iii

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER 1

1-1 Aerial Photograph: Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument and 2 Vicinity

CHAPTER 2 – no figures

CHAPTER 3

3-1 Table: Community Contact List 41 3-2 Table: Kūkaniloko Site Visits 48

CHAPTER 4 Confidential 4-1 Map: O‘ahu, showing the Central Plateau 61 4-2 Map: The Central Plateau 62 4-3 Map: Locations of Places Identified along the Wai‘anae Ridgeline and the Streams 63 4-4 Map: Approximate Locations of Kula within the Central Plateau 69 4-5 Table: List of Place Names in Central Plateau Area 73 4-5 Photo: View from Ko‘olau Slopes Across to Wai‘anae Ridgeline 75 4-6 Photo: Flat Central Area of Central Plateau 75 4-7 Photo: Section of the Wai‘anae Ridgeline Known as Wahine hāpai 76 4-8 Photo: Ka‘ala, from the Kula of Halahape, up the Hale‘au‘au Drainage 77 4-9 Photo: The Ka‘ala to Mā‘ili Spur Ridge 77 4-10 Photo: The Wai‘anae Ridgeline from Līhu‘e within Honouliuli 78 4-11 Photo: Maunauna at the End of the Kānehoa-Maunauna Spur Ridge 78 4-12 Photo: View of Wai‘eli Stream, in the Paupauwela Area 79 4-13 Photo: Kaukonahua Gulch heading seaward 80 4-14 Photo: Kaukonahua Gulch on the Seaward Edge of Schofield’s Housing 80 4-15 Photo: View Down Kalena Gulch 81 4-16 Photo: View Down Hale‘au‘au Gulch 81 4-17 Map: 1851 Map of the ‘Ili of Kalena by Artemas Bishop 82 4-18 Photo: Flat Kula of Wahiawā-Kūkaniloko 82 4-19 Map: Blow-up of Portion of 1881 Kingdom Map, Wai‘anae Ridgeline 83 4-20 Map: Map of Crown Lands, Central Plateau 84 4-21 Map: 1876 Kingdom Map of Central Oahu 85 4-22 Map: 1881 Kingdom Map of Oahu, Central Oahu Portion 86

CHAPTER 5

5-1 Map: Location Map of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument 88 5-2 Photo: Parking Area and Access to Kūkaniloko Today 88 iv

5-3 Map: Parcel Map of the Monument 89 5-4 Photo: Former Road Leading to the Monument 91 5-5 Photo: Current Sign at the Parking Lot Entry 91 5-6 Photo: Chain Across End of the Road, Just Before Grassy Area 92 5-7 Photo: Large Earthen Platform (Pā Hula) 93 5-8 Photo: Dirt and Rock Piles Near the Platform 93 5-9 Photo: Two Large Stones at Entry to Grassy Area 94 5-10 Photo: the Birthing Stones from a Distance, under Grove of Trees 95 5-11 Photo: A Closer View of the Birthing Stones 95 5-12 Photo: Older Photo Looking Back Towards the Alignment of Stones 96 5-13 Map: 1992 State Parks Map of the Birthing Stones 98 5-14 Photo: The Central Taller Stones 99 5-15 Drawing: Stone 61 with Its Petroglyphs 101 5-16 Photo: Stone 103 with Its Concentric Circles 101 5-17 Map: Showing Man-made Photo 102 5-18 Photo: ConfidentialStones with visible Poho, Abraded Pits or Depressions 103 5-19 Photo: Stone 73, with Its Cement Repair Work 103 5-20 Photo: Boulders Along the West Side of the Grassy Area 104 5-21 Photo: 1990s Platform in Northwestern Corner of Grassy Area 105 5-22 Photo: 1990s Platform in Northeast Corner of Grassy Area 106 5-23 Photo: 1990s Platform in Southeast Corner of Grassy Area 106 5-24 Photo: L-shaped Structure Built in 2010 107

CHAPTER 6

Section 1

6-1 Map: Places mentioned in the AD 1000s-1200s. 120 6-2 Map: Closer view of Central Plateau in AD 1000s-1200s. 121 6-3 Map: The three large countries of O‘ahu in the 1300s. 125 6-4 Ulu Genealogy. 127 6-5 Map: The Kingdom of O‘ahu and Royal Centers 132

Section 2

6-6 Map: The Central Plateau and its lands. 138 6-7 Map: The main trails passing through the Central Plateau 140 6-8 Map: Section of the 1878 Kingdom Map showing the splitting of the Pu‘uloa to Paupauwela Trail as it entered the Central Plateau 141 6-9 Map: Archeological and Historical Places on the Central Plateau 143 6-10 Map: Artemas Bishop’s 1851 map of ½ of Kalena ‘ili 144 6-11 Photograph: Ulumaika stones found during the survey of lands behind Schofield Barracks 146 6-12 Photograph: Hale‘au‘ahu heiau, from 2005 survey 147 6-13 Map: Roughly Estimated Boundary of Chiefly Center of Līhu‘e- Wahiawā-Kalakoa 151 v

6-14 Map: The Central Plateau Landscape: Chiefly Center, Scattered Houses & Fields, Forests 155 6-15 Photo: The Wahine hāpai from Kūkaniloko 163 6-16 Map: Battlegrounds of the Central Plateau 169

Section 3

6-17 Genealogy: Wākea-Ulu-Hema-Hanalaanui Genealogy (Malo) 199 6-18 Genealogy: Version 2, Ulu Genealogy Portion of Genealogy of Keopuolani (Kamakau 1868) 200 6-19 Genealogy: Version 3, Ulu Genealogy (Kamakau 1869) 201 6-20 Genealogy: Version 4, Ulu Genealogy (Malo 1827) 202 6-21 Genealogy: Version 5, Ulu Genealogy (Dibble 1838) 203 6-22 Genealogy: Version 6, Ulu Genealogy (Kepo‘okulou 1835) 204 6-23 Genealogy: Version 7, Ulu Genealogy (Kamakau 1842) 205 6-24 Genealogy:Confidential Ulu Genealogy with Estimated Dates 206 6-25 Photo: Poho or Worn Basins in the Birthstones 213 6-26 Photo: Same Poho, closer up 213 6-27 Drawing: Stone 61, Showing Circles and Fishhook 214 6-28 Photo: Stone 103, with concentric circles 214 6-29 Photo: Stone 69, taken in 1980s 215 6-30 Map: Distances Given from Kūkaniloko to key places by Kamakau 216

CHAPTER 7

7-1 Painting: Kamehameha I 265 7-2 Drawing: Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku 265 7-3 Drawing: High Chief Boki and his wife, High Chiefess Liliha 266 7-4 Painting: Liholiho, Kamehameha II 267 7-5 Painting: Ka‘ahumanu 268 7-6 Drawing: Kukini 268 7-7 Painting: Kīna‘u 271 7-8 Photo: Kekūanāo‘a 271 7-9 Photo: Kamehameha III 272 7-10 Photo: John Meek 275 7-11 Map: Portion of 1876 Kingdom Map, showing the Locations of Grants 604-606 279 7-12 Photo: Lunalilo 280 7-13 Photo: Kalākaua 280 7-14 Map: George Galbraith’s Ranchhouse location 283 7-15 Photo: James Dowsett 285 7-16 Photo: Annie Ragsdale Dowsett, wife of James Dowsett 285 7-17 Photo: Alika Dowsett, possibly at the Leilehua Ranchouse 286 7-18 Photo: 1882-1889 Kalākaua’s Leilehua Ranch, C.H. Judd & cowboys 290 7-19 Photo: Kalākaua’s Leilehua Ranch, C.H. Judd & cowboys 290 7-20 Photo: 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch. 291 vi

7-21 Photo: 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch and landscape 291 7-22 Photo: 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch, cowboys in front of ranch buildings 292 7-23 Photo: 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch, round-up & landscape 292 7-24 Photo: 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch, Mr.and Mrs. Mitchell 293 7-25 Map: Showing the ranches of the Central Plateau 294 7-26 Photo: 1886 house and irrigated kalo plots, Wai‘eli Stream area 295 7-26 Drawing: Stone 61’s Petroglyphs in mid-1800s lettering 306 7-27 Drawing: Stone 103’s Petroglyphs in mid-1800s lettering 307

CHAPTER 8

8-1 Map: Portion of 1899 Map, showing Wahiawa Tract Parcels 312 8-2 Photo: Some of the Founding Members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā 329 8-3 Photos: Confidential Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā’s First Clean Up of Kūkaniloko 330 8-4 Photo: Hiram Diamond with his Hula Makana to Kūkaniloko 331 8-5 Map: 1993 Era Site Improvements at Kūkaniloko 333 8-6 Photos: Early Site Improvements at Kūkaniloko: Hawai‘i Visitors Bureau sign and two large stones with 36 stones in alignments 336 8-7 Photo: Interpretive Sign #1, Kūkaniloko: Birthplace of Ali‘i 341 8-8 Photo: Interpretive Sign #2, Wahiawā: The Sacred Uplands 342 8-9 Photo: Interpretive Sign #3, Marking Time and Place 342 8-10 Photo: Signs Located at Entrance to the Grassy Area of Kūkaniloko 343 8-11 Photo: Vandalism of Interpretive Sign in 2006 345 8-12 Photo: Initial Excavations for ADA Parking Stall 346 8-13 Photos: Keanini Stone & Its Companion at Wahiawā and When Gone 354 8-14 Photo: Possible Current Location of the Healing Stone 355

CHAPTER 9

9-1 Photo: Kumu Hula Snowbird Bento and Ka Pā Hula o Ka Lei Lehua Hālau at Kūkaniloko in 2010 362 9-2 Photo: Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā kupuna dancing on the pā hula at Kūkaniloko 362 9-3 Photo: Kumu Hula at the Kū i Ka Pono Gathering in 2005 366 9-4 Photo: Uluwehi Hopkins and Ka‘ahiki Solis Sharing Their Mele 367 9-5 Photos: Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā Educational Materials & Displays 371 9-6 Photo: Tom Lenchanko sharing his ‘ike with Nā Pua No‘eau haumāna 372 9-7 Photo: Tom Lenchanko sharing his ‘ike with students 372 9-8 Photo: Groups that the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā has educated at Kūkaniloko 373 9-9 ‘Ānuenue haumāna playing Hawaiian games and cleaning Kūkaniloko 375 9-10 Photos: Some of the native plants being grown at Kūkaniloko 381 vii

9-11 Photos: ‘Uki‘uki and wauke being grown by the Civic Club at Kūkaniloko 381 9-12 Photos: Hale Mua kāne at Kūkaniloko during 2005 Kū i Ka Pono 382 9-13 Photos: Rubellite Kawena Johnson and her former students, Doug Fernandez and Paul Coleman at Kūkaniloko 385 9-14 Photo: Uluwehi Hopkins sitting on the “Navigator’s Seat” 387 9-15 Photo: Doug Fernandez setting up his equipment 388 9-16 Photo: Martha Noyes sharing the map she created about the alignments of Kūkaniloko 389 9-17 Photo: Winter Solstice 2010 looking west at sunset 390

CHAPTER 10

10-1 Aerial Photo: Area Suggested for Boundary for the Historic Property of Kūkaniloko, the sacred birthing place 394 10-2 Map: Map of the Chiefly Center’s Boundaries (very approximately) 396 10-3 Map: TheConfidential Central Plateau of O‘ahu – 36,841 acres 398

CHAPTER 11 -- no figures

CHAPTER 12

12-1 Photo: Overgrown Grass at Kūkaniloko 418 12-2 Photo: Dirt, Stones, and Construction Debris Piles 418 12-3 Photo: Cut Trees, Rock Pilings and Fruit Offerings 419 12-4 Photo: Rubbish and Dirt Mounds at the Current Parking Area 419 12-5 Photo: Current Parking Area, far from the stones 421 12-6 Photo: Asian Tourists Experiencing Kūkaniloko 423 12-7 Photo: Tourists Performing a Ritual at the 2 Large Boulders at the Entrance to the Park 424 12-8 Photo: Tourists Lying on the Pōhaku 424 12-9 Photos: Pōhaku Damaged from a Fire and Repaired 426 12-10 Photos: Vandalism of the Interpretive Signs at Kūkaniloko 427 12-11 Photo: Tourists Sitting and Praying on the Pōhaku 428 12-12 Photo: Ash Splatter Located on the Pōhaku 429 12-13 Photo: Damaged Sign Telling Visitors Not To Do Certain Things 430 12-14 Photo: Corn Offering 431 12-15 Photos: Different Inappropriate Offerings Found at Kūkaniloko 432 12-16 Photo: Pōhaku that was Brought to Kūkaniloko Recently 433 12-17 Photos: Dirt and Debris Piles in Northeast Part of the Park 434 12-18 Photos: Post-1993 Stone Platforms Located at the Entrance and Corners of the Park 435 12-19 Photos: Plant Gardens 436 12-20 Photo: L-shaped Rock Pile Recently Built Just South of the Birthing Stones 437 12-21 Photo: Scratches on the Stones From Weed Whacking 439 12-22 Photo: Lichen Growing on the Stones 439 viii

12-23 Photo: Eucalyptus Trees Blocking the View of the Setting Sun on Winter Solstice, December 21, 2009 440

CHAPTER 13

13-1 Aerial Photo: 1,447 acres recommended as new boundary of the historic property called Kūlaniloko & acquisition idea 445

Confidential ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Mai ka hikina a ka lā i Kumukahi a ka welina a ka lā i Lehua. Eia mākou ‘o Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike, ha‘aha‘a wale ka hana no kō mākou lāhui. First and foremost, we would like to thank our kūpuna and our ‘ohana for supporting and encouraging us during the past two years while working on this study. For all of us, ‘ohana represents the basic foundation and fabric of our lives. In essence, this work represents not only ourselves, but is also reflective of our loving and supportive families and our kūpuna who have provided guidance, direction, and a sense of belonging.

Secondly, we would like to mahalo the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), particularly Kevin Chang, for his support, understanding and assistance throughout the course of the study. We hope his desire to do more such studies to obtain the community’s voice is successful. Also, our thanks to other staff members from OHA who helped us in this project: Alex Connelly, Kamoa Quitevas, Carol Ho‘omanawanui, and Kai Markell. As a majority of ourConfidential group are local, young, up and coming cultural resource managers, we mahalo OHA for giving us this opportunity to make a name for ourselves and prove that the next generation of cultural resources managers are trying to reshape the historic preservation process so it is more meaningful for Native Hawaiian communities. We are grateful for this opportunity to demonstrate the breadth of our professional knowledge, skills, and competence as Hawaiian and kama‘āina researchers.

To the members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, in particular Jo-Lin Kalimapau, Tom Lenchanko, and Aloha Kekipi, mahalo for sharing your memories, stories, and intimate knowledge of Kūkaniloko and the surrounding wahi pana with us. Our two interviewers are honored to have gained your acceptance and trust, and we all truly value the time you spent with us. Your commitment and dedication to Kūkaniloko has remained pa‘a throughout the years and we hope to continue to work with you to mālama Kūkaniloko in the future.

Also, we want to sincerely thank all of the community individuals who shared their precious time, memories, and stories with us; we are truly grateful to each and every one of you. You are all listed in Chapter 3. Your willingness to share personal recollections, observations and mana‘o with us will keep the stories of Kūkaniloko alive and hopefully will enable a better preservation of this wahi pana so generations to come will be able to better appreciate the very special beauty and importance of Kūkaniloko.

We also wish to thank Martha Yent and Holly McEldowney of DLNR’s State Parks Division. We appreciate your sharing your knowledge of Kūkaniloko and of preservation efforts at Kūkaniloko – successes, problems and plans. Thank you for willingly opening all your files to us.

We would also like to express our sincere admiration to Tutu Kawena‘ula Johnson for the work she has conducted at Kūkaniloko, and for sharing her incredible mana‘o and ‘ike. Additionally, during the course of the project, our interviewers were privileged to work with and learn from Martha Noyes and Doug Fernandez, two remarkable cultural x

astronomers. It was a special experience to watch the sun set and stars rise at Kūkaniloko with them. Their detailed and patient explanations of these phenomena were an immense help and broadened our understanding of just how our kūpuna might have viewed the universe. Our interviewers will never look at the stars above us in the same way again!

Our thanks also to GANDA (Garcia and Associates) for allowing us to view and use a draft of their TCP (Traditional Cultural Properties) study of the Līhu‘e lands behind Schofield Barracks. This study helped us greatly in starting up our work.

To Ed and Diane Stasack, mahalo for traveling from afar to gather information on the petroglyphs located at Kūkaniloko and help us better understand this archaeological element of Kūkaniloko. You two are excellent scholars. Your passion for protecting, preserving, honoring, and learning about the rock art of old has truly impressed us.

Our archival researcher would also like to thank Gail Hercher, for generously sharing her research on JohnConfidential Meek and his Hawaiian family. This helped us better understand the Kingdom’s ranching era of the 1800s in the Kūkaniloko area.

Our archival researcher would also like to thank Maria Orr for kindly sharing her 2001 report of the Dole plantation. This helped us understand the early pineapple era.

Also, our archival researcher would like to thank Kaleo and Maya Wong, who did the translation of mid-1800s Hawaiian language newspapers for us. This greatly helped expand our feel for the literature of the mid-1800s that was tied to the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko, and added some important bits of information on the uses of Kūkaniloko. Also, many thanks to Leilani Basham, Assistant Professor in Hawaiian-Pacific Studies at the University of Hawai‘i – West O‘ahu who specializes in Hawaiian language and contemporary Hawaiian issues. Her language expertise helped clarify some of the kaona of two of the Hawaiian language newspaper articles, adding to an understanding of the literature tied to Kūkaniloko.

Our interviewers would like to mahalo Jason Jeremiah for supplying them with several maps to use while interviewing and for working on several weekends to help with research on Kūkaniloko.

Our interviewers would also like to mahalo Manny Kuloloia and Francis Ching who offered them words of wisdom and support throughout the course of the study. Thank you for the wonderful stories, special insights, and caring advice regarding our roles as Native Hawaiians and kama‘āina in the CRM field and the critical importance of maintaining our integrity, respect, and sensitivity as professionals.

Again, all of us feel privileged to have worked on this Traditional Cultural Properties study involving such a significant wahi pana. Each of us has learned and grown tremendously from this experience and will continue to remain interested and hopefully involved with any efforts to improve and strengthen the stewardship of Kūkaniloko. We view this study as a means of empowering and supporting Native Hawaiians – (1) xi employing professional Native Hawaiians and kama‘āina to take lead roles as researchers and resource managers in our own homeland and (2) reaching out to the Native Hawaiian community to involve their knowledge and their concerns about protecting wahi pana that are important to them.

It should also be emphasized that by no means does this study represent an exhaustive examination of Kūkaniloko and its surrounding areas. More research needs to be done with Kingdom records; 1800s unpublished letters, journals and notebooks of Native Hawaiian genealogists, chiefs and commoners; Hawaiian language newspapers yet to be digitally accessible; and the memories and voices of living kūpuna. This study represents an initial attempt to document information and issues associated with this sacred site. This study, it is hoped, will motivate others to continue to research and document the stories and memories of this most special wahi pana. Confidential i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-9

CHAPTER 2 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY STUDIES 10-27 Kelley Uyeoka and Ross Cordy

CHAPTER 3 METHODS 28-59

CHAPTER 4 Confidential THE CENTRAL PLATEAU: ITS LANDS AND PLACES 60-86 Ross Cordy

CHAPTER 5 THE KŪKANILOKO BIRTHSTONES STATE MONUMENT AS IT APPEARS TODAY 87-108 Kulani Jones and Ross Cordy

CHAPTER 6 THE TRADITIONAL ERA UP UNTIL THE END OF THE REIGN OF KAMEHAMEHA I (1819) 109-262 Ross Cordy

THE HISTORY OF O‘AHU TO 1819 & THE PLACE OF THE CENTRAL PLATEAU’S CHIEFLY CENTER OF LĪHU‘E/WAHIAWĀ 109-135

THE CENTRAL PLATEAU’S CHIEFLY CENTER OF LĪHU‘E/WAHIAWĀ & ITS SURROUNDING LANDS: THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 136-193

KŪKANILOKO’S USES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE EARLY ROYAL AND CHIEFLY CENTER AT LĪHU‘E-KALAKOA-WAHIAWĀ 194-262

A) KŪKANILOKO AS A BIRTH PLACE FOR 194 NOBILITY B) KŪKANILOKO AS A PU‘UHONUA & A RELIGIOUS AREA FOR MORE THAN BIRTHING 240 C) KŪKANILOKO AS A PLACE TO TRACK THE SEASONS 242 D) KŪKANILOKO AS A PLACE FOR CHIEFLY INSTRUCTION 252 ii

E) WHY WAS KŪKANILOKO LOCATED WHERE IT IS? 258 F) THE SIZE OF KŪKANILOKO 260 G) KŪKANILOKO’S NAME – ITS MEANING 261

CHAPTER 7 KŪKANILOKO FROM 1820 TO THE END OF THE MONARCHY 263-309 Ross Cordy and Dominique Cordy

CHAPTER 8 KŪKANILOKO FROM THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONARCHY TO THE PRESENT 310-357 Ross Cordy, Kelley Uyeoka, Kēhaulani Souza

CHAPTER 9 CONTEMPORARY HAWAIIAN CULTURAL PRACTICES AT KŪKANILOKO 358-390 ConfidentialKelley Uyeoka and Kēhaulani Souza

CHAPTER 10 BOUNDARIES OF KŪKANILOKO 391-404 Ross Cordy, Kelley Uyeoka, Kēhaulani Souza

CHAPTER 11 THE SIGNIFICANCE (IMPORTANCE) OF KŪKANILOKO 405-415 Ross Cordy, Kelley Uyeoka, Kēhaulani Souza

CHAPTER 12 PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT PRESERVATION OF KŪKANILOKO 416-441 Kelley Uyeoka

CHAPTER 13 MOVING TOWARDS BETTER PRESERVATION 442-475 OF KŪKANILOKO Ross Cordy, Kelley Uyeoka, Kēhaulani Souza, Dominique Cordy, Kulani Jones

NOTES 476-543

APPENDICES 544-569 APPENDIX 1: INITIAL SCOPING APPROACHES 545-548 APPENDIX 2: INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 549-551 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE 552-555 APPENDIX 4: INFORMED CONSENT FORM 556 APPENDIX 5: STASACKS PETROGLYPH REPORT separate APPENDIX 6: LANDOWNERS OF THE KUKANILOKO PARCEL DURING THE KINGDOM 558-569

REFERENCES 570-598

iii

Confidential a

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This study was generated by a concern in the community that the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument was too small, only 5 acres. With the Galbraith Estate planning to sell and/or develop the surrounding acreage, the local Native Hawaiian community was greatly worried about future impacts to this extremely important wahi pana. Thus, OHA funded this study for more research on Kūkaniloko and its associated cultural landscapes and on contemporary Native Hawaiian uses to understand the nature and history of Kūkaniloko, for analysis of the place’s significance in the legal historic preservation context, and for information that would assist the Land and Property Management Program to better advocate for the protection of this wahi pana.

In this study, we view the associated cultural landscapes of Kūkaniloko (the religious and birthing place) as the chiefly center often called Līhu‘e and the Central Plateau region (the kula flats and gulches from the Wai‘anae ridgeline, focused on Ka‘ala, stretching across the flatter terrain of today’s SchofieldConfidential Barracks, Wheeler AFB, and Wahiawā town, and up to the Ko‘olau ridgeline – the traditional lands of Wahiawā and Wai‘anae uka with some of Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a on the north fringe and some of upper Honouliuli and Waikele ahupua‘a on the south fringe).

This was a TCP study, so besides standard archival research and archaeological work, interviews with the Native Hawaiian community were a critical component. The community retains knowledge and ideas about such wahi pana, and has concerns about how these places should be managed. A TCP study enables the community to have a strong proactive voice.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS

Our report has several introductory chapters:

 Chapter 2 – TCP Studies. A detailed look at the legal background.  Chapter 3 – Methods. A description of how archival, archaeological, and interview work was done and the information analyzed.  Chapter 4 – The Central Plateau: Its Lands and Places. Introduction to the mountain peaks, streams, kula, and lands of the Central Plateau. All place names found in archival and interview work are presented, shown on maps, and listed in a table (pp. 73-74).  Chapter 5 – The Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument As It Appears Today. Description the park’s appearance today, for those not familiar with it (pp. 87-108).

DETAILED CHAPTERS ON KŪKANILOKO’S USE

These chapters are on Kūkaniloko and the cultural landscapes of the Central Plateau, their appearance and use in (a) traditional times (settlement to the end of Kamehameha’s reign)(Chapter 6), (b) the 1800s (Chapter 7), and (c) the 1900s to the present (Chapter 8). Chapter 9 covers contemporary Native Hawaiian uses of the Kūkaniloko monument area.

b

KŪKANILOKO & ITS LANDSCAPES IN TRADITIONAL TIMES

Section 1 of Chapter 6 reviews information on the Līhu‘e chiefly center’s place in O‘ahu’s history. Current research suggests that permanent housing and associated fields were restricted to the windward sides of the major islands until AD 1000. Thus, the Central Plateau is not expected to have had permanent housing or fields before AD 1000, although it would have been explored and visited. The earliest dates for permanent settlement of the Central Plateau presently go back no further than the AD 1100s-1200s. This was an era of small countries (equivalent perhaps to 1-2 ahupua‘a), with low populations (average 500-700) and minimal social rank (1 chief, with minimal behavioral isolation). We suggest that the Central Plateau may have been an independent country in the interior from the 1100s-1300. In the 1300s, oral histories describe the formation of three, new larger countries under the Māweke family. Each country had multiple communities, with perhaps a population of 2,000-5,000 and two levels of chiefs (ruler and community chiefs). The Central Plateau was within a country consisting of ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Waialua moku. Early in this period, Kūkaniloko was created by Nanakaoko for his son Kapawa,Confidential and it may be that Kapawa was one of the first rulers over such new, larger countries. Līhu‘e with Kūkaniloko seems to have been a ruling center of this ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae- Waialua country for most of the 1300s, and the senior line of Māweke was living in this area by the end of the 1300s. In the 1400s, all O‘ahu was unified into the Kingdom of O‘ahu under the senior Māweke line. Līhu‘e remained the royal center, or one of several within the ‘Ewa- Wai‘anae-Waialua area. It remained a chiefly center up until about AD 1600. The last recorded high ranking birth at Kūkaniloko was Kākuhihewa about AD 1600-1620. After that the mo‘olelo describe the mō‘ī and high chiefs’ residences and births in the Kailua and Waikīkī centers and on the shore. Both Līhu‘e and Kūkaniloko remained famed in the oral histories, but were apparently never used again for high chiefly residence or birthing.

Section 2 of Chapter 6 looks at the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. The Waialua trail (Pu‘uloa to Waialua) and the Kolekole Trail (from the Waialua trail, west through Kolekole Pass) were major trails that passed through this area. Based on bits of oral histories and on patterns of other chiefly centers at European Contact (pp. 148-152), we believe the Līhu‘e chiefly center was in a roughly circular area from Kūkaniloko around the Waialua Trail in the west through the flats of today’s Schofield Barracks and Wheeler and around up through today’s Wahiawā town – within the lands of Līhu‘e, Kalakoa and Wahiawā (map on page 151). This center would have consisted of dense houseyards, including the ruler’s which would be close to the major religious structures (likely close to Kūkaniloko). Open areas would have included training areas for elite warriors, games (maika grounds), and hula performances. Beyond this chiefly center were largely fields and scattered houses of commoners. The gulch bottoms were cultivated in irrigated kalo fields throughout the Central Plateau. The intervening kula had dryland (rainfall) fields with sweet potato commonly mentioned. Heiau of different sizes were present, one being large (Hale‘au‘au heiau). Outside of the chiefly center, this was an open landscape of fields and scattered houses with some small groves of maintained trees. Forests cloaked the steeper Wai‘anae slopes and the rising Ko‘olau slopes just behind today’s Wahiawā town. This Central Plateau landscape included named stones with stories and associated spirits – the Keanini stone in Kaukonahua Gulch, wahine hāpai outlined on the Wai‘anae Ridge, and others. Mountain peaks of the Wai‘anae range also had associated spirits – Ka‘ala and Maunauna. The landscape also included famed battlegrounds – one fought in Mā‘ilikūkahi’s c

reign between Waikakalaua and Kīpapa gulch, several in Kūali‘i’s reign (early 1700s) across the open fields just below the forest on the Wai’anae ridge, and one in the Kolekole Pass region during the revolt against Kahekili in 1785. Famed cold winds blew down across this landscape from Ka‘ala and the Wai‘anae mountains (the Waikōloa, Kēhau, and Wai‘ōpua winds), and fragrances of kupukupu and other ferns and dews/rains accompanied those winds. These features of the landscape are common in mo‘olelo, kanikau and honorific chants of the 1700s- mid-1800s, which are reviewed in this section.

Chapter 6’s final section looks at Kūkaniloko the wahi pana. The mo‘olelo agree that Kūkaniloko was a birthing place for high ranking chiefs, and that it was built for Kapawa by his father Nanakaoko. The date of AD 1100 is almost universally noted today for its construction. However, this is a date based on Fornander’s analysis of flaws in the Ulu genealogy and his assignment of 30 years per generation (a count per generation no longer used). We look closely at this date. If one accepts Fornander’s arguments and assigns 20 years per generation (the commonly used figure in Hawai‘i today), the date moves into the late 1200s-1300s. If one accepts the Ulu genealogyConfidential as a valid list of historical chiefs by generation and assigns 20 years per generation, then Kapawa actually would date to AD 920-940, seemingly far too early for accepted settlement of the Central Plateau and the cultural context associated with Kapawa. And, there are problems with using the Ulu genealogy as an accurate historical list, which we closely analyze. The dating of Kūkaniloko via the Ulu genealogy is very difficult. Late 1200s- mid 1300s seems most likely. The argument is complex and needs to be read in detail (pp. 196- 210). We next looked at descriptions of Kūkaniloko when in use. Only three are older (two Hawaiian newspaper articles by Kamakau and one by Kalanikuihonoinamoku, all from 1865). Kamakau describes the chiefess giving birth resting her thighs on supports and leaning against the stone Kūkaniloko and being observed by the high chiefs of the kingdom, then the child (if male) being taken to a waihau heiau called Ho‘olonopahu to the south of the birthing area where the piko of the child was cut, and then the drums Hāwea and ‘Ōpuku being beaten to herald the birth of the child. Kalanikuihonoinamoku was told by old folks that “the umbilical cord of the chiefs was left” here. Our analysis suggests that the sacred area of Kūkaniloko was likely enclosed, perhaps by a stone wall; and would have had other features and/or structures. Despite searching through many sources, we found no descriptions of Kūkaniloko from anytime during the 1800s, prior to massive land alteration by pineapple fields about 1900. We suspect that such a description exists (most likely in kingdom ministerial records or a visitor’s account). Thus, we do not know exactly where Ho‘olonohpahu heiau was – although there are ideas offered (which we discuss). Nor do we know where an enclosing wall would have been. All that survives today are the stones within the State monument. They are not in straight lines, and most appear to be natural outcrops – some highly eroded with striking natural fluting. Native Hawaiians from this area in 1925 said that these were the birthing stones, and they identified the Kūkaniloko stone, although we were unable to tell from their descriptions which stone this was. There are two competing ideas for the birth stones today. A petroglyph study done for this project found that a large number of these stones had man-made basins (poho), commonly associated with birthing areas, consistent with holding piko and birthing by-products. This section also looks at who is said to have been born at Kūkaniloko, and who are likely to have been born there (lō ali‘i chiefs, and Kumuhonua chiefs). We also look at general birthing practices and others’ ideas about birthing at Kūkaniloko, and present a possible scenario for birthing at Kūkaniloko (pp. 235-237). Further, we reviewed oral histories for locations of birth places of other high chiefs and rulers, d

and found these to be often at royal or chiefly centers, with some similar practices. Holoholokū is a famed birthing area of Kaua‘i often linked with Kūkaniloko, but other birthing spots were at chiefly centers (for example, Kūali‘i born at Kailua on O‘ahu).

This section of the chapter 6 also identifies several other uses for Kūkaniloko. Kūkaniloko is described by ‘Ī‘ī in the mid-1800s as having been a pu‘uhonua on O‘ahu.. Modern cultural astronomers (Kurth, Johnson, Fernandez, Noyes) have suggested that Kūkaniloko was used as a place for tracking the seasons, noting that the setting of the sun against the Wai‘anae mountains can be used to track the seasons (pp. 242-252). Such tracking of the seasons was done by each kingdom in the 1700s, apparently monitored by the high priests. The only place that was used to track the sun on O‘ahu in the 1700s that we could find in old archival records was Pu‘ukapolei. But every royal center could have had such a tracking spot, as well as ruling centers from the 1300s in smaller countries like the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua country’s Līhu‘e center. So it is a plausible idea, but one that is not yet confirmed with older information. Some in the community today also believe that Kūkaniloko was used to teach navigation, and one stone is pointedConfidential out as a navigator’s stone. Others today note that Kūkaniloko might have been used to teach other occupations (such as reading signs, kilo; lua, etc.). Royal centers in the 1700s that have documentation saw most training in domestic houseyards and open areas (the latter for elite warrior training), not in the sacred heiau/area of the chiefly center. However, some occupations could have been taught in sacred areas, so teaching is also an option. But it is not confirmed with older information, as yet.

Last, this section of Chapter 6 looks at why Kūkaniloko might have been located where it is, its size, and the meaning of its name.

KŪKANILOKO IN THE 1800s

Chapter 7 reviews historical trends of the 1800s related to the Central Plateau. In the early 1800s, sandalwood was cut from the Ko‘olau forests behind Wahiawā and from the Wai‘anae ridgeline. Population was dramatically decreasing across the islands, and strikingly in rural O‘ahu. In the Central Plateau, the traditional era settlement was apparently still present up to the 1840s, but with a smaller population and less land under cultivation. In the 1840s large ranches arose on O‘ahu, to supply the whaling industry. The Central Plateau saw two of these large ranches – the Lihue Ranch of John Meek (married into the Hawaiian-haole Marin, Manini, family that were also ranchers on O‘ahu) and the James Robinson & Co. ranch in Wahiawā and down through Pa‘ala‘a in Waialua. With the Māhele, James Robinson & Company bought the Whitmore Village area of Wahiawā from the Government, and bought the Pa‘ala‘a (Halemano included) lands directly from Kamamalu. Meek continued to lease his ranch lands from the Crown. Eventually, Meek’s lease passed to James Dowsett, then to Kalākaua, then back to Dowsett. The Robinson Co lands were divided among the three partners, and the Holt family retained the Halemano-Wahiawā ranch. Grants 604-606 (Kūkaniloko in 606) lay between these ranches and were sold in 1851 by the Kingdom to Artemas Bishop, William Rice, and A.S. Cooke (respectively). In 1853 Bishop acquired all 3 of these parcels (1,625 acres), and in 1866 he leased them to H. Hillebrand, who owned adjacent Kemo‘o lands, and in 1870 he sold them to Hillebrand’s heir, William Hillebrand (head doctor at Queen’s hospital). In 1882 George Galbraith purchased all of Hillebrand’s lands in Wahiawā and Kemo‘o, using them for ranching. e

Kūkaniloko in this century was a spot that knowledgeable Hawaiians (nobles and others) visited. We found no descriptions of such visits, only general references. The public remained aware of it and its landscapes through the Hawaiian newspaper articles of Kamakau, Fornander’s 1880 history, and kanikau and honorific oli published in Hawaiian papers. In the 1880s, George Galbraith had the Keanini stone moved out of Kaukonahua gulch and placed next to the birthing stones, and had the area fenced in (said to be broken down by wild steers periodically).

KŪKANILOKO IN THE 1900s TO THE PRESENT

From 1895-1900, the surrounding cultural landscape of the Central Plateau dramatically changed to pineapple, military uses, and the town of Wahiawā. The kula with Kūkaniloko was leased to the Waialua Agricultural Company, and they in turn leased it to pineapple companies. However, William Goodale, the manager of Waialua Agricultural Co., protected the fenced area around the birthstones. In 1918 he asked the Daughters of Hawai‘i to assume management, and they did from 1925-1950,Confidential when its care was passed to the Waialua Hawaiian Civic Club, and in turn passed to the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā in 1960. In 1992 the State acquired the land from Galbraith Estate, and State Parks has since managed the park with the assistance of the Civic Club. A grassy area was created around the original 0.5 acres, leveling pineapple fields. Several additions to the park occurred – a V-shaped line of stones headed toward the birthstones, a pā hula, etc. This chapter documents this history of Kūkaniloko, essentially a history of its preservation. Also, the chapter describes the fading knowledge of Kūkaniloko by the general public since the 1920s, with more recent resurgence of this knowledge.

CONTEMPORARY NATIVE HAWAIIAN USES OF KŪKANILOKO

Chapter 9 documents contemporary Native Hawaiian uses of Kūkaniloko. These include ceremonies conducted by the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the associated Friends of Kūkaniloko (solstice and equinox ceremonies, and kahu ceremonies), ceremonies conducted by individuals, families and groups (very personal visits to give offerings to their kūpuna, to the place, and to the ali‘i that were born there), burying the piko of family members (done by a very few families with ties to the place), hula hālau visits to learn about the place and perform and offer chants and dances that acknowledge and pay tribute to Kūkaniloko, events related to Native Hawaiian political issues (such as the 2005 the Kū i Ka Pono gathering), composing mele linked to family and places, cultural education by the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā (with presentations to visitors, ‘ohana, school groups, etc.), cultural education visits by classes from different schools (K-12 and college) to learn about Kūkaniloko and often to help mālama the place, visits by community members to teach family and learn about Kūkaniloko, cultural exchanges, care of the monument by the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko (done for years to maintain the place, including native plant cultivation), lua training in the region, visits by Na Koa organizations with protocol, and cultural astronomy research (observing sun-setting patterns against the Wai‘anae mountains, viewing star rising/setting patterns, analyzing alignments to other sacred places).

f

BOUNDARIES FOR KŪKANILOKO, LĪHU‘E & THE CENTRAL PLATEAU

Chapter 10 looks at boundaries for Kūkaniloko, the Līhu‘e chiefly center, and the Central Plateau region – since to protect historic properties within the historic preservation laws, a boundary has to be established. All agree that the 5 acre boundary around the Kūkaniloko monument today is too small. We propose the boundary for Kūkaniloko, the historic property associated with the birthstones, as the edge of the 1,477 acres of open Galbraith Estate land within the traditional land of Wahiawā. (We do not include their land in adjacent Kemo‘o, which was not traditionally part of Wahiawā.) This acreage easily includes the sacred area of Kūkaniloko – the birthstones and Ho‘olonopahu heiau and other associated features that were all probably enclosed – and it preserves the viewplanes of Kūkaniloko towards the Wai‘anae mountains. These viewplanes were considered extremely important by many in the community to see wahine hāpai, sun setting positions, and star rising/setting spots, and alignments. The next level up in cultural landscapes associated with Kūkaniloko was the chiefly center of Līhu‘e. Although much has been destroyed over the years (notably since the start of pineapple cultivation in 1900),Confidential we provide an initial estimate of this center as a circle enclosing Kūkaniloko and places named in archival records (pp. 395-397). The last level up in cultural landscapes that we studied is the Central Plateau region. Our estimates for this region – with less clear boundaries to the north in Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a and south in Honouliuli and Waikele – are about 36,800 acres. This is strikingly similar to what many members of the community have identified, the 36,000 acres noted by Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā members. This chapter ends describing the process to get these cultural landscapes on the Statewide Inventory of Historic Places, and eventually, as desired, on the Hawai‘i and National Registers of Historic Places. The Kūkaniloko birthstones historic property is already on these Registers, but its boundary would need amending to include a larger area. Getting these cultural landscapes acknowledged as historic properties with specific boundaries is a key step toward their eventual protection in the face of future development.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE KŪKANILOKO MONUMENT

Chapter 11 looks at the legal significance of the Kūkaniloko monument. The federal and state historic preservation laws require a significance evaluation of every historic property as a step on the way towards their protection. They require evaluation under specific significance traits or criteria. The Kūkaniloko Birthstones has already been determined significant and is on the Hawai‘i and National Registers of Historic Places. However, the register form does not thoroughly evaluate how Kūkaniloko is significant under each criterion, and its traditional cultural significance is not presented with the voice of the Native Hawaiian community. This chapter looks specifically at how Kūkaniloko meets each criterion of the Registers. The chapter also provides the Native Hawaiian community’s voice of why Kūkaniloko is of great traditional cultural significance – presented in their own words as quotes (pp. 408-412).

CURRENT PRESERVATION PROBLEMS

Chapter 12 address current preservation problems in the protection and management of the Kūkaniloko birthstones State Monument. These include issues such as

g

 Security and Safety – notably car break-ins.  Limited State Management and Maintenance – lack of permanent staff for Kūkaniloko.  Inadequate Access Road and Parking Lot – blockage of the access road preventing easy access and parking.  Lack of Interpretive Signs – interpretive signs were taken down in 2006 after vandalism. Visitors rarely know what to look at or the history of this wahi pana.  Tourism, Incorrect Information on Kūkaniloko – tourists are given incorrect information, particularly Asian tourists.  Inappropriate and Illegal Destructive Behavior – tourists walk and lay on the stones, vandalism of signs and stones have occurred, etc.  Inappropriate Offerings – coins, candles, potted plants, etc. are left.  Modern Alterations and Construction – since 1993 new platforms, stones and alignments have been added, sometimes without approval by State Parks or the Historic Preservation Division. Some consider these additions inappropriate. Many visitors think these are ancient.  Accidental DamageConfidential to Stones During Cleaning Activities – volunteer weed-whacking and raking have inadvertently scratched the stones.  Impacts from the Eucalyptus Trees – the shade from these trees has increased lichen growth on the stones, possibly damaging them. The trees also block cultural astronomical viewing.  The Preserved Kūkaniloko Historic Property Area is Too Small & Site Buffer Concerns Need More Attention – The park for this wahi pana is much too small, given its importance. A sizable buffer around the historic property is also needed to protect significant view lines to the Wai‘anae mountains.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BETTER PRESERVATION OF KŪKANILOKO

Chapter 13 makes recommendations for better preservation and management of this wahi pana. A key concept is that Kūkaniloko is a significant place of a status similar to a U.S. national park.  One of the most important actions needed for adequate protection of Kūkaniloko is the acquisition of surrounding land to have a much larger historical/cultural park. We recommend that negotiations occur with the Galbraith Estate to purchase the 1,477 surrounding acres that consist of all the open Galbraith Estate lands in old Wahiawā (but not those farther seaward in Kemo‘o), or at a minimum 500 acres of Galbraith lands immediately around Kūkaniloko.  We suggest that this land be acquired by a Native Hawaiian entity, and we suggest that OHA is best suited to acquire these lands.

Assuming that minimally 500 acres around Kūkaniloko is acquired, then we make some recommendations for management.  We suggest that the current State Monument be combined with the 500+ acres.  We suggest that OHA become the manager for this wahi pana, or minimally a Native Hawaiian entity, given Kūkaniloko’s importance to the Native Hawaiian people.  We suggest that an advisory board be created to assist in the management of Kūkaniloko – to address planning and ongoing development and educational activities. If OHA h

would be the ultimate manager of the park and the employer of staff, this Board should have a majority of OHA members. In support of OHA’s Land and Property Management Program’s desire to obtain the community’s voice, we recommend several board members represent the community. One of these community board members should be appointed from the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, as they have a long record of caring for this place, often when no one else did. Ideas for other members include kumu hula with knowledge of Kūkaniloko, a member of Lua or Na Koa groups active in the larger cultural landscape, an individual that has a historic preservation background, an academic professor from a Hawaiian Studies program or related program that is knowledgeable of Kūkaniloko, or a member from families that have ties to the place.

Short-Range Concerns that require immediate attention.  Full-time staff need to be hired, with their job to be at Kūkaniloko during visiting hours. We suggest two positions – a maintenance position and an interpretive position. The presence of these staff would reduce many of the current problems at the park.  Some kind Confidentialof basic shelter from the weather and rest-room facility is needed for these staff. Initially, this shelter could be a partial-sided roofed structure. The rest-room facility could be a porta-potty. These could be placed along the access-road, designed to not be visible from the birthing stones.  Cultural protocols are needed for the opening and closing of the park. Also, protocols regarding handling of offerings at the park are needed.  Access has been a problem issue. We would suggest the following as a possible solution: 1. Reopen the access road during the day, but chain it at night at the highway end. 2. Do not allow parking in the last 100-200 feet of the access road nearest to the grassy area, so cars will not be visible to those at the stones. 3. Allow cars to drop off older kūpuna or people with disabilities closer to the grassy area, but have these cars return and park with the other cars. 4. Do not allow tourist buses. 5. Allow tourist vans (they come anyway), but park them farther away from the grassy area. 6. Allow one parking stall for school buses somewhere along the access road.  Several trash cans must be at the park in the parking area, so visitors can dispose of trash. Maintenance staff must periodically empty these cans.  Signs must be erected at the park to educate visitors about the significance of the site, and to deter visitors from inappropriate behavior. 1. Interpretive signs need to be erected now. Too many people visit and do not know the history or significance of this wahi pana, or what to look at. In the short term, the existing State Parks signs (in storage) could be re-erected right at the start of the grassy area as they were before. These signs tell some of Kūkaniloko’s story. (If these signs are too damaged, State Parks said that new ones could be made.) 2. Small signs need to be next to recent additions (e.g., the two large stones near the parking lot, the V-shaped line of 36 stones, the hula pā), to let visitors know that these are not ancient features. 3. A very visible sign must be near the parking area (but not visible from the grassy area and stones) that tells visitors to respect this wahi pana and to avoid i

inappropriate behavior (e.g., sitting or walking on the stones, leaving certain types of offerings).

Long-Range Management Plans. Long-range plans for Kūkaniloko need to be developed in coordination with the larger community’s interested members, in community meetings with the Advisory Board. Many of the plans will need approval by the State Historic Preservation Office (to comply with the State’s historic preservation laws, to ensure no inadvertent damage to Kūkaniloko). All of the concerned parties need to be included in the planning process because they all have connections and kuleana to Kūkaniloko. This will help ensure that a broad community voice is continuously involved in planning and will be incorporated into the long term stewardship of Kūkaniloko.

A key point to remember is that much more land will be part of this cultural and historical park. As a national level park for Native Hawaiians, this park should be considered a cultural learning center with vast educational value that can include the following ideas and more.  With a largerConfidential park, the entry road into the park could be relocated to enter farther away from the birthing stones. A road could travel along the perimeter of the park with small branches to small parking lots and possible small educational buildings. These roads and parking lots should be paved. Paths can lead from one or more parking areas to the birthing stone area. One parking lot could be for vans and school buses, well away from the birthing stones. Consideration of a paved path for access by kūpuna and disabled visitors should also be given.  Gates at the entry (entries) should be closed and locked in the evening for security reasons.  With a much larger park, bathrooms can be built - well away from the birthing stone area.  Several types of landscaping can be considered. 1. Larger grassy areas could be around any new buildings (a community center, small museum, etc.). Kūkaniloko’s grassy area needs to be maintained. These “lawns” will likely be non-native species. 2. Plantings of native trees (small groves) well back from the view planes from Kūkaniloko should be desirable. 3. Plantings of native shrubbery should occur. 4. Areas with certain types of plants could be developed – hula plants, lapa‘au medicinal plants (maybe those used in childbirth). Small fields of dryland kalo, ‘uala, wauke, etc. could be grown. These different planting areas could be educational tools for the surrounding schools, and for the community – as well as having practical uses. 5. One concern that many interviewed expressed was that the birthing stones should be kept sheltered – not open and highly visible. Native plantings could be used to screen off and buffer the birthing area – keeping it sheltered. 6. Some landscaping could consist of low, stone walls. Walls could set off new buildings. Native Hawaiian stone masons could be employed for such projects – even as a teaching tool for community students or future stone masons. 7. There was some discussion of walling off the birthing stones to keep them sheltered – or creating physical barriers. Although we think it is quite possible that the sacred area of Kūkaniloko was once bounded with low walls, at present there is no way to determine where the boundaries of the sacred area were. Building a wall could bound a smaller area, and leave places that were once part of the sacred area of Kūkaniloko j

outside. This should be avoided, as detrimental to the mana of the sacred area. Thus, we would not recommend a wall around the birthing stones area. Vegetation can be used to screen off the area – without blocking view planes. 8. Expanded grassy areas and native plantings will require more maintenance staff. Some care of native planting areas could be given to volunteer groups in the Hawaiian community and schools.  A larger park area open to the public during the day will require security planning.  A maintenance structure will be needed to store equipment and supplies. This must be storm proof. It might serve as an office area for park staff too.  Possible Infrastructure Facilities..These are solely ideas. They can be along the perimeter access road well away from the birthing stones and be accessed by small parking lots. 1. A Community Center. A building for community gatherings, school talks, etc. 2. A Small Museum or Visitor’s Center. A well-built, storm proof building. A small museum would involve several staff positions. Interpretive staff at the park could be based here. If interpretive staff expanded to two people, one could be at the birthing stones areaConfidential and one at the museum/visitor’s center. This provides job opportunities to members of the Hawaiian community. Volunteer docents (kūpuna) could also be involved in museum and outside interpretive roles. Maintenance is also needed for such a building. 3. Re-created Hale. a..Re-created hale can be important educational tools. Local schools or Hawaiian studies programs could hold classes in such hale. There is no reason not to teach language, English (using Hawaiian mo’olelo as examples), history, etc. in such a setting. Students often pay more attention. Also, kūpuna can aid in instruction. b. Several houseyards with hale could be re-created as an educational tool for what the chiefly center that surrounded Kūkaniloko looked like. This could include food, medicine, and tool trees that might have stood in such yards. This would be an outside continuation of the small museum/visitor’s center. It might need an interpretive staff or docent. Nothing like this exists at any of the current cultural historic parks associated with Hawaiian culture – such as Hōnaunau, Kaloko- Honokōhau, or Pu‘ukohala on Hawai‘i Island. 4. A Place for the Keanini Stone and Its Companion – The Healing Stones. With a bigger park, an area away from the birthing stones could be set aside for the erection of these two stones – their protection and the telling of their history. 5. A House for a Live-in Staff Member. In the past, on some of the islands, State and County parks had live-in staff members. This is true at many National Parks, and at the Royal Mausoleum. Having a staff member present full-time should reduce vandalism, partying, evening trespassing and other activities that might damage the park. It promotes a true kahu status.  Promoting Responsible Tourism. The manager of this park must develop strategies to reach the tour companies to provide them with information on Kūkaniloko’s history, on proper behavior, and on where to park. Permits could be required – a fee, with conditions. Parking in certain parking lots could be required.

Ua pau

A TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY STUDY OF KŪKANILOKO

A WAHI PANA ON THE CENTRAL PLATEAU OF O‘AHU Confidential ITS USES OVER TIME, ITS IMPORTANCE TO THE HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY, & PRESERVATION NEEDS

Ross Cordy, Ph.D.

Kelley L. Uyeoka, M.A.

Kēhaulani Souza, B.A.

Dominique Cordy, B.A. M.A. Student

Kulani Jones, B.A.

September 2011 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This study was set up and funded by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ Land Management Hale (now part of the Land and Property Management Program). The study has been administered by Kevin Chang of that program. It is our understanding that members of the Native Hawaiian community in the Wahiawā area had asked OHA to conduct a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) study of the wahi pana (celebrated, noted or legendary place) of Kūkaniloko because they were worried that the preserved area around the Kūkaniloko Birthing Stones was very small, that Kūkaniloko had a larger associated cultural landscape, and that the Galbraith Estate’s potential sale of its surrounding landsConfidential and the ultimate development of these surrounding lands could seriously impact Kūkaniloko as a wahi pana. OHA also clearly saw Kūkaniloko was an extremely important cultural place. OHA decided to fund this study as a Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) study on Kūkaniloko and its surrounding landscape that would (1) gather more information on Kūkaniloko from documents and records and importantly from the community through interviews, (2) consider the possibility of a National Register of Historic Places nomination as a TCP, and (3) advise OHA on management and land stewardship issues regarding Kūkaniloko based on community input. OHA felt that with this information OHA’s Land Management Hale could better assess the resource management issues for Kūkaniloko in relationship to its 2007 Real Estate Visions Mission Strategy “modeling respect for the land and honoring a Hawaiian sense of place” and influencing responsible land stewardship and management.

As will be seen in the next chapter, Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) are unique types of historic properties. Typically they are historic properties of cultural importance to indigenous communities. These places provide a cultural, historical, and spiritual identity for indigenous people. They are links between the past and present, and in turn to the future. Studies of TCPs attempt to gather information on the use of the property over time from community members (including contemporary cultural practices that involve the property), as well as gather information from archival, archaeological and older oral historical sources. Also, TCPs are historic properties that the indigenous community considers to be important for them – in the legalese of the historic preservation laws to be “significant”. TCP studies enable the community to strongly voice just how important these places are for them. Some TCP studies lead to placement of such wahi pana on the National and/or State Historic Registers of Historic Places, clearly documenting the importance to the community. However, very importantly, TCP studies can also gather information from the indigenous community on how they wish these places to be preserved and managed. Thus, such studies – if done well before development – can be a way that an indigenous community can identify places that are important to them and push towards management of these places in a manner acceptable to them. Such studies empower the community, giving them a greater and more proactive role. 2

Confidential

Figure 1-1. This map shows the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument (rectangle in the center). Whitmore Village is to the right, and Wahiawā town is below to the right and across the stream (the North Fork of Kaukonahua). The Galbraith Estate lands are hatched in red surrounding Kūkaniloko.

In the case of the Kūkaniloko Birthing Stones, this historic place has been on the National Register of Historic Places for 40 years, since 1973 (National Register 1973, then labeled Kukaniloko Birthstones). Its boundaries were modified in 1995 to coincide with the additional 4.5 acres around the site obtained by the State that is now the preserved area (National Register 1994, relabeled Kukaniloko Birth Site). The nomination forms (particularly the 1994 form) documented Kūkaniloko’s traditional era use, conducting a brief but good review of some basic written sources (Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian) and some manuscript material with information from the Hawaiian community in the 1920s. The first and modified forms also clearly established this place as being significant (important) for multiple legal criteria. What has been set aside in preservation is ca. 5 acres (TMK: 7-1-01:004), now called the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument. This monument is being managed by the State of Hawai‘i’s State Parks Division within the Department of Land & Natural Resources with the help of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā under a curatorship agreement (kahu agreement).

3

However, the community, OHA staff, and scholars aware of this cultural place all realize that the wahi pana of Kūkaniloko was set within an old chiefly center in traditional times and within a sizable cultural landscape on the Central Plateau of O‘ahu around this chiefly center. Thus, concerns exist about the size of the area that is preserved. To address this concern, particularly in the face of the Galbraith Estate’s potential selling of surrounding lands, OHA has funded this project. OHA desired a much more extensive study of Kūkaniloko than had been done previously for the National Register nomination forms. OHA wanted more information to be gathered from documents and records, from archaeology, and particularly from the community to better establish the historical picture of Kūkaniloko. Also, more information needed to be obtained on its uses right up to the present – particularly contemporary Native Hawaiian cultural uses. Last, OHA wanted ideas on responsible land stewardship and management of Kūkaniloko.

Our group assembled just for this project, deciding to call ourselves Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike. We are a blendConfidential of one older scholar and four younger ones – all with ties to Native Hawaiian concerns through years of work, Native Hawaiian family members, and in the case of three of us through Native Hawaiian ancestry. All of us desired to do this project as we all feel Kūkaniloko is one of the most important wahi pana on the island of O‘ahu. While we have all have a shared training in anthropology focused on Hawai‘i, we brought different skills to the team. We have all been trained in Hawaiian archaeology, with one of us having over 40 years of experience in the field and the rest of us working actively in the field over the last 10-15 years. Most of us have experience working with historical records (both indigenous Hawaiian records and archival material recorded by non-Hawaiians). One of us again has worked with this material for many years. Two of us have extensive experience conducting interviews with Hawaiian communities, doing what are being called today cultural impact assessments. One member has extensive training in GIS (Geographic Information Systems), bringing high quality map making skills to the group. Our senior scholar has done extensive summaries of the history of Hawai‘i, O‘ahu, and moku on those islands in traditional times blending oral histories, local knowledge, historical documents and archaeological information – a blended, multi- perspective approach that all of us feel is important and that is reflected in this study. All of us also have had experience in many aspects of historic preservation here in Hawai‘i, including state and federal laws, rules and practices. Our senior scholar served as Branch Chief for Archaeology in the State of Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division for 15 years (1987-2002) and has extensive experience in these historic preservation laws and practice. He also worked in Micronesia as the Trust Territory Archaeologist from 1978- 81, working for a year with Dr. Thomas King and his wife, Dr. Patricia Parker, who began the studies of TCPs under the U.S. historic preservation laws in Micronesia at that time and later developed much of the early federal guidelines for such studies. Another of our group focused much of her M.A. work on TCP studies, and has an in-depth knowledge of such studies. One member has worked in a federal level historic preservation program here in the islands the last several years and has interned with multiple state and federal historic preservation programs, as well as OHA, during that time. Thus, collectively we bid on this project, bringing different professional skills. OHA selected our group in the Summer of 2009, and we have been actively working on 4

the project since that time. We have worked as equal partners in this study. Chapter 3 describes our methods in detail. Our senior scholar provided general guidance and report editorial skills and led the archival work. Our members with interviewing skills led the way in our interview work with the community.

In protecting historic properties, typically they are identified, documented, and their past use clarified. Then it is determined whether they are significant (and how). Then significant historic sites often are slated for preservation, with a preservation plan developed and executed. The Kūkaniloko Birthing Stones have already been determined to be important (significant) and are on the National Register of Historic Places, and they are preserved within a small acreage. But, as noted above, full documentation of this wahi pana and its surrounding cultural landscape has yet to occur, and its significance needs clarification; and issues exist with its preservation. These concerns are the focus of this study. To help work towards future preservation efforts, we decided to generally present our findings in the steps that historic properties undergo review. Confidential 1) Documentation of the historic property and its uses in its relevant time periods, also including contemporary cultural uses in this study. Discussion of the boundaries of the property. 2) Proposing how the site is significant. 3) Discussion of preservation a) Identification of current preservation issues. b) Proposing long-term preservation needs

We have several introductory chapters. Chapter 2 discusses TCPs in detail, for those that wish to understand such studies in more depth. Chapter 3 covers the methods that we used in this project for interviewing, archaeological work and archival studies. Chapter 4 briefly describes the Central Plateau of O‘ahu, the landscape within which Kūkaniloko sits and the place names on this landscape, so the reader can be aware of the natural setting and places discussed throughout the report. Chapter 5 documents the current appearance of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument – the area currently preserved and protected. Many readers may not have visited the park, so this provides a baseline of what is present.

Then we present a series of chapters that provide information on Kūkaniloko and its use in relevant time periods. Chapter 6 looks at its use in traditional times (from settlement of the islands to Kamehameha I’s time). We look at its use within the setting of the history of O‘ahu, for the birthing area was linked to a chiefly residential center in the Central Plateau. Also, we look at the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau and at this chiefly center, and last we specifically review the uses of Kūkaniloko. Much of this chapter uses material found in oral histories and oral literature recorded in the 1800s (most in Hawaiian with some translated and some not; some in English), archaeology, and archival material (Kingdom land records, Kingdom maps, journals and descriptions by Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians); but the chapter also includes information on this time period from personal knowledge and hypotheses present in today’s Hawaiian community. Chapter 7 looks at Kūkaniloko’s use in the 1800s (from near the end of Kamehameha I’s 5

reign to the overthrow). This was a period when Kūkaniloko was no longer used for births of the nobility and eventually sat within a cultural landscape dominated by ranching, with most ranches operated by elite Hawaiian-haole families. We look at general history in the Islands related to activities in the plateau in the 1800s (sandalwood extraction and the rise of ranches), the changing cultural landscape of the Central Plateau, and the very limited information found on Kūkaniloko itself. Material used in this chapter comes from archival material (descriptions by Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, Kingdom land records and maps, census and tax records), oral literature composed in the 1800s, and oral information from the community recorded in the 1920s-1930s. Chapter 8 looks at Kūkaniloko’s use from the overthrow up to the present. In this period, the birthing stones were set aside in preservation amidst an even newer cultural landscape of the Central Plateau – one of pineapple cultivation, military use, and urbanization (the rise of Wahiawā town). Much of our focus in Chapter 8 is on the history of preservation of the site. Information from this chapter came from written records (from newspapers, records of the Daughters of Hawaii, Bishop Museum, and State Parks) and from interviews (withConfidential members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, the community and with State Parks staff). Chapter 9 looks at contemporary Native Hawaiian uses of the site and vicinity. This is based almost entirely on interviews.

After providing this documentation of the use of Kūkaniloko over the years, Chapter 10 looks at boundaries of this cultural place. Historic preservation law requires boundaries be established for historic places. This is vital for preservation efforts. So this chapter looks at boundaries at several levels, based on interviews with the community and archival research.

Next, although all agree that this cultural place is extremely important or significant, we believe it is important that the Hawaiian community be able to strongly voice their feelings on the significance of this site. Thus, Chapter 11 presents this information, based on the interviews done for this study.

Last, Kūkaniloko, being an extremely important cultural place, needs to be preserved and to be well managed. Currently, considerable issues and problems with preservation exist. Chapter 12 identifies these problems as we have observed them while at the birthing stones and that community members have identified. Chapter 13 discusses what more ideal long range preservation might be, based on the interviews and on our opinions given this study. It necessarily looks at Native Hawaiian uses and preservation desires.

SOME GENERAL THOUGHTS

Finally, we would like to add some general thoughts to this introduction. Identification with a place is an important foundation for all Hawaiians -- it provides historical, spiritual and cultural identity. Sustaining a pono connection to the ‘āina was considered essential to the balance of all life and to the well being of society in the past, and is to many today. The Native Hawaiian relationship with place is spiritually guided by reverence and respect. The Hawaiian value of aloha ‘āina, or love for the land, stems 6

from a wealth of ancient traditions. At the island-wide level, these islands are the homeland of Hawaiians. Within the islands, there are many specific places (natural, archaeological and always cultural) that Hawaiians connect with and believe are important. Maintaining traditional and customary practices at such places today connects many to the ‘āina and past generations, providing a personal base for dealing with the present and future. Thus, culturally acceptable management and preservation of important places are clearly important to Hawaiian communities. Perpetuating the place names, mele, oli and mo‘olelo help to preserve the memories and stories of these places. OHA’s Land Management Hale (now part of the Land and Property Management Program) had this viewpoint in initiating this study. We hope that this report helps better document the importance of Kūkaniloko and can start to address its proper preservation as an extremely important cultural and sacred place to many Hawaiians.

As will be seen, this study strives to provide a more complete and holistic picture of Kūkaniloko and the surrounding lands by utilizing a variety of sources including genealogies, oralConfidential histories, oral literature, written records (published and unpublished), written histories, land records, land maps, archaeology, anthropological ethnographies, and community knowledge – these sources being primarily in Hawaiian and English. This holistic view is not a particularly new approach. Some scholars have been doing this for years. In drafting guidelines and rules for archaeological work in the late 1980s, our senior scholar was urging this kind of broader research be done. However, it is still not common practice in historic preservation studies to bring in oral history, oral literature and community knowledge as a sizable and equally important part of a study. This needs to change; if not, our histories remain incomplete. We view this more holistic approach as a necessary and integral part of modern indigenous research. It also is just good quality research. Historical research in our Islands without an equally strong oral historical component (including literature, besides histories) usually has great weaknesses. Similarly historical research on areas that ignore archaeology and other sources often have weaknesses. Our view is that history must be a blend of all relevant sources – with equal weight to oral history.

Also, we view traditional cultural property studies as projects that should provide a greater voice to the local community. Such studies empower the Native Hawaiian community in enabling them to add to the knowledge of important cultural places. Such studies also allow the community to have a strong voice in how such places should be preserved and managed in the future. These more inclusive studies involve and “welcome” community participation in historic preservation planning. Too often in the past, communities have found out at the last minute about developments that will impact places important to them, or have found that the studies that they helped with cannot have much affect in protecting and preserving places near and dear to them (for example, cultural impact assessments in EIS studies at this time). Currently, the strongest laws in place in the United States and in Hawai’i to protect important cultural and historical sites are historic preservation laws. Traditional cultural property studies place the communities proactively on their terms into preservation issues within those laws.

7

Ideally, we hope that the Native Hawaiian communities and scientists/scholars interested in Hawaiian culture and history will come together and with their expertise, knowledge and passion will work together in an effort to preserve important cultural places. These are in many ways the only two groups that truly care for Native Hawaiian cultural places from a deep perspective of knowledge. Tensions have periodically existed between Hawaiian and archaeological communities and between Hawaiian communities and government historic preservation agencies with their scholar/bureaucrats. These tensions are often the result of misunderstandings, for scholarly work and historic preservation legal actions are embedded in scholarly and legal jargon and procedures that the public is often unaware of. Also, the scholarly and governmental community often does not seem to realize that there are Hawaiian communities out there with deep ties to their land and cultural places – communities that want to be contacted to know about work that is proposed or will occur in their area and that have valuable ideas to contribute. There is not a lot of sharing of scholarly findings back with the community. This is not to say that there have not been a number of partnerships between the academic and Hawaiian communitiesConfidential over the years; there have been. But we believe a stronger working relationship is needed, to help ensure more important cultural places are preserved, and preserved well with proper respect and protocol.

