fonn of kapa or bark cloth. The thin bark from paper mulberry (wauke, Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Venten.) and mamaki (Pipturus albidus (Hook. and Amott) A. Gray) was

carefully soaked, and pounded on wooden anvils into fine sheets, dried, and then printed

or colored with various types of brushes or carved stamps and natural dyes (Malo 1951).

Paper mulberry was cultivated within the agricultural fields, apparently interspersed with

the food plants of the ahupua'a, including some set aside for the konohiki. Mamaki on

the other hand grew in the forests where stands were tended and harvested by residents of

a nearby ahupua'a. Mamaki tapa made from the native Hawaiian nettle Pipturus albidus,

is recorded in the literature as being very common in collections from Kona and Kohala

(Summers 1999, Kooijman 1972).

Timber for canoes, houses, firewood, spears, knives, tools and images was also an important resource. Larger 'ohi'a (Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud.) and koa (Acacia

koa A. Gray) trees were special resources under the control of chiefs, for images (ki'i) in

the case of 'ohi'a, and for koa canoes. House posts were made of uhiuhi (Caesalpinia

kavaiensis H. Mann), naio (Myoporum sandwichense A. Gray), mamane (Sophora

chrysophylla (Salisb.) Seem.), 'a'ali'i (Dodonaea viscosa Jacq.) and other hard woods

(Buck 1957). Spears were often made of kauila (Colubrina oppositifolia Brogn. ex H.

Mann and Alphitonia ponderosa Hillebr.), as were daggers or clubs--although both the

latter could be made of uhiuhi or olopua (Nestegis sandwichensis (A. Gray) Degener, I.

Degener and L. Johnson). Wooden bowls called 'umeke la'au were made of the

Polynesian introduced woods kou (Cordia subcordata Lam.), milo (Thespesia populnea

32 (L.) Sol. ex Correa), kamani (Callophyllum inophyllum L., and the native koa (Buck

1957). Containers for holding water (huewai) and food (especially poi) ('umeke p6hue)

were made from gourds (Lagenaria siceraria (Molina) Standl.)(Buck 1957).

The trade in sandalwood or 'iliahi (Santalum species) had a great impact on the Hawaiian

environment than any other enterprise of the early 19th century (Cuddihy and Stone

1990). As early as 1791 sandalwood was exported to Asia but reached its peak and

intensity from 1815 to 1826 (St. John 1947). Ellis (1963) reported in the early 1800's

that hundreds of Hawaiians of Waiakea were engaged in sandalwood timber harvesting

and he witnessed thousands of people hauling sandalwood logs to Kawaihae bay to be

shipped for export. At the time of Kamehameha's rule in 1819, the collection of

sandalwood accelerated to enable the Hawaiian kings to payoff large amounts of debt that had accumulated through the gross accumulation and purchase of western goods

(Judd 1927).

The impacts of the sandalwood trade "decimated" the populations of 'iliahi on O'ahu and the low-elevation forests where the tree was once common were now depleted of this

highly prized wood (St. John 1947). Barrera and Kelly (1974) surmised that the

sandalwood timber harvests contributed to the loss of forests between Kawaihae and

Waimea.

33 The Ranching Period (1793-1900's)

In 1793, Captain George Vancouver introduced cattle to the Hawaiian Islands, and later

horses, both of which required the introduction of forage grasses and other plants that

flourished in, and then led to the deterioration of Kona's dryland forests and savannas

throughout the nineteenth century and half of the following century (Cuddihy and Stone

1990). The Hawaiian Islands were becoming an established port for fur, silk, and

sandalwood traders, many of whom stopped on the western shores of Hawai'i Island to pay homage to Kamehameha I and to take on water and fresh food.

By the 1820's, John Parker and other resident foreigners had begun to hunt wild cattle in

Waimea for salted beef to provision ships and later for tallow and hides destined for export (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). In 1851, the island of Hawai'i was estimated to have

12,000 wild cattle and only 8,000 domestic animals (Henke in Cuddihy and Stone 1990).

By the mid-19th century, wild cattle were recognized as destroyers of Hawaiian forests and were blamed for converting the forests of Waimea into open plains (Cuddihy and

Stone 1990).

The fabric of Hawaiian culture unraveled as trade increased. The currency of commerce

was taking hold in a land-based culture that had fed, clothed, and sustained itself, physically and spiritually, without currency. With migration of foreigners to the islands,

Western diseases were introduced and significantly reduced the Hawaiian population

(Bushnell 1993). The arrival of the first whaling ships in 1819 (the year Kamehameha

34 died), the toppling of traditional Hawaiian religion after Kamehameha's death, and the arrival of American missionaries in 182a-all of these elements profoundly affected and reshaped the Hawaiian culture and their land-use practices. Eventually the missionaries won in the arguments that a new system of land tenure-private ownership-would be the redeeming feature of the Hawaiian race.

Captain Vancouver's gift of the first cattle to Kamehameha I took hold in North Kona.

Envisioning the cattle as a possible new resource of Kamehameha's kingdom, Vancouver suggested a ten-year kapu, or taboo on the slaughter of the animals, an idea that backfired dramatically. Horses, which had arrived ten years after cattle (also as a gift to

Kamehameha), were the key component in efforts to hunt and control the cattle. By

1820, horses and men were hunting cattle that were destroying their farms. Thus, cattle ranching eventually occupied almost all ofthe Kekaha lands, as well as the lower forests.

By 1886, Hu'ehu'e Ranch was established on the slopes of Hualalai at Ka'upiilehu to

Holualoa, and included the coastal lands at Kuki'o and Kaloko. By 1893, Pu'uwa'awa'a ranch was established by Legislator Robert Hind and local cowboy Eben Low. This ahupua'a extended from the pu 'u, or hill of Pu 'uwa'awa'a cinder cone southwest towards the ocean and bordered by Ka'upiilehu to the south, and Pu 'uanahulu to the north.

As an industry, ranching had a number of unintended repercusslOns. The lands of

Kekaha were part of a fragile, complex ecosystem. Ranching encroached on this ecosystem and brought with it a unique set of environmental problems (e.g., erosion,

35 browsing by ungulates, trampling, and the introduction of alien weeds) that are still being

worked out today. "It is in these peculiar regions that the botanical collector will find more in one day collecting than in a week or two in a wet region, and.. .it is indeed

astonishing that these various places like Puuwaawaa, North Kona, Hawaii...have been

entirely neglected by the botanical collectors who have previously visited these islands,"

wrote Joseph F. Rock in The Indigenous Trees of the Hawaiian Islands, first published in

1913 (Rock 1913). He called Pu'uwa'awa'a, "the richest floral section of any in the whole Territory" and said that at least 60 percent of all the species of indigenous trees growing in these islands could be found in areas such as Pu'uwa'awa'a.

This chapter outlines the land use history of island of Hawai'i with a particular focus on the North Kona districts. Prehistoric information reveals a variety of land use activities by Hawaiians living and farming in this arid district. The predominant land activity was sweet potato farming using rock walls as terraces while fishponds were constructed along the coast as centers of aquaculture for the entire region. The ranching period following the arrival of Captain Vancouver and the introduction of cattle forever changed the landscape. While a new page in Hawaiian history was being written with these large cattle ranches, botanists were documenting the unique species of the dry forest.

36 LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, lA. 1984. Limu: an ethnobotanical study of some edible Hawaiian seaweeds. National Tropical Botanic Garden. Lawai, Kauai.

Abbott, lA. 1992. La'au Hawai'i: Traditional Hawaiian uses of plants. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Athens, S. 1. and M. Kaschko. 1989. Prehistoric upland bird hunters: Archaeological inventory survey and testing for the MPRC project area and the bobcat trail road, Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawaii. International Archaeological Institute, Inc. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Barrera, W., Jr., and M. Kelly. 1974. Archaeological and historical surveys of the Waimea to Kawaihae Road corridor, island of Hawai'i. Hawaii Historic Preservation Report 74-1. Department ofAnthropology. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Barrere, D. 1970. An historical sketch of Makaha Valley. In Roger Green (ed.) Makaha Valley historical project: Interim report no. 2, pp. 3-14. Pacific Anthropological Records, vol. 10. Department of Anthropology. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Buck, P (Hiroa, T. R). 1957. Arts and crafts of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press Special Publications. Vol. 45. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Bushnell, G.A., 1993. The gifts ofcivilization: germs and genocide in Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 326 pp.

Campbell, A. 1967. A voyage round the world (1806-1812). University of Hawai'i Press. Honolulu [First published in 1822].

Cheever, H.T. 1851. The island world of the Pacific. Harper and Brothers, New York.

Cordy, R. 1988. Kahuwai village, Kahuwai Ahupuaa, Puna. Recommendations for preservation. Manuscript. State Historic Preservation Division. Kapolei, Hawaii.

Cordy, R. 1989. Additional archival and archaeological information on a portion of the Waimea field system, Waimea area, South Kohala, Hawaii Island. Manuscript. State Historic Preservation Division. Kapolei, Hawaii.

Cordy, R 1986. South Point: early historic land use patterns in the ahupua'a of Kana'oa, Pu'u'eo, Mohowae, Waiopua and Kea'a. Manuscript. State Historic Preservation Division. Kapolei, Hawaii.

Cordy, R 2000. Exalted sits the chief, the ancient history of Hawai'i Island. Mutual Publishing. Honolulu, Hawai'i.

37 Cuddihy, L.W. and c.P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of native Hawaiian vegetation: effects of humas, their activities and introductions. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Hawaii.

Dixon, G. 1789. A voyage round the world: But more particularly to the North-West coast of America. George Goulding. London.

Ellis, W. 1963. Narrative of a tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing. Honolulu. [Reprint of 1827. London]

Giambelluca, T.W., M.A. Nullet, and T.A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. DLNR Report R76. State ofHawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land Development, Honolulu.

Handy, E.S.C. and E. Handy. 1972. Native planters ofold Hawaii. Bishop Museum Bulletin, vol. 79. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Hommon, R. 1975. Use and control of Hawaiian inter-island channels, Hawaii: A.D. 1400-1749. Manuscript. State Historic Preservation Division. Kapolei, Hawaii.

Judd, C.S. 1927. The natural resources of the Hawaiian forest regions and their conservation. Hawaiian Forester and Agriculturist 24: 40-47.

Kooijman, S. 1872. Tapa in Polynesia. Bishop Museum Bulletin no. 234. Honolulu.

MacDonald, G.A., and A.T. Abbott. 1974. Volcanoes in the sea: the geology of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Matsunaga, P.H. 1983. Periods ofrainfall and associated drought reports on the Island of Hawaii. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Moniz-Nakamura, J. J, K. Sherry, and L. Tamimi. 1998. Foraging for food: prehistoric pit features at P6hakuloa, Hawai'i Island. Rapa Nui JournaI12:110-117.

Moniz Nakamura, J.1. 1999. The archaeology of human foraging and bird resources on the island of Hawai'i: the evolutionary ecology of avian predation, resource intensification, extirpation, and extinction. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, Univeristy of Hawai'i.

Moore, R.B., and D.A. Clague. 1991. Geologic map ofHualalai. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Map 1-2225.

Pukui, M.K. S. Elbert. 1987. Hawaiian dictionary. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Rock, J.F. 1913. The indigenous trees of the Hawaiian Islands. Pub!. Privately, Honolulu., 512 pp.

38 Rose, R., S. Conant, and E.P. Kjellgren. 1993. Hawaiian standing kiihili in the Bishop Museum: an ethnological and biological analysis. J. of the Polynesian Society 92:273-304.

Sahlins, M. 1992. Anahulu: The anthropology of history in the Kingdom ofHawaii: Volume one: Historical ethnography. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

St. John, H. 1947. The history, present distribution, and abundance of sandalwood on Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian Plant Studies 14. Pacific Science 1: 5-20.

Soehren, L.J. and T.S. Newman. 1968. The Archaeology of Kealakekua Bay. special report by the department ofanthropology, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Summers, C.c. 1999. Material culture: the J.S. Emerson collection. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Titcomb, M. 1972. Native use of fish in Hawaii, with M.K. Pukui. University ofHawaii Press, Honolulu.

Tomonari-Tuggle, M. 1985. Cultural resource management plan, cultural resource management at the Keauhou resort. Manuscript. State Historic Preservation Division. Kapolei, Hawaii.

39 CHAPTER 3: LIVING OFF THE LAND: THE KaNA FIELD SYSTEM

The Kona field system is one of several large Native Hawaiian dryland agricultural

complexes found on the island of Hawai'i (see Cuddihy and Stone 1990, Schilt 1984). It

is spread across a heterogeneous landscape, ranging from well-weathered volcanic and

deep ash soils to barren a'a and pahoehoe lava flows. The ancient Hawaiians made the

most of this geological mosaic, developing an array of simple but effective gardening

technologies for the varied microenvironments of the region. In the most productive

areas, they invested heavily in "landesque capital" (Blaikie and Brookfield 1987, Kirch

1984), constructing extensive walled garden plots (Soehren and Newman 1968). On the more marginal lands, such as barren lava flows, they modified pahoehoe lava tubes and excavated pits into the a'a flows for planting (Donham 1990). In the few rare areas

where semi-permanent streams are found, water management devices were developed

(Allen 1984, Kawachi 1989, Schilt 1984). Thus, the region's geological complexity gave

rise to a diversity of gardening strategies which, taken as a whole, were highly productive

(Allen 2001).

The Kona field system is also distinguished by its pivotal role in the development of

Hawaii's highly stratified chiefdom. The sociopolitical complexity of period Hawaiian

chiefdom was far more developed than most other areas in Polynesia:

The pyramidal stratification of Hawaiian society, its emphasis on insignia and prerogatives of rank, its elaborate kapu system, its opulent "state" rituals celebrated on megalithic stone temple platforms, and its highly intensive forms ofagricultural and aquacultural production, all suggest that Hawaii had

40 reached an apogee of sociopolitical development in Oceania (Kirch 1984, xiii).

In many respects, Kona was the birthplace of this elaborated chiefdom. It was from here that Kalani'opu'u, launched a series of offensives against the leeward settlements of neighboring Maui, and in time the powerful Kamehameha line garnered snfficient control to unite the entire archipelago under a single rule. Understanding the evolution of this highly successful chiefdom has been a major theme in Hawaiian archaeology, with the productive economy seen as central to the establishment and expansion of the Hawai'i island chiefdom (Hommon 1986, Kirch 1984b).

Archaeological studies place initial settlement of the Kona coast beginning around A.D.

600-1100 (Schilt 1984), but little is known of earlier periods. By A.D. 1200 a rapid phase of population growth was under way in west Hawai'i generally (Kirch 1985) and inland gardens were probably established by the fourteenth century (Kirch 1984b) if not before. Through time, the region became increasingly important in island-wide politics and religious developments. Although many powerful chiefs made their homes in Kona over the centuries, a turning point in the region's traditional political history was relocation of the royal court from Waipi'0, on the west eastern side of the island, to

Kona, on the dry west side in roughly the fifteenth century. This move followed unification of the island by 'UmialUoa (Kamakau 1961, Fornander 1917) and must have had a profound effect on local agronomic practices.

Kona's eventual political and religious importance is further reflected in the districts many religious temples, or heiau. In this regard, Kona surpassed other Hawai'i districts 41 with, for example, the early survey of Stokes (1991) recording sixty-five heiau in the

Kona district alone, at least four times the number found in other districts. Kelly (1983)

also records four pu'uhonua, or places or refuge, in Kona, at least one indication of strife

in the region. The largest of these is Pu'uhonua 0 Honaunau, south of Kealakekua Bay.

Barrere (1986) suggests that this site dates to the time of 'Ehukaimalino, who is estimated

to have ruled Kona in the late fifteenth century, and later underwent expansion by

'Umialiloa.

Underlying Kona's political and religious expansions were the region's "gardens" or field

systems. But, the region's productivity was not uniform and in time of growing populations, the chiefly hierarchy, and chiefly desires may have outstripped the area's productive capacity (Kirch 1984b), eventually leading to competition with neighboring island chiefdoms. The relationship between politics and agronomics was undoubtedly a dynamic one, with agronomic expansion, intensification, and integration being strongly

intertwined with regional sociopolitical developments. The role of Kona's agricultural economy in supporting the emplacement and elaboration of these powerful chiefs and their districts is of significant interest as it influenced land use and resources.

The complex of agricultural features known collectively as the "Kona Field System"

covers roughly 139 km2 (53 me) of the western slopes of Hawai'i, from north of Kailua to Honaunau in the south (Hawaii Register of Historic Places Site 50-10-37-6601) and

north to the area of Pu'u Koholii. in Kohala.. These agricultural features were first

archaeologically described by Newman (1972) based on photographs and limited ground

42 surveys. Newman called them "the most extensive and monumental architecture of old

Hawaii." It was the reticulated patterns formed by extensive areas of walled fields that caught the attention of Newman, who was also a pilot. In the intervening years, archaeologists working in Kona have identified various other kinds of garden features in which short rock walls changed ground irregularities including mounds of varied forms and sizes, terraces, enclosures, and modified natural lava features that raised the growing and planting areas slightly above the sloping ground, thus capturing and keeping what moisture was available.

Native planters of Kona distinguished several resource zones. These are described by

Kelly's (1983) analysis of mid-nineteenth-century land court records, but are also reflected in early historic accounts (e.g., Cook and others in Beaglehole 1967, Ellis 1963,

Ledyard 1963, Menzies 1920). Four agricultural zones, distinguished by elevation and major associated crops, were recognized: Kula, Kau'ulu, 'Apa'a, and 'Ama'u. The Kula was the coastal plain, an area often dry and treeless. Use of this area required specialized gardening techniques that conserved moisture (Handy and Handy 1972). Sweet potato was the most common crop here, rainfall in this zone was generally too low for reliable crops of taro, which prefer in excess of 1,270 mm (50 inches) a year (Abbott 1992, Kelly

1983).

Inland from the Kula was the Kalu'ulu (c.f., Kau'ulu), where breadfruit ('ulu) trees were planted in well-defined groves. The breadfruit was described by the early visitors, as for example naturalist Menzies (1920), with Captain George Vancouver in 1793, who

43 remarked on the "luxuriant breadfruit plantation" inland of Kealakekua Bay. A variety of secondary crops were planted beneath the large trees, including wauke, or paper mulberry

(Broussonetia papyrifera), and sweet potato.

The most intensively cultivated and most productive zone was the 'Apa'a, the area where the walled gardens observed by Soehren and Newman on aerial photographs were concentrated. The archaeological work of Hammatt, et aL 1995) indicates that walled gardens may have extended as high as 783 m (2570 ft.) elevation. The primary crops of the 'Apa'a were taro, the sugarcane (ko, Saccharum officinarum), ld (Cordyline fruticosa), wauke, and banana (mai'a, Musa paradisiaca) were also grown, particularly along the margins of the rocky field borders. These supplemental food plants were important famine reserves and were used as mulch.

The most inland planting zone was the 'Ama'u--named after the 'ama'u fern (Sadleria cyatheoides), a native species found at upper elevations and one with a starchy edible underground stem. Banana and some varieties of taro were planted also in this planting zone (Handy and Handy 1972, Kelly 1983, Menzies 1920). Above this area Native

Hawaiians recognized a series of forest zones. For the Ka'ii district, which neighbors

Kona in the south, Handy and Handy 1972) describe the wao niihele or wao Iii'au, where canoe logs and medicinal plants were found, the wao akua, or rainforest, the mau kele and kua lono, with the piko (center) at Mauna Loa's summit crater, Moku'aweoweo. A similar classification of land zones probably held in the Kona district, although the

Handys' account of the Ka'ii zones does not include the 'Apa'a or Kalu'nln.

44 Despite these rich historical records, archaeologists have encountered some difficulty in field identification of each of these zones, particularly the Kalu'ulu (Schilt 1984).

Moreover, archaeological study indicates regional variation in the distribution of the walled fields, which are most commonly associated with areas of good soil development.

And, although these emic zones are ultimately based on altitudinal variations in rainfall and soil (incL lava types), their broad distribution raises questions about the degree to which they reflect regional level management and a large-scale, integrated agronomic effort (Allen 2001).

Early twentieth-century ethnographic studies (e.g., Handy 1940, Handy and Handy 1972) offer insights into day-to-day management of Kona's traditional dryland gardens.

Through interviews with practicing Native Hawaiian farmers and research of late nineteenth-century archival sources, they provide a wealth of detail on gardening techniques, terminology, and associated cultural lore-with a heavy emphasis on gardening in the Kona region. Handy and Handy's research (1972) reveals the Hawaiian's intimate knowledge of microenvironmental variation and the range of simple but effective technologies they developed to manipulate this variability. Ethnographic studies also point to the high labor costs required to maintain productive gardens in many parts of the

Kona region, primarily through mulching but also in aspects of field preparation and planting.

45 LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, LA. 1992. Ui'au Hawai'i: Traditional Hawaiian uses of plants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Allen, M.S. 1984. Archaeological reconnaissance survey, Waiona meadows development nd st nd project area, ;ands of Puapua'a Ist and 2 and Holualoa 1 and 2 , North Kona, Island of Hawai'i. Prepared for Waiono Meadows Ranch Ltd., Honolulu by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. Kurtistown.

Allen, M.S. (ed.) 2001. Gardens of Lono: archaeological investigations at the Amy RH. Greenwell ethnobotanical garden, Kealakekua, Hawai'i. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Barrere, D. 1986. A reconstruction of the history and function of the pu 'uhonua and the Hale 0 Keawe at Honaunau. In The natural and cultural history of Honaunau, Kona, Hawai'i, edited by E.H. Bryan and K.P. Emory, pp. 117-136. Departmental Report Series 86-2. Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Beaglehole, J. 1967. The journals ofcaptain James Cook, Vol. 3, Pts. 1-2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Blaikie, P. and H.C. Brookfield (eds.) 1987. Land degradation and society. Mthuem, London.

Brock, lH., and R.E. Brock. 1974. The marine fauna off the coast of Northern Kona, Hawai'i: An Inventory of Fishes and Invertebrates Recorded during the Summer, 192. Sea Grant Advisory Report UNIHI-SEA-GRANT-AR-74-02, Honolulu.

Cuddihy, L.W. and c.P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of Native Hawaiian vegetation: effects ofhumans, their activities, and introduction. University of Hawaii Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu.

Donham, T.K. 1990. Archaeological inventory survey: Queen Lili'uokalani Property, land of Keahuolu, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. Prepared for Belt, Collins and Associates, Honolulu, by Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc.

Ellis, W. 1963. Journal ofWilliam Ellis. Charles E. Tuttle, Tokyo.

Fornander, A. 1917. Fornander collection ofHawaiian antiquities and folklore, Vol. 4. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Harnmatt, H.H., D.W. Shideler, M. Stride, and 1. Masterson. 1995. Archaeological inventory survey for the Kealakekua development company phase I Area (8-02­ 12: 1) Kealakekua, S. Kona, Hawai'i Island. Prepared for R.M. Towill by Cultural Surveys Hawaii.

46 Handy, E.S.C. 1940. The Hawaiian planter, Vol. 1, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Handy, E.S., and E.G. Handy. 1972. Native planters in old Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Hommon, RJ. 1986. Social evolution in ancient Hawai'i. In Island societies: archaeological approaches to evolution and transformation, edited by P.V. Kirch, pp. 55-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kamakau, S. 1961. Ruling chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.

Kawachi, C. 1989. Pua'a 2: an upland habitation and agricultural complex in North Kona, Hawaii Island. M.A. Thesis, Department ofAnthropology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa, Honolulu.

Kelly, M. 1983. Na milia 0 Kona: gardens of Kona, A history of land use in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Report Series 83-2. Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Kirch, P.V. 1984a. Forward. In Subsistence and conflict in Kona, Hawai'i: an archaeological study of the Kuakini highway realignment corridor, edited by R Schilt, pp. xii-xiv. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Department of Anthropology. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Kirch, P.V. 1984b. Evolution ofthe Polynesian chiefdoms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kirch, P.V. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: an introduction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Ledyard, J. 1963. John Ledyard's journal of Captain Cook's last voyage. Edited by J.K. Munford. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR

Menzies, A. 1920. Hawaii nei 128 years ago. Edited by W.J. Wilson [The New Freedom], Honolulu.

Newman, T. S. 1972. Two early Hawaiian field systems on Hawaii Island. J. of Poly. Soc. 81:87-89.

Schilt, R. 1984. Subsistence and conflict in Kona, Hawai'i: an archaeological study ofthe Kuakini highway realignment corridor. Departmental Report Series 84-1. Department of Anthropology. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Soehren, L.J. and T.S. Newman. 1968. The Archaeology of Kealakekua Bay. special report by the department of anthropology, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum and University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

47 Stokes, IF.G. 1991. Heiau of the island of Hawai'i: a historic survey ofnative Hawaiian temple sites, edited by T. Dye. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 2. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

48 CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH AND HYPOTHESES

The dry forests are the most biologically diverse and the most heavily impacted

ecosystems in the Hawaiian Islands (Gagne and Cnddihy 1990). The majority of the

species comprising the native vegetation of the dry forests are endemic to the Hawaiian

Islands. The vegetation is so diverse that no one species dominates. In North Kona, on

the island of Hawai'i, one of the components of this vegetation type is the Endangered

tree, Colubrina oppositijolia1 (kauila). The North Kona area also contains at least five

other listed species Caesalpinia kavaiensis (uhiuhi), Isodendrion pyrifolium (aupaka),

Kokia drynarioides (koki'0), Nothocestrum breviflorum ('aiea), and Pleomele

hawaiiensis (halapepe). Reproduction of all native species is very low due to the dense

ground cover, fire, ungulates, insect and rat predation, and the age of the remaining

individuals (USFWS 1996).

