Hawaiian cultural systems and archaeological site patterns
Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Hommon, Robert J.
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 30/09/2021 05:44:32
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/554776 HAWAIIAN CULTURAL SYSTEMS
AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE PATTERNS
by
Robert John Hoimnon
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the.
. DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
' MASTER OF ARTS
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 7 2 STATEMENT BY.AUTHOR
This' thesis-has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library,
Brief quotations.from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author, .
SIGNED;
APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR
This thesis has been approved.on the date shown below;
g s - 7 2 .: ■WILLIAM A,U LONGACRE - Date Associate.Professor of Anthropology TO JIGGIE
WITH ALOHA
iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the efforts of. the following people who helped in the preparation of this thesis 0 First5 I wish to thank the three members of my thesis committees Dr0 William A„ Longacre
(chairman)| Dra T0 Patrick Cnlbertj and Dr0 Raymond H 0 Thompson, as well as Mr a Edwin Ne Ferdon, Jre, for their patience, aid and con structive criticism during the years of its preparation»
I gratefully acknowledge the special efforts of Dre Harry T0
Getty whose aid in smoothing out the administrative process enabled me to write and submit the manuscript while remaining in Honolulu0
I particularly wish to thank Mrsc Hazel Gillie who typed the final draft for submission6
I am indebted to the following archaeologists for the infor mation and points of view derived from countless discussions of
Hawaiian archaeology and ethnohistorys Mr0 William Barrera|
Dro Kenneth P0 Emory; Dr. P. Bion Griffin; Mr. Patrick V. Kirch; .
Dr. T. Stell Newman; Mr. Paul H. Rosendahl; Dr. Yosihiko H. Sinoto;
and Dr. H. David Tuggle. I am grateful to Dr. Marshall D. Sahlins,
Mrs. Dorothy Barrere and Mrs. Marion Kelly for providing information
concerning the ethnohistory of ancient Hawaii.
To my wife, Jiggie, I am deeply grateful for the patience she
displayed and the confidence she instilled during the final stages of
the production of this thesis.
iv TABLE OF'CONTENTS
- Page
ABSTRACT 0 ...... vii
Xo INTRODUCTION ...... X
Purpose and Limitations ...... X GeographicaX Background „ . „ ...... U The TemporaX Framework . . . „ ...... 6 Ethnohistoric Sources ...... 7 The PotentiaX of Hawaiian ArchaeoXogy ...... XU
PART I t THE HAWAIIAN PRIMITIVE STATE MODEL .... 18
2. PRIMITIVE STATE SOCIETY: FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS . . 19
The Value of Definition ...... 20 The Sociopolitical Aspect ...... 21 Monopoly of Political:Powers The Mechanism of Integration . . © . . @ . .%.. ... * . * .... 22 , Kin and Powers Integrating Mechanisms and Levels of Integration ...... 26 The State Society; An Outline of the Maximal Corporate Unit ...... V, ...... 28 The Socioeconomic Classes » ...... 32 Other Aspects of the Primitive State Model ...... 33 The Economic System ...... 3li The Religious System ...... 35
30: THE HAWAIIAN PRIMITIVE STATE HYPOTHESIS- b'...... 37
The Hawaiian Community ...... „ „ 37 The Hawaiian Government ...... h i The Hawaiian Primitive State ...... 68
. PART II; THE HAWAIIAN PRIMITIVE STATE HYPOTHESES; THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE ...... 81 h o A FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF HAWAIIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SITES o e . # . o 00 o o 0.0 . o . . o . .0 . . . . o . 82
v TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
Archaeological Sites of Economic Function 0 85 Archaeological Sites of Food Production 91 Archaeological Sites of Production of Non-Food
ItemS o o » o » » o o o o'o 6 o d o dd e d d O O llU Archaeological Sites of Storage Function » d . » o 118 Archaeological Sites of Social Function 120 Trails and Gaming Sites . . * ...... 120 Habitation Sites ■ ...... 125 Archaeological Sites of Political and Religious PunC UlOn o e e o. 0 . . . o . c 0 .«e ...... o o lk3 Sites of Worship and Political Administration . . . lij.3 Sites Associated With Warfare ...... 161
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAWAIIAN SITES AND THE PRIMITIVE STATE HYPOTHESIS; SUMMARY ...... 168
The Community . . » . . . « ...... 168 The Government...... , ...... 171
LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 175 ABSTRACT
In Part Is a model of the characteristic features that serve to distinguish a primitive state society from other types of socio cultural systems is presented* The ethnographic, historic and ethno- historic data concerning the sociocultural systems that existed in the Hawaiian islands, prior to and for a few years after contact with
European cultural influences are then compared with the model The
Hawaiian community segment, governmental segment and their interre lationships are emphasized* The Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis, that is,"primitive state societies had evolved in the Hawaiian islands prior to contact" is supported by these datas
In Part II, the portion of the archaeological data that is available in Hawaiian non-portable artifacts, classified according to sociocultural function (economic, social and ideological) and pertinent sociopolitical groups (family, community, and supra- community or state society) is presented in support of the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis*
vii CHAPTER 1
' INTRODUCTION ;
Purpose and Limitations
The introduction is presented in five sections* The first outlines the logical framework and hypotheses discussed in the body of the thesis and sets forth the limitations of subject matter and approach that I have found, necessary to impose in order to produce a thesis of manageable size* The second section sketches the geography of the islands* Section three presents the temporal framework that is important to the present study. A brief discussion of the ethno- historic sources comprises the fourth section and five concerns the potential of Hawaiian archaeology.
The main body of the thesis is presented in two parts. The first part is an exploration of the hypothesis that at least one of the Hawaiian sociocultural systems operating at the time of first ■
European contact (1778) was a state rather than a chiefdom. The method is used to present various parts of the Hawaiian sociocultural system as they have been observed and analyzed by various ethnohis- toric authors and to compare these data with commonly accepted features of the type of society known as the state. The ethnohistoric sources are those written by native, European and American authors based upon personal observation, and participation as well as library research during a period of nearly two centuries from 1778 to the present day.
Some of the problems involved in using such sources in the present study are discussed in the fourth section.
The second part of the thesis5 entitled "The Archaeological
Pattern," is an outline of the various types of non-portable archae ological artifacts of Hawaii, their formal attributes, their function^ and their spatial patterns as they were.related to the operating sociocultural systems in general and to the factors. relating to the statehood hypothesis in particular.
In view of the general goals of the thesis — the delineation of an entire sociocultural system on the one hand, and a discussion of a large portion of the available archaeological material on the other — both data and approach had to be severely limited for reasons of space and clarity of presentation, .Limitations on data consist primarily of a lack of emphasis on the details of various ideal types developed in both the archaeological and the ethnohistoric literature through the years in favor of examples which suggest the real ranges of cultural phenomena. This real-ideal dichotomy is discussed fur ther in the fifth section.
The limitations of approach can be summarized by the word
"synchronic," Since an operating system and the spatial pattern of the archaeological features associated with it are subjects of re search, a. single relatively short period would provide the appropriate data for this study. In view of the possibility that the development toward statehood may have occurred relatively late in the aboriginal sequence, the ideal period, of study would seem to be immediately prior to initial European contact. Some ethnohistoric and archaeological data can be identified as pertaining to the Hawaiian culture as it operated immediately prior to European contacte The most obvious examples would be those cultural traits described in the journals of the Cook expedition. These sources are, of course, rather limited in scope. Cook and the other journalists observed the Hawaiian culture for a total period amounting to less than one and a half months.
In general, data useful to this thesis derive from a period ending in 1820, designated as the end of the protohistoric period
(third section). Most of the eyewitness accounts of this period per tain to the statehood hypothesis rather than the factors of the archaeological site patterns. Because of the paucity of dated archae ological remains, most archaeological data are.assumed here to repre sent (though they may not pertain to) the pattern which existed shortly prior to. contact.
The study of portable artifacts is a very important part of archaeology in Hawaii and will continue to be so (Buck 196b; Emory,
Bonk and Sinoto 1968)„ A minimum of emphasis is placed upon portable artifacts in this thesis as studies of fishhooks and other material culture have thus far been concerned mainly with history rather than functional systems and over-all archaeological patterns,
In view of the synchronic emphasis, considerations of history, process and evolution are held to a minimum, I am concerned, rather, with functional considerations: cultural systems and archaeological patterns. A further limitation upon the subject matter and approach used here is that the Hawaiian data are not compared with those from any other culturee Most references to sources that do not refer specifi cally to Hawaii are general and theoretical in nature, dealing with such subjects as definition of the statec
Geographical Background
The eight main islands of the Hawaiian chain lie immediately south of the Tropic of Cancer at the northern tip of the "Polynesian triangle*" It was apparently one of the last favorable areas in the world to be occupied and because of its isolation, it was one of the last to be "discovered" by Europeans during the Age of Exploration*
From the environmental standpoint, the Hawaiian islands are characterized by great variation in all factors of physiography and climate* These variations form an "environmental mosaic" of great complexity and land divisions are significantly isolated from one another* These factors bear importantly on the nature of the socio cultural units discussed here and will be further explored in the body of the thesis*
Geographically speaking, the Hawaiian Islands are within the tropics, but their climate is subtropical* The subtropical climate is the result of cool ocean currents from the Bering Sea cooling the ocean in this area by about 10o F* This lower temperature is one reason for the poorly developed coral reefs (Stearns 1966s l)* Only one small barrier reef is known in the islands (in Kameohe Bay, windward Oahu), and the ringing reefs are discontinuous and irregular
(Newman n0do;12-13)o
The diurnal air temperature differential in the islands
(about 10° Fe) exceeds the average annual range (between 5° and 8° F0?
Freeman 1931° 332 )e "Altitude has marked effects bn temperaturej, which drops about 3° F0 for each increase in elevation of 1000 feet"
(Freeman 1931: 33U)»
From a modern agricultural viewpoints approximately one-sixth of the. total area of the islands (about 1000 square miles) is til lable (1931: 328)o The precontact Hawaiians probably utilized much of this area as well, though they were able to irrigate only those lands that were located near the permanent streams, most of which were located in major valleys0 Coastal plains are relatively rare, since most of the coastlines are cliffs, valley mouths, or sloping mountainsides„
The island of Hawaii comprises L030 square miles of the total
61*33 square mile area of the main groupo Its twin volcanic mountains,
Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, are nearly Hi,000 feet highe Northwest of
Hawaii lies the cluster of Maui, Kahoolawe, Lanai and Molokaie Maui is the second.largest island of the group (1,177 square miles) and
Haleakala, the huge dormant volcano that produced-the largest inactive volcanic crater in the world, rises to 10,023 feet* Kahoolawe lies eight miles south of Maui and comprises only 1*3 square miles„ Its greatest elevation is l!i9i fee* West of Maui lies Lanai, 11*1 square miles in area with a maximum elevation of 3*370 feet. North of Lanai
and west of Muai lies the island of Molokai, 260 square miles in size
The greatest elevation is lt$970 feet.
Northwest of Molokai, across the Kaiwi channel lies Oahu, the
third largest Hawaiian island with 60U square miles. Its greatest
elevation is lt.,023 feet.
The channel separating Oahu from Kauai to the northwest is 63
miles wide. The next widest channel between any of the main islands
(Hawaii and Maui) is 26 miles, Kauai is the fourth largest island in
the group with 555 square miles and a maximum elevation of 5*170 feet
Niihai lies southwest of Kauai and is the second smallest of the
eight main islands, comprising 72 square miles. Its greatest eleva
tion is 1,281 feet, '
The Temporal Framework
The three time periods used in the thesis ares (l) Prehis
toric , (2) Protohistoric, and (3) Historic„ The year 1778, when the
Cook squadron first rediscovered the Hawaiian islands, marks the end
of the Prehistoric Period, The Protohistoric Period, during which
contact with the outside world was relatively sporadic, extends from
1778 until 1820 (Rohsenow 1967: 1), During the latter part of this
; period, certain segments of Hawaiian societies were in almost con-
- stant contact with European and American explorers, traders and mis
sionaries, But many of the prehistoric patterns remained relatively
stable, particularly in the "hinterland" areas, away from the large - X ;i<- . . • ■ . ■ 7 coastal villages where.the foreigners traded with and influenced the powerful chiefs» The designation of.the year 1820 is somewhat arbi= trary© It represents a disintegration of some aspects of the Hawaiian political and religious systems and the beginning of intensive accul turation that soon extended far beyond Kailua, Honolulu, Lahaina,
Kaawalea, and Kekua and the other villages of initial intensive con tact, The events that suggest 1820 as the logical date for the end of the Protohistoric Period are the abolition of the kapu system in
1819 and the arrival of the first company of New England missionaries in 1820, The forces of acculturation which led to the former had been at work for some time prior to 1819, however, and the attempts of the missionaries to change much of Hawaiian culture were not sig nificantly successful for years, and in some respects decades after
1820, Kamehameha, for example, had been incorporating many aspects of European politics and warfare for years prior to his death in 1819, shortly before the abolition of the kapu system. And it is signifi cant that during the period 1820-1837 Protestant converts numbered only 1,25)9 (Handy 1931s 27), In general, however, 1820 is recognized here as the beginning of the historic period, that is, the period of intensive contact and acculturation,
Ethnohlstoric Sources
From the standpoint of proximity to subject matter, the ethno- historic sources fall into two categories; (l) eyewitness, and (2) analytical studies, The eyewitness accounts may be subdivided into those written by (a) Hawaiians and (b) foreigners. The term 8
"foreigner" refers to European and American explorers, traders and missionaries*
The Hawaiian informants referred to here were born after
Cook's visit* David MalOj author of"Hawaiian Antiquities" (1951)$ was born about the time of Vancouver's second visit to the islands (1793)«
John Papa li, born in 1800S wrote a series of articles between 1868 and 1870 concerning life in the Hawaiian royal court* These articles have been collected as Fragments of Hawaiian History (it 1959)*
Samuel M* Kamakau^ some 15 years younger than li wrote articles for
Hawaiian newspapers during the years 1866 to 1871* His articles dealing with legend and history were collected as Ruling Chiefs of
Hawaii (1961) and those dealing with sociocultural data were published as Ka Po'e Kahiko - The People of Old (19610 * Kepelino Keauokalani was born about I83O and died in 1878* His manuscript concerning early protohistoric Hawaii was translated and published in 1932 by Martha ¥*
Beckwith as"Kepelino's Traditions of HawaiiJ*
Between 1778 and 1825 more than 100 European and American ships visited the Hawaiian islands * In a study of voyages to the islands based upon published accounts available in the library of the
Hawaiian Mission Children's Society (1929)s 128 visits (including multiple visits by individual ships), are listed* A number of the longer published accounts of these visits were used in the preparation of this thesis* Captain James Cook’s visits (1778-79) were recorded . in a number of journals, including those of Cook /and, after his death
Lieutenant James King (l852j7; Surgeon William Ellis (1783)5 and corporal of marines John Ledyard (1963)0 A trading expedition to
China and Northwestern America stopped at the islands three times during 1786 and 178?o The journal of Captain George Dixon (1789) of this expedition was found to be usefulG Captain J, F„ G0 de la
Perouse of the French naval frigate Boussole spent two days on Maui in May, 1786 (Dondo 1959)= Accounts of the Hawaiian islands are in cluded in journals written during the visit of Captain George Van couver in 1792, 1793.,. 179&o I consulted the journals of Vancouver him self (1801)) Thomas Manby, one of his officers (1969), and Archibald
Menzies (1920), botanist with the expedition^ Ebenezer Townsend, . supercargo aboard the sealer Neptune, recorded a two day visit to
Hawaii in 1798 (Townsend 1888). Captain Urey Lisianski (181U) re corded a three-day visit to the islands in 180)4 „ Archibald Campbell, a Scotch sailor spent a little over a year (1809-10) in the islands recovering from the amputation of his feet, which had been frost bitten in Alaskao His journal was recently republished (Campbell
1967)o Journals of the Russian expedition (1816) led by Lieutenant
Otto von Kotzebue, that were used in this study are those of von
Kotzebue himself (1821) and of his naturalist Adelbert von Chamisso
(Houston 19U0)a The journal of draftsman Jacques Arago (1823) re cords a 22-day visit in 1819 of two French ships commanded by Captain
Louis de Freycineto.
Four journals that are important to the present study were written after the nominal end of the Protohistoric Period. During the years 1822 and 1823, the islands were visited by British 10 missionaries Reverend William Ellis (not to be confused with surgeon
Ellis of the Cook expedition). Reverend Daniel Tyerman and Mr„ George
Rennet* Ellis* journal (1826) is a classic, in the field of Hawaiian ethnohistory* The journal of Tyerman and Bennet (1832) is also im portant* Andrew Bloxam (19250, naturalist, and. James Macrae (1922), botanist, were aboard the frigate Blonde commanded by Captain Lord
Byron during a visit to the islands in 1825*
Most of these sources describe the life at court and the customs and personalities of the chiefs and priests who were bene ficiaries of the trade and political acculturation effected by for eign visitors* Several of the longer accounts were written by those not concerned directly with economics and politics* The journals referred to are those written by naturalists Menzies (1920) and Macrae
(1922), missionaries Ellis (1826), Tyerman and Bennet (1832.), corporal
Ledyard (1963) and sailor Campbell(1967)„ These men visited "hinter land Hawaii," where the commoners and low-ranking chiefs lived in small settlements where acculturation was occurring at a considerably slower rate* I suggest that hinterland Hawaii cannot be said to have entered the Protohistoric Period until some time after the visits of
Macrae, Bloxam, Ellis and Tyerman and Bennet, because of the isolation from the penters of cultural contact such as Honolulu and Kailua*
Most of the secondary and tertiary ethnohistor.ic sources I have labeled "analytical" were written during the last 90 years*
These are books and articles written by scientists, jurists, histo rians and those interested in Hawaiians investigating various aspects 11
of Hawaiian culture by analyzing and synthesizing information in eye witness accounts and in other analytical works« Some of these sources are Alexander (1903, 1917)5 Coulter (1931)J Davenport (1969)5 Frear
(I88ii)j Emory (1963a, 1965b); Freese (1919); Handy (1931, 1965); .
Handy and Pukui (1958); Kelly (1956, 1969); Lyons (1875); Perry (1912);
Rohsenow (1967); Sahlins (1958); Stokes (1937); Thrum (1909, 1921);
Titcomb (1952, 1969); and Wise (1965)=
Many considerations affect the degree of reliability to be assigned these various soruces„ Some of the considerations which seem most important for the purposes of the thesis follow<, The native writers, such as 11 and Kamakau had access to information through personal experience and data provided by relatives and friends that was not available to foreign investigators„ But all of these infor mants grew up during the Protohistoric Period and were in situations of intensive contact with foreigners, primarily Christian missionaries0
Though most of the information provided by these informants is prob ably accurate, the modern investigator should realize that these men were providing information to outsiders who were interested in the
Hawaiian culture in such a way that they may have shaped some of the information elicited by the form of the questions they asked about ite
This, of course, is still a common problem even for modern trained
ethnologistso There was also some tendency toward emphasis upon
"good" features of the prehistoric way of life or upon the evil of the old ways depending upon whether the informant wished, to correct 12 erroneous views held by foreigners or to embrace the foreign (primarily
Christian) point of view concerning the barbarism of their pagan an cestors 1 darker side®
The foreign eyewitnesses seem to be generally reliable in their observations of both the life of the commoners /for exampleg
Reverend Ellis (1826) and Menzies (1920)7 and that of the powerful chiefs and priests» Often what these accounts lack in detail, they make up in objectivity. The objectivity of an outsider enculturated in the western world of the late 18th and early 19th century itself displays two facets, however. First, the descriptions of those aspects of Hawaiian culture that seemed most important to the majority of foreign writers — i.e., the maneuvers, machinations and philosophies of the high chiefs and powerful priests — were often colored by the writer's lifetime of participation in European-American culture. Thus, terms like "king, governor, law, tax, town" and others were applied to cultural phenomena to which most present-day anthropologists would assign terms were indicative of a non-state sociocultural system, such as (respectively) "high chief, chief, tabu, redistribution and vil lage." In the present thesis, I attempt to show that the former set of terms may be accepted on an analytical basis, according to defini tions suggested by various social scientists dealing with true states.
The second facet of the objectivity of the early western observers concerns generally those aspects of Hawaiian culture that were not directly related to the hierarchies of political power. The descrip tions of field systems, individual houses and the way of life of the '■■■■' 1 3 common Hawaiian5, for example, tend to be relatively uncolored by- reference to European conceptso
The chief disadvantage of the analytical sources is the tem poral' distance that separates them from the relatively unacculturated
Hawaiian sociocultural.system„ A second.weakness maybe called "rami fication of information»" This phrase refers to a process by which certain descriptions and concepts concerning prehistoric Hawaiian culture have become widely and often uncritically accepted . by reason of their constant repetition in secondary, tertiary, and
"quaternary" sources. Some of these descriptions and concepts have been elaborated and embellished by each author who has used them. It is sometimes difficult to determine the primary sources of these ideas, since some authors give no reference or quote only a secondary or ter tiary source, I have tried to avoid the pitfalls of these ramified data, but an investigation of all such data, tracing them to original sources and evaluating them would require another paper at least as extended as the present thesis.
If the investigator of prehistoric Hawaii is aware of these problems, the analytical sources can be very useful. The authors of most of these sources attempt to synthesize the available date on some aspect of the ancient Hawaiian sociocultural systems and to analyze these data in order to discover underlying cultural principles, A scientific investigator using these sources may not agree with the methods of synthesis or analysis or the conclusions reached. But the methods used are similar to those used by the investigator himself. '■ : ■:/ ;:x' V.. ■; . 1L so that the analytical sources are often easier to deal with than other ethnohistoric sources0 They also provide handy summaries of data, bibliographies of sources and fresh viewpoints„
Many of the ethnohistoric sources of. all three types present a particular type of innaccuracy and a particular sort of supporting data for the present investigation* The inaccuracy is a tendency to confuse a single example of a cultural trait or an ideal cultural con struct on the one hand with the range of real cultural phenomena on the other* Thus, statements concerning households and settlement pattern are almost always greatly oversimplified0 I suggest in the body of the thesis, for example, that few if any prehistoric Hawaiian families lived in clusters of five or six "houses” as has so often been stated in the ethnohistoric literature*
The•Potential of Hawaiian Archaeology
In his summary of Hawaiian archaeology through autumn of 1968,
Newman (1968) used 196 reports dealing with Hawaiian archaeology for the following statistics* Of these reports, hO percent remain unpub lished (Newman 1968s 133)* Surface studies (including surveys and studies of individual features) constitute 70 percent of the reportsj the remaining 30 percent deal with excavations, most of which had 1 .• . taken place in the last 19 years (Newman 1968s 132, 13U)* Analytical and synthetic reports constitute only about five percent of all reports, and 75> percent of the remainder have dealt with surveys *
In a summary of the history of Hawaiian archaeology by year,
Newman (1968s 137-U6) lists 3it projects between the years 1906 and 15 19IJ.0, an average of one per year. With one exception in 191*5, no projects are reported for the years 191*1 through 191*8 0 Between 191*9 and I960, 23 archaeological projects are listed, an average of nearly two per year« From 1961 through the fall of 1968, 1*7 projects are reported, an average of nearly six projects per year» These figures indicate the recent rapid growth of archaeological work in the islands0
In addition to the more or less constant flow of small-scale surface studies which have continued throughout the history of Hawaiian archae ology, three important developments can be seen during the last 50 years of Hawaiian archaeology* The first was an emphasis, during, the
1920's and 1930's on extensive surveys of large areas (e,g«, Emory
1921) and entire.islands (Bennett 1931? Emory 1928, 1969; McAllister
1933a, 1933b)* The second development was the introduction of scientific excavation techniques during the early 1950's, though some digging had taken place in 1913 and the late 1930's (Newman 1968? 132)*
The third.development has been the efflorescence of archaeolo gical method and theory during the 1960's„ As indicated above, archae ological projects have increased three-fold over those of the 1950's6
Many of these recent projects, though nominally surveys, have included excavations * Surveys, often undertaken for salvage purposes, have usually been on a smaller scale and have been more intensive than previous studies (for example, the members of the Makaha historical project survey have recorded nearly 300 sites including some 2000 features, in a valley where McAllister (1933b) recorded eight sites
(Green 1969, 1970)e A. number of Hawaiian archaeologists have also 16 become Increasingly concerned with economic$ ecological and social information to be derived from archaeological investigations (Griffin,
Riley, Rosendahl and others n0d„; Hommon 1969a, 1969b, 1970ajKirch
1970, 1971b| Newman ned.; Riley 1970; Rosendahl n0de)„ As indicated by statistics given above, many reports (hO percent) have not been published in the past* Three series of publications, the State
Archaeological Journal, published by the Department of Land and
Natural Resources, Division of State Parks (Ching 1971) and Pacific
Anthropological Records (Barrera 1971| Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1969|
Green 1969$ 1970; Summers 1971; Wallace 1969) and the Reports series
(Hommon and Barrera 1971J Renger 1970; Sinoto and Kelly 1970), both published by the Department of Anthropology, Bc P0 Bishop Museum, have provided outlets for recent work.
Money from both private and public sources is becoming in creasingly available for long-term, large-scale salvage and develop ment projectso Beginning in the fall of 1968, archaeologists and graduate students from the various institutions with archaeological interests in the state (the University branches in Hilo and Honolulu, the Bishop Museum, the Hawaiian Division of State Parks and the U. S0
Park Service) have met monthly as an ad' hoc "Coordinating Committee for Hawaiian Archaeology." These meetings have constituted an effi cient mechanism for the dissemination of information and coordination of effort.
All of these factors, plus the increasing number of qualified personnel and interested graduate students connected with the various 17 institutions, suggest that the next decades will see an increase in the number and value of archaeological programs over the considerable accomplishments of the 1960!se It is the belief of all archaeologists in Hawaii that the potential usefulness of archaeology to an under standing of prehistoric Hawaii is very great, and that the results of research programs of the 1960*s, important though they are, are only the first indications of that potential. We have only scratched the surface. In view of all these factors, it appears that an intensive phase of Hawaiian archaeology is just beginning.
In addition to studies of chronology and other historical considerations such as contacts from other parts of Polynesia, and studies of material culture in the form of portable artifacts, this new phase has provided, and will provide, information important to studies, such as this thesis, in several important areas. This thesis presents a theoretical framework and a series of hypotheses that can be tested by future.archaeological work. ■ PART I
THE HAWAIIAN PRIMITIVE'STATE MODEL
18 CHAPTER 2
PRIMITIVE STATE SOCIETY; FUNDAMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
Isolated by vast ocean distances, the Hawaiian archipelago was one.of the last areas of human settlement and, more than a thousand years later was one of the last areas to be contacted by European ex plorers, During their relatively short human history prior to contact these islands were the scene of the evolution of what most specialists in the field know as one of the most highly developed chiefdoms in
Polynesia,
In this section of the. thesis I suggest that the evolutionary step from chiefdom to state, had taken place prior to contact, A model that includes what I suggest are the fundamental defining features of the primitive state is presented first, followed by a statement of the Hawaiian statehood hypothesis together with supporting data from ethnohistoric literature,
The primitive state model that is presented in Chapter 3 is derived mainly from the work of. anthropologists and others who have been concerned with the evolution of the state as a type of society qualitatively unlike kin-based societies, specifically tribes and chiefdoms. Since most of these investigators have had to concern themselves with societies that were larger and more complex than the
Hawaiian example, however, I have synthesised and modified their 20 definitions and descriptions to include only those data that are essential to the definition of the state in its simplest form*
Chapter it presents data to support the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis which statess "Primitive state societies had evolved in the Hawaiian islands prior to European contact," Most of the eth- nohistoric data used here to support the hypotheses apply to Hawaii island because its precontact history is more thoroughly known
(Kamakau 196ls 1961).5 Malo 1951)? but according to the data availables sociopolitical units based on Maui (sometimes including Molokais
Lanai and Kahoolawe)s Oahu and possibly Kauai probably conformed to the primitive state model as well.
The Value of Definition
It is not my intention to compare directly the data available on precontact Hawaiian societies with the descriptions available in the literature of the developed states of Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica,
At the present stage of analysis? it appears that precontact Hawaii more closely resembles the early "town-and-temple" phase of develop ment in these areas of primary state development (Adams 19.66 s 25| Hole
1966s 607), This cultural phase has not yet been the subject of in tensive archaeological analysis (Adams 1966s 26-7| Hole 1966s 609-105.
Flannerys Kirkby, Kirkby. and others 1967), In addition, investigators such as Adams (1966) and Sanders and Price (1968) seem to have con cluded that in some respects (notably in the social and political areas) extrapolations back from fully formed civilization tends to be more productive of useful data than direct archaeological investigation 21
of sites of this phase„ This technique^ though effective in some
respects may tend to obscure the basic defining features of a newly-
formed state society by confusing with them various non-essential
characteristics that appear later in the developmental sequence« For
this reason the model of primitive statehood presented here differs
somewhat in emphasis from those found in the literature from which it was drawn«
In dealing with the problem of the evolutionary status of .
Hawaiian sociopolitical units, definition of terms is of utmost impor tance. In pursuit of solutions to some anthropological problems definitions can be unnecessarily confining and may prevent free inquiry.
In the present case, definition of the primitive state by enumeration
of its fundamental features is not an idle exercise but rather a useful analytical tool. For this reason, most of the sources used here that
do not deal directly with Hawaii are concerned with the definition and
evolution of the primitive state (Adams 1966; Carneiro 1970: Fried
196?; Krader 1968; Sahlins 1968; Sanders and Price 1968). I disagree with Hoebel (19U9: 37) and others, who believe the state to be a cul
tural universal. As it is defined here, the state did not exist until
about I4.OOO B.C., when it evolved in Mesopotamia. States that developed
from these and other primary states have since become the basis for
the dominant type of sociocultural systems.
The Sociopolitical Aspect
The phrase "state society" is used here to refer to a society
characterized by the political, social, religious and economic 22
configurations described below* The term 11 state," which often refers
only to the political or governmental, aspects of a state society is used here as equivalent to the early stage of what some authors
(Sanders and Price 1968: j Sahlihs 1968: 5"6| Wolf 1966: it) have termed "civilization*11 This latter term has not been used here for the same reason that Service (1962: 175? 1963: xxiii) distinguished
"primitive states" from "archaic civilizationss" The latter term seems better reserved for a more fully developed society in terms of quantitative factors (population, ceremonial elaboration, etc *)e Un-
like the single word "state," the phrase "state society" is preferred, here since it suggests the society-wide effects that resulted from the
evolutionary step from kin-based society to primitive state. The adjective "primitive" has been adopted to reinforce the concept that the sociopolitical configuration set forward in the present model had
only recently (in an evolutionary, if not a chronological sense)
evolved from the chiefdom level of systemic integration. The terms
"naive" (Gearing 1962: 106-12) and "pristine" (Fried 196?: 231-5) can
also be applied here to indicate that the evolutionary step to the primitive state was an internal evolutionary development and was not
imposed by conquest or diffusion.
Monopoly of Political Power: The Mechanism of Integration
The great majority of modern investigators of societies with highly developed political systems have stressed the importance of
the presence in such societies of a segment that holds the legitimate 23 right to the monopoly of political power in the society (Adams 1966: llij Beattie 1967s 3!?8j Cohen 1968s 53-ln Fried 1968c: U75? Krader 1968: viii# 13? Lowie 1967s 6U? Mair 1962: 11? Nadel 1967s 298? Sahlins
1968: 6 ? Service 1962: 181? Trigger 1968: ^2? Wolf 1966: ll)c This factor is here considered to be of utmost importance to the building of a primitive statehood model* It must be considered, however, in the context of other defining features, in the political sub-system ' and other component sub-systems of the sociocultural wholee
Political Powers The Balance of Force and Authority
Power may be defined as "the ability to make and carry out decisions that are binding on the rest of the population" (Fried 1968a:
1U6)* In a state society, power with respect to the society as a whole is concentrated in the hands of an.individual occupying a politi cal office or (more often) members of a specifically definable and distinguishable group termed the government and is expressed by the exertion of overt force and by the exercise of political authority*
As the active phase of political power, force is exerted within the society in the form of punishment of criminals, that is, those who have acted.contrary to explicit rules within the society. Force is usually exerted outside.the boundaries of the society by means of warfare dr other coercive methods.
Authority is the passive equivalent of overt force, "the ability to channel the behavior of others in the absence of the threat or use of sanctions" (Fried 1967: 13), The government exercises authority when it mobilizes the resources of the society for endeavors such as the economic support of the government itself (taxation) and the recruitment and direction of laborers for public projects (Fried
1967: 2U0) a A consideration of the function of authority is extremely important to the understanding of the operation of any state society since any such society that is constantly maintained by application of overt force is presumably too unstable to continue to exist5 simply in terms of the enormous cost to exerting constant force throughout the social structure» A government must therefore depend upon its ability to fulfill its needs and those of the society as a whole largely through the regular operation of the authority systeme
Legitimacy^ Sovereignty and Law ,
Legitimacy • . . is the means by which ideology is blended with power„ Legitimacy is most clearly grasped in terms of its principle functions; to explain and justify the exist ence of concentrated social power wielded by a portion of the community and to offer similar support to specific social orders5 that is, specific ways of apportioning and directing the flow of social power (Fried 1967s 26).