One way of moving the Hawaiian communities and the scholars and government communities together is to get more Native Hawaiians working in the scholarly and governmental sector. All of us have strongly advocated this approach. Over the last 10- 15 years more and more Native Hawaiians have entered the scholarly and governmental side of the discussion (working for private companies, for the universities, and for government agencies involved in historic preservation or in site management and protection). Being Hawaiian, they often bring different perceptions to the scholarly discussions. Also, being Hawaiian, they should recognize the need to improve communication with Hawaiian communities. We hope this trend continues. The more Hawaiian scholars and government workers involved, the better the situation. Also, although such scholars and workers are unlikely to reflect all the diverse Hawaiian communities in the Islands and their views, they will be aware of this diversity, which can only improve interaction with the Hawaiian communities.

Equally important, we believe that it will be useful to get Native Hawaiian scholars in positions of greater influence in academia, the historic preservation field, and governmental site management. There are now Native Hawaiian scholars who have become key policy-makers at the universities. Some Native Hawaiians are involved in leading positions in historic preservation governmental agencies – although far fewer than might be expected, and of those even less with scholarly expertise in an area of historic preservation. Even fewer Native Hawaiian scholars own or have controlling interests in private companies who do much of the historic preservation work. Also, not many Native Hawaiians hold higher management positions in government agencies that protect sites (such as State Parks or the National Park Service). We believe that involving Native Hawaiian scholars at these higher decision-making and policy-making levels will lead to governmental agencies and private firms changing their approaches and perspectives in doing work. It will reshape the overall range and quality of research, 8

the sharing of this research with communities, the effectiveness of historic preservation protection of cultural places, and hopefully will help bring the Native Hawaiian and scholarly/governmental communities together to do a much better job of protecting invaluable cultural places and knowledge – for again these are the groups most concerned about these places and knowledge.

OHA’s manager for this project also seems to have had this view, for he have repeatedly emphasized during the course of this project the importance of employing Native Hawaiian scholars to improve linkages with the community and also of having a group that included Native Hawaiians among its leaders. We hope that our group of co- equal colleagues, with a majority of Native Hawaiian scholars, has been somewhat successful in linking with the community and understanding Hawaiian perspectives. Our group views having been employed by OHA to do this study as a unique opportunity to empower and support Native Hawaiians scholars to take on the important responsibility of being lead researchers and decision-makers in a study of an extremely important Hawaiian culturalConfidential place and attempting to get these places properly preserved. It is our hope that this study is the first of many future studies funded by OHA.

Last, we also believe that quality scholarly work based on better communication with the Hawaiian communities and on extensive research with archaeological and archival sources (including old recorded oral literature and histories) is a vital endpoint of these kinds of studies. Quality scholarly work can come from the Hawaiian side and the non-Hawaiian side. Just as important to realize is that non-quality work can come from either side. It helps to have quality academic training and experience in Hawaiian research topics and methods. We believe that one reason OHA chose our group for this project is that regardless of our ethnicities, we bring years of experience in Hawaiian research to the table, with a track record of quality products. While we can see many areas still needing research work regarding Kūkaniloko, we hope that this report has fulfilled this goal of quality research and has met OHA’s concerns in that area.

But ultimately, we hope that this report will help the Native Hawaiian public and others better understand the importance of Kūkaniloko – providing information from archaeology, oral histories, oral literature, community knowledge, and other sources. Most importantly, we hope that this report will provide OHA and the Native Hawaiian community of the Wahiawā and wider areas a means of better preserving and protecting this extremely important wahi pana for all time. The community has provided key information on what they consider to be ideal management of this sacred place from a deeply felt Hawaiian perspective. We hope that we have been able to convey their concerns. We hope that actions are taken to see their concerns implemented.

From this perspective, we hope that our group, a majority being Native Hawaiian scholars, has met its responsibilities with this report. All of the authors, Native Hawaiian and otherwise, strove to be pono and always sought to cooperatively and politely gather information on Kūkaniloko and to objectively evaluate it throughout the course of this study. It remained a goal throughout to attain a greater understanding of Kūkaniloko and 9 ultimately to help empower OHA and its beneficiaries with the knowledge and tools necessary to properly preserve, protect and steward this wahi pana.

Confidential 10

CHAPTER 2

TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY STUDIES

Kelley Uyeoka Ross Cordy

“…Traditional cultural properties are also significant now, in the present. It is the continuity of their significance in contemporary traditions that is important, and that makes them significant in the past and present simultaneously.” [Parker 1993]1

There areConfidential many historical or cultural sites and places in our islands that connect present generations to past ancestors through the continuation of mo‘olelo (stories, histories, myths, and legends) and living traditions. For Native Hawaiians, these cultural places are not just relics of the past or archaeological sites to be scientifically studied; they are living places bursting with vibrant histories, energies, and mana. They are places that attain their significance through the stories, histories, and memories attached to them. Today, many of these storied places continue to be highly valued and frequently used by Native Hawaiians to perpetuate cultural traditions. Many of these cultural places do not have archaeological remains; they can be mountains, streams, pools, and portions of reefs. The importance of these places is evident in the strong cultural attachment Native Hawaiians maintain with their physical and spiritual surroundings. The values and beliefs associated with place, or a “sense of place,” have been passed on through the generations and continue to root Native Hawaiians to their ‘āina and ‘ohana, both living and departed.2 Connections to cultural places provide feelings of belonging, comfort, and appreciation, enabling us to remember and pass on stories about who we are, where we come from, and what our values are.3 Consequently, the preservation and protection of Hawai‘i’s cultural places are essential for the survival and perpetuation of the Hawaiian culture.

The major means of preserving and protecting these places is through the Hawai‘i state historic preservation laws (Chapter 6E, Hawaii Revised Statutes) or the federal historic preservation laws (particularly the National Historic Preservation Act). These laws were created to handle the impacts of development on important places, and they also apply to important places on state and federal lands. These laws focus on the identification of important (significant) historic sites or properties. A historic site must be described and its former use documented, and its boundaries must be identified. Then its importance (significance) must be evaluated according to specific legally established traits (criteria). If the place meets any of these criteria, it is determined to be significant, eligible for inclusion on the State of Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places or National Register of Historic Places. Then a plan is supposed to be developed on appropriate treatment – preservation, data recovery of information, or sometimes no treatment. Importantly, the interested public in general and the interested Native Hawaiian public 11

specifically are by law allowed to be participants in virtually every step of the historic preservation review process. The ideal purpose of the historic preservation review process was to seek “win-win solutions between historic preservation and other public interests [development]…through consultation.”4

This historic preservation process can be a powerful tool for protecting important historical and cultural places. However, it is a complex process, full of bureaucratic/legal jargon. The documentation of historic places is often done by what are called contract firms (hired under contract by developers or government agencies). These include archaeological firms, with staff that have expertise in archaeological survey work and often in archival research and increasingly in interviewing the local community. Some contract firms have specialized in interviews, but these have been very few in number over the years. The reports of the studies done by these professionals are sometimes highly technical, and not easy for the general public to read. Also, public involvement is often poorly integrated in the process. Most members of a community may not find out about a project Confidentialuntil quite late in the process.

Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) studies are a different approach to protecting important cultural places. These studies do professional archival and archaeological work, but one of the most important elements is to involve the relevant indigenous community in the study through interviews that document the place (description, use, boundaries) and its importance (significance). Such studies usually are initiated and funded by the indigenous community (such as native tribal organizations on the U.S. continent). Thus, the indigenous community is vitally involved in these projects. Importantly, such TCP studies can propose proper preservation and management of important cultural places, from the perspective of the indigenous community – although this is very rarely done. TCP studies have the potential to empower Native Hawaiian communities to identify and preserve the cultural places that are important to them. But, it is essential for Native Hawaiians and the larger public to better understand these studies.

HISTORIC PROPERTIES & DETERMINING IMPORTANCE (SIGNIFICANCE)

Historic properties are the specific legal term that is used in the federal and state historic preservation laws to refer to archaeological sites, culturally important places that can be natural places such as mountains and springs, architectural buildings, and even objects. More popularly, excluding objects, one sees these referred to as historic sites. The term property in itself has created some controversy within several Native American communities (e.g., the Navajo tribe) because the word “property” implies something that is owned and can be bought and sold. This remains offensive to some because it goes against the traditional belief that humans do not own the land, but are merely stewards who care for it. Consequently, some Native American tribes use the term traditional cultural places or sacred sites to better define places of cultural, historical, ancestral, and spiritual value. In Hawai‘i, we have seen people refer to such sites as cultural sites or cultural places. One just needs to remember that, for better or worse, presently historic 12

property is the legal designation that one must deal with at certain points when coping with the bureaucracy.

Again, in the federal and state historic preservation laws, it is necessary to identify significant (important) historic properties, so their treatment can be addressed in the face of development or even in a non-development context. Preservation is a form of treatment.

Both the federal and state historic preservation laws identify significant historic properties based on specific traits of significance (significance criteria). A significant property must be at least 50 years old, and must meet at least one of the criteria to be considered significant. The federal and Hawai‘i state historic preservation processes are slightly different in the significant traits (criteria) that they use to determine if a historic or cultural place is important. Both identify traditional cultural properties or places that are culturally important to native peoples in slightly different terminology and ways. Confidential Once properties are identified as “significant” historic properties based on the legal criteria (traits), the federal and state laws initially were created to then have these properties placed on the National or State Historic Registers of Historic Places. Today, properties may either be placed on the Registers or be determined eligible to be placed on the Registers. Most properties are processed under eligibility, and very few today go through the long process to be placed on the Registers.

IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC PROPERTIES IN THE FEDERAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAWS

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 was passed to a large degree to address historic properties of significance on federal lands and significant historic properties that might be impacted by federal or federally funded, permitted, or licensed projects (highways, telescopes, buildings, etc.). It set up criteria to determine which properties were important or significant. It set up the National Register of Historic Places, which was to identify and list significant (important) historic properties. It established a review process for federal development or federally funded development projects (Section 106). This process required coordination with the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), which were established by this law.

Identifying Significant Historic Properties

A key initial step in the federal process was (and is) to identify significant historic properties. The federal agency undertaking or funding the project often had to conduct archaeological or other surveys to determine if historic properties were present, and if so, to identify which of these properties were significant. The resulting survey report had to be submitted to the SHPO for review and comment (and in practice approval). If significant properties were identified, then National Register nomination forms were supposed to be filled out for each property and be submitted to the Keeper of the National Register in the Department of the Interior for review and eventual verification. Only then 13

was the next step in the process supposed to occur – how to treat these properties in the face of development. These National Register forms could be (and are) initiated by a federal agency controlling a property or undertaking a project, by the SHPO, or by the general public. They are reviewed by the Hawai‘i Historic Places Review Board (attached to the SHPO), and if approved, usually are passed on to the Keeper of the National Register.

The National Park Service established National Register significance criteria, four criteria. A historic property has to meet one or more of the criteria to be eligible for inclusion on the National Register. The criteria are as follows:

Criterion A: (Event) Association with events that have made significant contributions to the broad patterns of American history. Criterion B: (Person) Association with the lives of persons significant to our past. CriterionConfidential C: (Design/Construction) Embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D: (Information Potential) Yield, or likely to yield, information of relevance to prehistory and history.

Historic properties are also supposed to have integrity. For example, if a building associated with a person was almost totally destroyed, it probably would not have integrity. Officially, the law and its rules itemize seven aspects of integrity:

1) Location: A place where the historic property was constructed or place where the historic event occurred. 2) Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. 3) Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. It includes physical features, such as topographic features, vegetation, simple manmade features, and relationships between buildings and other features or open space. 4) Material: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 5) Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in prehistory or history. 6) Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetics or historic sense of a particular period of time. 7) Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

In the early 1970s, when the federal law first began to be used in Hawai‘i and elsewhere, the SHPOs worked on submitting nomination forms for many well known 14

historic properties that met one of the significance criteria and had integrity. In these years, the National Register was published in book form every year with properties listed by state with short descriptions and often a photograph. Problems quickly arose as development accelerated in the early 1970s and federal agencies began to deal with this law. Development project archaeological surveys were finding hundreds if not thousands of historic properties that were technically eligible for the National Register, many that solely contained important archaeological information. Preparing the paperwork for every site to be nominated to the National Register and awaiting the Keeper’s decisions was taking far too long. It was dramatically threatening federal development projects, hardly a win-win situation. So in the mid-1970s, a short form was developed – a Determination of Eligibility form. It too had to be filled out for each eligible property and then be submitted to the Keeper. If approved, the property was officially determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register, but it was not published in the annual National Register book, rather it was published in the Federal Register. However, it also failed as an attempt to expedite the process, and all parties realized this by the end of the 1970s. Confidential What resulted next was the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the federal watchdog over the National Historic Preservation Act) decided that if the SHPO and the federal agency responsible for the action agreed that historic properties identified by archeological and other surveys clearly met one or more criterion of the National Register, then the SHPO could write a letter stating that by consensus the historic property was considered eligible for the National Register. No processing of forms or paperwork through the Keeper of the National Register was required any longer. These consensus determinations allowed the review process to move on – to focus on how to treat these significant historic properties. Typically, survey reports that found and documented properties had to have an evaluation of each property and whether they met the federal significance criteria. This process was effectively in place by the mid-1980s.

This process continues today. Few Native Hawaiian historic properties in Hawai‘i are nominated to the National Register. Instead, the emphasis for these hundreds, if not thousands, of properties has been placed on appropriate treatment. Properties that are placed on the Registers are often more modern architectural buildings – because placement allows dramatic reductions in property taxes or easy access to grants to restore or maintain such buildings. No such advantages exist for nearly all Native Hawaiian historic properties, so the need for nomination is minimal. Placement on the Register occasionally occurs, and it gives a property greater public visibility. However, it does not ensure protection any more than a consensus determination letter. And it is vastly more time consuming for SHPO staff desperately trying to ensure proper treatment of important places.

The Recognition of Traditional Cultural Properties

In the late 1970s, Thomas King was on loan from the U.S. Advisory Council to the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands’ Historic Preservation Office in Micronesia. King eventually drafted most of the rules for the Advisory Council for the Section 106 process – the legally binding rules for this process – so in many ways, he was 15

the father and expert on this process. At the same time his wife, Patricia Parker, was doing her PhD thesis work on the island of Moen (now Wene) in Chuuk in Micronesia. Our senior researcher (Cordy) was hired in 1978 as the Archaeologist for the Trust Territory’s Historic Preservation Office, and he worked with King in 1978 and 1979 prior to King’s return to the U.S. New airports were being constructed with federal dollars at this time in Micronesia. On the islands of Moen in Chuuk and Yap, these airports were going to impact cultural places of importance to the indigenous Chuukese and Yapese people. They raised their concerns, and at least in the Chuukese case were being ignored. So King and Parker on Moen helped the local populace document the places in the airport impact area that were important to them, including fishing spots on the nearshore reef and a mountain peak of cultural importance. They helped ensure that these sites were determined eligible for inclusion on the National Register. (On Yap, the airport was impacting burial sites.) These Micronesian cases quickly made it apparent that historic properties (often without archaeological remains) of importance to indigenous communities needed to be included as significant sites – as culturally significant sites or sites of traditionalConfidential cultural significance. King and Parker, thus, established the first steps for including such properties within the federal historic preservation process. When King departed Micronesia, Cordy continued to use this approach in training and historic preservation review throughout the Trust Territory’s islands.

Importantly, on King’s return to the U.S., he eventually moved to ensure that sites of traditional cultural significance were officially considered as historic properties, and were included under the National Register significance criteria. Other cases arose from Native American contexts. Eventually, King’s efforts were successful. Throughout the 1980s and into the early 1990s, King and Parker conducted many training workshops across the country on the federal historic preservation process (notably the Section 106 process). These workshops often included a fictional combined example based on the Chuuk and Yap cases. King and Parker wrote National Register Bulletin 38 (Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties) in 1990, to indicate what this type of property is and how to nominate it. They coined the term “Traditional Cultural Property” or a TCP. It was considered in the federal process to be a type of historic property equal to archaeological sites, architectural buildings, objects, and the like.

Under King’s and Parker’s efforts, the historic preservation process enabled a property to be considered to have traditional cultural significance under criterion A of the National Register. A separate significance criterion was not created at the federal level. Integrity of such a historic property was particularly to be considered regarding the feelings and associations that a community held for the TCP. While a TCP might not provide any evidence of design, material or workmanship, the feelings and associations or intangibles that the place inspires is sufficient to confirm that the property has integrity in the eyes of the community. Thus, a traditional cultural property can be determined to be of traditional cultural significance because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are (a) rooted in that community’s history and (b) important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community – this being considered to meet criterion A.5 16

To give the reader a more detailed feel for Bulletin 38, King and Parker break down the traditional cultural property term and define each word as follows:

Traditional – The beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community that are passed down through the generations, generally through oral literature or oral history, or though the practices of traditional skills. Culture – The beliefs, practices, lifeways, and social institutions of any community. Property – Places or historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act, which includes, “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion on the National Register.”

The Guidelines begin by defining TCPs and providing examples of such properties. Some examples of TCPs listed in Bulletin 38 include: Confidential  Locations associated with the traditional beliefs of a Native American group about its origins, its cultural history, or the nature of the world;  Rural communities whose organization, buildings, structures, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long term residents;  Urban neighborhoods that are the traditional homes of a particular cultural group, and that reflect its beliefs and practices;  Places that religious practitioners have historically gone, and are known or thought to go today, to perform ceremonial activities in accordance with traditional cultural rules of practice; and  Locations where a community has traditionally carried out economic, artistic, or other cultural practices important in maintaining its historic identity.

More important, the bulletin covers the intangible qualities that makeup TCPs including:

 Spiritual power of a place, which refers to the sacred nature and spiritual aspects associated with a place.

[In Hawai‘i, this can equate to the mana that emits from wahi pana (legendary or storied place), wahi kapu (sacred place), and wahi kupuna (ancestral place).]

 Practices that people perform at a place that make it special or essential for the continuation of a community’s cultural traditions and can range from subsistence activities to ceremonial customs.

[In Hawai‘i, cultural practices are conducted for the purposes of perpetuating traditional cultural knowledge and strengthening cultural and spiritual connections to the ‘āina (land), kūpuna (ancestors), ‘aumākua (guardian ancestors), and akua (gods).]

 Stories that contain spiritual qualities or associations with ancestors. 17

[In Hawai‘i, mo‘olelo connect present generations to the places kūpuna lived, worshiped, gathered, and exercised stewardship. Mo‘olelo were created and passed on between the generations for a number of reasons including to keep the stories of the landscape and people alive.]

 Remembrances that include deep, complex patterns of memory that provide people with an attachment to a particular place.6

How to Document a Traditional Cultural Property & Determine if it is Significant

The process by which a traditional cultural property is determined significant, eligible for the National Register, consists of four primary operational steps:

The first step is to document the property, which might be a district (an area with multiple properties),Confidential an archaeological site, an architectural building, or a natural feature. Documentation might include archaeological work and archival work, but it is essential that the associated beliefs and practices of the community are accurately documented through interviews. Documentation focuses on describing the property, establishing its past uses and associated beliefs, and identifying the continued associated beliefs and practices of the community. The property must have distinct boundaries, a point required for all historic properties undergoing significance evaluation. This requirement has been problematic for native communities because it is often difficult to determine specific boundaries of sacred sites.

The second step is to consider the property’s integrity. This is accomplished by identifying and documenting the integrity of the relationship (between the property and the beliefs and practices) and the integrity of its condition (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association).

The third step is to match the property with any of the National Register significance criteria A through D.7 All TCPs are likely to meet Criterion A – association with an event or patterns of events. “The events or patterns don’t have to be assignable to definable time periods, they can refer to traditional time, as long as the tradition (with which the place is associated) is rooted in the history of the group, and associates the property with traditional events.”8 In respect to Criteria B – association with the lives of persons significant to our past - it is acceptable that the term “people can be taken to refer to both persons who are tangible (human existence in the past can be inferred on the basis of historical, ethnographic, or other research) or persons such as god/demigods who are noted in the traditions.”9 The TCP could be significant just for traditional cultural significance under criterion A or under multiple criteria. If it meets any of these criteria, it can be considered eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

The fourth step is submitting this significance evaluation to the Hawai‘i SHPO, for the SHPO must review the proposed evaluation and minimally make a consensus 18

determination on the property’s significance and its eligibility for inclusion to the National Register.

IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC PROPERTIES UNDER THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAWS

The State’s historic preservation law is Chapter 6E. It was modeled after the National Historic Preservation Act, and there are several sections that require a review process for state projects or funded projects as well as for review of state and county permits. Early on the State established a Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places and a Review Board of Historic Places. Much of the office’s early work in the 1970s was to re- identify archaeological sites that were known (heiau, fishponds, etc.), fill out nomination forms for the State Register and have the Review Board review and eventually approve them. The criteria used were the same four from the National Register. Often properties nominated to the State Register were then passed on to the Keeper of the National Register. Confidential

However, by the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Hawai‘i Historic Sites Section within State Parks was starting to review more federal projects and state/county projects and permits. Much of this review led to archaeological surveys. Many sites were found that were significant. As in the federal process, it proved too time consuming to do nomination forms for these sites. But, rather than follow the process of identifying significant sites specifically according the significance criteria in a short form, the Section’s staff often simply skipped a formal assessment of significance. Instead, they frequently approved whatever the recommendation of the archaeologists doing the survey was – such as more excavation of some sites or preservation (although very few sites were preserved).

In 1985, our team’s senior member was hired by the Hawai‘i Historic Sites Section. He was soon charged with developing rules for a process of review by the Administrator (Don Hibbard). He followed the process that he learned in Micronesia under King, modifying it to the Hawaiian situation. Draft rules with comments from archaeologists, government officials (state and county planners), Native Hawaiian groups and individuals (including OHA) were polished by the end of the 1980s and became operational at that time. The section became a separate Division of the Department of Land & Natural Resources in 1990, and was fully staffed with top quality archaeologists, historians and architects up until about 2002. Although the rules were not finalized until the end of the 1990s, they were accepted and in use since 1990, if not just before. This acceptance and use for over a decade by state and county agencies led a circuit court judge to conclude that they had the effect of law (although the judge said get them finalized, which was done in 2002).

19

Identification of Significance under the State Historic Preservation Process & The Recognition of Traditional Cultural Significance

The draft rules and process that the Hawai‘i SHPO put in place from the late 1980s were again modeled on the federal historic preservation process. They required that all historic properties found have their significance evaluated to determine if they were eligible for inclusion on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places. The four federal criteria that the Hawai‘i Historic Places Review Board had been in theory using since the early 1970s were used. However, the description of each criterion was modified a bit to address the context of historic places in Hawai‘i. Importantly, a fifth criterion was added based on Cordy’s experience in Micronesia (working with King). The criterion – criterion E – was traditional cultural significance. So the 5 criteria used in the state historic preservation process are briefly as follows:

Criterion A. Significant for broad patterns of history. CriterionConfidential B. Significant for association with famous persons in Hawaiian history and for specific traditional Hawaiian deities. Criterion C. Excellent example of a type. Criterion D. Significant for information content. Criterion E. Traditional cultural significance.

These were summarized in a brochure printed by the Hawai‘i SHPO in the late 1980s.10 They are also in today’s official rules for Chapter 6E.

The Hawai‘i SHPO was never very concerned about identifying types of historic properties (architectural buildings, archaeological sites, etc.), so the review process never spelled out types of properties. Thus, there never was a formal description of a property called a traditional cultural property. Instead, all properties were identified and evaluated according to the criteria. So a property could have traditional cultural significance, effectively being a TCP.

Determining how to apply Criterion E was discussed with OHA and others in the late 1980s. It was decided that all Native Hawaiian burials and religious sites and major trails would automatically be considered significant under Criterion E, given a long- standing concern by Native Hawaiian communities for these types of properties. Other determinations were made on a project by project basis, based on feedback from the community and other sources. Thus, there is not an elaborate process as in the federal case in which a relevant community must establish traditional cultural significance. It was desirable to get this community input, but again some properties were considered to automatically be of traditional cultural significance to Native Hawaiians.

As at the federal level, the Hawai‘i SHPO decided that a quicker determination of property significance was needed, instead of the long cumbersome nomination to the Hawai‘i Register. Submittals of nomination forms were just impossible to do in a timely fashion, with over a thousand new properties recorded a year. Thus, with the adoption of the more formal process of the late 1980s, the Hawai‘i SHPO made significance 20

determinations by consensus with the agency submitting significance evaluations. These were formally noted in written approval letters – consensus determinations. The SHPO formally began to require each project reviewed that had a survey to evaluate the significance of each historic property found according to the criteria of the State Register. All survey reports from the late 1980s on in the Hawai‘i historic preservation review process typically ended with a table evaluating each historic property’s significance, with the five criteria listed across the top of the table, with historic properties listed down the left side, and check marks (x) for each criteria that the site met. Accompanying text explained the evaluations. This is the common format that existed throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, and should still be continuing today.

Technically, the State’s inventory of historic properties includes all these properties determined significant by consensus. This inventory numbered perhaps 20,000+ significant historic properties by 2000 – a fact that few in the general public are aware of. Over 90% of these properties are Native Hawaiian historic properties. A fair number of theseConfidential properties could be considered to be what the federal process would call TCPs – properties that are considered significant at least under criterion E. Many such properties have been determined significant under multiple criteria. For example, all the unmarked Native Hawaiian burial sites are considered significant minimally under criteria D (information content) and E (traditional cultural significance). All Native Hawaiian religious places found (from large luakini heiau, to small upright stones, to a few natural spots) are also considered significant under at least criteria D and E. Properties such as the large heiau at the royal center at Kahalu‘u in Kona are significant under almost all the criteria. Kūkaniloko also would be significant under all the state criteria. Other properties that have been considered significant under criterion E include all major trails (whole or in segments) and complexes of petroglyphs (often considered religious). Even a few Native Hawaiian gathering spots for medicinal plants (natural places) have been determined as properties significant under criterion E. Thus, the state inventory of historic places actually includes a sizable number of historic properties that could be considered TCPs.

TCPs AND THE STATE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS

Besides the historic preservation review process under the federal Section 106 or the state’s Chapter 6E process, there are also federal and state environmental impact laws. These essentially require the preparer to consider impacts of projects under a vast range of topics. These laws have much less “teeth” than the historic preservation process, for a preparer need only address impacts. They are rarely required to follow through with a detailed process with evaluation checks to ensure that proper treatment occurs. Thus, those in the historic preservation community much prefer to use the historic preservation process to effectively protect historic properties.

However, in the Hawai‘i environmental review law (Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes) at the very end of the 1990s, cultural impact assessments became part of this review process. The Office of Environmental Quality Control’s (OEQC’s) “Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts” in referring to cultural resources (historic properties) 21

state, “The types of cultural resources subject to assessment may include traditional cultural properties or other types of historic sites, both man made and natural…which support such cultural practices and beliefs.”11 While the OEQC Guidelines do not go into detail explaining what TCPs are and how they are identified, the use of this term indicates that TCPs are considered a formal type of historic property that should be assessed when conducting cultural impact studies.

Many cultural impact studies are now occurring, and they involve professional interviews with the local community to identify historic properties and contemporary cultural practices. Usually these studies are done by archaeological consulting companies who have their staff do some interviews with the local community.

How to use the community information on historic properties from these cultural assessments in environmental impact documents is far from clear. It is not clear who evaluates the studies and how, much less what to do with the findings. Thus, although cultural impactConfidential assessments are gathering important information from the community, this information is not yet being integrated into determinations of historic property significance and preservation measures. These elements lie in the historic preservation legal arena, not the EIS arena. Hopefully, these issues will eventually be resolved. However, at this point, the historic preservation laws are where the best protection of historic properties is likely.

TCPs OR HISTORIC PROPERTIES OF TRADITIONAL CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE?

An important note here is that one can consider TCPs to be a special kind of historic property like other types such as archaeological sites, old 1930 buildings, etc. To be a TCP in federal actions, it must be considered to have traditional cultural significance by the relevant indigenous community (Native Hawaiian). In federal actions, this significance evaluation cannot be made by others. However, under the State’s historic preservation system, any type of historic property could be important for reasons of traditional cultural significance. For example, the large heiau at Pupukea is an archaeological site. It is also a traditional cultural property. Rather than worry about whether a cultural place is a traditional cultural property or an archaeological site or something else, the state’s system most important concern is that a historical property is recognized to be important for its traditional cultural significance to the Native Hawaiian community. Also, such a cultural site could be significant for other criteria besides traditional cultural significance. It is important to realize that the TCP as a kind of property is perhaps less important than clearly identifying all historic properties that may have traditional cultural significance among their criteria of importance.

TCP STUDIES

Given the above, in both the federal and state historic preservation review processes, historic properties are found and being determined to have traditional cultural significance. At the federal level, such properties are often called TCPs. At the state 22

level, they are simply historic properties with traditional cultural significance. TCP terminology and detailed guidelines are all at the federal level. These come into effect for historic properties on federal land or to be impacted by projects undertaken with federal funding, permitting, licensing, etc. Properties on private, county and state land or impacted by state or country undertakings fall under the state process. Kūkaniloko generally falls within this state historic preservation process. Thus, the terminology and complex guidelines at the federal level do not apply directly to this case. Nonetheless, state level properties that are significant minimally under criterion E can be considered TCPs. For the balance of this report, we will simply refer to studies of such properties as TCP studies. (But the reader needs to be aware of the difference.)

Regardless of state or federal level, it is important to understand that what are now being called TCP studies are very different in their approach to documenting historic properties than more traditional archaeological surveys. TCP studies are usually generated for or from an indigenous community, which feels that the historic property (cultural place)Confidential in question is extremely important and that it needs to be documented (its use, including contemporary uses, and its boundaries) based on information from the indigenous community, as well as from more common archaeological and archival studies. Thus, interviews with members of the indigenous community are critical in these studies. Further these interviews very clearly establish that the cultural place has traditional cultural significance to the community.

Such studies are usually pro-active, done prior to any threat of development. The aim is to get the cultural place identified with boundaries acceptable to the community, and have it clearly recorded as having traditional cultural significance. This identification usually ends with recognition of the cultural place as eligible for inclusion on either the State and or National Registers of Historic Places – either placed on the Register through the nomination form process or recognized by consensus letter out of the State Historic Preservation Office and so identified on the State’s inventory of historic places.

Much more rarely, such studies can go on and obtain information from the community on preservation problems and appropriate preservation management, and even to develop preservation plans. Such pro-active preservation planning – although extremely rare – could result in preservation that the community is satisfied with.

Previous TCP Work in Hawai‘i

Studies labeled “TCP studies” are a relatively new practice in Hawai‘i. However, this is a term that has come in from the continental U.S. There actually have been a number of studies in the past aimed specifically on interviewing Native Hawaiian communities to identify cultural places with traditional cultural significance. Under the state historic preservation law, in the early 1990s, Charles Langlas (then with UH Hilo’s Department of Anthropology and now with UH Hilo’s College of Hawaiian Language) was hired to interview Native Hawaiian community members about cultural places in the Mauna Kea and Pōhakuloa area. This study – one of the very first of its kind tied to development projects – proved it was difficult to estimate a time frame for a study (as one 23

has to build a relationship with people, before they are even willing to share information) and thus to estimate project cost. Other similar studies included Kepa Maly’s many burial site, trail and other studies of the 1990s. Other studies from the 1990s done as parts of archaeological survey, burial planning, and site preservation planning that involved the State’s Historic Preservation Division also included interview elements. These interview elements of archaeological studies actually began back with Marion Kelly’s work for the Bishop Museum in the 1980s and some of the PHRI company’s projects in the late 1980s (often done by Maly).

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, with the State’s EIS program now including cultural impact assessments, many archaeological consulting firms started doing interviews as a part of cultural impact assessments. However, these studies were preceded by social impact assessments in the 1980s and early 1990s related to impacts of developments on Hawaiian cultural places and cultural practices, and many reports were produced that included extensive interviews with Native Hawaiian communities – such as Davianna McGregor’sConfidential work.

So projects have been done in the past that did document cultural places with an important element of the study being interviews to obtain the Native Hawaiian communities’ input. Now the term for such a study is the “TCP study.” There has been a slow but growing interest in TCP studies, primarily on the federal level as reflected in several Army and Navy military projects – at Waikāne in Ko‘olaupoko on O‘ahu for the Marine Training Area,12 the Kahuku and Kawailoa Training Areas,13 the Mākua Military Reservation,14 Schofield Barracks Military Reservation,15 the Pōhakuloa Training Area,16 and potential TCPs on Navy Region Hawai‘i facilities.17 In 2009 when we were beginning our work, Garcia and Associates (GANDA) had just completed a draft report on the eligibility of areas as TCPs within Schofield Barracks on the Central Plateau.18 This report contained information relevant to our study, for their project area overlapped with ours regarding the larger Central Plateau landscape. Their emphasis was on the steeper Līhu‘e slopes behind Schofield Barracks. Their information helped us in considering key points. As will be seen we sometimes disagree with some of their conclusions and have a different approach to presenting the information. But importantly, they concluded that the steeper lands behind Schofield Barracks’ housing area up to the Wai‘anae ridgeline could be eligible as a TCP, what they call the Līhu‘e Uplands TCP.

Importantly, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has begun exploring the use of TCP studies, focusing on obtaining vital information from relevant Native Hawaiian communities. The first study OHA conducted documented the traditional significance of Kamaile in Wai‘anae.19 A second study focused on Waimea valley on O‘ahu.20 These OHA studies are different in being generated by a Native Hawaiian organization on behalf of their beneficiaries. These studies come closest to TCP studies initiated by indigenous communities on the continent – those done for Native American communities.

24

Benefits of TCP Studies in Documenting Significant Cultural Places

TCP studies if initiated by or for the native community are concerned with gathering native concepts and perceptions of historic properties linked to the natural landscape, the people, and mo‘olelo. Such TCP studies are distinctively different from standard archaeological and historic preservation projects because a major focus is on obtaining information, ideas, and views from the community. Emphasis is shifted to include indigenous perceptions, cultural values, and theories, as well as the more common information from archaeology and archival sources. This promotes the native voices from our Hawaiian communities.

Additionally, the significance put on a TCP does not necessarily need to be acknowledged, recognized, or appreciated by outsiders. It is the community’s perspective of traditional cultural significance that becomes vital. Their voice provides the determination of traditional cultural significance, not the voices of others. Confidential Benefits of Nominating to the National or State Registers of Historic Places

Most Native Hawaiian historic properties today are not placed on the State or National Registers, being instead determined significant and eligible for inclusion on the Registers by written consensus determinations of the SHPO. However, extra efforts can be made to place important properties on the Registers. The primary benefit of listing a historic property (cultural place) with traditional cultural significance on the Registers is that it gives the place greater visibility. The listed property must be considered in planning for federal, state and county projects (done directly, funded, licensed, or assisted), and the community who it is important to must be consulted. Listing on the Register thus helps ensure that the community will have a voice and some negotiation powers that can be used to better protect these special places.

With a visible National or State Register listing, other benefits could include national and state recognition, tourism opportunities (and safeguards), and eligibility for federal historic preservation grants.

However, it must be emphasized that even when a cultural place is considered eligible or is listed on the Registers, this does not guarantee it is protected from degradation or destruction. Although it may be considered in historic preservation review, it is not guaranteed preservation. If the property is on private land, property owners are relatively free to manage the property as they see fit. There are few restrictions, rules, and regulations for the property owners. However, before any modifications or alterations occur, the property owner must contact the SHPO. But short of purchase of the property by the State (usually unlikely because of costs), the SHPO has little power to control the property owner. If federal or state actions, monies, permits, licenses, etc. are involved with the plans to impact the property, then, however, these actions must go through a historic preservation review, and the SHPO does have power in this process. But this also does not guarantee preservation. If a community wishes a TCP to be preserved and 25

protected, then it is vital to get an acceptable preservation plan in place before development threatens the property.

Benefits for Preservation Planning

In the 1990s about 10-20% of the significant historic properties that were being identified were being preserved. These included places that were excellent examples of their type, that had traditional cultural significance for Native Hawaiians (automatically burials, religious places, major trails), that were associated with broad patterns of history, and rare places with documented association with famous people or deities. These properties could be small or could be large important districts that included many specific properties.

The federal and state historic preservation processes require preparing a preservation plan for the properties that are to be preserved. This includes establishing suitable visualConfidential and physical set-backs (buffers) around the place, which become effectively the official boundary of the property. Preservation plans may include interim preservation measures during nearby construction (such as tall orange plastic fencing, monitors). Depending on the aim of preservation (preservation of burials, preservation of sites for interpretation and public access, preservation in place for protection), these plans also include measures that might include parking access, trails, signage, suitable plantings. Large preserved landscapes can even include things that a community might desire such as replanting traditional fields or rebuilding traditional hale, although to be done with careful steps itemized to avoid damage to the historic property. These plans are reviewed and approved by the SHPO. They may involve other parties, such as OHA or local Native Hawaiian groups, individuals or families. If these are county, state or national parks, then relevant governmental agencies are also involved. Once approved, the SHPD is then supposed to verify that the steps approved in the plans are carried out. Ultimately, monitoring of the place is needed over the years, to ensure that it is being properly cared for.

TCP studies rarely address preservation issues. Yet the indigenous community often wants to see these properties preserved. They see problems with existing preservation of their important cultural places. TCP studies can actually be extremely powerful preservation planning tools for the community. They can identify community perceived problems, and make historic preservation agencies and property owners aware of the problems. Further, the community in such studies can recommend what they consider more appropriate preservation approaches (including the nature of access, appropriate behavior, etc.). Such studies could even proceed to the level of actual preparing a preservation plan in detail that incorporates the Native Hawaiian communities view of appropriate preservation. Such a plan could then be used to pro-actively negotiate with landowners to take steps and work together with the community to preserve extremely important cultural places in the right way.

26

Educational Value for the Hawaiian Community

TCP studies can provide a wealth of information for local communities to learn and share about their unique cultural places and how their special places relate to other areas in Hawai‘i. These studies compile useful information on environmental, traditional, historical, and contemporary features of a place, which can then be used as informative reference tools for those wanting to learn more about these special places.

Advancing Indigenous Methodologies

The current historic preservation system in Hawai‘i has had its difficulties in incorporating Native Hawaiian beliefs, values and practices into its western process. Typically, when Native Hawaiians go through the historic preservation process to protect their cultural sites and practices, conflicts can arise because of fundamentally different worldviews. However, TCP studies can be done with a more indigenous methodology that integrates Confidentialold oral histories, archaeology, archival documents and interview information from the community. TCP studies document the unique relationship living communities have with the natural and cultural features as cultural properties. This, in turn, provides a greater emphasis on and recognition of native concepts and perspectives in addition to traditional western scientific theories and analysis. This holistic approach can effectively recognize, respect, and safeguard the unique traditional cultural properties of Hawai‘i that are cherished by its people.

CONCLUSION

TCP studies initiated by or for Native Hawaiian communities are one of the few available means that empower Native Hawaiian communities to identify cultural places that are important to them, to provide information to document why, and to state what the boundaries of these places are. Also, these studies provide an opportunity for the Hawaiian community to propose how to protect and preserve these cultural places, these wahi pana.

Technically, the federal and state historic preservation processes enable the interested Native Hawaiian public specifically to be participants in virtually every step of the historic preservation review process. The State is supposed to have a computerized project status system to enable community members to be aware of projects being reviewed and what steps in the process these projects are at, and to review reports and SHPO responses that are important to them. Unfortunately, this system is not yet up and effectively running, and it will require a lot of communication with the communities to make them aware of how to use this system. It will also have time frames like 30 days for a response. County, state and federal actions also typically involve public review periods, but these are often officially announced through means that the public is not readily aware of, and they too have time frames for public response. Throughout the 1990s when the state historic preservation rules were being used in draft form, serious attempts were made to try to involve the Native Hawaiian community in the process – by 27

minimally expanding the role of interviews with the community in larger archaeological survey projects, by requiring the Native Hawaiian community to be involved for larger projects in their area, by requiring that the local Native Hawaiian community be involved in preservation planning for important cultural places in their area, by establishing strong burials laws that required Hawaiian involvement, by establishing a curatorship (kahu) program for important preserved sites. However, this was far from the complete interface with the Hawaiian communities that was desired. It did not ensure that the interested Native Hawaiian public was involved right from the start of the process (identification and documentation of places and their boundaries).

Because the historic preservation process still has not figured out a way to involve Hawaiian communities right from the start of the process, there are plenty of examples of bad cases related to identification and protection of important cultural places. Mauna Kea’s telescopes perhaps would have been placed elsewhere on the mountain if the Native Hawaiian community that was knowledgeable about the mountain and Lilinoe’s family’s placesConfidential was consulted when the first telescopes were proposed. Perhaps Ka‘ala would not have a communication building atop it, if the community had been consulted about the importance of this mountain. If the County of Maui had gathered information from the Hawaiian community in the Honokahua area about the importance of the huge cemetery there and carefully considered traditional cultural significance, perhaps all the burial issues there could have been avoided. In those years, obtaining the community’s voice was more difficult or not considered. Although the new state rules require giving the community a place within each step of the process, this is still proving to be a difficult link. In this light, TCP studies can provide an innovative and promising approach to give the community a voice and help ensure enhanced safeguards and protection for Hawai‘i’s wahi pana and wahi kapu.

Last, we should note that good pro-active TCP studies done by or for Native Hawaiian communities can be time consuming, particularly in conducting interviews. Knowledgeable people must be identified. Then a relationship with these people needs to be established, so they feel willing to share information. It is hard to determine before a project whether there will be 3 key knowledgeable community experts or 30. This makes cost estimates for a project difficult to establish. It also makes completion time estimates for project completion difficult. However, the more community people involved the better. Kūkaniloko is important to many Hawaiians, and many have stepped forward and been involved in interviews on this project. Undoubtedly many more could have been interviewed. We appreciate OHA’s understanding of the need to involve many members of the community in this project’s interviews and OHA’s patience in awaiting the completion of this report because of the lengthy interviewing process. We hope that the inclusion of the community’s information and concerns will lead to a better understanding of Kūkaniloko, and much more effective preservation of this important cultural place. The community’s voice is vital in these cases. We hope more TCP studies done by or for Hawaiian communities will follow this study. It is essential that Hawaiian communities are empowered and their voice is heard in the protection and preservation of the important wahi pana of these Islands.

28

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Knowledge is fundamental to living as a chief. [1835 or 1836, said to be words of High Chief Ulumaheihei Hoapili, or Hoapili] [Kamakau 1869]1

------

INTRODUCTION Confidential This project has been a complex undertaking, spanning two years. The ultimate aim again has been to explore ways to better preserve the sacred wahi pana of Kūkaniloko – to provide OHA with information that they might use in achieving this aim. This has required gathering a vast amount of information or knowledge, for the above quote from Hoapili in the 1830s still applies to decision-making today – “knowledge is fundamental”. Part of this project was to search for more information about Kūkaniloko and its surrounding cultural landscape, as only very brief overviews existed.2 To address this concern, OHA requested archival research of records and documents (including oral history and mo‘olelo), archaeological work at and near Kūkaniloko (including GPS recording and photo documentation), and ethnographic interviews with the Native Hawaiian community. This portion of the project is essentially a history study – a holistic one that we favor that searches through all types of information and treats mo‘olelo (old and new) as equal in importance to other sources of information. Also, a major part of the project was to advise OHA about protection and preservation actions that would be merited in relation to Kūkaniloko in line with OHA’s Land and Property Management Program’s mission and concerns about responsible land stewardship protecting wahi pana and in line with State and Federal historic preservation laws – to be based on interviews with the Native Hawaiian community and based on our observations. Related to this point OHA also wanted to know how Kūkaniloko was being used by Native Hawaiians today. They further specifically wanted the study to see “1) if there is a definable landscape eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and 2) to identify the characteristics that make it eligible.” It was clear that worries existed in the Native Hawaiian community about the protection of Kūkaniloko today, so part of the study aimed to ask how the community would prefer to have this place preserved and protected. These concerns get one into issues of historic preservation management that include defining boundaries of a property and determining its significance, and how to best preserve a property.

As a TCP study, interviews with the Native Hawaiian community were clearly considered one of the most important parts of the entire project – playing an important role in almost every element noted above 29

Our project’s work has fallen into three major categories: information collection, analysis of this information, and presentation of the information.

PRESENTATION OF THE INFORMATION

As noted in the Introduction, after three introductory chapters (the Introduction, TCP Studies, and this chapter), we present this report in the sequence of the historic preservation review process. Any proposals to change the historic property boundary of Kūkaniloko, to alter or clarify significance determinations, and to address better preservation of Kūkaniloko will have to go through the State historic preservation review process (and possibly some elements of the federal process). So we felt presenting the information in the steps of the historic preservation review process would help expedite any future preservation actions. These steps are

(1) identificationConfidential and description of the property, including its boundaries, (2) evaluating the property’s significance, and (3) treatment of the property.

Identifying Kūkaniloko – Its Description and History Chapters 4-9

Again, the first step in this process is to identify the property, describe it and its history (how it was used, when, etc.). This is the historical study component of the project. The emphasis of this study from the beginning was to be looking at Kūkaniloko and its cultural landscape, since places cannot be understood separately from their landscape. The community and the archival work both indicate that Kūkaniloko’s immediate cultural landscape is the Central Plateau – a large area in the center of O‘ahu consisting of what today is considered upper ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae uka, and upper Waialua. The core of this landscape is Wahiawā and Wai‘anae uka, but the landscape includes fringing lands to the north (the Pa‘ala‘a-Halemano area in Waialua) and to the south (the upper parts of Honouliuli and Waikele in ‘Ewa). Also, Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau played a role in O‘ahu’s culture and history, so throughout most of this section of the report, we look at Kūkaniloko, the Central Plateau, and then the broader associated landscape of O‘ahu’s history.

Introductory Chapters: Chapter 4 (The Central Plateau: Its Lands and Place Names) & Chapter 5 (The Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument as It Appears Today)

There are two introductory chapters in this section – Chapter 4 (The Central Plateau: Its Lands and Place Names) and Chapter 5 (The Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument as It Appears Today). The first introduces the reader to the immediate cultural landscape that Kūkaniloko sits in, its terrain (mountains, streams, kula) and specifically all the place names in that landscape that we were able to identify. The 30

second introduces the reader to what the State Monument that is preserved today looks like, realizing many readers may not be familiar with this wahi pana.

Chapters with Details: History/Use of Kūkaniloko & its Associated Landscapes

The next chapters present details on the history and use of Kūkaniloko and its associated landscapes. Kūkaniloko’s associated cultural landscapes (the Central Plateau and O‘ahu) -- saw dramatic changes in more recent time periods. We felt that it would be best to clarify this history in different chapters. We, thus, present this information in three different chapters. One is on the traditional era (settlement to the end of Kamehameha I’s reign), one is on the 1800s (to the Overthrow), and one is on the 1900s to the Present.

Chapter 6: The Traditional Era Up Until The End of the Reign of Kamehameha I (1819) Confidential This chapter on traditional times is in many respects the most important of all these chapters in documenting the history of this wahi pana, for this is when Kūkaniloko was actively in use as a high ranking birthing place – its greatest and most persistent claim to fame. As will be seen, at least from the late 1200s/early 1300s to the early 1600s, a chiefly residential center was in the Central Plateau, often called today Līhu‘e. This chiefly center was periodically used by the king as his residential center (one of the capitols of one the 1300s kingdoms on O‘ahu and of the Kingdom of O‘ahu after 1400). Kūkaniloko was part of this chiefly center. So to understand Kūkaniloko, we believe that one must understand this chiefly center and the surrounding Central Plateau (its places, where houses and farms were, its forest, its winds, its fragrances, etc.). At a larger level, we believe that Kūkaniloko, its chiefly center and the Central Plateau must be understood within the history of O‘ahu (from settlement on). So the chapter on traditional era uses looks at those three levels – O‘ahu’s history, the Central Plateau (and its chiefly center), and Kūkaniloko itself. This chapter is a historical analysis – a holistic analysis (as noted in the Introduction) using archival information; archaeological data; mo‘olelo, oli, mele (both historical and literature); and interview information from today’s Native Hawaiian community. This is Chapter 6, The Traditional Era Up Until The End of the Reign of Kamehameha I (1819).

Chapter 7: Kūkaniloko from 1820 to the End of the Monarchy

Next there is a chapter on Kūkaniloko during the 1800s when the surrounding cultural landscape dramatically changed from a Hawaiian farming and residential landscape. We look at what general Island-wide patterns affected the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau – sandalwood collection, depopulation, privatization of land, and ranching. Indeed the Central Plateau largely became a Hawaiian ranching landscape by mid-century (with specific, important ranches), and Kūkaniloko sat within this landscape We look at these landscape changes, and then we look at Kūkaniloko within those landscape changes – what it may have looked like and how Native Hawaiians perceived 31

Kūkaniloko and its surrounding landscape. This is Chapter 7, Kūkaniloko from 1820 to the End of the Monarchy.

Chapter 8: Kūkaniloko from the Overthrow of the Monarchy to the Present

Then there is a chapter on Kūkaniloko from about 1900 up to the present. With the Overthrow, once again the surrounding cultural landscape of the Central Plateau radically changed. We look briefly at these landscape changes – the rise of Wahiawā town, pineapple fields, and the military bases. We discuss these changes, and then we discuss what happened to Kūkaniloko within the post-1900 era and again how Native Hawaiians perceived Kūkaniloko and its surrounding landscape. Much of this chapter is a history of the protection of Kūkaniloko in its form that we know today, and who helped protect this vital wahi pana. This is Chapter 8 – Kūkaniloko from the Overthrow of the Monarchy to the Present.

ChapterConfidential 9: Contemporary Hawaiian Cultural Practices at Kūkaniloko

Last, and vitally important for Traditional Cultural Properties, is a chapter documenting the continued cultural use of Kūkaniloko by Native Hawaiians. This is based on interviews with the community, and strikingly shows that Kūkaniloko is still vitally used as a wahi pana. This is Chapter 9, Contemporary Hawaiian Cultural Practices at Kūkaniloko.

Identifying the Boundary of the Historic Property Chapter 10: Boundaries of Kūkaniloko

The next step in the historic preservation process is to identify the boundary of the historic property. OHA wanted to know for Kūkaniloko and its surrounding landscape whether “there is a definable landscape eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places.” Definable involves a boundary (which can be changed and adjusted over time). Chapter 10 (Boundaries of Kūkaniloko) addresses boundaries based on information from the archival work and from the community interviews. It looks at Kūkaniloko (the birthing place, etc.) and ascending levels of cultural landscapes that are associated with Kūkaniloko. Each level can have its boundary defined, and each is certainly eligible for inclusion on the National Register.

Evaluating The Significance of the Historic Property Chapter 11: The Significance (Importance) of Kūkaniloko

The next step in the historic preservation process is to evaluate the significance of the historic property to see if it is eligible for inclusion on the Hawai‘i and National Registers of Historic Places. OHA requested that we “identify the characteristics that make it [Kūkaniloko] eligible.” Chapter 11 (The Significance (Importance) of Kūkaniloko) provides this information. In the case of Kūkaniloko (the birthing place, etc.), the property is already on the National Register and Hawai‘i Register. However, significance was not fully clarified in the 1994 National Register form, nor was 32

traditional cultural significance clarified. We clarify these points in Chapter 11. This chapter dramatically presents the community’s voice on Kūkaniloko’s traditional cultural significance.

How To Treat the Significant Historic Property – Preservation Issues Chapter 12: Problems with the Current Preservation of Kūkaniloko & Chapter 13: Moving Towards Better Preservation of Kūkaniloko

Once significance is determined, then typically it is decided how to treat significant historic properties. In the case of Kūkaniloko (the birthing place), it is already established that this is an extremely important wahi pana that merits preservation. Indeed, it is preserved within a State Monument. However, many feel that there are problems with the current preservation of Kūkaniloko. Chapter 12 (Problems with the Current Preservation of Kūkaniloko) addresses these issues, based on interviews with the Native Hawaiian community, with State Parks, and our own observations. Chapter 13 (Moving Towards BetterConfidential Preservation of Kūkaniloko) makes recommendations on how to correct these problems and better preserve this wahi pana, again based on interviews with the Native Hawaiian community, with State Parks, and our own observations. Hopefully this will help OHA better plan for protective measures for Kūkaniloko.

Important: Where All the Information Collected Appears

Because this project encompasses all the above different parts, pieces of information collected from archival sources, archaeology, and from the community belong in different chapters of the report. For example, archival, archaeological and community information and hypotheses that apply to traditional times – descriptions and uses of Kūkaniloko and its surrounding cultural landscape – were extracted and put into that chapter of the report. The chapter on Kūkaniloko from 1900 to the Present includes archival and community information on the protection of Kūkaniloko in those years. Community and archival information on the boundaries of Kūkaniloko were extracted out and put into the chapter on boundaries. The same was done for the chapters on significance, preservation problems, and recommended preservation action in the future. What this means is that there is not one place where all of one interviewed person’s information is presented. Nor is there one place where all archival information is presented. The relevant pieces have gone into relevant parts of the report. Sometimes we quote material; sometimes we simply abstract it down in our own words. Notably when information is repeated multiple times, often we do not quote or abstract all the sources (interviewees and/or archival), although we do indicate in the notes or text these sources. So … the reader and the individuals who were interviewed should not expect to see their entire interview quoted or transcribed. We have, however, attempted with great effort to include in different parts of the report the voice (in quotes) of all who were interviewed and kindly shared vital information.

33

INFORMATION COLLECTION

We divided the information collection work into three parts – archival, archaeological, and ethnography (the interviews). Dominique Cordy prepared all the maps made for this report.

The Archival Research

In preparing our bid for this project, we and OHA staff discussed different archives to investigate and came up with the following list.

State Historic Preservation Division Library (Dept. Land & Natural Resources, Kapolei) (info on archival sources from prior archaeological and historic preservation studies) State Parks (Dept. Land & Natural Resources, Honolulu, Kalanimoku Bldg.) (archivalConfidential materials on the park during State Parks’ control) Bishop Museum Archives and Library (HEN notes, Hawaiian Ethnographic Notes = largely Mary K. Pukui translations of Hawaiian newspaper articles of 1800s; Lahilahi Webb manuscript, photos, etc) Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library (missionary journals/letters mentioning Kūkaniloko or Līhu‘e in 1800s and possibly noting Hawaiian recall of use) UH Manoa Hamilton Library (Hawaiian-Pacific Collection), Bishop Museum Library, etc. Review journals and other material for descriptions of Līhu‘e/Kūkaniloko in 1800s, traditional era recall of use.) State Archives (photos, records) (photos indicating surrounding context in late 1800s before plantation) Well known, translated Native Hawaiian sources of 1800s (notably Fornander collection, Kamakau, ‘Ī‘ī, Kepelino, Malo, etc.) Hawaiian language newspaper research (surrounding land use, possible use in 1800s, possible stories on Hawaiian recall of use) English language newspapers/magazines of 1800s (use in 1800s, surrounding land use, possible Hawaiian recall of traditional era) English language newspapers/magazines of 1900s (preservation history) State Survey Office (Dept. Accounting & General Services, DAGS, Honolulu, Kalanimoku Bldg.) (kingdom/territory maps) Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives (Queen Emma Summer Palace) (info from 1920s-1950s work) Plantation Archives (Check if exist. See if they identify Kūkaniloko, or finds of artifacts)

Ross Cordy oversaw the archival work, making suggestions on what to check and follow-up on. Initially, we planned that this work would be shared among our group. All archival material review was done primarily by taking notes from the material, recording vital quotes and basic data (all keyed to pages). Some information was scanned, and maps were acquired (hard copies or digital). 34

As a first step, Ross reviewed material in the State Historic Preservation Division Library in Kapolei. This library is the most complete collection of archaeological studies done in Hawai‘i, by far. The library holds hundreds of manuscripts (unpublished) and published reports. The prior archaeological reports for the Central Plateau nearly all include archival material in their background sections. This research provided a broad understanding of work that had been done and sources to follow-up on.

Ross did some initial work identifying maps at the State Survey Office, which was later followed up on by Dominique Cordy and Kelley Uyeoka. We probably have looked at most of the maps of the Kingdom and very early Territory eras that depict the Central Plateau. These maps contain place name information; mountain peak, stream and kula locations; trail locations; and bits of other cultural information, as well as land units and boundaries of their era. This provided information on the cultural landscape, and identification of place names enabled searches into other archival sources.

Early on,Confidential a meeting was set up at State Parks, the agency within the Department of Land and Natural Resources that has managed the State Monument since its inception in 1992. Martha Yent (archaeologist) and Holly McEldowney (archaeologist/historian) kindly provided their time to explain all the material that was available. Kelley and Kehau Souza went through much of the archival information there (as well as interviewed these key State Parks’ staff).

Other work early in our project was done in several archives. Kelley did work in the Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society Library, to hopefully find missionary documents that might describe Kūkaniloko (or even record kūpuna recall on its traditional use) or describe the Central Plateau. This included a search through journals of the missionaries stationed at ‘Ewa and Wai‘alua, and station reports. We also looked at small books published by Sereno Bishop and Oliver Emerson, sons of the missionaries long based in ‘Ewa (Artemas Bishop) and Waialua (John Emerson). Bishop’s book contained bits of general information on the Central Plateau. Otherwise, we met with no success, although it is possible that additional follow-up on letters of these missionaries, their spouses and children and letters and journals of other missionaries (those not stationed in the area) might include information.

Several of the team (notably Kelley) looked at the records at the Daughters of Hawaii Archives, based on leads from the 1994 National Register form. As will be seen, some very useful information was recovered. This included ca. 1920-1950 information on the acquisition of Kūkaniloko and its care by the Daughters and related preservation issues. It also included 1920 era interview information from Native Hawaiians in the community, information relevant to traditional times. Lahilahi Webb (the Daughters’ Historian) also wrote several summaries of Kūkaniloko about 1920 based on earlier records. Additionally, several photographs were found.

Several team members (Kelley and Dominique) visited the Bishop Museum Archives to initially check the Hawaiian Ethnographic Notes (HEN) notes, Lahilahi Webb’s Kūkaniloko file, and photographs. Limited information was found in the HEN 35

notes keyed to Kūkaniloko. Later, Ross reviewed some HEN note information that related to the Central Plateau, translated from Hawaiian newspaper articles. We believe a more thorough review of HEN notes through different key word searches would be useful. Lahilahi Webb’s file supplemented what was found at the Daughters. Initially a few photos were identified, but follow-up work found a number of photographs relevant to the ranching era landscape of the Central Plateau.

Early on, Kehau attempted to find 1900-1910 pineapple plantation records without success. Although highly unlikely, we thought that there might be plantation records describing what the immediate Kūkaniloko area looked like before it went into fields (perhaps identifying walls and house and heiau platforms, often that had to be dismantled to put fields into production). Kehau was unable to find plantation records, but more work could be done on this in the future. Maria Orr, who did an extensive study of Dole pineapple’s nearby lands, kindly loaned us a copy of her report.3 It included history of the pineapple fields from Waialua Agricultural Company annual reports. Garcia and Associates’ (GANDA’s) recent study of the Schofield area was also loaned to 4 Confidential us, and it too contained similar information on the early era of Wahiawā, Schofield and Halemano. Tomonari-Tuggle’s study of the Wheeler area also included similar important information.5

One important focus of research was to look through journals and records from the 1800s – hoping to find rare descriptions of Kūkaniloko and of the surrounding Central Plateau. This was “a needle in a haystack” effort. The above-noted missionary work was part of this effort. We hoped that people (foreigners and Native Hawaiians) passing through the area might have stopped at Kūkaniloko. Interestingly, our research showed that it was a stop for Native Hawaiians traveling around the island up into the 1870s, but strikingly we found no descriptions. We did this work looking at published journals in the Hawaiian and Pacific Collection at Hamilton Library at University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Kapiolani Community College’s library, Leeward Community College’s library, University of Hawai‘i – West O‘ahu’s library, and the Bishop Museum’s library. We checked a variety of different journals and late 1800s directories and travel guides without success in finding a description of Kūkaniloko, and very few with descriptions of the Central Plateau. We suspect that such documents do exist, but it will take more research to find them.

When our interviews picked up after several months into the project, Kelley and Kehau got heavily involved in the interview process – its planning and execution. At that point, Ross became more involved in the archival work, and ended up doing considerable amounts of the archival work. He focused his work on the traditional era and 1800s era cultural landscapes of O‘ahu and the Central Plateau and on Kūkaniloko itself. Search for descriptions of Kūkaniloko in use or abandoned continued. Besides the search through the common pre-1880 sources (Kamakau, Malo, ‘Ī‘ī) and looking through journals noted above, he looked through other mid-1800s sources (Dibble’s history, Dibble’s Ka Moolelo Hawaii, Pogue’s Ka Moolelo Hawaii, Jarvis’ 1844 history and sketches, merchants’ journals, and a U.S. consul’s journal, to name a few)6 with no success. Archival work in post-1880 sources found none that described Kūkaniloko, but 36

some that hypothesized elements of the appearance of Kūkaniloko (such as Kalākaua, and the much more recent Jensen’s work).7 Ross initiated a search of the Hawaiian newspapers keyed on Kūkaniloko and known chiefs born at Kūkaniloko, and these articles were translated. However, very limited information was found – other than the Kamakau 1865 and 1869 descriptions translated in 1991 by the Bishop Museum. He also checked some known late 1800s newspaper accounts (e.g., “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa”).8

Again, we believe that some documents do exist that at least describe Kūkaniloko in the 1800s as an abandoned place, hopefully describing ruins of Ho‘olonopahu heiau and any other structures and walls that might have been present at Kūkaniloko, but it will take more research to find them. These could be in published journals or letters. These could be in unpublished missionary sources. These might be in unpublished papers of resident foreigners (merchants, consuls, etc.) that might be in places such as the Archives. These could be in Hawaiian newspapers. For example, using other approaches than key words may prove useful, perhaps looking at comments from readers about the time of Kamakau’s articlesConfidential or looking for trip accounts from Honolulu to Haleiwa. English language newspapers of the 1800s could also include such information, and although we planned to look through this material, we ran out of time and did not do so. Also, we would suggest checking virtually untapped Kingdom governmental records that would be in manuscript form in the State Archives. For example, School Lands’ staff might have visited the Wahiawa School Lands in the late 1800s and also Kūkaniloko. Also, unpublished Hawaiian records (such as letters of chiefs that might have visited Kūkaniloko) should be checked. Queen Emma’s published letters to her cousin Pete Kaeo were checked,9 and contained no information; but this is just one small sample of these kinds of records, most of which will be unpublished in archives like the State Archives or the Bishop Museum Archives. For example, Kalākaua was interested in Kūkaniloko and had his ranch nearby in the 1870s-1880s, and we know that he visited at least one of the nearby heiau. Perhaps it could be checked if he left papers that could be looked through.

As Ross began early drafting of the chapters on the traditional era and on the 1800s, it became apparent that we needed to vastly expand the archival research to provide background information for Kūkaniloko and its associated larger landscapes. Just a few examples of this necessary, expanded work follow.

One example is that all the common mid-1800s sources (Samuel Kamakau, Malo, the Fornander Collection, Fornander’s history) link the start of Kūkaniloko with Kapawa, a chief on the Ulu Hema genealogies. But determining in calendar years when Kapawa lived became a problem requiring expanded study. Prior researchers’ hypotheses of when Kapawa lived were reviewed, and genealogies and mo‘olelo recorded in the pre-1880s were analyzed to try to clarify this issue.

We did research to identify high ranking chiefs who were born at Kūkaniloko, starting with the common mid-1800s sources and also looking at later findings of other researchers (Thrum, Webb, National Register 1994 form, Kame‘eleihiwa, Cachola-Abad; Desilets et al).10 These sources are all in agreement, with only a handful of chiefs 37

identified. Yet it is likely that many high ranking chiefs were born at Kūkaniloko from the 1300s up to 1600. The lō chiefs are often identified with Kūkaniloko, and the lesser known Kūkaniloko/Kumuhonua chiefs, so information on these chiefs were extracted out of Samuel Kamakau, Fornander, and other earlier sources. Desilets et al11 recent hypotheses based on these sources were important and were closely looked at, and other hypotheses. Strikingly, still very few chiefs from the 1300s -1500s can be confidently or hypothetically suggested as being born at Kūkaniloko. Many genealogies in Hawaiian newspapers have been made accessible through translation,12 but further search in these newspapers might yield some text saying such-and-such a chief was born at Kūkaniloko. Just as important, we would urge a look at manuscript genealogy books from the early to mid-1800s, recorded by well-known genealogists. Some of these are in the Bishop Museum Archives, and they might have annotated comments on chiefs linking them to Kūkaniloko.

Ross expanded work to check where other rulers and high chiefs of O‘ahu and the other kingdomsConfidential were born through the 1600s and 1700s using Kamakau and Fornander. Not surprisingly, this showed a general pattern of high chiefs being mostly born at major chiefly centers – although not at Kūkaniloko, for it seems to have been abandoned as a center and high ranking birthing spot in the early 1600s. This could be followed up with work using other sources (e.g., Hawaiian newspapers, archival genealogies, and interviews with the community), which might add where more high chiefs were born.

Only Kamakau in the older archival sources describes the birthing practices for Kūkaniloko. So Ross expanded research to look at birthing practices, in general sources and related to the above noted births of high chiefs in the 1600s-1700s. He looked at general birthing practices in Malo, Kamakau, the earlier Kelou Kamakau, and Pukui – as well as hypotheses about birthing practices at Kūkaniloko by the Jensens and others. The rituals for high chiefs born elsewhere that were identified in different sources revealed many similarities with Kūkaniloko. All these, along with information from our interviews with the community, helped build an understanding of what birthing probably was like at Kūkaniloko. But we believe a wider and more intensive review of archival records on birthing practices might help clarify hypotheses for Kūkaniloko, as well as interviews with modern child-birth practitioners who learned their knowledge from kūpuna.