Discussion ofLowland Lama Dry Forest

Lowland dry forests are a vegetation community occurring from 300-1,500 m elevation on leeward aspects of all the main Hawaiian Islands (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). Canopy height is 4-20 m with evergreen species except for the summer deciduous wiliwili

(Erythrina sandwicensis), 'ohe makai (Reynoldsia sandwicensis), and the rare Euphorbia

haeleeleana ofKaua'i and O'ahu (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990).

Native lowland dry forests are among the most diverse native communities with six

native-dominated communities: Lama (Diospyros) Forest, OlopualLama

(NestegislDiospyros) Forest, Koa (Acacia) Dry Forest, Wiliwili (Erythrina) Forest,

I Species authorities are listed in Appendix A: Species List 49 'Ohi'a (Metrosideros) Lowland Dry Forest, and Aulu (Sapindus) Forest (Gagne and

Cuddihy 1990). Virtually all of the native Lowland Dry Forest communities have been

degraded or impacted by cattle and feral herbivores. Fire-adapted grasses including

fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), beardgrass (Andropogon virginicus) and

Schizachyrium condensatum constitute and major threat to the Lowland Dry Forests in

Hawai'i (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990).

The Ka'iipUiehu dry forest is classified as the Lama/Kauila (Diospyros/Colubrina)

Forest-a subclass of the Lama (Diospyros) Forest (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). The

LamalKauila Forest has an open canopy of 5-6 m in height and contains rare elements such as the 'aiea (Nothocestrum breviflorum), halapepe (Pleomele hawaiiensis), koki '0

(Kokia drynarioides), and uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis). Associated native species

include: alahe'e (Psydrax odorata), 'ala'a (Pouteria sandwicensis), 'iliahi (Santalum paniculatum), mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), and wiliwili (Erythrina sandwicensis)

(Gagne and Cuddihy 1990).

Geology

Lying on the western leeward slopes of the island of Hawai'i, Kona is the second largest

district on the island. It extends from Pu'uanahulu ahupua'a in the north to

Kaulanamauna ahupua'a in the south, encompassing 1991 km2 (769 m\ or roughly 19%

of the total land area of the island. Two active volcanic systems, Hualalai to the north

and Mauna Loa to the south have shaped the regions geological history. These two

volcanoes are among the most youthful of the island's five volcanic complexes, and both

50 exhibit classic shield profiles. Neither is particularly weathered or dissected and, in

contrast to the windward side of the island, permanent streams are lacking.

Hualalai, at 2521 m (8271 ft) is characterized by one well-defined rift zone that runs

northwest across the summit and two secondary rift zones, one extending north from the

summit and another south-southeast, both marked by numerous cinder cones (Moore and

Clague 1991). Two cones on the northern rift were a source of trachyte. One of these trachytic flows was particularly massive, measuring 275 m (900 ft) thick and 5.5 km3

(194,230 fe) in volume; it was the single largest eruptive event on Hawai'i (Moore and

Clague 1991).

The bulk of Hualalai's flows are Holocene in age (11,000 years B.P.), but some late

Pleistocene lavas (1.8 million to 11,000 years B.P.) are found as well (Moore and Clague

1991). The older flows are tholeiitic basalt and form the base of the mountain, being capped by more recent alkalic olivine basalts. Only 3% of Hualalai's surface dates to the past 750 years, and lavas aged 3000 years or less cover 49% of the mountain's surface.

Still, although many of the flows are of some antiquity (from a human perspective), weathered surfaces with relatively thick soils, those most conducive to agriculture, cover less than 5% ofHualiilai. Notably, some of the oldest flows are found near Kailua, where

sizable populations have been centered both now and in prehistory. Although Hualiilai's eruptions were not as violent as the late-phase ones of Mauna Kea, they nevertheless produced significant amounts of ash fall. This ash has improved the region's agronomic potential today, and Sterns (1966) notes that much of Kona's coffee is grown on ash

51 derived from HuaHi.lai cones. HuaHi.lai last erupted along its northwest rift, between AD

1800 and 1801. Lava reached the sea on two occasions and in one case covered an old

Hawaiian settlement and a coastal trail (MacDonald and Abbott 1974). These flows are known as the Ka 'upulehu and Hu'ehu'e flows.

Climate

Rainfall in the district varies from as little as 500 mm (20 inches) in some coastal areas to more than 2540 mm (100 inches) above Kainaliu at ca 460 m (1500 ft) (Armstrong

1983). Most areas above 150 m (500 ft) receive at lest 1015 m (40 inches) of rain annually.

The station at HOlualoa (365 m [1200 ft]) reports annual variation from a low of ca 50 mm (1.9 in) in February to a high of ca 175 mm (6.9 in) in May and August

(Giarnbelluca, NUllett, and Schroeder 1986). The rainfall maximum is an elongate area at

600-900 m (1968-2952 ft), which extends in a north-south direction and corresponds to the center of the daily cloud cover. Above ca 900 m rainfall decreases rapidly, to less than 760 mm (30 in) at ca 1524 m (5000 ft) (Powers, Ripperton, and Goto 1932).

Geologists suggest that rainfall affected the distribution of volcanic ash; deeper ash mantles appear to be correlated with the higher rainfall zone (Powers et al. 1932).

52 Figure 2: Geology of Ka'iipiilehu Ahupua'a Geology of Ka'upulehu Ahupua'a

0: ElI:oIo~"shp.shp Koup..j",""",sl'p 1\/ Couttnt (ucludngdfshcreIJtVlds)

w*.N s _ _ _ 16 KIlometers

53 Kona's rainfall regime is also unusual in its summer rainfall maximum, a result of the

more active trade winds at this time (Giambelluca et aL 1986). But the area also receives

significant winter rainfall, as brought by southerly winter storms between October and

ApriL These "Kona storms," as they are called, originate from the southwest and affect

the islands only when they are sufficiently strong to overcome the prevailing trades.

They may last for several days and are associated with winds and heavy rains. The combination of rainfall from summer trade winds and winter storms results in a more

equitable annual distribution of precipitation for Kona relative to other leeward areas of the archipelago, with implications for local farming practices.

Long-term temporal variation in rainfall is also important to consider. Although Kona droughts are often mentioned in the literature, detailed study shows that Kona has fewer dry spells and droughts than other areas of the island of Hawaii (Matsunaga 1983).

Nonetheless, those that occur tend to be more severe and of greater duration than in other districts, perhaps explaining the perception that Kona is particularly prone to drought.

For example, 210 dry spells are recorded for Kona between 1920 and 1975, with roughly

one-fourth persisting for an average of 5.3 months (Matsunaga 1983). But only eight

Kona dry spells between 1950 and 1983 were of sufficient duration and economic consequence to be declared droughts (years 1953, 1958, 1970, 1971, 1973).

While 42 percent of the rain forests in the Hawaiian Islands have been lost, 90 percent of

the dry forests have been eliminated (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). Introduced plants and

ungulates on the two largest islands, Maui and Hawaii, have heavily degraded the

54 remaining 10 percent (Cabin et al. 2000). One of the largest remaining areas ofdry forest in the Hawaiian Islands is the North Kona district on the island of Hawai'i. This area is highly degraded, with the native vegetation represented by only small patches and scattered individuals separated by dense ground cover of alien grasses. Regeneration is lacking, and these remaining patches and individuals are often large, probably very old, trees (Cabin et al. 2000). Very large ranches encompassing tens of thousands of acres have been created on Hawai'i and ranching is still a major commercial activity. Feral goats and sheep are found throughout the dry forest in North Kona. Today, the most devastating factor within the dry forest habitat on the island of Hawai'i is the invasion by

Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass) that has occurred during this century, resulting in its complete domination of the ground cover in the dry forest habitat of North Kona

(Cabin, et al., 2000).

Threats to Dry Forests in North Kona

The threats to dry forest are numerous, and have a tremendous cumulative effect on the native plants within the forest. While some of the threats have a much greater effect than the native plants, it is unclear if controlling the major threats alone will result in a regenerating, functioning dry forest. The major threats to dry forest in the North Kona area are fountain grass and the resulting increase in flre, and ungulates, which suppress native plants and increase the disturbed habitat available for fountain grass to invade.

Additional threats include insect and rat predation and other alien plant species (USFWS

1996). Direct human impacts by Hawaiians for wood and medicine are unknown.

55 Fountain grass is a fire-adapted bunch grass that has spread rapidly over bare lava flows and open areas on the island of Hawai'i since its introduction as an ornamental in the early 1900's (Cuddihy and Stone 1990). Cattle will eat this grass only when no other grasses are available (M. Kato per comm. 1993). Fountain grass is particularly detrimental to Hawai'i's dry forests because it is able to invade areas once dominated by native plants, where it carries fires into areas not usually prone to fires, increases the likelihood of fire, and interferes with native plant regeneration (Hughes, Vitousek and

Tunison 1991). While native plants were exposed to volcanic lava flows, fires were rare in the Hawaiian landscape, and most native plants have not evolved the capability to survive fire (Hughes et al. 1991). Many of the introduced plants, especially grasses, are not only adapted to survive fire, but also seem to thrive under regimes where fires are frequent. The elimination of these grasses, including fountain grass is vital to the restoration of the dry forest (Hughes et al 1991). The ranchers are also concerned about the fountain grass, since fires are frequent in the area and cause an economic hardship to the industry.

Ungulates are also a serious threat to the dry forest ecosystem (Cuddihy and Stone 1990).

Ungulates in the North Kona district include, cattle, feral goats, and feral sheep. The ungulates are a threat in several ways: 1) browsing of native plants, especially seedlings,

2) trampling of plants, and 3) aiding in the spread of alien plants by creating disturbed openings for seeds to become established and by transporting seeds to the site on the animals' fur, or in feces (Cuddihy and Stone 1990).

56 This research attempts to document the extent of the lamalkauila lowland dry forest. The study area is a 2.3 ha kipuka along in North Kona adjacent to the 1800-1801 lava flow at approximately 600 m elevation (see Figure 3). Impacts by Hawaiians and specific uses offorest species will also be demonstrated.

It has been mentioned by various authors that conservation practices in tropical dry­ forests must focus on species interactions (Janzen 1988), alien species control (Smith

1985), and ecosystem restoration (Cairns 1986). The loss of native habitats to alien species, the large number of federally listed endangered plant species, and the increasing human pressures on native ecosystems only emphasize the urgency of immediately documenting the dry-forest ecological conditions and plant associations, and proposing measures for their conservation. For Hawaiian lowland dry-forests, two centuries of cattle grazing, introduced species, and human induced fires have drastically reduced them to a few remaining patches. This research documents causes of decline in this ecosystem by Hawaiians living in the North Kona area from A.D. 1600-1800 to add to our knowledge ofdry forest threats and impacts.

57 Figure 3: Geology of Ka'iipiilehu Exclosure

Kaupulehu Exclosure and Geology

58 The urgency of preserving ethnobotanical knowledge still extant within indigenous societies and its importance to various fields of science, industries, and the arts is now widely recognized. Indigenous peoples usually have extensive knowledge of the properties and uses of their surrounding vegetation. Evolving over centuries of trials and errors, Hawaiians developed a surprisingly large nomenclature of useful plants and a pharmacopoeia equal to a trained medical doctor of the time (Handy and Handy1972,

Abbott 1992). However, these oral encyclopedias are some of the first parts of the culture that are lost to westernization (Nettle and Romaine 2000).

Ethnobotanical conservation has gained wide recognition as a major element of environmental conservation. The Ecological Society of America recently organized a new Traditional Ecological Knowledge section into its society to address the relationships between indigenous societies and conservation and the University of

Hawai'i is developing the "Hui Konohiki" program to bring together the disciplines of western and traditional sciences. Whether it is called Traditional Ecological Knowledge

(TEK) or Ethnobotanical conservation, this new field is certainly destined to play an even greater role in numerous phases of conservation of our natural resources. One of the most valuable contributions that ethnobotanical conservation may give to modern science is the intricate familiarity that people in most "primitive" societies possess of local variants or ecotypes of the plants of their surroundings--variants of the economically valuable species as well as of those for which no use is yet known.

This research project was designed to address the following hypotheses:

59 Dry forests in North Kona could provide hardwoods to be used in the construction

of kauhale (chiefly housing compounds) and a fleet of wa'a kaulua (double hull

canoes).

Quantitative methods will be applied to an inventory of the Ka'iipiilehu dry forest

exclosure with respect to canoe making and house construction. Due to the amount of degradation that has occurred in the North Kona dry forests from cattle ranching, and fountain grass, the Ka'iipiilehu exclosure is chosen to provide the closest example of the

dry forest species during the time of Kamehameha (1775-1796).

Ethnographic information about Hawaiian cultural traditions in North Kona

(Kekaha) will reference the Ka'fipiilehu dry forest and its hardwoods as sufficiently dense and important for the collection ofhardwood species.

A review of published and unpublished literature written in Hawaiian and English will be conducted. Particular attention will be given to the North Kona district and Ka'iipiilehu.

Legends (mo'olelo), Land Commission Awards, and ethnographic reports will be researched to demonstrate the importance of resources in Ka'iipiilehu to the Hawaiian people and the role of the forest as a major gathering place for native hardwoods. Such hardwoods played an important role to Kamehameha's reign as sovereign from 1775­

1796, and the proximity of his residences at Kawaihae and Kailua-Kona to Ka'iipiilehu may demonstrate the importance ofthese forest species to his political power.

60 The Lama I Kauila Lowland Dry Forest is continuous band of vegetation extending from Ka'iipiilehu, through adjacent Pu'uwa'awa'a, to Pu'uanahulu to the north.

An inventory of the Ka'Opfilehu exclosure will be conducted and using point-centered quarter technique, the density of the forest and size classes of trees will be detennined.

This infonnation will be compared with biological inventories of Pu'uwa'awa'a and

Pu'uanahulu by Giffin (2003), Takeuchi (1991) and the Nature Conservancy (1992) to detennine the extent ofthe lamalkauila forest.

61 LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, LA. 1992. La'au Hawai'i, traditional Hawaiian uses of plants. Bishop Museum ~ss, Honolulu. Allan, H. H. 1936. Indigene versus Alien in the New Zealand Plant World. Ecology 17, 187-193.

Cabin, RJ., S.G. Weller, D.H. Lorence, TW. Flynn, A.K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, and L.J. Hadway. 2000. Effects oflong-term ungulate exclusion and recent alien species control on the preservation and restoration of a Hawaiian tropical Dry Forest. Conservation Biology 14: 439-453.

Cairns, J. 1986. Restoration, Reclamation, and Regeneration ofDegraded or Destroyed Ecosystems. In Conservation Biology: The Science of Scarcity and Diversity (M. E. Soule, ed.). Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts.

Carlquist, S. 1965. Island Life. A Natural History ofthe Islands ofThe World. The Natural History Press, Garden City, N.Y.

Carlquist, S. 1970. Hawaii: A Natural History. Natural History ~ss, Garden City, N.Y.

Cuddihy L.W. and C.P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of native Hawaiian vegetation: effects of humans, their activities, and introductions. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Hawaii. D'Antonio, L. M. and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological Invasions by Exotic Grasses, the GrasslFire Cycle and Global Change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23,63-87.

Darwin, C. 1859. On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured races in the Struggle for Life. John Murray, London. Degener, 0.1930. Illustrated Guide to the more common or noteworthy Ferns and Flowering Plants of Hawaii National Park. Pub!. privately, Honolulu.

Egler, F. E. 1942. Indigene Versus Alien in the Development of Arid Hawaiian Vegetation. Ecology 23, 14-23.

Egler, F. E. 1947. Arid Southeast Oahu Vegetation, Hawaii. Ecological Monographs 17, 383-435.

Fosberg, F. R 1963. The Island Ecosystem. In Man's Place in the Island Ecosystem: A Symposium" (F. R Fosberg, ed.), Vol. Tenth Pacific Science Congress, pp. 1-6. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Gagne, W. C. and L. W. Cuddihy 1990. Vegetation. In W.L. Wagner, D. R. Herbst. and S. H. Sohmer eds., Manual ofthe Flowering Plants ofHawai'i, Volume 1, pp. 45­ 114. University of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 62 Giambelluca, T.W., M.A. Nullet, and T.A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. DLNR Report R76. State ofHawaii, Department ofLand and Natural Resources, Division ofWater and Land Development, Honolulu.

Giffm, J. 2003. Pu'uwa'awa'a biological assessment, Pu'u wa'awa'a, North Kona, Hawaii. State ofHawaii. Division ofForestry and Wildlife.

Handy, E. C. 1940. The Hawaiian Planter. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161, 226.

Handy, E. S. C. and E. G. Handy. 1972. Native Planters in Old Hawaii; Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233, 1-641.

Harris, D. R. 1962. The Invasion of Oceanic Islands by Alien Plants: An Example from the Leeward West Indies. In Trans. and Papers, Inst. of British Geographers, Vol. No. 31.

Hatheway, W. H. 1952. Composition ofCertain Native Dry Forests: Mokuleia, Oahu, Territory of Hawaii. Ecological Monographs 22, 153-165.

Hooker, J. D. 1867. Insular Floras. Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette 27, 6­ 7,50-51,75-76.

Hughes, R. F., P. M. Vitousek, and T. Tunison. 1991. Alien grass invasion and fire in the seasonal submontane zone of Hawaii. Ecology 72:743-746.

Janzen, D. H. 1988. Tropical Dry Forests: The Most Endangered Major Tropical Ecosystem. In "Biodiversity (E. O. Wilson, ed.), pp. 130-137. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Loope, L. L. and P. G. Scowcroft 1985. Vegetation Response within Exc10sures in Hawai'i's: A Review. In Hawai'i's Terrestrial Ecosystems: Preservation and Management (c. P. Stone and 1. M. Scott, ed.). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, Honolulu.

Lorence, D. H. and T. Flynn 1995. Survey of the Ka'upillehu Preserve, September 1995. National Tropical Botanical Gardens, Lawai, Kaua'i.

Lugo, A 1986. Ecology ofTropical Dry Forest. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 17, 67-88.

MacDonald, G.A, and AT. Abbott. 1974. Volcanoes in the sea: the geology of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Matsunaga, P.H. 1983. Periods ofrainfall and associated drought reports on the island of Hawaii. M.A. Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Moore, R.B., and D.A. Clague. 1991. Geologic map ofHualalai. Miscellaneous Investigations Series. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Map 1-2225.

63 Nettle, D. and S. Romaine. 2000. Vanishing voices: the extinction of the world's voices. Oxford University Press, New York.

Powers, H.A., J.C. Ripperton, and Y.B. Goto. 1931. Survey of the physical features that affect the agriculture of the Kona District of Hawaii. Hawaiian Agricultural Research Station Bulletin 66, Honolulu.

Simberloff, D. 1988. The Contribution ofPopulation and Community Biology to Conservation Science. Annual Review ofEcology and Systematics 19, 473-511.

Takeuhi, W. 1991. Botanical survey ofPu'u wa'awa'a. Final Report. State ofHawaii. Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

The Nature Conservancy. 1992. Botanical survey of selected portions of the Pu'u Wa'awa'a Game Management and Lease Area, Island of Hawaii. State ofHawaii. Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

USFWS. 1993. Plants: Hawaiian Islands, Listed, Proposed, or Candidate Species Under the United States Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu.

USFWS. 1994. Recovery Plan for Caesalpinia kavaiensis and Kokia drynarioides. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS, 1996. Big island plant cluster recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Ore. 202 pp. van Riper, C. (1975). Parasites of the Hawaii Amakihi (Loxops virens virens). Island Ecosystems IRP, U.S. International Biological Program, Honolulu, Hawai'i.

Warren L. Wagner, D. R. Herbst., and S.H. Sohmer 1990. Manual ofFlowering Plants of Hawai'i, Special Publication 83/Ed. Bishop Museum Press and University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Wirawan, N. 1974. Floristic and Structural Development ofNative Dry Forest Stands at Mokuleia, N.W. Oahu. Rep. No. Technical Report No. 34. U.S. International Biological Program, Honolulu.

64 CHAPTER 5: NA MO'OLELO 'AINA: TRADITIONS OF THE LAND

INTRODUCTION

The ahupua'a of Ka'ilpiilehu is located in the North Kona District of the island of

Hawai'i. It is bounded on the north by Pu'uwa'awa'a ahupua'a and on the south by

Kilki'o ahupua'a, and extends westward from the sea to HuaUilai.

Ka'ilpiilehu has a rich, varied and well-documented history. During the reign of

Kamehameha (1775-1796), the area was visited frequently. It was the home to chiefs, and its marine resources including Kamehameha's fishpond Pa'aiea were well known.

However, because most of the documentation concerns the coastal region, and the current project area is inland, this report will encompass both the makai (seaward) lands of the ahupua'a and the mauka (upland) region. A search of published and unpublished accounts about the North Kona district and information from land commission awards

(LCA) was conducted to understand land use and settlement patterns. This information would later be used to determine impacts traditional Hawaiian societies may have had on dry forests of North Kona.

METHODS

Archival records (maps, documents, reports) pertaining to Ka'ilpiilehu, North Kona were searched at the State of Hawai'i Archives, Bishop Museum Archives and Hawaiian

Pacific Collection of the University of Hawai'i Hamilton Library. To investigate the use of forest resources, legends, voyaging accounts, and other writings in Hawaiian language

65 and English were also reviewed. Land Commission Awards and Land Indices published

in the mid-1800's were also searched for historical land uses and ownership.

RESULTS

Place Names in Ka'iipiilehu

Throughout the Hawaiian Islands, place names or wahi pana have an important place in the culture and history of Hawai'i. In ancient times, place names were important links between an area and a certain story or theme. A place often received their names according to the kind of work done there, or features of that area. There are a number of places with interesting names within and around the Ka'iipiilehu ahupua'a.

The entire portion of North Kona, which lies between Honokohau and Kapalaoa, was once known as Kekaha (Soehren 1963). Kekaha was known as an arid land with barren lava fields. The only other area known as Kekaha is located in the Waimea district, in southwest Kauai (Pukui, Elbert, and Mokena 1976)

The follOWing names are listed in Soehren's (1963) archaeological report archival maps along the coastline between Ka'iipiilehu and Pu'uwa'awa'a. Interpretations of place names are often difficult without knowledge of the local history. Descriptive names generally present no problems, but those that are commemorative can rarely be translated correctly without reference to the "mo'olelo" of story of its origin. The name Ka'iipiilehu is an excellent example. In the following lists, therefore, translations are not offered for all names (Soehren 1963).

66 Table 1: Place Names of Ka'iipiiIehu (from Soehren 1963)

Place name Tran lation (Soehren 1963)

Pohaku-o-ka-hae Banner rock

Ke-ahu-kau-pua'a Mound for placing pig

'Owe'owe Rattle; a kipuka

Pulu-'ohia 'ohi'a's mulch

Puako-wai nJa

Pohaku-Ioa Long rock

Mawae Fissure

Pu'u Nahaha Broken hill

Maile-hahei Maile worn across shoulders

Pu'u Honua'ula Red earth hill

Palahalaha Level

Ka-wai-o-ka-Ia'i-puna The water of the tranquil spring

Pulehu Cook in embers

Moa-nui-ahea nJa

Puha-a-Pele Pele's lava (eg., streaming)

Po'opo'o-mino Dented hallow

The following names are also found within the boundaries of Ka'iipUlehu:

Table 2: Place names within the boundaries of Ka'iipiiIehu (Soehren 1963)

Place name Trao lation (Soehren 1963)

Kumu-kea Point White base

Wai-a-kuhi Pond nJa

Kahu-wai Bay Contraction of Kahua-wai, place of water

Mahewalu Point nJa

Pu'u Kolekole nJa

Pu'u Mau'u (Pu'u Mau-USGS map) Grass hill

67 Place name Translation ( oehren 1963)

Kielo oJa

Pu'u 'Alauawa (perhaps 'Alauwa) Red-fish hill (?)

Hina-kapo-'ula Narne of a goddess

Ka'iipiilehu crater nJa

Kalulu The sheltered

Malekule oJa

Lua-Makam Wind pit

Hai-noa Free will offering

Ki-pahe'e Slippery slide

Na-wahine The women

Pu'uMa'au Gad-about hill

Ka'iipiilehu is said to have gone by an ancient name of Manuahi. This name translates as

"fIre bird" (Pukui, Elbert and Mookini 1974) by breaking the name into two words

"manu" (bird) and "ahi" (fIre). The word "manuahi" as a unit means "gratis, gratuitous, free of charge, adulterous" (pukui and Elbert 1986), but no reference consulted for this research applied this meaning to Ka'upiilehu. Although Pukui et al. (1974) say that

"Manuahi" is the ancient name for Ka'upiilehu, according to other sources; "Manuahi" is a name for a place in Ka'upiilehu and not for the entire ahupua'a. In fact, Soehren lists

Manuahi as a village below Kileo and Akahipu'u, noted in the story of two girls eating breadfruit.