(Note that Fried1s term "community" is equivalent to "society" as used in this thesis„)
The legitimately constituted, government of a state society demonstrates its legitimacy through the. promulgation and enforcement of laws o According to Fried (1967 s 20) a "law" is a "rule of conduct enforced by sanctions administered by a determinate locus of power," in contrast to a "custom" which is "any habitual or usual course of action, any established practice." The set of rules administered by 25 the legitimately-constituted government that constitutes the body of law is thus of fundamental importance to the existence of the state societyo
The government also maintains the integrity of its sociopoli tical unit by establishing and defending its sovereignty (that is? its exclusive right to the internal exercise of political power) against threats from within or outside its borders0 Sahlins (1968s 16) notes that borders are often poorly defined in tribal societies. The borders, both jurisdictional and geographical, of a state society, are explicitly defined and defended, since a threat to the. integrity of the geo-political unit is considered to be a threat to the power- monopoly maintained by the government e
War'
With the emergence of the primitive state, the institution of war becomes a highly developed and essential tool of the society at large and specifically of the government as the policy-making body .
(Fried 1967s 230), Wars are fought by states, as by other types of societies, to protect the territory, personnel and sociopolitical in tegrity of the society (Newcomb I960: .329-30; Otterbein 196?s 35U-571
White 1 9 k 9 t . 379-80), The government of a state society may engage in warfare within the borders of its own sociopolitical unit (civil war) to maintain political control, or to defend its sovereignty or attempt to substitute its sovereignty for that of the legitimately established government of another sociopolitical unit. An added dimension in this ' ■: ; . ' 26 respect: is that the members of the conquered political unit can be
integrated into the conquering state society often*on a basis essen
tially equal to that of the members of the already established state,
The object of most warfare engaged in by state societies is to incor
porate personnel, territory and economic produce into the sociopoli
tical unit that already exists e Warfare in tribal societies does not
normally result in such integration (Fried 196?: 232)e
Kin and Power; Integrating Mechanisms and Levels of Integration
The essential fact about the power-monopoly and related factors
is that the boundaries, integration and functions of the.maximal socio political unit are to a great extent maintained by the use of force and authority by the agency that holds the monopoly of power — the
government0 In Service's terms, the concept of monopoly of power is
the means of integrating a state society (Service 1963s xxvii-xxviii;
1962: l8l)o Service (1962; 181) differentiates the state from the
evolutionary stage that is its evolutionary precursor, the chiefdom, by noting that the chiefdom is integrated by "specialization, redis
tribution, and the related centralization of authority » „ charac
teristics that continue to some extent in the state but which are
augmented by "a bureaucracy employing legal force" (1962; 181)„ More
broadly, most relevant sources discuss the evolutionary step to the
state in terms of the replacement of an integrating mechanism which was essentially based upon the operation of the kinship structure, con
sisting essentially of ascribed statuses, with one which was to a • 2? significant extent based upon achieved status and the exertion of power in such a way that it was not dependent upon and to some extent divorced from the kinship structure, Sahlins (1968$:10-11, 92) notes that even chiefdomss which he includes as an advanced type of tribe, are essentially societies that are organized according to what can be termed broadly the kinship structure.
An important aspect of this model is that the method of inte gration of a state society is a basic concept which is intimately related to all other differences between such a corporate unit and kinship-organized social units. Furthermore, these differences are both numerous and observable in actual examples of primitive states if enough data is available. Other modifications are briefly dis cussed in succeeding pages,
it is not the purpose of this thesis to trace the evolutionary,
steps that transformed chiefdoms into state societies; the present
study is synchronic, not diachronic, I suggest that all aspects of the evolving primitive state society were developing.simultaneously and that the development of each aspect of the total sociocultural
system aided the development of all other aspects. Thus, it should be stressed that I am not suggesting the historical priority of the
development of the idea of a society-wide monopoly of force as an in tegrating mechanism rather than kinship structures and functions. In the following sections, the stress is laid upon the constantly rein
forced dichotomy of the segments and classes within the state society, tendencies which are opposed by the exercise of the various integrating factors exerted by the governmental segment. 28
The State Society; An Outline of the Maximal Corporate Unit
The state society phenomenon can be approached from any of several viewpoints«, The identifying data discussed here are con sidered to be most fundamental, that is, those which apply to all state societies, whether newly evolved or imposed from without or of long historical standing0 '
An important way in which a state society maintains its in tegrity as a unit is to establish and maintain its boundaries (Sahlins
1968; 6)0 The members of a state society often identify themselves as residents of the particular territory and the territory itself is sometimes referred to as equivalent to the state itselfe The integrity and honor of the state is usually thought of as being violated if any part of the territory is claimed by another corporate unit (cfe Krader
1968; 13)* Many, if not most wars between states are rooted in such disputes„ A corollary is that any territory that can be placed under the power of a government is legitimately a part of its sociopolitical unit o
A major function of the governing body of the state is to maintain its sovereignty within the territorial boundaries that it recognizeso This function is expressed in three important ways: (l) political power, as it is defined by the government, may not be exerted within these boundaries by persons or groups outside the government itself? (2) all individuals residing within the physical boundaries of the state are subjects of the government (Fried 1967: 232j Sahlins
1968: 6 ); and (3 ) the government is entitled to a proportion of the 29 economic produce of the members of the state society in the form of taxeso
Integration by power monopoly and other cultural characteris tics that reflect this manner of integration result in a degree of complexity that is greater than that of kin-based societies (Krader
1968; 3)» An aspect of this complexity is the dichotomy between the two socioeconomic classes and the ways in which segments and classes are integrated*
The Community ^-
This segment of the primitive state society is characterized by its multiplicity, its kinship structure, the nature of its economic structure and the fact that it does not normally claim monopoly of political power* A community is "a body of people sharing in common activities and bound by multiple relationships in such a way that the aims of any individual can be achieved only by participation in action with others" (Firth 1963' Ul)e
It is assumed in the construction of this model that organi zation on the basis of legitimate monopoly of power exists only within the governmental segment in newly developed primitive state societies*
The means of integration within the community, then, remains a system of factors that can be included broadly within the kinship category*
In general, the members of a community maintain considerably more face-to-face relationships within the community, with respect to social interaction, economic relations■and ritual activity than with non-members* The community is considered to be largely autonomous with respect to aspects of the cultural system that are outside the
explicit jurisdiction of the governing segment0
According to the primitive state model the community segment
consists of multiple community unitss at least some of which do not
recognize kinship ties with the governing segment«. The community as
defined here maintains its own integration without recourse to the power-monopoly mechanism and a government would be an unnecessary
addition if the community constituted the whole society<, Moreoverg
if intercommunity relations existed among all communities within the
society and if obligations were owed the political hierarchy through
kinship ties? the power-monopoly integrating mechanism would have no
function and the society would not be a state?
The multi-unit community segment is the locus of economic pro duction in a primitive state society, and most of the members of each
community are economic producers (Service 1963: xxvi-xxvii)0 Accord
ing to Wolf (1966j Ii, 9-10, 11), the presence of a body of food pro
ducers who pay rent to a government (he uses the term "state"), is
one of the defining features of a state society ("civilization”)6
Such food producers are properly called "peasants", according to
Wolf's definition*
The Government
The other basic segment of the primitive state society is the
government, which holds the monopoly of power* It is "the system and
apparatus of administration of the political organization and the 31 personnel carrying out those administrative functions" (Fried 1967s
21)o In contrast to the community segments only one governmental seg ment may exist in a primitive state society; most of its members are
of the upper socioeconomic class; its structure and function is associated with ascribed status to a greater degree than are those of the community ands unlike most communities5 it cannot exist apart from the community segments since it does not produce food or other
strategic resources»•
By definition^ only one governmental segment may exist at any time in a stable state society. If two or more groups claim the legi
timate use of force within the society at large, conflict arises, re
sulting in the dissolution of one or more such groups or a division of the sociopolitical unit often as a result of civil war.
The governmental segment is organized on the basis of political functions and requirements. The governmental office-holders usually belong to the nobility, the upper socioeconomic class. However,'
offices in the government are fundamentally political in nature and
function in the context of administration through use of the power monopoly so that political ability and charisma are often more impor
tant than actual rank in the kinship structure. Thus, for example,
although the paramount leader (king) of a primitive state may hold
the highest kinship rank in the society or refer to himself as the
"father of the people," it is as the occupant of the focal office of
the power-monopolizing group that he functions in the context of the
societal whole, and not as a kinsman of high rank. ' 32 . Most of the members of the governmental segment•are specialists in administration rather than economic production0 A primary function of its administrative function, then, is to organize the production and acquisition of strategic resources for use by governmental office™ holders as well as to organize members of the various communities, that it employs as soldiers and laborers on public works projects (Garneiro
1970; 736)o
The Socioeconomic Classes
The upper and lower socioeconomic classes of a newly developed primitive state society can be expected to coincide to. a great extent with, respectively, the community and governmental segments discussed above0 The emphasis, however, is upon differential access to basic or strategic resources, those necessary to the maintenance of life
(Fried 1967; 185~87j Sahlins 1968; 21*5 Service 1963: xxvii), rather than the locus of political power*
The lower or "common" class includes the majority of the mem™ bers of the state society who are engaged primarily in production of strategic resources» The upper class or nobility includes specialists in areas other than economic production, primarily administration through governmental structures„ However, the membership of the upper class need not be coterminous with that of the governmental segment, since some individuals recognized as members of the nobility may not be directly involved in political administration* This situation might result from the presence of political factions or parties within ' .33 the aristocracy, some of which would be out of office at any particular time® A complicating factor is that the simple sovereign government does not necessarily hold all political power within a state society
(Pried 1967; 229) and certain members of the nobility with limited spheres of influence might maintain themselves as administrative specialists with no direct connection with the pan-society governmental segmente
In describing the evolution of the state in Mesopotamia and
Mesoamerica, Adams (1966: 120) sums up an aspect of the relationship of the kinship-related class structure with the "segment structure"
(community-government) in the following way,
/o/lder, vertically oriented, solidary forms of organization were replaced by more functionally specified •authoritarian,, and all-encompassing horizontal ones that were better adapted to the administrative requirements of increasingly large and complex societies« In some respects the older forms may have provided a model that the newer ones needed only to readapt and systematize» '
Other Aspects of the Primitive State Model
The above sections have stressed the essential features of the sociopolitical structure of a primitive state societyIn view of the opinion held here that the evolution of a state society was affected by modifications in all major aspects of the sociocultural system, certain characteristics of.the economic and religious systems of such a society are sketched below to complete the outline of. the primitive state model* The Economic System
The salient features of the primitive state economic system are intimately related to the sociopolitical pattern• Items of eco nomic importance are produced within the community context by members of the lower classe Host if not all of the day-to-day distribution of goods within the community is accomplished according to the kinship pattern, either through simple reciprocity, or through distribution administered by high ranking members of the community*
Since the governmental segment does not produce strategic goods, it must ensure a supply for its memberse Within the boundaries of a stable state society this is accomplished through a system of taxation, administered by the members of the government, often aided by the ranking members of constituent communitiese Taxation differs from the systematized redistribution found in chiefdoms (Service 1962 %
15>1, 17.1) in that it is sanctioned by power monopoly and is explicitly prepared for and collected by the governmental segment, whereas the redistribution network of a chiefdom extends to all members of the society, through the redistributor, that is, the paramount chief
(Service 1963: xxv-xxvi)0 The taxation system is thus a reflection of the full-time administrative function of governmental officials3 they do not produce strategic goods for themselves so they exercise their authority to obtain a plentiful supply from the various units of the community segment. ,
A major function of warfare is the acquisition of new sources of strategic resourcese . Thus, the exercise of both aspects of ■ ■ . . ' 35 political power is often motivated by economic considerations„ The authority system maintains the flow of goods from the community seg ment to the. governmental segment. Force is extended by the government against recalcitrant c omrfiunities within the society to ensure fulfill ment of quotas and against communities outside the state boundaries in order to bring them into the state as contributing units„ Recruit ment for public works projects and military ventures is also accom plished. through the exercise of political power| the government obtains services through the operation of the same techniques it uses to obtain goods o
The Religious System
Service (1962? 170) notes that religion in chiefdoms differs from that of simpler evolutionary stages„ ..
It is not so much that the antecedent religion is altered* but rather that it is augmented in c ontent and with new forms superimposed„ The shamanistic practices and local lifecycle rituals remain* but ceremonies and rituals serving wider social purposes become more numerous„
This trend continues with the development of the primitive state„ The dichotomy between sociopolitical segments and classes is reflected in a dichotomy in the ritual* belief and scope of effectiveness of the religious system of a state societye
The ritual-belief system of the government tends to apply to the economic production* military capability and political well-being of the society as a whole6 State ceremonies are performed by full time priests* who are closely allied with* if not actual members of 36 the governmental segmente Such ceremonies usually take place in large impressive temples, since the maintenance of feelings of awe in the populace is an important aspect of governmental authority* The pan- society religion outlined here is an. important means of sociopolitical integration and is so used by the governmental segment* It also pro vides supernatural sanction for the actions of government*
The religious tradition of the community as practiced by rank ing kinsmen and community ritual specialists is.related to the affairs of individuals, families and the community as a unit* Most of such rituals take place in homes, shrines or small local ritual centers* CHAPTER 3
THE HAWAIIAN PRIMITIVE STATE HYPOTHESIS
In this chapter the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis is presented and tested by comparing ethnohistoric data concerning
Hawaiian culture of pre-contact and early post-contact periods with the model outlined in Chapter 2e A point that deserves reiteration is that the evolutionary step from.the chiefdom level of sociocultural integration to the primitive state level involved modification in many aspects of structure and functione These changes are presented here by way of a discussion of the dichotomy between the community segment and the governmental segment*
The Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis states: "Primitive state societies had evolved in the Hawaiian islands prior to European contact*"
The Hawaiian Community
Most of the estimated 300,000 inhabitants (Schmitt 1968s 22) of the Hawaiian islands at the time of European contact were maka'ainana* This term is translated by Handy and Pukui (195)8: 3) as
"(people)-on-the™land*" The basic corporate unit of the maka’ainana was the ’ohana, a kinship group with the characteristics of a ramage or "* , * a corporate descent group of a non-unilinear (ambilineal) character being obtained ambilaterally,i*e*, through either parent
37 38 according to circumstances0 Such a group ethnographically is normally - found to be non-exogamous" (Firth 1937s 213)„
It is not possible to discuss the Hawaiian * ohana without con stant reference to the land (*aina) that supported them. It is useful to begin with a discussion of the land unit known as the ahupua! a<,
Each of the major Hawaiian islands (Hawaii, Maui, Lanai,
Molokai, Oahu and Kauai) consists of one or more central mountain masses which are partially surrounded by coastal plains and are cut by valleys of various sizes. In some areas, such as northern Hawaii,
(Kohala district), the mountainsides are long gentle slopes that extend from several thousand feet altitude to sea level, cut only by small, steep sided ravines. Along a mauka-makai axis of any of these islands 1 (mauka is "inland;" makai means "toward the ocean"); the variables of wind, topography and geology result in a wide range of environmental zones that extend from the ocean to the mountain peaks. Much of this variation is a direct result of the rainfall pattern.
The amount of rainfall in the Hawaiian islands is directly • related to the relief and the direction of the prevailing winds, the trade winds that blow from the east (60,23.3) and northeast (263) and which absorb much moisture from the . Pacific Ocean . . . When they reach the islands they are . deflected upward by the highlands which lie athwart their path. Forced to cross the barrier by ascending to higher elevations, they cool because of expansion with the lessened . pressure and by reason .of the higher altitude. Their rela tive humidity is increased to the point of condensation, and precipitation occurs on the slopes of the highlands „ „ . . In general , . . the leeward sides of the islands are dry, and in some places the climate is semi-arid (Coulter 1931? 12).
Interacting with patterns of.wind and rainfall, local topog raphy and soil conditions result in a variation in conditions that 39 support various types of natural and domesticated flora and fauna„
The Hawaiian land unit known as the ahupua'a was usually a long narrow strip of land extending from the ocean inland to the highest area of useful natural resources* These land units radiated out from the mountainous core of each of the. major islands like the spokes of a wheel* In cross-cutting the various environmental zones, the average ahupua'a included terrestrial and aquatic, conditions of great enough variety to allow the inhabitants to be economically self-sufficient with respect to the basic resources* Lyons (I875>s 111) notes that on
Hawaii island ", * * the common ahupuaa /sic/ is found to be a strip, say of 1,000 feet average width and running from the seashore, not by any means to the top of the mountain, but to the zone of timber land that generally exists from half a mile to a mile into this belt,"
Most ahupua1a extended into the ocean to the breakers or to about one and one half miles if there were no breakers* Boundaries were usually natural landmarks* In the case of the ahupua1a consisting of an entire valley, the ridges were the long axis boundaries* In gently sloping, relatively undissected areas, streams, individual landmarks or vegetation zones might indicate boundaries (Wise 1 9 6 3 s 8I4)* Within these boundaries, were usually (l) inshore fishing areas, (2) areas for a variety of cultivated plants, often including both irrigated and "dry" crops, (3 ) one or more sources of water for drinking and . for irrigation, and (I4.) areas of naturally occurring terrestrial flora and fauna and inorganic resources * Uo
Detailed references to the maka8ainana ("commoners") are rela
tively rare in the eye-witness literature5 since the early explorerss
traders and other journalists usually dealt primarily with individuals
of ali1i (chiefly) rank. Much of the information concerning the maka1ainana. included here is derived from Handy and Pukui * s The Poly
nesian Family System in Ka-'u Hawaii (1958) which is based primarily
on the memories of residents of Ka-’u of life in that relatively
isolated district in the late 19th century»
Belows I present and reject two sociogeographic entities and
accept a third as the Hawaiian equivalent of the community segment of
the primitive state model* The two rejected hypothetical communities
may be called the "non-circumscribed" community and the "'ill-
community; " the unit that is accepted as the Hawaiian community is
the ahupua1 a socioeconomic unit*
The 8ohana appears to have been the minimal ramage in Hawaii,
the level of organization immediately above the extended family* How
ever, it should be noted that a ramage such as the 8 ohana is not a
,unit of definite size* The population of an entire moku (district)
or island might think of themselves as a single 1ohana (Sahlins 1958:
162; Handy and Pukui 1958: ix, 3, 5)° , In areas such as Ka-8u, Kohala
and Puna districts on Hawaii island, which are marked by relatively
few large valleys, the expandable nature of the 8ohana by population
growth, adoption and in-marriage could conceivably result in large
communities with no major barriers to social or economic interaction
(such as those presented by valley walls) across wide expanses of country*; Interaction patterns and intermarriage might blur the social
boundaries of such unitse However, it is clear that, even in non valley areas the borders of the land units that correspond to the com munity boundaries were clearly understood and enforced (Lyons 18?^:
119; Malo 1951s 1U5-U7; Wise 196$: 8U~5),
Handy and Pukui (1958s 5) refer to the 'ill as the land unit
that correspond to the 1ohana„ The 'ill was a subdivision of an
ahupua'a* Some ahupua8a were not subdivided into 'ill but most had
at least three or four and as many as 30 or UO 'ill (Lyons 1875* 118),
The 'ill appears in the ethnohistoric literature in two forms* The
"normal" or "classic" type is described as a strip of land whose borders are essentially parallel to the long axis of the ahupua'a that
contains them. Each such ,ili would include all major resource zones.
The other type is the "'ili lele" or "leaping *ili," composed of
numerous plots distributed throughout the ahupua’a in various resource
zones (Kelly 1956: 22=!*;. Lyons 187$: 118). Although the matter has
not yet been thoroughly studied, it seems reasonable to suggest that
the narrow strip 'ili characterized the ahupua'a of broad sloping
areas such as Ka-!u or Kohala districts. In a valley ahupua'a, the
use of the.discontinuous 'ili lele land divisions scattered discrete
sub-sections along not only the ocean-inland axis but also the valley-
bottom- valley-side axis as well. . Thus, in Kahana Valley, Oahu, indi
vidual inland segments of. several 'ili extend from the main irrigation
canal, across irrigible land and up the talus slope where dry agri
culture was practiced (Hommon and Barrera 1971: $0-1). k2 Handy and Pukui (195)8: 5) suggest that
o d e the *111 with its inland and seaward expanses, was essen tially and probably originally the province of a single *ohana oooo Inevitably, in the course of intermarriage between families, the 1ohana would ramify throughout the ahupua1 a, and ultimately into neighboring moku; though there would remain a concentration of closely-related 'ohana in the original 1ili«
This inference is based primarily upon the structure of the political hierarchyo The ali'i nui (paramount chief) of a multi-district socio political unit would administer the affairs of each district ("moku")e
The latter, in turn, would assign each ahupua1a to an ali'i *ai ahupua*a. Handy and Pukui (1958: 5) point out that "/t/here was no all *i *ai * ili „11 They thus believe that the ! ili was the land unit of the Hawaiian community, whose social organization remained undis turbed despite political upheavals (1958: 2-li)e.
The social unit of the ahupua*a, rather than that of the * ili
(for convenience these units are called the "ahupua*a-* ohana" and the
.11 * ili- * ohana") is discussed here as the .precontact Hawaiian community for the following reasons: (l) The ahupua*a is commonly referred to in the ethnohistoric literature as the basic economic unit (Kelly
1956: l8j Lyons 1875- 103-1$; Wise 1965: 8Zi)a. This usage is largely derived from land tenure practices of the early 19th century, reflect ing a relatively unacculturated system; (2) the annual precontact taxation during the makahiki season was collected, from ahupua*a as
economic entities by the political hierarchy (Halo 1951: 1U5-U7)o
The ahupua * a were also considered to be minimal units during certain ceremonies that involved the sociopolitical entity as a whole (Malo
1951: 163)? (3) despite the fact that an * ili is potentially self sufficient with respect to basic resources, cooperation among the . various 8ill-8 ohana would be necessary'for projects such as major
irrigation systems, For example, an irrigation canal in Kahana Valley
Oahu, is nearly two miles long and served lands belonging to several
8ili=8ohana (Dorothy Barrera, personal communication! Hommon and
Barrera 1971: ^O-l); (li) Marshal Sahlins, using mid-19th century land
records, is currently involved in research which suggests that various
8ill-8ohana within an ahupuala were ranked with respect to one another .
(Sahlins, personal communication), suggesting that the ahupua1a~8ohana was actually a social unit, rooted in kinship, that was recognized by
its members, as welli.as a political and economic unit, imposed by the
external political hierarchy! (5 ) a reasonable hypothesis that has not yet been extensively tested by archaeologists is that the earliest
settlements in any particular area of the Hawaiian islands were in the valleys suitable for large systems of irrigated fields e A corollary would be that the natural borders of the valley would determine the
socioeconomic boundaries of the community. It is suggested that the
early valley ahupua8 a, each with several 8 ili-8 ohana may have set the pattern for all areas, including Ka-8u and Kohala districts, which
have few large valleys6
In Hawaiian Geographic Names, Alexander (1903: 381-93) lists
1211 named land sectionse Most of these are ahupua8a, though a few
are large 8ill. Of these, 523 are on the island of Hawaii, 339 on
Maui, 210 on Oahu-, 6? on Molokai, 56 on Kauai, 11 on Lanai, and five
on Niihaue Using these figures and the estimated populations of. the • ' k i main islands at time of contact (Schmitt 1968; 1*2, Table 6), the mean population of these land sections was about 2It7 and the range was Hi9
(on Molokai) to 53? (on Kauai)e Hawaii island, Maui and Oahu average
ahupuada populations are 229, 221 and 286, respectively* The smaller main islands, Lanai and Niihau averaged ?18 and 310, respectively.
The maka1ainana were primarily economic producers. Most were
farmers and fishermem (Malo 1951s 60-1, 6U=*5| Sahlins 1958: Hi.), Many communities also apparently included individuals especially skilled in canoe-building, tree-cutting, bird-collection, house-building and
other craft production (Menzies 1920: 82=3, 155| Handy 1931s 15),
Though Handy (1931s 10) notes a system of "genuine apprenticeship"
in precontact Hawaii, the degree of professionalism of these special
ists is not clear. In larger communities and those associated with high-ranking chiefs, some craftsmen probably practiced their specialty
full-time.
The ahupua'a was the basic unit from which economic goods were
collected,during Makahiki season by representatives of the ali'i nui
(paramount chief) of the maximal political unit. For this reason an
ali'i *ai ahupua'a was assigned by the ali’i nui to each ahupua’a as
a "tax collector" and general administrator, as noted above, It is
contended here that many of the activities of the ahupua*a community
were still administered by the local leaders and that this system was
based upon the ranking structure of the local kinship group, that is,
the ahupua1 a-’ohana»Handy and Pukui (1958: 6-7) discuss the haku or
senior member of an lili-tohana. In view of the expandable nature of k $ the 8 ohana referred to earlier, it is probable that this description would apply equally as well to the ahupua* a-1ohana o
The pivot of the ,ohana was the haku (master, director), the elder male of the senior branch of the whole 'ohana. The haku divided the catch of fish amongst the households of the 1ohana which had participated in the fishing| he presided over family councils; and in general he had authority over the individuals and households in all such matters as enter taining strangers and welcoming the ali'i, in supervising work, worship and planned communal activities«, The haku was the functioning head of an 'ohana.
The social boundaries of the ahupua'a community are not as well supported by ethnohistoric data as are the physiographic borders and economic structure. The data that is available suggest that endogamy was practiced with respect to relatively small geographic areas. Handy and Pukui (1958s 110) note that district (moku) exogamy was unusual.
The people of Ka-’u married mostly within their own district and discourage marriage to those of the outside district /sic7 or islands. If there was a marriage with one outside of the district, that person was encouraged to remain as one of them. Generations marrying within their group welded the families into one . . .
They also note (1958s 109) that cousin marriage was not uncommon. .
In the late 19th century Ka-^u, marriage partners were chosen not by parents, as in the case of first born of chiefly families, but rather as a result of "freedom of choice and spontaneous, casual, or passionate attachment" (Handy and Pukui 1958 s l6l). Whether these data reflect the precontact pattern among the maka' ainana should be the subject of future ethnohistoric research. However, it seems reason able to speculate that most marriages and the social interaction that formed their basis took place with residents of one's own community or with residents of adjacent or nearby communities0 It has already been noted that each community was essentially self-sufficient economicallys so that the "horizontal" ties between ahupua'a would be rather limited»
I suggest here that horizontal ties of a social nature would probably be weakened with distance, simply on the basis of frequency and number of social contacts to be expected, "The country people were strongly attached to their own homelands, the full calabash, the roasted potatoes, the warm food, to live in the midst of abundance, . Their hearts went out to the land of their birth" (Malo 1951s 6U),
The maintenance of long genealogies was an important mechanism for the maintenance of the ranked social structure of precontact
Hawaii, The memorization and recitation of lengthy genealogies, in volving formal schooling and elaborate rituals (Kamakau 1961; 2 k 3 ?
Malo 1951: 60, 63, 191-92) were matters in which only the higher chiefs could afford to indulge. Most commoners probably did not maintain genealogies of more than three or four generations. Thus, genealogical connections with other communities were probably forgotten in the space of a few generations, thus contributing to the relative social isolation of the community.
The Hawaiian ahupua'a-'ohana corresponds closely to the com munity segment of the primitive state model. It was a group of indi viduals engaged in face-to-face social interaction and group endeavors.
Most of the members of the group were economic producers and the kin ship structure was the basis of organization. The kinship unit hi maintained use rights to the ahupua * a land (Sahlins 1958; 15J Wise
1965 s 81t)0 Each ahupua1 a-* ohana was largely independent of outside sources of basic resources and social interaction and commitments were mainly directed inwarde Although relationships among various ahupua*a-
8 ohana were maintained through intermarriage and other social inter- action, each such unit was integrated into the sociopolitical whole
(the hypothetical state) by the political hierarchy, mainly through the ali'i ,ai ahupua*a0 The average ahupua * a-*ohana community had a population of about 2U7 people, though this number probably varied greatly with ahupua*a size and the nature of the local resources0
The Hawaiian Government
In this section it is my intention to present evidence to show that certain of the Hawaiian sociopolitical units, notably on the island of Hawaii, but also those centered on Maui and Oahu, were in tegrated by means of a power-monopolizing faction, a true government 0
Much of the data is drawn from Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii by Samuel M»
KamakaUo In the early chapters of.this book Kamakau traces the poli tical history of Hawaii island as recorded in oral traditions for a period of about 275 years prior to European contact.
The sociopolitical unit that corresponds to the state society in the primitive state model is the mokupuni0 Each mokupuni consisted of several moku or districts, each of which includes numerous ahupua*a.
Prior to the development of the Hawaiian primitive state each moku was probably an independent chiefdom integrated by means of a ranked U8 kinship structure and a redistribution economy as describeds for example by Service (1962: llt3-77) and Sahlins (1968: 23-7s 92-3) o
When individual moku achieved temporary independence from the mokupuni of which they were a part, and to a certain extent, when they func tioned as constituent portions of the mokupuni they retained certain chiefdom characteristics„ Thus, for example, the concept of kinship between all of the residents of a moku was maintained in the "tribal slogan" of Ka~!u district:
Offshoots of one lineage (1ohana) are the people of Ka-’u From the uplands to the sea. From border to border (Handy and Pukui 1958: ix)„
Details of the structure and function of the moku are obscured by the ethnohistoric descriptions of the mokupuni as a whole0 Various ali?i and ali'i families did, however, tend to identify with individual moku, despite the fact that they belong to political factions that might rule an entire mokupuni, thus reflecting the older system of independent chiefdoms (Kamakau 1961: 62, 106)„
Support for the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis is to be found in those ethnohistoric data that show that a segment of the mokupuni (the government) was the fundamental integrating factor in precontact Hawaii and that it maintained sovereignty and territorial ; integrity by the exclusive and legitimate exercise of power in the form of both overt force and as authority. Data presented below refer primarily to the operation of the highest echelons of Hawaiian politi cal structure, since the evidence is clearer and more abundant at the h9 top of the governmental structure than at the lower administrative levels o
The term ali1i nui is used here to refer to the office at the top of the political system of a mokupuni» .1 suggest that this term applies to an achieved status rather than a status that is ascribed by position within the kinship structure e
Traditionally an individual in the office of ali'i nui met a number of requirements that corresponded with certain ideals within the Hawaiian value system. He should be an alihi of high rank
(Kamakau 1961+t Malo 1 9 $ l t % h > Sahlins 1958$ 13) and was expected. to be a close relative^ often the eldest son, of the previous ali'i nui (Ellis 1783$ 181^ Levin 1968$ U8; Townsend 1888 $ 16)e He was usually an individual believed to possess a great deal of mana (super- , . * natural power) manifest in his rank and personal deeds (Kamakau 196U$ li-5? Malo 1951* 5U)e He retained the approval of the commoners by refraining from overt acts of cruelty; many ali*i nui "had been put: to death by the people because of their oppression of the maka*ainana"
(Malo 1951s 195)® He retained divine approval (and that of his sub jects) by paying "due respect to the ceremonies of religion and the worship of the gods" (Malo 1951: 53-5),: He maintained a reputation for generosity (Malo 1951* 195: Sahlins 1965$ 209),
In our most thoroughgoing account of the precontact history in the Hawaiian islandss Kamakau (1961$ 1-122) describes the ali'i nui of Hawaii island and ’the events surrounding their succession through
11 generations, from Liloa (late 15th century ?) to Kamehameha (I753"l8l9)e This account shows the importance of yet another charac teristic of a Hawaiian ali'i nui* the acquisition of political power and the administration of political units through the use of the power monopolyo The manipulation of political power is seen to overshadow the other traits listed above and thus appears to be the fundamental defining feature of the Hawaiian ali'i nui„
Throughout Kamakau's narrative, he uses the phrase "ruling chief" in the same context that I use "ali'i nui." For convenience,
I havfe noted the vertical genealogical position of individuals in
Kamakau’s account by assigning the labels "Gl” through "Gil" (genera tions one through 11) which correspond to generations beginning with .
