Hawaiian aquacultural system
Item Type text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Authors Kikuchi, William K. (William Kenji), 1935-
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 09/10/2021 08:17:55
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/565277 HAWAIIAN AQUACULTURAL SYSTEM
by William Kenji Kikuchi
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
1 9 7 3 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
GRADUATE COLLEGE
I hereby recommend that this dissertation prepared under my direction by William Kenji Kifcuchi ______entitled ______Hawaiian Aquacultural System______
be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy______
Dissertation DirecTOr Date
After inspection of the final copy of the dissertation, the following members of the Final Examination Committee concur in its approval and recommend its acceptance:*
j y / f / 4T/,£-/*■ 3
"This approval and acceptance is contingent on the candidate's adequate performance and defense of this dissertation at the final oral examination* The inclusion of this sheet bound into the library copy of the dissertation is evidence of satisfactory performance at the final examination* STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation 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 Libraryo Brief quotations from this dissertation are allow able without special permission? provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made? Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manu script 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, how ever, permission must be obtained from the author.
SIGNED? (
To Dolly
Whose Patience and Energy Influenced the Completion of this Work
iii PREFACE
A definitive study of the prehistoric Hawaiian aquacultural system based on field survey of existing fish ponds and fishtraps could not be undertaken because of the lack of survey funds„ Instead, a selected sample of fish ponds and fishtraps on the islands of Kauaei, 0*ahu, and
Hawai°i were chosen for study due to their access to the author without requiring special funds or equipment. The remainder of the sources of data, primarily published materials, unpublished manuscripts, photographs, maps, oral and written communications, and tape recorded transcripts, were found in various state and private archival and library facilities. Many Hawaiian words are used in the text, but every attempt was made to define each word when it first appears. Brackets are used to enclose English definitions for
Hawaiian words used in quotations. In case of confusion, the reader is referred to the Glossary, where all non-
English words, as well as any abbreviations used, are listed. All Hawaiian words are spelled with glottals and macrons according to Pukui and Elbert (1957)®
The tasks of searching for, collecting, tran scribing, collating, and indexing the data were greatly aided by numerous individuals and by various institutions
iv V and their staff members0 It would be nearly impossible to acknowledge the contributions of all who assisted the author® and so only a few c^n be listed here,
Mary Kawena Pukui® George Bacon® Johanna N, Wilcox®
Rubelitte Kinney Johnson® Mr, and Mrs, Philip Palama® Sr,® John C, Belshe® and Ku’ulei Ihara were all aids or infor mants in the task of data gathering. Gratitude is also ex tended to Catherine Stauder® Historian of the Kaua* i Museum in Lihu'e, who was constantly on the lookout for historical references and who served as a useful informant in various areas.
Much assistance was provided by the Bernice P,
Bishop Museum and by many of its staff .members, The author acknowledges the aid given by: Roland T, Force® Director of the Museum; Dr, Yoshihiko H, Sinoto® present Chairman® and
Dr, Kenneth P, Emory® former Chairman of the Department of
Anthropology? Edwin Bryan® Jr, of the Pacific Scientific
Information Center; Eleanor Williamson of the Recording Laboratory? and Catherine C , Summers and Dorothy B. Barrere, Associates in Anthropology® who kindly and unselfishly shared their data with the author,
A number of facilities aided in the completion of this work by providing access to their sources of informa tion. The author extends his gratitude to the staffs of the library and the manuscript room of the Bishop Museum; to the Sinelair and Hamilton Libraries of the University vi of Hawai'ii and to the State of Hawai'i Archives. Dr, T, Stell Newman of the State of Hawai'i, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, and Bert Newton, Director of the State Surveyor’s Office, State Tax Map Division, also helped by opening up their facilities to the author. /
The author is further indebted to the members of his dissertation committee at The. University of Arizonas
Edwin N. Ferdon, Jr., Chairman, and Drs. Arthur Jelinek and
Jane H, Underwood, Drs. Raymond Thompson, Chairman of the
Department of ,Anthropology, and Harry Getty, Graduate Stu dent Advisor for the Department of Anthropology, also are acknowledged for the time and effort they spent in aiding the author. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS e©o©ooo©o©©oe©o xix
LIST OF TABLES © © © © © © © © ©. © © © © © © © © © xir ABSTRACT ©©©©©o©©©©©©©©©©©©©© xv* x CHAPTER X© INTRODUCTION ©©©©. ©©©©©©©©©©o© X 2© CLASSIFICATION OF SITES * © © * * , © * © © 8 Ernie Classifications © © © o '© © © © © © 8 Main Types ©©©©©©©©©o©©© 9 Secondary Types ©©©©©©©©©0 XO Etic Classifications ©©o©©©©©©© XX Littoral Zone ©©©©©©©©©©© X^ Shore Zone ©©o©©©©©©©©© X^ Inland Zone ©©©©©©©©e©©© l^ Upland Zone ©©©©e©©©©©©© X3
3© GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS © © © © © 25
Geographical Parameters ©©©©©©o© 36 Reefs and Shoals ©o©©©©©©©© 3& Pleistocene Deposits © © © © © © © © 37 Recent Volcanic Coastlines © © © © © 42 Draxnages ©o©©©©©©©©©©© 42 Water ©@o©©©©©©©©©©©© 43 4© CONSTRUCTION © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 45 Construction Materials ©©©©©©©©© 45 Rock g©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 46 I Calcareous Materials © © © © © © © © 46 AllUVXUm 0O€>&eo©o&0.0G oo 47 ‘ T xmber ©©©©©©©©©©©©©o© 48 Vegetable Materials © © © © © © * © 48 Construction Techniques ©©©©©©©© 49 Features ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 5^ Walls © e © © © © © © © .6 e © 0 0.0 52 Seawalls ©©o©©©©©©©©© 5^ vii viii TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page
Secondary and Tertiary Walls © © 57 Sluice Grates o « 0 0 © © © © 0 © © 59 DltcheS e e o e © © 0 0 © © © 0© © 64 Ha © o o © © © 0 © o © e © © © 64 eAuwai ©os© ©©©© '©©©© 65 •Auwai-kai © © © © o © © © 0 © © 66 Lanes ©. © © © © © 6 © © o e © © © © 66 Dams and Weirs © © 6 © © © © © © 0 © 73 Dams © © © © © 0© © © 0 © © © © 73 Weirs o© © © © © © © 0 © © 0 .0 74 Shelters and Platforms 0 0 © © © 0 © 75 Size ©oo©©©©© ©0©©©©©©© 79 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS © © o 0 © o 0 o 82
Physical Environment © © 0 0 0 O © 00 0 83 Physical Parameters © © 0 © © 0 © © 84 pH 0 0 © 0 © © 0 0 © 0 0 © e © © 84 Temperature © © © © © 0 © © © © 84 Turbidity © © © © 0 © © © © © © 86 Oxygen © © © © 0 © © O . © © © © © 87 Salinity © © © 0 0 © o © © © 0 0 87 Bottom Sediments © © © © © © © e . 0 © 88 Biological Environment o 0 0 0 0© © 0 0 89 Food Chain © © © © © 0 © e e© © © e 89 Food Resources © © Q© 00 o© © © © 92 Fish ©oo©©0©©0©©©©© 92 Crustaceans © © © © 0 © 0 © © © 93 Seaweed © © © © © © © &© 0 © © 94 Miscellaneous Resources © © © © 95 OWNERSHIP © © © © © s © © 0 © 0 O 0© © © © 97 Management © © © © © © © © © © e © © © © 100 All 1.0© © 6 © © © © 0 © © © © 0 © 100 Overseers © © © © © e e © © © © © © 101 Konohiki © © © © © e © © © © © © 101 Kia® i«=loko © © © © © 0 •© e 0 © © 104 Haku~*ohana © © 6 © © © 0 © © © 106 Proprietorship © © © © © © © 0 © .© 0 © 0 106
OPERATION ©oeeeeee ©©© © e © © © 0 113
Stocking of Fishponds © © © e © 6 113 Fertilization © © © e o e e 0 © © © 116 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS-.Continued
Page
Natural Fertilization 0 © 0 0 0 o O 117 Artificial Fertilization © © G 0 0 118 Maintenance o 0 o o 0 <,© o G O O 0 0 120 Harvest @ o © © © © © © © © 0 © 0 0 0 123 Sexual Division of Labor O 0 0 o 0 123 Methods © © © © © © © © o © 0- © © 6 123 Muddying © © © © © © 0 © 0 © © 123 Hand Thrusting and Gathering 0 124 Driving © © © © © 0 o © o © .o G 125 Fish Poisoning © o © 0 © 0 o 0 12? Collander © © © © 0 © © O 0 0 0 127 Netting © © © © © © 0 O <3 © © 0 127 Time for Netting Fish 6 © o O G 0 O 130 Over-Harvest © © © © G © e 0 © 0 O 131 CONSERVATION ©o©©©©©© GG .©G 00© 133
Supernatural Orientation e e 0 © o 0© 133 The Gods © © © © © © 0 o O 0 o 0G 134 Ku and Hina © © © G o O o G © © 134 Lono © © ©' © © © © o0 © © © © 134 Kane and Kanaloa © o0 © © 0 0 135 Guardian Spirits © © 0 o 0 © Q0 O 136 Shark 8 Aumakua © 0o G © © © © 137 Mof_o, © © © o © © 0 © O © G © © 138 Shrines © © © © © © © © © © © 0 0 0 141 Waihau © © © © © 0 G © 0 © * 0 0 141 8Aoa © © © © © © O © 0 G 0 0 0 141 Kd9 a .© © © © © © © 0 0 © G © 0 142 Ceremonial Appeasement © © © O 0 0 144 The Natural Forces © © © D G © O G e 0 145 Lava Flows © © © © © 0 © © © © o0 146 Hualalai © © © © 0 G © e o 00 147 Mauna Loa © © © © © Q© © © Q 0 149 Kilauea © © © © © © © e G 0 © 0 149 Kanai8 o © © © © © © 0 0 © © © 0 150 Earthquakes © © © © © © © 0 o © © 0 151 Landslides and Faulting © © © 0 © 6 152 Tsunami^ ©©©©©©© © ©© © o© © 153 Sea Storms © © © © © 0 © 0 0 O © © 155 Flooding © © © © © © © © 0 © © G © 155
Cultural Orientation © © © © 0 © © 0. © 156 Laws and Prohibitions © © © © G 0© 157 Mores and Folkways © © © © 0 © © © 158 War © © © © © © © © © © © €; © © G © 162 KauWa Caste © © © © © © © G © © © © 164 X
TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page Decline of Aquaculture o o o o ® © 164 Concluding Remarks oooeoeooo 165
9o INTRA-ISLAND ASSOCIATIONS '••••• .o. ' 166 Settlement Patterns oeeoeoe00 166 Agglutinated Sites © © © © ® ® 16? Non-agglutinated Sites © © © © © © 169 Aquacultural Site Associations © © © © 172
10 o ORIGINS o©ooo©Geoo©©ooooo 161 Chronology of Construction © © © © © © 181 Pre-Thirteenth Century © © © © © © 181 Fourteenth Century ©©©©©©©© 183 Fifteenth Century © © © © © © © © 183 Sixteenth Century © © © © © © © © 183 Eighteenth Century ©©©©©©©© 185 Nineteenth Century © © © © © © © © 186 Unknown Date ©©©©©©©©e© 186 Aquacultural Systems in Oceania © © © 187 New Guniea ©©©©©©©©©o© 187 Australia ©©©©©©©©©©o© 187 Melanesia ©o©©©©©©©©©© 187 St© Matthias Group © © © © © © I89 Micronesia ©©©©©©©©ooo© I89 Palau © © © © © © © © © © © © 189 Yap District ©©©©©©©©© I89 Truk District © © © © © © © © I89 Ponape District © © © © © © © 190 Marshall Islands ©©©©©©© 191 Gilbert Islands © © © © © © © 191 Polynesia ©©©©©©©©©©©© 192 Society Islands © © © © © © © 193 Tuamotu Archipelago © © © © © 195 Austral Islands © © © © © © © 198 Cook Islands © © © © © © © © 198 New Zealand ©©©©©©©©© 200 Samoan Islands © © © © © © © © 200 Futuna Island ©©©©©©©© 201 Polynesian Outliers © © © © © 201 Names ©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 202 Conclusions ©©©© ©-©©©©©©©© 206 TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued
Page 11O THE POSITION OF AQUACULTURE IN PREHISTORIC HAWAIIAN SOCIETY *00000 209 Distribution of Aquacultural Sites o 6 210 Evolution of Aquacultural Types 000 211 Economic Role 000 00 ©000000 21_5 Place of Fish in the Hawaiian Diet 215 Productivity of Fishponds © © © © 216 Political Role © © © © © © © © „ ©.© © 221 Archaeological Implications © © o @ © 223
APPENDIX As TYPOLOGY OF HAWAIIAN AQUACULTURAL SYSTEM oeeeeoeoaoooooo 22^
APPENDIX Bs INVENTORY OF AQUACULTURAL SITES • IN HAWAI® I OOGOOOOOO OOOO 233
GLOSSARY o©oooeo©o©ooooo©o©o©o 265
REFERENCES CITED ooooooo©oo©oo©ooo 2V8 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page 1© The Hawaiian Islands ©©©©©e@oo©oo© 3 2® Key to Symbols Used ® ® ® © 0 ® ® © © ® ® ® ® / 12 3® Schematic Diagram of Hawaiian Aquacultural System ©ooo©©©©©®© 0©©6o0 13
4® Kaua®i Island ©e©©®®©©©© 0©© © © 0 16
5o Hanalei-Ha8ena, Kaua® i Detail © © 0 0 © © © © 17
6® 0®ahu Island ©©©©©o©®©©© ©o©© ©© 18
7o KahukUg 0®ahu Detail © © © © © © © 0 © © © © 0 19
8 © Kane®ohe, 0®ahu Detail © © © © © © 0 © © © © © 20
9o Maunalua? 0®ahu Detail © © © © © © e 0 © © © © 21
10 0 Honolulu# 0®ahu Detail © © © © © © e © © © © © 22
11® Moanalua# 0eahu Detail @ © © © « © 0 © © 0 © 0 23
12© Pueuloa# 0eahu Detail © © © © © © 0 o © © © 0 24
13® Moloka® i Island © © © © © © © © 0 © 0 © 0 © 26
i4 © Pauwalu-Kamalo, Moloka® i Detail © o o © © © © 27
15® Kamalo-Kamiloloa# Moloka® i Detail 0 © © 0 e 0 28
l6e Kamiloloa-Kaunakakai# Moloka® i Detail © © © © 29
17® Kaunakakai-Kukuku# Moloka® i Detail © © © © o 30
18© Hawai ® i Island ©©©© ©©©;©© © © © e © © 31
19® Mahaiula-Puako» Hawai® i Detail © © 0 0 e e © © 32
20© Hilo# Hawai®i Detail © © © © © © » © © e © e 0 33
21© Keaukaha# Hawai®i Detail © © © © © © e © © © e 34 xii xiii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS--Continued
Figure Page 22o Puna# Hawai*i Detail eooeooeoeooee 35 23 o Maui Island & & & $ 0 & & & o e 0 o & & o 0 o 38 2^o Lana®1 Island & & 0 0 & & ® © o © & 0 & o @ o . ^2 23® ICalio ® olawe Island 00000000000000 ^l,2 .26 © I'll® ihau Island ©©o©©©©-©©©©©©©© ^$,3 27© Wall Construction ©o©©©©©,©©»©©© 53
28© Wall Statistics * © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 5^ ■
29© Volume oT Walls ©©©©©©© ©©©©©©©© 5^
30© Sluice Grate#.Lanes# and Ditch © © © © © © © © 1 60
31 © Loko ^^hne^^-kji^ Details ©©©©©©© ©©©©© 57
32© Pa Type Fishtraps ©«©©©©©. ©©©©©©© 69
33 © Acreage of Loko Kuapsr and Loko 8Ume® iki © © © 81 34© Food Chain Diagram of Some Hawaiian Fishponds ©©©©©©©© ©©©©©©o© 91 35© Placement and Progression of Fishnets# Kaloko Fishpond .©©©©©©©©©©©©© 132 36© Archaeological Sites Associated with Kuki® o Fishpond ©®©©©©eeeee.ee 173
37© Archaeological Sites Associated with ®Opae®ula Fishpond eeoee©eo»eeo 174
38© Archaeological Sites Associated with ®Aimakapa®a Fishpond ©©©©©©©«©©© 176
39© Archaeological Sites Associated with *Aiopi* o Fishtrap ©©©o©©©©©©©© 177
40© Archaeological Sites Associated with Kaloko Fishpond *©©•©©*©©©**»' 178 xiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS— Continued
Figure Page 4lo Archaeological Sites Associated with Huilua and Pukoko Fishponds o e e o 0 o o 179
4 2 e Aquacultural Types in Oceania, Exclusive O f H a W a i 61 oooeeoeooeeoo.oo 188 43 o Part Names of Some Fish Weirs in Micronesia and Polynesia, Exclusive of Hawai®i „ . 0 205 LIST OF TABLES
Table - Page lo Type Distribution on Each Hawaiian Island @ @ 39
2o Frequency Occurrence of Sluice Grates m Fishponds o © © © - © © © © © * ® © © 63
3© Frequency Distribution of Lanes m Fishtraps @ 0 © © © © © © © © © © © © 63 4© Statistics on Loko *Ume*iki Lanes on Moloka®i© © © © © © © @© © © ©© ©.© 71 5© Salinity, Temperature, Oxygen, and pH of Some Hawaiian Fishponds © © © © © © © 85 6© Fishponds and Fishtraps Damaged by Tsunami .© 154 7© Fishponds Damaged by Sea Storms ©,© © © © © © 154
8© Documented Acreage of Fishponds © © © ©.©.©.© 217 9© Fishpond Yield for Kaua®i, O eahu, Moloka0i, and Hawai® i in 1900 (After Cobb 1902) © © 217
10© Comparison of Fishpond Yield Estimates © ® © 219
11© Estimated Annual Prehistoric Fishpond Yield © 219
xv ABSTRACT
The principal function of aquaculture$, or the culti vation of seaweeds, mollusks, crustaceans, fish, and marine animals in salt, brackish, and fresh water environments, is to produce in quantity through controlled sea-farming those aquatic lifeforms which serve as food resources for man. In prehistoric Hawai* i, true aquaculture, as typified by fish ponds, was complemented by the remaining architectonic types of the total aquacultural systems fishtraps, weirs, dams, and artificial fish shelters. Native taxonomy generally considered all of these to be types of sources of seafoods and did not distinguish between the cultivation and the trapping of fish. Eight general, descriptive types of aqua- cultural sites and 35 sub-types are differentiated by form, construction, function, and location where found. References seem to point to a pre-thirteenth century date of origin with the introduction on 0*ahu Island of fishtrapping technology by the initial settlers from the Society Islands, The earliest aquacultural system probably was composed of natural bodies of water, weirs, dams, arti ficial fish shelters, and rudimentary fishtraps. Out of this developed true fishponds, which had already been con structed and were being used by the fourteenth century on
xvi xvii 0®ahu. Evidently the trend was to utilize practically all available bodies of water of some size in the construction and evolution of fishponds® Documented as having existed prior to A eDe 1830$, the last approximate date for the con struction of a fishpond, are a total of 449 individual sites, distributed throughout the major islands of Nieihau$
Kauaei$ 0®ahu# Moloka'i, Dana®i, Maui, and Hawai*i. In con trast to the rest of Oceania, the Hawaiian Islands claimed a sophisticated aquacultural system,. manifested in the large numbers, acreage, and types of sites, and in the technologi cal advancement of the system, as exemplified by the classic loko kuapa fishponds and by sluice grates with their asso ciated channels, A minimum number of individuals, most commonly two, was involved with the continual maintenance of fishponds and with the harvest of food resources. Only during initial construction and periodic cleaning was the assistance of a large working force of land tenants engaged. As the sophis tication and complexity of the aquacultural system increased, a form of native bureaucracy developed in the chief; his land supervisor, or konohiki; the fishpond supervisor, or kia* i-loko; and the representative of the resident extended families, the haku-*ohana.
Whereas fishtraps, weirs, dams, artificial fish shelters, and the smaller fishponds were in the domain of the extended family and were under loose control of the xviii chiefs, large fishponds and fishponds of some historic value were conspicuously owned by the chiefs in order to retain
these sites for exclusive use by the royalty. Prior to around 1800, the Hawaiian court was mobile. It appears that the family that tended the fishponds did so in the absence of the chiefs, so that whenever the court and its retinue took up residence within the district, a fresh and suffi cient supply of fish was available at call. Eventually, the fishponds became the aquacultural equivalent of the ko'ele, the agricultural taro (Colocasia esculenta) land set aside strictly for the chiefs. By modern standards, the indigenous aquacultural system was a low yield affair, averaging perhaps 350 pounds of fish per acre per annum. The system was not intended to be an intensive source of food for the populace, but rather conspicuous ownership of food sources increasingly became a symbol.of high status within Hawaiian society. The
Hawaiian aquacultural system started to stagnate and decline as soon as the royalty became more Western oriented in terms of material culture and monetary value. The original inte grating function of aquaculture was lost and its system atrophied,
/ CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Aquaculture# or aquiculture, refers to the cultiva tion of aquatic lifeforms to serve the food needs of man*
The discipline is commonly divided into two branches# Mari- culture and Pisciculture» The former refers to the raising of large marine animals# e.g## whales# turtles# and seals, outside the brackish water gone (Bardach 1968s 1105).# and the latter refers to the cultivation of fish (Maar# Mortimer# and Van Der Lingen 1966s4)0 Aquaculture, then, encompasses the cultivation of marine animals# fish# and • vegetable lifeforms in the sea, along the shore# and in bodies of water in the interior of the land#
Early man successfully hunted and gathered the wild or free food about him# Emphasis seems to have been placed on the control of a large variety of plants and animals#
Control of aquatic food forms was# however# more difficult#
It has been determined that the shore# the estuary# and the fertilized fishpond are capable of a greater productivity of food than farm land of equivalent size (Masefield I97O1 62? Bardach 1968s1104)# Fishponds can be likened to estu aries# which# according to Doctor Eugene Odum# are 20 times as productive as the open sea, 7 times as productive as an alfalfa field# and twice as productive as a corn field (Marx 1967$99"100)„ Nonetheless# man's attempts to control
the waters of the world and to tap their food supply have been only minimally successful# even with modern technol ogy. It is not known when and where world aquaculture originated. To date# the earliest evidence of aquaculture is an Egyptian bas-relief, dating around 2500 B.C. and de picting artificial ponds stocked with a large variety of fish (Maar# Mortimer# and Van Der Lingen 1966s 7). Plato, circa 427-3^7 B.C., mentioned the royal fishponds in Egypt and the ”taming” of fish (Zeuner 1963*479)® Fishponds are known to have been similarly used in Mesopotamia and
Assyria# as depicted on bas-reliefs (Zeuner 1963*479)®
Aristotle# circa 384-322 B.C., discussed the cultivation of oysters in Greece, and Pliny# circa A.D. 23-79# detailed the methods of oyster farming among the Romans (Pinchot
1970s15). In the Roman Empire, fishponds# the concept of which was probably borrowed from the Sicilians prior to 100 B.C., are said to have been difficult to maintain and costly to operate (Zeuner 1963*479). Around 100 B.C. it was fashionable to have fishponds# called piscanae# stocked with eels# which served both as food and# at times# as pets.
The expansion of the Roman Empire into the "barbaric" northlands of Germany saw the diffusion of fishponds among 3 the Germans, where both artificial and natural ponds were used to breed freshwater fish (Zeuner 1963*^79)«
The carp (Cyrinus carpio) culture, cultivated wide ly in China by about 2000 B.C., spread into Asia Minor and into Greece, then, with the Romans, diffused into Europe, where it was well established by A,D. 700 (Maar, Mortimer, and Van Der Lingen 1966:7; Pinchot 1970:15). In China, carp were cultivated in small fishponds; however, such cultiva tion was not undertaken on a significant scale and only minimal care was given the ponds (Chen 1953$10). In the neighboring areas of South China, i.e., in Taiwan, India, Pakistan, and Thailand, fishponds are large in size and are primarily walled-off tidal and estuarine areas. There are no dates to indicate these ponds6 chro nological and technological relationship to China (Smith
1925; Tang and Chen 1957; Pillay 19671 Bardach 1968;
Iversen 1968; Pinchot 1970). ' . . Japan has a long tradition of obtaining many of its foods from the sea. Oyster raising is as old in Japan as among the Romans (Iversen 1968:110$ Pinchot 1970:15)• Sea weed farming seems also to be an old, although undated practice (Iverson 1968:98), The carp culture probably was introduced from China, but it remains of minimal importance as a source of food.
The highest figures on yield of fish under ferti lized conditions are recorded for the Philippines and for the Indonesian Archipelago of Islandss 234 pounds per acre
(Pinchot 1970s1?) and 1,781 pounds per acre (Bardach 1968s
1104), respectively. In the Philippines, tremendous fish ponds, baclad, were made from tidal swamps (Herre 1926s219) and range.in size from 1 to 1,000 acres (Iversen 1968s57)» Nearly 250,000 acres of fishponds were used after World War II to raise milkfish (Chanos chanos) (Iversen 1968:60). In contrast, the fishponds, tambaks, of Indonesia range in size from 2.2 to 111 acres (Pi11ay 1967*655), with a total of nearly 200,000 acres of mangrove (Rhizophora) swamps having been converted into ponds. The principal fish raised is, again, the milkfish. Sewage is fed direct ly into the ponds via sewage canals in order to increase the algal foods on which the milkfish feeds (Pinchot 1970$
17). The earliest records of brackish water fishpond cul ture date in the fifteenth century and suggest diffusion from the mainland of Southeast Asia (Pinchot 1970:15? Frey 1947*248).
The areas of Australia, New Guinea, Melanesia, Micronesia, and Polynesia collectively are called Oceania.
Extending some 3,000 miles across the mid-Pacific are the
Hawaiian Islands, composed of 23 islands, 7 of which are presently inhabited. The inhabited islands are Ni* ihau,
Kauaei, 0eahu, Moloka'i, Lanasi, Maui, and Hawai*i
(Pig, l). Prehistoric Hawaiian Society theoretically began MAUI LANA’l
K AH 0 * 0 L AWE
HAWAl'l
Fig. 1. The Hawaiian Islands around AoD» 750 (Emory and Sinoto 1965:102), possibly earlier (Pearson, Kirch, and Pietrusewsky 1971:230=31), and originated, according to a theory set forth by the Bernice
Po Bishop Museum, Honolulu, initially from the Marquesas
Islands, with a secondary, influx of Tahitians around A.D,
1100 to 1300o For approximately 1,000 years, from AoD® 750 to 1778, the Hawaiians lived in relative isolation from their Polynesian "cousins" and from the outside world.
Just how far the native society developed has been the con= cern of numerous scholars. In investigating the causes of and conditions for the seemingly unique culture, Marshall Sahlins (1958) and Irving Goldman (I970sxix, 200) analyzed the prehistoric Hawaiian society and referred to it as the most highly integrated, stratified, structurally complex chiefdom in all of Polynesia, approaching an embryonic
"high civilization" status equivalent to a small-scale political state found in the New World,
One of the aspects of the prehistoric society which needs to be examined is Hawaiian aquaculture. The problem is to determine, if possible, when and where Hawaiian aqua culture originated, why it developed, how it operated, and, most important, what function it served. Strictly speak ing, aquaculture, as described previously, entails only the holding and raising of marine foods. In Hawai'i, this was accomplished in fishponds. However, in order to obtain a more complete picture of architectonic fishing devices in
Hawai* i» the author has included under the term "aquaculture various fish trapping techniques employing semi-permanent structurese In so doing, fishtraps, weirs, fish shelters, and dams are also included for study® The Hawaiian aqua- cultural system, from this point on referred to also as
Hawaiian aquaculture, is defined as the indigenous economic, technological, and political control of natural pools, ponds, and lakes, and of man-made ponds, enclosures, traps, and dams for the culture and harvest of fish, turtles, crustaceans, shellfish, and seaweed for food production, generally divorced from the vagaries of weather and season®
Considerable piecemeal work has been done in the field of aquaculture, but until now only one attempt, by
Catherine Summers (1964), has been made at synthesizing data® That work, Hawaiian Fishponds, is not, however, an in depth study, but rather a descriptive report and so is too general to elicit interpretations® This dissertation is, then, an attempt to integrate and synthesize as much of the tremendous bulk of data as possible into a cohesive interpretation of the socio-political, economic, and religious aspects of aquaculture in the development of Hawaiian society® 1 CHAPTER 2
CLASSIFICATION OF SITES
So far as is now known# fishponds existed nowhere else in the Pacific in types and numbers as in prehistoric
Hawai® ie Only in the Hawaiian Islands was there an inten sive effort to utilize practically every body of water# from the seashore to the upland forests# as a source of food#
either agriculturally or aquaculturally« Fish# crustaceans# shellfish# and seaweed were some of the products of the total indigenous aquacultural system# This system was made up of numerous man-made ponds# enclosures# traps# and dams# complemented by naturally occurring ponds# pools# and lakes# It was the reservoir of fresh food# available in quantity at any time#
Ernie Classifications The exact number and types of components which made up the native aquacultural system will probably never be knowne The discussions which follow are based on a synthesis of available information# Unfortunately# some aspects of this study have been inadequately reported in the litera ture and thus cannot be treated in depth at this time®
8 Main Types Loko is the general Hawaiian term for any type of pond and refers to a pool, pond, lake, or other enclosed body of water (Pukui and Elbert 1957*193)• Hawaiians rec ognized six main general types of fishponds and fishtraps. These ares loko kuapag loko waig loko i*a kalo, or loko lo8i kalo; loko pufuone, or hakuone; loko 'ome'iki; and pa
(See Appendix A ) . Loko kuapa is a fishpond whose main characteristic is a seawall (kuapa) as its artificial en closing feature and in most cases contains one or more sluice grates (makaha), Loko wai is a fishpond located in land from the shore whose main characteristic is that it is of fresh water, Loko i8a kalo, or loko lo8i kalo, is a fishpond utilizing an irrigated taro (Colocasis esculenta) plot as an inland water pond for the raising of fish and / or taroe Loko pu'uone, or hakuone, is an isolated shore fishpond usually formed by the development of a barrier beach building a single, elongated sand ridge (pu'uone or hakuone) parallel to the coast, Loko 'ume'iki, a fishtrap similar in shape and construction to the loko kuapa, is characterized by the presence of numerous stone lanes which lead fish into netting areas with the ebb and flow of the tide. Pa, which also serves as a prefix referring to a fishtrap, is a rudimentary type fishtrap which has only a single lane to guide fish at high or low tide, but not at 1 0 both* There are also several subtypes of the six main types just mentioned (See Appendix A for details)*
Secondary Types In addition, six types of fishponds and fishtraps of lesser importance are known$ kaheka, hapunapuna, umu* kahje, paniwai, and paholoholo, Kaheka are natural pools and ponds along rocky shores which are flooded by high tidal waves and which serve as rudimentary holding ponds* Ha~ punapuna are natural pools and ponds similar to kaheka ex cept that they are fed by springs rather than by tidal water* Umu are artificial fish shelters made of heaped stones in shallow shoals where natural shelters, e*go„ reefs or coral heads, are absent* Kahe are weirs made of wooden stakes used on permanent streams during freshets to segregate and isolate *o*opu fish (Eleotridae and Gobiidae families) from the water. Paniwai are impermeable dams of wood, stones, and mud which divert permanent stream waters and dry the lower reaches to allow the harvest of 8 o9 opu and 8 opae (general term for shrimp). Paholoholo- are V- shaped fish lanes of stones built perpendicular to the shore with their apex opening at the sea end and are rudi mentary fishtraps.
Two fishtraps are named according to the type of fish caught, i.e., pa akule (Trachurops erumenophthalmus) and jm makaiwa (Etrumeus micropus), but these are no 1 1
different from the general j>a types and will not be differ entiated from them here. The joa hinalea are in actuality
kaheka ponds in which hinalea fish (Labridae family), or
wrasses, were kept after they were caught. The jhl 'ohua is
a rudimentary fishtrap»fishpond used to trap and then hold
8ohua, the young of various kinds of fish,
Etic Classifications No two fishponds or fishtraps are identical in con struction, shape# or internal components. The emic classi fications reflect this in that the Hawaiian pond taxonomy is of a general, descriptive nature, recognizing only simi lar functional types and subtypes, rather than naming and
defining each subtype as a new type. However, the author
has devised a classification and typology of ponds and
traps in order to effectively study them. This typology
utilizes the six main native classifications, which are in
Roman numerals, with subtypes noted by lower ease letters
and numbers (see Appendix A), Since each type and subtype
is geographically determined, a schematic diagram was drawn using horizontal parameters of land zones and vertical pa rameters of water quality (Figs, 2 and 3), Land zones are
.littoral, shore, inland, and uplandi this immediately cor
relates the zones to the kinds of water, i,e», salt, brack
ish, and fresh; flora; and lacustrine and riverine fauna found in each. 12
*Auwai Irrigation Canal o Loko Kuapa B Burial @ Pu'uone E Enclosure A Loko Wai Heiau Temple © Loko ira kalo HS House Site A Loko fUmefiki Ko'a Fishing Shrine □ Kaheka , Hapunapuna M Mound E Kahe , Paniwai
P Platform % Pet roglyphs _±L J L PN Pen Jl Swamp JL JL. S Shelter
© Salt Pans Lava Flow T Terrace o Depression W Wall
Stream , Intermitent Stream , Permanent Coral Reef Shoal
------5 0 ------Elevation (feet ) ------T------j------Trail
Shore , Sand
%%%%%%%% Raised Reef ^ Lithif ied Dune
Alluvia Plain
Fig. 2. Key to Symbols Used 13
L ITTOR At SHORE INLAND UPLAND
LOKO KUAPA
| X ^ Ib' I 1 Ic ______
Vo to I I I I Vb« ^ LOKO 'UME'lKI I Vb2
Vc
CO
Vc Vd PA DC Vd CQ
Vd 111 b VIII Umu
V ila Kobe Vg Poholoholo VII c Pani wa j
D Via f III II Id I OKO- & Ve W AI > Ho II PUUONE SI IV LOKO I'A KALO J If l,b to U4 CC Ilia
II a
Fig. 3. Schematic Diagram of Hawaiian Aquacultural System 14
Littoral Zone
The littoral zone encompasses the area from the high tide line to an arbitrary area offshore where coral growth is limited, i0e0, depth 90 feet, or 15 fathoms$ sa linity approximately 24„8$» (parts per thousand)$ and tem perature 22.8* C (Thomas 1968:10), This zone includes all the types and subtypes found along coastal shores of the islands, i.e., types la-c, Va-g, and VII,
Shore Zone The shore zone reaches from the high tide line to an arbitrary distance inland not exceeding a quarter of a mile. This covers the lowlying coastal plain where high storm seas, tsunami, and tectonic and eustatie action have their greatest visible effect in the destruction and alter ation of land forms. Found in this zone are types Ila-d, occasionally IV, and Vla-b.
Inland Zone The inland zone encompasses the general area back of the shore zone up to the lower limits of the forest re gion. This is the general agricultural zone of an island.
Within this zone the water is always fresh, in contrast to the brackish water found in the shore zone. . Types IHa-ti and IV are found here. 15 Upland Zone
The upland zone* or forest area, is usually unin habited except temporarily by people tapping its flora, fauna, and timber resources. In permanent streams were found 0o*opu and °opae, which were abundant, but occasional, food resources, °08opu were sought during the spawning period, which coincided with the time of mountain freshets. These were caught in certain localities on Kaua*i and 08ahu through the use of types Vlla-c (Pigs, 4, 5, 6, 7* 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), SITE CODE
1 ANAHOLA A
11 KOLO ■
17 NOHIL1 B 8 KAUPENA B
10 KAWAIHAU A
"------22 WAILUA BAB '------21 X " " ■ © - 2 0 PIHANAKAIAN1 (mythicol)
— 5 HANAMA'ULU A 00'
19 papal in a h o a A
9 KAWAl'Ell B - i 16 x lThu'e ?
15 ABC O
23 WAIMEA A © NUKUMOI Q 10A KEKUPUA ? 2 ALAKOKO A PEPE'AWA 14 ABCOWELIWEll '------7 KALALALEHUA A ■ 13 LAE-O-KAMILO B
Fig. 4. Kaua'i Island 1 5 9 1 3 1 ’
6000
GENERAL LOCATION GENERAL location 1 ABC 0, 6 ABO, 10BA, 16 AB ? 16CDO, 18BO, 24? 18A?,25AB@.
k e 'e
4E
<50 4 BCD 4A-
WAIOLI
Fig. 5» Hanalei-Ha’ena, Kaua’i Detail H FIG. 7 162 Woipunoeo ■ 149 Ukoo A 8 Eo ■
44 Koluoolohe O 46 Lokeo A" Mile 144 Pvkoko A SITE CODE C 18 Huiluo ■
82 Kohololele 112 Molii O
FIG 8
,.= o 67 Kawqinui
152 A-
\fiG.njNG.n
Fig# 6, O’ahu Island H oo 158100'
Mile
87 Kukio ■
KAHUKU PT 62 Pvnoulou
- 1 20 Koouhelemoo &
43 Kolouwai
42 Koloukoi • Po loo
KAHUKU TOWN
i62 ■ W oipunoeo
40'
H Gif. 7. Kahuku, O'ahu Detail vo 15 7 50'
29 KAHOUNA •
140 POKOLE# 134 PAOHUA A
80 KIKIWELAWELA#
118 'd'OHOPE •
II HALEKOU • ■45 KALUAPUHI ■
116 NUUPIA
L 39 KOHANAHOU •
i—-135 PAPa 'a • 50 KANOHULUIWI # 1------155 WAIKAPOKI • 14 A HANALUA • 146 PUNALUU • 25' 69 KEAALAU#
153 WAIKAIUA S — 100 MAHINUl e • -63 KAPl/u • \ 107 MIKl'OLA • X
ro Fig. 8. Kane•ohe, O’ahu Detail o w A ,
30
89 KUPAPA # 130 PAIKO B 1— 160 WAILUPE • 145 PUNAKOU * 84 KUAPA B 'a f d
c o ral r e e f KOKO HEAD
Fig. 9# Maunalua, O’ahu Detail KALI A PONDS TYPE III B , A , 12 13 16 17AB 26 27 31AB 34 35 36 37 40 41 47 51AB 52 53 56 61AB 64 65 ABC 68 70ABCD 79 83 85 91AB 99 103 120 121 122 131 , 138 AB 143 156 157 104 MILE Q
90
28 Kahoikekanoko A
1/ VI37 Pau A
Fig, 10, Honolulu, O'ahu Detail K) 96 Loko-o- Kaia 8 2Z >• Ka'ou ku'u A Mile 25 «» Kahonomakopulo& 49 *• Konenenene A Keaweloko A 106 Mlki A Mokapu A 108 A 109 A Aliapa'akai Salt Lake
33 Ko'iki kapu #
105 Mo punopuno •
7 'A wq 'owq I oo • - 163 Weli ■ 1 Ahua • -
38 Kolooloa® 59 A 32 Koihi kop u • —"
20* ^ / 5 Api 11 •
129 Pohounui e 6 Auiki # <
KEEHI LAGOON
3 Anonoho0 128 Pohouiki # 66 Kowo e Coral 58 ■ HONOLULU
Fig. 11. Moanalua, 0*ahu Detail r\) V) 158 0 0' 95 Luo kohoole • 75 Kekono # 125 Poouou • 124 Pcfokeo # 113 Mo'o • 86 Kuhioloko •
161 A 119 Opu # 21 Kobu ku'u # 123 Pooiou 141 Pouholo ■ v 9 Eo#
164 • 24 Kohokupohokg Weloko 150 Ulumoku •
^ 1 4 # Honoloo
88 Kunono • 114 Muliwoi #
159 Wol lolowoi # 77 Kepo'okolo 93 low lounui # Puleou A - \
158 Woilolokoi # 72 KeonopuobA -II7A Ola ■
139 Pohoku •
2 A mono •
136 Popibluo #
60 Kopomuku •
117 Okiekilepe • 20' 76 Ke'oki B
57 Kopokule 181 Waioho ■
Fig. 12. Pu’uloa, O’ahu Detail -p- CHAPTER 3
GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS
The types of ponds and traps which comprise the na- , tive aquacultural system are classified according to attri butes, eege, construction, water environment, and function, A high correlation exists between the geomorphology of an
island and the presence of certain types of ponds and
traps. The discussion .of typology in Chapter 2 illustrates
that location was not random, but geographically determined
Coulter (1931:20) and Macdonald and Abbott (1970:352) de
scribe the relationship between the presence of offshore
fishponds and fishtraps and the configuration of coastlines
shallow offshore shoals and reefs, and numerous brackish water springs along the south shore of Moloka'i Island (Figs* 13, 14, 15# 16, 17), McAllister (1933*28) notes the correlation between ponds and the irregular, reef-protected coastline on the island of O ’ahu. For the island of Hawai* Coulter (1931:28) explains that the presence of numerous
fishponds in the Hilo to Keaukaha region was made possible
by the presence of a protective coral reef in Hilo Bay
(Figs, 18, 20, 21), Hudson (1932:96, 230) noted that
Hawai®i Island’s shoreline is too precipitous for the con
struction of large walled ponds and that the few streams 157 100
SITE CODE
10'
6 A
46 OHALAHALA flG ■9 KAHINA- POHAKU 9
20o A 65 •
20#
5 HIKAUHI # 20 b A 2 1#
42 NANINANIKU'EKU'E A
Fig. 13# Moloka'i Island ro ON 8 Ipuko'iole #
37 KuIo*oI o mihi ® 11 • 66 W o i h i I o hi I o • mile 35 Kiholoko B
41 Nohiole B
4 Holemohono 61 'U o I o p u'e #
05'
^ v VVs X 50 P o io I oo •
12 Koino'ohe# 59 • 55 PopoiI mI i A ■58 Pukoo # ■ 54 Ponoho ho #
56-Pi pio # -18 # - 43 Nioupolo •
'— 29 Ko'ope'ohiho # — 39 Mohiliko #
17 Koluooho #
57 PuhoIoo # 34 Keowonui # 68 Wehelouvlu # 1 ^-44? 67k Kolokoikl # 40 M i ki owo A 32 Kounohi ko'oku A i N) Fig, 14• Pauwalu-Kamalo, Moloka* i Detail O KAM1LOLOA 53 Panohoha A
28 Khooini #
22 Kamohuehue #
Fig# 15* Kamalo-Kamiloloa, Moloka* i Detail 23 Komoloko B
30 Kopa'akeo ■
15 Ko I okc/e I i #
Mile 157*| 00’ 28#
Fig, 16, Kamiloloa-Kaunakakai, Moloka1i Detail
ro ND 2$o— -y t
63 '(Jmi p a o ■
50 45 OSoi pilo ® 10 KohokoKi O \ 1 Ai pohoku — 6* Woiokeo ■
48 Po’ohoo • 19 Kaluoopuhi • 52 Pakanaka A
Kouha'a 9 60 Punalou
MILE 157105’
Fig, 17, Kaunakakai-Kukuku, Moloka*i Detail
V) o 31
1 55*/50' 57 POLOLU A
44 A
42 IALAKEA A 51 MULIWAI A 56 PAKAALANA @ 68 e 69 O
20 00
I-55B 36
FIG. 20 FIG. 2 1 |
30B
,0°
20 64 WAIAKOLEA B
62 WAIAKEA A 19 lio'l B ‘52 NINOLE B SITE CODE H 29 kaw a 'a ■ ©
8 HILEA B
16 HONUAPO #
Fig, 18, Hawai’i Island 32 156* 00 1 7 Hopeolo D 20 Ko'o i pi o □ 22 Kohinowoo D 41 lohui puo'o • 49 Monoku O 70 Woipuhi #
Mile 20 00 31 Keanopou □
21 Kahopopo H
32 Keawo'iki ■ old lava flow
66 Lagoon
i 66' Wqi nanol i'i • 28 Ko'upulehu ■
63 Wo iakuhi 38 Ku ki'o ■ .too 37 Kuo ■
54 'Opoe’ulo V
48 obc □
1850
I O VO \ _ f I ow 27 Koulono H
Fig. 19- Mahaiula-Puako, Hawai'i Detail SITES NOT 1 LOCATED 49 o t Holekomohina 10,? and 70, ? Waiolamo both at Kukuau 23,? Kolepolepo and 64, ? Woi h ol e both at W o io k e a
44
10 Ft Depth UH
HILO 12 •
25 Kanokea O 65 ® Woihonu
14 Hookimau A W A I A K E A
61 Woiakea ZX
155 05 MILE
V) Fig, 20," Hilo, Hawai'i Detail V) 155*1 2*30
Mile
3Z KeoKeo ■
35 Kionokopohu ■
6 Hoi eolon o ■ 13 ■ 46 B 12 obc Lihikoi B
63 Wolohole B
3 A ko h i 44' 45 Lokowoko B
Fig. 21, Keaukaha, Hawai* i Detail V) 35
|154e 5 0 ' coastline prior to 196(^-
C A P E KUM U KAH I
3V coastline 1883 Waiokea Boy
?— 18 IHUKAPU ■
LAVA
26 SUNKEN PONDS • ? _
26A •
a .