A story about Ka'upiilehu is described by the archaeologist John Reinecke who collected information on Ka 'upiilehu during his survey of Kona sites for the Bishop Museum in

1930 (Reinecke 1930). In the story a daughter of the chief of Ka'upiilehu married the

68 god Kane in disguise. Kane told the chiefess to command all the people of Ka'iipiilehu to gather wood for one day in order to build a large irnu (underground earth oven)(Reinecke

1930). Eliza D. Maguire in ''The Waters of Kane" tells another version of the story. In it

Maguire states that during the reign of a chiefess of Ka'iipiilehu, there was a severe drought. In response to her prayers, the God Kane came to help her. After Kane ordered a large imu to be prepared, entered the oven, and was sealed in it, only to miraculously reappear in the sea (Maguire 1926). The place from which he emerged became a spring, known from then on as ''the waters of Kane." When the imu was opened, it was found to be filled with great quantities of cooked food, which relieved the famine caused by the drought. Thus the name Ka'iipiilehu is a contraction of the name given by Maguire in the opening of this report, Ka-imu-pulehu-a-ke-akua, the oven in which the god was roasted

(Maguire 1926).

Maguire recounts another legend for the Ka'iipiilehu about two girls living in the ancient village of Manuahi roasting breadfruit ('ulu). Pele came along and was offered 'ulu by the two girls. Pleased, Pele instructed the girls to place a lepa (kapu stick) around their home. That night, lava flowed from Hualalai, went underground and came up near

Hu'ehu'e destroying the village of Manuahi and the fishpond of Pa'aiea (Maguire 1926).

Samuel Kamakau, another 19th century native historian, refers to a similar story about breadfruit, but his tale involves Kamehameha and the Hualalai flow of 1800-1802.

''The people believed that this earth-consuming flame came because...[Kamehameha's) refusing her [Pele] the tabu breadfruit of Kameha'ikana which grew in the uplands ofHu'ehu'e where the flow started." (Kamakau 1964).

69 According to Kamakau, Pele may have had other reasons for launching the flow. Besides wanting the breadfruit, she wanted the aku (Katsuwonus pelamis) of Hale'ohi'u and the

'ahi fish (Thunnus albacares) of KIholo. Lastly, she was angry because Kamehameha was devoting himself to Kaheiheimaile (one of his wives) and neglecting Ka'ahumanu

(another wife)(Kamakau 1961).

Kamakau also states that at the time of 'Umi-a-LUoa (c. 1450), kauila wood from

Niipu'u, a place near Ka'iipiilehu, was used to make war clubs to be used when two brothers from Maui, Kiha-a-Pi'ilani and Lono-a-Pi'ilani, went to war (Kamakau 1961).

He writes of several battles in the vicinity of Ka'iipiilehu and neighboring Pu'uwa'awa'a.

During one of these, Kekaulike and Alapa'i waged war, and "Kekaulike cut down the trees throughout the land of Kona" (Kamakau 1961).

The name Ka'iipiilehu is translated by some sources as "the roasted breadfruit," the ('ii being short for 'ulu (Artocarpus altiUs) (Pukui et al. 1974). Kelly (1983) interprets the name as a combination of two words, ka'upu (meaning a kind of bird) and lehu (meaning numerous), together meaning "many birds of this kind." The Hawaiian Dictionary suggests that ka'upu may be a term for the Laysan albatross (Diomedea immutabilis), although the tern mali is more commonly used (Pukui and Elbert 1986). It should be noted that the term ka'upn is also the name of a native fern, which then would result in the translation "numerous ferns" for the name of this ahupua'a. Eliza D. Maguire said the name Ka'iipiilehu is a "contraction of Ka-imu-piilehu-a-ke-akua, the oven in which

70 the god was roasted" (Maguire 1926). Various sources offer other interpretations of the name, many of them drawn from legends associated with the area.

An Overview of Hawaiian Settlement and Land Management Practices

It is generally believed that Polynesian settlement voyages between Hawai'i and Kahiki

(the ancestral homelands of the Hawaiian gods and people) occurred in two major periods, AD 300 to 600 and AD 1100 to 1250. The ancestors ofthe Hawaiian population are believed to have come primarily from the Marquesas and Society Islands (Kirch

1985). For generations following initial settlement, the population clustered along the windward (ko'olau) shores of the Hawaiian Islands, where fresh water was available, agricultural production could become established, and fishing was good. Small bays generally had a cluster of houses where the families of fishermen lived (Handy and

Handy 1972). Only after the best areas became populated and perhaps crowded (ca. 800­

1000 AD), did the Hawaiians begin settling more remote kona (leeward) sides of the islands.

The land provided the fruits and vegetables, for the diet, and the ocean provided most of the protein. This system of land management also set the basis of Hawaiian land use and distribution through the early 19th century.

As the ancient Hawaiian population grew, land use and resource management practices evolved as well. As a result, the mokupuni or islands were divided into land units of varying sizes. The largest division was the moku-o-Ioko (district-literally: interior

71 island). It is recorded by the ca. 16th century, in the time of the chief 'Umi-a-Liloa, the island of Hawai'i was formally divided into six major districts (Fornander 1973). On

Hawai'i, the district of Kona is one of six major moku-o-Ioko within the island. The district of Kona itself, extends from the shore across the entire volcanic mountain of

Hualiilai, and continues to the summit of Mauna Loa, where the districts of Ka'ii, Hilo, and Hiimakua join Kona. One traditional description of the southern and northern-most boundaries of Kona describes the district as extending:

Mai Ke-ahu-a-Lono I ke 'li 0 Kani-kii, a bO'ea I ka 'ii1ei kolo 0 Manukli I Kaulanamauna e pili aku I Ka'ii-From Keahuolono [the Kona-Kohata boundary] on the rocky clats of Kanikii, to Kaulanamauna next to the crawling (tangled growth of) 'ii1ei [Osteorne/es anihyllidifo/ia] bushes at Manukli, where Kona clings to Ka'ii! (Ka'ao Ho'onina Pu'uwai no Ka Mild in KaHokii 0 Hawai'i, September 13, 1917).

Kona, like other large districts on Hawai'i, was further divided into 'okana or kalana regions smaller than the moku-o-Ioko), yet comprising several other units of lands. In the region now known as Kona 'akau (North Kona), there were at least two ancient regions

(kalana) as well. The southern portion of North Kona was known as "Kona kai 'opua"

(interpretively translated as: Kona of the distant horizon clouds above the ocean), and included the area extending from Kailua to Pu'uokau. The northern-most portion of

North Kona was called "Kekaha" (descriptive of an arid coastal place). Native residents of the region affectionately referred to their home as "Kekaha-wai-'ole 0 nil Kona"

(waterless Kekaha of the Kona district). The boundaries of Kekaha are described by the following saying:

'0 Hikuhia I ka uka 0 Nli-pu'u a me Kekahawai'ole. mai Ke-ahu-a-Lono I ke 'li 0 Kanikii a hO'ea I ke kula 0 Kanoenoe I ka pu'uo u'u-o-Kaloa. [Kekaha extends from] the uplands ofHikuhia. which is above Nlipu'u' and the waterless Kekaha; and extends from Keahualono on the rocky

2 Napu'u is a general name for the hills and region between Pu'uanahulu and Pu'uwa'awa'a, is also called Napu'upii'alu or Napu'upu'alukinikini. 72 plain of Kanikii, to the hill of Pu'ukaloa [at Keahuolu]. (Ka'ao Ho'oniua Pu'uwai no Ka-Miki in KaHokii o Hawai'i, October 18,1917).

The sub districts of Kona, like those mentioned above were further divided into manageable units of land, which were tended to by the maka'ainana (people of the land).

Of all the land divisions, perhaps the most significant land division was the ahupua'a, subdivisions of land that were usually marked by an altar with an image or representation of a pig placed upon it (thus the name ahu-pua'a or pig altar). The ahupua'a may generally be compared the pie-shaped wedges of land that stretch from the ocean which fronts the land unit, to the islands' interior. Even the ahupua'a were divided into smaller manageable parcels in which cultivated resources could be grown and natural resources harvested. As long as sufficient tribute was offered and kapu (restrictions) were observed, the common people, who lived in a given ahupua'a had access to most of the resources from mountain slopes to the ocean.

Entire ahupua'a, or portions of the land were generally under the jurisdiction of appointed konohiki or lesser chief-landlords, who answered to an ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a (chief who claimed the abundance of the entire district). The ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a in tum answered to an ali'i 'ai moku (chief who claimed the abundance of the entire district). Thus, ahupua'a resources also supported the royal community of regional and/or island kingdoms. This form of district subdividing was integral to Hawaiian life and was the product of strictly adhered to resources management planning.

Kekaha-wai- 'ole-o-na-Kona in Historic Narratives

A review of 19th century Hawaiian historical records (narratives written by both native and foreign historians) presents readers with a few rich glimpses into the history and 73 customs associated with the lands of Kaulana, Mahai'ula, Makalawena, Awake'e,

Manini'owali, and Kiiki '0. The narratives of the Kekaha region offer a glimpse into the significance of how the land shaped the lives and practices of the native population in ancient times. It should be noted here that the limited number of early native accounts is not surprising when one takes into account the dramatic changes in the natural landscape in the region, a result of the 1800 and 1801 lava flows of Hualalai. The lava flows not only covered large tracts of land in Kekaha, but they also erased significant features in the cultural landscape. Adding to the limitations of early records is the fact that by the beginning of the 19th century, the native population was also in decline, primarily as a result of foreign diseases. Thus, many of the people who could tell the stories were gone before detailed written accounts could be recorded.

Interestingly, in areas like Mahai'ula, Makalawena, Kiiki '0, and Ka'iipiilehu, where natural resources were favorable, families in small communities maintained residence into the later 19th and early 20th centuries. From some of the descendants of these families we are provided a unique historical record-indeed at least two of the "sons" of

Kekaha (born in the early 1850's) were prolific writers. In the period from ca. 1907 to

1929, J.W.H. Isaac Kihe (who also wrote under the penname "Ka-'ohu-ha'aheo-i-na- kuahiwi-'ekolu") and John Ka'elemakule, who independently and in partnership with

3 Reverend Steven Desha and John Wise , wrote detailed historical accounts in Hawaiian language newspapers. Their writings describe the impact of the lava flows of 1800 and

1801, the covering of important agricultural fields, large native communities, and a

3 Kihe and Wise also worked in the translations of Abraham Pomander's "Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore" (1917-1919). 74 highly valued complex of fishponds. They also offer us documentation on place names, practices, customs, and beliefs of the people of Kekaha.

The historical texts highlighted in the following section of this chapter include frequently cited narratives, and also provide readers with firsthand accounts by native residents. To the greatest extent, all native accounts that make specific reference to the ahupua'a or other sites within the Kekaha region have been included here. Other selected narratives, which describe the customs help, interpret historic resources of the land and the life ways of the residents. The historical records are usefully presented in sections by date of occurrence-the period of the events described-and generally from the earliest written accounts to the most recent ones.

Traditional and Early Historic Accounts (ca. 1860-1885)

The Hawaiian traditions cited in this section of the study, come from written accounts of the mid 19th century. As noted earlier in this chapter, initial settlement of Kona appears to have occurred first along the sheltered and watered bays in the region extending south from Kailua. Only after the population increased and there developed a need to inhabit more arid lands, did the people begin establishing permanent settlements in Kekaha. In many of the accounts below, it will be seen that one of the recurring themes of the native and early historic narratives of Kekaha, is the wealth of the fisheries--those of the deep

sea, near shore, and inland fishponds-of the region.

75 The native account of Punta: A Tale of Sharks and Ghosts of Kekaha (also written

Puniaiki-cf. Kamakau 1968), is perhaps among the earliest accounts of the Kekaha area, and in it is found a native explanation for the late settlement ofKekaha (Fornander 1973).

Kekaha in the Time of 'Umi-a-Liloa (ca. 16th century)

One of the earliest datable accounts that references Kekaha comes fonn the mid 16th century after the chief 'Umi-a-Liloa unified the island of Hawai'i under his rule. Writing in the 1860's, native historian Samuel Manaiakalani Kamakau (1961) tells us of 'Umi and mentions the regions ofKekaha.

'Umi-a-Liloa did two things with his own hands, farming and fishing ...and farming was done on all the lands. Much of this was done in Kona. He was noted for his skill in fishing and was called Pu'ipu'i a ka lawai'a (a stalwart fishennan). Aku fishing was his favorite occupation, and it often took him to the beaches [Kekaha] from Kaliihuipua'a to

4 Makaula • He also fished for 'ahi and kala. He was accompanied by famed fishennen such as Pae, Kahuna, and all of the chiefs ofhis kingdom. He set apart the activities such as fishing, farming and other practices (Kamakau 1961).

At the end of 'Umi's life, Kamakau (1961) references Kekaha once again. He records that Ko'i, one of the faithful supporters and a foster son of 'Umi, sailed to Kekaha, where he killed a man who resembled 'Umi. Ko'i then took the body and sailed to Maka'eo in the ahupua'a of Keahuolu. Landing at Maka'eo in the night, Ko'i took the body to the

4 KaHihuipua'a is situated in the district of Kohala, bordering the northern side of Pu'uanahulu in Kekaha. Maka'ula is

situated a few abupua'a south of Kaulana·Mahai 'ulaf to the north of KaJaoa. 76 cave where 'Umi's body lay. Replacing 'Umi's body with that of the other man, Ko'i

then crossed the lava beds, returning to his canoe at Maka'eo. From there, 'Umi's body

was taken to its' final resting place (Kamakau 1961).

Kamakau continues the narrative describing how the bones of Pae were hidden, but through the divinations of a kahuna (priest), the bones were retrieved. 'Umi had the bones made into fishhooks, and he took the sons of Pae fishing for 'ahi and kahala fish

(presumably in the ocean fronting Kekaha). After each fish was hooked, 'Umi called out

HE Pae e, i pa'a kii kiiua i'a, e Pae" (Say Pae, hold fast to our fish, 0 Pae). Startled, the sons of Pae went to see the secret burial place of their father at Kawaikapu in Waimanu, and they discovered that Pae's body was indeed gone (Kii 'Oko'a Sept. 28-0ct. 5, 1867 and Kamakau 1961).

Kekaha: ca. 1740 to 1801: the rise to political power ofKamehameha I

From the time of 'Umi until the 18th century, there appear to be few other early written accounts of the ahupua'a in the study area, or the larger Kekaha region. When Kamakau writes once again about the lands of Kekaha, we fmd ourselves in the middle 18 th

century. The narrative tells us that the forces of Kekaulike from Maui attacked

Alapa'inui, who had secured all of Hawai'i under his rule.

Kamakau tells us that Alapa'inui died in 1754 (Kamakau 1961). Leading up to that time,

the young chief Kalani'opu'u, had been challenging Alapa'i's rule, and after a short reign, Keawe'opala, 1780, as a result of their valor and counsel Kalani'opu'u granted

77 "estate lands" in Kekaha to the twin chiefs Kame'eiamoku and Kamanawa (Kamakau

1961). Later, from his Kekaha residence at Ka'iipiilehu, Kame'eiamoku played the lead

role in one of the famous early historical events between Hawaiians and foreigners. In

1790, while residing at Ka'iipiilehu, Kame'eiamoku captured the ship, Fair American.

As a result of the capture, Kame'eiamoku and his followers acquired several foreign arms, including a cannon that they called, "Lopaka," and the ship's Captain, Isaac Davis.

Taken before Kamehameha, Davis and another captured foreigner, John Young, became friends and advisors of Kamehameha I (Kamakau 1961).

Having secured his kingdom on the island of Hawai'i, by 1797, Kamehameha I honored

Kame'eiamoku's right to estate lands of Ka'upiilehu-Kekaha, in return for services provided by Kame'eiamoku (Kamakau 1961). Kamakau also reports "the land of Kekaha was held by the kahuna class of Kauahi and Nahulu (Kamakau 1961); of which the twin chiefs are believed to have belonged.

The lives of the twin chiefs of Kekaha, Kamanawa of K1lIolo, and Kame'eiamoku of

Ka'iipiilehu, are closely bound with the history of the Hawaiian Islands during the period of the rise of Kamehameha I, as high chief of the Islands. Presumably, whoever had control over the leeward ports of the Island of Hawai'i would play an important part in the history of the Islands during this early historical period. As it was, that role fell to

Kamehameha, Kamanawa, Kame'eiamoku, Ke'eaumoku, and a few others who were anxious to further their political power.

78 In 1800 and 1801, two events that were perhaps the most significant in the native history of Kekaha occurred. The lava flows of Ka'upfilehu and Puhi-a-Pele on the slope of

Hualalai, poured across the land consuming native settlements, agricultural field systems, sheltered coves, fresh water sources, and numerous sites of significance in the cultural and natural landscapes of Kekaha. Among the most significant of the resources covered by the lava flow was an extensive complex of Pa'aiea (ka loko 0 Pa'aiea) that extended from Ka'elehuluhulu in Kaulana, to at least as far as Keiihole in the land of Kalaoa.

Indeed, the loko 0 Pa'aiea was famous for its vast expanse, and is recalled in the

Hawaiian proverb:

'0 nli hakii 0 ka lani luna, '0 Pa'aiea ko Ialo-The stars are above, Pa'aiea is below. Referring to: " Kamehameha's great fishpond Pa'aiea, in Kona.. .Its great size led to this saying-small islets that dotted its interior were compared to the stars that dot the sky..." (Pukui 1986).

Indeed, as viewed today, the lava flows of 1800 and 1801 seem to embrace the coastal lands that are now Kekaha Kai State Park. In his account "1800 and 1801: Ka Huaka'i 0

Pele-The Procession (eruption oflava from Hualalai)," Kamakau (1961) provides readers with an early written description ofthe eruptions and their impact on the people of Kona.

John Papa I'i, a native historian and companion of the Kamehameha's, adds to the historical record of the fishpond Pa'aiea which was destroyed by the 1801 lava flows. I'i reports that because of his exceptional abilities at canoe racing, Kea'alani "became a favorite of the king, and it was thus that he received [stewardship of] the whole of

Puuwaawaa and the fishponds Paaiea in Makaula and Kaulana in Kekaha" (I'i 1959).

79 Kekaha: 1812 to 1841

As a child in ca. 1812, Hawaiian historian John Papa I'i passed along the shores of

Kekaha in a sailing ship, as a part of the procession of Karneharneha I, bound for Kailua,

Kana. In his narratives, he described the shiny lava flows and fishing canoe fleets of the

"Kaha" (Kekaha) lands. I'i also reports that "Kahaleula" is the name of the surf of

Mahai'u1a, and at that time, board-body-, and canoe-surfmg were still popular pastimes in the days ofhis youth (I'i 1959).

Kamakau wrote that in the last years of Kamehameha's life (ca. 1812 to 1819), "fishing was his occupation" (Kamakau 1961).

...[Kamehameha] would often go out with his fishermen to Kekaha off Ka'elehuluhulu and when there had been a great catch of aku or 'ahi fish he would give it away to the chiefs and people, the cultivators and canoe makers (Kamakau 1961: 203).

Following the death of Kamehameha I in 1819, the Hawaiian religious and political systems began undergoing radical change. Just moments after his death, Ka'ahumanu proclaimed herself "Kuhina Nui" (Prime Minister), and within six months, the ancient kapu system was overthrown. Less than a year later, Protestant missionaries arrived from

America; all the while, the population was suffering the ravages of foreign diseases (cf.

I'i 1959, Kamakau 1961, and Fomander 1973).

In 1823, British missionary William Ellis and members of the American Board

Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) toured the island of Hawai'i seeking out community centers in which to establish church centers for growing Calvinist mission.

Generally, Ellis' writings (Ellis 1963) offer readers interesting glimpses into the nature of 80 native communities and history as spoken at the time. Unfortunately, the lands within the immediate study area were not visited during his journey, though Ellis does offer historical glimpses and discussion of events into some of the history of the larger Kekaha region.

While in Kailua, Ellis and his companions learned of an eruption of Hualalai, which had occurred about 23 years before their visit.

...inundated several villages, destroyed a number ofplantations and extensive fishponds, filled up a deep bay twenty miles in length, and formed the present coast.

An Englishman, who has resided thirty-eight years in the islands, and who witnessed the above eruption, has frequently told us he was astonished at the irresistible impetuosity of the torrent.

Stone walls, trees, and houses, all gave way before it; even large masses orrocks of ancient lava, when surrounded by the fiery stream, soon split into small fragments, and falling into the burning mass, appeared to melt again, as borne by it down the mountain's side. Numerous offerings were presented, and many hogs thrown alive into the stream, to appease the anger ofthe gods, by whom they supposed it was directed, and to stay its devastating course.

All seemed unavailing, until one day the Kamehameha went, attended by a large retinue of chiefs and priests, and, as the most valuable offering he could make, cut off part of his own hair, which was always considered sacred, and threw it into the torrent.

A day or two after, the lava ceased to flow. The gods, it was thought, were satisfied...(Ellis 1963:30-31).

Following the tour around the island, members of the Ellis party returned to Kawaihae, and traveled by canoe back to Kailua. On this trip Ellis visited coastal villages between Kopalaoa (near the northern boundary of Kona) and Kailua. At that time, Kapalaoa was a village of approximately 22 houses. Departing Kapalaoa, Ellis boarded his canoe and sailed to Wainiinili'i, a village and fishpond complex at the northern end of Kekaha. Ellis recorded that Kiholo was "a straggling village, inhabited primarily by fishermen" (Ellis 1963:294).

Among Ellis' comments on the landscape of KTholo, is a description of the fishpond of that area. The pond at KInolo was constructed at the order of Karnehameha I in ca. 1810.

This village exhibits another monument of the genius ofTamehameha. A small bay, perhaps half a mile across, runs inland a considerable distance. From one side of this bay, Tamehameha built a strong stone wall, six feet high in some places, and twenty feet wide, by which he had an excellent fishpond, not less than two miles in circumference. There were several arches in the wall, which were guarded by strong stakes driven into the ground so far apart as to admit the water of the sea; 81 yet sufficiently close to present the fish from escaping. It was well stocked with fish, and waterfowl were seen swimming on its surface (Ellis 1963:294). Departing from Kiliolo, Ellis passed Ka-Lae-Mano, "a point of land fonned by the last ernplion ofthe great crater on Mauna Huararai" (Ellis 1963). He reports that he landed at the village of Ka'iipiilehu at night, and that the residents were all asleep. From

Ka'iipiilehu, Ellis sailed directly to Kailua (Ellis 1963). Thus, once again only Ellis passed by the lands of Kiiki'0, Makalawena, and Mahai'ula.

In 1840-41, Charles Wilkes of the United States Exploring Expedition traveled through the Kekaha region. Wilkes' narrative gives a brief description of agricultural activities in coastal communities and also documents the continued importance of fishing and salt making to the people living in Kekaha (Wilkes 1845).

In their discussion of early agricultural practices in the region, Handy and Handy (1972) reported that:

Wherever, a little soil could be heaped together along the dry lava coast ofNorth Kona, a few sweet potatoes were planted by ftshennen at such places as Honokohau, Mahai'ula, MakaIawena, Kaupulehu, Kiholo, Keawaiki, and Kapalaoa. Doubtless potatoes were planted on the upland of North Kona, on the lower slopes ofHualalai toward Pu'u Wa'awa'a, up to a considerable altitude in rainy seasons (Handy and Handy 1972: 527-528).

Population Records

Based on missionary calculations (partially a result of the Ellis' Tour of Kona in 1799), the population on Ihe island of Hawai'i was estimaled at 85,000 individuals in 1823

(Schmitt 1973). By 1850, the population on the island had dropped to 25,864 (Schmitt

1973). In 1835, population records for the region of Kekaha (Kapalaoa to Kealakehe-the present sludy area included) placed Ihe population at 1,233 individuals. The total

82 population of Kona in 1831 was 6,649, and in 1835, it was 5,957 individuals, a four-year

decline of 692 persons (Schmitt 1973). Historical accounts recording the continued

decline of the native population in the period from ca. 1850 to 1920.

The decline of remote area populations is partially explained by the missionary's efforts at converting the Hawaiian people to Christianity. Logically, churches were placed fIrst in the area of larger native communities, and where chiefly support could be easily maintained. In this way, the missionaries obtained the greatest use of their limited number, and large groups of natives could live under the watchful eyes of church leaders, close to churches, and in "civilized" villages and towns. A native account that mentions

Ka'elehuluhulu and Mahai'ula, also documents the move of one family, upon their hearing of the arrival ofthe missionaries in Kailua.

Overall, the historic record documents the effect that western settlement practices had on

Hawaiians throughout the islands. Drawing people from isolated native communities into

selected village parishes and Hawaiian's ports-of-call had an unforeseen impact on native residency patterns, health, and social and political affairs (cf. I'i 1959, Kamakau 1961,

and McEldowney 1979).

Dry Forests

Few references occur concerning the utilization of dry forest trees in North Kona. The

kauila of Napu'u, another name for North Kona and Kekaha is famous. The fust

reference occurs during the time of 'Umi-a-LTIoa (16th century), ''The kauila wood of

83 Napu'u and Kahuku, the o'a [Alphitonia ponderosa] and koai'e [Acacia koaia] were being made into clubs to be used against [the Maui chiefs]," (Kamakau 1961). Kauila wood from Napu'u was used by the canoe maker Waipa as "nails" in the 1790's. Waipa was the first Hawaiian to build a European style ship and worked under Kamehameha.