Liloa and ending with Kamehameha0
Liloa (Gl) was descended from a line of ruling chiefs„ From his home in Waipi’o Valley, Hamakua district, he ruled all six dis tricts' of Hawaii island (Hamakua, Hilo, Puna, Ka-’u, Kona and Kohala)„
His eldest son, by chiefess Pinea of Oahu was Hakau (G2), the heir apparent® ’Umi-a-Liloa (G2) was Hakau1s half brother0 His mother was a maka8ainana woman® After Liloa’s death, Umi, fearing that Hakau would kill him out of jealousy, fled Waipi’o Valley with the feather image of the god Ku-ka’ilimoku, bequeathed to him by Liloa (Kamakau
1961s 1-9)o Kamakau (1961: 10) states that Hakau was a good ruler at first, following the advice of his father. "But in later years of his fule he was lost in pleasure, mistreated the chiefs, beat those who were not guilty of any wrongdoing, and abused the priests of the heiaus of his god and the chiefs of his own government" (1961: 10)„ ' 'Umi later returned with an army of supporters, killed Hakau in a brief battle, sacrificed him along with his chiefs and members of his court to the god Ku-ka *ilimoku and became ali* i nui. The chiefs of Kona, Ka-’u, Puna and Hilo rebelled and established these districts as independent chiefdoms until'Umi, by force of arms, succeeded in bringing them back into the mokupuni, Umi moved his residence from
Waipi8 o to Kailua in Kona district after he had united the island
(Kamakau 1961s 10=19).
At his death, Umi1s mokupuni was divided between his eldest son Ke-li’i-o-kaloa (03) and a younger son Keawe-nui-a-Umi (03), The former ruled the districts of Kona, Kohala and Hamakua from Kailua,
Kona and the latter ruled Hilo, Puna and Ka-'u from Hilo, Keawe=nui= a=Umi eventually reunited Hawaii island by defeating Ke=li8 i-o-keloa in a battle at Kailua, According to Kamakau (1961s 3L-6), the reason for this conquest of the domain of the older brother by the younger brother was Ke=li1i-o-kala1s oppressive government0
Upon the death of Keawe-nui-a- fUmi /G37, the kingdom was divided into three parts, Kona and Kphala had two rulers, Kanaloa-kua’ana /Gh/ and 'Umi-o-ka-lani /j%7j Hilo and Hamakua by Kumalae-nui-a-’Umi /G37 and his son Makua / G l i J of Hilo (1961s U5),
The ruler of Kona was Kanaloa-kua*ana, son of Keawe~nui” a-^Umi, His mother was Ko'i-halawa; daughter of Akahi-’ili- kapu=a=*umi and Ka-haku-maka-liue, a sacred chief of Kauai, The mother of Umi-o-ka-lani, son of Keawe-nui-a-'Umi was Ho1opili-a~hae, of the chiefly and priestly lineage of Pae, Kanaloa-kua-ana and Umi-oka-lani were the rulers of Kona and . Kohala, but it was said that the. kingdom was given by com mand to ’Umi-o-ka-lani, and gifts were given to him. The lighted torches of other chiefs followed his, and his old men drank 'awa constantly. It was understood that theirs was a wealthy lord (1961: 1i5-6), Kanaloa-kua1 ana1 s (Gli) chiefs urged him to make war on ’Umi-o-
ka-lani (Git) because their realm was poverty-stricken„ After a long war, Kanaloa-kuafana held all of Kona and Kohala districts (Kamakau
1961s I46) o
The districts of Hilo and Hamakua remained in the hands of the
descendants of Keawe-nui-a-*umi (G3) for two generations 0 A grand
daughter of Kanaloa-kua•ana named Ke'aka’mahana (G6 ) became ali'l nui
of the districts of Kohala, Kona and Ka-*u0 She was chosen by the
chiefs of these districts in part because she was of very, sacred rank
("pi8 0") since her parents were of high rank (Kamakau 1961s 61=2)„
During this period
o o o a war began among the chiefs of Hawaii,. There was much fighting between the chiefs of Kona and Hilo.but neither was defeated. The chiefs of Kona desired Hilo, Hamakua, and La*a because of the mamo and 0*0 feathers, the war canoes, and fine tapas , , , of Waipi’o, The chiefs of Hilo in turn desired warm food and drinking water, and tough and tender fish. Those were the wealth of Kona (1961s 62),
Ke-aka-mahana was succeeded by her daughter Keakea-lani-wahine
(G?) whose rank was somewhat inferior to that of her mother. During
this period,
/s7ometimes the victory went to the chiefs of Kona, but more often to the chiefs of Hilo, Kona1s chiefs fled to their fortresses, and Keakea-lani and her company were sent as . prisoners to Maui and to Molokai, Keakea-lani was restored to Kohala where she ruled, in name only, over the districts of Kohala, Kona, and Ka-’u, The chiefs of Kona combined in fighting those of Hilo, but the victory was always Kilo’s . , » , (1961s 63)0
Keawe-i-kekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku (G8j called here "Keawe")
inherited the rule of Kohala, Kona and Ka-’u from his mother Keakea-
lani-wahine, During his reign, fighting continued between the 53 Kona-based faction and the Hilo chiefs (1961; 61). )„ Before he died*
Keawe bequeathed his kingdom to his two sons; Ka-lani-nui1i-a-mamao
(G9) inherited the rule of Ka-'u and Ke8e-au-moku (G9) inherited Kona and Kohalae At this time the ali'i nui of Hilo, Hamakua and part of
Puna was Moku ( Kamakau 1961; 65)» .
Alapa8i-nui-a-Ka-uaua (G9) was the son of the son of Mahi-
,ololi, who had been Keakea-lani-wahine8 s war leader (Kuhina kaua nui)«,
Returning from Maui, where he had been living with his half-sister after his father Ka-uaua-nui-a-Mahi had been killed by Hilo chiefs,
Alapa8i made war on the chiefs of Kohala and Kona., ''/If/e took them captive and became.ruler over Kohala and Kona" (1961; 65). Ke-kau- like, ali'i nui of Maui, then attacked Alapa1i, in order to "return the government to the chief whose land it was" (1961; 65). Alapa8i won this battle, but Ke-kau-like was able, for a period of time, to pre vent his conquest of Hilo and Ka-8u (1961; 65). Alapa8i was finally
"victorious in battle against /the chiefs of Hawaii island/, slew them and united the island under his own rule" (1961; 6 6 ) B
After Alapa8i had taken Kohala and Kona he had begun to train
Ke-lani-opu'u (G10) and Keoua (G10) as war leaders„ They were the young sons of the former rulers of Kohala and Kona (Ka-lani-nui8i-a- mamao and Ka-lani-ke8 e-au-moku) whom he had killed (1961; 66)0
Approximately 20 years later, after a long period of wars with chiefs of Maui and Oahu, Alapa8i returned to Hawaii island, where he is described as "a good ruler, one who loved the common people."
While Alapa8i and his court resided in Hilo, Keoua fell ill and died. 5U Keoua’s elder brother, Ka-lani-opu'u, fearing that Kekua had been
murdered by Alapa'l, led his forces against Alapa'i in the first of
a series of battles that eventually■resulted in Ka-lani-1opu1uf s con
quest of Ka->*u and Puna (Kamakau 1961s ■ 76-7).«
Shortly after the battle of Mahinaakaka, which consolidated
Ka-lani-* opu'u* s rule over Ka-‘u and Puna, Alapa’ i and his supporting
chiefs "moved to Waimea and others went by canoe to Kawaihaea From
Waimea he went to Lanimaomao, where he fell ill* 'later he moved to
Kikiakoe i in Kawaihae* There his illness became serious and » = 0 he
appointed his son Keawe-'opala to be ruler over the island" (1961s 77)»
Keawe-eopala had ruled "over the island" (except for Ka-’u and
Puna) for less than a year (I75>i|.?) when he was defeated by Ka-lani-o-
pu'u (1961s 78), who remained ali'i nui until his death in 1782*
In 1780, Ka-lani-1opu1u, on the advice of his chiefs designated
; Kiwala’o (Gil), his first born son as his heir to the "rule over the
land * . and gave him "the right to perform the ritual to dedicate
a heiau," and also stated that “whatever ivory /of whale or walrus
tusks/ came ashore should belong to him. To the son of his younger
brother to Kamehaweha .. /Gil/, Ka-lani-'opufu gave his god Ku-ka'ili-
moku and commanded Kamehameha to live under Kiwala’o, who belonged to
the senior branch of the family" (Kamakau 1961: 107)=
Shortly afterwards, Ka-lani-'opu1u put down a rebellion led
by I-maka-koloa, chief of Puna«, The latter was taken to Ka-'u district
to be sacrificed by Kiwala'o at the heiau of Pakini* Kamehameha's
chiefly supporters advised him to seize the opportunity and sacrifice
the defeated, chief himself0 Before /Ki>ralalo7 had ended offering the first sacrifices, Kamehameha grasped the body of I-maka-koloa and offered it up to the god, and the freeing of the tabu for the heiau was completed . . ,
There was great excitement among the chiefs6 "This was not done right£ Kamehameha will have the rule over the land!11 it was said "He will not rebel; both are sons of the chiefs; they are an elder and a younger brother." others said "He will rebel; better kill him first" (1961s 109)o
Ka-lani-'opu'u advised. Kamehameha to return to Kohala, where he was born, to escape violence at the hands of the chiefs of Ka-lani-
,opu*urs courte Kamehameha followed his uncle's advice (1961s 109)o
When Ka-lani-* opuvu died (1782) a war of succession began that was to last nine years0 Kiwala* o at first claimed the entire island
(1961s 118-22)0 After the.initial battles during which Kiwala1o was killed, the island was divided into three dominions (aupuni)e
Keawe-=ma'u-hili (G10), a chief of sacred rank, and son of Ka-lani- nui•i-a-mamao was ruler of half of the districts of Hilo, Puna and
Hamakua0 Kamehameha took Kona and Kohala and half of Hamakua c
Kiwala*o’s younger brother, Keoua, was the ruler of Ka-’u and half (?) ; ■ : ' y- of Puna (1961s 122)„ In 1791, after a series of battles, Kamehameha
sent for Keoua, possibly requesting a peace conference at Kawaihae,
in Kohala district. When Keoua arrived with his 27 canoe retinue, he
and several of his chiefs were killed and then sacrificed to the god.
Ku-ka*ili-moku at Pu'ukohola heiau (temple) which had been refurbished
for the purpose (1961s 15U-56). ,Kamehameha went on to bring the whole
Hawaiian group under his rule. . '
The period of traditional history just sketched, spanning approximately 275 years and 11 generations of chiefs included a series £6 of 23 different political configurations on the island of Hawaii 0 Of the 22 changes in either the constituent districts or the ruling chiefs^ 13 were accomplished essentially through the agency of war fare, five came about through succession from parent to son or daughter and five involved both linear succession and warfaree During this period, the island was politically united eight times, under Liloa,
Hakau, Umi, Keawe-nui-a-'umi, Alapat i-nui, Ka-lani-5 opu'u, Kiwala’o and Kamehameha. Acquisition of the power-monopoly was achieved in five of these cases through warfare0 In two of the three instances > of acquisition by primogeniture, succession was followed by strife between the ali1i nui and a challenger, resulting in a fragmentation of the political unit followed by a reunification under a new ali1! nui„ The three ali1i nui who succeeded through primogeniture were
Hakau, Kiwala1o and Liloa; the latter is the only one whose rule was not challenged* Thus, most of the political configurations of Hawaii island from Liloa1s generation through Kamehameha1s generation were the direct result of the initial application of force*
Not only were mokupuni established by use of force during this period, their sovereignty was protected as well* The integrity of the political unit was maintained by use of force against rebellious chiefs* Examples of this are ,Umi,s reunification, Ka-lani-1opu’u's defeat of rebellious I-maka-koloa, and the period during generations four through eight when the Hilo chiefs and the Kona chiefs were apparently able to protect their respective domains from serious encroachment6 57
' Kamakau (1961) refers to various motives for war. They include
the desire on the part of the ali'i nui and his supporters for prestige
(1961; U5-6), for vengeance in retaliation for wrongs perpetrated by
rival chiefs (1961; 66-7) and to end oppression (1961; 35)« In spite
ofs and in addition to stated motives $ Hawaiian warfare in nearly
every case recorded by Kamakau resulted in new political configura tions, that is, one or more new sociopolitical units whose integration was based on a power-monopolizing faction0
The power-monopoly of the ali'i nui and his political faction
(the governmental segment) was expressed by the application of overt force and is the operation of a pan-mokupuni authority system. The
force aspect is best demonstrated in a number of Hawaiian customs that
center around warfare and the right of the ali!i nui to wage war. The authority aspect is best expressed through a discussion of tax
collection, administration and law. These two aspects are discussed belowo
Any ali?i with sufficient support from priests and commoners
could authorize the construction of a heiau (temple)„ Priests provided
religious sanction; commoners provided the work force. Only an ali'i
nui, the legitimate leader of a mokupuni, however, was allowed by
tradition- to build and make use of a luakini heiau (Malo 1951: 160),
The luakini was a war temple, heiau wai kaua, which the king, in his capacity as ruler over all, built when he was about to make war upon another independent,monarch or when he heard that some other king was about to make war against him , «•'. (1951: 160-61). A related prerogative of the all1i mil was that of human sacrifice, which was usually .performed in a luakini heiau. Men were sacrificed at the dedication of the luakini heiau (Malo 1 9 $ l i 169-90), as a declaration of war (Kamakau 1961; 122, 129), at the beginning of a battle (Malo 195»1: 189) and at the end of a war (Kamakau 1961;
108-9)o While all human sacrifices were politically important, in that they were overt symbols of the exclusive rights of the ali*i nui, those marking the declaration and the end of a war are perhaps the most significant0 The war-declaring sacrifice affirmed the exclusive right of the ali'i nui to declare war, an act that committed the entire mokupuni, including its human and economic resources and its.terri torial integrity, to an endeavor which might result in many deaths, extensive destruction and the loss of sovereignty. The sacrificial victims at the end of a war included the leaders of the opposition forces (Kamakau 1961; lit, 108-109, 15>3~i?8) vividly symbolizing the re placement of one government's rule with that of another.
Most of the human sacrificial victims other than defeated chiefs were "criminals," that is, those who had broken one or more of the kapu (taboos, ritual restrictions /Malo 195>ls 3ltj Handy 1931s 31;vcn
Kotzebue 1821; 2it8| Arago 1823: 72%)<, In either case, the victims would pose a threat to the power structure. Thus, as Lisianski (l8Uts
120) in an eyewitness account noted, human sacrifices "seemed more a political than a religious institution" and the only individual who
could legitimately perform the act was one who held the office we have called ali'i nui (Dixon 1789: 106; Kamakau 1961: 129j Malo 1951: 166, 59 170, 172, 17h)o As has been established in the summary of traditional, history, this office was often achieved through the application of forcee
The rights of the all'i nui to military leadership, luakini heiau construction and use and human sacrifice are parts of a complex of traits that may be called the power-prerogative system« A symbol of this complex is the "war god e 11
The "war god" that figures prominently in the traditional his tory of the island of Hawaii is Ku-ka * ilimoku, one of the many mani festations of Ku, one of the four major gods of the Polynesian pantheon.
The epithet means literally "Ku that takes land (or islands) by force"
(Pukui and Elbert 1957s 108, 232),
In the traditional history sketched above, Ku-ka'ilimoku figured prominently in the political careers of 'Umi-a-Liloa (02) and
Kamehameha (Oil). ‘Umi inherited custodianship of Ku-ka'ilimoku from his father Liloaand his brother Hakau became the nominal ruler of the island„ Hakau was the eldest son of Liloa and a high-ranking chiefess and thus inherited the title of ali'i nui by reason of primo geniture and ranko ’Umi, on the other hand, was of very low chiefly rank by reason of his maka*ainana background on his mother’s side
(Kamakau 1961).s 6)0 Because of his popularity and political prowess, apparently symbolized by Ku-ka’ili-moku, he was able to gather sup porters, overthrow. Hakau and eventually, by means of a series of battles, become the legitimate ali’i nui of the island of Hawaii
(Kamakau 1961: 9-19), . 60
Kiwala’o, the eldest son of Ka-lanl-* opu1u is listed by
Kamakau (I96I4.S U - 5) as belonging to the highest rank, that of ni' auoi * o kapuo Kamehameha was of relatively low wohi rank (I96h: S)» Kame= haraeha, however, inherited custodianship of Ku-ka* ilimoku from his uncle Ka-lani-o-pu*u„ In a series of maneuvers beginning with the sacrifice of the rebel chief I-maka-koloa, and ending with the sacri= fice of Keoua, Kiwala*o*s brother and heir at Puukohola, a luakini hejau, Kamehameha gradually won the right to rule all of the island of Hawaii (Kamakau 1961s'107-56). Throughout this period Ku-ka'ili moku was a prominent symbol of the legitimate right to the use of force0
Various references in the ethnohistoric literature (Lisiansky
1 8 1 U s 109; Halo 1 9 5 1 s 167| von Kotzebue 1821s 2^8) suggest that power ful chiefs other than the ali'i hui identified with various manifesta tions of gods. Certain of these "personal gods" on islands other than
Hawaii apparently served in the same capacity as Ku-ka-'ili-moku,
Ka-hekili, ali'i nui of Maui and contemporary of Kemehameha, "delighted in war and fought many battles , . « (Kamakau 1961s 166),
While he ruled over Maui, Molokai, Lanai, and Oahu he appro priated to himself the gods of these islands. Here are the names of the gods he worshiped as a means of keeping control over the governments Ku-ke-oloewa, Kuho'one1e-nu'u, Kalai- pahoa, Ololupe, Kameha'ikana, Kala-mai-nu'u, and Kiha-wahine, Haumea, and Wali-nu'u. These gods were.deities whose heiaus were tabu and in which human sacrifices were offered (1961s l66)o
The second aspect of the power prerogative of the Hawaiian ali'i nui was the authority system, whose operation is most clearly ' 61 seen in the peace-time activities of the ali'i nut and the members of his governmento
Thus far, I have concentrated primarily upon the ali'i nui as the focal point of the power-monopolizing segment«, Power was trans lated into action by, and sometimes distributed through, the hierarchy of chiefs within the governmental party0 The two major functional elements within the government were the administrative chiefs and the higher priesthood0
Chiefs of the various districts of the mokupuni served both as members of the court and as resident administrators in the con stituent land divisions of the mokupunia References to early post contact retinues of chiefs accompanying ali'i nui suggest that the court of a powerful Hawaiian "king" often consisted of several hundred men (Kamakau 1961? l£6j Ledyard 1963? lit It; Tyerman and Bennet 1832?
IV, 88)o These men and their families from all indications, were not normally economic producers and were provided with food and other goods by the ali'i nui. The court included war leaders, members of a council of chiefs, numerous warriors, in addition to various rela tives of the chief administrators, servants and hangers-on (Beckwith
1932? 122-3U? Brigham 1868? 7-8; Campbell 1967? 1353 Dixon 1789? 98;
Kamakau 1961? 7, 13U; Lisiansky l8llt? 73)° Most of the members of court who held political office were probably of ali'i (chiefly) rank, though Handy (1931? 11-12) notes that a "commoner distinguished by superior knowledge and sagacity. . c" often was appointed to the office of kalaimoku, the chief counselor or "prime minister*" He might 62 continue in office through the rule of several aliti nui and then might be succeeded by his son.
In peace-time^ the Hawaiian ali1! nui employed several tech niques to maintain control of the mokupuni« • In order to maintain contact with various parts of his realm,, for example $ he would change his residence (and thuss the location of the administrative center) periodically (Davenport 1969: Kamakau 1961! 77| Townsend 1888; 16)„
Some of the administrative centers on Hawaii noted above in the sum mary of Kamakau!s traditional history were Kailau, Kona; Kawaihaes
Kohala| Wapi* o, Hamakua; and Hilo in Hilo district«, Each of these settlements appears to have been politically more important than others during various periods in the political history of the island0
Another technique used by the ali1! nui involved the manipu lation of the members of the court itselfo For example* to avoid the threat of rebellion* Kamehameha
often summoned the chiefs to come and live with him* and he discouraged their living far away in the back country where they might gather men about them and some day take it into their heads to conspire against his rule„ When he saw any chief collecting a number of retainers about him* he would summon the chief to him at Kawaihae or some such place; when the provisions ran short the hangers-on had to go back to the country* but the chief was always provided with food* fish* tapa and everything he needed for his wants (Kamakau 1961; 178). .
A third administrative technique employed by the ali* i nui for the political integration of the mokupuni involved, the constituent moku and ahupua1a of the realm. When a new ali1! nui came to power* he had the right to dispossess the administrative officers who had " ■ 63 served as members of the old government and redistribute the offices among his own supporters and relatives (Davenport 1969: Malo 19^1:
192j Sahlins 1958s 163-6U)e , Due to complicated ties of kinship and political alliancess some chiefs probably maintained their offices through the administration of more than one ali'i nui.
Ideally$ the administrative system of the Hawaiian mokupuni consisted of an allt i !ai ahupua!a in each ahupua1a who was respon sible to the ali'i 'ai moku of the district^ who in turn was respon sible to the ali'i nui» When this branching system was operating efficientlyg demands as well as various gifts and political favors were passed downward through the hierarchy and various economic pro ducts s military assistance and labor forces were provided by the lower branches of the hierarchy from each constituent ahupua*a.
A major concern of the administrative hierarchy in time of peace was the provisioning of the governmental segment (whose member ship consisted almost entirely of members of the upper class) with sufficient economic produce, in the form of both food and craft items e
The chiefs of the branching administrative hierarchy were aided in this task by the second element of Hawaiian government, the priesthood in their capacity as organizers of the "makahiki" festival
Malo (1951s lUl-52) provides us.with the most extensive dis cussion of "makahiki,11 The makahiki season comprised the last four months of the Hawaiian year, corresponding roughly to November through
February, During the various designated kapu days of makahiki , e men, women and chiefs rested and abstained from all work, . . , The 6h people did not engage in the usual religious observances during the time, nor did the chiefs| their worship consisted of making offerings of food and other produce„ The king himself abstained from work on the makahiki days" (19^1: lljl) 0 Although the usual religious cere monies were suspended during makahiki, the priests performed ceremonies at various times and apparently aided in the actual operation of the
"tax collection*"
The primary function of makahiki insofar as the operation and integration of the mokupuni was concerned was the collection of the economic produce of each ahupua'a in the mokupuni by representatives of the ali*i null The collection of goods was supervised in each ahupua* a by a konohiki6 The term "konohiki" is applied to the repre sentatives of the government and is apparently equivalent to the ali1!
*ai ahupua? a referred to by Handy and Pukui (1958i 5)„
On the 20th day of the makahiki season, after the goods, in cluding kapa (bark cloth) and dogs had been contributed, they were distributed to the followers of the ali'i nui (king)*
The distribution was as follows: first the portion for • the king's gods was assigned, that the kahu of the gods might have means of supportj then the portion of the king's kahuna; then that for the queen and the king's favorites, and all the aialo who ate at his table* After this, por tions were assigned, to the remaining chiefs and to the dif ferent military companies0
To the more important chiefs, with many followers, was given a large portion; to the lesser chiefs, with fewer followers, a smaller portion. This was the general principle on which the division of all this property was made among the chiefs, soldiery (puali) and aialo,
No share of this property, however was given to the people (Halo 1951: emphasis added)! ! 65
A few days later^ a procession led by an image of the makahikl
god began its route around the mokupuni. By the. time the procession
had arrived at each ahupua'a, the konohlki of these and other land
divisions .
e o ® had collected the taxes for the Makahiki, and had pre sented them as offerings to the god; and. so it was done all round the island0
This tax for the Makahiki god consisted of such things as feathers of the o~os rnamo5 and iiwi; swine; tapa and bundles of pounded taro (paiai) to serve as food for those who carried the idolo On the large districts a heavy tax was imposed, and the smaller ones a lighter tax* If the tax of any dis trict was not ready in time, the konohlki was put off his land by the tax collector. The konohlki was expected to have all the taxes of the district /sic/ collected beforehand and deposited at the border of the ahupua’a, where was built an altar (Malo 1951s 1U5-U6).
As the makahiki party, composed of priests and other members
of the government,• left each ahupua’a, its demands satisfied, the kapu
(taboo) was lifted and the people were able to tend their fields again
. (1951$ li46~U9).
The makahiki season ended when the "tax collectors" returned
to the residence of the all * i nui and placed the makahiki god-image
in the luakini heiau-(1951$ 150=51)e Malo's account suggests that
non-perishables constitutes the bulk of the goods collected at this
time. It is reasonable to suggest that quotas of taro and sweet
potatoes, for example, which were both perishable and somewhat bulky
were promised to the ali'i nui and the governmental party for the
coming year at this time and were provided periodically by the various
ahupua* a upon governmental demand. 66
The first act of the alitl nul after the end of the Makahiki season was to initiate the "normal" ceremonial and political activities of the mokupuni by choosing to follow the worship of Rus representing war, or Lono, representing agricultural abundance and peace0
There were two rituals which the king in his eminent sta- • tion used in.the worship of the gods? one was the ritual of Ku, the other that of Lono® The Ku ritual was very strict (oolea), the service most, arduous (ikaika)„ The priests of this rite were distinct from the others and outranked them® They were called priests of the order of Ku, because Ku was the highest god whom the king worshipped in following their ritual® They were also called priests of the order of Kanalu, because that was the name of their first priestly ancestor® These two names were their titles of highest distinction®
The Lono ritual was milder, the service more comfortable® Its priests were, however, of a separate order and of an inferior grade» They were said to be of the order of Lono (moo-Lono), because Lono was the chief object of the king's worship when he followed the ritual® The priests of this ritual were also said to be of the order of Paliku (Halo 1951; 159)c
Ceremonies were preceded by the building of a new heiau
(temple) or the refurbishing of an old one, abandoned since its last use® If the ali'i nui chose to worship Lono he dedicated one of the heiau termed hoouluulu (hoouluulu'at, to make food grow? (1951s 160,
1?6)® The kapu period for the dedication of such a structure was as short as three days and the ceremonies were relatively simple® After the hoouluulu heiau of the ali'i nui had been dedicated, chiefs throughout the mokupuni were allowed to dedicate similar structures ®
As noted previously, the ceremonies for agricultural increase were the concern and responsibility of all chiefs of the mokupuni, but the right to initiate the ceremonies to Ku in a luakini heiau. was the 67 right of the alx!i nui alone* The dedication of such a heiau was long and arduous and required at least two and as many as four human.sacri fices (Malo 1951: 166, 170, 172, l?U)o
When the people and the priests saw that the services of the luakini were well-conducted, they began to have confi dence in the stability of the government, and they put up other places of worship, such as the mapele, the kukoea, and the hale-o-lono* These heiau were of the kind known as hoouTuulu (hoouluulu ai, to make food grow) and were to bring rain from heaven and make the crops abundant, bringing wealth to the people, blessing to the government, prosperity to the land. After this, the king must needs make a circuit of the island, building heiau and dedicating them with religious services| traveling first with the island on his right hand (ma ka akau o ka mokupuni e hele mua ai). This progress was called ulu akau, growth to the right. When this circuit was accomplished another one was made, going in the opposite direction, to the left. This was termed hoi hema, return to . the left, It was likewise conducted with prayers to the gods. All the alii below the king worshipped regularly each month and from year to year in their heiau (1951: 176),
The legal system Of a primitive state is not expected to be highly developed according to the primitive state model since the rule of law has not yet permeated the entire society at this evolutionary stage. Laws can be expected to develop first with direct reference to the perpetuation of the government. If a law is defined as a "rule of conduct enforced by sanctions administered by a determinate locus of power" (Fried 1967: 20), the authority system of the Hawaiian govern ment included incipient development of a legal system. Examples of behavior affected by laws are the act of rebellion by a moku chief and the failure of a konohiki to fill his quota during makahiki tax col lection, In the former case, a rebel chief such as I-maka-koloa, of
Puna district was executed and sacrificed not as a sovereign ali'i nui but as a criminal who had challenged the legitimacy of the government’s power prerogative (Kamakau 1961: 107-9)o A konohlki who was unwilling or unable to gather the required amount of produce from the residents of his ahupua1 a during makahiki was "put off his land by the tax col- lector"(Malo 19£ls 1U5-U6),
Frear (I88I4.S 2) suggests that in. most cases which did not involve chiefs with political power the legal system did not apply0
The usual method of obtaining redress was for injured parties or their friends to take the law into their own hands and retaliates as for instance in cases of assault or murder6 The offender might,, however, escape by fleeing to a city of refuge (puu honua)« In cases of theft the injured party went to the thief’s house and took whatever he could find ~ the thief, even though the stronger of the two, being restrained by public sentiment from offering resistance*
In a real sense certain of the kapu, which were part of an ancient Polynesian system of sacred rather than legal sanctions became true laws when their infraction was punished by the legally consti tuted government, Although occasional references are found to non- lethal punishment such as banishment and blinding (Arago 1823: 139, lUlj Frear 188U: 3”10, it is more common to find references to capital punishment (Arago 1823: 137-111j Dixon 1789: 103; Frear I88I1.: it; Handy
1931: 31I Thrum 192U: 19)» In most cases the victim (who is often sacrificed afterwards) is referred to as one who has broken a kapu*
'The Hawaiian Primitive State
The evidence presented above in support of the Hawaiian primi tive state hypothesis, suggests that a state society had evolved on the island of Hawaii prior to contact with Europeans in 1778* Although most of the detailed data are derived from ethnohistorio rather than traditional sources, the essential features of the hypothesized state society had probably existed and developed for more than 275 years prior to this, since the traditional evidence for the existence of a power-monopolizing faction extends to the mid-l6th century. Similar primitive states were probably based on Maui and Oahu as well (Kamakau
1961; 66-75)e Fried (1967: 232) has suggested that "tandem" develop ment of pristine states would not be an unusual phenomenon.
This development is helped by rivalry, trade, warfare, and communication in sharpening, needs for more political special ization, for more professional organization, and for tighter internal control, .