Archival research and community interviews identified modern hypotheses that Kūkaniloko was used to track the seasons. This led to archival research with older records that discussed tracking of seasons, so the proposed link to Kūkaniloko could be evaluated better. This research was done with standard mid-1800s sources (S. Kamakau, Malo, Kepelino, Fornander Collection) as well as Valeri’s intensive review of religious practices.13 Similarly some issues on navigation had to be reviewed in general, as hypotheses exist on Kūkaniloko being used in navigation training. This included looking at studies by Rubellite Johnson and a review of information on general Austronesian navigation in Lewis and Gladwin.14 Again, these are but a few examples of how the archival research just on Kūkaniloko expanded – and this mentions only some of the resources and issues reviewed.

38

Archival research also had to address the larger cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. Important basic information came from mid-1800s sources – such as S. Kamakau and Fornander’s history and the Fornander Collection. Sites of Oahu15 provided typical leads into the literature. Also, Ross used information that he knew from the mo‘olelo and oli that he uses in his mythology classes to lead back into the literature. Information on the cultural landscape came in bits and pieces from historical mo‘olelo and oli and from more pure literature forms of mo‘olelo, oli and mele. Again, Kingdom maps provided links to place names. Information on land use came from S. Kamakau, ‘Ī‘ī, Boundary Commission records, Māhele land records, and stories (notably Kalakau’s 1888 collection). Battlefield information came from He Inoa o Kūali‘i (recorded in the 1860s-1880 in Lyons, Fornander, and the Fornander Collection).16 Bits and pieces of information came from literature: from the Hi‘iaka stories (e.g., Kapihenui in Emerson, Ho‘oulumahiehie’s 1904-5 story translated by Nogelmeier’s group)17 and from a variety of stories such as those in the Fornander Collection, Kalākaua, Hale‘ole, M. Manu, Nakuina, etc. Stories about Keanini-ula-o-kalani had to be checked, for the Keanini stone was part of theConfidential cultural landscape. Other stories on Kana had to be checked. General information on chiefly centers recorded for other islands by foreign observers and Hawaiians were also brought into this picture to discuss the chiefly center of Līhu‘e.

At the O‘ahu level of the cultural landscape, the broad history of O‘ahu and the Islands in general had to be described. Common mid-1800s sources were drawn on (Kamakau, Malo, Fornander Collection, Fornander’s history) to review O‘ahu’s history, as well as more modern hypotheses (Cordy; Cachola-Abad)18 – naming just a few. Ross used considerable amounts of archaeological, oral historical, and other information from the Islands that he used in the past, as well as broader information from Oceania that is relevant to the Islands’ history.

For the chapter on Kūkaniloko in the 1800s, although little information was found describing Kūkaniloko, research also occurred on what was happening on O‘ahu (and in the Islands) as well as on the Central Plateau. Primarily the impacts to the Central Plateau were sandalwood collecting, population drops, privatization of land, and the rise of ranches. All of this needed to be understood, so general research, as well as specific research for the Central Plateau with land records and census material and oral literature and mo‘olelo occurred. For example, it needed to be understood which high chiefs controlled these lands up to the Māhele, and who controlled lands after the Māhele – particularly identifying the large ranches and who ran them. This involved work through land records, key initial references being Sahlins and Kame‘eleihiwa.19 But it also included the detailed records for Waialua in Sahlins and detailed records for Wai‘anae and ‘Ewa of the Māhele era that Ross had collected over the years from research in the State Archives. Very late in the archival research process, Kelley was able to do work in the Bureau of Conveyances on land titles for the key pieces of land around Kūkaniloko, coordinating with Ross on what was needed. We had this information on lands in Wai‘anae uka from Tomonari-Tuggle’s work,20 but we were missing it in the immediate Kūkaniloko lands. Census and tax records were checked – Ross looking at the 1878 census in the Archives and reviewing Tomonari-Tuggle’s prior State Archives work with Wai‘anae uka tax records. 39

Besides these land use issues related to sandalwood, depopulation, and ranching, mo‘olelo, oli and mele were reviewed from the 1800s to get a picture of the literature on the Central Plateau. Some of this overlapped with the prior chapter, as many mo‘olelo, oli and mele relevant to that chapter actually were Native Hawaiians’ perspectives of the 1800s of the Central Plateau. But more oli, mele, kanikau, etc. were identified from Hawaiian newspapers in our direct research of that material, as well as others’ prior research with the Hawaiian newspapers. We anticipate many more oli, mele, kanikau, and the like that touch upon the Central Plateau can be found, particularly in the Hawaiian newspapers. However, we do feel that our sample clearly shows the type of information that exists in these records.

The above shows that Kūkaniloko’s history is intertwined with many important elements of Hawaiian history – perhaps not surprising to those who know the importance of this wahi pana. Archival research, thus, was far from simple. It grew and had to be wide-ranging. We believe that we have made considerable progress on understanding Kūkaniloko andConfidential its associated cultural landscapes by doing all this research. But, in almost every area, we believe that more research is needed. Examples of such further research were given above and they appear in notes in Chapters 6 and 7.

Archaeological Work

Initially it was planned to do reconnaissance survey at Kūkaniloko and its immediate area in coordination with OHA, to record Global Positioning data (GPS) and do digital photography of important features of Kūkaniloko. Also, we were aware that one member of the community stated that they knew where Ho‘olonopahu heiau was and the area where drums were beaten, and other affiliated spots. We wanted to check these places and potentially survey them. Also, view lines for boundary determinations were to be done. This work was to be done by Kulani Jones, with advisory support of Ross Cordy.

However, this part of the project altered considerably. Kulani did several site visits and met with State Parks staff to fully understand what had been done in the past. State Parks had done an extremely detailed map of the birthstones, numbering each stone and photographing them. This made digital photography and archaeological description of the stones unnecessary. Additionally, the community member who had identified affiliated places was reluctant to be interviewed for this project -- although at the end of the project, he did participate. Thus, we did not have identified affiliated places within Kūkaniloko to do survey work at. In the future, as these places are identified (or their location is hypothesized) or if the area becomes cleared, then affiliated spots could be better investigated.

We were fortunate, however, in obtaining the services of Hawaiian petroglyph experts, Ed and Diane Stasack, to spend a couple of days documenting petroglyhps at Kūkaniloko. Several of our group assisted in this work. Ed had visited Kūkaniloko in the 40

past and recorded briefly some of the petroglyphs. Their report is attached as an appendix, and its information is embedded in relevant chapters.

Also, prior archaeological work was reviewed by Ross Cordy, mostly at the State Historic Preservation Division Library – essentially a form of archival research. This report does not list this all these archaeological studies and their findings, for many of the small projects found nothing. Nearly all these are listed in Desilets et al.,21 if the reader wants to see the prior work. However, key archaeological information for Kūkaniloko, the Central Plateau and all O‘ahu (and the Islands) – and hypotheses about these areas – was identified, with notes taken. This information is embedded in chapters on traditional era use of Kūkaniloko and other spots. Also, other archaeological work at chiefly centers on other islands also proved to be relevant for building hypotheses for the appearance of the chiefly center at Līhu‘e.

Ethnographic Work Confidential During the course of this TCP study, the ethnographers of Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike (Kelley Uyeoka and Kehau Souza) integrated a set of values and beliefs that served as a guide to our research, analysis, behavior, perspective, and overall frame of mind. The core values that guided the work include the following:

 ‘Ike pono – to recognize, feel, and understand righteousness, properness and goodness in all we do;  Kuleana – to view our work as both a privilege and responsibility;  Ho‘omau – to see the preservation, perpetuation, and continuity of our wahi pana and lāhui; and  Aloha ‘āina – to have a deep and cherished love for the land which created and sustains us

These values, as well as the interviewing methodology discussed below, established the basic tone, foundation, and structure for the ethnographic portion of this study. By understanding the frame of reference and the values guiding our efforts as ethnographers, the reader will have a better sense of their ‘ano - nature, character, manner. Hopefully, this will provide an enhanced understanding and appreciation of this work.

Promoting Native Voices

First and foremost, it should be clearly acknowledged that the voices of the community, especially kūpuna, must be documented, preserved, and shared to ensure that their legacy can be passed to future generations. By properly documenting the stories of the landscape through the direct words of kūpuna and mākua, the life of the land will be remembered for generations to come.

Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike welcomed this TCP study because of the realization that we had precious little time to meet with and learn from kūpuna – in many ways, one of Hawai‘i’s 41

most valued and valuable resources. With each passing year, we witness the loss of many cherished kūpuna in Hawai‘i. This study marked the first time a formal and systematic effort was undertaken to meet with the involved kūpuna and mākua to elicit, record, and document their Kūkaniloko memories, stories, and remembrances.

Importance of Ethnography in TCP Studies

Within a historic preservation context, TCPs are considered just one type of historic property along with sites, building, cultural landscapes, historic districts, objects, and structures. However, one fundamental difference between TCPs and other historic properties is that their significance ought not to be determined solely by archaeologists, anthropologists, or historians; rather, the community that values the TCP must determine its significance.22 So, the importance of TCPs is best defined and determined by individuals who are most familiar with, knowledgeable about, and have strong cultural and emotional ties to the TCP. Additionally, the value put on a place does not necessarily need to be acknowledged,Confidential recognized, or appreciated by outsiders. Bulletin 38 states that it is important to evaluate TCPs from the perspectives of the community who believes the site is significant, and their assertions should not be questioned or subjected to critical analysis.

The methodology of TCP studies varies from the methods utilized to conduct standard archaeological and historic preservation projects. While typical archaeological surveys conducted for historic preservation compliance projects are to identify archaeological sites and minimally look at their patterns within landscape of the ahupua’a, they rarely fully evaluate oral historical/literature sources and even more rarely involve interviews with the local community. In contrast, TCP studies equally involve oral history/literature and vitally include interviews with the living communities, establishing the link between present communities and the places that are important to them. TCP studies give voice to community knowledge and concerns. By their very nature, TCP studies are designed to capture, understand, and consider the indigenous viewpoint (past and present) associated with sacred, cultural places.

TCP work is concerned foremost with gathering native concepts and perceptions of the landscape and documenting the relationships between people, mo‘olelo, and the natural and cultural environment. Emphasis is shifted from western and scientific descriptions, observations, and analysis, to indigenous perceptions, cultural values, and theories. Consequently, to advance TCP efforts in Hawai‘i, Native Hawaiians and kama‘āina must become an integral, active, and “personal” component in the process. Therefore, the most important feature of a TCP study is the consultation process, which is the primary method used to gather information on how and why communities revere certain places. Consultation with communities facilitates meaningful and effective communication and participation, and can produce constructive management and preservation recommendations.

Because ethnography is one of the most important aspect of TCP studies, the community must be able to trust the ethnographer to feel comfortable enough to share 42

personal information and memories with them. Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike’s ethnographers, who are Native Hawaiians born and raised on O‘ahu, have an intimate understanding of Hawai‘i’s history, environment, and culture, in order to consult and collaborate with communities in culturally appropriate ways. In the end, this understanding helped to build trusting and genuine relationships with the community.

Data Gathering

The data gathering methodology utilized for this study included scoping via snowball or word of mouth sampling, semi-structured interviews, site visits and personal observations, community meetings, and questionnaires.

Scoping and Interviewee Selection Criteria:

Scoping for this project began with contacting knowledgeable individuals, agencies, and groupsConfidential that are recognized as having genealogical, cultural, historical, or managerial connections to Kūkaniloko. Initial scoping methods included emailing and mailing out letters and figures to inform individuals of the project, contacting individuals by telephone, or meeting with people in person to discuss the project.23 These initial scoping techniques lead to additional referrals, and our contact list continued to grow. This method of scoping is known as snowball sampling, where the researcher begins with a core list of knowledgeable individuals that have been identified as cultural or lineal descendants, cultural practitioners, community representatives, or kama‘āina of the study area. After meeting with the recognized stakeholders, the researcher then typically receives referrals and references to other knowledgeable individuals who can contribute to the study. The researcher then follows up with these “word of mouth” references, usually receives more referrals, and the chain referral method continues.24

For this TCP study, initial ethnographic efforts included receiving a list of knowledgeable individuals from OHA and identifying known groups who manage and steward Kūkaniloko such as the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, Friends of Kūkaniloko, ‘Aha Kūkaniloko, and the State Parks. From there, we received numerous other referrals. Best effort attempts were made to follow up with each of these identified referrals

The list below reflects all of the individuals who were contacted via email, telephone, or in person and who also agreed to be interviewed for this study. Attempts were made to contact an additional 50 individuals, but for various reasons these individuals were unable to be interviewed during the course of the study.

Figure 3-1. Community Contact List.

Name Affiliation, Position Interview date Acohido, Ben V.  Wahiawā Neighborhood Board Emailed response on Chair 12/2/09 ‘Aila, William Jr.  Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna o Phone conversation on 43

Hawai‘i Nei 11/22/10 Akau, Roddy  Konohiki of Maunalua Phone conversation on 8/10/10 Akin, Joya  ‘Ōlelo Community Television Provided us with video network of the OHA meeting  Attended OHA Community Meeting Ambrosio, Quanito  Del Monte worker/Kunia Met with on 8/12/10, Camp Provided references Andrade, Carlos  Professor of Hawaiian Studies Met with on 10/12/10, at UH Mānoa Provided references Au, Daniel  Friends of Kūkaniloko Phone interview on  Hawaiian Civic Club of 8/22/10 Wahiawā Awana, Rep. KarenConfidential  State Representative, House Emailed response on District 44 10/6/10  Attended OHA community meeting Ayau, Halealoha  Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna o Phone conversation on Hawai‘i Nei 11/22/10 Bachman, Dale  Daughters of Hawai‘i Regent Emailed response on  Attended OHA community 9/8/10 meeting Becket, Jan  Photographer and community Met with on 1/22/10 advocate Bento, Snowbird  Kumu Hula of Hālau Ka Pā Met with on 2/3/10 Hula O Ka Lei Lehua Boogan, Linda  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Phone conversation on  Attended OHA community 9/28/10 meeting Cabelau, Eugean  Del Monte worker/ Kunia Phone conversation on Camp 8/24/10 Camara, Kehau  Kumu at ‘Ānuenue Hawaiian Met with at Kūkaniloko Immersion School on 4/15/10 Ceno, Lenette &  Del Monte worker/Kunia Met with on 11/13/10, Charlie Camp Provided references Ching, Francis  Genealogical connections to Met with on 9/27/10 Kūkaniloko  Genealogist Codero, Loma & Ron  Del Monte worker/Kunia Met with on 11/13/10, Camp Provided references Coleman, Paul  Professor at the Institute for Met with 9/16/10 Astronomy at UH Mānoa Crabbe,  Lua practitioner Met with on 4/20/10, 44

Kamana‘opono  OHA director Provided references Cruz, Lynette  Videographer Emailed response on  Professor of Anthropology at 2/28/10, Hawaii Pacific University Provided references Desilets, Mike  Principal Investigator with Met with on 10/17/10 & GANDA Archaeology firm 11/15/10 Dudoit, Kaui  Film producer and historian Provided cultural  Cultural practitioner documents Eaton, Arline  Genealogical connections to Met with on 8/26/10 Kūkaniloko  Member of Kapolei Hawaiian Civic Club Enos, Eric  Founder of Ka‘ala Farms Inc. Met with on 5/5/10

Escran, KawikaConfidential  Kumu of Hawaiian Studies at Phone conversation on Brigham Young University 9/2/10, Provided references Evans-Mason, Malia  Kama‘āina of Waialua Emailed response on 9/17/09 Fernanadez Jr., Doug  Cultural Astronomer Met with at Kūkaniloko  Rubellite Johnson’s student on 3/5/10, 4/16/10, 4/17/10 Flores, Gilbert  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Phone conversation on 7/12/10 Francher, Joseph  Wahiawā Neighborhood Board Email response on Vice-Chair 12/2/09 Greenwood, Aunty  Kama‘āina of Wai‘anae Met with on 7/9/10 Alice Hala, Ginger  Cultural monitor at Schofield Phone conversation on  Alice Greenwood’s 11/30/10 granddaughter Heine, Leina‘ala  Kumu Hula Hālau Nā Pualei O Met with on 1/29/11 Kalama Likolehua Hind, Mehana  Kamakakūokalani at UH Met with on 10/24/10 Mānoa Holi, Aunty Wilma  Genealogical connections to Met with on Kaua‘i on Kūkaniloko 4/14/10  Hui Mālama I Nā Kūpuna o Hawai‘i Nei Hopkins, Uluwehi  Lecturer at UH Mānoa, Met with on 10/19/10, Hawaiian Studies Department Met with at Kūkaniloko on 10/23/10 Howard, Audrey  Attended OHA community Phone conversation on meeting 9/28/10  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā 45

Garces, Alika  Attended OHA community Emailed response on meeting 9/8/10  Genealogical connections to Kūkaniloko Johnson, Rubellite  Cultural Astronomer Emailed response on  Professor Emeritus at UH 12/18/09, 1/14/10 Mānoa, Hawaiian Language Met with at Kūkaniloko and Literature on 6/22/10

Johnson, Gina  Attended OHA community Emailed response on meeting 9/13/10  Genealogical connections to Kūkaniloko Kai, ‘Umi  Lua practitioner Phone conversation on 9/15/10 Kahn, Elith Confidential Care taker for healing pōhaku Met with on 2/5/10

Kalama, Kahu Ryan  Visits Kūkaniloko during Met with on 5/14/10 solstice times for ceremonies Kalimapau Jo-Lin  Hawaiian Civic Club of Met with at Kūkaniloko Wahiawā historian on 10/3/10, 11/12/10,  Friends of Kūkaniloko 3/10/11, 3/13/11,  ‘Aha Kūkaniloko 3/17/11 Kanaka‘ole, Pualani  Kumu Hula of Hālau O Kekuhi Met with on 3/5/11 Kanahele  Professor of Hawaiian Studies  Edith Kanaka‘ole Foundation Kame‘elehiwa,  Professor at UH Mānoa, Met with on 10/12/10 Lilikala Hawaiian Studies Department Kane, Shad  Member of the Kapolei Met with on 8/31/10 Hawaiian Civic Club Kauka, Sabra  Nā Pali Coast ‘Ohana Emailed response on 12/6/09, Provided references Keale, Walt Mahea  Friends of Kūkaniloko Met with at Kūkaniloko  ‘Aha Kūkaniloko on 11/6/10  Ranger at Ka‘ena Park Kekipi, Aloha  Pelekikena of the Hawaiian Met with on 5/5/11 Civic Club of Wahiawā Kekua, Kehaulani  Kumu Hula of Hālau Met with on 5/27/10 Palaihiwa o Kaipuwai, Kaua‘i Kema, Charleen  Kūpuna group that visits Met with at Kūkaniloko Kūkaniloko on 5/29/10 Komori, Eric  Former GIS specialist for Met with on 2/9/10 SHPD 46

Kuloloia, Manuel  Attended OHA Community Met with on 11/29/10 meeting Kwiatkowski,  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Phone conversation on Philibert Francis  Author of Petroglyph book 8/10/10 Halona (Ski) Leblanc, Luc  Attended OHA Community Emailed response on Meeting 9/8/10 Lenchanko, Tom  Hawaiian Civic Club of Met with at Kūkaniloko Wahiawā on 4/16/10, 10/3/10,  Friends of Kūkaniloko 11/12/10, 3/13/11,  ‘Aha Kūkaniloko 5/5/11 Makaneole, Kalama  Friends of Kūkaniloko Phone conversation on  ‘Aha Kūkaniloko 7/24/10  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Masterson, IanConfidential  Lecturer at Windward Phone conversation on Community Collage 6/20/10 Matsuura, Reed  Attended OHA Community Filled out questionnaire Meeting on 7/22/10 McEldowney, Holly  State Parks Archaeologist Met with on 1/26/2010, Met with at Kūkaniloko on 10/21/10 McKeauge, Kawika  Oahu Island Burial Council Provided referrals Chairperson Miyamoto, Gerry  Attended OHA Community Emailed response on Meeting 9/8/10 Nā Wahine o Kunia  Community hui caring for the Met with at Kūkaniloko ‘āina of Kunia on 11/11/10 NeSmith, Keao  Hawaiian Language lecturer at Me with on 2/28/10, UH Mānoa Provided cultural documents Noyes, Martha  Cultural Astronomer Met with on 10/21/10, 11/4/10, 11/6/10 Orr, Maria  Member of Hawaiian Civic Met with on 8/31/10 Club of Wahiawā  Ethnographer Ortiz, Rick  Referred to by Maria Orr Met with on 3/12/10

Oshiro, Rep. Marcus  State Representative for Met with on 9/1/10 Wahiawā District Philpotts, McD  Kama‘āina of Honouliuli Met with at Kūkaniloko  Woodworker on 12/21/09 Pang, Keali‘i  Board member for Ka‘ala Met with on 5/5/11 Farms Inc. Preza, Danny  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Met with on 6/5/10

47

(Whitmore Village) Quinn, Dan  State Parks Director Met with at Kūkaniloko on 10/21/10 Quitevis, Kamoa  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Met with at Kūkaniloko  Researcher at the OHA on 1/15/10

Quitevis, Leimaile  Former cultural monitor at Met with on 5/5/11 Schofield Barracks  O‘ahu Island Burial Council Representative Reed, Caeaeli  Attended OHA Community Phone conversation on Meeting 9/28/10 Rogers, Alohalani  Kumu at Kawaikini on Kaua‘i Met with on 5/28/10

Romero, Kupihea  Cultural practitioner Met with at Kūkaniloko Confidential throughout study Rogers, Rick  Maritime Archaeologist Met with at Kūkaniloko on 12/23/10 Say, Anthony  Attended OHA Community Filled out questionnaire Meeting on 7/22/10 Say, Lucy  Attended OHA Community Filled out questionnaire Meeting on 7/22/10 Short, Pila  Member of Hawaiian Civic Phone conversation on Club of Wahiawā 3/5/10  Friends of Kūkaniloko  ‘Aha Kūkaniloko Smith, Libby  Wahiawā Historical Society Phone conversation on 1/11/10 Solis, Ka‘ahiki  Kama‘āina of Wahiawā Met with at Kūkaniloko  Lecturer at UH Mānoa, on 10/23/10 Hawaiian Studies Stasack, Edward &  Ki‘i Pōhaku recorders Met with at Kūkaniloko Diane on 4/16-21/10 Takamine-Holt, Vicky  Pa‘i Foundation Met with on 9/27/10  Kumu Hula of Hālau Pua Ali‘i ‘Ilima Topolinski, Kaha‘i  Genealogical connections to Met with on 8/28/10 Kūkaniloko  Kumu Hula of Hālau Ka Pa Hula Hawai‘i Wasson, Harry  Cultural monitors at Schofield Phone conversation Barracks 2/15/10 Wellman, Dave  D. Wellman Surveying Met with at Kūkaniloko on 12/23/10 48

Wichman, Randy  Kaua‘i Historical Society Met with on Kaua‘i on 10/17/10 Yent, Martha  State Parks Archaeologist Met with at State Office on 1/26/2010 Met with at Kūkaniloko on 10/21/10

Knowledge Sources:

During the course of our study, we discovered that interview participants obtained their knowledge of Kūkaniloko from four primary sources.

 ‘Ohana knowledge or knowledge and information that was passed on within the ‘ohana through the generations.  KnowledgeConfidential attained from people outside their ‘ohana such as teachers, cultural practitioners, and kūpuna.  Knowledge or ‘ike attained through written sources such as books, newspapers, and studies.  Knowledge gathered through personal observations and practices (such as knowledge obtained through conducting cultural astronomical observations and research at the site).

As much as possible, we attempted to document the specific source of an individual’s knowledge. This information helped us to identify some additional written sources that reference Kūkaniloko, the families that have personal information of Kūkaniloko, other individuals who are knowledgeable about Kūkaniloko, and current cultural practices that enable people to learn first hand more about Kūkaniloko. Overall most people we spoke with attained their knowledge of Kūkaniloko from written sources and from other individuals outside of their family. A handful of cultural practitioners gathered knowledge about Kūkaniloko from spending time there, learning about Kūkaniloko through first hand observations of the weather patterns, star, sun, and moon alignments or by studying the pohaku Even fewer people we met with had acquired their knowledge of Kūkaniloko from older family members that passed on personal and/or genealogical information of Kūkaniloko.

Semi structured interviews:

Semi-structured interviews were chosen as the preferred interview technique because they are open ended but follow a general script covering a pre-determined list of topics.25 Information gathered during the initial phases of archival research and scoping for this project was utilized to construct the open-ended questions for the semi-structured interviews.26 The interview questions were derived from the main themes identified as necessary to attain a comprehensive understanding of the historical and contemporary knowledge of Kūkaniloko. The main themes that guided our interview efforts included:

49

 Mo‘okū‘auhau – genealogy and family history  ‘Ohana and individual ties to the land  Mo‘olelo and traditional accounts – including place names, mele, oli, hula  Cultural practices – in the past and in the present  Natural resources – gathering of plants, water resources,  Cultural and historic sites – in the immediate site and the surrounding areas  Historical information – historical events, persons,  Knowledge sources  Boundaries and significance  Preservation and management concerns and recommendations

Site Visits and Huaka‘i:

Members of Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike participated in over 25 site visits to Kūkaniloko during the study. The vastConfidential majority of these visits were for conducting interviews. Interviewing individuals at the site was beneficial because the visual surroundings of Kūkaniloko and the surrounding landscape, including the Wai‘anae Mountain range, would frequently spark memories of the place. Additionally, speaking about Kūkaniloko at the actual Kūkaniloko site added a sense of reverence, comfort and respect. While walking through the pathways of pōhaku and observing the different features on the stones, people would recall past memories of Kūkaniloko, share personal observations and interpretations of the physical appearance of certain rocks, comment on what activities occurred there, and wonder how Kūkaniloko must have looked when wahine were giving birth on the pōhaku.

These site visits were not only beneficial for information gathering, but each time we visited Kūkaniloko, with or without interview participants, we would make new observations about the site. The peace and solitude of individual and personal visits to the sacred Kūkaniloko site helped each of us to connect intimately and spiritually with the ‘āina and the kūpuna who still reside at Kūkaniloko.

Figure 3-2. Kūkaniloko Site Visits.

Date Purpose Community Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike Participants Participants September 21, Checking observations Kehaulani Souza 2009 at Fall Equinox

December 6, Cultural astronomy Kelley Uyeoka, 2009 observations Kehaulani Souza

December 21, December Solstice McD Philpotts, Kelley Uyeoka, 2009 Cultural astronomy Kupihea Romero Kehaulani Souza

January 15, 2010 Site visit with OHA Kamoa Quitevas, Jason Kelley Uyeoka, 50

Jeremiah, Kevin Chang Kehaulani Souza, Dominique Cordy March 12, 2010 General field Kelley Uyeoka, observations Kehaulani Souza March 21, 2010 Spring Equinox Doug Fernandez, Kehaulani Souza Cultural astronomy Kupihea Romero April 16, 2010 School field trip Kehau Camera and Kelley Uyeoka haumāna from Ānuenue Hawaiian Immersion School April 16 – 21, Ki‘i Pōhaku recording Ed & Diane Stasack, Kelley Uyeoka, 2010 Kevin Chang, Doug Kehaulani Souza, Fernandez, Kalama Dominique Cabigon, Stan Tibayan Cordy, Kulani Confidential Jones April 16 & 17, Cultural astronomy Doug Fernandez Kelley Uyeoka, 2010 observations Kehaulani Souza

June 19, 2010 Cultural astronomy Doug Fernandez Kehaulani Souza observations June 21, 2010 Summer Solstice Doug Fernandez, Kehaulani Souza Cultural astronomy Rubellite Kawena Johnson, Paul Coleman, UH students, & Kupihea Romero June 22, 2010 Cultural astronomy, Kupihea Romero, Doug Kehaulani Souza sunset at Kūkaniloko Fernandez then at Kapukapuākea July 22, 2010 OHA Community Ralph Uyeoka Kelley Uyeoka Meeting preparation August 2, 2010 Cultural resource UH Hilo Archaeology Kelley Uyeoka management student students, & Windy internship huaka‘i McElroy October 3, 2010 Kūkākūkā Tom Lenchanko, Jo-Lin Kelley Uyeoka, Kalimapau Kehaulani Souza October 21, 2010 Site Visit to learn State Parks – Martha Kelley Uyeoka, about State Parks’ Yent, Dan Quinn, Holly Kehaulani Souza management of McEldwony Kūkaniloko October 23, 2010 Kūkākūkā Uluwehi Hopkins, Kelley Uyeoka, Ka‘ahiki Solis Kehaulani Souza, Dominique Cordy November 4, Cultural astronomy Martha Noyes Kelley Uyeoka, 2010 observations Kehaulani Souza 51

November 6, Kūkākūkā Mahea Keale, Martha Kelley Uyeoka, 2010 Noyes, Tuti Kanahele Kehaulani Souza November 11, Kūkākūkā Tom Lenchanko, Jo-Lin Kelley Uyeoka, 2010 Kalimapau, Lopaka Kehaulani Souza Oliveira Jr, Nā Wahine o Kunia December 21, Winter Solstice Kehaulani Souza 2010 Cultural astronomy December 23, Winter Solstice Martha Noyes, David Kehaulani Souza 2010 Cultural astronomy Wellman, Rick Rogers February 25, Cultural astronomy Kupihea Romero, Kehaulani Souza 2011 observations Doug Fernandez March 13, Hale ‘Au‘au, Tom Lenchanko, Jo-Lin Kelley Uyeoka, 2011 Schofield Barracks Kalimapau, Kai Kehaulani Souza ConfidentialMarkell, Evertt Ota, May 5, 2011 Community Bus tour Tom Lenchanko, Eric Kelley Uyeoka, of Wai‘anae ‘Uka, Enos, Leimaile Quitevis Kehaulani Souza including Kolekole and Kamehameha Pass and Kūkaniloko Schools Staff

Community meetings:

The Office of Hawaiian Affairs organized a community meeting in Wahiawā on July 22, 2010 that Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike participated in. The purpose of the meeting was to inform the community about the OHA-sponsored TCP study at Kūkaniloko; to share the scope of work and project methodology; and to explain to the community how interested individuals could participate in the study. After OHA and Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike completed their scheduled presentations, the floor was opened to allow audience members to ask questions or share their comments.

The meeting was well attended with over 70 individuals signing the attendance sheet, and approximately another 30 showed up at various times throughout the evening. Questionnaires were also distributed at the meeting, in hopes of collecting useful information and references. Overall the meeting was a success, and it helped Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike make valuable contacts with individuals who wanted to participate in the study. Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike’s ethnographers made a special point of following up with all of the individuals who provided contact information to determine if these individuals had additional information to share.

Questionnaires:

As mentioned, a questionnaire27 was distributed to those individuals who attended the July 2010 Kūkaniloko community meeting in Wahiawā. The questionnaire was developed as a tool to better identify and understand some the common themes, interests, 52

and concerns of the study participants. It was also a way to quickly assess who had knowledge about Kūkaniloko and who was open to meeting with Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike to share information for the TCP study.

Data Integration

All of the semi-structured interviews were documented by notes or digitally recorded. Data collected from the interviews were then written up, summarized, and incorporated into the study. Portions of the study where the interview participants mana‘o was used were then sent back to the participants for any revisions, deletions, or additions. The approved quotes and summaries from the interview participants were then finalized into the report. All of the data collected via consultation efforts has been presented in this study as accurately as possible to facilitate and ensure that the voices of the community have been properly heard.

Consultation EthicsConfidential

Informed Consent and Release:

Before the study was initiated, it was clearly and carefully explained to all participants that their involvement was purely voluntary. A thorough informed consent process was completed including sending out project background information before participation in the study was initiated. The informed consent formsi included the rights of the participants including notification that the participants had the option to remain anonymous. Project background information included the study topic and the purpose for conducting this study. Conversely, some interview participants felt it was adequate to give a verbal consent for the researchers to use their mana‘o in this study. Throughout the study, all participants had regular access to the researchers, all of the interviews were at the participant’s convenience, and meetings with the participants continued until they felt completely satisfied with the process.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

One reason native communities and individuals are reluctant to participate in TCP studies is because they do not wish to reveal kapu or sacred knowledge to outsiders. During the study, some interview participants requested that portions of information shared remain confidential. This occurred when individuals wanted to protect the location of certain resources, when they had a controversial recommendation or concern that might result in their becoming targeted, or when they felt their knowledge was too sacred to be revealed. When this occurred, the researchers followed strict protocols to protect the confidentiality of the information as well as the identity of the individuals.

During the final stages of our ethnographic approval process we were not able to obtain verbal or written consent from certain community participants to use their interview quotes in this study. Since we did not get final approval from these individuals, we took their names out of the report and they will remain anonymous. However, their 53 anonymous quotes are kept in the study because their mana‘o remains important as it greatly contributes to the understanding and future management of Kukaniloko.

Closing

Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike views this TCP study as an opportunity to elevate the voices of the community so that they might be properly heard, understood, and appreciated -- the voices of ordinary people, the voices of our neighborhoods and communities, the voices of kūpuna and ‘ohana, and the voices of ancestors who are no longer with us. The mana‘o of those individuals who so graciously shared their ‘ike and memories with us should be honored, respected, and acknowledged. By integrating their words of wisdom throughout every page of this study from beginning to end, we can strive to give them the respect and gratitude they have earned and rightfully deserve.

ANALYSIS OFConfidential THE INFORMATION COLLECTED ON THE HISTORY OF KŪKANILOKO AND ITS CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

Ua hala nā kūpuna, a he ‘ike kōli‘uli‘u wale nō kō keia lā, i nā mea i ke au i hope lilo, iō kikilo. The ancestors have passed on; today’s people see but dimly times long gone and far behind. [Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini]28

The above section of this chapter describes how we gathered information for this project. Information on contemporary issues – contemporary Native Hawaiian uses of Kūkaniloko, boundaries of Kūkaniloko and its associated landscapes, significance of Kūkaniloko to the community, problems in current preservation, and recommendations for future preservation are directly reported out of interviews in Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, as quotes or described in our words. However, information on the more distant history of Kūkaniloko and its surrounding cultural landscape becomes increasingly less contemporaneous and comes from many sources – archival, archaeological, and interviews. The history of Kūkaniloko through the 20th Century and up to today is largely a study of Kūkaniloko’s preservation, or preservation of a remnant of the old Kūkaniloko, and the presentation of this information in Chapter 8 is fairly straightforward and did not need a great deal of analysis. In contrast, the history of Kūkaniloko through the 1800s looks back 100 to 200 years into the past. The history of Kūkaniloko and its associated landscape of the Central Plateau in traditional times goes back 200 to 700 years. We have information on these eras from a variety of sources and from different time periods, but this information is far from complete. As the above quote notes, we can only “see but dimly times long gone and far behind.” However, an aim of this project is to develop as accurate a historical picture as possible at this time.

It is important to re-emphasize this point. Building as accurate a historical picture of Kūkaniloko as possible is an aim of this project. We have incomplete information on Kūkaniloko and its landscapes from the 1800s and particularly from traditional times. 54

Also, this information is not of equal quality, nor are hypotheses about past use. This part of this study requires historical analysis of the bits of information and hypotheses that exist about Kūkaniloko and its landscape. All information and all hypotheses cannot be equally treated as accurate, and simply be presented. This is not good historical research. So it must be realized that the chapters on Kūkaniloko and its landscapes in traditional times and in the 1800s will present and analyze information and hypotheses, and try to come up with as accurate a picture as possible of those times “long gone and far behind”. Such analyses are common in historical studies by professional historians, anthropological historians, archaeologists and others studying history.

However, it must be understood that we have tried to do this without criticizing anyone. We appreciate that everyone has information and hypotheses about Kūkaniloko – not just present day academics and members of the community, but also individuals going all the way back into the 1840s presented information and ideas. Criticism focused on individuals (often nasty) has been common in the past, and seems to have come back into vogue in modernConfidential academics. We have no intent here to deal with personal criticism. We have only attempted to evaluate information and hypotheses, hoping all will realize that it is important to try to get the most accurate view of Kūkaniloko and its cultural landscape as possible.

Also, we view modern community information and hypotheses equally with older information and hypotheses, and with academic sources. The community has shared important information on Kūkaniloko, and did so in the 1920s when Lahilahi Webb of the Daughters of Hawai‘i gathered information. Also, the community has hypotheses on how Kūkaniloko was used, which we think have many merits – some just as good as any hypotheses that have come from academics. The point is that all the information and hypotheses need analysis. Some will prove to have weaknesses, which need to be clarified – clarified not as personal attacks, but as a search for a more accurate understanding.

Also, it needs to be understood that this analysis is complicated. Some sources will have plausible information and ideas. Some sources will have information that seems to have just some flaws. Some sources have information that reflects alternative hypotheses (both seeming equally reasonable). Some sources contributed information from different schools of story-telling, and neither is better or worse. But the point remains that analysis is needed.

Then too, it needs to be realized that the analysis is our analysis. It will reflect our biases and times (however hard we try to avoid these). For example, we again believe historical studies in Hawai‘i should be holistic – that they should use information from as many sources as possible, and we feel that oral history (from old mo‘olelo and oli to modern kūpuna information in the community) is of equal importance to archaeology and other sources. Also, we prefer to use the oral history to frame our look back at different times in Hawai‘i back to about AD 1300. Not all historians have these perspectives, and they might present the historical analysis differently.

55

This analysis is embedded (clearly we hope) in the chapters on traditional times and the 1800s. A few examples are given here of general kinds of issues that have to be dealt with in such historical studies.

One issue relates to the period being studied and what time period the collected information comes from. If one is interested in the 1700s, a fair amount of first-hand information exists for the mid- to late-1700s – information from those who lived in those times. Foreigner records start in the late 1700s with members of Cook’s expedition, and these also include information from Native Hawaiians. Information from kūpuna who lived in the late 1700s was most frequently recorded in the 1840s-1870s – although by that time this older generation was rapidly diminishing in numbers. Many of the Hawaiian newspapers of the 1840s-1870s were recording mo‘olelo (historical and literature). Most of these recorders had not lived in the 1700s, rather they were born in the late 1810s or 1820s. But they were attempting to record older mo‘olelo from surviving mākua and kūpuna. This was the attempt of many of this era (Samuel Kamakau’s and S.N. Hale‘ole’s 1840s-1860s work; the 1861 founding aim of Ka Hoku o Confidential 29 Ka Pakipika, as elegantly stated by Kanepuu, a well known Molokai authority ; the 1860s collections by Fornander and his Hawaiian collectors; etc.). There were rare cases of kūpuna who lived in traditional times that wrote down some of their knowledge in the 1840s (such as Kelou Kamakau and Malo). Records from this 1840s-1870s era that are relevant to the 1700s also include land records (the Māhele records have relevant information, as do the Boundary Commission Books and Kingdom maps), manuscripts (Malo’s, the Fornander Collection, genealogy books in archives), kauoha and probates (as seen in Kāme‘eleihiwa),30 court cases, etc. Thus, first-hand information is available to study the 1700s.

However, complications exist. Very little information was recorded for some areas of the islands in pre-1880 records. To a degree, this is true for the Wahiawā area and Kūkaniloko. Also, it is true for details of the history of the Kingdom of O‘ahu in the 1700s, for few in depth histories apparently survive. Speaking generally, sometimes there are accuracy problems with the older surviving information. The person that the information came from in 1840 might not have been at the place being described, or that person’s memory might be becoming confused in older age. Also, sometimes genealogists, historians and priests altered, added and deleted information. They were in the employment of their chief, and adding honor to the chief was desirable. For example, there are chants composed about Kamehameha III’s battle club and prowess in war, when he never fought in war.31 Ideally, a historian wants to find multiple sources, compare them, identify similarities and differences, and analyze those similarities and differences to reconstruct a picture of the past. (Some of the differences may simply be different story-telling schools; some may reflect accuracy issues. Sometimes the differences cannot be resolved.)

Another concern is one cannot assume that bits of information are always recorded accurately from a kūpuna about older traditional times. For example, the only older description of Kūkaniloko in use that we found is by Kamakau in 1865 and 1869. This is 250+ years after Kūkaniloko was used for high ranking births and after the use of 56

the chiefly center of Līhu‘e. Kamakau undoubtedly gathered part of this description from knowledgeable kūpuna (and he was raised in Waialua by relatives of his grandmother’s generation that included priests), but Kamakau tended to publish mo‘olelo with his own additions (interpretations, symbolic emphases, etc.) and his ideas changed. For example, in 1865 he noted that there was a separate place for beating drums for births at Kūkaniloko, but in 1869 he said this drum beating was from within the heiau at Kūkaniloko. He said 36 chiefs -- no more, no less -- were present, and while high chiefs would certainly have been present, one would expect these numbers to vary with the rank of the child being born and the numbers of high chiefs in the country at the time. This number may be a symbolic addition for emphasis in Kamakau’s story. The gist of his publication seems accurate, but in this case certain details might not be. This is not to pick on Kamakau, for although many did and do (some quite personally),32 he was widely respected in his time as being quite knowledgeable.33 He was one of the first non- traditionally trained historians, and we greatly respect him as a source of information 150 years later. However, his information has strengths, and occasionally weaknesses. Confidential This is also true of publications by sources of the same period, who were traditionally trained genealogists, such as Unauna and his son (Koii Unauna, 1828-1877). They often had running critiques with Kamakau in the Hawaiian newspapers, with the papers sometimes being the place for debate.34 This is historical analysis in action, perhaps mixed with politics and personal ambitions. The following quote from S.N. Hale’ole comes right from this era:

… a nolaila, mamua o ka puka ana o keia moolelo, he pono no‘u, a no makou pu ke waiho aku i kumu hoopololei no ka mookuauhau a moolelo hoi o Kamehameha: A me kuu manaolana hoi, e ulu mai ana ka hoopaapaa mahope iho o kuu hoakea ana i ka mookuauhau, a mamuli oia hoopaapaa ana, e lilo ai ka mooolelo i mea e hoopololei iki ae ai. Malia paha o ulu mai ka hoopaapaa ana o S. M. Kamakau a me Unauna, a mau mea e ae paha no ka mookuauhau a‘u e pakui ae nei mahope o keia hoakaka ana. Aka, he mea nani nae ke hoopololei ia mahope o ka hoopaapaa ana, ke hoopaapaa ia, ke maopopo nae na kumu hoopaapaa i ku i ka pololei.

Therefore, before publishing this story, it is right for me, and for us, that I put forth a corrected version of the genealogy of Kamehameha. It is my hope that after I publish the genealogy, a debate will ensue, and because of this debate, the story can be slightly adjusted so that it is correct. Perhaps S.M. Kamakau and Unauna and maybe others, will argue about the genealogy that I am attaching after this explanation. However, it is beautiful that the genealogy will be corrected after the debate, and while the 57

debate is happening, remember the reason for the debate is so that the genealogy will be accurate. [1865 Hale‘ole]35

Importantly, it appears that the traditional genealogists’ views sometimes had accuracy issues too. In 1874, Kalākaua asked Kuihelani (a knowledgeable genealogist of the era, who had the genealogy books of the deceased and famed Kaoo, associated with Auwae, Kamehameha’s renowned genealogist) about one of Koii Unauna records. This is Kuihelani’s response,

He showed me a genealogical record by Koii, which he told me to read and approve if I found it accurate. When I read it I decided it was full of mistakes and told D.K. so, pointing out that Koii elevated only those he wished to and lowered those he despised. DK asked me for Kaoo’s book ofConfidential genealogies … I reminded him [D.K.] of Unauna’s slanderous remarks when Emma married Liholiho, claiming that she had no royal blood. When Kaoo heard of it he was infuriated … Furthermore, said Kaoo, if Unauna made such remarks about Emma, evil would befall Unauna and his children. [1874 Kuihelani letter]36

Published criticisms, although barbed, were unfortunately often brief. As a historian, one would prefer to have been present and heard the specific criticisms of the information, and how these were resolved. But one obviously cannot go back in time. Thus, this information needs careful review.

Complications also arise when studying the 1700s with archival and other information that comes from post-1880 times. People born in the 1850s-1860s were more removed from older times. Life was changing. Knowledge was passed on differently, and knowledge that was valued in more modern times was changing. While clearly an exaggeration, one Bishop Museum researcher studying heiau on Hawai‘i Island in 1906 said that those born in the 1840s-1850s often knew heiau names and some uses, while those of the next generation (born in the 1860s-1880s) usually could not identify heiau in their area.37 Queen Emma in her letters to her cousin Peter Kaeo in the 1870s lamented the fact that the older mo‘olelo were recalled by their parents, but not by them, and suggested that maybe they should learn these mo‘olelo better.38 These points indicate that knowledge of older times was being lost. Some of the archival information from this era, thus, reflects altered or simplified versions of older times and mo’olelo.

The historical publications that come from these post-1880 times (publications in newspapers and books) also took the older published material from the 1840s-1870s and retold it, sometimes adding in other old information, sometimes adding new information and interpretations. This is true for histories and more fictional literature. Kalākaua’s stories clearly reflect these blends in 1888. Many authors’ acknowledge some of the 58

earlier sources that they used. Almost all did such retelling. One problem with this archival material is that they is rarely specified which bits were borrowed (and from whom), which were old information reported for the first time (often coming out of community family knowledge), and which were the authors’ new additions, recombinations and interpretations. Attempting to work with this post-1880 material requires careful analysis. It is really not until the 1930s and even more modern times that researchers (historians, anthropologists, etc.) start to cite where they got their pieces of information. The end-notes in this paper are an example of such citation. Citation enables others to evaluate pieces of one’s historical reconstruction and the information used.

Another historical issue is that stories obviously change over time. The farther one is away from the 1700s, the more changes that are likely to occur. In fictional literature, this is just part of the changing patterns of Native Hawaiian literature. Sometimes different schools of story-telling existed, with no one version correct. Generally, as oneConfidential gets into the early 20th Century, stories dramatically change, and the English language literature often vastly alters stories. Westervelt is an excellent example of this. Also, the recollections in local communities underwent more years of potential alteration as time marched on. Stories in the 1920s differed from the 1860s. In the chapter on traditional times, the reader will see how the Halemano cannibal story changed from the 1840s-1860s into Kalākaua’s 1888 story and then more dramatically into Westervelt’s 1904 story. Stories were recombined and altered. Even the place name Halemano changes to Halemanu and then to Helemano. This will also be seen in the Keanini stone story. For literature, changes are issues of interest. However, for historical mo’olelo or history, changes in mo’olelo (recombinations of information, simplification, new elements, new interpretations) alter the view of the past. These changes need a close look when attempting to reconstruct past history.

The above situation applies to documenting the history, life and landscape of the Central Plateau and O‘ahu of the 1700s. However, studying history becomes more difficult when one attempts to look at times in the more distant past – like the 1300s to about 1620 when Kūkaniloko and its chiefly center were in use. In this case, the kūpuna of the late 1700s were retaining knowledge from 150-400 years before them. Those Hawaiians who themselves saw Kūkaniloko in use had passed away many generations earlier. Their information would have been passed down orally in formal and informal mo‘olelo, oli, mele and genealogies. But this oral information was passed down for 250 years before it started to be recorded in the 1840s-1870s. This is an additional filter of time that likely transformed the older information on Kūkaniloko.

All these issues simply point to the fact that careful analysis is needed of the historical information.

Again, there is no intent in this analysis to critique the sources of the information. It is periodically in vogue to critique Kamakau, Malo or Fornander,39 but we consider them all extremely knowledgeable of oral historical material – and far closer to its traditional usage than our perspective today. Similarly, one can easily critique sources 59 like Dibble, Jarvis, Kalākaua, Alexander, Nakuina, Poepoe, N. Emerson, Wise, Desha, Taylor, and almost every author. Their information may have weaknesses in accuracy, interpretation, and reflect their cultural biases or the historical biases of their era. But these folks also were knowledgeable in many ways. Some of their information may be flawed, some may not. It needs evaluation to try and get at the useful information. This equally applies to modern academic historians’ work and the stories coming out of the community.

So … we have strived to fairly present the information that we collected, and we value the sharing of that information by today’s community and by voices from long ago. We have attempted to carefully analyze this information. It is our analysis, and undoubtedly it can be critiqued or viewed differently. But we have attempted to build a picture of Kūkaniloko and its associated landscapes of long ago, readily admitting that we can “see but dimly times long gone and far behind.” We have strived for the best possible picture. We agree with Hoapili that “Knowledge is fundamental to living as a chief.” He was one of the Confidentialmost knowledgeable and respected men of his time, born about 1775 (died in 1840), son of Kame‘eiamoku (one of the highest chiefs of his time and key supporter of Kamehameha), trained in the priesthood, a user of navigation techniques, a warrior and general, one of the kālaimoku to Kamehameha I in the 1800s, the husband of Kamehameha’s widows Keōpūolani and then Kaheiheimalie, guardian of Nahi‘ena‘ena, father of Liliha (wife of Boki), Governor of Maui, one who knew genealogies and history and was approached by Malo for information when Malo did not know the answers, and a supporter of widespread reading and writing for all Hawaiians in the 1830s. He walked between the old times and newer times and clearly valued knowledge from both. We hope that this report provides some knowledge on the old times associated with Kūkaniloko and on newer times, knowledge that will help OHA work towards better preservation and protection this wahi pana of Kūkaniloko.

60

CHAPTER 4

THE CENTRAL PLATEAU: ITS LANDS AND PLACES

Ross Cordy

I had heard of the famous places of O‘ahu … and came to see them for myself. [1865, Kamakau]1

‘O Kapawa, ‘o ke ali‘i o Wai‘alua; Kapawa, the chief of Waialua; I hanau i Kūkaniloko; Was born at Kūkaniloko; ‘O Wahiawā ke kahua; Wahiawā the site; ‘O Līhu‘eConfidential ke ēwe, At Līhu‘e the placenta, ‘O Ka‘ala ka piko, At Ka‘ala the navel cord, [1869, Kamakau]2

The lands of Manuaula in Kamananui is the placenta from the Lihu‘e cliffs of Kukaniloko to Wahiawa at Pooamoho, the land of my ancestors of my father. [Kamakau]3

------

Truly, as the first quote above notes there were famous places on O‘ahu, and Kūkaniloko is one of the most famous of these places. But Kūkaniloko did not exist in isolation on the land. It sat within and was linked to a larger cultural landscape – the entire Central Plateau of O‘ahu – and there were many places on that landscape that were familiar to people in the past, and to those that know this area today. These places appeared (and appear) in mo‘olelo, oli, mele, and on maps (Kingdom and modern maps). The above two oli are but examples, naming some of the places of the Central Plateau. One was composed in traditional times to honor the chief Kapawa, and the other was composed by Samuel Kamakau in the 1860s to honor the ancestors of his father’s side. These places are more than just names. They brought forth images of how the land appeared, its winds, its smells, and how it was used. Some names evoked famous events and people, and even major chiefly and sacred places in history.

To understand Kūkaniloko, we believe that its immediate cultural landscape or region -- the entire Central Plateau area of O‘ahu -- needs to be looked at. Kūkaniloko, the place and the people who used it (and use it) and their history are tied to this landscape. As will be seen, Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau are linked to the larger regions of O‘ahu and the Hawaiian Islands, and are part of the histories of the places and people of these larger regions. However, the closest ties of Kūkaniloko lie with the Central Plateau. It is vital for the reader to gain an understanding of the Central Plateau in order to understand Kūkaniloko. This part of this report provides information on the 61

landscape of the Central Plateau – particularly a clarification of place names, so when reading later sections, the places that are discussed can be easily located.

THE CENTRAL PLATEAU IN THIS PAPER

Figure 4-1 locates the Central Plateau on O‘ahu. Figure 4-2 is a close-up map showing the borders of the Central Plateau – as we view it for this paper. It runs from the Wai‘anae ridgeline in the west (2,700-4,000 ft. elevation); down the eastern slopes of the Wai‘anaes (most of these slopes being 1,200-950 ft. in elevation); across the flatter lands of today’s Schofield Barracks, Wheeler Air Force Base, and Wahiawā town (from 830- 980 ft.); up the western slopes of the Ko‘olau mountains (rapidly rising from 1,000 ft.); to the Ko‘olau ridgeline in the east (2,600-2,700 ft. elevation). The Central Plateau boundary to the north is the spur ridgeline descending from Ka‘ala to the east down to Kaukonahua Stream, then across the northwest border of the land of Wahiawā and then crossing Poamoho Stream to include the uppermost parts of Pa‘ala‘a (from about 900- 1,000 feet elevation,Confidential up including the ‘ili of Halemano above 1,100 ft.). The south boundary that we use is the spur ridge descending from the Wai‘anae ridge – from Kānehoa to Maunauna (with the land area below the ridge here being 1,350-900 ft. in elevation); then arbitrarily across to where Waikele Stream’s upper tributary of Waikakalaua branches off and runs east (with the area here about 830-900 ft. in elevation). Waikakalaua stream is the border of the Central Plateau, running east up the slopes to the Ko‘olau ridgeline.

Rainfall in the flat area near Schofield and Wahiawa is 40-50 inches per year.4

The archival, archaeological, and historical records indicate that the steeper slopes of the Ko‘olau mountains up to that ridgeline were minimally used. This was steeper terrain, with narrow gulches. It was heavily forested land. While people did enter it to use forest resources; it was not used for houses and farms to any degree. So, in this report, this area will not be closely looked at. This brings the eastern edge of our Central Plateau focus down towards the flatter parts of the Central Plateau (Fig. 4-2, dotted line).

MOUNTAINS, STREAMS & FLATTER KULA

The Central Plateau is dominated by three terrain features – (1) the Wai‘anae ridgeline and its peaks and steeper slopes, (2) the streams and their gulches, and (3) flatter slopes between the stream gulches (the kula).

The Wai‘anae Ridgeline & Its Peaks

The western portion of the Central Plateau is surrounded by a curve of ridges – the main Wai‘anae ridgeline to the west, a spur off Ka‘ala mountain in the north, and a spur off Kānehoa peak to the south. High points or peaks are present along this curve of ridges, as well as the low point of Kolekole pass. Some of these peaks are common references in the oral literature for the Central Plateau. (Figure 4-3, photos end chapter.) 62

Confidential

Figure 4-1. O‘ahu, showing the Central Plateau area as defined in this paper.

63

Confidential

Figure 4-2. The Central Plateau, showing its boundaries as discussed in this paper. The area to the east of the dotted line consists of steep slopes of the Ko‘olau mountains. This area was not permanently settled or farmed to any extent – instead being forest land, where resources were exploited and temporary camps were located. The emphasis of this paper is, thus, not on these steeper Ko‘olau slopes. 64

Confidential

Figure 4-3. Location of Places Identified along the Wai‘anae Ridgeline and the Streams that are discussed in this report.

65

Ka‘ala is the dominant point on the Wai‘anae ridgeline.5 This is the highest land on the island of O‘ahu (4,020 feet). Ka‘ala is a massive, flat-topped mountain – with swampy land atop the peak. It truly does dominate the landscape of the Central Plateau, as well as Wai‘anae valley to the west and much of Waialua to the north. Kamaoha6 seems to be a poetic kaona term used for Ka‘ala, or for a high slope on the mountain, for Kamaoha was a goddess associated with Ka‘ala and ‘oli and compositions refer to the crest of Kamaoha, clearly meaning Ka‘ala. A pond in the swamp atop Ka’ala was called Luakini.7

South of Ka‘ala on the main Wai‘anae ridgeline there are two peaks before one gets to Kolekole pass.8 These are Kalena and Kūmakali‘i.9 These peaks are behind Schofield Barracks. Further south on the main ridgeline, south of Kolekole Pass, are the higher peaks of Hāpapa (2,878 ft) and Kānehoa (2,720 ft.).10 Hāpapa may also have been called Kapapa, for the oli Ka Inoa o Kūali‘i talks about “the heights of Kapapa, at Paupauwela,” andConfidential Hāpapa rises above the area known as Paupauwela.11 [Beyond Kānehoa to the south – outside of what we are calling the Central Plateau – is the peak of Pu‘u Kaua (3,127 ft) on the main ridgeline and then the low pass of Pōhākea (1,870 ft. on 1876 map).]12

A spur ridgeline descends from Kānehoa to a high point near its end called Maunauna.13 Maunauna is 1,772 ft. in elevation, and it is commonly referred to in the oral literature.

To the north, another spur ridgeline descends down from Ka‘ala to the east with higher points named Kamaohanui (c. 2,900 ft), Pu‘u Pane, and Mā‘ili (1,510 ft.).14 Mā‘ili is the high point right above Kaukonahua Stream. This ridgeline formed part of the border between the moku (districts) of Waialua and Wai‘anae uka – as recorded in the mid- to late-1800s.

The Streams & Gulches

Descending from the Wai‘anae ridgeline and its spurs and from the Ko‘olau mountains to the east are a number of streams. Nearly all form steep sided gulches with flat bottom lands of differing sizes near the streams. The depth and width of the gulch bottoms increase in the flatter, central area of the plateau.

Two main stream systems form and drain out of the Central Plateau – the Waikele stream system and the Kaukonahua system. (Figure 4-3 and photos at end of chapter.)

The Waikele Stream15 system is on the southern edges of what we are calling the Central Plateau. It has tributaries coming from both the Wai‘anae and Ko‘olau sides. From the Ko‘olau side, Waikakalaua Stream16 flows west-southwest from the mountains as the south border of the Central Plateau. From the Wai‘anae side, several small streams form and descend out of the slopes in the area from Kolekole pass around to the Kānehoa-Maunauna spur ridge. One appears to have been called Paupauwela 66

Stream (ka wai Paupauwela).17 Joined they form Wai‘eli Stream,18 which is the main tributary of Waikele Stream that emerges from the Wai‘anae mountains. This stream passes to the south of today’s Wheeler Air Force Base and joins Waikakalaua Stream in the Mililani area. Where these two upper tributaries join, the stream that flows seaward is called Waikele Stream. The lower parts of Wai‘eli and Waikakalaua have high steep sided gulches.19 But the middle parts of Wai‘eli Stream just above Schofield seem to have lower, more gradual sides.

Outside of the Central Plateau, Waikele Stream flows down towards Pu‘uloa (Pearl Harbor), joined by Poliwai Gulch20 from the west and by Kīpapa Gulch21 from the east. Poliwai forms from several small gulches that emerge from the Wai‘anae ridgeline south of Kānehoa and off the southeast side of the Kānehoa-Maunaua spur – these smaller gulches being Manawaielu, Huliwai and ‘Ēkahanui (north to south).22 But again, these parts of the Waikele drainage are not in the Central Plateau area as discussed in this paper. They were, however, in the ‘ili of Līhu‘e of Honouliuli ahupua‘a, and this ‘ili of Līhu‘e mayConfidential have connections with the Central Plateau as will be noted in Chapter 4.

Kaukonahua Stream23 is the stream in the very deep gulch that runs along the west edge of the highway as one is driving down towards Waialua today. Lake Wilson is also a dammed up portion of parts of this stream system. Like Waikele Stream, Kaukonahua has tributaries coming both from the Wai‘anae ridgeline in the west and from the Ko‘olau ridgeline to the east. The eastern tributaries emerge from the steeper parts of the Ko‘olau slopes essentially as two sizable tributaries. These are labeled on modern maps as the South and North forks of Kaukonahua. The south fork on the 1870s and later Kingdom maps is also labeled Kalakoa Stream, matching mid-1800s written records.24 It has a small branch apparently called Paka25 that runs northeast slightly into Wahiawā town. This might be the larger branch gulch off the south fork where the Wahiawā Botanical Garden is located today. We could not locate the botanical garden gulch’s name. The north fork has had multiple names since the mid-1800s. We are not confident as to its older name; this needs more research. The land records for the Grants 605-606 that were purchased in 1851 in the Kūkaniloko area seem to clearly label the north fork as Kalakoa Stream, in both the Hawaiian and English land record versions – assuming that the south boundary of these parcels was the north fork, and all maps indicate that it was. But a 1887 land exchange suggests that these grants may have actually extended across the north fork to the banks of the south fork, with that being the Kalakoa they note. After the exchange, Grants 605 and 606 did have their south border on the north fork. (See Chapter 5.) The north fork also may be what Kamakau and ‘Ī‘ī were calling Kua‘ikua Stream in the 1860s, or at least the part of Kaukonahua just downstream from the north and south fork joining.26 Other records going back to 1875 were calling the north fork Wahiawā Stream, which was more common in the early 1900s.27 In the central flats of the Central Plateau, these two forks of Kaukonahua encompass today’s Wahiawā town. The south fork runs west and then markedly bends to the north, where it joins the north fork after a short distance. The dam that forms today’s Lake Wilson is just north of the join.

67

A little way north of the join of the eastern tributaries of Kaukonahua, three smaller tributaries that descend from the Wai‘anae ridgeline join Kaukonahua. To the south is Waikōloa Stream,28 which runs parallel and just north of Wai‘eli Stream (Waikele system) for a ways. Next (going north) is Mohiākea Stream – Moohiakea in the earliest records.29 It forms below Kūmakali‘i and Kalena peaks, with two tributaries descending (Kūmakali‘i and Kalena)30 below the respective peaks. These join as Mohiākea just above Schofield Barracks’ housing, and Mohiākea flows along the north edge of that housing to its joining with Kaukonahua. The third of the Wai‘anae tributaries is Hale‘au‘au Stream.31 It is fed by a large number of small tributaries that form off the slopes of Ka‘ala and the Ka‘ala-Mā‘ili spur ridge. Clearly, each of these tributaries had names, but we could find no mention of the names. Except perhaps for Halapo or Kalapo Stream32 that is noted in the ‘oli Ka Inoa o Kūali‘i – a battle took place here on the open ground below the steep Eleu trail up Ka‘ala, which would seem to place the stream in this area. More research needs to be done to try to identify these tributaries of Hale‘au‘au Stream. The gulches and gulch bottoms of these Wai‘anae tributaries are muchConfidential lower and smaller than those of the south and north forks out in the flat center of the Central Plateau. Together, as the large Kaukonahua Stream, this system flows down and out of the Central Plateau to Kaiaka Bay near today’s Waialua town.

Just before the joining of these Wai‘anae side tributaries with Kaukonahua Stream, there is a short gulch to the north, Kahauhau. This gulch marked the border between Kemo‘o (a downslope ‘ili and kula of Kamananui ahupua’a) and Wahiawā.33

Another major tributary to the Kaukonahua system is Poamoho Stream – labeled Po‘o-a-moho Stream in the earliest sources.34 This has several tributaries that emerge from the slopes of the Ko‘olau mountains in the area of Whitmore Village and swing northwest. They join and run out of the Central Plateau down towards the sea, joining Kaukonahua much farther seaward and downslope.

The Flatter Kula

Relatively flat plains or kula were present on the high ground between the stream gulches in the Central Plateau. These kula were notably flatter in the Wahiawā town, Kūkaniloko, Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Air Force Base areas and were steeper rising up to the Wai‘anae mountains. To the north, the overall terrain starts to descend towards the north shore, so the kula in central Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a are lower than those in the Wahiawā town, Kūkaniloko, Schofield Barracks and Wheeler Air Force Base areas. Also, to the south, the general terrain in Honouliuli and Waikele ahupua‘a begins to descend towards Pu‘uloa (Pearl Harbor). But the kula in these areas are also relatively flat in the central areas and become steeper rising towards the mountains. Some of the oral and historical accounts give kula names for these lands of the Central Plateau. These also may be land unit names, so more specifics are given in the next section of this chapter. (See Figure 4-4 and photographs at the end of this chapter.)

One kula is between the North and South forks of Kaukonahua, where Wahiawā town is located today. Across the north fork is another kula where Kūkaniloko and 68

Whitmore Village are currently. The general area including this kula and the one with Wahiawā town was called Wahiawā.35 There are likely to have been named internal kula areas within the flat lands of this larger Wahiawā. The kula of Halahape is noted, at the seaward end of the kula where Kūkaniloko and Whitmore Village are located, abutting Kemo‘o which was the first kula and ‘ili in the lower Kamananui ahupua‘a area.36 And named places Kua‘ikua, Kunaka and Kukui-o-Lono were in the general area of Kūkaniloko, all with irrigated kalo fields.37 Kukui-o-Lono specifically was said to be above and west of the North fork, suggesting it was a kula area.

The kula of Kalakoa38 is identified south of the South Fork of Kaukonahua (as will be seen this was an ‘ili that included part of the kula on which Wahiawā town is located today). South of it, Waikakalaua39 occupied the rest of this kula down to Waikakalaua Stream and its join with Wai‘eli Stream. The kula of Līhu‘e is a general term for the flat area where Wheeler is located today and Schofield Barracks and all the steeper land upslope of Schofield Barracks between Wai‘eli Stream and the Ka‘ala-Mā‘ili spur ridge up toConfidential the Wai‘anae ridgeline.40 But within this area, smaller kula between tributaries coming off the Wai‘anae mountains were also separately named and identified as places within Līhu‘e – these including the kula of Hale‘au‘au and Kalena.41 The open battleground area Malamanui and the forest of Malama (probably shortened Malamanui) were associated with the kula of Malamanui between Kalena Stream and Wai‘eli Stream, where Kalākaua’s ranchhouse was located and called Malamanui.42 The kula of Mahie43 is also noted, apparently in the Schofield housing area just across from where the old trail to the north shore crossed Kaukonahua Stream. Kokoloea44 (just south of the South Fork where it abruptly bends north) was a place in late 1800s mapping (mentioned as a kukui tree and triangulation station), but at least one older story refers to this area as a kula.