Along with kauila nails were ribs made from hau and koa, and wiliwili wood made up the flooring (Kamakau 1961). Another plant, koki'o (Kokia drynarioides) is discussed by

Young and Popenoe (1916) because the bark was used to dye fishing nets. Apparently, the collection of its bark by residents in North Kona was proposed by the authors as one factor for the plants decline in North Kona and the action would have to stop if the plant were to survive.

A search of the J.S. Emerson collection at the Bishop Museum found 5 wooden items from the North Kona area (Table 3).

Table 3: Tools from the Kekaha region, North Kona Too! Wood Location Dlmensions Accession Na Papa KiipalupaJu Mana / koa Ka'iipUlehu 59 cm X 42 cm BPBM 157 Shark bait platter X 11 cm Na Papa KiipaJupaJu Mana / koa Ka'upUlehu 62cmX44cm BPBM 158 Shark bait platter X 11 em PoloHi / Spear kauila Napu'u 359 em long BPBM 821 Newa/Club kauila Kekaha 4OcmX9cm, BPBM217 1190g La'au lomi kua / massage 'Ulei Puanahulu 66 cm long, 3 BPBM 1174 stick cm dia. (exchanged)

Land Tenure and Use

Prior to 1848, all land and natural resources were held in trust by the high chiefs, and their use was at the prerogatives of the high chiefs (ali'i 'ai ahupua'a or ali'i 'ai moku) 84 and their representatives of land agents (konohiki), who were generally lesser chiefs as well. By the early 19th century, Hawai'i's popularity as a port-of-call and economic center was becoming firmly established. With increased western visits and settlement, there also grew an interest in the ownership of large tracts of land in the Hawaiian

Islands-a privilege afforded to only a few individuals. When the Calvinist missionaries arrived in 1820, they observed the Hawaiian land tenure system, and encouraged the

King and his advisors to allow the common people the right to private ownership of land.

Slowly, as a result of economic and religious pressures, the seeds of change in Hawaiian land tenure took root.

The Miihele of 1848

By 1848, economic and missionary forces brought about a western system of land ownership, which allowed fee-simple property ownership rights, replacing the native

Hawaiian land tenure system. This event was called the Miihele, a division of lands between the King, lesser chiefs and overseers (konohiki), and the government. The

Miihele defmed the land interests of Kamehameha III (the King), the high-ranking chiefs, and the konohiki (Chinen 1958 and Chinen 1961). In this system, all land in the

Kingdom, of Hawai'i came to be placed in one of the three categories: (l) Crown Lands

(for the occupant of the throne); (2) Government Lands; and (3) Konohiki Lands.

Because the Miihele did not convey title to any land, the chiefs and konohiki were required to present their claims to the Land Commission to receive the lands granted to them by the King. One stipulation was that the chiefs were required to pay commutations to the government in order to receive royal patents on lands they were awarded (Chinen

85 1961). As a result of this requirement, we learn of the disposition of the lands of

Kaulana, Mahai'ula, Makalawena, Awake'e, Manini'owali, and Kiiki'o-recorded in the

th th Buke Mahele prepared from January 27 to March 8 , 1848 (Buke Mahele 1848).

At the time of the Mahele, Ka'iipiilehu was awarded to Lot Kamehameha, along with

Kaloko to the South. Lot Kamehameha was the grandson of Kamehameha I, and he had

selected these lands for his own. Both of them contained natural fishponds. Such ponds were highly prized, and at the time of the Mahele, they were usually retained by the ali'i.

Other North Kona lands were retained for this reason by various ali'i.

The laws of the period also record that ownership rights to all lands in the kingdom were

"subject to the rights of the native tenants," who lived on the land and worked it for their

subsistence and the welfare of the chiefs (Kanawai Hoopai Karaima... {Penal Code)

1850:22). The 1850 resolutions in "Kanawai Hoopai Karaima no ko Hawaii Pae Aina," also authorized the Land Commission to award fee-simple title to all native tenants who occupied and improved any portion of Crown, Government, or Konohiki lands. These awards were to be free of commutation except for house lots located in the districts of

Honolulu, Lahaina, and Hilo (cf. Penal Code, 1850, Chinen 1958)

Hoa'aina (Native Tenants) in the Mahele

In order to receive their awards from the Land Commission, the native tenants (hoa'liina)

were required to prove that they cultivated the land for a living. They were not permitted

to acquire "wastelands" (e.g. fish ponds) or lands that they cultivated "with the seeming

86 intention of enlarging their lots." Once a claim was confirmed, a survey was required before the Land Commission was authorized to issue any award. The lands awarded to the hoa'aina became known as "Kuleana Lands." All of the claims and awards were numbered (Land Commission Awards or LCA), and the LCA numbers remain in use today to identify the original owners of lands in Hawai'i. By the time of its closure on

March 31,1855, the Land Commission issued only 8,421 kuleana claims, equaling only

28,658 acres of land to the native tenants (Kame'eleihiwa 1991).

Because the hoa'aina were required to present documentation of their residency and cultivation of the parcels they claimed, the documentation collected between 1848-1855, is a valuable source of historic land use and residency records. Those records are preserved in a series of books that "register" the claims and subsequently record

"testimony" supporting the claims. Today, the primary reference to claims and awards of the Mahele is the "Indices of Awards," published in 1929 by the office of the

Commissioner of Public Lands.

The Indices to Land Commission Award titles lists the following for LeA 7715 which was the award given to Lot Kamehameha:

Table 4: Land Commission Awards

LCA. Number/Claimant Ahupua'a Location and Description

LCA77115/Lot Kamehameha Ka'ilpiilehu, Kana Hawai i

Re olved that in consideration of the relinquishment of 'Kahikinui ' on East Maui, by Lot Kamehameha to the Government in former division of lands. the Minister of the Interior i hereby authorized to grant Royal Patents to Lot for his lands. said to be 87 LCA umber/Claimant Ahupua'a Location andDe ription eighteen in number, without further division or commutation.

Beginning at the SW corner of Puu Waawaa at the seaward extremity of the ledge called Pohakuokahae, whence the Govt. trig. Station on Akahipuu in S 2 degree, 31 ft. 43 inches W (true) 36137 feet; thence the boundaries run by the true meridian to corners marked by "ahus" over rectangles cut in rock with crosses curt on surrounding rocks as follows ...area 2345 acres (as surveyed by I.M. Alexander 1885).

Infonnation in the Native Testimony indicates only that this land was awarded to Lot,

and no other data were given, likewise for infonnation in the Native Register.

Land Index Records contained various records on Ka'upiilehu ahupua'a, which are listed

below:

Table 5: Land Index Records

Land Index Record De cription

Interior Department, August 27,1850 Set apart for Lot Kapuaiwa in Land Division. See list oflands attracted to letter from Mariam Kekuanaoa to the Minister of the Interior (lohn Young).

Interior Department, May 28, 1861 In letter from P.H. Kapaiki, to Minister of the Interior, entering complaint against the action of a person who had under his control the remnant of the Government lands in slaughtering goats belonging to him and others running on the above land.

Interior Department Matters, October 10, 1861 R. Keelikolani to Lot Kamehameha, informing him of the receipt of Birds of Ka'iipiilehu from Maiai (k), his hoaaina, forty in number, that 20 went to his younger brother, 5 to herself, and the remaining 15 are his.

Interior Department. April 25, 1866 In report by I.H. Kalaiheana showing that the above ahupua'a is a Crown Land.

Interior Department, December 18, 1868 In letter by Charles Wall stating that he has heard that some natives have gone to Honolulu for the 88 Land Index Record Description purpose ofleasing the above land-Desires that the same be leased to him.

Residency and Land Use (ca. 1850 to 1903)

Although fishing had been the main occupation of Ka'upiilehu, by about 1860 ranching began to dominate the economy. During this time the population in this area dwindled, and by the early 1900's most of the native population had moved elsewhere (Ching

1971).

Cattle, goats, and sheep had been introduced to the islands in the latter part of the 18th century and had grown at alarming rates. Handy and Handy (1972) observe that after their introduction goats came to be the "the most destructive of all introduced grazing animals" (Handy and Handy 1972). Indeed, by 1815, shortly after his return to Kona from O'ahu, Kamehameha hired a few people to shoot cattle. The reproductive capacity of the cattle was alarming, and it is estimated that by 1815 there were c. 20,000 cattle on the island of Hawai'i, approximately 12,000 of them wild (Henke 1929).

In 1855, the King signed a law requiring all livestock owners on Hawai'i to register their brands between April I-September 30, 1855, or else the animals would be considered government property. By October 16, 1855, thirteen individuals had complied. One of the respondents was from the Ka'upiilehu in the Kekaha region, Papu5 of Ka'upiilehu; his brand recorded on October 12, 1855 (State Archives, Interior Department filed, 1855).

89 Evidence of some form of early ranching near the study area is found in a letter dated

May 28, 1861. In the letter, J.H. Kapaiki, Maiai, and Kanaina (all residents of

Ka'iipiilehu), wrote to Lot Kamehameha (Kamehameha V), owner of Ka'iipiilehu reporting that the population of goats in Ka'iipiilehu, which had been formerly tended, had increased and moved into the uplands. The writers also reported that on April 23"', branded goats had been hunted in Ka'iipiilehu (State Archives, Interior Department Land

Files, 1855).

As ranching operations became established, leases on government and private lands were also entered into. In the 1870's and 1880's, a number of individuals, including John

Broad, H. Cooper, H.N. Greenwell, 1. Dowsett, A.S. Cleghorn, J. Maguire, and King

Kalakaua applied for leases on large tracts of land in Kekaha (including portions of the study area ahupua'a). Large portions of the private- and leased-lands were dedicated to ranching operations.

The "Hawaiian Kingdom Statistical and Commercial Directory..." (1880-1881) lists two native goat ranchers in the lands of the study area-Hopulaau and Makahikuli, both in

Kaulana. In 1886, John A. Maguire founded Hu'ehu'e, or Maguire Ranch, which extended "from sea level to about 6,000 feet (1829 m), with most of the lands above

1,600 feet (488 m)" (Henke 1929). The early ranch was founded on land in the ahupua'a of Kiiki'o (Grant 2121), which ad been handed down through the geneaeology of Luka

HopuHi'au (Springer 1985). By 1886, Maguire secured a lease on portions of Ka'iipiilehu

5 I.S. Emerson's survey records from 1882, place a house belonging to "Paapu" in KUki'o 1; on the shore of Uluweuweu Bay. 90 from Bishop Estate, with lands in the Manini'owali-Kaulana area as well as lands further south being added by lease and purchase in succeeding years. Henke reports that at one time, Hu'ehu'e had almost:

.. .40,000 acres, only aboUll2,OOO of which have any great value as grazing lands. Fifteen thousand acres are held in fee simple and the balance is leased from private owners. Huehue Ranch has no government lands. The ranch carries about 2,000 grade Herefords, twenty pure bred cows and some twenty pure bred Hereford bulls. About 350-400 head are marketed annually...

The ranch has seven miles of pipeline that lead from tanks near a natural spring to various parts of the ranch. Huehue Ranch is fairly well supplied with fences and paddocks. Large areas of the ranch are overgrown with ferns and lantana and lava flows have rendered much of the land useless...(p. 28, Henke 1929)

In the Kekaha region, cattle ranching primarily took place in the uplands and on the kula

(open plain lands), while goats roamed the entire district from the coast to the mountains.

As noted in historic records, Hawaiian residents of the Kekaha region relied on goats for some of their income and subsistence. But, the formal staking out of ranch land boundaries led to access problems for the native tenants who remained on the land. By the 1840's upland agricultural fields that had been of particular importance to residents of

Kekaha were being impacted by grazing cattle. Many such fields were eventually abandoned as a result of cattle depredation. Thus, residency that had been supported by seasonal subsistence agriculture and fishing was becoming dependent upon ranching and a western monetary system.

During the twentieth century, a few Hawaiian families lived at Ka'iipiilehu until the tsunami of 1946, which swept the whole coastal area. From that time on, the area was home only to pigs and wild goats, and donkeys (affectionately called "Kona nightingales"), and occasionally was visited by fishermen and boaters (Clark 1986). In

1956, a wealthy yachtsman, Johnno Jackson, and his wife Helen, sailed past Ka'iipiilehu 91 during a visit to the islands. They settled in at Kahuwai Bay and "soon decided that they

had found an ideal location for a small, secluded luxury resort village (Clark 1986). That

resort known as the Kona Village opened on December 23,1965.

In 1961, Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate leased for 65 years 18,228 acres of

Ka'iipillehu ahupua'a to Hualalai Development. Later that same year, Hualalai

Development subleased 62 acres of the land-the site of the Kona Village-to John M.

Jackson, and in 1962 the company subleased 7,000 acres of the land mauka of the

Mamalahoa Highway to Gamer Anthony (Kelly 1983).

A dry forest exclosure at Ka'iipiilehu was proposed for fencing by a forester by the name of Leicester Winthrop "Bill" Bryan. Bryan was a forester on the island of Hawai'i who was witnessing decline in many of the dry forest species due to cattle ranching. After much correspondence with the Bishop Estate Trustees from 1939-1956, and seeing the need to protect the rare plants that were declining in the North Kona district, the exclosure was fInally fenced. From 1956-1958, Bryan began outplanting native dry forest and shrub species into the fenced exclosure in what was surely one of the first native plant restoration projects in the territory.

In 1971, 5.8 acres of fenced mauka lands owned by Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate

were leased to the National Tropical Botanical Gardens to end 2025. The National

Tropical Botanical Gardens led volunteer outplantings during the 1970's then began a

92 restoration program to eradicate fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) from the exclosure

1995 to 1998 (Cabin, et al. 2000).

DISCUSSION

The land use history of Ka'Opiilehu can assist resource managers to develop appropriate restoration programs to conserve the dry forest resources while maintaining the cultural history that has been documented in legends, and land commission awards.

Human impacts by early Hawaiians occurred in the North Kona region. The kauila trees were famous and used for clubs and nails. And the bark from koki'o trees growing in

North Kona was identified in the early 1900's as a threat to the plants survival (Young and Popenoe 1916).

Hawaiian legend, much of which was passed orally through the generations, describe different aspects of the place name Ka'OpOlehu and this may point to both the importance

of this parcel of land in ancient Hawai'i and may indicate some early land uses. The written land records and historical accounts support a general model characterizing major land use and settlement expansion of the leeward regions in the prehistoric period can be proposed (cf. Ellis 1963, Fomander 1973, Stokes and Dye 1991, Reinecke Ms. 1930,

Handy and Handy with Pukui 1972, Kelly 1971, and 1983, Tomonari-Tuggle 1985 and

Maly 1998). This model extends from c. AD 1000 to AD 1778, when Captain James

Cook arrived to the Hawaiian archipelago.

93 In the period from Pre-AD 1000 to the BOOs, the sheltered bays of Kona (which were also supplied by fresh water sources) were settled. The early settlers brought with them many items that which were necessary for their survival in these new but arid lands. The food items included dry and wetland taros, sweet potatoes, yams, gourds, breadfruit, coconuts, 'awa, sugarcane, and wanke. And as native historian M.K. Pukui noted, the ancient settlers also brought with them their gods and goddesses, as "they were in their minds and souls ..."(M.K. Pukui Ms. 2). In this early time, the primary livelihood focused in the collection of marine resources, and agriculture close to residences.

In the second period, by the BOOs selected areas in the uplands near the 914 m (3000 ft) elevation were being cultivated, and a 'ohana (extended family) system of social, religious, political, and economic values linked coastal and inland inhabitants.

In the third period, generally the 16th to 18th centuries, there evolved a greater separation between the ali'i, or chiefly class and the maka'ainana (commoners). The Hawaiian population grew, and concurrently, land use practices expanded and became further formalized. In Kona and the leeward districts, settlements began expanding away from sheltered and watered bays, and an extensive dryland agricultural field system was developed in the uplands. As a result of the continued growth of the native population, there developed a need to inhabit more lands that are arid, thus, the native system of land management by district, smaller land divisions, and land units was formalized.

94 Kona, like other districts, was divided into a northern portion called Kekaha, which has been known in traditions and legends as a dry arid region. The subdistricts were further divided into ahupua'a that were resource management units supervised by a chief, the konohiki, and tended by commoners, the maka'iiinana. In this archival search of historical accounts, the narratives of Kekaha offer a glimpse of land practices of the native population in ancient times.

By the 1800's dramatic changes were encountered. Not only was the Hawaiian religion abolished in 1819, but also new land use tenure laws forever severed the close relationship between the Hawaiian and the land. The first observation of goats roaming the Kekaha lands occurs in the 1850's and ranching in the region begins in the 1860's.

One hundred years of ranching and the impacts of goats on the forest, caused a little known forester, L.W. Bryan, to enclose what he considered to be one of the best remaining dry forest examples in Kona. The Ka'iipiilehu exclosure still stands as a testament to the susceptibility of Hawaiian species to ungulates. While new invasive plants now threaten the dry forests of Kekaha, scientists, landowners, resource managers, and community leaders are working together to conserve this valuable resource for the next generation.

95 LITERATURE CITED

Board of Commissioners. 1929. Indices of awards made by the board ofcommissioners to quiet land titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Star Bulletin Publishing, Territory of Hawaii.

Board of Commission Testimony. 1873-1905. Microfilm Collection ofthe University of Hawai'i at Manoa.

Cabin, R.J., S.G. Weller, D.H. Lorence, T.W. Flynn, A.K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, and L.J. Hadway. 2000. Effects of long-term ungulate exclusions and recent alien species control on the preservation and restoration of a Hawaiian tropical dry forest. Cons. BioI. 14: 439-453.

Chinen, lJ. 1958. The great mahele: Hawaii's land division of 1848. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Original land titles in Hawaii. Privately published, Honolulu.

Ching, F. 1971. The archaeology of South Kohala and North Kona: from the ahupua'a of Lalamilo to the ahupua'a of Hamanamana. Hawaii State Archaeological Journal, 71-1. Division of State Parks, Honolulu.

Clark, S. 1986. V. Stratigraphy. In, T. Han, S. Collins, S. Clark, and A. Garland. Moe Kau 0 Ho'oilo: Hawaiian mortuary practices at Keopu, Kona, Hawai'i, pp..23-53. Hawaii Historic Preservation Report, 86-1. Department ofAnthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Ellis, W. 1963. Journal of William Ellis. Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd., Honolulu.

Fomander, A. 1917-1919. Fomander collection ofHawaiian antiquities and folklore. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

An account ofthe Polynesian race: its origin and migrations. Charles E. Tuttle Co. inc., Tokyo.

Handy, E.S.C., and E.G. Handy, with M.K. Pukui. 1972. Native planters in old Hawaii, their life, lore, and environment. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233.

Henke, L.A. 1929. A survey oflivestock in Hawaii. Research Publication, No.5.

I'i, J.P. 1959. Fragments ofHawaiian history. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Kamakau, S.M. 1961. Ruling chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.

___. 1968. Ka po'e kahiko: the people ofold. Bishop Museum Special Publication 51. Honolulu.

___. The works of the people of old. Bishop Museum Special Publication 61. Honolulu. 96 __-::-.Tales and traditions of the people of old, Na mo'olelo aka po'e kahiko. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Kame'eleihiwa, L. 1992. Native land, and foreign desires. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Kelly, M. 1971. Kekaha: 'aina malo'o. A survey ofthe background and history of Kaloko and Kukio, North Kona, Hawaii. Departmental Report Series 71-2. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum.

1983. Na mala 0 Kona: Gardens of Kona. A history of land us in Kona, Hawai'i. Departmental Report Series 83-2. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. Prepared for the Department ofTransportation, State ofHawaii.

Kingdom of Hawaii. 1850. Kanawai hoopai karaima no ko Hawaii pae aina [penal code]. Kirch, P.V. 1985. Feathered gods and fishhooks: an introduction to Hawaiian archaeology and prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Maguire, E.D. 1926. Kona legends. Paradise of the Pacific Press, Honolulu. Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian antiquities. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Maly, K. 1998. Kekaha wai 'ole 0 na Kona, a report of archival and historical documentary research, and oral history interviews for Kekaha Kai State Park, ahupua'a of Kaulana, Mahai'ula, Makalawena, Awake'e, Manini'owali, and Kiiki'o, District of North Kona, Island of Hawai'i (TMK Overview: 7-2). Prepared for George Atta, AICP, Group 70 Int. Kumu Pono Associates, Hilo, Hawaii.

Maly, K. and P.H. Rosendahl. 1997. Identification oftraditional cultural properties beach safety improvements at Hualalai Resort. Land ofKa'fipfilehu North Kona District, Island ofHawai'i. Volume I: Traditional cultural properties documentation report; Volume II: Appendices (Oral History Component). Army Corps ofEngineers Permit No. 950030004, Section 106 (NHPA 1966) Review. PHRI Report 1733-043197. Prepared for Hualalai Development Company.

McEldowney, H. 1979. Archaeological and historical literature search and research design: Lava flow control study, Hilo, Hawai'i. B.P. Bishop Museum Report, Honolulu.

Pukui, M.K. 1983. 'CHelo no'eau. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 71. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

. n.d. Manuscript #2. Bishop Museum Archives, Honolulu. Pukui, M.K. and S.H. Elbert. 1986. Hawaiian dictionary. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 572 pp.

97 Pukui, M.K., S. H. Elbert, and E. T. Mookini. 1974. Place names ofHawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 289 pp.

Reinecke,1. 1930. Survey of Hawaiian sites, 1929-1930. Manuscript in Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Schmitt, RC. 1973. The missionary censuses of Hawai'i. Pacific Anthropological Records No. 20. Department ofAnthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum.

Soehren, L. 1963. Archaeology and history in Kaupulehu and Makalawena, Kona, Hawaii. Prepared for the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Estate. B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Springer, H.K. 1985. Appendix B: Regional notes from Kekaha: Kiiki'o. In, Full archaeological survey, Kukio Resort Development Project Area. Land of Kukio IS'. North Kona, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 167-090385. Prepared for Philips, Brandt, Reddick and Associates and Hueue Ranch.

State of Hawaii. 1855. Interior Department Land Files, 1855. State Archives, Honolulu.

Tomanari-Tuggle, T. 1985. Cultural resource management plan, cultural resource management at the Keauhou resort. PHRI Report 89-060185. Prepared for Kamehameha Investment Corp.

Wilkes, C. 1845. Narrative of the United States exploring expedition during the years 1838-1842, under the command of C. Wilkes, U.S.N., Vol. 4. Loa and Blanchard, Philadelphia.

Young, RA. and P. Popenoe. 1916. Saving the kokio tree. J. Heredity 7(1):24-28.

Hawaiian Language Newspapers

"Ka Hoku 0 Hawaii" September 13,1917.

"Ka Hoku 0 Hawaii" October 18, 1917.

"Kuokoa" September 28-0ctober 5, 1876.

. 98 CHAPTER 6: FOREST STRUCTURE WITHIN A DRYLAND FOREST MOSAIC OF NORTH KONA, HAWAI'I

ABSTRACT

This study documents the rare lama (Diospyros)/kauila (Colubrina) lowland dry forest by measuring the vegetation of canopy and understory species within a fenced exclosure in the North Kona district of the Island of Hawai'i. Using the point-centered quarter method, density of the most common woody species is described. The information is compared with plant inventories of adjacent Pu'uwa'awa'a to determine the previous extent of this rare community type. The results will be used in ethnobotanical analyses of hardwood species.

INTRODUCTION

The dry forests are the most biologically diverse and the most heavily impacted ecosystems in the Hawaiian Islands (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). In North Kona, on the island of Hawai'i, one of the major components of the vegetation in some smaller pockets is the federally endangered tree Colubrina oppositifolia (kauila). The North Kona area also contains at least five other federally endangered species Caesalpinia kavaiensis

(uhiuhi), lsoderuirion pyrifolium (aupaka), Kokia drynarioides (koki'o), Nothocestrum breviflorum ('aiea), and Pleomele hawaiiensis (halapepe). While 42 percent of the rain forests in the Hawaiian Islands have been lost, 90 percent of the dry forests have been eliminated (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). Reproduction of all native species in this ecosystem is very low due to the dense ground cover, fire, ungulates, insect and rat predation, and the age of the remaining individuals (Cabin, et al. 2000). Today, one of

99 the most devastating factors within the dry forest habitat on the island of Hawai'i is the

invasion by Pennisetum setaceum (fountain grass), resulting in its complete domination

ofthe ground cover in the dry forest habitats ofNorth Kona (Cabin et al. 2000).

Fountain grass is a fIre-adapted bunch grass that has spread rapidly over bare lava flows

and open areas on the island of Hawai'i since its introduction as an ornamental in the early 1900's. Fountain grass is particularly detrimental to Hawai'i's dry forests because

it is able to invade areas once dominated by native plants, where it carries fIres into areas not usually subject to fIres, increases the likelihood of forest fIres, and disrupts with native plant regeneration (Mueller-Dombois 1981, Blackmore and Vitousek 2000).

Ungulates are also a serious threat to the dry forest ecosystem in several ways: I) browsing of native plants, especially seedlings, 2) trampling of plants, and 3) aiding in the spread of alien plants by creating disturbed openings for seeds to become established and by transporting seeds to the site on the animals' fur, or in feces.

This study documents the density of trees within a dry forest exclosure protected from ungulates for the past 39 years and classifIes the population structure. The results of the

study will be compared with botanical inventories of adjacent Pu'uwa'awa'a by Takeuchi

(1991), The Nature Conservancy (1992) and Giffin (2003) to determine the northern extent of fragmentation that exists within this forest type.