According to the hypothesis, the Hawaiian state society, that had evolved from a chiefdom of Polynesian type is identifiable on the basis of empirical data developed from the study of known states in other parts of the world (the primitive state model). The Hawaiian primitive state can best be summarized in terms of the following inter related phenomena which, by definition occur only in true states: (l) conquest warfare, (2) kingship, (3) government, (it) socioeconomic classes, (5) taxation, and (6) laws,
Kamakau1s account of .11 generations of chiefs on Hawaii island shows that warfare: was an instrument of policy of numerous ali'i nui which was aimed at incorporating geo-social units (people, land and their productive potential) into existing political units for the pur poses of defense and economic and political advantage. In most cases, the units of conquest were not the individual productive units (the 70 ahupuaja.) but rather complete chiefdoms (moku), and the symbol of con quest was usually the death and sometimes the sacrifice of the para mount chief of the chiefdom (ali'i 8ai moku)»
The maka'ainana warriors, then, fought for the chiefs and their chiefdoms rather than for their individual communities0 Despite the fact that administrative positions in moku and ahupua'a were some times redistributed, the maka!ainana usually maintained use-rights to their ahupuala through many political upheavals,
The term mokupuni has been used here to mean the maximal socio political entity, at least one constituent unit of which is incorpo rated by political rather than kinship ties* Mokupuni can be translated as "state society*". At the top of the political pyramid was the office of ali1i nui. In some cases, this office was occupied by an individual of very high rank, some of whom, were eldest sons of former ali'i nui* We have seen, however, that the majority of ali1! nui of Hawaii island attained the office through political prowess
and military skill, rather than the operation of kinship mechanisms*
Regardless of his rank in the kinship structure, the rights that were
held exclusively by the ali'i nui were those having to do with the
luakini heiau, human sacrifice, the "war god," the declaration of war
and other prerogatives related to the monopoly of political power*
For all of these reasons, ali'i nui may be translated "king*"
Earlier I suggested that the members of Hawaiian communities probably maintained ties of kinship only within a relatively small
geographical area and for short periods of time* Fictive kinship 71 sometimes helped give the people of a moku a sense of identity (Handy and Pukui 195>8: viii~ix)0 I further maintain that, in uniting all . < moku of Hawaii island the ali8 i nui such as 'Umi, Alapa'i and Kame- hameha extended political control beyond the limits of kinship6 The ali'i nui .and his governmental administrators ruled a political unit consisting of communities in six districts (moku) which maintained kin ties with neither the governmental segment nor other communities within the mokupuni0
The economic and social patterns of a kin-based society,
Sahlins points out, are limiting features of a primitive (non-state) societye In referring to Polynesian chiefdoms he states s
Never detached from kinship moorings, even the highest chiefs were conceived superior kinsmen to their people and morally obliged to be generous e On the other hand, chiefs were forced e „ e to demand beyond their just due the people’s services and goods, and to convert an undue proportion of the general wealth into a swollen chiefly establishment„ Funding his authority, a paramount would undermine it, and with the scepter of rule conjure the spectre qf rebellion (1968: 92)e
"Where kinship is king, the king is in the last analysis only kinsman, and something less than royal„ The same bonds that link a chief to the underlying population and give him 'his authority, in the end tie his hands" (1968: 93)» According to the Hawaiian primitive statehood hypothesis the ali’i nui of the Hawaiian mokupuni was a true king of a true state because he was no longer the paramount member of a society-wide kinship structure0
The ali'i nui was the focus of the power-monopolizing segment of the Hawaiian mokupuni„ Without the support of the other members of the governments howevers his claim to the power prerogative would
have been empty0 Broadly speaking, the government consisted of all
the chiefs, priests and commoners to whom administrative duties were
assigned throughout the political hierarchy*. The core of the .govern
ment, however, consisted mostly of chiefs who were closely allied to
the ali*i nui through kin ties and/or interest. Most of the important
members of this core group appear to have been chiefs of relatively
high rank and/or political ability such as the ali*1 1ai moku, their
relatives and supporterse Thus we see repeated references to the
."Kona chiefs" and the "Hilo chiefs," for examplee These chiefs pro
vided advice, military and administrative abilities and quotas of
produce, soldiers and laborers e The activities of the government were
localized to a degree in the administrative center at the residence
of the king and his court, but as we have seen, the administrative
center was shifted from time to time to ensure the smooth functioning
of the realm* The konohiki or ali*i 'ai abupua1a may be referred to
as "civil servants" or members of an "incipient bureaucracy." During
the preparations for makahiki it was their duty to ensure the satis
faction of the demands of the upper echelons of government* Relatively
little is known Of the pre-contact konohiki except for their makahiki
responsibilities* It is probable, however, that they lived in the
respective communities for which they were responsible, and implemented
the periodic demands of the government for goods and services*
Through the operation of a system of political authority and
occasionally applied force, the Hawaiian government defended its ; 73 sovereignty and maintained the integration of the sociopolitical wholes which consisted of numerous communities, none of which maintained mutual interests or kinship ties with a significant proportion of other ahupua'a« Paralleling, but not coterminous with the Hawaiian govern mental and community segments were two socioeconomic classese
The lower class consisted of the economic producers, primarily the farmers and fishermen of the maka*ainana ("commoner") status level»
Pull and part-time craftsmen are also included in this class as eco nomic producers* I have suggested that the commoners were concerned through kinship ties and interest with the people and activities of their own community* The evidence available suggests that inter community marriage certainly took place, but community endogamy was allowed and was possibly a common practice* From an economic stand point the area of concern of each individual community (the ahupua1a-
1ohana) extended from the ocean to the lower portions of the forest and ideally all strategic resources were available within the bound aries of the ahupua'a* The patterns of distribution of relatively rare raw materials such as high quality basalt for adzes and trachyte for cutting tools has not yet been explored by Hawaiian archaeologists«
Studies of these patterns in relation to their sources may indicate trading patterns throughout whole districts or islands * For the pur- . poses of this thesis, however, the economic self-sufficiency of the ahupua'a is tentatively accepted as a hypothesis to be tested in future ethnohistoric and archaeological research* Thus, trade of strategic items between individual communities was probably minimal and did not contribute appreciably to the integration of districts,
chiefdoras or the Hawaiian state0 Extra-community activities and inter
ests appear, rather, to have been imposed upon the members of various
communities by the government through the operation of the military,
taxation and corvee aspects of the economic system* All able-bodied men, for example, were potential soldiers for wars pursued as a matter
of governmental policy (Emory 1965b: 233).I a portion of all the produce
of the community went to the government every year, during the
makahiki festival, a series of ceremonies and contests in which people
from various communities mingled (Malo 195>1: lUl-58); and the govern
ment could call upon large numbers of men for "public works projects,"
such as building Puukohola heiau on Hawaii (Kamakau 1961; i S h ) or the
construction of large agricultural systems (1961: 132)0
■ . The upper class consisted of those who obtained strategic
goods and other economic products by indirect means„ This class in
cluded the members of the governmental party (the majority of which
were chiefs and priests but which also included individuals who had
been born commoners) who specialized in various aspects of administra
tion rather than production. In addition, Kamakau*s traditional
history and other sources suggest that at any particular time there
might be other non-producers in some of the districts who were not
members of the mokupuni governmental hierarchy. These individuals
were the heriditary ali*i of the districts and are identified with
their districts as, for example, "the Hilo chiefs" or "the Kona
chiefs." Much of the traditional history recounted by Kamakau (1961) 75 is concerned with various sociopolitical units composed of various
combinations of moku'and the shift of political power between various,
"parties" of chiefs'. When the chiefs of one district came to power
through the use.of force, the chiefs of a rival district except for
the actual political leaders, were often allowed to live at the end of
the hostilities. It seems, to have been a policy of ali'i nui not to
allow a politically resourceful chief to gain too much control within
the government. Some rival chiefs were apparently absorbed into the
governmental hierarchy. Others apparently retired from active mili
tary or political life and continued to benefit from their status as
members of the upper class to the extent of being supported by the
commoners of the district. ^
In addition to its position and function in the economic struc
ture of the society, the upper class was clearly differentiated from
the lower with respect to kinship relations, nature and scope of pro-
. fessional interests and political position. Kamakau (1961; If?, 6U)
refers several times to the descendants of Hawaiian ali'i nui by saying
that the latter were "the ancestor/s7 of chiefs and commoners.” In
general, however, members of the upper class married only among them
selves. In a genealogy of 100 individuals discussed by Kamakau (1961)
in terms of their importance in the political history of Hawaii island
from Liloa (01) to Kamehameha (Oil), the only person of maka'ainana
rank was 'TJmi's mother. In marked contrast to the maka'alnana marriage
patterns sketched above, fully 23 of the 100 individuals in the gene
alogy were, spouses of Hawaii island chiefs who came from Maui (12), Molokai (1)s Oahu (5) and Kauai (5)® In relation to these marriages and for other reasonss the politically important chiefs often took inter-island trips® Clearly the social horizons of the upper class were broader than those of the lower0
Sahlins (1968; 2lt) notes that in chiefdoms in general:
Where rank is ® ® ® linked to descent «> status positions are often so subtely differentiated that no one can say, or will admit, where 'chiefliness1 leaves off, and 'commonality1 begins® 'Commoners' are usually kinsmen of 'nobles,1 and the indigenous terms are applied relatively ® ® ® ®
This was true to some extent in Hawaii5 the characteristics of the
Hawaiian chiefdom had hot yet been completely overlain or obscured by the developing state„ Thus, for example, Kamakau (I96I4.: U-6) lists 11 ranks of chief, the lowest two of which are called "ali'i noanoa
('noa* indicates absence of mana or power) and, all'i maka'ainana«,11
It is to be expected that characteristics of an older socio cultural configuration remain in an evolving society (Service 1962:
173)o The chiefs in the genealogy noted above demonstrate the combi nation of values of the Hawaiian chiefdom and the evolving Hawaiian state that was incorporating it„ For example, three.concepts that are commonly confused in the ethnohistoric literature are represented in relation to the terms "ali'i" or "chiefs" Rank, a characteristic of chiefdoms, and socioeconomic class and political office both of which are related to the state® The 100 individuals in the genealogy vary
in rank, from the most sacred (ni'aupi'o) to ali'i noanoa (Umi) and maka'ainana| most of them were probably ali'i in the sense of members
of the upper class by reason of their status as non-producers® 77
.Thirdly* many of the men and women that form the basis of the genealogy held identifiable political offices in the government. Thus* an
"ali'i" might occupy any or all of three types of status within the
Hawaiian sociopolitical system.
As we have seen previously* the interests of the governmental officials* who formed the major part of the upper class centered around economic administration (rather than production as such) and military and political skills® They were trained in these matters from childhood through practical experience and formal education (Malo
1951! 53“U| Kamakau 1961: 70$ Buck 1965: 165)® They were often iden tified by the district of their origin in contrast to the identifica tion of the maka*ainana with their individual ahupua'a as the locus of economic production and social interaction® Throughout the traditional history the districts are the units of military conquest and political administration (Kamakau 1961)»
Much has been written about the religious* social and political implications of the abolition of the kapu system in 1819 (Handy 1931|
Davenport 1969* Levin 1968$ Fischer 1970$ Kroeber 1958: 503-5)®
Recently Davenport (1969)* Levin (1968) and Fischer (1970) have sug gested that the deliberate flouting of various highly sacred kapu by
Kamehameha's widow and his son and successor in order to show their
impotence and to do away with them was.more important in a political
than a religious context® Of interest here is the fact that this
"revolution from the top" demonstrates another aspect of the dichotomy that existed between the Hawaiian socioeconomic classes® One aspect 78 of the abolition was that the four major gods were no longer worshiped in the state-supported heiau as a matter of government policye Yet the common people continued to make use of the small heiau and shrines for ceremonies and offerings pertaining to individual and family health, for safe journeys, good fishing and other matters of personal and community intereste Usually, the various 'aumakua (personal guardian spirits) rather than the four major akua (gods) were worshiped in shrines and local heiau (Handy 196^: 6l)„ During von Kotzebue's visit to the islands in 1816-1817, he observed:
Every great chief has his peculiar gods (Akua), the idols of which are represented in his moral /heiau/. Others, have different ones. The worship of these idols appears to be more for distinguished parade than religion. The common people must do without these idols, and they make various creatures, birds, fowls, etc. for the object of their worship . (1821: 2U8 ).
Missionaries Tyerman and Bennet (1832: 73°-U) felt constrained to destroy "/u/pwards of three score" roadside shrines near Honolulu that were still in use three years after the abolition of the kapu system. . . . , -
The Hawaiians still believed that supernatural aid could be enlisted from the lower gods, such as Pele and Kanohoali'i, tutelary dieties, and one's own ancestral spirits. Even up until the early twentieth century there still existed the belief that the, kahuna 'ana'anakuni "sorcerer-priest" could still pray someone to death (Levin 1968: ij.26).
Offerings such as cans of beer and more conventional food bundles are found at fishing shrines to this day (McAllister 1933b:15j Bennett 1931°
1*8). The abolition of the state religion, in part because it was no longer a necessary adjunct to the power monopoly had relatively little effect on the religious practices of the lower class, thus demonstrating the degree to which the "state religion" and "peasant" religion were separated,
A major concern of the upper class and a major duty of the government was the collection of produce and promises of produce during the makahiki season. This collection is referred to here as taxation rather than redistribution for two reasons, First5 the collectors of produce were members of government and the collection was sanctioned by the power-monopoly rather than by the requirements of the kinship structure. Second, although the redistribution aspect of the chief- doms incorporated in the Hawaiian state continued to operate in the makahiki collections, the emphasis appears to have shifted to a sig nificant extent toward the. provisioning of the governmental segment0
Malo (195-Is lii-3 ), for example, in the passage quoted earlier, states that the ali'i nui and his court received the first portion of produce, that the other chiefly members of the government received the second portion, "No share of this property, however, was given to the people"
(Malo 195»1: lli3)«. Redistribution seems to have occurred at the ahupuala level, though Malo is unclear on this point„
The Hawaiian state hypothesized here was a relatively unstable sociopolitical structure in the process of evolving from a Polynesian- type chiefdom at the time of contact. Its instability was largely a function of the fact that the authority system had not yet been so highly developed that it rendered overt force unnecessary in matters such as kingly succession and the maintenance of internal order. Ex tending throughout the Hawaiian state were members of the ali'i status ; 80 level and others, who formed the hierarchial framework of governmente
Because Hawaii was a relatively primitive state the activities of government had not yet developed beyond those directly connected with defense of sovereignty<, The Hawaiian government was legitimised % through the application of power~monopoly and the operation of the kapu- system which provided sacred sanction. The legal system., which in
Hawaii combined aspects of political power and sacred sanction had not. been highly elaborated prior to European contact or for some time afterwards, Lisiansky (I8U4; 117-18 )$ for example$ was shocked that a man who had killed his own son during a quarrel with his wife "was not an offender liable to punishments since by killing his childs he had injured no one but himself," As demonstrated previously, however, laws, whether stated as secular rules or sacred kapu were strictly enforced when they concerned the government. : .PART II
THE HAWAIIAN PRIMITIVE STATE.HYPOTHESIS
, THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE
81 CHAPTER U
A FUNCTIOML CLASSIFICATION : .
OF HAWAIIAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL-SITES
The ethnohistoric literature has not yet been fully explored by social scientists in search of ancient Hawaiian cultural patterns and processes® Unpublished manuscripts# interviews and documents as well as new analytical frameworks will still add to our knowledge of pre=contact Hawaii for years to come® Yet the ethnohistoric sources are very incomplete with regard to specific data about the function ing cultures particularly at the community level® The literature is replete with tantalizingly isolated bits of information, incomplete descriptions and unsupported generalizations®
Subsurface archaeology, a relatively new phenomenon in Hawaii has begun to contribute many specific data concerning cultural pat terns and processes® A major contribution has been the introduction of a chronology® While the work on this basic historical framework continues, the application of ethnohistoric and ecological analysis to the growing body of data has begun to result in a productive ex ploration of cultural processes in pre-contact Hawaii®
In this section I present a portion of the archaeological evidence that can be used to support and refine the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis and to clarify many aspects of the actual operation
' 82 " 83 of the Hawaiian sociopolitical systems„ For the purposes of this thesis, I have narrowed the range of data with respect to both subject matter and approache The archaeological data discussed here are the non-portable artifacts and their arrangement, in settlement patterns in late precontact Hawaiic
Just as the definition of the Hawaiian primitive state rather ■ than its origin was stressed in the first section, the synchronic approach is used here to delineate its archaeological patterns rather than the processes of its developments In most cases, the late pre contact derivation of the sites and patterns is assumed, since only a small number of Hawaiian sites have thus far been accurately dated.
Green's discussion of the value of studies of Polynesian "field monuments" (sites with visible surface remains) applies quite well to
the present study, which excludes portable artifacts as a source of information.
In Polynesia many such field monuments are legitimately treated as artifacts equal to those of the portable variety They are amenable, moreover, to similar types of description, classification and interpretation. Thus, with the development of settlement pattern, studies in archaeology and increasing concern with delineating the social aspect of the data recovered from sites as well, the day has passed when such monuments or their structural features can afford to be treated only as contexts for portable artifacts and not as artifacts in their own right. This is particularly so in Polynesia where it is often the case.that the portable arti facts within a field monument are few.in number and not necessarily diagnostic of time, space, and cultural relation ships while the monuments themselves and their structural features are numerous, varied in form and may, after suffi cient study, prove to exhibit such relationships (Green 1967: 102)e ' 8U Hawaiian intra-, and intersite patterns are discussed, here in terras of both form and function* The basic unit of the formal classi fication is the archaeological feature| that of the functional classi fication is the archaeological site, composed of one or more features»
The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate ways in which patterns of non-portable artifacts may be used to support the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis e Throughout this discussion the existence of the Hawaiian state is held to be a hypothesis that is strongly supported by the ethnohistoric literaturee The adjective "hypotheti cal" may be assumed in all references to the "state,," "kingss" "tax collection" and other characteristics of the true state as discussed in Part I«
Hawaiian archaeological sites are categorized here according to three levels of sociopolitical organization crosscut by three func tional categories. The three sociopolitical levels are (l) the
(extended) family; (2 ) the community (pertaining to social groups larger than a single family and no larger than the "ahupua1 a- 1 ohana."); and (3) the state (including the moku as a constituent district of the mokupuni)6
The three functional categories are (a) economics having to do with production, preparation and storage of economic goods; (b) social, broadly including archaeological sites pertaining to habita tion and social interaction; and (c) ideological, including sites that functioned in the contexts of politics /pertaining to affairs of public policy (Fried 196?: 20-21)7? or. religion (pertaining to rela tionships with the supernatural), or both. 85 Many of the sites discussed below couldj it will be seen, appear legitimately in two or more categories = An ahupua8 a shrine, for example, is directly related to the community as an economic pro ductive unit and to government, representing: the state, in the politi cal contexto Such sites are assigned to a category with reference to the relative importance of its various functions in support of the
Hawaiian primitive state hypothesise •
Archaeological Sites of Economic Function
Included here are archaeological sites (that is, places with evidence of human activity in the past) located at sources of raw materials and sites where such materials were processed and prepared for human use* Raw materials may be categorized according to source
(broadly marine or terrestrial), material (organic or inorganic), and use (as food or non-food)„
"Pish, including shellfish, were the main protein-giving ele ments of the Hawaiian diet. Pig, dog, chicken and wild birds furnished some additional proteins but the comparatively small supply marked• them more for the chiefs' than commoners’ use" (Titcomb 1952s 1)<>
Halo’s discussion of marine food animals includes Hawaiian terms for
10? fish, 19 shell fish, 13 crustaceans, nine miscellaneous inverte brates, five echinoderms, three cetaceans (reserved for chiefs only), one type of sea turtle, the octopus and the squid (1951s U5*=7) =>
Newman (n6d0; 5U, 60) states that on the basis of ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence that most marine food resources were derived from the inshore area. 86
The inshore or reef habitat extends from the above sur~ . face splash and surge pools to a depth of about 180 feet o o o o The largest marine biomass (total living weight) is found in this inshore habitat and it was the habitat most extensively exploited by Hawaiians «, „ „ (ned6s 12)0
Other food items from the ocean included seaweed (limu) and
salt o
Salt was one of the necessaries f s x c j and was a condi ment used with fish and meat, also as a relish with fresh food. Salt was manufactured only in certain places, The women brought sea water in calabashes or conducted it in ditches to natural holes, hollowss and shallow ponds (kaheka) on the sea coast, where it soon became strong brine from evaporation. Thence it was transferred to another hollow, or shallow vat, where crystallization into salt was completed (Malo 1951s 123),
Marine non-food resources included pearl shell and some turtle
shell for the manufacture of fishhooks (Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1968;
21) and echinoderm spines and coral, both of which were used as
abrading tools in fishhook manufacture. Chunks of coral were often used in the walls and pavements of shrines, and heiau and apparently
symbolized sacredness in this context.
Inorganic terrestrial resources included fresh water for
drinking and irrigation and stones for construction and tool manu
facture , Water was an important determinant of settlement and agri
cultural development. Most concentrations of habitation sites are
found near permanent sources of sweet or brackish water in the form
of streams and springs, and the most elaborate and extensive field
systems were watered by systems of irrigation canals.
In general, the Hawaiians built their dry masonry structures
of stones that were readily available in the immediate vicinity of 87 the building site* Thus, for the most part, structures of varying function and importance would be constructed of locally available forms of fine dr coarse-grained, rough or water-worn, slab-form or block-form or pahoehoe basalte In certain locations blocks of "lime stone" from emerged reefs were used, Water-worn pebbles, termed
1ili'ill were often carried from the seashore for use as paving 6
Terrestrial organic food resources included a variety of wild and domestic plants and animals0 A. number of wild plants were col lected by the Hawaiians but they formed a major part of the diet only in time of famine (Buck I9 6 I4.: 6-7| Handy 19h.O; 21ii-l6)eBuck (196Ii:
6 ) lists lit wild foods, including the pith of the tree fern (Cibotium chamissoi), the tuber of the morning glory (Ipomoea sp6) and leaves. and young shoots of lamb's quarters (Chenopodium oahuense and C. album) * These famine foods were also fed to pigs„
Buck (I9 6 I4.S 7=11) lists ten domesticated food plants that were introduced to the islands by the Polynesian settlers« According to.
Buck, the three most important crops were taro (kalo; Colocasia esculenta), which was grown both in irrigated fields and dry (kula) areas| sweet potato ('uala, 1uwala; Ipomoea batatas), the principle dry land crop, and breadfruit ((ulu| Artocarpus incisus)«, The other crops are coconut (niu; Cocos nucifera); banana (mai'a; Musa sppc); yam (uhi; Dioscorea alata); Polynesian arrowroot (pia; Tacca leorito- petaloides); ti (ki; Cordyline terminalis); and sugar cane (koj
Saccharum officiarum). Kava (1awa; Piper methysticum) is another introduced food plantA refreshing drink was prepared from its root
(Buck 196ij.t 66) c 88
Non-food plants were cultivated and. collected as sources of raw materials for arts and crafts. Some of the more, important examples are: paper mulberry (waukeg Broussonetia papyrifera), cultivated for its inner bark used in making kapu (bark cloth; Buck I96I1.; 168); the bottle gourd (ipu; Lagenaria siceraria), cultivated as containers
(196h; 11); pandanus (hala; Pandanus odoratissimus), the leaves of which were plaited into mats (I96I1.: 11); the aerial roots of the 'ie'ie
(Freycinetia arborea) s used in making twined baskets (196^: lUl); and olona (Touchardia latifolia), an important source of fiber for fish nets (196U: 290), '
Malo (1951$ 20-22) discusses 28 varieties of trees and lists craft items for which each is best suited. For example, koa (Acacia koa) the largest native tree, was used in making canoes, surfboards, paddles and spears (1951s 20), Kolea (Myrsine lessertiano (Myrsine lessertiana), koaie (Acacia koaie) and alii (or 1 a * a.li? ig Dodonaea spp,) provided wood for houseposts (1951: 21), Kou (Cordia subcordata)
"is a tree of considerable size, the wood of which is specially used in making all sorts of platters, bowls and dishes, and a variety of other utensils" (1951s 22),
The Polynesian settlers brought with them three edible animals.
Pigs (pua'a; Bus scrofa) were raised by the commoners mostly for the chiefs and priests, and hundreds of them were offered during important religious ceremonies such as the dedication of a luakini heiau. Dogs
Qilio) were fed vegetables and were bred in large numbers for food.
They were eaten by commoners and chiefs alike (Titcomb 1969s 6-8), " 89' The third introduced animal was the domestic fowl (moaj Gallus gallus)
also grown for food (1969$ 3)«
Any of the native birds, large or small, land or sea, were considered good food, though some species were caught primarily for their feathers0 The smaller birds with yellow, red, black or green feathers, which were used for capes and cloaks, were caught in the moulting season by professional fOWlerS o « «, (1969: U)e
Streams were also a source of food0 "To women belonged <, <,«,
the larger part of the task of gathering fish and shellfish from the mountain pools and streams, the 1o1opu (gobies) and little shrimps
(!opae) and other varieties" (Titcomb 1932: it)o
It is assumed here that most ahupuala included marine and
terrestrial resources great enough to allow a high degree of self™
sufficiency® The major axis of orientation in the aboriginal economic
system extended from the ocean to the forest and was a major determi
nant of the "vertical" orientation of the community unit® . This major
orientation was imposed upon the community by the long, narrow land
segments, the ahupua'a, that in turn had been established to take
advantage of the scattered resources® Lyons (1873° 111) for example,
states that the average ahupuala bn the island of Hawaii was about
1000 feet in width (along the shore)® They appear to average five
miles along the "vertical" axis, from the shore into the forest zone®
The exploitation of the range of resources in Ka-’u district,
Hawaii is vividly described by Handy and Pukui (1938: 20=1)®
Beyond the shore the immediate landscape is one of rough irregular exposed black lava interspersed with small bushes and sparse tufty grasses, green from December till May, dry for the rest of the year® In the old days many footpaths 90
meandered seaward through this wide wasteland from the higher slopes miles inlands where there was soil enough for gardens„ The scattered homes and gardens of this lower zone of habita tion were those "of,the seaward slopes" (ko kula kai), where sweet potato and gourds were cultivated, but little else. These households had relatively easy access to the sea and consequently depended on shellfish, seaweed and inshore fish ing, and had these for exchange with relatives living further up the slopes e
Moisture increases and evaporation decreases with altitude here, so beyond the kula kai (the lowest habitable zone) were the dwellings "of the upland slopes” (ko kula uka), less accessible to the sea, but increasingly favorable for garden ing e In addition to sweet potato, dry land taro of the variety called Paua was planted, and sugar cane flourishedc Beyond this the open slopes (kula) became fern lands, then gradually merge with the lower forest (wao)«, In this zone where fern, bushes and small trees prosper other varieties of upland taro requiring more water were cultivated, under mulch to keep in the moisturee This continued right back into the lower forest® Here were the wild bananas, wild yam (Discorea) arrowroot (pia)j. and tree fern (Cibotium), whose starchy core was eaten, extending down into this zone from the rain forest«,
These zones were not fixed as to altitide. On the east, the wet uplands were wetter and extended lower than on the west, which was both beyond the range of heavy precipitation from trade winds and cut off somewhat by the shoulder of Mauna Loa to.Kalae®
Earlier I discussed the "horizontal" integrating mechanisms imposed by the government of the Hawaiian primitive state, linking communities. Other intercommunity links along the horizontal axis are hinted at in the ethnohistoric and archaeological literature„ Most of these references pertain to relatively rare resources found in only a few localities (such as fine basalt for adzes) or to resources that are widely distributed but especially abundant in particular localities
/such as certain types of fish (Titcomb 195>2? 8)7 that would promote intercommunity exchange® In the context of the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis the major problems to be investigated through the synchronic approach with reference to the sites of economic function concern abundance of resources, methods of exploitation and the con trol of distributiono Inter-ahupua * a variability is also of prime importance, since most statements concerning Hawaiian cultural patterns of all types in the ethnohistoric literature refer to the "average" or "ideal,” for which quantitative data is nearly always lacking rather than ranges of variation from the "norm,"
In the remainder of this chapter archaeological sites are briefly described according to function, together with various aspects of the Hawaii primitive state hypothesis„
Archaeological Sites of Food Production
Fishponds
Summers (l96Iis 1) found archaeological remains and ethnohis toric accounts of about 210 fishponds, not including smaller inland ponds, oh the main islands, She counts 20 on Hawaii, 16 on Maui, 5>8
on Molokai, 9.7 on Oahu and 12 on Kauai, In a more complete account
of the major sites of Molokai (Summers 1971) she lists 78 ponds,
The two major types were shore ponds and inland ponds. Shore ponds were either loko kuapa (fully enclosed) or loko umeikl (ponds with sluice gates). The former were often built in small natural bays,
Loko kuapa varied in size from one to 523 enclosed acres with walls up
to 5000 feet long. Walls averaged five feet in thickness and four feet in.height, An average sized fishpond of this type is estimated 92 to have required about a year for construction (Summers 19Ski 2-5>)o .
The gate, (makaha) set into the wall of a loko kuapa was made of verti cal sticks^ set about half an inch apart „ Fry could move freely through the spaces but could not return to sea once they had grown on the taro that was fed them in the pond0
The loko umeiki were also built along the shore and are found only on Molokai. The multiple sluice-gates built into the walls of this type of pond acted as fish traps. Fish that had drifted into the pond with the tide were caught with dip-nets when they attempted to return to sea through the sluice gates (I96I4.; 12-19) „
Inland ponds were of three types: (1) putuones connected by a channel or a stream to the sea; (2 ) loko. j'a kalo, wet taro fields in which fish were kept; and (3 ) loko wai, natural freshwater ponds
(19614 s 19-23) e
Fishponds were an important source of readily available protein for those who had the right to collect from them* The most important fish grown in ponds were mullet (tamatama; Mugll cephalus) and milkfish
(awa; Chanos chanos)s though several other varieties were common
(Summers I96I4; 2)e During the spawning season of a particular variety of fish it was kapu (prohibited) to catch it in the open sea but the kapu did not apply to fishponds* Thus, mullet, for example, were available only from fishponds from November through March (196I4: l)0
Most inland ponds were apparently used by the commoners of the ahupua1 a in which they were located (Summers I96I4? 19)o The col lecting rights to.the various sluice gates of the loko umeiki were ■ 93 also.maintained by commonersc Fishponds served to concentrate a rela tively large supply of food in a small area and simplified considerably the skills and equipment necessary to collect it0
That aquiculture was an important source of food for the common people seems apparent from the fact that where there were many or large fishponds the population was dense, as in the vicinity of Pearl Harbor and along part of the south coast of Molokai, even though the environment was not suit able for a flourishing agriculture (Coulter 1931s 10),
The enormous time and effort involved in building the larger loko kuapa required the organizational skills of the chiefs (Summers
196ij.; 2-Ljj Titcomb 1932s 6), and, in case of the Hawaiian states, the governmental segment, "Loko kuapa were owned by the kings and chiefs, and at their command were built by the common people" (Summers 196Us
2)„ A small thatched house was often built near the makaha of a loko kuapa for a guard who prevented theft of the chief’s fish (196Us 9)e
The larger pu’uone ponds "from several acres to over 300 in area, required many workers in their construction, and were for the use of chiefs (196L: 19)o The governmental officials also undoubtedly col lected portions of the catch from the. ponds built, maintained and fished by commoners as part of the tax levied on ahupua’a with ponds*
Salt-Making Sites
Semi-portable salt pans, made from basalt boulders ranging from about 1*3 feet to 3*3 feet in diameter with shallow abraded upper surfaces may once have been relatively common along the shores of the
Hawaiian islands* They have been recorded at a few archaeological sites (Newman n*d*: 197; Emory 1969; 83)« However, these pans are 9h
often collected by present residents as lavm decorations, Salt could
be collected from natural and artificial depressions along the shore
in many locations. Howeverj, on Hawaii, Molokai, Oahu and Kauai, cer
tain specialized sites are reported that may. have provided an item of
exchange for local residence*
At Kawaihae, Kohala, Hawaii, Menzies (1920: 55) reported seeing
a small salt water pond in the middle of the village
c o o banked in and surrounded with a number of little square dams into which the water was conducted from the pond to deposit its salt by evaporation „ , , the natives collected from these salterns a considerable quantity of very fine salt, not only sufficient for their own consumption, but they were likewise enabled to afford an ample supply of it to the dif ferent vessels which occasionally visited these islands'*
Two salt-making sites are briefly discussed by Summers (1971?
87# 91) on the island of Molokai, Here too, the data suggest that more salt was manufactured than was necessary for the local residents.
On Oahu, McAllister (1933b: 3b"5) notes four salt-making sites, two of
which were "100 feet or more long," Three salt-making sites are re
corded by Bennett (1931: 2b=5) on Kauai, , Kauai was famous for
the red salt of Makaweli made by mixing ordinary salt with a little
red dirt" (Bennett 1931: 2b), At Nomilu and Koloa beach the salt pans
, are divisioned beds, from a few feet square to bO by $ 0 feet
,,,, The partitions are made of stone, though in some of the larger
beds divisions are formed by separate depressions" (1931: 25), For
the people living near these salterns, salt may have been an important
item of exchange. Water Source Sites
A number of the early ethnohistoric sources note the meager
supply of water in many areas of the islands (Arago 1823s 63? Dondo
1959s k 3 > Macrae 1922; 5l| Menzies 1920; hOs 79, 87, 175? Tyerman and
Bennet 1832: 20, 71)« The presence of a fresh or brackish water
source appears to have been a major determinant of settlement patterns in precontact Hawaii, Springs were relatively.plentiful on Kauai
(Bennett 1931s 18), Oahu (McAllister 1933b;35) and sections of Hawaii,
Maui and Molokai0 Along the drier coasts of Ka-’u, Kona and Kohala
districts on Hawaii and on the smaller, barren islands of Kahoolawe
(Bennett 1931s h ) s Niihau (Hinds 1930: 90) and Nihoa (Emory 1928: 7)
and Meeker (1928: 51), however, water sources were quite rare. On
Lanai, Emory (1969: I46) found that
t e e most of the village sites and isolated house sites are far from springs or wells. The present natives say that in the days before sheep, goats, cattle and horses were grazing on the plateau lands, dew could be collected from the thick shrubbery by whipping the moisture into large bowls or squeezing the dripping bush-tops into the vessels. Oiled tapa was also spread on the ground to collect the dew. Water accumulating in natural depressions in rock or in cup marks was husbanded carefully.
On Lanai (Emory 1969s ^6-7), like the other main islands, how
ever, springs in the mountains and along the coast produced most of
the drinking water in those areas without streams. Coastal springs
produced a lens of fresh or brackish water perched on the salt water.
These lenses form pools in depressions in the bedrock and they are
sometimes enclosed, with masonry walls (Emory 1969: 1*7? Hommon 1969a:
7-8; Renger 1970: 16, 18), 96
Although the chiefs would be unable to withhold a necessity such as drinking water from the populace it is interesting to note that they did apparently exercise some control over spring water in some cases0 For. example, on Kauai, n / ± / n the corner of the heiau on
Nualolo flats is a. spring, two feet deep and two feet in diameter lined with stones, which is the only source of water for the flats"
(Bennett 193l)o The association of water source and ceremonial site is cleare Kaawaloa, on Kealakekua Bay, Kona, was one of the adminis trative centers on the island of Hawaii and was the residence of the ali!i nui Ka-lani-o-pu'u when Cook was killed there» Most of the relatively plentiful water supply was available to the commoners„
The pool called Haliilua, however, was kapu to commoners and reserved for chiefs only (Restarick 1928; 8)e
Animal Pens
Pigs were often eaten as part of ceremonies„ The rites of passage such as those celebrating the end of infancy (Malo 1931s 87), circumcision (1931s 93"U) and healing of the sick (1931s 93-6) in cluded the baking and eating of pigs, varying in number according to the rank of the sponsors of the ceremony and the number of partici pants e Pigs were also sacrificed in the dedication of both agricul- ) ' tural and luakini heiau (1931s 160, 163)« Ceremonies in the latter sometimes required as many as 800 or more pigs, which apparently were apportioned to the commoners as well as the chiefs and priests (1931s
172)0 . 97
During Makahiki v'
/c/ontributions of swine were not made9 but dogs were con tributed until the pens were full on them* The alii did not eat fresh pork during these months9 there being no temple service® They did9 however,, eat such pork as had previously been dressed.and cured while services were being held in the temples (Halo 1951; lU3)e
The chiefs and priests did not normally eat pork that had not been consecrated in heiau for their use (Campbell 196?: 93s 12lj.j Menzies
1920; 59)o
It is clear that the chiefs could command large numbers of dogs and pigs not only for ceremonies but also for feasts„ Tyerman and
Bennet (1832; 93) report9 for examples that more than 1,000 baked dogs were served during a feast and gift-giving session at Kailua, Kona,
Hawaii® Kalaniopu’u presented Cook with "two hundred hogs" when the latter*s squadron anchored in Kealakekua Bay (Ellis 1783: 98)® In
1786, LaPerouse was offered 100 (Dondo 1959: U7) and 300 pigs at a time (1959: 111, 1;9) by Maui chiefs® Vancouver’s ships were sent 166 pigs and had to return 130 of them because they had been given a large number previously by Kamehameha (Menzies 1920: 101) ®
In his summary of the second visit of Cook’s squadron to the .