On the lower, northern fringe of the Central Plateau was Pa‘ala‘a (an ahupua‘a in the 1800s), located across Poamoho Stream, and it also upland kula. Far upstream within Pa‘ala‘a (roughly across from the Naval station) was the kula called Halemano (labeled Helemano and Helemanu in more recent sources, late 1880s-on).45 As Pa‘ala‘a was not a primary focus of our research, we did not have time to go through the land records for Pa‘ala‘a, to identify the flatter kula of Pa‘ala‘a uka. Kānewai46 was a place in this area below Halemano that held houses, and it may have been a kula. Other kula in Pa‘ala‘a uka are likely to be present, and future research should focus on this.

On the lower, southern fringe of the Central Plateau were lands of upper Honouliuli ahupua‘a and upper Waikele ahupua‘a in the moku of ‘Ewa. Just south of the Wai‘anae uka Līhu‘e and across the Wai‘eli Stream were the areas of Paupauwela (kula and steeper slopes between Hāpapa mountain and the Kānehoa-Maunauna spur ridge), Līhu‘e (another Līhu‘e, this one within Honouliului and running from Wai‘eli down the slopes of the Wai‘anaes to Pōhōkea pass and including several kula), and Pouhala uka (between Poliwai and Waikele streams).47 The Paupauwela area is geographically a part of the Līhu‘e area of Wai‘anae uka, not being part of the lower, general descending terrain toward Pu‘uloa. As our focus was not on these lower Līhu‘e and Pouhala areas, we did not research land records to identify internal kula. Again, future research is 69

Confidential

Figure 4-4. Approximate locations of kula identified within the Central Plateau.

70

needed to do this, particularly for the kula areas immediately adjacent to the central Wai‘anae uka/Wahiawā lands.

NAMES OF LANDS [‘ILI AND LARGER]

Land unit names will be discussed in Chapter 6 of this report. But some identification of these places early on is needed.

The Central Plateau, as we identify it in this paper, includes portions of three large districts (moku) as they were known in the mid-1800s – the moku of Waialua, Wai‘anae, and ‘Ewa48 (Fig. 4-3). However, it is important to emphasize that the upper boundaries of these moku may not have been that ancient, going back to perhaps only to the 1600s. This will be discussed further in Chapter 4.

In the mid-1800s Waialua moku included Wahiawā town and all the remaining kula (and associatedConfidential gulches) north of the North Fork of Kaukonahua and the main Kaukonahua Stream. Wahiawā was a subunit of Kamananui ahupua‘a, the latter running down to the sea at Kaiaka Bay.49 Just downslope (northwest) of the Kahauhau gulch was Kemo‘o ‘ili within Kamananui ahupua‘a.50 It shared its upper border with Wahiawā. Wahiawā was made up of the kula of today’s Wahiawā town and the kula across the north fork of Kaukonahua where Kūkaniloko, Whitmore Village and the Naval Communication Station are today. There may have been ‘ili within Wahiawā, for the places Kua‘ikua, Kapu‘ahu‘awa, and Kunaka are noted near Kūkaniloko, and the place Kukui-o-Lono (with irrigated kalo fields) was above and west of the north fork.51 Halahape52 was the kula with houses just within Wahiawā (just over the border from Kemo’o) (all to be discussed in Chapter 6). The kula lands north of Poamoho Stream were part of Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a, which also extended down to the shore.53 The upper part of Pa‘ala‘a was called Pa‘ala‘a uka. The lands here form the northern fringe of what we are calling the Central Plateau. Roughly opposite of Whitmore Village within Pa‘ala‘a was a separate kula that made up the ‘ili of Halemano (again Helemano and Halemanu in more recent).54 This was the most inland ‘ili of Pa‘ala‘a uka, and ran up to the Ko’olau ridge. We, again, did not research the land records for Pa‘ala‘a, so other upland ‘ili here are likely. Kānewai was seaward of Halemano within Pa‘ala‘a uka, and it held houses; so it could have been an ‘ili within Pa‘ala‘a.55

In the mid-1800s Wai‘anae moku had the Wai‘anae uka piece of land which stretched from the Wai‘anae ridge line near Kolekole Pass up to the Ka‘ala-Mā‘ili spur ridge and ran across the Central Plateau between Wai‘eli Stream and Kaukonahua Stream, and then included parts of kula flanking the South Fork of Kaukonahua on up into the Ko‘olaus.56 The western portion of Wai‘anae uka – west of the sharp northward bend of the South Fork of Kaukonahua Stream (west of the old Pu‘uloa to Wai‘alua Trail as will be seen in Chapter 6) -- was called Līhu‘e.57 Researchers have been able to identify two former ‘ili within Līhu‘e – Kalena and Pulei ‘ili58 – and more are likely to have been present (see Chapter 6). As seen in the prior section, Malamanui was likely a kula and associated forest area between Kalena and Paupauwela, and it could have been an ‘ili.59 Another story suggests the kula of Mahie was in the flatter parts of Līhu‘e, right 71

across from the trail crossing over Kaukonahua Stream.60 Also, at the abrupt northward bend of the South Fork of Kaukonahua, a place called Kokoloea was noted on most Kingdom of Hawai‘i maps, but it was also referred to as a kula in one story, suggestive of a larger land area.61 East of the northward bend of the South Fork of Kaukonahua Stream (east of the former Wai‘alua Trail) was the ‘ili of Kalakoa.62 It occupied the entire width of Wai‘anae uka here, including some land on the north side of the south fork just below today’s Wahiawā town and a sizable area south of the south fork.

The uppermost parts of the moku of ‘Ewa, as identified starting in mid-1800s records, form the south fringe of the Central Plateau. Between Hāpapa peak, the Kāneohoa-Maunauna spur ridge, and Wai‘eli Stream (essentially an area set off by the spur ridge) was the ‘ili of Paupauwela within Honouliuli ahupua‘a.63 Paupauwela ‘ili is again geographically part of the Central Plateau proper, rather than on the descending southern fringe. Another ‘ili of Honouliuli called Līhu‘e64 was on this lower descending fringe. It was a large ‘ili that extended from the Pōhākea Pass area up to the south side of the Kānehoa-MaunaunaConfidential spur ridge and on to the south edge of Wai‘eli Stream. It included land from the Wai‘anae ridgeline down steeper slopes and out onto flat kula. This Līhu‘e roughly flanks Kunia Road today. Just to the east of this Līhu‘e was the uppermost part of the ‘ili of Pouhala in Waikele ahupua‘a.65 This ‘ili ran from the shore of Pu‘uloa up along the west side of Waikele Stream, flanked on the west for much of the way by Hō‘ae‘ae ahupua‘a,66 an ahupua‘a between Honouliuli and Waikele that did not extend all the way up to the Central Plateau. Like Paupauwela and Līhu‘e, Pouhala uka also abutted up against Wai‘eli Stream. Last, the ‘ili of Waikakalaua67 within Waikele ahupua‘a was also on this south part of the Central Plateau. It lay on the kula above Waikakalaua Stream, with Wai‘eli Stream’s last portion up to the joining with Waikakalaua on the west edge and with the three tributaries of the South Fork of Kaukonahua curving up just along the east border. Kalakoa ‘ili of Wai‘anae uka shared the north portion of the kula on which Waikakalaua sat, so Waikakalaua ‘ili was up on the Central Plateau proper, rather that on lower kula descending towards Pu’uloa. The survey description of Waikakalaua in 1846 also noted the presence of a stone called O‘ahu nui at the northeast corner of Waikakalaua (just over in Kalakoa ‘ili).68

LISTING OF THE PLACE NAMES

Table 4-1 lists the place names presented here. With the exception of Kūkaniloko and Wahiawā, no attempt is made in this report to translate the literal meaning of these names, nor to interpret a link between the meaning and the place. While we agree with Kepelino, who wrote in the 1860s that “to the Hawaiian the name is important”,69 analyzing the meanings of place names is full of problems. Literal translations can often be incorrect, particularly with the fact that older spellings from the 1800s lack the ‘okina and kahakō and often utilize contractions. The rarely read appendix in Pukui, Elbert and Mookini’s Place Names of Hawaii vastly expands on these issues.70 Also, over- interpretation of literal translations also can frequently occur, and do. Sometimes individuals will even suggest the Hawaiian name is not correct, and should have been something else, which they then push as the proper name. And as seen in the name Halemano, names can change over time (notably in recent years) – to Helemano and 72

Halemanu in this case. Rare cases exist where the original meaning is clearly retained in older records or in community knowledge directly from kūpuna (not literal translations and hypothesized meanings). If this is not the case, then all translations and interpretations need to be viewed as hypotheses. Meanings of names are complex. A name often is given in honor (in jest, or in dishonor) of a chief or god, or events or aspects of the natural environment; and sometimes these names are full of kaona and not straightforward. Pukui gives some excellent examples.71 Also, sometimes these names refer to events, chiefs, gods, or natural phenomena from the local area. But sometimes the names and meanings are brought from other areas and earlier times, and are not necessarily descriptive of a place, nor are the names of events, gods, chiefs, and the like necessarily associated with a place. Interpreting place names can become a very volatile and personal issue to holders of different viewpoints. Given all the work needed for this report, we are choosing to avoid this problem here by not attempting to determine the meanings of places. Rather we simply accept the names as places on the landscape, and we look at what we can find about how these places were used and looked like in past times. A futureConfidential research project could perhaps address the meanings of these names of the Central Plateau – gathering rare known meanings from old sources or clearly passed down as kūpuna knowledge and analyzing hypotheses of the meanings (hypotheses both in the literature and in the community).72 73

Figure 4-5 LIST OF PLACE NAMES IN CENTRAL PLATEAU AREA

*Outside of the Central Plateau

WAI‘ANAE RIDGELINE & ITS PEAKS

Mā‘ili Kūmakali‘i Pu‘u Pane Kolekole (pass) Kamaohanui Hāpapa (also possibly Kapapa) Ka‘ala Kānehoa Kamaoha Maunauna Luakini (swamp on top of Ka‘ala) Pu‘u Kaua* Kalena Pōhākea* (pass) Confidential THE STREAMS & GULCHES

Waikele Stream system Kaukonahua Stream system

Waikakalaua Stream South Fork Kaukonahua Stream (Kalakoa Stream) Wai‘eli Stream Paka Gulch Waikele Stream Launani Gulch North Fork Kaukonahua Str. (Wahiawā Stream) Poliwai Gulch* Kua‘ikua Stream Manawaielu* Kahauhau gulch Huliwai* Waikōloa Stream ‘Ēkahanu* Mohiākea Stream (also Moohiakea) (20th Century Mookioea, Kioea) Pu‘uloa (Pearl Harbor)* Kūmakali‘i Kalena Hale‘au‘au Stream

Poamoho Stream (also Poo-a-moho)

Kaiaka Bay*

KULA NAMES (?) = uncertain if kula, or uncertain exact location.

Wahiawā (larger area of multiple kula)

Halahape Kukui-o-Lono (?) Kua‘ikua (?) Kunaka (?) 74

KULA NAMES (contd) (?) = uncertain if kula, or uncertain exact location.

Pa‘ala‘a (ahupua’a with multiple kula) Honouliuli (ahupua’a w/multiple kula) Halemanō (1888 Halemanu, 1890s on Helemano) Kānewai (?) Paupauwela (later 1800s Popouwela) Līhu‘e Wai‘anae uka (larger area of multiple kula) Waikele (ahupua’a w/multiple kula) Kalakoa Kokoloea (?) Pouhala uka Līhu‘e Waikakalaua Hale‘au‘au Kalena Malamanui Confidential Mahie

NAMES OF LANDS – ‘ILI AND LARGER (?) = uncertain if ‘ili. Some clearly were kula.

Wai‘alua moku Wai‘anae moku

Kamananui ahupua‘a Wai‘anae uka (unclear type of land)

Kemo‘o ‘ili Līhu‘e (larger area, unspecified type Mā‘ili ‘ili of land) Kalena ‘ili Wahiawā (larger area, unspecified type of land) Pulei ‘ili Malamanui (?) Halahape (?) Mahie (?) Kukui-o-Lono (?) Kua‘ikua (?) Kalakoa ‘ili Kapu‘ahu‘awa (?) Kokoloea (?) Kunaka (?)

Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a

Halemanō ‘ili Kānewai (?)

‘Ewa moku

Honouliuli ahupua‘a Waikele ahupua‘a Waipi‘o ahupua’a Paupauwela ‘ili Pouhala ‘ili Līhu‘e ‘ili Waikakalaua ‘ili 75

Confidential

Figure 4-5. View from the rugged Ko‘olau slopes across the flats of the Central Plateau to the Wai‘anae ridgeline. Ka‘ala is the high point on the ridgeline (right center) and Kolekole the low point (center).

Figure 4-6. Flat central area of Central Plateau with Wai‘anae ridgeline in background. Poamoho Stream is in the foreground (lower left to upper right). The kula just beyond it is the Wahiawā kula that contains Whitmore Village (center left) and Kūkaniloko (small cluster of trees in center). 76

Confidential

Figure 4-7. Section of the Wai‘anae ridgeline known as Wahine hāpai. Ka‘ala in the clouds to the right is the hāpai belly. Kalena is her breasts, Kūmakali‘i is the lips and chin, and Mālamanui is the top of her head. Kolekole pass is to the left. 77

Confidential

Figure 4-8. Ka‘ala, looking from the kula of Halahape up the Hale‘au‘au drainage.

Figure 4-9. The Ka‘ala to Mā‘ili spur ridge. Ka‘ala to the left center, Mā‘ili the high point near the ridge tip. Kamaohanui and Pu‘u Pane are in the middle of the ridge. 78

Confidential

Figure 4-10. The Wai‘anae ridgeline from Līhu‘e within Honouliuli. Ka‘ala to the right, Kānehoa and the Maunauna spur in the center (with Maunauna curving back towards Ka‘ala). Pu‘u Kaua to the left.

Figure 4-11. Maunauna at the end of the Kānehoa-Maunauna spur ridge. The ridge runs across the photo from right center to center. Paupauwela is the area to the left of this ridge. Wheeler AFB’s runway is in the distant left center. 79

Confidential

Figure 4-12. View of Wai‘eli Stream, running out of Paupauwela area (Maunauna to right center, view from ridge atop Hapapa). The stream gulch goes straight toward Schofield’s housing, then swings right in front of Wheeler’s runway and off to the right center. 80

Confidential

Figure 4-13. Kaukonahua Gulch heading seaward.

Figure 4-14. Kaukonahua Gulch on the seaward edge of Schofield’s housing. View across the kula of Kemo‘o and Wahiawā. Kūkaniloko is the small cluster of trees in distant center. 81

Confidential

Figure 4-15. View down Kalena Gulch toward the flats of the Central Plateau. 2004 archaeological survey photograph (Buffum & Peterson 2005a).

Figure 4-16. View down Hale‘au‘au Gulch, gulch descending towards flats. (Buffum & Peterson 2005b:Fig. 11, p. 23) 82

Confidential Figure 4-17. 1851 Map of the ‘ili of Kalena by Artemas Bishop. Kūmakali‘i Stream and Moohiākea Stream are written along the lower part of the map. Kalena stream runs down the middle of the map. (Bishop 1851.)

Figure 4-18. Flat kula of Wahiawā. Kūkaniloko is under the small cluster of trees in the center. Wahiawā town is beyond to the left. Schofield’s housing in the distance in right center. 83

Confidential

Figure 4-19. Blow-up of Portion of 1881 Kingdom map showing Wai‘anae ridgeline and streams. Ka‘ala is at the upper left. If one follows the ridgeline from Ka‘ala down to the right and carefully looks at the lettering, you will see Kalena, Kumakalii, Kolekole Pass, Hapapa, Kanehoa, and Puu Kaua – the peaks on the main ridgeline. Extending right and slightly up from Ka‘ala is the spur ridge that extends out to Maili marked by a triangle. Extending off Kānehoa up and to the right is the spur ridge that leads out to Maunauna. Kaukonahua is the large gulch that cuts across the upper right corner. Three gulches run into Kaukonahua from the left (from the Wai‘anae mountains), starting with Hale‘au‘au just below the Mā‘ili spur ridge, then Mohiākea all the way from Kalena peak, and last Waikōloa gulch which is fainter. Kalena and Pulee ‘ili are visible on this map. A kula and possibly ‘ili called Malamanui may have run from left to right below Kalena and above the Waianae Road. (Kingdom Map 1881 by Lyons). 84

Confidential

Figure 4-20. Map of Crown Lands. (Kingdom Map 1870s-b)

------

Following pages: Kingdom Maps from Hawaiian Government Survey office. These are the older maps of the Central Plateau that enable place names to be identified.

Figure 4-21 (following page). 1876 Kingdom Map of Central Oahu (Alexander).

Figure 4-22 (page after). 1881 Kingdom Map of Oahu, Central Oahu portion (Lyons). 85

1876 map

Confidential 86

Confidential

87

CHAPTER 5

THE KŪKANILOKO BIRTHSTONES STATE MONUMENT AS IT APPEARS TODAY

Kulani Jones Ross Cordy

______

INTRODUCTION

The most noted tangible remains of Kūkaniloko today are the “birthing stones”, which are set asideConfidential in an approximately 5 acre parcel managed by the State of Hawai‘i’s State Parks Division (within the Department of Land & Natural Resources, DLNR). This State Parks parcel was acquired in 1992, and encompassed the original park of about 0.5 acres which had existed since the early 1900s (covered in Chapter 8). This cultural and historical park today is called the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument.

The monument is located approximately 0.6 mi. (1 km) north of Wahiawā town (Fig. 5-1). You drive north toward Haleiwa and North shore out of Wahiawā, cross a bridge, and then in about 0.6 miles there is a stoplight at the intersection of N. Kamehameha Highway (Hwy. 80) and Whitmore Avenue. If you go straight on Kamehameha Highway, you are heading towards Haleiwa. If you turn right, Whitmore Avenue leads to Whitmore Village. If you turn left at this light, a dirt road drops down. The monument is under a grove of trees visible at the end of this road, roughly 768 ft. (235 meters) from N. Kamehameha highway.

ACCESS When you turn left from the highway, you drop down on a dirt road into abandoned pineapple fields. This road is blocked by 3 large basalt boulders and a chain soon after you turn off the highway (Fig. 5-2). A small parking area is crudely designated by a cleared area. This is where you park today. These 3 stones and chain were placed here quite recently, only a few years back.

Before the 3 stones and chain were put in place, the dirt road continued on about 1,000 feet to the monument itself, and you could park much closer. This road was the access given to State Parks across the Galbraith Estate lands, a perpetual non-exclusive access road easement (Fig. 5-3). In late 1993, the road was lined with large boulders, when the City & County of Honolulu’s Public Works Department helped clear and grade the newly acquired 4.5 acres around the stones.1 Today, beyond the 3 large stones and chain, a 30 foot-wide dirt path clearly identifies the route to Kūkaniloko (essentially the 88

Confidential

Figure 5-1. Location Map of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument, seen as the black rectangle north of Wahiawā (Stasack and Stasack 2010).

Figure 5-2. Parking area and access to Kūkaniloko today. The boulders visible in the center foreground block the access, along with a chain. The Kūkaniloko stones are located under the grove of trees in the right background.

89

Confidential

Figure 5-3. Parcel map of the Monument. The large rectangle is the monument boundary, and the small rectangle within is the 0.5 acre area around the stones. The access road easement in from Kamehameha Highway is also visible. 90

old road) (Fig. 5-4). A small sign bearing the name and brief description of the site is posted at the beginning of the path (Fig. 5-5). This sign reads,

KUKANILOKO. This site is sacred to the Hawaiian people. As many as 800 years ago, chiefs and chiefesses came here for the birth of their children. A child born at Kukaniloko was assured high-ranking status. Please respect this sacred area. Do not damage the stones by marking them or leaving coins. [P]RESERVE HAWAII'S PAST FOR THE FUTURE

The path is relatively level and lined by tall grasses that are spreading onto the access road from the surroundingConfidential abandoned plantation fields. The path is nearly 200 meters long and opens abruptly onto a cleared 5 acre lot that is the monument.

THE MONUMENT GROUNDS

Again, the monument is a 5 acre area, encompassing the approximately 0.5 acre area immediately around the stones (Fig. 5-3). This 5 acre monument is today surrounded by tall grasses and low trees growing in the abandoned fields, which creates a feeling of isolation. The monument grounds, themselves, consist of mowed, grassy land that surrounds the “birthing stones,” the latter set in a grove of Eucalyptus and coconut trees. The grounds are defined along the edges by overgrown grasses and trees of the adjacent abandoned fields. Much of the 4.5 acres around the stones were cleared and graded in December 1993 with the help of the City & County of Honolulu’s Public Works Department (this specific work under the direction of Tom Lenchanko, who worked with the City & County and who was with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, the curator of the monument under agreement with State Parks).2

At the entrance to the open grounds, another chain is strung across the end of the pathway (Fig. 5-6). Three fiberglass interpretive signs on metal foundation posts were erected just beyond this chain by State Parks in 2000 as part of their interpretive plan for the monument, devised in consultation with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, and with input on sign text from the State Historic Preservation Division’s Archaeology and Culture and History branches.3 These signs, however, were vandalized and removed in 2005, and no detailed interpretive signs are presently at the monument.

91

Confidential

Figure 5-4. This is the former road leading into the monument, with the parking area in the distance.

Figure 5-5. The current sign at the parking lot entry.

92

Confidential

Figure 5-6. Chain across end of the road, just prior to entering into the open grassy area of the monument.

Recent Features Between the Entry and the “Birthing Stones” To the north of the end of the path is an earthen platform measuring 35.6 m in length and 16 m wide (Figs. 5-7). This platform was built in December of 1993. It rises above the surrounding areas by nearly two meters. It is used as a pā hula today. Even with its large size, this platform is easily overlooked as the open expanse of the grounds draws your attention to the actual site of the stones. There are also several large mounds of dirt and rock piles near the northwest corner of the earthen platform (Fig. 5-8). These piles are clearly recent and may be stockpiles of material that were created when the platform was built.

Leading into the monument grounds are two large upright stones, 1.4 and 2.0 meters tall (Fig. 5-9). These two stones were placed here in December 1993 when Tom Lenchanko directed the City and County Public Works activities at the park. The two large uprights have some scarring on them from machines. Visitors have left many offerings of various sorts at the base and on top of these rocks, thinking that these are ancient stones.

93

Confidential

Figure 5-7. Large earthen platform (pā hula) near entry into grassy area – a 1993 structure.

Figure 5-8. Dirt and rock piles near the platform – 1990s stockpiles?

94

Confidential

Figure 5-9. Two large stones at entry to grassy area – 1993 addition. The two stone alignments that were added in 1993 are visible leading towards the grove of trees under which the birthing stones lie.

From the two uprights, two stone alignments in the form of a “V” open towards the Kūkaniloko “birthing stones,” creating a pathway that lead to the “birthing stones” (Fig. 5-9). Each side of the alignment has 18 stones ranging in size from 30 cm to 1 meter. The stones are set on the surface and are placed roughly every couple of meters apart. These stones were placed in the monument under the direction of Tom Lenchanko, during the December 1993 clearing and grading work, to represent the 36 high chiefs that Kamakau described as being present to witness the birth of a high ranking child.4 (See Chapter 6 for a discussion of Kamakau and uses during Traditional times).

The “Birthing Stone” Area

The “birthing stones” of the Kūkaniloko State Monument are clearly the focus of the park. They are at the center of the park with tall trees surrounding them, casting shadows across the stones nearly all day, after the early morning sun (Fig. 5-10). The stones and surrounding trees cover an area of about 70 x 30 meters, roughly equal to the original 0.5 acre park.5 The trees near the “birthing stones” include the Eucalyptus grove on the western edge of the stones and coconut trees that surround the stone concentration (Figs. 5-10 to 5-12). A total of 20 trees make up the grove of Eucalyptus on the West edge of the Stone concentration and a total of 8 coconut trees are scattered around the edges on all sides of the stone concentration. These trees were all planted in the 20th Century.

95

Confidential

Figure 5-10. The birthing stones from a distance under the grove of trees.

Figure 5-11. A closer view of the birthing stones. The larger pointed stone in the center is stone 69.

96

Figure 5-12. An older photograph looking back towards the alignments of stones and the two large upright stones. The larger pointed stone in the center is again stone 69.

Confidential

These central stones cover an area of 50 x 25 meters, 1,250 square meters. The stones were transit mapped, individually numbered, and recorded in detail in 1992 by Martha Yent and Alan Carpenter of the State Parks Division.6 Their map is an important management tool for this cultural place, and is reproduced as Figure 5-12 here. (Also, their photographs of the stones – on file at State Parks – are an equally important management tool.) Over 180 individual stones were located, photographed and briefly described in 1992. The stones are reddish-brown or orangish-brown in color, naturally stained from the surrounding “red dirt” soil. These stones, themselves, appear to be largely a natural feature – an eroding stone outcrop. However, some might have been set in place. (See Chapter 6 for an analysis of use during Traditional Times.) The stones are smooth from years and years of natural erosion (rain, wind, and chemical). Many of the stones have worn depressions and fluting (bumps or ridges), which are natural features – often misinterpreted as man-made features. However, some were modified by people, as discussed mostly in Chapter 6. The National Register nomination forms provide more details. The stones appear to be naturally occurring here and are embedded in the ground to an unknown depth. It is 97

unlikely that they join underground as a contiguous stone mass, but are actually boulders. Their size varies from .5 to 2 meters along the longest dimension, while their shapes range from round to rectangular to asymmetrical. [National Register 1972]7

Most of the 180 basalt stones … are large, highly weathered, and deeply imbedded in the red soils that characterized the central O’ahu Plains. On average, the exposed boulders measure 1.05 meters in length, 0.66 meters in width and 0.26 meters in height. No particular pattern is apparent in their arrangement and … it is unclear which are part of a natural concentration of boulders and whichConfidential may have been intentionally placed in their present configuration. Weathering has left the boulder surfaces smooth and created a number of distinct surface features in many such as bowl-like depressions, concavities of various shapes and series of grooves and ridges. [National Register 1994]8

Most of these stones are low-lying, some even flat with the ground surface. However, four are taller, as much as 1.0 meter high. The tallest of the stones are clustered together nearest the center (stones 69, 68, 61 and 72 on the map of the area)(Fig. 5-14).

As will be seen in Chapter 6, oral historical evidence suggests that in traditional times the Kūkaniloko stone was where a chiefly woman gave birth. The four stones that are as much as 1 m in height are the most visible stones and are often thought to be the birthing stones by visitors. Local Hawaiians identified the Kūkaniloko birthing stone in the 1920s-1930, but its location was not recorded specifically in reports, and it is uncertain today which stone this was. Stone 68 and the combination of stones 45 and 46 have been identified today by local Hawaiians as the probable birthing stones. (Chapter 6 again discusses this in more detail.)

We were fortunate in this study to have Ed and Diane Stasack document the petroglyphs among these stones. They are the leading, active scholars that intensively document petroglyphs in Hawai’i, and they were kind enough to squeeze this study into their schedule, not expecting any compensation (although we gave them an honorarium out of our contract). Their report is attached as a loose appendix (Appendix 5). Although 3-5 stones had been documented previously as having true petroglyphs (human or animal 98

Confidential

Figure 5-13. 1992 State Parks map of the birthing stones. Each stone was assigned a specific number at this time.

99

Figure 5-14. The central taller stones. The stones are numbered. Stone 103 has the concentric circle petroglyphs. (From Stasack and Stasack 2010).

Confidential

figures, geometric designs, writing), only two are verified as having pre-20th Century petroglyphs – stones 61 and 103.9 Stone 61 has the letters KINI on it in 1800s style, and faint circles and a possible fishhook (Fig. 5-15).10 Stone 103 is roughly diamond-shaped and has two primary petroglyphs on its top surface, each with concentric circles (Fig. 5- 16).11 Stone 103 has been hypothesized in recent years as having astronomical uses in traditional times (these hypotheses to be discussed in Chapter 6), and it certainly has been used in that context in the late 20th century and today and is thus part of the contemporary use of Kūkaniloko by some native Hawaiian groups and individuals (discussed in Chapter 9). Strikingly, again, only two stones seem to have older petroglyphs, and if one considers stone 61’s glyphs as mid-1800s (given the writing), then only one has traditional era petroglyphs.12

However, the Stasacks discovered that a large number of the stones have pits that are at least partly man-made. These features are called poho and have been associated elsewhere in the islands with birthing material – notably portions of umbilical cords, but also quite possibly with birthing “liquids” and other by-products.13 The stones also include natural basins and natural pits that could have similarly been used.14 See Figures 5-17, 5-18. These poho were not fully documented, but their presence may be more important and strikingly relevant than the stones with the petroglyphs. (This will be further discussed in Chapter 6.) 100

Importantly, this central area seems to have been minimally altered for many years. Eucalyptus trees have grown substantially, and some have been cut.15 Some stones have been damaged in recent years – several severely by a campfire and repaired,16 and many scratched from weed-eaters and rakes.17 However, it has been kept clean and maintained for many years since the Daughters of Hawaii began to care for the site in the 1920s, and following that through the years of the Waialua and Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā care, and State Parks care.

Although reflecting minimal alteration, interestingly since 1992 when State Parks documented the stones, 5 “new” stones have appeared, and 9 are now missing. The missing stones include 71, 73, 112, 117.18 (Other missing stones were recorded on the 1992 State Parks map as sub-letters to a numbered stone or just a ring of stones with no annotation.) OfConfidential the “new” stones that have appeared since the recording in 1992, one actually seems to be “missing” stone 73, moved into another location. This stone was repaired with cement after being cracked or broken in multiple places (Fig. 5-19). Its erosion pattern, size and color match the other Kūkaniloko stones, but it is not recorded in the 1992 State Parks map in its current condition or location. However, this stone -- now located between stones 75, 94, 95 and 96 – seems to be the missing stone 73, based on general size and shape. Other stones (72) also had the same repairs done to them as this “new” stone and are adjacent to where stone 73 was previously located. This matches State Parks’ report of a December 1993 or January 1994 fire among the stones (from a campfire) that fractured several stones, with repair of these stones following the fire.19 Another new stone is located north of stone 165, and yet another is between stones 104 and 114 – the latter “noticeably different than Kukaniloko stones” and clearly brought in.20 It is a basalt boulder 65 cm tall and 90 cm wide. The boulder is set on top of the ground surface with many small cobbles placed around the base of the boulder to prop it up. The erosion pattern of stone 201 has a rough pitted surface on all sides of the stone, similar to “moss rock” more commonly used for rock walls, and it again is significantly different from the other Kūkaniloko stones that are all smooth, dense basalt and are mostly eroding from the ground surface.

101

Figure 5-15. Drawing of stone 61 with its petroglyphs Confidential(Stasack & Stasack 2010).

Figure 5-16. Stone 103 with its concentric circles, on top and faint.

102

Confidential

Figure 5-17. Map showing man-made poho (Stasack & Stasack 2010). 103

Confidential

Figure 5-18. Stones with visible poho, abraded pits or depressions.

Figure 5-19. Stone 73, with its cement repair work.

104

New Features that Have Been Added Quite Recently

Several new, small features have been built in each corner of the monument grounds within the last decade. In the southwest corner of the mowed grassy area, two rows of plants have been planted recently. These include ti (ki, Cordyline fruticosa), ‘ōhi‘a lehua (Metrosideros polymorpha), and a type of grass. Each plant is surrounded with a ring of stones.

From the southwest corner of the grounds along the entire western edge, to the northwest corner, is an alignment of large boulders, each 1-1.5 meters in diameter (Fig. 5- 20). They are relatively evenly spaced every couple of meters and show evidence of machine scarring. The boulders appear to be set on the ground, rather then imbedded. They were placedConfidential here during the 1993 work at the park.

In the northwest corner of the grounds is a small, low stone platform (Fig. 5-21). The platform measures 1.5 meter by 2 meters by 30 cm high. It is constructed of angular and subangular basalt with a one-stone high (20-30 cm diameter) stone facing, and cobble filled. The platform is roughly leveled and has a small piece of branch coral (10 cm diameter) on the surface of the platform, as well as a young hala tree (Pandanus tectorius) growing in its corner. A 60 cm tall upright forms the northwest corner of the platform. The function of this feature is unclear, but it is definitely a modern feature in the form of a traditional Hawaiian structure.

Figure 5-20. Boulders along the west side of the grassy area.

105

Confidential

Figure 5-21. 1990s platform in northwest corner of grassy area.

Two other similar, new structures are present. One faced, mounded platform is in the northeast corner (Fig. 5-22), and a larger low platform is in the southeast corner near the entrance to the monument (Fig. 5-23).

106

Confidential

Figure 5-22. 1990s platform in northeast corner of grassy area.

Figure 5-23. 1990s platform in southeast corner of grassy area.

107

A Brand New Feature

Late in 2010, a new feature was built to the south side of the Kūkaniloko Stones within the grassy lawn area of the park grounds (Fig. 5-24). The feature appears to be in the process of being built, and may be of different shape by the time this report is completed. In January of 2011, this was a roughly piled L-shape structure. The dimensions were approximately 10 x 10m, and 1.2 m high. The stones were roughly piled, as if dumped from a truck, and range in size from boulders (> 1 meter in diameter) to cobbles (<20 cm in diameter).

Figure 5-24. L-shaped structure built in 2010. Confidential

CONCLUSION

Again, this chapter is solely an introduction to the current appearance of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument. It is intended as an aid to those who have not seen this cultural place. As will be seen, more structures were once at the place known as Kūkaniloko, and Kūkaniloko sits integrally within a much larger cultural landscape that must be understood to in turn understand Kūkaniloko. The next chapter looks at Kūkaniloko and its uses in Traditional Times, pre-1819 times (from Kamehameha I back). It will revisit specific spots and stones in its discussions. Chapter 7 views Kūkaniloko in the 1800s (up to the overthrow), and it too will come back in its discussion 108

to the actual place discussed here. Chapter 8 is an overview of Kūkaniloko from the Overthrow up to the present (mostly the 20th Century). It particularly focuses on the preservation of an area around the stones, so it too will return to this place. Chapter 9 looks at current Native Hawaiian uses of Kūkaniloko, and obviously it will link back to the area around the stones. So, hopefully, this chapter will provide the introductory setting to the appearance of the place as it exists today.

Confidential 109

CHAPTER 6

THE TRADITIONAL ERA UP UNTIL THE END OF THE REIGN OF KAMEHAMEHA I (1819)

Ross Cordy

Chiefs born at Kūkaniloko were the akua of the land and were ali‘i kapu … [1865, Kamakau]1

If a chiefess entered and leaned against Kūkaniloko and restedConfidential on the supports to hold up the thighs in observance of the Līloe kapu [the prescribed regulations for birthing], the child born in the presence of the chiefs was called an ali‘i, an akua, a wela – a chief, a god, a blaze of heat. [1865, Kamakau]2

Kūkaniloko was a kapu and very hallowed place; Ho‘olono-pahu was a sacred spot, a consecrated spot. It was the waihau heiau where the navel cords of the chiefs were cut. [1869, Kamakau]3

Kūkaniloko is firmly embedded in the mo‘okū‘auhau. You have to understand that first. [Francis Ching interview]

The ones born at Kūkaniloko had spiritual powers. [Anonymous community participant] ______

INTRODUCTION

This chapter looks at Kūkaniloko in the traditional era. Here, the traditional era is considered to span the time from initial settlement of the islands through the reign of Kamehameha I. While considerable changes in Hawaiian culture had certainly begun during Kamehameha’s reign, much continued as before. In contrast, after the death of Kamehameha, the ‘ai kapu was abolished, as well as the national religion and key elements of traditional land control.4 So, for the purposes of this paper, traditional times are considered to extend to the end of Kamehameha’s time.

As will be seen, Kūkaniloko was founded as an elite birthing place within a chiefly center on the Central Plateau of O‘ahu, focused about the lands of Wahiawā and 110

Līhu‘e. Thus, to understand Kūkaniloko, it is important to understand the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau and the chiefly center, and also its place in O‘ahu’s history. This chapter’s first section begins by providing a general background of O‘ahu’s history and the place of the Central Plateau’s chiefly center of Līhu‘e/Wahiawā in that history. The second section follows with a close look at the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau and its chiefly center, giving more details for Kūkaniloko’s setting. This section gathers information and analyzes it to provide a picture of where major trails, fields, houses, and religious places were located. It builds a view of where the chiefly center within this landscape was located and what it might have looked like. This section also looks at battlefields, famed stones, and older historical mo’olelo and older literature tied to the Central Plateau landscape. All of this section links the place names of the landscape to what was at those places, to give the reader a feel for the places of the land. The last section of this chapter focuses on Kūkaniloko itself – on when it was established, its internal features, the birthing rituals, ideas about tracking the seasons through astronomical observations from Kūkaniloko, ideas about wider teaching from Kūkaniloko, andConfidential some ideas about why Kūkaniloko was established where it is and the meaning of its name.

Also, before starting these sections of this chapter, a brief review of the different source materials used in this analysis is presented. Information on this era comes from these different sources. It is important to understand the nature of these sources.

THE SOURCE MATERIALS

In studying history, historians find bits and pieces of information, analyze the information, and present a picture (an interpretation) of the past. This is what is done in this chapter of the report.

This chapter heavily uses two sources of information: (1) Hawaiian oral histories recorded up into the 1870s and (2) the archaeological record – both general information from across the Islands and O‘ahu and specific information about the Central Plateau and relevant to Kūkaniloko. These sources are supplemented by information from more fictional and mythological oral stories recorded up into the 1870s, by first-hand historical observations by Native Hawaiians and foreigners from the 1700s-1820s, by 1840s-1870s Kingdom land records and maps, by recorded histories and literature (in Hawaiian and English) from the 1880s to the present, and by current local knowledge.

------

The genealogies are the Hawaiian concept of time ... As the lists of names are chanted, the adventures of each Ali‘i are remembered. [Kame‘eleihiwa]5

111

When these meles were chanted, the person came alive … [Kaha‘i Topolinski interview]

Hawaiian oral histories provide descriptions of what happened in the past, broad and specific events tied to places and people. The key to understanding the oral histories are the genealogies (mo‘okū‘auhau) of chiefs and rulers of the different kingdoms (genealogies that ultimately trace descent back to the gods and the land – with different chiefly families using different genealogies for their ancestry). These genealogies are chronological by nature – recording successive generations of kāne (husbands) and wahine (wives) and children. The genealogies form the framework for the chronology of Hawaiian history, for historical stories are linked to individuals on the genealogies.6 For example, such an event took place in the reign of Kalanimanuia, ruler of O‘ahu. These genealogies were recorded in books, newspapers, and manuscripts from the 1820s-1870s (most in Hawaiian). Bits and pieces were written down earlier in English and other foreign languages,Confidential back to the time of Cook’s expedition in 1778-1779 (of mixed accuracy).

In traditional times and in the early 1800s, oral literature linked to the genealogies as history took multiple forms – mele inoa (name chants), kanikau (dirges), honorific chants, and narrative stories with included chants (to name a few).7 These stories and general summaries of traditional culture began to be written down in the 1830s-1870s by those who had lived in traditional times (e.g., K. Kamakau, Malo, ‘Ī‘ī) or by the generation born in the late 1810s-1820s who had been raised by elders and/or interviewed kūpuna who had lived in traditional times. This indigenous information was recorded in Hawaiian in a variety of contexts: newspapers (e.g., the well known 1860s-1870s articles by Samuel Kamakau and John Papa ‘Ī‘ī, as well as other less well-known articles by other authors), published books (the 1838 Moolelo Hawaii, written by Hawaiian students at Lahainaluna and edited with comments by Dibble; Pogue’s 1858 revision with additions from Malo’s manuscript book), manuscript books (Malo’s of the 1840s, Kepelino’s of the late 1860s), and manuscripts (e.g., the genealogy books of Kaao, the mo‘olelo gathered by Fornander and his Hawaiian collectors in the 1860s).8 Foreign language records of historical stories exist, beginning with Cook’s exploring expedition of 1778-1779; but these are brief and sometimes have flaws, due to the recorders’ lack of knowledge of Hawaiian and/or lack of knowledge of the culture. English language summaries of traditional history also begin with Cook’s expedition, with books written in the 1840s (Dibble; Jarves);9 and these too contain issues of understanding and the writers’ own cultural perspectives. However, most agree that Fornander’s 1880 English language history is an excellent record of Hawaiian oral histories – being his working up of oral histories gathered by himself and his collectors in the 1860s, Hawaiian language newspaper articles of the 1860s-1870s (notably Kamakau), and his apparently frequent consultations with Kamakau, Kepelino and Kalākaua.10 These Native Hawaiian oral history sources form the core of much of this chapter. Our research reviewed those relevant to the general history of O‘ahu and the specific history of Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau. Relatively few pre-1870s sources present historical stories about Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau. 112

Because genealogies are chronological it is possible to produce estimates in years AD for when certain rulers or chiefs on these genealogies were living, and thus date associated historical stories. These estimates are important for building histories in our world today, which uses Western calendrical years, and they are important for linking oral history and archaeology. Typically, one assigns a fixed number of years per generation (essentially when a man/woman had their first child is the generation, in theory) and then one counts back by generation from a known individual’s documented birth or death in the 1700s or 1800s. While some rulers lived and ruled longer and others much shorter, assigning a fixed number of years per generation evens out this issue. In the late 1800s, Fornander was one of the first to do this with Hawaiian genealogies, and he used 30 years per generation.11 Thirty years per generation has long since been considered too long, and few (if any) use it today. At the start of the 1900s, the Polynesian Society decided to assign 25 years per generation, and some Bishop Museum researchers for many years used this estimate. Some researchers still use this estimate today. At the Confidentialsame time, in the early 1900s, several researchers in Hawai‘i (notably J.F.G. Stokes at the Museum) argued that 20 years would seem to be a more accurate count for traditional Hawai‘i.12 Over the last 30 years a few lead researchers in anthropology that have used the oral histories have concluded that this 20 year count seems more accurate – and also coincidentally, better matches the archaeological record – and they thus use 20 years.13 These counts can yield very different estimates, particularly the farther one goes back into time. Here 20 years per generation is used. These are again chronological estimates, but they are extremely important for analyzing the age of Kūkaniloko and will be focale points of discussion at different places in this chapter.

An important point that historians (both Native Hawaiian and others) have concluded when using Hawaiian genealogies and oral stories as history is that these genealogies and accompanying stories only seem to go back as accurate historical records to about AD 1300 – and then often only bits and pieces of stories are attached to only some rulers until the mid-1400s.14 Prior to the 1300s, the stories and genealogies have many mythological elements in them or just a lack of information, and this prevents them from serving as accurate history today. For O‘ahu, the accounts become more accurate with the children of Māweke on the Nana‘ulu genealogical line (the Wākea-Haloa- Nana‘ulu-Māweke line). The Nana‘ulu line from Māweke seems reliable as a historical list – 28 generations down from his children down to Kalākaua. Fornander, who analyzed these accounts for years and much closer to older times, emphasized this point: “Hawaiian traditions on Hawaiian soil, though valuable as national reminiscences, more or less obscured by the lapse of time, do not go back with any historical precision much more than twenty-eight generations from the present [A.D. 1870].”15 His quote actually ends with “… from the present, or say 840 years”, and he often notes AD 1030 as the point when accuracy begins. But this is using 30 years per generation (28 generations times 30 years equals 840 years, which when subtracted from 1870 gives a calendar year date of AD 1030). Again, 30 years per generation is no longer followed. If one uses 20 years per generation, one gets AD 1310.

113

Also, genealogies were modified over the years, to raise the rank of a high chief or to enhance the rank of a high chief. In the latter case, sometimes mythological heroes were inserted into the more distant portions of genealogies. As will be seen, this occurred in the genealogy that is linked to the history of Kūkaniloko and when it was built. This creates problems in historical interpretation, and often results in multiple views on how to resolve these problems.

Another point in relation to these genealogies and histories is that even when the stories and genealogies clearly become reliable history about 1300, often individuals in the genealogies of the 1300s and early 1400s have no stories or only limited stories about them and their generation. Sometimes elements of fiction are involved in these stories, or seem to be involved. One has to go through the oral histories of this period and attempt to sort out fact from semi-fiction or complete fiction. Sometimes the fiction seems to be historical symbolism, probably reflecting events and people of those times. This era is analyzed in this chapter, but the reader needs to realize that different views exist among historians on whatConfidential is fact.

Besides the more historical literature, there was a sizable body of literature that was less historical in focus (such as mythological stories of gods and heroes, sayings, place-based songs and poetry, to name a few) and that was well known in traditional times. These also began to be collected from older Native Hawaiians who lived in traditional times and were recorded in a traditional style up into the 1870s – for example, short stories and epic stories such as Paka‘a, Pele and Hi‘iaka, and Kamapua‘a. Much of this literature was published in Hawaiian language newspapers. Fornander and his Native Hawaiian colleagues also collected many stories in the 1860s (published in Hawaiian and English as the Fornander Collections between 1916 and 1920). This more non-historical literature, however, is often place-based and pulls in historical information. This is particularly true for the Central Plateau where many compositions mention places, the terrain, the winds, and the climate. For this project, the Fornander Collection stories, translated sources (including Pukui’s translations of Hawaiian newspapers), and Hawaiian language newspapers were reviewed to identify this literature, which is included to enhance the picture of the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. There are undoubtedly sources that we did not find in our research; but a very noticeable pattern of information is seen, and we suspect that additional sources will largely re-emphasize this pattern.

The publication of literature in the Hawaiian newspapers and in Hawaiian books from the 1830s to the 1870s also included new compositions (often in the traditional era style) – kanikau for departed relatives or honored chiefs (popular in the newspapers), alterations of older stories, the full-length story of La‘ie-i-kawai by Hale‘ole published as a book in 1863, etc.. Although new compositions, these too have allusions to old things relevant to Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau – landscapes, deities, and historical people and events. In many ways, these compositions reflect Native Hawaiian views of the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko of the 1860s-1870s – a different time, already moving away in focus from the traditional era. Thus, they could rightly be presented in the next chapter on the 1800s, which emphasizes uses and perspectives of Kūkaniloko in 114

the 1800s. But some are blended into this chapter, to emphasize aspects of the cultural landscape or because others have used this literature as if it were traditional era literature (thus necessitating discussion here).

Archaeological information is also very important for this traditional time period. It goes back to settlement and early times – times when the oral accounts as histories are silent. It provides critical information on land use (where houses, farms, and heiau were located) and commoner life. In the times after the 1300s, when oral accounts are useful history, archaeology can continue to provide different types of information – on commoner life and land use. It can also help support, enhance, and evaluate the oral histories. Archaeological information from royal and chiefly centers across the Islands can be matched with oral historical accounts – and together provide a fuller picture of these places. Thus, archaeological information is reviewed for the general history of O‘ahu and for specific information on the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko. Other archaeological information from other islands that is useful to help interpret the settlement of theConfidential Central Plateau and its chiefly center is also presented.

But, it must be realized that archaeological information consists of bits of remains left on the landscape and in the ground. These clues have to be used to build a picture of the past. To approach higher level interpretations – changes in political structure, religious practices and population – one must have a large amount of archaeological work done in an area. This is now starting to occur in some regions (Wai‘anae moku on O‘ahu, Kona and Kohala moku on Hawai‘i, the windward side of Molokai, Kahikinui and Kula moku on Maui, and Kaho‘olawe). But reaching these higher level interpretations relies on complex hypotheses, and often on many assumptions. Competing hypotheses often exist. One must look carefully at the interpretations to evaluate them. Also, with new information being recovered, these hypotheses change over time.

Perhaps one of the key weaknesses of archaeology in Hawai‘i is dating. We are largely confined to radiocarbon dating at this time. Radiocarbon dating provides a date for a past living object (like plant charcoal recovered from a fire hearth, an opihi shell or chicken bone from food refuse, etc.). Unfortunately, the resulting lab date is a range of time – like AD 1455-1610. This means that there is a 95% chance that the real date falls within that range, but the actual date could be AD 1455, or AD 1610, or somewhere in between. This is a range of 150+ years – not very accurate if we want to know how many house ruins were used in AD 1500-1550. Still, the more dates obtained from an area, the better picture that results. Also, these dates are critical for linking archaeological interpretations with the oral histories and their genealogical-based dates.

First-hand historical accounts by Native Hawaiians and foreigners also portray a picture of Hawaiian culture at European Contact – more accurately of the late 1700s. ‘Ī‘ī provides a first-hand glimpse into the latter part of the reign of Kamehameha I.16 Older Euro-American journals provide some perspective, but their observations need to be carefully separated from their interpretations. For the traditional era, our research found no first-hand accounts for Kūkaniloko, and very few for the Central Plateau. For example, Kamakau has a story about a chief who participated in the 1785 revolt against 115

Kahekili; he was slain in Wahiawā. This information possibly came from a kupuna who knew something directly about this event. Perhaps ‘Ī‘ī’s accounts of the trails of O‘ahu were based on his walking through the area from 1800-1819. Euro-American residents or visitors of 1778-1819 rarely traveled into this far inland area. If they did, we have seen no records. However, first-hand accounts are important for general information on the last part of O‘ahu’s history in the traditional era and for general settlement and information on chiefly centers.

Later land records – such as 1840s-1850s Māhele records (claims, testimonies, and Award books), post-1850 grants, and 1870s Boundary Commission testimonies – also provide perspectives on land use. Associated with the land records are Kingdom maps of the late 1800s. Sometimes they are our only good source on land use and ‘ili names and patterns. But caution is needed to avoid considering all patterns as those of the traditional era. For Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau, there were no commoner Māhele claims, testimonies or awards. A few chiefly awards were made, some Boundary Commission testimoniesConfidential exist, and some late 1800s Kingdom maps and Crown land records identify places and ‘ili. A number of grants were made, which tend to just have metes-and-bounds descriptions of their borders, but sometimes identify places. All these are relevant for this chapter and are included.

Then there are post-1880 sources on history. Historians and storytellers began to reuse the older published material (of Kamakau, Malo, Fornander, and others, notably those publishing in Hawaiian newspapers) – and retell and reinterpret historical stories and present histories of places and the entire Islands. From the 1880s into the 1920s, these included Native Hawaiians (e.g., J. Poepoe, S.L. Peleioholani, S. Desha) and foreigners (e.g., W.D. Alexander, Thrum, A.P. Taylor).17 For example, Desha admittedly used information from Kamakau, Malo, and Peleioholani, Pogue, Jarves, Dibble, Fornander and Alexander.18 He blended them together into a new telling of Kamehameha’s history. This is an era where the historians rarely tell the reader where the bits and pieces of information came from, making them hard to evaluate. But many of these folks were knowledgeable, and one has to carefully analyze their findings – as bits of new and useful basic information and interpretations may be present. More recently, as history and archaeology have become more academic, histories tend to cite the bits of information (identify where they came from). This enables a closer look at interpretations. More recent historians (Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian) have looked at different new pieces of information. Newer historians looking at broad patterns include Sahlins, Valeri, Kame‘elehiwa, Cachola-Abad, Kirch, Hommon, Cordy, and Kolb.19 Some modern researchers have looked at the patterns of the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko in more specific studies, such as the archaeologists and historians with the two firms SCS and GANDA in their reports on Schofield Barracks lands and historians with the State’s Historic Preservation Division in the 1990s National Register Nomination for Kūkaniloko. The latter are incorporated into this chapter, and broader historical material has been used in the chapter (although not with a comprehensive review of all the post-1880 material). Also, extensive end notes are used for this chapter, so the reader can find where the bits and pieces of information come from, and where some elaboration on points are made. 116

Post-1880 non-historical literature written about traditional era Hawai‘i continues right up to today also. From 1880s to the 1920s, fictional and mythological stories were widely published – as serials in Hawaiian newspapers, as short stories in Hawaiian and English newspapers and magazines and books. Hawaiian language publications followed older traditions of writing about mythical heroes, gods, places, winds and rains and utilized old literary techniques (albeit perhaps with simpler kaona). There was a push to sell newspapers, so some epic stories were lengthened – adding places – or were altered in retelling to make them amusing to the current reader. Also, some added asides to contemporary politics, and added new narratives.20 Most were retelling the stories having read earlier published versions, often blending them and adding new elements. These reflect the times in which they were written – the end of the 1800s, much further away from traditional times – when the local populace had moved from their lands, old histories of kings had faded to many, and when only the names of heiau were recalled and minimal knowledge about their use. The English literature has additional problems. Westervelt, whoConfidential is widely cited, sometimes dramatically altered old stories, vastly expanding them. Awkward translations of terms occurred – mo‘o now were dragons. The Victorian view of sex and traditional religion led to some translated omissions. In this English literature, however, are interesting Native Hawaiian contributions. Kalākaua wrote a book of short stories to show the English speaking world that Native Hawaiian society was not dramatically different than the noble society of Europe.21 He clearly took older accounts of stories and blended them, and altered them. He added narrative, and he added asides to genealogies and other histories. It is a strikingly Hawaiian storytelling approach. Kalākaua’s stories are important for the Central Plateau, for several of the stories touch upon it and Kūkaniloko. Emma Nakuina is another author who wrote in English in the late 1890s. She too created new stories, blending pieces of old stories and plausible cultural perspectives. Since the 1920s, stories still have continued to be written (until recently predominantly in English, due to the era of spoken Hawaiian being banned in schools and the end of the Hawaiian newspapers). Quite often the stories dramatically change in content. Besides stories, songs, chants and other compositions continue to be composed. All of this literature has been changing and is notably Hawaiian in roots. Some include perspectives on the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. Very little is used in this chapter (unless deciding to do so because others have used the compositions as if they were accurate traditional era literature, and feeling this needed clarification). However, these compositions are relevant to the periods in which they were composed – reflecting perspectives of the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko from their eras. So much of this literature is discussed in the chapter on the 1800s or on the 1900s-Present.

Additionally, there is important historical and literature knowledge on traditional times in the local communities, much that is unpublished. To give an example from Kohala … One family had an old book of genealogies and stories that they let one of us view about 20 years ago. Some of these stories were clearly derived from Fornander and Kamakau, but some were not. These latter ones were local stories that had survived that contained old historical information. Undoubtedly, this is true for many areas. Obviously, there is information that is not necessarily written down – often knowledge passed down verbally by kūpuna. One word of caution on this information is that this 117

knowledge on traditional times has been passed down for 200 years. Over time (e.g., the dramatically changing times of post-Kamehameha Hawai‘i or the late 1800s-early 1900s era), some knowledge is lost and alters. Nonetheless, it is important. It just has to be carefully evaluated.22 Also, importantly the local community often has relevant hypotheses about the past and certain places, hypotheses just as valid as those developed by academic scholars. For the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko, this information is important. Before undertaking this project, some of us had heard information from the community about the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko. Community members shared this information and more in the interviews done for this project. The information that was gathered from our interviews, and that was recorded elsewhere in other studies, is included in this chapter.

Last, some points need to be said about English translations, which will be used in this chapter (often with the original Hawaiian). Good translations obviously require fluency. But, it is difficult to portray the nuances of a culture’s style of writing (literature styles) in translatiConfidentialon. Elbert and Mahoe23 point out a number of these problems in translating Hawaiian. Then there are words and phrases that had symbolic meanings – for example, in the very old honorific chant to Kūali‘i, ruler of O‘ahu in the early 1700s, Kūali‘i is referred to by different names that where used in his time – honorifics (ka lani), short names (Kū), etc. The closer one is back to traditional times, the more that these meanings (sometimes hidden kaona, sometimes just phraseology of the times) were known and could be translated – not literally, but to their meaning. Thus, early translators of the 1900s (Nathaniel Emerson, John Wise, Lahilahi Webb, and others) having been born in the 1860s-1870s would know these better than us today perhaps. Their translations may read awkwardly with old style English, and have other accuracy problems, but they may have known the meanings better than us. The next generation of translators – to which Mary Kawena Pukui and Martha Beckwith belonged – could draw back to kūpuna knowledge of the late 1800s. Today, our kūpuna come from the 1920s- 1940s – very different times and yet further removed from the meanings. The old slang and hidden meanings are more difficult to reach. So rather than critically analyze the old translations in this paper (even though they have flaws), they are mostly simply presented, usually with the old Hawaiian.

THE HISTORY OF O‘AHU TO 1819 & THE PLACE OF THE CENTRAL PLATEAU’S CHIEFLY CENTER OF LĪHU‘E/WAHIAWĀ

The framework for viewing O‘ahu’s history here, again, is primarily a combination of archaeology and oral history. Before 1300, archaeological information supplies the core of the model of the past. After 1300, the nuances of the oral histories form the basis of the model, with archaeological and other information used in support. Such a model is preferred here over models based more solely on archaeology,24 which have much broader and generalized time spans after AD 1300 and lack the political history details found in the oral accounts. This combined approach is being increasingly adopted by more scholars.25

118

Recall from Chapter 4 that the Central Plateau in this paper extends from the Wai‘anae ridgeline, down the gradually descending slopes towards Schofield, these slopes with kula cut by narrow gulches. The plateau extends on across the flats of the Schofield, Wahiawā and Wheeler areas, with broader level kula and the deeper, wider gulches of Kaukonahua Stream and its two forks. Then east of Wahiawā the terrain rises again, up the slopes of the Ko‘olau mountains – an area with deeper small tributary streams and steeper ridges. The core of the Central Plateau were the following lands identified in the mid-1800s land records: Wai‘anae uka (with Līhu‘e on the eastern slopes of the Wai‘anaes out onto the flats of Schofield and Wheeler and with Kalakoa to the east of today’s Kamehameha Highway) and Wahiawā (including the kula where today’s Wahiawā town is located and a second kula to the north where Kūkaniloko and Whitmore Village are present). However, we also include in the Central Plateau the uppermost parts of Honouliuli ahupua‘a (the ‘ili of Poupouwela and Līhu‘e) and in Waikele (the ‘ili of Pouhala uka and Waikakalaua). These form the southern fringe of the Central Plateau with similar terrain of kula and gulches. Also, some include upper portions of Pa‘ala‘aConfidential ahupua‘a in Waialua as the northern fringe of the Central Plateau (including its ‘ili of Halemano). A key focus of the paper, however, is on the flats in the center of the Central Plateau – the lands of Wahiawā, Līhu‘e and Kalakoa. This is where Kūkaniloko and the chiefly center were located.

Settlement to AD 1000

Today there is considerable disagreement about when the Hawaiian Islands were first settled. Some argue AD 300s-600s, and others AD 800-1000 – and not long ago some even suggested AD 1-300.26 Regardless of when the Islands were settled, current research hypotheses have suggested that permanent habitations and farms were restricted to the wet windward sides of the major islands of Hawai‘i, Maui, Molokai, O‘ahu, and Kaua‘i up until about AD 1000.27 From initial settlement of the islands, population gradually grew, and people over several centuries spread through these more optimal windward farming lands. In this period, it is suggested that dry leeward lands were visited for resource exploitation (e.g., birds, stone, wood, etc.), and camp sites would have been present. To date, archaeological information supports these windward-leeward settlement differences.28

The Central Plateau is on the leeward side of O’ahu. Thus, it is expected that the Central Plateau would not have seen permanent habitations or farms in this period.29 But it is expected that people from the windward sides would have explored this area, and may have exploited resources in the area.

AD 1000s-1200s

Research hypotheses suggest that nearly all leeward lands on O‘ahu and the other major islands were permanently settled in these years, with houses and farms being established in lower valleys and coastal plains on leeward O‘ahu.30 Permanent houses and fields had not yet spread up into upper valleys on this side of O‘ahu in these years. For example, the archaeological work along the Wai‘anae coast shows that there was no 119

permanent settlement in the upper valleys of Nānākuli, Lualualei, Wai‘anae or Mākaha prior to 1300.31 More limited work in the moku of Waialua (notably the Anahulu project work32) and in the moku of ‘Ewa (the Hālawa valley H-3 work33) suggests upper valleys were not yet occupied there either.

Rare exceptions to this leeward coastal focus existed in the Hawaiian Islands. On Hawai‘i the inland Waimea area had early permanent settlements established in these years, as did the upland Kula area on Maui. In both these areas, it appears that the residents’ community lands extended from the shore to the uplands, including the interior fields and houses. They had small permanent coastal settlements, but adequate rainfall for farming was far inland, and that is where the primary settlements were located. 34

The Central Plateau seems to have been an exception to this coastal pattern on O‘ahu in this time period, for recent archaeological research done for the Army at Schofield Barracks has shown that agricultural fields (irrigated kalo terraces along gulch bottoms) could have been established in the AD 1200s in the Central Plateau, some Confidential35 suggest back to the 1100s. This evidence currently comes from the lower eastern slopes of the Wai‘anae mountains -- from 2 adjacent irrigated kalo sites along Wai‘eli Stream and one nearby permanent house site in the area between Maunauna and Kolekole pass (in the uppermost Paupauwela part of what was Honouliuli in the 1800s)(Figs. 6-1, 6-2). It is expected that similar dates will come from these same elevations from Kolekole pass over towards the Kalena and Hale‘au‘au areas (in the western portions of what was called Wai‘anae uka in the mid-1800s). It seems likely that the even wider and more gradual gulch flats along Kaukonahua Stream and its lower North and South Forks would also have been occupied about this time, if not a bit earlier – as these would have been more optimal irrigated kalo settings.36 (Irrigated kalo fields have been found in Kaukonahua Gulch below the joining of the two forks,37 but no archaeological dating has yet occurred in these fields.)

For the Central Plateau, O‘ahu-wide settlement information of this period has several ramifications. Some have suggested that the initial settlement of the Schofield area of the Central Plateau was an inland extension of Wai‘anae ahupua‘a and would be part of that land.38 [A similar argument could be made for Kamananui ahupua‘a extending up into Wahiawā in these years, and Honouliuli up into Paupauwela and its Līhu‘e and Waikele up into Pouhala uka and Waikalaua.] But, settlement on the Wai‘anae side -- and apparently in Waialua and ‘Ewa -- was near the shore in these years. One would expect settlement to first expand up into the upper valleys on the Wai‘anae side and mid-valleys (mid-gulches) on the Waialua and ‘Ewa sides and then into the far distant Central Plateau, if settlement was following a common growth pattern within existing ahupua‘a-like lands (and there is no reason not to expect settlement in the fertile upper valleys of Wai‘anae or mid-valleys of Waialua and ‘Ewa). The fact that the upper valleys on the Wai‘anae side were not yet occupied suggests that the lands of Wai‘anae did not extend up into the occupied lands of the Central Plateau in this time period, rather they were still more seawardly restricted.39 The same seems likely for Waialua, for mid- to upper-valleys of Anahulu were not settled at this time.40 In ‘Ewa, Hālawa’s mid- to 120

Confidential

Figure 6-1. Places mentioned in the AD 1000s-1200s. 121

Confidential

Figure 6-2. Closer view of Central Plateau in AD 1000s-1200s. [Note: the border between Līhu‘e and Paupauwela-Pouhala Uka is Wai‘eli Stream, not the approximate depiction on the map.] 122

upper-valleys also did not have permanent houses or farms in these years.41 Hālawa did not extend up to the Central Plateau, and we have no settlement studies for the mid- gulches in Honouliuli or Waikele. But Hālawa settlement was focused around its floodplains along Pu’uloa in these centuries, and we do have similar dates for Honouliuli settlement around its floodplain.42 It could be reasonably argued that like Hālawa, Honouliuli and Waikele all had a coastal focus at this time, with no permanent houses and farms extending up their gulch lands. Thus, an alternative hypothesis to that raised in the Army’s Schofield studies is that the Central Plateau was independently settled with its own named lands units (lands that may or may not be recalled today), that the settlements of Wai‘anae, ‘Ewa and Waialua were restricted to coastal and lower valley lands, and that unoccupied lands separated them from the Central Plateau settlements.43

There are interesting mid-1800s patterns of land names and types of lands that might suggest that the Central Plateau may indeed have been an independent settlement area in the AD 1200s with its own lands (ahupua‘a, or precursors to ahupua‘a).44 In the mid-1800s, Līhu‘eConfidential was clearly considered to be a land unit in the Central Plateau west of the main trail from Pu‘uloa across to Waialua -- from the trail west to the Wai‘anae ridgeline. Although it was then within Wai‘anae uka (at that time an extension apparently of the ahupua‘a of Wai‘anae or an ahupua‘a within Wai‘anae moku),45 Līhu‘e had internal ‘ili (Kalena, Pulei, and probably others), so Līhu‘e was a land that was larger than an ‘ili (Fig. 6-2). It is referred to as a “District” in the 1851 land records describing the ‘ili of Kalena.46 What this means is not quite clear, but it seems that Līhu‘e was something akin to an ahupua’a. Clearly, in traditional era traditions, Līhu‘e has a large areal reference with internal lands or places such as Kalena, Pulei and Hale‘au‘au, suggesting a land unit like an ahupua’a.47 The same seems to be true for Wahiawā, for it also in older traditions seems to have had internal lands (‘ili?)(Kua‘ikua and Kapu‘ahu‘awa – as will be seen) and to have had a larger areal meaning suggestive of an ahupua’a-like land. Again, by the mid-1800s, Līhu‘e and Wahiawā were part of other ahupua‘a – Līhu‘e within Wai‘anae or Wai‘anae uka and Wahiawā within Kamananui. But the above information suggests that they were possibly older major land units in the Central Plateau, again something like ahupua‘a.48

This idea is somewhat similar to community comments from interviews that stated that ka‘ānani‘au boundary markers set off the Central Plateau area49 – suggesting this area was a unit in the past.