LAVA FLOW OF 1955
Mile
n_
Fig. 22. Puna, Hawai* i Detail found on the island were utilized in the construction of inland or upstream ponds, away from the omnipresent high seas, A recent study of fishponds on the island of Hawai’i concludes that the presence of fishponds and fishtraps was determined by the geomorphological history of the island
(Kikuchi and Belshe 1971:2-4). , /
The geomorphology, or the general configuration of the. islands8 surface in the case of the Hawaiian Archipel ago# was determined by the archipelago’s location (18-23* north latitude and 15^-161° west longitude) and its marine climate (Fig, l)* Practically all the erosional forces that shaped and moulded the land forms were produced by the prevailing northeasterly trade winds and the easterly North Equatorial Current, The prevailing winds and current pro duce the leeward, or kona, and windward, or ko'olau, di morphism, which played a significant role both agricul turally and aquaculturally in prehistoric society.
Geographical Parameters
Reefs and Shoals
The geographical parameters in prehistoric aqua culture were: fringing reefs and wide, shallow shoals? consolidated and unconsolidated Pleistocene sedimentary deposits of recent and late date? irregular coastlines caused by recent volcanism? streams, rivers, and delta de posits? and the quality and chemistry of water. Extensive /
37 fringing reefs are found in the Kane®ohe (Fig® 8), Moanalua
(Fig® 11)» and Maunalua (Pig® 9) areas of 0 6ahu? on the
southern coast of Moloka®i (Figs® 13$ 1^$ 15$ 16, 17), on the windward northeast coast of Lana® i; also throughout
the Kihei area of Maui (Pig® 23) = The majority of type I and V sites are located within these areas (Table 1)® The primary factors in the construction of offshore loko kuapa and 'ume'iki pond's were the shallow shoal and wave protects ed locations provided by the fringing reefs®
Pleistocene Deposits Coastal erosion since the late Pleistocene has smoothed the once irregular coastlines of all the islands
except in the recent volcanic areas of Keoneol'o on Maui and of the island of Hawai* i® The eustatic changes brought forth large areas of emerged reefs and coastal plains of marine deposited sediments® The consolidation of wind- migrated calcareous dunes and ancient alluvium deposits formed playa, or lakes, on once submerged coastal plains®
Ni*ihau, Kaua’i, O'ahu, and Maui show the greatest areas of consolidated dunes, where type II, barrier beach, and type III ponds are located® Depending on the ponds6 distance from the shore, their elevation, and drainage patterns, the water chemistry ranges from brackish to fresh® In areas of recent sedimentary history, usually along the shore, the number and variety of type II pu'uone ponds which db not 156*1 2 5 '
22 ob ■
7 AKANAHA SITE CODE F 19 ■ MAUONI
23©
25A
KAWAIPAPA PONDS
24 A WAIOKAMA 12 KEAUAB
20 A MOKUHINIA
6 KAONOULU • 28 WAIOHULI • ■ 3
14 KEOKEA #.
00
20 17? 40' 18 MAKENA • 10*
5 • Fig. 23• Maui Island Table 1. Type Distribution on Each Hawaiian Island
1 S L A N D
i ' TYPE OF FISHPOND SITE i OR FISHTRAP ' 3 < < Z z < < < FOR FOR EACH TYPE SYMBOL SYMBOL USED k a u a m o l o k a N l'lH A U o - j MAUI z la 13 21 1 5 1 la, 11 9 2 132 17 8 L O K O K U A P A la3 O 2 1 lb 10 1 12 lb, 4 1 c 7 1 1 II 1 16 19 13 8 26 PU'U O N E 1 la 2 6 Ha, □ 3 Mb 1 1 III 3 8 1 3 2 Ilia 4 2 1 4 L O K O WAX lllbA 5 71 2 i 2 lllc 1 1 Hid LOKO I'A KALO IV Q 13 6 3 3 Va 1 2 Vb 4 1 LOKO 'UME'IKI Vb, 1 V b 2 1 Vc 2 Vc, 1 Vd A 3 1 Vdi 1 PA-'OHUA Vd? 1 HINALEA Ve 2 'OHI'A Vf 1 HOLOHOLO VS 1 KAHEKA Via 1 16 HAPUNAPUNA Vlb □ 1 KAHE Vila 3 PANIWAI V 11 b 0 1 UMU VIII 2 1 7 MYTHICAL 1 U N K N O W N 17 2 2 8 4 T O T A L = 4 4 9 1 65 184 73 4 35 87 40 have a barrier of beachrook are directly correlated to the alluvium deposits, e.g», unconsolidated calcareous sand? dirt, and rocks. These pu'uone are natural ponds located on the shore at sea level elevation, but whose division from the sea is by lithified material at the base and loose sand above.
Recent Volcanic Coastlines Characteristic of areas of geologically recent vol~ canism is the irregular coastline. The Keoneoi*o area of Maui at La Perouse Bay and the Hilo, Puna, Ka*u, and Kona districts of Hawai® i Island are typical of irregular coast lines defined by jagged shores, a lack of reef platforms, deep depth of offshore water, and uneroded pahoehoe and
*a*a lava flows. Where alluvium and unconsolidated depos its occur they are of recent post-Pleistocene age and are found in pockets, embayments, and where older landforms were exposed or missed by later lava flows, Kikuchi and
Belshe (1971*4-5) note that types II and VI are correlated with geologically recent volcanic flows and land subsidence as found in the Kona, Kohala, Puna, Ka*u districts and the Keaukaha area of Hilo on the island of Hawai*i and in the
Keoneoi*o, Kahikinui, and Hana regions of Maui,
Drainages
Permanent streams drain large upland forested areas on all of the Hawaiian Islands except Ni® ihau, Lana*i, and 41 Kaho0olawe, (Figs* 24, 25, 26)® Intermittent streams and drainages exist on all the islands, mostly in leeward areas6
Larger drainages which correlate with ancient eroded valleys
provide excellent alluvium and water flow from the inland
to the shore and are used in intensive irrigated taro plot
agriculture? for type IV taro plot fishponds? and for type
III fresh water lakes# ponds# marshes# and pools# Type III
ponds closely resemble type II ponds when they occur at the delta of a river# The distinction here between the two is that type III ponds are formed by the river's deposit of rocks and dirt# whereas pu'uone are not built by river de posits. The larger drainages are also used for type VII fishtraps and dams in the uplands# as the streams provided the ideal environment to tap the 'o'opu during spawning
season and the omnipresent *opae for occasional food sup-
' plement#
Water
A vital aspect of all fishponds and fishtraps is
their water, composition# All ponds and traps grade from
fresh to brackish water# with some water environments approaching the upper limits of brackishness (salt water is approximately 31^)# Present on all the Hawaiian Islands is a lens of fresh water overlying denser salt water? this
is the Ghyben-Herzberg lens» The floating lens of fresh water is generally exuded at the fringes of the islands as 157 00 156 ° 35 "
Ml LES MILES
SITE CODE E SITE CODE G
20
4 Woiopoe A
3 Naha A
Fig. 24, Lana* i Island Fig. 25* Kaho*olawe Island -f=- ro 43
160 10
\ HALULU ■
MILES
SITE CODE A
Fig. 26, Ni'ihau Island 44- springs and seepages, thus providing a coastal-shore brack
ish to salt water composition, , All, the ponds and traps studied by Kikuchi and Belshe.(1971) along the Western coastal area of Hawai9i Island are noted to be composed of brackish water. The water composition of coastal ponds on 0°ahu and Moloka°i has been similarly noted (Author's obser vation? William Warsden, Informant? Walsh 1967:431? Malone 1968:25)® Thus it appears that wherever shore ponds occur springs and seepages occur. CHAPTER 4
CONSTRUCTION
Construction Materials
All materials used in the construction of- prehis toric ponds and traps were obtained from local sources on each islando Not until the.1800° s did foreign metal, con crete 9 timber, and cordage become accessible and supplement native materials, Prehistorically, each island provided materials distinctive to the island's elevation, rainfall pattern, and geomorphology. These materials were stone, coral, lithified sand, alluvium, timber, and vegetable mate rials, Shore and inland areas provided the non-organic ma terials, either concentrated, as a lava flow, or dispersed, as an eroded alluvial plain strewn with rocks and boulders®
Timber and vegetable materials were generally obtained in the uplands, where the rainfall and elevation provided an ideal environment for the maintenance of a pristine forest.
However available the natural resources were, cultural and political factors dictated the gathering and use of materi als, All materials within any land division, e.g., mpku, ahupua'a, or 'ill, belonged to a chief and were watched over by his personal representative, the konohiki (see Chapter
6), Whenever construction was undertaken in a land
45 46 division, the materials used came from within that land unit, unless the chief also owned other land areas. Indi viduals living within a land division could not take any thing from another land division unless permission was obtained. Thus, the tapping of natural resources remained culturally fixed and tied to the all-pervasive Hawaiian political-family ettiquette patterns (Handy and Pukui 1958)0
Rock Rock, pohaku, from very large boulders to tiny waterworn pebbles, is the most common construction material,
Pohaku refers to all rocks without regard to genesis® De composed rock or earth, lepo, can be considered as one con tinuum of rock type* Distinction is made between rocks of recent volcanism, i.e,, the *a*a, clinker-type flow, and the pahoehoe, ropy molasses-like lava, and the more predominant amorphous rocks of older geological areas, i.e., sedimen tary, metamorphic, and eroded igneous rocks. Walls are gen erally constructed of *a*a and pahoehoe where such flows are found on Hawai* i and Maui Islands. Preferred material for general construction seems to have been eroded rocks without sharp angular shapes. Slabs of pahoehoe are sometimes used for wall facing. -
Calcareous Materials
Both living and dead reefs provided calcareous materials for wall construction. On Moloka9i one kind of 4? lime-secreting corralline alga (Porites spp0) is used at sites D21, D52, and D58 (Summers 1971s65# 72, 137)s> perhaps intentionally as cementing agent in the walls. The coral beds offshore of site D58 at Puko* o were investigated by Vaughan (1907s26), and the "cementing" corals were identi fied as Porites compressa and Porolithon. Generally, dead branches and lumps of coral were collected from the shoals, beaches, and shore, usually by women and children (Kawelo of
Ualapue, Land Court. Award / j £ k / 3730 to Ilae n.d.)0 In the Pu'uloa (Pearl Harbor) area of 0°ahu, the walls of sites C57» C?2, and C77 are constructed mainly of slabs of lithified beachrock, which forms the basic landform of the region. In the Kahuku area of the same island, sites
062, C87, and C162 are fishponds utilising large sinkholes in the lithified sand.
Alluvium
Only at sites H27, H28, H37» H38, and H49 are or ganic mud and muck noted as constructional material (Kikuehi and Belshe 1971)» Their occurrence at only these sites does not rule out their use at other ponds, for probably the practice of heaping mud, organic muck, and seagrasses onto the walls and embankments of fishponds was quite common.
Heaps of mud found on parts of the aforementioned ponds* wall systems were probably obtained from cleaning and dredg ing the ponds® bottoms. These five sites benefited from the 48 mud and muck fill because of their predominant 8a8a con struction* as the fill eases walking on the sharp stones»
Thus * the placement of mud and muck on walls seems to have had a dual purposes to allow for a place to deposit dredging materials and to make walking on the 9a8a walls easier* as all deposits noted are on *a*a walls that were also used as walkways,
Timber Timber is used in the construction of sluice grates* weirs* and in parts of fishtraps» The upland for ests provided the hardwood 8ohiea lehua (Metrosideros macropus) and lama (Diospyros) trees for the posts* uprights* and gratings of the makaha (Kamakau 1869a). Both Kamakau and an informant from Kahana Bay on 0°ahu (1971) say that
0ohi*a *ai (Eugenia malaccensis) is also used in makaha con struction* although this is a very soft wood. Luomala
(1951s28) notes that 8ohi*a lehua is used in the construction of mountain weirs. At site C57* 8ohi8a lehua logs are used as part of a fishtrap, which is referred to as jga 8 ohi8a after the name of the tree.
Vegetable Materials
Uluhe ferns (false staghorn, exact genera unknown) are used in the construction of the gratings of sluice grates (Kamakau 1869b), Two fibers mentioned as used in making cordage for binding gratings and posts are the 8 ie (Freycinetia arborea) (Kamakau 1869b) and hala stems (Pan-
danus odoratissimus) e "The stems, ha la, were prepared by- drying for a couple of days and then they were rendered pli able by pounding with a wooden club (Phelps 1937s13-14) It is likely that other fibers were also used depending on their availability in different areas. Probable fibers used are the 9aha, or coconut sennit, and hau (Hibiscus tilia- ceus), both of which produce strong coir and were commonly used in lashing of houses and canoes.
Construction Techniques
The Hawaiians accomplished many massive and impres sive engineering and architectural feats. Projects requir
ing engineering technology were generally executed with an exceedingly simple array of equipment. There is no documen tation of the knowledge or use of pulleys, rollers, or sleds to lift or transport heavy objects. Means used were the rope, litter, digging stick, and the common denominator, human power, Indications of prehistoric labor techniques come from the ,esuper-engineer” of the Hawaiian Islands, the menehune» These were mythical, supematurally endowed dwarfs, who were credited with many civil projects of antiq uity, Menehune completed their tasks always in the course of one single night and always working with rock as building material6 They stood in a line from the source of the rock to their destination, passing stones of hugh size, which were light as feathers to the workers e Movement of the • materials was exceedingly swift, and the rocks were accu rately secured at the destination. Construction of sites B2 and B? (Kaiwi 1921s116-17? Rice 1923*36; Damon 1931*395; Luomala 1951823? Hadley and Williams I960:50-51)? C18 (McAllister 1933*164), C57 (Stokes 1909a*206-7? Pukui 1943), C67 (Sterling and Summers 1962, Bk. V, Vol. 2*258), and C84 (McAllister 1933*69)? D10A (Summers 1971*116) and D29 (Carlson 1954*251; BPBM Tape H-92F); F6, F13, Fl4, and F28 (Wilcox n.do), and mountain weirs on Kaua*i (Luomala 1951* 21, 28) was accredited to the menehune.
Surprisingly, only 23 fishponds in the entire Hawaiian Islands are documented as having been made by man.
These are sites C32, C55» C94, C119, C123, C124 (Fornander
1880s269-70), and C164 (Cobb 1902s427); D34, D40 (Stokes
1911), D51 (Ka Nuoena Ku8oko*a 1922), and D58 (LCA 3730 n.do);. F3 (Kamakau 1969a), F6, F7, F13, Fl4, F19, and F28 (Wilcox n.d.); H8x, Hl6, H52, H53 (Malo 1951*202), and H34 (Kamakau 1869a). In several cases, assistance was given by the menehune. The only.descriptions as to methods used by man are for D51, F6, F7, F13, F19, and F28. In all cases, stones were brought from a distance by a line of men pass ing the material in the same fashion as described for the menehune. A litter is described as having been borne on the shoulders of men in the transportation of large stones to
F6, F13# and F28 (Wilcox n.d.)« Wilcox states that one of 51 the workers, Kikau, was forced, as punishment, by the kono° hiki to search for and gather rocks offshore in the vicinity of the ponds in waters deep enough that diving was requiredc
One recurring motif in menehune stories is the dis tance to which the dwarfs went to obtain stones for the con struction of temples, or heiau, and fishponds. On Kaua*i, sites B2 and B? were supposedly built from stones carried from Makaliei Beach to the pond sites, a distance of between
1 and 2 miles (Kaiwi 1921$116-17)« A more romantic story places the source of stone as Makaweli, a distance of 15 miles (Damon 1931*395)« On Moloka®i, the menehune carried rocks from Wailau Valley to site D29 at Kalua*aha, a dis tance of about 4 miles (Carlson 195^*251)o Sites F? and F19 on Maui were constructed by men carrying stone from Makawela, the exact location of which is not known. However# it would have to have been over 2 miles distant from the ponds, as limestone and not igneous rocks are found in the area of the ponds o Whether these accounts can be relied upon as factual and applicable to the construction of other ponds can only be inferred as probable until disproven,
Kamakau (1869a) estimates a manpower requirement for the reconstruction of F3, F6, and F34 at around 10,000 men. The massiveness of some of the shore type fishponds suggests that construction was intensive and lengthy, as well as costly in terms of material, manpower, and subsidy in feed ing and housing. 52 Features
Walls Seawallse Kuapa, used for dividing the sea from
the loko kuapa8 are always of considerable length# width#
and construction compared to secondary and tertiary walls within the calmer inner spaces of the ponds® Figure 2? il lustrates the various wall types of the Hawaiian aquacultural
system® These are walls principally of stone and/or cal careous materials and embankments of stone# earth# sand# and calcareous debris® The construction of fishpond or fishtrap walls follows the traditional pattern of wall fabrication (see Connor 1968s12-14)6 Inspections of Kaloko fishpond
(H24) by Renger (1970) and by the author reveal that the 35-
40 foot wide foundation of the kuapa rests directly on an
ancient# submerged pahoehoe flow® Excavation of two sec
tions of the wall showed that the side toward the pond is well faced at a slight incline (10°-15°) with a single layer
of waterworn stones« Probably a similar outer face once
existed# but wave action has destroyed any traces of it* The core of this massive structure is composed of a fill of both basalt and coralline material# either thrown in hap
hazardly or purposely set so that the interior is very per meable* McAllister (1933:29) and Summers (1964:7) argue for intentional loose construction to provide circulation of ti
dal water into and out of ponds® Two ponds on O'ahu, C15 53
WALLS AFTER CONNOR 1968 FINE CORE ROUGH CORE FINE ROUGH )000< CORE S s f LAYERING Sr FILL
TYPE A TYPE B TYPE C TYPE D
D O OOo/ WALL AFTER LADD 1969 LOOSE RUBBLE 1 (HAKAHAKA)J -tfle
OPEN WORK 1 'ALEALEA TEMPLE ( PAO) J PEBBLES RUBBLE a SAND SAND ROCK BASE
KALOKO POND
LOOSE RUBBLE FACING
SEA LEVEL
ROCK BASE
18* ALl'l POND
SEA LEVEL
SILT NO SCALE
Fig. 2 ? c Wall Construction and Cl60, are said by Summers (1964$7) to have impermeable walls with sand and dirt as fill material. The author■s study of Kaloko fishpond's kuapa reveals that a permeable wall greatly aids in the reduction of wave energy, as part of the tons of seawater is percolated into the pond and part is absorbed quickly and passed back into the sea.
Another characteristic of kuapa noted at various ponds studied appears to be the inclination differences of the inner and seaward faces. Generally, stone walls of pre historic structures, e.g., temples, houses, enclosures, and fishponds, were constructed with sloping facing. In the case of kuapa, the seaward face appears to have more slope than the inner face, Mr, John Crouch informed the author that Ali'i fishpond (D2) has a 22° inclination on the sea ward face and an 18* inclination on the inner face of the kuapa. The walls of Lahuipua'a (H4l) and Waipuhi (H?0) were observed to have the same degree of contrast of facing angles, although the exact measurements were not taken. The function of the less steep slope of the seaward face is to enable the kuapa to efficiently withstand wave energy and to absorb, per square foot, more energy than a wall with a steeper slope.
Two parameters of construction which seem to be fairly uniform are the width and height of all seawalls. In order to examine these parameters, a statistical test
(Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient) was 55 conducted on 32 ponds where data was available (Fig® 28)®
An extremely low correlation of r=i0<,048 exists between width and height® The calculated mean of the width (x=6.66 feet) and height (y=3o84)p when compared with a tally of ponds in Appendix B for which data is present, shows that for a total of 37 ponds the x is 6.4 feet, while for 35 ponds the y is
3,8 feet. The results of both tallies are substantiated by-
McAllister (1933:29), who writes that Oeahu ponvds had aver age wall widths of 5 feet and heights of 3 to 4 feet. In terestingly, the height infers that most of the ponds and traps are constructed on very shallow shoals, and that in every case where the walls are still in good condition, they are not submerged during high tides. The water may approach the top of a wall, but it never covers the wall completely
(McAllister 1933:29),
Wall lengths as noted by McAllister and Summers vary from "a few hundred of feet to several thousand feet
(McAllister 1933:29)," Length is a factor of the location of a pond, as well as of its type i.e., type la, as com pared with type lb. The length of seawalls of 90 ponds and traps were studied and a histogram was drawn (Fig, 28)., The lengths range from over 150 feet to 6,300 feet, with the highest frequency lying between 1,200 and 2,000 feet. Using a rough average of 1,600 feet and the mean width and height of 6,66 and 3<=84 feet, respectively, it is calculated that the average fishpond wall contains 33,719 cubic feet of 56 12 H XI 6.6
10 1 1 8 I 1 1 • HEIGHT 1 (FT) i'# # 1 • • <► i 1_JL ___4 ____•_ Y=3.8 •• 1 | » • • • • • 1 • » i> # i N=32 1 1 1 6 8 10 12 14 WIDTH (FT)
17
15
N = 90
10
NUMBER
5
2 3 4 5 6 7 LENGTH (IN THOUSAND FEET)
Fig. 28. Wall Statistics 57 rocko In comparison, the widest and most massive fishpond wall at Kaloko (H24), which is 750 feet long, 35 feet wide, and 6,5 feet high, contains over 150,000 cubic feet of rock
(Renger 1970:33)» For 25 ponds and traps where volume could be computed, a low of 2,400 and a high of 170,625 cubic feet are noted, with the average being 49,132 cubic feet (Fig® 29)„ Secondary and Tertiary Walls, These walls are de fined as constructions built within the confines of a fish pond in order to compartmentalize the pond into perhaps more workable, segregated areas (see McAllister 1933)« The walls at sites B18, HI, H24, H28, H37, H38, and at the Kalahuipua'a Pond Complex (H17, H20, H22, H4l, H49, and H70) are constructed of stone? are very narrow, with widths not exceeding 2,5 feet? and are quite low, with the tops barely a few inches above water. These walls were observed by the author to be of typically loose construction, as their fragility is quite apparent upon walking on them.
All secondary and tertiary walls observed seem to segregate certain areas of the ponds for the protection and raising of fry of various sizes. There are no written references for any fishponds concerning the purpose of the secondary and tertiary walls? however, Mr. Phillip Palama, owner of Nomilu fishpond (B18), says that the part of Nomilu en closed by such walls serves as a protected area for mullet fingerlings, as it is too shallow for larger predators.
0 0 Vx 000*081 (FT3) H24 KALOKO CIOS Cl 24 Cl Cl 16 Cl VOLUME OF VOLUME WALL C/> m 0) H
Fig, 29, Volume of Walls Sluice Grates Sluice grates, or makaha, are the most distinctive and unique feature of the Hawaiian aquacultural system (Fig, 30)o The only notation of a sluice grate in Oceania outside of Hawai*i is for the Gilbert Islands (see Chapter
10)6 Although Catala (1957s131) does not give any evidence of the grate6s antiquity, he does state that it is move able, In Hawai*i, the makaha is a stationery grate, an
"entrance to or egress from an enclosure .(Pukui and Elbert
1957s207)o" It has no moveable parts, although modern, post-European sluice grates have slots on the sides which allow the grates to be raised or lowered (Cobb 1902$4271 Summers 1964$9)0 As a technological innovation, the sluice grate made every pond in which it was found a more highly efficient fishpond, as it allowed water to flow in and out, but kept the fish in. It provided a filter of sorts which greatly aided controlled circulation. The makaha is a tremendous innovation, which probably allowed the prehis toric Hawaiian to proceed from fishtraps in which all lanes were open to the sea and from enclosed ponds with no con trolled access to the sea to artificial estuaries, which could be controlled at all times of the tide. The original concept of the makaha may have been developed in the agri cultural irrigated taro plots, where rudimentary makaha of smaller scale occur to control water flow into plots. 60
GRATINGS x^STAKE IpjiP WPPPpPPIWI)Hpr,?l>~ “ KUAPA : 'I 'I ;h SEA I### LEVEL llElliBllllli FRONT VIEW OF MAKAHA
POND
w z
NO SCALE
KUAPA gM4fA MAKAHA
MAKAHA
SEA
PLAN VIEW OF MAKAHA , LANES AND DITCH
Fig, 30, Sluice Grate, Lanes, and Ditch 61 A sluice grate is described by Kamakau (1869b) as having been constructed in the following manners When the stone wall (papohaku) along the bank (kuapa) was completed, then the task remained to find the proper wood for the water sluices» This was selected by the kahuna /*""priest_J7 of the *au- makua who increased the fish in the loko kuapa and was either ohia or lama wood or some other wood of suitable kinds When the wood for the sluice was ready and the proper day had arrived for its con struction, the kahuna of the 9 aumakua who caused in crease was fetched to set up the first piece of tim ber® For this important duty he offered a hog and a dog for the increase of fish and made fitting prayers® Then he took a piece of wood and set it up in the sluices and offered the finishing prayer® Then the men set up the timbers and bound them with 8 ie cords. They arranged the stones at the founda tion of the makaha and poured in smooth pebbles® It was in this way that all sluice gates were made.
Phelps (1937:13-14) also describes the construction of a makahas The gate of the sluice was made of lama wood (ohia was also used at times) tied together with hala stems® It was simply a lattice in which the hori zontal pieces, placed in pairs, one on each side of the vertical pieces, were secured by running the hala stems through the openings and around each stick in the manner of a lashing.
Beckley (1883:21) states that makaha "are of straight sticks tied onto two or three cross beams, the sticks in the upright standing as closely as possible, so that no fish
half an inch in thickness can pass them, while the water and young fry can pass freely in and out®"
Most makaha have leading parallel lanes of various
lengths, which form a runway as wide as the sluice, grate®
These are called *auwai o ka makaha, or the "ditch of the 62 sluice gratee" Some lanes project out from only one side of the seawall, while others project out from both sides (Fig, 30)» Cobb (1902s427) believes that the lanes provide the means to congregate fish attracted by insurging high tidal waters in order to harvest them at the makaha. Pos sibly the lanes are residual artifacts of the fishpond’s predecessor, the fishtrap.
Summers (1964s9) notes that the position of the ma kaha has no correlation to the size of the fishpond nor any traditional location within the walls of the pond. Sluice grates seem to have been placed according to the current pattern of the area, in order to provide flow into and drainage out of a pond, thus effectively reducing natural silting and disallowing stagnation. Nutrients for the pro motion of algal growth were also thereby introduced into the pond.
For 69 recorded ponds, the number of sluice grates ranges from 1 to 7$ with 1 and 2 the most frequent numbers
(Table 2). Renger (1970:29) and Summers (1971:127) note D29 as being the only pond on Moloka’i without any sluice grate, McAllister (1933:30) notes that O'ahu ponds have 1 to 4 makaha, while 3 ponds have none, 039? C60, C75# C93,
C117, C127, and 0136 are noted by the author to also be without sluice grates. Five of these ponds are found in the Pu’uloa lagoons. These type le fishponds are enclosures for the holding and raising of fish and probably have very 63 Table 2. Frequency Occurrence of Sluice Grates in Fishtraps
SITE TYPE £ la lb | II | Ill 1 16 2 9 I 2 29 2 15 4 1 2 22 NUMBER 3 6 2 8 0F _ 4 3 1 4 MAKAMA 5 2 1 3 6 2 2 7 1 E 43 II II 4 69
Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Lanes in Fishtraps
L A N E S 1N WAR 0 OPEN OUTWARD SITE TYPE OPEN CLOSED OPEN CLOSED
D7 HOOLEHUA 1 v*. 6 D27 KANUKUAWA Vb 3 3 6 1 D32 KAUNAH 1 KO’OKU i) 2 9 D40 MIKIAWA n 16 9 053 PANAHAHA «> 9 2 5 1
El ka 'a ii 2 067 WAWAIA Vb, 4 5 1 055 PAPA'lLl'lLI Vb2 3 2 3
042 NANINANIKU'EKU'E Vc 2 7 1 052 PAKANAKA it 1 17 2
051 POHO'ELE Vc, 24 TOTAL 43 7 3 87 6 64 permeable walls to allow for water percolation. No detailed analysis of these ponds has been undertaken, so it is pos sible that makaha may have once existed in them, but have been sealed by later construction.
Ditches
There are three types of ditches associated with aquacultural sites? ha, °auwai, and *auwai-kai, all of which are simple, excavated canals with a base and two walls. In some cases, they were lined with stone in those areas where water would, by force of movement, erode a face® Generally, the canal was simply excavated in the earth and the material thrown on one or both sides as em bankments ® Handy (1940s36-37)$ McAllister (1933s26-28), and Bennett (1931s21-22) describe irrigation ditches in more detail than is needed in this study®
Ha, The ha, defined as a ditch, trough, or sluice
(Pukui and Elbert 1957*41), was used in association with the mountain weir, type Vila kahe® It was the trough in which *o*opu were carried from the weir into a flat plain area where they were caught by the Hawaiians (Beekley 1883*
8s Cobb 1902:413$ Titcomb 1952*106), Since the kahe was used only during the spawning season of the 8 oe opu and times of freshets, the ha was also only temporarily used®
The only legendary reference to a ha is recorded in the
”Legend of the 8o8opu god Holu" by Fornander (1919*510-15)• 65 There are no data on any of the physical characteristics of the ha, nor are there any remains of them,
*Auwai@ This ditch, found associated with types
III, IV, and VIb fishponds, carries water into the pond from an agricultural irrigation system, directly from a stream or river, or from a spring. It is simply an inter mediary feature between the water source and the pond that permits the flow and, at times, the drainage of water. According to maps that were examined, some 'auwai are quite short, a matter of tens of feet, while others, especially those associated with type IV ponds, run for several miles,
Nakuina (189*0 and Handy and Handy (1972:58-6?) describe in detail the construction, rites, maintenance, legality, and usage of traditional agricultural 8auwai systems, Nakuina
(189*1'$ 79) states that each 8auwai which was connected with agricultural fields was named. Thus, it is probable that
8auwai which were associated with fishponds were likewise named. However, not one single reference has been found on the names of 8auwai, although the names may have been lost before maps were drawn. The probable reason is, however, that the surveyors simply did not bother to record the Hawaiian names, According to descriptions of 8auwai construction by Kamakau (1869b) and Nakuina (189^), the native Hawaiian
“engineer” designed his system from the pond to the water source, which, to many, sounds backwards. This method al leviates inundation during excavation, but involves the tremendous job of finding adequate slope over long dis tances. Obviously, these tasks were accomplished, attest ing to the skill and knowledge of the native "engineer.”
*Auwai-kai, Only a single reference describes the construction and procedures of the sluice grate and the *auwai-kai associated with type II ponds (Pig. 30). ...he the farmerJZ went upland to fetch lama wood and uluhe ferns for a makaha. He made several bun dles, tied them with ®ie vines, until he had a mat ting ah iwilei £~ 1 yard_/ or more in width. If he had two or three pu*uone, he made as many makaha. When the high tide days came, he kindled a fire, and when that was done, he went to break down the dam (kumano) at the outlet to the sea (®auwai kai). First he set up the makaha securely, packing mud around it to hold it in place. When the sea washed in over the *akulikuli, ilioha and the hinahina plants on the shore, and the makaha was found lb be set firmly in place, he broke down the dam on the sea-washed side, and the sea water entered the pu*uone (Kamakau 1869b).
*Auwai-kai, then, are ditches connecting fishponds with the sea. They are most evident in association with loko pu0uone» although, technically, they occur with any shore fishpond which has a makaha or a fish lane.
Lanes Lanes, or fish guiding walls, are found associated only with type V fishtraps. Basically, there are only two types of fishtraps, loko, 'ume'iki, or po*o®iki (Pig. 31), 67
FISHTRAP PLAN AND LANE DETAILS AFTER STOKES 1909 b
T N
KAINAOHE PAPAfl Llf! L KEAWANUI DI2 D55 ^ D34
100 200 FT. DETAILS OF LANES
2 0 FT.
Fig. 31. Loko 'Ume1iki Details 68 and £a (Pig0 32)« The former covers types V to Vcp$ where as the latter covers types Vd^ to Vg.
Conspicuous in loko °ume*iki is the absence of sluice grates, but the presence of lanes. These lanes, which appear not to have been named, are located on the seawall where sluice grates would normally occur. They are generally constructed in the same manner as the fishpond walls previously described. Summers (1964i18) notes that lanes are,placed according to local tidal flow. From r Kaluaeaha to Kaunakakai, Moloka® i, tidal flow is from east
to west, and so the lanes which are built leading inward
(leading fish into the fishtrap) are on the generally
eastern portions of traps D2?, D32, D40, D53j> D55» and D67, Fishtraps D42, D51, and D52, which are west of Kaunakakai, -
have only outward leading lanes, which are located on the western portions of the traps and are built to accomodate the ebbing of waters. Site D6 at Honouliwai does not have fish lanes, but rather an opening which takes advantage of high tidal water, sweeping around a point and bringing with it fish into a rudimentary, rock walled enclosure.
Figure 31 diagrams examples of loko *ume*iki, which are found only on Moloka6i and Lana6 i, and of the direction
of their lanes, A total of 146 lanes are documented for fishtraps on these two-islands (Table 3), In evaluating
the lanes, a general, statistical survey was taken on the 69
Vb,
KU ULA (M) PA'OHI'A G0D-1MAGE
KOA(SHRINE)
TAPU ENCLOSURES
HINA(F) C57 KAPAKULE GOD-tMAGE O 80 160 FT
Fig. 32. Pa Type Fishtraps 70 Moloka® i lanes where data was present (Table 4). The aver age inward lane figures to be approximately 45i" feet, long, 21|r feet wide at the wall, and 5s feet wide at the opening. On the other hand, the average outward lane is generally
shorted and narrower, being approximately 21 feet long, 10&
feet wide at the wall, and 4 feet wide at the opening® Of
all loko *ume*iki on Moloka®i, site D46, Miki®awa, has the
longest inward and outward lanes, averaging 53 and 38®4
feet, respectively. The second type of fishtrap is noted by a prefix,
pa, meaning a wall, fence, or enclosure (Fig® 32)® The suffix added to pa describes the type of fishtrap, i®©®, pa-holoholo; the material out of which the trap is made, i.e., pa-®ohi®a; or the type of fish for which the trap is intended, i.e., ka-pa-akule, ka-pa-makalwa, and pa-®cahua®
These fishtraps are the closest in form, construction, function, and name to the fishtraps found in the rest of
Polynesia and in parts of Micronesia (see Chapter 10).
The simplest lane is found in the paholoholo type
fishtrap, type Vg. It is built by "lining up stones on
this and that side so that they form a triangle with the
shore® A two foot wide opening is left where the two stone walls meet (Kahaulelio 1902b)®" No site of this type re mains, so no information on its physical dimensions is available® Table 4. Statistics on Loko •Ume* iki Lanes on Moloka'i
TOTAL (FT.) LANES N WIDTH AT MEAN LENGTH (FT.) WALL END
INWARD LEADING 21 9 6 5 45.4 II II 18 3 8 9 21.6 II II 18 103 5.6 OUTWARD LEADING 55 1150.3 20.9
II II 52 550 1 0.6
II II 44 181 4.1 MIKIAWA SITE D40 INWARD LEADING 16 8 4 8 53 OUTWARD LEADING 9 3 4 6 38.4 72
Stokes (19093.8204) describes the only £a *ohi*a. so
far located for the entire Hawaiian Islands®
Running out into deeper water from Kuula (fish pro ducing deity) and in the same direction as the leader? there formerly stood a row of twelve ohia tree stems about six fathoms high and three feet apart® It was called 6Pa ohia?0 and some of the trees were seen in place ten years ago® It is pro bable that other fish traps were similarly pro vided® The ]Da °ohi8a was attached to site 057? Kapakule® and so far is the only non-lithic material found to have been used in association with a stone wall® This structure measured 41 feet long and? based on Stokes® description? would have
required about 14 logs for its construction® The 3 foot
distance between logs makes this type of lane a guide for
the fish? rather than a wall to prevent fish from escaping®
The kapakule and kapamakaiwa were found only in the
Pueuloa entrance on 0®ahu® These fishtraps were named after the type of fish they were intended to catch? al
though they did not and could not prevent other fish from also being trapped. All three such ponds noted? 057? 072? and 077? were built with one side adjacent to the shore (Fig® 32)e 057 and 077 caught fish during the ebbing of the tide? while 072 caught fish at the rising of the tide. All three traps had similar shapes, with stone? walled
lanes from 45 to 95 feet long and openings 15 feet wide. In all cases? the pa lanes were constructed of
stone? for all purposes? were pairs of walls built so that 73 they converged at one end* The purpose of all lanes was to guide fish and then to concentrate and induce them to go into an enclosure where they were snared with nets. The loko *ume*iki lanes were different, in that the trapping and netting of the fish occurred at the narrowest width of
the laneso Site C13^j> a £& 0 ohua, is the only fishtrap noted whose walls were covered with water at high tide and which had no lanes. This enclosure was built to trap and then hold the young of various fish, among which were the dif ferent kinds of fish identified by the Hawaiians as hinalea
(Thalassoma ballieuli, Coris gaimardi, Gomphosus tricolor, etc,)i the kala (Acanthuridae spp,), manini (Acanthurus triostequs), and the pualu (Acanthurus fulginosus), three surgeonfish? and the uhu (Scarus perspicillatus), parrot fish (Pukui and Elbert 1957s256)0
Dams and Weirs
Normally, these structures were either associated with each other or found in close proximity. They were most commonly located in the upland mountainous areas, where sources of water were tapped and fish and shrimp occasionally harvested,.
Dams, The dam, called paniwai or kumano (obsolete word), is an obstruction built across a stream in order to stop and back up the water. It had both agricultural and 74 aquacultural uses. Agricultural dams were highly regarded, as noted "by Nakuina (1894:79, 80, 82): Dams were always a loose wall of stones with a few clods here and there, high enough only to raise wa ter sufficiently to flow into the "auwai .„ „ Any dam was levelled to the bedrock by the water right holders below, and at any rebuilding, delegates from each dam below were required to be present to see that a due proportion of water was left in the stream „.. Any one in the olden times caught break-- ing a dam built in accordance with the Hawaiian0s idea of justice and equity, would be slain by the shareholders of that dam, and his body put in the breach he had made, as a temporary stopgap.„,
Aquacultural dams, which probably did not differ in shape or construction from agricultural dams, were used to dry up the lower reaches of a stream so that 0o°opu and 0opae could be harvested, Menehune are noted by Luomala (1951*21) as having constructed fish dams: They did the work just as those who made 0 o9 opu fish dams did at the streams, standing in a row from the place where the digging was done to the place where the closing.was to be. So did the menehune work, the first took up a stone, handed it to the one standing beside him and so on.
Weirs. Weirs, or kahe, are seive-like traps that serve to segregate 0oeopu from the water. These structures were under the jurisdiction of the chief, his konohiki, and a priest, kahuna. Luomala (1951*28) describes the proce dures surrounding their construction:
A proclamation was sent to the two divisions from one end to the other to go to the mountains to cut wood for a frame and sticks to lay across it. The headworker of these people came in the evening to see if they were ready. Half the people went. The owner took a log of 9ohi°a lehua to use as a sup port for the front of the trap. This support was 75 called a pillow0 It was he who had to lay it on the head of the trap® No one else was allowed there except those he wanted and selected. Five men were sufficient and they did the work without uttering a word or whispering to fellow companions until one side was completed. Then their overseer examined the work and nodded approval, They turned together to face the other side and thus they worked until the chief's, landlord's and commoner9s tapu period had passed. Rice (1923*44) also notes the construction of a weir on Kaua9 i: “At one time the people had gathered to make a kahe or fish trap in the Makaweli River to catch the fish which the freshet would carry down,,,, An order was issued that no one was to touch the kahe until the kahuna had removed
the kapu.“ As in the case of dams, weirs are attributed to
mythical builders, Luomala (1951*28) notes both the build
er and the size of a weirs “The 8o'opu trape (kahe-'o8opu) made by the Mu was very large, 10 to 20 fathoms long,”
Sometimes associated with the weir is the ha. As
noted previously, the function of the ha was to carry di verted water from the weir to a flat area close by where fish and water were deposited. The fish could then be easily gathered by waiting harvesters. As no dams or weirs have been noted in any site report, their physical proper
ties, alignments, and disposition are not known.
Shelters and Platforms
Sites C15, C29, 039, C128, 0129, F3, and H24, all
loko kuapa, are the only fishponds documented to have had any shelters, hale kia'i, associated with them. These 76 shelters were located close to or beside the sluice grates
in the seawalls of the aforementioned ponds„ A correlation
seems to exist between the number of shelters and the num
ber of sluice grates of a ponde Sites C29? G128p 0129, and
H24 had 1 shelter and 2 sluice grates, and site 015 had 4
shelters and 5 sluice grates 0 Only site 039 had 2 shelters, but no sluice grate, which suspiciously seems to indicate that at least 3 sluice grates must have once existed. Whether all loko kuapa had shelters and in about the same ratio is questionable, Kamakau (1869b) describes the function of the shel ters: "On the nights when the tide was high every kia8 i
(keeper) slept by the makaha of which he had charge, and it was the kia8i loko (keeper of the pond) custom to build
small hale kia8 i from which to guard the fish from being
stolen or from being killed by pigs and dogs,,McAllister
further describes these shelters as watch houses, "A small
thatched watch house was placed near the gate f ~makaha 7 of
the pond, and a woman generally kept guard (McAllister 1933s30)," No example of a watch house still intact has been noted. Features which have not withstood the erosion of time and water are platforms, constructed on the seawalls
of loko kuapa, on which the shelters once stood. Although
the author has neither seen any platforms at sites not noted any references concerning their existence, it is 77 assumed that some kind of platform or pavement must have existed# as Hawaiian architectural practice was to con struct platforms or pavements on which to place their
structures# i
Type V loko *ume*iki fishtraps of Moloka'i are re corded by Summers (1971) as having rudimentary rock plat forms on which fishermen-netters stood or sat during the netting of fish# These platforms are always found at the. ends of the inward and outward leading lanes (Fig® 31)o
Their locations are said to be based on the customary right-handedness of the Hawaiians# as the right side of a netter# standing on the platform and facing the opposite
direction as the flow of the water# would always be toward
the opposite lane (Summers 1964t18)„ Sites D32# D40# and
D51 are definitely noted to have platform location based on this customary right-handedness# The platforms average 6 feet in width and are li to 2i feet high (Summers 1964s18)„ Only the western loko 'ume'iki of D42, D51# and D52 lack platforms, the reasons for which are not now known. Per haps due to greater overgrowth# silting# and damage, these fishtraps simply do not yield their information as easily as the eastern traps«
A wide# paved stone platform is found at site H2# a fishtrap located on the Kona Coast of Hawai® i Island
(Reinecke 1930s13)• It is likely that a watch house or some other structure once stood on the platform# as is 78 similarly noted for loko kuapa. This is the only known ex ample of a fishtrap which probably had such a shelter asso ciated with it.