Hawaiian islands. King (Cook 1852: Iillt) expressed his astonishment at the great quantity of pigs they were able to obtain®
The number of dogs in these islands did not appear to be nearly equal in proportion to those in Otaheite /Tahiti/® But, on the other hand, they.abound much more in hogs; and the breed is of a larger and weightier kind® The supply of provisions of. this kind, which we got from them, was really astonishing® We were near four months, either cruising off the coast, or in harbour at Owhyee /Hawaii/® During all this time, a large allowance of fresh pork was constantly 98
served to both crews; so that our consumption was computed at about sixty puncheons of five hundred-weight each. Besides this, and the incredible waste which, in.the midst of such plenty was not to be guarded against sixty puncheons more were salted for sea store. The greatest part of this supply was drawn from the island of Owhyee' alone, and yet we could not perceive that it was at all drained, or even that the abundance had in any way decreased.
Pigs and dogs were probably raised in most of the ahupua* a and were contributed to the government on demand. Both animals may have been allowed to roam freely, but pigs would constitute at least an annoyance and possibly an actual threat since they would root up taro, sweet potatoes and other crops. Two possible solutions to such a problem would be walled areas to keep the animals in (i.e., pig pens) and walls to keep them out (i.e., crop exclosures or pig '"exclosures").
Ledyard (1963s 118) for example, described the fields above Kealakekua
Bay, Hawaii islands "/A/bout two miles without the town the land was level and continued of one plain of little enclosures separated from each other by low broad walls . . . One function of such walls might have been to exclude pigs.
The archaeological data concerning both types of structures is unclear. The post-contact introduction of goats, cattle and horses resulted in the building of many pens and corrals and since the dating of these structures and their empirical identification as to function tend to be difficult, the precontact pattern is obscured. Most of the
"pen" structures I have seen in archaeological contexts have been in close proximity to historical remains /e.g., Kaawaloa (Hommon 1969a) and Lapakahi (Newman n.d.: 72-9/7. ‘ 99 In addition to pens in the context of the community settlement pattern they might be expected in or near structures or complexes per tained to the governmental segment. Thus, for example, Bennett (1931:
U6) and McAllister (1933b: Ih, 3U) report enclosures that they inter-* preted as pig pens associated with both houses and heiau. The latter may have been "holding pens" for sacrificial pigs. On Oahu, between the ahupua'a of Punaluu and Waikalua, a deep ditch was said to have been built "by the chief of the district in order to keep his pigs from wandering from Waikalua, which seems to have been a land set aside for the royal swine" (McAllister 1933b: 178).
Agricultural Sites
The most important food crops in Hawaii were taro and sweet potato. Simplified, there were basically two types of agricultural systems in the Hawaiian islands: wet and dry. Wet taro requires flooded fields during part of its growth (Handy 191*0: 1*1*). The two main crops grown in the dry systems were dry taro and sweet potatoes, both of which depend upon rain rather than irrigation for water. •
Halo briefly describes irrigated fields and one type of kula
(dryland) planting.
On the irrigated lands, wet patches were planted with kalo (taro). . . . Banks of earth were first raised about the patch and beaten hard, after which water was let in, and when this had become nearly dry, the four banks were re enforced with stones, cocoanut leaves and sugar-cane tops, until they were watertight. Then the soil in the patch was broken up, water let in again, and the earth was well mixed and trampled with the feet (to make the ground water-proof) (Male- 1931: 201*). 100
The cultivation of kula lands was quite different from that of irrigable lands„ The farmer merely cleared of weeds as much land, as he thought would sufficec If he was to plant taro (upland taro), he dug holes and enriched them with a mulch of kukui leaves, ashes, or dirt, after which he planted the taro. In some places they simply planted without mulch or fertilizer (Halo 1951s 205)o
If a field of potatoes was desired, the soil was raised into hills, in which the stems were planted; or the stems might merely be thrust into the ground any how, and the hill ing done after the plants were grown; the vines were also thrown back upon the hill (1951s 205)e
Although taro has a greater adaptability to both sun light and moisture (too little sun or too much rain quickly spoils the potato), the sweet potato is the more valuable of the two staples in three ways; it can be grown in much less favorable localities, both with respect to sun and soil; it matures in 3 to 6 months (as against 9 to 18 months for taro); and it requires much less labor in planting and care in cul tivation (Handy 191.0: 113) o
The exception to the rule with respect to popularity of crops was Hihau„ On that island yams, also a dry land crop was the staple
(Ellis 1783: 175; Townsend 1888: 22)«
Newman (n,de: 119-20) has divided dry farming areas into those
"of scattered and somewhat isolated farms, primarily in the windward
regions and areas of patterned and contiguous fields making up co
hesive systems (generally to leeward)." The latter areas are quite
extensive. "The Kohala system, for example, measures about 2 by 12 miles . e o while the Kona system measures about 3 by 18 miles." The
Kona system above Kealakekua Bay was described by several early jour-,
nalists6 Menzies (1920: 75), for example, explored the area and walked first through a breadfruit plantation0
The space between these trees did not lay idle. It was chiefly planted with sweet potatoes and. rows of cloth plant /paper mulberry/® As we advanced beyond the bread-fruit 101
plantations# the country became more and more fertile5 being j in a high state of cultivation0 For several miles round us there was not a spot that would admit of it but what was with great labor and industry cleared of the loose stones, and planted with esculent roots or some useful vegetables or other. In clearing the ground^ the stones are heaped up in ridges between the little fields and planted on each sides either with a row of sugar cane or the sweet root of these islands /ki or ti%. . . ,
These "ridges" were Ledyard’s "low broad walls" mentioned above in reference to pig "exclosures," Ledyard (1963i 118) goes on:
Whether this circumstance denoted separate property, or was done solely to dispense with the lava that overspread the face of the country, and of which the walls are composed, I cannot say, but probably it denotes a distince possession. Some of these fields were planted, and others by their , appearance were left fallow. In some we saw the natives collecting the coarse grass that had grown upon it during the time it had lain unimproved, and burning it in detached heaps, ■'
Wet taro was planted in natural swampy areas and in pond fields, most of which were terraced, alongside the stream which was their source of irrigation water. Wet taro field systems are to be found in valleys with permanent streams, Newman (ned,s 118) notes that on the island of Hawaii the physical setting of such systems are
"/v/alley bottom topography, windward location, near 0 .degree slope, alluvial soils, 0 to about 100 foot , , , elevation," Dixon (1789s
131) describes the wet taro system at Waimea, Kauai:
The valley , * , is entirely planted with taro; and these . plantations are laid out with a great deal of judgment,
The ground is very low, and the taro grounds are entirely covered with water, and surrounded with trenches, so they can either be drained, or fresh watered, from the river at pleas- ure. They are laid out in a variety of forms, according to ' the fancy of the different owners, whose various shares are marked with the most scrupulous exactness: these are inter sected at convenient’distances by raised foot-paths, about two feet wide ■ ' . 102 He goes on to say that the "sound judgment" with which the fields were planned "would reflect credit even on a British husbandmano" Captain
King (Cook 18^2: ltl3) suggests that the same fields "would have done credit to any European engineere" This is high praise indeed for the efficiency of an aboriginal agricultural system/
The early general surveys give a general impression of agri cultural sites„ The characteristic of agricultural terracing on
Kauai that impresses Bennett is:
its tremendous extent» In the valleys in which little dis turbance has gone on5 particularly the Napali section, the maximum of fillable soil was utilized„ Even a 10 foot square of soil among a great mass of lava rock will be cultivatede On the sides of the valleys the terraces run almost to the base of the great cliffs, where the nature of the talus slopes is not too rocky,, Though all these terraces were not irrigated, a great portion of them, were, and the ingenuity of the engineering is remarkable (Bennett 1931: 21)s
These terraces ranged from "a few feet to several hundred feet, de pending on the steepness of the slope. The height of the facing ranges from six inches to more than 10 feet, dependent again entirely on the slope of the ground" (Bennett 1931: 20)„ "Little is known about agri culture oh the kula land, except the incidental mention by some of the voyagers that it existed" (1931: 19)o
In addition to the numerous irrigable terraces in the well- watered valleys of Oahu, Bennett (1931) found several dry land agri cultural areas* In one site in ancient Kona district at Maunalua he found "small piles of rocks, a foot or more high and a few feet apart, with comparatively clear spaces between them* It is said that sweet potatoes were planted between these rock piles in the rich red 103 soil * $ e" (19312 61i)e He also found enclosures that appear to have been built as protection against pigs (1931? 26, 63)e
On the smaller, drier islands, evidence was more scanty0
Emory (1969? U8) found wet terraces in Maunalei gulch on the north side of Lanaie They average five feet in length, 12 feet in width and three to four feet in height„ Near house sites he found "/s/light terraces, small enclosures, and cleared lanes for yams, sweet potatoes, gourds, and the introduced watermelon, . . ." Some of these patches were attached to the house platforms and some were not (1969? US),
Although the corpus of archaeological data is small, we may find eventually that small patches such as were found on Lanai were for individual household use as contrasted to the communal wet and dry field systems«,
On Kahoolawe no terraces were found, "An early visitor re ported sweet-potato terraces, but these are the only traces of former agricultural activity" (McAllister 1933a?59)o McAllister (1933a? 99) suggests, on the basis of absence of water, extensive agriculture, per manent. houses and other data that Kahoolawe was mainly a fishing sta tion with a transient population.
On tiny Nihoa and Necker islands, agricultural space was critical, since they lie, 190 and 300 miles, respectively, northwest of Kauai, Several "low, narrow and long" dry terraces were recorded on Nihoa (Emory 1928: 17), The agricultural produce for Necker appears to have been grown on about 13 small dry terraces (1928: 71), 10k
The data on these three small islands (Kahoolawe, Nihoa, and
Necker) suggest that their agricultural produce was probably for immediate needs of small family groups and was not "taxable" by the governmente Use-rights to the fishing stations on the island were probably not the subject of battles or political maneuvering„
In recent yearss archaeological surveys have covered relatively smaller areas (usually no larger than a single large valley) than in the past and the body of agricultural data has increased with the in tensity of this work and the excavations based on such surveys, One aspect of these recent surveys that is related to the present problem is the variation in exploitation patterns relative to the "classic" ahupua'a - 'ill pattern (Griffin, Riley, Rosendahl and others nede$
Rosendahl n0d8j Yen, Rosendahl, Riley and others ned»)e
In his description of the dry field system above Kealakekua
Bay, Menzies (1920: 77) gives the best early ethnohistoric account of the "classic" or "traditional" tili«
The land here is divided into plantations, called ill, which take their rise at the sea side and proceed up the country, preserving a certain breadth without any limitation, or as far as the owner chooses to cultivate them, and with out the protection either of high walls or gates e The pro duce of these fields is as secure from molestation as if they were barricaded with the most formidable barriers, for the people that accompanied us durst not without obtaining our leave even touch a sugar cane though they grew everywhere on both sides of our path in abundance and as it were in a wild stateo
Soehren and Newman (1968: 5>) inspected aerial photographs of this area and found "a general pattern of very narrow and greatly elongated rectangles orientated on an axis that is both northeast-southwest and 105 sea-mountain0 This pattern is discernible in both Kaawaloa and
Kealakekua ahupua1 a and there is no apparent change in field symmetry between the two land zones." Until further work is done in this huge area /three by 18 miles (Newman n.d.s 120)7*. it appears that despite the lack of definite material boundaries between the ahupua'a, the socioeconomic boundaries were very definite in the minds of the peoplee
Recentlys three valleys with numerous wet terraces have been thoroughly surveyed„ They are Halawa (Kirch 1970, 1971b; Riley 1970), in windward Koolau district, Molokaij Makaha in leeward Waianae district, Oahu (Green 1969, 1970); and Kahana, in windward Koolauloa district (Hommon and Barrera 1971). In each case, it is evident that logical orientation for a land division that would cross-cut several resource zones would be from the river near the center of the valley, across the irrigable flood plain and up into the kula (dry land) area along the talus slopes. This orientation is suggested by the distri bution of habitation and religious structures as well as the wet and dry terraces in Halawa valley (Riley 1970: 19)? by the pattern of aboriginal land holdings recorded during the early l8$0's in Kahana valley (Hommon and Barrera 1971: 51) and by the contrasting agricul tural remains in the valley bottom and talus in Makaha valley (Hommon
1969a, 1969bj Ladd 1969b). This river-talus orientation might be a feature of an 1ili-lele system in which the * ohana branch using such a land division would also have rights to a land division ("lele") along the coast, as well as to a lele in the forest zone. 106
The intensity of agricultural exploitation is a factor that has a definite bearing on the evolution of the state in Hawaii, since it reflects population densities, degree Of ahupua.!a self-sufficiency, taxation pressures and economic reasons for conquest warfare. Inves tigations of archaeological remains in areas that appear to be agri culturally "marginal" will contribute greatly to our understanding of agricultural intensity. Studies of portable artifacts, field system chronologies and pollen analyses will of course be vitally important to this work. The synchronic non-portable artifact approach, however, can contribute data as well. For example, the range of types of exploitation of dry kula areas is striking, despite the comparatively small corpus of archaeological material thus far available. The method of dry-planting that Malo (1951s 205) describes would leave no trace in the non-portable archaeological record with the possible exception of charcoal lenses if fire was used in clearing. Such evi dence is described for upper Makaha valley (Ten, Rosendahl, Riley and others n,de). Intermediate between this non-structural method and the elaborate and extensive dry agriculture systems described by Newman
(n,d,s 120) are two types of structural complexes found on the kula of lower Makaha valley. Archaeological subzone 1A is a complex of features including three alignments of stones termed "field borders" and a number of short, low walls and stone mounds as well as 18 structures that were probably temporary or seasonally-used habitation structures (Hommon 1969b; U5-6), The mounds were apparently reposi tories for stones cleared from the crop plots. Across a small dry 107 stream bed at the base of the talus slope we found a cluster of
features that we designated subzone 1C„ This complex included mounds5
short walls5 and one large terrace0 In addition, two walls, each more
than 100 feet long and numerous small 11 spreader" terraces appear to
form what I have called a "dry-land irrigation system” which diverted
the intermittent flow of water in the shallow dry stream beds (Hommon
1970b:27-33)« I have found similar evidence elsewhere on the dry talus slopes of the valley0 Perhaps structures such as these were built to bring into cultivation land that did not normally receive
enough moisture for a crop like dry™land taro.
In the uplands of northern Kohala district Rosendahl (ncd6) has recently completed investigations of an agricultural complex that resembles the talus agriculture complexes of Makaha valley«,
The mapped area, a section 2 »3 km long and averaging c c 300 meters in width, was defined by a series of curbstone-lined trailso On the basis of ethnohistoric documents and land grant records, the area mapped seems to represent a native land unit, possibly an *ili, a subdivision of the ahupuada (Griffin, Riley, Rosendahl and others n6d»s 6 )e
Three major kinds of agricultural units were defined: rec tangular field units, bound by low piled stone and earthen embankments; garden areas, either open or enclosed by rather high stone walls; and animal enclosures or pens. These major units were further differentiated on the bases of local topographic conditions and associated agricultural features such as piled stone mounds, small clearings, agri cultural windbreaks, planting circles, informal terraces, and simple water diversion features (n0d0: 6 ),
Along much of the Ka-!u, Kona and Kohala coasts on the island
of Hawaii are vast expanses of bare lava fields with occasional patches
of soil. Surveys of two such areas, Kaloko (Renger 1970) and
Anaehoomalu (Barrera 1971) in Kona have shown very little certain 108 evidence of agricultural plots, though evidence of occupation based on a fishing economy is relatively abundant «• A problem that will be dis cussed at greater length in the section on houses concerns the habi tation and distribution patterns within an ahupua'a. ---- Did individuals and families within an 1ohana specialize in one resource zone and exchange goods with relatives in other zones, or did each branch family exploit all resource zones? In examples such as Kaloko and
Anaehoomalu, it is apparent that, at least for part of the year, the inhabitants specialized in fishingc The broad expanse of barren non productive land (much of which is covered by comparatively recent lava flows) between the coastal fishing sites and the upland agricultural areas in Lapakahi, Anaehoomalu and Kaloko may have tended to favor a pattern of full-time fishermen and full-time farmerse
A correlation that should be investigated fully through archae ology is the apparent link between high degree of agricultural produc tivity and the location of governmental administrative centers0 The ) ethnohistorical data suggest that this correlation exists, for example, on Hawaii island at Kealakekua Bay, Kona and Waipio, Hamakua as well as ¥aimea, Kauaie These areas, and other administrative centers have not yet been intensively investigated,,
Irrigation Ditches
. In his discussion of Hawaiian water rights. Perry states:
The water . » e like the land, was all originally the prop erty of the king, to be disposed of as he saw fit, but the ordinary disposition of it was, again as in the case of the land,.to permit its use to the chiefs and through them to the common, people, the actual occupants and cultivators6 109
The irrigation systems of the large wet taro plantations were very important contributing factors to the amount of food these plan tations could produce for use by the governmentc For examples .
Ka-hekili of Maui "coveted Oahu and Molokai for their rich landss many walled fish-pondss springs and water taro patches" (Kamakau 1961;s 132)0
Under normal circumstances, however, the ali*! nui and other high officials probably seldom took an active interest in the matter of individual irrigation systems. The great majority of irrigation sys tems were parallel to the long-axis boundaries of ahupua'a and seldom if ever crossed such boundariess Thus the operation of the irrigation system was probably under the direction of the local haku (*ohana- member who was the "director of communal activities") and/or the konohlki (representative of the government) who was assigned to the ahupua!a6 If we may infer governmental policies from Male's descrip tion of the Makahiki tax-collection, high officials were concerned more with the amount of produce from each individual ahupua'a than with the methods and.activity of production itself. If the quota was not met, the konohiki was replaced (Malo 1951: 1U5-U6)„ It is inferred that the officials in the upper echelons of the government of Hawaii, for example, were more interested in political and economic administra tion of the state as a whole than with the agricultural systems of any of the several hundred ahupua'a of the mokupuni.
An exception to this inferred policy of government non involvement was the construction of some large irrigated field systems.
During Ka-lani-* opu'u's reign, for example, Kahahana, the ali'i nui n o of Oahu and Molokai ■ "went to live at Kanalu$ where all the men of
Molokai were making the big water taro patch of Paikahawai" (Kamakau 1961: 132)„
The Hawaiian term "kanawai" which came to denote any "law" originally meant a regulation in regard to irrigation water (Perry.
1912: 9lro2)o The body of kanawai was probably an effective inte grating force in the socioeconomic systems of those ahupua'a that included, wet taro field complexesa One of the kanawai principles was that water from an irrigation system was assigned to various patches according to the number of workers contributed by each farming group«
It is easily apparent „ , . that this system of assignment in accordance with the labor provided in digging the auwais /canals/ was in its results the equivalent.of a system of distribution in accordance with the agreage planted, for each konohiki and hoaaina /land overseer or caretaker/ would doubtless bestir himself to contribute towards the comple tion of the enterprise sufficiently to meet the requirements of the land that he desired to till „ . e 0 One of the causes for dispossession by the King was the failure of the koaaina to render his plot productive» On the other hand, if one in the enjoyment of a water right increased his accustomed contribution of labor to the maintenance of the auwai his energy was rewarded by the allotment to him of additional water (Perry 1912: 92-3)o
The burden of maintaining the irrigation ditches whs distribu ted also according to the land area watered« The distribution of the water itself was regulated by (l) building dams that diverted less than half the water flowing at the point of diversion, (2 ) timing the flow to each set of fields, or (3) watering the highest field system first, then the second, and so forth, to the bottom system, or (It)
"0 0 ® comparatively rare, however, the patches were given water merely by overflow or percolation, from adjoining patches and not directly from any water course"(1912: 9lH?)® . Ill
The konohiki of an ahupua8 a or his designee was the luna wai
(water superintendent) and he settled disputes as well as overseeing maintenance and water distribution (Perry 1912; 95) <= Perry makes a point of noting that in pre-contact and early post-contact Hawaii dis putes were "extremely rare." One reason for this was the severe punishment for an act that was obviously considered to be very seriouse
"For unjustifiable interference with a dam it was permissible for any
one to kill the offender and to place the body in the breach made by him in the dams this as a warning to others."
Irrigation systems, of course, should not be studied in iso
lation from fields that they serve. This discussion is separated from
that concerning fields for the purposes of delineating the importance
of the kanawai and to briefly describe some irrigation ditches that
have been found archaeologically.
On Kauai
yt7he ordinary ditch line structure was a ditch banked with dirt walls. Some of these approached, fairly large sizes . , . . Even when running around a curve on a slope these ditches are dirt terraces banked on the outside. The accuracy in grading is remarkable some of the water being conducted for several miles along a slopee Some of the ditches on level ground, and also those terraces, are lined with stones . e . = The outside of many ditch terraces is faced with stones much like an ordinary taro terrace.
Direct watering was doubtless the prevailing method for large taro beds on the flat lands, such as those in lower Waimea valley, where there was no terracing done and the land was . level enough to allow for cross ditches. However, the direct method was comparatively rare where the terrace was employed. In Kalalau valley there were taro terraces on each side of the■ditch line and the immediate beds received direct irri gation. Most ditches were in position to irrigate the highest terrace, from which point the water ran from patch to patch indirectlye „ . e It is the only practical method for ter raced sites« In places more than one ditch line was used to irrigate a long series of terraces (Bennett 1931: 21-2)G
The "Menehune ditch" in Waimea valley, Kauai is unique in the Hawaiian
islands® : Now partially obscured by modern construction, was first
described by Vancouver (1801? Vols ls 376) in his journal:
A lofty .perpendicular cliff now presented itself, which, by rising immediately from the river, would effectually have stopped our further progress into the country, had it not , ' been for an exceedingly well constructed wall of stones and clay about twenty-four feet high,, raised from the bottom by the side of the cliff, which not only served as a pass into the country, but also as an aqueduct, to convey the water brought thither by great labour from a considerable dis- . : tancej the place where the river descends, from the moun- tains affording the planters an abundant stream for the purpose to which it is so advantageously applied.
About 200 feet of the Menehune ditch remained in 1931= The stones
varied in size and. some were as long as five feet and as wide and
deep as three feet* The stories were coursed where their sides were
parallel and irregularities in shape were accommodated by notch and
projection jointing which probably contributed to the stability of the
structure (Bennett 1931: 22.-3, 105-7)»
McAllister (1933b: 28) found irrigation ditches on Oahu simi
lar to the average Kauai ditches but says that there were no "astound
ing" ones such as Bennett describes for Kauai. The longest irrigation
ditch he recorded, was 1*3 miles long at Kamananui, Waialua district,
near the northwest shore of the island*
Three recent studies have included survey and some excavation
of irrigation ditches, in relation to the wet taro field systems of
Makaha valley, Waianae, Oahu (Hommon 1970ap Ten. and others n,d,); 113 Kahana valleys Kooauloas Oahu (Hommon and Barrera 1971) and Halawa,
KoolaUj, Molokai (Kirch 1970; Riley 1970; Griffin and others ned0i 2-3)°
In upper Makaha valley 253 irrigated terraces in 32 clusters were recorded. They totaled 6,7 hectares in area, . A total of 20 water-control features including three irrigation ditches were re corded during the initial survey (Hommon 1970a; llO-liO. „ Evidence of other ditches has since been discoverede In general, the irriga tion pattern in upper Makaha valley is discontinuous since each terrace, complex is defined by meanders of the main stream, dry tributary canyons and low cliffs„ Most of these complexes were probably irri gated by a short diversion ditch and direct flow from terrace to terrace. In this case, a luna wai would be concerned with diversion from the stream itself rather than the building and maintenance of a major:irrigation canal. This, pattern also suggests that each *ohana branch used several of these relatively small complexes, as con stituent parts of an 'ill lele system,
A similar pattern of small, well-built terrace complexes with individual irrigation systems was found in upper Kahana valley (Hommon and Barrera 1971: 38-50), In the lower floodplain of both Kahana and
Halawa valleys however, longer canals were built to provide large areas witln irrigation canals. In Kahana valley, a major fauwai
(irrigation ditch) that is believed to have been pre-contact in origin extends for about 10,000 feet along the base of the talus slope.
Along this ditch are arranged more than a dozen kuleana, land units established between l81i.8-l852, that were based upon the pre-contact lilt land tenure system0 As mentioned, in the discussion of agricultural fields and land units above, portions, of these kuleana below the ditch would have been irrigated and portions above would have been hula land (1971? £0-l)o
In Halawa valley there are
o 0 e six large, irrigated taro-culture systems . . » > The two largest are located, on the alluvial flat-lands of the lower valley and are fed by multiple irrigation ditches following, for the most part, the natural slope of the lande Proceeding up the valley to the head of the stream, the taro systems became progressively smaller, governed by the con tinual lessening of the availability of low alluvial de posits e Nearly five-sixths of all the taro terraces in the valley are situated in the two large irrigation systems in the lower valley (Riley 1970; 18-19)a
Archaeological Sites of Production of Non-Food Items
Quarries
Each of the islands of the main Hawaiian, group had at least one quarry where dense, close-grained basalt used in making adzes could be obtained,
On Kauai, above Waimea „ „ e are extensive quarries „ » 0 » Various stone enclosures mostly in ruin and popularly con sidered heiau • > • are about the.ridge where the clink stone was worked, and while some were workshops or habita tions necessary for shelter in that rainy region, there is every reason to believe that temples to the tutelary gods of the guild of adze-makers were there as well » « 0(Brigham 1902; 76).
Bennett (1931? 56) also notes the presence of a quarry on Nounou ridge.
McAllister (1933b; 36) reports that the basalt on the Honou- liuli slope along the central plain of Oahu is suitable" for making adzes. He did not see the quarries but cores, flakes, and rejects were found by territorial foresters ■ I I S
Five adze quarries are reported in Kaluakp’i ahupu.a*a Kona district, Molokai (Summers 1971: 66-7)» It is interesting to . note that Kaluako*i means "the stone adze quarry" (1971: 39)o One of these sites (site 8£ on Mauna Loa) extends for about a mile and is more than 30 acres in extent (1971: 66)0 In Figure 23as Summers shows a small group of features within this area that includes two small platforms and four upright stones in addition to chipping stations
(1971: 67).
Along the inner cliff slope of the northwest rim of Haleakala crater, eastern Maui, Powers (1939: 2U) found a number of quarries from which the Hawaiians extracted "compact, fine-grained lava which chips very readily under a sharp blow." In the workshops, found in caves and shelters within and outside the crater were found hammer- stones imported from streams and beaches of "tough porous rock which shatters less readily . than the adze-basalt. The raw material found here contains mica and is thus "easily distinguished from the rock of the Mauna Kea adze quarries (on the island of Hawaii)" (Summers
1971: 2U). Brigham (1902: 76) reports an adze quarry along "the lower walls of a very deep pit" in the crater of Kilauea volcano, Ka-'u,
Hawaii, but it has since been covered by lava flows. The second quarry on the island of Hawaii is located at 12,900 feet on Muana Kea, the highest mountain in the archipelago (Brigham 1902: 75-6). The area includes chipping stations with huge numbers of flakes and blanks, cave shelters with midden as well as small structures that appear to ■ 116 be shrines/ about 2I4 sites in all (William Barrera, personal communi cation) „
With few exceptions (Emory 1969: ?6j Kirch 1970: 2^), the quarry-source of adzes has not been investigated by archaeologists working in Hawaii0 When petrographic analyses are undertaken on adzes from known proveniences, the resulting data may provide information concerning exchange-distribution patterns of adze basalt, a relatively rare economic resource, A type of basaltic glass that has been errone ously termed "trachyte" in some archaeological reports has recently been used for age determinations by hydration rind measurement (Barrera
1971: 95$ 100-lOlt), The sources for this material, used for making small cutting implements may have been relatively few and may be iden tifiable through petrographic analysis as well.
Workshops ■
The most unequivocal statement with respect to the degree of professionalism of Hawaiian craftsmen in the body of eyewitness accounts is to be found in Menzies (1920: 81-3, 156), About 12 miles above Kealakekua Bay, in the forest beyond the plantations, Menzies observed three small "villages” of temporary habitation structures,
The villages we passed in the woods I said were temporary, as the occupiers, consisting of a few families, had come up here only for a time to pursue various occupations. The men were differently engaged. Some in felling of large timber for various purposes/ others in hollowing out and forming canoes and planks in the rough, which, after laying some time in the sun, were.dragged down in that state to the seaside to be finished by their canoe builders, who are distinct persons from those who thus form them in the rough, A third set seemed to have no other occupation than that of catching 117
small birds for. the sake of their feathers „ » » 0 It is with them that a great portion of the rents are annually paid to the chiefs by the lower class of people, who thus employ themselves by catching the birds with bird-lime (Menzies 1920; 82)e
An unusual type of workshop was found in a recent survey on the west coast of Hawaii islande An area of bare paheohoe lava, covering about 200,000 square feet and overlapping Waikoloa ahupua'a,
Kohala and Puuanahulu ahupua'a, Kona was found to be covered with more than 1000 abraded depressions with an average size of about eight by
13 inchese Chunks of lava were apparently quarried from the area and rubbed on the lava surface to make hand-held tools generally termed abraders used in making fishhooks and other artifacts (Austin 1971)»
Austin (1971; 2li2) suggests that large numbers of abraders may have been made here for tradee
. Thus far most of the archaeological evidence of craft special- . ization in Hawaii other than the adze quarries has been in the form of caches of portable artifactse One such cache was found in Makaniolu shelter, near Honolulu! it consisted of."three large adzes in perfect condition. . „ . All three were approximately the same grade of dark gray basalt and of the same workmanship" (Emory and Sinoto 1961; 63).
Another cache came from Ohia cave, Kona district, island of Hawaii and consisted of 23 pieces including fishhooks, hook blanks of bone, and tools of fishhook manufacture of lava, coral and echinoderm spines
(Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1968; 19=20, Plate 5>)» Kamohio shelter on
Kahoolawe is believed to have been a fishhodc-maker1s dwelling
(McAllister 1933a; 17)» This site is discussed later as a ko'a
(fishing shrine). - 118
. The degree of craft specialization and the number of craft specialists are important data that contribute to an understanding of the socioeconomic system of the Hawaiian state* Since most ethnohis- toric sources are unclear with reference to craftsmen, archaeological investigations of habitation features (lava-bubble and tube shelters as well as "houses") may provide the best evidence of the degree of specialization in the form of definite and distinctive craft-tool assemblages* With the exception of the caches referred to above, such evidence has not yet been found*
Archaeological Sites of Storage Function
Storehouses
John Papa H(1959s 121), in his description of the various houses around Kailua Bay, Kona, Hawaii notes the presence of "two or three" storehouses with produce that had been collected for Kamehameha*
The separation of food was a feature of the kapu system, as men were not supposed to eat with women*
In the store houses were piled bundles of surplus pa!u (skirts), malos (breech-cloths), and tapa sheets* These had been given to the chiefs as makahiki taxes that were . presented to the gods when they made a circuit of the island every twelfth month * Because the profit received from these taxes on the land was so large, combined with the king's personal shares from his other lands, goods were piled into the storehouses, one saw small, large, extra large, and medium-sized bundles and wooden bowls filled with hard poi* There were separate bundles for women and for men* Conse quently, separate storehouses were provided for the food to be eaten by each sex* There was no separation of the fishes, however, because either men or women could.take what they wanted* • 119
These structures were apparently constructed of poles and thatch as were the habitation structures that surrounded them. Other references to storehouses were found elsewhere in the ethnohistoric literature
(Dixon 1789: II,. 95? Campbell 196?: 91$ Kamakau 196U: 190$ Malo 1951:
195) and were apparently an important part of the pre-contact pattern,,
It was the practice for kings to build storehouses, in which to collect food, fish, tapa, malo /breech-cloths/s pa~u /skirts?, and all sorts of goods„
These store-houses were designed by the kalaimoku as a means of keeping the people contented, so they were like the baskets that were used to entrap the hinalea fishe The hinalea thought there was something good within the basket and he hung around the outside of it0 In the same way, the people thought there was food in the store-houses and kept their eyes on the king (Malo 1951: 195)«
Archaeological evidence of such structures would contribute to an understanding of the Hawaiian state and the governmental segment, as it was in the storehouses that part of the produce collected as taxes was apparently kept* Such evidence has not yet been recorded, however, in part because the pre-contact administrative centers that still exist have not yet been investigated*
Storage Pits
A type of storage structure that has not been found in the
Hawaiian ethnohistoric. literature is the storage pit, Nakkim (1970) has found more than U5 stone-lined pits, in three locations in Hana,
Maui, ranging in size from one to 2,5 meters wide and from 0,6 to 105 meters deep, A local informant suggested that the pits were for the storage of taro, "saying that the stonework kept the pits cool, the . " 120 . ground floor kept the taro moists and that mats spread over the tops of the pits protected the taro from the sun and rain for long term storage" (1970:125)..