To add to this, in the mid-1800s, Honouliuli, the westernmost ahupua‘a of ‘Ewa moku, had a large inland land subdivision (‘ili) called Līhu‘e that ran from the border of the Līhu‘e of the Central Plateau down slope (including kula, gulches, and the eastern slopes of the Wai‘anae mountains) to just above Pōhākea Pass.50 Using place names to reconstruct history is often risky. But, is this name match of a Honouliuli ‘ili with the adjacent Līhu‘e up on the Central Plateau simply a co-incidence? Or does it perhaps reflect an earlier seaward extension of the Central Plateau Līhu‘e settlements that was later placed within Honouliuli? Similarly, Paupauwela, another upland ‘ili of Honouliuli at Contact, contains the cul-de-sac lands between the spur ridge of Kānehoa to Maunauna and Kolekole. Geographically, this area is part of the Central Plateau, and it is one of the 123

early archaeologically dated site areas of the upland plateau. Perhaps it too was later placed into ‘Ewa and Honouliuli. The same might be true for Waikakalaua and the uppermost reaches of Pouhala, both ‘ili within Waikele in the mid-1800s.

All these points and the lack of settlement at this time in upper valleys of Wai‘anae and apparently in mid-gulches of Waialua and ‘Ewa suggest that it is possible that there was an older, independent settlement area in the Central Plateau that was later divided up and placed into the moku of Wai‘anae, Waialua, and ‘Ewa – placed into the ahupua‘a of those lands. If so, when this later re-division occurred is not revealed in the literature that we are aware of. Some note that the Kingdom of O‘ahu ruler Mā‘ilikūkahi in the mid-1500s redivided and firmed up land divisions on O‘ahu,51 and some have suggested that the Central Plateau lands were redivided then.52 Kamakau says there were six districts (moku) then,53 but this may be a generalization from his mid-1800s perspective. Other oral histories that Kamakau recounts indicate that Wai‘anae moku was still apparently part of ‘Ewa until the mid-1600s, when a high chief just over Wai‘anae startsConfidential to be noted.54 Perhaps Wai‘anae uka was created then, with the borders of upper ‘Ewa and Wai‘anae dating to these times. Land boundary changes impacting the Central Plateau could have occurred at several different times.

Thus, a hypothesis proposed here is that the Central Plateau was independently settled at least about AD 1200. Archaeology shows settlement along Wai‘eli Stream below the Wai‘anae ridgeline. The more optimal flatter lands and larger gulch bottoms along Kaukonahua and its lower North and South fork areas could well have been settled somewhat earlier. However, settlement on the Central Plateau would not be expected to be earlier than AD 1000 – the time when leeward lands on O‘ahu seem to have been first settled. In these years, again, the settlements of Wai‘anae, Waialua and ‘Ewa were more restricted near the coast. Unoccupied lands in the upper valleys of Wai‘anae and in the lower mid-gulches of Waialua and of ‘Ewa are suggested to have been between these settlements and the Central Plateau settlements. Perhaps the Central Plateau settlements even extended down into the uppermost parts of what eventually became ‘Ewa (the Contact era ‘ili of Līhu‘e, Pouhala, and Waikakalaua) and into Pa‘ala‘a in upland Waialua.

As a last point for this period from the AD 1000s-1200s, for all the Hawaiian Islands it has been hypothesized that prior to about 1300 the size of countries (polities) in the islands was small, for the oral histories state that larger countries (usually the size of one or more districts, moku) formed in the time of the sons of Māweke, around 1300.55 Before 1300, countries may have been on the size order of several valleys, or equivalent to only a few communities (like the later ahupua‘a).55a It is estimated that populations of countries would have been small (less than 1,000, with an average of 500-700 more common), for that was the common population size of countries of such territorial sizes throughout Austronesian Polynesia and Micronesia at European Contact.56 Leadership would have been by a chief who was the senior male of the leading lineage. This chief would have had minimal secular power in a society of such small size. The chief would not have elaborate respect behavior (kapu) setting him/her apart. The chief would, however, be expected to have claims to the important ancestral deities of the polity (as he 124

was the senior descendant), so some influence of the ancestors would have been at his call. Temples are expected, but these would have been quite small. Archaeological research in the islands has dated a few temples to this period; all are rectangular-shaped and small, 100-300 m2 in area (smaller versions of the later temple form).

When one considers that just a few adjacent valleys or communities may have been countries, this would lead to the possibility that the Central Plateau may have been a separate small country. Following the above ideas, it would have had a population of less than 1,000, multiple lineages, and a chief from the senior lineage who had minimal power. [In the hypotheses that consider the Central Plateau to have been part of Wai’anae, or ‘Ewa or Waialua, the country would be larger, but general hypotheses would still suggest population, lineages and minimal chiefly power would be the same.]

Last, it should be noted that oral histories are virtually silent for this period of the AD 1000s-1200s. It is extremely difficult to trace any historical accounts tied to the genealogies backConfidential into this era. As Fornander notes, the Nana‘ulu line associated with later O‘ahu rulers seems by far the most reliable historically, but only back to Māweke. “Whatever legends may have existed, connected with names previous to Māweke, they were apparently swallowed up and forgotten”.57 Māweke, as will be seen immediately below, dates to approximately 1300-1320.

The 1300s – The Rise of Larger Polities

Regardless of the size of the original Central Plateau settlement in the 1200s and the size of its associated country, research based primarily on oral histories suggests that larger countries formed in the 1300s.58 The oral histories on O‘ahu indicate the formation of three larger countries: one being Kona moku (today’s Honolulu district), another on the windward side (Ko‘olaupoko and Ko‘olauloa), and the third made up of ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Waialua, which included the Central Plateau (Fig. 6-3).59 The formation of these larger countries on O‘ahu is associated with the dynasty established by the chief Māweke of the Hāloa-Nana‘ulu descent line. His sons apparently controlled the three countries.60 The O‘ahu royal genealogies trace their ancestry reliably back to Māweke. Again, if one assigns 20 years per generation, an estimate of his time is 1300-1320 and his sons at 1320-1340.61

These countries would have held many more communities than prior countries.62 As a result, logically, one would expect two levels of chiefs – the ruler and multiple lower chiefs over the many communities. This was the case in countries of similar territorial size in Austronesian Oceania at European Contact (Samoa, the Society Islands, Belau, the northern Gilberts).63 The populations of these O‘ahu countries may have been in the 2,000-5,000 range, again based on the countries of similar size in the Austronesian societies of Oceania at European Contact.64 The ruler would need to be separated from the other chiefs – one would suspect (based on the above similar Austronesian societies at Contact) by a more impressive house, more elaborate burial rituals, association with a larger “national” temple, and verbal and non-verbal respect behavior. Thus, the initial rise of stratification in the Hawaiian Islands is expected with the changes of the 1300s – 125

Confidential

Figure 6-3. The three large countries of O‘ahu in the 1300s (marked off by white lines) – Kona (today’s Honolulu district), ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua, and the Ko‘olau side. Kūkaniloko and Līhu‘e flank the trail connecting Pu‘uloa to Waialua’s shore.

with three social strata forming: ruler, local chiefs, and commoners. The Hawaiian oral histories across the islands indicate this with bits and pieces of information. Two levels of chiefs are mentioned (ruler and local chief) in stories at least from Hawai‘i Island.65 Important cultural institutions of the stratified Hawaiian societies in the later eras are said to begin in these years – the kō‘ele system and the hale naua/’aha ali‘i rituals on succession of a new ruler to establish who were chiefs.66 Larger national temples are hinted at in the oral histories (e.g., Paka‘alana in Waipi‘o on Hawai‘i),67 and archaeology indicates that some much larger temples were constructed (in eastern Maui -- the 1,000 m2 Pōpōiwi in Kaupō and the 4,000 m2 Pi‘ilanihale in Hāna).68 Archaeology suggests that larger fishponds begin to appear in this century – such as around Pu‘uloa (Pearl Harbor) and Kāne‘ohe69 – indicative of a larger labor force that could be called upon by the elite for public works projects.

On O‘ahu, this formation of larger countries again is associated with the dynasty established by the chief Māweke. Virtually nothing is said of Māweke in the oral histories.70 His senior line became based in the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua polity, said to be the most powerful of these countries. His senior line grandson was Kumuhonua (the 126

older brother of ‘Olopana and Mō‘īkeha). The fragments of oral histories from this century say that Kumuhonua may have been the nominal ruler of the island.71 Whether this means he was ruler of the island, or was acknowledged by the other rulers as most powerful, or was the most influential is impossible to determine. The time of Kumuhonua is estimated at AD 1340-1360.

Little detail comes from the oral histories of this era. But, again, the ‘Ewa- Wai‘anae-Waialua country seems to have become the most powerful of the three countries by the end of this century, with the senior line present here.72 In the 1300s, Līhu‘e on the Central Plateau is likely the place where the ruler lived (or at least one of the royal centers) of this country.74 Since Kūkaniloko in adjacent Wahiawa was present at this time as a birthing place for this center (to be discussed in detail later in this chapter), the royal residential center seems to have included both Līhu‘e and Wahiawā.

The oral histories mention 4 other chiefs who lived on the Central Plateau apparently in these years. These are successive chiefs listed in the Ulu genealogy of 75 Confidential chiefs: Nana-maoa, Nana-kulei, Nana-kaōko, and Kapawa. They “lived at Wahiawa and Lihu’e”.76 Nana-kaōko is said to have established the birthing place at Kūkaniloko for his son, Kapawa. So these chiefs are critical in the Kūkaniloko story. Estimating the chronological placement of these chiefs is extremely difficult. This will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter (pp. 196-210). There is considerable variation in the Ulu genealogical listings that survive from the 1800s. But one that may be agreeable to most (Figure 6-4) descends from Wākea at Generation 1 to Kalani‘ōpu‘u at Generation 68, with the Nana-maoa-Kapawa line at Generations 23-26. If this genealogy was reliable as a line of historical chiefs in correct generational placement, Nana-maoa would date ca. AD 860-880 and Kapawa would be AD 940-960 (using 20 years per generation).77 But this would appear much too early for leeward settlement on O’ahu -- settlement on the Central Plateau. However, dating the Nana-maoa-Kapawa line is not so simple due to problems with the Ulu genealogy as a record of historical chiefs in correct generational placement. Nana-maoa-Kapawa are immediately after the fictional insertion of the Polynesian super hero Maui and his father Akalana (Generations 21-22) and just before the fictional insertions of the mythical eastern Polynesian Kaha‘i (Tahaki) family of ‘Aikanaka, Hema, Kaha‘i, Wahieloa, and Laka (Generations 29-33).78 Such insertions of mythological heroes (Maui and Kaha‘i) into a chiefly genealogy would be appropriate to raise the renown of the chiefly line, but they are fictional insertions. So, these portions of this genealogy are not historically accurate in reporting chiefs who lived in the islands.79 One could drop the Kaha‘i family and move the Nana-maoa-Kapawa line farther towards the present on this genealogy, so Kapawa would be at Generation 31. This would move Kapawa up to about AD 1020-1040 (20 years per generation) and Nana-maoa perhaps to about AD 960 – 980, still seemingly too early for the Central Plateau given current archaeological dates.80 But problems still exist with the Ulu genealogy, for Fornander and more modern researchers81 tend to agree that stories tied to individuals on the list do not become consistently historical until Paumakua’s and Haho’s time in Generations 40 and 41 (perhaps about AD 1200-1240). Even then, very mythological people are involved (e.g., Kana of the extending legs and Nīheu),82 weakening confidence in historical

127

Figure 6-4 ULU GENEALOGY

Estimate in years A.D. 20 yrs 25 yrs

1. Wākea 2. Hāloa 3. Waia 4. Hinalo 5. Kakaihili 6. Wailoa 7. Ki‘o 8. ‘Ole Confidential 9. Pupue 10. Manakū 11. Kahiko 12. Luanu‘u 13. Ki‘i 14. ‘Ulu 15. Nana‘ie 16. Nanaialani 17. Waikūlani 18. Kūheileimoana 19. Konohiki 20. Wawena 21. Akalana 22. Māui-akalana 23. Nana-maoa 860-880 630-655 24. Nana-kulei 880-900 655-680 25. Nana-kaōko 900-920 680-705 26. Kapawa 920-940 705-730 27. Heleipawa 940-960 730-755 28. Hulumānailani 960-980 755-780 29. ‘Aikanaka 980-1000 780-805 30. Hema 1000-1020 805-830 31. Kaha‘i 1020-1040 830-855 32. Wahieloa 1040-1060 855-880 33. Laka 1060-1080 880-905 34. Lu‘anu‘u 1080-1100 905-930 35. Kamea 1100-1120 930-955 36. Pohukaina 1120-1140 955-980 37. Hua 1140-1160 980-1005

128

Estimate in years A.D. 20 yrs 25 yrs

38. Pau (Pau-a-Hua) 1160-1180 1005-1030 39. Hua-a-Pau (or Huanuiikalailai) 1180-1200 1030-1055 40. Paumakua 1200-1220 1055-1080 41. Haho 1220-1240 1080-1105 42. Palena 1240-1260 1105-1130 43. Hanala‘anui 1260-1280 1130-1155 44. Lana-ka-wai 1280-1300 1155-1180 45. La‘au 1300-1320 1180-1205 46. Pili 1320-1340 1205-1230 47. Koa 1340-1360 1230-1255 48. ‘Ole Confidential 1360-1380 1255-1280 49. Kūkohou 1380-1400 1280-1305 50. Kaniuhi 1400-1420 1305-1330 51. Kanipahu 1420-1440 1330-1355 52. Kalapana 1440-1460 1355-1380 53. Kaha‘i-moe-le‘a 1460-1480 1380-1405 54. Kalaunuiohua 1480-1500 1405-1430 55. Kūaiwa 1500-1520 1430-1455 56. Kahoukapu 1520-1540 1455-1480 57. Kauhola 1540-1560 1480-1505 58. Kiha 1560-1580 1505-1530 59. Līloa 1580-1600 1530-1555 60. ‘Umi 1600-1620 1555-1580 61. Keawenui-a-‘Umi 1620-1640 1580-1605 62. Kanaloaku‘uana 1640-1660 1605-1630 63. Keakealanikane 1660-1680 1630-1655 [Lonoikamakahiki generation] 64. Keakamahana (w) 1680-1700 1655-1680 65. Keakealaniwahine (w) 1700-1720 1680-1705 66. Keawe 1720-1740 1705-1730 67. Kalaninui‘Ī‘amamao 1740-1760 1730-1755 [Alapa‘inui generation] 68. Kalani‘ōpu‘u 1760-1780 1755-1780

Derived in part from Kamakau 1869 (Kamakau 1991:133-158)

129

reliability of the list. Then, still other questions arise over the two generations after Pili (Koa and ‘Ole), whether they are indeed separate generations or even rulers on this line. All of this makes dating of key, apparently historical people on the Ulu genealogy difficult – not just the Nana-maoa-Kapawa line, but also later individuals such as Haho and Pili.

Another way to address this problem is to link members of the Ulu genealogy with members of the more historically reliable Nana‘ulu genealogy – through marriages or joint appearances in stories – to try to better place Ulu genealogy individuals in time. Fornander analyzed this issue closely, matching wives and relatives across genealogies. He concluded that Nana-kaōko was “misplaced … some seventeen generations ahead of his actual time”.83 He suggested that Nana-kulei was of the same generation as Māweke’s grandsons (Kumuhonua, ‘Olopana, Mō‘īkeha). A Kamakau story would support this approximate placement, perhaps even a generation later,84 for Nana-kulei’s son Nana- kaōko was married to Kahihiokalani, who was the granddaughter of Ka-uma‘ili‘ula (the grandson of HīkapoloaConfidential of Kohala and the brother of Lu‘ukia who married ‘Olopana) and of Kaupe‘a (daughter of ‘Olopana). If Fornander was correct, Nana-kulei would date ca. 1340-1360. Nana-kaōko, his son, would date AD 1360-1380. Kapawa would follow in 1380-1400.85

If one agrees that these Nana chiefs were in the 1300s, what was their place in the political organization of the 1300s? Assuming a Māweke line chief was in control of a country encompassing all of ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua, a likely suggestion is that they were local chiefs of importance under the ruler. With Kapawa, his line departed O‘ahu; Kapawa’s son Heleipawa was born in Kipahulu where he was a chief.86 Kapawa, himself, seems to have been forced out of O‘ahu (for no clear reason), for he died and was buried on Maui.87

However, in one story, Kamakau notes that “Kapawa was the first chief to be set up as a ruling chief. This was at Waialua, Oahu; and from then on, the group of Hawaiian Islands became established as chief-ruled kingdoms”.88 One could interpret this to mean that ruling chief implies a ruler over local chiefs and “chief-ruled kingdoms” might refer to larger countries – like the more clearly identified larger O‘ahu countries associated with Māweke’s sons. If this was the case, then perhaps Kapawa and his family dominated one of the first of the larger countries on O‘ahu. All sources agree that he was forced out of O‘ahu, and his family lost power. Perhaps on O‘ahu, he was replaced by the Māweke line. If this scenario were followed, this would place Kapawa at the end of the 1200s. His family would be powerful in the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā area from the mid-1200s. It is possible that some similar larger countries were starting to form in the islands about this time (late 1200s) – perhaps Hikapoloa’s northernmost Kohala country (based on dating estimates of some Hawai‘i Island genealogies) and one in the Hāna area (based on dates for Pi‘ilanihale heiau).89 But the larger countries with ruler-local chiefs- commoners do not seem likely to be much earlier than the late 1200s.

130

[We will return to this dating of the Nanamaoa-Kapawa line under the part of this chapter on Kūkaniloko (when it was built). However, the two most likely dates are given above – late 1200s or mid-1300s.]

One other chief of note of the 1300s has some association with this story of the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko – La‘amaikahiki. La‘amaikahiki’s ancestry varies in the oral histories recorded in the 1800s. In one, he was an O‘ahu chief, son of Ahukai, who had ties to Waialua and possibly was born at Kūkaniloko.90 In this version, he was adopted (hanai??) by Mō‘īkeha, grandson of Māweke. After a battle is fought between Kumuhonua (the elder grandson in power) and his younger brothers (Mō‘īkeha and ‘Olopana), the latter two were taken captive by the victorious Kumuhonua. In other variations of this story, Mō‘īkeha (with La‘a) and ‘Olopana travel on to Waipi‘o (where ‘Olopana ruled an emerging district-sized country near equivalent to Hāmākua, and married Lu‘ukia, granddaughter of Hikapoloa, ruler of the adjacent northern Kohala country). A flood drives them from Waipi‘o, and they travel to Kahiki. In at least one version, after theirConfidential defeat by Kumuhonua, the three travel directly on to Kahiki.91 In nearly all versions ‘Olopana stays in Kahiki; Mō‘īkeha returns and eventually resides on Kaua‘i, marries the ruler’s daughter and in turn becomes ruler of Kaua‘i (undoubtedly with a small population), and has three sons born on Kaua‘i (Ho’okamali‘i, Haulaninuiai- akea, Kila).92 In other oral accounts,93 ‘Olopana, Mō‘īkeha and La‘amaikahiki are all foreign born (from Kahiki), with ‘Olopana and Mō‘īkeha being brothers and La‘amaikahiki being of the next younger generation. Mō‘īkeha leaves Kahiki and travels to the Hawaiian Islands, leaving his followers at different spots through the islands (including La‘amaomao, a god who kept the winds in some accounts, at Molokai). As in the other story, Mō‘īkeha goes on to Kaua‘i, marries the Kaua‘i chief’s daughter and becomes ruler of Kaua‘i. Also as in the other versions, Mō‘īkeha has the three sons born on Kaua‘i (Ho‘okamali‘i, Haulaninuiai-akea, Kila), and he later sends his sons to Kahiki to fetch back La‘amaikahiki.94 They deliver the message, but ‘Olopana asks La‘a to not go to Hawai‘i until he is dead. So the three brothers return – Kila remaining on Hawai‘i, Ho‘omakali‘i eventually resided in ‘Ewa on O‘ahu and became the ancestor for Mā‘ilikūkahi and the Māweke-Mō‘īkeha line of rulers over the Kingdom of O‘ahu. Haulani-nui-ai-akea returns to Kaua‘i. After ‘Olopana dies and La‘amaikahiki becomes ruler of the country in Kahiki, La‘a then travels to Hawai‘i, arrving on O‘ahu, bringing a temple drum named ‘Opuku,95 later to become one of the famed temple drums of the Kingdom of O‘ahu. He visits for a while (a year or so), marries three high-ranking women of the Kāne‘ohe Bay area, all of whom bear him sons on the same day.96 These sons – born at Kualoa, Ka‘alaea and Kāne‘ohe in the Kāne‘ohe Bay area -- become the ancestors of famous chiefs in the islands. La‘amaikahiki returns to Kahiki. The ‘Olopana-Mō‘īkeha-La‘amaikahiki stories are extremely varied and brief.97 However, most agree that these were O‘ahu chiefs.98 They had many important descendants, one line of Mō‘īkeha’s becoming the rulers of O’ahu in the mid-1500s (the Mō‘īkeha- Ho‘omakali‘i line) and La‘a’s having importance to later windward side O‘ahu chiefs and marrying into the royal line. Also, the temple drum ‘Opuku is associated with La‘a. This drum becomes tied to the ruling family of O‘ahu and is the tie to Kūkaniloko, as will be seen.

131

The AD 1400s-1783. The Time of the Kingdom of O‘ahu

The oral histories suggest that all of O‘ahu became unified as the Kingdom of O‘ahu in the early 1400s. The Māweke-Kumuhonua senior line, which were based in the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua country of the 1300s, became the rulers of the Kingdom of O‘ahu – indicating that this country in an unknown way gained dominance over all O‘ahu. La‘akona in the senior Māweke-Kumuhonua line was said to hold the title of mō‘ī – “in this latter line descended the dignity of the Moi of Oahu.”99 La‘akona’s time is estimated at AD 1420-1440.

Little is noted of the successive rulers’ histories through the 1400s and early 1500s, with a very few exceptions. La‘akona’s grandson, Huaipouleilei (1460-1480) is mentioned in the story of Kalaunuiohua, ruler of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i.100 Kalaunuiohua went raiding through the islands and successively captured the rulers of Maui, Molokai, and O‘ahu. Huaipouleilei was the ruler captured on O‘ahu.101 Kalaunuiohua traveledConfidential on to Kaua‘i with his captives, where he was defeated by Kukona of Kaua‘i. The other rulers were freed to return home by Kukona -- and so too, eventually, was Kalaunuiohua.102

Interestingly, Līhu‘e (Līhu‘e/Wahiawā) seems to have continued as a royal center for the kingdom into the reign of Haka in the mid-1500s. Up to this time, the ruler was apparently also the immediate overlord chief of greater ‘Ewa (‘Ewa, Wai‘anae, Waialua). La‘akona “ruled over the Ewa, Waianae, and Waialua districts” ca. 1420-1440.103 Huapouleilei is mentioned as the “principal chief of the Ewa and Waianae division of the island” ca. 1460-1480.104 In Haka’s time (1520-1540) the royal residence is specifically placed: “Haka, a noted Ewa chief who lived at Lihue, and was the last Oahu sovereign of the Kumuhonua branch [Māweke-Kumuhonua line]”,105 was “Moi of Oahu, chief of Ewa, and residing at Lihue.”106 Portrayed as evil in the oral histories (“a stingy, rapacious, and ill-natured chief, who paid no regard to either his chiefs or his commoners”107), Haka was overthrown and killed, and the chiefs elected Mā‘ilikūkahi of the Māweke-Mō‘īkeha- Ho’omakali’i line as ruler. The senior members of this Māweke-Mō‘īkeha line ruled the kingdom until its eventual fall in 1783 (from Mā‘ilikūkahi to Kahahana).

Mā‘ilikūkahi’s reign (1520-1540) is described as being peaceful and prosperous. As will be seen, several events are relevant to the Central Plateau and Kūkaniloko. At a general level, one pattern of note was that Mā‘ilikūkahi began to use royal centers outside of the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua lands, notably Waikīkī – “he was perhaps the first of the ruling chiefs to live there [Waikīkī]. Until then the chiefs had lived in Waialua and ‘Ewa”.108 Eventually, by European Contact, the ruler on O‘ahu had periodically used a number of different royal centers – Waikīkī, Kailua, Līhu‘e/Wahiawā, places around Pu‘uloa (Waipi‘o, Kalauao, perhaps Honouliuli) and perhaps Kamananui at Kaiaka Bay (Fig. 6-5).109 But, importantly, Mā‘ilikūkahi was said to have maintained a residence in the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā area, as well as in Waikīkī and presumably other places.110

132

Confidential

Figure 6-5. The Kingdom of O‘ahu and royal centers used during its history from the early 1400s to 1783, when it was conquered by the Kingdom of Maui.

This wider rotating of the royal center seems to have quickly led to the end of the use of Līhu‘e/Wahiawā as a royal center, for after Mā‘ilikūkahi, Līhu‘e is not mentioned any longer as a royal center. However, the surviving records of rulers are brief in the latter 1500s. Little is said of the reign of Kalona-iki (1540-1560).111 His son, the ruler Piliwale (1560-1580), resided at least at Waipi‘o along Pu’uloa’s shores, but there is no mention of him living at Līhu‘e/Wahiawā.112 Little is said of his daughter, Kūkaniloko (1580-1600), with no mention of a royal residence at Līhu‘e.113 If Kūkaniloko was used for royal births in these years and it is assumed that the ruler and high chiefs gathered for these births at Līhu‘e/Wahiawā, then it could be argued that Līhu‘e was a royal center at that time (even if the ruler and chiefs were only briefly present). (At least Kalanimanuia, was born here about 1580, during her mother’s, Kūkaniloko’s, reign.) Other royal children may have been born at Kūkaniloko, although the oral accounts that we have seen are silent on this matter – to be discussed further later on in this chapter.) The records that do exist for the late 1500s suggest that Līhu‘e was still an important place with a resident, powerful overlord high chief. In the reign of Piliwale (1560-1580), his younger brother Lō Lale was noted as the chief over Līhu‘e – usually in the context of the famous Kelea story (who was the sister of the Maui ruler, kidnapped by a “wife-snatching” 133

O‘ahu canoe).114 Lō Lale’s and Kelea’s son, Lō Kaholi, also was a chief from the Līhu‘e area, who won the hand of the younger daughter of Piliwale (Kohe-palaoa, his cousin) in a fighting contest.115

However, after the early 1600s, Līhu‘e no longer seems to have been a royal center. Kākuhihewa, ruler ca. 1640-1660, was the last royal child mentioned to have been born at Kūkaniloko (about 1620), and this may have been a last brief use of the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā royal center.116 He, members of his father’s generation (ruling 1620- 1640), and his grandmother (Kalanimanuia, ruler 1600-1620) may have been born at Kūkaniloko, but the oral histories seem to indicate that as adults they lived elsewhere and ruled in other ruling centers.117 In the 1600s-1700s, the centers of Waikīkī, Kailua, and Kalauao are noted – not Līhu‘e. Importantly, after 1600, Līhu‘e is not even mentioned as a chiefly residential area. In 1620-1640, the rulers Kū-a-Manuia and his brother Ka‘ihikapu lived in Waikīkī, and their younger brother (high chief Ha‘o) controlled ‘Ewa and Wai‘anae and resided on the shore of Pu‘uloa in Waikele.118 Ha‘o’s son may have been the first overlordConfidential chief over a separate Wai‘anae moku,119 apparently residing on the shore.

In the late 1600s, the rulers of the O‘ahu Kingdom had lost much of their centralized control. The oral histories describe them primarily living in Ko‘olaupoko and using Kailua as their royal center (and presumably being born in Ko’olaupoko). The high chiefs of Kona and of the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Wai‘alua moku seem to have largely lived as they wished in their areas – although still acknowledging their fealty to the king. This changed with Kūali‘i becoming ruler, perhaps ca. 1700-1720.120 Kūali‘i proceeded to re- establish the centralized power of the king. He first performed a key ritual at Kawaluna heiau in the side-valley of Waolani in Nu‘uanu, and then defeated the Kona chiefs in battle, bringing them back under control. Then he fought several battles over the next several years with the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua chiefs – all fought in the Central Plateau in the Kolekole Pass area. He won all battles, and eventually the chiefs of those moku acknowledged his full power over their lands. Kūali‘i also obtained control over Kaua‘i, apparently by inheritance through his grandmother’s claim.122 Also, Kūali‘i had great influence on Molokai, aiding the Kona chiefs in the defeat of the Ko‘olau chiefs. Interestingly, Kūali‘i – although he fought several battles in the Central Plateau -- is never described as residing in Līhu‘e, or using the area as a royal center. Nor are high chiefs linked to this area in this time. The high chief over Wai‘anae resided near the shore in Wai‘anae valley; the ‘Ewa chiefs along Pu‘uloa and the Waialua chiefs in Kamananui.123

The oral histories for the remaining years of the O‘ahu Kingdom are silent, as far as we can determine, about chiefly activities and residence on the Central Plateau. Kūali‘i’s son Pelei‘ōhōlani conquered Molokai, further establishing O‘ahu as the first multi-island powerhouse kingdom in the Islands.124 His son, Kumuhana, was deemed incompetent by the O‘ahu chiefs and deposed.125 The last king, Kahahana (Pelei‘ōhōlani’s sister’s grandson, his great nephew) had a brief reign in which his mentor and apparent hanai father, Kahekili, ruler of the Maui Kingdom, fooled him into 134

weakening the kingdom and then invaded and conquered O‘ahu in 1783.126 A revolt two years later failed miserably.

AD 1783-1819. O‘ahu Under the Maui Kingdom (1783-1795) and Under the Hawai‘i Kingdom (from 1795)

Again, in 1783, the O‘ahu Kingdom fell to the Maui Kingdom and its ruler Kahekili. As with the last years of the O‘ahu Kingdom, we found no mention in the oral histories of the Central Plateau as a chiefly residential area, and definitely not as a royal center. Kahekili favored Kailua and primarily Waikīkī as his ruling centers when on O‘ahu.127 When his high chiefs are mentioned, they are in residence on the shore in Waialua, along Pu‘uloa, in Kane’ohe, in Kona, and at the royal court in Waikīkī and Kailua.128 Also, no Maui high chief apparently used Kūkaniloko as a birthing site.129 From 1790-1794, Kahekili and his half-brother, Kā‘eo (ruler of Kaua‘i), were engaged in raids or warfare with Kamehameha, or had armies on Maui encamped as defense against a potential invasion.Confidential When Kahekili was in residence on O‘ahu, he almost always was in Waikīkī

After Kahekili’s death in 1794 and that of Kā‘eo shortly after, the Kingdom of Hawai‘i invaded and defeated Maui in 1795 in the famous battle in Nu‘uanu, and O‘ahu passed into the hands of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. Lands were divided up among the high chiefs of the new conquering kingdom. The Central Plateau is unmentioned in records that were reviewed in the years of Kamehameha’s reign until the sandalwood trade increased after 1812, when Kamehameha had returned to Hawai‘i to spend his remaining years (this period to be covered in the next chapter). The royal center when Kamehameha was on O‘ahu was primarily at Waikīkī, and then Honolulu after 1804. High chiefs were given the lands of O‘ahu, but the Central Plateau area is not mentioned. For example, Ke‘eaumoku received the moku of Waialua, and then his senior son, Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku (Ke‘eaumoku Cox), after his father’s death in 1804.130 ‘Ewa lands around Pu‘uloa went to different chiefs, sometimes entire ahupua’a and sometimes ‘ili within ahupua’a. Kalanimoku received Honouliuli ahupua‘a.131 Kalanimoku’s younger paternal brother Keōua held the important ‘ili of Pouhala in Waikele ahupua‘a, which extended from the shore of Pu‘uloa up to the edge of the Central Plateau just below today’s Wheeler AFB.132 Elsewhere in ‘Ewa, John Young and Isaac Davis jointly received control of the ahupua’a of Hālawa.133 Boki (Kalanimoku’s younger brother and the Governor of O’ahu) held Wai‘anae moku late in Kamehameha’s reign.134 Strikingly, no mention is made of a high chief receiving Līhu‘e or Wahiawā. Sahlins indicates that Wahiawā was simply a part of the ahupua’a of Kamananui at this time in Waialua.135 Līhu‘e may also simply have been part of Wai‘anae.

Summary

The above information indicates that the Central Plateau and the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā area was settled at least in the 1200s – in the AD 1000s-1200s era when the leeward sides of O‘ahu were occupied. While some have suggested lands of the Central Plateau were an extension of Wai‘anae kai, the Central Plateau may well have been an isolated 135

settlement area unconnected to the lands of Wai‘anae, Waialua, or ‘Ewa, as the latter settlements had yet to expand very far inland. It is possible that the Central Plateau area was one of the hypothesized many small countries on O‘ahu at this time.

In the 1300s, with the rise of three large countries on O‘ahu, the most powerful became ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua, and importantly one of its ruling centers (if not its only center) was in the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā area. Kūkaniloko was a birthing site and part of this ruling center in these years.

When all of O‘ahu was unified by the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua country in the 1400s and became the Kingdom of O’ahu, the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā area remained an important royal center of the kingdom. With the election of Mā‘ilikukahi as ruler in the mid-1500s, royal centers beyond ‘Ewa-Wai’anae-Waialua began to be used (notably Waikiki), but Mā‘ilikukahi still used Līhu‘e/Wahiawā as a royal center.

Interestingly,Confidential after Mā‘ilikukahi, from the mid-1500s, there is no mention in the oral histories that we reviewed of Līhu‘e/Wahiawā ever again being a royal center of the Kingdom of O‘ahu. However, it is likely that Līhu‘e/Wahiawā was very briefly used as a center, when royal children were born at Kūkaniloko; but the records are silent on this matter, and only Kalanimanuia (about 1580) and Kākuhihewa (about 1620) are mentioned as being born at Kūkaniloko. The oral histories are quite good from the mid- 1600s-on about locations of royal centers, and there is definitely no mention of Līhu‘e/Wahiawā as one of the centers.

The oral accounts do indicate that Līhu‘e/Wahiawā remained a chiefly center under a high chief up until 1600. But after 1600, the records that we looked at no longer mention Līhu‘e/Wahiawā even remaining as a high chiefly center. Instead, high chiefs lived near the shore in lands that they controlled.

Further, after the birth of Kākuhihewa (ca. 1620), no accounts that we reviewed indicate any other chief being born at Kūkaniloko.

Thus, the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā chiefly center seems to have not been in use as a royal or high chiefly center since 1600. Kūkaniloko, as an associated part of that center, seems to have seen continued royal and high chiefly births only for a few decades after that time. For the bulk of the 1600s through the 1700s, it appears that Kūkaniloko and this area remained a famed place – but not an actively used place. When Kamehameha – who paid close attention to gaining ki‘i and other symbols of power from his conquered kingdoms136 – attempted to have Keōpūolani give birth here in 1797 to tie this symbolic place of birth to his child, the birthing area was described as being in disuse.137 Our background research suggests that the disuse of this area by high chiefs and rulers had a longer history than is commonly noted.138 In brief, it seems not to have been a residential spot for high chiefs or rulers since 1600 or a birthing place since 1620. Yet 200 years later in Kamehameha’s time, Līhu‘e/Wahiawā and the associated birthing place of Kūkaniloko were still clearly important remembered historical symbols.

136

SECTION 2

THE CENTRAL PLATEAU’S CHIEFLY CENTER OF LĪHU‘E/WAHIAWĀ & ITS SURROUNDING LANDS: THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE

Ui‘a‘a Ka‘ala kela i ka lani Ka‘ala stands in bold relief against the sky, O ke po‘okeoa ia na kuahiwi. The greatest of mountains. [1868, Kamakau]139

It was during the days of the heavy fog at Kaala, For the cold was brought forth by the dew, Together with the fragrance of the kupukupu of Lihu‘e. [1860s, Romance of Halemano, Fornander Collection]140

Ha‘i kehauConfidential … Chilled by the mountain breeze … Ka makana anu he Waikoloa e. The cold Waikōloa wind. [1780s – Kanikau for Kahahana]141

He lae ‘ino o Maunauna … The brow of Maunauna is stormy … Honi aku i ke ala o ka mau‘u, Sniff the scent of the grasses, I ke ala o ke kupukkupu, The fragrance of the kupukupu ferns, E lino ‘ia ‘ana e ka Waikōloa, That are twisted bout by the Waikōloa wind, E ka makani he Wai‘ōpua la, By the Wai‘ōpua wind, [1865, Kelea Story, Kamakau]142

The lower part is a ravine and contains taro patches for 4 or 5 families. [1851, A. Bishop – description of ‘ili of Kalena]143

Wahiawa stream irrigated extensive terraces on the flats both immediately above and below the town … [1930s, Handy from Hawaiian residents]144

… Haka, a noted Ewa chief who lived at Lihue, and was the last Oahu sovereign of the Kumuhonua branch [1880, Fornander]145

From Halahape to O‘ahu nui in Wai‘alua was the kūlanakauhale [village] of Mā‘ili-kūkahi. [1865 Kamakau]146

‘O Manuia, ka lani o Kapu‘ahu‘awa, Manuia, the chiefess of Kapu‘ahu‘awa, ‘O ka uahi maka weo ‘ia o Līhu‘e. The smoke that reddened the eyes of Līhu‘e. [1865, Portion of a mele ‘inoa, Kamakau]147

137

------

This section of this chapter looks at the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau, to understand the nature of the chiefly center of Līhu‘e/Wahiawā and its surrounding lands and to better understand how Kūkaniloko fit into this landscape, as a renowned elite birthing place. Oral histories and archaeology provide information on the fields, housing, the chiefly center, the forests, mountains and winds – all vital parts of the Hawaiian cultural landscape. Archaeological dating of fields, houses, and religious structures on the landscape is just beginning, so we do not have a picture at any one point in time of how many houses were present, or how extensive the fields were, or what heiau were present and how large they were. Still a picture can be pieced together that shows what the landscape was like at the peak of population in the 1700s and earliest 1800s, and possibly where chiefs and royalty resided in the 1300s-1500s.

Again, the Central Plateau, within which Kūkaniloko sits, is bounded in the west by the Wai‘anaeConfidential ridgeline and its gradually descending eastern slopes and by the rising steep slopes of the Ko‘olau mountains to the east. Between lies the flatter land where Wahiawā town, Schofield Barracks, Wheeler and Whitmore Village are located. This is an area of streams and their gulches and intervening flat slopes or plains (kula). The oral histories in talking about this area generally talk about an area including Wahiawā and Līhu‘e. The land of Wahiawā in the mid-1800s included the northen half of the kula where the town sits today, the gulch of the North Fork of Kaukonahua Stream, part of the gulch of the joined Kaukonahua Stream, and the kula to the north of the North Fork of Kaukonahua over to Poamoho Stream (the kula where Kūkaniloko and Whitmore Village are today). The kula in these Wahiawā lands were relatively flat. The land that was called Wai‘anae uka in the mid-1800s included Līhu‘e – west of the Pu‘uloa-Wai‘alua Trail – and Kalakoa (east of the trail). Līhu‘e included multiple kula and intervening gulch bottoms that ran up to the Wai‘anae ridgeline. Līhu‘e’s kula were flat in the Schofield housing area and became steeper behind. Kalakoa included the southern half of the kula where Wahiawā town is today, the gulch of the South Fork of Kaukonahua Stream (called Kalakoa Stream), and the flat kula south of that fork down to the border with Waikakalaua ‘ili of Waikele ahupua‘a. Topographically and culturally, the uppermost parts of the mid-1800s ahupua‘a of Honouliuli and Waikele are part of the Central Plateau – forming its southern fringe. This includes the ‘ili of Paupauwela of Honouliuli that lies against the Wai‘anaes in a cul-de-sac between a spur ridge from Kānehoa to Maunauna and the Wai‘eli Stream (the stream being roughly the mid-1800s border of Wai‘anae uka), with steeper kula like upper Līhu‘e. The Central Plateau also would seem to encompass the uppermost parts of the ‘ili of Līhu‘e in Honouliuli and Pouhala in Waikele, and all of the ‘ili of Waikakalaua in Waikele. This Līhu‘e and Pouhala contain flatter kula just below Wai‘eli Stream (Waikele Stream’s Wai‘anae-side upper tributary). Waikakalaua, the flat kula just above Waikakalaua Stream (Waikele Stream’s Koolau side upper tributary), is kula that is shared with Kalakoa ‘ili of Wai‘anae uka, a kula that runs north to the South Fork of Kaukonahua. Similarly, the upper parts of Pa‘ala‘a uka and its ‘ili of Halemano were the northern fringe of the Central Plateau. Halemano is a somewhat steeper kula, and the immediately lower parts of Pa‘ala‘a have flatter kula. 138

Confidential

Figure 6-6. The Central Plateau and its lands.

139

Major Trails

A key element of the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau in traditional times were major trails that passed through the area. These were the way people entered this region, but also were a major means of moving about within these lands. Late 1800s Kingdom maps and 1800s archival records and oral histories all show that 3 major trails of the kingdom came up to this area from Pu‘uloa (Pearl Harbor) and Wai‘anae and descended to Waialua – or alternatively up from Waialua and down the other directions.148 These were trails that all residents of the kingdom could travel. It is likely that all were in place at least in the 1300s, providing connections among the communities of the early 1300s era country that controlled ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua (similar to the ala loa of Hawai‘i Island).149

One trail is often labeled the Waialua Trail.150 It branched off from the main coastal trail around Pu‘uloa in the border area of Waiawa and Waipi‘o ahupua‘a (near today’s Waipahu High School and the former royal center at Halaulani in Waipi‘o). This trail Confidential 151 traveled inland up within Waipi‘o, across kula and down into/out of gulches. As it approached the Central Plateau area, the trail crossed Kīpapa Gulch and Punalu‘u kula(still within Waipi‘o, where Mililani is today), and then crossed Waikakalaua Gulch and rose up onto the Central Plateau, onto the kula in Waiakalaua ‘ili within Waikele ahupua‘a. Then it continued across this flat kula into what was called Wai‘anae uka in the mid-1800s and ran directly to the South Fork of Kaukonahua Stream, where this fork makes an abrupt bend to the north – not far from its join with the North Fork. In Wai‘anae uka, on this flat kula to the west of the trail was the land of Līhu‘e and to the east was Kalakoa (adjoining and just north of Waikakalaua).152 This trail continued along the west side of Kaukonahua, a little beyond the joining of its two branches. It then crossed the gulch to the east side of the stream (onto the northern kula of Wahiawā,153 directly west of Kūkaniloko) and headed towards the shore down the kula on this side of the stream within Kamananui ahupua‘a.

Another major trail led up through Kolekole Pass from the Wai‘anae side of the island. It is labeled the Wai‘anae or Kolekole Trail in the Kingdom’s old maps.154 It passed up through Kolekole, ran across a kula along the north side of Wai‘eli Stream (an upper tributary of Waikele Stream) and then angled across Līhu‘e to meet the Pu‘uloa- Waialua trail near where the two forks of Kaukonahua meet.

Yet another major trail ascended from the west shore of Pu‘uloa, up close to the border of Honouliuli and Hō‘ae‘ae ahupua‘a and then from where Hō‘ae‘ae terminated straight up to the Kolekole Trail about half-way between the pass and its join with the Pu‘uloa-Waialua Trail in Paupauwela just below Maunauna. [“From Kunia the trail went to the plain of Keahumoa, on to Maunauna, and along Paupauwela …” – ‘Ī‘i155.] The 1878 Kingdom Map shows this trail splitting into two branches as it approached Maunauna, but both branches were relatively close together as they crossed Wai’eli Stream, and reached the Kolekole Trail.156 Travelers could then turn right onto the Kolekole Trail and walk to its join with the Pu‘uloa-Waialua Trail and continue on to the north shore. Or they could turn left onto the Kolekole Trail and pass down into Lualualei 140

Confidential

Figure 6-7. The main trails passing through the Central Plateau. 141

Confidential

Figure 6-8. Section of the 1878 Kingdom Map, showing the splitting of the Pu‘uloa to Paupauwela Trail as it entered the Central Plateau.

and on into the west side of the island. [The lower and middle portions of this trail approximate today’s Kunia Road. But the upper part of today’s Kunia Road bends diagonally to run along the south edge of Schofield Barracks and meet Kamehameha Highway near Kaukonahua Gulch. This upper part is a new route, constructed after Schofield Barracks was established.]

Last, a steep, far less-used trail – the Elou or Eleu trail – went over Ka‘ala and down into Wai‘anae Valley. “There was a long cliff trail called Elou from Kalena and Haleauau on the east side of Kaala coming down to Waianae” (‘Ī‘i)157 The trail would have worked its way up through the forest above Kalena and Hale‘au‘au. It probably descended from Ka‘ala down the Kamaile ridge separating Mākaha and Wai‘anae – to the low point of this ridge in the upper valley of Wai‘anae, where it would have met the Kūmaipō Trail crossing this low point and where one could have walked down either into upper Wai‘anae or upper Mākaha. 142

The Farm and House Lands on the Slopes of the Wai‘anae Mountains – Behind Schofield Barracks

As will be seen, there is very little oral historical or archival information on the houses or fields of this part of the Central Plateau. No commoner Māhele awards were given here, and there is only one descriptive land record. There are a few bits and pieces of information out of mo‘olelo – very few and tiny bits. There has been archaeological work here, however. In the 1930s, Handy recorded some terraces, and McAllister documented several heiau – some mislocated and only recently relocated.158 From the mid-1990s up to the present, a series of archaeological surveys and monitoring projects have been done on Army land behind Schofield Barracks in Līhu‘e and Paupauwela.159 This work amazingly has found a sizable amount of the old archeological landscape in the stream gulches intact and fragments of this landscape on the intervening small, rising kula. When viewed in association with the oral histories and archival records and maps, a picture of the settled landscape in this area at the end of the 1700s can be given – as a starting point in considering the larger Central Plateau area. [This is the area where Confidential 160 GANDA has recently conducted a TCP study. They also provide an overview of this area, but it is somewhat different in details and presentation style.]

The recent archaeological surveys have found ruins of agricultural fields in the gulch bottoms of the streams descending from the Wai‘anae mountains (Fig. 6-9). The gulch bottoms are not wide, but small sets of irrigated kalo fields have been found in virtually every gulch (Hale‘au‘au and its tributaries, Mohiakea and its upper tributaries of Kalena and Kūmakali‘i, Waikōloa, and Wai‘eli and its tributaries which extend into Paupauwela ‘ili of Honouliuli, an enclave between the Kolekole Trail and the ridge spur off the main Wai‘anae ridge from Kānehoa to Maunauna). The only Māhele description of these fields is Artemas Bishop’s brief 1851 note on half of the ‘ili of Kalena: “The lower part is a ravine and contains taro patches for 4 or 5 families.”161

Besides irrigated fields, the archaeological surveys in this area have found remnants of dryland (rainfall) fields on the kula all the way up into the steeper intervening slopes in this area (nearer the ridgeline). It seems likely that the primary crops grown in these kula fields would have been sweet potato and dryland kalo. However, in the 1930s Handy suggested that most of the kula in the Central Plateau were sweet potato fields.162 Some fragments of oral histories support this idea. For example, there is the following reference to Kūali‘i (king of O‘ahu in the early 1700s), referring to the time when he and his armies were fighting in this area: “Where Ku [Kūali‘i] ate the potato covered with the fragrant kupukupu of Lihu‘e.”163

Undoubtedly, there were small religious places (agricultural shines) scattered across these fields. Commoner households would have had shrines out in their fields to give offerings to deities that helped the families successfully farm. When identified archaeologically, these are often small platforms with upright stones.164 But they could take other small architectural forms without upright stone images, and then they are very difficult to distinguish archaeologically as religious structures. None have been identified to date in this area, but they undoubtedly were present. 143

Confidential

Figure 6-9. Archaeological and Historical Places on the Central Plateau. The green dots are ruins of irrigated kalo fields, with the blue triangles nearby housing. The red star is Hale‘au‘au heiau. On the flatter area of the Central Plateau are the kula of Halahape and Kokoloea, and the apparent location of the Meek Ranch House. 144

Figure 6-10. Artemas Bishop’s 1851 map of ½ of Kalena ‘ili. Note the wording along the top edge of Kalena (Ili of Pulei) and “Kumakalii” and “Moohiakea” to the bottom. (Bishop 1851).

Confidential

The archaeological surveys have also found remnants of permanent house sites (kauhale, pā hale) scattered on higher points in the gulch bottoms and on the kula edges above. This pattern strikingly matches A. Bishop’s 1851 map of half of the ‘ili of Kalena (gulch bottom and kula) between Kalena and Kūmakaliāi streams.165 This map sketches in several houses on the kula at the edge of Kalena gulch (Fig. 6-10). In an 1869 Kamakau article on school locations (which seems to refer to the 1820s-1840s), he also notes houses (“villages”) at Kalena and Maunauna,166 and these may be remnants of traditional times. The 1876 Government Survey map shows a small cluster of houses in Paupauwela near Wai‘eli Stream, along the trail rising up from Pu‘uloa along the Honouliuli/Hō‘ae‘ae border.167 In 1901 in the area between Wai‘eli and Hale‘au‘au streams, Bryan saw “as many as perhaps a dozen stone enclosures, which probably were walls of old dwellings.” 168 Archaeological work has also found remnants of house sites out on the different kula behind Schofield Barracks – despite years of active firing ranges. These include architectural fragments of house structures and widely scattered finds of domestic artifacts (e.g., adzes, food pounders, ulumaika game stones). Given common patterns described in oral histories and in early foreign observation throughout the islands, these house sites (kauhale, pā hale) would be expected to have had trees – fruit trees (breadfruit, bananas, coconuts), shade trees and trees used for medicine and other purposes (e.g., bowls).

Importantly, it should be emphasized that these scattered households are likely to have been the farmers using the nearby fields. Again, Bishop’s 1851 description and map 145

of Kalena illustrates this for he shows houses and notes “The lower part is a ravine and contains taro patches for 4 or 5 families.”169

These house sites do not seem to reflect an unusually dense distribution of houses, rather a more typical scattered settlement. Also, they all seem to be commoner houses, as they consist of only a few structures with minimal labor expenditure, matching models of commoner housing patterns.170

In the islands at European Contact, every commoner household had small family shrines at their housesite, often open-air areas.171 Some held upright stones (usually natural) as images of deities and offerings in the form of branch coral, which can be recognized archaeologically.172 At others wooden images may have been used, and families may have given offerings of plants, food crops, and animals that do not survive well archaeologically. None have been identified yet for this area, but assuredly they were present at every household. Confidential Also, the adult men of every household at Contact used a men’s house (mua), with 8-10 commoner families often sharing such a larger structure.173 These houses also contained small shrines, which were utilized by the men of the nearby households. Men’s houses are usually 4 times or so the size of dwelling structures, so they can be identified archaeologically,174 but none have been identified yet in this area. But, again they would be expected to have been present.

Families would also have buried their dead on this landscape, either in or near houseyard areas in small cemeteries, or hidden away. Although few burials have been identified to date,175 they assuredly were also part of this cultural landscape.

There are also likely to have been gaming areas in association with the houses, in small numbers. One occasionally comes across archival records in the Islands that mention an ‘ili having a maika ground for the game of rolling or throwing ulumaika stone disks.176 Or they describe a hula being performed to a small group of local residents in an open area.177 Or they mention open areas used for games such as pahe‘e (wooden dart throwing).178 Not every ‘ili definitely had these, but they would be expected on the landscape. Ulumaika are common finds in housing areas in small numbers, often having been stored and left behind, sometimes having been lost. In this area behind Schofield, ulumaika gaming disks have been found scattered across the kula -- 69 such finds (and probably more will be found).179 Archaeologists have suggested a density of these game stones in one kula area near Hale‘au‘au Stream, and have suggested perhaps a maika field was in this area. This is certainly possible.180

146

Figure 6-11. Ulumaika stones found during the survey of lands behind Schofield Barracks. (Buffum & Peterson 2005a:App. A)

Confidential

Larger heiau have been found in this area, on the kula near the gulches – set among the houses and fields. Three were identified in 1930 by McAllister, but only one still survived at that time. The literature has suggested most were relatively small in size and probably reflect the heiau of commoners in local ‘ili.181 An unnamed heiau in the Kalena gulch area was gone in 1930. Site 213, Kūmakali‘i heiau, was said to have been “An important heiau it its day; and of large size.”182 Kalākaua saw this heiau in the 1880s, but when McAllister was in the area in 1930, it had been destroyed, so its size and description never was recorded. One heiau that does survive has proven to be larger, site 215 or Hale‘au‘au heiau (Fig. 6-12, Fig. 6-9 for location). It was formerly considered a moderate sized heiau,183 likely to be of local use. Recent work has interpreted it as a luakini, or national heiau.184 This interpretation seems based on size and massiveness – total area 2,250 sq.m. in 3 tiers. There are no old oral histories about this heiau, and there is no archaeological work yet that identifies its building phases (and the size of the structure at each phase) nor archaeological dating that shows when it was built, when it reached its largest size, or how long it was in use.

147

Confidential

Figure 6-12. Hale‘au‘au heiau found in 2005 survey work.

Branch trails leading off the major trails described above would have passed through this landscape, passing by or leading to houses, fields, religious places, etc. No such trails are described in the literature that we have seen.

This landscape of fields, houses, burials, associated game areas, and religious places generally would be expected to have been a fairly open landscape. It was not tree- covered, although trees again would have been present at house sites. Dryland kula fields may have rotated into a fallow condition, with shrubs and low trees, but these would have been cleared again for planting. In general, again, this was an area of open fields and houses. If wood for firewood, for houses, for weapons, etc were needed, the forest on the Wai‘anae ridges was not far away, and would certainly have been exploited. However, small groves of trees are mentioned in the open field-house lands area in the famed Kūali‘i chant.185

148

Where? Where is the battle field Where the warrior is to fight? On the field of Kalena, … At the hala trees of indolent Halahalanui, At the ohia grove of Pule-e.

As will be seen in the next paragraph, Kalena and Pule-e are ‘ili in the field areas within Līhu‘e. This suggests scattered small groves of trees were likely to have been maintained across these farmlands of upper Līhu‘e.

Finally, one should note that the farm and house lands of these eastern footslopes of the Wai‘anaes behind Schofield Barracks were undoubtedly entirely sub-divided into ‘ili lands in the 1700s. Typically, ‘ili contained house lands and farm lands.186 In this area, the records of the 1800s mention three ‘ili – Paupauwela an ‘ili of Honouliuli (again between the Kānehoa-Maunauna spur ridge and Wai‘eli stream), Kalena an ‘ili of Līhu‘e including the kula between the upper tributary streams of Kalena and Kūmakali‘i, and Confidential 187 Pulei (Pulee) an ‘ili between Kalena and Hale‘au‘au streams (Fig.6-9). Likely another ‘ili lay between Kalena and Paupauwela, possibly Malamanui (the name of a kula here).188 Perhaps other ‘ili were on the north side of Hale‘au‘au, and likely others across the flatter kula between Kalena and Pulei and Kaukonahua Stream. As of yet, we have seen no records identifying ‘ili names for these areas; although we found a 1899 reference to a kula of Mahie just over the main trail’s crossing of Kaukonahua within the Līhu‘e area, and a survey station here on the 1878 Kingdom Map is labeled Mahie; so Mahie might be one of these missing named ‘ili.189

The Flat Lands of the Central Plateau – The Chiefly Residential Center of Līhu‘e- Kalakoa-Wahiawā

The above is the portion of the Central Plateau’s landscape on the moderate sloping kula and narrow gulch bottoms that descend from the Wai‘anae range, an area with surviving archaeological ruins. It is the easiest part to begin with. Now a consideration is made of the cultural landscape that was present across the flatter kula and wider gulch bottoms in the Schofield, Wheeler, Wahiawa town, and the Whitmore- Kūkaniloko area. Other than archaeological work at Kūkaniloko and limited, early 1900s descriptions of some irrigated kalo in the gulches here, no traditional era archaeological remains have been identified in this area due to extensive early 20th Century alteration of the landscape for housing, airfields, and pineapple. Thus, most of our information to reconstruct the cultural landscape in this area comes from oral history and similar archaeological contexts elsewhere in the islands.

The gulch bottoms in this area had wider stream flats. All appear to have contained irrigated kalo fields. There are brief, early 1900s archaeological records showing larger sets of irrigated kalo fields in Kaukonahua gulch seaward of the join of the North and South Forks.190 Archival records show these continuing down the gulch with 19 or so major auwai.191 In the 1930s, Handy talked with local Hawaiians in the Wahiawā area and learned that similar irrigated kalo fields had been in the bottoms of the 149

North (Wahiawā) and South (Kalakoa) Fork gulches, before the dam created today’s Lake Wilson. Also, in some areas, water had been diverted out of the gulches into some irrigated fields on the kula, particularly farther towards the Ko‘olaus, but also evidently just to the west of Kūkaniloko in a place called Kukui o Lono.192 However, Handy suggested that much of the kula in the Wahiawā area had been in sweet potatoes.193 This is consistent with one oral historical account that we found. After the 1785 revolt of O‘ahu chiefs was crushed by Maui, one O‘ahu warrior, Maka‘i-oulu (famous in a holding action with 7 companions against Kahekili’s 1783 invasion force194) “fled exhausted and battle-weary to the uplands of Wahiawa and hid among the potato vines where he was betrayed by a certain farmer to those who sought to kill him, and so died”195 – note the sweet potato fields. Importantly, archaeological surveys in the steeper Ko‘olaus to the east of today’s Naval Communications Station behind Whitmore Village and to the east of Wahiawā town and Schofield’s East Range have found virtually no archaeological remains – nor have surveys in such areas in Anahulu farther north.196 Thus, it appears that these fields did not extend into the eastern steeper Koolau lands, at least to any degree. Confidential As will be seen in the next section of this chapter, Kūkaniloko was an area around the birthing stones, with a nearby heiau to the south, and perhaps an area where drums were beaten to the west (if the drums were not in the heiau). Typically, at royal centers in the Islands, the permanent housing of the ruler and high chiefs, of their retainers, and of local commoners were located in houseyards packed together in a dense pattern, many close around the major religious structures of the center.197 The ruler’s houseyard was often quite close to the major religious structures – luakini (national) heiau and often an associated pu‘uhonua. These houseyards contained thatched houses and various types of fruit, medicinal and other trees. Higher chiefs’ houseyards contained dwellings, a small heiau, a men’s house, and storehouses. Also, open grounds for practice in warfare, hula performances, and games such as maika and pahe‘e were located in areas amidst the houseyards. Major trails typically passed through part of these centers, with many branch trails leading among the places of the centers. Given this information, one would expect this Līhu‘e-Wahiawā chiefly center to have had a dense housing area at least from around Kūkaniloko over to where the Waialua Trail (coming up from Waialua) crossed Kaukonahua Stream, and then south along that trail through the flat kula of Līhu‘e (roughly in parts of the Schofield housing area).

Although the Central Plateau’s chiefly center has been extensively destroyed by early 20th Century development, there are clues to where the center’s houses were located and to other places that were present. Kamakau mentions “large villages with teachers and schoolhouses” (apparently in the 1820s-1840s) in Wahiawā, Kalakoa, and Līhu‘e,198 suggesting these were remnants of the earlier center’s housing in these three lands. The myth of Kaupe the dog places “His house site and his heiau [like a chief’s small heiau]… close to John Meek’s place at Lihu’e.”199 John Meek’s ranchhouse (seemingly his son-in- law’s H. Crabbe’s house on the 1876 and 1881 Kingdom maps) and later the Dowsett ranchhouse were alongside the Waialua Trail, between the bend north of the South Fork and its joining with the North Fork.200 It is likely that these ranchhouses were set in an area of houses, such as that portrayed in the Kaupe story. ‘Ī‘ī mentions a maika ground (Kapalauauai) that seems to have been along the Waialua Trail in the Wai‘anae uka area, 150

roughly where the South Fork of Kaukonahua Stream abruptly turns north.201 The Boundary Commission testimony in 1876 for the border between Wai’anae uka and The School Land of Wahiawa202 specifically locates this “ancient kahua maika at a place called Kokoloea”, and a number of Kingdom maps locate Kokoloea on the kula just south of this bend, on the east side of the Waialua Trail in Kalakoa ‘ili.203 Houses would be expected at least around this area. All this evidence suggests that a dense area of houseyards, associated small heiau, gaming areas, and Kūkaniloko and its birthing and religious features once covered the flat kula areas in a roughly circular area (Fig. 6-13) -- from along the Waialua Trail and its join with the Kolekole Trail in the north, then south along the Waialua Trail through the eastern part of today’s Schofield Barracks’ housing (within Līhu‘e), then around on the kula to the south of the South Fork (within Kalakoa, on the east side of the Waialua Trail), then north through the Wahiawā town area west of the gulch where today’s Wahiawā Botanical Garden is located, then around Kūkaniloko in the northern kula of Wahiawā, and west to where the Waialua Trail crossed Kaukonahua (before it ran into Kamananui ahupua‘a and down to the shore).204 Substantiating Confidentialthis view, Kamakau205 said from “Halahape to O‘ahu-nui … was the kulanakauhale of Ma‘ili-kukahi” [the village of Mā‘ilikukahi, ruler of the Kingdom of O‘ahu in the early 1500s]. This is right within the Wahiawā-Līhu‘e-Kalakoa area, for the southern point (O‘ahu-nui) was a stone marking the southeast border of Kalakoa, and the kula of Halahape was where the trail crossed Kaukonahua Stream in the westnorthwesternmost part of Wahiawā. (Just downslope was Kemo‘o kula and ‘ili, which were not considered part of Wahiawā.) Wahiawā and Kalakoa stretched from Halahape to O‘ahunui, and Līhu‘e lay just to the west.

Strikingly, this roughly circular area that would have held the chiefly center covers the flat kula at the core of the Central Plateau and of its lands of Līhu‘e, Kalakoa, and Wahiawā. How far out on the flat kula of Līhu‘e, Kalakoa, and Wahiawā this dense housing area stretched is impossible to tell from the oral historical and archival records, and with the archaeological landscape largely destroyed.206 But clearly, when the oral histories refer to the chiefs of Līhu‘e and Wahiawā, this would appear to be where they resided, close to and around Kūkaniloko. It might be best to refer to the chiefly center as Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā, to more accurately indicate the lands within which it sat.

Note the center does seem to have been focused along the main Pu’uloa-Waialua trail (which passes south to north through its west edge) and the join with the Kolekole Trail (also in the west edge). Additionally, ‘Ī‘ī mentions branch trails running off the main trail into the eastern part of the center – one “branch runs off from the main trail to Kalakoa and Oahu-nui” and another “the trail for Kukaniloko.”207

After the Central Plateau stopped being used as a ruling center and chiefly center, apparently after the 1500s, one would expect far fewer houses to have been in use – as the ruler, most high chiefs, and retainers would no longer be in residence. So Kamakau’s separate “large” villages of Wahiawā, Līhu‘e and Kalakoa in the 1820s-1840s were probably clusters of houses (not so large clusters) that were a remnant of the former pattern.

151

Confidential

Figure 6-13. Roughly Estimated Boundary of Chiefly Center of Līhu‘e-Wahiawā-Kalakoa.

Last, assuming that the dense housing area of this chiefly center did not cover all the flat lands of Līhu‘e, Kalakoa, and Wahiawā, outlying flat kula are expected to have a more scattered housing pattern with dryland fields on the kula (likely dominated by sweet potatoes) and irrigated kalo in nearby gulch bottoms.