Fish Shelters
Type VIII shelters, called umu or imu, are quite common features in certain areas of the Hawaiian Islands.
These areas are Kahalueu and Waiahole on 0*ahu; Halawa on
Moloka0 is and Honueapo, Ke° ei, and Kailua on Hawai0 i.
Shelter location is determined by the lack of naturally occurring shelters of coral and rock, necessitating the construction of artificial homes to attract fish. The umu is one of the simplest of all aquacultural features. Its construction seems to be predominantly of the pao type, i.e., open work construction (Fig. 27), Rock or coral is piled so that the resultant umu is full of Mhalls" or spaces, which allow seaweed to grow on the surfaces, and which, in turn, attract fish. Coral is used in the Wai ahole umu, while pahoehoe slabs are used in the Ke* ei umu
(Richard Paglinawan, Informant)• The Ke®ei umu is reported to be about 5 feet in diameter and 3 to 4 feet high»
Cordover and Cordover (1969**0 write that the Moloka*i umu are as large as ^ .acre, a statement that sounds suspicious ly exaggerated. Umu were the prehistoric predecessor to the present-day practice of forming artificial fish shelters 79 by dumping pipes and car hulks in shelterless areas of the
sea®
Size The size, in acres, of any aquaeultural site, as recorded on tax maps, aerial photographs, and in published sources, varies according to several factors: the year of the survey! the accuracy of the survey: the time of day the survey or photograph was taken? and the amount of silting and coastal changes that had taken place since the pond was first builto Therefore, the figures collected for the acreage of fishponds and fishtraps vary considerably. For the purpose of this study, the majority number and/or the . average of related numbers are used in the discussion of size®
McAllister (1933*29) notes that the length of walls is not always an indication of the size of the pond. No other author discusses in any greater detail the topic of acreage, except to note size ranges of certain ponds, e.g., loko kuapa: from 1 to 523 acres: pu'uone: from several acres to 300 acres (Summers 1964:5# 19). The dif ficulties in finding any correlation between size and pond type are, first, the-number of sites to be considered and, second, the inaccuracy of determining the acreage of exist ing ponds. According to the author®s typology of ponds and traps, only those types which are man-made would be relevant. Thus, only types I, IV, and V were isolated for study. Only a negligible amount of data is existent on the type IV, taro plot pond, and so this pond was discarded from the study. Figure 33 illustrates the displacement of types according to size. One hundred twelve type I fish
ponds and 12 type V fishtraps are overlayed on the same
graph and their relationship is obvious: the loko kuapa and
the loko eume9 iki have the same size range and probably
share the same philosophy of construction.
A similar graph was constructed (but not included
in this study) for types II and III, and, as suspected, the
sizes range almost continuously from 0.5 to over 500 acres. This suggests that sizes are random, as would be expected, since the prehistoric Hawaiian utilized nearly all of the naturally occurring bodies of water available to him. Gen erally then, size was determined by topography, rather than by human design. 81
90 #
0 •
0
-- 0 0 # o ACRES
A A 0 • • A A 0 0 • 0 30 0 0 0 A 0 0 0 0 0 0 A 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • # A - • 0 0 0 S 0 #00 0 0 0 10 - 0 :• 0* 0 0 # A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% A • •5 If: •• • . 0 % la l a , la. la$ lb lb, Ic L0K0 V V cl Va, Vb Vb, Vbz Vc ‘UME'lKI ig. 33. Acreage of Loko Kuapa and Loko •Ume•iki CHAPTER 5
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The deep azure blue waters of the Hawaiian Islands
are very poor in nutrients (plankton), on which larger fish
forms feed. This relative lack of nutrients may have been
present in prehistoric times, but its effect would have been miniscule as far as the native fisherman was concern ed, However# Dr, Gunther Dietrich hypothesizes that there must have been some effect# because its solution was the construction of artificial seas# the fishponds (Miles 1970)e The comparatively unproductive island waters did not affect the aquacultural system# since each site was an enclosed body of water# unique in its physical# chemical# and biological attributes.
Very little is known about the prehistoric fishpond
environment. Probably one of the earliest studies on the
food chains and food cycles of Hawaiian fishponds was con
ducted by ReW, Hiatt in 1 9 ^ (19^7)® Subsequent studies of various aspects of the physical and biological make up of ponds are by MacKay (19^7)# Van Heukelem (1968)# and Malone (1968), However informative these studies may be, one must not assume that parallel conditions existed in prehistoric Hawai* i, 82 ■ 83 The principal cause of difficulty in attempting to
study the prehistoric fishpond environment is the compara
tively small number of ponds still in existence® Another cause is the vast physical changes that have taken place in the remaining ponds since prehistoric times, as brought about by siltation? overgrowths introduced marsh plants, grasses, and trees? general disrepair? and extensive pollu tion® Prehistoric fishponds were definitely constructed on a relatively mudless shoal and, whenever possible, on a sand base® The mud silt found along the windward coast of
Oeahu, in the Pearl Harbor area, and along the entire
southern shore of Moloka* i is the result of post-1900
erosion, initiated first by extensive clearing of forests and grasses and later by construction®. The studies by
Hiatt, MacKay, Van Heukeleitv and Malone were all conducted on ponds in these areas. Any information obtained from these studies, or from any study on the present-day environ ment of Hawaiian fishponds, for that matter, must not be viewed as representative of the pristine model of pre- European times® It can, however, be used to hypothesize about the prehistoric fishpond environment®
!. : Physical Environment
All of the types which make up the aquacultural
system serve to promote the growth of certain food re sources for consumption® The productivity potential of 84
each site is ”a function of the nutrient materials (organic and inorganic salts) dissolved in it and available from other sources " and is not directly related to the size of the site (Bezinett 1962:38, 40)» Each pond and trap is an?artificial habitat for aquatic life and forms a balanced ecosystem. This habitat can be described from its physical parameters: pH, tempera ture, turbidity, oxygen, and salinity® Information has been gathered on the physical makeup of 2? fishponds, 1 fishtrap, and 1 pool (Table 5)• Of these, 22 are on Hawai®i
Island, 5 on Moloka*i, and 1 each on O’ahu and Kaua’i. Al though the data is incomplete in most cases, it serves to provide a general picture of the physical-aquatic composi tion of the fishpond environment®
Physical Parameters
pH« Measured as a range from 1 to 10, the pH indi cates the mineral composition of water® 1 to 6®5 is acid in salt content, 8 to 10 is alkali, and 7 is rated as neu tral. The omnipresence of calcium carbonate in Hawaiian waters produces a generally alkaline reading in pond mea surements ® Table 5 shows a predominance of 8.0 to 9=0 pH readings®
Temperature® Water temperature plays a very criti cal role in the appetite, digestion, growth, movement, and reproduction of fish and other aquatic life forms (Clark 85 Table 5* Salinity, Temperature, Oxygen, and pH of Some Hawaiian Fishponds
SALINITY TEMP. OXYGEN pH SITE • c p pro B2 ALAKOKO A. 3 B. 9 C. 12 CIS HUILUA A. 16 23 7 8.37 B. 22 25.7 7 8.47 C. 24 26.7 6 8.5 C. 24 26.4 6 8.5 D2 ALII 25 2 4 - 3 0 34 KEAWANUI 29 37 KULAALAMIHI 21.4 43 NIAUPALA 11.8 61 UALAPUE A. 11.5 B. 19.5 H 1 AIMAKAPAA A. 9 II 8.5 B.C. 27. 8 f. AIOPIO A. 12 7 8.6 B. 23.4 C. 27 4 ALANAIO 32.4 2 2 .4 4A 24.7 25.1 4B 18 24.3 20 KAAIPIO 9.5 26.1 9 8.5 21 KAHAPAPA 15.2 2 3 .4 9 8.8 24 KALOKO T. 18- 24 2 0 - 2 4 L. 2 5 -2 9 2 8 -3 1 8 A. 4 - 8 1 8 - 2 0 27 KAULANA 10 23.4 8 8.6 28 KAUPULEHU 5.5 28.2 7 - 1 0 8.5 32 KEAWAIKI 2.9 23.2 8 8.4 34 KIHOLO 2 - 3 23 - 2 6 7-11 8 .5 - 9 38 KUKIO 5 2 4 - 3 2 8 — 10 8.7 40 KUUALII T. 15 2 6 - 2 7 7 - 9 8.8 L. 21-23 2 3 - 2 5 41 LAHUIPUAA 10 24.7 9 8.2 LUAHINEWAI T. 5 22 7 8.3 46 MAKAHA A. 18-19 24 7 8.7 B. 18.5 C. 24.5 26 8 49 MANOKU II 26.6 13 8.8 52 HILOE 3 - 4 54 OPAEULA 10 23.7 8 9 70 WAIPUHI 9 - 1 2 26 - 27.5 7 - 9 8 .5 71 WELIWELI 8.6 24.5 K EY MEASUREMENTS TAKEN- A. BACK OF POND B. MIDDLE 0. BY SEAWALL T. UPPER LAYER L. LOWER LAYER OTHERS ARE GENERAL STATIONS 86 1969*20-21)„ Fluctuations of water temperature occur both monthly throughout the year and hourly, being low in the morning and attaining a maximum during the afternoon hours
(Tseu 1952$56-57)® These fluctuations are related to air and ground temperature, radiation from the sun, and the
circulation of water from outside sources into and out of
the ponds and trap. Therefore, measurements should be cor related to the month, day, hour, and location where the
temperature reading was taken. Table 5 shows that the tem perature in the ponds and trap ranges from a low of 18* to a high of 31° C with a mean of 24,7° C« Turbidity, Turbidity is defined as the grades of water transparency due to the lack or presence of foreign mineral or organic particles suspended in the water. It is measured by means of a photoelectric cell or registered as the number of particles per million volume (ppm). High turbidity in fishponds may affect the growth rates of fish
(Bennett 1962s47)e Malone (1968:31), studying Aliei pond,
D2, states that the intensity of turbulent mixing is a function of water depth and of wind stress. This affects the radiation penetrating to the bottom of the pond, and, in turn, affects the growth rates of plankton, phytoplank ton, and microbenthic life forms on which fish are depen dent for food. Therefore, turbidity of the water is the most important factor in determining productivity of life forms within Hawaiian fishponds (Malone 1968s33), 8? Oxygen0 The dissolved oxygen content of water is
”a complex result of photosynthetic and respiratory activi
ties plus the influence of temperature and pressure (Kikuchi
and Belshe 1971*B1 8 ) L i k e temperature, the oxygen con tent shows variations, which reflect diurnal changes of light, temperature, and cloud cover. Table 5 illustrates that, from a total of 28 measurements in 18 fishponds, the observed range of dissolved oxygen content is from 6 to 13 ppm, for a mean of 7,9 ppm and a mode of 7 ppm. The mean value of 7*9 ppm is indicative, of a high level of photosynthetic processes occurring within the fishponds and
fishtrap.
Salinity, Salinity is defined as the amount of mineral salts dissolved in a given body of water. The
proximity of most fishponds and fishtraps to springs,
streams, and seepages provides for a high amount of fresh water in the enclosures. Measurements taken vary from point to point, with noticeable differences noted along the land edge, compared with those taken at the seawall. In many of the larger and deeper fishponds, such as ob served at sites HI, Aimakapa8a; H24, Kaloko; H4l, Lahui- pua6a; and Luahinewai pool (Kikuchi and Belshe 1971), two
layers of water are found, a top, shallow layer of fresher water and a bottom level of more saline water. Table 5 illustrates the salinity measurements obtained, with vari ations dependent on the location, time of day, tidal 88 fluctuations$, and the depth at which the samples were
taken® It should be noted that several of the fishponds on
Hawai* i Island are in the low range of salinity, 2-5%* > which, although brackish, would be potable®
Bottom Sediments Found at the bottom of most fishponds is a layer of sediments, the predominant materials of which are organic muck and silt® The organic muck is partly digested algal material that has cycled at least once through the gut of
fish or shrimp and that "continues to decompose and change
from a dark green to dark grey or black (Kikuchi and Belshe
1971$B18)Intermixed in this layer of muck are particles
of silt and calcareous sand brought in by wind and water action® This level of sediments depletes the dissolved
oxygen and produces hydrogen sulfide (HgS)® At Kaloko fishpond, H24, the oxygen at this level measured 25-33%e
lower than at the upper levels, while the HgS measured from a low of 0,2 ppm to a high of 5 ppm, with an excess of 3 ppm being generally injurious to young fish (Kikuchi and Belshe 1971$B18)® Inspection of fishponds on the western coast of Hawai®i Island revealed that the organic muck and mud has accumulated to substantial thickness, so that walk ing through fishponds to acquire water samples proved to be quite tedious and difficult® ’ Biological Environment A fishpond is likened to an aquatic meadow or an artificial estuary in which a complex food web of numerous interrelated food chains occur» Hawaiian fishponds are termed virtually autacchic (Hiatt 19^7s279)# that is, the food supply within the pond is almost solely dependent upon the physical features of the pond itself® As noted in the introduction, fishponds can be likened to estuaryse The reasons for the tremendous productivity of an estuary are the shallow water depth, the maximum radiation that reaches its depths, the circulation brought on by tidal flow of sea water, and the nutrients carried into the estuary by each tide# The generally shallow nature of most Hawaiian fish ponds and their affect by both tidal and stream effluents reflect the model comparison to estuarys#
Food Chain
The general food chain begins with microbenthos that transform organic and inorganic detrius and nutrients into a form which can be utilized by a higher level of plant plankton, phytoplankton, for growth and development#
Phytoplankton depends on sunlight for its growth, and the numerous benthic and floeulent mats of green or blue and green filamentous algae found in Hawaiian fishponds repre sent this food level# Malone, in his study of Ali®i pond, D2, notes that the microbenthic primary productivity is light limited, while surface phytoplankton productivity is limited by incident light intensities below about 500 ly/day (langleys per day) and inhibited above 600 ly/day (Malone
1968-8 32*°33)'® Marine plants and zooplankton are most abun dant in the upper levels of Hawaiian fishponds, especially where two layers were noted to occur (Kikuchi and Belshe
1971sB18)e This substantiates Malone®s finding that tur bidity, or the translucency of the water, is the most im portant factor in establishing and maintaining the growth of lower animal and plant life on which fish are dependent.' The animal plankton (zooplankton) feeds on the phytoplank ton, and it, in turn, is eaten by larger fish and crusta ceans. The food chain progresses upwards until man consumes the fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and seaweed. Figure 3^, copied after Hiatt's study (19478276), best illustrates this food chains A food pyramid, with a base consisting of phytoplankton and a second layer of zooplankton, can be en visioned, progressing upward, with man at the apex of the food chains In each process, there is an energy loss of 90% from one level to the next higher, that is, it takes 1,000 pounds of phytoplankton to produce 100 pounds of zooplankton, which, in turn, is the food weight in the production of 10 pounds of fish. Therefore, it becomes clear that a fishpond requires a tremendously large nutrient supply of both in organic and organic foods in order to produce fish for man's consumption. vO o
AFTER HIATT 1947=276 Fig. Food Chain Diagram of Some Hawaiian Fishponds Food Resources
The Hawaiian aquacultural system provided a wide range of foods, which, in some eases, were contingent upon the tide, location, and season (types V and VII) and, in others, upon cultural preference (types I, II, III, and IV)a As previously stated, the porous nature of sluice grates and seawalls allows any type of aquatic life forms to penetrate a fishpond, and so control of the kinds of fish within a pond was almost impossible. Certain items were chosen, in some instances, as food over other items.
An indication of cultural preference for some fish over others was the practice of seeking the fingerlings of se lected fish and transporting them into fishponds® Seaweed was also intentionally sought and transplanted in certain areas to provide beds for selective use® The following is a brief summary of the principal food items provided by the
Hawaiian aquacultural system®
Fish® By virtue of their function, type V fish- traps could not control or segregate the kinds of fish caught® Stokes (1909b:11) records that the fish caught at Mikiawa fishtrap, site D^O, on Moloka*i were: mullet (Mugil cephalus), *ama6amas tenpounder (Flops machnata), awaj threadfish (Polydactylus sexfilis), .mods two surgeonfish: kala and palani (Acanthurus bariene)i bonefish (Albula vulpes), *o*io; crevally (Carangidae sp®), ulua? and sur mullets (Mullidae sp®), weke® The types of fish for which 93 the types Vd^ and Ve fishtraps are named ares big-eyed scad (Selar crumenophthalmus), akule; various fish called hTnalea by the Hawaiiansi and round herring (Etrumeus micropus), makaiwa. A type of surgeonfish, the manini, is reported to be the principal kind of fish caught in the umu, type VIII fish shelter (Richard Paglinawan, Informant),
Fishponds of types I and II had the largest variety of fish as food resources. The most common ones were the fish called aholehole (Kuhlla taeniura, Kuhlia sandwichen-
sis, etc,); mullet; tenpounder; milkfish, *awa'aua; barra
cuda (Sphryaena barracuda), kaku; anchovy (Anchoviella purpirea), nehu; the fish identified by the Hawaiians as
'o*opu; and the eel, puhi. The uncommon fish were: amber fish (Caranx mate), kahala; goatfish (Upeneus porphyreus), kumu; three surgeonfish called man ini, pa, lan i, and puwalu; bonefish; parrot fish; and crevally (Kamakau 1869b),
Fishponds of fresh to slightly brackish water, types III and IV, provided the aholehole, mullet, ten pounder, and *o*opu. The weirs, type VII, of the upland streams sought the prized "o8 opu during certain seasons of the year.
Crustaceans, The different kinds of shrimp, found in all zones from the seashore to the upland streams, are distinct enough in form, color, size, and location where found to warrent 14 suffixes added to the general prefix of 8opae. Two types, the *opae-huna, transparent shrimp, and 94 the ^opae^kakalap a spiked shrimp, are noted as entering the kuapa and puc uone fishponds from the sea (Kamakau 1964$
84), 6 Opae°-e oehaea (Macrobrachium grandiroanus), clawed shrimp, washed into the taro plot ponds through the makaha (Kamakau 1869b), The only kinds of crabs reportedly re lated to fishponds are the "alamihi (Metropograpsus messor) (Summers 1971:8$), a common black crab, and the papa0 i, a general term for crabs (Mokumaia 1922a), Seaweed, Over 70 distinct species of edible sea weeds, limu, are present in the Hawaiian Islands (Reed 1906 $ 62-63$ MacCaughey 1916$476) and are found along the seashore and, in one instance, in fresh water ponds, riv ers, and streams, MacCaughey (1916:477) remarks that cer tain fishponds were chosen in which to cultivate selected seaweeds. He further states that some nobility preferred to segregate and transplant choice seaweeds in the ocean in the vicinity of their beach residences, where the limu would be available at any time. Queen Liliuokalani's beach residence in Honolulu is reputed to have had such an ancient seaweed sea-garden nearby. Only limu-kala-wai (Spirogyra spp.) is recorded as being an edible product of fresh water fishponds (Kamakau 1869b), Reed (1906:67-68) and Pukui and Elbert (1957:190) refer also to limu-*Tlio (Stigeoclonium amoenum), or hulu-
*ilio, as being an edible fresh water alga. 95 Miscellaneous Resources, Occasionally, turtles, or
honu, were caught and deposited in fishponds or small pools
where they were preserved in good health and kept for later
consumptione Pahonu, site C127, was an enclosure made principally for holding turtles (Pukui and Elbert 1966s22)„ An early visitor to the.Waikiki area remarked that the rul- 0 ing chief of O'ahu, Kahekili, ’"mentioned also some others /ffishponds_J7 where he had a quantity of turtle (Meares 1791*20 ),”
An unusual food resource, reported only at site
C67, Kawainui fishpond, is lepo-eai-iae edible mud. Tra
dition states that Ka6ulu-a-Kalana, a noted chief, brought
the mud from Kahiki (general term for a foreign place) to
O'ahu and placed it into the fishpond. The mud is de
scribed as thick and jelly-like, having the color of poi,
mashed taro (AIona 1939)« During the invasion of 08ahu, the warriors and servants of King Kamehameha I mixed the mud with their poi in order to stretch their food resources, McAllister (1933*186) records that Mr, John Bell remembered eating the soil when he accompanied King Kalakaua (1847-
1891), thus indicating the popularity of this unique food item, ;
There are no references to the actual harvest of any shellfish, bivalves, or mollusks from fishponds or
fishtraps. It is assumed that the Hawaiians did, however. use all available food resources, and that, in the case of shellfish, bivalves, and mollusks, the harvest was margin al, seasonal, and occasional. The Pearl Harbor Lochs were once famous for their edible oyster and did support a wide range of edible bivalves, as noted by Pukui (1943*66): kupekala (Chama sp,); mahamoe (genera not known); nahawele, °owasowaka, and papaua (Isognomonidae family); and pipi (Pinctada galtsoffi)• Common to all shore fishponds and fishtraps are the edible shellfish: kupe° e (Nerita polita), pipipi (Nerita picea and Nerita neglecta), and the choice limpet, 0 opihi (Helcioniscus sp,), CHAPTER 6
OWNERSHIP
In order to more easily manage and control the soil with which they were so closely associated, the Hawaiians divided all the land of their islands into.smaller unitse
This prehistoric land division seems to have been based on a mixture of geomorphology, economics and productivity, and on politics. For a detailed study of the land divisions and the changes they have gone through from prehistoric to historic times, two publications. The Great Mahele (1958) and Original Land Titles in Hawaii (1961), by Jon J. Chinen should be studied.
Briefly and very generally, the largest unit, the island, was divided into districts, moku, roughly windward, leeward, and such similar geographical demarcations, Moku, in turn, were divided into ahupua * a, which, ideally, oc curred as pie-shaped wedges of land extending from the sea to their apex in the mountainous areas. Of varying sizes, the ahupua0a could thus provide their inhabitants with re sources from the sea, the lowlands, and the mountains, a varied and sufficient supply to allow the inhabitants of the ahupua0a to remain relatively independent economically. 98 The * ill was the next smaller land unit below the ahupua6a. The word * ill means stranded, isolated, and in
herited (Pukui and Elbert 1957s 91) s> an apt description of these units. An ahupua8a could contain no 0ill or many. Oftentimes an 0 ili was not confined to any one ahupua8a,
but was composed of separate sections in various ahupua8a
scattered throughout an island, 8Ili, which sometimes were
independent of the ahupua8 a and othertimes not, seem to
have been delineations of tracts of land containing irri gated and nonirrigated agricultural fields and fishponds.
The arable and cultivable portions of the 8ili were subdivided into mo8o, which, in turn, were divided into , pauka tracts. The smallest land unit was the kThapai and was associated with the tenant nuclear family (Chinen 1958s
1-5)* 1 All fishponds and fishtraps were considered in pre historic times to be part of the land, and not part of the
sea (Sylva 1938), Map study shows that the sites were al
ways associated with one and only one land unit, such as
the ahupua8a or the 8 ili, They seem never to have over
lapped into other land units. The various land division
boundaries, as noted in the cadastral surveys that were
undertaken years after the Great Mahele, the Land Commission
Awards (LCA) of 1848, were probably quite different from the prehistoric boundaries, Nevertheless, the prehistoric concept of distinct land units and their associated features was maintained by the surveys, and the present tax maps of the State of Hawai®i still reflect this* Thus* whenever a tract of land was awarded* all features* e.g.* fishponds and fishtraps, within the boundaries of that land were in cluded in the grant. At the head of the entire land tenure system were the high chiefs, whose birthright via their direct senior line to Papa and Wakea, the progenitors of the universe* gave them the right and authority to rule and own in a most conspicuous manner. The high chiefs owned districts or en tire islands and consequently controlled all the resources within them. Whereas smaller fishponds, especially those in irrigated agricultural areas* were left pretty much to local use and were under loose control of the chiefs, large fishponds and fishponds of some historic value were strict ly controlled in order to retain them for the exclusive use of the chiefs.
The aquacultural system can then be divided into two groups based on use. Types I* II, III, and some type IV were owned exclusively by chiefs and supervised by their land supervisor. Types IV, V, VI, VII, and VIII can be considered to have been in the domain of the extended fam ily. However, there is a general overlap between the two divisions, with the second* family division always under the influence and in the shadow of the chief and his supervisor. 100 as the commoners * use rights were never really independent
of the chiefse
Management
Ali'i Ali8 i is the general term or prefix used to indi cate a chief$ an individual of either sex who by birthright belonged to the highest social class in Hawaiian society and who had inherent right to the privileges of his status.
There were many grades of chiefs, each of which was given a status name. Formed by adding a stem to the prefix, each name was descriptive of the individual’s function. Perti nent to this study are the ali’i-nui, ali*i-eai-moku, and ali8i-eai-ahupuacac
The ali*i-nui was synonomous with "great chief" and, as a later term, roo’T, meant "king" or "supreme over lord," The all*i-nui or mo'i ruled over an entire island or islands, while the second rank of chiefs, ali*i-’ai- moku, ruled a district or, in some eases, an island. The term "ali*i-’ai-moku" means "a chief who consumes dis tricts," or, figuratively, "a chief who devours all the contents of a district," Below the ali8 i-’ai-moku was the ruler of the ahupua8a, the ali8i-8ai-ahupua8a, or, figura tively, "the chief who consumes and devours the ahupua8a."
Position of the ali8 i was secured first by birth right, next by assignment through his or her status within 101 the gradations of the various chiefly lineages, and finally through right of conqueste The chief was born and not made. Inherently, all political, economic, social, and re ligious power came from position within the upper class of
Hawaiian society,
/ Overseers - Because of the complexity of prehistoric Hawaiian society and because of the need of the chief to control his
X domain and its resources, overseers were selected to super vise the economic stability of the land. Since they were considered to be part of the land, all fishponds, fishtraps, weirs, and fish shelters had an overseers a konohlki, kia*i-loko, or haku-9ohana,
Konohiki, This supervisor of the lands of a chief was always a male of chiefly lineage, but whose rank, iwi- kuamo*o, was of a lower status than that of the ali*i. He was a relative of the ruling chief and was appointed over seer of an ahupua9 a and all the smaller land units found within it. The konohiki was always associated with a chief and never acted independently of him. Because of his posi tion, the konohiki acted as intermediary between the chief and the resident extended families, "ohana, Within the chief®s land holdings, certain land, called ko® ele, was strictly for the chief and other specified land, called hakuone, was for the konohiki, Although these lands were . .102 worked by the tenants9 all of the produce from them be longed to the owners = The responsibilities of a konohiki included the maintenance of the resources of the land and sea areas of which he was supervisor* The konohiki was the equivalent of a fish and game warden* In Sterling and Summers (1962$ Bk*
1$ Volo 2:228=29) a case is described for Pearl Harbors One day? an old woman went to get some sea weeds and found a number of large pipi which were taboo at the time® They looked good to ;her so she took them and placed them in her bag under the sea weeds® The konohiki or head man came to look into the bags of the fishers and found the prohibited pipi in her bag® He emptied it into the. sea and scolded her*
In some places the konohiki acted as host for impor
tant travelerso As the official host of his district, the konohiki was permitted to tap the fishponds under his care to provide food for the visitors® Ellis (1963s138) gives the following accounts We passed through the town ^Honuapo/ to the resi dence of the head man, situated on the farthest . point towards the sea® He invited us to his house, procured us water to wash our feet with, and imme diately sent to an adjacent pond for some fish for our supper®
When the chiefs visited the Niumalu area of Kaua® i, they resided at the home of the konohiki and were hosted with fish from Alekoko fishpond, B2 (Tapes of Conversations
^BPBM7 H-62B.
Whenever the chief commanded that a fishpond be built, the konohiki was in charge of the recruitment of labor and of constructiono The responsibility of the con
struction of sites P6P F13, and F28 was given to a favorite of High Chief Umie Wilcox (n©d©) describes this overseer as being arroganto At one time the konohiki mounted a litter
on which 40 men were carrying a large boulder® He sur rounded himself with pomp and ceremony while he and the
boulder were conveyed to the shore? however, the litter broke and both stone and "man fell unceremoniously to the ground® The konohiki© who was an outsider, coming from the island of Hawai* i, became enraged and demanded that a local
native, Kikau, and his friends dive for stones in deep water The konohiki did not listen to the advice of Kikau as to the
proper construction procedures, whereupon a great storm
arose to destroy the three fishponds, leaving the konohiki
to regret his incompetence® This outsider then allowed
Kikau to rebuild the ponds in his own fashion, for failure would have resulted in the punishment of death, not only for
Kikau but also for the konohiki®
Summoning the people under his supervision, the konohiki had the power to order the populace to clean the chief's fishpond® Sites B2 and C67 are documented as having been so supervised (Summers 1964t22? BPBM Tape H-62B).
Arrogance of the konohiki seems to be a popular theme® Kamakau (1964:84) records the following:
Sometimes, when the land was blessed with an abun dance of young fish in the sea, the overlord (haku) of that land, or the land agent (konohiki), would 104 become haughty and indifferent to the welfare of the poor and the fatherless? and when they saw the boys and girls with their gourds for storing fish, they would become overbearing, seize the gourds and break them without pity for the fatherless, and smash the gourds of the women without giving them a chance to speake Even after 1800, some of the konohiki maintained con trol over the lands and sea, A well-known case of overbear ing rule was that of the construction and monopolization of Pukoeo fishpond, D58e According to testimony by C, Bo
Andrews (Land Court Award / l £ h / 3730 n,d.) Ilae, a tax col lector on Moloka*i, was also a konohiki who sought the resources of the land and its fishponds for his own gain*
It was the duty of the konohiki to patrol his chief®s domain and inspect all the features of the land.
Testimony by Timoteo Keaweiwi of Moloka®i (LCA 2715 n ed6) reveals that a thief belonging to the ahupua®a of Ka®amola stole food and hid it in the adjoining ahupua'a of Keawanui, The konohiki of Keawanui discovered the food and the thief. At the succeeding trial, the punishment went to the ahupua®a as the fishpond of Keawanui which previously belonged to the ahupua'a of Ka'amola was transferred to the ahupua®a of Keawanui, It has remained thus until modern times, >
Kia® i-loko. Separate from the chief and the kono hiki was the kia®i, or kia®i-loko, a male keeper of a fish pond, The exact rank or status of the kia® i-loko is not known, nor how the position was allotted. In most of the 105 references studied, the terms caretaker, keeper, and super visor are not adequately defined or clarified, leaving con fusion on this matter, Kamakau (1869b ) is the only scholar to actually use the term kia*i-loko. From Kamakau’s ac count, the sole duty of the kia*i-loko was to live at and tend the fishpond. The keeper could eat openly of those kinds of fish which were not reserved for the chief. It is not known how many keepers there, were, per fishpond, but
Kamakau hints that there, were more than one, "On nights when the tide was high every keeper slept by the sluice gate of which he had charge (Kamakau 1869b)." Customarily, the keeper built a small watch shelter from which he guard ed the sluice grate from poachers, both animal and human.
It appears that the kia*i-loko were responsible for the harvesting of fish for the chief when so ordered by the konohiki. li (1959$^9) records that Kinopu, a konohiki, ordered his keepers to harvest or clean out a large catch of fish from a fishpond at Kalia, Waikiki on O ’ahu..and, in so doing, angered his chief, who was also his uncle. The keepers were not scolded, as anger was aimed at the kono hiki. In other instances, keepers were punished for fail ure in their work, and so it appears.that punishment was aimed at the person actually responsible for the misdeed.
For example, a lazy and incompetent caretaker of a fishpond at Ma8ahi, FI?, angered his chief by allowing mullet to es cape and by allowing the pond to be poached upon. It is 106 recorded that the keeper was caught and set adrift in a ca noe (Ashdown 1971:66)*
Haku-0 ohana e The tenants of the land were members of 8ohana, extended families* Not limited to land areas of only one chief? members of a given 8 ohana could be found also in land units of other chiefs* Each 0ohana was a com munity of homesteads? with the members related within a hierarchy of lineages. The senior male member of the se~ noir lineage became the family head? referred to as haku, haku'aina, or haku-■*ohana, His role as the haku-8ohana was not appointed or elected, but was obtained by virtue of ■ seniority (Handy and Handy 1972:288), The haku-8 ohana spoke and represented the 0 ohana in any meeting with the kohohiki and, in turn, relayed the desires of the chief and supervisor to the individual tenants. In contrast to the chief and konohiki, the 0 ohana identified with the land and remained there as part of its natural resources.
Proprietorship -
Forty-eight fishponds on Kaua’i, 0eahu» Moloka'i,
Maui, and Hawai*i are documented as having been built or owned by ali*i. Of these, 12 are type I: C38, C55» C89,
C105? C119, C123, D34, F3, F5, F14, Hl6, and H69. Fourteen are type II: B6, B22A, B22B, 0.45, Cll6, C151, F2, H4, H7,
H21, H27, H34, H40, and H55« Fourteen are type III: B2,
B7, B15, B18, B19, 034, 081, 094, 0149, F7, F19, F20, P24, 10? and H6l« Four are type IVs C44, F12A# Fl6x» and H68x® Tw o are type Vs D40 and D51® One is type Vis D10A, and one is an unknown types F40
In the 1848 Land Commission Awards 5 type I pondss
D16, D19, D22, D24, and H24; 2 type II pondss HI and H28; and 1 type V ponds H2, were awarded to all*1 families. This is, however, only a partial enumeration found of priz ed fishponds going to individuals of chiefly lines. In their study of the western coast of Hawai* i alone, Kikuchi and Belshe (1971s 7) found that 7 fishponds were awarded to members of the Kamehameha line, Leleiohoku, a great grand daughter of Kamehameha I, was given H2, while Akahi, cousin of Bernice Pauahi Bishop, received H^4, Lot Kamehameha, grandson of Kamehameha I, was awarded fishponds H21, H24,
H28, H34,/ and H4Q0 Pond types I through III appear most often in records, although types IV, V, and VI are also re presented, indicating that the chief was,. indeed, owner of all his domain, but that he placed a greater emphasis and importance on larger ponds„ Fifty-four fishponds are noted as having been su pervised by konohiki. Although the references do not men tion any chiefs, it must be assumed that the ponds were owned by ali*i. Of the fishponds noted, 8 are type Is Cl4,
C29, D58, F6, Fl4, F28, Hl6, and H24e Two are type IIs C18 and 084. Forty-two are type III; C23, 043, C67, and 39 108 ponds located in Kalia, Waikiki on 0°ahue One pond, C57* is type V# and one, FI?, is an unknown type. General references to areas containing fishponds which were supervised by konohiki and which belonged to
all*i are noted for 09ahu. These are the Pearl Harbor Lochs
(Manu 1885b)i Pu®u*opae (li 1959*24); Waikiki (Foreign and Na
tive Testimony ^FNT/, Vol. 10, 1852:276; li 1959*49); and
Kane*ohe Bay (Bates 1854:114).
Both the land and its resources were alloted on a
revocable basis; the tenants were allowed to move about freely throughout the island (Chinen 1958:5)° Legally, the 9ohana owned neither the land nor any fishpond, fishtrap,
mountain weir, or fish shelter occurring in their domain,
but rather they simply had the right as tenants to the use of specified food sources and to a share of the food ob
tained from these sources.
: Type IV is the best example of intensive agricul
tural and aquacultural use of a single irrigated plot.
Kamakau (1869b) notes:
If visitors arrived, one was always prepared. If a stranger came perhaps at night or the land owner, one could quickly fetch from the patch a fine fish fully developed and a hard head, and some taro for poi; then the poi, the awa fish and the mullet were set before the stranger, the land owner and their friends. Kamakau (1869b) also states: "When anyone of the family was
hungry, the wife could get a few oopu fish or shrimps or
aholehole fish and taro leaves to feed the family." 109 i From the accounts it is observed that the “owner,*’ or, more correctly, the tenant, of the land which contained the irrigated taro plots and taro plot fishponds fed his family a selected type of fish befitting his status, while for strangers and the overseer the menu was much more elab orate, The topic of fish restriction will be discussed un der the section concerning the kapu (Chapter 8), Still, there seems to be a dichotomy of ownership of type IV fish ponds e The ko*ele lands which contained taro plots and type IV fishponds are notable. Sites C44, F12A, Fl6x, and
H68x , located on kF*ele lands, are termed “ali*i ponds.”
Probably smaller tracts of s ohana controlled irrigated taro plots as well were used for fishponds, as it would be al most impossible to prevent fish and crustaceans from occu pying the plots.
Kamakau (1869b) states that the commoner owned the type II, pu'uone, and type IV, loko i*a kalo, fishponds and that the commoner was, in turn, "owned” by the chief and the konohiki. Commoner here refers to the extended family and not to an individual. Summers (1964$19) adds the type
III fishpond, loko wai, to Kamakau*s list and terms the three types of ponds the ”inland fishponds.” She attri butes the construction and use of the majority of these ponds to the konohiki and commoners, while stating that a few were owned and used exclusively by the chiefs. Assum ing our previously stated direct and inseparable , , 110 relationship between the chief and the konohiki. Summer's separation of the two is probably in error* Although noting a few exceptions. Summers also equates pu'uone size with ownership (Summers 1964:19)0
Generally, ownership of small pu'uone requiring little ar tificial construction is attributed to the commoners, while ownership of large pu'uone of several to over 300 acres is attributed to the chiefs. However, this division is not substantiated by the data gathered for this study, for 18 pu'uone are noted as being controlled by the all * i and their konohiki, while none are noted as being commoner owned„
Loko *ume* iki, type V fishtraps, had unusual owner ship rights, The entire fishtrap was the property of an ahupua * a, but the inward and outward fish lanes belonged to individuals of a family and thus were *ohana oriented,
Mikiawa, D40, was constructed prior to the 16th century un der the order of Chief Lohelohe and thereby became the pro perty of royalty. There is no reason to believe that this fishtrap was any different from other fishtraps in regard to ownership. And so it is assumed that all types of fish traps were, in fact, owned by chiefs and that they were un der the supervision of konohiki. This would explain how fishtraps came to be legally part of the land unit to which they were physically attached. . i n No references were found concerning any overseer for fishtraps or fish shelters. However, the author be lieves that the omission is coincidental and that no type was outside the control of both the konohiki and the haku- 8ohana„ But in the case of the fishtraps, the kia*i would not have been necessary since the lanes were already con trolled by the * ohana»
Each fish lane had dual ownership. Summers (1964t
16) hints that this was the case, basing fishing rights at a lane or lanes on the ebb and flow of the tide, Beckley (1883s 20) further states that in cases where the loko 9ume8 iki were owned by the people of an adjoining land, as was the case with Mikiawa, BkOP the people of one land own ed "the right to fish during the rise of the tide known as the kaj-ki, and the others during the ebb, kai-emi."
Stokes, in a letter dated July 6, 1911, paraphrases the comments of two informants of the ahupua6a of *0hi*a re garding fishing rights at site D4o$ "Sometimes one person had a prior right to fish at a certain inward and outward opening, both of which bore the same name ,., other persons might use the same openings in the proprietor's absence
(Stokes 1911),M Keaweiwi testified (LCA 2715) in 1853 about site D40: "When the net is down and turned outward, the fish belong to Keawanui. When the sea ebbs, the net is turned inward, and the fish belong to Ka'amola," Loko
*ume*iki seem to have been of lesser religious significance. 112 as both men and women, more frequently women, fished at the lanes (Beckley 1883s20)0
An unusual ownership right surrounded site C57» a type Vd fishtrap, for here the owners, or, more properly, the caretakers, were always priests. The fenced-in grounds and the walls of Kapakule fishtrap were tabu to married wo men and women in their menstrual period, but open to males and unmarried, non-menstruating women (Stokes 1909as211- 12)0 When a woman in her monthly period did fish there, the fishtrap was defiled (Pukui 19^3)« It appears that the type Vd fishtraps were occasionally used by both men and women, but further details are not available. CHAPTER ?
OPERATION
It has already been noted that the sieve-like sluice grates and permeable seawalls allow a wide range of sealife to enter fishponds, a process over which the pre historic Hawaiians had no control. In order to increase and insure a supply of preferred fish, fingerlings of the desired kinds of fish were sought by the caretakers and transported to the fishponds.
Stocking of Fishponds Stocking of all types of fishponds seems to have taken place during specific seasonal times, as tabus would have prohibited catching of fish during spawning. Netting must have been the method of catching the fry at specific locations where the desired kinds of fish congregated, and transportation in calabashes and perhaps gourds had to be swift to insure the survival of most of the fry. The favor ite fish for stocking were the mullet, the tenpounder, and the milkfish. In some. of the data it is not certain whethr- er the choice was the tenpounder or the milkfish, as some authors interchange the names8 awa, tenpounder; and *awa=»
•aua, milkfish.
113 114 Two types of nets used in catching mullet finger- lings are described by Beckley (1886:2^0* 252) „ The first measured 240 to 360 feet in length and 9 feet in width, with a & inch mesh* Sinkers of small pebbles.either ringed or pierced were attached to the base, while floats made of hau and kukui (Aleurites moluecana), or candlenut, wood were tied to the top* To catch larger size mullet finger- lings, the same size net was used, except the mesh measured 1 to 2 inches* The second type of net used was a simple, smaller sized scoop net* There are many references by early visitors to fishpond stocking practices* Bennett (1840:215) notes that the chiefs kept "live fish in tanks, or reservoirs of sea water dug in the vicinity of the coast" and that they had
"some of the smaller kinds, taken in bays, conveyed alive to the interior of the island in calabashes of seawater."
In 1851 the Reverend Henry T* Cheever observed that fish ponds were "made by merely walling in many areas of the coral reef along the seaward side and then stocking with spawn and little fish (Carlson n*d.17)•" Townsend (1888: 28) writes: "Their fish ponds are replenished with the young fry at a season of the year when, the fish strike in schools*"
The stocking of fishponds of all types was under taken by the caretaker, probably most often the kia*j, and his helpers, who gathered fingerlings of mullet, tenpounder. 115 and probably milkfish in certain areas® For 0 ,ahu Beckley
(18838 21) discusses the tenpounders "The young fry of this
fish is procured in shallow waters on the beach where a
stream or spring of fresh water mingles with the sea, and is carried sometimes many miles inland in large gourds with
water®" Mokumaia (1922b) reports that Kaihikapu# C32, was a source of mullet fingerlings® "From the chief®s favorite fishpond, Ma puna puna £ C105__7# mullet were plump and soft when eaten with the poi from our taro patch® Where did the mullet spawn come from? From the chief's favorite pond
Kahikapuo"
The only fishpond operating on O'ahu in 1973 is
Moll*i, 0112® As in 196?, its leasee still nets finger
lings for the pond during the months of January to May in
the Mokapu area of Kane'ohe Bay (Swenson 196?)®
Mullet fingerlings were obtained from a nearby
stream and fishpond, B15? at Lawa* i-kai for use in site B18, a natural volcanic crater used as a fishpond® Queen Emma, once owner of both fishponds, periodically had her retainers carry mullet spawn to the volcanic crater® This practice was carried on by the successive owners to the
late 1920's (Kikuchi 1963b§32, 39)®
Three reports of stocking areas are documented for
Hawai* i Island® Kahalu*u Bay was a favorite spot "for securing schools of small fish (Reinecke 1930)®" Kaloko 116 fishpond, H24, was stocked from the late 1930®s to the early
19^0®s with fry from the eAnaeho°omalu area'(Barrere 1971s
113)o Kelly (1971$32) adds: The pua (young fish) were put in the shallow pond by the Kohala end of the wall, just inside. The mullet pua 2-3" long, were purchased from Francis Brown at Kalahuepua'a (sic). The pua were brought to Kaloko in the live-bait well of a sampan and then trans ferred into the small ponds at the two ends of the pond. When they had grown to about 6 in,, they were let into the big pond, Kamakau (1869b) describes the manner in which pu®u- one were stocked: "By bringing two or three gourds full of
awa and other young fry at a time, the ponds were stocked
over a period until there was a sufficient supply of fry®
After the first stocking of the pond, an offering was made
of sweet potatoes to the aumakua,"
Taro plot fishponds were stocked with fish which had
a tolerance for fresh and slightly brackish water, Kotzebue
(1821:3^1) notes, "The taro fields offer another advantagei for the fish which are caught in distant streams thrive ad mirably when put into them," But even these inland fish ponds had stray fish entering, in this case by the ®auwai and the makaha, Kamakau notes, "Some fish were put in by
hand and some, such as awa, mullet, oopu, aholehole, and
oehaa shrimps washed in through the makaha (Kamakau 1869b),"
Fertilization
There are two general ways through which fishponds are fertilized. The first of these is with the natural 117 resources within the water environment and the nutrients entering from streams and the sea* The second is through artificial fertilization by man.