Nakkim’s informant saw her sketches rather than the features themselvess yet such structures bear further investigation in the con text of.the seasonal availability of food within the pre-contact
Hawaiian community,, Despite the high degree of productivity of the
Hawaiian economic system, references to famines are not rare in the literature (Kamakau 1961: 195| Mensies 1920; 129$ Stokes 1937; 39)„
The pattern of occurrence of storage structures within the over-all archaeological pattern would contribute to the yearly-round of the pre-contact economic system^
. . Archaeological Sites of Social Function
In this category are included the archaeological sites that pertain to habitation and interpersonal and inter-group communicatione
Non-residential sites (trails and gaming sites) are discussed first, followed, by habitation siteso
Trails and Gaming Sites
Trails
Relatively little work has been done with the tracing of pre contact trailse McAllister (1933b; 186-8?), Bennett (1931; 160)and
Emory (1969: U7-8) found relatively little evidence of such sites on
Oahu, Kauai.and Lanai0 121
Apple (1965) has made a survey of trails on the island of
Hawaiio His type "A" trails were built prior to contact and after contact until 1819* The characteristics he lists for these trails are:
a0 Single-file foot trails$ characterized by many turn ings and one-man width,, If on coast * persistently following the configurations of shore line where passable, skirting inland around major land obstacles, such as cliffs (thus there was a single beach trail around such.of the island)„
b 0 Coast-inland trails within each ahupua'a of this type*
Co Taboo areas not crossed by such trailse
d6 . Over soil: a recognizable trace, some places deep*
e* Over "clinker" lava (aa): steppingstones, usually of smooth, waterworn stones (* ala)
fa Over "billowy" lava (pahoehoe): usually no trace (followed: easiest and shortest route); some cracks filled with small rocksj some low spots with causeways of rocks (kipaepae); steppingstones of angular-edged rocks„ Occasional piles of rocks to mark trails perhaps petro- glyphs also (1965s 65)«
Trails of three functional types may be delineated in pre contact Hawaii6 The two types that can be most clearly delineated are referred to by Apple (1965)* They are the "coastal" or "circum- island" trail and the "coastal-inland" or ahupua'a trail and they represent respectively the "horizontal".and "vertical" socioeconomic orientations in this thesis0
From the air, Apple (1965s ix) found type "A" trail along 30% of the coast and probable traces along 20% where there was smooth lavae Another 35$ of the coast was "deeply fissured" and marked by- high coastal cliffs or similar terrain* ■ ■ . ■ . 122 The alaloa ("long road") was the trail around an island (Lyons l875>s 10l|) along which the makahiki processions traveled (Malo 1951!
I5i|“59)o In conjunction with ocean routes along the rougher stretches of coast this circum-island trail was an extremely important factor in maintaining the economic and political integrity of the state«
The ahupua!a trails were those that reinforced the "vertical" orientation of the community as a social and economic unit„ They ex tended $ in various forms through the various resource zones from the coast to the forest® It was this type of trail, for example, that
Menzies (1920; Tlt-SU) followed above Kealakekua Bay as he ascended from the settlement of KaawalQa some 12 miles inland to the end of the trail in an area where the forest was virtually undisturbed® Coast- inland trails that Apple (1965; 65) would assign to a post-contact type have been found to help define the borders of the land section believed to be an ancient 'ill in northern Kohala, Hawaii (Griffin
and others nad®: 6)„ An unusual example of an ahupua8a trail was found in Kona district, Molokai® It extends inland about two miles
along the side of Kolo gulch "It is paved with large stones and has
a-width of about 6 ft" (Summers 1971s 62)® This fact plus the pres
ence at 20 foot intervals of pieces of sandstone and coral suggest
that this trail may be aberrant in function, as such elaboration would be unnecessary for foot-traffic®
• In addition to the coast-inland trails within ahupua1a there were also lateral trails at right angles to them for easy access
across the breadth of the land-unit ® Cox and Stasack (1970; 25) have 123 suggested that the trails within l/!t mile of the beach, often visible as stepping stones across the aa lava along the Kona coast for example, were of this intra-ahupua * a function* They further suggest that the circum-island trail used by the makahiki procession and other travelers was located further inland; sometimes several miles6
The beach route was for fishermen and access along the ahupuaf a•shore line, while the main route for travelers was the coastal or upper trail which skirted dwellings, shore heiau, and kapu areas.• This upper trail afforded kapu-free crossing of boundaries of the ahupua{a and across district boundaries such as during the makahiki processions, or for a chief’s retinue when traveling between districts6 On the island of Hawaii it is along these upper coastal trails that most of the petroglyph sites that relate to trails are to be found (Cox and Stasack 1970s 23)*
The third functional type of trail is reported on Hawaii
(Menzies 1920s 166), Molokai (Summers 1971s. 13Uct36, 178) and Oahu (li
19^9 s 89-101)* These trails cross the central ridges from one side of the island to the other, and served to connect ahupua’a that were not tied directly together by the "government” coastal trail*
Gaming Sites .
Hawaiians enjoyed playing a wide variety of sports and games the year round (Emory 1965a; Malo 1951s 21i|.~3lt), and particularly during makahiki season (Malo 1951: lL5g IW) „ A few of these pursuits left material remains*
Small sleds were used on stone paved inclines termed holua slides which were covered with earth and slippery grass* The courses varied from 150 to several hundred yards long (Emory 1965a; 150)* A slide at Keauhou, was built during Kamehameha’s reign and is 3,682 feet 12h long (Emory 1970)0 McAllister (1933b: 36) reports that three holua sites were remembered by his Oahu informants but that none could be found during his survey. Bennett (1931: 55) reports three probable . slides on Kauai, but none to.match that of Keauhou. Seven holua slides have been recorded on Molokai (Summers 1971)o The single example in Koolau district is 750 feet long, 20 feet wide and is un paved (1971: 193)o Two of those found in Kona district were paved for distances of 2 h and 27 feet, respectively, but the remainder of their extent and all of the other courses were apparently simply cleared slopes. The two slides that included paving and a third that occurred in a cluster included a platform at the upper end as did the slide in Koolau e The indications are that none.of these holua slides required elaborate preparation, in marked contrast to the long slide at Keauhoa, Kona, Hawaii.
According to Ehory (1965a: 150), only the "chiefs and chief esses11 participated in holua sledding.. Malo (1951: 22)4), however, suggests that both commoners and chiefs enjoyed the sport. It seems probable that, while the Keauhou slide was probably intended for the chiefs exclusively, in view of the great amount of labor involved in its construction, the less elaborate sites may have been used by com moners as, well.
The game of 'ulumaika involved the rolling of a stone disk about three inches in diameter along a prepared course. The competi tion involved rolling for distance and accuracy (Malo 1951: 220-21).
Seven kahua maika (*ulumalka courses) are recorded as numbered sites 125
on Molokai (Summers 1971s 68~9$ 86-»7)» All were located in Kona*
Three were within two miles of the beach$ the others were in the moun
tains * The site in Kalama’ula ahupuaia is probably the only extant .
example in the islands* It is 350 yards long*
In view of the fact that games and sports were especially
popular during the makahiki season, various gaming sites might be ex
pected to occur in contexts that could be related to the circum-island
procession* The paucity of examples of holua slides and 8ulum.aika
courses and the lack of information regarding surrounding sites does
not allow such correlations* However, a third type of gaming site is
. much more plentiful* Konane was a game played with small pebbles on
a papamu or "board" consisting of a rectangular arrangement of parallel
lines of shallow holes pecked in a boulder or bedrock* The game in
volved moving pebbles from hole, to hole* Papamu are quite common .
especially along coastal regions with exposed pahoehoe bedrock, such
as the Kona coast, Hawaii* Cox and Stasack (1970; 3 h ) ask
o'.'* * could the makahiki games between the districts of Kau and Puna have been held at the village of Kealakomo in South . Puna? The area is well suited for it, open, fairly flat and at the union of trails from North Puna, Kau, and the moun tain areas of Kilauea and Olaa* In the small area of the village site interspersed among numerous other petroglyphs there are 67 papamu . . » This number of game areas meets the needs of tournaments rather than occasional games be tween village residents * Konane tournaments may have been a minor feature of the makahiki games*
Habitation Sites.
In this section I discuss the various types of archaeological
features that were built or utilized as shelters* Included here are , 126 the relatively permanent habitation sites of each social class, where most of the social interaction of the family as a whole is assumed to have taken placej certain of the sites that were used by members of more than one family and the seasonal or temporary habitation sites used in conjunction, with various economic pursuits that necessitated
"camping" away from the permanent householde
Permanent -Dwellings'
It is. assumed here that most pre-contact Hawaiian families lived in one place during most of the year and that individual family members would usually return to this. dwelling daily for eating, sleep ing and other family activitiese It is further assumed that the greatest elaboration of residential architecture is to be found at these permanent sites® The weight of the evidence is that the majority of these permanent dwellings were near the shore® "Permanent" is a relative term when applied,to the perishable structuees as Rev® Ellis
(1826; 292) gives the lifespan of a Hawaiian house as five to 10 years®
Most permanent dwellings were pole and thatch houses (hale)®
The floor plan of nearly all houses was rectangular® The basic.frame work consisted of poles set in the ground, into a prepared earthen terrace with stone retaining walls or into a stone platform® Most houses at the time of contact had gabled roofs, with ridge poles supported by large posts at each end of the structure® A network of smaller poles was attached to the framework and a thatch of pili grass or leaves of various kinds was then attached (Buck 1 9 6 b . t 75>-106) ® Early eyewitness accounts of the dimensions of houses that presumably belonged to commoners varied somewhato At Lahaina^ Mauis
Steward (1970; 182-83) states that the averave houses "„ » 0 are generally not more than eight or ten feet long,, six or eight broad,, and from four to six high * , Ellis (1826; 313) describes com«= moners1 houses as measuring between eight or ten feet square and 20 feet long and 10 to 12 feet wide. The lower range of house sizes recorded by King (Cook 1852: lj.22) was about 18 by 12 feet* Ledyard
(1963: 128) notes that houses at Kealakekua Bay were "between 30 and liO feet square
Handy and Pukui (1958: 5) discuss the residential unit in
Ka-'u district, Hawaii:
Within the *ohana the functional unit is the households One term for household was the word hale, house„ In inquir ing about the number of "families" or domiciles in a given locality, one would ask "Ehia hale la?" (How many houses?) 1 Ohua was a term that signified retainers or dependents in the household. In contradiction to "family" (»ohana), in mates who were not kin by blood or adoption were.1ohua.
The nature of the family that formed the core of the Hawaiian household is indicated only vaguely in the ethnohistoric literature.
The journalists writing in the early l820ts give varying accounts,
Macrae (1922: 27) for example, slept a night in the house of an Indian castaway and his native family.
We slept on mats by the side of the Bengal black and his wife, with her father and mother and the rest of the family, in all, upwards of a dozen men, women and children, besides several dogs, thickly stowed together at one end of the hut without distinction, •' : , 128
Ellis (1826: 2U8) notes that ten persons sleeping in a house measuring
12 by 16 feet included one man,, six women and three children. Else where he observes that the "houses were in general large5 containing usually three of four families each" (1826; 328)e The hamlet of
Makaaka^ Ka-’u consisted of four or five houses, occupied by three or four families (1826; 185)« Extended families or large nuclear families may have been the prevalent pattern at this time, yet several ■ of the early eyewitness accounts (including Ellis) give five or six as the average number of persons per household (Schmitt 1968s 32)0
The lack of clarity with respect to the size and composition of the aboriginal household or family is related to the problem of the kau- hale6 The kauhale is discussed briefly belowe
In I898, when N c B 0 Emersen translated David Malot s"Hawaiian
Antiquities$n he added hundreds of valuable notes to clarify various points of the history and culture of the Hawaiian islands that were referred to by Malo, In the chapter on the Hawaiian house, (Malo
(1951; .122) wrote;
People who were well off, however, those of respecta bility, of character, persons of wealth or who belonged to the alii class, sought to do everything decorously and in good style5 they had separate houses for themselves and for their wives»
'Bnerson added the following note;
Every self-respecting Hawaiian who desired to live up to the system of tabu was obliged to build for himself and family a number of houses, the chief motive being to separate the sexes entirely from each other while eating, as well as to provide suitable places for carrying on the various occu pations incident to a self-sustaining savage life. First may be-mentioned the mua, ■ which was the men's eating house and was tabu to femalesj second the hale noa, which was the one 129
, place where the family mingled on familiar terms during the day and where they slept at night; third, the hale aina, the women's eating house, which was tabu to the men. If the woman of the house was given to that sort of thing, she must have, forth, a hale kua, which was. the place in which she would beat out tapa, braid mats, and carry on a variety of domestic arts. Fifth was the hale pea, a place where the women isolated themselves during their monthly periods of impurity. To these might be added, sixth, a family chapel, or heiau, the place of which was in most cases probably filled by the mua. The family heiau seems in some cases to have been a simple enclosure, unroofed, open to the ele ments , .The practice in this regard evidently differed in different places. No fixed and fast rules can be laid down. If the man of the house were a fisherman, he would naturally have a halau, a long house or shed in which to house his canoe and fishing tackle (Main 1951s 126)0
Since this description was written in 1898, ethnohistoric writers have accepted this description as the ideal or common household pattern in ancient Hawaii (Freese 1919; Handy 1931: 8-9; 1965; Handy and Pukui
1958: 7-12; Pukui and Elbert 1957: 125)a It is important for ethno- historian and archaeologist alike that the matter of the multi-house kauhale be clarified. In the study of the Hawaiian state, for example, archaeological interpretation of family size, residential permanence, social rank and economic function within the community segment depend to a great extent upon the nature of the archaeological pattern of the basic residential unit. The eyewitness accounts of houses in use prior to the abolition of the kapu system suggest that the four-, five-, or six-house kauhale, while perhaps an ideal con struct, did.not exist in reality* Even the highest chiefs seldom occupied more than three houses* . .
Captain King (Cook 1852; !j.22) refers vaguely to "some of the better sorts of houses" that were surrounded by an enclosed courtyard 130
"with smaller houses built round it /sic7s for their servants „" Van-= couver (1801: III, 232) describes the residence of the chief of
Lahaina, Maui as consisting of "two shabby huts»11 At Keauhous Kona,
Hawaii, he visited "the royal residence at this place5 which con sisted of three of the neatest constructed houses we had yet seen .
«, 0.0 (1801s 102-3)e Manby (1939: 26-7) notes that of the four houses that constituted the "royal apartments" at Kealakekua Bay only two were "considered as the residence of the sovereign; the others were occupied by his retinue„ The two appropriated to his use were of equal size and well built, one dedicated to his meals the other to his slumberse". Dixon (1789: 130) was shown "several houses" that belonged to a chief on Kauai„ In I80I4, Lisiansky (18lits 103) was taken to the
"palace" of Kamehameha at Kealakekua. The house-cluster in his account most closely approximates the ideal kauhale.
This palace, differed from the common habitations of the island in size only* It consisted of six' distinct , huts, erected near a tolerably large pond of stagnated water» The first hut we entered, constituted the king1s dining-room, the second his drawing-room, the third.and fourth the apartments of his women, while the last two served as kitchens„
Elsewhere he notes: "The rich have separate huts, for the several pur poses of sleeping, cooking, eating, etc, a^ I have mentioned before
(1811: 126)c Arago (1823) visited Kealakekua Bay in August 1819, two months prior to the abolition of the kapu system. In describing a village he mentions the single-house dwelling of "one of the principal chiefs of Riouriou (Liholiho, Kamehameha*s heir" (1823: 63)« He also describes Liholiho*s "palace" as "/a/ miserable hut, built of straw 131 from twenty-five to thirty feet long, and from twelve to fifteen, feet broad • e e" (1823? 89)0 ■■ -
Before he dieds one of Kamehamehas s residences had been at
Kamakahonug near -Kailan, Hawaii0 -
/Kamehameha% erected three houses thatched with dry ti leaves» Just north of the sleeping house (hale moe), and extending a little beyond the front of itg was an eating house (hale ’aina) which belonged to Kaahumanu (one of his wives) (li 19^97 119). li also describes briefly the mua associated with these two houses»
Nearby, a residential complex was constructed for Liholiho0 It con sisted of ti-thatched houses« "One was a mua for the heir of the kingdom, the other, a hale 1aina for his young wife0 Two or three storehouses, some work sheds (halau), and work houses in which women could print their tapa were also built" (1959: 121) <,
' Using these seven accounts of numbers of houses to compute the mean, we find that the average kauhale of chiefs recorded between 1779 and 1819 was 2e8, rounded to 3» Lisiansky’s count is reduced from six actual houses to four functional types»
Commoners may occasionally have occupied more than one house,, but most eyewitnesses report only individual houses<, The descriptions given by Ellis (1826: 2^8) and Macrae (1922: 26) of ten and about a dozen people in a single house have already been given. Arago (1823) de scribes the town of "Kayerooa" (Kaawaloa) on Kealakekua Bay as being
"of considerable extent, but the houses, or rather huts, are at such distances from each other, particularly on the descent of the hill, as not to be at all connected with the part in the plain, , , , 132
Almost the •whole of (these huts) have only one apartment. . . ."(1823:
90)o Three house kauhale are noted by von Kotzebue (1821: I, 310,
111, 2I4.9), but only as part of general descriptions of the eating kapu that ideally necessitated a separate sleeping house, a men's eating house and a women’s eating housee Ellis (1826), Menzies (1920) and
Tyerman and Bennet (1832) all of whom traveled extensively through the
"hinterlands” record no kauhale clusters among the commoners*
In contrast to the classic multi-house kauhale, an alternate pattern emerges from a search through the eyewitness accounts that tends to be confirmed by several of the recent archaeological studies*
This pattern includes both individual hale noho or dwelling houses
(Ellis 1826: 288) which served as an "all-purpose room” and family sleeping quarters and at least, one functionally specific communal structure (such as the hale pea, mua or eraft-structure) used by several families* This pattern would maintain the ideal construct of functionally specific houses while at the same time explaining the near absence of kauhale among the commoners* For example, Kamakau
(1961s 3) discusses the kapu that prevented men from having contact with women during the menstrual period and describes a communal men strual huts "If there were two, three or more who were ’overflowed with water’ they gathered at the same place which served them as a place of refuge*. There a house for menstrual women (hale pe'a) was erected.” The practice of sharing an eating house is noted by Camp bell (1967: 131)=
As the two sexes never eat together, the chiefs have always a separate eating house, and even the lower ranks ' ' - 133
have one to every six or seven families for the men* The women take, their food in the same house in which they sleep»
The last sentence suggests that the common hale noho may have been a multi-purpose structure, thus eliminating the need for a women’s eat ing house* Archaeological data suggest that mua, too, may have been communal structures» Mua will be further discussed in the following section (Sites of Religious and Political Function)c
Further light is shed on the "kauhale problem" (the ideal con struct versus the ethnohistoric and archaeological evidence) by the observation that the term "hale" did not necessarily denote a well- built, relatively permanent "house," but rather might refer to a com paratively flimsy temporary structure that might leave little archae ological evidence of its existence*
The basic functional units (of the kauhale) were the Common House or Hale Npa and the Mua* . „ „ All other structures were for special use, and were little more than sheds; for the men’s oven (imu), for the women’s oven, for kapa beating, housing canoe and fishing, gear, storage, or for segregation of women while menstruating (Handy and Pukui 19$8: 112)*
A number of the early journalists stated that the primary or only difference between a commoner’s house and that of a chief was the greater size of the latter (Campbell 196?; 130j Ellis 1826s 291;
Lisiansky l8ll;s 105)® "The size and quality of a dwelling varies according, to the rank and means of its possessor, those of. the poor people being mere huts, while houses of the chiefs are from forty to seventy feet long ” (Ellis 1826s 291)® The upper range of houses observed by King (Cook 1852 s W O was 21* by h 5 feet and probably repre sents chiefs’ houses® ■ m
Archaeological evidence of houses of the aboriginal Hawaiian pattern consist of foundations, in various forms e Bennett (1931? 10=12) suggests a classification of habitation sites of the island of Kauais consisting of seven formal types0 .
lo Cleared, flat spaces
2,, Stone outlined sites (13 by 20 feet average)
3o Platform sites (18 b y 30 feet average)
lu Terraced sites (greatest range: 18 by 23 feet average with maximum dimensions of lj.0 b y 20 and 60 by 23 feet)
3» Walled sites "
6 » Two=terrace division sites (13 by 13 feet, average)
7o Complex and compound sites (23 by 1+3 feet average)
House sites on Lanai were marked by "(a) cleared ground, (b) by leveled ground, (c) by an enclosure, (d) by a terrace, or (e) by a platform*"
The best corpus of material comes from the island of Lanai where Emory (1969? 30) recorded a total of U89 house sites, 6U of which were isolated* The rest were located in groups of from two to
18 sites except for Kaunolu village, which included 86 house founda tions* Emory (1969? 30) estimates the.total number of house sites on the island to be about 630* As in other areas (Bennett 1931? 8-13J
McAllister 1933b: 2U-6), relatively little evidence of the kauhale was discovered in the survey of Lanai* "Some of the large platforms sup ported two houses, and as many as two or three house platforms joined together form part of some establishments * But ordinarily there is only a single small platform, always rectangular" (Emory 1969? ItO)e 132
The average dimensions of the 86 houses in Kaunolu village was u 6 0 ? by l£o5 feet; the extreme length of a house, 25> feet; the extreme breadth,
20 feet; and ten percent of the houses, (were) square," Most of these sites. are within the range of dimensions for commonersf houses re ported in the ethnohistoric literature„ -
In general it may be said that the house platform or terrace on Lanai is low and rectangular, about 12 feet wide and 20 feet long and stands several feet above the grounde Its top surface is divided lengthwise into two approximately equal divisions® The division on the down-slope side has the coarser pavement and served for the lounging place in front of the house; the other division forming more or less of the house floor, is the more finely paved and at about a. third of the house sites is raised 6 to 8 inches higher (Bnory 1969: h $ ) *
Two aspects of the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis that can be explored through the archaeological investigation of what I have called here "permanent house sites" are the social stratum and func tional specificity of the household that once occupied the site® Since relatively little archaeological work has been done with such sites, most of the brief outline that follows is derived from the early ex tensive surveys rather than recent intensive research®
The identification of a house site as that of a high status household might be based on any of several criteria: presence of two
or more associated house foundations; unusual prominent location;, proximity to heiau or other sites associated with political or re ligious administration; and proximity to an abundant food-source®
(Most of the portable artifacts that served as signs of rank are highly perishable®) 136
For example, several of the largest house-sites in Kaunolu village, Lanai, including one with three house foundations and another with two foundations, are located within a few feet of Halulu heiau and puuhonua (place of refuge). These sites-are located on a high sea cliff and the heiau is visible from all parts of the village. It is highly probable that at least some of these structures were occupied by priests and chiefs (Etoory 1969: 5l“li)o
The proximity of the houses of chiefs and priests to heiau is well documented in the ethnohistoric literature (Cook 1832: 373| Ellis
1783: 1825 li 1939: 118-19; Manby 1939: 26-7; Vancouver 1801; III,
102-3)e At Kealakekua Bay, Cook (1832; 373) writes that;
. . we discovered in our neighborhood, the habitation of a society of priests, whose regular attendance at the moral /[heiau/ had excited our curiosity. Their huts stood round a pond of water, and were surrounded by a grove of cocoa-nut trees, which separated them from the beach and the rest of the village, and gave the place an air of religious refine ment.
It is well-known that powerful chiefs lived in such places as
Kaawaloa and Kekua on Kealakekua Bay, Kona, Hawaii; Waipi’o valley,
Hamakua, Hawaii and Waimea, Kauai. They established administrative centers in such places in part because large supplies of food resources were Immediately available. High-status chiefs would also be expected near such food resources as good fishing grounds (Sinoto and Kelly
1970: 11) and fishponds. Near the fishpond at Kaloko, Kona, Hawaii, two elaborate house sites are presently being investigated in an attempt to determine whether they may be the sites of pre-contact chiefly households (Renger 1970: 10, L3-6). ' 137 A factor of variation that should be studied in greater depth through archaeology as well as ethnohistory is that of inter-island variation*. One of many examples of such variation is represented by house sites on Kauai and Lanai* The average- size of Kauai house foundations was consistently larger in all categories than those on
Lanaip the upper range of the latter being:approximately equal to the lower range of the former* Two terrace division sites and complex and compound sites, which, on the basis of complexity and size are sus pected high-status household sites, are beyond the Lanai range* Pos sible reasons for such discrepancy are numerous, ranging from stylistic differences to social or economic variation between islands* Thus, for example, households may have been smaller on Lanai or more tran sient due to the relative paucity of economic resources as compared with larger, more variable and better-watered Kauai*
Comparative studies within;the postulated community (ahupua'a) pattern may reveal differences in house size or form or in associated features and artifacts that indicate functional specificity in the ahupua* a-1ohana« Communal cooking houses, for example, might be identified by the presence of numerous ovens, in conjunction with several houses with sleeping platforms but no ovens. Professions or tendency toward economic specialization might also be evidenced in the midden near particular house sites in the form of specialized tool kits (e,g*, adzes and woodworking implements) or raw materials and waste products /e.g,, adze blanks and flakes (Summers 1971; 31)7, 138
Seasonal and Temporary Habitation Sites
Because of the dispersed patterns of raw materials that formed the basis of the Hawaiian economic system^ it appears to have been convenient to camp near certain resources while exploiting them0 These resources were evidently available only during part of the year or were sought only at certain times as a supplement to other resources0 It is assumed that the sites discussed here were temporary habitations in the sense that the residents lived elsewhere- in a "permanent house" during most of the yearo This assumption is open to question, par ticularly in the case of "cave" (actually lava-tube and bubble) shel- w „ . . ' '
The ethnohistoric literature includes numerous brief descrip tions of lava tubes and bubbles (called "caves" here for convenience) that were apparently used usually, as temporary dwellings and stopover points for travelers (Cook 1852s 1*22-23j Ellis 1826s 195-96: Menzies
1920: 28, 161-62j Tyerman and Bennet 1832: 15). Ellis (1826: 195-96) describes a large habitation cave in Kapuahi ahupua{a, Ka-1u s in such a way that suggests that it may have been a permanent or semipermanent dwellinge ’
/wT’e stopped at the entrance of a large cave, arched over by a thick crust of ancient lava. Here two or three families, consisting of men, women, and children, were residing. Its interior was rather dark, as the entrance was the only apera- ture that admitted any light; yet the inhabitants of this dreary abode seemed cheerful and contented, and perhaps felt themselves favored by Pele (goddess of volcanoes), in having a permanent abode furnished free of labor and expense 0
The women were employed in making mats, and beating tapa; the children were playing among fragments of lava on the out side, and the men were preparing an oven.in which to bake 139
some taro* We wished to purchase a few fowls of them, but they had none to dispose of0 They gave us, however, two or" three roots of taro, and a draught of excellent water0
Most of the archaeological examples occur near the sea coast
and appear to have been: used in conjunction with fishing activities
(Bennett 1931? I8j Ching 1971? Bnory .1969; 38j McAllister 1933b; 2h|
Renger 1970)c A great deal has been learned about the chronological
.framework of Hawaii from excavation of these cave shelters (Barrera
1971? Emory and Sinoto 1961? Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1968, 1969? Sinoto
and. Kelly 1970)„
Since the early 1950*s several cave shelters in Waiahukini
ahupua'a near South Point (Ka-’u), Hawaii have been investigated by
the Bishop Museume The midden materials and artifact concentrations
show not only that these sites were for cooking and eating (and dis
posing of) fish, shell fish and other food items, but also for the
making of fishhooks in large quantitiese In addition to fishing gear,
adzes, beads, pendants and tatoo needles were found in H8, the largest
of these shelters (Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1969s 10-11)e Eight large
sites, including H8 appear to have been occupied for long periods„
They may have been permanent habitations, though the evidence is un
clear » Three of these eight large cave shelters have been vandalized
before they could be investigated (Sinoto and Kelly 1970; 9)o Thirty-
seven other shelters in the area
o o «, do not have enough deep cultural deposits to show . lengthy occupation. It may be interpreted that they were- temporary sleeping or camping places used from time to time. Reasons for this may be that these shelters are not large enough to be dwelling places, or that people who used them were not concerned with establishing permanent dwellings, as they came down to the coast only on short fishing trips e Evidence for seasonal occupation was found by Wallace and
" < ■ Wallace (1969: 32).at an open midden site, H26, about two and one half miles away,. In the discussion of this site, the authors make the following observationso
It becomes plain from the prevalence of remains of large fishes in the archaeological deposit that H26 served as headquarters for a group of men engaged in deep-sea fishing0 When not out in their canoes, they camped directly on the shore, preparing and eating their catch „ « . <> They also took smaller fish close to the rocks « „ 0 and varied their diet with sea urchins and shellfish„ Quite probably the fishermen’s wives and.children searched the rocks and tide pools for•the latter productse
The bigger fish bones from the refuse also provide a means of deciding at .what season men came to H26e Though individual yellow-fin, skipjack and other tuna can be taken at nearly any time of the year, schools of them appear only . during the summer (1969: 32),
The authors note that only one artifact, a fishbone awl fragment was found at this site (1969: 31-2 ), It would appear, then, that this may have been a temporary processing site rather than a habitation site.
Nevertheless, it sheds light on the problem of duration and season of occupation of all the sites in the area.
Most of the archaeology in Hawaii has been concentrated in coastal regions. Though most residential site concentrations have been found within a few hundred yards of the ocean, inland habitations
are known, as well, A complete archaeological picture of the community
and inter-community economical and social pattern cannot be obtained until inland houses in the same ahupua * a as fishing shelter sites have been investigated.
Several temporary habitation structures are discussed by Handy
and Pukui (1958: 13-lU), ' lUl
The kauhale was the permanent home of the familys where they lived most of the year but some families had other dwellings besides0
A farmer who did much of his planting in the upland forest often had a papa'i or small house there, where he could st'ay occasionally . . »■ 0 As forests were often rainy, a papa*! or small house was built on a paepae or platform of, stone, to keep it off the wet ground„
Canoe makers sometimes made temporary houses in the forest, roofed with tree bark, . . , A temporary house like this was called a kamala. It was tent shaped„ The rafters came straight to the ground. There was still another type of kamala in Ka-?u, the kamala pohaku, composed of one long, back wall flanked by two side walls a little longer than a tall man. These were used mostly in the dry summer months when salt could be gathered and *ohua manini (spawn of Hepatus triostegus) appear by the million at the beaches. All that was needed to convert each of these stone-wall enclosures into comfortable sleeping quarters were two long poles across the top and a layer of coconut leaves,
' Some people built papa1i or small houses on the beaches just as the upland farmers did in the forest, that is, if they were to be used only for short periods. Otherwise shore dwelling families had their kauhale.
Some of the smaller house terraces and house platforms found throughout the group may be temporary papa!i, rather than permanent dwellings« The kamala pohaku, however, is more readily identifiable by form.
In recent years hundreds of small structures that apparently served as temporary or seasonal shelters have been recorded and exca vated in a wide variety of environments, These are generally referred to as "shelters" and most are dry masonry walls, varying in plan from a single straight line to the shape of the capital letters "L", "C" and "U" and, rarely,."F" and "E", Most of these sites include fire places and/or midden deposits, and some show evidence of multiple occupationso Size varies greatly, but the average dimensions are probably about 12 by 6 feet.
The function of these structures varies with their locations.
Those near the coast usually contain seafood refuse as well as fish hooks and hook-making tools (Barrera 1971j Ching 1971; Renger 1970),
Inland examples were apparently used by farmers of kula lands. More than 100 0- and L-shaped structures were found on the talus slope areas of leeward lower Makaha valley, Waianae district, Oahu, where sweet potatoes and other diy crops are believed to have been grown
(Green 1969$ 1970; field notes on file at the Bishop Museum), It is interesting to note that ho such structures were found on the talus slopes of windward Kahana valley, located across the island from
Makaha, though dry crops are believed to have been grown there (Hommon and Barrera 1971: 76), The two valleys are quite similar in size physiography, and patterns of wet agricultural sites, yet the habita tion pattern in the kula lands seems quite different.