Like in the steeper Līhu‘e slopes at the base of the Wai‘anae mountains, it would be expected that these core flat land areas of the Central Plateau also would have been divided up into small lands (the ‘ili of the Contact era). The records are extremely limited in this respect. Kalakoa is definitely identified in late 1800s kingdom maps as an ‘ili, the land east of the Waialua Trail in what was then called Wai‘anae uka.208 Kalakoa included the southern part of the kula of Wahiawā town and the kula between the South Fork of Kaukonahua and the north border of Waikakalaua ‘ili in Waikele. How far east it went is not clear from the maps, but it went at least to the O‘ahu nui stone at the northeast corner of Waikakalaua ‘ili based on the 1846 Grant 6 map for eastern Waikakalaua.209 The records and maps clearly label the area west of the Waialua Trail as Līhu‘e.210 The records indicate that this is the general name for the entire western part of what was 152

called Wai‘anae uka in the mid-1800s. As seen, the steeper parts of Līhu‘e had internal ‘ili -- Pulei and Kalena ‘ili. This suggests that Līhu‘e probably had other small ‘ili within the flat portions of Līhu‘e – in the Schofield Barracks and Wheeler areas. Again, an 1899 source refers to the plain (kula) of Mahie just within Līhu‘e after the main trail crossed Kaukonahua Stream, and the 1878 Government map has a triangulation station here labeled Mahie.211 Mahie, thus, might have been an ‘ili in this area. Wahiawā is the general name for the kula lands of most of today’s Wahiawā town and the Kūkaniloko- Whitmore kula. It was part of Kamananui ahupua‘a in the early 1800s until the Māhele, when it was separated as Government land. Like Līhu‘e in the oral literature it has an old geographical reference, and like Līhu‘e, it seems to have perhaps been a larger land unit (like an ahupua‘a), for it appears as if there were smaller lands (‘ili) within Wahiawā. What the names of these ‘ili were and where they were located is not clear. Kemo‘o ‘ili was just downslope of Wahiawā in Kamananui ahupua‘a. Halahape was the first kula within Wahiawa,212 and it may have been an ‘ili. The place name Kapu‘ahu‘awa appears twice in the oral histories related to the female ruler Kalanimanuia (ca. 1600-1620) and once with a La‘amaikahiki story (AD 1360-1380). “Kalani-manuia was born at Confidential213 214 Kukaniloko, at Kapu‘ahu‘awa” and “Manuia, the chiefess of Kapu‘ahu‘awa.” La‘amaikahiki “had been born at Kapa‘ahu in Kukaniloko at Wahiawa,”215 and one wonders whether this is not a typo or an altered form of Kapu‘ahu. This might suggest that the area immediately around Kūkaniloko was called Kapu‘ahu‘awa, and perhaps Kūkaniloko itself was a land name.216 One honorific chant for Kalanikauikeaouli in 1860 notes that Kākuhihewa was “born in Halekumulani inside Kūkaniloko” (“i hanau i Halekumulani, iloko o Kukaniloko”),217 which less implies an ‘ili and more a place within Kūkaniloko, so it will be discussed in the next section of this chapter. Also, the place name Kua‘ikua is associated with Wahiawā as a kawa or leaping place into a stream, as a stream, and as a land area (apparently also on the kula) at the above locales. Haho (Generation 40 on the Ulu line) was “born at Kua‘ikua,”218 “born by the kawa, the leaping place of Kua‘ikua at the stream of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa.”219 Similarly, his great- grandson Lanakawai was “born at the kawa [leaping place] of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa.”220 ‘Ī‘ī221 notes “Just below the main trail was the descent to the stream of Kuaikua, where there was a diving place and a place for travelers to rest”. The main trail refers to the trail from Waialua, and ‘Ī‘ī’s descriptions places this spot just north of the join with the Kolekole Trail. In describing Kūkaniloko, Kamakau222 notes that commoners gathered to the west on “the east of the stream on that side of Kua‘ikua” near where the drums were beaten. Handy223 was told by Oscar Cox (a local Hawaiian resident) in the 1930s that the places Kanaku and Kua‘ikua had irrigated kalo terraces, and Handy said these were “somewhere in the vicinity of Kukaniloko.” Perhaps Kua‘ikua Stream is the North Fork of Kaukonahua and the place of Kua‘ikua was either immediately to the west of Kūkaniloko or just over in the Wahiawā town area. Handy was also told that another place with irrigated kalo fields, Kukui-o-Lono, was above and west of the North Fork of Kaukonahua, which would apparently locate it on the kula possibly west of Kūkaniloko.224

The above describes the dense chiefly housing center and the more scattered commoner housing and associated fields in the area of Līhu‘e, Kalakoa, and Wahiawā – the central areas of the Central Plateau. We did not focus our research on the southern 153

fringe areas of the Central Plateau with flatter kula (upper Līhu‘e in Honouliuli and Pouhala uka and Waikakalaua in Waikele) or on the northern fringe (upper Pa‘ala‘a). This awaits future research, but we can note some information that we did recover. It seems very likely that the chiefly center (with its dense housing pattern) did not extend into these areas. In the southern fringe and northern fringe, we anticipate scattered houses – most being commoner houses. It is possible a few chiefs did live out in these areas, but we expect that this was in a more isolated pattern, perhaps with small clusters of houses around them.

On the steeper slopes at the base of the Wai’anae mountains in Līhu‘e ‘ili of Honouliuli, isolated or a few clusters of houses have been recorded. In 1869 Kamakau’s list of villages with schools (apparently in the 1820s-1840s) includes Līhu‘e, Kalena, Maunauna, Kake and Pu‘uku‘u225 – the latter two or three seem to have been along the Paupauwela to Pu‘uloa trail, where it was descending from the Central Plateau. Again, these were likely scattered clusters of houses. Maunauna, Kake and Pu‘uku‘u are in the major ‘ili of LīConfidentialhu‘e of Honouliuli. Maunauna may well have been near the base of the ridge tip of that name; the other two are farther down towards Pu‘uloa and outside of what we are calling the Central Plateau. This chapter’s author has seen one house on higher ground on the side of the Huliwai and ‘Ēkahanui.gulch areas.226 Irrigated kalo fields were adjacent to this house. The steeper kula is likely to have had sweet potato fields. This area seems to be similar to the Kalena, Pulei, upper Hale‘au‘au settlement of dispersed commoner houses and associated fields. Out away from the steeper slopes, the deeper, wider bottomed gulches of upper Līhu‘e, Pouhala uka and Waikakalaua and their associated flatter kula have been modified and filled by plantation activities, and no extensive archaeological analysis has occurred. The 1846 testimony for the Grant 6 of eastern Waikakalaua notes that it contained an uplands piece – “Waikakalaua – the uplands is Kalak_ohia” – and the overlord chief was Kaikialamea and Makue was the konohiki, so there was resident low chief.227 We, thus, believe it is likely that the flatter kula had sweet potato fields and scattered houses (with low chiefs present), and the gulch bottoms had irrigated kalo fields. In the Boundary Commission testimonies for the border between Honouliuli, upper Hō‘ae‘ae, and Pouhala uka, it was mentioned that “there is an ancient holua or sledding place” near where these three lands joined.228 This would have been near the head of Poliwai Gulch, not too far east from the major trail leading up along the border between Honouliuli and Hō‘ae‘ae and on to the Kolekole Trail. It may reflect the presence of one or several chiefly residences nearby, perhaps even a high chief.

On the northern fringe of the Central Plateau is upper Pa‘ala‘a (Pa‘ala‘a uka) -- which includes the kula and ‘ili of Halemano located in the steeper slopes of the Ko‘olaus (as shown in late 1800s maps and described in the Kalo or Aikanaka stories) and includes flatter, broader kula more to the west undoubtedly associated with named ‘ili (but which we did not research). There is strikingly little factual information for the settlement of the far mauka and steeper area known as Halemano, for as will be seen the Kalo or Aikanaka stories are embedded in fiction and these are the major source of information for this Halemano. However, in 1869 Kamakau gave a list of villages with schools for the east side of the Central Plateau, which includes Kalakoa, Wahiawā, Halemano and 154

Kānewai;229 placing houses in Kānewai and Halemano within Pa‘ala‘a uka in the 1820s- 1840s. But this Halemano school was located on the flatter, more central kula of Pa‘ala‘a uka just north of Kūkaniloko across Poamoho Stream.230 In 1865, Kamakau also wrote about sizable numbers of people in traditional times from “Kanewai to Halemano in Wai’alua”,231 again seeming to refer to areas of the flat centeral kula of Pa‘ala‘a uka. Perhaps this part of Pa’ala’a was also called Halemano. There is mention in a few places in Kamakau and Fornander that the chiefs lived in Halemano, Līhu‘e, and Wahiawā, or some combination.232 While it is clear that the Līhu‘e and Wahiawā areas did contain the residences of a dense chiefly center, this is not clear for Halemano, even if in central, flat Pa‘ala‘a uka. One wonders if these occasional 1860s-1880 references that included Halemano might be a general reference to the Whitmore Village part of Wahiawā, owned since 1851 by J. Robinson & Co. (later run by the Holt family) with their ranch that extended seaward through Pa‘ala‘a often referred to as Helemanu. Our impression is that Halemano was not part of the dense chiefly center of Līhu‘e, Kalakoa, and Wahiawā. Rather we expect housing in Halemano and Kānewai in Pa‘ala‘a uka to have been scattered with irrigatedConfidential kalo in gulches and dryland fields on the kula among the houses – like on the southern fringe of the Central Plateau. Occasional houses of chiefs might have been present, but again it seems unlikely that this was part of the dense housing of the chiefly center. However, research needs to be done with the Māhele land records in the central flat kula of Pa‘ala‘a uka and with census and tax records of the late 1800s to establish named ‘ili in these areas and get a better idea of the nature of settlement.

The Forests

While the landscape described so far was one of fields and houses, forests flanked these lands to the west on the Wai‘anae mountains and to the east on the ridges descending from the Ko‘olau mountains. Out in the open field and house lands, the gulches that had irrigated kalo on their stream flats may have had some forest on the sides, although many trees here may have been human planted. However, we could find no information on vegetation along gulch sides.

Dense forest appears to have been to the east of the Naval Communications facility, of Wahiawā’s internal gulch with the Wahiawa Botanical Garden, and of the flat kula of Kalakoa bounded by the O’ahu nui stone. Here, the Ko‘olau slopes and ridges markedly begin to steepen with narrow, steep gulches. The lower portion of this forest was a mesic forest and had the largest sandalwood trees on O‘ahu.233 Farther up, this area’s forest became a colder, wetter rainforest -- “the thickets of Wahiawa, in this ocean of Ka‘ie‘iea”, ocean of ‘ie‘ie vines.234 Archaeological surveys have found no housing or agricultural sites in these areas, and the oral histories imply no settlement in these areas.235 In 2002, as a result of their review of the archaeological and oral historical material, Robins & Spear236 suggested that people travelled into this area for forest resources and that they had some temporary habitations (camps) on ridge tops that they used while gathering these resources. This seems a reasonable conclusion.

155

Confidential

Figure 6-14. The Central Plateau Landscape – Chiefly Center, Scattered Houses & Fields, and Forests.

Also a dense forest cloaked the steep slopes of the Wai‘anaes and the spur ridges of Pu‘u Pane-Mā‘ili and Kānehoa-Maunauna, for in the 1800s sandalwood collection in this area is also mentioned, as well as successful searches by bird scientist-collectors.237 This was a dryland forest, and trees and plants are noted in the mo‘olelo (to be seen shortly in this chapter) and in 1800s foreign accounts – such as ‘ōhi’a, kauila, wiliwili, ili ahi, lama, hau, uhiuhi, hala, kupkupu ferns, and kukui.238 Some have suggested that forest was down much lower on the slopes below the Wai‘anae ridgeline.239 However far down, clearly forest did cloak the steep slopes of the Wai‘anaes and the spur ridges of Pu‘u Pane-Ma‘ili and Kānehoa-Maunauna. The forest on the Wai‘anae ridgeline may have had an uneven lower border, since archaeological work has found fields well up these slopes in different areas.

156

Stones on the Landscape

Most Hawaiian landscapes had natural stones that were present that had stories linked to them – stories of gods, chiefs, and events. A number of these are described for parts of ‘Ewa in “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” in 1899, serving as examples:

Na Pohaku Luahine – These stones in the Waiawa area were said to be four named chiefesses and their four servants, who were “guardians of the trail”. “These were old women who were chiefesses, but changed into stone like Kukaniloko. These stones were like those … Those were the stones that stood beside the road.” 240

Pohaku-o-Kane and Pipila’a – These stones seem to have been on the shore, perhaps on Waipi’o peninsula. The Pohaku-o-Kane disappeared in 1891 because it foresaw the overthrown of the kingdom – “it vanished, that we might know”. 241 Confidential Pohaku-huna-palaoa – This was on Punahawele kula in Waipi‘o, along the old trail to Waialua. A deep hole in this stone was used by a visiting chiefess from Hawai‘i to hide her lei niho palaoa. A god, Ke-kua-olelo, saw her hide it.242

1. The O‘ahunui Stone

For the Central Plateau, besides the Kūkaniloko birthing stones, three sets of stones were well known. The O‘ahunui stone is one such stone. The stone is identified in a 1846 grant map off the northeast corner of Waikakalaua ‘ili.243 By 1870, ‘Ī‘ī mentions that a branch trail ran off the main Waialua Trail “to Kalakoa, Oahu nui, and other places much visited, such as Kukaniloko”.244 There are two conflicting stories as to what the O‘ahunui stone represented. One states, “Oahunui, a stone whose outline is said to resemble that of Oahu … The stone was formerly visited by the Hawaiians, for no one could say that he had been entirely around the island of Oahu, unless he had been round this stone. In the nineties it seems to have been a favorite expedition for Honoluluans to ride out to Oahunui and walk around this stone.”245 This story clearly extended back into the 1890s. The other seems to first appear in Nakuina’s 1897 tale of cannibals – a tale that mixes old cannibal stories with historical places in the Central Plateau. This story has O‘ahunui (the king of O‘ahu, who ate the children of his brother-in-law and high priest), his sister, and their retainers who had been involved in the cooking of the children all turned into stones.246 One wonders whether Nakuina might have taken the famous O‘ahunui stone and blended it into her story. Regardless, the stone was well known.

Jo-Lin Kalimapau mentioned another stone in the streambed near to the O‘ahu nui stone, as did another individual. The other community member said this is where “the union of La‘ila‘i and Ki‘i, which is portrayed in the Kumulipo occurred. … [explaining] that the o‘a, or the interweaving of the blood lines of La‘ila‘i, the woman who stood down from the heavens, and of Ki‘i, the image, issued forth as those people known to be the hu, thus O‘ahu.”247

157

2. The Keanini Stone & Its Possible Companion

The second set of stones consists of two stones – Keanini and a smaller, possible companion. The Keanini stone was in Kaukonahua gulch apparently along the old Waialua Trail.

I remember my grand-uncle [George Galbraith] telling me how he had come across the rock in the river bed in a spot below the present government bridge on the lower side of the Wahiawa dam. [1927, Wm. Galbraith] 248

This stone was “tongue-shaped, measuring a little over five feet in height by two and one third feet in width”.249 Another stone was found in 1923, apparently nearby, smaller and in the shape of a boot.250 (The Keanini stone was moved out of the gulch by George Galbraith in theConfidential 1880s and placed amidst the birthing stones at Kūkaniloko. In 1923 the boot-shaped stone was also moved to Kūkaniloko. They both became popularized as healing stones by non-Hawaiians in the 1920s, to be discussed in Chapter 6.)

Several stories exist about these stones, particularly the Keanini stone. In 1922 William Gooddale, Manager of the Waialua Agricultural Company, who was protecting the birthing stones at the time and was encouraging the Daughters of Hawai‘i to take over their care, wrote a summary of one story. This story is as follows, “as it was given to me [Gooddale] by one of the old natives at Waialua.”

A young man who landed in the night on the Waialua coast from Kauai walked toward Ewa to meet a girl (some say his sister who came from Ewa). The sun rose before they met and they were both turned to stone. Keanini, the young man, was found near the road where it crosses the Kaukonahua gulch below the dam. The girl was found somewhere between Kipapa and Waipio gulches. About 35 or 40 years ago a gang of men working on the road near the Kaukonahua gulch were about to break up Keanini and use him for road material, but George Galbraith, who then lived at Wahiawa, sent a team of oxen and a drag and rescued him. He set him up at Kukaniloko. The stone into which the girl was turned has been lost.251

This would place the moving of Keanini at about 1882-1887. This matches William Galbraith’s 1927 statement of when his great-uncle (George Galbraith) moved the stone.252

158

At the bottom of Gooddale’s 1922 letter is a handwritten note about the second, boot-shaped stone – the note postdating Gooddale’s and the handwriting not the same, likely written by one of the Daughters of Hawai‘i about 1925. This note says

In or about 1923 a small stone was moved up to K. [Kukaniloko] believing to be the female stone. (It was in place when the Daughters dedicated the K. site in 1925) It is in the shape of a boot and another version calls it the boot of the guard. No explanation beyond that has been found.253

On February 2, 1925, the Kukaniloko Committee of the Daughters went to Kukaniloko and was met by Oscar Cox, Annie Keahipaka, Susan Keahinui and two old men, John Holani Hao and Daniel Hookala – all of whom were from the area. There “an aged native familiar with the locality and its traditions [possibly Hao or Hookala] says it [the tall KeaniniConfidential stone, by then at Kūkaniloko] was brought from elsewhere a number of years ago by the late George Galbraith and set up there, and is known as the Keaniniulaokalani stone, who was supposed to be in life the husband of Hainakolo.”254 Lahilahi Webb recorded Hao’s and Hookala’s knowedge of this story in greater depth, plus information on moving the stone obtained from Harry Von Holt:

That Keaniniulaikalani came from Kuaihelani, one of the Islands of the South Seas, came in search of his wife Hainakolo, she had left him in Kuaihelani and came here with her son Leimakani, when Keanini arrived here in Oahu on his way to Hawaii he was turned to stone where many, many years later, when the government road was to be widened at this stone (Keanini) was in the center of the road. George Galbraith and Nakanaele [last letter unclear] were the road overseers, they had the road workers take up the stone and put it on the side of the road. One night Mr. Galbraith (haole) had a dream a man came to him and asked him to have his men take the stone that they had put aside and turn it up, because they have put his head down and feet up, and he was that stone. One day Mr. Harry Von Holt went to the country to see Mr. Galbraith, Galbraith told him of his dream about this stone, so Mr. Von Holt said why not we take the stone to Kukaniloko? Then they got a cart and a pair of oxen and they took the stone to Kukaniloko. This part was told to Mrs. Swanzy by Mr. Von Holt, before he went to England.255

Keanini (Keaunini, or Keanini-ula-o-ka-lani) and his wife Hainakolo are key characters in a story set in Waipi‘o valley on Hawai‘i and in Kuaihelani in Kahiki. There are several versions of this story dating back to the 1860s in the Fornander Collection and 1867 in a Kamakau newspaper publication.256 Indeed, Beckwith notes that “The very 159

popular Hainakolo romance is probably based on an old traditional source.”257 But these versions are not set on O‘ahu, nor are Keanini and his wife turned to stone. However, perhaps the Wahiawā Keanini stone stories are a local or O‘ahu version of the Keanini stories as the 1994 National Register form suggests.258

In 1940 in her book Hawaiian Mythology, Beckwith presents the Keanini stone story somewhat differently with the source of her story not noted.

The name of Keanini (Keaunini) has a number of local associates not necessarily belonging to the character in this story [the Keanini – Hainakolo stories]. A kupua stone called Keanini-pohaku which stood at the Kaukonahua Gulch on Oahu is one of two stones said to represent “Keanini and his sister” from Kauai.259

The 1994Confidential National Register form also gives a different version, again with the source not noted. “Keanini was from the far-away land of Kuaihelani and was in search of his wife Hainakolo when he came to Oahu and was turned into stone.”260

In 1986 Gutmanis presents yet another variation on the above stories:

… Older sources give the name as Kaniniulaokalani. No one seems to know the name of the shoe-shaped rock. … One story says that the stones are two sisters who were turned into rocks many generations ago. According to that account the sisters lived on Kauai. For some reason they decided to visit Kukaniloko, Oahu’s famous birthplace of chiefs, and flew there using supernatural powers. However, their powers were effective only during hours of darkness. Only a short distance from Kukaniloko they were struck by the first rays of the sun. Turned into stones, they fell along the bank of the stream in Kaukonahua gulch. The two stones stayed along the stream bank until some time in the early 1900s when the road through Kaukonahua was being widened. During construction a large stone was dislodged and thrown to the side of the road. That night the haole supervisor, George Galbraith, had a dream about the stone. According to his own account, he heard a voice that kept repeating, “You have my feet up and my head down, please turn me around.” When he awakened he recognized the stone in his dram as the one he had moved to the side of the road. Haunted by the dream, Galbraith had his workmen turn the stone over. Two old Hawaiian men who helped turn over the stone told the supervisor that the name of the stone was 160

Kaniniulaokalani and that it held a legendary spirit that should be cared for. Out of respect for the old men’s belief, Galbraith had a bullock cart move the stone to the clearing at Kukaniloko Heiau.261

In 2005, Del Piano in her history of the Daughters restates Gutmanis’ version (albeit shorter). She mentions “two sisters from Kauai who decided to visit Kūkaniloko. Imbued with supernatural powers, they flew to O‘ahu one night, only to be turned into two stones with the light of day.”262

Our interviews in 2010 with members of the community revealed a somewhat different account of this story. Alice Greenwood told the story about two wizards who lived on Kaua‘i, where they had the birth stones of Kaua‘i (Holoholokū). They somehow knew that Kūkaniloko was related, so one evening they flew over out of curiosity to see Kūkaniloko. They misjudged when the sun was to come up, and they were turned into the big stone andConfidential fell into the lake (Kaukonahua).263 In our interview with Elithe Kahn, she named the Keanini stone as “Keanianileihuaokalani” and said it refered to “the shining of this leihua o ka lani of royalty so this pohaku is the shining of royalty in the Leihua area”. 264

Regardless of the story version, clearly the Keanini stone was a stone on the landscape with associated stories.

3. The Kolekole Stone

A large stone stood along the trail at the top of Kolekole Pass. McAllister described it in 1930: “From 5 to 8 feet high and about 8 feet broad with a central depression 1.5 feet deep and 2 feet in diameter at the top. … It is striking because of the many ridges which rib its sides.”265 These ridges are natural fluting from erosion. McAllister mentioned a then new or recent story “started as a jest by a part-Hawaiian woman” stating that people were beheaded here, thus making this a “sacrificial stone.”266 However, he wrote:

According to the old Hawaiians, this stone is said to represent the guardian of the pass, a woman by the name of Kolekole, from which the gap takes it name. [1930 McAllister]267

This old story is actually consistent with places like the Pali where upright stones marked deities associated with the trail going down the pali.

4. Other Stones & Natural Places

Undoubtedly, other stones on the Central Plateau had such stories and associations. These places are virtually impossible to identify without solid old historical or oral historical information, or the extremely rare archaeological cases such as where 161

small man-made pavings edge natural stones or boulders and clearly identify them as culturally special. The Kahumana cultural monitoring group has suggested that some natural boulders (some perhaps with incised markings) in the Schofield Training area were such stones, while archaeologists working on the same project have suggested that they were simply natural stones.268 It is quite possible that these were such stones, but it is again extremely difficult to substantiate.

Besides stones, other natural places (ponds, mountains, etc.) on the Central Plateau would have had such stories.

Mountains on the Cultural Landscape

To this point, it is clear that the lands of the Central Plateau consisted of farmlands and houses – dominated by the dense housing cluster of the chiefly center on the flat lands around Kūkaniloko -- and it was bordered by forest to the east (the Ko‘olaus) and Confidentialwest (the Wai‘anae’s). These forests rose up to the mountain peaks that dominated the skyline. These mountains, themselves, must be considered a vital part of the cultural landscape. Several mountain peaks of the Wai‘anae mountains dominate the mo‘olelo of this landscape.

Notably, Ka‘ala – the tallest mountain on O‘ahu with a striking massive, flat- topped profile – is the focus visually in the landscape and in almost all the mo‘olelo.

Ui‘a‘a Ka‘ala kela i ka lani Ka‘ala stands in bold relief against the sky, O ke po‘okeoa ia na kuahiwi. The greatest of mountains. [1868, Kamakau]269

O Ka-ala, kuahiwi mauna kehau, Ka-ala, dewy and forest clad, Ke opu mai la, la, i Ka-mahoa; Bellies the plain of Ma-‘oha, Poluea(a) iho la ilalo o Hale-auau; As it slopes to the land below. [Chanted by Hi’iaka to Ka’ala from Waimea]270

Winds descended from Ka‘ala. Gods lived atop the mountain. A mo‘o or goddess, Kamaoha, was associated with a pond (called Luakini) in the swamp at the top of Ka‘ala.271 One rarely sees her mentioned in stories, but she does appear as kaona (a symbol of Ka‘ala) in chants of this area. For example, the above noted “plain of Ma- ‘oha”, but also below (which also includes the pond Luakini):

A luna au o Pōhākea I am atop Pōhākea Ea ke po‘o o Kamaoha i luna Kamaoha’s crest rises upward He lalo ‘o Luakini Luakini remains below Ke nānā iho i ka hau o Līhu‘e On gazing down at the dew of Līhu‘e Ua popo‘okea wale iho nō ke kukui The kukui trees are silver-headed Ke kokolo a‘ela ma ka poli o Kānehoa Creeping up into the bosom of Kānehoa

162

Ho‘ohoa i nā keiki make anu Striking the chill-loving youths o Kawai‘eli of Kawai‘eli. [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 157.272 Kawai‘eli is the stream Wai‘eli on the border of Wai‘anae uka and ‘Ewa.]

The goddess Kaiona also is said to have resided here, sending out her iwa bird to help those lost in the forests.273 The mountain, itself, was addressed and honored with an oli by the visiting Hi‘iaka, herself a goddess of note.

Besides Ka‘ala, Maunauna (the peak at the end of the descending spur ridge from Kānehoa) is noted in mo‘olelo. Again, this will be seen in following parts of this chapter. But as a sample, a famed line appears in the departing chant of Lō Lale to his wife Kelea: “He lae ‘ino o Maunauna” (translated from Kamakau as “The brow of Maunauna is Confidential 274 stormy” and in Fornander as “On the dark mountain spur of Maunauna”). Like Ka‘ala, Maunauna had a deity associated with it, the mo‘o Maunauna, a mo‘o of reportedly evil character.275

The high peak of Kānehoa on the main ridgeline also appears in mo‘olelo, although with no references to deities that we could find.

Ua popo‘okea wale iho nō ke kukui The kukui trees are silver-headed Ke kokolo a‘ela ma ka poli o Kānehoa Creeping up into the bosom of Kānehoa [J. Poepoe, Hi‘iaka and Pele story, Chant 157.276.]

Last, numerous members of the community today described the wahine hāpai, the silhouette of a pregnant woman visible on the Wai‘anae mountains – visible strikingly from the Kūkaniloko area, but also apparent from Mililani and undoubtedly other nearby spots. As Kamoa Quitevas described it: “Ka‘ala is the hapai belly, Kalena is her bosom, Makali‘i [Kūmakali‘i] is her lips and chin, and Kamohoali‘i is the chief’s elbow (the child coming out of the woman).”277 We found no identification of the wahine hāpai in the older literature that we reviewed. The earliest description found was a two page 1937 article by Charles Kenn on Kūkaniloko with a picture, who mentioned in passing “Merely coincidental may be, but look at the reclining Waianae Mountain Range in the picture. You see a beautiful pregnant woman there. On the left is her head with misty hair, her breasts, and the unborn high chief or chiefess.”278 Again, very many people in today’s community mentioned this natural feature, and this community knowledge may go back well before Kenn.

163

Confidential

Figure 6-15. The wahine hāpai from Kūkaniloko.

The Winds of this Landscape

The winds of Wahiawā and Līhu‘e and their surrounding lands also are noted in the mo‘olelo. They are noted again and again. These are the cold Waikōloa and Wai‘ōpua winds (the latter sometimes called the Kēhau wind). They sweep down from the mountain peaks, make the forest cold, cool the farm lands and house areas, and often blow coldly down to Pu‘uloa (Pearl Harbor).

Chilled by the mountain breeze Hai i ke hau, moe i ke anu – sleeping in the cold – In the cold Waikaloa wind. I ka makana anu he waikaloa e. Long is the path on traveling it; Loa ke ala ke hele ia; [He] went astray in the wilderness of Halemano, Hele hewa i ka nahele o Halemano, In the uplands of Wahiawa, far inland I ka uka o Wahiawa, i ka uka lilo e Where dwelt the clouds, there resting, Noho i ka ao, noho ihola e, Residing in quietness, Nanea ka noho ana. The wind whispers and gathers the clouds Ia kuololo ololo pua i ka makani together -- kea o – Whispers, for the stream slumbers. Love be Ololo, ua nopa ke kahawai. Aloha to the water! ka wai! 164

The cold water of the wilderness you two A olua e hele‘i i ka wai anu o ka frequented, nahele, [Yea,] the mountain climbers are shivering Ua li wale i ke koekoe ka huakai with the cold. hele pii mauna e. [Fornander Collection, Kanikau for Kahahana]279

The chill comes with the Kēhau and the Waikōloa winds, which are so very cold. [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Pele and Hi‘iaka story]280

Thus, this depicts the Central Plateau as a cooler land, and certainly Wahiawā and Mililani are still known for this today in our modern cultural context.

But in the old mo‘olelo, these winds also bring famed fragrances of the forests across the land – the aroma of kupukupu ferns being most famous, but also the scent of nēnē grass. Confidential

O Līhu‘e ke hele ia! She leaves Līhu‘e! Honi aku i ke ala o ka mau‘u, Sniff the scent of the grasses, I ke ala o ke kupukupu, The fragrance of the kupukupu ferns, E lino ‘ia ‘ana e ka Waikōloa, That are twisted about by the Waikōloa wind, E ka makani he Wai‘ōpua la, By the Wai‘ōpua wind, [Kamakau 1865]281

Aloha au o ka luna o Kaala, I love the top of Ka‘ala, hehene au-e hehene au-e, Aala paoa ka nahele o Malamanui The strong fragrance of the forest hehene au-e, of Malamanui, hehene au-e Puia okoa no ke kula o Kanoenoe Completely filling the kula of hehene au-e, Kanoenoe with a sweet fragrance, hehene au-e. [K. Keamoku 1862]282

Dew also comes down with these winds, moistening the land.

Uli ae la Kaala kau o luna, Search is made to the top of Kaala. Waiho wale kai o Pokai, … The lower end of Pokai is plainly seen. … Kokolo kehauhe makani no Lihue. The dew comes creeping, it is like the wind of Lihue. [Fornander Collection, Halemano romance]283

Aloha ka hau o Ka‘ala Beloved is the dew of Ka‘ala ‘O ia hau halihali ‘a‘ala mau‘u nēnē The dew which carries the scent of nēnē grass Honi ai ke kpua o Pu‘uloa For the people of Pu‘uloa to inhale and enjoy. 165

[Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Pele and Hi’iaka story.]284

Both of these famous winds are also described in Kūapāka‘a’s chant of the O‘ahu winds to the ruler Keawenuiaumi (of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i) off Molokai, from the knowledge of his ancestor La‘amaomao, controller of the winds.

Moa‘e-ku is of Ewaloa, Kehau is of Waiopua, Waikōloa is of Līhu‘e, … Pu‘u-ka‘ala blows at Ka‘ala, [Nakuina 1902 as translated]285

These winds will be seen further in following mo‘olelo, again always as cold winds.

Last, oneConfidential additional reference to another wind was found. This is from the Pele and Hi‘iaka story after Lohi‘au is restored to life, and when both he and Hi‘iaka are at Kou (Honolulu). It too is a cold wind with associations with fragrances and dew.

Maika‘i ka lluna o Ka‘ala Handsome is the peak of Ka‘ala Hanohano i ke alo o nā kuahiwi Dignified at the forefront of the mountains ‘A‘ahu i ka hau anu a ke Kiu Cloaked in the cold dew of the Kiu wind Māpu ‘a‘ala i ka mau‘u nēnē Bearing the fragrance of the nēnē grass [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 273]286

A last quote, published in 1904-1905, but said to be from a mele composed for the mō‘ī Lunalilo presumably in the 1870s, notes not only the cold, winds and dew, but also the rains of this landscape.

Lei Kaua‘ula, kāhiko i Halemano Kaua‘ula’s adorning garland extends to Halemano Kahe ka wai a ke Ki‘owao Waters brought by the Ki’owao rain flow I ka pāku‘ikui‘i ‘ia e ka ua Paliloa, Bolstered by the Paliloa rains, there i laila ‘Eha ka nahele o Malamanui i kea The forest of Malamanui is pained by the nu ē cold He luna kānāwai Līhu’e na ke Līhu’e is a magistrate appointed by the dew kēhau Me he ali‘i kapu moe ala ka The Waikōloa wind is like a chief of sacred Waikōloa kapu [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 210]286a

-----

These mo‘olelo of the winds and mountains emphasize that the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau did not just consist of man-made features such as fields, houses, 166

religious places, burials, and the like. The Hawaiian cultural landscape also included natural features (stones, mountains) associated with deities and people. Even the winds have a place in this landscape.

Battles on This Landscape

Another important element of the Central Plateau cultural landscape is the fact that a number of battles were fought here – one in the time of Mā‘ilikukahi (mid-1500s), at least 3 in the time of Kūali‘i (1700-1720), and one at the time of the failed revolt against Kahekili of Maui in 1785. These were famed events associated with the Central Plateau. The battle of the mid-1500s was when Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā was being used as a royal center, by Mā‘ilikukahi. The later battles took place well after the ruling and chiefly center was no longer in use. These mo‘olelo and the famed oli of Kūali‘i mention places where the men in these battles fought, and they directly or symbolically portray the fierceness of the fighting. Confidential 1. A Battle in the Time of Mā‘ilikukahi (mid-1500s)

In Mā‘ilikukahi’s time, a raiding party led by several Hawai‘i island chiefs (Hilo, Hilo-a-Lu‘ukapu and Punalu‘u) and a Maui chief (Luako‘a) landed in Waikīkī and proceeded to Pu‘uloa and headed up towards the Central Plateau, where Mā‘ilikukahi apparently was in residence at the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā royal center. “Mauka of Wai-kakala-ua gulch the battle was to begin.”287 It appears that Mā‘ilikukahi’s forces approached from the Central Plateau and others came in behind the raiders. “At Waikakalaua they met Mailikukahi with his forces, and a sanguinary battle ensued. The fight continued from there to Kipapa gulch.”288 “Punalu‘u was killed on the plain [kula] now called Punalu‘u. Corpses that “paved” a gulch gave the name Kipapa to that place. … The heads of Hilo ma were cut off and taken to Honouliuli to a place now called Po‘o- hilo.”289 [Po‘o Hilo was an ‘ili around the floodplain of Honouliuli Stream on the edge of Pu‘uloa, an area of housing.290] Thus, it appears these raiders approached the edges of the Central Plateau.

2. Battles in the Time of Kūali‘i (1700-1720)

In Kūali‘i’s reign, 3 battles seem to have been fought – all likely to have been on the open farmlands across the kula and shallow stream gulches below Kolekole Pass, from Hale‘au‘au across to Maunauna. The first two battles appear to have been fought on successive days – Kūali‘i’s first battles to subdue the Wai‘anae, ‘Ewa and Waialua chiefs. Later, when they rose again, he fought a third battle in the same area.

Fornander collected one account of these battles, albeit with a fictionalized element of Kūali‘i having but 2 men besides himself.291 Despite these fictional parts, this version seems to match other accounts. The first battle began on Kūali‘i’s return from Kaua‘i. He arrives offshore of Wai‘anae, where the rebels were assembled.

167

Kualii answered back: “Let us go to Kalena and fight there. … Kualii, Maheleana and Malanaihaehae therefore came ashore and proceeded by land to Malamanui … early in the morning the fighting commenced at Kalena on the plains of Haleauau, at Lihue. On the one side there were twelve thousand men, while on Kualii’s side there were but three men, and yet the armies of the chiefs of Waianae and Koolauloa were routed. Kualii named this the battle of Kalena. A few days after this three more battles were fought, at Malamanui, Pulee, and Paupauwela. These were the greatest of the battles fought by Kualii in all the Oahu contests. … [Fornander Collection]292

Fornander restatesConfidential these battles in his history, “The hostile forces met on the land of Kalena and the plain of Heleauau, not far from Lihue, where Kualii was victorious. The Ewa chiefs, however, made another effort to retrieve their fortunes, and fought a second battle with Kualii at Malamanui and Paupauwela, in which they were thoroughly worsted, and the authority of Kualii as Moi of Oahu finally secured and acknowledged.”293

After subduing the last of the O‘ahu moku chiefs and regaining centralized control for the O‘ahu king, Kūali‘i then went off raiding, notably in Hilo in the Laupāhoehoe area (where he fought relatives of the chief Ha‘alilo). While he was there, news arrived of the ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Waialua chiefs rising again in rebellion.

Shortly after this word was brought to Kualii at Hilo that the chiefs of Oahu had again risen against him … When Kualii heard that all the chiefs were gathered at Waianae, he continued on with his chief warriors for that place. … the battle immediately commenced, again Kualii was victorious. After the battle Kualii and his chief warriors looked over the battle ground and saw that a very large number of men had been killed, so much so that the waters of Kalapo were dammed and a large number of dead bodies were strewn below Eleu. Because of this great victory certain lines of mele were composed by his attendants …294

The location of Kalapo stream is no longer clear, but Eleu was the steep mountain trail up Ka‘ala, indicating the fighting was probably back in the Kalena to Hale‘au‘au area on the open farmlands just below the forest. Again, Fornander’s English history phrases this slightly differently: “news came to him from Oahu that the Ewa and Waianae chiefs had revolted again. Hastily returning to Oahu, he met the hostile chiefs at Waianae, and after a severe contest, routed them effectively with great slaughter near the watercourse of Kalapa and below Eleu.”295

168

The mele referred to above is the famous chant Ka Inoa o Kūali‘i. Fornander describes this chant in some depth in his history, noting it “was widely known among the elite and the priesthood at the time of Captain Cook’s arrival.”296 Fornander had seen and compared four surviving versions of the chant in the 1860s, one collected on Hawai‘i, one on O‘ahu, one given to S.N. Hakuole (Hale‘ole?)(“my collector”) by Samuel Kamakau, and one given by Kamakau to Lorrin Andrews.297 Fornander noted that these versions were strikingly consistent, and he believed that they dated back to the 1700s based on their style of composition.298 The chant was composed in honor of Kūali‘i (an honorific chant) and poetically lauds Kūali‘i – as the messenger of Māui, as the ruler over Kaua‘i, as the controller of seas, winds, plants, notes his exploits, and elevates him above famed trees, and even above the ruler Keawe of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. The chant ends by saying Kūali‘i is comparable only to the gods “Ku, Lono, Kane, Kanaloa, Kanemakaiahuawahine, Haihaipuaa, and Kekuawalu”. Lyons published the chant that Andrews held in Hawaiian and English in the Islander (a weekly newspaper) in 1875.299 Fornander had two versions published in Hawaiian and English, one in his history200 and another in his Confidentialcollections.301 Importantly, for the Central Plateau, poetic allusions are made to the battles fought there, noting place names and crafting phrases that symbolize the battles. Below are provided the translations and the Hawaiian text from three versions of this chant. The translations are interesting in their differences, and the Hawaiian variations are also of interest. But notably all mention place names in the western part of the Central Plateau – just to the west of Kūkaniloko.

[The following two quotations are excerpts from the Chant of Kūali‘i in the Fornander Collection. The first quote refers to the first set of battles. The second quote refers to the later battles when the ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Waialua chiefs rose again. Note: Not all of the place names have known association with the landscape today. The heights of Kapapa at Paupauwela may refer to the mountain peak also known as Hāpapa, which does rise above Paupauwela.]

Where? Where is the battle field Where the warrior is to fight? On the field of Kalena, At Manini, at Hanini, Where was poured the water of the god By your work at Malamanui; On the heights of Kapapa, at Paupauwela, Where they lean and rest; At the hala trees of indolent Halahalanui, At the ohia grove of Pule-e, The god of Lono, of Makalii, The fragrant branch of the Ukulonoku, Mayhap from Kona, from Lihue, For the day at Maunauna, For the water at Paupauwela, 169

Confidential

Figure 6-16. Battlegrounds of the Central Plateau, Place Names Mentioned. 170

Growing low at Nepee, At the slaughter of Aui, Where the priests joined in the battle; Ku is arrayed in his feather cloak; … [The Chant of Kūali‘i – Fornander Collection.] 302

The towering surf of Maihiewa, Which dammed up the waters of Halapo, The breaking up is below at Eleu, The rain is drawn away to the sky, Like a full retreat from the mountain; … Red is the water of Paupauwela, FromConfidential the slain at Malamanui, The slain on the ridge at Kapapa.

[The Chant of Kūali‘i – Fornander Collection]303 [Maihiewa = a surf spot off Waikīkī, used for imagery of Kūali‘i’s victory being overwhelming like these waves.]

------[The following two quotations are excerpts from the Chant of Kūali‘i in Fornander’s history.304 The first quote refers to the first set of battles. The second quote refers to the later battles when the ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Waialua chiefs rose again. ]

Where, where was the field Ihea, ihea la ke kahua, (On which) the warriors fought? Paio ai o ke koa – a? Lo! The field is at Kalena; I kahua i Kalena, Scattered about, overflowing, I manini, i hanini, Poured out is the godly fluid I ninia i ka wai Akua, By your work at Malamanui, I ko hana, i Malamanui Above Kapapa, at Paupauwela, Ka luna o Kapapa, i Paupauwela, At Hilinai (and) at Kalele. I ka Hilinai, i ke Kalele, The Hala trees of Halahalanui-maanea, Ka hala o Halahalanui-maauea, The upland Ohia trees, the strange prayer Ke kula Ohia, ke Pule – e, The spirit of Lono (and) of Makalii, Ke ‘kua o Lono o Makalii The fragrant branch of Ukulonoku. Ka lala aala o Ukulonoku, For Kona perhaps, for Lihue. No Kona paha, no Lihue. For the day at Maunauna, No ka la i Maunauna, For the waters at Paupauwela, No ka wai i Paupauwela, That Haalilo’s name may flourish at Nepee, I ulu Haalilo i Nepee, All the scourging of Aui. A ka hau’na o Aui. 171

Enter the priests to dress the idol; Kikomo kahuna i kakaua laau, Ku is putting on his feather cloak; Komo ku i kona ahuula,

------The toppling surf of Maihiwa; Ka nalu kaakal o Maihiwa, Dammed up are the waters at Kalapo, Pani’a ka wai i Kalapo, Bursting out (are they) below Eleu, Ka naha i lalo o Eleu. Drawn away are the rain-clouds and Huki ka ua a moa i ka lani dried up, in the sky, Like a great land-slide from the hills, Mehe hee nui no kuahiwi; … Red are the waters of Paupauwela, Ula ka wai i Paupauwela, The Kilau of Malamanui, Ka Kilau o Malamanui, The Kilau ridges at Kapapa Ka moo Kilau i Kapapa

------Confidential------

[The following two quotations are excerpts from the Chant of Kūali‘i in Lyons, 1875.305 The first quote refers to the first set of battles. The second quote refers to the later battles when the ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Waialua chiefs rose again.]

Where – where is the field Ihea, ihea la ke kahua, Where the battle is fought? Paio ai o ke kaua On the field of Kalena, I kahua i Kalena, Filled up, flowed over, poured out is the I manini i hanini, i niua i ka ghostly current. wai akua, At Kahana – at Malamanui, I Kahana, i Malamanui, Above Kakapa, at Paupauwela, Ka luna o Kakapa i Paupauwela At Hilinai, at Kalele, I Kahilinai i ke Kalele, The hala tree of Halahalanuimaauea, Ka hala o Halahananuimaauea, At the ohia grove of Pule-e, I ke kula o ohia ke Pule-e, Behind the back of Lono of Makalii, Ke kua o Lono o Makalii. The fragrant branch of the obedient to Ku, Ka lala ala o ukulono o Ku, Perhaps Lihue is in Kona. No Kona paha no Lihue, The day of Maunauna, No ka la i Maunauna, The stream of Paupauwela, No ka wai i Paupauwela, That Haalilo may be honored in the flower of I ulu Haalilo i nei pua, nobility. At the scourging of Aui, I ka hau’na iho ia Aui,* The priests join in to help the fight Kikomo kahuna i kakua laau. Ku is arrayed in his royal feather robe, Komo Ku i kona ahuula,

[* = Lyons’ note says Aui was “the epithet applied to Kūali‘i’s military scourgings of his enemies.”306] 172

The spear is parried by Ku -- … He pili ka ihe ia Ku, … The towering surf of Maihiwa, Ka nalu kakala o Maihiwa, Dammed up are the waters of Halapo. Pania ka wai i Halapo, [the forces of the enemy are checked.*] The breaking forth is at Eleu Ka naha ilalo o Eleu, [There they burst forth and were slain.**] The rain is drawn away, -- carried back to Hukia ka ua amoa i ka lani, the sky, The avalanche of the mountain, … Me he hee nui no kuahiwi,

Red is the water of Paupauwela, Ula ka wai i Paupauwela, The kilau of Malamanui, Ke kilau o Malamanui, The kilau ridge at Kakapa Ka moo kilau i Kakapa,

[* and ** =Confidential Notes from Lyons]307

Last, Fornander collected one additional account that ties Kūali‘i battles to the Central Plateau. The following comes from Chapter VIII. The Battle Fought by Kualii at Kalakoa. It talks about Kūali‘i secretly slipping onto battlefields and fleeing with cloaks, and his great speed in running. He is finally followed by a boy to the battlefield. This story has no clear connection to the famous mele, or the above-noted battles. But, it mentions places on the Central Plateau.

Upon their arrival at Lihue they heard that the two armies were encamped at Kalakoa, so they kept right on and went into battle. This is known as the battle of Kukaniloko. [Fornander Collection] 308

3. A Battle During the Revolt Against Kahekili in 1785

One last battle was fought in this same area in 1785 and is described in the Fornander Collection.309 After the failed revolt of the O‘ahu chiefs, remaining chiefs and warriors fled to camps “on the mountains of Kaala” (probably also in the natural fortification (pu‘u kaua) on Pu‘u Kawiwi on the ridgeline between Mākaha and Wai‘anae, in the back of Wai‘anae valley). Kahekili’s famed general, Kahahawai, took a force of Maui warriors to the ridgeline at Kolekole Pass. Here, he had torches lit as night fell. The torches then were allowed to die out – making the O‘ahu warriors believe that the Maui warriors were sleeping by these fires. However, Kahahawai had pulled his men back into the darkness. Some of the O‘ahu warriors chose to come down, hoping to surprise the sleeping Maui warriors. “Kahahawai and his men arose and destroyed all the people who were asleep on the hills and mountains of Kaala. Those who raided the torch encampment were captured …”. [In Kamakau’s account, the survivors of the revolt retreated back to Pu‘u Kawiwi – where they eventually starved.310]

173

Other References to the Central Plateau in the Oral Literature

There are other stories and chants recorded in the 1800s, some well known, that refer to the Central Plateau. Some are mo‘olelo that are historical in nature (referring to real chiefs and events), and apparently are older mo‘olelo recorded prior to 1880 from accounts by older Hawaiians. Others recorded before 1880 are more mythological. Some of these are clearly older stories, but others are compositions of the 1860s-1870s. Examples of the latter are kanikau (dirges) for recently deceased relatives or honorific chants for contemporary chiefs, both of which were common in Hawaiian newspapers.311 Others are modifications of old famous stories (such as ‘Umi) into an O‘ahu setting. Still others include sizable new rewritings of old stories (such as Hale‘ole’s famed La‘ieikawai). Others poetically recall places, but they add new cultural elements – like bridles, spurs, and horse-riding. In the 1880s-1920s, as noted as the start of this chapter, Hawaiian literature was changing dramatically. Writers now had access to previous versions of stories and histories from Hawaiian and English language newspapers, books, and manuscripts; and they retold stories blending prior accounts and adding new ideas Confidential312 313 and interpretations. For the Central Plateau, Kalākaua’s English stories are unique, very Hawaiian blends – often presenting and interpreting genealogies and histories as clarifying asides, inserting characters found in other old stories, adding narrative among the characters, providing plausible cultural settings, and giving Kalākaua’s interpretations of mo‘olelo as historical events. Nakuina’s 1897 O‘ahu nui story314 also seems to be a blending and retelling of older stories and histories. Manu’s Keaomelemele story315 clearly falls into the ka‘ao (epic mythical) story format of long serials that were common to the late 1800s, serials that blended old stories, added to stories to attract readers, etc. Manu’s story has numerous characters that are named for well known places in the Central Plateau, a common literary device of this era to attract readers. Some of these literature pieces really do not belong to the traditional era as older stories, rather they are new compositions and retellings that reflect how the Central Plateau’s history, cultural landscape and Kūkaniloko were remembered and perceived by Hawaiians living in the mid- to late-1800s. This point will be returned to in the next chapter. But a range of stories are presented here, for they add a feeling to the cultural landscape – its climate, its fragrances, its sounds, how people lived. Also, some have been used by other researchers as factual histories for traditional times, so they need discussion here.

Historical Mo‘olelo

The following are mo‘olelo linked to real chiefs that are listed on the recorded Nana‘ulu and Ulu genealogies. Mo‘olelo that solely refer to Kūkaniloko are discussed in the next section of this chapter. Historical accounts that refer to chiefs and their role in O‘ahu’s history were discussed in the first section of this chapter. Those that apply to the broader landscape of the Central Plateau are discussed here.

Late 1200s-Early 1300s: The Time of Hua-nui-ka-la‘ila‘i [Kamakau 1870]

Huanuikala‘ila‘i or Hua-a-Pau is on the Ulu Hema genealogy roughly at Generation 38 below Wākea.316 He is the father of Paumakua. He might approximately 174

have lived at the end of the 1200s or early 1300s, given Fornander’s analysis and suggestion that Paumakua was about the time of Māweke. Huanuikala‘ila‘i is noted as a chief “no Honolulu a me Waikiki”, where he was born at Kewalo.317 But it is one of his children other than Paumakua (who was affiliated with the Ko‘olau side) that is relevant here, noted as an aside in a 1870 Kamakau account.318 Hua’s daughter Uliiuka “reared Kana in the uplands of Wahiawa” and “became an ‘aumakua for the kahuna ‘ana‘ana …; for the kahuna ‘ana‘ana kuni …; for the kahuna kuni‘o …; the kahuna kuni ola …; and for the kahuna ‘ana‘anakalahala.” While this statement could be taken as a historical account linking the famed Uli and Kana to Wahiawā, further analysis reflects the difficulties of stories of this early 1300s era being used as factual history.

Kana and his brother Niheu are figures in several prominent, more mythological oral stories. Stories refer to Kana’s birth “in the form of a piece of rope; he had no human form.”319 Uli takes this child and raises him, with Kana eventually assuming a human form. But he always is “very tall and large” and able to greatly extend his body. He was a notedConfidential kupua, with “long arms that … reached into the heavens”.320 Many of the Kana stories tell about the taking or kidnapping of Kana’s and Niheu’s mother, Hina, from their father, Hakalanileo, by a chief of Molokai (Kapepeekauila), who lives on the hill or ridge of Hā‘upu between Waikolu and Pelekunu valleys on Molokai.321 The bulk of this story takes place on Molokai. The stories have many fabulous elements in them – for example, both Hā‘upu and Kana being able to extend skyward. They do not read as historical events. Importantly for this paper, nearly all (if not all) the recorded stories refer to where Kana was raised, and some to where he was born. Unlike Kamakau’s above-noted statement, all these stories have Kana born and raised on Maui or Hawai‘i. A Fornander Collection story (likely collected in the 1860s) has Kana born in Hāmākualoa on Maui and raised by Uli in Pi‘ihonua in Hilo on Hawai‘i and then living in Hilo.322 This story is equal in age to Kamakau’s brief note. Forbes’ 1882 story similarly points to Hawai‘i as Uli’s and Kana’s home.323 Kalākaua’s vastly elaborated story also has Kana born in Hilo and Uli living in Kona, as does N. Emerson’s 1898 more traditional account.324 Emerson’s 1898 story includes a name chant for Kana that may be much older, which again links Kana to Hilo (“born a four-stranded rope, … a thread of banana fibre, a spider’s web”, “hanau ae o Kana he lino … he awe pu-maia, he punawelewele”) and adopted by Uli of great powers (“ka mano hae”, “a ravenous shark”).325 Beckwith even suggests that these Kana stories can be traced back to Central East Polynesia and perhaps to West Polynesia and “the legend is not native to Hawaii”.326

1520-1540: Haka & Mā‘ilikūkahi

As seen in the first section of this chapter and as will be seen in the last section, the mo‘olelo associated with Haka and Mā‘ilikūkahi have many elements important for understanding the place of the chiefly center of Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā in O‘ahu’s history and for the actual birthing practices at Kūkaniloko. The mo‘olelo actually says little about the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau and the chiefly center, except a note by Kamakau in a 1865 article that Mā‘ilikūkahi’s “kūlanakauhale” (village) extended from “Halahape to O‘ahu-nui” (as noted above in determining the area where the chiefly center was focused) and Kamakau’s 1865 article and Fornander’s 1880 history 175

briefly describing his battle with a raidng party of Hawai‘i and Maui warriors (noted above).327 But again, this is a critical mo‘olelo, for Haka was the last of the Māweke- Kumuhonua senior line rulers of the O‘ahu kingdom, and Mā‘ilikūkahi was the first of the Māweke-Mō‘īkeha line rulers.

1540-1560: The Sacred Spear-Point [Kalākaua 1888]328

This story takes place in the time of Kalona-iki (1540-1560), Mā‘ilikukahi’s son and ruler of O‘ahu after him. Kalākaua states that Kalona-iki’s principal residence was Waikīkī but that he also had residences at ‘Ewa and Waialua,329 where it is unclear. This story focuses on the Maui prince, Kaulula‘au, and his attendant (Kamakaua), who come to O‘ahu. They land at Waialua and walk across the island to visit Kalona-iki in Waikīkī. In the Central Plateau “along the foot of the Kaala range,” they sit in the shade of a hala tree watching. “In a ravine below them five or six men were working, and scattered along its banks were a number of huts.”330 A giant bird Pu‘ueoali‘i (the spirit of Hilo-a- Lakapu, the Hawai‘iConfidential Island leader of the failed raid, who was slain by Mā‘ilikukahi’s forces) is killing pigs, chickens and children. The bird lands on the “ridge of Kaala”. Kaulula‘au kills him with his spear from super-long distance, and then cuts off his head. Local commoners seize Kaulula‘au and Kamakaue; and planning to sacrifice them, they take them “to the sacred temple at Kukaniloku, which was not far distant.”331 The temple was within an enclosure and had a resident high priest.332 The two are recognized and freed, and eventually they make their way to Waikīkī and Kalona-iki.

This story is a more recent mo‘olelo, showing some of the difficulties in using post-1880 stories alone as history. This story is a typical Kalākaua story. He weaves in characters and linkages from other well-known oral stories. For example, the bird is the spirit of one of the raiders that Mā‘ilikukahi fought in a well-known old historical story (albeit without the bird). Also, Kaulula‘au, himself, has his own well known old, more fictional story focused on Lāna‘i and its spirits; and Kalākaua has brought him to O‘ahu (unlike in any other story). Perhaps the hala trees that the hero rests under is Halahalanui-maauea, roughly located on the Wai‘anae slopes in the old Kūali‘i chant (He Inoa Kūali‘i). However, Kalākaua plausibly portrays what commoner houses and fields were like on the Plateau, possibly based on what he had seen in his stays on his Leilehua Ranch in Līhu‘e. He adds information on Kalona-iki’s residences that do not exist in other common historical accounts, which may reflect stories he knew or may be his own deductions from the histories that he knew. The same is true for his describing Kūkaniloko as being enclosed with a high priest. Thus, although the story may be generally fictional, it does contain plausible interpretations of the appearance of the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau and of Kūkaniloko.

AD 1560-1580: Kelea Story [Kamakau 1865]

This story clearly is an old mo‘olelo. It takes place in the reign of Piliwale (1560- 1580). It was noted briefly above. A wife-snatching canoe is sent abroad to search for a wife for Piliwale’s brother, Lō Lale, the chief of Līhu‘e. The party on the canoe kidnaps Kelea, sister of the ruler of Maui and a famed surfer. She marries Lō Lale, lives with him 176

for many years, and then leaves him for the call of the surf along the shore and weds Kalamakua, a high chief of Waikīkī.

In 1865 Kamakau published a version of the Kelea story:333 “Lō Lale was the chief of Līhu‘e”, and brother of Piliwale. “Kelea was landed at Wai‘alua” and was “taken up to Līhu‘e and became the wife of the Lō chief of Līhu’e, Lō Lale.” “After living with her husband in the uplands of Līhu‘e for ten years”, she asks to leave. Lō Lale says, “You may go. Living on our inland land is dejecting – there is only the scent of kupukupu ferns and nēnē plants here.” Kamakau then includes the famous chant of Lō Lale on her departure.

Aloha ko‘u hoa i ka pū‘ali, Farewell, my companion of this restricted place, I ka wai o Pōhakea Of the water of Pōhakea He luna o Kānehoa. Above Kānehoa. He lae ‘ino o Maunauna … The brow of Maunaua is stormy … O Līhu‘eConfidential ke hele ia! She leaves Līhu‘e! Honi aku i ke ala o ka mau‘u, Sniff the scent of the grasses, I ke ala o ke kupukupu, The fragrance of the kupukupu ferns, E lino ‘ia ‘ana e ka Waikōloa, That are twisted about by the Waikōloa wind, E ka makani he Wai‘ōpua la, By the Wai‘ōpua wind, Ku‘u pua! My flower! Me he pula la i ku‘u maka, As though a mote were in my eye, Ka ‘oni i ka haku ‘ōnohi; The pupil is disturbed; Ka waili‘u i ku‘u maka e. Salty tears fill my eyes. Eauwē! Auwē! I grieve! I grieve! [Kamakau 1865]334

At Waikīkī, Kelea asks for a surf board, surprising the people who thought she was Līhu‘e raised: “those of Līhu‘e were accustomed to slicing mo‘okīlau ferns and pōpolo stalks, but of surf riding these people knew nothing.”335

In 1880 Fornander provides the same story (possibly recorded in the 1860s, possibly Kamakau’s previously published story).336 “There lived at this time at Lihue, Ewa district, Oahu, a chief named Lo-Lale, son of Kalona-iki and brother of Piliwale, the reigning Moi of Oahu.” Similarly, the wife-snatching canoe brings Kelea to Waialua, where she “was taken up to Lihue, where Lo-Lale received her with the regard due to a chiefess of her rank …”. Also, “the inland situation of Lihue, at the foot of the Kaala mountains, and far away from the sea, became wearisome and monotonous to … Kelea”, and she decided to leave her husband. Then Fornander presents Lō-Lale’s parting chant, saying “the following portion of which alone has been remembered.”337 Since the chant in translation is somewhat different than the Kamakau’s translation, it is given here to provide more insight on Līhu‘e.

Aloha kou hoa i ka puali, Farewell, my partner on the lowland plains, I ka wai o Pohakea, On the waters of Pohakea, He luna o Kanehoa, Above Kanehoa, 177

He Lae ino o Maunauna. On the dark mountain spur of Maunauna. O Lihue, ke hele ia! O Lihue, she has gone! Honi aku i ke ala o ka Mauu, Sniff the sweet scent of the wild vines, E lino ia ana e ka Waikoloa, That are twisted about by (the brook) Waikoloa, E ka makani he Waiopua-la By the winds of Waopua, Kuu pu ------a! My flower! Me he pula la i kuu maka, As if a mote were in my eye, Ka oni i ka haku onohi, The pupil of my eye is troubled, Ka wailiu i kuu maka. Dimness (covers) my eyes. E auwe au-e! Woe is me! Oh! [Fornander 1880338]

In 1888, Kalākaua retold this story in English with new elements, as “Kelea, the Surf-Rider of Maui.”339 In his usual way, Kalākaua blends in genealogies of the characters and Confidentialasides. He gives the characters a spoken narrative, and he uniquely has Kalamakua (said to be Lō Lale’s cousin) heading the wife-searching canoe expedition. Piliwale has his court at Waialua on the shore at Kamananui – which, while no other records identify Kamananui as a royal center, is plausible as Mā‘ilikukahi was invested there as ruler. The return of the canoe to O‘ahu is drawn out with Kalākaua adding an undercurrent of romantic interest between Kelea and Kalamakua, although she accepts Lō Lale on arrival at Waialua. She and Lō Lale return to Līhu‘e, where they live. Kalākaua logically adds that “The people of the district were proud of her rank and beauty, and at seasons of Hookupu, or gift-making, she was fairly deluged with rare and valuable offerings.” Still as in the other versions, she becomes restless, although Kalākaua suggests due to amorous links with Kalamakua, and “the prerogatives of her high rank gave her the undoubted privilege of separation.” He too gives Lō Lale’s departure chant, stating “these lines are all of it that have been preserved”, and he presents it in English, almost identical to Fornander’s.

Near the End of Piliwale’s Reign: The Lō Kaholi-a-Lale Story [Kamakau 1865]340

This story also seems to be an older mo‘olelo, given its date of publication. Lō Kaholi was the son of Lō Lale and Kelea, “born in the uplands of Lihu‘e and raised there until manhood.” “The main occupation of the Lihu‘e chiefs in olden times was to learn the art of spear throwing, and from there came the most skilled teachers.” Piliwale offered the hand of his second daughter (Kohe-palaoa) to the man who could defeat his teacher of spear throwing (‘Awa). Lō Kaholi challenged ‘Awa in using the spear-club (lā‘au pālau) and defeated him at the field at the royal center of Waipi‘o at Halaulani. As a result of his victory, Kohe-palaoa became his waife.

AD 1700-1720: The Reign of Kūali‘i

The mo‘olelo of Kūali‘i do not refer to his residing in the Central Plateau or at the chiefly center near Kūkaniloko. But he did fight three battles in the Līhu‘e area below 178

the forests of the Wai‘anae mountains – probably out on the open field lands. These battles were described above.

AD 1785: The Fall of the Last Ruler of O‘ahu, Kahahana

This story is a famous, old story. Kamakau published a version of the Kahahana story in 1867 in Ka Nupepa Ku‘oko‘a.341 Andrews had acquired a much older style kanikau composed for Kahahana, which appears in the Fornander Collections.342 Kahahana was the last king of the Kingdom of O‘ahu, famed for being duped by Kahekili, ruler of Maui, into slaying his wise advisor, the high priest of O‘ahu (Ka‘opulupulu). Kahekili then invaded in 1783 and defeated the O‘ahu army at the front of Pauoa valley in Nu‘uanu, thus conquering O‘ahu. Kahahana, his wife (Kahekili’s younger half-sister, Kekuapo‘i) and a loyal follower (Alapa‘i, a chief of Ko‘olau) survived the battle, and fled into the mountains, where they hid for almost 2 years. One of the areas where they hid and were secretly fed by commoners was the Wahiawā area. Then they contactedConfidential Kahahana’s wife’s brother, Kekumanoha, who was a Maui chief given control of the Waikele area. At the order of Kahekili, Kekumanoha had Kahahana and Alapa‘i slain.

Kamakau343 provides some comments in his story related to the Central Plateau. He has Kahahana saying, “we have dodged death in cold and wet, wandering here in the mountains, in the thickets of Wahiawa, in this ocean of Ka‘ie‘iea?” This was just prior to his wife going to contact her brother. This describes the forests with lots of ‘ie‘ie vines. It sounds like they were hiding just to the east of Līhu‘e/Wahiawā in the forest covering the rising steep slopes of the Ko‘olaus.

The kanikau for Kahahana describes his and Alapa‘i’s bodies and laments their deaths:344 “Ea ke lani e moe nei. E loloaikulani wale ana, aohe kapa –“ [“This is the chief who lies here. Lying naked, without covering –“]. “I loa ka lani i moe i ke ala – e –; Moe oni ole ka lani i ka ea – e” [“Long time the chief lay in the road; The Chief lay motionless in the dust.”]. This kanikau also mentions briefly their hiding in the Central Plateau’s cold Ko‘olau forest.345

Chilled by the mountain breeze Hai i ke hau, moe i ke anu – sleeping in the cold – In the cold Waikaloa wind. I ka makana anu he waikaloa e. Long is the path on traveling it; Loa ke ala ke hele ia; [He] went astray in the wilderness of Halemano, Hele hewa i ka nahele o Halemano, In the uplands of Wahiawa, far inland I ka uka o Wahiawa, i ka uka lilo e Where dwelt the clouds, there resting, Noho i ka ao, noho ihola e, Residing in quietness, Nanea ka noho ana. The wind whispers and gathers the clouds Ia kuololo ololo pua i ka makani together -- kea o – Whispers, for the stream slumbers. Love be Ololo, ua nopa ke kahawai. Aloha to the water! ka wai! The cold water of the wilderness you two A olua e hele‘i i ka wai anu o ka 179

frequented, nahele, [Yea,] the mountain climbers are shivering Ua li wale i ke koekoe ka huakai with the cold. hele pii mauna e.

Fifty years later a 1911 Hawaiian newspaper article provides details for where Kahahana, Alapa‘i and Kekuapo‘i traveled through the Central Plateau: “then to Waipio and on to Kahaone. They remained there until they thought it better to go up to Oahunui at Wahiawa and so they went to the forest of Halemano. They were there a short time and moved to Leilehua. After living there for a time they went to stay at Po‘ohilo in Honouliuli [on the shore] …”346 While it is tempting to accept these details as history, it seems quite likely that the author in 1911 is retelling this story using a common literary device of the 1890s-1920s of adding in famous places in an area where a historical event occurred. He includes Leilehua, which was the name that Kalākaua gave his ranch in the 1880s and does not seem to be an old place name; and he has them at Po‘ohilo, which was an ‘ili of Honouliuli ahupua’a on the shore, while Kekumanoha was in Waikele ahupua’a. So weConfidential suggest caution on accepting all the details of this very late account.

Mythical Mo‘olelo

The following sections of mo’olelo are from stories not tied to historical chiefs on the genealogies. They are stories about gods, romances, etc. However, they do include information (often poetically phrased) about the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. Quite often these are references to the mountains, cool breezes, and fragrances of the land. Some of these stories itemize place names. One set of stories refers to the cannibals of Halemano.

The Story of Pele and Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au

Many versions of this old epic story were published in Hawaiian language and English language newspapers through the 1800s and into the 1900s. One of the earliest of these publications was in 1861 in Ka Hoku a Pakipika by M.J. Kapihenui. Nathaniel Emerson’s well known 1915 book is now understood to have largely been a translation of the 1861 serial, with much of the original Hawaiian included (although not attributed to Kapihenui).347 A close look at the translations shows that Emerson sometimes omits places, sometimes translates a name literally (not as a place), and uses archaic English of the early 1900s. Nonetheless, one gets the feel for the cultural landscape. In this version, Hi‘iaka is traveling up the windward coast of O‘ahu on her way to Kaua‘i and Lohi‘au. She rounds Waimea bay and looks at the sea and chants:348

O Wai-alua, kai leo nui; Wai-alua, land of the sounding sea, Ua lono ka uka o Lihu‘e; With audience in upland Lihu‘e - Ka wa la Wahi-awa, e A voice that reaches Wahi-awa; Kuli wale, Kuliwale i ka leo; Our ears are stunned by this voice - He leo no ke kai, e. The voice, I say, of Old Ocean!

180

This portion of this chant is frequently cited in later publishings of this story, or even as a chant inserted in other stories often without linkage to the Hi‘iaka story. For example, it appears in the 1905-1906 story.349 It is reprinted in the same Hawaiian words in the Hi‘iaka story published in 1920-1924 in Ka Hoku o Hawaii.350 Kamakau in 1869 published a similar chant, inserted among historical text with no mentioning where it came from. While it may not be from a Hi‘iaka story, it contains the same message of the sound of the sea of Waialua reaching up to Līhu‘e and Wahiawā on the Central Plateau.