Natural Fertilization
The environment within a fishpond provides for its food chain and determines the pond's productivity. Hiatt
(1947) describes the general food resources available to the fish population. Detritus, composed of the disinte grated matter of plants and animals mixed with micro-. organisms, is of great importance as a food resource. A fishpond's supply of plankton is little affected by the biotic exchange with the sea, and so practically all of a pond's zooplankton and phytoplankton is formed within the pond itself. The microbenthos, a complex of unicellular, colonial, and filamentous blue-green algae, is unquestion ably the dominant source of nutrients within a fishpond
(Hiatt 19^7$266). The larger benthonie plants, composed of larger algal species, and the halo.phytes, on which many species of epiphytic algae grow, provide other food re sources for the fish. The productivity of the fishpond de pends on the chemical and physical characteristics of the water and the resultant biotic environment.
Kamakau, just one of the many native informant- recorders, hints that fresh water alone resulted in poor fish and that sea water added an immeasurable quality to fish growth and tastec "If sea water was made to enter the fresh water at times$ the fish would grow more rapidly* and they would be delicious and full of fat (Kamakau 1869b)
Summers (196413) notes that "the fish*s food thrived best in brackish water0 The streams also benefited the ponds by washing in inorganic material, thus fertilizing and conse quently increasing the food supply," Hiatt (1947:266), Walsh (1967$430), and Malone (1968:45) note that streams, springs, and tidal flow carry inorganic and organic nutri ents along, depositing them into the fishponds.
Artificial Fertilization
The Hawaiian likened the fishpond culture to agri culture and the raising of animals for food. These he pro vided with fertilizer, or food, in order to promote more rapid growth.
One structure specifically designed to attract fish is the fish shelter, type VIII, This artificial construc tion lured fish by virtue of providing rock faces that formed halls on which algae grew to create an underwater micro-garden. The native caretaker provided food for the fish in fishponds. This fertilizer was never offal or matter con taining blood. No sewage was used, only green food scrap- pings. Three common foods were sweet potatoes, poi, and boiled taro, as reported by Coulter (1931$10), Taro and "breadfruit were fed to the fish in the river of Huleia on
Kauaei (BPBE Tape H~4lY5)° For the Waiakea ponds in Hilo*
Hawaiei„ Ellis (1963s240) writes* "Along the stone walls which partly encircle these ponds* we saw a number of huts, where the persons reside who have the care of the fish* and are obliged frequently to feed them with a small kind of mussel* which they procure in the sands around the bay." Titcomb (19528?) writes* "Stones with seaweed attached were collected and set within the ponds to increase the food' supply of these herbivorous fish*" The fish within the type IV* taro plot pond, "fed upon the ripe leaf stems (ha pala) of the taro* and thus quickly acquired size (Kamakau
1869b)•" Tilden (1905*142) records that stigeoclonium sea weed grew attached to pebbles in streams and that these were used as bait to catch mullet* It is probably this seaweed to which Titcomb refers above*
: It is documented that selected fishing grounds in
the ocean were assigned to individuals whose task was to feed the fish seaweed 2 to 3 times a week* This "feeding- training" worked on the Pavlovian system* whereby* when the chief had selected his feast day* fish could be quickly and most assuredly harvested (Fiddler 1956$2)* Phelps (1937s 15) notes that fish at certain locales were fed taro at regular intervals in order to allow for the netting of a large quantity of fish "at call," Whether this was done at fishponds as well is uncertain, but it does serve to 120 indicate that artificial feeding was not an uncommon prac tice. No details were found concerning the preparation of the food and the ceremony surrounding the feeding®
Maintenance Maintenance of fishponds and fishtraps was a vital and constant task, as disrepair, silting, and overgrowth would adversely affect productivity. Silting and overgrowth with seaweeds seem to have been the most prevalent problems. Summers (1964s11) reports that one method of cleaning the
Moloka® i fishponds of silt was to provide sluice grates on both sides of the ponds at the shore end in order to allow the ebbing of the tide to flush out the mud and silt. Both
Phelps (1937*15) and Handy and Handy (1972s260-61) note that on Moloka®i a weighted bamboo rake, kope'ohe, was towed be hind a small canoe to stir and harrow the bottom sediments at high tide so that at the ebbing of the water the silt was naturally swept out at the sluice grates. An informant of Handy and Handy (1972*260-61) in 1931 stated that as the tide was receding, an individual would scrape mud and silt into the ®auwai o ka makaha and so would clean out portions of the pond.
Organic muck and algae are present on the walls and sides of sites H27, H28, H37* H38, and H48A-C on the western coast of Hawai® i Island (Kikuchi and Belshe 1972)• Evi dently, cleaning out of the muck and algae was a continuous 121 process, as some ponds display large mounds of accumulated muck and areas in which rocks were piled into mounds0 The Kukieo fishpond, H38, contains definite cleared areas and mounds of rock and also platforms which suspiciously appear
to be the result of rock clearing®
The tenants of the land were summoned by the kono-
hiki to clean the fishponds "when few fish were caught,
owing to the accumulation of algae preventing the nets that were used for catching the fish from reaching the bottom of
the pond (Summers 1964i2 2 ) At Alekoko pond, B2, women were called to gather the seaweed into piles, allowing for new growth of seaweed for the fish to feed on (BPBM Tape H-62B)s Once Kawainui fishpond, 06?$ was "much larger and very clean® The people of that locality saw to it that the
ponds were kept clean in the olden days (Alona 1939)e" Summers (1964s22) adapts the following from Kekoowai (1922)%
"seethe konohiki«o®commanded the men, women, and children
of Maunawili, Kailua, and Waimanalo to come to Kawainui®
The people went into the pond, and with their hands, broke
the limu (algae) loose, piling it up and twisting it under as it was gathered®" The pond required 3 days to clean®
Men, women, and children, who as tenants owed their ali*i certain responsibilities, worked to clean the fish ponds® Women are reported more frequently as the cleaners than are m e m however, it is not known if this was a matter
of reporting or if it was the practice® Bates (1854%115-16) 122 observed 5 or 6 women cleaning an old taro patch with the purpose of converting it into a fishpond®
Tenants of the land on which taro plot fishponds as well as taro plots occurred were required as holders of water rights to repair and maintain the dams and ditchs which provided water for their plots® Nakuina (1894*81-82) states that these tenants, when their turn came up, were required to go to the dam and see that it was in good con dition as well as to follow the ditchs and remove all ob structions from them® If the tenant was unable to provide duty at the appointed time, he had to find a substitute to do his work or else the konohiki or the luna wai, the gen eral foreman for any job concerning irrigation work, would withhold water from the plots®
Very little is documented on the clearing of pred ators from fishponds® The only references found are modern, one (Swenson 196?) for the removal of barracuda and eels from Moli*i pond, C112, and another (Richard Paglinawan, Informant) for the dismantling of all umu shel ters in which eels were found® Probably the predators were considered food and were harvested as such, thus the lack of detail on any concerted efforts to eradicate them as nuisances®
I l Harvest The harvesting of fish in fishponds was quite dif ferent from the catching of fish carried out in connection with fishtraps, dams, weirs, and fish shelters® The word "harvesting" here implies a controlled effort by man to gather fish in large numbers, while "catching" refers to a smaller scale extraction of fish.
Sexual Division of Labor
There was a sexual division of labor in the various
jobs of the aquacultural system® Generally, only men were allowed to fish using a spear, hook-and-line, and nets, and in torch fishing at night. Women and children were allowed to use their hands in thrusting for fish and to use certain types of baskets, A delineation is further observed, in that women collected shellfish, seaweeds, and fish along the shore and in rivers and streams, while men had the deeper waters as their domain (Beckley 1886:24^-47),
Methods
There were 6 methods employed in catching and har vesting fish. These are muddying, hand thrusting and gathering, driving, poisoning, using a collander, and net ting.
Muddying, Muddying of fishpond waters could be effective in fairly small ponds and in larger ponds only when a great number of people were working in concert. 124 a 0 9 opu and 8 opae are known to have been susceptible to this type of catchingo The general principle of muddying was to have men, women, and children go into a taro plot pond and stomp around in it, stirring up the water until it became blackened with mud. Requiring clear or murky water to breathe, the 8o9opu quickly surfaced, whereupon it was caught by hand or with a net (Titcomb 1952$7$ BPBM Tape
H-41Y2), A newspaper account in the Saturday Press (1883) notess The oopu kuia was a large fat mud fish, caught by many people joining hands and dancing in its waters Kawainui pond, Co7__7 to stir up mud, when the fish would run their heads up against the people, and so were caught. The fishes would cluster very thickly against particular individuals while leav ing many others untouched, when, of course, he or she, would make a good haul and fill up his cala bashes rapidly®
Described in Sterling and Summers (1962, Bk® 6,
Vol. 2$178) is the catching of 8o8 opu and 8opae in the up land streams through the use of mud dams® This is:
the method of diverting the flow of water by put ting up mud dams, commonly referred to in Hawaiian as paniwai, in order to trap the elusive shrimp and oopu or goby. The next step is to bail out all water within the dam, allowing only an inch or two to remain and then stirring the mud from the river bed. As soon as this is done, the shrimp and the goby will rise to the surface for oxygen thereby exposing themselves to the wary fishermen®
Hand Thrusting and Gathering® Women captured large shrimp and 8 o8 opu in fresh water streams and taro plot fishponds by hand thrusting (Beckley 1886:246), a method 125 which probably was also in the domain of childreno Use of
the hands alone was the usual method of gathering shell
fish, mollusks, and seaweeds within fishponds and along the
seashore® Simple gathering was used in association with moun tain weirs <, The mountain weir diverted the swift flowing and muddy stream waters into a ditch, ha, leading to a plain or large flattened area® It was here that the water and fish were deposited and the fish gathered individually
-(Beckley 1883s8)a Evidently people cleaning fishponds also used their
hands to grope about and catch fish whenever they could®
The catch was then the property of the commoner and not of
the konohiki or chief (Summers 1964$22), According to
Kekoowai (1922), the cleaning of Kawainui fishpond, 06?,
was done by men, women, and children, who went into the
pond and reached down to break the filamentous algae and
algal mats loose® These they twisted into the shape of a ring® Then the limu that was broken off was pressed down like a dish, and all the fish that were caught in this limu dish were for the limu breakers (Summers 1964*22).
• Driving® Driving is the general term used to de
scribe a method of frightening fish into flight® Direc
tions are given by Kahaulelio (1902a) for using a stone to
frighten fish at a paholoholo, type Vg$ "With a 2 finger
mesh net bag net, quietly swim and crawl outside to the 126 opening of the jdb holoholo0 Your assistant then tosses a stone»»oeWhen there is a thud, the mullet rush into the net, 2 or 3 at a time," Pa'i, or slapping of the water, was the usual meth od of driving fish, Menzies (1920$113) tells that when Kahekili (died 179*0 # the paramount chief of Maui, Lana * i, Moloka®i, and O'ahu, wanted fish, he had his men wade into a given pond to splash the water until the fish could he cornered and surrounded with a net. According to Beckley
(1883*2 1 ), two men usually held the net, while others splashed in and slapped the waters, driving the fish into the net. At Kaloko fishpond, H24, nets were set at certain stations, while men slapped the water with their hands and with sticks. Sometimes the fish were surrounded with a seine and then scooped up with dip nets (Cobb 1902$428i
Kelly 1971:53). . In the legend of Paka'a and Kupaka'a, the hero, Paka * a, tells Kuapaka'a, "Go quickly to the beach, to our hinalea which were driven into the pool and bring them as pupu /~hors d*oeuvre 7 for your master's 'awa / ~Piper methysticum, or kava_7 (Nakuina n.d.:82)," Evidently, the catching of fish in the j>a hinalea fishtrap, type Ye, re quired driving or chasing the fish into the seapools.
The driving and catching of small fish at the umu, type VIII, was a simple process. It required only the shaking of rocks, unpiling of the rocks of the shelter, or 12? the using of ti (Cordyline terminalis) leaves to scare the fish out of the shelter and into the nets (Richard
Paglinawan, Informant).
Fish Poisoninge As a term, hola, or fish poison ing, signifies three things $ the material as prepared for fishings the particular system of fishings and to take fish through the use of poison. Stokes (1921s3) names two plants which produce fish poisonss 9auhuhu (Tephrosia piscatoria) and °akia (Wikstroemia. spp.). Stokes (1921:4) describes in detail the areas where poisons were used: The fishing was done in fresh-water streams, on reefs, along rocky shores, and in tidal pools. In stream fishing a dam was built across a brook - few Hawaiian, streams are more than mountain brooks - and the hola was placed in the stream above. It is said that very large catches of gobies and shrimps were taken with dip nets in the newly formed pool. According to some accounts, the mud was stirred up . when the poison was placed in the stream, as the mere disturbance of the mud had the effect of dis lodging the fish. The same method was used in driving fish down stream to be caught by sieve- weirs.
Coriander. Stokes (1909as199) describes a method of catching 6o9opu in association with mountain damss There was also a method of taking fish in weirs in the mountain torrents? in which the stream was dammed with a traverse wall just above the rapids and conducted by means of a canal over a horizontal sieve of long slender sticks lying parallel and close together. During floods, when the waters of the stream were rendered muddy, great quantities of oopu were caught in these weirs.
Netting. By far the most efficient and practical harvesting tool was the net® Nets were the prized 128 possession of the all*i and of families who had fishing rights to an area. Kamakau (1961s239) writes: "Net fishing requiring a number of men, canoes, and nets was confined to chiefs and men of high station. It required experts who knew where the schools of fish generally ran. So many fish werei caught in this way that even pigs and dogs were fed."
Nets were carefully tended to, repaired when need- ed, and stored. A strong tabu was that women and children were not allowed on or even near the nets, or else the power of the nets would be defiled. In the muddying and driving methods of catching fish, nets were used as tools to gather fish. .
Nets were of two general types, long nets requiring many men to set up and smaller ones which could be operated by one individual. Usually the long nets were set up with in a fishpond at set locations and the fish were driven in to them. Cobb (1902:428) states that seines and gill nets were swept around a pond, while Cordover and Cordover (1969*4) write, "Drag nets were never used for fear of dis turbing the eggs of the spawning mullet or in some way up setting the ecology of the pond bottom."
Scoop nets were commonly used at the sluice grates of fishponds by the kia* j-loko when certain types of fish were to be harvested. Only a small number of fish could be ensnared, making it an easy task to sort out the catch and to discard the undesirable fish. 129 The catching of fish in the fish lanes of the loko Bume8 iki is described in detail by Berkley (18861255-56)t At night when the tide is coming in, a man, or more frequently a woman, takes a small scoop-net just wide enough to fill the entrance of the opening and of 3 or 4 feet in depth, wades out to the entrance of one of these runs, and sitting on a raised stone platform on its side, made for that purpose, holds the net in the water at the entrance of an opening towards the sea and sits very quiet until a jerk in the net is felt, when it is immediately pulled up before the fish have time to return, and the fish are dropped into a gourd or basket, when the net is immediately returned to the water and waiting and watching are resumed. Two persons generally go to this kind of fishing and sit on opposite sides of the entrance, so that as one net is raised another one is still there, as under certain conditions of the water and weather two persons will be kept busy scooping up fish as fast as the nets can be lowered«
The jxa. type fishtraps of Pearl Harbor were harvest ed in the following manner. When the fish entered the en closure, the entrance was closed with a net made of short stumps of coconut leaves, 8omuku lau, and the fish were
then netted.. Stokes (1909a $ 206) reports that a small seine was drawn across the entrance from a point about the middle
of the outer wall so that the return of the fish to deep water was barred. The seine and fish were then drawn ashore through the shallow water.
A most unusual catching method is described for
Kapakule fishtrap, 05?, by Kamakau (1869b)s ” ..„there was a noise like goats in a pen and the fish went into the net. Those that were not caught in the net were attacked with 130 blunt sticksp and the strong men caught them in their
hands e"
Time for Netting Fish
The preferred time to harvest of net fish seems to
have been during the night or early hours of the morning and when the tide was high. Tide seems to have been the most powerful attracting force for fish within a fishpond, Kamakau (1869b) relates the following: On nights when the tide was high the keeper would dip his foot into the water at the makaha; if the sea pressed in like a stream and felt warm, then he knew that the makaha would be filled with fish. The fish would smell the fresh sea and long for it, I have seen them become like wild things. At a ma kaha where the fish had been tamed like petted hogs, when they smell the fresh sea they rise and rush to every makaha with a roaring sound, and the guards at the makaha feel of the fish with their hands and take whatever they desire for their own use® It was during the months when the sun was warm and the south wind blew, or other winds native to these loko, that the makaha were filled with fish,*,.
Harvesting of fish at sites D38, D43, D56, D58, and
D6l on Moloka*i was conducted just before daylight while it was still dark and using nets having meshes of 2 finger width (Kahaulelio 1902a), According to Kelly (1971:32, 35)s harvesting of fish at Kaloko pond, H24, on Hawai’i was done at night, because if the fish would see the nets being lowered, they would hide in the recesses of the fishpond.
Daylight netting resulted most commonly in empty nets, and so night or early morning hours were preferred. 131 The only fishpond which has any detailed descrip tion of the manner and location of laying out seines and nets is Kaloko, H240 Figure 35 illustrates the location of the nets and the order and direction in which fish were driven into them for harvesting0
Over-Harvest « Fish harvested from fishponds were intended to "be consumed for food„ and when incidents of waste occurred, the owners of the ponds became angry® An incident at one of the fishponds in the Kalia area of O'ahu is related by li (1959:49): e e othe sea came into the pond and fishes of every kind entered the sluice gate® Kinopu ordered the keepers (kia*i) of the pond to lower fish nets, and the result was a catch so large that a great heap of fish lay spoiling upon the banks of the pond®
The news of the huge catch reached Kamehameha, who was then with Kalanimoku, war leader and officer of the king* s guard« The king said nothing at the time, but sat with bowed head and downcast eyes, apparently disapproving of such reckless waste. Had they caught enough for a meal, perhaps forty or twenty, nothing would have been said. However, Kalanimoku...commanded Kinopu to release most of the fish. When Kalaimamahu, Kamehameha*s half brother, heard what his nephew Kinau had done, his anger was . kindled against him® NUMBERS INDICATE SEQUENCE OF LAYING OF NETS
ARROWS INDICATE DIRECTION IN WHICH FISH ARE CHASED INTO THE NET
SEA WALL
200
FEET MAP AFTER KELLY 1971
Fig. 35. Placement and Progression of Fishnets, Kaloko Fishpond CHAPTER 8
CONSERVATION
The universe of the native Hawaiian can be viewed as having been a delicately balanced, tri-state system com posed of the supernatural, the natural, and the cultural.
Intertwined and integrated with one another, these three influences deeply affected every aspect of Hawaiian life
and could not be separated from one another without upset
ting the entire system, Man was born into a cultural sys
tem and philosophical ideology which demanded that the
balance be maintained in order for the universe to function
smoothly, efficiently, and abundantly. The indigenous aquacultural system must be viewed in the light of its re lationship with the supernatural, the natural, and the cul tural in order to understand its emic position in the universe.
Supernatural Orientation
The Hawaiian could not divorce himself from the supernatural world, understanding that he and everything in his universe were products of the gods. Everything was di vided into two*s based on sex, and this polarity delineated man's life, permeating into every aspect of his culture and society, 133 The Gods
The spirits which made up the pantheon of gods in Hawai*i came to -the islands at different times. The major gods were Ku and Hina, Kane and Kanaloa, and Lono, who came in that order. Each had his own duties and areas of influ ence o /
Ku and Hina, Ku and Hina, considered to be the earliest gods in the islands (Beckwith 1970s11), occur to gether as male and female representation, respectively.
These two divided the universe into male and female, right and left, good and bad, morning and afternoon. In any ceremonial activities concerning Ku and Hina the time of day was very important in acknowledging the proper rules of religion. The first god to produce a fishpond and a ko'a, a shrine for fish procreation and attraction, was a Ku god, Ku*ula-kai. Hina, Ku*s wife, was worshiped during the afternoon hours with offerings calling for growth and pro duction, On Kauaei, a fishing prayer petitioned Hina-puku- iea for her powers of procreation in things from the sea (Kikuchi 1972),
Lono, - Associated with cloud signs and the phenom ena for storms is the god Lono. His signs are thunder, lightning, earthquakes, dark clouds, clustering clouds, rainbows, rain, wind, whirlwinds, waterspouts, and gushing springs in the mountains (Beckwith 1970:31). 135 Kane and Kanaloaa Kane and Kanaloa are seen to gether as good and evil personified, Kanaloa<, the evil side, is associated with the underworld and is the god of
the octopus® Kane, by,far the more important of the two,
is the ancestor of chiefs and commoners who formed the
heavens and earth and furnished the world with all its
plants and animals and the first man and woman (Beckwith 1970s42)®
The two gods roamed about O'ahu and during their travels constructed the first fishtraps at Pearl Harbor®. After they finished Kapakule, C57» they continued up the lagoon and built Ke-ana-pua'a, C72, but found it unsatis factory® From there they moved upstream and built another fishtrap at Kepo'okala, 077, but were dissatisfied with it, too® These three are type Vd fishtraps, a type found only
in Pearl Harbor on O'ahu® Pa 'ohua, 0134, a type Vdg fish
trap- fishpond located at Kane'ohe on O'ahu, was also, built
by Kane and Kanaloa®
On O'ahu, Kane and Kanaloa were constructive, but
on Maui they destroyed a fishpond, F8 ® Maunupau (1922$ 18) writes? A man who lived at Kahikinui had a fishpond that was famous for its fat fish® Kanemalaho was the name of this fish pond® One day two strangers came to the house of the native of Kahikinui. These were the gods Kane and Kanaloa.„..When these strangers came the husband had gone fishing and only the wife was at home. They asked her for fish and she told them to wait until her husband came back, then they would have some fish. They were 136 very angry with the answer# so they left to go to the fishpond where they broke it to pieces with their supernatural mana.
Guardian Spirits
Significant in Hawaiian religion was the tremendous
number of lesser gods and spirits * Among these were the 'aumakua, spirit-gods which belonged to families and which were always inherited. The 8aumakua were "the ancient source gods,,,from whom the ancestors implicitly believed they had come,..or one from whom they had actually descend
ed (Kamakau 1964:29)." Deeply venerated by their families# the 8aumakua had the function of protecting and caring for
the families. At the same time, they were responsible for
punishing the families for any violation of the prohibi
tions of the spirit.
Handy (1968:43-56) concludes that the gods and
lesser deities were totemic in nature» Their ability to acquire any form, kino-lau, was seen in the many prohibi
tions connected with the name related god-body forms on both land and sea. For example, the demigod Kamapua'a had as body forms the pig, pua'a; certain kinds of grasses, all of which contained pua8a in their names $ and a fish, humu- humunukunukuapua8a (Rhinecanthus acujeatus, Rhinecanthus rectangulus), These and all other forms of KAmapua8a would be tabu to worshippers of the * aumakua, It can readily be 137 seen, then, how the gods were omnipresent, permeating every aspect of the heavens, the land, and the sea. In aquaculture, the shark 8aumakua and mo*o were the most prevalent of the supernatural beings. According to Beckwith (1970:12$), the arrival in the islands of the shark-spirits preceded that of the mo*Oo Shark "Aumakua» A total of $4 shark * aumakua are noted for the Hawaiian Islands: 2 for Kaua8ii 9 for 09ahu,
1 for Moloka®i? 4 for Maui? 35 for Hawai*i? and 3 with no single island attachment (Cobb 1902$389-92s Beckwith 1917s
510-14? Sterling and Summers 1962, Bk, 5» Vole 1:13)« Each of these sharks was named and had certain areas to patrol.
Universally worshipped as a friend and as protector of the worshipper, each shark was identified through color or spotting and through sex, and each had a history and genealogy (Beckwith 1917:508? Cobb 1902:390), The shark *aumakua also had a caretaker or human keeper, kahu, whose job was to feed the shark pig or fowl? to give it *awa, a \ narcotic-like drink made from the roots of the kava shrub
(Piper methysticum)? and to generally care for its needs.
In return, the shark protected its kahu and the families who worshipped it from any misfortune on both land and sea,
A stingy chief at Kualoa on 0‘ahu is recorded
(Sterling and Summers 1962, Bk, 5» Vol. 1:13) as having been punished by his shark * aumakua, The shark flooded the 138 land of the chief, destroyed a fishpond, and finally killed the chiefo Some fishponds had shark guardians living in or around the bodies of water. Normally, the abode of these 0aumakua were underwater caves and shelters«, McAllister (1933s16^) records that Huilua, C18, was inhabited by a shark guardian, while Beckwith (1917<51^) reports that Uko’a, C149, was inhabited by two shark * aumakua, Puhi-ula and Niukala, Hi6u is named by Soehren (1963s19^5 as being the shark 8aumakua of Wai*alohe fishpond, P25, at Keanae®
Alekoko is the name given both the fishpond, B2, and its shark guardian (Kaiwi 1921:117)„
Mo6 o, The guardian spirits that were most directly connected with fishponds were the mo*o. These supernatural beings probably came from Tahiti, where they were the gods to the royal Oropa'a family (Beckwith 1970s128), They were also associated with the Pele family of demigods, Moeo are described as having arrived in a great procession, distrib uting family members throughout the islands (Manu 1885a:
868)e This would account for their wide dispersion.
On Kaua8 i, Norailu is the name of a fishpond, B18, as well as of its mo*o (BPBM Tape H-41Y5)» Papalinahoa is the name of site B19, as well as of its mo*o (BPBM Tape
H-62D)o
McAllister (1933*133#157,186) notes the mo*o for three ponds on 0 8 ahu$ Kamaoha of Luakini, C97» and 139 Hauwahine of both Kawainui, 06?, and Paeo, C126. McAllister (1933s142) and Pukui and Elbert (1966*26) list Lani-wahine as the mo0o of Uko'a, 0149® and Sterling and Summers (1962#
Bke 1# Vole 2) note Kanekua’ana for the Pearl Harbor Lochs =
Laukupu is named by Westervelt (1920*11) for Kuapa# 084e
On Maui# Kihawahine was the mo*o of seven ponds*
Kanaha# P?? Kapunakea# F9? Mokuhinia# F20? the twin ponds of Paukukalo, F22A and F22B? the pond at Waiokama# F24? and Wai- kolea# F27 (Kamakau 1964*85? Ashdown 1971*10)6 Beckwith (1970*126) designates also Haneo6o# F3# as Kihawahine®s home# Pukui and Elbert (1966*17) give Waka as the mo°o of Lokowaka pond# H45® on Hawai® i. Two unnamed mo®o are known for Kaloko# H24, and Kawa*a, H29 (Kelly 1971*27# 29? Kuumi Kin In# Informant)0
Always a female# the mo®o had an extremely long and terrifying body# approximately 6 to 15 feet long® Black in color# the creature is frequently described as having looked like a lizard and having manifested itself as a female comb ing her long black hair# The mo®o built nests within the waters# was given *awa to drink# and was seen only on rare occasions (Kamakau 1964*83)® These water-spirits were demigods# living on earth and interacting with mortals to see to the needs of their worshippers® "To honor the mo®o of a fishpond" was the meaning of the Hawaiian term kanawai-na'a, or "the fixed rule" (Kamakau 1964*84)® The mo®o provided for the welfare 14 0 of its family of worshippersi "brought health to the family by warding off illness? brought prosperity by providing an abundant supply of fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and sea- weed? and saw to it that the poor and fatherless individu als were not abused, Mo*o were capable of foretelling terrible events and of punishing individuals or entire dis tricts when their prohibitions were violated. Among the gods, the shark *aumakua, and the mo9o, there seems to have been a pattern of punishing owners or worshippers who were stingy or who in some way abused their privilege of being caretaker of some resource« Generosity and sharing are ideals which were cultivated in the native culture0 Viola tion of these traditions was severely punished.
Two fishponds reportedly had eels as their guard ians: Kahouna, C29 (Donald E, Johnson, Informant), and
Kaluapuhi, 045 (Fiddler 1956:13)» However, it'is unlikely that the mo8o of these ponds actually were eels? both re- . ports are probably cases of mistaken identity.
Whenever a mo9o resided within a fishpond, her presence was indicated by certain signs. At Kawainui, 06?, the presence of Hauwahine was indicated by the change of color of the water and of the leaves of all the trees, grasses, and sedges to a yellowish hue (Sterling and
Summers 1962, Bk» 5» Vol. 2:252), At Paeo pond, 0126,
Hauwahine6s presence was seen as a blanket of leaves over 141 the surface of the water (McAllister 1933*157). Amo*o, or foam on the water» indicated the presence of Kiha-wahine at
Haneo*o pond, F3 (Beckwith 1970s126)e The presence of the mo8o at Kaloko, .H24, was indicated by a smoky red color of the water (Kelly 1971*29)»
Shrines There seem to have been three types of religious structures connected with fish and fishing. These are waihau, *aoa» and ko8a»
Waihau. This is a class of temple, heiau, where
"hogs, bananas, and coconuts were sacrificed, but not human beings (Pukui and Elbert 1957*350).*• Altars were erected here and fires lit in order to pray for an abundance of fish (Kamakau 1964$83? Beckwith 1970s126)e *Aoa. Located near a fishpond, the 8aoa was a shrine on which offerings were made during the early dawn hours of the night of Kane. The Hawaiian system of reckon ing days and seasons was a lunar system, and so the night of Kane occurred about the 27th of a lunar month when the moon rose at dawn. The offerings were a black pig once or twice a year? a bunch of raw taro? a bunch of bananas? mullet fish in multiples of four? and kohekohe grass (all species of a genus of sedges, Bleocharis), which was found in taro fields. These offerings were prepared for baking in an underground oven, using kindling of dried pili grass 142 (Heteropogon oontortus) and only three or four heating stones (li 1959*26)* The only documented "aoa shrine is noted by li (1959$26) for Hanalao fishpond, C14, "where offerings were made to the gods for whatever concerned the ponds.”
Ko'a, Ko*a were the most numerous of the three types of shrines. The word ko9a has three meanings; coral or coral head? fishing grounds? and a shrine of coral and stone built along the shore or by ponds or streams, used in ceremonies as to make fish multiply (Pukui and Elbert 1957$ 144).
Traditionally, the first ko*a fishing shrine was constructed by Ku'ula-kai next to his fishpond at Hana on Maui® This first ko'a was a "house” constructed on a rock platform on the walls of the pond® *Ai*.ai, son of Ku*ula- kai and his wife Hina, is known for having traveled through out the islands building numerous koea shrines (Thrum
1901a;115)o It seems that images or representations of the fish god subsequently came into being and were called ku*ula. And so a god-image, kuaula, was found with the ko'a shrine.
Sterling and Summers (1962, Bk. 3, Vol. 2;199) note the following facts about ko'a; they were of many sizes, ranging from small to large ? some had houses built for them? some were surrounded by wooden fences and sheltered by banana trees? some had altars on which offerings of 143 roasted pig were placedi and some were located along the shore, while others were found along streams, rivers, fish-
traps, or fishponds„ Regardless of their form, their prin
cipal function was to insure food abundance by attracting fish to the area.
The shrines along streams and rivers appear to have
been specifically for attracting *o*opu. On Moloka®i, a
shrine in Halawa Valley was built for the 9o®opu god Ho®o-
mili®anuhe to attract the fish during its spawning.season (Summers 1971s166, 181)® . Twin god-images, ku'ula, are noted for Kapakule, 057, at Pearl Harbor (Pig® 32)® The one was the god Ku'ula, as represented by an erect, dark stone which measured lsxlex4^9, and the other was Hina, as represented by a roughly pentago nal slab of coral which measured 2&®x2®x8® (Stokes 1909ag
203)e The male stone, always submerged, stood on the inte
rior side of the trap, while the female stone stood on the
side facing the open sea© Kuumi Kim In (Informant) notes
the presence of a ku®ula at the pond at Kawa * a, H29*
Kamakau (1964s 83) writes that fires were lit on the ko'a altars beside fishponds© In so doing, the water-spirit guardians of the ponds were attracted and seen at that time©
The pond at Lae-o-kamilo, B131 Huilua, CI81 Kaelepulu, 0231 Kuapa, 084? Uko9a, 01491 and ®A:imakapa®a, HI, are the only fishponds specifically named as having ko®a within them or in close proximity© 1# Ceremonial Appeasement
If the wealth of a fishpond was adversely affected because of some violation by man of the prohibitions sur rounding the pond, the guardian mo9o had to be appeased be
fore that wealth would be restored0 Kamakau (1964s 8^-85) indicates that appeasement was made, not by supplication, but through penitence and restitution, Pukui (1943) re cords the procedures followed in order to purify and re
store fish when Kapakule fishtrap, C57» was polluted by a woman during her menstrual period, A black pig, a white
cock, and *awa were secured and taken by a young child of
either sex to the kueula shrine within the trap. Part of
the food was served to those who took part in the ceremony,
while certain portions were set upon the altar. The cere mony was performed on the night of Kane,and the next day the fish returned. For Hanaloa fishpond, site C14, li (1959826) notes that ",,,a boy was sent frequently with the
priests in the early dawn of Kane to relieve any trouble at the pond of Hanaloa, to make offerings, and to present the
gifts they had brought to the appropriate offering place,”
McAllister (1933«70) notes a similar ceremony for
Kuapa pond, site C84, On the night of Kane, the caretaker
took a baby pig just as it came from the womb of the mother
. and carried the squealing pig about the fishpond. The next
night, the night of Lono, a strict kapu was established to
prohibit fishing or any noise which could disturb the 145 praying priest® Seaweeds and ♦ilima (all species of Sida) were gathered and placed on the koga0 After the night of Lono and completion of the ceremony, the fish returned in
abundances Only very general references exist to indicate that
offerings and ceremonies took place in connection with the
construction and completion of at least fishponds and fish- traps, if not the other aquacultural types as well. How ever, no details are known, as there is also a lack of detailed description of the planning and construction of aquaeultural sites. Understanding that religion was highly integrated within the Hawaiian society, it is almost cer tain, though, that a series of religious rituals did, in
fact, occur during the span of construction.
The Natural Forces
The location of the Hawaiian Islands within the vast sea of ocean currents and atmospheric winds provides
the islands with their famed idyllic maritime climate.
However, these same currents and winds are, at the same, sources of erosional forces which constantly effect and al ter the works of nature and man. The native Hawaiian had to cope with the malevolent as well as the benevolent as pects of Nature in order to maintain and perpetuate his aquaeultural system. Effecting the system were lava flows, earthquakes, landslides and faulting, tsunami, sea storms. 146 and flooding® Beyond man6 s immediate control, these de structive acts of nature were attributed, as was practical ly everything, to some action by the gods, demigods, and spirit-beings. Being both omnipotent and omnipresent, these spirits commonly roamed about in the guise of man and dwelt among mortals, The Hawaiians often viewed the destructive forces of nature as being balance-inducing acts, that is, punishment by the supernatural beings of man for some mis deed® lava Flows
The Hawaiian Islands originated from a fissure in the bottom of the ocean floor sometime during the Miocene period, or approximately 25,000,000 years ago (Stearns
1966175)» Prior to the occupation and settlement by the first Hawaiians, the islands underwent much erosion as well as accumulation through vulcanism® Maui and Hawai* i seem to be the only islands to have experienced volcanic action since the time of the arrival of the first Hawaiians, Only four areas show signs of active vulcanism since that times Kanai'o on Maui and Hualalai, Mauna Kea, and Kilauea on
Hawai® i, The effects of vulcanism, such as earthquakes and landslides, were felt throughout the entire island chain, even though their source may have been localized hundreds of miles away. Ik? Today active vuleanism is found only on Hawai®ie
The island is composed of five volcanic areas, of which
only Kilauea is presently active» Kohala Mountain and
Mauna Kea appear to have been inactive during the entire
span of human habitation of the islands, whereas Haulalai and Mauna Loa were quite active during the history of Hawai®io Hualalai, The last date of activity for Hualalai is A 0Do 18.01, when two separate lava flows, Kaupulehu and Huehue, caused extensive damage to fishponds along the west coast. Natives reported (Macdonald and Abbott 1970s53) that the Kaupulehu flow was earlier than the Huehue flow-.
The former edged toward the Kaupulehu fishpond, H28, nearly
inundating it. It is not known whether other fishponds along the coast were also destroyed, but the flow effective
ly burned and leveled the resources for miles inland from the shore,
Huehue was the most destructive of the flows in the entire area, Pa*aiea, H55# and Kaulana, H27, were, for all practical purposes, destroyed by the flow, as the only re mains of either fishpond is a very small pool where Kaulana once stood. Both fishponds were the property of Kamehameha
I, who was quite concerned over their destruction» Legend says that Pele, in her travels in this area, stopped and asked the caretakers of the ponds for fish to eat0 The goddess of the volcanos was denied even those portions 148 which were considered offal„ Her reaction to human greed and to lack of concern for the poor was manifested in a lava flow, Kamehameha was told that he was the only one who could approach Pele and appease her, Kamakau (1961$ 140-41) writes, "He was afraid when the prophets and priests said, e The fire can be extinguished easily, and the fishponds of which you are so fond can be saved if you yourself take the sin offering and offer it with your own hands«*" The offerings were to no avail, and Kamehameha had to be content with the loss of both fishponds,
Maguire (1926s14-1?) records the story of Pele6s destruction of Pa'aiea as told by her grandmothers One day when she was there in the fields_J7 a lady appeared before her. My grandmother said to her, 0Aloha ana *aia, ua pa 6ina "ai 0oe?" /"Greetings, shall we eat together?_J7777she said, 'I have poi and salt, but I have no fish, I will get some fish,* the lady said. But when the lady went to the pond and asked Kamehameha®s fishermen for fish, one of the men said, ®No, everything is for King Kamehameha,* She asked, for the inner parts, but she got nothing. She went back. When she reached Mahaiula, the konohiki said, *We are in trouble,® ..•That evening Kamehameha6s workman saw a red glare on Hualalai, They said, ®We are in trouble,6 The flow came down the hill,,,.From there it de stroyed the fishpond of Kamehameha, When the lava came, it almost covered the fishpond. The konohiki and Kamehameha brought a small pig. They let the pig run and the fire pi*o /"extinguished^,
In the area from eAimakapa*a fishpond to Kiholo
Bay, lava flows which have neither activity dates nor any traditional references cover portions of some fishponds and obviously threatened others. At eAimakapa‘a, HI? Kaloko, 11*9 H24g •Opae^ula, Kukio, H38? and Kua, H37» there are indications that prehistoric flows did damage the ponds, either by partial coverage or by devastation of the land
just back of them,, Mauna Loao Until the 1950®s# Mauna Loa had an out
break of activity averaging once every four years and a
lava flow averaging once every seven years (Stearns 1966s
104)o The extensive flow from Mauna Loa in 1859 destroyed
the fishponds at Kiholo, #34, and the pond of Wainanali* i,
#66, leaving a series of small ponds, the only physical
indications of the previous existence of the larger ponds* Keawa* iki, #32, was, partially cut by the same flow, again leaving only a small pond as evidence of the indiscriminate power of nature* Kilauea0 According to tradition, Pele dug her way from island to island, seeking a waterproof home* Her
trips took her to all the islands, from Kaua9i to Hawai®i, and she finally stopped at Kilauea, where she resides to
this day,
Hitchcock (1909$684) states that approximately 50
eruptions are noted in legend for the years A.D, 140 to
1823* Affected by eruptions and lava flows from Kilauea and its rifts are the districts of Kaeu and Puna, where flows in 1840 and i960 destroyed fishponds as well as villages* The 1840 lava flow along the east rift zone destroyed the village of Nanawale and probably eradicated 150 any agricultural and aquacultural features that may have
existed there0 The 19&Q Kapoho lava flow totally covered
the ancient hay of Waiakaea, in which sites H4A# H26A, and
H18 once were located0 In 1868 and again in 1924 these fishponds were inundated by nearly 14 feet of water as the land slipped under the sea. The i960 flow merely capped the fishponds and fossilized them in lava. How many other fishponds, fishtraps, and other aquacultural types were destroyed by lava flows may never be known, but it can be safely assumed that the occurrence was not a rarity,
Kanai'o, Curious about the history of volcanic activity on Maui, the Reverend Lorrin A, Thurston made a
survey of informants and written material concerning the
lava flows around Kanaieo along the Kahikinui Coast,
Thurston (1924), who was later quoted extensively by
.Stearns and Macdonald (1942:102=7), suggests that the last
lava flow at Kanaieo occurred around A«D, 1750, A date of
A„D. 1790 has since been given to this flow by Macdonald and Abbott (1970:51)® Named Ke™ahi=o-Wai=ola (Ashdown 1971s22), the lava flow emanated from the cone of Kalua»o~ Lapa and flowed three miles downhill to form La Perouse Bay, Ke-ahi-o~Wai-ola inundated a fishpond which was re stored in a minimal fashion into the twin ponds of Ka-uhi- o-ai-a-kini, F10, and Halua, F2, This pincer flow was walled and another unnamed pond, F5» was built there
(Thurston 1924), 151 According to legend, Pele asked a family for some
chicken to eat, but the family refused, stating that no one
could eat the fowls as they were dedicated to Pele. In her
rage, the goddess caused Ke=ahi-o-Wai=ola to flow and killed
the man, woman and all their children by turning them into stone. These stone markers serve as indications of Pele*s deed and as reminders, not of her power, but of her anger at people who are miserly toward strangers and the poor and toward those who use her name in vain. Other lava flows preceded the Ke-ahi-o-Wai-ola flow, as many pahoehoe and *a*a flows are evident for miles along the Kahikinui coastline. Whether or not these de
stroyed any prehistoric fishponds is not known. / . Earthquakes
Earthquakes are the result of the active movement of rocks within the earth's interior. The rising and in creasing supply of the magma prior to its surface eruption as lava produce stress and strain in the surrounding area, resulting in an almost continuous series of small tremors,
The large scale tremors of destructive force are an obvious source of devastation. Although earthquakes occur more commonly around the regions of active vulcanism, tremors of some force are felt also in areas far: from where they are actually produced. The indirect affects of such tremors are landslides, which can cause extensive damage# Landslides and Faulting , Prehistoric landslides probably did their share of damage» but no references to any dates or locations of landslides or to the extent of damage caused by them have been uncovered. Nonetheless, we can assume they did occur as frequently as they do today.
Historic landslides have been noted for most of the \ islands of the Hawaiian chain. An earthquake on January
22, 1938, centering 35 miles in the sea off the coast of
Maui, caused landslides and extensive damage to much of the island (Stearns 1966s32-36)» In his trip around the island of Hawai®i in 1823, Ellis (1963$271) noted that a fishpond in Waimanu Valley, H44, had been destroyed by a landslides ...according to the accounts of the 'natives*.«an immense mass of rocks had suddenly fallen down,,,. The mass that had fallen lay in ruins at the base, where it had formed two considerable hills, filled up. a large fish-pond and part of the sea, present ing altogether a scene of widespread desolation.