Absence of significant stratigraphic depth and the presence of more than one fireplace in each Makaha shelter suggests temporary and perhaps seasonal occupation (Hommon 1969a: ^0-1; Takayama 1969;
Takayama and Green 1970),
The survey and excavation of sites in upland Lapakahi, Kohala,
Hawaii suggest "the recurrent occupation of periodically abandoned residential sites, and an agricultural.system based on the extensive dryland cultivation of edephically and climatically suited species such as the sweet potato" (Griffin and others n,d,: 7), This pattern is in part suggested by the fact that: ■ lii3
/ o / n e prehistoric "C" shaped structure with maximum external dimensions of 3x7 meters contained 19 such firepits in dif ferent stratigraphic positions? while a somewhat larger but similar structure contained 36 such firepits, including a large imu, or underground oven, , , (n„d0s 6),
In addition to 38 stone terraces and- platforms several hundred
ahu (cairns) and a number of cave shelterss Emory (1921) found more
than 100 small shelters in desolate Haleakula craters east Maui, the
floor of which covers 13 square miles, • Emory (1921s 23?) suggests,
partly on the basis of 101 sling stones he found that the shelters
may have been used by plover hunters.
Archaeological Sites of Political ' and Religious Function
Sites discussed in this section are divided into those that
were associated with warfare and those which were not. The pairing
of sites of political and religious function is explained below.
Sites of Worship and Political Administration
An understanding of the nature of the political policies and
operation of the hypothesized government is of great importance to the
Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis since it is vitally important to
■understand the relationship between the government and the several
communities which it ruled, A great deal of information concerning
political administration can be gleaned from the ethnohistoric litera
ture, as has been demonstrated in Part I, As in the case of other
aspects of the Hawaiian state, however, the archaeological pattern is
believed to contribute important information as well, primarily , i a through the delineation of quantifiable data concerning specific sites, areas, and. sociopolitical unitso (Equally as important, of course, archaeologists can add time-depth to the study of this as well as all other aspects of Hawaiian culture, Diachronic studies, however, are not the concern of this thesis.)
It is a truism to state that cultural patterns which we label
"religious" pervaded Hawaiian life. Such patterns have been opera tionally separated from the discussion of economic and social aspects of the archaeological pattern; but in this section they are discussed in conjunction with political administration. This is in part because it would be difficult to speak of separate "sites of political func tion” in Hawaii; there were no palaces or true "temple communities
In fact, settlements that I call "administrative centers" did apparently exist in pre-contact Hawaii. The king and governmental officials would shift from center to center as the political need arose or perhaps when economic resources in the immediate area became de pleted from overuse by the court. The second reason that religious and political functions are discussed together is that most of the expressions of government authority and administrative functions took place in a religious context. The construction and use of luakini heiau, the circum-island tour for purposes of refurbishing and con secrating the various agricultural heiau and the collection of produce at the ahupua'a shrines during makahiki season, all expressions of political power, were accomplished by the king and his representatives with strong ritual sanction and appeals to the gods. Thus, the ■ ' 115: patterns of heiau (temples), their distribution, size, complexity and functions reflect both religious and political aspects of the Hawaiian stateo
Sites of religious worship and political administration are discussed here in terms of two levels t supra=community (state and district) and community (1ohana arid family)„ Archaeological sites that functioned at the supra-community level were two types of temples, luakini heiau and Lono (agricultural) heiau; and ahupua * a shrines 0
Community-level sites were community heiau, hale mua and fishing shrines,
Supra-Community Heiau,..
As it is Used here, the term heiau pertains to structures that were true temples in that they were "operated” by professional priests, were built for the worship of the akua. or major gods and were utilized to maintain the relationships between these gods and all of the people of the community or supra-community. The heiau discussed here are those that operated in the supra-community context, the luakini heiau and the Lono heiau, . The luakini heiau could be built and used only by the king and was the only type of heiau at which human sacrifices were performed. Its function in the religious and political administration
of the state was discussed in Part I.
The other type of heiau is referred to here by the term "Lono heiau," as the ceremonies performed in their confines were usually dedicated to Lono and had as their object agricultural abundance. Most of our information about Lono heiau is derived from Malo (1951)« These . ' , Hi6 heiauj unlike the luakini heiau could be built by chiefs throughout the hierarchy as well as by the king himself0
It was custom for the:king to travel around the island on two occasions (after the end of makahiki season and.after the completion of a luakini heiau dedication) in order to dedicate Lono heiau through out the kingdom (mokupuni)6 These circum-island tours clearly served to integrate the political unit through religious ritual„ For this reason the various Lono heiau distributed throughout the islands may be viewed as representing the political pattern of the mokupuni as well as the ritual pattern of the inhabitants of the particular ahupua1a in which the individual heiau were located* According to
Kamakau's account of such a circum-island tour, it also provided the court with economic produce* ..'V e Y Ka-hahana went around Oahu with the chiefss counselors^ guards$ kahunass and attendantss and restored the most important heiaus, observed strictly the tabus on the heiauss and ate of the fat of the land" (1961s 13U)* The ©ircum-island tour was called a palaloa (Malo 1951s 189)o "Palaloa has the same meaning as palala* to give gifts to the king* These gifts were not a regular tax* They were, nonetheless, a burden, though supposed to be entirely voluntary offerings" (Emersen, note in Malo 1951s 199)@
The most frequently mentioned Lono heiau are the mapele and the unu o Lono.
If the king worshipped after the rite of Lono, the heiau erected would be a mapele; or another kind was the unu o Lono. The mapele was a thatched heiau in which to ask the god's blessing on the crops. Human sacrifices were not made at this heiau; pigs only were used as offerings* Any chief below the 1U7 king in rank was at liberty to construct a mapele heian,, an unu o lionog or an aka, but not a luakinl » 0 «, „ The mnele, however,was the kind■of heiau in which the chiefs and king- himself prayed most frequently (19^1$ 160),
Both of these structures were.dedicated during the palaloa circuit, apparently by both the king and the chiefs in the constituent dis tricts „ .. Heiau eweai were also built by each chief for the purpose of bringing rain (195)1: 189)*
Halo mentions four other types of heiau, each of which was a small flimsy temporary structure which was taken down when the cere mony was finished0 The kukoae, hale-puu-pun-one and heiau moa were erected at the end of makahiki for the purpose of purification of the all1 i c, The latter might also be the scene of ho-uluulu- * ai services for abundant crops (1951: 15>1~5>2, 156-57)» The heiau-loulu was a temporary structure built at the.end of makahiki for preparation of the fishing dieties (1951: 152, 157)»
In most instances, when Halo and other early writers refer to heiau they are describing the perishable structures in and around which ceremonies took place» The archaeologist, on the other hand, studies the foundation of the heiau, the combination of terraces, en closures, pavements and platforms upon which were built the wood and thatch houses and other wooden structureso The perishable structures " 1 " - ■ . of the luakini heiau have been more thoroughly described in the ethno- historic literature than have been those of the Lono heiau (li 1959:
35, 39off? Halo 1951: 159-87? Henzies 1920: 56-7? Thrum 1909: 55-63)o
Features of a luakini heiau are briefly described belowe ■ 1U8
The court (kahua) in which most ceremonies took place was often surrounded by a fence of vertical poles (the pa, enclosure)„ Within this enclosure were four or five wood and thatch houses, one or two framework towers, covered with tapa or leaves; a small wooden platform supported by two or four poles (the altar or lele) and numerous
(usually at least a dozen) images 0 The hale mana was the ..largest and most sacred house. The most sacred image was stored there (Thrum 1909$
6l)o The sacred drums were kept in the hale pahu (drum house) and the hale umu was the oven house where food sacrifices were sometimes baked.
The fourth and smallest house was the waiea, associated with the sacred right of obtaining the approval (aha) of the gods during a ceremony.
The two framework towers were.called the lana=nuu-mamao and the opu, and appear to have been associated with communication with the gods,
The lele (altar) held offerings after they had been dedicated to the gods. Halo. (1951s 162) describes the internal arrangement of a luaklni heiau as follows .$
The plan of the luakini was such that, if its front faced west, or east, the lana-nuu-mamao would be located at the northern end. If the heiau faced north or south, the lana~ ■ nuu-mamao would be located at the eastern end? thus putting the audience either in the southern or western part of the luakini.
Within this lana-nuu-mamao was a pit called a lua-kini, or lua-pau. In front of the lana-nuu stood the idols, and in their front, a pavement (kipapa) and the lele on which the offerings were laid.
In front of the lele was a pavement of pebbles or a frame work on which the offerings were deposited until they were offered up (hai), when they were laid upon the lele. In front of the lele was a house called hale-pahu, with its door facing the lele, in which the drum was beaten. At the back . .. . • -iU9 of the hale-pahu stood a larger and longer house$ called mana, its door also opening towards the lele* To the rear again of the hale-pahu was another house which stood at the entrance of the heiau* In the narrow passage back of the drum house (hale pahu) and at the end (kala) of the house called mana was a small house called walea, where the aha cord was stretched 6
At the other end (kala) of the mana was a house called hale-umu, in which the fires for the heiau were made,, The space within the ga, or enclosure, was the court, or kahua, of the heiau.
The Lono heiau probably included images, lele, pavements, houses and other features but it is probable that they were not as elaborate in plan as were the luakini heiau0
In 1938, Thrum compiled a list of all the known heiau in the
Hawaiian islands, including many that had been destroyeds More have been destroyed in the ensuing decades „ His list includes II4O heiau
(26 of which were luakini) on Hawaii5 119 (21 luakini) on Maui5 23
(5 luakini) on Molokaij 17 (no luakini) on Lanaij 101 (23 luakini) on Oahu and 123 (17 luakini) on Kauaie His total is 323 heiau, of which 9 k were reportedly luakini heiau«
In recent years, most of the archaeological work in Hawaii■has been directed at chronology building and the analysis of pre-contact ecology. Relatively little work has been done in heiau. The major problem in the functional analysis and comparison of heiau is that the formal characteristics that distinguished one type from another were chiefly perishable in nature, though many of these characteristics could be traced by detailed mapping and excavation, A delineation of the supra-community politico-religious structure as it is expressed in the distribution patterns of various types of heiau would require a careful analysis of the existing literature and the inspection and excavation of a large number bf heiau„ A first step in the classifi cation of heiau was taken by Bennett (1931s 30=1)0
Two important factors influenced the temple forms, and make the classification extremely difficult; (l) many old heiaus were remodeled by a later chief, at which time other features might be added and the old destroyed5 (2) the temple architect was a special priest whose business it was to study the plans of all heiaus, and design new ones. He would pick out the features that he supposed had brought success to some important heiau and incorporate them in his plan. . . . Instead of following the common plan, he might recall some ancient plan, or even add new features of his own. Consequently a great confusion of forms and features was the result. In spite of these dif ficulties some classification of heiaus is needed if for no other reason than convenience of description. In that which follows it is obvious that the groups are not mutually ex clusive; some heiaus exhibiting two or more types of con struction. But this classification serves to differentiate the outstanding characteristic features, and has been found helpful in describing the structures on Kauai (1931s 30).
CLASSIFICATION OF HEIAUS ON KAUAI
TYPES
I. Natural sites 6 II. Small Heiaus 29 A. Open Platforms 20 B. Walled Enclosures 7 III. Large Heiaus 66 A. Platforms 18 1. On level ground or uerracea . against a slope. 7 2. Crowning the top of a rise. 7 3. Two or more terraced divisions. U B. Walled Enclosures 21 1. Square and rectangular 17 2. Divisioned Enclosures 3 3. Compound Enclosures 1 C. Terraced Heiaus 6 1. Two terrace types 2 2. Three terrace types 3 3® Four terrace types 1 D. Round Heiaus 5 l£L
E0 Unclassified Heiaus 16 lo L-shaped 1 2„ Community Houses 2 3® Large Structures 13 17„ Unidentified Heiaus 21
TOTAL 122 (1931; 30-31)®
The "small heiau" and possibly the "community houses" might pertain to the "community" rather than the "supra-community" level (see below)„
Ahupua1 a Shrines •
The term "ahupua*a," referring to what is considered here to be the basic Hawaiian socioeconomic unit s
o e o is derived from the Ahu or altar (literally piles kuahu being the specific term for altar) which was erected at the point where the boundary of the land was intersected by the main road, alaloa, which circumferented each of the islands« . Upon this altar at the annual progress of the akuamakahiki " (year-god) was deposited the tax paid by the land (ahupua'a land unit) whose boundary it marked,.and also an image of a hog, puaa, carved out of kukui wood and stained with.red ochre (Lyons 1875': 10ii)o
No such shrines were found in the extensive island-wide surveys
(Bennett 1931J Emory 1969, 1970j McAllister 1933a, 1933b), though one of three ahupua*a boundary stones that were recorded on Molokai
(Summers 1971: 77, 152, 15U) was adjoined by a flat stone 21 inches wide (1971; 152). .
■ The "konane tournament site" at Kealakomo, Puna, Hawaii and its possible connection with the makahiki festivities has been dis cussed in the section of gaming sites. Petroglyphs at Puako, near the Kohala-Kona border,.Hawaii may also be related to makahiki. They consist ofs 1S2
o » o a long line of 29 marching figures, flanked on either side by greatly extended figures about 6 feet long (which), brings to mind a picture of the makahiki procession moving V along a trail accompanied by the priests of Lono0 Not far from this group is another petroglyph which „ 0 0 could well be a picture of the Lono images an upright staff with the head at the apex and a crossbar with banners suspended from it (Cox and Stasack 1970;; 3L).
It seems unlikely that a significant amount of the produces or even token items of the produce of an ahupua1 a could be placed on the cairn of an ahupua'a shrine as described by Lyons» An unusual site in Anaehoomalus Kohala$ Hawaii at the Kohala-Kona border may well: be a type of ahupua'a shrine complex that has not hitherto been described* It consists of four cairns ("ahu"), a small platform and about $ 0 small;
* * o contiguous "rooms" constructed by removing rocks from the surface of the rough pahoehoe and piling them into crude walls between the cleared areas* The features varied in size from less than 1 meter square to 1 by 3 meters, with walls standing as high as 75> cm* in places (Barrera 1971: li8)o
Barrera suggests that the small compartments may be storage places for the makahiki produce, and that.one of the cairns may be the ahu of the ahupua*a shrine*. He bases his contention on these data:
I* The sites were located immediately adjacent to the major coastal trail at the point where it crossed into the 'ili of Anaehoomalu and the district of Kohala*
2* The flat, paved areas were too small to have func tioned as habitations, and seem best suited for storage*
3* The Hawaiian name for site -60 was Ahu a Lono* Al though this fact could hardly be called a conclusive piece of evidence, it does tend to support the more substantial data presented above (Barrera 1971: 5>0)*
I have seen a coastal site in Punaluu ahupua*a, Ka-*u, that is strik ingly similar to the Anaehoomalu site; it includes cairns, numerous 153 small compartments and it is near a stepping stone trail on a lava flow. Perhaps more of these sites will come to light now that a "type description" has been provided0 .
The ahupua?a shrine represents a point of articulation between the "vertically" oriented ahupua1a community and the "horizontal" government that tied them together* If these sites were as simple as individual cairns, as they are described by Lyons, little information of anthropological interest could be derived from them. If, however, they were more elaborate, as in the case of the Anaehoomalu site, important data is available* For example, an estimate of the amount of produce that could be placed in the storage compartments could be calculated and it might be determined whether all of the produce of the community was collected there or just a representative sample 0
Further, if this type of site appears only in certain ahupua*a along the Kona coast, for example (where preservation of such structures would be reasonably good) it might be suggested that the makahiki pro cession stopped not at every ahupua*a boundary, as is generally be lieved, but at one out of every five, 10 or 20 of the more than E>00 ahupua*a in the island0 Perhaps, in fact, tax collection occurred only at district (moku) borders«, (Given a 120 day makahiki season, the priests and other members of the procession would have to pass through an average of more than four ahupua*a a day*) This in turn would indicate a pattern of grouping of ahupua'a in relations with the government that is not clearly indicated in the ethnohistoric litera ture «, • 15U
. Comnmnity Heiau
I have suggested above that most of the large heiau throughout
the various ahupua* a of the islands were constructed and used by the
ali'i of moku and mokupuni as part of the district and/or state
politico-religious system® The inhabitants of the ahupuaia were doubt
less felt to benefit from these ceremoniess both through the political
success and stability of the mokupuni and. through local agricultural
abundance® Yet recent archaeological work, in conjunction with some
references in the ethnohistoric literature indicates that each
ahupua1a-community constructed and used "community heiau," in which
the relationship of the local johana to the supernatural was main
tained® Presumably the primary purposes of these heiau were general
community well-being as well as economic abundancee
Thrum (1909s 55) quotes Kamakau in a description of structures
that appear to correspond with what I have called "community heiau:11
The temples, of the common people of olden time, (the people who looked after the god; those who worshipped gods; the nightly praying people; those who continued in daily prayer to the gods), some of these were large temples and some were small® Some were surrounded with a wooden enclo sure (paehumu) and. others were encompassed with stone wall with only one house within® At the outside end was the ter race or steps, and the stone ledge or platform of offering and the altar where the bananas were deposited® The popu lace had pig feasting temples® When it became known that an important person was going to observe some sacred festi val many pigs were killed, and those of each place who prayed . daily to the god were the first to come to partake thereof®
Three structures in Makaha valley were chosen for mapping and
excavation by Ladd (1970) on the basis of unusual size and form® Each
. was located on the talus slope and each consisted of terraces that had 1 # been constructed by modifying a natural rock-slide. They appear to belong to a class of structure that is quite unlike any other sites in the valleyo Their form and size serves to distinguish them both from the smaller and less complex habitations and agricultural features and from the two significantly larger and more complex named heiau in the valley that are believed to have been "government heiau." The latter had been recorded by McAllister in his Oahu survey0
Three sites were recorded in Kahana ahupua'a, Koolauloa5 Oahu which were generally similar in form and size to those described above in Makaha valley (Hommon and Barrera 1971s 70-1)„ They, too5 were located in the lower talus slopes„
In' Halawa, Koolaus Molokai^ the data is more complete. Of the
15 heiau in the valley, two are believed to have been luakini heiau
(Summers 1971s 160-65). Kirch (1970s 25) has suggested that the re maining structures which are relatively small and simple in design,
"may be correlated with descent groups or ?ohana." This interpretation would.seem to serve as well for the Makaha and Kahana examples. The
8ohana may in turn have been associated with the stream-to-talus 'ill lele discussed in Part I.
Kirch (1971as 8lt-5) has identified a structure in Palauea,
Makawao, Maui as a mapele heiau that was under the jurisdiction of the chief of the ahupua’a. The ceremonial function of the structure is well-established in comparison with nearby, sites by its form, its size and the presence of a pebble pavement and coral chunks e
As noted previously, some or all of the structures recorded by Bennett (1931: 30-2) on Kauai as "small heiau" might be what I have called "community heiau." Some of the sites recorded on Oahu
(McAllister 1933bi 9 ) and the other major islands should also be in«= vestigated as possible "community heiau" in contrast to the larger and more complex supra-community heiau.
Hale Mua '
In the discussion of habitation structures I suggested that functionally-specific houses that are usually referred to as constit uent parts of kauhale were often communal structuress shared by two or more families, Structures used communally probably included the menstrual hut (hale pea), craft shelters' and women's eating houses, as well as hale mua, to be discussed here„ As noted earlier^ the ethnohistoric evidence for such communal houses is relatively slim and consists primarily of two references to communal structures (a hale pea and an "eating house") and the lack of evidence of kauhale in the literature except at the level.of the highest ali'i in con junction with the fact that the kapu system required that men and women eat separately and they should avoid contact during the woman' menstrual period®
The hale mua functioned as a men’s eating house (Malo 1951?
28), as well as the site of a boy's rite of passage when he ceased eating with his mother and other women of the family and became a
"man" as well as the rite of circumcision (Handy and Pukui 1958; 9|
Malo 1951; 87, 93)o
The Mua.or men's eating house was a sacred place from which women were excluded. It was the place where the men and older boys ate their meals and where the head of the IB?
family offered the daily offerings of fawa to the family . 8 amnakua a Here men and family gods ate together, and that was. why women, who are periodically unclean, were not allowed to enter here0 ■ :' -,
When a serious problem arose, such as a new venture to be attempted or sickness in the family, the head of the family slept in the Moa, where the family gods would give him direc tions as to what to do (Handy and Pukui 19^8: 9)0
The Mua was the men's eating and lounging house, and their sanctuary* At one end was an altar (kuahu) dedicated to the family 1 aumakua whose effigies stood there s Here the head of the household prayed and performed necessary rites sometimes without, sometimes with the aid of a kahuna pule, . when came the time for the rites of the life cycle such as birth, cutting the foreskin, sickness and death* Here the family rites during the monthly days of kapu were performed (1958s 9 5 - 6 ) *
Parts of the rites of passage was the cooking and eating of a pig*
The pig that was used as an offering was baked in an oven in the presence of the worshipping assembly, and being sacred, only those who went in to take part in the ceremony ate of it* " ;
. When the pig had been consecrated, its head was cut off . and set apart for the deity, - though it still was eaten by the people - being placed on the kuahu (altar)? where always stood images in the likenesses of the gods (Malo 1951s 87)*
The mua was kapu to women, for there the men slept when con secrated for war, fishing, canoe building, or other work that required segregation from contacts with women and . little children that might be contaminating, as offensive to * aumakua and alcua (Handy and Pukui 1958: 112) *
Four recent archaeological reports have included descriptions of structures that might be mua in Ka-'u and Kohala districts, Hawaii,
Maui and Oahu* It is to be expected that sites in other areas will be identified as mua as programs of intensive survey and excavation are continued, Though the body of data is too small to generalize,
I suggest that while archaeologically identified mua may be found in - # 8 many areas, each ahupua8a will have relatively few of these structures«
They appear to have been community structures, each serving numerous households o
At Waiahukini, Ka«su, Hawaii, a "three-sided walled structure built on top of the highest lava outcrop in the vicinity. * . was identified as a mua because (l) it is the only structure of its type and size in the area; (2) it occupied a prominent position, and could be seen from several dwelling caves in the vicinity; (3) it includes a low platform attached, to one of the side walls; (U) a test trench revealed chunks of coral (often a sign of sanctity), and unusually large fishbones /perhaps representing an offering (Sinoto and Kelly
1970: 11)7,
A rectangular enclosure in Palauea ahupua *a, Maui was inter preted by Kirch (1971a:8^-9) as a mua because of its proximity to habitation structures, the presence of coral and its unusual size and type of construction as well as the absence of a fireplace (indicating it was not a habitation structure), and the presence of a raised plat form that was interpreted as the kuahu (altar).
A large low earthen platform recorded during a surface survey in Kahana, Koolauloa, Oahu was tentatively identified as a mua because of the unusual size of the platform, its prominent location (on a bluff overlooking several large wet-taro patches), and the presence of a possible *aumakua image. The "image" is a lozenge-shaped stone carved in two bands (Hommon and Barrera. 1971: 70-1).
The structure identified as a possible mua in Anaehoomalu,
Kohala, Hawaii included three interior platforms which included all 1$9
of the floor area of the structure 0 Associated with it but outside
the structure was a pile of coral as well as a fire pit and middene
These datas in addition to large size, excellence and uniqueness of
construction and prominent position suggest functions that included
cooking* eatings and sacred activities (Barrera 1971: 37=8)«
Very little is known about the sociopolitical 'organization
of the individual ahupua»a°c ommunlty« Presumably the haku (usually
the eldest ranking member of the rohana) made most of the decisions
that affected the 1ohana as a whole* in consultation with heads of
constituent families» The hale mua would be a logical place for con=
ferences on * ohana policy regarding irrigation systems* construction
of community heiau* and other such matters. Another type of site
that may have operated in this context is the "community houses
This term is found in the literature from time to time but its func
tional definition is quite unclear (Bennett 1931: 33* 122j Sinoto and
Kelly 1970: 17).
Fishing Shrines
Buck (1961*? 327=28) summarizes the form and function of shrines
. as follows o
Shrine is a convenient term to designate a simple altar without a prepared court. They were made by individuals or small family groups who conducted a short ritual which re quired no priest. The ritual was accomplished by an offering ' which was laid on the shrine or at the feet of it to promote •' the god * s aid in a particular undertaking. The image of the god could also be set up bn the shrine during the service* . but this was not always necessary. . Apparently the most common type, of shrine was the ko'a or fisherman’s
. shrine. They are usually identified by their proximity to the shore.
f . . . . - ■ . 160
They are often found on "a rocky, point at the end of a ridge$ or the terminus of a sand beach (Bennett 1931s h 9 ) e
McAllister (1933b: 13=-16) discusses 23 ko'a of widely varying arrangements$ including simple arrangements of one or more stones, platforms and enclosures<> The most elaborate of the Oahu ko'a; was located at the foot of Keawanui, Mokapu Peninsula, Heeia0 It is a platform with plan dimensions of 33s3 by 17o3 feet and is about a foot high© At the south end there are two small platforms set on the main platform« Into the coral paving of the larger of these were set two stones so that they projected about a foot above the paving© The larger of these was called "Kanaloa" and the other, "Kane" (1933b:
The Kamohio fishing shrine on Kahoolawe is interesting in this respect as well as in the light of a statement made by McAllister
(1933a: 13) when writing of the Oahu shrines: "Apparently there was one individual who made the offering and who was looked upon as the guardian of the koae" This man seems to have been a part-time folk practitioner rather than a true priest©
McAllister (1933a: 38) suggests that Kahoolawe served as a base for professional fishermen© In spite of the small population
/probably no more than 130 inhabitants at one time (1933a:38)7, there are two heiaus and nine shrines eight of which were probably kuula or
"fishing heiaus" and that one was abandoned when the other was adopted©
They are only about 130 feet apart (1933a: 10), If he is correct in his contention that Kahoolawe supported mainly fishermen then the 161 heiaus and their priests were undoubtedly oriented toward the gods who favored fishermen.
The Kamohio fishing shrine on Kahoolawe was a rock shelter partly filled with talus which formed three to five foot terraces which had been faced with large stones, both outside and within the shelter. It is curious that fewer than, half the bundles (possibly considerably fewer than half) in a shrine supposedly dedicated to fishing gods held fish bones*. A partial explanation may be that the fishermen inhabiting Kahoolawe formed only a portion of its clientele and the shelter was more than a shrine* Stokes surmises;
* * * the shelter was the abode or workshop of many successive kahuna kamakau or fishhook-makers, Every craft had its guardian deity to which of course oblations were made, As time progressed the reputation of the establishment’s pro ducts spread, until fishermen from the islands of Maui and Hawaii resorted to the spot, making offerings to the fish gods and bartering for hooks (quoted in McAllister 1933a; I?)- Of the eight types of heiau, that, according to Malo 1931:
131-32, 156, 160, 189) were built by the king and chiefs, only one, a temporary structure constructed by the king at the end of makahiki and called a heiau-loulu, was dedicated to fishing (1931s 132, 136),
The abundance, stylistic elaboration and formal variety of ko’a indi cates that the ceremonies for fishing were almost entirely the concern of the fishermen in each community.
Sites Associated With Warfare
When governmental policies of the power-holding government of a Hawaiian state could not be actualized through the authority structure. 162
they were often expressed through warfare«, Three types of archaeolo=»
gical sites have been found to.be associated with warfare in Hawaii,,
They are fortresses, battle camps, puuhonua and, caves of refuge*.
Fortresses
The fortresses mentioned in the ethnohistoric literature were
usually fortified ridges or hills, from which warriors could hurl and
sling stones down on invading forces (Kamakau 1961s 82, 89, 90, llj.0,
160)e Fortresses have been identified by. archaeological surveyors
but have not yet been intensively studied*
Two possible fortresses on Kauai are briefly noted by Bennett
(1931s 5U"5>) o Thrum (1906: 6U) describes the larger of the two:
' Above.the heiau of Hauloa rises the abrupt and precipi tous hill of the same name* This is a plateau of 20 acres, fully 800 feet high, and was fitted out as a most perfect puu-kaua or fort. This was last used on the occasion of Kamehameha's threatened invasion (in l80l|)o
On Lanai, three artificial notches about eight feet deep and
20 feet wide were cut by the Hawaiians into a.sharp ridge at the head
■ of Maunalei gulch* .
Ten feet from the first cut, about five tiers of stones the size of a man’s head are banked against the ridge on the west side* Natural pebbles intended for. throwing stones are scattered over the ridge. On the end of the ridge, shallow depressions have been scooped out probably for sleeping places (Emory 1969: 75)o
Mhen Kalaniopu’u, king of Hawaii, attacked Lanai in 1778, the final
stronghold for the local forces was this frotress* "The trouble with
the place was that when the chiefs and soldiers fled thither, their
water supply was cut off and they were slaughtered" (Kamakau 1961:
90 ) , . 163
Five ridge-top fortresses are reported by Summers (1971s 92-3,
100, 119, 178, 130-81) on Molokai, Sling-stones were found in two of
them (1971s 92, 101)„ Two of the Molokai fortresses (1971s 92-3, 180-
1) included stone structures. The archaeological evidence to be re-
realed by excavation at this type of site is probably slight, however,
due to their short terms of occupation.
Battle Camps
Hawaiian fortresses seem to have been used only during the
final stages of a battle and apparently were not provided with suffi
cient supplies to withstand a siege. According to Ellis (1826: 123)
"the most broken and uneven ground, frequently rugged tracts of lava
. , 0 0 " were often chosen as the site of the actual battles. Battle
camps consisted of temporary huts (auolo) were sometimes set up near
the battle ground.
Two clusters of small enclosures near rough lava fields on the
island of Hawaii have been tentatively identified as battle camps.
One such complex is located in Kaloko ahupua8a, Kona and consists of 71 irregularly shaped enclosures that average about 12 by 20 feet
(Renger 1970s 23-5, lilt-5), The other complex is located in Kailikii
ahupua1a, southern Ka-8u, Hawaii and consists of more than I4O small C-shaped structures, some of which were partially covered by the 1868
lava flow, Kailikii is known to have been the scene of a battle be
tween the forces of Keoua and Kamehameha in 1789 (Kelly 1969: 23),
Puuhonua
The loss of life in Hawaiian battles before and immediately
after European contact (prior to the extensive use' of firearms) was probably relatively smalls "However the greatest loss of-life.accord ing to early writers was not from the battless but from the starvation of the vanquished and consequential sickness due to destruction of food sources and supplies «— a recognized part of Hawaiian warfare"
(Stokes 1937: 39-1*0).