100 STUDY SITE

The Ka'iipiilehu exclosure is a 2.3 ha fenced exclosure 17 kIn northeast of Kailua-Kona on the west side of the island of Hawai'i. The exclosure is located at 600 m elevation on a'a lava flows dating from 1500 to 3000 years old (Moore and Clague 1991). It is bordered by the 1800-1801 Ka'iipiilehu lava flow and Mamalahoa Highway to the north and west respectively. Rainfall has been estimated at approximately 50 cm per year

(Giambelluca, et al. 1986).

The area was fenced in 1956 by the landowner to exclude cattle and feral goats. Fountain grass covers the exclosure and entire region of North Kona since its introduction to the

Hawaiian Islands in the early 1900's. This highly invasive species suppresses native vegetation (Cabin et al. 2000), and greatly increases the risk of fires in areas that historically did not support them (Blackmore and Vitousek 2000).

METHODS

Woody vegetation was measured with the point-centered method (Brower et al. 1990).

Four transects were run within the exclosure. Each transect started 2m inside the exclosure and ran 200 m in a straight line to the edge of the exclosure. These lines were not random but chosen to sample a variety of topographies, slope, and substrate within the exclosure.

A sample point was located every 25 m along each line (n=8). At each point, four woody plants (trees or shrubs) were sampled, one in each quarter. The distance from the point

101 to the center of the tree's stem, the height of the tree, and the identity of the tree were

recorded. In addition, a running survey of herbaceous cover was measured with a pin

frame. The pin frame (also "point frame") sampled all plant material <80 cm from the

ground at 25 regular points along a l-m frame. Pin frame sample points included the

nine points sampled for woody vegetation. At each sample point, the frame was placed

four times, 3 m from the point, in four regularly spaced compass directions. The number of times pins touched individuals of each species ("hits") was recorded, as was the number of pins that hit no vegetation. Multiple hits per pin were not uncommon. This

study was perfonned in the Fall of 1994, prior to the removal of fountain grass from the entire exclosure in 1995 by Cabin et aJ. (2000) for their research. Species were identified with the help of the Manual ofFlowering Plants of Hawai'i (Wagner, Herbst and Sohmer

1990).

The absolute density of trees is defined as the number of trees per unit area. The point centered quarter method can estimate this value without having to count every tree within a large area. From the transect infonnation, the mean distance is estimated between trees.

The relative density is calculated by dividing the frequency of occurrences for species A by the total number of occurrences of all species. The relative cover or dominance of an

individuals tree is measured by its basal area or cross-sectional area.

The mean density of each tree and shrub species in the point center samples was

calculated. In addition, the densities of all adult and juvenile trees and shrubs were

estimated. These estimates were then used to calculate the mean and standard deviation

102 of each species' abundance. Mean cover for each understory species was calculated

(Microsoft 2002) for each of the four transects. Means and standard deviations were calculated, with each transect being considered a replicate (n = 3). All woody species in the exclosure were measured for diameter at breast height (em). If more than one trunk was present at breast height, all trunks were measured and the averages recorded.

RESULTS

Vegetation was dominated by eleven species in the overstory (Figure 4). Abbreviations for each of the species measured and used in each of the graphs is referenced in Appendix

A. Relative density for lama (Diospyros sandwicensis) and kulu'i (Nototrichium sandwicense) accounted for 77% of the individuals in the Ka'iipiilehu exclosure.

Relative cover (Figure 5) was different; with 56% for lama and 12% for kulu'I. In the understory, fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) was the dominant cover (78%) followed by the herb 'ala'alawainui (Peperomia leptostachya) (8.3%) (Figure 6).

Figure 7 shows the mean diameter at breast height for eight of the most common woody species. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the density of lama and 'iliahi and the normal distribution of size classes. Figure 10 to Figure 16 show the remaining densities for the dominant woody species in the exclosure.

DISCUSSION

The 2.4 ha Ka'iipiilehu exclosure constructed in 1956 is still the longest lasting native plant exclosure in the State of Hawaii (Loope and Scowcroft 1985). Previous to 1956,

103 cattle and goats browsed the saplings and seedlings of the native trees, all of which were noticed by Leicester W. Bryan who recommended the fenced exclosure to the Bishop

Estate Trustees (Bryan n.d.). Fountain grass by this time had covered much of north

Kona (Blackmore and Vitousek 2000) and was certainly one of the species obscuring the

'a'a and native understory of the exclosure. For 39 years (1956-1994) the trees and shrubs have been able to naturally regenerate and saplings have been able to reach maturity in the absence of feral ungulates. Comparing trees and recruitment within the exclosure with the surrounding area, Cabin et al. (2000) discovered that the native plants are more diverse and at a higher density. However, fountain grass remains a significant threat inside the exclosure and deters regeneration ofcertain species.

The lama/kauila lowland dry forest is restricted to Ka'upiilehu and adjacent

Pu'uwa'awa'a to the north on 'a'a lava between 240 and 910 m in elevation. The community is considered rare or critically endangered (TNCH 1992). Within this zone, the lama/kauila dry forest covers approximately 400 acres at Pu'uwa'awa'a (Giffin 2003) and no more than 100 acres in Ka'upiilehu. The weathered 'a'a substrate, canopy height

(5-6 m) and associated species are present in both places and are indicators for this community type (Takeuchi 1991, The Nature Conservancy 1992, Giffin 2003). The

Endangered Kokia drynarioides once existed at Pu'uwa'awa'a, but is no longer present

(Giffm 2003). Present at Pu'uwa'awa'a is the rare koai'a (Acacia koaia) and Endangered ma'o hauhele (Hibiscus brackenridgei subsp. brackenridgei) which are species not found in Ka'upiilehu.

104 Prior to the 1800 Ka'upulehu flow, the lama/kauila forest may have extended along the

500 m elevational contour through the ahupua'a of Pu'uwa'awa'a up to Pu'uanahulu

(approximately 10 kIn from Ka'upiilehu) covering more than 10,000 acres. But due to

volcanic activity on Hualalai, ranching, fires, and the construction of Mamalahoa

Highway, this once broad expanse of dry forest is now restricted to two areas no more

than 500 total acres.

The Ka'upiilehu exclosure highlights the remnants of the lama/kauila dry forest

landscape that existed during the time of Kamehameha (1775-1796). hnportant hardwood species would have been available to him and his men while he resided at both

Kawaihae and Kailua-Kona (Kamakau 1961). The variety of species and different size classes of trees would have allowed wood carvers, canoe makers, and house builders to

construct an infrastructure important to his rising political power.

105 LITERATURE CITED

Blackmore, M. and P.M. Vitousek. 2000. Cattle grazing, forest loss, and fuel loading in a dry forest ecosystem at Puu Wa'a wa'a Ranch, Hawaii. Biotropica 32: 625-632. Brower, J.E, J.H. Zar, and C.N. von Ende. 1990. Field and laboratory methods for general ecology. McGraw-Hili, New York. Bryan, L.W. n.d. Leicester Winthrop "Bill" Bryan forestry collection: papers 1921-1948. Bishop Museum Library, Bishop Museum. Cabin, R.I., S.G. Weller, D.H. Lorence, T.W. Flynn, A.K. Sakai, D. Sandquist, and L.J. Hadway.2000. Effects of long-term ungulate exclusions and recent alien species control on the preservation and restoration of a Hawaiian tropical dry forest. Cons. BioI. 14: 439-453. Gagne, W.c., and L.W. Cuddihy. 1990. Vegetation. Pages 45-114 in W.L. Wagner, D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. Manual of flowering plants of Hawai'i. Bishop Mus. Spec. Publ. 83. University ofHawai'i Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Giambelluca, T.W., M.A. Nullet, and T.A. Schroeder. 1986. Rainfall atlas ofHawaii. Report R76. Division ofWater and Land Development, Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Giffin, J. 2003. Pu'uwa'awa'a biological assessment, Pu'u wa'awa'a, North Kona, Hawaii. State of Hawaii. Division ofForestry and Wildlife.

Kamakau, S.M. 1961. Ruling chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu.

Loope, L.L. and Scowcroft, Paul G. 1985. Vegetation response within exclosures in Hawaii: a review, pp 377-402. In Hawaii's terrestrial ecosystems: preservation and management. c.P. Stone and J.M. Scott, eds. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Moore, R.B., and D.A. Clague. 1991. Geologic map of Hualalai Volcano. Miscellaneous investigations series, map 1-2213. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Mueller-Dombois, D. 1981. Fires in tropical ecosystems. pp. 137-176 In H.A. Mooney, T.M. Bonnicksen, N.L. Christensen, J.E. Lotan, and W.A. Teiners (eds.), Fire regimes and ecosystem properties. Proc. Conf. Dec. 11-15, 1978, Honolulu, Hawaii. U.S. Dept. Agriculture, Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rept. WO-26, Washington, D.C.

State of Hawaii. 2000. Annual statistics of Hawai'i agriculture. Department of Agriculture, Honolulu. State of Hawai'i. 2003. Management plan for the ahupua'a ofPu'u Wa'awa'a and the Makai Lands of Pu'u Anahulu. State of Hawaii. Division of Forestry and Wildlife. 106 Takeuchi, W. 1991. Botanical survey ofPu'u wa'awa'a. Final Report. State of Hawaii. Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

The Nature Conservancy. 1992. Botanical survey of selected portions of the Pu'u Wa'awa'a Game Management and Lease Area, Island of Hawaii. State of Hawaii. Division of Forestry and Wildlife.

Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of flowering plants of Hawaii. University ofHawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

107 Figure 4: Relative Density of Trees at Ka'iipiilehu (per hectare)

45.0 40.7 400 361 35.0 ;; ~'" 300 .,c I! ! 25.0 ... '"cWI 200 c! "> 'iii 150 "i Ill: 100

5.0 t---- 09 0.01--'=...... - COLOPP DtOSAN KOKDRY LANCAM LB.l.BJ NOTSAN PlB-lAW POUSAN PSYOOO SAtf'AN SOI'CI-R Species

Figure 5: Relative Cover ofTrees at Ka'iipiilehu (per hectare)

60.0 T""""------....,.,,,.,,,..--...... ----,

500·1----~ Relative

40.0

20.0

10.01----- T••

COLOPP DIOSAN KOKDRY LANCAM LEULEU NOTSAN PLEHAW POUSAN PSYODO SANPAN SOPCHR Specie.

108 Figure 6: Abundance ffistogram for the Most Abundant Species in the Understory

90

so

70

i.SO Iso ~ > <340 1) 1il Ii a: 30.

20 .

10

01 ()2 0 PENSET PEPLEP COCTRI CANHAW ROCK PLUZEY PHYGRO LEPTHU Species

Figure 7: Mean Diameter at Breast Height (cm) per hectare for the most common canopy trees

16.0 T-"4A"I'S'"""'"'"--.or::-7"--~----~~~------"""""''''' 14.0 ..l....-r-,--_ __ 12.0 E ~ 10.0 :I: ~ 8.0 = 6.0­ :E 4.0 2.0 ­

0.0 -1-.1..-...1...... ,.- g,

109 Figure 8: Density ofDiospyros sandwicensis

180.0 160.0

II) 140.0 ~ 120.0 -- 'C ;;'> 100.0 - c 80.0 f..-...-.-. '0 - ci 60.0 ~ .- z 40.0 I-- - r- $; -'-- .-1 " 20.0 f--- , '@

f}- 00 r--l 0.0 J I >1.5- >2.5- >4.5- >6.5- >8.5- >10.5- >12.5- >14.5- >16.5- >18.5- >20.5- 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5 14.5 16.5 18.5 20.5 22.5 DBH (em)

Figure 9: Density ofSantalum paniculatum

20.0 ,

18.0 , UI 16.0

! , 'C 14.0 'S; I,' :. ;; 12.0 - .E 10.0 ~ '0 .. 8.0 r-- r--- ! N' ~,- 1- E 6.0 ,. *' , - - \~[f', ~ :i 4.0 " !-010.... - :0,. ~'. , 0 I 1 2.0 t--- ,J ;A l~ ~·I&$·,J 0.0 I '.1 I .I II 0.5-1 >1-1.5 >1.5-2.5 >2.5-4.5 >4.5-6.5 >6.5-8.5 >8.5- >10.5- 10.5 12.5 DBH(cm)

110 Figure 10: Density ofNototrichium sandwicense

70.0 -

60.0 III Ci ;:, 50.0 "0 ":;: :c 40.0 :-.- .....E i 0 30.0 ~ CIl .0 --" E 20.0 '-- f------~ f-' - ;:, :j:;" 1,--, z I:. 10.0 .--- . 0.0 0.5-1 >1-1.5 >1.5-2.5 >2.5-4.5 DBH (em)

Figure 11: Density ofPsydrax odorata

6.0 1 5.0 ---,---,.....---..;..".,------,liil:-l------~_J III I Ci -6"> 40­. :c I",-~ oc 3.0 I---I.,;,...... I-__ ...--...... - ...... --_._-_.__-----__I li 2.0­ E ;:, z 1.0 -1,---L....u<-.d----i:;:~.,.! ..I_--1

>1-1.5 >1.5-2.5 >2.5-4.5 >4.5-6.5 >6.5-8.5 DBH(cm)

III Figure 12: Density ofSophora chrysophyl14

40.0

35.0

I/) ii 30.0 r- - :::lI 'a '> 25.0 f---- :a I- .5 20.0 f---- ._..•. r---- :.- r--- -, '0 " j 15.0 r--1-- I--- ~;~ 1- .--- E ..- :::lI 10.0 I---- -:co- Z ~:w i:: . 5.0 t p..-. i------J t. I' . r-')' .------. 0.0 , 0.5-1 >1-1.5 >1.5-2.5 >2.5-4.5 >4.5-6.5 >6.5-8.5 >8.5-10.5 DBH (em)

112 Figure 13: Density ofColubrina oppositifolia

3.5 .!! ra 3.0 ::::l 'tl's; 2.5 fo-- =s , .5 2.0 f----- '0... 1.5 w - I- .! 1.0 - .:'" E :6 ::::l 0.5 - ::.=- '~I:· • ..::; Z -- - : ~ .'4 0.0 - .. '? ~'? ~'? n,'? ...'? fa'? ,,'I>'? t§>'? 'f" 'f'" 'f~ .,!j,' ~. 4' ~. ",. .... '0'1 '1>'1 ..f'>' -1>' .," .," .,'" .,'" .," DBH (em)

Figure 14: Density ofNothocestrum brevijlorum

2.5

UI 2.0 Ii ::::l 'tl =s"> 1.5 .E '0 ... 1.0 .! E z::::l 0.5 -

0.0 -fw;&...-a...... ,...... -.L...-r-"-.L.o...,-_...... ,...."""""'..&.....,...... >6.5-8.5 >8.5­ >10.5- >12.5- >14.5- >16.5- >18.5- >20.5- >22.5- 10.5 12.5 14.5 16.5 18.5 20.5 22.5 24.5 DBH (em)

113 Figure 15: Density ofOsteomeles anthyllidifolia

25.0

Ul 20.0 ii ~ '0 >:=s 15.0 - .5

0 ~.'& ~ .. 10.0 .8 E ~ ~ z 5.0 ,,, g, .. ~., 0.0 0.5-1 >1-1.5 DSH (em)

Figure 16: Density ofPleomele hawaiiensis

1.2

Ul 1.0 ii ~ '0 0.8 - >:=s .5 -..0 .8 0.4 E z~

>1-1.5 >1.5- >2.5- >4.5- >6.5- >8.5- >10.5- >12.5- >14.5- >16.5- 2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5 14.5 16.5 18.5 DBH (em)

114 CHAPTER 7: FOREST RESOURCES AND POLITICAL POWER DURING THE TIME OF KAMEHAMEHA I (1775-1796): THE KAUHALE (HOUSING COMPOUND)

INTRODUCTION

The Hawaiian kauhale is a collection of houses, or compound nonnally belonging to a high chief. The individual houses were constructed of native hardwoods and sometimes covered with pili (Heteropogon contortus) or lauhala (Pandanus odoratissimus)

(Brigham 1908). A high chief possessed at least one kauha1e, each house reserved for a specialized use (Apple 1971, Abbott 1992). A ruling chief, such as Kamehameha in the time of 1775-1796 maintained several kauhale, in different locations or districts, and moved his court as desired (King 1967, Vancouver 1967, Menzies 1920, I'i 1959).

Kamehameha maintained two main places of residence during his reign, one in the Kona district and the other in the Kohala district.

The kauhale of Kamehameha was comprised of no less than five separate dwellings with specific functions. Each of these structures was made from native hardwoods, that could be gathered from forests in the surrounding area. Kamehameha's kauha1e depicted by

Louis Duperrey in 1819 at Kawaihae, Hawai'i was built from trees collected from lowland dry forests in both North Kona and South Kohala.

The Kauhale

The kaubale of a ranking chief was always associated with a large heiau, and if near the coast, there were one or more haIau or hale wa'a (canoe house) which was the largest building in any coastal kauba1e. In the time of Kamehameha, there would have had to

115 have been many canoe houses. Some of these would be used to finish canoes, some for construction of very large canoes used for interisland transport and other canoes for warfare. Other canoe houses were used for smaller canoes for fishing, and storage houses to protect canoes from the elements. The numbers of courtiers around a chief's residence might be close to 100; cooks, servants of various kinds, different kinds of artisans (canoe builders and woodworkers, specialists in medicine, in featherwork, etc.) and different kinds of kiihuna, including priests and other specialists.

Thus, the forest resources near an ali'inui's (high chief's) residence would have to furnish much of the construction material to meet the needs of that ali'inui. Should the resources be depleted, exchanging with other ahupua'a for the material that was needed was an option that was open. The high chief could ask other ahupua'a for specific woods, thatching material and lashing braids and cordage in the annual ho'okupu (offering) during the Makahiki. Often several ahupua'a together had a single ranking chief, his presence insuring a heiau, which had different demands on resources such as large quantities of rocks of various sizes, and "masons" trained in fitting them exactly without mortar.

One of the best depictions of the kauhale of high chiefs is a watercolor by Louis

Duperrey in 1819. Duperrey was the artist on the French ships Uranie and Physicienne that were in the Hawaiian Islands under the command of Louis Freycinet. This illustration which is shown in Figure 17 is the best available that depicts the kauhale of

Kamehameha I at Pu'u KohoHi (now in South Kohala, on the coast northeast of

Ka'upiHehu) as viewed from the shore towards Pu'u Koholii. The illustration depicts five

116 houses (hale kiihumu or storage house, sometimes used as a cookhouse during inclement weather), hale pe'a (menstruation hut), hale 'aina (eating house) and adjacent hale noa

(the first for women and children, the second open for any person), a hale mua (men's house for eating, ceremonial sleeping and worshipping) and crowning the ridge is the still-standing large heiau KohoUi, dedicated to Kamehameha's war god Kilka'ilimoku.

Although there are many descriptions of the Hawaiian house, there are no data on the numbers of trees, their sizes and yield as timber, the number of plants or leaves needed for thatching, the amount of fiber needed to make cordage for lashing. Additionally, when the houses are finished, they must also be furnished with plant materials as mats, bedding, nets and calabashes or gourds for storage (Brigham 1908). Fragmentary information constrned from early drawings, especially those of John Webber (Cook

1784), from the first (1778) voyage of Captain Cook (Ledyard 1964, King 1967), the

Freycinet expedition (1823-30), the drawings of Dampier (Joerger 1971), and the descriptions of Buck (1957), Apple (1971), and Summers (1988) provide the basis for estimating demands for construction resources in areas where high chiefs lived.

117 Figure 17: Kamehameha's kauhale at Kawaihae, Hawai'i in 1819, drawn by by Louis Duperrey (Freycinet 1824-1844)

~ ...

Parts of the Hawaiian House

A great number of protocols, prayers, and customs preceded and continued during the construction of a house, no matter what its size. Parts of the houses such as the ridge posts were especially important and had special ceremonies (Malo 1951, Buck 1957).

The doorway was the location of the house god (Apple 1971) and also had a kind of respect and reverence attached to it (Malo 1951).

Whether the house was for ali'i or maka'ainana, it was built in the same general way, but ali'i houses were bigger and there were more kinds (Summers 1988). It's believed that high chiefs lived in large houses. At least one was estimated (Cook in King 1784) to be 118 50 ft (15 m) long by 24 ft (7 m) wide but its function was unknown, although it might have been a hale 'aina or hale noa where males and females and children could meet and sleep. Such a large house would have posts 12-14 ft (4 m) high (Buck 1957), or a ridge post 18-20 ft (5 m) high, being the highest post in the house, and which determined the height of the roof. This main ridge post supported two ridge poles in a large house and together these would form the ridge of the roof, entailing special overlapping, and very tight lashing. A specialist in fmishing roofs was often called upon to do this crucial work so as to ensure a water-tight roof when it was time to add the thatch. As with most construction, a prayer to lift the kapu from the house was offered while special thatching both inside and out was applied. The only lashing on the main ridge post was with the ridge poles, in large houses the ridge poles were often lashed to thatching poles as a kind ofanchor against the wind (Apple 1971).

RESULTS

The main houses in the Duperrey illustration cited above shows triangular gable ends.

Using such a house as a model, and assuming that few if any houses would be larger than this model, there would be a minimum of 4 comer posts, 2 main ridge posts, 2-wall plates. Another kind of house had a rounded or curved roof as shown in Webber's illustration of houses near Waimea, Kaua'i during the first Cook visit. Both styles used posts, poles or plates and 16 rafters to which would be added approximately 125 thatching poles (purlins) which would require perhaps twice that number of poles since very few thatching poles would be as long as the chief's house that Captain Cook saw and for which he estimated the size to be 50 by 24 feet (15 by 7 m). The horizontal and vertical thatching poles would have to be spliced for thatchiug a house of that size. Table 119 6 gives the species used for framing a high chief's house of the largest size cited in the literature (Cook in King 1784). The table also lists species that are present in the North

Kona, South Kohala area, and estimates the sizes of trunks, branches, etc. needed for erecting a house ofthis size.

120 Table 7 summarizes the number of posts, poles and plates needed, what parts of the trees

or plants were used for those members, and how many trees would have to be harvested

to provide the necessary construction material. These estimates are for the largest house

within a kauhale. As much as 2 to 3 times more material might be needed to construct all

of the houses in the kauhale.

An examination ofthe Ka'iipiilehu exc10sure was made to determine ifsuch a forest would have been able to support Kamehameha's need for kauhale at Kawaihae and Kailua-Kona (Chapter 7). Table 8 lists the species, size, and distribution in the Ka'iipiilehu exc1osure.

DISCUSSION

A characterization of the Ka'iipiilehu dry forest exc1osure, which is a remnant kIpuka ofthe lowland dry forest during the time of Kamehameha, did not fmd all of the woods needed to construct a Hawaiian house. Ouly species used for the corner posts (kauiIa-Colubrina oppositifolia), rafters (Iama-Diospyros sandwicensis), side posts (miimane-Sophora chrysophylla), and thatching poles (miimane) were in sufficient density, and size to support the construction of one chiefly house ( Table 8). The ridge posts ('ohi'a lehua-Metrosideros polymorpha), ridge poles ('ohi'a

lehua), and gable posts ('a'ali'i-Dodonaea viscosa) would be gathered from directly

makai ofthe Ka'upiiIehu preserve.

Except for naio (Myoporum sandwicensis), all the woods could be gathered in the

lowland dry forests of Ka'iipiiIehu or adjacent Pu'uwa'awa'a. Though naio was not

found in the Ka'iipiilehu exc1osure, its occurrence along the coast of North Kona is

known. Using 'ohi'a lehua and miimane for the ridge poles, side posts, and thatching

poles, Kameharneha's men could have relied entirely on the lowland dry forests for the

woods needed for house construction of a chief's house. 121 It is not directly evident whether native trees from Ka'iipiilehu were used for house construction nor how long it would take for trees to grow to sufficient size for house construction. There are no references to Ka'iipiilehu as a forest resource in the Hawaiian language newspapers or literature. Growth studies of Acacia koa (koa), a dominant of mesic forests, suggest it takes at least 20 years for koa to grow to a height of 20 m

(Mueller-Dombois et aI. 1981), but no growth studies have been conducted in Hawai'i's dry forests regions. However, if the trees were utilized it might take greater than 30 years for trees like kauila and uhiuhi (Caesalpinia kavaiensis) to grow to sufficient height and diameter for cultural use.

The Ka'iipiilehu dry forest could have provided the main posts of the Hawaiian house.

Due to its proximity to Kawaihae, the forest may have been utilized by Kamehameha for kauila, lama, 'ohi'a lehua, and miimane. The dry forest regions of North Kona remain spectacular regions for native hardwood species, but the threats from fire, fountain grass, and development have already caused 4 species to become Endangered. If this plight were to continue, these forests that are considered cultural treasures may be lost forever, and with it all hopes for reviving the traditions ofhouse construction.