On April 2, 1868, an earthquake brought about a 2-§- mile slide of mud which buried a village with 31 people in the
Ka*u district of Hawai* i. In 1868 again a submarine eruption took place off Cape Kumukahi, Hawai* i, causing great geomorphological changes to the coastline of Puna,
In some areas the coastline sank to a depth of 8 feet, in undating the Waiakaea ponds, sites H4A, H18, and H26A.
Shock waves from that eruption sent a tsunami over 50 feet 153 high crashing into the shore, devastating the population there. In 1924 an earthquake caused faulting to occur along the same coastline and resulted in slippage of some sections of the.,shore to a water depth of 14 feet. The sea then flooded the lowlying areas to nearly half a mile in land, submerging some fishponds and altering others» Higashi pond in the Waiakaea area, H60, was inundated and opened to the sea.
Tsunami
Tsunami are the result of submarine earthquakes, the shock waves of which produce a series of great sea waves. Of a total of 85 tsunami recorded since 1813, 6 were severe enough to have caused extensive damage in both life and property (Pararas-Carayannis 1969*1 ), while 15 -\ were of significant force to have caused lesser damage (Macdonald and Abbott 1970s261),
The only fishpond affected by what seems to have been a prehistoric tsunami is site H?» Heleipalala, at the
City of Refuge on Hawai*i Island, Of an unknown date, the tsunami, called Kai mimiki o Naihe, filled the fishpond with silt and sand (Emory et al, 1957%36), Its name alone signifies that it was unusual and not a mere storm wave.
Historically, 12 fishponds and fishtraps have been damaged by tsunami, These are given chronologically in
Table 6, Table 6. Fishponds and Fishtraps Damaged by Tsunami
SITE NAME DATE H 7 HELEIPALALA N. D. F 5 KEONEGl'O 1790-1931 D29 ka'ope'a h in a 1933 H40 KU'UALl'l 1946 H 21 KAHAPAPA 1946 D 38 KUPEKE 1946 D6 HONOULIWA1 1946 B2 ALEKOKO 1946 815 LAWA'l-KAI 1946 H52 h il o 'e 1954 D6S 'UALAPU'E I960 D43 NIAUPALA N.D. 1
Table 7» Fishponds Damaged by Sea Storms
SITE NAME DATE F6 KAONOULU-KAI 1450 F 14 KEOKEA-KAI 1450 F28 WAIOHULl-KAI 1450 D9 KAHINAPOHAKU N.D. H6£ WA1AK0LEA APRIL 25, 1885 D8 ip u k a'iole 1938 E4 w aia'opae N.D. F 18 MAKENA N. D. H24 : KALOKO 1935-58 155 Sea Storms
Generally the Hawaiians did not distinguish "between
sea waves and tsunami0 Their effect was the same: the de
struction of walls and sluice grates and the possible silt ing of the ponds„ In many instances, their effect on the population must have been equally severe» Sea waves are caused primarily by cyclonic storms, - whose wind action produces large sea waves, which continu ously pound the shore for the duration of the storm and which often flood the lowlands. The thickest seawall of any existing fishpond, H24, was severely damaged, not by any tsunami, but by sea waves, thus attesting to the power of such waves over a long period of time. Nine fishponds are known to have been damaged by sea storms (Table 7),
Flooding
Occasionally Hawai* i has encountered cyclonic storms of an intensity that severe flooding has been caused throughout the islands. The situation worsened when, as in the span from 1820-1850, the upland areas were denuded of their sandlewood trees, producing an unstable soil condi tion, Any type of rainfall induces soil runoff, leading to heavy silting of the shore. All of the'fishponds and fish- traps along the entire south coast of Moloka’i have been affected by historic silting of the shore (Carlson n«d.:l7;
Wight 1956)® Fishponds in Kane®ohe Bay and along the 156 Ko® olau coast of 0*ahu have been similarly damaged0 In modern times, bulldozing of large tracts of land has re sulted in still heavier silt runoff® Heavy rain and high winds reportedly damaged two fishponds on 0®ahu» Probably heavy flooding caused by the rains brought about the actual damage* although flooding is not specifically mentioned. One of the many fishponds in the Kalia area of Waikiki near a spot named Ulukou had its walls broken by heavy rains (Kauai I9I9), Another fish pond, one not identified, but located on the Ko®olau side of 0°ahu, was damaged on January 1, 1828, The wind and rain came from the north-east direction and breached the walls. The king at that time allowed anyone who chose to go to the pond and take as many fish as he could carry
(Thrum 1901b§81),
Cultural Orientation Although the supernatural and natural forces were equally important for the perpetuation and productivity of the Hawaiian aquacultural system, it was man who tended the aquacultural sites and made them into the viable economic subsystems upon which the political system relied. Fish ponds were not operated for profit, nor were they intended for general public use. The function of all the aquacul tural types lay within the socio-political system of 157 Hawaiian culture, a topic to be discussed in detail in Chapter 11,
Laws and Prohibitions In order to insure the viability of aquaculture in Hawaiian society by protecting the system from religious pollution and human harm, certain laws, prohibitions, and sanctions had to be set up and codified. Since fishponds and fishtraps were considered to be part of the land to which they were attached, the prohibitions concerning the sea did not normally affect them, although some sanctions were considered universal.
Generally, the chiefs were quite aware of the im portance of conserving resources, as they normally declared a tabu on fishing in the sea at specified times. The ulti mate object of the prohibition was to allow fish to spawn and reproduce for 5 to 6 months a year, A branch of hau was placed along the shore , to signify that the kapu was in effect (Keliipio 1901s111$ Kamakau 1964s 83), It is also significant that the spawning kapu applied only to the sea, not to fishponds, Chiefs and commoners alike were under the rules of the spawning kapu, and violation was punish able by death (Summers 1964s1)0
Fish that swarmed in schools, that spawned in un sheltered places, and those from the deep sea were specifi cally named as being prohibited at specified times. These 158 are mullets tunas mackerel scad (Decapterus pinnulatus)„ or 0opelui and squid (Titcomb 1952:13-14)«, Certain fish were
kapu at definite times of the years mullet from November to
March (Summers 1964s1)? »opelu when tuna was caughts and
tuna when 8opelu was caught (Titcomb 1952:13)• Exempt from the spawning prohibition were fish that lived in sea pools
and smaller size fish. These ares ea9ala0ihl (Holocentrus),
the young of the various species of the squirrelfish? kalas
kole (Ctenochaetus strigosus), a surgeonfishs kumus maninis *opule (Anampses cuvier). a wrasses palani; pualu (exact genera unknown)» a surgeonfishs uhus and 8upapalu (Apogo= nidae family)„ cardinal fish (Titcomb 1952s14s Kamakau 1961:177).
When the kapu was lifteds commoners were allowed to
fish, taking care to follow certain rules. According to
Kamakau (1961:177), the King and people of royalty shared
the first day’s catch. Chamberlain (1822-1849:1121) notes
that on one occasion, July 22, 1835, the common people were
allowed to fish from Waikiki to Ewa on O'ahu after a pro
hibition was lifted.
Mores and Folkways Certain mores of the fishing subculture, as record ed by some authors, seem to indicate that the customs noted pertained only to marine fishermen. However, it is assumed
that these mores were universal in the Hawaiian Islands, as they concern fishing in general® Therefore, the following are considered to be the mores and folkways which had to be followed in order to avoid polluting the sea, as well as
fishponds, and the paraphenalia used in fishing®
Males always refrained from taking along bananas on
fishing trips and from talking about fishing and about fish
right before and while fishing (Taylor 1957*^8-^9)° Women, on the other hand, because of their menstrual period, faced many more prohibitions than did men® Females were never allowed to go near the fishing equipment or a fishing canoes to quarrel, fight, or speak loudly during the husband's ab sences to touch a fish gods to light a fire during the fishermen's absences to eat the baits or to fish in the
deep sea (Taylor 1936)®
As soon as a female reached menarche she became a
strongly polluting agent ® Boys and girls were called *ula-
paea, a term which implies adolescence and being free of
pollution, and so they were chosen to carry the offerings
to the fish altar® During their monthly period women were forbidden to walk on fishpond walls (Summers 1964:7), Entrance to the sanctified enclosure of Kapakule fishtrap, site C57» is documented as having been barred to women who were either married or menstruating (Stokes 1909a:211-12)• Conse quences of such a trespass were that the fish would become
thin and that the women would suffer illness and. l6o eventually$, deathe Another consequence was that the priest
in charge of the fishtrap would die if he did not appease
the gods. Certain types of fish were prohibited to members of
one sex or of one social group, The basis of this kapu may have had its origin at the time of the migration or of the coming of the gods to the islands, Mullet, considered by the Hawaiians to be the "pig of the ocean," the ritual equivalent of the pig, pua8a, was one of the types of fish to follow the gods Kane and Kanaloa from Tahiti to Hawai'i
(Beckwith 1970*63 )« This may have been the basis for pro hibiting commoners from eating mullet from fishponds, for mullet could be consumed only by the ali'i* Awa and ahole-
hole, the two fish used in offerings to Kane and Kanaloa, may have been selected because of the magic, or mana, im plied in their names, fAwa is also the name of the nar-
eotie-like beverage made from the roots of the kava shrub, and aholehole implies the action of stripping, as the strip ping off of a glove of sin, ahole. When the priest Pao'o left Tahiti for Hawai'i, the tuna helped propel his canoe against storm waves, while the *opelu swam in front, break ing the waves with their bodies, Thus these two fish be
came sacred to Pao'o (Cobb 1902$393),
The prohibition of certain fish was more common among women, Titcomb (1952$17-1 8 ) lists the following fish as being kapu to womens hahalua (manta birostris), manta 161 ray? hailepo, one of the sting rays? hThTmanu (Dasyatis 'brevis and Aetobatus narinari), various sting rays and eagle rays? kohola, whale? kumu? nai'a, porpoise? niuhi, a larges grey man-eating shark? moano (Pseudupeneus filamen- tosuSe Pseudupeneus orientalis, etc,), one of the goatfish? and ulua0
During pregnancy a woman could not eat any white-
fleshed fish, tuna, * opelu, mullet, or any fish salted by
others, nor could she even touch any of these prohibited
fish (Titcomb 1952t18). Cobb (1902i393) names also the
aholehole as being kapu to the expecting mother, as well as to her children. The ceremony for purifying a fishing net is de scribed by Taylor (1936), The net was taken to the beach, where each of the men present drank an offering of gawa. Leaves representing fish were piled into the net and motions to chase the leaves into the net were then made. Ceremoni ally, this represented the act of fishing without dipping
the net into the water, A sprinkling of seawater, pT kai, was performed to erase any evil from the net*
Evidently a corpse was defiling and its presence was viewed by the Hawaiians as an element of pollution, as was the ease with human offal and blood, BPBM Tape H-62B records a folkway concerning Alekoko fishpond, B2, and the adjoining Hulaia River, If someone died and his corpse was
to be transported to the opposite side of the pond or 162 across the river, a stretcher had to be used and the body
had to be moved by land so that no water was crossed in the
processo If the corpse was transported by boat across the
pond or across the river, the fish within would perish.
War No documentation has been uncovered to indicate
that individuals ever purposefully tore down any fishpond or fishtrap for personal reasons. However $ under condi tions of war, a great deal of destruction was done in order to cripple the opponent. The agricultural and aquacultural wealth of Waipi°o Valley on Hawai* i and of the areas along the south shore of Moloka*i is evident, as these were the continuous targets of ravaging armies. Economic harm was felt most strongly in these areas, .
Around 1790, Keoua, the rival on Hawai*i of Kameha- meha, struck at Kamehameha°s WaipVo Valley, destroying the sources of water of the many fishponds within that capital valley, Lalakea, H^2, and Muliwai, H51, are two of the fishponds named as having been affected by the raid
(Kamakau 1961s151), During his reign as high chief of Hawai*i Island, Kalaniopu'u, the uncle of Kamehameha, invaded Moloka* i around 1778, devastating both the land and its population (Carlson n,d,s16)* At the same time he also invaded Lana*i, causing similar destruction (Emory 1924s22), Kamakau 163 (1961*116) reports that the high chief was advised to cut
off the water supply of the fortress of Ka'uiki by cutting "off the springs and the ponds from Kawaipapa to Honokalani 0 By so doing, Kalaniopu'u could win the battle for the for tress on Mauio Ka-pi"i-oho-ka-lani, the son and successor to Ku'u-ali*i, ■ King of O'ahu, invaded Moloka9ie This high chief of O'ahu also ravaged the land and destroyed both agricultural and aquacultural features (Summers 1971$92), so that his opponent chief could not restore wealth back to
the land without considerable effort in time and manpower®
Indicative of the importance of aquaculture were the civil projects undertaken to restote ruined fishponds to their former productive state. 'Umi, the King of Hawai'i in the first part of the 16th century, advised his brother-in-law Kiha-a-Pi* ilani that, when Kiha-a-Pi8 ilani went to Moloka*i, he should restore the walls of the fish ponds there (Summers 1971:12)» Kamehameha, after unifica tion of the islands under him, ventured into three large civil projects concerning the reconstruction of fishponds.
Kalepolepo, probably Kaonoulu-kai fishpond, P6? Haneo'o,
?3; and Kiholo, are said to have required 10,000 indi viduals to repair them (Kamakau 1869a), Kauwa Caste
An unusual fishpond privilege was that of site H$2, Hilo®e pond$, at Ninole in the Ka*u district of Hawai®i» This pariah^ or caste of individuals (Handy and Pukui 1958s 204-5)# lived as a social group in the lands of upper Ninole, where they were allowed to fish from the pond and to obtain water from one of the,springs (Handy and Handy
1972$606)0 Evidently, the kauwa were given this privilege in order to prevent them from ritually polluting fishing and water areas used by others $
Decline.of Aquaculture At the time of discovery by Captain Cook, the fish ponds and fishtraps were obviously valuable resources* However, since then there has been a steady decline of aquaculture throughout the islands, the reasons for which are, for the most part, economic and technical* Cobb (1902$
428$ 1904*477), Kelly (1925$853)# Bell and Higgins (1939$ 8), Summers (1964*12), and Apple and Apple (1971) note the factors in the decline in historic Hawai® i$ population de cline throughout the islands, movement of population from rural to urban areas, population decrease around fishponds, change in eating habits, change of barter to cash economy, importation of inexpensive fish produce, diverting of streams for sugar cane irrigation, replacement of tradi tional taro agriculture by rice, high cost of transportation 165 in remote areas, unavailability of ice for preservation of fish in remote areas, changing shoreline use, and commercial
development along shores®
Concluding Remarks
The native Hawaiian was an extremely religious per
son, not because he chose to be, but because he lived in a world in which everything was dominated and determined by religion. Every occurrence had a religious cause and a religious explanation. The basic purpose of native aqua culture was to provide fish, and to this end the Hawaiian had to insure that the aquacultural system was maintained and perpetuated. Especially nature had to be contended with because of the oceanic and volcanic environment of
the islands, Man, too, had to be restrained, as was accom plished through the various tabus, prohibitions, and cus
toms surrounding the fish culture. Whenever some dysfunction existed in the universe of the Hawaiian, pro pitiation had to be made to the omnipresent, omnipotent gods.
i CHAPTER 9
INTRA-ISLAND ASSOCIATIONS
Found around some existing fishponds and fishtraps are a number of archaeological features, among which are stone alignments, stone walls, mounds, terraces, platforms, and enclosures. The proximity of these features to the ponds and traps seems to suggest that some kind of rela tionship or association existed between them. In order to
investigate this association, a brief synthesis of the
Hawaiian pattern of settlement distribution and of the na ture of specific settlements where fishponds and fishtraps are found must first be presented. The problem is to de termine whether the fishpond and fishtrap determined or was determined by the general settlement pattern of the islands.
Settlement Patterns There is no single pattern of settlement for.the Hawaiian Islands, The patterns that are recognized are complex and are related to different environmental habitats
(Green 1970*31-32), Lanning (1967*33) names two types of settlement patterns, agglutinated and non-agglutinated.
Relatively high population density, grouped community, clustered sites, and clear boundaries between the cluster
\6 6 16? and sites outside the cluster are the characteristics of the agglutinated pattern» On the other hand, low popula tion densityc dispersed community, dispersed features and sites, and boundaries which are not well-defined constitute the non-agglutinated settlement pattern.
Agglutinated Sites
Agglutinated Hawaiian sites are often referred to as hamlets, settlements, or villages. These clustered sites, composed of several archaeological features, are subdivided into two groups based on the presence or absence of status residents. Agglutinated sites are found only along the shore and in coastal areas which have good spots for fishing, canoe anchorages, and beaching, and which are located in the idyllic setting of sand and surf.
Ten agglutinated sites have been surveyed and de tailed, These are Puala°a Village (Crozier and Barrere
1971)I Kahalu°u to Keauhou (Emory, McCoy, and Barrere 1971I
Barrera 1971b)? Kaniku, Nawahine Rock, and Waiulua Settle ments (Barrera 1971a)? Koaie Hamlet (Newman 1968? Pearson
I968? Griffin et al, 1971)? Honokohau (Emory and Soehren
1961? Cluff 1969)3 Waiahukini (Kelly 1969)3 Ka'awaloa (Hommon and Crozier 1970)? and Kaunolu Settlement (Emory 1924), All of these sites are found on Hawai®i Island with the exception of the last site, which is found on Lana9 i. The predominant number and pattern of domestic and /
168 utilitarian features, ioe,, stone alignments, walls, mounds, platforms, terraces, and enclosures, at Puala0a
Village, Kaniku Settlement, Nawahine Rock Settlement, Wai- ulua Bay Settlement, Koaie Hamlet, Waiahukini, and Kaumolu
Settlement suggest occupation by families involved in a predominantly fishing livelihood. On the other hand, occu pation by individuals of high status is suggested at Kaha- lueu to Keauhou, Honokohau, and Ka'awaloa, These sites are characterized by the presence of clusters of house plat forms, enclosures, named temples, and fishing shrines of some renown because of historical or other events associ ated with them and by the presence of features which gener ally suggest status-oriented sports, i,e,, toboggan slides.
Unfortunately, many such sites, sites which traditionally and historically were classified as being settlements of nobility and as serving as court areas, have been destroyed, now leaving little or no evidence of the settlement pat terns that once existed. Examples of these settlements were found at.Waimea and Wailua on Kaua'ij Honolulu, Ewa, and Hale6iwa on 0*ahu; Lahaina and Hana on Maui; Waipi'o, Hilo, Honaunau, Ka'awaloa, Keauhou to Kahalu*u, and Kailua- Kona on Hawai® i Island, These locations generally are the same locations which, because of their idyllic setting, are choice areas for development to attract tourism. Non-agglutinated Sites
Non-agglutinated is by far the more common settle ment pattern in Hawai* i. This dispersal of features fol
lows several patterns, the first being the occurrence of clusters of features within the general dispersion. These clusters look like homesteads or very small hamlets, A survey by the author of the dry, windblown coast of Kahiki- nui on Maui revealed an evenly dispersed distribution of small homesteads from the shore to an elevation of nearly
3,500 feet. The second general pattern seems to be zones of settlement which vary from the coast to the upland areas and which are determined by and geared toward agricultural potential, i.e., rainfall and soil conditions (Pearson
1968). The survey of the leeward ahupua6a of Lapakahi on the island of Hawai6 i revealed a dispersed settlement pat tern with heavier, more permanent type sites on the coast and a middle zone from around 100 to 700 foot elevation, which was not settled or terraced for agricultural use
(Newman 1968), Above this zone up to 1600 foot elevation were scattered seasonally occupied sites and agricultural features (Griffin et al. 1971$10?, 108, 111). Numerous coastal surveys on the island of Hawai6i, of the areas from Kapoho to Kalapana (Bevacqua and Dye 1972)? of the ahupua6a of Kupahua (Barrera and Barrere 1971); of Ninole (Barrera and Hommon 1972)? of the areas of Kaloko and Kuki6 o (Renger > 170 1970)$ of the ahupua'a of Makalawena and Kaupulehu (Soehren
1963)» and of the ahirpua8a from Lalamilo to Hamanamana
(Ching 1971)e suggest that the Hawaiians preferred the coast as their favorite zone of occupatione The dispersed archaeological features and sites indicate permanent coastal sites, with temporary or seasonal use of upland or inland sites, as noted in the ease of the sites at Lapa~ kahi.
The settlement pattern for valleys seems to stand in contrast to the previously noted pattern for open and hilly landscapes, as the valley sites appear not to have been as randomly and/or evenly dispersed* A distinction has to be made between valleys in which irrigated plot agriculture was predominant and valleys in which rainfall was the predominant means of water supply.
The "wet" valleys, valleys having an abundant sup ply of water from streams and rivers, are ideal locations for the establishment of irrigation ditches and irrigated gravity-fed terraces and plots. Many "wet" valleys have areas either at the inner reaches or along their sides that are "dry," that is, terraced to trap any rainfall or mois ture runoff along slopes, intermittent stream beds, or talus areas. Several "wet" valleys have been studied, two of which are Kahana Valley on 0*ahu (Hommon and Barrera
1971) and Halawa Valley on Moloka*1 (Kirch 1971? Griffin et ale 1971)• Two as yet unpublished studies dealing with the 171' "wet" valleys around Hanalei and Ha0 ena on Kaua* i and with
Honopu$e Valley on Hawai®i Island have been completed by Timothy Earle and David Tuggle, respectively. In most of the studies to date, one characteristic has been noteds habitation sites were not normally constructed on good or potential agricultural lands, but always on agriculturally unsuitable land, either within the fields, such as on a knoll or ridge, or on the upper talus or slopes of the val ley (Timothy Earle, Personal Communications Griffin et ale
19718106s Kirch 1971$ 51s Hommon and Barrera 1971:4, 5s> 101),
In contrast, Makaha Valley on the leeward side of
O'ahu is a "dry" valley. Its principal agricultural system is non-irrigated gardening which relies on rainfall and trapped soil moisture for the growing of plants. The upper valley has a higher rainfall pattern than the lower valley and archaeologically shows a relatively large number of sites which apparently were of residential function (Green
1970:111), Almost the same pattern of residential sites is noted for the lower valley as is shown for "wet" irrigated valleys (Green 1969:30), Evidently, valleys, whether suit ed for irrigated pond fields or for non-irrigated terraces, can be viewed as having the same general settlement pat tern, based purely on the fact that good or potential agri cultural land plots were too valuable to be used for the construction of houses, pens, enclosures, graves, and such structures. 172 Aquacultural Site Associations The majority of aquacultural sites remaining today have been denuded of their surrounding archaeological fea tures and sites during the course of historical coastal de velopment® There are only 11 fishponds and fishtraps whose associated sites have been surveyed and mapped in detail®
These are Kaloko, °Aimakapaea$ HI, and °Aiopi6o trap
H2 (Emory and Soehren I96I1 Cluff 19691 Renger 1970-)?
KukVo pond, H38 (Renger 1970)? Ka'upulehu, H28, and 6Opae- eula, H54, ponds (Soehren 1963)? Kueu‘aliei, H40, and Kaha- papa, H21, ponds (Barrera 1971a)? Hilo*e pond, H52 (Barrera and Hommon 1972)1 and Huilua, C18, and Pukoko, C144, ponds (Hommon and Barrera 1971)• An unnamed fishpond and its surrounding sites in Halawa Valley on Moloka’i are referred to in two reports, but only very generally (Kirch 1971?
Griffin et al. 1971)• However, the intensive survey by Timothy Earle has uncovered approximately 30 small fish ponds on the Hanalei-Ha* ena coast of Kaua* i® Upon publica tion, Earle*s study will reveal the most detailed settle ment pattern of an irrigated agricultural and aquacultural system yet found in Hawai*i.
The,fishponds of Kuki*o, H38? Ka*upulehu, H28? *0pae*ula, H5^$ Ku*u*ali°i, H40? Kahapapa, H21? and Hilo*e,
H52, are associated with the non-agglutinated settlement pattern® Based on detailed survey data, Kuki*o, H38. (Fig,
36), and *Opae'ula, H54 (Fig® 37), were selected as being 800 -
s*
s+
KUK,f° FlSHPON
^z^xM d
36. Fishpond0^ 031 Sites Ass ociated with Kuki-o w 750 w lo p a e 'u l a Pools HS Kolowino C h u rc h HS Graveyard Fig# 37• Archaeological Sites Associated with ’Opae’ula Fishpond 175 representative of fishponds with associated sites0 It can be clearly recognized that the dispersed settlement pattern consists mainly of temporary shelters, walls, and enclosures, generally revealing a sparse supporting populations 8Aimakapa6a fishpond, HI (Fig, 38); ®Aiopi6o fish- trap, H2 (Fig, 39)# and Kaloko fishpond, H24 (Fig, 40), ■ portray fishponds and fishtraps associated with the agglu tinated settlement pattern related to individuals of high status. Examination of these figures reveals a relative density of habitation features and the presence,of temples and shrines. Also present were probably canoe and net sheds, which directly supported the activities concernedx with fishpond and fishtrap maintenance and harvest. Still, the relatively higher density of archaeological features around the ponds and trap does not indicate a very large population or the attraction that would have resulted had the aquacultural sites been open for public use, Huilua, C18, and Pukoko, C144 (Fig, 41), represent fishponds associated with a "wet" valley irrigated agricul tural system. The detailed survey by Hommon and Barrera revealed a lack of sites around the ponds, which were de stroyed during historic times. Still, the data does expose a striking valley pattern of settlement and land use, indi cating again that the presence of a fishpond or fishtrap. evidently had little attraction powers for the concentration of prehistoric settlements. Taking into account that our GRAVEYARD Ho,u1 / 500 ^ , N Feef / o fHS PN _ \lti .HS w w HS w AHU • HS HS JL HS JL Fig. 38. Archaeological Sites Associated with •Aimakapa,a Fishpond Makaopi'o Heiau Hole-o-Kone Heiau HS $P »■ HS PN 0 PN HS HS Puuoino Heiau ■fA IO P TO FISH TRAP 1000 Feet Fig. 39. Archaeological Sites Associated with "Aiopi'o Fishtrap y-»—Agricultural Enclosures 500 Canoe House S» Burial Mounds HS Ahu * B • • A LOKO HS P« well* well HS HS I HS 178 Fig* 40* Archaeological Sites Associated with Kaloko Fishpond M* w> 600 w/ Auwai HS HS^/ h s t..*h V" / Heiau PUKOKO FISHPOND HUILUA FISHPOND 179 Fig. 41. Archaeological Sites Associated with Huilua and Pukoko Fishponds 180 sample is much too small to be truly conclusive, the propo sition is nonetheless set forth that the aquacultural sites were the exclusive property of the ali9 i and that commoners did not normally profit from the presence of such sites. It would be expected that an effort must have been made to dis courage settling around fishponds for possibly reasons of poaching, as well as human pollution in the forms of human waste, women®s menstrual blood, and general religious pollu tion. CHAPTER 10 ORIGINS Three general areas must be examined in a discussion of the origins of Hawaiian aquacultures The first to be con sidered concerns when the system began, the second concerns the source of the concept of aquaculture as it is known in Hawai6 i (see Chapter 1), and the third concerns type names«, Chronology of Construction The initial date for the origin of Hawaiian aqua culture will probably never be known. It certainly is not within the reach of current archaeological dating tech niques , At present it is possible only to estimate and to surmise the rough chronological beginnings, utilizing avail able traditional and historical sources, the accuracy of which, it must be noted, have not thus far been tested. Realizing that this is a very unreliable method, it is hoped that future methodological improvements in dating techniques may affix a more accurate and certain date to the beginnings of the Hawaiian aquacultural system, Pre-Thirteenth Century . The earliest references to aquaculture are connected with the tour of the gods Kane and Kanaloa, These two 181 182 belong to the heroic period when the gods freely roamed the earth and dwelt among mortals„ Kane and Kanaloa construct ed the first fishtraps on 0*ahu, the type Vd traps of Kapakule, C57» Kepo*okala, C77, and Ke'anapua'a, 072 (Pukui 19^3s65s Sterling and Summers 1962# Bko 1# Vole 2$197)$ and the type Vdg fishtrap-fishpond of site 013*4-$ Pa • ohua (McAllister 1933*185)» . Kane and Kanaloa belong to the family of gods who came from Kahiki, a term commonly used to designate any foreign country» This early reference to Kahiki may indicate that the introduction of fishtraps and fishponds did come from the Society Islands with the second settlement migration (Emory and Sinoto 1965)$ as the author believes that the word "Kahiki" originally referred to the Tahitian area, ' The oldest references to the construction of an in land fresh to brackish water fishpond are for Alekoko, or Pepeawa, B2, on the island of Kaua*i (Taylor 1936; Rice 1923s36)« During the reign of Ola, or Chief Kiki-a-Ola, the menehune constructed Alekoko fishpond. When the same dwarf workers finished construction of a major irrigation ditch, their shouting is recorded as having scared the fish at Nomilu pond, B18 (Rice 1923**4-1)$ indicating that Nomilu was already used as an aquacultural site. Chief Ola and the menehune are generally placed very close to the heroic period, and thus Alekoko and Nomilu fishponds are relegated to an early period of Hawaiian prehistory. Fourteenth Century Some of the fishponds found in Kane * ohe Bay on the island of O'ahu had already been constructed by the time of the. reign of La9a-mai-Kahiki. This chief is said to have ruled during the fourteenth century (Summers 1971s12$ Sterling and Summers 1962„ Bk. 5# Vol. 1). z Fifteenth Century The fishponds at Keoneeoi6os Mauis, were rebuilt after an ancient lava flow inundated an original fishpond. Chief Kau-hola-nui-mahu from.Hawai®i reconstructed Halua. F2, and Ka-uhi-o-ai-a-kini„ F10, fishponds, and walled up a small bay into a fishpond, F5 (Ashdown 1971:22$ Walker 1931:298). Fomander (1880i70) places Kau-hola-nui-mahu*s reign at around A.D. 14-50. Handy and Handy (1972:510) also place Kau-hola-nui-mahu in the fifteenth century. Upon the death of his father, Ka-hou-kapu, Kau-hola-nui-mahu became ruling chief of Hawai® i Island and must have had control of Maui, as well (Malo 1951:255-56). Sixteenth Century % A blossoming of fishpond construction was seen in the Pearl Harbor and Moanalua districts of O'ahu during the 1500's. Kalai-manuia, a high chiefess, ordered the con struction of Kapa'akea, C55$ e0pu, C119, Pa'aiau, C123# and Loko Pa'akea, C124-, fishponds within Pearl Harbor around A„D, 1550 (Fornander 1880:269), A few years later. Chief 184 Ka=ihi«"kapu«-a-»Manuia» circa A eD® 1575$ constructed Kaihi- kapUj, C32$ and Lelepaua, 094, fishponds at Moanalua (Fornander 1880$270)® eUmi, the high ruling chief of Hawai*i in the early 1500®s, had one of his konohiki stationed on Maui and his orders were to construct three fishponds $ Kaonoulu-kai, F6, Waiohuli-kai, F28, and Keokea-kai, Fl4 (Wilcox n,d.)« Chief ®Umi also advised his brother-in-law Kiha-a-Pi®ilani to go and repair the fishponds on Moloka®! (Summers 1971% 12)o Kiha-a-Pi®ilani was by his own right a high chief, obtaining his status from his father. Pi®ilani, and from his older brother, Lono-a-Pi®ilani, both of whom ruled Maui prior to or during the first part of the sixteenth century (Summers 1971*12)® Kihi-a-Pi*ilani helped in the initial construction of the wall between Kanaha, F7» and Mau® oni, F19, fishponds (Manu 1884; Kamakau 196l$42), On Moloka®i. Chief Lohelohe, placed by Summers (1964$19) prior to 1500 and by Beckwith (1970*108) at around 1575$ is said to have been responsible for the con struction of Keawanui fishpond, D34, and Mikiawa fishtrap, D40 (Stokes 1911)$ This is the first reference to a chief constructing a loko °ume® iki, a type V fishtrap. During the reign of Lono-i-ka-makahiki, circa early 1600®s, an invading army sent a spy to reconnoiter the North Coast of Hawai® i Island, The spy observed that the fishponds in the Kiholo area, specifically Wainanali®i, 185 H66, were in operation? indicating an earlier? probably sixteenth century date of origin (Kamakau I96I:56)« Eighteenth Century High Chief Ka-pici-oho-o-ka-lani, early 1700's, was the ruler of O’ahu and probably part of Moloka* i. He? how ever? had enough influence on Maui to order the construc tion of the fishponds of Kanaha, F'7, and Mau'oni? F19? which took their names from one of the chief8s sons? Kanaha-o-ka-lani, and from his daughter Kahama-lui-hi8i-ke- ao-ihi-lani*s incognito, respectively (Catherine Summers, Unpublished Notes), It is likely that Ka-pi6i-oho-o-ka- lani expanded and improved the ponds as initially divided by Kiha-a-Pi8ilani? During the latter half of the eighteenth century? construction of fishponds continued prior to the discovery of the islands by Captain Cook in 1778® After 1791 and the death of Chief Keoua (Kuykendall 1957s38? Summers 1971$19), Koihala received the right to rule the district of Kaeu on Hawai* i Island® Koihala started the construction of the fishpond at Honu8apo, site H16? but because of his over bearing rule? he was killed by his subjects (Malo 1951$ 202)® Kamehameha I? in his unification conquest of the Hawaiian Islands? did successfully conquer Maui? Lana8 i? and Moloka*i around 1795= He put one of his favorite 186 subjects, Hoeolepanui, in charge of the construction of Poho* ele fishpond, D51? on Moloka® i (Summers 1964:19; 1971? 77) ° Nineteenth Century Fishpond construction continued well into historic times, with the termination being around 1830e On Hawai'i Island, Kamehameha began construction of the Kiholo fish ponds, H34, around 1810 to 1812 (Nakuina 1896s19? Soehren 1963?8? Barrere 1971s111)» only to have these ponds inun dated in 1859 by a lava flow from Mauna Loa0 The last dated construction of a fishpond is the sole example of a pond be ing built, not under the order of a chief or under a chief's supervision, but rather due to the aggressiveness of a land supervisor. Ilae was the name of the konohiki on Moloka® i who ordered the people to build Puko'o fishpond, D58, around 1829 (Summers 1971sl39)e Unknown Date The traditional builder of the first Hawaiian fish pond was Ku'ula-kai, who lived during the reign of Ruling Chief Ka-moho-ali* i. Chief of Kau® iki in the district of Hana on Maui (Beckwith 1970s 381? Thrum 1901as11$). Unfor tunately, no date exists to approximate its position in time. Aquacultural Systems in Oceania Some of the types of fishponds and the sluice grate were unique innovations of the Hawaiians, but the concept of aquaculture was note To determine where the concept came from, a discussion of the neighboring cultural areas of Oceania is necessary, A summary diagram of fishpond and fishtrap types for Oceania, exclusive of Hawai® i, is de picted in Figure 42, based simply on plan view. The types illustrated are not segregated into cultural areas. New Guinea Williamson (1913$286-8?) and Speck (1951*14-15) both describe basket traps for New Guinea, However, neither notes the presence of any fishponds, fishtraps, or permanent weirs, Australia Roth (1901s23) notes that in the area of the east coast of North Queensland, permanent stone weirs were located. These structures, resembling type Bl, were built to trap fish during ebb tide. No other references were found for Australia, Melanesia Cranstone (196l$?6) notes the general occurrence in Melanesia of "elaborate enclosures of stones, stakes, or nets" and adds that they "are made in lagoons or tidal 188 / E : K a /T 1 ' z l \ j i m A3 A4 I A 4 c A5 A6 A7:^ W y A 9 W . D w w g# A 9 a % % zr^., .r^n O Cl GyZ------>v 7 V / \ / \ C2 # # W # # E1a2 I S Z 9 & 6- I T Elb EldElc %:. :#gEle#2 #}fE if# Fig. 42, Aquacultural Types in Oceania, Exclusive of Hawai* i 189 waters to trap fish as the tide recedes and basket traps are sometimes used in conjunction with them," The only documentation referring to a specific area was found for the St, Matthias Group of Islands, St, Matthias Group, This group of islands, called Mussau, in the Bismarck Archipelago had two types of weirs made of coral and stone (Nevermann 1933890), The first weir, kaluk, resembled type Bl, and the second weir, of un determined type, was located in the vicinity of the mouth of a river, Micronesia Information on aquacultural sites has been found for six areas in Micronesia (Fig, k2), These are Palau Island and Yap District in the Western Caroline Islands, the Truk and Ponape Districts in the Eastern Caroline Islands, and the Marshall and Gilbert Groups of Islands, Palau, Palau Island had type A (Gibbons 1972) and type Elf weirs, peng (Kramer 1926:80-81), These were all of possibly coral or stone construction (Gibbons 1972), Yap District, At least 10 coral weirs, ats, are noted for Yap Island (Muller 1917*76-77)• These type Ele and Elf structures had single owners. Type All weirs are recorded for Ifaluk Island by Burrows and Spiro (1953*108), Truk District, There were 4 types of aquacultural sites on Truk Island, the first being type H, rock heap 190 shelters„ Rock heaps were built in much the same manner as the Hawaiian umu, type VIII; occurred in flats within the fringing reefs $ and were harvested in the same manner as were the umu (LeBar . 1964 s 6?) <> Three types of stone weirs» maai or meinik, were also found in the Truk Districts type B4 on Romonum Islet and types Elb and Elc (Kramer 19321143s LeBar 1964s79)o The stone constructed weirs, or high tide fishtraps, were found along the shore and within the lagoons» On Romonum Islet, each weir had a name referring to named plots of lagoons owned by certain matrilineages (Goodenough 1951*41, 1?2)„ These names indicated ownership of the plots as well as the rights to fish caught. On Pulusuk (referred to as Hok), Lukunor, and Namoluk Islands, stone weirs were called mei or mae and were similar in construction to those on Truk Island (Kramer 1935*55? Sarfert and Damm 1935*5^-55)« These weirs seem to resemble types A and El, Tolerton and Rauch (194?” 1949*116-17) report the presence of 32 type A fish weirs, mai or mainpo, on Lukunor. The structures were owned by sibs from different districts. Ponape District. Two types of weirs are noted for Ponape Island (Hambruch and Eilers 1936*331)« Mai, type A 12, and mai en tol, type Elg, were constructed to entrap fish at the.ebb of the tide. On Kusaie, fish weirs, constructed of coral slabs, were of three types* El, or seni A5i and E4d (Sarfert 1919* 191 109-10)o In all instances, fish were caught with the lowering of the tide. The owners of the weirs were also the people who owned the adjoining land and the reef on which the weir was located (Sarfert 1919s113)® Marshall Islands, On Majuro Atoll, the stone con structed weirs were built on the lee side of the atoll within the fringing reef. These weirs, type El, were of sizeable measurement, their lengths ranging up to several hundred feet (Spoehr 1949*62-63)« Generally in the Ralik and Radak chain of islands, the stone weirs were called me and were constructed of coral blocks (Kramer and Nevermann 1938s122), These weirs were basically of type El construc tion, Kramer and Nevermann (1938s122-23) further note that when a fish catch was too large, the excess fish were de posited into holding ponds in the vicinity of the beach, Gilbert Islands, Catala (1957$131) notes two types of permanent coral weirs for the Gilberts, The first, type A10, was a fishtrap with a panel which was closed a little before the ebb of the tide, trapping the fish. This is the only documentation of a fishtrap with a moveable sluice grate outside the Hawaiian Islands, The second, type Elc, was made of long walls of coral blocks cemented together by action of the calcareous algae. These structures belonged to members of a family or, at times, of two or more families. 