A ea mai ke kai o Waialua, Let the sea of Waialua rise, Wawa no ‘olelo ‘oko‘a i pali, Let the roar echo over the hills, Nunu me he ihu o ka pua‘a hae la, Rumble like the grunt of the wild pig. … … Makani me he ao la ka leo o ke kai, The voice of the sea rises upon the wind Kuli pa‘ia wawa ka uka a Lihu‘e, Deafening those in the uplands of Lihu‘e, O me he ‘oka‘a la i ke kula, As it is borne over the plain. Ke kulaConfidential hahi a ke kai e halulu nei, The rumbling of the sea treading upon the plain. Halulu ma ke Ko‘olau, Rumbling over Ko‘olau, Ho‘olono ‘Ewa, ‘Ewa hearkens, ‘A‘ole i ‘ike i ka po ana a ka nalu, She has not seen the rising of the waves Kuhihewa wale no Wahiawa – e. And mistakes it for Wahiawā. [1869, Kamakau]351

Note too, that Kamakau’s chant ends with the comment that those in ‘Ewa think the rumbling is coming from Wahiawā, mistaking the ocean noise for something else associated with Wahiawā. This something else might be the thunder from common thunderstorms that arose in the center of the island in the Wahiawā area. Or, perhaps this could refer to the drums from Kūkaniloko making a loud sound, a point of kaona that Pukui suggested when noting that the sounds of Waialua’s sea that reach Līhu‘e and Wahiawā in these chants may actually be kaona for the drums of Kūkaniloko.352

A bit farther on in her travels along Waialua, Hi‘iaka turns and chants to the mountain Ka‘ala.353

O Ka-ala, kuahiwi mauna kehau, Ka-ala, dewy and forest clad, Ke opu mai la, la, i Ka-mahoa; Bellies the plain of Ma-‘oha, Poluea(a) iho la ilalo o Hale-auau; As it slopes to the land below. Ke kini ke kehau anu o Ka-lena. The cool dew-fall comforts Ka-lena.

And when Hi‘iaka returns from Kaua‘i, she walks along Wai‘anae’s shore and then up the trail to the pass across the Wai‘anaes at Pōhākea (while Lohi‘au and Wahine‘oma‘oma‘o travel by canoe to Pu‘uloa). At the top of the pass, she views the landscape and chants. In most versions, some of these chants look towards the Central Plateau. But Emerson notes: “We omit at this point a considerable number of mele which are ascribed to Hiiaka and declared to have been sung by her while occupying 181 this mountain perch at Poha-kea.”354 Thus, the 1861 version likely includes these chants. Emerson deleted them.

About 1870, ‘Ī‘ī provided a chant about the sun’s heat on the lands of coastal Wai‘anae, which may be a shortened version of the Hi‘iaka story as she walked along the Wai‘anae shore.

Ua wela i ka la e Scorched by the sun Makua la. Is Makua. Kuano no o Kea‘au e. Parched is Keaau. Ua nopu i ke ahe la, Cooled only by the breeze, Ke Kaiaulu kamalamape. The light Kaiaulu breeze. O Poka-‘i aumoe hine. Darkness is met at Pokai. I ke hau e Ka‘ala la. There is the dew of Ka‘ala. Hale‘au‘au o Kauna la. There is Haleauau, Kauna. O Pule‘eConfidential i Malamanui. Pulee at Malamanui. Kauka‘opua, kai o ‘Ewa. Kaukaopua, the sea of Ewa. ‘Ewa e la! There is Ewa!

[1870 ‘Ī‘ī. Malamanui, Hale‘au‘au, and Pule‘e were separate kula across the steeper Wai‘anae slopes of Līhu‘e in the Central Plateau.]355

Many versions of the Hi’iaka story were published after 1861 in Hawaiian newspapers, and there are differing story plot-lines, with many minor details differing.356 All certainly include some lines about the Central Plateau, probably in the two spots noted above in the 1861 version. The 1905-1906 version of this story, probably published by J. Poepoe (under the name Ho‘oulumāhiehie) in Hawaii Aloha and finished in Ka Na‘i Aupuni, was recently published in Hawaiian and a new English translation.357 It serves an example of later stories. This story is different in key elements of the story line from the 1861 version, but it too gives a feel for the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. Hi‘iaka and her companions on returning from Kaua‘i stop at Mākua on the Wai‘anae shore for a game of kilu.358

Aloha ka hau o Ka‘ala Beloved is the dew of Ka‘ala ‘O ia hau halihali ‘a‘ala mau‘u nēnē The dew which carries the scent of nēnē grass Honi ai ke kpua o Pu‘uloa For the people of Pu‘uloa to inhale and enjoy.

Hi‘iaka then ascends the trail to Pōhākea pass as in the 1861 story. There she views the lands below, chanting several times.

A luna i Pōhākea, he luna o Kamaoha On high at Pōhākea, above Kamaoha He lae ‘ino ‘o Maunauna Maunauna is a dangerous escarpment ‘O Līhu‘e ke hele ‘ia Līhu‘e’s high plain yet to be traversed Honi i ke ‘ala mau‘u Inhaling the scent of the grass 182

I ke ‘ala o ke kupukupu The fragrance of kupukupu fern. E linoa ala e ka Waikōloa Entwined by the Waikōloa breeze E ka makani he Wai‘ōpua By the wind called Wai‘ōpua [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 153]359 [Kamaoha is a goddess associated with Ka‘ala, so this may be a reference to Ka‘ala.]

A luna au o Pōhākea I am atop Pōhākea Ea ke po‘o o Kamaoha i luna Kamaoha’s crest rises upward He lalo ‘o Luakini Luakini remains below Ke nānā iho i ka hau o Līhu‘e On gazing down at the dew of Līhu‘e Ua popo‘okea wale iho nō ke kukui The kukui trees are silver-headed Ke kokolo a‘ela ma ka poli o Kānehoa Creeping up into the bosom of Kānehoa Ho‘ohoa i nā keiki make anu Striking the chill-loving youths o Kawai‘eli of Kawai‘eli. [Ho‘oulumConfidentialāhiehie, Chant 157.360 ] [Again, Kamaoha’s crest may mean Ka‘ala where Kamaoha resided. Luakini was the pond atop Ka‘ala. Kawai‘eli is the stream Wai‘eli on the border of Wai‘anae uka and ‘Ewa.]

A bit later on in this 1905-1906 story, Hi‘iaka approaches Pu‘uloa and today’s Kapolei area. She speaks with Pu‘ukapolei, who is sitting atop the hill of that name with Nāwāhineokama‘oma‘o. Pu’ukapolei notes “The chill comes with the Kēhau and the Waikōloa winds, which are so very cold.”361

She then takes one more look inland seeing far distant Pu‘ukua, Kānehoa and Hale‘au‘au.

Ua ‘ike akula kā ho‘i au I have seen, indeed I ke kuahiwi mauna pali The high mountain cliffs ‘O Pu‘ukua i Hale‘au‘au Pu‘ukua at Hale‘au‘au ‘O ke oho o ke kukui ‘ehu The leaves of the kukui are reddened I ha‘a i ka lā o Kānehoa Dancing in the sun of Kānehoa [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 169]362 [Pu‘ukua is not in the Central Plateau as we are defining it. It is farther towards Pu‘uloa at the base of the eastern slopes of the Wai‘anae mountains – in the ‘ili of Līhu‘e in Honouliuli.]

Then she goes on with her journey, leaving the Central Plateau behind.

Much later in the story, after Lohi‘au is once again restored to life, when he and Hi’iaka re-unite at Kou on O‘ahu, a kilu game is played. Lohi‘au’s aikane (Kauakahiapaoa) chants his desire to have Wahine‘ōma‘o as his wife. Part of this chant has “the peak of Kamaoha” being kaona referring to Ka‘ala.

Kukū papa ki‘eki‘e i luna ke po‘o The peak of Kamaoha stands in the highest 183

o Kamaoha realms Ke ohaoha, ke kilikila o nā mauna The welcoming glory of the mountains Māuna ‘ia ua kino a luhi moe i The body is consumed, resting exhausted in ka ‘ōhai the ‘ōhai Hū‘ia Ka‘ala, kela i ka lani Ka‘ala is made to rise, majestic in the heavens ‘O ke po‘okela nō ia on nā kuahiwi Foremost of the mountains [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 266]363

The kilu game continues involving Pele‘ula, Wahine‘ōma‘o, Lohi‘au, Kauakahiapaoa, and Hi‘iaka (the latter on the side). Again, Ka‘ala is mentioned in a chant by Pele‘ula prior to her kilu throw.

Maika‘i ka lluna o Ka‘ala Handsome is the peak of Ka‘ala Hanohano i ke alo o nā kuahiwi Dignified at the forefront of the mountains ‘A‘ahu i ka hau anu a ke Kiu Cloaked in the cold dew of the Kiu wind Māpu ‘a‘ala i ka mau‘u nēnē Bearing the fragrance of the nēnē grass Confidential364 [Ho‘oulumāhiehie, Chant 273]

Shortly after, Hi‘iaka and Lohi‘au return to Kaua‘i.

The 1924-1926 version of this story in Ka Hoku o Hawaii contains similar chants. The following is Hi‘iaka chant to Waialua on her way to Kaua‘i:

O Waialua kai leo nui, At Waialua is the great voiced ocean Ia Iono ka uka o Lihu‘e, Heard to the uplands of Lihu‘e, Ke wa ala i Wahiawa e, Rumbling atop Wahiawa, Kuli wale ka leo o ke kai, Deafening is the voice of the sea, Kuli wale ka leo, It is a deafening voice, He leo no ke kai e! Indeed the ocean has a voice! [Ka Hoku o Hawaii, Feb. 9-16, 1924]365

The Romance of Halemano [1860s, Fornander Collection]366

This story, presumably collected by Fornander or one of his collectors in the 1860s, seems clearly to be fictional. It has characters named after famous people in history and particularly after places in the Central Plateau -- a common literary device that emphasizes an area. Halemano, a man, is the main character. He is “born at Halemano in Waianae”.367 His parents are Wahiawa and Kukaniloko. His wife is Kamalalawalu (in history a famed king of Maui of the mid-1600s). Aikanaka is the king of O‘ahu.

In places in this story, references are made to the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. One follows:368

He ahu la he koekoe, I am cold and chilly, 184

Ma ko poli au e ke aloha e. Let me lie in your bosom, love. Holo i Kalena ia uka Haleauau, We have roamed over Kalena in the uplands of Haleauau, Ka nahele anu i Wahiawa e. In the cold thickets of Wahiawa. He wa olelo na ka noe i Kaala, It was during the days of the heavy fog at Kaala, Ka uea mai ia e ke kehau, For the cold was brought forth by the dew, Ka noenoe aala a ke kupukupu Together with the fragrance of the kupukupu o Lihue. of Lihue.

Here is another:369

Uli ae la Kaala kau o luna, Search is made to the top of Kaala. Waiho wale kai o Pokai, … The lower end of Pokai is plainly seen. … Kokolo Confidentialkehauhe makani no Lihue. The dew comes creeping, it is like the wind of Lihue.

Ka Mo‘olelo o Lā‘ieikawai [1863, Hale‘ole]370

This is the famous book length romance of Hale‘ole, published in 1863. Hale‘ole was an associate of S. Kamakau and a historian in his own right.371 This story has a father who states he will kill any daughters born to his wife, until a son is first born. Thus, when two twin sisters are born (Lā‘ieikawai and Lā‘ielohelohe), their mother has them hidden away. Lā‘ielohelohe is sent to the priest Ka-puka-i-haoa “to bring up at the heiau at Kukaniloko.”372 As in other stories composed in the 1800s, characters are given names from history (Lā‘ielohelohe was the daughter of Kelea and Kalamakua, who married Pi‘ilani, the ruler of Maui, in the late 1500s) and famed places from history are blended into the story (Kūkaniloko). Interestingly, Hale‘ole has a heiau at Kūkaniloko, indicating perhaps Ho‘oponopahu that was used for birthing (as will be seen) – clearly recalling the famed association of Kūkaniloko.

Kalākaua373 condensed this story into an English short story format. He describes Laielohelohe being given to Kapukaihoe (a priest) and “taken to the sacred enclosure of Kukaniloko.”374 Here again is a reference to the Kūkaniloko religious area being within an enclosure – whether something Kalākaua had been told, concluded from his general cultural knowledge, or saw in person is uncertain.

The Story of Palila [1860s, Fornander Collection]375

Palila is one of the heroes of Hawaiian stories, who on his adventures often flew through the air with his war club held out before him. In one part of these stories, he travels to O‘ahu to visit the king in Waikele. He flew in to O‘ahu from the north, and some of the places of the Central Plateau are named. “After leaving Kaena he came to Kalena, then on to Pohakea, then to Maunauna, then to Kanehoa, then to the plain of 185

Keahumoa and looked toward Ewa.”376 [This sequence seems a bit out of order. Perhaps it should have been Kalena, Maunauna and Kānehoa, Keahumoa and Pōhākea.]

The Story of Namakaokapaoo [1860s, Fornander Collection]377

Namakaokapaoo is a young boy. His step-father grows sweet potatoes in the uplands of Honouliuli. He digs up a potato field, the step-father tries to kill him, and instead the boy chants and the step-father is killed. The key part of this story for this report is that the step-father “came from Lihue to fish at Honouliuli … They went back to his home at Kula-o-keahumoa.”378 Keahumoa is the kula alongside Pōhākea Pass, so this story is referring to the ‘ili of Līhu‘e within Honouliuli that extended from this point up to the Central Plateau. It notes the cultivation of sweet potatoes on this kula.

The Romance of Kalanimanuia [1860s, Fornander Collection]379

This storyConfidential also seems to be fictional, a derivation of the famous ‘Umi story of Hawai‘i Island placed into an O‘ahu setting. In this story, Kū is the “ruling chief of Lihue on Oahu”. He has an encounter with the beautiful Kaunoa, and “leaves her with his spear and loincloth as tokens for their child, whom he directs to be named, if a boy, Kalanimanuia.” The child that is born is a boy, who is named Kalanimanuia (in history a famed female ruler of O‘ahu of ca. 1600-1620). He is raised at Kūkaniloko “in ignorance of his birth” until his step-father “scolds him for giving away food too lavishly”. Kaunoa then sends him to Kū with the items left by Kū. The story continues.

Keaomelemele (Moses Manu 1884-1885 serial in Kuokoa)

This is a story retold in the later 1800s. It really belongs to the late 1800s Native Hawaiian perceptions of Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau (and the next chapter). However, one team of researchers used this story as historical evidence for how place names were given in the Central Plateau. Thus, it was felt that it needed to be addressed in this chapter.

Manu’s version has elements common to Hawaiian literature – particularly of the late 1800s when characters were given place names, asides were made to readers, and current events were inserted -- to attract readers to buy the newspapers. Manu’s story recently has been translated.380 This famous story is about Keaomelemele and her brothers and sisters (Ka-hanai-o-ke-akua and Paliuli particularly), and their coming to Hawai‘i from Kahiki, following their relatives Kāne, Kanaloa, and Anuenue who were residing in Waolani in Nu‘uanu. Kahanaiokeakua and Paliuli wed on Hawai‘i Island, and he eventually is unfaithful, going off with the goddess Poliahu. Paliuli, grief-stricken, then wanders about. In part of this story, Paliuli travels to Līhu‘e, Ka‘ala, and Wai‘anae, where she learns the hula from Hi‘ilaniwai. This part has some information on the Central Plateau.

Paliuli travels up the Pu‘uloa-Waialua Trail. “She went on to the plain of Punalu‘u [in Waipi‘o above Kīpapa Gulch] and turned to gaze at Maunauna point and the 186

plain of Lihue. She reached the plain of Kokoloea and saw the road filled with men and women. … Kalakoa and Malamanui were the young men and Kalena and Haleauau were young women and their names were given to places that bear them to this day.”381 Paliuli stayed on the Central Plateau for a while: “Paliuli remained with the natives of the land of the cold Waikoloa wind (north wind) …”. Then she travels on to Wai‘anae, meeting Hi‘ilaniwai and learning her form of hula.

Later, Mo‘oinanea, a female mo‘o deity with great powers in this story, comes with the last of the family to Hawai‘i, bringing all her mo‘o family. They arrive in Waialua near ‘Uko’a pond and settled at different places.382 In this context, the story notes: “Maunauna who lived above Lihu‘e and Puhawai at upper Wai‘anae (Wai‘anae- uka) were bad lizards.”383 [Pūhāwai is not in Wai‘anae uka; it is in the back of Lualualei just below and Wai‘anae valley-side of Kolekole pass.]

Recently, GANDA researchers suggested that this story indicates how places on the Central PlateauConfidential got their names, from historical characters.384 However, it is much more likely that the characters in this 1884-1885 story were named after places on the Central Plateau as a common literary device – symbolizing well known places on the landscape, to draw readers to the story. Importantly, in this case, key names of the Central Plateau were still recalled in the 1880s (at least by Manu).

The Cannibals of Halemano

There were old stories about cannibals who lived on the far inland kula of Halemano in upland Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a on the northernmost fringes of the Central Plateau. By the 1880s-1890s these cannibals were being considered as real, historical people, and a connection has been made between the lō ali‘i (actual chiefs) and the cannibal chief of this story.385 Thus, all these stories are reviewed here – although in fact Kalākaua’s, Westervelt’s and Nakuina’s stories all belong in the next chapter, as late 1800s views of the Central Plateau.

In 1843 Dibble in his A History of the Sandwich Islands mentioned the chief of these Halemano people, “Kalo Aikanaka.” He noted that Kalo’s “servant or under chief” Kaanokeewe lived at Kānewai (the narrow entrance into Halemano) and that here he killed people to be eaten. He killed his family and all brothers-in-law but one, who escaped to Kaua‘i and learned lua. On his return, this man heard that Kaanokeewe had killed his wife (the man’s sister). He went to Halemano and discovered his sister badly beaten, and then wrestled with Kaanokeewe, with both falling over the bluff to their deaths. This ends Kalo’s cannibalism.386 In 1844, Jarves in his Scenes and History of the Sandwich Islands briefly summarized virtually the same story.387 A cannibal chief and his followers (“a clan”) lived at Halemano. A sub-chief, Kaanokeewe, was the main “procurer” of the victims. (Both Dibble and Jarves said 3,000 people acknowledged the cannibal chief as their lord.) Both described ruins at Halemano commonly associated with Kalo Aikanaka. In Jarves’ words, these included “ruins of an extensive heiau …, the house of the chief … Near it, is a large flat stone, which goes by the name of ipu kai, 187

or meat platter” – these being frequently cited “ruins” still present in the 1800s associated with this story. [Indeed, Jarves and others pointed out that in 1821-22 Mathison apparently visited Halemano to see the stone platter where human meat was cut.388 He saw a flat stone, 5 x 6-7 feet with a smooth surface, and apparently with petroglyphs on the sides and portions broken off to make stone tools. Later visitors never saw any petroglyphs on the stone, which could raise the question whether Mathison ever truly saw the stone.]

Dibble also adds a second story associated with cannibals and perhaps Halemano. He wrote that prior to Kalo’s time, cannibals came to O‘ahu from Kaua‘i. They had landed on Kaua‘i from foreign lands. He notes the leaders were Kahanu-nui-a-lewa-lani and his younger brother Kaweloaikanaka, who were children of Newa.389 If Dibble recorded this latter story correctly, it appears to have been a mismash of different stories, for Kaweloaikanaka was a ruler of Kaua‘i in the 1600s, and Kahanu-nui-a-lewa-lani is in genealogies of the 1300s as Kahano-a-Newa, the son of Newalani – also known in some stories as a famous sorcerer who “stretched out his hands to the farthest bounds of Confidential390 Kahiki, and on them … came the Menehune people to Oahu.” But as will seen below, foreign arrivals on Kaua‘i, who were cannibals and later came to O‘ahu, are part of some of the Halemano cannibal stories.

The oldest Hawaiian-recorded story seems to be from Ka Hae Hawaii in 1861.391 This version starts with “There is a tale of a certain people who lived long ago up at Halemano in Waialua.” Their chief was named Kalo. The story mentions the key places associated with Kalo: his house site, “a flat smooth stone called Kalo’s meat dish”, a heiau, and a pit or imu oven – all said to still be there in 1861. In the story, Kalo’s strongest follower was “Kaanokeewe … and it was he who caught the people. His house stood on the narrowest part of the trail [that entered the small gap into the kula of Halemano] … The trail went through the house …” When travelers arrived, he questioned them and killed them if he thought they lied or hid something. Eventually, he even killed his younger brothers and his brothers-in-law. One brother-in-law escaped to Kaua‘i, and learned “the art of killing” [lua]. He returned and found his sister beaten and almost dead at the hands of her husband (Kaanokeewe). He then wrestled with Kaanokeewe, who fell over the bluff edge and died. So ended cannibalism at Halemano.

This is the basic older version of the story. The cannibal chief is Kalo, sometimes with the added “eater of men” (Kalo ai-kanaka). He has an imu pit, a stone cutting platter, and a house and heiau. His victims are killed at the entry to Halemano by a follower called Kaanokeewe. One of Kaanokeewe’s brother-in-laws learns lua, returns and kills him – ending cannibalism. Importantly, this story was “a tale of a certain people who lived long ago.” Also, it is not linked to any chief on the ruling line of O‘ahu, unless one wants to point to Aikanaka on the Ulu line. But as seen, this Ulu line Aikanaka is from the mythical Kaha‘i (Tahaki) family line stories of Central Polynesia, and he was not a historical chief who lived in the Hawaiian Islands.

In the late 1800s, retellings of this story begin to alter parts of it. Kalākaua published an English version in 1888.392 He states that this was a factual story, based on 188

the “sharpness of details preserved” in the telling of story by old people. He suggests that it took place in the mid- to late-1600s in the reign of Kūali‘i or his successor. [This would be early 1700s, but Kalākaua actually mentions that moku chiefs were “practically independent, … [with their] nominal … governing alii nui of the line of Kakuihewa” – suggesting he considered it likely to be in pre-Kūali‘i times, late 1600s, when the king had less power.] The story line has Kalo Aikanaka with 200-300 followers arriving on Kaua‘i from a foreign land (with darker skin and speaking a different language). Kalākaua says his real name was Kokoa, and his main advisor was Lotu (also known as Kaaokeewe). After their cannibal practices are discovered on Kaua‘i, they flee to O‘ahu and then up to Halemanu. There they build a heiau (200 x 60 feet in size with 20 foot high walls), the chief’s house, a large oven pit between them, and an ipu kai nearby – the latter which Kalākaua saw and noted that it was chipped by relic hunters. At Halemanu, Lotu guarded the entry and killed those entering. Later, to get victims, Lotu went into nearby valleys to catch victims. He kills his family and two of his three brothers-in-law. Finally the surviving brother-in-law (Napopo) goes to Kaua‘i and learns lua. He returns, and finds Lotu Confidentialhas beaten and almost killed his sister. They then wrestle using lua, and both fall over the bluff edge and are killed. Aikanaka then leaves the islands with his remaining people. Kalākaua has used the basic storyline of the prior story, but he has added elements (southern origin, their time on Kaua‘i, a search outside of Halemano for victims), altered character names (Kokoa, Lotu, Napopo), and added dialogue of his own.

The next well known retelling of the story was by Westervelt in 1904, and he is often cited in the literature.393 However, Westervelt’s version – typical of early 1900s stories and particularly English language stories, and particularly some of Westervelt’s – vastly altered the old Kalo story, illustrating how unreliable this era’s stories can be as history or reflections of old stories. Westervelt at some point provides all the names for the chief that appear in earlier stories: Ke-ali’i-ai-kanaka (“The-Chief-who-eats-men”), Ai-Kanaka (“Man-eater”), and “Chief Man-Eater” are frequently used, but he also says that Kokoa and Kalo were names of his youth. But he emphasizes that Kokoa was his name to his followers, and Kalo is mentioned only once. The storyline is similar, but different. Westervelt notes that one legend has them go first to Kaua‘i, where they are forced to leave. Then they arrive on O‘ahu and go immediately inland “to … the Waianae Mountains”. But Westervelt believes that the chief could not be a foreigner as all agreed (researchers in his time) that contact with the rest of Oceania ended long before the cannibal chief with the voyages of La‘amaikahiki and Pā‘ao; so he suggests, “It would be best to accept the legend that the degenerate chief was a desperado and an outcast from the high chief family of Waialua.” When he is found to be a cannibal, he was dispised by his people, and he fled with “the few servants who would follow him” and “made his permanent home among the Waianae Mountains, in the range that borders Waialua”. Obviously Halemano is not in the Wai‘anae range, but Westervelt then describes the upland spot as a small plateau called Halemanu, accessible by a “knife- blade ridge” where a follower falls and dies (new additions). Here they build houses, and Kokoa has a great imu dug and has a stone outcropping smoothed into an ipukai. Westervelt has the cannibals go out from Halemanu to raid and catch victims – instead of killing them at the entry into Halemanu – a storyline change partly started by Kalākaua (who Westervelt relies on), but becoming the only way of catching victims in Westervelt. 189

Gradually, Kokoa’s followers are killed and die, and only “Ke-alii-ai-Kanaka” was left. “One day he captured and killed a victim whom he carried through the forest to Halemanu.” The victim’s brother (Hoahanau) followed him and recognized Kokoa, returned and trained in boxing and wrestling for a year. Then he went up to Halemanu and challenged Kokoa. After a lengthy wrestling (lua) contest, Hoahanau threw Aikanaka over the bluff edge to his death. Apparently following Kalākaua, Westervelt says that this story was fact, but he has it taking place in the mid-1700s. Again, Westervelt has considerably changed the story. Markedly, he now has the cannibals out searching for victims in surrounding areas. As the stories heavily involve lua (to obtain victims and to kill the key cannibal leaders), from Westervelt on, one starts to see a reference to warriors trained in lua killing isolated travelers throughout the Central Plateau. This is clearly a result of a modern retelling of these cannibal stories – and not an old element of this story.

A final parting question on this story … Was this story based closely on fact, or was it not perhapsConfidential a fanciful tale – a very popular story? Cannibalism did not occur in the islands, but human offerings and violent acts in war would make the storyline not totally implausible. Perhaps Westervelt is correct in pointing out that the story had appeal as a morally improper and implausible fantasy (much like our vampire stories of today): “To the Hawaiian, “Chief Man-eater” was the unique and horrid embodiment of an insane appetite. He was the “Fe-fi-fo-fum” giant of the Hawaiian nursery.”394 Perhaps, places in Halemano – a flat rock with petroglyphs, a pit, a house structure, maybe even a small heiau – were blended into the story.

The O‘ahu Nui Cannibal Story [1897, Nakuina]395

This story more correctly belongs in the next chapter, for it is a new literature piece of the late 1890s, not an old story – although it links to elements of the Halemano story and blends in and alters pieces of other stories and histories. However, recent researchers draw on this story as if it were history (not ka‘ao), particularly noting Aikanaka was a lō ali‘i. Lō ali‘i are a factual piece of traditional history tied to the Central Plateau and probably tied to Kūkaniloko. Thus, this story needs review here. (Lō ali‘i will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.)

Nakuina has clearly used in her story the key point of the older Halemano stories, a cannibal chief residing at Halemano – “Helemano, where the last of the cannibal chiefs from the South Seas finally settled when driven from the plains of Mokuleia and Waialua.” She calls the chief Lo Aikanaka, which is taken from the old story, where Kalo or Kalo aikanaka is the chief’s name. Again, others since Nakuina have concluded that this chief was a lō ali‘i, with a lō title in his name, Lō Aikanaka, like the historical chiefs Lō Lale and Lō Kaholi of the late 1500s. However, there is no hint in the old stories that Kalo relates to lō ali‘i. It is only with Nakuina that the name is presented as a title, Lō Aikanaka.

Nakuina’s storyline after the above setting of cannibals in Helemano diverges from the older stories. She has the king of O‘ahu, Oahunui, living at the place Oahunui 190

(near the stone of that name) – although then “known by another name.” He technically was a co-ruler with an older sister (Kilikiliula), who was married to Lehuanui (a chief and priest) and had 3 children (2 young boys and a younger girl). Oahunui and Lō Aikanaka become friends, with the king greatly enjoying “the dish of honor” prepared for him when visiting Lō Aikanaka (“human flesh, served under the guise of pork”). To get “the particular dainty craved by the royal visitor, the Lo Aikanaka had to send out warriors to the passes leading to Waianae from Lihue and Kalena”, where they killed isolated travelers using lua. The people finally realize that there might be a link with disappearances and the feasts of Lō Aikanaka, and Oahunui is warned to stop participating, which he does for a while.

Next the king desires aholehole from ‘Uko‘a fishpond on the shore of Waialua. Lehuanui and his followers go gather fish. That night, asleep near the pond, he has a dream. He is visited by his sons, who tell him that they have been killed, cooked and eaten by their uncle the king and who tell him where their skulls and bones are located. Lehuanui awakensConfidential and rushes up to the royal residence on the Central Plateau, arriving at dawn. He finds the skulls and bones as located in his dream. Then, grief-stricken and enraged, he gets an adze, goes to the king’s house, and beheads the king. Next he goes to his wife, accuses her of letting her brother kill and eat their children, and he kills her and takes away their small daughter. The story ends noting Kilikiliula turned to stone, and today (1897) is “one of the objects for the Hawaiian sightseer”. Oahunui’s body also turned into a stone – presumably the famous stone much visited by Hawaiians since at least the 1870s. All retainers involved in the boys’ deaths and eating also were turned into stone. The royal residence was abandoned and cursed by Kāne, and “no one has ever lived here since.”

Again, Nakuina’s story seems to be a new story – linked to the well-known cannibal story of Halemano and blending in and altering other places and bits from history. New characters are added (Oahunui, Kilikiliula, Lehuanui). It appears Nakuina created Oahunui, the king and the royal residence, and linked them to Halemano. She notes Kūkaniloko briefly at the start as a royal place of birth for O‘ahu kings, which establishes a plausible setting for a story about a king and nearby royal residence. There is no Oahunui in either the Nana‘ulu or Ulu genealogies of O‘ahu rulers and chiefs, so she has created a fictional king. One wonders if she might not have used the name from the well-known stone in the area. The reader would probably know about lō ali‘i chiefs having historically been from this Central Plateau area, so altering Kalo aikanaka to a titled ali‘i, Lō Aikanaka, has some context. Also, she has expanded Westervelt’s searching for victims through much of the Central Plateau and killing them using lua, taking the search to Kolekole Pass (“the Lo Aikanaka had to send out warriors to the passes leading to Waianae from Lihue and Kalena”).

The Naming of O‘ahu [1869, Kamakau]396

This brief note was made in 1869 by Kamakau in an article on how lands became named. “A man named Oahu once lived mauka of Kalakoa in Waianae, Oahu, and later his descendants gave his name to the whole island.” Perhaps one could suggest that this 191

has a link to Nakuina’s 1897 Oahunui story, but Kamakau provides no details enabling such a link (such as O‘ahu being a king, being associated with the O‘ahunui stone, etc.). Importantly, many other well known stories describe how O‘ahu was named with no linkage to the Central Plateau – notably stories about Papa giving birth to the island, and the island being named then.397

The Central Plateau and A School of War

… young Hawaiians were taught at Leilehua the arts of war, including the lua [1925, A.P. Taylor]398

The place where the young students, who were studying art of war, would go, and wait for people and practice the Lua on them; the lua was the art of dislocating joints and replacingConfidential them; all along the plains of Leilehua, students would lay in wait for travelers to practice on. [1930s, J.F.G. Stokes site notes, informant Mrs. A.P. Taylor – The place referring to the stone at Kolekole Pass.]399

Before the Islands were united by King Kamehameha I, it was here that the Oahu chiefs trained their armies [2010, Smithe]400

Today one sees references to Wai‘anae uka, or the Līhu‘e side of Wai‘anae uka having been used as an “outdoor school of war” where warriors were trained – most notably in lua, although some sources note use of shark teeth tied to the hand.401 In 1984 Nedbalek,402 says, “As a practicing device these students would lie in wait for unsuspecting travelers, pounce, dislocate a joint, replace the joint, then release the passerby without pain or injury.” A map is even currently on-line showing all of Wai‘anae uka (today’s military reservation) as this war training area.403

These ideas about lua and a school of war on the plains of Leilehua below Kolekole Pass seem to date back to the above-quoted statements of A.P. Taylor and his wife, Emma Ahuena Taylor from the 1920s or early 1930s – the latter’s information quoted in the often used Sites of Oahu book.404 Their information in turn seems to link back to the Halemano cannibal stories told by Westervelt in 1904 (described above), who has lua embedded in his story and the cannibals catching victims always outside Halemano. This in turn is linked (1) to Nakuina’s 1897 story, which has the cannibal chief sending warriors to Kolekole and the Līhu‘e and Kalena area, where they killed isolated travelers using lua and (2) to Kalākaua’s 1888 story, which has the chief’s servant going outside Halemano to get victims. Before that, the older stories have the victims killed solely at the entry to Halemano. No earlier references to lua training occur, other than a brother of a victim going to Kaua‘i, getting lua training and returning to kill the chief’s servant (again described above). 192

All of the above more recent stories may in turn stem from Kamakau’s 1865 Lō Kaholi-a-Lale story (see pp. 170). Lō Kaholi – a chief, probably the chief, of Līhu‘e -- was a skilled warrior with a spear and spear club. He successfully defeated his uncle’s (Piliwale’s) champion warrior and won Piliwale’s daughter in marriage. This story emphasizes that “The main occupation of the Līhu‘e chiefs in olden times was to learn the art of spear throwing, and from there came the most skilled teachers.”405 This, however, does not mean Līhu‘e had a special school of war. Every high chief and ruler had a court with craftsmen, priests, and elite warriors attached to it. On the open grounds of the court’s residential center, the elite warriors frequently trained. The records of the late 1700s are full of observations of such training at royal centers within the Kingdom of Hawai‘i – notably with practice in catching and deflecting thrown spears.406 Such training would occur at all chiefly and royal centers, and it would not be unique to the royal center of the Central Plateau. Perhaps such training spots could be called a school for war, but the training location of the Central Plateau would not be all over what was called Wai‘anaeConfidential uka, or even all over Līhu‘e, rather it would have been focused at one or several open grounds amidst the households in the core chiefly residential center in Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā. While many warriors were trained in lua too, the lua part of the “school” for the Central Plateau seems romanticized out of the 1888, 1897 and 1904 versions of cannibal legends and perhaps from the lua bandit stories of the “Valley of the Spears” more seaward in Waialua.407

We interviewed a few lua practitioners during this study, some of whom wish to remain anonymous. But it was shared with us that lua is today practiced in the mountainous area of Hale‘au‘au. Kumu Kaha‘i Topolinski was a student of Charles Kenn, the lua master who taught him the connections of lua and hula. He also was aware of the ali‘i training up in the mountains above Kūkaniloko. Perhaps future interviews could learn how long this lua training has been ongoing, and its history.

Summary

This lengthy section indicates that the Central Plateau’s cultural landscape was far inland from the shore, dominated by the mountains of Ka‘ala, Kānehoa and Maunauna, with their mists and cold winds (the Waikōloa and Wai‘ōpua winds) blowing down from Ka‘ala and carrying the fragrance of the kupukupu ferns and nēnē grasses. Forests cloaked these mountains and the steeper slopes of the Wai‘anae ridgeline, and forests covered the rising Ko‘olau ridges and narrow tributary valleys to the east (just east of today’s Wahiawā town and Waikakalaua). Between these forest lands was a man-made, heavily cultivated landscape. Irrigated kalo was grown in the bottoms of narrow gulches, and the flat intervening kula were covered with dryland (rainfall) sweet potato fields, probably with small scattered groves of trees. A major trail came up from Pu‘uloa through this area and down to Waialua’s shore (the Waialua trail), passing along the west edge of Kaukonahua Stream, crossing to the east edge just west of Kūkaniloko. Another trail crossed over from the Wai‘anae side through Kolekole pass and connected to the Waialua Trail near where the north and south forks of Kaukonahua join. A third trail came up from the west edge of Pu‘uloa and met the Kolekole Trail about halfway across. 193

Here and there down the gradual slopes below the Wai‘anae ridgeline were houseyards of commoners in lands, some still known as Paupauwela, Malamanui, Kalena, Pulei, and Hale‘au‘au (the latter four within Līhu‘e). Small heiau, and perhaps one luakini were in this area – and undoubtedly small shrines, open areas for games, and storied stones and places on landscape. Indeed, this was a famed area of battles in the time of the king Kūali‘i, one of the greatest of all the Kingdom of O‘ahu rulers. But the bulk of the population -- the rulers and high chiefs and their retainers that once lived in this area and resident commoners -- all seem to have lived on the much flatter kula in the center of the Plateau. This area of densely packed houseyards and some gaming areas was focused along the Waialua Trail in the west, and had branch trails leading to Kūkaniloko and the housing areas in its eastern half. It extended in a rough circle from the sacred area of Kūkaniloko in Wahiawā (perhaps with internal lands called Kua‘ikua, Kapu‘ahu‘awa, Kunaka, Kukui-o-Lono, Halahape), across Kaukonahua Stream and south along the west side of the Waialua Trail in Līhu‘e, around the south fork of Kaukonahua to the east of theConfidential Trail (in Kalakoa), and across the the south fork and north through today’s Wahiawā town. This central core area was the chiefly center of Wahiawā- Līhu‘e-Kalakoa that is noted in the old oral histories.

Kūkaniloko was within this chiefly residential area – the most famed of all the places in this cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. 194

SECTION 3

KŪKANILOKO’S USES WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE EARLY ROYAL AND CHIEFLY CENTER AT LĪHU‘E-KALAKOA-WAHIAWĀ

INTRODUCTION

The commonly known use of Kūkaniloko in traditional times was as a birthing place for the nobility of O‘ahu. One record from the mid-1800s states that it was also a pu‘uhonua (refuge area). Others have suggested in more recent years that Kūkaniloko was used to track the seasons by observing celestial events and was used for chiefly instruction. Each is discussed bellow, starting with Kūkaniloko’s use as a birthing place.

------

KŪKANILOKOConfidential AS A BIRTHING PLACE FOR NOBILITY

O Kukaniloko kahi i makemake nui ia e na‘lii o Oahu nei, he wahi hoi ia e hoi ai na ‘lii e hanau i ka wa kahiko, (pela ka olelo ia e ka poe kahiko o keia aina) he wahi no hoi e waiho ai na piko o ua mau poe alii ‘la, …

Kūkaniloko is the place the chiefs of O‘ahu greatly desired. It is a place that chiefs went to give birth a long time ago (that is what the old people of this place say). It is a place where the umbilical cord of the chiefs was left, … [1865, Kalanikuihonoinamoku]408

If a chiefess entered and leaned against Kūkaniloko and rested on the supports to hold up the thighs in observance of the Līloe kapu [the prescribed regulations for birthing], the child born in the presence of the chiefs was called an ali‘i, an akua, a wela – a chief, a god, a blaze of heat. [1865, Kamakau]409

Chiefs born at Kūkaniloko were the akua of the land and were ali‘i kapu … [1865, Kamakau]410

Two kinds of historical material are available on Kūkaniloko as a birthing place in traditional times. There is information that comes from old traditional times – information recorded from kūpuna who lived in those times, information passed down by kūpuna within the community and recorded much more recently, and archaeological information. Then there are hypotheses on the birthing rituals, when in calendrical years Kūkaniloko was created and used, the appearance of Kūkaniloko, etc. These hypotheses

194 195

come from all time periods and sources. This section tries to sort out the little bits of old information that are available, and then looks at different hypotheses.

The old oral historical information recorded in the pre-1880 era directly from those who lived in those times are what initially identify Kūkaniloko as a birthing place for O‘ahu nobility. But there are very few old sources on Kūkaniloko birthing with any details. The earliest recorded information about Kūkaniloko as a birthing place seems to be Malo’s 1840s manuscript (Ka Moolelo Hawaii).411 Malo simply identifies Kapawa as a chief who was born here. But the information that virtually all cite today is Kamakau’s 1865 newspaper article, translated and published by the Bishop Museum.412 This article and another 1865 Kamakau article on the ruler Kākuhihewa413 provide the only pre-1880 description of the birthing place in use, of associated rituals, and of rituals at the adjacent heiau of Ho‘olonopahu. Other 1860s articles by Kamakau mention births of a very few specific chiefs at Kūkaniloko and describe other types of chiefs that appear to have been associated with Kūkaniloko (lō ali‘i and Kumuhonua chiefs). Interestingly, Kamakau included in his Confidentialpublications as inserts a few mele ‘inoa or honorific chants that link a few chiefs to Kūkaniloko, and these seem to be older source material – coming from older times largely intact. In our search through Hawaiian language newspapers of this era (using www.nupepa.org and the keyword Kukaniloko), no other substantive account was found of birthing at Kukaniloko, although a couple of articles contribute some minor information.414 Fornander and his collectors also gathered some information on Kūkaniloko in the 1860s, which appears in the Fornander Collection and in his English history,415 but some of this material in his English history clearly is derived from Kamakau based on the wording. Fornander additionally provides the first hypotheses on when Kūkaniloko was established in calendrical years – the widely cited AD 1100 date.

In post-1880 times, but still in the 1800s, Kalākaua has some brief references to Kūkaniloko as a birthing place in his 1888 book of English short stories.416 As will be seen, these include hypotheses on Kūkaniloko’s appearance and on the age of Kūkaniloko in calendrical years. But Kalākaua’s baseline information seems to be derived from Fornander to a large degree (and probably Kamakau before him). This is not surprising, for various sources (including Fornander’s preface to his history) indicate that Kalākaua and Fornander shared information, and undoubtedly discussed interpretations of Hawaiian history.417 Last, in his 1890s notes to his translation of Malo’s book, Emerson provides some additional information on Kūkaniloko birthing.418

Only very, very little traditional information on Kūlaniloko comes from post-1900 times. Lahilahi Webb’s 1920s manuscripts include some previously unreported older information obtained from the local Hawaiian community about 1925 – information that seems to have been passed down from local kūpuna.419 New archaeological information on the stones themselves related to birthing was emphasized by the Stasacks in recording petroglyphs at Kūkaniloko in 2010 for this study. Other post-1900s material on Kūkaniloko either just resummarizes the older recorded sources or offers hypotheses related to Kūkaniloko. Thrum’s 1911 article420 is often cited, but he simply resummarized or quoted some of Kamakau’s and Fornander’s information. Lahilahi Webb’s 1920s manuscripts also mostly resummarize or quote the older sources. In 1942,

195 196

Pukui in analyzing birthing practices in general includes some information on Kūkaniloko that is derived from Kamakau.421 The 1994 National Register nomination form brings together much of this earlier information (albeit briefly).422 More recently, relevant hypotheses on birthing at Kūkaniloko have been offered by the Jensens, GANDA researchers, and Hawaiians in the local community.423 This part of the report again will look at the source material and at hypotheses. It also will offer some hypotheses on Kūkaniloko, based on a review of early information relevant to dating Kūkaniloko, birthing rituals of rulers and high chiefs, etc.

When Did Kūkaniloko begin to be used for Ali‘i Birthing?

According to Kamakau,424 “Kukaniloko was made by Nanakaoko and his wife Ka-hihi-o-ka-lani as a place for the birth of their child Kapawa.” Malo425 also places Kapawa’s birth here, “the ali‘i (chief) born at Kukaniloko”. Fornander agrees, “The building up and consecration of Kukaniloko …, that peculiarly hallowed place in all subsequent ages of Hawaiian history … is universally and continuously ascribed to Confidential426 Kapawa’s father Nanakaoko.” “He [Nana-kaōko] and his wife, Kahihiokalani, are by the oldest, and by all the legends, acknowledged as having built the famous and in all subsequent ages hallowed place called Kukaniloko.”427 He stated that Kapawa was born here and was a chief of Waialua, before departing for Hawai‘i Island.428

As seen earlier (pp. 121-125), problems arise in trying to determine when Nana- kaōko and Kapawa might have lived. One usually sees in the literature a date of the AD 1100s for the founding of Kūkaniloko.429 However, this is a hypothesis – an estimate. Also, this is not a date estimated from Nanakaoko’s or Kapawa’s place on the genealogies (the Ulu Hema genealogy specifically). This date seems to come from Fornander. Fornander concluded that the Ulu Hema genealogy was not an accurate list of succeeding generations of chiefs, arguing that some 17 generations of chiefly names had been inserted between Kapawa’s time and Pili’s time. His analysis (which will be discussed below) concluded that Kapawa was roughly in the time of the chief Māweke’s grandsons, Māweke being a real chief on the Nana‘ulu genealogy and the Nana‘ulu genealogy being considered accurate back to Māweke. Based on a 30 year per generation count, Fornander dated Māweke to AD 1030. Māweke’s grandsons would then date about AD 1100. This date of Fornander’s, repeated by Kalākaua and Thrum, seems to be the basis for the date for Kūkaniloko that most cite today. The 30 year count is not used any longer, and if one assigns 20 years per generation, this date would actually be in the 1300s AD. So … statements that Kūkaniloko dates back to AD 1100 (if based on Fornander, and nearly all such claims are) should be revised to say AD 1300s.

Some disagree with Fornander’s conclusions about where Nana-kaoko and Kapawa should be placed on the genealogies. If one disagrees with Fornander and believes Kapawa is much earlier on the genealogies, then Fornander’s AD 1100 date for Kūkaniloko should not be accepted, nor the revision to the AD 1300s. Another estimate needs to be made to address these concerns.

196 197

One can try to derive a date for Nanakaoko or Kapawa by tracing them back on the Ulu genealogy (the Wākea-Hāloa-Ulu-Hema genealogy of chiefs), assuming this is an accurate list of historical chiefs by generation, and then assigning 20 years per generation. Nana-kaōko and Kapawa are far back on that line. Commonly, one sees references to the Ulu genealogy of chiefs listing four successive chiefs: Nana-maoa, Nana-kulei, Nana-kaōko, and Kapawa, who all “lived at Wahiawa and Lihu’e.”430 However, different variations of the Ulu-Hema genealogy survive with different additions and omissions of individuals on the key early portions of the line from about Pili’s time back. Figures 6-17 to 6-23 present seven versions of this genealogy recorded from 1827 to 1869. Some do not even agree on members of the brief Nana-maoa- Kapawa line. Malo’s 1840s manuscript has 5 names in the Nana-maoa-Kapawa line, with Nana-kuae preceding Kapawa.431 His 1827 genealogy omits both Nana-kuae and Kapawa,432 as does the 1838 Ka Mooolelo Hawaii genealogy attributed to Malo and Kamakau’s 1842 genealogy.433 An 1835 genealogy retains Nana-kuae, but he is before Nana-kaōko; and this genealogy omits Kapawa.434 Confidential One could perhaps propose an Ulu-Hema genealogy that most would have agreed to, that included Kapawa and omitted Nana-kuae (Fig. 6-24). In this genealogy, the four Nana-maoa-Kapawa names appear at Generations 23-26. And one could estimate a date for Kapawa by counting back on the line from a known date in the 1700s-1800s. Figure 6-24 uses Kalani‘ōpu‘u’s death in 1782 (rounded to 1780) and his reign being 1760-1780. A date of AD 900-920 for Nana-kaōko and 920-940 for Kapawa results, using 20 years per generation – or AD 680-705 and 705-730 using 25 years per generation. These are dates that few have proposed for the building of Kūkaniloko. Today, given current archaeological evidence, these dates seem too early for settlement on the Central Plateau.

However, a few modern researchers have implied or proposed such early dates for Kūkaniloko’s building, based on the assumption that Ulu Hema genealogy is an accurate list of historical chiefs. Cachola-Abad has disagreed with Fornander’s conclusion that the Ulu-Hema genealogy is seriously flawed and that Kapawa belongs close to Pili’s time, and she argued that Kapawa was likely to be fairly accurately placed in relative order on the genealogy.435 She reviewed and accepted Kamakau’s and Fornander’s basic information on Nanakaoko establishing Kūkaniloko for Kapawa’s birth. However, she did not estimate a calendrical date for the creation of Kūkaniloko the birthing place from the genealogy, so the issue of when Kūkaniloko was made in calendrical years was not raised in her work. But it would be implied to be much earlier than Fornander’s 1300s (revised from the older 30-year estimate of AD 1100).

However, another set of researchers has clearly accepted the Ulu-Hema genealogy as accurate and has proposed that Kūkaniloko was established very early, giving specific dates. Their focus was not on Kūkaniloko, rather on dating the genealogies using astronomical events. But they do present a date for Kūkaniloko’s creation. This group of researchers include W. Bruce Masse, H. David Tuggle, and Rubellite Kawena Johnson, primarily led by Masse and his ideas that were first published in 1995.436 Masse was trying to link known and dated astronomical events (supernovae of long and short duration, comets, great meteor showers, and solar eclipses) with Hawaiian chiefs on the

197 198

genealogies.437 He accepted the genealogies as accurate lines of real historical chiefs, and he assigned 25 years per generation to estimate calendrical dates to these chiefs. He then literally translated chiefs’ names, with nearly all in his view symbolizing astronomical events. Then he hypothesized a match with some of these translated names to known astronomical events of very specific dates of about the same time as the chiefs’ genealogically estimated dates. This approach to link genealogies with astronomical events of known calendrical date is an interesting proposal, but the translated chiefs’ names are very generalized and seem difficult to match to astronomical events. Nonetheless, the important point for this paper is that Masse and his colleagues accepted the Ulu-Hema genealogy as accurate and provided published dates for Nana-kaoko and Kapawa, and Masse associated Kūkaniloko with them. In 1995 Masse dated Kapawa and Kūkaniloko to AD 705-730, and adjusted this date via astronomical events to the 770s.438 In 1998, Masse and Tuggle using 20 years per generation estimated Nana-maoa on the Ulu-Hema line to AD 735 or 800, which they corrected to AD 710 using astronomical events.439 With Nana-kaoko, being two generations later, and Kapawa three, this would then place the originsConfidential of Kūkaniloko in the 700s or early 800s. Rubellite Kawena Johnson has used 25 years/generation and a new estimate of 27 years/generation (derived from astronomical events), and she proposed dates for Nana-kaoko and Kapawa in the AD 600s; and later in her work, she presents several hypothesized dates for Nana-kaoko as AD 640, 700, 783, or 840.440 These dates, given current archaeological ideas on the settlement of the islands and of leeward areas, would seem much too early for settlement on the Centreal Plateau.441

However, the early parts of the Ulu-Hema genealogy of individuals prove not to be a list of successive historical chiefs. Nana-maoa-Kapawa appear immediately after the fictional insertion of the “super-hero” Maui and his father Akalana (Generations 21-22) – clearly mythological characters, of value for chiefs to claim as ancestors, but not real people once resident in the Islands. Importantly, the Nana-maoa-Kapawa set also appears just before another fictional insertion of the mythical Kaha‘i (Tahaki) family of ‘Aikanaka, Hema, Kaha‘i, Wahieloa, and Laka (Generations 29-33), who also occur in famous stories from the central Polynesian homeland – the famed Tahaki (Kaha‘i) stories.442 As mythical heroes, these Kaha‘i family generations clearly cannot be counted as historical in any chronological estimate counting back generations on this line.443 Thus, these portions of the Ulu genealogy are clearly not reporting chiefs who lived in the islands. So, does one delete Generations 29-33 and then move Nana-kaōko and Kapawa farther towards the present on this genealogy, with Kapawa becoming Generation 31? This would move Kapawa to about AD 1020-1040 (20 years per generation) and Nana- maoa to AD 960-980 – both still apparently too early for settlement on the Central Plateau.

198 199

Figure 6-17 WAKEA-ULU-HEMA-HANALAANUI GENEALOGY Malo 1840 Manuscript [Malo (1903) 1951:238]

1. Wakea 31. Hema 2. Haloa 32. Kahai 3. Waia 33. Wahieloa 4. Hinanalo 34. Laka 5. Nanakehili 35. Luanuu 6. Wailoa 36. Pohukaina 7. Kio 37. Hua 8. Ole 38. Pau 9. Pupue 39. Huanuiikalailai (Hua o Pau)* 10. Manaku 40. Paumakua (not there) 11. Lukahakoa Confidential 41. Haho (Hahaho) 12. Luanuu 42. Palena 13. Kahiko 43. Hanalaanui (Halaanui) 14. Kii 44. Lanakawai 15. Ulu 45. Laau 16. Nanaie 46. Pili 17. Nanailani 47. Koa 18. Waikulani 48. Ole (Loe) 19. Kuheileimoana 49. Kukohou 20. Konohiki 50. Kaniuhi 21. Wanena 51. Kanipahu (Kanipapu) 22. Akalana 52. Kalapana 23. Maui 53. Kahaimoelea (Kahaimoeleu) 24. Nanamaoa 54. Kalaunuiohua (Kalau) 25. Nanakulei 55. Kuaiwa 26. Nanakaoko 56. Kohoukapu (Kahoukaopu) 27. Nanakuae 57. Kauhola 28. Kapawa 58. Kiha 29. Heleipawa 59. Liloa 30. Aikanaka

*Chun’s (2006) publication of Malo’s Hawaiian manuscript indicates that the original did not have a chart as above, rather Mokuna (Chapter) 59, Section 2 presented the genealogy as a series of names in sentence format (Chun 2007:Ka ‘Olelo Kumu pages 133-134). Also, as given in the parentheses above, the original manuscript (assuming there are no typos in Chun, 2006) differs from the Bishop Museum translation in spelling of names, and does not include Paumakua in Generation 40. However, a few pages later, Malo’s text did include Paumakua after Hua o Pau (p. 139), and used Haho, Hanalaanui, Kanipahu, Kalaunuiohua, and Kahoukapu (pp. 139-144). The Bishop Museum translation may have been resolving these issues with commonly accepted spellings.

199 200

Figure 6-18 VERSION 2 ULU GENEALOGY PORTION GENEALOGY OF KEOPUOLANI Kamakau 1868 Ka Nupepa Ku’oko’a (Kamakau 1961:434-435)

1. Wakea 31. Genealogy departs following 2. Ha-loa Puna-i-mua, the other son of ‘Ai-kanaka 3. Waia Hema is spelled Henua in Kamakau’s 4. Hina-ualo article. 5. Kakai-hili 6. Wai-loa 7. Kio 8. Ole 9. Pupue Confidential 10. Manaku 11. Lu-ka-hakona 12. Luanu’u 13. ------(Kahiko)* 14. Ki’i 15. ‘Ulu 16. Nanaiea 17. Nana-aia-lani 18. Wai-ku-lani 19. Ku-hele-i-moana 20. Konohiki 21. Wa-wena 22. Akalana 23. Maui-kalana 24. Nana-maoa 25. Nana-ku-lei 26. Nana-kaoko 27. ------(Nanakuae)* 28. Ka-pawa 29. Hele-i-pawa 30. ‘Ai-kanaka

*This genealogy omits these two names that were in Malo’s 1840 Ulu genealogy.

200 201

Figure 6-19 VERSION 3 ULU GENEALOGY Kamakau 1869 (Kamakau 1991:133-158)

1. Wākea 31. Hema 2. Hāloa 32. Kaha‘i-nui-a-Hema 3. Waia 33. Wahieloa 4. Hinalo 34. Laka 5. Kakaihili 35. Lu‘anu‘u __. Kamea (Kamea –a- Lu‘anu‘u) 6. Wailoa 36. Pohukaina 7. Ki‘o 37. Hua (or Hua-a-Pohukaina) 8. ‘Ole 38. Pau-a-Hua 9. Pupue Confidential 39. Hua-a-Pau (or Huanuiikalailai) 10. Manakū 40. Paumakua 11. Kahiko* (not Lukahakoa) 41. Haho 12. Luanu‘u 42. Palena-a-Haho 13. ------(Kahiko moved up) 43. Hanala‘anui 14. Ki‘i 44. Lana-ka-wai 15. ‘Ulu 45. La‘au-ali‘i 16. Nana‘ie 46. Pili 17. Nanaialani 47. Koa 18. Waikūlani 48. ‘Ole 19. Kūheileimoana 49. Kūkohou (or Kūkahoulani) 20. Konohiki 50. Kaniuhi 21. Wawena 51. Kanipahu 22. Akalana 52. Kalapana 23. Māui-akalana 53. Kaha‘i-moe-le‘a-i-ka-‘ai-kapu-kūpou 24. Nana-maoa 54. Kalau-nui-o-Hua 25. Nana-kulei 55. Kūaiwa 26. Nana-kaōko 56. Kahoukapu 27. Nanakuae (not there) 57. Kauhola 28. Kapawa 58. Kiha 29. Heleipawa 59. Liloa __. Hulumānailani (or Kailoau) 30. ‘Aikanaka [Continues on, p. 158-159]

*Kamakau’s spellings differ from Malo, particularly early in the genealogy. Also, two chiefs are added (Hulumānailani after Generation 29 and Kamea after Generation 35) and two are deleted (Lukahakoa replaced by Kahiko at Generation 11, and Nanakuae just before Generation 28 Kapawa). [okina and kahako are followed as in Kamakau 1991 translation edited by Barrere.]

201 202

Figure 6-20 VERSION 4 ULU GENEALOGY Malo 1827 [Chun 2006:Appendices 210-213]

1. Wakea 31. Hema 2. Haloa 32. Kahai 3. Waia 33. Wahieloa 4. Hinainalo 34. Laka 5. Nakehili 35. Luanuu Kamea (added) 6. Wailoa 36. Pohukaina 7. Kio 37. Huaokuapuaimanaku 8. Ole 38. Paukumuhua 9. Pupue Confidential 39. Huanuiikalailai 10. Manaku 40. Paumakua 11. Kahiko (not Lukahakoa)* 41. Haho 12. Luanuu 42. Palena 13. ------(Kahiko moved up) 43. Hanalaanui (Halaanui) 14. Kii 44. Lanakawai 15. Ulu 45. Laau 16. Nanaie 46. Pili 17. Nanailani 47. Koa 18. Waikulani 48. Ole 19. Kuheleimoana 49. Kukohou 20. Konohiki 50. Kaniuhi 21. Wawena 51. Kanipahu 22. Akalana 52. Kalapana 23. Mauiakalana 53. Kahaimoeleaikaaikupou 24. Nanamaoa 54. Kalaunuiohua 25. Nanakulei 55. Kuaiwa 26. Nanakaoko 56. Kahoukapu 27. Nanakuae (omitted) 57. Kauholanuimahu 28. Kapawa (omitted) 58. Kiha 29. Heleipawa 59. Liloa __. Hulumanailani (added) 30. Aikanaka (omitted)

*Malo’s differ a bit from Malo in 1840. from Malo, particularly early in the genealogy. Also, two chiefs are added (Hulumānailani after Generation 29 and Kamea after Generation 35) and four are deleted (Lukahakoa replaced by Kahiko at Generation 11, Nanakuae and Kapawa in Generations 27-28, and Aikanaka in Generation 30).

202 203

Figure 6-21 VERSION 5 -- ULU GENEALOGY Dibble 1838 Ka Mooolelo Hawaii [genealogy attributed to Malo] (Kahananui 1984:186-188, English) [Republished by Fornander 1878:190-191, who noted “the Ulu-Hema line as currently adopted in the time of Kamehameha I., and first published by David Malo in 1838, in his Moolelo Hawaii”]

1. Wakea 31. Hema 2. Haloa 32. Kahai 3. Waia 33. Wahieloa 4. Hinanalo 34. Laka 5. Nanakehili 35. Luanuu __. Kamea (added) 6. Wailoa Confidential 36. Pohukaina 7. Kio 37. Hua 8. Ole 38. Pau 9. Pupue 39. Huanuiikalalailai 10. Manaku 40. Paumakua 11. Kahiko (not Lukahakoa)* 41. Haho 12. Luanuu 42. Palena 13. ------(Kahiko moved up) 43. Hanalaanui 14. Kii 44. Lanakawai 15. Ulu 45. Laau 16. Nanaie 46. Pili 17. Nanailani 47. Koa 18. Waikulani 48. Ole 19. Kuheleimoana 49. Kukohou 20. Konohiki 50. Kaniuhi 21. Wawena 51. Kanipahu 22. Akalana 52. Kalapana 23. Mauiakalana 53. Kahaimoeleaikaaikupou 24. Nanamaoa 54. Kalaunuiohua 25. Nanakulei 55. Kuaiwa 26. Nanakaoko 56. Kohoukapu 27. Nanakuae (omitted) 57. Kauholanuimahu 28. Kapawa (omitted) 58. Kiha 29. Heleipawa 59. Liloa __. Hulumanailani (added) 30. Aikanaka

*Spellings differ a bit from Malo in 1840. Also, two chiefs are added (Hulumānailani after Generation 29 and Kamea after Generation 35) and three are deleted (Lukahakoa replaced by Kahiko at Generation 11, and Nanakuae and Kapawa in Generations 27-28).

203 204

Figure 6-22 VERSION 6 ULU GENEALOGY Kepo’okulou of Ka’awaloa (??) 1835 in Kumu Hawaii [McKinzie 1983:xiv-xv]

1. 31. Hema 2. Haloa 32. Kahai 3. Waia 33. Wahieloa 4. Hinanalo 34. Laka 5. Nakehili 35. Luanuu __. Kamea (added) 6. Wailoa 36. ------(Pohukaina omitted) 7. Kio 37. Hua 8. Ole Confidential 38. Pao 9. Pupue 39. ------(Huanuiikalalailai omitted) 10. Manaku 40. ------(Paumakua omitted) 11. Kahiko (not Lukahakoa)* 41. Hoaho 12. Nuanuu 42. Palena 13. ------(Kahiko moved up) 43. Hana 14. ------(Kii omitted) 44. Lonokawai 15. ------(Ulu omitted) 45. Laau 16. ------(Nanaie omitted) 46. Pili 17. ------(Nanailani omitted) 47. Koa 18. ------(Waikulani omitted) 48. Loe 19. ------(Kuheleimoana omitted) 49. Kukehau 20. ------(Konohiki omitted) 50. Kaniuhi 21. ------(Wawena omitted) 51. Kanipahu 22. ------(Akalana omitted) 52. Kalapana 23. Mawi 53. Kahaimoeleaikaaikupou 24. Nanamaoa 54. Kalaunuiohua 25. Nanakuae (Nanakulei omitted) 55. Kuaiwa 26. (Nanakaoko 56. Kahoukapu 27. ------(Nanakuae moved up) 57. Kauhola 28. ------(Kapawa omitted) 58. Kiha 29. Heleipawa 59. Liloa __. Hulumalailani (added) 30. Aikanaka

*This genealogy may have been for Keopuolani (McKinzie 1983:note on xv). It clearly has many more omissions that other versions. It also has some variations in the Nanamaoa to Kapawa line.

204 205

Figure 6-23 VERSION 7 ULU GENEALOGY Kamakau 1842 in Ka Nonanona [McKinzie 1983:xix-xxi]

1. Wakea 31. Hema 2. Haloa 32. Kahai 3. Owaia 33. Wahieloa 4. Hinanalo 34. Laka 5. Nanakaihili 35. Luanuu I __. Kamea (added) 6. Wailoa 36. Pohukaina 7. Kio 37. Hua 8. Ole Confidential 38. Pau 9. Pupue 39. Huanuiikalalaailai 10. Manaku 40. Paumakua 11. Kahiko II (Lukahakoa omitted) 41. Haho 12. Luanuu I 42. Palena 13. ------(Kahiko moved up) 43. Hanalaanui 14. Kii 44. Lanakawai 15. Ulu 45. Laau 16. Nanaie 46. Pili 17. Nanailani 47. Koa 18. Waikulani 48. Loe 19. Kuheleimoana 49. Kukohou 20. Konohiki 50. Kaniuhi 21. Wawana 51. Kanipahu __. Kanaloa (added) 22. Akalana 52. Kalapanakuioimoa 23. Mauiakalana 53. Kahaimoeleaikaaikapukupou 24. Nanamaoa 54. Kalaunuiohua 25. Nanakulei 55. Kuaiwa 26. Nanakaoko 56. Kahoukapu 27. ------(Nanakuae omitted) 57. Kauholanuimahu 28. ------(Kapawa omitted) 58. Kihanuilulumoku 29. Heleipawa 59. Liloa __. Hulumanailani (added) 30. Aikanaka

*This Kamakau version has a number of omissions and additions, as opposed to Malo’s 1840 version.