122 Table 6: Woods used in a Hawaiian house

Functi D pecic. U Availability in l!R'

Corner po IS Caesalpinia kavaiensis, Sophora North Kana chrysophylla, COlubriTUI oppositifoUa

Main ridge posts Metrosideros polymorpha North Kona

Ridge poles Myopomm sandwicensis. Nonh Kona Metrosideros polymorpha

Gable posts and plates Myoporwn sandi icensis, North Kona Dodonaea viscosa

Side posts Myoporwn sandwicellSis, orth Kana Dodonaea viscosa, Sophora chrysophylla

Rafters Antidesma platyphyllum, North Kona Diospyros sandwicensis, Metrosideros polymorpha

Thatching pole Sophora chrysophylla, North Kona Myopomm sandwicensis, Dodonaea viscosa BOLD=species occurring in Ka'upiUehu preserve

123 Table 7: Numbers of trees, branches, and other plants needed for building a chief's house (15 m X 7 m)

Function Part of plant uses Size (length) ize (diameter

4 corner posts Tree trunk >3m 8-lOcm

8 side posts Tree trunk: >3m 6-8 cm

2 main ridge posts Tree trunk: >4m 6-10 cm

4 gable posts Branches or saplings <2.5-3 m 3-4cm

2 ridge poles Trunk: or major branch >16m 6-10 cm

16 rafters Trunk or major branch >6m 6-8cm

4 wall plates Secondary branches 15 m (spliced) 3-4cm

2 gable plates Secondary branches 5m 3-4cm

125 thatching poles Secondary branches Spliced to fit length 2-2.5 cm needed

Total number of trees needed (trunks) - 32

Total number of major branches needed - 18

Total number of secondary branches needed - 135

Table 8: Native trees of Ka'ftpiilehu available for construction of chiefly kauhale

Species Mean DER (em) Basal AreaIHectare Relative density

Colubrina oppositifolia 14 1 1%

Diospyro sOl/dwicensis 7 39 36%

Osteomeles I 2 <1% anthyllidifolia

Psydrax odorara 3 2 1%

Sophora chrysopltylla 1 6 5%

124 LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, LA. 1992. Lii'au Hawai'i. Traditional Hawaiian uses ofplants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Apple, R. 1971. Hawaiian thatched house:. use, construction, adaptation. U.S. National Park Service, San Francisco.

Brigham, W.T. 1908. The ancient Hawaiian house. Memoirs of the Beruice Pauahi Bishop Museum 2:1-194.

Buck, P.H. 1957. Arts and crafts of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Spec. Publ. 45. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Cook, J. 1784. A voyage to the Pacific ocean. Undertaken, by the command of His Majesty, for making discoveries in the Northern hemisphere, to determine the position and extent ofthe west side ofNorth America; its distance from Asia; and the practicability of a northern passage to Europe. Performed under the direction of Captains Cook, Clerke, and Gore, in His Majesty's ships the Resolution and Discovery, in the years 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, and 1780. Vol. I and II written by Captain James Cook, F.R.S. Vol. ill by Captain James King, L.L.D. and F.R.S. Illustrated with maps and charts, from the original drawings made by Lieut. Henry Roberts ... with a great variety of portraits ... views ... and historical representations ... drawn by Mr. Webber. Published by order of the lords commissioners ofthe Admiralty. W. and A. Strahan, for G. Nicol, and T. Cadell, London.

Freycinet, L.C.D. 1824-1844. Voyage autour du monde [microform] : entrepris par ordre du roi, execute sur les corvettes de S.M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne pendant les annees 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820 I par Louis de Freycinet. Chez Pillet aine, Paris.

I'i, J.P. 1959. Fragments ofHawaiian history. M.K. Pukui, transl and D. Barrere, ed. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Joerger, P.K (ed). 1971. To the sandwich islands on H.M.S. Blonde [by] Robert Dampier. University ofHawaii Press, Honolulu.

King, J. 1967. Journa11778-1779. In the journals ofCaptain James Cook on his voyage of discovery (ill): The voyage ofthe Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780. Cambridge.

Ledyard, J. 1964. Journal of Captain Cook's last voyage. Ed. By J. K. Munford. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon. Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian antiquities. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Menzies, A. 1920. Hawaii Nei 128 years ago. W.F. Wilson, ed. Honolulu.

125 Mueller Dombois, D., K.W. Bridges, and H.L. Carson. 1981. Island ecosystems: biological organization in selected Hawaiian communities. USIIBP Synthesis Series, no. 15. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvannia.

Summers, C. C. 1988. The Hawaiian grass house in Bishop Museum. Bishop Museum Spec. Pub!. 80. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Vancouver, G. 1967. A voyage ofdiscovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and round the world; in which the coast of north-west America has been carefully examined and accurately surveyed. Undertaken by His Majesty's command, principally with a view to ascertain the existence of any navigable communication between the South Pacific...Years 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, 1794, and 1795, on the Discovery, sloop of war. 3 vols. Orig pub!. London, 1790.

126 CHAPTER 8: FOREST RESOURCES AND POLITICAL POWER DURING THE TIME OF KAMEHAMEHA I (1775-1796): THE WA'A KAULUA (WAR CANOE)

INTRODUCTION

As seafaring Polynesians, Hawaiians used the art of canoe making using large dug out logs from native koa (Acacia koa) trees, and fixed crab claw sails to capture the wind when it was available. The canoe played an important role in Hawaiian society. The single hull, also known as the outrigger canoe, was used for near shore and deep sea fishing. It was also the primary means of sea transport around an island. The double hull canoe, or war canoe as it is sometimes referred to, was much larger (up to 20 m compared with 6-7 m for the outrigger canoe) and used to transport warriors, and people long distances between islands. Though the double hull canoe was the type of canoe that brought the flfSt Polynesians to Hawai'i, the style and construction materials changed by the time Kamehameha rose to political power between 1775 and 1796 (Holmes 1981).

In 1779, at least 1000 canoes greeted the H.M.S. Discovery (Capt. James Cook, R.N., commanding) in Kealakekua Bay. Some of these canoes included the double hull canoes that were nearly as long as the Discovery itself (Samwell in King 1967) (see Table 9).

By the late 1700's Kamehameha commanded the construction of a new canoe made from traditional materials and adding European elements of design and warfare that would aid his invasion of the island of Kaua'i. The "peleleu fleet" as it was called, was a tremendous engineering effort, but due to a disease that ravaged all the crew members on

127 their journey from Hawai'i to O'ahu, the fleet never saw the shores of Kaua'i. As

evidenced in the construction of the peleleu fleet, double hull war canoes could only be

built at the request of a high chief like Kamehameha because of the demand on

woodworkers and artisans as well as the depletion of the native forests. So great were the

resources needed for these war canoes, that the rule ofKamehameha may have caused the

direct alteration of upland dry forests and mesic and wet forests during his reign just prior

to the arrival ofEuropeans.

The Hawaiian double hull canoe-Wa'a Kaulua

The first descriptions of Hawaiian canoes are given by Samwell (in King 1967), who

was the surgeon on the Discovery. His observations are supplemented by three sketches

by Webber, the artist who accompanied Captain Cook on his third voyage. From these

sources, the descriptions given by Louis Freycinet and Jacques Arago who, on the Dranie and Physicienne, visited Hawaii in 1819 (Freycinet 1824-1844), and particularly from the

detailed description and scaled drawings which appear in the 1892 monograph on canoes

by Admiral Edmond Paris (1956), one is able to obtain an unusually clear understanding

of the construction of the two classes of sea craft used by the Hawaiians-the double

canoe and the single outrigger.

The outrigger canoes, still in common use in the islands, continue to be constructed on a

similar design employed in vast numbers at the time of Cook's arrival in 1778-1779

(Holmes 1981). Double canoes are not extant today, although replicas of these vessels

can be seen in the fiberglass-hulled Hokfile'a, and Hawai'iloa, the latter made from all

natural materials.

128 Even in the early part of the nineteenth century, the number of double hull canoes owned by the king and his counselors was considerable. It is even surmised by Simpson (1847) that Kamehameha I contemplated the conquest of Tahiti in these large ocean vessels which could carry a large number of warriors. Malo (1951) mentions that Kamehameha examined the need to construct a triple hulled canoe (pfikolu), but this was never realized.

The Peleleu fleet

Peleleu was the name given to very deep, wide and unusually large war canoes that

Kamehameha I had begun building in 1796 for his conquest of Kaua'i. Kamehameha reportedly had hundreds of canoe builders working on his war fleet, which consisted primarily of traditionally designed canoes as well as a few peleleu and European-style vessels (Desha 2000).

"There were also a number of large double war canoes building under thatched houses, said to be for the invasion of Altoi (Kaua'i), which had been several years since they were begun; the largest one seventy feet in length [52 m], six feet in depth [2 m] and each canoe about two feet [0.6 m] wide, lashed together about five feet apart [1.5 m] ...The sides of the canoes tumble in like a ship ofwar."

Such were the observations of Ebenezer Townsend (Townsend 1888) who in August

1798 visited Hawaiians in the process of canoe building at Kealakekua, Hawai'j, The canoes he saw were Pele1eu, "monstrosities, not belonging fully to the Hawaiian on whose soil they were made, nor to the white men who, no doubt, lent a hand and had a voice in their making and planning" (Townsend 1888)

Kamakau (1961) reports that the "peleleu canoes were large single canoes lashed together a little apart like a double canoe, but with a covered platform at the stem to make them more seaworthy, and equipped with mast (Ida), mainsail (pe'a ihu) and jib (kiakahi) like a

129 sloop." According to Holmes (1981), peleleu were rigged with some form of European­

style sail, typically a schooner rig with or without jib. Emerson (in Malo 1951) reports

that at least one peleleu had a "regular rudder" as part of its steering arrangement. Malo

(1951) states peleleu "were excellent craft and carried a great deal of freight. The after

part of these crafts were similar in construction to an ordinary vessel (i.e. was decked

over)."

The enormous koa trees required for canoes as capacious as the peleleu grew in the

forests of Hilo, Ka'ii, and South Kona. One informant noted that "Hilo had the largest

koa trees, next to them in size were those ofKau" (Emerson n.d.).

Reports of the number of warriors various peleleu could carry range from 50 to 160. One

account of a single peleleu 27 m long, mentions seating for 80 paddlers. While this might

seem to be a large number of paddlers to accommodate, sitting two abreast with about

one and one half feed between each seat would allow such a number of paddlers (Holmes

1981). Given the consistency of many of the reports, it can be safe to assume that some

double canoes carried well over 100 warriors both paddling and on the platform.

Holmes (1981) states that it is unlikely that all of Kamehameha's post-1800 fleet were

peleleu as some have asserted. More likely, they failed to differentiate between the

majority of his fleet, made up of conventional single and double canoes, and the

extraordinarily large peleleu (Holmes 1981). What seems to have happened is that, with

the conspicuous addition of a few awesome and unique peleleu to Kamehameha's regular

canoe navy, his fleet thereafter came to be loosely called the "peleleu fleet" after its most

notable members. This would account for the fact that among all the Hawaiian and 130 western observers of the nineteenth century, very little mention is made of these unique ships, while many references are found to the everyday Hawaiian canoe (Holmes 1981).

Unfortunately, Kamehameha's peleleu fleet never encountered combat. Moving slowly,

"the fleet of Peleleu arrived at Kawaihae in 1801, at Lahaina in 1802, at Oahu in 1803."

(Emerson n.d.) A cholera epidemic struck in 1804, wiping out many of Kamehameha's men. "The fleet never sailed. The expedition to Kaua'i was called off, the dead were buried, and along the shore at Waikiki the war canoes were left to rot in the sun."

(Emerson n.d.). Whether any of these rotting canoes were peleleu is not recorded, but of those that survived for a few decades, none was ever known to have been tested in battle.

Prior to and during the time of pele1eu war canoes, virtually any conventional double or single canoe from 5 m up to 21 m that could be temporarily pressed into naval duty as a troop transport vessel served as a so-called "war canoe." Double canoes, as Hommon

(1975) notes, though "less numerous than the outrigger canoes...were the most important vessels in inter-island warfare." Most chiefs kept a fleet of double canoes that in peace­ time were used for fishing, visiting, or other everyday chores, but which were acquired with the knowledge that they were indispensable to interisland warfare and could be used for local coastal troop movement. In 1793, an observer at Kealakekua reported being

"shown one of his [Ke'eaumoku's] large war canoes, reckoned among the finest though not the longest, on the island. It was like all the large canoes-double, neatly and handsomely fmished, and did infmite credit to the workers. Each separate canoe measured about sixty-five feet [20 m] in length all one solid piece, form'd out of a tree. It

131 had eight beams...was intended to carry fifty paddlers, twenty-five on each side, and I imagine between thirty and forty men on the platfonn" (Bell 1929).

Kamehameha's naval fleet

Fleet size and numbers of warriors were on occasion quite large. Fomander relates accounts, obviously exaggerated, of pre-contact fleets. On one occasion, Huaa, the chief of Puna, and Kulukulua, the chief of Hilo, agreed to wage war on O'ahu. "As soon as they decided upon doing this they began to prepare about eight thousand canoes, and also got together a very large body of men who were armed with all kinds of weapons, both large and small" (Fomander 1969). On another occasion Fomander (1916) states that when Keawenuia'umi set to make war on Maui, "the canoes on this expedition were so many that [they] covered the ocean from Hawaii to Maui and the people used them as a road to cross over on. It is said in Hawaiian history that the number of canoes used in this expedition was the greatest known." On yet another occasion, Fomander (1916) recounts, "on this journey of Kamalawalu's with his Maui men to Hawaii to fight, there were very many canoes. (It is said (Fomander 1916) that the 'Alenuihaha channel was so covered from Maui to Kohala and Kawaihae that the waves and the sea were invisible.)

When they landed at Kawaihae, the seashores were blockaded by the canoes...[between points] whose extent approximated thirty miles". Fomander (1916) notes in the last two accounts that, "allowing for exaggeration in both cases, it indicates the largeness of war fleets in those days."

132 A more realistic assessment of the number of canoes and men that were probably involved in eighteenth century war fleets of Hawaiian kings is seen in the following excerpts from Hommon (1975):

"According to Rickman,...Ka1aniopu'u arrived in Kealakekua Bay on 25, January, 1779 with 150 double canoes. The average range of all eight accounts given by eyewitnesses of the crew-size or capacity of double canoes (ignoring Bell's probable over-estimate of an 80- to 90-man capacity) is 35 to 39. If this range accurately reflects the average of a fully-loaded war canoe, then Kalaniopu'u's contingent, returning from Maui, would have consisted of 5,250 to 5,850 men...Kalaniopu'u's mission on Maui in 1778-1779 seems to have been raiding rather than conquest. It is reasonable to suggest that, in a full-scale invasion of Maui, Kalaniopu'u's army could have matched that of Kamehameha some 17 years later since Samwell.. ,notes an additional 150 double canoes, many 'with 30 or 40 men,' were in Kealakekua Bay nine days before Kalaniopu'u's arrival. The capacity of all 300 double canoes would have been between 10,5000 and 11,700. In addition, there were 650 to 2,850 outrigger canoes in Kealakekua Bay when Cook arrived, and many, if not most of them were probably capable of negotiating the 'Alenuihaha Channel with a small gronp of warriors,"

Observations made of double hull canoes by early explorers are given in Table 9.

Each canoe represented Iwo trees to be used as the dug-out hull, another for the mast (of different diameter) and parts of different kinds of wood for seats, decking, gunwales, and outriggers. Making lashing for putting parts together, for sail lines, and the sennit itself would have taken many plants or parts of plants and hundreds of people (most of them specialists) to make the separate pieces or parts. Only chiefs could command that kind of work force.

In 1791, the combined forces of the fleet of the kings of Maui (Chief Kahekili) and

Kaua'i (Chief Kaeokulani) were said by American Captaiu Joseph Ingraham (1918) to number 20,000. This is the largest number of men ever attributed to a fleet by a westerner. The number of canoes was estimated at 600 to 700, the same number of canoes with which Kamehameha was reported to have threatened the schooner Grace a few months earlier (Holmes 1981). 133 The most famous armada was Kamehameha's "most formidable army of at least 10,000

warriors, with a fleet divided in to four divisions, each consisting of three hundred canoes

for the purpose of subjecting Waohoo and the intermediate Islands, Mowe, Ranai and

Morotoi" (Bishop 1916). Another description has the fleet with "1500 war canoes, about

10,000 men, 5,000 prime muskets...together with many swivels and cannons". A

second-hand account by a captain stopping by Kealakekua has the warriors numbered at

16,000 (Boit 1795). Kamakau (1961) indicates the immensity of this fleet when he describes the distances-a few miles in both cases-that it covered on the conquered

shorelines from Launiupoko to Mala at Lahaina [approx. 3.2 km] and on O'ahu from

Wai'alae to Waik11d [approx. 1.6 km].

This fleet carried the soldiers of the most successful military campaign in Hawaiian history but its glory soon came to an end, as Kamakau (1961) remarks on the 1796 attempt to cross the Kaua'i Channel, "towards midnight they put out to sea, intending to land at daylight in Puna harbor on Kaua'i, but in the midst of the Ka'ie'iewaho channel the advances canoes encountered the strong wind called Kulepe and were capsized. The canoes that went to their assistances were swamped, and all might have been wrecked on the coast of Kauai or carried out to sea by the current and lost had they not been near enough to Wai'anae to fain shelter." This fleet's successor, the ill-fated "peleleu fleet" is curiously unrecorded in fIrst hand accounts. Charles De Varigny (1981) reported in the

1850's that this fleet had 27 schooners armed with cannon and artillery, more than 500

war canoes and a gunboat carrying 20 cannons.

134 Parts ofthe Hawaiian war canoe

The double hull or war canoe consisted of two similar hulls parallel to one another and connected at a short distance apart by several transversely placed 'iako (booms)(Figure

18). Each hull was a dugout hewn from a single tree at least 30 m tall with a diameter of

3 meters. Inside the hull were placed a few spreaders tied to cleats on the inside to function mainly as boom supports. For this size, the logs could be hewn to make a 21 m long canoe, one meter deep. Additionally, the hulls were made from a single piece, not two sections joined end to end, which was common practice in the Society Islands,

Marquesas Islands and New Zealand (Aotearoa) (Haddon 1975).

The mo'o (gunwale) was a thin plank, 15-20 centimeters high, lashed vertically upon the edge of the hull expect for the length of about a meter from each end, where it was replaced by a shaped board carved out of a single piece. The mo'o was attached by an overlapping joint and secured with sennit braid and caulking from the sap of the breadfruit tree (Abbott 1992). The extremity at each end was fashioned into a short, upturned point (manu), appearing acute when viewed laterally but distinctly spatulate when seen end on.

Booms and Attachments

The booms connecting the two hulls varied in number with the size of the vessel.

Webber's sketches (Cook 1784) show them as either three or four, but in a sketch by

Paris (1956) six are shown, and in the gigantic craft described by Best (1925) which was reputed to have carried from 80 to 140 men, it is probable a greater number of booms were required to assure rigidity (Haddon 1975). Wherever the boom crossed the

135 gunwales, a wae wa'a (curved spreader) either angular U-shaped or else bow shaped, was inserted, arms upward, transversely within the hull, the end of each upturned arm butting against the lower side of the boom. According to Malo (1951), the booms used in ancient times were straight, as in double canoes of all other Polynesian islands. This, Malo

(1951) says, continued to be true up to the time of Keawe in the late 17th century when the curved 'iako was invented. This change enabled passengers and cargo to be carried in greater security and allowed for higher placement of the platform from the gunwales

(Haddon 1975).

Platform

Supported upon the arched backs of the booms, a narrow, pola (light platform) formed either of "poles" laid longitudinally and lashed side by side (Ellis 1979) was built longitudinally over the narrow space between the hulls and at a height of at least 0.6 m. above the gunwales (Ellis 1979). A group of warriors could stand on this platform when the double canoe was sent to battle with paddlers located within each of the hulls.

Webber's drawing shows this platform as maintained at the same level throughout its length. In one of Webber's plates, not less than 38 men are seen crowded upon the platform of a double canoe, together with some bulky goods as offerings. Ellis (1979) states that this platform "provided a comfortable seat and also kept our packages above the spray of the sea." Attached to the platform were branches of lama, or 'ohi'a lehua to form safety railings.

136 Mat Cover

To prevent sea water from entering the hull during heavy weather, a pa'il (mat cover) was

sometimes fitted over the entire opening of each canoe hull with smaller openings to

allow paddlers to move freely during paddling.

Paddles

Paddles averaged 1.5 meters in length. The blade of a typical paddle is short, broad, and

approximately ovate in shape, the broad end proximal. Steering paddles were of the same

general shape as the typical paddle but proportionately larger in dimension.

Mast and Sail

As seen in Webber's sketch (Cook 1784) of a double canoe, the sail was trilateral in shape and placed apex downward. One of the two long sides was tied to the vertical mast, the other to an upwardly curving slender spar, the boomsprit. The lower end ofthis spar was secured to the mast close to its foot, and the upper end was bent in toward the masthead by means of a cord. This gave the free margin a deeply crescentic form resembling superficially the crab-claw sail. The material used to make the sail was the leaves from the hala (Pandanus) tree.

The surface of the underbody was rubbed with pumice and polished with black paint.

Emerson (in Malo 1951) notes that this paint had the quality of lacquer. It was made from the latex of 'akoko (Chamaesyce sp), the inner bark of the kukui tree (Aleurites moluccana), the sap of mai'a (Musa acuminate hybrids), and charcoal from the leaves of hala (Pandanus). This paint was fmished with a few layers of kukui oil. Both the paint and polish may have allowed the koa hull to be more water resistant (Abbott 1992). 137 War canoes were generally fashioned with two sails to capture the wind during long

journeys. The kia or mast, was made from the trunk of the 'om'a lehua tree and would be

at least % the length of the entire canoe. A boom made from a light wood such as hau

was attached to the mast. The sail was made from tightly woven leaves of hala. It took

approximately three months for two weavers to make the two (2)-30 m2 lauhala sails of the Hawai'iloa, a replica of the Hawaiian double hull canoe. The sail was made from

280,000 weaves. In addition to the sails (pe'a), the canoe was paddled using paddles 1.5

m long from the wood of the koa tree. Seats were constructed from koa or 'ohi'a lehua and numbered at least 7-8. Each hull could hold at least 7-8 paddlers, thus, a double hulled canoe could contain about 18 paddlers, which is the number of paddlers observed by many of Capt. Cook's crewmembers in Kealakekua Bay in 1779 (Cook 1784).

Figure 18: Diagram of Wa'a Kalua (Double Hull Canoe)

138 RESULTS

The species, size and number of native hardwoods necessary for the construction of a double hull canoe is listed in Table 10. The total number of hardwood trees that would need to be gathered for a double hull canoe is listed in Table 11. It is estimated that at least three large koa (Acacia koa) trees 30 m in height and 3 m in diameter are needed to construct the two hulls, the seats, and the gunwales. Because the hull was partially hewn out and burued, there were no pieces of koa availalbe that could be used for other canoe parts made of koa. A single trunk of 'ahakea (Bobea elatior) tree could also be hewn for the gunwales as an alternate wood to koa. Ten 'ohi'a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha) trees are needed for the 'iako connecting the two hulls, the two masts, and the railing surrounding the platform. The logs would need to be at least 2 m long and 10-12 cm in diameter for the 'iako, 12-17 m long and 10-12 cm in diameter for the masts, and 2-3 m in length and 6-8 cm in diameter for the railings. The platform is made up of approximately 40 trunks of either lama (Diospyros sandwicensis), 'ahakea (Bobea elatior), or 'iliahi (Santalum paniculatum) lashed together and attached to the 'iako.

These logs need to be 10-15 m in length and 8-10 cm in diameter. Lastly, the paddles of koa are made from secondary branches 1.5 m in length and 2.5 cm in diameter.

Dimensions ofa typical koa canoe paddle are given in Table 12.

139 DISCUSSION

Age curves of koa in KI1auea forest suggest that trees between 20 and 25 m tall range in age from approximately 20 to about 330 years (Mueller-Dombois et. al 1981). It could be surmised that the selection of the largest koa trees by Hawaiians for canoe making mimicked the gap phase replacement hypothesized by Mueller-Dombois (1981) and his colleagues. The gap phase replacement states that koa trees with a diameter of 100 em

(with an approximate age of 100 years) will also reach their approximate height of 25 m.

At this height and age (or approximately 100 years), they become vulnerable to natural events such as storms and fall or are deliberately felled by the canoe makers. Both processes make openings in the forest that are available for new koa individuals to grow from their seedling stage and in 30 years successful saplings will eventually become emergent again in the forest (Mueller-Dombois et. aI1981).

An inventory of the Ka'iipiilehu preserve suggests that all of the woods needed to construct a Hawaiian double hull canoe could be gathered from these dry forests.

However, the single most important species, koa does not grow in the North Kona district at all. As noted by Emerson (n.d.), koa was gathered from S. Kona, Hilo and Ka'ii. The

Ka'iipiilehu forest would have been ideal for the construction of Kamehameha's fleet for two reasons. One, the forest is in close proximity to his residences at both Kawaihae, and

Kailua-Kona. Two, the lands of Ka'iipiilehu were under the direct supervision of chief

Kame'eiamoku, an uncle and close counselor to Kamehameha.

Comparing the results from the previous chapter on kauhale with this one, it would seem the lowland dry forests of North Kona would have aided Kamehameha during his reign.