192 On Nauru a certain kind of fish, called ibia, was caught at the reef and taken into the homes where it was kept for 5 to 6 days„ The ibia were then taken and placed into small brackish water ponds e Forty-four of these ponds were located in a lagoon situated in the interior of the island. Artificial dams or walls were constructed to form the separate sections, or ponds, within the lagoon. Each of the different ponds had individual or shared ownership. After 1 to 2 months, the fish were deposited into larger ponds, where they were left to grow. After 1 to 2 years, the owner of the pond called together the people of the area to fish out the pond, the catch being dispersed to all the people (Hambruch 1914:148, 152^55)« This practice of raising ibia was widespread throughout the Gilbert Islands, It seems the ibia was the ceremonial equivalent of the Hawaiian mullet, as it was considered to be a gift of the gods and to possess magical powers and it was used specifi cally at the feasts to celebrate puberty (Hambruch 1914s 148), Polynesia Data on aquacultural sites has been gathered for seven areas in Polynesia (Pig, 42), References were found for the Society Islands, Tuamotu Archipelago, Austral Islands, Cook Islands, New Zealand, Samoan Islands, and Futuna Island, as well as for the Polynesian Outliers, 193 Society Islands» The Society Islands are consider ed to have been one of the sources of prehistoric Hawaiian culture. Therefore, the types found there should give the best clues concerning the initial set of aquacultural sites that may have been transferred to the Hawaiian culture, Data on aquacultural sites is found for Tetiaroa Atoll, Borabora Island, Taha0a Island, Maupiti Island, and Huahine Island, Tetiaroa had a total of 5 type E2 stone weirs, each of which was named, These names were Tava, Hiroa, Tarai, Mairi# and Tua-manunu (Emory 1933s120), On Borabora, 7 stone weirs of an unknown type were located in the shallows of the lagoon located at Poia, At Tereia Point, a weir, most likely type A 10, was constructed like a stake fence and was made specifically to catch the 8opelu fish (Handy 1932 s91, 93)o Taha8 a Island had a weir of coral so located as to guide fish in during the incoming tide so that the fish could be trapped by closing one entrance to the weir with nets. This type A? weir utilized the reef, the islet, and two natural water channels in the trapping of fish (Handy 1932s92), For Maupiti Island, a single 9opelu fish weir of coral stones, type E^b, is noted as having been used to trap fish during tidal change (Handy 1932s92), Of the Society Islands, Huahine had by far the most documented aquacultural sites, One 8 opelu pond was located on the east side of the island (Handy 1932$93), while 8 others clustered at Maeva Village (Handy 1932$9^ i Malarde6 1946 $ 2^9-50). Found in a narrow lagoon which was edged on both sides by land, the cluster of sites utilized the strong tidal flow in the lagoon to the advantage of the nativese These weir-traps were called horo i*a* or fish runs, and were built of flat dike stone blocks. The names of 6 of the 8 weirs are recorded as Wahamoa, type. Els Tahiverevere, type Els Puaea Oviri, type Els Te Pu°a, type Els Momona, type Els and Tua6i, type A2„ One of the un named traps was a combination of types El through E3, and the other trap, which lay in ruin, resembled type El (Emory 1933s138s Handy 1932;93=97)» Also noted at Maeva Village were 3 rudimentary type C2 fishponds, auea i9a, which served to hold *opelu fish. These ponds were quite small and simply served as holding pens (Handy 1932$ 93), In the upland areas of the Society Islands, streams are recorded by Handy (1932*92) as having been diverted through the use of a dam, type G, The word "diversion" implies the existance of a ditch or other water course to lead the normal flow of water. According to Handy (1932$ 91), the areas below the dam were allowed to dry, making it easy for the collector to gather gobies, shrimps, and eels there. Another kind of dam-weir used, type F, consisted of a stone wall across the mouth of a stream, A narrow gate in the wall was left open and a net was placed across the 195 apertureo Men# women# and children agitated the upstream waters# driving the fish into the net (Handy 1932 *91)» The fishing rights in the Society Islnads were very similar to those in Hawaii8 i„ Power was invested in the ruling chief to prohibit fishing during spawning season and prior to a feast of some rite® These tabus extended to the entire domain of the chief# to the inland waters# as well as to the sea® The rahui. tabus# were lifted through religious rites at a temple (Handy 1932s ?4)„ Landed proprietors# raeatira# having property fronting a lagoon or other shore had the right to fish within the waters adjacent to their land# Similarly# the owners of weirs and holding ponds had the rights to fish within the sites# As in Hawai•i# the sites were considered to be part of the land adjacent to them,. Tuamotu Archipelago. Located on Mangareva# an island within the Tuamotu Archipelago of coral atolls# are very simple weirs and fishponds (Emory 1939°52s Buck 1938s 300)# Stone and coral weirs# called pa-kirikiri and pa- toka# were found in shallow water (Buck 1938*30# Laval 1938*257) and were of type Al, Emory (1939*1?) records the presence of six or more type Al fish weirs off the eastern end of the island and calls them pa~ika or pa~re9e. On the same island at Rikitea# the residence of chiefs# a modern# rectangular fishpond was discovered# and nearby# 2 semi circular enclosures of stone# type Bl, were also found« One of these enclosures was for the holding of turtles# It 196 is not known if fish were bred in the enclosures, too (Buck 1938s300)o On the atoll of Tenara in the Mangareva complex of islands, 9 separate sites are noted (Emory 1939*59)s 1 type B1 fishpond? a cluster of 4 type Cl circular enclo sures; and a cluster of 4 small, type B1 fishponds e The presence of fish weirs is also noted for several atolls within the Tuamotu Archipelagos Napuka, Takapoto, Reao, Rairoa, Apataki, Ana®a, Hao, Takakoto, Fa®a*ite, and Takaroa, These weirs were made of stone, coarl, and stakes and took advantage of tidal waters to en trap fish (Emory 193^% 23-24). Built in lagoons, shallow channels, and along the leeward reef flats, the weirs also took advantage of the protection afforded by the reefs and of the geology of the atolls. There are two kinds of weirs noteds simple traps of basically-type El and compound traps, types E2, E3, and E4, similar to the auea i®a and the horo i®a of the Society Islands (Emory 1934*26). In Western Tuamotu, the weirs or fish enclosures were called kaua paru or kaua ika, and turtle ponds were called tipua (Emory 1934* 2 5)» The simplest weirs utilized the shore as one arm of the trap, thus reducing the amount of building material re quired. Generally, the fish caught in a weir belonged to the family that owned the site, but it seems that some of these weirs were reserved for chiefs, while others were for the ragatira, landed gentry (Emory 1934*24), 197 The fish weirs, type A2, of Napuka were constructed of tridacna shells, seemingly the most common material available (Emory 193^$25K Takapoto Atoll had type Eld fish weirs of stone or coral (Emory 193^8 25)o Reao Atoll con tained 84 named weirs, pa ika, 9 of which had names begin ning with "pao'* Some of the others bore the name of adja cent lands (Emory 1934:23-26), The two whose designs are described by Emory (1934s23-26) were of type E2, Rairoa Atoll had 3 enclosures which were rectangular, with runways leading outward, resembling type El weirs (Emory 1934$26), Apataki Atoll had an unusual fish weir which resembled type A3 in form (Emory 1934s25)• Ana*a Atoll had fish weirs, kaua, resembling type El in form (Emory 1934s25)« Hao Atoll had a complex of fish weirs of type A4 (Emory 1934s25)e Takakoto Atoll had several named weirs, but unfortunately their designs were not described (Emory 1934:23)• Fa1a9 ite Atoll had both single and double weirs, possibly of types E and A3, respectively. Emory (1934:24) notes that these named weirs were family owned, one belonging to the landed gentry of the atoll. Takaroa Atoll had a single, large complex of fish weirs, consisting of a connected series of types E4a, E4b, and E4c. Although the individual weirs were owned and managed by different families, the fish.caught were usually communal property (Emory 1934:24), Another fish weir, type El, was constructed between two islets and effectively used the tide to trap fish. 198 Austral Islandse Lying south of the Tuamotu Archi pelago are the Austral Islands. On Rapa,' small, rectangu lar fish enclosures abutted the shoreline, trapping fish with the lowering of the tide (Yoshihiko Sinoto, Informant). These enclosures were photographed in the early 1900°s by Stokes (BPBM Negatives 83^3 and 83^5) and are also de scribed and illustrated by Perdon (1965s11-13)° They seem to resemble types B2 or 02 in plan® Cook Islands. The Cook Islands are generally di vided into two groups s the southern group, which is com posed of the high islands of Rarotonga and Aitutaki, and the northern group, which is composed of atolls and of the islands of Rakahanga, Manihiki, Tongareva, and Pukapuka« Two types of sites were found in the Cook Islandss per manent, stone constructed fish weirs, pa, and enclosed, stone constructed ponds (Gold 19561363 )° Some of these sites were made of coral, utilizing a channel within a lagoon to guide fish during tidal change. Certain families whose ancestors built the sites owned the sites, as well as the fish caught within them (Buck 1944:217), Rarotonga had several weir-enclosures of undeter mined type. These are said to have resembled a maze (Buck 1944:217). Aitutaki had 4 weir types: pa-kiokio, type A6$ pa-tute, type A71 pa-tuakirua, a combination of types A1 and H; and arani, type E4d (Buck 1944:217). These pa type weirs had their mouth facing the sea, were permanent in 199 construction, and basically followed a V-shaped plan (Gold 1 9 5 6 s363) o Rakahanga had one weir which was described, but for which no plan was given® Buck (1932a$159) speaks of a weir of coral, a maze-like structure with curved walls and inner chambers® Similarly, Manihiki had a basically E type weir made of combinations of maze-connected structures (Buck 1932a$159)« Located within the lagoon on Tongareva were weirs and ponds with loose walls of coral (Buck 1932bs147)® No descriptions were noted for the fishponds occurring on Tongareva, Pukapuka had fish weirs, rock pile shelters, and fishponds. The fish weirs, pa-watu-ika or tawenga, were found in the reef shallows of lagoons and were so placed as to take fish during the tidal ebb, using a com bination of stone and coconut-sweep walls for direction and guidance (Beaglehole and Beaglehole 19388159)e Each weir was the property of the village which owned the lagoon in . which the weir was located and could be freely used by all the men of the village (Beaglehole and Beaglehole 1938$56^ 57)» The types of stone weirs were basically variants of A 2e Type H artificial rock pile shelters, au-watu, were constructed of large, coral slabs and were assembled and harvested in the same manner as was the Hawaiian umu® At Yato Village, a causeway enclosed a lagoon, which was thereby converted into a fishpond, te loto. The fish with in were tabu for most of the year. On certain days, the 200 pond was open to fishermen, but only to those from the vil lage of Yato (Beaglehole and Beaglehole 1938*33) e New Zealando Eel traps, pa-tuna or pa-taurema, are recorded for North Island in New Zealand (Best 1902s 70; Downes 1917*307)» The type A2 pa-tuna occurred in two parts on opposite sides of a stream at the narrow point of the water. The traps were constructed of upright stakes, which formed a V, with the apex aligned with the middle of the stream. The interior of the V*s were filled with rocks to block passage and to force the fish through the narrow outlet, where they were trapped. The type A 5 pa-taurema were located in large streams and rivers. Their basic form was a simple V, with an open apex facing downstream® These large, permanent structures had elaborately carved posts and named outlets. The first fish of a catch was offered to the god Tangaloa (Best 1902i70)o Samoan Islands, Weirs, pa-i*a, are noted for the islands of Savai* i, Upolu, Tutuila, and Mann*a (Emory 1934s 27)0 Most of the weirs were simple, V-shaped traps of stakes with coconut and banana leaves forming the guiding lanes. Some coral and stone walled Weirs, however, are also noted (Buck 1930s444), On Savai*i, 2 types of coral constructed weirs are noted, A4a and El (Buck 1930*444-45), Upolu had weirs of stones and pandanus leaves called pa. These were, , 201 for the most part, of temporary nature, built and torn down only in selected areas of a lagoon, based on ownership of the off-shore land. These type A? traps were.owned by a family or families who were associated with certain tracts of village land (Buck 1930s445)» Stone weirs of a com posite type El were constructed at the mouth of shallow bays or lagoons on Tutuila« These weirs alternately faced outward, i6ee, seaward, and inward to take advantage of both tidal flows in entrapping fish (Buck 1930:445-46)0 Rock pile shelters, type H, were noted by Kikuchi (1963a $56) for Tutuila, A single stone constructed weir of type A 8 was noted at Ta*u Village on the island of the same name in the Manu * a Group (Buck 1930:446)« Futuna Island e Burrows (1936:146) notes the pre sence of weirs and rock pile shelters pn Futuna, Both of these kinds of sites were constructed of coral close to the shore. The weirs were of types A? and A 9, and the rock pile shelters were of type H e Polynesian Outliers0 The islands of the Lau Group within Melanesian Fiji, Tikopia Island within the Ringold Isles of Fiji, Ontong Java and Nukumanu Atoll within the Solomon Islands in Melanesia, and Kapingamarangi Atoll in Micronesia are basically Polynesian in culture, though physically located in non-Polynesian areas. Six fishtraps of basalt construction have been re corded for Mothe in the Lau Group, These weirs, type A10, 202 were horseshoe-shaped, with the open end toward the beach (Foye 191? s 377? Thompson 1940$ 135) «> Seven fish weirs of stone, all variants of types A2 and A3, were found occurring together within the fringing reef of Tikopia Island, The builders of these traps did not have proprietary rights to them, as the reef areas, together with any sites, belonged to certain groups (Firth 19398 62-63), Three types of stone weirs are noted by Sarfert and Damm (19298 123=24) for Ontong Java Island and Nukumanu Atoll, The first type, type A2, was constructed within a reef passage. The second type, El, called ha-ahili, was also located within a reef passage, whereas the third type, Bl, called nai, was built along the beach. All three types trapped fish at ebb tide. On the atoll of Kapingamarangi, 7 V-shaped awa, type A fish weirs, were made of coral and resembled a saw tooth, A single continuous series of alternating traps, this group took advantage of both the rise and the fall of the tide to trap fish (Ellers 1934*90? Buck 1950*267), Names A review of all Hawaiian aquacultural sites (Appen dix B ) reveals that fishponds and fishtraps seem to have been named, whereas dams, weirs, and rock shelters were not, However, it would be erroneous to declare that the 203 latter types were never named, as too many names of all aquacultural types have long been forgotten to draw any def inite conclusionso Two hundred fifty fishponds and fish- traps were found to have indigenous namess 30 on Kaua'i, 133 on 0°ahu, 44 on Moloka®i, 11 on Maui, 1 on Lana*i, and 31 on Hawai9 i. Documentation on the origin or source of the names has been found for only 26 of these sitess 5 on Kaua9 i, 12 on O'ahu, 5 on Maui, 1 on Lana* i, and 3 on Hawai* i. It was discovered that the pond or trap names were derived from demigods, the land, chiefs, legendary events, or from de scriptions of their use. Six fishponds were named after mo*oi B7, Kalalalehua (Kaiwi 1921s117)? B18, Nomilu (BPBM Tape H-41Y5)? B19, Papa- linahoa (BPBM Tape H-41Y5)? C20, Ka'auhelemoa (McAllister 1933*15^)? F20, Mokuhinia (Ashdown 1971*33)? and H45# Loko- waka (Pukui and Elbert 1966s17). Alekoko, B2, received its name from its shark 'aumakua, and Keko'ona, P13 # from a famous eel god (Kaiwi 1921*116-17? Handy and Handy 1972* 502). Apparently the land adjacent to 7 fishponds gave their names to sites B24, Waikoko? C5» Apili? C14A, Hanalua? 015, He*eia*uli? 093» Laulaunui? El, Ka*a? and H24, Kaloko. Five fishponds were named after chiefs* 032, Kaihikapu, after Kaihikapu-a-Manuia (Fornander 1880*270)? F7, Kanaha, after Kanaha-o-ka-lani? F19, Mau* o'ni, after the incognito- name of Kahama-lui-hi8 i-ke-ao-ihi-lani? F24, Waiakama, after Kama-lala-walu (Ashdown 1971*33)? and H55, Pa'aiea, after 204 Kamehameha I. Kaloukai, C42, and Kalouwai, C43» are the names of two fishponds formed when legendary fishhooks dug into the earth (Taylor 1935^4) <> Kapakule# 057$ Fa Oohua, 0134$, and Pahonu, 0127, derived their names from the fish and turtles caught in them# iee«,# akule* *ohua, and honu* respectively# Along the same line, Nu'upia, 0116, seems to have derived its name from the fields of pia plants (Tacca leontopetaloides)e Polynesian arrowroot, grown nearby. From the previous discussion of Polynesian and Micronesian aquacultural sites, it is noted that the names that were given to fish weirs were given by the families, or by the village which owned the sites and that these names reflected the names of the adjacent land or the lagoon section in which the sites were located. On the atoll of Reao, weirs were named after the adjacent land (Emory 1934s 23 ), and on Kapingamarangi, weirs were named after the channel in which they were constructed (Buck 19501267)0 Weir names are said to have been carried from island to island in the Tuamotu Archipelago (Emory 1934*23), Examination of Hawaiian literature reveals a lack of name detail of fishpond and fishtrap parts, while the data from Truk, Napuka, Reao, Anaea, Faeaeite, Huahine, Aitutaki, and Pukapuka reveals tremendous name detail of parts of weirs and enclosures, Figure 43 illustrates the part names of some of the fish weirs, The lack of detailed part names for the Hawaiian Islands probably is a reflection of the tumu orero-^/ leaf net poihau poihau kavi i \ leaf net po o poo Al TUTAK1 PUKAPUKA NEW ZEALAND pepeu kokaua tokerevoi haapua; tipua HUAHINE NAPUKA FAX I ri ko pu p o y n - epin pu TRUK R E’AO tipua moka pu mothe R E AO Fig, 43, Part Names of Some Fish Weirs in Micronesia and Polynesia, Exclusive of Hawai’i 206 loss of information by the time Europeans and Americans be came interested in recording the names, rather than the actual absence of such names in prehistoric times® The only association of gross name types seems to be between the names of the fishtraps and weirs of Hawai8 i and those of the rest of Polynesia, where the names of fishtraps and weirs almost always began with the prefix pa, meaning wall® These type-sites are kapakule for site C57, kapamakaiwa for sites 072 and 077, na honu for site 0127, pa 8ohua for site 0134, and pa 8ohi*a as associated with site 057 of the Hawaiian Islands; pa-tuna and pa- taurema of New Zealand; pa-kirikiri, pa-toka, pa-ika, and pa-re8e of Mangareva; pa-ika of Reao Atoll; pa-kiokio, pa- tute, and pa-tuakirua of Aitutaki Atoll; pa-watu-ika of Pukapuka Atoll; and pa-iea of the Samoan Islands, Conclusions A number of striking differences are evident be tween aquacultural sites in Oceania, exclusive of Hawai*i, and those in the Hawaiian Islands . First, it is seen that emphasis in Hawai*i was placed on fish stocking and raising, rather than on fish trapping, as was the case in the rest of Oceania with the exception of the Gilbert Islands® Second, the large number of aquacultural sites on each of the Hawaiian Islands stands in contrast to the relative sparsity in the neighboring societies, again with the 20? exception of the Gilbertse Third, Hawaiian aquaculture was technically advanced, as seen in the innovation of sluice grates and in channels and canals e Finally, ownership pat terns were different, for in Hawai® i, ownership was re stricted, with all types being owned by the ali*i, whereas in the neighboring societies, the weirs, fishtraps, and ponds belonged either to families or to villages. On the other hand, several areas of similarity likewise become apparent. The pa name resemblance plus the Polynesian preference for weirs hint that Hawaiian aquacul ture may have begun with the introduction of fish weirs, as noted in the legend concerning the construction by Kane and Kanaloa of the first pa-type, rudimentary fishtraps in Pearl Harbor, These sites, 057? C72, 077, and 0127, were built in the shallow lagoon under the same geographical conditions as noted for the Polynesian and Micronesian weirss Eventually the Hawaiians evidently placed their developmental emphasis on fishponds rather than on the less dependable and less efficient fishtraps. The only documented evidence of the occurrence of true fishponds, and associated fishtraps outside Hawai* i is for the island of Nauru in the Gilbert Islands, However, the Society Islands showed the greatest similarity with Hawai®i in the types of aquacultural sites and in the con trol and ownership of these sites. Based on the informa tion gathered, it is impossible to make any definite statements concerning where the concept of aquaculture came from or when it was introduced into the Hawaiian Islands0 CHAPTER 11 THE POSITION OF AQUACULTURE IN PREHISTORIC HAWAIIAN SOCIETY The highly stratified society of prehistoric Hawai0i was based on an intensive agricultural and aquacultural economy. Native aquaculture developed into a very sophisti cated and complex system, made up of numerous sites and types of sites. The native taxonomy was of a general, descriptive nature, recognizing and naming 8 types of aquacultural sites and several subtypes, based on function, form, and location where found. For this study, the 8 basic types have been subdivided into individual type-sites, as depicted in Table 1, Four hundred forty nine type-sites are documented for the main islands of the Hawaiian Archipelago, with the exception of Kaho*olawe. The classification and the census of type-sites are only as exact as their documentation and are a function of the preserved nature of the sites. It is exceedingly likely that the actual total of sites in pre historic times was greater than that given here. However limited, the data gathered is nonetheless adequate and sig nificant enough for purposes of interpretation. i 209 210 Distribution of Aquacultural Sites No two aquacultural sites were identical in con struction, shape, size, or internal components e By nature of classification, the distribution of type-sites was deter mined by the geomorphology of the islands e Sites were found nearly everywhere in the islands, from the calm shore, pro tected by extensive shoals and reefs, to the riverine val leys and the reaches of the upland streams„ Types I and V required extensive, protected shorelines, while types II, III, and IV were suited for the inshore and inland swamp or deltic plainse Types VI, VII, and VIII utilized rough ter rain, either at the shore or in the uplands, where the more classic types of fishponds and fishtraps could not be con structed, Water, whether salt, brackish, or fresh, was the key determinant of the form, function, and location of each site. Of the entire tally of sites, 82% are fishponds of types I, II, III, and IV» Fishtraps, type V, represent only 5% of the totale With the exception of Kaua0i for the type I fishpond, it is very likely that the 8 basic types occurred on all the major islands of Kaua'i, Oeahu, Moloka*i, Maui, and Hawai'i, documentation being most fragmentary for the types VI, VII, and VIII. Only on O'ahu and Moloka*i were all of the basic types found in quantity. 0 * ahu had the greatest number of all type-sites in the islandsi 175, or 38%. It 211 also claimed 45% of all the fishponds, types I, II, III, and IV, Of the aquacultural sites on Moloka8 i, 56, or 76^, were fishponds, and 13, or 18^ were fishtraps. However, the 56 ponds represent only 15% of the fishponds in the entire Hawaiian Islands, whereas the 13 traps represent 5&% of all fishtraps, / Evolution of Aquacultural Types The earliest references to Hawaiian aquaculture are for the time of the gods Kane and Kanaloa, or pre-thirteenth centurye These two gods are credited with the construction of 3 fishtraps of rudimentary form and function in the la goon of and entrance to Pueuloa and a fourth in Kane®ohe Bay on 0®ahue These traps appear to precede any indications of fishponds, and using this admittedly meager evidence, it is nevertheless assumed that the concept of fishtraps preceded that of fishponds in Hawai* i. As noted in Chapter 10, the Society Islands showed the greatest similarity with the Hawaiian Islands in the types of sites found and in the control and ownership of these sites. Since Kane and Kanaloa, as well as the other national gods Ku and Lono, reputedly came from Kahiki, be lieved by the author to be Tahiti, it is further assumed that the concept of fishtraps came to Hawai® i with the mi grants from the vicinity of the Society Islands e 212 It is likely that.the earliest aquacultural system in the Hawaiian Islands was composed of rudimentary fish- traps, fish shelters, dams, weirs, and naturally occurring pools and lakes,r These sites may have been of types II, III, Vd, Ve, Vf, Vg, VI, VII, and VIII, or similar to them. All of these are simple in form and require very little technology regarding excavation and construction of walls, embankments, and sluice grates. The earliest referenced fishtraps resemble the Oceanic types A4 and Bl, Later seen was the occasional presence of type Vg traps, which resembled Oceanic type A? sites. Although these traps were permanent in construction, they must have been only sporadically used, as governed by the tide, times of freshets, perhaps spawning tabus, and culturally dictated times for fishing. Assuming a simple socio-economic and political-religious system at the time, it follows that the Hawaiian chiefdoms probably were fragmented and fairly localized. High Chief ®Umi- a-Liloa, circa A.D. 1500, is credited (Kamakau 1961:1) with the first real attempt at the political unification of chiefdoms, this endeavor being through warfare on the island of Hawai®io Previous to ®Umi, High Priest Pa°ao, who came from the Society Islands, purposely brought to Hawai* i chiefs of "pure" lineage and chiefly paraphernalia, such as wooden and sennit images; introduced human sacrifices estab lished the tabu symbol; and constructed the first walled temples (Beckwith 1970*369-70), These things were 213 specifically brought in to intensify the chiefs9 political- religious powers, as it was Pa®ao®s concern that the Hawaiian chiefdom was loose and fragmented0 Control of aquaeultural sites must have been in the hands of the commoners« By far the most important technological innovation of indigenous aquaculture was the loko kuapa fishpond0 This concept developed perhaps from fishtraps or# more likely, out of the utilization of inland bodies of water, such as types II, III, and IV, The agricultural economic system was already utilizing irrigated plots, which in essence were rudimentary fishponds with miniature sluice grates and irri gation canals® The earliest references to loko kuapa stem from the heroic age of the islands, post-dating the period of the gods® By the fourteenth century, type I fishponds definitely were already being built at Kane®ohe Bay on 0eahue The classic fishpond is type I, a structure built on a generally shallow shoal and on a reef protected coast line® With the exception of type Ic, presumedly all loko kuapa had seawalls, averaging 49,000 cubic feet of building material; permanent immovable sluice grates; and shelters constructed on the walls next to the sluice grates® The large number of type I ponds in the islands, 12?, indicates that this type of aquaeultural site was preferred by the native society over the less dependable types and that an 214 evolutionary trend did take place in prehistoric Hawai* i. The developmental trend was increasingly toward type I fish ponds and toward the utilization of types II and III, with intensification of the use of type IV agricultural-aquacul tural taro plot pondse The trend may have continued yet further, this time returning to the concept of fishtraps. It is not known which type evolved earlier, the loko kuapa pond or the loko *ume*iki trap, hut the earliest references found were for the type I ponds. All rudimentary type-sites occur on each of the seven main Hawaiian Islands, while fishtraps are con centrated on O'ahu, Moloka* i, and Lana * i e The types of traps differ markedly from Oeahu to Moloka®i, though, 0®ahu claims a heavy concentration of type I fishponds, 64, and 5 fishtraps of the earliest forms, with no loko ®ume*iki, Moloka8!, on the other hand, has 40 loko kuapa and, signi ficantly, 10 loko ®ume® iki, Lana8 i contains 1 loko kuapa and 3 of the traps based on fishpond form. If the number and types of sites are any indication Of antiquity, the center of the invention and development of native aquaculture appears to have been O'ahu, The diffusion from that island to Moloka* i and then to Lana * i seems to follow, as reflected in the frequency and distribution of types, Kaua*i, Maui, and Hawai*i occur as diffusion ends, with the limitation of the types of aquaeultural sites, pre dominantly II, III, and IV, being a function of the offshore ' 215 geomorphology, i.e., the lack of large, reef protected, shallow shoalse Eventually, the general evolutionary trend in the Hawaiian Islands was to utilize practically all avail able bodies of water for the culture of fish and other sea- life. /' Economic Role Place of Fish in the Hawaiian Diet All foods in the Hawaiian society were divided into those from the land and those from the water, either fresh or salt. The ethnosemantics of the Hawaiian language re flect the importance placed on edible fish: 11 anatomical name parts? 4 or more terms for the stages of growth? and 118 indigenous names for 57 scientific family names. This is only a partial enumeration of names and terms, as docu mented by Titeomb (1952:52-54). Many more exist, but were intentionally not included in Titeombes work. Culturally, fish was the main source of protein in the Hawaiian diet. Pig, dog, fowl, and birds provided only sporadic and infrequent protein-intake for commoners (Titeomb 1952*1-3) <> Archaeological sites do not indicate any great reliance on either seafoods or land animals, as kitchen midden is absent. However, this absence probably reflects the custom of secretly disposing of the remains of meals, a cultural practice which grew out of the fear of 216 sorceryo Modern Hawaiians still highly value fish and con sider certain ones as being prized and preferred foods. Productivity of Fishponds Yield of. fish of the totality of aquacultural sites would help to determine the economic role of the entire system* Unfortunately* only data for fishponds is avail able* making it impossible to examine the economic produc tivity of all typeso Practically no figures on yield exist in pre-1900 references* as sources refer only very gener ally to pond productivity and potential* Only Cobb (1902) took exact care in 1901 in his documentation of the yield of Hawaiian fishponds* and so his figures are used here to approximate prehistoric yield* A tally was taken of all fishponds for which docu mented acreage is available (Table 7 and Appendix B)® Out of a total of 360 ponds* acreage was found for 304 fish ponds on 7 Hawaiian Islands» Total acreage came to 5$608@48 acres* or an average of 18*44 acres per fishpond® Table 8 shows Cobb8s figures on the 1900 fishpond yields of several kinds of fish for Kaua*1* 0*ahu* Moloka®i* and Hawai8i (Cobb 1902*431-43)« The mullet* 8ama- *ama, and tenpounder, awa* are singled out here for study, as these are the only fish for which Cobb gives statistics for all ponds noted® Too* these were the preferred fish of the Hawaiians and must have shown the greatest yield 217 Table 8, Documented Acreage of Fishponds ISLAND FISHPONDS A- TOTAL ACREAGE A V E R A G E B. N l ' l H A U 1 4 0 0 .0 0 4 0 0 . 0 0 K A U A ' l 2 3 3 5 5 . 0 4 1 5 .4 3 O'AHU 15 8 3,72 0 .68 2 3 . 5 4 M O L O K A ' l 5 3 8 2 1 . 8 4 1 5 . 5 0 L A N A ' l 1 0 . 7 0 . 7 MAUI 1 6 114.51 7 . 1 5 H A W A l ' l 5 2 1 9 6 . 3 4 3 . 7 7 304 5,6 0 8 .48 465.46 A. FISHPONDS WHICH HAD DOCUMENTED SIZE FIGURES. B. IN ACRES PER FISHPOND. Table 9* Fishpond Yield for Kaua’i, O'ahu, Moloka'i, and Hawai’i in 1900 (After Cobb 1902) A. B FISH (LBS) ISLAND FISHPONDS WORKERS 'AM A* AM A AWA TOTAL - KAUA'l KOLOAI 3 2 , 3 0 0 7 0 0 3 , 0 0 0 LIHU'E 4 6 15,90 0 3,9 14 19,814 WAIMEA 1 2 3 , 6 0 0 4 9 5 4,0 95 o 'a h u E W A 2 4 5 7 4 8,5 25 3 3,4 10 8 1,935 KONA 3 2 4 3 1 0 9 , 7 6 8 4 5, 3 8 0 1 5 5 , 1 4 8 KO'OLAUPOKO 1 6 3 8 2 1 2 , 2 15 1 0 7 , 8 6 4 3 2 0 , 0 7 9 KO'OLAULOA 1 2 1,5 42 1 15 1,657 WAIALUA 1 2 5 08 6 4 5 72 M O L O K A ' l 1 5 2 7 8 9 , 7 0 0 2 , 2 19 9 1 , 9 1 9 H A W A l ' l HILO 4 1 1 1,4 73 — 1,473 9 9 191 4 85 , 5 3 1 194,1 6 1 6 7 9 , 6 9 2 A. F I S H P O N D S IN P R O D U C T I O N IN 1 9 0 0 . B. INDIVIDUALS ACTIVELY WORKING AT FISHPONDS. 218 quantities«, A total of 99 fishponds yielded 679s 692 e0 pounds of *ama*ama and awa, for an average of 6,763»5 pounds per ponde In 1900, the average yield of fishponds on Kaua® i, 09ahus Moloka®i, and Hawai®i were 4p484e8; 7s570©3» 6P127r9l and 368©2 pounds per pond, respectively© The low Hawai0i figure is due to the recording of fishponds only in the Hilo Bay area (Cobb 1902:431)© The actual prehistoric fishpond yield will probably never be known, as there are no records or indications of the number of the catch or of its weight© Kamakau remarks that the land was rich because of the presence of fishponds® "Fishponds were another means of prosperity to a land© A land was called rich according to the number of fishponds it contained (Kamakau 1869a)©" Richness in native ideology did not imply monetary wealth, but rather that the land was pro ductive and, therefore, beneficial to man© Through personal communication, John Belshe has in dicated that native fishponds had a probable yield of 300 minimum to 500 maximum pounds of fish per acre per annum« Using the maximum figure, Table 9© column 5 shows the yield of pounds of fish per acre per annum for Kaua* i, O'ahu, Moloka® i, and Hawai® i„ Column 4 indicates yields computed on the minimum figure of 300 pounds of fish per acre per annum © Column 3 gives Cobb* s yield averages for the same islands© The indication is that the figure of 500 pounds of fish is high© A closer yield is the 300 figure© Table 10. Comparison of Fishpond Yield Estimates A V E R A G E 1S L A N D I 9 0 0 B< M I N I M U M 0 * M A X I M U M 0 * A C R E A G E & KAUA'l 15.43 4 . 4 8 4 . 8 4 . 6 2 9 . 0 7 . 7 1 5 . 0 O'AHU 2 3 . 5 4 7 , 5 7 0 . 3 7 , 0 6 2. 0 1 2 , 7 7 0 . 0 M O L O K A ' l 1 5 . 5 0 6 . 1 2 7 . 9 4 . 6 5 0 . 0 7 . 7 5 0 . 0 H A W A l ' l 3 . 7 7 3 6 8 . 2 1,131 .0 1 . 8 8 5 . 0 A. F R O M T A B L E 7, C O L U M N 4. B. C O M P U T E D F R O M T A B L E 8. C. MINIMUM YIELD OF 300 POUNDS OF FISH PER ACRE PER ANNUM (AFTER BELSHE). D. MAXIMUM YIELD OF 500 POUNDS OF FISH PER ACRE PER ANNUM (AFTER BELSHE). Table 11. Estimated Annual Prehistoric Fishpond Yield M I N I M U M ISLAND FI SH PO N D S A" A C R E S 8 * PERCENTAGE Y I E L D C - Nl'lHAU 1 18.44 5 , 5 3 2 . 0 0 . 2 7 KAUA'l 4 2 7 7 4 . 4 8 2 3 2 , 3 4 4 . 0 1 1 .6 6 O'AHU 1 7 5 3 , 2 2 7 . 0 0 9 6 8 ^ 1 0 0 . 0 4 8 . 5 8 M O L O K A ' l 5 6 1,032.64 309,79 2.0 1 5.56 LANA'l 1 1 8 . 4 4 5 , 5 3 2 . 0 0 . 2 7 MAUI 2 6 4 7 9 . 4 4 1 4 3 , 8 3 2 . 0 7 . 2 2 HAWAl'l 5 9 1 , 0 8 7 . 9 6 3 2 6 , 3 8 8 . 0 16.28 3 6 0 6 6 3 8 . 4 0 199 1,520.0 9 9 . 8 3 A. S E E A P P E N D I X A. B. COMPUTED ACREAGE BASED ON 18.44 ACRES PER FISHPOND. C. YIELD COMPUTED BY MULTIPLYING ACRES BY 300 POUNDS OF FISH PER ACRE PER ANNUM. 220 If it is assumed that a total of 360 fishponds were used prior to 1778 and if the average size of 1 8 A 4 acres per pond and the low yield figure of 300 pounds of fish per acre per annum are used, it is calculated that the annual fish production for all the Hawaiian Islands was l,99^-»520s0 pounds ® Table 10 shows the average estimated yield for each of the seven inhabited islandse The historic figures indicate a rather low yield, presupposing that prehistoric fishponds were fairly non- economical when considered by modern day standards. Refer ring to Table 10, the approximate figure of 6,638,4-0 for the total acreage of fishponds in the Hawaiian Islands is equal to approximately 0,2$ of the total land area. This acreage produced an estimated yield of nearly 2 million pounds of fish per year, based on a low yield of 300 pounds of fish per acre per annum. At the time of discovery in 1778, Captain Cook estimated the population of the islands to be 300,000 (Cook 1784), Using this figure, it is calculated that each individual would have been alloted only 7 pounds of mullet and tenpounder per year if the produce of fish ponds had, indeed, been open for public consumption. It can recognized that fishponds would have been quickly depleted of their produce if they had served the community. The agricultural Hawaiian treated aquaculture as an aspect of farming, and it is unlikely that he did not know how to im prove yield through fertilization if he had chosen to do so. Political Role By at least the sixteenth century, the Hawaiian Kingdom was composed of numerous families of high status in dividuals who ruled their domain by birthright, by genealo gical affinity to the gods, and by the right of conquest. Everything on the land and in the sea belonged to these chiefs® Since they were the closest living relatives of the gods, the right to conspicuous ownership was never challenged or denied them. Since the chief was not likely to personally inspect and supervise his domain, a rudimentary bureaucracy developed in the konohiki, the kia8 i loko, and the haku 8ohana. It was the responsibility of these caretakers to maintain the technologically sophisticated irrigation-agricultural- aquacultural system. The larger, more productive fishponds of types I, II,.Ill, and IV and probably also the sizeable type V loko 8ume*iki were under conspicuous ownership by the ali'i and were directly overseen by the konohiki. Since these type-sites produced consistantly and in sufficient quantity throughout the year, they were highly prized and controlled for official use only. Where smaller fishtraps, irrigated taro plot ponds, natural pools, upland dams and weirs, and fish shelters occurred, management was handed to the konohiki and haku 8ohana. These sites provided yields too occasional and unreliable to be of great value economi cally or politically, and so these were generally relegated 222 for use to the land tenants, always under the stipulation, though, that a portion of the catch must ritually be pre sented to the gods and a quantity to the chief and konohikie The Hawaiian court did not establish any permanent capital in the European sense until after the time of Cook8s r discovery. Prior to around 1800, the Hawaiian court was mobile. It seems that the family which tended the larger fishponds did so in the absence of the ali'i. so that when ever the court and its retinue took up residence within the district, a fresh and sufficient supply of fish was avail able at call. The fishpond than became the aquacultural equivalent of the ko8ele, the agricultural taro land set aside strictly for the ali*i. As the power of the all8i in creased and as the court grew in number, the political role of fishponds probably took on different meanings in meeting the needs of the royalty. Because of its nature, the indigenous aquacultural system was doomed to decline. The system was a low yield affair not intended to be an intensive source of food, but rather it increasingly became a symbol of high status within Hawaiian society. Conspicuous ownership of food sources was a sign of a powerful chief. With increasing Western accul turation, value came to be seen in terms of money, a concept which previously had been completely foreign to the natives„ And so fishponds and fishtraps experienced a steady decline. 