In 1793$ Vancouver (1801: III, 301-02) observed that Lanai and Kahoolawe:
o co which had formerly been considered as fruitful and popu lous islands$ were nearly overrun with weeds and exhausted of their inhabitants|. nor had (Hawaii) escaped the devasta tion consequent on her foreign and intestine disputes, which had been numerous and severee
When Kamehameha1s army had occupied Maui, they had not been content with simply provisioning;,
. o o nor with leading their canoes with the productions of the soil, (they) had laid waste the lands on all sides, broken the fences of the plantations, thrown down the banks of the little canals made for watering the crops, which were torn up by the rootsj and . .all the dogs, hogs, and fowls, that could not be carried away, were killed or dispersed over the country (1801: 3U)e
On a day that his party covered 18 or 20 miles in Ka~lu district,
Hawaii, Menzies (1920: I8I4.-85O
observed a great deal of ground on both sides of our path lay waste, which appeared to have been cultivated many years ago0 This we ascribed to the late commotions on this part of the island, as it is the common custom of these people to destroy the plantations of the vanquishede
Many references to destruction of fields, irrigation systems, fishpond walls, livestock and houses can be found in the literature (Arago
1823: 85| Kamakau 1961: 66, 70, 90, 108, 160; Menzies 1920: 16, 111*,
113, 117, 118)e Not only were the agriculturally productive lands used by the commoners laid waste but non-combatant commoners too were killed in Hawaiian battles (Kamakau 1961s 89, 91, lit8) 0
Aside from fortresses, those who wished to seek refuge from marauding armies sought one of two types of protection* The puuhonua was a place of refuge that was protected by sacred sanctions* The refuge cave was protected by the fact that its location was known only to the members of community or of a smaller group*
"A puuhonua is a sacred refuge established by a ruling chief„
It operated in conjunction with a heiau or temple, whose deities ex tended their protecting influence and whose priests watched over it"
(Bnory 1957s 9). :
Kelly's list of known puuhonua in the islands reveal little in the way of formal patterning (Kelly 1957)® Her list includes h 9 puuhonua, including 10 on Hawaii island, 12 on Maui, one on Lanai, 10 bn Molokai, eight on Oahu, eight on Kauai and one on Niihau* /Bennett
(1931s ii9) named two puuhonua on Niihau*/ Of the total number, 15 were associated with heiau, of which three (all on Hawaii) were luakini« None of the Oahu sites were associated with heiau® A total of 18 were entire land divisions, apparently ahupua’a, of which eight were established by Kamehameha*
The puuhonua of Honaunau, Kona, Hawaii is associated with the
Hale-o-Keawe heiau where deified remains of ancient ali'i nui were kept* It is the largest structure of its type in the islands and in cludes a massive L-shaped wall that encloses a 600 by I4OO foot area of the beach (Ladd 1969a)® Six other puuhonua included massive-walled 166
structures® A total of seven puuhonua were on hills and may have
served as fortresses as well®
Using the seven puuhonua that he recorded on Kauai and two
structures on Niihau, Bennett (1931: It9) notes some similarities in
form and other characteristics„
Hanola is a different type of structure, and may not be a city of refuge» Two of the six structures class as puuhonuas are destroyed without record® It is not possible to draw conclusions from the remaining four, but it is interesting to see that three— one at Wailua on the east, one at Waimea on the southwest, and one on Niihau— are all exceptionally long and narrow walled enclosures, and that at least two have walls that consist of parallel rows of ■ slabs on edge, the intervening space being filled with rubble„ Furthermore, two have the same name, Hikinaakala, and three are located on the beach parallel to the shore™ line® It is the nearest to a type that Kauai and. Wiihau offer®
Refuge Caves
In time of war, commoners sometimes fled to a cave of refuge,
seeking actual seclusion rather than the sacred protection conferred by the supernatural order through the chiefly and priestly hierarchy®
Deep and long caves with several openings, in the upland and at the beaches, with a good draught in places where • smoke of fires would be quickly dispersed by the wind, . were used as places of refuge in time of war® There were places inside of these where sweet potatoes were stored in preparation for just such happenings ® These were kept ■ renewed from time to time, so that when war came, all could find refuge and sustenance® Fuel was kept in readiness near fireplaces and salt for the fish or meats® The location of these caves of refuge were not talked about to outsiders (Handy and. Pukui 1958; 1U)«
Ideally, a refuge cave would offer the archaeologist with a
cross-section of cultural material left behind by relatively large
groups of people for. relatively short periods of time® Several refuge 167 eaves are known on the island of Hawaii (Ching 1971? 99-100; Emory
1970; 30-1; Emory, Bonk and Sinoto 1968; 6-7) hat the intensive in vestigation of only one has been reported in the literature (Bonk
1969)o It is "Lua Nunn" in Kamakalepo ahupua'a, Ka-’u, Hawaii6
Caves of refuge are characteristically unusually long lava tubes, often with a number of branches„ As a rule they include dry masonry entrance-camouglaging walls and/or interior walls that block all but a very small entrance-way0 Invaders seeking entrance would have to crawl single-file into such sanctuaries, where they could easily be dispatched (Bonk 1969; Ching 1971s 99-100)e
When the caves were occupied permanently or, as was more frequently the case, as temporary shelters or resting places, the normal, daily activities of the occupants were usually restricted to an area or zone near the entrance« In con trast, the typical caves of refuge were complex and extensive networks of underground passages and tubes (Bonk 1969 : 75>) o
In addition to 159 portable artifacts (1969: 80), 137 plat forms, averaging 8 by I4 feet were found, in Lua Nunu0 These were paved with pebbles and "decayed remains of grass and matting were found on many of them" (1969: 79) „ They were apparently built for sleeping and other domestic activitiese Most of the fireplaces were found near these "sleeping platforms6"
/T/he positioning of this site in a relatively late period of Hawaiian prehistory corresponds with what we know of other caves of refuge that have been investigated, as well as the great Pu'uhonua at Honaunau, Konae These sites can be correlated with a cultural period that includes an in creased population, the development of more elaborate or complex political.organization, a formalized pattern of warfare, and in general, a higher level of sociopolitical integration (1969: 92). , CHAPTER £
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF HAWAIIAN SITES AMD.
THE PRIMITIVE STATE HYPOTHESIS: SUMMARY
The emphasis in Part II was upon individual archaeological
sites as they reflect individual elements of the hypothetical Hawaiian
state, In this summary I attempt to show how intersite patterns may be used to demonstrate the function of sociocultural sub-systems within the Hawaiian state system. Studies of total settlement pat
terns are important to the investigation of the Hawaiian primitive state hypothesis since a corollary of this hypothesis is that the
evolutionary processes that led to the development of a state society
resulted from characteristics of and; profoundly affected all aspects
of the total sociocultural system, .
Following the pattern established in Part I 9 I presented the
evidence in terms of the two fundamental segments of the state; the
community and the government,■ Much of the following is somewhat,
speculative due to the incipient nature of settlement pattern studies
in the islands. The data is presented not as "proof," but rather to
demonstrate archaeological patterns that may be correlated with the
sociocultural systems of the hypothetical Hawaiian primitive state„
The Community
... Each of the numerous communities within a Hawaiian state
society consisted of a group of individuals with strong ties of kinship 168 and economic interdependence (1ohana) who held traditional use-rights to sections of land.that ideally included all or most economic re= sources necessary for community existence (ahupua'a and 'ili)„ While the members of the community maintained contacts with other communi ties through occasional intermarriage and perhaps through exchange of relatively rare economic products, the primary orientation was
"vertical" and "centripetal0" Most of the community members were primarily economic producers and a major channel of contact with the governmental segments was the contribution of goods and services0
Other contacts, which in a real sense were basically economic as well, were through government-sponsored ceremonies (mainly for agricultural increase) and through military activities„ Such contacts were quali tatively different from intra- or intercommunity relationships in volving as they did classes and segments with widely varying cultural orientationse A well-developed ceremonial system, with rituals per formed by community members was an important element in community life©
In summary form, an ideal ahupua*a settlement pattern would include (arranged roughly from shore to forest);
10 Evidence of marine exploitation consisting of refuse deposits with shells, fishbones, fishhooks, lures, nets and other fishing gear as well as tools for fashioning such gear, concentrated near the shore, as open camp sites or in caves or temporary habitation structures.
20 Salt-making pans,
3= Platforms, terraces, walls, stone outlines, post-hole patterns, or other evidence of relatively small permanent house foundations, - 170
often concentrated but usually not clustered near the shores often with fireplaces and refuse deposits that include evidence of both marine and terrestrial exploitation0
Ue Foundation of special-function communal structures j, such as women’s menstrual huts or craft houses that are shared by several households j, often but not always near permanent habitation structures
identified by remnants of craft activitiess isolation or other charac teristics,, including abundance of food remains or absence of sleeping platform that serve to differentiate these structures from the hale noa or hale noho0 -
0 O One or more relatively small inland fishponds,
6 , Sites of an agricultural exploitation system, including irri
gated, fields and the canals that feed and drain them as well as
evidence of dry-land agriculture, ranging from presence of charcoal
lenses in alluvium (results of swiddening) to elaborate wall-field patterns, located, respectively, on the low alluvial deposits along the permanent streams, and along the talus slopes and dry plateaus,
7q Community ceremonial structures, such as hale mua, shrines and
community heiau, the function of which could be determined by size
(larger than most houses, smaller than most heiau that are associated with traditions of the ali’i of the moku /for/ mokupuni, unusual charac
teristics, location, relationships with other sites and nature of
associated cultural materials (e,g,, remains of offerings such as
coral or pig bones), located near economically productive areas, and,
to a lesser extent, near population concentrations. 171
80 Temporary shelters in the form of caves and/or small, informal
structures (usually in the shape of the letter "C" or "L"), located in or near zones of temporary or seasonally available resources, such as fishing grounds, dry agriculture (midden) areas, or forest resource zoneso
9o Sites for the exploitation of rare economic resources (such as basalt for adzes or trachyte for cutting tools) including temporary habitation structures, quarries, and/or shrinese
10o Intra-ahupua*a trails, connecting the various parts of the production system of the ahupua'a,
116 One or more refuge caves, with evidence of short-term occupa
tion, camouflage and defense 6
The Government
The governmental segment of the primitive Hawaiian state con
sisted of a relatively small number of members of the upper class
(both chiefs and priests) whose occupational specialties involved various aspects, of administration, rather than economic production?
The defining feature of the government is the fact that it holds the monopoly of political power in the context of the state society as a wholeo Government policy was implemented through the more or less
constant operation of an authority system and the occasional exertion
of force, both internally (supression of rebellion and execution of
criminals) and externally (war)„
The government exercised "horizontal" control over the "verti
cal" segments (the communities) within the sociopolitical boundaries V . 172
that it established and defended» Two archaeological patterns reflect
the activities and organization of the governmental segment; the
administrative center and the dispersed administrative patterne As
in the case of the community pattern, the data below, while based on
actual evidence, is presented in idealized form. Each of these
archaeological sites and complexes have been found associated in various combinations, but all features have not yet been found as parts of a single pattern.
An idealized administrative center would be located relatively
close to the shore (near the coastal trail, as well as to the ocean
for transportation) and would include;
lo a relatively large concentration of permanent habitation
structures?.
20 exploitation sites located in or near sources of plentiful
supplies of food (such as extensive agricultural systems, fishponds
or unusually productive fishing grounds) for the direct support of the
non-producing administrative specialists? ;
3 o foundations of a relatively large number of unusually large, well-built permanent habitation structures, some forming parts of
kauhale clusters, with little or no evidence of direct participation
in food production, often located near heiau;
It., foundations of storehouses, indicated archaeologically by the
lack of fireplaces.or other living debris, probably associated with
chiefs' houses? - 173
5><, habitation structures of craft-specialists with skills such as wood-carving that would be of special use to the administrative hierarchy;
6 0 one or more luakini heiau;
7= an unusual concentration of large non-luakini heiau with tra ditional names and histories involving chiefs holding high governmental offices; and
8 o one or more puuhonua0
The ethnohistoric evidence indicates clearly that the government shifted the location of its centralized operations periodically in order to better maintain political control over the several districts of the realme In addition, officials of the government visited indi vidual communities (or groups of communities) to collect taxes, to recruit workers and soldiers and. to hold ceremonies, a function of which was to integrate the various communities» It also became neces sary in defense of the sovereignty of the government as representative of the state society and in defense of its borders to pursue a war. policy.
Ideally, the dispersed administrative pattern of the Hawaiian government would include;
le The coastal trail, which connects the various communities of the realm,
2, Numerous ahupua1 a shrines,
3, One or more luakini heiau that can be activated for purposes
(such as the sacrifice of a rebellious district chief) identified by , ■ . iih names traditional history and perhaps (eventually) by form and associ ations.,
It®, Numerous Lono heiau distributed throughout the territory of
the stateo
Several puuhonua, including at least one in each district*
60 Ridge-top fortresses and other retreats located throughout the territory of the state*
7o War camps and battlefields located wherever necessary* LIST OF REFERENCES
ADAMS j. ROBERT Me *
1966 The Evolution of Urban Society« Aldine Press, Chicago„
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM D 0
1903 Hawaiian Geographic Namese UoS. Coast and Geodetic Survey Appendix Noo 7 ~ Report for 1902» Government Printing Office, Washingtono* ~~
1917 Overthrow of the Ancient Tabu System in the Hawaiian Islands« Hawaiian Historical Society, Fifteenth Annual Report. Honolulue
APPLE, RUSSEL A,'
1965 Hawaiian Archaeology; Trails? From Stepping Stones to Kerbstones„ B, P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No, 53» Honolulu.
ARAGO, JACQUES . ' .
1823 Narrative of a Voyage Round the World in the Uranie and . .Physicienne Corvettes. Treuttel and Wurtz, Treuttel, Jun, and Richter, 30, Soho-Square, London.
AUSTIN, GINNY ' : , "
1971 Abrader Manufacturing Area. In Surface Survey Kailua- Kawaihae Road Corridor (Section III). Hawaii State Archae ological Journal, Vol. 71, No. 1. . Honolulu.
BARRERA, WILLIAM, Jr.
1971 Anaehoomalus A Hawaiian Oasis. Pacific Anthropological Records, No. 1$. Department of Anthropology, B. P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. BEATTIE, JOHN -
1967 Checks on the Abuse of Political Power in Some African States i A Preliminary Framework for Analysis. In Compara tive Political Systems, edited by Ronald Cohen and John Middleton. Natural History Press, Garden City.
175 BECKWITH, MARTHA WARREN
1932 ' Kepellno1s Traditions of Hawaii. B c P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 93= Honolulu.
BENNETT, WENDELL CIARK
1931 Archaeology of KauaiB. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 80g Honolulu.
BLOXAM, ANDREW
1925 Diary of Andrew Bloxam, Naturalist of.the "Blonde" on Her Trip to the Hawaiian Islands 1821*-1825. B. P. Bishop Museum, Special Publication No. 10. Honolulu.
BONK, WILLIAM J.
1969 Lua Nunu 0 Kamakalepo; A Cave of Refuge in Ka?u, Hawaii. In Archaeology on the Island of.Hawaii, edited by Richard Pearson. Social Science Research Institute, Honolulu.
BRIGHAM, WILLIAM T.
1868 Contributions of a Venerable Savage to the Ancient History of the Hawaiian Islands. Press of A. A. Kingman, Boston.
1902 Ancient Hawaiian Stone Implements. B. P. Bishop Museum . Memoir, Vol. 1, No. 1*. Honolulu.
BUCK, PETER S.
1961* Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 1*5. Honolulu.
1965 Polynesian Oratory. In Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, by Handy and Others. Charles E. Tuttle Co. Publishers, Rutland, . Vermont.
CAMPBELL, ARCHIBALD
1967 A Voyage Round the World from 1806 to 1812. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
CARNEIRO, ROBERT L.
1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science, Vol. 169, No. 391*7, pp. 733-3§. • Washington. : 1 7 7
OHING, FRANCIS K.'W.
1971 Surface Survey Kailua-Kawaihae Road Corridor (Section III), Hawaii State Archaeological Journal* Vol, 71= Honolulu,
COHEN, YEHUDI A,
1968 Man in Adaptation - The Cultural Present, Aldine Publishing Go,, Chicago,
COOK, JAMES
18^2 The Voyage of James Cook Round the World, Vol, II, John Tallis and Company, New York,
. COULTER, JOHN WESLEY
1931 Population and Utilization of Land and Sea in Hawaii, 1853, B, P, Bishop Museum Bulletin No, 88, Honolulu,
COX, J, HALLEY and EDWARD STASACK : 7 •
1970 Hawaiian Petroglyphs, B. P. Bishop Museum Special Publi- cation No, 60, Honolulu,
DAVENPORT, WILLIAM
1969 The "Hawaiian Cultural Revolutions" Some Political and Economic Considerations. American Anthropologist, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 1-20. Menasha,
' DIXON (CAPTAIN) GEORGE
1789 A Voyage Round the World, Performed in 1785, 1786, 1787, and . 1788 in the King George and Queen Charlotte, Captains Portlock and Dixon. George Goulding, Haydn's Head, No. 6 James Street, Covent Garden, London.
DONDO, MATHURH
1959 La Perouse in Maui. Maui Publishing Co., Ltd., Wailuku.
- .'ELLIS, REVEREND WILLIAM
1826 Narrative of a Tour Through Hawaii, or Owhyee. H. Fisher and Son and Jackson, London . ELLIS, SURGEON WILLIAM
I783 An Authentic Narrative of a Voyage Performed by Captain Cook and Captain Gierke, in his Majesty's Ships Resolution and Discovery During the Years 177q7 1777? 1778, 1779 and 1780» Jo Sewell, Cornhill, London*
EMORY, KENNETH Pc
1921 . An Archaeological Survey of Haleakala* E. Bishop Museum . Occasional Papers, Vol0 7j. Pte 11, ppc 237“5>9e Honolulu0
1928 Archaeology of Nihoa and Necker Islands0 B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin Nop 33» Honolulu,
1957, Honaunau Village and Vicinity Under Hawaiian Culture, In The Natural and Cultural History of Honaunau, Kona, Hawaii, Volo IIs The Culture History of Honaunau, by Kenneth Pe Bnory, John F, G, Stokes, Dorothy Barrere and Marion A, Kelly, B, P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu,
. 1963a Sports, Games and Amusements, In Ancient Hawaiian Civiliza tion, E, S, C, Handy, Kenneth P, Emory, Edwin H, Bryan and others, Charles E, Tuttle Co, Publishers, Rutland, Vermont,
. 1965b Warfare, In Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, E„ S, C, Handy, Kenneth P, Emory, Edwin H, Bryan and. others, Charles E, Tuttle Co, Publishers, Rutland, Vermont,
1969 The Island of Lanai; A Survey of Native Culture, B, P, Bishop Museum Bulletin No, 12, Honolulu,
1970 Inventory of Archaeological and Historical Sites in the Districts of Kona and Ka’u.and in Anaehoomalu, South Kohala, Island of Hawaii, 3, P, Bishop Museum, Department of . Anthropology, Report No, 70-12, Honolulu,
EMORY, KENNETH P,, WILLIAM J, BONK and YOSIHKO SINOTO
1968 Hawaiian Archaeology, Fishhooks, B, P, Bishop Museum Special Publication No, ^7, Honolulu,
1969 Waiahukini Shelter, Site H8, Ka’u Hawaii, B, P, Bishop Museum, Department of Anthropology, Pacific Anthropological Record No, 7* Honolulu,
EMORY, KENNETH P, and YOSIHIKO H, SINOTO .
1961 Hawaiian Archaeology, Oahu Excavations, B, P,. Bishop Museum Special Publication No, Ii9, Honolulu, • ■ : 1 7 9
FIRTH, RAYMOND
195>7 A Note on Descent Groups in Polynesia, Man, 7ol„ 57, pp0 U~80 London,
1963 Elements of Social Organization. Beacon Press, Boston.
FISCHER, J. L.
I97O Political Factors in the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Taboo System. Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariqae, Vol. 19, ■ pp. 161-67* — ' "
FLANNERY, KENT V., ANNE V . T . KIRKBY, MICHAEL J„ KIRKBY, AUBREY W. WILLIAMS, JR. .
1967 Farming Systems and Political Growth in Ancient Oaxacao Science, Vo. 158, No. 3800, pp. hU5-5U*-. Washington.
FREAK, W. F.
I88I4. The Evolution of the Hawaiian Judiciary. Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society No, 7, Honolulu.
FREEMAN, OTIS W.
1951 Hawaii and American Island Outposts. In Geography of the Pacific, Otis W. Freeman:,, editor. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
FREESE, E. I.
1919 Hawaiian Houses of Other Days. Art and Archaeology, Vol. 8, pp. 215-23. Washington. .
FRIED, MORTON H.
1967 The Evolution of Political Society.- Randon House, New York.
1968a On the Evolution of Social Stratification and the State. In Readings in Anthropology. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., New York.
1968b Readings' in Anthropology. .Thomas Y, Crowell Co., New York.
1968c State; The Institution. In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by David L, Sills. The Macmillan Co., pp. Ui3-50. GEARING,- FREQ :
1962 Priests and Warriors, American Anthropologist Memoir No8 93, Menasha0 .
GREEN, ROGER: Co .
1967 Settlement Patterns s Four Case Studies from Polynesia0 In Archaeology at the Eleventh Pacific Science Congress, Wilhelm G, Solheim 11* Asian and Pacific Archaeology Series No0 1, Social Science Research Institute, Honolulu, — • ' . ■ GREEN, ROGER C, (ed,)
1969 Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No0 16 Ba Pe Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Records, No, 1|.6 Honoluluo
1970 Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No„ 20 Bo Pp Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Records,Noe 10, Honolulu,
GRIFFIN, P, BION, THCMAS RILEI, PAUL ROSENDAHL and H, DAVID TUGGLE
n0d0 Archaeology of Halawa and Lapakahit Windward Valley and Leeward Slope, Paper Prepared, for the New Zealand Archae- oXogfcal' Association Meeting, May 13-16, 1971,
HANDY, E, S, CRAIGHILL
1931 Cultural Revolution in Hawaii, Preliminary Paper Prepared for the Fourth General Sessions of the Institute of Pacific : Relations, Hongkong, . •
19l|D The Hawaiian Planter, B, P, Bishop Museum Bulletin, No, 161, Honolulu,
1969 Feasts and Holidays, In Ancient Hawaiian Civilisation, by Handy and others, Charles E, Tuttle Co, Publisher, Rutland, . Vermont, .
HANDY, E, S, C, and M, PUKUI
1958 The Polynesian Family System in Ka-^u, Hawaii, The Polynesian Society, Wellington, New Zealand,
HINDS, NORMAN E, A,
1930 The Geology of Kauai and Niihau, E, P, Bishop Museum Bulletin, No, 71° Honolulu, 181
HOEBELj, E„ ADAMSON
19U9 Man in the Primitive World, McGraw-Hill, New York*
HOLE, FRANK
1966 Investigating the Origins of Mesopotamian Civilization, Science, Vol, l£3. No, 3736, pp, 603-611, Washington,
HOMMON, ROBERT J,
1969a An Intensive Survey of the Northern Portion of Kaawaloa, Kona, Hawaii,. B„ P, Bishop Museum, Department of Anthro pology, Honolulu,
1969b An Interim Report on Archaeological Zone 1, In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No, 1, edited by Roger C, Green, B, P. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Records No, U, pp. Honolulu,
1969c Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the Upper Makaha Valley. In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim . Report No, 1, edited by Roger C. Green, B. P. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Records No, it, pp. 85-9iu Honolulu.
1970a Final Report on the Upper Valley Survey. In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No. 2, edited by Roger C, Green. B. P. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Records No. 10. Honolulu.
1970b Subzone 1C of Archaeological Zone 1 in the lower Makaha Valley. In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No, 2, edited by Roger C. Green. B. P. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Record No. 10. Honolulu,
HOMMON, ROBERT J. and WILLIAM M. BARRERA .
1971 Archaeological Survey of Kahana Valley, Koolauloa District, Island of Oahu. B. P. Bishop Museum, Department of Anthro pology Report No. 71-3, Honolulu, .
HOUSTON, VICTOR S. K.
1914.0 Chamisso in Hawaii. Hawaiian Historical Society Forty- Eighth Annual Report. Honolulu.
II, JOHN PAPA
1939 Fragments of Hawaiian History. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. 182
KAMAKAUS SAMUEL MNAIAKALANI
1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaiie . The Kamehameha Schools Presss Honolulu,
1961|. Ka Po'e Kahiko - The People of Old, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu,
KELLI, MARION
1956 Changes in Land Tenure in Hawaii 1778=18^0, Master’s Thesis, University of Hawaii Library, Honolulu,
19f)7 Annotated List of Puuhonua in the Hawaiian Islands, In The Natural and Cultural History-of Honaunau, Kona, Hawaii, Vol, 2 s The Culture History of Honaunau, Kenneth P, Emory, John F, 0, Stokes, Dorothy Barrere and Marion Kelly, B,P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu,
1969 Historical Background of the South Point Area, Ka'u Hawaii, B, P, Bishop Museum, Pacific Anthropological Record No, 6 , Honolulu,
KIRCH, PATRICK V, -
1970 The Halawa Valley Project: A Preliminary Report, New Zealand Archaeological Newsletter, Vol, 13, pp, 23-26, Hawera,
1971a Archaeological Excavations at Palauea, Southeast Maui, Hawaiian Islands, Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, Vol, 1, NoJ~l, pp, 62-85T Sydney,
1971b Halawa Dune Site (Hawaiian Islands)s A Preliminary Report, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol, 80, No, 2, pp, 228- 236, Wellington,
KRADER, LAWRENCE .
1968 Formation of the State, Prentice-Hall, Inc,, Englewood Cliffs, .
KROEBER, ALFRED L, ' • .
19U8 Anthropology,. Harcourt, Brace and Co,, New York, , 1 8 3
LADD, EDMUHP JV.
1969a Hale~o=-Keawe Temple Site j, Honaunau; Pre=Salvage Report 0 In Archaeology on the Island of Hawaii, edited by Richard Pearson„ Social Science Research Institute, Honolulu0
1969b Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Survey of the . Lower Makaha Valley0 In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report Noe 1, edited by Roger C0 Green. P. B. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Records No0 h p PPe 2 1 ™ W 7 Honolulu.
1970 Test Excavations of Three Stepped Platforms, In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No. 2, edited by Roger C. Green. B» P. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Record No, L, pp.'81=6. Honolulu. " ” ~
. LEDXARD, J O M
1963 John Ledyard's Journal of Captain Cook's Last Voyage. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, .
LEVIN, STEPHANIE SETO
1968 The Overthrow of the Kapu System in Hawaii, Journal of the Polynesian Society, Vol. 77, pp. U02-li30. Wellington, New . Zealand.
LISIANSKY, UREY
I8U 1. A Voyage Round the World, in the Years 1803, L, 5 and 6 . John Booth, London,
LOWIE, ROBERT H.
1967 Some Aspects of Political Organization Among the American Aborigines. In Comparative Political Systems, edited by- Ronald Cohen and John Middleton, Natural History Press, Garden City.
LYONS, C. J. - - ' .
187^ Land Matters in Hawaii. The Islander, Vol. 1, Nos. 18, 19, 20, pp. 103-119. Honolulu.
. MACRAE, JAMES
1922 With Lord Byron at the Sandwich Islands in 1829. Hawaiian Historical Society, Honolulu. .. ' m MIR, LUCY
1962 Primitive Government, Penguin Books, Baltimoree
MLO, DAVID
1951 Hawaiian Antiquitiese B. Pe Bishop Museum Special Publi cation No, 2o Honolulu"! (Translated by N0 B, Emersen 1898e)
MANBY, THOMS
1959 With Vancouver at Kealakekua Bay. In A Hawaiian Reader, edited by A0 Grove Day and Carl Stroven. Appleton-Centuiy=> Crofts, Inc., New York.
MENZIES, ARCHIBALD
1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago. Printed in Honolulu. — ------...... McAllister, j . gilbert
1933a Archaeology of Kahoolawe» . B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 113c Honolulu.
1933b Archaeology of Oahu. B. P. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 10lu Honolulu.
NADEL, S. F.
- 1967 Nupe State and Community. In Comparative Political Systems, edited by Ronald Cohen and John Middleton, pp. 293-338! Natural History Press, Garden City.
NAKKIM, LYNN BOERNER ;
1970 Possible Food Storage Pits in Hawaii. New Zealand Archae ological Association Newsletter, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 123-27. Hawera, N. Z,
NEMCa^B, W. Jr.
1960 ’ Toward an Understanding of War. In Essays in the Science of Culture, edited by Gertrude E. Dole and Robert L. Carneiro. Thomas Y. Crowell Co., Ne%f York.
NEWMN, T. STELL
1968 Hawaiian Archaeology; An Historical Review. Archaeological -Association Newsletter, Vol. 11, No. It, pp. 131-150. Hawara. 185
HEWJ&N, T o STELL .
tucL Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in AoD* 1778oDepartment of Land and Natural Resources5 Division of State Parkss Honoluluo
OTTERBEIN, KEITH Fo . v.
1967 The Evolution of Zulu Warfare0 In law and Warfare9 edited by Paul Bohannan„ The Natural History Press, Garden City0
PERRY, ANTONIO
1912 Hawaiian Water Rights» .Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1913, pPs 90-99o Honolulu, .
POWERS, HOWARD
1939 Hawaiian Adz Materials in the Haleakala Section of Hawaii National Park, B c P0 Bishop Museum Special Publication No, 3bs> Po 2L0 Honoluluo
POKUI, MARY Ko and S, H, ELBERT
1957 Hawaiian-English Dictionary, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
RENGER, ROBERT C. ,
1970 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Coastal Kaloke and Kukio 1, North Kona, Hawaii. B. P. Bishop Museum, Department of Anthropology, Report 70-10. Honolulu.
RESTARICK, HENRY B. .
1928 Historic Kealakekua Bay. Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society No. 15, pp. 5-20. Honolulu.
RILEY, THCMAS J.
1970 Settlement, Subsistence, and Environment in Halawa Valley. In Molokai Studies. Preliminary Research in Human Ecology. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu.
ROHSENOW, HILL GATES
1967 Hawaiian Social Organization, 1778-1820. Master’s Thesis, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. . 186
■ HflfflSSDAHL, PAUL .
Dsde Archaeological Research In the Agricultural Uplands of Lapakahi, Hawaii Island» Ms,, B, P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu,
0AHL1NS, MARSHALL D,
1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia, The American Ethnolo= gical Society, University of Washington Press, Seattle,
1 9 6 $ On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange, In The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology, Tavistock Publications Ltd,, London,
1968 Tribesmen, Prentiee-Hall, Inc,, Englewood Cliffs,
SAWDERS, WILLIAM T, and BARBARA J, PRICE -
1968 Mesoamerica The Evolution of a Civilization, Random House, New York,
• SCHMITT, ROBERT C, .
1968 Demographic Statistics of Hawaii: 1778-196^, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu,
SERVICE, ELMAN R,
1962 Primitive Social Organization. Random House, New York,
1963 Profiles in Ethnology, Harper and Row, Publishers, New York,
SINOTO, YOSIHIKO H, and MARION KELLY ...
1970 Archaeological and Historical Survey of Pakini*=nui and Pakini-iki Coastal Sites, Waiahukini, Kailikii and Hawea, Ka!u, Hawaii, B, P, Bishop Museum, Department of Anthro= pology Report No, 70-11, Honolulu,
SOEHREN, LLOYD and T, STELL NEWMAN : .
I968 The Archaeology of Kealakekua Bay, B, P, Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu,
STEARNS, HAROLD T,
1966 Geology of the State of Hawaii, Pacific Books, Palo Alto, 18? STEWARD, Co So
1970 Journal of a Residence in the Sandwich Islands, During the Years lB23? l82itV and T82"^» University "of Hawaii Press, . Honolulu,
STOKES, JOHN F. G,
1937 Dune Sepulture, Battle Mortality and Kamehameha1s Alleged , Defeat on Kauai, The Hawaiian Historical Society LS>th Annual Report, pp, l O - k & l Honolulu,
SUMMERS, CATHERINE G ,
196U Hawaiian Archaeology; Hawaiian Fishponds, B, P, Bishop Museum Special Publication No, 52, Honolulu,
1971 Molokai; A Site Survey. Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Pacific Anthropological Records, Department of Anthropology, Honolulud
TAKAYAMA, JUN
1969 Excavation of Four House Sites in Archaeological Zone 1, In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No, 1, . edited by Roger C. Green, pp. 55“,SSo Bl~P’»- Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Record No. U. Honolulu.
TAKAYAMA, JUN and ROGER C. GREM
1970 Excavations of Three Additional Field Shelters in Archae ological. Zone 1. In Makaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No. 2, edited by Roger C. Green, pp. 35-51to B. P. Bishop Museum Pacific Anthropological Record No. 10, . Honolulu,
THRUM, THOMAS G.
1906 Tales from the Temples, Hawaiian Almanac for 1907, pp. U9-69. Honolulu.
1909.> Heiaus; Their Kinds, Construction, Ceremonies, Etc, Hawaiian Almanac for 1910. Honolulu.
I92I4 Heiaus (Temples) of Hawaii Nel. Hawaiian Historical Society 31st Annual Report for ,1923. Honolulu.
TITCOMB, MARGARET; ■
. 1952 Native Use of Fish in Hawaii. Journal of the Polynesian . Society, Memoir No. 29. Wellington, N.Z. ■ 188 TITCOMB, MARGARET
1969 Dog and Man in the Ancient Pacific with Special Attention to Hawaiie B. P» Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 5>9° Honolulu,
■ TOWNSEND, EBENEZER,-. Jr.
1888 Extracts from the Diary of Ebenezer Townsend, Jre Hawaiian Historical Society Reprints No, U® Honolulu,
TRIGGER, BRUICE G,.
1968 Beyond History; The Methods of Prehistory, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.
TYERMAN, REV, DANIEL and GEORGE BENNET
1832 Journal of the Voyages and Travels by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman and George Bennet, Esq. Crocker and Brewster, Boston. .
VANCOUVER, GEORGE
1801 A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World. Printed for John Stockdale, Picadilly, London.
VON KOTZEBUE, OTTO
1821 A Voyage of Discovery Into the South Sea and Bering1s Straits„ for the Purpose of Exploring a North-east Passage, Undertaken in thF YearF^lSl^-lSlB. ■ Longman, Hurst, Bees, Ormie and Brown, London, ,
WALLACE, WILLIAM J. and EDITH TAYLOR WALLACE
1969 Pinao Bay Site (H-2I4.), A Small Prehistoric Fishing Settle ment Near South Point (Ka Lae), Hawaii. B, P. Bishop Museum, Department of Anthropology, Pacific Anthropological Records No.2. Honolulu,
WHITE, LESLIE A.
191*9 The Science of Culture. Grove Press, New York.
WISE, JOHN H.
1969 Food and Its Preparation. In Ancient Hawaiian Civilization, by E. S. C, Handy and others. Charles E. Tuttle Co, Publishers $ Rutland, Vermont. 189
WOLF, ERIC Ro
1966 Peasants. Prentice-Hall, Inc,, Englewood Cliffs,
YEN, DOUGLAS Ee, PAUL ROSENDAHL, THOMAS J, RILEY and PATRICK V„ KIRCH
n0d0 Prehistoric Agriculture in the Upper Valley of Makaha, Oahu, B0 P0 Bishop Museum, Honolulu»