140 Native hardwood species such as kauila, 'ohi'a lehua, 'a'ali'i, mamane, and lama would have been important to the construction of Kamehameha's kauhale at Kawaihae and

Kailua-Kona. The lama, 'iliahi, and 'ohi'a lehua would have also been important for a majority of the pieces for a double hull canoe. The fact that koa grows in a separate district (i.e., South Kona) may have allowed gathering pressures to be less in each district had all the species grown in the same area. Though 'ohi'a lehua can grow in great size to match an old koa tree, it was never used for canoe making. This may indicate a structural difference between the two woods. Koa may be a more water resistant wood than 'ohi'a lehua and may provide better buoyancy for such a large floating object. If we were to take the common observation that Kamehameha had 150 double hull canoes, this would equal, 450 koa trees, 500 'ohi'a lehua trees, and 1500 trees of lama, 'ahakea, or 'iliahi.

This is an undertaking that could only be sanctioned and directed by a powerful high chief like Kamehameha.

Were dry forests like Ka'iipiilehu sustainable for gathering these woods? An inventory of the 2.6 ha Ka'iipii1ehu preserve (Chapter 6) indicates that lama, and 'iliahi could have been gathered in lowland dry forests during the time of Kamehameha. The Ka'iipiilehu preserve is one example of a lowland dry forest community that would have occurred during the late 1700's. Table 13 indicates the size and number of trees occurring in the preserve today, which has been fenced from cattle grazing for the past 39 years. The lama density is sufficient to supply the platform for approx. 2 double hull canoes (reI. density 36% and 39 treeslha), but the number of 'iliahi trees is only sufficient for one canoe (4% and 4 treeslha). In addition, the mean DBH of 'iliahi (4 cm) in the preserve is less than lama (10 cm), this indicates that more 'iliahi trunks would need to be lashed 141 together to make one canoe platform compared to a platform made from lama trunks.

Both species were found to be in varying size classes within the preserve and either species could be used for constructing the platform. While the koa and 'obi'a did not occur within the Ka'iipiilehu preserve, 'ohi'a lehua grows just makai and adjacent to the preserve growing on both the 1800 lava flow and older (300-1500 y.o.) flow.

While canoes played an important role in most military actions, naval battles seem to have been quite rare and generally impromptu, with only a few having been described in the traditional and early post-contact literature. Instead, notes Hommon (1975), "most of the decisive battles were fought on land," due to the fact that "elaborate ballet etiquette" would have been impossible for the combatants to observe at sea. He notes additionally that "the territory held by an occupying army wonld have been more clearly delineated on the land than in the ocean...[and] that once the terrestrial territory had been armexed (or successfully defended), the adjacent portion of the ocean would have been included automatically in the acquisition" (Hommon 1975). Furthermore, fighting on the ocean created a double jeopardy battlefield. The ocean could be as much an enemy as one's opponents. Warriors might win the naval battle but lose the war to the sea. A victor whose canoes were badly damaged could be in a position not much better than that of the vanquished, with return to shore as difficult for the winner as for the loser. The ocean, great equalizer that it was, decreased the edge that a demonstrably more powerful warrior or army would have on land, while adding additional escape risks for the weaker party.

142 Early Hawaiians and canoe builders in particular, possessed an especially detailed knowledge of differing physical characteristics of woods, primarily of Acacia koa. The canoe builder developed a "folk taxonomy" of classification for koa wood, describing its bark, grain, and branching patterns. Holmes (1981) identified 21 words describing these characteristics of koa. Of greatest importance to the canoe builder was the koa grain. A range of density can be found in one tree, from 30 lbs. per cubic foot, to 80 lbs per cubic foot (Holmes 1981). To the canoe builder, the lower density wood was soft, lightweight, and yellowish and called koa Ia'au mai'a. This wood was preferred for paddles. The koa

'awapuhi was of a slightly greater density and preferred for canoe hulls and known for its durability and strength to weight ratio. The koa of highest density was almost black in color, and extremely heavy, this was the koa 'i'0 'ohi'a and was usually avoided because ofits difficulty to carve (Holmes 1981).

For more than 1,000 years, the Hawaiians used forests as sources of wood to build canoes, houses, temples, and other structures. Koa was the preferred wood for Hawaiian canoes that in 1779 in Kealakekua Bay alone were estimated around 1500. In 1793,

Menzies (1920) reported seeing numerous woodcutters and their trails in the forests above Kealakekua. These wood workers were undoubtedly cutting koa logs for

Kamehameha's naval fleet including the gigantic peleleu canoes. Cuddihy and Stone

(1990) suggest that the low technology, lack of a road system, limited the amount of logging that could be accomplished and the effects on the forests due to the logging were minimal. To build up to 150 double hull canoes, Kamehameha placed a tremendous amount of pressure on the dry forests of North Kona and mesic forests of South Kona.

Using our knowledge of the ecology of these forests, it is also safe to assume that these 143 forests needed about 20 years for new trees to grow at sufficient height and diameter for canoe construction.

144 Table 9: Historical Double-Hull Canoe Observations

Dale Observer Length Width Ikpth lliko length No of Crew no. No.of (m) (m) (m) (m) Paddkrs canoes .sighted

1779 Clerke 21 0.9 0.9 3.6

1779 King 21 0.9 I 1500

1779 Ledyard 18-21 30

1779 Rickman 30 60

1779 Samwell 18 30-40 60-70 150 dh I 850 sh

1786 Portlock 16 250

1788 Colnell 6-7 17-28 50

1792 Vancouver 36

1793 Puget 18-19 46 40 warriors

1793 Bell 19 50 30-40

1796 Bishop

1798 Townsend 21 0.6 1.8 1.5

1813 Whitman 18 60-100

1816 Kotzbue 16-20

1819 Freycinet 10-21

1823 Ellis 21 0.6 3

1839 Paris 14 0.5 3.2 1.8 24

1843 Andrews 14 0.45 3 2.7 12

1847 Bingham 9-15 2-3 1.5 to 1.8 1-20

1848 Cheever 21 0.9

1976 Hokiile'a 19 1.9 0.9 10 X SAm 28 40 nla

1993 Hawai'i1oa 17 1.8 0.9 9X6m 24 40 nla

145 Table 10: Native Hardwoods of the Hawaiian Double Hull Canoe

Part Function Species Length Diameter m crn Trunk Hull Acacia koa 15-20 100-300 Trunk Manu Acacia koa 2 100-300 Trunk Seats Acacia koa 1.5 50 Trunk Gunwale Acacia koa 10-12 30 Stem Iako Metrosideros 1.5-3 10-12 polymorpha Trunk Mast Metrosideros 12-17 10-12 polymorpha Trunk Boom Hibiscus 10-15 4-6 tiliaceus Trunk Platform Santalum 10-15 8-10 paniculatum Trunk Platform Bobea elatior 10-15 8-10 Trunk Platform Diospyros 10-15 8-10 sandwicensis Stems Gunwale Bobea elatior 15-20 6-8 Stem Paddles Acacia koa 1.5 2.5 Branches Railing Metrosideros 2-3 6-8 fJolvmorpha

Table 11: Number of dry forest trees necessary to manufacture a Double-Hull Canoe

Species Number

Acacia koa 3 trunks

Metrosideros polymorpha 10 trunks

Diospyros sandwicensis' 40 trunks

Bobea elatior' 40 trunks

Santalum paniculatum' 40 trunks I -eIther speCIes may be used for the platform

Table 12: Dimensions ofa Hawaiian canoe paddle (from Buck 1961)

Length l52cm

Length of shaft 96cm

Diameter of shaft at mid length 2.5 cm

Length of blade 56cm

Thickness at center lcm 146 Table 13: Trees at Ka'iipiilehu preserve available for canoe making

pede Mean DBB (em) B aJ Arealhectare Relative Density

Diospyros salldwicellsis 10 39 36%

Sanralum panieillatum 4 4 4%

147 LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, LA. 1992. Ui'au Hawai'i. Traditional Hawaiian uses ofplants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Bell, E. 1929. Log of the 'Chatham'. Honolulu Mercury, September 1929.

Best, E. 1923. Did Polynesian voyagers know the double canoe? J. of the Polynesian Soc. 32:200-214.

Bishop, S. E. 1916. Reminiscences of Old Hawaii. Honolulu Gazette. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Boit, J. 1896. Log of the 'Union' John Boit's Remarkable Voyage to the Northwest Coast and around the World, 1794-1796. Ed. by E. Hayes. Oregon Historical Society. Portland, Oregon.

Buck, P.H. 1957. Arts and crafts of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Spec. Pub!. 45. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Cook, J. 1784. A voyage to the Pacific ocean. Undertaken, by the command ofHis Majesty, for making discoveries in the Northern hemisphere, to determine the position and extent of the west side of North America; its distance from Asia; and the practicability of a northern passage to Europe. Performed under the direction of Captains Cook, Clerke, and Gore, in His Majesty's ships the Resolution and Discovery, in the years 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779, and 1780. Vo!. I and II written by Captain James Cook, F.R.S. Vo!. III by Captain James King, L.L.D. and F.R.S. lllustrated with maps and charts, from the original drawings made by Lieut. Henry Roberts ... with a great variety of portraits ... views ... and historical representations ... drawn by Mr. Webber. Published by order of the lords commissioners ofthe Admiralty. W. and A. Strahan, for G. Nicol, and T. Cadell, London.

Cuddihy, L.W. and C.P. Stone. 1990. Alteration ofnative Hawaiian vegetation: effects of humans, their activities and introductions. Univ. of Hawaii Coop. Park Studies Unit, University ofHawaii.

Dampier, R. 1971. To the sandwich islands on H.M.S. Blonde [by] Robert Dampier. P.K. Joerger (ed). University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

De Varigny, C. 1981. Fourteen years in the Sandwich Islands, 1855-1868. Trans!. by A.L. Korn. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Desha, S. L. 2000. Kamehameha and his warrior Kekiihaupi'o. Trans!. by F.N. Frazier. Originally pub!. in Ka Hokii 0 Hawai'i. Kamehameha Schools Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

148 Ellis, W. 1979. Journal of William Ellis: narrative of a tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee : with remarks on the history, traditions, manners, customs, and language ofthe inhabitants ofthe Sandwich Islands. Second en!. ed. published in 1827 under title: Narrative of a tour through Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Reprint ofthe 1963 ed. published by the Honolulu advertiser, Honolulu. Tuttle Press. Rutland, Vt.

Emerson, N.B. n.d. Notes from the H.P. Kekahuna collection. Bishop Museum archives.

Fornander, A. 1916. Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folklore. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Vo!. 4, Part 1. Bishop Museum. Honolulu, Hawaii

___" 1969. An Account of the Polynesian Race its Origin and Migrations. Rutland, Vermont: Tuttle. (Originally published in 3 vols. all under the same title in 1878, 1880 and 1885, London: Tribner.) Freycinet, L.C.D. 1824-1844. Voyage autour du monde [microformJ: entrepris par ordre du roi, execute sur les corvettes de S.M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne pendant les annees 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820 I par Louis de Freycinet. Chez Pillet aine, Paris.

Haddon, A.C. 1975. Canoes of Oceania. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Hommon, R. 1975. Use and control of Hawaiian inter-island channels: Polynesian Hawaii, A.D. 1400-1794. Office of the Governor, State ofHawaii.

Holmes, T. 1981. The Hawaiian canoe. Editions Limited. Honolulu, Hawaii

Ingaraham, J. 1918. The log of the Brig 'Hope'. Hawaiian Historical Society. Honolulu, Hawaii.

Kamakau, S. M. 1961. Ruling chiefs of Hawaii. Kamehameha Schools Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

King, J. 1967. Journal 1778-1779./n the journals ofCaptain James Cook on his voyage of discovery (III): The voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780. Cambridge.

Ledyard, J. 1964. Journal of Captain Cook's last voyage. Ed. By J. K. Munford. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Malo, D. 1951. Hawaiian antiquities. Bishop Museum Spec. Pulb. 2. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii

Menzies, A. 1920. Hawaii nei 128 years ago, W.P. Wilson (ed.). The New Freedom, Honolulu.

Mueller Dombois, D., K.W. Bridges, and H.L. Carson. 1981. Island ecosystems: biological organization in selected Hawaiian communities. US/IBP Synthesis Series, no. 15. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvannia. 149 Paris, E. 1956. Souvenirs de marine, 1882 a 1892. Burg Bez. Magdeburg: R. Loef.

Simpson, G. 1847. Narrative of a journey around the world during the years 1841 and 1842. H. Colburn, London. Townsend, Ebenezer, Jr. 1888. The Diary of Mr. Ebenezer Townsend, Jr., the Supercargo of the Sealing Ship 'Neptune'. In Papers of the New Haven Colony Historical Society 4:1-115.

Valentin, F. 1969. Voyages and adventures of La Perouse: from the fourteenth ed. Of the F. Valentin abridge, Tours, 1875. Trans!. by J,S. Fassner. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawaii.

150 CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY OF HYPOTHESES

INTRODUCTION

This research in dry forest ethnobotany posed the following hypotheses:

Dry forests in North Kona could provide hardwoods to be used in the construction of kauhale (chiefly housing compounds) and a fleet of wa'a kaulua (double hull canoes).

Using a population study of the Ka'iipiiIehu preserve (chapters 6-8) a variety of nses for plants available to Hawaiians during the time of Karneharneha. The results suggest that the dry forests of North Kona were integral to the success of Kameharneha. Firstly, there would have been the type and size of trees needed to build a kauhale at Kawaihae and

Kailua-Kona, and secondly, all the trees needed to build a war canoe, except of koa, were available in North Kona. The research surmises that even koa could be gathered from

North Kona, at 200 m elevation at Pu'uwa'awa'a. Only a powerful chief like

Kamehameha could command enough groups of people to collect all the different woods for his kauhale and canoes. Moreover, it was also important that Karneharneha's uncle and counselor, Karne'eiarnoku, was the konohiki (lesser chief of the ahupua'a) of the

North Kona lands and would have ensured that his people and resources were made available to Kameharneha. These impacts on the dry forest have never been fully realized until now. The introduction of ranching, and fountain grass were the nail in the

151 coffin for this dry forest, leaving us with only fragments of dry forest. The hypothesis is accepted.

Ethnographic information about Hawaiian cultural traditions in North Kona

(Kekaha) will reference the Ka'iipiilehu dry forest and its hardwoods as sufficiently dense and important for the collection of hardwood species.

Ethnographic information gained from the archival research and searches into the Land

Commission Awards and Land Indices published in the mid-1800's provided valuable information on the land use history for the Kekaha region but very little specific information to Ka'iipiilehu. Minor reference was made to the kauila trees of Napu'u

(Kekaha), and the use of the wood to make clubs and nails (Kamakau 1961). The koki '0 tree was referenced by Young and Popenoe (1916) because the collection of its bark by

North Kona residents was causing its decline in numbers. Some of the observations by westerners were the most helpful in providing a glimpse of the forests and the remaining areas of habitation by the Hawaiians but again this was not specific to Ka'iipiilehu. But that does not tell if the tree was used for all of those purposes in North Kona.

Kamehameha may have only allowed the use of 'ohi'a lehua for wood to make house posts, decking on the canoe and wooden images. And this was an important use to the people of North Kona. In this case, its use is for only three purposes, not 25 as was indicated in the research. The hypothesis is rejected.

152 The Lama / Kauila Lowland Dry Forest form a continuous band of vegetation extending from Ka'iipiilehu, through adjacent Pu'uwa'awa'a, to Pu'uanahulu to the north.

The lama/kauila dry forest has been severely fragmented. Ranching, invasive grasses and fire are well known threats. Comparing this research with other plant studies in North

Kona, this rare plant community once extended between 500 and 650 m elevation from

Ka'ilpUiehu, northward through Pu'uwa'awa'a and ending at Pu'uanabulu.

Human impacts by Hawaiians were found to contribute to some of this fragmentation.

The Hualalai flow of 1800 and 1801 further bisected this community and further degradation continued with ranching beginning in the 1850's and the spread of fountain grass in the early 1900's. Fires too, have further reduced this plant community to only a few patches. Further reduction of this plant community cannot comtinue forever. Many of the species in this forest are Endangered and plant animal interactions such as the 'aiea tree and Blackburn'ssphinxmoth (Manduca blackburni) are severly imparied.

Restoration efforts at Pu'uwa'awa'a and Ka'iipUiehu are commendable, but financial resources and political willingness greatly diminish their effectiveness. The hypothesis is rejected.

153 APPENDIX A: SPECIES LIST

154 Table 14: Species List of plants of the Ka'fipUlehu Preserve

Family Scientific Narne Author Abbreviatiou Hawaiian Distributiou

Agavaceae Pleomele hawaiiensis Degener and I. Degener PLEHAW Halapepe, !e'ie E

Amaranthaceae Nototrichium sandwicense (A. Gray) Hillebr. NOTSAN Kulu', E

Anacardiaceae Schinus terebinthifolius Raddi SCHTER A

Apiaceae Petroselinum crispum (Mill.) A. W. Hill PETCRI A

Asclepiadaceae Asclepias physocarpa (E. Mey.) Schlechter ASCPHY A

Asteraceae Lipochaeta subcordata A. Gray LIPSUB Nehe E

Asteraceae Ageratina riparia (Regel) R. King and H. AGERIP A Robinson

Asteraceae Ridens pilosa I.. BlDPlL A

Asteraceae Emeliafosbergii Nicholson EMEFOS A

Asteraceae Pluchea carolinensis G.Don PLUCAR A

Asteraceae Senecio mikanioides Otto ex Walp. SENMIK A

Asteraceae Sonchus oleraceus I.. SONOLE A

Bignoniaceae Jacaranda mimosifolia D.Don JACMlM A

Cactaceae Opuntiaficus-indica (1..) Mill. OPUFIC A

Chenopodiaceae Chenopodium oahuense (Meyen) Aellen CHEOAH •Aheahea. 'ahea, E

155 Family Scientific Name Author Abbrevi.tion H.waiian Distribution kaha'iha'i

Chenopodiace.e Chenopodium carinatum R. Br. CHECAR A

Commelinaceae Commelina diffusa N. L. Burm COMDIF A

Convolvulaceae Ipomoea indica (1. Burm.) Merr. IPOIND Koali 'awa, koali I 'awahia, koali la'au (Ni'ih.u), ko.li pehu

Crassulaceae Kalanchoe pinnata (Lam.) Pers. KALPIN A

Cucurbitace.e Sicyos lasiocephalus Skottsb. SICLAS 'Anunu E

Cuppressace.e Callitris endUcheri (ParI.) F. M. Bailey CALEND A

Cyper.ce.e Cyperns hillebrandii Boeck CYPHIL I

EOOnace.e Diospyros sandwicensis (A. DC) Fosb. DIODAN Lama, elama E

Euphorbi.ce.e Euphorbia pep/us L. EUPPEP A

Fabaceae Erythrina sandwicensis Degener ERYSAN Wiliwili E

Fabaceae Leucaena leucocephala (Lam.) de Wit LEULEU A

F.b.ceae Senna gaudichaudii (Hook. and Arnott) H. Irwin .nd SENGAU Kolomona, I Barneby heuhiuJri, kalamon., uhiuhi

F.b.ce.e Soplwra chrysophylla (Salisb.) Seem. SOPCHR Mamane E

F.b.ce.e Canavalia hawaiiensis Degener, I. Degener and J. CANHAW 'Awikiwiki, E S.uer pu.hk.uhi

Flacourtiaceae Xylosma hawaiiense Seem XYLHAW Maua, • 'e (Maui) E

Lamiaceae Plectranthus parviflorus Willd. PLEPAR 'Ala'alawainui~ I 'ala'alawainui

156 Family Scientific Name Author Abbreviation Hawaiian Distribution puia ki, 'ala'alawainui wahine

Malvaceae Kokia drynariaoides (Seem.) Lewton KOKDRY Koki '0, hau hele E 'ula

Malvaceae Sidajallax Walp. SIDFAL '!lima I

Malvaceae Abutilon grandijolium (Willd.) Sweet ABUGRA A

Menispennaceae Cocculus trilobus (Thunb.) DC COCORB Huehue, hue, I hue'ie, 'inalua

Myrsinaceae Myrsine lanaiensis Hillebr. MYRLAN K6lea, E

Myrtaceae Metrosideros polymorpha Gaud. METPOL 'Ohi'a. '6hi'a E lehua, lehua

Oxalidaceae Oxalis comiculata L. OXACOR A

Papaveraceae Argemone glauca (Nutt. ex Prain) Pope ARGGLA PuakaIa, kala, I naule, p6kalakala

Pinaceae Pinus canariensis C. Sm. ex DC PINCAN A

Piperaceae Peperomia leptostachya Hook. and Arnott PEPLEP .Ala'alawainui I

Plumbaginaceae Plumbago zeylanica L. PLUZEY IIie'e I

Poaceae Pennisetum clandestinum Chiov. PENCLA A

Poaceae Pennisetum setaceum (Forssk.) Chiov. PENSET A

Proteaceae Grevillea robusta A. Cunn. ex R. Br. GREROB A

Rhamnaceae Colubrina oppositijolia Brogn. ex H. Mann COLOPP Kauila E

Rosaceae Osteomeles anthyllidijolia (Sm.) Lind!. OSTANT Hilie'e, ilihe'e, I

157 Family Scientific Name Author Abbreviation Hawaiian Distribution lauhihi (Ni'ihau)

Rubiacae Psydrax odorata (Forest. F.) A.C. Smith and S. PSYODO Alahe'e, 'obe'e, I Darwin waIahe'e

SantaIaceae Santalum paniculatum Hook. and Arnott SANPAN 'Diahi E

Sapindaceae Sapindus saponaria L. SAPSAP A'e, ffianele I

Sapindaceae Dodonaea viscosa Jacq. DODVIS 'A'ali'i, 'a'ali'j I kumakani, 'a'ali'i kii rna kua, kumakani - Sapotaceae Pouteria sandwicensis (A. Gray) Baehni and Degener POUSAN 'Ala'a, aulu, E 'ela'a, kaulu

Scrophulariaceae Lophospennum erubescens D.Don LOPERU A

Solanaceae Nothocestrum brevijlorum A. Gray NOTBRE ' Aiea, halena E

Solanaceae Physalis peruviana L. PHYPER A

Solanaceae Solanum amen'canum Mill. SOLAME A

Verbenaceae Lantana camara L. LANCAM A

Viscaceae Karthalsella remyana Tiegh. KORREM Hulumoa, E kaumahana

Ferns

Aspleniaceae Asplenium adiantum nigrum L. ASPADI 'Iwa'iwa I

Aspleuiaceae Asplenium trichomanes L. ASPTRI 'lwa'iwa I subsp. densum subsp. (Brack.) W.H. Wagner

Aspleniaceae Asplenium sp. 'Twa I

158 Family Scientific Name Author Abbreviation Hawaiian Distribution

Polypodiaceae Nephrolepis exaltara subsp. (L.) Schott., NEPEXA I hawaiiensis subsp. W.H. Wagner

Polypodiaceae Lepisorus thunbergiana (Kaulf.) Ching LEPTHU I

Polypodiaceae Phymatosorus grossus (Langd. and Fisch.) Brownlie PHYGRO Laua'e A

Psilotaceae Psilotum nudum (L.) P. Beauv. PSINUD Moa I

Pteridaceae Doryopreris decora Brack DORDEC I

Pteridaceae Pellaea rernifolia (Cav.) link PELTER I

159 APPENDIX B: RAW DATA TABLES

160 Circumference, Diameter at Brest Height, and Basal Area Distance CIRCUM DBH BA (m (em) (em) (em) alaa 5.6 41.4 13.80 11.14 alahee 4.9 17 5.67 7.14 alahee 2.8 17 5.67 7.14 halapepe 7.2 29 9.67 9.33 halapepe 1.9 36.2 12.07 10.42 iliahi 3.1 32 10.67 9.80 iliahi 2.04 12 4.00 6.00 iliahi 3.1 6.7 2.23 4.48 iliahi 6.9 11 3.67 5.74 iliahi 6.6 4 1.33 3.46 kauila 7.08 62.4 20.80 13.68 koa haole 2.4 6 2.00 4.24 koa haole 4.5 5 1.67 3.87 kokia 3.3 5.2 1.73 3.95 kului 6.9 7.8 2.60 4.84 kului 3 7.8 2.60 4.84 kului 2.17 5 1.67 3.87 kului 5.8 4 1.33 3.46 kului 1.6 4 1.33 3.46 kului 0.75 5 1.67 3.87 kului 5.9 5.8 1.93 4.17 kului 1.8 4.1 1.37 3.51 kului 2.75 2.5 0.83 2.74 kului 1.9 3.7 1.23 3.33 kului 4.65 5.2 1.73 3.95 kului 2.4 7.5 2.50 4.74 kului 1.37 5 1.67 3.87 kului 6.75 5 1.67 3.87 kului 3.55 2 0.67 2.45 kului 3.5 3 1.00 3.00 kului 1 3 1.00 3.00 kului 2.25 2.7 0.90 2.85 kului 1.2 2.8 0.93 2.90 kului 5.25 3.2 1.07 3.10 kului 1.8 4.8 1.60 3.79 kului 1.1 2.8 0.93 2.90 kuJui 0.7 2.5 0.83 2.74 kului 3.5 4 1.33 3.46 kului 3.08 4.1 1.37 3.51 kuJui 4 2.5 0.83 2.74 kului 4.05 2.7 0.90 2.85 kului 5.02 4.5 1.50 3.67 kului 2.08 4 1.33 3.46 kului 1.8 5 1.67 3.87 kului 3.1 3.5 1.17 3.24