223 being eventually replaced by commercial marinas and bays or being filled for housing developments Archaeological Implications Until now, no archaeological methods or techniques for, or philosophical approach to, the excavation of aquacul- tural sites in the Hawaiian Islands have been set forth. Basically, the type-sites which made up the total aquacul*= tural system were delineated bodies of water around which were found associated sites® These associated sites are de fined as those areas and structures which supported the aquacultural site or which played a direct role in its opera tion and maintenance. Debris from the construction and operation of types IV, Ve, Vf, Vg, VI, VII, and VIII would normally be non existent or, at most, insignificant in quantity® It would be extremely difficult to determine the exact function or even the location and. distribution of these types® Types I, II, and III are documented as having had some support structures, and so these would be the types around which archaeological excavations should prove most fruitful® It is likely that the same would hold true for the types Va, Vb, Ve, and Vd loko eume* iki® Support or associated sites would be manifested as shelters on or near the seawalls; canoe houses; areas for the manufacture, maintenance, and drying of fish nets; houses of the kia6 i 224 loko and his extended familyj and fishing shrines® Non associated sites would consist of burial grounds# walls# platforms# shelters# and house sites which were clearly non oriented toward the direct operation of the aquacultural site® Most of the fishponds and fishtraps which still exist in Hawai*i are heavily silted and quite turbid® Or ganic, inorganic, and cultural debris must have accumulated, and selected coring of undisturbed sections of traps and ponds may yield a stratigraphic history of the individual sitese The core may yield clues to the cultural history and chronology of the sites, as well as their palynological and dust-ash-soil deposition® Using ethnographic evidence, it may be assumed that if fishponds and, possibly, some fishtraps were continuously maintained, certain areas around them should show a reverse stratigraphy in the muck that was cleared and discarded from the body of water® Moreover, if the kia6 i loko and his fam ily ate freely of the produce of the fishponds, then the „ i house site of the kia'i loko and any kitchen midden found in significant quantity should contain a very high proportion of the remains.of certain fish. These fish would normally be those kinds found within the pond, such as the awa, ten- pounder# aholehole# ulua, crevally# and kaku, barracuda. Ideally, no mullet should be found, since these were tabu to commoners® The caretaker*s house should be found in an area 225 where cleared land would have been available nearby for the manufacture and maintenance of fish nets® Procured in this area should be the remains of nets* cordage, and sinkers of wood, coral, and stone® A canoe house should also be located closeby® On the other hand, those house sites which were not associated with the fishpond should yield a different type of kitchen refuse® The types and quantity of fish remains should reflect a heavier reliance on reef and marine fish, such as akue tunas akule, big-eyed scads manini and palani, two surgeonfishs 8opelu, mackerel scads and uhu, parrot fish® Fishhooks, nets, and octopus lures should be found in greater proportion in and around these house sites than in conjunction with the caretaker8s house site® A generally low density of both associated and non- associated sites is to be expected around aquacultural sites® The number of sites reflecting fishpond or fishtrap oriented activity should be even smaller than the number of non associated sites® The propositions that fishponds of type I, II, III, and some type IV were conspicuously owned by and operated for the chiefly class and that they were generally ineffi cient and low yield systems can be further tested through excavation of and then comparison with areas in/which all8 i are known to have dwelt® Any kitchen midden located should reflect a sizeable proportion of the remains of certain 226 animal foods, such as pig and dog, and of certain fish, such as mullet, tenpounder, and tuna. Future archaeological testing should clarify and perhaps alter the assumptions and propositions presented here. Of necessity, this study had to be a non-field, non- archaeological interpretation of archaeological sites0 Heavy reliance on publications, documents, maps, photographs, manuscripts, and informants was tempered with limited field survey in attempting to establish the nature of prehistoric aquaculture. Unfortunately, the diminishment of the number of existing native aquacultural sites and the disintegration of their preserved nature are progressing at such a rapid rate that it will become increasingly difficult for archae ologists to test the propositions set forth in this disser tation. APPENDIX A TYPOLOGY OF HAWAIIAN AQUACULTURAL SYSTEM I Loko Kuapa A fishpond of littoral water whose side or sides facing the sea consist of a stone or coral wall containing one or more sluice grates la A loko kuapa whose wall is built from a point along a relatively straight shore ,___^ to another point on the same shore, / \ forming an arc la. A loko kuapa built at a natural curva ture of the shoreline utilizing an islet as part of the arc of the sea wall A loko kuapa which shares part of its wall with an adjoining pond i T i la. A loko kuapa built between two exist ing ponds utilizing the walls of both adjoining ponds as parts of its own wall lb A loko kuapa whose wall completely closes the mouth of a bay 22? 228 lb. A loko kuapa within a type lb pond formed through subdivision by a secon dary wall Ic A loko kuapa similar to a la or la. pond, but having no discernible sluiice grate II Loko Pu'uone An isolated shore fishpond usually Haku*one formed by the development of barrier beaches building a single, elongated sand ridge parallel to the coast and containing one or more ditches and sluice grates I la A loko pu'uone formed by a lava flow surrounding it and isolating it from the sea and having no ditches or sluice grates H a A loko pu'uone formed by a limestone or beachrock sink and having no ditches or sluice grates H b A loko pu'uone which was entirely ex cavated by man, which is connected to the sea by a ditch, and which contains a sluice grate III Loko Wai An inland fresh water fishpond which is usually either a natural lake or swamp, which can contain ditches connected to a river, stream, or the sea, and which can contain sluice grates 229 Ilia A loko wai whose shape has been altered by man Illb A man-altered loko wai which has a dirt and stone embankment-wall separating it from a river or stream and which has a sluice grate IIIc A loko wai which is a volcanic crater Illd A loko wai which is formed by walling off a section of a river or stream and which has sluice grates at both ends IV Loko i*a kalo A fishpond utilizing irrigated taro Loko lo* i kalo plots as inland water ponds for the raising of fish and / or taro V Loko * Ume *iki Hawaiian terms for different types of Pa fishponds Pa 'ohua Pa hinalea Pa ♦ohi'a Paholoholo Va A loko 'ume'iki fishtrap which_is similar to a type la loko kuapa but which has inward leading lanes 230 Vb A loko * ume* iki fishtrap which__is similar to a type la loko kuapa but which has both inward and outward lead ing lanes j f l S . Vb. A loko *ume' iki fishtrap which i_s similar to a type la^ loko kuapa but which has both inward and outward lead ing lanes A loko 'ume*iki fishtrap which is similar to a type lag loko kuapa but which has both inward and outward lead ing lanes Vc A loko •ume* iki fishtrap which_is similar to a type la loko kuapa but which has outward leading lanes Vc, A loko •ume* iki fishtrap which is similar to a type la^ loko kuapa but which has outward leading lanes Vd A fishtrap which is located on the side of a piece of land jutting out into the sea and which has an opening facing the direction of the on-coming tide Vd A joa type fishtrap built in the channel of a large lagoon having a single open ing which faces either upstream or downstream 231 Vd, Pa 'ohuat An enclosure which has no lanes or openings, which is covered by water at high tide, and_which is used to trap and then hold * ohua fish Ve Pa hinaleat A natural sea pool in which hinalea fish are trapped and kept Vf Pa •ohi°a: Part of a type Vd, fish- trap appearing as a fence of *ohi'a tree logs set up in a channel to guide fish Paholoholoz A fishtrap of stone shaped like a V with an open apex facing sea ward VI Kaheka A natural pool or holding pond Hapunapuna Via Kaheka: A pool or pond found along rocky shores which are flooded by high tidal waves VIb Ha puna puna: A pool or pond fed directly by fresh water springs r 232 VII Kahe A weir found in permanent streams in Paniwai the uplands Vila Kahes A weir made of wooden stakes used on permanent streams during freshets to segregate and isolate fish from the water Vllb Paniwait An impermeable dam of wood, stones, and mud used to divert per manent stream waters and dry the lower reaches VIII Umu An artificial fish shelter made of Imu heaps of stones in shallow shoals where natural shelters are absent APPENDIX B INVENTORY OF AQUACULTURAL SITES IN HAWAI8I Information on existing and destroyed sites is presented alphabetically by island in the following orders site num ber# name# location# type# acreage# other data# - Ni*ihau Island (A) A1 Nameless Pond# Halulu Lake Type III 4-00 acres Kaua*i Island (B) B1 . Nameless Pond# Anahola Type Illbi Acreage unknown B1A Ahau Pond# Waioli Type IVi Acreage unknown BIB Nameless Pond# Waioli Type IVi Acreage unknown BIG Nameless Pond, Waioli Type IVi Acreage unknown B2 Alekoko (Alakoko or Pepe'awa)# Nawiliwili Type Illbi 32«1 acres 2 makaha; Built by menehunei Guardian named Puhi'ula Shark 'aumakua named Alekoko B2A Esetera Pond# Ha*ena Type IVi OA38 acre B3 Nameless Pond# Ha9 ena Type III Acreage unknown B4-A Kanoa Pond, Hanalei Type IHas 3®84- acres B4-B Nameless Ponds# Hanalei C Type Iliai 12.78 total acreage D Of recent construction 233 234 B4e Nameless Pond, Hanalei Type II? Acreage unknown B5 Nameless Pond, Hanamaulu Type Illb?- Acreage unknown B5A Nameless Ponds, Haiku, Hulaia B Type unknown? Acreage unknown C Konohiki named Oleloa B5D Halulu Pond, Waipa, Ha8ena Type unknown; Acreage unknown Konohiki in 1837 named Kanehoa? Kamokuhina granted the pond in 1848 b 6 Nameless Pond, Ho°ai, Koloa Type II? 0,104- acres B6A Kaiulu Pond, Waioli Type IV? Acreage unknown b 6b Kaaikahala, Waioli Unknown type? 1,34 acres B7 Kalalalehua, Nawiliwili Type Illb? Unknown acreage Menehune built, but did not finish it? Mo*o named Kalalalehua B?A Kamauaeopilau, Waipa, Ha®ena Type unknown? Acreage unknown Konohiki in 1837 named Kanehoa B7B ' Kamaloko, Haeena Type II? Acreage unknown B7C Kanaele# Ha®ena Type IV? Acreage unknown B8 Ka®upena, Kapa*a Type II? Acreage unknown B9 Kawaieli, Mana Type II? 77 acres BIO Kawaihau, Kapa’a Type III? Acreage unknown BlOA Kekupua, Makaweli Type unknown? Acreage unknown Belonged to Kinau in 1846 235 B10B KulokOp Waioli Type unknown? le06 acres BlOC Keaweloko, Ha'ena Type unknown? 1,61 acres BIOD Ke$e$ Ha'ena Type unknown; 3 <>85“ acres Bll Kolo, Mana Type II? 11 acres B12 Nameless Pond, Nukumoi, Koloa Type IV? Acreage unknown B13 Nameless Pond, Lae~o~kamiTos> Koloa Type II; 0,10=* acres Ko'a shrine B14A Nameless Ponds, Weliweli, Koloa B Type II? 1,5 total acreage C D B15 Nameless Pond, Lawa6i~kai Type Illb? 1,1 acres Wall 400* long B15A Lokoponu, Nawiliwili Type unknown; Acreage unknown Konohiki under Kekuanaoa named Oleloa B15B Nameless Pond, Nawiliwili Type IV; Acreage unknown Konohiki under Kekuanaoa named Oleloa B15C Nameless Pond, Nawiliwili Type IV? Acreage unknown Konohiki under Kakuanaoa named Oleloa Bl6x Nameless Ponds, Lihu*e Types unknown; Acreage unknown Lihu*e District had 7 ponds used commercially in 1901 (Cobb 1904) B16A Maikai, Waioli Type unknown? Acreage unknown b i 6b Momona, Waioli Type unknown? Acreage unknown B16C Malupop Opup Hagena Type unknowni Acreage unknown B16D Naia, Haa ena Type IV; 0*^8 acre Konohiki named Nanahu Bl? Nohilip Mana Type 11$ 179 acres B18 Nomilu (Nomilo), Kalaheo / Type IIIc$ ^o3 acres < Mo*o named Nomilu B18A Opahales Waioli Type unknown; 0e25 acre B18B Paki» Makakanaulua, Ha®ena Type IV$ 0el88 acre Konohiki named Kekela B19 Papalinahoa, Nawiliwili Type III; 4- acres Mo®o named Papalinahoa B20 Nameless Pond, Pihanakalani, Wailua Mythical Pond belonging to Kauahahiali®i B21x Nameless Ponds, Wailua. Type II; Acreage unknown B22A Nameless Pond, Wailua Type II; 3e84« acres Located by Coco Palms Resort; Belonged to Deborah Kapule B22B Nameless Pond, Wailua Type II; Acreage unknown Located by Coco Palms Resort; Belonged to Deborah Kapule B23 Nameless Pond, Waimea Type III; Acreage unknown B24 Waikoko, Waikoko, Ha®ena Type unknown; Acreage unknown B25A Nameless Pond, Waioli Type IV; 10»3 acres land belonged to 0pi9o since 1840 B25B Nameless Pond, Waioli Type IV$ 0 <,12 acres Land belonged to Opi'o since 1840 Ocahu Island (C) Cl Ahua, Moanalua Type lb? 45 acres Wall 15006L 02 Amana . (Loko-Amana or Loko-=A~Mano) $ South Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type lb$ le0+ acres C3 Ananoho, Kalihi Type lag; 46 acres Coral walls 4?00'L x 6eW x 3eH C4 Apala (Loko Apala), Waiawa, Pearl Harbor Type Xa]_s 7,6 acres Wall 2258L C5 Apili, Kalihi Type lag; 28 acres Wall 1500*L C6 Aueiki, Kalihi Type lag; 12 acres Wall 900»L. l C? ®Awaeawaloa, Moanalua Type Ibi; 8,8 acres „ Coral wall 900®L; 2 makaha C8 Ea (Loko-ea), Waialua Type Il£ 2,48 acres 1 makaha C9 Eo (Loko eo), Waipi'o, Pearl Harbor Type lb; 137 acres „ . Coral wall 2040eL x 6®W x 4 eH; 6 makaha CIO Nameless Pond, Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type unknown; 5 acres Cll Halehou (Halekou), Mokapu, Kane’ohe Type Ia2 ; 92 acres Wall l600eL 238 C12 Halemaulidlaliko, Kalia, Waikiki Type IIITd? 1+ acres C13 Hali'i, Kalia, Waikiki Type IIIbi 1+ acres C14 Hanaloa, Waipi*o. Pearl Harbor Type lb? 195 acres _ Coral slab walls 5’W x A®H? 6 makaha ®Aoa shrine C14A Hanalua, location unknown Type unknown? Acreage unknown C15 He'e®ia-®uli, Hakipueu Type la? 88 acres _ Dirt filled wall 5900SL x 12®W? 5 makaha? 4 watch houses on wall Cl6 Hua* iki, Kalia, Waikiki Type IIlb? 1+ acres Cl? Hueu, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres C18 Huilua, Kahana Type II? 14 acres __ Stone_retaining wall? 1 makaha? Ko*a shrine by makaha? Menehune built it? Shark °aumakua C19A Kaeaimano I, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres C19B Ka'aimano II, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres C20 Ka®auhelemoa (Ki'i), Kahuku Type III? 1«= acre Mo®o named Ka®auhelemoa C21 Ka®auku®u, Waikele, Pearl Harbor Type Ia.2? 4.1 acres C22 Loko-Ka'auku* u, Moanalua Type Illb? 4 acres C23 Ka*elepulu, Kailua Type III? 190 acres __ Stone wall separates pond from Kawainui? .1 makaha? 1 ko®a shrine? Konohikl named Ahiki under Chief Olbmana? Kia6 i named Paku ® i 239 C24 Kahakupohaku (Kakupohaku)» Halawa# Pearl Harbor Type la; 3 acres _ Basalt wall 1051'L x 5*W x 3®5eHi No makaha C24A Nameless Site? Kahalugu, Kane*ohe Type VIII: C25 Loko Kahanamakapula, Location unknown Type Illb? 10 acres G26 Kahapuna, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres, * C2? Kahiamoe? Kalia? Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres 028 Kaho® ikekanaka? Honuakaha, Honolulu Type Illb? 1+ acres 029 Kahouna (Kahonua), Kahalu’u Type la-^i 25 acres __ Inner faced wall 1300'L? 2 makaha; 1 watch house Mo*o lived in a caves Keeper of the mo*o named Kaku 030 Nameless Pond, Kahalu’u Type la^; 0 .6+ acres __ Wall 9*W? 2 concrete makaha? Concretized pool C31A Kaihikapu I, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 12,2 acres 03 IB Kaihikapu II, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; Acreage unknown 032 Kaihikapu, Moanalua Type lb? 25e 8 acres _ Coral wall 4500'L x 3-8eW x 3*H; 3 makaha? Kaihikapu- a-Manuia builder around A.D. 1575? Spawn of fish taken to Mapunapuna Pond 033 Ka*ikikapu, Moanalua Type I&i? 20 acres Wall 900'L separates pond from Well pond 034 Kae ili-o- 6 olelo, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres 035 Ka6ilipaka, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres 240 036 Kaipuni I, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1„5 acres 037 Kaipuni II, Kalla, Waikiki Type Illb; 1=3 acres 038 Kaloaloa, Moanalua Type la? 36 acres __ Coral wall 2700*1, x 6®W x 3®H? 3 makaha 039 Kalokohanahou (Kohanahou or Kahanahou), Kane*ohe Type Ic? 7 acres * _ Basalt walls of waterworn stones? No makaha? 2 watch houses 040 Kalokoloa, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres 041 Kalokomo* o, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres 042 Kaloukai, Kahuku Type II? 1- acre 2 demigods, Malaekahana and Laleikawai, formed pond where a fishhook (lou) dug into ground 043 Kalouwai, Waiale®e Type Ilia? .24 acres 2 demigbds, Malaekahana and laleikawai, formed pond where a fishhook (lou) dug into ground? Retaining wall 4®H? Kane stone nearby? Konohiki named Kaluhi 044 Kaluaolohe, Punalu'u Type IV? Acreage unknown 045 Kaluapuhi, Mokapu, Kane®ohe Type II? Formerly 297 acres, presently 24 acres Original pond encompassed Halekou and Nu’upia ponds 1 makaha at Kailua Bay 046 Lokea, Kamani, Waialua Type Illb? Acreage unknown Wall previously existed between pond and Anahulu River 04? Kamau, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb, 1+ acres 048 Kana* ana, Laie Type IV? Acreage- unknown 241 C49 Loko Kanenenene# Location unknown Type Illb? 2 acres C50 Kanohuluiwi, Kane’ohe Type lag; 2 e 5 acres Base of wall 9eW C51A Kaohai I, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres C51B Kaohai II* Kalia„ Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres C52 Kapa’ahao* Kalia* Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres C53 Kapa®akea* Kalia* Waikiki Type Illb; 6 acres C5^A Kapa'akea* Mo6 ili® ili Type III; 1.8 acres C54b Nameless Pond* Mo®ili®Ili Type III; 1.5 acres C$4C Nameless Pond* Mo®ili®ili Type III; 5<>8 acres C55 Kapa'akea* Waimalu Type la^i 2- acres Kalaimanuia built it 056 Kapaeli* Kalia* Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres C5? Kapakule* Pu'uloa, Pearl Harbor Type Vd; 4 acres Basalt wall 1650*L; 1 altar;_2 images to Ku and Hina Kane and Kanaloa built it? Pa ®Ohi'a attached to it C58 Nameless Pond* Kapalama Type II; 18- acres Adjoins Kuwili II pond and Niuhelewai Stream C59 Nameless Pond* Kapalama Type Illb; I®? acres' c6o Kapamuku (Pa-moku)* Pu'uloa, Pearl Harbor Type Ic; 3 acres Wall of loose construction 660®L x 6®W x 3»5*H No makaha 242 C61A Kapaweo I# Kalia, Waikiki Type Illbi 1+ acres C61B Kapaweo II# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres C62 KapX (Punaulau)# Pahipahialua# Kawela Type IIa]_i 101 acres C63 Kapu0u (Kaluaoa)# Kane•ohe Type Ia3 ? 11 acres Wall 10009Lj Pond fed by Mahinui Stream - C64 Kapu*u-* iki# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs lo5 acres C65A Kauamoa I# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs 1+ acres C65B Kauamoa II# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs 1+ acres C65C Kauamoa III# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs 1+ acres C66 Kawa# Honolulu Harbor Type lbs 8o5 acres Wall 1300*1, C6? Kawainui# Kailua Type Ills 450 acres Wall separating Kawainui from Ka* elepulu built by menehunes 1 makahas Contained edible soils Mo*o named Hauwahines Fish attracting tree named Makaleis Goddess Haumea dwelt at pond C68 Kawao# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs 1-5- acres C69 Nameless Pond (possibly Kea9alau), Kea*alau# Kane6ohe Type las 3 acres Wall 1000*1, C70A Kealia I# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs 1+ acres C?OB Kealia II# Kalia# Waikiki Type Illbs 1-5- acres ' C70C Kealia III, Kalla, Waikiki Type IIlbs 1+ acres C? OD Kealia IV, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illbs 1+ acres 071 Loko Keana, Kailua, Waikalua Type lags 3®5 acres Wall of waterworn baslat 5^06L 072 Keanapua*a. Pearl Harbor / Type Vds 4 acres Wall 800*1; Kane and Kanaloa built trap 073 Nameless Pond, Keawamatia, Moanalua Type Hlbs 1+ acres 074 Loko Keaweloko, Moanalua Type Illbs 4 acres 075 Kekona (Kukona or Loko Kukona), Waimano, Pearl Harbor Type Ics 2,7 acres _ Coral and basalt walls 4-5®W x 2 eHs No makaha 076 Ke'oki (Loko Ke6oki), Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type IIs 16= acres Coral and sand embankments C77 Kepo® okala, Ewa, Pearl Harbor Type Vd; 4 acres Wall 1000CL; Kane and Kanaloa built pond 078 Nameless Pond, Pauoa, Kewalo Type Illbs Acreage unknown C79 Kihewa-Loko, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illbs 1+ acres 080 Kikiwelawela, Kane6ohe Type las 4,5 acres 081 Ko'ahi, Waihe6 e Type Illbs 1+ acres Pond owned in 1811 by Alapa* i Malo-'iki, called Alapa'i Kupalupalu-mano 082 Koholalele, Kualoa Type lib; 2= acres 244 C83 Kuakamakaup Kalia, Waikiki Type Illbi 1+ acres 084 Kuapa (KeahupuaoMaunalua)» Maunalua Type II5 523 acres _ Sand embankment 5000’Lj 1 makahaj Menehune built wall? Mo°o named Laukupu?' 1 ko9a shrine 085 Kuhanapilip Kalla, Waikiki Type Illb? 1+ acres / 086 Kuhialoko (Loko-Kuhia), Waiawa, Pearl Harbor Type lag? 13,3 acres_ Wall 30006L? 3 makaha 08? Kuki®Op Kahuku Type Ila]_? 10- acres 088 Kunana, Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type Ia%? 25 acres Walls 3750eL x 5eW x 3*H 089 Kupapa» Niu Valley Type la? 6- acres Waterwbrn basalt wall 2000°L x 8*W x 3°H 090 Kupiko, Waikele Type Illb? 1+ acres C 9 U Kuwili I, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 9,7 acres C91B Kuwili lip Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 1 acre C92A Kuwili I, Kapalama Type II? 10,5 acres C92B Kuwili II, Kapalama Type II? 17,7 acres 093 Laulaunui, Honouliuli, Pearl Harbor Type Ic? 4-5 acres _ Wall 900«L x 7*W x 3»56H? No makaha 094 Lelepaua, Moanalua Type III? 332 acres Coral and earth embankments 10'W? Kaihikapuamanuia built it C95 Loko Luakahaole, Waiau, Pearl Harbor Type Ibi 1 acre 096 Loko-o-Kaia, Moanalua Type II? 20 acres 097 Luakini, Mt« Kaala Type Ilia; Acreage unknown Mo"o possibly named Kamaoha 098 Maaha, Waikele, Pearl Harbor Type lag; 4 e8 acres 099 Maalahia, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 2 »1 acres , 0100 Mahinui, Kane'ohe Type lag; 3 acres 0101 Maka-a-kU'-kahiP Kaliawa, Kalihi Type Illb; 10- acres 0102 Makalapa, Makalapa Crater Type IIIc? 36- acres 0103 Malamahuhina (Malama-huhiena), Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres C104x Nameless Ponds, Manoa Valley Type IV; 1 total acreage Ponds built before 1848 0105 Mapunapuna9 Moanalua Type Ib^; 40 acres __ Coral walls l600'L x 106W x 3*H; 4 makaha 0106 Loko Miki, Moanalua Type Illb; 2 acres CIO? Mikiola, Kane®ohe Type lag? 1*8 acres 0108 Nameless Pond, Moanalua Type Illb; 6 acres 0109 Nameless Pond, Moanalua Type Illbi 3 acres 0110 Loko-Mokapu, Moanalua Type Illb; 4 acres 246 cm Mokuola, Waikele, Pearl Harbor Type lag 2„3 acres C112 Mo"liei (Moko-li®i), Kualoa Type la^g 124 <,5 acres Wall 4000°Lg 3 makaha C113 Loko-Mo0 o9 Waiawa9 Pearl Harbor Type Ibis lo3 acres CllA Loko~Muliwai, Halawap Pearl Harbor Type lais 4 acres _ < Wall 500®Ls 1 makaha C115 Muliwaiolena, Mokapu Type III Acreage unknown C116 Nueupia, Mokapu Type III 215 acres Wall 1500eL x 4=66W x 5eH (le5® above water) C117 Okiokilepe, West Loch, Pearl Harbor Type Ics 6 acres _ Coral walls lOOO'L x 6<,$*W x 4*H; No makaha C11?A Ola (Loko=01a), South Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type III Acreage unknown C118 e08 ohope. He8 e6 ia Type lag 2= acres _ Wall 500*Ls 4 makaha C119 Opu (Loko=Opu), Kalauao, Pearl Harbor Type lbs 10*3 acres Wall 2700'Ls Kalaimanuia built pond circa A*D* 1550 C120 Opu, Kalia, Waikiki Type Ulbs 1+ acres C121 Opu, Miki Type IVs 1*31 acres Possibly same as site C120 C122 Opukaala, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illbs 1*7 acres C123 Paaiau (Loko Paaiau), Kalauao, Pearl Harbor Type lbs 2*3 acres _ Basalt wall 600?L x 3-4'W x 2'H; 1 makaha Kalaimanuia built pond circa A*D. 155° 24? C124 Ea°akea (Loko-»Pa®akea) s Waimalu, Pearl Harbor Type lag; 12 acres __ Coral and basalt wall 1850*1, x 6*W x 4®H; 1 makaha Kalaimanuia built pond circa AcDe 1550 C124A ”,Pa6akeaMs, Waimalu, Pearl Harbor Type lag; 4 acres Wall 800*1, (recent addition) C125 Pa*au*au, Waiawa, Pearl Harbor Type lb; 32 acres Wall 1700*1 C126 Paeo, laie Type II? 1“ acre , Mo®o named Hauwahine 012? Fahonu, Waimanalo" • Type Ic? 6 acres _ Loose stone construction; No makaha Enclosure for turtles 0128 Pahou*iki, Kalihi Type lag; 11 acres __ Coral wall 1050*L? 2 makaha; 1 watch house 0129 Pahounui, Kalihi Type la^; 26 acres Coral wall 2600®L? 2 makaha; 1 watch house 0130 "Paiko", Kuliouou Type II; 2- acres 0131 Pake®eke®e, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb; 1+ acres 0132 Paloa, Waialua Type Illb? 1-f acres 0133 Panahaha, Kaliawa, Kalihi Type Illb? 1- acre 0134 Pa * o’hua, Mokapu Type Vdg; 30® diameter ' Pond-trap built by Kane_and Kanaloa Used to trap and hold 0ohua 0135 Papa®a, Kane®ohe Type la; 2 acres Wall 500®L C136 Papiolua, Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type Ic? 1 acre __ Wall 150'L x 4-*W x 4-*H; No makaha C137 Pan, Kewalo Type Hlb? l e4-5 acres C138A Paweo I» Kalia, Waikiki Type Illb? 13,1 acres C138B Paweo II, Kalia, Waikiki Type IIIb? 2@9 acres - C139 Pohaku (Loko«=Pohaku), Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type lai? 2=5 acres C140 Pokole, Kahalueu Type la? 4- acres _ Coral and basalt wall 850sL x 4— 5*W? 2 makaha C141 Pouhala, Waikele, Pearl Harbor Type II? 22 acres C142 Puehu, * Hi of Pahoa at Lualualei, Waianae Type III 3 acres G143 Puhalahala, Kalia, Waikiki Type IIIb? 14- acres C l # Pukoko, Kahana Type IIIb? 1+ acres 014-5 Punakou, Wailupe Type lag? 0,3 acre Secondary pond to C160 C14-6 Punalu’uloko (Punalu’u), Kane*ohe Type la? 12,5 acres Basalt wall l600»L x 3-5'W C14-? Punaula, Kaliawa, Kalihi Type IIIb? 1- acre 014-8 Nameless Pond, Pu°u'opae Type IV? Acreage unknown 014-9 Uko®a, Waialua Type in* 20- acres 1 makaha? 1 ko'a shrine? Mo8o named Laniwahine 2 shark 6 aumakua named Niukala and Puhiula 249 C150 UlumokUs. Waikeles Pearl Harbor Type lag 1 50 acres C151 Waiaho (Loko-Waiaho)» Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type H i 32 acres _ Coral and sand walls 6„5°W x 28Hi 5 makaha C151A Nameless Site, Waiahole, Kane’ohe Bay Type VIII1 Acreage unknown Cl 52 Nameless Pond, Waieanae, Poka6T Bay Type Illb? 0o3- acre C153 Waikalua, Waikalua,. Kane®ohe Type Ib]_i 11 acres _ Basalt wall 14208L x 9'W x 3“4 8H| 3 makaha Wall has outer face of large stones and inner face of small pebbles C154x Nameless Pond, Waikalua Valley Type IV, 1+ acres C155 Waikapoki, Kea®ahala, Kane8 ohe Type lag 1 4 acres Wall 650eL . 1 C156 Waikapu'u, Kalia, Waikiki Type Illbi 1+ acres C157 Waikulu, Kaliawa, Kalihi Type Hlbs 1- acre C158 Wailokokai (Waihilikai or Wailiiokai), Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type Ia]_i 1- acre C159 Wailolowai, Halawa, Pearl Harbor Type Ia]_s 2- acres CI60 "Wailupe", Wailupe Type la1 35 acres Basalt wall with sand and dirt fill 25008L x 12eW One side of the pond is a sand embankment 50®W 4 makaha C161 Nameless Pond, Waipi*o. Pearl Harbor Type Hlbs 5®7 acres C162 Waipunaea (Waiapuka), Malaekahana, Laie Type llapi 1+ acres 250 0163 Well, Kahauikip Moanalua Type H i 30 acres Wall 900«L Cl64 Weloko (Toko Weloko), Waimano$ Pearl Harbor Type la? 21 acres _ Coral and lava wall 32008L x 10®W? 7 tnakaha Pond built circa A,D, 1650 when men passed-stone to one another from 1 mile inland Molokafi Island (D) D1 AipohakUp Kahanui I Type III? 0e24 acre , D2 Ali*i (One Ali*i), Makakupaia I Type la? 2? acres __ . Basalt wall 2700*L x 4*W x 4«5*H? 1 makaha D3 Nameless Pond, Halawa Valley Type Illb? !=• acre D3A Nameless Pond, Halawa Valley Type Illb? Acreage unknown D3B Nameless Site, Halawa Valley Type VIII? Acreage unknown D4 Halemahana, *Ualapu* e Type lag? 3«3 acres_ Wall 725*1'? 2 makaha D5 "Hikauhi", Kaluako'i Type la? 1.5+ acres _ Basalt and coral wall 10*W x 5'H? 1 makaha D6 Nameless Trap, Honouliwai Type Vd^? 0e5 acre D7 Nameless Trap, Ho*olehua I Type Va? 38= acres 6 inward lanes D8 *Ipuka* iole, Kainalu Type lag? 3®2 acres Wall 590*1 D9 Kahinapohaku (Ka'apohaku), Moanui Type la? 4 acres 251 DIO Kahokai (Kakokahi or Kahakai)„ Kalama8ula Type II? 20 acres DlOA Nameless Pond, Kahokukano Type VIb? Acreage unknown Located by Kahokukano heiau; Built by the menehune Used by Chiefs Kumuko'a, Halai, Mulehu, and Kalani- ahikapa®a Dll Nameless Pond ("Kainalu"), Kainalu Type lao? 19 acres / Wall 21608L * D12 Kaina® ohe, Ka®amola Type lap? 1? acres _ Coral fill wall 17?0®L x 5eH? 2 makaha D13 Kakaha ® ia (Hekaha * ia or Hokaha® ia ) $, Kawela Type IIj_ 31 acres 1 makaha D14 Nameless Pond, Kalama'ula Type II? 2 acres Wall 5o5®H D15 Kaloko ® eli, Kamiloloa Type la? 28 acres _ Wall 2800®L, 660+® of which is washed away? 2 makaha D16 Kaloko® iki, Wawaia Type lai? 6 acres Wall 1500®L Dl? Kalua®aha, Kalua®aha Type la? 13 acres _ Wall 2070*L? 4 makaha D18 Nameless Pond, Kalua’aha Type la? 31 acres .. Wall 3025®L? 1 makaha? Once part of DA3 D19 Kalua'apuhi, Naiwa I Type Ian? 19 acres __ Wall 2.5~5®W x 3.5’H? 1 makaha 2.$-3®W x 3»5’H D20 Nameless Pond, Kaluako ® i Type la? 3 acres __ Basalt wall 8~11*W x 2*H? 1 makaha 15®W? 2 entrances 4® and 11®W 252 D20A Nameless Trap# Kaumanamana, Kaluako0 i Type Ves Acreage unknown D20B Nameless Trap, Hikauhi, Kaluako®i Type Ve? Acreage unknown D21 Nameless Pond, Kukuku, Kaluako® i Type lai 23 acres Wall 8>-9'W x 2®H on inside and 4 eH on outside? 2 makaha; 5 open enclosures 8-=106W inside the pond? Coralline algae cement” in walls D22 Kamahu®ehu® e, Kamalo Type la? 37 acres _ Wall 3^70®L? 2 makaha , . D23 Kamaloko, Kalamaula Type II, 0o9 acre D24 Kanoa, Kawela Type la? 50 acres _ Wall 28,60®L? 2 makaha D25 Nameless Pond, Kawela at Moku-Nalulua Type lag? Acreage unknown Adjoins D26 D26 Nameless Pond, Kawela at Moku-Nalulua Type lag ? Acreage unknown Adjoins D25 and is & as large as D25 D2? Kanukunukuawa, Kapuaoko* olau Type Tb? 29 acres Wall 2300®L? 6 inward lanes (3 closed)? 7 outward lanes D28 Kaoaini (Kaonini), Makakupaia II Type la? 9,3 acres __ Wall 1770’L? Possibly 5 makaha D29 Ka®ope’ahina, Kalua'aha Type Ic? 19®7^ acres Wall 1770*1 x 3-4®W (west) and 6-7®W (east) x 5-86H No makaha? Menehune built pond D30 Nameless Pond ("Kapa®akea"), Kapa®akea Type II? 5*45 acres 2 lanes D31 Kauha ® a, Kahanui Type II? 0<>52 acres 253 D32 Kaunahiko6oku (Onahikoko, Kaunakeko*oku, or Onahe- koko). West Ohia Type Ybr 13 acres Wall 2000*1; 2 inward lanes with platforms; 9 out ward lanes with platforms D33 Kawi*u, Makelalau Type la; 12 acres __ Wall 1700*1; 2 makaha D34 Keawanui (Mikimiki or Hinau)s Kalaeloa, Keawanui Type lap; 5^«5 acres __ Wall 2000*1; Prior to 1937, 1 makaha; Since 1937, 2 makaha; lohelohe of the Pahulu family.built pond circa A,D. 1575$ Konohiki at time of Pohano named Hekilika*aka*a D35 Kihalokd, Aha»ino II Type II; 5 acres D36 Kipapa, Keonoku* ino Type la; 10 acres __ Wall 1371*1; 1 makaha D37 Kula*alamihi, Honomuni Type unknown? Acreage unknown D38 Kupeke (Kalukia, Kepeke? or Nameless Pomd)s Kupeke Type lap; 30 acres _ Wall 2210*1; 1 makaha D39 Mahilika, Kalua*aha Type lag; 13.3 acres_ Wall 1760*1; 3 makaha D4o Mikiawa (Ka'amola), Ka'amola Type Vb? 44 acres Wall 3100*1 x 8*W x 4*H with 1,5* slope 16 inward lanes? 9 outward lanes Built by Chief lohelohe circa A do 1575 D4l Nahiole, Aha*ino I Type II; 1+ acres D42 Naninaniku® eku® es Kaluako® i Type Vc; 22 acres Coral and basalt wall 2600*1; 8 outward lanes 254 D43 Nieauhala (Nieaupala), Kalya'aha Type la? 33+ acres __ Wall 1975eL? Possibly 2 makaha? Probably once was part of a larger pond D44 Nameless Pond, West Ohia Type unknown? 8 acres Pond in doubt D45 'Ohaipilo (6Ohi'apilo), Kalamaula Type II? 39 acres Wall 10'W D46 0 0halahala, Kumimi Type la? 1,5 acres D4? 'O'o'ia, Kahanui I Type la? 15 acres d 48 Pa'ahao, Na'iwa I Type lag? Acreage unknown Wall 8®W d 49 Pahiomu (Pahionue or Pahionui), Keonoku'ino Type la? 20 acres „ Wall 1770eL? 1 makaha D50 Paialoa, Pua'ahala Type la? 35 acres Wall 2200'L D51 Pala'au (original name Poho'ele), Pala'au I Type Vci? 500 acres Coral and basalt wall 6300' L x 5e^ x 3o58H 27 outward lanes? Ho'olepanui, favorite of Kamehameha I, built pond D52 Pakanaka, 'Iloli I Type Vc? 43 acres Wail of loose construction 3-6,5*W x 2.5*H Coralline algae "cement" on wall 20 outward lanes D53 Panahaha, Makolelau Type Vb? 36 acres ^ Wall 3150'L? 7 inward lanes? 10 outward lanes D54 Panahaha, Puko'o Type Ia%? 13+ acres __ Wall l600'L? 1 makaha 255 D55 Papa® ill”ill (Papa® ilili or Papaili® ili® i)p Ka*amola Type VlD2? 6$5 acres Wall 750®Lb 5 inward lanes? 3 outward lanes D56 Pi®opi®o (Pipi6o)» Mapulehu Type lag; 14 acres Wall 11568L; 1+ acres D57 Puhaloa, Manawai Type lay; 6 acres _ Wall 124581; Possibly 2 makaha D58 Puko®o (Nameless Pond or Ilae®s Pond), Puko'o II Type la; 25 acres _ Wall 2000®L x 108W x 5®H; 1 makaha before 1964; 2 makaha since 1964; Coralline algae *• cement” on wall; Konohiki named Ilae commanded construction in 1829 D59 Nameless Pond, Puko® o I Type Ia%; 10+ acres Wall 1225®%, D60 Punalau, Kahanui I Type II; 20 acres D61 ®Ualapu®e (Ualapua or Nameless Pond), ®Ualapu®e Type lap; 22 acres Coral and basalt fill wall 1575®L x 8-19'W x 4®H 2 makaha D62 Uluanui, Makolelau Type II; 605 acres D63 ®Umipa®a, Kalamaula Type II; Acreage unknown D64 Waiakea, Kahanui I Type H i 1 acre D65 Nameless Pond, Waialua Type la; 16+ acres D66 Waihilahila, Ka®ili*ula Type lag; 4 acres D67 Nameless Pond, Wawaia Type Vbp? 40 acres Wall 2990®%; 4 inward lanes; 4 outward lanes 256 D68 Wehelau'uluj, Ohia I. Type las 8 acres Lana8i Island (E) El Ka*a, Ha$ua Type Vbs 1104+ acres 2 outward lanes 208L x 12 ®W E2 Nameless Pond, Lopa Type las 0„7+ acres Wall 217®L E3 Nameless Trap, Naha Type Vs Acreage unknown E4 Nameless Trap, Waiaopae Type Vs 8+ acres Maui Island (F) FI Alanuhi, Mala Type III Acreage unknown F2 Halua, Lae Kinau Type lias 0,10+ acre Twin pond with Kauhioaiakinis Formed by lava flow of A,D, 1750s Original pond rebuilt by Kauholanui- mahu F2A Nameless Sites Hana Type unknowns Acreage unknown F3 Haneo*o, Hana Type lais 11,20 acres __ Many shelters on walls Makaha Mo6o named Kihawahines Kamehameha I rebuilt pond F4 Nameless Pond, Honokowai Type unknowns Acreage unknown F5 Nameless Pond, Honuaula, Keoneoi®o Type lbs 0,? acre Kane and Kanaloa built ponds Kauholanuimahu rebuilt pond circa A,D, 1450 F5A Nameless Pond (Ku,ula9s Pond), Kaiwiopele, Hana Type las Acreage unknown Built by Ku’ulas First pond in Hawai* i 257 F6 Kalepolepo (Kaonbulu-=ka5.) 9 Kalepolepo-Kihei Type la; 6+ acres Built under Kikau by menehune at time of King *Umi Rebuilt by Kamehameha I F? Kanaha, Kahului Type Ilia; 37 acres Partially built by Kapiiohookalani; Completed by Kamehamehanui; Kihapiilani built kuapa between pond and Mauoni pond F8 Kanemalaho (Luala9ilua Ponds ?), Kahikinui Type unknown; Acreage unknown Destroyed by Kane and Kanaloa F9 Kapunakea, Location unknown Type unknown; Acreage unknown Mo9o named Kihawahine F10 Kauhioaiakinif Lae Kinau Type Ila; 0*10+ acre Twin pond with Halua; Formed by lava flow of A«D* 1750; Original pond rebuilt by Kauholanuimahu Fllx Nameless Ponds, Kawaipapa Type unknown? Acreage unknown F12 Kealia, Kihei Type II; 450 acres F12A Ke®anae, Ke6anae Type IV; Acreage unknown F13 Keko6 ona, Hana Type II? Acreage unknown Supposedly pond of Ku8ula F14 Keokea-kai, Kalepolepo Type la; 12- acres Built under Kikau at time of King "Umi F15 Kuamaka (Lokoe iki), Hamoa Type la^; 1+ acres Wall 10°W x 3®H; Channel 38®L x 3®Vf x 5® deep Bathing pool of Queen Leimalama Fl6x Nameless Ponds, Lahaina Type IV; Acreage unknown 258 FI? Nameless Pond, Ma'ahi, Paeahu Type unknowns Acreage unknown F18 Nameless Pond, Makena Type las Acreage unknown F19 Mau* oni, Kahului Type Ills Acreage unknown Partially built by Kapiiohookalanis Completed by Kamehamehanuis Kihapiilani built kuapa between pond and Kanaha pond F20 Mokuhinia, Lahaina Type Ills llo4 acres Mo*o named Kihawahine F21 Paniaka, Paniaka Type IIs 1 acre F22A Paukukalo I, Waihe'e Type IIs Acreage unknown Mo *o named Kihawahine F22B Paukukalo II, Waihe'e Type IIs Acreage unknown Mo'o named Kihawahine F23 Pu'uolu, Pauwalu Type IVs 1,5 acres F24 Waiakama, Lua'ehu Type Illbs 1 acre Mo'o named Kihawahine F25 Waialohe, Ke'anae Type unknowns Acreage unknown Shark 'aumakua named Hi'u F26 Waihonu, Hana Type IIs 0,21 acre F2? Waikoloa, Hana Type unknowns Acreage unknown Builder named Ku'ulakai; Mo'o named Kihawahine F28 Waiohuli-kai, Kalepolepo Type las 30+ acres 259 F29 Waipunalaea, Hana Type IIIi 0*7+ acre F30 Nameless Pond, Hana-Palemo Type. Ill 0*5 acre Hawai8 i Island (H) HI °Aimakapaea, Honokohau II Type III 15 acres H2 eAiopi°o, Honokohau I Type Yds 1*7 acres . ( H3 Akahi, Keaukaha, Hilo Type IIIi 1+ acres Wall separates pond from H^5 H4 Alanaio, Lanihau - Type III 0*12 acres H4A Ha8 ena, Puna Type IIIi Acreage unknown H5x Nameless Ponds, Ha1ekamahina$ Hilo Type Ib| Acreage unknown H6 Haleolono, Lae Kahaoi, Hilo Type III 2+ acres H? Heleipalala, Honaunau Type III 0,10 acre H8x "Hilea Ponds", Honu*apo, Kaeu Type Ilbi Acreage unknown Built by Koihala, successor to Keoua H9 Nameless Pond, Lihikai Park at Keokea, Hilo Type Ilai 0,5 acre H10 Nameless Pond, Lihikai Park at Keokea, Hilo Type Has 1,7 acres Hll Nameless Pond, Lihikai Park at Keokea, Hilo Type Has 1,2- acres H12 Nameless Pond, Lihikai Park at Keokea, Hilo Type lb or H i 1*6- acres H13 Nameless Pond# Lihikai Park at Keokea# Hilo Type lb or II; 102<=> acres Hl4 Hoakimau# Waiakea# Hilo Type Illb; le5 acres HI5 Nameless Pond# Honokohau I Type Via; Acreage unknown Hl6 Nameless Pond# Honu'apo# Kaeu' Type lb; 4- acres HI6A Nameless Site# Honu'apo# Ka°u Type VIIIj Acreage unknown HI? Hopeaia# 0 Hi of Kalahuipua'a Type Via; 1=5 acres H18 Ihukapu, Kula# Puna Type III 3®5 acres H19 *Ilo®i# Punalu'u# Ka*u Type II; Acreage unknown H20 Kaeaipio, ® H i of Kalahuipuaea Type Via; 0«3 acre H21 Ka ha pa pa# 6 Hi of "Anaeho” omalu Type H i 0«,9 acre Connected to H40 H22 Kahinawao# *Ili of Kalahuipuaea Type Via; 0#3 acre H22A Nameless Sites# Kailua B Type VIII; Acreage unknown C D E H23 Kalepolepo# Waiakea# Hilo Type unknown; 1#5 acres H24 Kaloko# Kaloko Type lb; 11 acres Wall 750,'L x 35eW x 6*Hi 3 secondary walls 2 makaha; 1 unnamed mo'o H25 Kanakea, Waiakea# Hilo Type lb; 2 acres 261 H26x Nameless Ponds, Kapoho, Puna Type lb? Acreage unknown H26A Nameless Pond, Kapoho, Puna Type las Acreage unknown Recent pond H2? Kaulana, Kaulana Type III 0,28 acre Inundated in 1801 by lava flow H28 Nameless Pond, Ka°upulehu Type IIs lo? acres H29 Nameless Pond, Kawa* a , Type III 1095 acres 1 ku°ula shrines 1 unnamed mo'o H30 Nameless Pond, Ke°alakekua Type III 0o3 acre H31 Keanapou, 9 Hi of Kalahuipuaea Type Via; 0,3 acre H32 Keawa® iki, Pu®uanahulu Type 11; 0,8 acre H32A Nameless Site, Ke®ei Type VIIIs Acreage unknown H33 Keokea, Hilo Type II; 1,2- acres H34 Kiholo, Pueuwa9awa®a Type II; 3 = 2 acres __ Wall 26409L x 20*W x 6*H; Several makaha Built circa A.D. 1812$ Inundated in A,D„ 1859 by lava flow H35 Kionakapahu, Hilo Type Ha; 2,8- acres H36A Nameless Pools, Kohana®iki ■ B Type Via; 2,4 total acreage C D H37 Kua, K ukVo II , Type II; 0,05 acre 262 H38 Kukieo» Kukieo I Type 11$ 2 08 acres H39 Nameless Pond, Kukuau, Hilo Type unknown! 0,3 acre H40 Ku*uali'i. ®Ili of ®Anaeho,omalu Type 11$ 4 acres Connected to H21 * 1 Lahuipua®a, 8H i of Kalahuipua8a Type lb! 5 acres H42 Lalakea, Waipi°o Valley Type Ilia; 3" acres Used prior to the time of King 8Umi H43A Nameless Ponds, Lanihau B Type Via; 0,135 total acreage C H44 Nameless Pond, Waimalu Valley, Laupahoehoe II Type Ilia; 1- acre Destroyed by landslide h45 Lokowaka, Keaukaha, Hilo Type II; 49+ acres Separated by wall from H3; Mo8o named Waka # 6 Makaha, Miloli'i Type lb; 1 acre # 7 Makeo, Lanihau Type II; Acreage unknown 1 platform; Divided into 7 sections H48A Nameless Pools, Makalawena B Type Via; 0,009 total acreage C HA9 Manoku, 8 Hi of KalahuipuaVa Type Via; 1 acre H50 Moho8uli, Waiakea, Hilo Type Hlb; 30” acres H51 Muliwai, Waipi8o Valley Type Ilia; 3- acres 263 H52 Ninole (Hilo*e), Puhau, Ka°u Type Ic$ 4ol0 acres __ Wall 5«6eW x 3 eH destroyed, in A 0D 0 195^? No makaha Separated from H53 by pahoeho.e flow H53 Nameless Pond (Ninole)$, Puhau, Ka°u Type Ila1 Acreage unknown Separated from H52 by pahoehoe flow H5^ °Opaeeula, Makalawena Type II? 7«.5 acres H55 Pa®aieap Makaula-Hamanamana Type II? 2500 acres Destroyed circa A.Do 1801 by lava flow H56 Pakaealana» Waipieo Valley Type IV? Acreage unknown H57 Nameless Pond, Pololu Valley Type Ilia? 1- acre H58 Waiahole, Lae Kahaoi, Hilo Type Ila? 9«2 acres H59 Waiaka, Miloli* i Type II? 0o5 acre H60 Waiaka*ea (Higashi Pond), Keanowai, Puna Type II? Acreage unknown H6l Waiakea, Waiakea, Hilo Type Hid? 28 acres 2 makaha H62 Wai®akolea, Kalapana Type II? 4 acres H63 Waiakuhi, Ka'upulehu Type III 0o7 acre H64 Waihole, Waiakea, Hilo Type unknown? 0®5 acre H65 Waihonu, Liliuokalani Gardens at Maka'oku, Hilo Type lb? 3™ acres H66 Wainanali* i, Pu'uwa'awa'a Lagoon at present? 