161 D' tance CIRCUM DBB BA m) em) em) em) kului 6.8 2.7 0.90 2.85 kului 7.6 3.8 1.27 3.38 kului 2 4.9 1.63 3.83 kuJui 2.2 3 1.00 3.00 kului 4.3 5 1.67 3.87 kului 2.5 6 2.00 4.24 kului 2.9 5 1.67 3.87 kului 1.6 4 1.33 3.46 kului 2.8 3 1.00 3.00 kului 5.5 2.5 0.83 2.74 kului 6.9 3.1 1.03 3.05 lama 5.4 18.8 6.27 7.51 lama 1.7 41 13.67 11.09 lama 0.5 17.8 5.93 7.31 lama 1.6 18.8 6.27 7.51 lama 3.7 15 5.00 6.71 lama 2.1 19.2 6.40 7.59 lama 4.6 10.2 3.40 5.53 lama 3.4 23.8 7.93 8.45 lama 1.6 17.5 5.83 7.25 lama 1.2 19.5 6.50 7.65 lama 1.8 13 4.33 6.24 lama 1.9 20.4 6.80 7.82 lama 1 22.2 7.40 8.16 lama 0.8 16.5 5.50 7.04 lama 4 24.2 8.07 8.52 lama 6.2 14.8 4.93 6.66 lama 3.6 31.1 10.37 9.66 lama 1.5 37.5 12.50 10.61 lama 5.03 30.3 10.10 9.53 lama 7 31 10.33 9.64 lama 5 19.8 6.60 7.71 lama 6.05 16.5 5.50 7.04 lama 3.1 21.5 7.17 8.03 lama 3.1 31 10.33 9.64 lama 4 22 7.33 8.12 lama 3 15 5.00 6.71 lama 1.5 20 6.67 7.75 lama 1.9 18 6.00 7.35 lama 4.1 18 6.00 7.35 lama 7.9 10 3.33 5.48 lama 6.3 13.8 4.60 6.43 lama 6.6 18 6.00 7.35 lama 3.6 21 7.00 7.94 lama 4.3 15 5.00 6.71 lama 4.8 27 9.00 9.00 lama 2.5 23 7.67 8.31 lama 3.2 29.3 9.77 9.38 lama 0.9 15.1 5.03 6.73

162 Distance CIRCUM.- DBR BA (m) em) em) em) lama 3 27 9.00 9.00 lantana 7.3 4 1.33 3.46 lantana 3.3 3.2 1.07 3.10 lantana 4.5 2.9 0.97 2.95 lantana 5.09 2.5 0.83 2.74 lantana 3.8 4.2 1.40 3.55 lantana 3.8 3.8 1.27 3.38 lantana I 3 1.00 3.00 mamane 4.9 5 1.67 3.87 mamane 6 3.5 1.17 3.24 mamane 6 2.8 0.93 2.90 mamane 2.8 10.3 3.43 5.56 mamane 1.8 7 2.33 4.58 mamane 7 4 1.33 3.46 Total Area 598.07

163 Point Centered Quarter Data

Quarter D1 ranoe em UM DBE ampling Point No. Speci (m) (em) em) 1 I lama 5.4 18.8 6.27 2 kului 6.9 7.8 2.60 3 kului 3 7.8 2.60 4 kului 2.17 5 1.67 2 1 kului 5.8 4 1.33 2 lama 1.7 41 13.67 3 kului 1.6 4 1.33 4 kului 0.75 5 1.67 3 1 kului 5.9 5.8 1.93 2 lantana 7.3 4 1.33 3 lantana 3.3 3.2 1.07 4 kului 1.8 4.1 1.37 4 1 kului 2.75 2.5 0.83 2 kului 1.9 3.7 1.23 3 lama 0.5 17.8 5.93 4 lama 1.6 18.8 6.27 5 I kului 4.65 5.2 1.73 2 lama 3.7 15 5.00 3 kului 2.4 7.5 2.50 4 lama 2.1 19.2 6.40 6 1 kului 1.37 5 1.67 2 lama 4.6 10.2 3.40 3 lama 3.4 23.8 7.93 4 kului 6.75 5 1.67 7 1 lama 1.6 17.5 5.83 2 lama 1.2 19.5 6.50 3 lama 1.8 13 4.33 4 lama 1.9 20.4 6.80 8 I lama 1 22.2 7.40 2 iliahi 3.1 32 10.67 3 kului 3.55 2 0.67 4 kului 3.5 3 1.00 9 1 kului 1 3 1.00 2 kului 2.25 2.7 0.90 3 kului 1.2 2.8 0.93 4 kului 5.,25 3.2 1.07 10 1 lama 0.8 16.5 5.50 2 kului 1.8 4.8 1.60 3 kului 1.1 2.8 0.93 4 k-ului 0.7 2.5 0.83 11 1 lama 4 24.2 8.07 2 lantana 4.5 2.9 0.97 3 lama 6.2 14.8 4.93 4 lama 3.6 31.1 10.37 12 1 kuJui 3.5 4 1.33

164 Quarter Distance CIRCUM DBH Sampling Point No. pecie m) em (cm) 2 lama 1.S 37.S 12.SO 3 koa haole 2.4 6 2.00 4 alaa S.6 41.4 13.80 13 1 lama S.03 30.3 10.10 2 lama 7 31 10.33 3 lcului 3.08 4.1 1.37 4 kului 4 2.5 0.83 14 1 kului 4.0S 2.7 0.90 2 kului 5.02 4.S 1.50 3 lama 5 19.8 6.60 4 knlui 2.08 4 1.33 15 1 lama 6.05 16.5 S.SO 2 kauila 7.08 62.4 20.80 3 lantana 5.09 2.5 0.83 4 iliahi 2.04 12 4.00 16 1 mamane 4.9 5 1.67 2 iliahi 3.1 6.7 2.23 3 lantana 3.8 4.2 1.40 4 mamane 6 3.5 1.17 17 1 lcului 1.8 S 1.67 2 mamane 6 2.8 0.93 3 halapepe 7.2 29 9.67 4 mamane 2.8 10.3 3.43 18 I lama 3.1 21.5 7.17 2 kului 3.1 3.5 1.17 3 kului 6.8 2.7 0.90 4 kului 7.6 3.8 1.27 19 1 kului 2 4.9 1.63 2 halapepe 1.9 36.2 12.07 3 lama 3.1 31 10.33 4 lcului 2.2 3 1.00 20 1 tamana 3.8 3.8 1.27 2 lama 4 22 7.33 3 alahee 4.9 17 S.67 4 kului 4.3 S 1.67 21 I lama 3 15 5.00 2 kului 2.5 6 2.00 3 k'Ului 2.9 S 1.67 4 lama l.S 20 6.67 22 1 kului 1.6 4 1.33 2 kului 2.8 3 1.00 3 lama 1.9 18 6.00 4 lama 4.1 18 6.00 23 1 lllamane 1.8 7 2.33 2 lcului S.S 2.S 0.83 3 lama 7.9 10 3.33 4 lama 6.3 13.8 4.60 24 1 kului 6.9 3.1 1.03 2 lllamane 7 4 1.33

165 Quarter Distance CIRCUM DBH Sampling Point No. Species (m) (em) em) 3 lama 6.6 18 6.00 4 alahee 2.8 17 5.67 25 1 koa haole 4.5 5 1.67 2 lantana 1 3 1.00 3 lama 3.6 21 7.00 4 lama 4.3 15 5.00 26 1 lama 4.8 27 9.00 2 iliahi 6.9 11 3.67 3 kokia 3.3 5.2 1.73 4 iliahi 6.6 4 1.33 27 1 lama 2.5 23 7.67 2 lama 3.2 29.3 9.77 3 lama 0.9 15.1 5.03 4 lama 3 27 9.00 108 total 392.01 Nearest Neighbor 3.629722 m Absolute Density 5248.84 trees/ha

166 Diameter at Breast Height

PLE" COL DlO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN ClIIt erR DBR CIR DBR CIR DBR CIR DBR ClR DBR em O'ER CIR DBli OR DBB eIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (eni) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

8 2.7 7 2.33 2 0.67 23 7.67 2.5 0.83 5.7 1.90 3.5 1.17 2.5 0.83 2.5 0.83

20 6.7 7.5 2.50 2 0.67 25 8.33 2.5 0.83 7.5 2.50 3.6 1.20 3 1.00 2.5 0.83

10.3 28 9.3 8 2.67 2 0.67 31 3 2.6 0.87 13 4.33 3.7 1.23 3.5 1.17 2.5 0.83

10.8 28.5 9.5 9 3.00 2 0.67 32.5 3 3 1.00 21 7.00 4 1.33 3.5 1.17 2.5 0.83

14.8 29 9.7 9.5 3.17 2.2 0.73 44.5 3 3 1.00 29 9.67 4 1.33 4 1.33 2.5 0.83

23.3 45 15.0 9.5 3.17 2.2 0.73 70 3 3 1.00 36.2 12.07 5.2 1.73 4 1.33 2.5 0.83

23.6 51 17.0 10 3.33 2.3 0.77 71 7 3 1.00 39 13.00 5.5 1.83 4.3 1.43 2.5 0.83

53 17.7 10.2 3.40 2.3 0.77 3.175 1.06 50 16.67 6.7 2.23 4.5 1.50 2.5 0.83

62 20.7 10.8 3.60 2.5 0.83 3.5 1.17 7.5 2.50 4.7 1.57 2.5 0.83

62.4 20.8 11 3.67 2.5 0.83 3.5 1.17 8 2.67 5 1.67 2.5 0.83

85.5 28.5 11 3.67 2.5 0.83 3.6 1.20 11 3.67 5 1.67 2.6 0.87

11 3.67 2.5 0.83 3.64 1.21 13 4.33 5 1.67 2.6 0.87

167 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 -PAN CHR

CIR DBB em DBIl crn DBR em DBH CrR DBH CIR DBB CIR DBH CIR DBR ClR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (cm) (COl) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

11 3.67 2.5 0.83 3.68 1.23 14 4.67 5 1.67 2.7 0.90

11.2 3.73 2.5 0.83 3.7 1.23 17 5.67 5.5 1.83 2.7 0.90

11.5 3.83 2.5 0.83 3.72 1.24 17 5.67 5.5 1.83 2.7 0.90

11.8 3.93 2.5 0.83 3.82 1.27 20.5 6.83 5.8 1.93 2.8 0.92

11.9 3.97 2.5 0.83 3.96 1.32 23 7.67 6 2.00 2.8 0.93

12 4.00 2.5 0.83 4 1.33 6 2.00 2.8 0.93

12 4.00 2.5 0.83 4 1.33 6.2 2.07 2.8 0.93

12 4.00 2.5 0.83 4 1.33 6.4 2.12 2.9 0.97

12 4.00 2.5 0.83 4 1.33 6.7 2.23 2.9 0.97

12.2 4.07 2.5 0.83 4.4 1.48 7 2.33 2.9 0.97

12.5 4.17 2.5 0.83 4.5 1.50 7 2.33 3 1.00

12.5 4.17 2.5 0.83 4.6 1.52 7 2.33 3 1.00

12.5 4.17 2.5 0.83 4.6 1.53 7 2.33 3 1.00

12.8 4.27 2.5 0.83 4.9 1.63 7.5 2.50 3 1.00

12.8 4.27 2.6 0.87 5.2 1.72 8 2.67 3 1.00

12.8 4.27 2.6 0.87 7.5 2.50 8.2 2.73 3 1.00

12.9 4.30 2.7 0.89 9 3.00 3 1.00

168 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN CHR cm TIER em DBR em DBB OR DEB CIR. DBR cm DBH cm DBH CIR DBB CIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

13 4.33 2.7 0.90 9.1 3.03 3 1.00

13 4.33 2.7 0.90 10 3.33 3 1.00

13 4.33 2.7 0.90 10.5 3.50 3 1.00

13 4.33 2.7 0.90 11 3.67 3 1.00

13 4.33 2.7 0.90 11 3.67 3 1.00

13 4.33 2.8 0.93 11 3.67 3 1.00

13 4.33 2.8 0.93 11 3.67 3 1.00

13.5 4.50 2.8 0.93 11 3.67 3.1 1.03

13.5 4.50 2.8 0.93 12 4.00 3.2 1.07

13.8 4.60 2.8 0.93 12 4.00 3.2 1.07

13.9 4.62 2.8 0.93 13.2 4.40 3.3 1.10

14 4.67 2.8 0.93 15 5.00 3.3 1.11

14 4.67 2.8 0.93 15 5.00 3.5 1.17

14 4.67 2.8 0.93 15 5.00 3.5 1.17

14 4.67 2.8 0.93 15.5 5.17 3.5 1.17

14.1 4.70 2.8 0.93 16.2 5.40 3.6 1.20

14.2 4.73 2.8 0.93 17 5.67 3.8 1.27

169 PLE COL oro NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OFP SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN CHR cm DBH em DBH em DBH ClR DBB CIR DBH CIR DBH em DBH CIR DBH em DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (ern) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

14.3 4.77 2.9 0.97 18 6.00 3.8 1.27

14.3 4.77 2.9 0.97 20.2 6.73 3.8 1.27

14.5 4.83 2.9 0.98 20.5 6.83 3.9 1.30

14.5 4.83 3 1.00 28 9.33 3.9 1.33

10.3 14.5 4.83 3 1.00 31 3 4 1.33

10.3 14.5 4.83 3 1.00 31 3 4 1.33

10.4 14.5 4.83 3 1.00 31 4 4 1.33

10.6 14.6 4.87 3 1.00 32 7 4 1.33

11.6 14.7 4.90 3 1.00 35 7 4.1 1.37

14.8 4.93 3 1.00 4.2 1.40

14.8 4.93 3 1.00 4.5 1.50

15 5.00 3 1.00 4.5 1.50

15 5.00 3 1.00 4.5 1.50

15 5.00 3 1.00 4.5 1.50

170 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP PP SAN SAN BRE ANT W aDO PAN CHR IR DBH CIR DBH em DRR CIR DBB CIR DBH em DBB CIR DBR erR DBB CIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

15 5.00 3 1.00 4.5 1.50

15 5.00 3 1.00 4.5 1.50

15 5.00 3 1.02 4.6 1.53

15 5.00 3.1 1.03 4.7 1.57

15.1 5.03 3.1 1.03 4.9 1.63

15.1 5.03 3.2 1.07 5 1.67

15.5 5.17 3.2 1.07 5 1.67

15.5 5.17 3.2 1.07 5 1.67

15.7 5.23 3.2 1.07 5 1.67

15.8 5.27 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

15.8 5.27 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

15.8 5.27 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

16 5.33 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

16 5.33 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

16 5.33 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

16 5.33 3.5 1.17 5 1.67

16 5.33 3.5 1.17 5.1 1.70

171 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP opp SAN SAN BRB ANT W 000 PAN CHR

CIR oBH CIR O'BH CIR DBR CIR oBM em DBH C1R DBR OR DBR CIR DBB CIR DBB (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

16 5.33 3.6 1.20 5.3 1.77

16 5.33 3.7 1.23 5.5 1.83

16 5.33 3.7 1.23 5.5 1.83

16.1 5.37 3.8 1.27 5.5 1.83

16.3 5.43 3.8 1.27 5.7 1.92

16.5 5.50 3.8 1.27 6 2.00

16.5 5.50 3.8 1.29 6 2.00

16.5 5.50 4 1.33 6.3 2.08

16.5 5.50 4 1.33 6.3 2.11

16.6 5.53 4 1.33 6.5 2.17

16.6 5.53 4 1.33 7 2.33

16.7 5.57 4 1.33 7 2.33

16.8 5.60 4 1.33 7 2.34

17 5.67 4 1.33 7.3 2.42

17 5.67 4 1.33 7.5 2.50

17 5.67 4 1.33 7.5 2.50

17 5.67 4 1.33 8 2.67

172 PLE COL 010 Not NOT OST HA PSY SAN sop opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN CHR cm OBH ClR DBH OR DBH CIR Q~H CIR OBR erR OBR OR DBH CIR DBH CIR OBR (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (qrn) (CJl1) (em) (em) (ern) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

17 5.67 4 1.33 8 2.67

17 5.67 4 1.33 8 2.67

17 5.67 4 1.33 8.1 2.71

17 5.67 4 1.33 8.5 2.83

17 5.67 4.1 1.37 8.5 2.83

17 5.67 4.1 1.37 8.8 2.93

17 5.67 4.2 1.40 9 3.00

17 5.67 4.2 1.40 10 3.33

17 5.67 4.3 1.43 10 3.33

17 5.67 4.3 1.43 10 3.33

17 5.67 4.4 1.47 10.3 3.43

17.2 5.73 4.5 1.50 11 3.67

17.2 5.73 4.5 1.50 12 4.00

17.3 5.77 4.5 1.50 20 6.67

17.3 5.77 4.5 1.50 25 8.33

17.5 5.83 4.5 1.50 27 9.00

17.5 5.83 4.5 1.50

173 PLE COL 010 NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN eRR OR DBH em DBB CIR DBB CIR DBH cm DBR CIR DBH cm DBH em DBH em DBn (em) (em) (COl) (em) (em) (Col) (em) (em) (em) (em) (om) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

17.5 5.83 4.5 I.S0

17.5 5.83 4.8 1.60

17.5 5.83 4.9 1.63

17.5 5.83 5 1.67

17.5 5.83 5 1.67

17.5 5.83 5 1.67

17.5 5.83 5 1.67

17.5 5.83 5 1.67

17.5 5.83 5 1.67

17.8 5.93 5 1.67

17.8 5.93 5 1.67

18 6.00 5.2 1.73

18 6.00 5.5 1.83

18 6.00 5.8 1.93

18 6.00 6 2.00

18 6.00 6.5 2.17

18 6.00 7.5 2.50

174 PL COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR

CIR DBR em DBR em DBB CIR DBR CIR DBR CIR DBR CIR DBR CIR DBR eIR DBR (em) (em) (em) (om) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

18 6.00 7.5 2.50

18 6.00 7.8 2.60

18 6.00 7.8 2.60

18 6.00

18 6.00

18 6.00

18 6.00

18 6.00

18 6.00

18.5 6.17

18.5 6.17

18.5 6.17

18.8 6.27

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

175 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP opp SAN SAN BRE Am W 000 PAN CHR CIR DBH CIR DBR CIR DBR OR DBR em DBH CIR DBR CIR D'BH CIR DBB cm DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19 6.33

19.2 6.40

19.2 6.40

19.5 6.50

19.5 6.50

19.5 6.50

19.5 6.50

19.5 6.50

19.5 6.50

176 PL COL DIO NOT NOT CST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN CHR em DBR OR DBR CIR DBa. CIR DBR ClR DBII CIR OBR CIR DBH crR DBH cm DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

19.5 6.50

19.8 6.60

19.8 6.60

19.8 6.60

19.9 6.63

19.9 6.63

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

177 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR

CIR DBH CIR DBH CIR DBB erR ORR CrR DBH em DBH CIR DBll CIR DBB CIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20 6.67

20.1 6.70

20.3 6.77

20.3 6.77

20.4 6.80

20.5 6.83

20.5 6.83

20.5 6.83

178 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN CRR CrR DBR CIR DBH erR DBR CIR DBR OR DBR CIR DBH CIR DBR em. DBH cm DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (Clfi) (em) (em) (em) (em)

20.5 6.83

20.5 6.83

20.5 6.83

20.5 6.83

20.5 6.83

20.7 6.90

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

179 PLE COL 010 NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN am.

CIR DBH CIR DBH em DBa CIR DBR CIR DBH em Da'H ern DBR OR DBH ClR DBR (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (cm) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)- (em) (cm) (em) (em) 21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00 21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00

21 7.00 21.1 7.03

21.1 7.03

21.5 7.17

21.5 7.17

21.5 7.17

21.5 7.17

21.8 7.27

22 7.33

180 PLE OL 010 NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR eIR OBH CIR DBll CIR DBH CIR DBE CIR DBH eIR DBH em DBH em DBH erR DBH (em) (em) (em) (ern) (ent) (em) (em) (QUI) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) 22 7.33 22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33 22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33 22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22 7.33

22.2 7.40

181 PLE COL D10 NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP alP SAN SAN BRE ANI' W 000 PAN CHR CIR DBH CIR DBH em DBR em DBB CIR DBff cm DBH CIR DBH ClR DBH CIR DBB (em) (em) (em) (em) (ern) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (ern) (ern)

22.2 7.40

22.2 7.40

22.5 7.50

22.5 7.50

22.5 7.50

22.5 7.50

22.5 7.50

22.5 7.50

22.7 7.57

22.8 7.(1.)

22.8 7.(1.)

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

182 PLE COL DID NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR em DBR em DBH em Dali CIR DBB eIR DBH CIR DBB CIR DBH eIR DBB CIR DBff (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23 7.67

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

23.5 7.83

183 PLE COL DID NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODD PAN CHR CIR DBB erR DBH em DBFI ,CIR DBH CIR DBR erR DBB eIR DBR em DBB CIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

23.5 7.83

23.7 7.90

23.8 7.93

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24 8.00

24( 8.00

24 8.00

184 PLE COL oro NOT NOT OS1 HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN ERE ANT W ODO PAN CHR em D13H em. DBlI. em DBR CIR DBH em DBH ClR nBll CIR DBH cm DBll CIR DBlI (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

24 8.00

24.2 8.07

24.5 8.17

24.5 8.17

24.5 8.17

24.5 8.17

24.7 8.23

2S 8.33

2S 8.33

25 8.33

25 8.33

2S 8.33

25 8.33

25 8.33

25 8.33

25 8.33

2S 8.33

185 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR cm DBB em DBH em DBH OR DBB em DBR OR OBB CrR DEff CIR OBH erR OER (em) (em) (em) (em.) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

25 8.33

25 8.33

25.2 8.40

25.5 8.50

25.5 8.50

25.5 8.50

25.5 8.50

25.5 8.50

25.5 8.50

25.8 8.60

25.8 8.60

26 8.67

26 8.67

26 8.67

26 8.67

26 8.67

26 8.67

186 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR crR DBR erR DBn em DBH CIR DBH CIR DBB CrR DBR cm DBR ClR OBH cm OBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

26 8.67

26.2 8.73

26.5 8.83

26.5 8.83

26.8 8.93

26.9 8.97

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

27 9.00

187 PLE OL DIO NOT NOT OST RA PSY SAN SOP Opp SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR cm OBR em OBH em DRR CIR DBH CIR Dltf{ OR DBR cm DBR CIR ORB em DBR (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em:) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) 27 9.00 27 9.00 27 9.00 27 9.00 27 9.00 27 9.00 27 9.00 27.2 9.07 27.3 9.10 27.5 9.17 27.5 9.17 27.5 9.17 27.7 9.23 28 9.33 28 9.33

28 9.33

28 9.33

188 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W aDO PAN" CUR cm DBB em. DBH em DBB em DBB CIR DEB CIR DBH CIR DBB em DBB CIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

28 9.33

28 9.33

28 9.33

28.3 9.43

28.5 9.50

28.5 9.50

28.5 9.50

28.5 9.50

28.6 9.53

28.6 9.53

29 9.67

29 9.67

29 9.67

29 9.67

29 9.67

29.3 9.77

29.5 9.83

189 PLB COL DI0 NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP opp SAN SAN ERE ANT W aDO PAN CHR cm DBH CIR DBR CIR DBR CIR DBlI CIR DBR crn DBH CIR DBH cm DBR CIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (om) (om) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

29.5 9.83

29.7 9.90

30 10

30 10

30 10

30 10

30 10

30 10

30 10

30.3 10.1

30.4 10.1

30.5 10.1

30.5 10.1

30.5 10.1

31 10.3

31 10.3

31 10.3

190 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRB ANT W 000 PAN CHR C1R OBR CIR DBR erR DBH OR DBB CIR DB.1! erR OBH CIR DBH CIR OBR cm DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (om) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

31 10.3

31 10.3

31 10.3

31 10.3

31 10.3

31 10.33

31.1 10.3

31.2 10.4

31.2 10.4

31.8 10.6

32 10.6

32 10.6

32 10.6

32 10.6

32 10.6

32 10.6

32.1 10.7

191 PLE OL D10 NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OF? SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CHR

ClR OBH CIR DBH CJR DBR CIR D13H CIR DBH CIR DBH CIR D13R em DBB eIR DBH (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (cm) (em) (em) (em) (cm) (cm) (cm)

32.5 10.8 32.6 10.8 33 11.0 33 11.0 33 11.0 33 11.0 33.5 11.1 33.5 11.1 34 11.3 34 11.3 34 11.3 34.5 11.5 35 11.6 35 11.6 35 11.6 35 11.67 3S 11.67

192 PLE OL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W 000 PAN CAR em DBB cm DBH CIR DBH CIR DBa em DBlI em 'DBB CIR D'BH cm DBH erR DBn (em) (em) (em) (em.) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em

35.5 11.83

35.5 11.83

36 12.0

36 12.0

36 12.0

36.5 12.1

36.5 12.1

36.5 12.1

36.5 12.1

37 12.3

37 12.3

37.5 12.5

38 12.6

38 12.6

38 12.6

38 12.6

39 13.0

193 PLE COL DIO NOT NOT OST HA PSY SAN SOP OPP SAN SAN BRE ANT W ODO PAN CHR CIR DBR em DBl! em DBH em DBH CIR DBH CIR DBH cm DBR em DBB OR DBR (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em) (em)

39 13.0

40.5 13.5

41 13.6

42 14.0

49 16.3

59.5 19.8

62 20.6

88.8 29.6

91 30.3

194