4,6 acres Original type lb pond destroyed in A,D» 1859 by lava flow H6? Waiolama, Kukuau, Hilo Type unknowni 0.10 acre H68x Nameless Ponds# Waipi'o Valley Type IV; Acreage unknown Used prior to time of King eUmi H69 Nameless Pond„ Waipi9o Valley Type IV; Acreage unknown Used prior to time of King °Umi Used exclusively for 9o9opu for Ka°ahumanu H?0 Waipuhi, 6H i of Kalahuipua°a Type lb; 2 acres H?1 Weliweli, Pu9uanahulu Type II; 0.4 acre GLOSSARY *a'a Basaltic lava flows typified by a rough, jagged, spinose, clinkery surface 'a'ala'ihi Young of the various species of the squirrelfish (Holocentrus) •aha Coconut sennit ahole A fish (Kuhlia taeniura, Kuhlia sandwichensis, etc.) found in both fresh and salt water aholehole Young stage of the ahole fish ahupua* a Pie-shaped land division usually ex tending from the uplands to the sea •akia Endemic trees and shrubs (Wik- stroemia spp.) with small leaves, tiny yellowish flowers, and yellow to red, small, ovoid one-seeded fruits? used for fish poisoning akule Big-eyed or goggle-eyed scad (Selar crumenophthalmus) •akulikuli It General name for succulent plants 2: A coastal herb (Sesuyium portulacastrum) •alamihi A common black crab (Metropograpsus messor) ali* j Chief, chiefess, royal, noble all*1-*ai-ahupua*a Chief who rules an ahupua'a all* i-*ai-moku Chief who rules a moku alVi-nui Chief who rules an island or islands 265 266 'ama * ama Mullet (Mugil cephalus) amo* o Foam on the water •aoa A shrine near a fishpond where sacrifices were made arani Weir of Aitutaki, Cook Islands ats Weir of Yap Island au*a i'a Rudimentary fishponds found on Huahine, Society Islands * auhuhu A slender, shrubby legume (Tephrosia piscatoria) used for fish poisoning * aumakua Family or personal god *auwai Ditch •auwai-kai A type of ditch associated with pu'uone •auwai o ka makaha The ditch of the sluice grate au-watu Rock Pile shelters of Pukapuka, Cook Islands •awa The kava shrub (Piper methysticum), the roots of which are used to make a narcotic-like drink awa 1$ Tenpounder fish (Flops machnata) 2 % Weirs of Kapingamarangi Atoll in Micronesia awa * aua Milkfish (Chanos chanos) BPBM Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Hono lulu FNT Foreign and Native Testimony Books in State of Hawai'i Land Office Great Mahele The Land Commission Awards of 1848 26? ha Ditch used to carry fish from the mountain weir to a flat plain area where they were harvested ha-ahili Weir of Otons Java Island and Nuku- manu Atoll hahalua Sea devil, manta ray (Manta birostris) hailepo One of the sting rays haku Lord, master, overseer, employer, owner haku *aina Landlord, landowner haku * ohana Head and representative of the ex tended family hakuone 1: Small land division strictly for the use of the konohiki, but worked by the tenants 2% Same as loko pu'uone ha la Pandanus or screw pine (Pandanus odoratissimus) hale kia* i Watch shelters as in association with loko kuapa ha pa la Ripe stems hapunapuna Natural pools and ponds which are fed by fresh water springs hau A lowland tree (Hibiscus tiliaceus) heiau Pre-Christian place of worship HEN Hawaiian Ethnological Notes in BPBM hinahina 1% The silversword (Argyroxiphium sandwjcense) 2 1 Florida moss (Tillandsia usneoides) 3* Na tive heliotrope (Hiliotropium anomalum var. argenteum) 4s Na tive jreraniums (Geranium cuneatum var. trid ^ and other native silvery n ’*-~is) 5s Artemisia (Artemisia australis) 268 hTnalea Small to medium size fish (Thalas- soma ballieuli, Coris gaimardi, Gomphosus tricolor, etc.) hola Fish poisoning honu Turtle horo i*a Weir of Huahine, Society Islands humuhumunukunukuapua * a Varieties of the trigger fish (Rhinecanthus aculeatus, Rhine- canthus rectangulus) ibia A fish raised on Nauru, Gilbert Islands, and used at feasts to celebrate puberty ' ie Aerial root of the 'ie'ie vine * ie* ie An endemic, woody, branching, climb ing vine (Frevcinetea arborea) 'ill Land section next in importance to the ahupua'a * ilima Small to large native shrubs (all species of Sida), bearing yellow, orange, greenish, or dull-red flowers ilioha Horseweeds (Erigeron spp,) imu Same as umu iwikuamo* o Near and trusted relative of a chief who attended to the personal needs and possessions of the chief and executed his private orders iwilei Equal to one yard in length kahala Amber fish (Caranx mate) kahe Weirs made of wooden stakes used on permanent streams during freshets to segregate and iso late * o* opu fish from the water 269 kaheka Natural pools and ponds along rocky shores which are flooded by high tidal waves and which serve as rudimentary temporary holding ponds kahe-* o* opu 'O'opu weir or trap Kahiki General Hawaiian term for any foreign country kahu Honored attendant, guardian, keeper kahuna Priest kai-emi Ebb of the tide kal-ki Rise of the tide kaku Barracuda (Sphryaena barracuda) kala A surgeonfish (Acanthuridae spp.) kaluk Weir of the St. Matthias Group of Islands kanawai-pa*a The fixed rule ka-pa-akule See pa akule kapakule A type-site; see pa akule ka-pa-makaiwa A type-site; see pa makaiwa kapu Tabu kaua Weir of Ana*a Atoll of the Tuamotu Archipelago kaua ika Weir of the Western Tuamotu Archi pelago kaua paru Weir of the Western Tuamotu Archi pelago kauwa Pariah or caste group kia'i Keeper, guard, watchman, caretaker kia'i loko Keeper or guard of a fishpond kihapai Smallest Hawaiian land unit kino-lau The ability to acquire any form ko*a 1* Coral or coral head 2 1 Fishing grounds 3$ A shrine of coral and stone built along the shore or by fishponds or streams and used in ceremonies as to make fish multiply ko'ele Small land unit belonging strictly to the ali'i but worked by the tenants kohekohe A grass (all species of a genus of sedges, Eleocharis) kohola Whale kole A surgeonfish (Ctenochaetus strigosus) konohiki Land supervisor and personal repre sentative of a chief kona Leeward ko'olau Windward kope * ohe Bamboo rake kuapa Wall of a fishpond kukui Candlenut tree (Aleurites moluccana) kumano Water dam kumu Goatfish (Upeneus porphyreus) kupe *e An edible shellfish (Nerita polita) kupekala An edible bivalve (Chama sp,) ku’ula A god-image used to attract fish lama All endemic kinds of hardwood ebony trees (Diospyros) LCA Land Commission Award 271 lepo Decomposed rock or earth lepo-'ai-ia Edible mud limu Seaweed limu-*ilio An edible fresh water seaweed (Stigeoclonium amoenum) limu-kala-wai An edible fresh water seaweed (Spirogyra spp.) loko General term for any type of pool, pond, lake, or other enclosed body of water loko i'a kalo An inland fishpond utilizing irri gated taro plots for the raising of fish and / or taro loko kuapa A fishpond whose main characteristic is a seawall loko lo* i kalo Same as loko i*a kalo loko pu'uone An isolated shore fishpond formed by the development of a barrier beach building a single, elongated sand ridge parallel to the coast loko 'ume'iki A fishtrap similar in shape and con struction to the loko kuapa and characterized by the presence of fish lanes loko wai A fresh water inland fishpond luna wai General foreman for any type job concerning irrigation of land maai Weir of Truk mae Weir of Pulusuk, Lukunor, and Namaluk Islands mahamoe An edible bivalve (exact genera un known mai Weir of Lukunor and Ponape Islands 2?2 mai en tol Weir of Ponape Island mainpo Weir of Lukunor and Ponape Islands makaha Sluice grate makaiwa Round herring (Etrumeus micropus) mana Supernatural, divine, or miraculous power man mi A surgeonfish (Acanthurus tri- ostequs) me Weir of the Ralik and Radak Chain of Islands mei Weir of Pulusuk, Lukunor, and Namaluk Islands meinik Weir of the Truk District menehune Legendary race of small people who worked at night building fish ponds, roads, and temples, and whose work was done in one and only one night, or else it was left unfinished moano A goatfish (Pseudupeneus filamen- tosus, Pseudupeneus orientalis, etc •) moi Threadfish (Polydactylus sexfilis) mo* i Same as ali* i-nui moku Land division within an island, roughly a district mo* o It Water spirit 2: Land unit con taining arable and cultivable portions of an * ili Mu Legendary people of Kaua*i nahawele An edible bivalve (Isognomonidae family) nai*a Porpoise 273 nehu Anchovy (Anchoviella purpirea) niuhi A large gray man-eating shark •ohana Extended family "ohi'a Two kirids of trees: *ohi*a-ai and •ohi'a-lehua *ohi'a ai The soft-wooded mountain apple tree (Eugenia malaccensis) •ohi'a lehua A hard-wooded plant (Metrosideros macropus) which has many forms, from tall trees to low shrubs * ohua The young of various fish, such as hinalea, kala, manini, pualu. and uhu "o'io Bonefish (Albula vulpes) •omuku lau Stumps of coconut leaves •o * opu General name for fish in the Eleo tridae and Gobiidae families, one kind of which is the goby fish ' opae General name for shrimp * opae-huna Transparent shrimp (exact genera unknown) *opae-kakala A spiked shrimp * opae-'oeha'a Clawed shrimp (Macrobrachium grandimanus) •opelu Mackerel scad (Decapterus pinnu- latus) *opihi Limpet (Helcioniscus sp.) * p-pule A wrasse (Anampses cuvier) * owa. • owaka An edible bivalve (Isognomonidae family) 2?4 It A prefix referring to a fishtrap 2: A rudimentary type fishtrap which has a single lane 3* A prefix meaning wall 4: Weir of Upolu, Samoan Islands pa akule A fishtrap for trapping akule fish pa hTnalea Kaheka ponds in which hinalea fish were kept pahoehoe Basaltic lava flows typified by a smooth, billowy, or ropy surface paholoholo Rudimentary fishtraps having V- shaped lanes of stones built perpendicular to the shore with their apex opening at the sea end pa honu It A type-site 2t A fishtrap for trapping turtles £ai Weir of Otong Java Island and Nukumanu Atoll pa* i . To slap pa-i * a Weir of the Samoan Islands pa-ika Weir of Reap Atoll and of Mangareva, Tuamotu Archipelago pa-kiokio Weir of Aitutaki, Cook Islands pa-kirikiri Weir of Mangareva, Tuamotu Archi pelago palani A surgeonfish (Acanthurus bariene) pa makaiwa A fishtrap for trapping makaiwa fish paniwai Impermeable dams of wood, stones, and mud used to divert permanent stream waters and to dry the lower reaches to allow for the harvest of * o* opu and *opae Open work construction, as in association with fish shelters 275 pa 'ohi'a Part of a fishtrap named after the 'ohi'a tree logs used in the wall construction pa * ohua A fishtrap for trapping and holding the_young of such fish as the hinalea, kala, manini, pualu, and uhu papa'i General term for crabs papapa An edible bivalve (Isognomonidae family) pa-re * e Weir of Mangareva, Tuamotu Archi pelago pa-taurema Eel trap of North Island, New Zealand pa-toka Weir of Mangareva, Tuamotu Archi pelago pa-tuakirua Weir of Aitutaki, Cook Islands pa-tuna Eel trap of North Island, New Zealand pa-tute Weir of Aitutaki, Cook Islands pauka Subdivision of the mo*o land division pa-watu-ika Weir of Pukapuka, Cook Islands Peng Weir of Palau Island £ia Polynesian arrowroot (Tacca leontopetaloides) £i kai To sprinkle with sea water or salted fresh water to purify or to re move a tabu 2ili A grass (Heteropogon contortus) £10 Extinguished or put out, as a fire Hawaiian pearl oyster (Pinctada galtsoffi) 2?6 pipip.i General name for small mollusks (Nerita picca and Nerita neglecta) pohaku Rock £oi Mashed taro po'o'iki Same as loko 'ume*iki ppm Parts per million pua Young fish pua'a Pig pualu A surgeonfish (Acanthurus fulginosus) Puhi Eel pupu Appetizer, hor d* oeuvre puwalu Same as pualu ra'atira Land proprietors of the Society Islands raeatira Land gentry of the Tuamotu Archi pelago rahui Tahitian term for fishing tabus sen Weir of Kusaie, Eastern Caroline Islands tapu Same as kapu taro A kind of aroid (Colocasia escu- lenta), cultivated since ancient times, used as the staple in Hawai* i tawenga Weir of Pukapuka, Cook Islands te loto Fishpond of Pukapuka, Cook Islands ti A woody plant (Cordyline terminalis) of the lily family tipua Turtle ponds of the Western Tuamotu Archipelago 27? tsunami Great sea waves resulting from the shock waves of submarine earth quakes uhu Parrot fish (Scarus perspicillatus) >ula.pa*a A girl of preadolescent age prior to reaching menarche ulua Crevally (Carangidae sp.) uluhe All Hawaiian species of false stag- horn fern (exact genera unknown) umu Artificial fish shelters made of heaped stones in shallow shoals where natural shelters are absent ,upapalu Cardinal fish (Apogonidae family) waihau A temple where sacrifices were made and fires lit in order to pray for an abundance of fish weke Surmullets (Mullidae sp.) REFERENCES CITED AIonag Mrs = Charles 1939 Kailua-WaimanalOo 29 Septembere Bernice P» Bishop Museum Ethnological Pamphlet .3023» Honolulu. Apple, Russell, and Peg Apple 1971 Tales of Old Hawaii; The Hawaiian and His Fish Pond. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 2 June. Ashdown, Inez 1971 Ke Alaloa o Maui: The Broad Highway of Maui, Wailuku (Maui)1 Ace Printing Company. Bardach, John E. 1968 Aquaculture. Science l6ls 1098-1106. Barrera, William M., Jr. 1971a Anaehoomalu: A Hawaiian Oasis, Preliminary Report of Salvage Research in South Kohala, Hawaii. Pacific Anthropological Records 15e Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 1971b Archaeological Excavations and Survey at Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii. Report 71-10. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Ber nice P. Bishop Museum. Barrera, William M,, Jr., and Dorothy B , Barrere 1971 Archaeological and Historical Survey: Ahu- pua’a of Kupahua, District of Puna, Island of Hawaii. Report 71-6. Honolulu: Depart ment of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Barrera, William M», Jr., and Robert J. Hommon 1972 Salvage Archaeology at Wailau, Ka'u, Island of Hawaii. Report 72-1. Honolulu: Depart ment of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 278 279 Barrere, Dorothy Bo 1971 AnaehoomalU"-A Reconstruction of its Histo ry o Appendix A in Anaehoomalus A Hawaiian Oasis» Preliminary Report of Salvage Re search in South Kohala,. Hawaiip pp. 109"113o Pacific Anthropological Records 15« Hono lulu s Department of Anthropology, Bernice P* Bishop Museum, Bates, G 0W 0 £~k<, Haole_J7 185^ Sandwich Island Notes by a haole» New York; Harper and Brothers Publishers. Beaglehole, Ernest, and Pearl Beaglehole 1938 Ethnology of Pukapuka. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 150, Honolulu. Beckley, Emma Metcalf 1883 Honolulu Fisheries and Methods of Fishing. Honolulu; Advertiser Steam Print. 1886 Hawaiian Fisheries and Methods of Fishings With an Account of the Fishing Implements used by the natives of the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission, vol. 6s 245-256. Beckwith, Martha Warren 1917 Hawaiian shark aumakua. American Anthro pologist 19s 503”517» I.97O Hawaiian Mythology. Honolulu; University of Hawaii Press, Bell, Frank T., and Elmer Higgins 1939 A Plan for the development of the Hawaiian fisheries. Investigation Report no. 42, vol. 11. Washington, D.C.s Government Printing Office. Bennett, Frederick D. 1840 Narrative of a Whaling Voyage round the globe, 1833-1836. Vol.’l. London; Richard Bentley. Bennett, George W. 1962 Management of Artificial Lakes and Ponds, New York; Reinhold Publishing Corporation, 280 Bennett, Wendell Clark 1931 Archaeology of Kauai, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 80, Honolulu, Best, Elsdon 1902 Food Products of Tuhoeland, Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Insti tute, vol. 35» PP« 70-71, Wellington, Bevacqua, Robert P,, and Thomas S, Dye 1972 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Kapoho-Kalapana Highway, District of Puna, Island of Hawaii, Report 72-3® Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Buck, Peter H, 1930 Samoan Material Culture. Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 75® Honolulu, 1932a Ethnology of Manihiki and Rakahanga, Bernice P*. Bishop Museum Bulletin 99® Honolulu. 1932b Ethnology of Tongareva, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 92, Honolulu, 1938 Ethnology of Mangareva, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 157. Honolulu. 1944 Arts and Crafts of the Cook Islands, Ber nice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 179® Honolulu, I950 Material Culture of Kapingamarangi. Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 200. Honolulu. Burrows, Edwin G» 1936 Ethnology of Futuna, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 138, Honolulu. Burrows, Edwin G«, and Melford E. Spiro 1953 An Atoll Culture: Ethnology of Ifaluk in the Central Carolines, New Haven: Human Rela tions Area File, Carlson, Norman K. 1954 The Vanishing Fishponds of Molokai, Natural History 63: 248-254, 281 Carlson, Norman K, nod, Palaau and the Saltwater Fishponds of Molo kai, Manuscript in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Cataia, Rene L,A, 1957 Report on the Gilbert Islandsi Some Aspects of Human Ecology, Atoll Research Bulletin 59« Washington, D=C= Chamberlain, Levi 1822-1849 Diary of Levi Chamberlain, Handwritten Manuscript H24 in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Chen, Tung-Pai 1953 The Culture of Tilapia in Rice Paddies in Taiwan, Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, Fisheries Series, no, 2, Taipei, Chinen, Jon J, 1958 The Great Mahele, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1961 Original Land Titles in Hawaii, Honolulu: Privately Printed, Ching, Francis K.W, 1971 The Archaeology of South Kohala and North Kona from the ahupua'a of Lalamilo to the ahupua'a of Hamanamanas Surface Survey . Kailua-Kawa.ihae Road Corridor (Section III), State Archaeological Journal 71=1* Hono lulu: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks, Clark, John R, 1969 Thermal Pollution and Aquatic Life, Scien tific American 220, no, 3§ 19-26, Cluff, Deborah F, 1969 An Archaeological Survey of the Seaward Por tion of Honokohau #1 and #2, North Kona, Hawaii Island, Report by Department of Anthropology, Bernice P, Bishop Museum for Lanihau Corporation, Honolulu, 282 Cobb, John N„ 1902 Commercial Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands, U.S. Fish Commission Report for 1901, pp. 383-^99e Washington, D.C. 1904 Commercial Fisheries of the Hawaiian Islands in 1903. U.S. Fish Commission Re port for 19o4, pp. 433-512. Washington, D.C. Connor, Douglas R. 1968 A Surface Survey of the Area Near the Koaie Village Nucleus, Lapakahi. The Archaeology of North Kohala, Excavations at Lapakahi- Selected Papers. State Archaeological Journal 69-2 , pp. 10-64. Richard J, Pearson, ed. Honolulu: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks. Cook, James 1?84 A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean..,in the Years 1776, 1777* 1778, 1779* and 1780 for making Discoveries in the Northern Hemisphere on... the "Resolution^ and Discovery." 2 vols. London: G. Nicol and T. Cadell. Cordover, Robert D., and Jill Cordover 1969 The Biological and Cultural Feasibility of Farming Shrimp in the Molokai Fishponds, Mimeographed Report for the Director of the Hawaiian Home Lands Commission, Honolulu. Coulter, John W. 1931 Population and Utilization of Land and Sea in Hawaii, 1853® Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 88. Honolulu. Cranstone, B.A.L. 1961 Melanesia, A Short Ethnography. Londons British Museum. Crozier, Neal S., and Dorothy B , Barrere 1971 Archaeological and Historical Survey of the Ahupua'a of Pualaa, Puna District, Island of Hawaii. Report 71-1• Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 283 Damon* Ethel Moseley 1931 Koamalus A Story of Pioneers on Kaua°l and of What They Built in That Island Garden, 2 volSo Honolulu: Privately Printed, Downes ToW, 1917 Notes on eels and eel-weirs (Tuna and Pa- tuna), Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, vol, 50, pp, 296-316 , Wellington® . / Ellers Anneliese ' 1934 Inseln urn Ponape, Ergehnisse der Sudsee- Expedition~T90^1910, II, Ethnographie, B Mikronesien 8, gT Thilenius, ed, Hamburg: Friederichsen,"DeGruyter, & Co, Ellis, William 1963 Journal of William Ellis, 3rd ed, Hono lulu: Advertiser Publishing Co, Emory, Kenneth P, 1924 The Island of Lanai: A Survey of Native Culture, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 12, Honolulu, 1933 Stone Remains in the Society Islands, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 116, Honolulu, 1934 Tuamotuan Stone Structures, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 118, Honolulu, 1939 Archaeology of Mangareva and Neighboring Atolls, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin . I6 3 , Honolulu, Emory, Kenneth P,, Patrick C, McCoy, and Dorothy B, Barrere 1971 Archaeological Surveys Kahaluu and Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaii, Report 71-4, Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P, : Bishop Museum, I Emory, Kenneth P., and Yoshihiko Sinoto 1965 Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Investigations in Polynesia, Mimeographed Report in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Hono™ ! lulu, 284 Emory, Kenneth P., and Lloyd J 0 Soehren 1961 Archaeological and Historical Survey, Honokohau Area, North Kona, Hawaii, Mimeo graphed Report in Bernice P» Bishop Museum, Honolulu® Emory, Kenneth P®, John F®G® Stokes, Dorothy B® Barrere, and Marion A® Kelly 1957 The Natural and Cultural History of Honau- nau, Kona, Hawaii® 2 vols.® Honolulu 1 Bishop Museum Press ® Ferdon, Edwin N®, Jr® 1965 A Reconnaissance Survey of Three Fortified Villages ® Reports of the Norwegian Archaeo logical Expedition to Easter Island and the East Pacific, vol® 2, Miscellaneous Papers, pp® 9-21® Thor Heyerdahl and Edwin N® Ferdon, Jr®, eds® Monographs of the School of American Research and the Kon-Tiki Museum no® 24, part 2® Sante Fe® Fiddler, Frank 1956 Mokapus A Study of the Land® Mimeographed Report in Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Hono lulu® ' Firth, Raymond 1939 Primitive Polynesian Economy® Londons George Routledge and Sons® Foreign and Native Testimony (FNT) n®do FNT, Vol® 10, 1852? II 1959» Books in State of Hawai*i Archives, Honolulu® Fornander, Abraham 1880 An Account of the Polynesian Race, Its Origin and Migrations® Vol® 2® Londons Trubner and Co o 1919 Fornander collection of Hawaiian antiquities and folk-lore, vol® 5» no® 3® Honolulus Bishop Museum Press ® Foye, W.G. 1917 Lau Islands of Fiji® The Geographical Review 4s 3770 Frey, D®G® 1947 The Pond Fisheries of the Philippines® Journal of Marine Research 6s 247-258® 285 Gibbons» Rechucher Co 1972 Men building a fish trap* Painting under Life in Palauo Micronesian Reporter 20* noo 2 0 GoId9 Edwin 1956 Netting and the Pa at Mangaiao Journal of the Polynesian Society 65s noo 4s 363o Goldman9 Irving 1970 Ancient Polynesian Society* Chicagog The University of Chicago Press0 Goodenough, Ward H 0 1951 Property, Kin, and Community on Truko Yale University Publications in Anthropology, noo 46o New Havenc Green, Roger Co, edo 1969 Makaha Valley Historical Projects Interim Report #10 Pacific Anthropological Records 4 0 Honolulus Department of Anthropology, Bernice Po Bishop Museum« 1970 Makaha Valley Historical Projects Interim Report #2 0 Pacific Anthropological Records 100 Honolulus Department of Anthropology, Bernice P 0 Bishop Museum, Griffin, Bion, Thomas Riley, Paul Rosendahl, and David Tuggle 1971 Archaeology of Halawa and Lapakahi Windward Valley and Leeward Slope, New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter, vol, 14, no, 3% 101=112o Hadley, Thelma H,, and Margaret S, Williams i960 Kauais The Garden Island of Hawaii, Lihue (Kauai)s The Garden Island Publishing Co, Hambruch, Paul 1914 Nauru, Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1910, II, EthnographicB Mikronesien 1, Bk, 1, G, Thilenius,"ed, Hamburgs Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co, Hambruch, Paul, and Anneliese Eilers 1936 Ponape, Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908=1910, II, Ethnographie, B Mikronesien 7, Bk, 2, G, Thilenius, ed, Hamburgs Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co, 286 Handy, E»S» Craighill 1932 Houses, Boats, and Fishing in the Society Islands, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 90o Honolulu, 1940 The Hawaiian Planter, vol, 1, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 161, Honolulu, 1968 Traces of Totemism in Polynesia, Journal of the Polynesian Society 77$ no, 1# 43-56, / Handy, E,S, Craighill, and Elizabeth Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaiis Their Life, Lore, and Environment, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Bulletin 233» Honolulu® Handy, E,S, Craighill, and Mary Kawena Pukui 1958 The Polynesian Family System in Ka°u, Hawaii, Wellington! The Polynesian Society, Inc, Herre, Albert W,C,T, 1926 Philippine Fisheries, Mid-Pacific Magazine 32, no, 3% 217-230* Hiatt, Robert W, 1947 Food Chains and the Food Cycle in Hawaiian Fish Ponds, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, vol, 7^, for the Year 19^, PP® 262-280, Washington, D,C, Hitchcock, CeH, 1909 The Volcano Kilauea, American Geographical Society Bulletin 41, p, 684, New York, Hommon, Robert J*, and William M, Barrera, Jr, 1971 Archaeological Survey of Kahana Valley, Koolauloa District, Island of Oahu* Report 71-3e Honolulu! Department of Anthropology, Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Hommon, Robert J,, and Neal S* Crozier 1970 An Intensive Survey of the Southern Portion | of Kaawaloa, Kona, Hawaii* Mimeographed i Report in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu* 28? Hudson9 Alfred E„ 1932 The Archaeology of East Hawaiie Manuscript in Bernice P e Bishop Museum# Honolulu# li, John Papa 1959 Fragments of Hawaiian History, Mary Kawena Pukui, tr,» Dorothy B, Barrere, ed, Hono- lulus Bishop Museum Press, Iverson, E.S, 1968 Farming the Edge of the Sea, Londons Fish ing News (Books), Kahaulelio, A,D, 1902a Fishing Lore, Ka Nupepa Kueoko'a, 23 May, Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, 1902b Fishing Lore, Ka Nupepa Ku*oko'a, 4 July, Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui and Catherine C, Summers in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu,. Kaiwi, JoH. 1921 Story of the race of Menehunes of Kauai, Thrum’s Hawaiian Annual, pp, 114-118, Thomas G. Thrum, ed, Honolulu, Kamakau, S,M, 1869a Moeolelo o Hawai6 i Story of Hawai'i_7. Ke Au * Oko'a, 2 December, Translated Manuscript in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, 1869b Mo* ole.lo o Hawai6 i /""Story of Hawai* i_7« Ke Au *Oko*a, 9 December, Translated Manuscript in Bernice P, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, 1961 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii, Honolulu? The Kamehameha Schools Press, 1964 Ka Po*e Kahiko; The People of Old, Mary Kawena Pukui, tr,, Dorothy B . Barrere, ed, Bernice P, Bishop Museum Special Publication 51, Honolulu, Ka Nupepa Ku* oko*a 1922 A Tale of the Kona Side of Moloka* i in the Days of Kamehameha the Conqueror, 11 May, Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui. in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, 288 Kauaip Solomon 1919 He Mooielo- Kupua No Kaumana i Lilo Pohaku YF Story of the Demigod Kaumana who turned to Stone__7» Ka Nupepa Ku*oko*ap 4 July. Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kekoowai, Samuel K. . 1922 Makalei the Famous Fish-Attacking Stick of Moa'ula Nui Akea. Ka Nupepa Ku*oko*a, 6 January. Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Keliipio, L.D. I90I Hawaiian Fish Stories and Superstitions. Thrum*s Hawaiian Annual, pp. 110-114. Moses K. Nakuina, tr., Thomas G. Thrum, ed, Hono lulu. Kelly, HoD. 1925 Some Aspects of Hawaii's Fish Problem, Mid- Pacific Magazine 29, no, 6% 849-854. . Kelly, Marion A . 1969 Historical Background of the South Point Area, Ka'u, Hawaii, Pacific Anthropological Records 6. Honolulu: Department of Anthro pology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 1971 Kekahas 'Aina Maloo, Historical Survey and Background of Kaloko and Kuki'b Ahupua'a, North Kona, Hawaii. Report 71-2. Honolulu: Department of Anthropology, Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Kikuchi, William K . 1963a Archaeological Surface Ruins in American Samoa. Master's Thesis in University of Hawaii Library, Honolulu. 1963b Archaeological Survey and Excavations on the I Island of Kauai, Kona District, Hawaiian Islands. Report for the Committee for the i Preservation of Hawaiian Culture, Honolulu. Kikuchi, William K., ed, 1972 Archaeology on Kaua'i Newsletter, vol. 1,- no. 2. Lihue (Kauai). 289 Kikuchi, William K„, and John C« Belshe 1971 Examination and Evaluation, of Fishponds on the Leeward Coast of the Island of Hawaii» Report for Hawaii County Planning Commission, Hilo, Kirch, Patrick V . 1971 The Halawa Valley Projects Two Field Seasons in Retrospect, New Zealand Archaeological Association Newsletter, vol„ 14, no, 2; 47-61. Kotzebue, Otto von 1821 A Voyage of Discovery into the South Sea and Bering's Straits...Ship 'Rurik®, vol. 1* Translation in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Kramer, Augustin 1926 Palau, Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1910. II. Ethnographic, B Mikronesien jU Bk, 3, G. Thilenius, ed. Hamburgs Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co. 1932 Truk. Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1910. II. Ethnographie, B Mikronesien j). G. Thilenius, ed. Hamburgs Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co. - 1935 Inseln urn Truk, Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Ex pedition 1908-1910. II. Ethnographie, B Mikronesien 6~ Bk. 1® G. Thilenius, ed. Hamburgs Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co. Kramer, Augustin and Hans Nevermann 1938 Ralik-Ratak. Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Ex pedition 1908-1910. II. Ethnographie, B Mikronesien 11. G. Thilenius, ed, Hamburg$ Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co. Kuykendall, Ralph S, 1957 The Hawaiian Kingdoms 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, Ladd, Edmund F. 1969 'Alealea Temple Site, Honaunau: Salvage Re port. Archaeology on the Island of Hawaii, pp. 95-130, Richard J. Pearson, Ed. Hono lulu: Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawaii, 290 Land Court Award (LCA) 2715 to Hinau n 0d 0 Native Testimony: Timoteo Keaweiwi. Foreign and Native Testimony Bk» 16, p 0 569 8 Novem ber 1853« Mary Kawena Pukui, tr« In State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu, Land Court Award (LCA) 3730 to Ilae n«do Foreign and Native Testimony Bk, 6, p e 10,. In State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu. Lanning, Edward P. 1967 Peru Before the Incas, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Lauff, George H,, ed, 1967 Estuaries. Publication no. 83. Washington, D.C.s American Association for the Advance ment of Science. Laval, Honors' 1938 Mangareva, 1*histoire ancienne d'un peuple Polynesien. Memoires ethnographiques conserves aux Archives de la Congregation des Sacres-Coeurs de Picpus. Braine-le- Comtes Maison des Peres des Sacres-Couers. LeBar, Frank M . 196^ The Material Culture of Truk, Yale Univer sity Publications in Anthropology, no, 68, New Havens Department of Anthropology, Yale University, Luomala, Katherine 1951 The Menehune of Polynesia and Other Mythical Little People of Oceania, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 203. Honolulu. Maar, A,, M.A.E, Mortimer, and I, Van Der Lingen 1966 Fish Culture in Central East Africa, Romes Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Macdonald, Gordon, D,, and Agatin T. Abbott 1970 Volcanoes in the Seas The Geology of Hawaii, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. MacCaughey, Vaughan 1916 The Seaweeds of Hawaii, American Journal of Botany 8, Octobers 474-479. 291 MacKay, Donald 194? A Survey of the Decapod Crustacea of Wailupe# Commercial Fish Pond Near Honolulu, Hawaii, Canadian Field Naturalist 6ls 134-140, Maguire# Eliza De 1926 Kona Legends® Honolulu: Paradise of the Pacific Press® Malarde0# Yves 1946 Maeva, ilse de Huahine® Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes Oceaniennes 7» no® 5s 24?^250o Malo# David 1951 Hawaiian Antiquities® Bernice P® Bishop Museum Special Publication 2® 2nd ed® Honolulu® Malone# Thomas C® 1968 Community metabolism in a Hawaiian fishpond and its relationship to selected environ mental factors® Master's Thesis in University of Hawaii Library, Honolulu® Manu# Moses - 1884 Mo'olelo o Kihapj'ilani /"The Story of Kihapi*ilani / ® Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a, 23 August® Translated Manuscript by Elspeth Sterling in Bernice P® Bishop Museum# Hono lulu o 1885a The Legend of Ke-ao-melemele. Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a# 18 April® Hawaiian Ethnological Notes# vole 2# p® 868® In Bernice P® Bishop Museum# Honolulu® 1885b The Legend of Ke-ao-melemele® Ka Nupepa Ku*oko'a, 25 April® Hawaiian Ethnological Notes# vol® 2# pp® 872-873» In Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Honolulu. Marx# Wesley 1967 The Frail Ocean® New York* Ballantine Books, Masefield, G.B I97O Food Resources and Production. Human Ecology in the Tropics, pp® 59-66® J®P» Garlick and R.WeJ® Keay, eds® New York: Pergamon Press® 292 Maunupau» Thomas 1922 Huakai Makaikai A Kaupo, Maui £~h Journey to Kaupo, Maui_/o Ka Nupepa Ku°oko8a9 1 Juneo Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice Po Bishop Museums Honolulu® McAllister$ J® Gilbert 1933 Archaeology of Oahu, Bernice P® Bishop Museum Bulletin 104, Honolulu® Meares® John - 1791 Extracts from Voyages Made in the -Years 1?88 and 1789 from China to the North West Coast of America® Hawaiian Historical Society Re print No® 1, 1916® Honolulu® MenzieSp Archibald 1920 Hawaii nei 128 years ago, Honolulu? WoF, Wilson® MileSp Dorothy H® 1970 Departing Scientist Notes Advances in Oceano graphy 0 Sunday Star-Bulletin and Advertiserp 6 September® Mokumaia, J®K< 1922a Moanalua i kela aui ha la aku a o Moanalua i_ keia aue hee nei / Moanalua Past and Present_/® 1% Nupepa Kue oko°av 3 March® Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P® Bishop Museum® Honolulu® 1922b Moanalua f kela aui hala aku a o Moanalua i keia aue hee nei f Moanalua Past and Present^/®Ka Nupepa Ku*oko'a, 31 August® Translated Manuscript by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P® Bishop Museum# Honolulu® Muller# Wilhelm 1917 Yap® Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908- 1910® II® Ethnographic® B Mikronesien 2® Bk® 1® G® Thilenius# ed. Hamburgs Friede- richsen, DeGruyter# & Co® Nakuina, Emma Metcalf B. 1894 Ancient Hawaiian Water Rights and Some of the Customs Pertaining to Them® Thrum6s Hawaiian Annual# pp® 79=84® Thomas G® Thrum# ed® Honolulu® 293 Nakuina, Emma Metcalf B® I896 The Legend of the Shark-Man# Nanaue® Hawaiian Historical Society Fourth Annual Re port, pp„ 10-19° Honolulu® Nakuina, Moses K® nod® Mo9olelo Hawaii o Pakaa a me Ku-a-Pakaa z A Hawaiian Story of Pakaa and Kuapakaa_7« Translated Manuscript by Catherine C ® Summers in Possession of Catherine C® Summers- Nevermann, Hans < 1933 St® Matthias-Gruppe® Ergebnisse der Sudsee- Expedition 1908-1910® II® Ethnographies A Melanesian 2® G . Thilenuis, ed® Hamburg: Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co® Newman, T® Stell 1968 Hawaiian Fishing and Farming on the Island of Hawaii in A*D® 17?8® Honolulu: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Re sources., Division of State Parks® Pararas-Carayannis, George 1969 Catalog of Tsunamis in the Hawaiian Islands® World Data Center A $ Tsunami. Washington, D.C.: UoS® Department of Commerce, Environ mental Science Services Administration, Coast and Geodetic Survey® Pearson, Richard J®, ed® 1968 Excavations at Lapakahi, North Kohala, Hawaii Island-1968 * State Archaeological Journal 69"2® Honolulu: State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks® Pearson, Richard J®, Patrick V® Kirch, and Michael Pietrusewsky 1971 An Early Prehistoric Site at Bellows Beach, Waimanalo, Oahu, Hawaiian Islands® Archae ology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania 6, no® 3% 204^234® Phelps, Southwick 1937 A Regional Study of Molokai® Manuscript in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu® 294 Pillay, ToVo.Ro 1967 Estuarine Fisheries of the Indian Ocean Coastal Zone* Estuaries, pp6 647-657e George H® lauff, ed0 Washington, DeCo s American Association for the Advancement of Science® Pinchot, Gifford B 0 I97O Marine Farming® Scientific American 223, no® 6 s 15=21® Pukui, Mary Kawena • 1943 Ke Awa Lau o Pu'uloa The Many Harbored Sea of Pu*uloa_J7® Handwritten Manuscript L28 in Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Honolulu® Pukui, Mary Kawena, and Samuel H® Elbert 1957 Hawaiian-English Dictionary® Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press® I966 Place Names of Hawaii® Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press® Reed, Minnie 1906 The Economic Seaweeds of Hawaii and Their Food Value® Hawaii Agricultural Experimental Station Annual Report, pp® 61-88® Honolulu® Reinecke, John E® I930 Survey of sites on West Hawaii® Manuscript in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu® Renger, Robert C® 1970 Archaeological Reconnaissance of Coastal Kaloko and Kukio I, North Kona, Hawaii® Re port 70-10® Honolulu: Department of Anthro pology, Bernice P® Bishop Museum® Rice, William Hyde 1923 Hawaiian Legends® Bernice P® Bishop Museum Bulletin 3« Honolulu® Roth, Walter E® . 1901 Food, its search, capture, and preparation® North Queensland Ethnography Bulletin 3$ 23® Sahlins, Marshall 1958 Social Stratification in Polynesia® Seattle: University of Washington Press ® 295 Sarfert, Ernst. 1919 Kusae a Ergebnisse der Sudsee~Expedition 1908-1910o IIe Ethnographie, B_Mikronesien . Wo Bk» 1. Go ThileniuSj ed* Hamburgs Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co, Sarfert, Ernst, and Hans Damm 1929 Luangiua und Nukumanu. Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908-1910« II, Ethno- graphie, B Mikronesien 12» G» Thilenius, ed„ Hamburg? Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co, 1935 Inseln urn Truk, Ergebnisse der Siidsee- Expedition 1908-1910, II. Ethnographic, B Mikronesien oT Bk, 2©• G, Thilenius, ede Hamburg? Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Go, Saturday Press 1883 Dictionary of Hawaiian Localities® 6 Oct, Smith, Hugh M© 1925 Siam®s Fishery Resources© Mid-Pacific Magazine 29, no© 3$591~596e Soehren, Lloyd J© 196.3 An Archaeological Survey of Portions of East Maui, Hawaii© Report in Bernice P© Bishop Museum, Honolulu© Speck, 0© L© 1951 Fish-traps© Walkabout 17, no© 5s14-15© Spoehr, Alexander . 1949 Majuro, A Village in the Marshall Islands© Fieldiana? Anthropology, vol© 39® Chicago? Natural History Museum© Stearns, Harold T© 1966 Geology of the State of Hawaii, Palo Altos Pacific Books © Stearns, Harold T©, and G© A, Macdonald 1942 Geology and Ground-Water Resources of the Island of Maui, Hawaii© U© S© Geological Survey Bulletin 7© Honolulu© Sterling, Elspeth, and Catherine C, Summers 1962 Sites of Oahu© 6 bks© Honolulu? University of Hawaii, Committee for the Preservation of Hawaiian Language and Culture, 296 Stokes, John F<,G„ 1909a Walled Fish Traps of Pearl Harbor, Bernice P e Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, vol„ 4, no, 3 e Honolulu, 1909b Molokai Survey Field Notebook® Manuscript in Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Honolulu® 1911 Letter to Conradt, 6 July® In Notes on Polynesian Fish Traps and Ponds® Manuscript in Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Honolulu® 1921 Fish Poisoning in the Hawaiian Islands with Notes on the Custom in Southern Polynesia® Bernice P® Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, vole 7» no® 10® Honolulu® Summers, Catherine C® 1964 Hawaiian Fishponds® Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 52® Honolulu® 1971 Molokais A Site Survey® Pacific Anthropo logical Records 14® Honolulus Department of Anthropology, Bernice P® Bishop Museum® Swenson, J® Patricia 1967 The Molii Fishpond® 24 March® Manuscript in Possession of Catherine C® Summers ® Sylva, Edward N ® 1938 Letter to L®M® Whitehouse® Manuscript in Possession of Catherine C® Summers® Tang, Yun-an, and Tung-Pai Chen 1957 The Use of Chemical Fertilizers in the Milk- fish Ponds of Taiwan® Chinese-American Joint Commission on Rural Reconstruction, Fisheries Series, no® 3® Taipei® Tapes of Conversations with Native Hawaiians n®do BPBM H-41X1® 9 July 1959® Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Honolulu® nod® BPBM H-41Y2® 10 October i960® Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P® Bishop Museum, Honolulu® n®d» BPBM H-41Y5® 18 August 1959® Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu® 297 Tapes of Conversations with Native Hawaiians node BPBM H~62Be 23 December 1958e Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P e Bishop Museum, Honolulu, nod, BPBM H-=62De nod® Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulue n0do BPBM H-91He 29 April 1963o Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P© Bishop Museum, Honolulu© < n©do BPBM H-92P© 1 May 1961© Transcription by Mary Kawena Pukui in Bernice P© Bishop Museum, Honolulu© Taylor, Clarice B© 1936 Coney Family on Kauai Carries on Old Fish ing Traditions© Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 1 August© 1957 Hawaiian Almanac® Honolulu: Tongg Publishing Co© Taylor, Emma Ahuena D® 1935 Kalou-wai and Kalau-kai. Paradise of the Pacific 47: 4© Thilenius, G©, ed© 1914-1938 Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908- 1910© II© Ethnographie: A Melanesien, 3 vols©, B Mikronesien, 12 vols© Hamburg: Friederichsen, DeGruyter, & Co© Thomas, William L., Jr. 1968 The Pacific Basins An Introduction© Peoples and Cultures of the Pacific, pp© 3=26© . Andrew. P© Vayda, ed. New York: The Natural History Press© Thompson, Laura 19^0 Southern Lau, Fiji: An Ethnography® Bernice P® Bishop Museum Bulletin 162© Honolulu© Thrum, Thomas G © 1901a Ku-ula, the fish god of Hawaii© Thrum's Hawaiian Annual, pp. 115-116© Thomas G» Thrum, ed, Honolulu© 298 Thrum* Thomas Go 1 9 0 1 b Primitive Honolulu* Thrum0s Hawaiian Annual, p e 8 1 0 Thomas G o Thrum, ecL Honolulu* Thurston, Lorrin A * 1924 The Last Lava Flow on Maui* Honolulu Advertiser, 24 February* Tilden, Josephine E* 1905 Algae Collecting in the Hawaiian Islands, ,Thrum0s Hawaiian Annual, pp» 131=145* Thomas G o Thrum, ed» Honolulu* Titcomb, Margaret 1952 Native Use of Fish in Hawaii* Wellington: The Polynesian Society, Inc* Tolerton, Burt, and Jerome Rauch 1947-1949 Social Organization, Land Tenure and Subsistence Economy of Lukunor, Nomoi Islands* Report 26 of the Coordinating In vestigation of Micronesian Anthropology 1947- 1949* Washington, D*C*s The Office of Naval Research and the National Academy of Sciences, Townsend, Ebenezer, Jr, 1888 Extract from Diary of Ebenezer Townsend, Jr* Hawaiian Historical Society Reprint, no, 4* Honolulu* Tseu, Winifred S*L* 1952 Seasonal variations in the physical ecology of the ponds at Hawaii Marine Laboratory and the adjacent waters of Kaneohe Bay, Oahu* Master's Thesis in University of Hawaii Library, Honolulu* Van Heukelem, W*F* 1968 An ecological survey of the benthic macro- fauna in Alii fishpond-Molokai* Manuscript in Possession of W,F* Van Heukelem* Vaughan, T* Wayland I907 Recent Madreporaria of the Hawaiian Islands ; and Laysan* Smithsonian Institution, U*S* : National Museum Bulletin 59® Washington, , D * C * Walker, W*M» I93I Archaeology of Maui* Manuscript in Bernice P* Bishop Museum, Honolulu* 299 Walsh, Gerald E, 1967 An Ecological Study of a Hawaiian Mangrove Swampo Estuaries, pp0 420-431» George Ho Lauff, ed0 Washington, DeGoS American Association for the Advancement of Science, Westervelt, William D« 1920 The Hawaiian Dragons, Paradise of the Pacific, January8 11, Wight, Samuel G, 1956 Letter to Governor Samuel P, King,' 5 January, In Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Wilcox, Charles nede Kalepolepo. Manuscript in Possession of Johanna Wilcox® Williamson, R,W, 1913 Some Unrecorded Customs of the Mekeo People of British New Guinea, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland ^3: 268-290, Zeuner, Friederich E, 1963 A History of Domesticated Animals, New Yorks Harper & Row,