205 206

Figure 6-24 ULU GENEALOGY

Estimate in years A.D. 20 yrs 25 yrs

1. Wākea 2. Hāloa 3. Waia 4. Hinalo 5. Kakaihili 6. Wailoa 7. Ki‘o 8. ‘Ole Confidential 9. Pupue 10. Manakū 11. Kahiko 12. Luanu‘u 13. Ki‘i 14. ‘Ulu 15. Nana‘ie 16. Nanaialani 17. Waikūlani 18. Kūheileimoana 19. Konohiki 20. Wawena 21. Akalana 22. Māui-akalana 23. Nana-maoa 860-880 630-655 24. Nana-kulei 880-900 655-680 25. Nana-kaōko 900-920 680-705 26. Kapawa 920-940 705-730 27. Heleipawa 940-960 730-755 28. Hulumānailani 960-980 755-780 29. ‘Aikanaka 980-1000 780-805 30. Hema 1000-1020 805-830 31. Kaha‘i 1020-1040 830-855 32. Wahieloa 1040-1060 855-880 33. Laka 1060-1080 880-905 34. Lu‘anu‘u 1080-1100 905-930 35. Kamea 1100-1120 930-955 36. Pohukaina 1120-1140 955-980 37. Hua 1140-1160 980-1005

206 207

Estimate in years A.D. 20 yrs 25 yrs

38. Pau (Pau-a-Hua) 1160-1180 1005-1030 39. Hua-a-Pau (or Huanuiikalailai) 1180-1200 1030-1055 40. Paumakua 1200-1220 1055-1080 41. Haho 1220-1240 1080-1105 42. Palena 1240-1260 1105-1130 43. Hanala‘anui 1260-1280 1130-1155 44. Lana-ka-wai 1280-1300 1155-1180 45. La‘au 1300-1320 1180-1205 46. Pili 1320-1340 1205-1230 47. Koa 1340-1360 1230-1255 48. ‘Ole Confidential 1360-1380 1255-1280 49. Kūkohou 1380-1400 1280-1305 50. Kaniuhi 1400-1420 1305-1330 51. Kanipahu 1420-1440 1330-1355 52. Kalapana 1440-1460 1355-1380 53. Kaha‘i-moe-le‘a 1460-1480 1380-1405 54. Kalaunuiohua 1480-1500 1405-1430 55. Kūaiwa 1500-1520 1430-1455 56. Kahoukapu 1520-1540 1455-1480 57. Kauhola 1540-1560 1480-1505 58. Kiha 1560-1580 1505-1530 59. Līloa 1580-1600 1530-1555 60. ‘Umi 1600-1620 1555-1580 61. Keawenui-a-‘Umi 1620-1640 1580-1605 62. Kanaloaku‘uana 1640-1660 1605-1630 63. Keakealanikane 1660-1680 1630-1655 [Lonoikamakahiki generation] 64. Keakamahana (w) 1680-1700 1655-1680 65. Keakealaniwahine (w) 1700-1720 1680-1705 66. Keawe 1720-1740 1705-1730 67. Kalaninui‘Ī‘amamao 1740-1760 1730-1755 [Alapa‘inui generation] 68. Kalani‘ōpu‘u 1760-1780 1755-1780

Derived in part from Kamakau 1869 (Kamakau 1991:133-158)

207 208

However, even moving Kapawa to Generation 31 assumes that the remaining names in this era of the Ulu genealogy are indeed historical people or placed in correct generational order. But Fornander, Stokes and other researchers who have worked extensively with the genealogies and oral stories444 note that factual stories appear to consistently occur on this line only about the time of Haho (Generation 41) or Hanala’a (Generation 43), who would date AD 1220-1240 or 1260-1280. Some mention more historical stories starting with Paumakua (Generation 40) (1200-1220).445

… the parts of the genealogies which seem to refer to human beings extend back on the unmodified lists to Maweke on the Nanaulu lines, to Paumakua on the Puna line and to Pili and possibly Hanalaa on the Hema line. [1932, Stokes]446

One could point to the oli of chiefs on the Ulu-Hema line from Kapawa (Generation 26 in our table) to Paumakua (Generation 40) that listed each chief’s birth Confidential 447 place, where his placenta, navel cord and caul were placed, and where he died, and one could state that this is evidence that these were historical chiefs. However, with the 5 chiefs of the mythical Kaha‘i family in this line (Generations 29-33) having such oli, the oli alone cannot be considered evidence that the honored chiefs were all historical people. The oli could have been composed more recently in traditional times as literary compositions surrounding the names on the genealogy, and some of these people (like those of Kaha‘i’s family) could have been fictional. These oli all have a very uniform style centered around birth place, burial place and places where the placentas, navel cords and cauls went. One must be very careful, thus, in accepting these oli for the chiefs up to Paumakua as proof of the chiefs being historical.448 An analysis of other stories linked to these chiefs is needed to help support who might have been historical chiefs. Such an analysis is what led to the conclusions of Fornander, Stokes, and others noted above. Also, just to add another note of concern about the Ulu-Hema genealogical list, researchers in the 1800s and early 1900s even had doubts about the two names on the list after Pili (Koa and ‘Ole), with uncertainty if they were successive generations.449 In fact, Kalākaua deleted them from his Ulu genealogy.450 All these issues are what led Fornander to consider these early parts of the Ulu genealogy less reliable. Clearly, portions of the Ulu-Hema genealogy are inflated with fictional chiefs. How much inflation occurred is uncertain.

One way to attempt to address this problem is to link members of the Ulu genealogy with members of the Nana‘ulu genealogy – through marriages or joint appearances in stories. The Nana’ulu genealogy has long been considered reliable as a list of historical chiefs back to the time of Maweke.451 Fornander analyzed this issue closely, matching wives and relatives across genealogies. He concluded that Nana-kulei was of the same generation as Māweke’s grandsons (Kumuhonua, ‘Olopana, Mō‘īkeha).452 If Fornander were correct, this would place Nana-kulei ca. 1340-1360. Nana-kaōko, his son, would date AD 1360-1380. Kapawa would follow in 1380-1400. A Kamakau story would support this approximate placement, perhaps a generation later. He notes that Nana-kulei’s son Nana-kaōko was married to Kahihiokalani, who was the granddaughter

208 209

of Ka-uma‘ili‘ula (the grandson of Hīkapoloa of Kohala and the brother of Lu‘ukia, the latter who married ‘Olopana who was the grandson of Māweke and lived about AD 1340- 1360) and the granddaughter of Kaupe‘a (daughter of ‘Olopana).453 This evidence suggests that Nana-kaōko and Kapawa -- and in turn Kūkaniloko -- date to the mid- 1300s.

If one concludes that Nana-kaōko and Kapawa were in the 1300s, then their place in the political organization of the 1300s must be assessed differently. With the Māweke line in control, a likely suggestion is that they were local chiefs of importance under the ruler. The Nana-maoa line of the Ulu genealogy would not have been rulers in this scenario. In this view, perhaps Kūkaniloko was not built for a ruler, but initially for a local chief.

However, in one of Kamakau’s publications in 1870, he noted that “Kapawa was the first chief to be set up as a ruling chief. This was at Waialua, Oahu; and from then on, the group ofConfidential Hawaiian Islands became established as chief-ruled kingdoms.”454 He further stated that “a government by chiefs was established, and the race lived under kings (Mo’i) …”.455 One could interpret this to mean that Kamakau was talking about larger countries with a ruling chief over local chiefs – like the larger O‘ahu countries associated with Māweke’s sons. If this was the case, then perhaps Kapawa and his family dominated one of the first of the larger countries on O‘ahu. All sources agree that he was forced out of O‘ahu, and his family lost power. He died and was buried on Maui in all sources.456 Perhaps on O‘ahu, his family was replaced by the Māweke line. If this scenario were followed, this would place Kapawa at the end of the 1200s or start of the 1300s. His family would be powerful in the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā area from the mid-1200s. There are clues that some of the larger countries were starting to form about this time (late 1200s) – Hīkapoloa’s northernmost Kohala country on Hawai‘i when using non-Nana‘ulu genealogies for dating; the building of the immense Pi‘ilanihale heiau in Hana in eastern Maui.457 But the larger countries with ruler-local chiefs-commoners do not seem likely to be much earlier than the late 1200s. In this scenario, Kūkaniloko would be established at the end of the 1200s or early 1300s.

However, if one does not accept Kapawa being in the 1300s or just prior to Māweke in the late 1200s and believes that he is much farther back in time on the Ulu- Hema genealogy, then his family as chiefs of the Central Plateau cannot be confidently placed any earlier than the 1100s-1200s, for those are the earliest archaeological dates for occupation of the Central Plateau. If Kapawa’s family were in the 1100s-mid-1200s, this would be in the time period of small countries with no stratification, with perhaps the Central Plateau being the county in which they resided. In this context, Kūkaniloko would be a birthing spot established early in the occupation of this region in support of chiefly birth. But again, this era had only one chief in the country, who was the head of the senior lineage with little power; there would have been no low chiefs, and no other high chiefs. This birth place would have been for the heir or chief’s family – a very different cultural context than commonly considered for Kūkaniloko.

209 210

In conclusion, one cannot confidently hypothesize when Nana-kaōko or Kapawa lived from the genealogies and oral histories. It seems likeliest to be the late 1200s – mid 1300s. Alternately, if it is earlier (in the 1100s to mid-1200s), then one is looking at Kūkaniloko being established as the birthing place of the chiefly line that controlled the small country of the Central Plateau – before the rise of the larger more stratified countries of the 1300s, before mō‘ī and ali‘i nui with elaborate kapu..

What Did Kūkaniloko Look Like When Used for Birthing?

Today, as seen in Chapter 5, the “birthing stones” monument contain the cluster of 180 basalt stones – “large, highly weathered, and deeply imbedded in the red soils” and with their reddish-brown weathered surfaces quite smooth with “distinct surface features … such as bowl-like depressions, concavities of various shapes and series of grooves and ridges.”458 In 1865 Kamakau provided our only descriptions of Kūkaniloko in use for birthing, and this use had been 200+ years before Kamakau’s time.459 This description is Confidentialwidely cited, but as will be seen, there may be some flaws in the description. Strikingly, despite reviewing many documents, we could find no record from the 1700s to 1920s in which anyone had visited Kukaniloko and described its internal features – even Kamakau does not provide such a first-hand description. It is likely that such descriptions exist, but more research needs to occur to try to find them.

1. The Birthing Stones Area

A line of stones was set up on the right hand and another on the left hand, facing north. There sat thirty-six chiefs. There was a backrest, a kuapu‘u, on the upper side, this was the rock Kukaniloko, which was the rock to lean against. If a chiefess entered and leaned against Kukaniloko and rested on the supports to hold up the thighs in observance of the Liloe kapu [the prescribed regulations for birthing], the child born in the presence of the chiefs was called an ali‘i, an akua, a wela – a chief, a god, a blaze of heat. [1865 Kamakau]460

The birthing stones were not described first-hand until the 1920s and 1930s, and then only briefly. It was not until State Parks’ archaeologists mapped them in detail in 1992 and numbered and photographed each stone that they were well recorded.461 But since the 1920s, the descriptions of the stones describe them as a scattered cluster with no real arrangements. Kamakau’s 1865 description of the birthing area in use, however, seems to state that some stones were erected in lines – not lying about as apparent natural stones, the appearance of Kūkaniloko today. The study of Kūkaniloko’s petroglyphs done for this project by Ed and Diane Stasack (well known recorders of Hawaiian petroglyphs for many years) looked more closely at many man-made basins (poho) on the birthing stones.463 Such poho were found in birthing associated cultural sites elsewhere in the islands, 464 so these seem likely to have been present when Kūkaniloko was in use as a high chiefly birthing place. Their positioning on the stones here suggests that the stones

210 211

of Kūkaniloko were in the same form and position as they are today – natural and not “set-up” (man-made) in lines.

In 1925 when the Daughters of Hawai‘i were about to take over the care of Kūkaniloko, one local kama‘āina informant, Mr. Kapanokalani provided them the following information recorded by Lahilahi Webb and noted in the 1994 National Register form:465

Mr. Kapanokalani … stated that he was told by his grandfather, Wahinealii, “that the proper site of ‘Kukaniloko’ was about a quarter mile from the site of today …” He goes on to say that it was located in an area to the north “cleared of stone and planted with pine- apples.”

Kapanokalani was identified three years earlier as being part of the family whose Confidential466 members “have been the ancestral caretakers of Kukaniloko.” [Wahinealli Keoni was a male child of Paaluhi and Maria Paaluhi – a family living in Wahiawā in the 1878 census. If this Wahinealii was Kapanokalani’s grandfather, the family would have been present at least in the 1870s.467] Kapanokalani said the boulders fenced-in (the current boulders) were commemorations of the high chiefess Kahamaluili and her group, who “heard the drums announce the birth of a chiefly child. They immediately lay down and could not move until the ceremonies were complete.”468 This claim is hard to evaluate today. However, other elderly kama‘āina informants who met with the Daughters in 1925 (e.g., John Holani Hao, and Daniel Hookala) did definitely identify the current stones as the birthing stones. Also, the Stasacks identification of the many poho on the stones indicates birthing activities.

Assuming that the current stones were the birthing stones, there is consistent agreement that there was a stone called Kūkaniloko, where the chiefess gave birth. But there is some disagreement about which stone was the one called Kūkaniloko. In 1925, again, the Kukaniloko Committee of the Daughters of Hawai‘i met a group of Hawaiians from the Wahiawā area at Kūkaniloko prior to taking on care of the site. Oscar Cox, John Holani Hao, and Daniel Hookala (the latter two old men) pointed out the Kūkaniloko stone, “one of the largest, deeply imbedded in the ground, – the Kukaniloko Stone – the upper surface of which has rudely shaped depressions fitting the human form.”469 “On close inspection, one could make out depressions on its surface that crudely resemble a human body. Here the expectant mother would recline as the child was born, while an elaborate ceremony took place around her.”470 In 1925, this stone was right across from where the Keanini stone had been erected,471 but unfortunately at present it is not clear where this was. Today, two stones are identified as the Kūkaniloko stone, and it is not clear whether either one matches the one identified in the 1920s. Tom Lenchanko has identified a stone (#68), where the chiefess is said to have leaned back against it and was supported on each side by the arms of attendants, whose arms rested in grooves on the rock.472 Kalama Makaneole and Alice Greenwood have identified two other stones (#45, 46) – one large with an indentation “like a cradle, like a wash bay”,

211 212

with “another slim rock where your feet would push.” This “pohaku was big enough for two people to sit on! … why? They said because the nurse goes from behind and pushes. Then the feet do not touch the ground.”473 In another kupuna interview, it was noted that if the chiefess was having problems giving birth and needed to be in another position, she was moved to another stone.

Also, in 1925, one informant, Mrs. Katherine Keaopolohiwa Drew, stated that “there was a flat rock near the stone Kukaniloko where the child was immediately placed after its birth whilst the priests offered up a prayer.”474

Again, many of these stones have worn basins (some man-made, some natural) that are commonly called poho at other birthing sites. The Stasacks initially documented the locations of these poho in their 2010 study for this study. Kamakau did not mention them in his 1865 descriptions. In 1925, one informant said that some were for holding ho‘okupu. Others have suggested they held birthing by-products (such as the ‘iewe, piko, fluids). One informant said one was used to hold water from a nearby pond, water that Confidential475 was used to clean the baby and mother after birth. [Other ideas about the use of these poho exist, but they are not related to birthing and will be discussed farther on in this section of the chapter.]

Two stones in this area have traditional era petroglyphs (stones 61 and 103). These petroglyphs have only been described since about 1970, and then quite briefly.476 Detailed documentation of the petroglyphs was the primary focus of the Stasacks study for this project, and they are acknowledged experts in documentation of petroglyphs and had observed the petroglyphs here since the 1980s. Like the poho, Kamakau did not mention the petroglyphs when describing birthing activities at Kūkaniloko. Stone 61 includes some circles and a possible fishhook. Stone 103, roughly diamond shaped, has two sets of concentric circles each with a depressed pit or dot in the center, and some “indeterminate linear markings.” Stone 69 was once considered to have old images. In 1980 it had 25 visible images – 6 human figures, some with spears, a canoe and fishhooks. However, the Stasacks argue convincingly that stone 69’s petroglyphs are recently made (probably in the 1960s-1970s), given their mostly non-traditional images, style, and overall composition, and the fact that they have faded since 1980 and are virtually gone today.477 The meaning and use of petroglyphs is far from certain. In 1915 Beckwith was told by two elderly Hawaiians at the Pu‘uloa petroglyph field in Puna that the concentric circles with a central dot represented “the first-born of an alii”.478 This meaning would appear to have relevance to Kukaniloko. But, in 1823, William Ellis had been told that for such petroglyphs “the dot signified a man, and the number of rings denoted the number in the party who had circumambulated the island.” 479 These are the only two old indigenous interpretations of petroglyphs that appear in the petroglyph literature, and it is certainly possible that the concentric circles had other meanings. Indeed, at Kūkaniloko the primary current view is that stone 103’s concentric circles were to track seasons and teach navigation, and this is discussed later in this section.

212 213

Confidential

Figure 6-25. Poho, or worn basins, in the birthstones. The stone in the central foreground has several poho on top, as does the stone back and just to the right. (Photo by Stasack and Stasack 2010).

Figure 6-26. Same poho, closer up.

213 214

Figure 6-27. StoneConfidential 61, showing circles and fishhook. The mid-1800s printing, KINI, could possibly indicate all these petroglyphs were mid-1800s in age. (Stasack and Stasack 2010).

Figure 6-28. Stone 103, showing one set of concentric circles very clearly.

214 215

Confidential

Figure 6-29. Stone 69, photographed by E. Stasack in 1980s. Today these petroglyphs are not visible on stone 69. The Stasacks also point out that these figures are not in traditional petroglyph styles, nor are they arranged in a traditional manner. These factors and other points led the Stasacks to conclude that these are modern era petroglyphs, and are not traditional era glyphs. (Stasack and Stasack 2010)

215 216

2. Ho’olonopahu Heiau & a Possible Drum Structure

Kamakau’s 1865 article identifies two other places within Kūkaniloko that were used during birthing rites – a heiau where the navel cord was cut and a place where a sacred drum was beaten to announce the birth.

When the child was born, it was immediately taken into the waihau heiau Ho‘olono-pahu. There forty-eight chiefs ministered to the child and cut the navel cord. Ho‘olono- pahu was a furlong and a half south of Kukaniloko.480

A furlong and a half places this heiau 1,000 feet south of Kūkaniloko, close to the edge of the North Fork of Kaukonahua.

Confidential Figure 6-30. Map indicating points at distances from Kūkaniloko’s birthing stones, as given in oral accounts.

216 217

The place where the sacred drum(s) was beaten is not named by Kamakau, nor does his description state whether a structure was present. “Two furlongs to the west of Kukaniloko was where the sacred drum Hawea was beaten; it indicated the birth of a chief.”481 This would be 1,300 feet (about ¼ mile) to the west – not too far from the main stream of Kaukonahua seaward of the joining of the forks. However, four years later in an 1869 article, Kamakau482 says “Ho‘olonopahu was a sacred spot, a consecrated spot. It was the waihau heiau where the navel cords of the chiefs were cut. There the ancient pahu drum Hawea … was sounded to announce the birth of a chief and the cutting of the navel cord.” This statement seems to say that the drums were at the heiau and were not at a second place. Beckwith in 1940 follows this latter view. “At Ho‘olono-pahu (Sounding the pahu drum) the navel cord was tied and cut while the drum sounded.”483 She has the drums apparently sounded at the heiau. So the records are not clear if the drums were sounded from Ho‘olonopahu or a separate spot. However, as will be seen below, other recorded similar ceremonies seem to have the drums beaten from the heiau where the navel cord was cut or a reenactment of its cutting took place. Confidential All records suggest that Ho‘olonopahu Heiau was destroyed by pineapple cultivation. We had hoped to find first-hand descriptions of Kūkaniloko by a visitor between the 1700s-1900 (before pineapple cultivation) to see if they described the ruins of the heiau – its location, foundation size, orientation, details of its architecture. Although we believe it is likely that such a description will be found, we were unable to find one. This search for a description is a needle-in-a-haystack situation that will require much more research.

3. Other Features Associated with Birthing

Although Kamakau only described the stones, the heiau and a possible drum location, the preparers of the National Register nomination form in 1994 aptly noted that there was probably “an unknown number of other features needed to perform the appropriate rituals and to support those attending to the birth.”484 This is a point also implied by Vicki Holt-Takamine in our interviews, noting the Kūkaniloko was a complex consisting of “places for the newborn ali‘i to stay until the piko fell out. It was not some place where you just gave birth and left. It was a whole complex where the women would stay there until they were ready to hānau, then stay there until the ‘iewe was buried and the piko fell off and was buried. It was a complex.”

Related to this point are a few interesting lines from a mele for Kalanikauikeaoli, published in 1860:

O mai ka Lani, The chief calls out, Ke ‘Lii Oahu, o Kuihewa, The chief of Oahu, Kuihewa, I hanau i Halekumulani, Born in Halekumulani, Iloko o Kukaniloko, Inside Kukaniloko, Kahi mai ka pahu no ka piko, The drum sounds for the navel cord, [1860 Na AMI]485

217 218

It refers to Halekumulani within Kūkaniloko, where Kākuhihewa was born. Perhaps this is referring to a structure or a place within the birthing area.

In the mid-1860s-1870 ‘Ī‘ī mentioned that there was “a pond belonging to the village” – village seemingly referring to the chiefly center.486 He did not tie it with birthing activities. However, two of our informants, Alice Greenwood and Arlene Eaton, said a pond was near Kūkaniloko. Alice Greenwood noted that water from this pond was placed in a stone basin next to the Kūkaniloko stone to clean the child and/or mother after birth. She said “her aunty described the pond. The pond was towards the Wai‘anae mountain range and was close to Kūkaniloko. When the Galbraiths moved in they filled in the pond and bulldozed the area.” It is possible that a pond was within Kūkaniloko.

As will be seen, another set of recent researchers have suggested that a Hale o Papa may have been present for post-birth piko ceremonies for female babies born at Kūkaniloko. Confidential Clearly, other features may have been within Kūkaniloko to support the high ranking birthing practices here.

Kūkaniloko as a Large Sacred Enclosed Area

… he was told there was a large outer enclosure -- almost to Kaukonahua Gulch – a huge square. [Kamoa Quitevas interview]

Often not considered today is the fact that such a special place is likely to have been marked off, probably even fenced or walled off. Kamakau in his 1865 article487 says that “only one chief of Maui ever entered Kukaniloko” and that Kamehameha “desired to have Keopulolani give birth inside of Kukaniloko” [bold underlining mine] – implying that there was a demarcated area. Kamakau also indicates that during royal births, commoners and kauwa gathered – to the west “on the east of the stream on that side of Kua‘ikua were the maka‘āinana – a great many of them – and to the south, three furlongs distant, were the kauwa.”488 One would assume from cultural patterns of separation of the ranks that the commoners and kauwā gathered outside the sacred enclosure. Interestingly, Kalākaua in his 1880s stories of the area refers to “the sacred enclosure of Kukaniloko”489 which may be what he had been told, or had seen, or had hypothesized from his knowledge of general Hawaiian culture.

In sum, it seems likely that the Kūkaniloko area would have been enclosed. It would also seem likely that at least the birthing stones, the waihau heiau of Ho‘olonopahu, and a drum area (if the latter was separate from the heiau) would have been within such an enclosure, as well as open areas of uncertain size.

218 219

The Birthing Rituals

In all the archival material that we reviewed, only Kamakau provided old information on the specific rituals used in birthing at Kūkaniloko. His descriptions include several rituals -- rituals occurring at birth at the birthing stones, occurring at the heiau, and involving the drums afterwards.

“If a chiefess entered and leaned against Kukaniloko and rested on the supports to hold up the thighs in observance of the Liloe kapu [the prescribed regulations for birthing], the child born in the presence of the chiefs was called an ali’i, an akua, a wela – a chief, a god, a blaze of heat” [Kamakau 1865].490 The Liloe kapu is not described by Kamakau, or other sources that we looked at. More research is needed to shed light on this kapu. The mention of “supports to hold up the thighs” is interesting. Does it mean something such as wooden supports, or could it symbolically refer to the arms of retainers. T. Lenchanko has demonstrated where arms of the retainers could have supported the chiefessConfidential – matching natural grooves in one of the stones. 491

Kamakau noted that 36 chiefs sat on or against two lines of stones during the birth. How Kamakau came up with 36 chiefs, no more or no less is not clear. Kamakau often strikingly used a specific date or a specific number in his writings, when it was clearly almost impossible to do so – perhaps he did this as a literary impact device. Typically, at Contact each kingdom had about 15-20 high chiefs. It seems likely that Kamakau’s statement actually could mean, “the high chiefs were present and sitting” (with the number perhaps differing depending on the rank of the pending child).492

The cutting of the navel cord at the heiau followed. “When the child was born, it was immediately taken into the waihau heiau Ho‘olono-pahu. There forty-eight chiefs ministered to the child and cut the navel cord.”493 Again, one could wonder how Kamakau came to 48 chiefs, no more, no less. Again, it seems more likely that a varying number of chiefs would attend the ceremony of the cutting of the navel cord.

The beating of the drums to announce the birth followed. Either as Kamakau noted in 1865 “two furlongs to the west of Kukaniloko was where the sacred drum Hawea was beaten;” or as Kamakau wrote in 1869, the drums were in Ho‘olono-pahu.494 For Kākuhihewa’s birth at Kūkaniloko, Kamakau in 1865 notes “the two drums ‘Opuku and Hawea were sounded.”495 Kākuhihewa reigned approximately 1640-1660, and it is likely that he was born about 1620.

For Kakuhihewa’s birth, Kamakau wrote that “When the kahuna had finished the rites of purification – the huikala, kai ‘olena, lele uli, and lele wai rites – all defilements were cleared away.”496 What these rituals were is not clear to us. Again, more research may clarify this statement.

Also, while the birth and heiau rituals seem restricted to high chiefs, Kamakau indicates that commoners gathered nearby at the time of the birth and rituals, and kauwa - - “on the east of the stream on that side of Kua‘ikua were the maka‘āinana – a great many

219 220 of them – and to the south, three furlongs distant, were the kauwa.”497 The directions would suggest perhaps that the commoners were on the east side of the main Kaukonahua Stream (west of Kūkaniloko),498 and the kauwā were 3/8 of a mile to the south, maybe across the North Fork. A gathering of the local populace for such a special event certainly seems plausible, particularly in the case of the birth of a child to the ruler.

There is also a bit of information from the same time period as Kamakau (1865), published in Ke Au Okoa by Kalanikuihonoinamoku. He stated that the piko was left at Kūkaniloko.

O Kukaniloko kahi i makemake nui ia e na‘lii o Oahu nei, he wahi hoi ia e hoi ai na ‘lii e hanau i ka wa kahiko, (pela ka olelo ia e ka poe kahiko o keia aina) he wahi no hoi e waiho ai na piko o ua mau poe alii ‘la, …

KConfidentialūkaniloko is the place the chiefs of O‘ahu greatly desired. It is a place that chiefs went to give birth a long time ago (that is what the old people of this place say). It is a place where the umbilical cord of the chiefs was left, … [1865, Kalanikuihonoinamoku]499

Last, in 1898 in his translation notes for Malo’s book, Emerson states: “Queens in expectation of motherhood were accustomed to go to Ku-kani-loko in advance, that by undergoing the pains of labor in that place they might confer on their offspring this inestimable boon.”500 This would suggest that the mother-to-be would have been in a house in the area for a while prior to birth, whether within the Kūkaniloko enclosure or outside in a houseyard within the chiefly center is unclear.

Who is Recorded Being Born at Kūkaniloko & The Rank of Chiefs born at Kūkaniloko

Again, Kamakau generally notes, “If a chiefess entered and leaned against Kukaniloko and rested on the supports to hold up the thighs in observance of the Liloe kapu [the prescribed regulations for birthing], the child born in the presence of the chiefs was called an ali‘i, an akua, a wela – a chief, a god, a blaze of heat.” Fornander also emphasizes that this was “the birthplace of the highest “Kapu” chiefs.”501 Emerson in his notes in Malo’s book502 stated, “It was held to be a most distinguished honor to be born at Kukaniloko. Queens in expectation of motherhood were accustomed to go to Ku-kani- loko in advance, that by undergoing the pans of labor in that place they might confer on their offspring this inestimable boon.”

However, another key point in Kamakau’s 1865 article refers to chiefs not born at Kūkaniloko.

There were two places set aside for the birth of chiefs as signs to make clear that they were high chiefs, ali’i nui, or

220 221

chiefs, ali‘i. These were Kukaniloko in Wai‘alua, O‘ahu, and Holoholoku at Wailua, Kaua‘i. … However, chiefs who were born outside of Kukaniloko or at the backrest [but not in the presence of the chiefs] were chiefs too. And if they were “born on the highway” (ā i hanau i ke alanui), they were chiefs also.503

These are important points. Kūkaniloko clearly brought a special prestige, but if born elsewhere, clearly a chief still was a chief based on his mother’s and father’s rank. Many rulers and very high chiefs of the Kingdom of O‘ahu appear to have not been born at Kūkaniloko (as will be seen below). They were described as akua, and a blaze of heat – general symbols for extremely high ranking chiefs including ni‘aupi’o chiefs (most often children of pi‘o, naha, or ho‘i marriages – but sometimes a term for the very highest ranking chiefs in relation to the ruler).504

Nakuina in her 1897 Oahu nui story wrote that all royal women had to retire here Confidential505 on forfeiture of rank. This statement seems unlikely to be true, for many chiefesses at least from the 1600s on did not give birth here, and still retained their rank. Even when while Kūkaniloko was being used, La‘amaikahiki’s 3 sacred sons were all born in the Kāne‘ohe Bay area,506 with their mothers and them retaining high rank – as many O‘ahu chiefs were descended from them. Nakuina was probably using this statement as a literary means to emphasize Kūkaniloko, not as historical fact.

Besides Kamakau’s one article just on Kūkaniloko, in other articles he also mentions Kūkaniloko as a birthing spot for specific high chiefs, and others have agreed with this list.507 These chiefs are as follows:

1) Kapawa, the senior heir of Nana-kaōko, was born here apparently in the late 1200s- 1300s.508 Again, if the Nana-maoa-Kapawa line preceded Māweke’s line in control of an early larger country in the late 1200s-early 1300s, then Nana-kaōko might have been a ruler. If they were a bit later in time, a Māweke line chief would have been the ruler of the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Wai‘alua kingdom in the mid-1300s, and Nana-kaōko would only have probably been an important chief.

Of interest, the next chiefs noted to have been born in this Līhu‘e-Wahiawā- Kalakoa area were Haho and Lanakawai, both members of the Ulu genealogy and not in the O‘ahu ruling line. Both appear to have lived in the 1300s. Both were born at Kua‘ikua, clearly said to be in Wahiawā. Haho, who later became a chief on Maui and was a founder of the aha ali‘i509 was “born by the kawa, the leaping place of Kua‘ikua at the stream of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa.”510 Haho was “born at Kua‘ikua in Wai‘alua, O‘ahu, and lived at Kalakoa and Po‘o-a-moho.”511 Lanakawai was “born at the kawa [leaping place] of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa … There is a flat rock there where his mother, Mahiua, squatted and gave birth to him; he floated on the water and so was given the name of Lana-ka-wai.”512

221 222

2) In one version of the Mō‘īkeha, ‘Olopana, La‘amaikahiki stories, La‘amaikahiki is noted as “the chiefly child of Ahukai and Keaka-milo, who had been born at Kapa‘ahu in Kukaniloko at Wahiawa in Wai‘alua, O‘ahu.”513 As the generation below Māweke’s grandsons (‘Olopana, Mō‘īkeha, and Kumuhonua), this would place La‘a at about AD 1360-1380 and his birth ca. 1340. Clearly, he was not the child of the ruler in the Māweke line (Kumuhonua), rather a child of another high chief.

3) Mā‘ilikūkahi was born here in the time of the Kingdom of O‘ahu, in the early- 1500s.514` But interestingly, Mā‘ilikūkahi, when born, was not the heir of the ruler (then Haka of the Māweke-Kumuhonua line), rather the son of a high chief in the junior Māweke- Mō‘īkeha line. [“Mailikukahi is said to have been born at Kukaniloko and thus enjoyed the prestige of the tabu attached to all who were born at that hallowed place.”515]

4) Kalanimanuia (1600-1620) was the next ali‘i noted by Kamakau to have been born at Kūkaniloko (ca. 1580) -- “Kalani-manuia was born at Kukaniloko, at Kapu‘ahu‘awa … and at Ho‘olono-pahu heiau her navel cord was cut.”516 “She was born at Kukaniloko, Confidential517 that famous birthplace of Hawaiian royalty.” She was the senior child (hiapo) of the ruler Kūkaniloko, who ultimately had no sons (or at least sons that survived early childhood). Thus, she would have been the senior child and heir, until a son would have been born.

5) Kākuhihewa (1640-1660), the grandson of Kalanimanuia through Ka‘ihikapu-a- Manuia, was the next and last ali‘i mentioned by Kamakau as being born at Kūkaniloko.518 His father, Ka‘ihikapu, was ruler of O‘ahu. His mother was Ka‘u-nui-a- Kānehoalani, daughter of Kānehoalani and granddaughter of Lō Kaholi and Kohe-palaoa. Kākuhihewa was the senior heir of his father, to become ruler. Kamakau notes that Kānehoalani, his maternal grandfather (son of Lō Kaholi and Kohe-palaoa), was the one who took him into Ho‘olono-pahu heiau. There chiefs observed the cutting of his navel cord with the two drums (‘Opuku and Hawea) sounded to announce his birth. “When the kahuna had finished the rites of purification – the huikala, ka ‘olena, lele uli, and lele wai rites – all defilements were cleared away.”519 Fornander phrases this a bit differently: “Kakuhihewa was born at Kukaniloko, in the sleeping-place consecrated by the tabu of Liloe. From thence he was taken to Hoolonopahu by his grandfather Kanehoalani.” 520

After Kākuhihewa, no further O‘ahu Kingdom royal or high chiefly births at Kūkaniloko are noted by Kamakau or others in the oral accounts that we reviewed. Both Kamakau and Fornander emphasize that no Maui or Hawai‘i Kingdom chiefs were born here.521 They both do mention that Kamehameha attempted to have Keōpūolani give birth to Liholiho here in 1797, but this did not work out.522 Also Ke‘eaumoku Cox, about 1820, tried to have his wife, Ke-kua-iaea, give birth here. She “was taken to Kukaniloko to have her child, but it was finally born at Halemomi in Waialua” at the shore.523 Most modern historians have taken these points and emphasized that Kūkaniloko was not in use after 1783 (Maui’s conquest). But, with no births noted after Kākuhihewa, it would appear that Kūkaniloko was not in use as a birthing place for high chiefs of the O‘ahu Kingdom after about 1620 – much longer ago than commonly noted.

222 223

Note that this list of chiefs born at Kūkaniloko is not a long one. However, a hypothesis could be suggested that many of the senior Māweke-Kumuhonua line high chiefs were born here from the 1300s through the reign of Haka (when Mā‘ilikūkahi of the Māweke-Mō‘īkeha line replaced the ruler) and from Mā‘ilikūkahi to Kākuhihewa. Their birth places, however, do not seem to be mentioned in the surviving oral accounts – or at least the accounts that we reviewed.

Lō Ali‘i – Also Possibly Born at Kūkaniloko

There is a category of chiefs, called Lō ali‘i, that are associated with the chiefly center of Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā. In 1870 Kamakau stated:

The chiefs of Lihue, Wahiawa, and Halemano on Oahu were called Lō chiefs, po‘e Lō Ali‘i [“people from whom to obtain a chief’], because they preserved their chiefly kapus.Confidential The men had kapus, and the women had kapus, and when they joined their kapus and children were born, the children preserved their kapus. They lived in the mountains (i kuahiwi), and if the kingdom was without a chief, there in the mountains could be found a high chief (ali‘i nui) for the kingdom. Or if a chief was without a wife, there one could be found – one from chiefly ancestors. Kauakahi‘ailani, Ma‘ilikukahi, Kalona, Piliwale, Kukaniloko, Pa‘akakaniloea [Pa‘akanilea], Ka‘akauualani, Ka‘u, Lale, Paoakalani, Pakapakakuaua, Nononui, Kokoloea, and a great many others were Lo chiefs.524

Some researchers have suggested that these chiefs were born at Kūkaniloko.525

All the chiefs that we can identify in Kamakau’s list (all except three) are Mā‘ilikūkahi’s immediate family: Nononui is his paternal grandmother,526 Kauakahi‘ailani is his father,527 Kokoloea his mother,528 Kolona-nui and Kolona-iki are his sons529 (Kalona), Piliwale and Lō Lale (Lale) are his grandsons, Pa‘akanilea was the wife of Piliwale,530 and Kūkaniloko was Piliwale’s daughter and Mā‘ilikūkahi’s great- granddaughter. Lale’s son Kaholi is not on Kamakau’s list, but he and his father are mentioned in other old stories as Lō Lale and Lō Kaholi,531 so Kaholi also appears to have been a lō ali‘i. Both were the high chief in control of Līhu‘e. Ka‘u (Ka‘u-nui-a- Kānehoalani) was the grand-daughter of Kūkaniloko’s sister (Kohe-palaoa, Piliwale’s other daughter who had married Lō Lale’s son Kaholi).532 She was the mother of Kākuhihewa. No lō ali‘i listed date after Ka‘u. She would have been born about AD 1600. Given that these individuals were all high chiefs of the Mā‘ilikūkahi family and fall into the same time as known chiefs being born at Kūkaniloko (Mā‘ilikūkahi, Kalanimanuia, and Kākuhihewa), it does indeed seem likely that they also were born at Kūkaniloko.

223 224

While this increases the list of chiefs likely to have been born at Kūkaniloko, these lō ali‘i all would have been born there only up to 1600 – when it appears that Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā was still an active royal or chiefly center. The pattern of no high chiefly births here after the early 1600s seems to hold here still. Again, this seems consistent with the end of the presence of high chiefs in residence in the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa- Wahiawā area. The recent GANDA study suggests that lō ali‘i “must have remained very significant throughout O‘ahu’s history, regardless of the official seat of power” and the Central Plateau “continued to supply lō ali‘i long after the seat of power shifted away.”533 But the names that we can identify from Kamakau and other evidence do not seem to support this hypothesis. These names suggest lō ali‘i faded about 1600.

Interestingly, Kamakau starts to identify chiefs of the ruler’s immediate family in the late 1500s as ni‘aupi‘o chiefs and not lō chiefs. Perhaps this is an indication of the rise of new kapu and ranks that superceded the lō chiefly rank. For example, Piliwale is on Kamakau’s list of lō chiefs, but other mentionings of Piliwale are brief and do not note whether he had other ranks.534 Piliwale’s daughter Kohe-palaoa was said to have a Confidential 535 ni‘aupi‘o rank, and her husband Kaholi-a-Lale had lō and wohi kapu. Their son Kānehoalani “became a chief of Ko‘olau.” He and his wife Kualoa-ka-la‘ila‘i were “both high chiefs and kapu chiefs, ali‘inui a ali‘i kapu.”536 His daughter, Ka‘u-nui is said to have been a Waikīkī chief, who “was a threefold chiefess: she was a Kumuhonua, a wohi, and a lō537 – and maybe more. Piliwale’s grand-daughter and Kūkaniloko’s daughter, Kalanimanuia was a ruler who had been born at Kūkaniloko. Interestingly, her rank does not seem to be mentioned, but her husband Lupe was an ali‘i kapu and ali‘i pi‘o.538 Her son, Ka‘ihikapu became ruler ca. 1620-1640 and was the husband of Ka‘u-nui. Ka’ihikapu resided much of the time in Waikīkī. Ka‘ihikapu interestingly is not noted to be a lō ali‘i, but “a Kumuhonua chief, a ni‘aupi‘o, and a pi‘o.”539 Later, Kamakau says that Ka‘ihikapu and Ka‘u-nui as the parents of Kākuhihewa were “ali‘i kapu, ali‘i ni‘aupi‘o, and pi‘o chiefs, so the kapu of Kākuhihewa were multitudinous – kapu a mano a lehu”, but although he was born at Kūkaniloko, Kākuhihewa is not listed as a lō ali‘i in the sources reviewed.540

It has been pointed out that Malo’s, Kamakau’s and others’ descriptions of rank are not consistently in agreement.541 For example, Malo clearly notes a ni‘aupi‘o chief being a result of a brother-sister marriage (pi‘o), half-brother-half-sister marriage (naha), or uncle-niece or aunt-nephew marriage (ho‘i).542 In contrast, Kamakau seems to lump ni‘aupi‘o and pi‘o, and sometimes naha as being ranks of the most powerful in the kingdoms in the 1600s-1700s.543 Regardless of differences in descriptions, these high ranking chiefs of the 1600s-1700s with possibly newly rising ranks of ni‘aupi‘o, pi‘o, naha, or ho‘i have striking symbolic references in the oral histories and literature, much like those chiefs born at Kūkaniloko. These were the akua (gods) and the wela (blaze of heat) of their times.

There were three classes within the kapu akua ali‘i of the chiefs: the ni‘aupi‘o, the pi‘o, and the naha. The chiefs of these classes were “gods,” po‘e akua. If a chief or man defiled any of the kapu of these chiefs, he would be burned

224 225

with fire for breaking the kapu, for these chiefs were called god-chiefs, ali‘i akua. [1865, Kamakau]544

The children born of these two were gods, fire, heat, and raging blazes [1870 Kamakau – describing children of pi‘o marriages]545

The chiefs … of the highest rank were called by the name of a god, or by the name of “heaven” (lani), where the gods lived. [1870 Kamakau – referring to pi‘o and naha chiefs]546

The Kumuhonua of Kūkaniloko – Ali‘i also Associated with Kūkaniloko and this Royal Center Confidential [Piliwale] belonged to the chiefly family, ‘ohana ali‘i, of Kumuhonua of Kukaniloko [1865, Kamakau]547

… her rank was that of a Kumuhonua chief of Kukaniloko; she was a ni‘aupi‘o … [Kohe-palaoa, daughter of Piliwale and wife of Lō Kalohi, the latter the son of Piliwale’s brother Lō Lale.] [1865, Kamakau]548

… she was a Kumuhonua, a wohi, and a lo … [Ka‘u-nui-a-Kānehoalani, wife of the ruler Ka‘ihikapu and mother of Kākuhihewa, and granddaughter of Kohe-palaoa] [1865 Kamakau]549

The old Hawaiian accounts of the mid-1800s also mention Kumuhonua chiefs of Kūkaniloko or Kumuhonua chiefs. Kamakau so mentions Piliwale (ruler ca. 1560-1580), his younger daughter Kohepalaoa, and Ka‘u-nui-a-Kānehoalani (his great-granddaughter through Kohepalaoa). Ka‘u was also noted to be a Kumuhonua chief and a lō chief – the former perhaps through Kohepalaoa and the latter perhaps through Lō Kaholi. Interestingly, Ka‘ihikapu (ruler ca 1620-1640), son of ruler Kalanimanuia was also called “a Kumuhonua chief, a ni‘aupi‘o, and a pi‘o” – but not a lō ali‘i.550

Almost nothing is said of Kumuhonua as a chiefly rank. Piliwale, Kohepalaoa, Ka‘ihikapu, and Ka‘u were not direct descendants of the Māweke-Kumuhonua line (for Haka was the last ruler in this line), rather they were of the Māweke-Mō‘īkeha line. Desilets et al. hypothesize that “Kukaniloko chiefs and lō ali‘i seem to be virtually synonymous in the traditional literature.”551 However, this does not quite seem to be the case, for Ka‘u was said to be both a Kumuhonua and a lō, and Ka‘ihikapu was a Kumuhonua but not a lō. Regardless, they all clearly seem to have been associated with

225 226

the ruling line, Kūkaniloko, and this royal center. And again, all date no later than the early 1600s.

Common Birthing Rituals for Elite Ali‘i & Birthing Locations

A review of some information on birthing and general birth rituals for elite ali‘i adds potential information to the Kūkaniloko birthing context. It enables more detailed hypotheses to be developed for birthing at Kūkaniloko.

In the 1840s Malo provided an early record on high ranking birthing rituals. If one reads the 1890s Emerson translation, the rites are translated as applying to royal births – the words “princess” and “prince” or “king” are used for the parents. Royal suggests births of the king’s children (or perhaps of siblings’ children). Chun’s 2006 translation uses Malo’s words “ali‘i nui” and “ali‘i”, and his translation seems to be referring to both king’s and high chiefs’ children (although he does not directly clarify this in English).Confidential But his translation clearly states that this information applies only to “the ali‘i nui(s) … not … ali‘i of lesser rank”. Ali‘i nui can refer to royal (e.g., king’s children) or noble (e.g., king’s and high chiefs’ children), depending on the context. Malo’s Hawaiian says only “ali‘i nui”. It at least refers to birthing of the highest ranks. Maybe the wording symbolically referred to royal ranks. Both translations and the Hawaiian are given below, allowing the reader to see conflicting issues in the translations.552

Following Malo, once a high ranking woman was with child and came near birth:

A ma ka wa e hanau ai, e kii ia na pale keiki alii, na lakou no e hooponopono i ka hanau ana o ke keiki, a me ka malama i ka makuahine, a ma ka wa e hookohi ai e lawe ia ka mohai imua o ke akua kii, no ka mea, ua manao ia o ke akua ka mea nana e hoohanau mai, i na kiki a na wahine. [1840 Malo]553

When the time for confinement of the princess drew near the royal midwives (themselves chiefesses) were sent for to take charge of the accouchment and to look after the mother. As soon as labor pains set in an offering was set before the idol (the akua kaai named Hulu), because it was believed to be the function of that deity to help women in labor. [1903 Bishop Museum translation. Accouchment is defined as child-birth delivery. N. Emerson’s note554 says that Hulu was one of the kā‘ai gods to assist at childbirth.]

When the child was expected, the pale keiki ali‘i (midwives) were sent for. They would oversee the birth of the child and the nursing of the mother. When the labor

226 227

pains occurred, offerings were taken before the god image (ke akua ki‘i), because it was thought that the god was the one who gave birth to the children of women. [2006, Chun translation.]

Note, Emerson’s translation of Malo inserts his own references to the akua kā‘ai named Hulu and to royalty – a princess, royal midwives. From the Hawaiian it is indicated that the midwives were ali‘i, and the akua ki‘i used was likely an akua kā‘ai because akua kā‘ai are mentioned in the original Hawaiian throughout the entire chapter. Akua kā‘ai are often called “stick” or “prop” images. They had a carved figure on a short staff, commonly 12-24 inches long, with a sharpened end that enabled it to be placed into the ground.555

Next, “when the child was born, the father’s akua kaai was brought in attended by his priest. If the child was a girl, its navel string was cut in the house, but if a boy, it was carried to the heiau,Confidential there to have the navel string cut in a ceremonious fashion” [“a ma ka hanau ana mai o ke keiki, e lawe ia mai no ko ke alii kane akua kaai, a me kana kahuna, ina he kaikamahine, e oki ia ka piko ma ka hale, ina he keiki kane, e lawe ia ma ka heiau, malaila, e oki ai ka pikoo ua keiki la”].556

Malo then describes this ritual in the heiau for a boy in depth – the ritual often called the ‘oki piko. The akua kā‘ai of the ali‘i nui were evidently placed in the ground within the heiau: “the king’s kaai gods, whose images were standing there.”557 The cord was tied with olonā. “The kahuna called out to gods of the heavens and the earth, and to the akua kā‘ai(s) (na akua kā‘ai) of the ali‘i” -- “a kahea i na Akua o ka lani, a me ka honua, a me na [a]akua kaai o ke alii.”558 An offering (mohai) was then laid before the ali‘i – a pig, coconuts, and a robe of tapa. The kahuna then took an ‘ohe knife and offered a prayer. As the kahuna severed the cord, the ali‘i nui held the offerings. The prayer of the kahuna identified the ‘ohe “for the navel string of the heaven-born chief” (“o ka piko o ka aiwaiwa lani”), split the ‘ohe, cut the cord, sponged the cord with some soft oloa kapa to remove the blood, and concluded his prayer.559

Kupenu ula; Cleanse the red blood from the stump; Kupenu lei; Cleanse it from the cord; Kumu lei. Bind up the cord. Aka halapa i ke akua, i laau wai la, It is for the god to safeguard this child, to make him flourish like a well-watered plant.

Then the ali’i father (“ka makuakane alii”) “offered this child to the god” with the following prayer560:

E Ku, e Lono, e Kane, Kanaloa, Oh Kū, oh Lono, oh Kāne and Kanaloa, Eia ka puaa, ka niu, ka malo, Here is the pig, the coconut, the malo, E aloha mai oukou i keia alii hou, Have aloha for this new chief; E ola loa oia a ka puaaneane, Give him long life to an old age.

227 228

E mau kona [a]lii ana mai ka Long may that chief reign from the rising la hiki, a ka la kau sun to the setting of the sun. Amama, ua noa. The prayer is ended; the kapu is free;

With the killing of the pig, the ceremonies ended. “The child was then taken back to the house and was provided with a wet nurse, who became its kahu.”561 The mother went through a series of separation rituals and medical treatment, and after seven days returned home. “It was after this prescribed manner that royal mothers and women of rank conducted themselves during the period of their first pregnancy. Poor folks did not follow this regime” [“That was the manner in which women were treated [at the birth] of the eldest child. It was the same for the ali‘i(s), women of responsibility and stature. The poor did not follow these ways.” “pela e hana ai na wahine, i na keiki hiapo, a lakou pela mai na [a]lii, a me na wahine koikoi, a o ka poe hune, aole e hana pela.”].562 Importantly, Malo also notes: “Poor women just gave birth, as did women of lesser rank, to their children and there were no ceremonies for such a child (ka māwaewae ‘ole).”563

Confidential 564 Treatment of female children and junior sons is a bit ambiguous. Chun translates a part of Malo as follows: “Girls … Although their piko was cut, they did not participate in the rituals at the mua, because the ali’i and those who practiced the religious activities believe that the eldest [male?] children would become the attendants (kanaka) for the god image (ke akua ki’i).” Emerson was not so sure when translating this section whether Malo meant “the daughters alone or … the younger sons.” He cites the passage (“… e hana ia no nae ke oki piko ana, a me kekahi mau mea e ae, aole no e like me ko ka mua hana ana ...”) and continues on discussing both daughters and younger sons: “the ceremony of cutting the navel string, as well as some other ceremonies, was performed on them. The ceremonies, however, were not of the same grade as in the case of the first-born, because it was esteemed as a matter of great importance by kings, as well as by persons of a religious turn of mind, that the first-born should be devoted to the service of the gods.” Chun also seems to have questions regarding the eldest child if it is female. But, the passage does seem to imply that the eldest son (and possibly a daughter when the eldest child) received special treatment.

Kelou Kamakau (by the early 1800s the low chief of the important ahupua‘a of Ka‘awaloa and an older man than Malo) also described birthing of the elite. He noted that when a royal child was born, the high priest told the king to “offer a pig in the temple to your male deity, and a girdle to your female deity [a i malo hoi i ko akua wahine]. The pig was taken by the priest and offered to the deity … The people and the chiefs praised because of the propriety of sacrificing the pig to the deity. The same ceremonies were accorded the female deity when the travail was over and the child was born, a great royal child …”. The male child was taken before the god “in the presence of the priests,” and his umbilical cord was cut with a bamboo knife.565 Kamakau seems to be referring to a ceremony like that described by Malo, but he might be referring just to a king’s child, for the child is termed “Ke Alii” (translated as “The Royal Child”), the king is mentioned, and note also the presence of the high priest as the officiating priest. Kamakau also mentions the composing of songs in honor of the child.

228 229

Samuel Kamakau in 1870 also provided general information on birthing. 566 He noted classes of kahuna lapa‘au (medical kahuna) that included kahuna ho‘ohapai keiki and ho‘ohanau keiki (who induced pregnancy and delivered babies). Rituals and prayers were performed at “the waihau heiaus” for childless couples to have children, accompanied by medicines. He said that during delivery midwives (po‘e pale keiki) were also involved. As the last months of pregnancy unfolded (after months 7-8), he noted that chiefesses or favorite daughters were given medicines to ease the pain of childbirth. He stated that a male child, when born, was taken to the mua (men’s house) to be consecrated (ho‘ola‘a) to the gods. But if the male baby was “a royal child (keiki alii), he was taken to the heiau to be consecrated, and there his navel cord (piko) was cut, and the drums sounded [to announce his birth].”567 The child was then “washed, wrapped in kapa, and taken by the king to the kuapala offering stand and presented to the gods.”568

In 1867, S. Kamakau had an interesting aside in one of his articles. He stated “if we examine the traditions before Paumakua, we see that there was no circumcision, but that after PaumakuaConfidential and until the time of Kakuhihewa this was well-known among the sons of the chiefs. While the navel cord was being cut and the foreskin cut off, the pahu drum was sounded and rain fell and lightning flashed; then the child was established as a hoali‘i, a royal offspring. Also, there were no pahu before Paumakua. The sacred cords, ‘aha kapu, of the chiefs came into use after Paumakua – they were originated in the time of Haho [Paumakua’s son].”569 Circumcision here actually probably refers to subincision of the foreskin (kahe ule), not the modern circumsion.570 But a key point is that this operation and the pahu drums are part of the key ritual of the birth of royal and noble children, and this article is saying that these begin after Paumakua. Paumakua and his son, Haho, of the Ulu-Hema line are estimated to live at the same time as Māweke’s sons and grandsons, in the early 1300s.571

General information about childbirth is described in depth by Pukui in several places – information that was in part obtained from her experience in the early 1900s and from her mother’s and grandparent’s generation, the latter information probably dating back into the mid-1800s.572 She provided some information on “earlier times” (traditional times), noting that a kahuna pale keiki (midwife) aided birth.573 She referenced Kamakau’s 1870 comments about a royal child being taken to the heiau, and added “Whether the placenta was carried to the temple or a longer navel cord was given a second ritual cutting is not clear”574 – in other words, cut long at birth and recut again within the heiau. She further noted that “In an earlier time, the ali‘i woman of high rank went with her royal retainers to a sacred pohaku hanau or “birth stone”. This was a large rock believed to have great mana (spiritual powers) to aid childbirth.”575 She said that Haumea was the goddess of birth.576 She also noted that the hiapo or makahiapo was the “first-born …, whether male or female.”577

Importantly, Pukui noted that “birth preparations varied by region, by rank and by era.”578 She went into some detail on what childbirth was like in her native Ka‘ū in the late 1800s-1900.579 As birth approached, relatives arrived, and family members attended the mother. Medicines were given to the mother (orally and as ointments) as pains increased – to ease the pain and to hasten birth. In giving birth, the mother squatted or

229 230

kneeled (knees apart) on layers of kapa and mats; and she held on to the mid-wife in front and another person provided support for her back and helped press for delivery (the ko‘o kua, which Pukui had served as). Once the child was born, the mid-wife cut the umbilical cord 2 inches from the navel hole and tied it with ‘olona thread, and wrapped kapa around the child. Later when the small remainder of the cord fell off (piko), the piko (apparently both the initially cut off parts and the later falling-off part) was hidden away, sometimes in a hole in a rock, plugged with a pebble.580 Pukui gave several examples of hiding places – the ocean, holes in special rocks plugged with stone. Interestingly, she mentioned the Holoholokū birthing stones on Kaua‘i, “The stone where the cords of these babies were hidden is still there, and in the cracks are the small stones that once held the cords in place.”581 The placenta (‘iewe) and blood were expelled. The mid-wife viewed the placenta to predict future numbers of children. Relatives then washed it and buried it, or in Puna put it high up in a hala tree. Pukui then notes that 24 hours after birth a ritual (the ‘aha’aina mawaewae, the mawaewae feast) was performed to clear the way for the future. For the hiapo, this was the first feast, and the ritual was viewed as clearingConfidential the way for following siblings. “It dedicated this first child to the family aumakua, and to the major deity, Lono. It ritually started the child on the ma’awae pono (the right track) of honor and responsibility.” This was one of the few times women could eat pig, as it symbolized Lono and was brought by the mother.

Another discussion of birthing was recently given by Jensen and Jensen in writing about ka pale keiki in 2005.582 They relied on prior sources to a large degree – K. Kamakau and Pukui notably, and S. Kamakau’s description of birthing at Kūkaniloko. They presented a hypothesis of birthing at Kūkaniloko. This hypothesis includes some interesting new ideas. They suggested that the mid-wives set up a “temporary shelter” at Kūkaniloko to attend to the mother, prior to the actual birth at the stone.583 They also seem to suggest that while a male child was taken to the heiau (which they call Ho’o- lono-pūhā), “given that the Female Deities resided at the Hale ‘o Papa, it stands to reason that the female child as well as the offering were brought there”584 – apparently proposing that a Hale o Papa heiau would have been at Kūkaniloko. Also the offering that they are referring to was the one described in K. Kamakau’s article, where he said that the offering to the female deity was a “malo hoi”, which in the Fornander Collection translation is called a “girdle”. Jensen and Jensen state that “Kelou Kamakau goes on to say that the offering to Haumea was a miniature feathered malo.”585 They suggest that the “feathered aprons” or “feathered mats” that Kaeppler586 described as collected during the Cook voyage with “loops and lacings reminiscent of Hawaiian ankle ornaments” were in fact a “miniature feathered malo … tied around the image of Haumea or Papa.” While it could be debated whether K. Kamakau’s “malo hoi” really means a “miniature feathered malo”, this is an interesting hypothesis for these extremely rare feathered objects. They also note that the chiefess went through 10 days of seclusion after the birth, with massage to expel all the discharge related to birth.587

Last, Tom Lenchanko has presented ideas on birthing at Kukaniloko.588 He suggests that the woman was taken to the Poamoho area until she was about to give birth. Then she would be carried by men to the birthing stone area on a mānele. When she was about to give birth in the presence of the high chiefs, he indicates that the woman leaned

230 231

against the birthing stone. Two men were on either side of the stone and held up the woman in their arms, helped by grooves in the stone. Two other men held the chiefess’ legs when she was ready to give birth. Tom suggests that when the child was born, the kapa that it was wrapped in before taking the child to Ho’olonopahu heiau was purple in color (with ukiuki berries providing the dye), for Thrum in his 1911 article said that the ali‘i child was “born in the purple.”589 Last, he suggests that the final step was the sounding of the pahu drums Hawea and ‘Opuku.

Important points from above include (1) key family members came for the birth and for the highest ranking births a gathering of the highest chiefs, (2) there were attendants for the mother, (3) kahuna ho‘ohanau keiki and kahuna midwives (po‘e pale keiki ali‘i) tended the mother and delivered the child, (4) the mother may have been under a temporary shelter at the birthing site, (5) prayers and offerings were given to an image (akua kā‘ai) associated with gods who helped with child birth, (6) the father’s akua kā‘ai and attending priest came in at birth, (7) male children may have had their umbilical cord cut longerConfidential before removal to the heiau, (8) the male child was removed to the heiau with special rites, perhaps a shorter cutting of the umbilical cord, and prayers and offerings given to gods, (9) perhaps there might have been a religious structure for rites for elite female children, (10) the mother (probably still at the birthing area) was treated for removal of the placenta (‘iewe), blood, and other birthing by-products, (11) the mother went through rituals and treatments for several days (probably in a nearby house) prior to her return home, (12) the child went to a wet nurse and (13) special treatment was done for protecting and/or hiding birthing by-products (umbilical cord, placenta, etc.). These points are clearly relevant to Kūkaniloko, and will be returned to shortly.

Where Were Other High Chiefs Born?

In Kamakau’s 1865 article on Kūkaniloko, he mentions one other birthing place for high chiefs, Holoholokū, a birthing place at the royal center of Wailua for the high chiefs of Kaua‘i.

There were two places set aside for the birth of chiefs as signs to make clear that they were high chiefs, ali‘i nui, or chiefs, ali‘i. These were Kukaniloko in Wai‘alua, O‘ahu, and Holoholokū at Wailua, Kaua‘i.590

Holoholokū is similar to Kūkaniloko in having birthstones, consisting of multiple natural stones. It is not clear if Kamakau was stating a very strong connection of similarity solely between these two places, or if he was saying that Holoholokū was another famed birthing place. However, Kamakau’s listing together of these two places has been repeated by almost everyone since his article appeared – by Fornander in 1880, by Kalākaua in 1888, by Thrum in 1911, by Webb in 1925, by the local Hawaiian community in 1925, and by the local Hawaiian community today seen in our interviews with Mehana Hine, Wilma Holi, Kēhaulani Kekua, Keau NeSmith, Elith Kahn, Tom Lenchanko, Kaha‘i Topolinski, Snowbird Bento, Francis Ching, Randy Wichman and

231 232

many others. One community member stated that Holoholokū is another heiau birthing place and a university as is Kūkaniloko. Elithe Kahn spoke of the connection of both Kūkaniloko and Holoholokū, and had visited both. She noted that Halemano on O‘ahu looked just like Holoholokū, and the layout was very similar. Kaha‘i Topolinski spoke of “the connection between the intermarrying of the O‘ahu chiefs and the Kaua‘i chiefs, therefore the place names are the same such as Hā‘ena and Ka‘ena.” Kēhaulani Kekua also talked about the Kaua‘i and O‘ahu ali‘i connection of the ali‘i lines. Snowbird Bento shared with us her spiritual sense of place and the connection between the two sites. She mentioned the connection between Kūkaniloko and Holoholokū and “the vibration from Ho‘olonopahu Heiau that reverberates through all the smaller pahu that are in line in the direction of Holoholokū that will carry on the vibration across the ‘āina to the kai. The kai acts very similar to that ilimano that is on the pahu that will carry that sound across to Holoholokū giving the kahu or kahuna that is there the hō‘ailona to begin or end the ceremony that needs to take place for the start or end of the ceremony.” Pukui in 1942 added a bit of interesting of information about Holoholokū: “The stone where the cords of these babies were hidden is still there, and in the cracks are the small stones that once Confidential591 held the cords in place.”

As part of our archival work, it was decided to check to see where other rulers and high chiefs of O‘ahu were born and rulers and high chiefs of other kingdoms. A review of Fornander and Kamakau for information on the birth of the Kingdom of O‘ahu rulers found that other than those noted above who were born at Kūkaniloko or lō ali‘i likely to have been born at Kūkaniloko, only Kūali‘i’s birth information was given. Kūali‘i was ruler of O‘ahu ca. 1720-1740. “Kualii was born at Kalapawai, on the land of Kailua, Koolaupoko district. The ceremony of cutting the navel-string was performed at the Heiau of Alala [in Kailua], and thither for that occasion, were brought the sacred drums of Opuku and Hawea.”592 This ceremony sounds very similar to what was described for Kūkaniloko. Kailua was the primary royal center when Kūali‘i was born, and it had been since Kākuhihewa’s time, since the mid-1600s, when the O‘ahu rulers gradually lost total centralized control and mostly lived in the Ko‘olaupoko moku. Two other O‘ahu high chiefly births were briefly noted, and one birth of a Maui heir by an O‘ahu high chiefess on O‘ahu. In the late 1500s, Lā‘ie-lohelohe, daughter of Kelea and Kalamakua “was born at Helumoa” in the royal and chiefly center of Waikīkī.593 When an adult, Lā‘ie-lohelohe, married the ruler of Maui, Pi‘ilani. She returned to O‘ahu ca. 1580-1600 to have one of her children (Kiha-a-Pi‘ilani, her second son and a future ruler of Maui). Kiha was born at ‘Āpuakēhau594 – which was a place and associated luakini heiau at the royal center in Waikīkī. Earlier, in the 1300s, La‘amaikahiki had 3 wives who gave birth to 3 sons all in the Kāne‘ohe Bay area – apparently in different places.595

There are descriptions of other high chiefly births from other kingdom’s ruling and high chiefly lines. Kamehameha (the senior child, hiapo, of Keōua) was born at Pu‘uepa between 1740-1750 (depending on who is consulted).596 Pu‘uepa was one of the ruling centers of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, and at his birth, his great-uncle the ruler Alapa‘inui was in residence. It was said to be “very rainy” the night of his birth, and “it was hard to find a fit place for the birth”, so he was apparently born in a house at his father’s houseyard. But, chiefs were present and a numerous guard. Ka‘ahumanu, the

232 233

daughter of Hawai‘i high chief Ke‘eaumoku and Maui high chiefess Namahana was born at Hāna ca. 1765-68, which was the chiefly center of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i on Maui at the time.597 Kamakau notes some of the women who attended the birth, including her grandmother Ha‘alo‘u. Keōpūolani, the hiapo daughter of then Kingdom of Hawai‘i ruler Kīwala‘ō and his half-sister Keku‘iapoiwa Liliha was born at Pihana in 1780.598 Pihana was in the royal center of Wailuku, at or near the luakini of Pihana next to the ruler’s house. Kīwala‘ō and his wife (Keku‘iapoiwa Liliha) frequently visited the Maui court, as their mother (Kalola) was sister to Kahekili and Kamehamehanui. Liholiho, Kamehameha I’s and Keōpūolani’s son and the future Kamehameha II was born in Hilo in 1797 – a royal center for the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. He was “taken to the heiau of Kaipalaoa, and the sacred rite of the cutting of his navel cord was performed by the kahuna.”599 He was the hiapo of Keōpūolani. The navel cords at the royal center in Hilo have been noted to have been placed at Coconut Island – “There was a small hole in the stone just where the navel should be. The cord was pushed into this hole and a pebble shoved after it to cork the hole.”600 Confidential The pattern that emerges in all these above cases is that royal and high chiefly children seem to have been born at ruling and chiefly centers – and not just at the two famed centers of Kūkaniloko and Holoholokū. When information is available, it appears high chiefs were in attendance nearby, and high ranking women directly attended the mother; and male children were taken to a nearby heiau for the navel cord cutting ceremony. These patterns are consistent with those at Kūkaniloko at the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa- Wahiawā center in the Central Plateau. Also, the cases from Hilo and Holoholokū in Wailua on Kaua‘i indicate that navel cords were placed into cracks among the birthing stones.

Interestingly, three other relevant cases are noted in the oral accounts, one for the recognition of a royal child long after his birth, another for the ritual recognition of a new king (elected from a junior line), and another involving rituals within several years of a royal child’s birth. The first is ‘Umi, son of Līloa (ruler of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, ca. 1580-1600). ‘Umi was born in a rural ahupua‘a, son of a lower ranking woman and Līloa. ‘Umi’s birth was unknown to Līloa, and ‘Umi later went to the royal center at Waipi‘o to meet his father. Following Malo’s 1840s account, when ‘Umi arrived at Waipi‘o and was recognized as a son of Līloa (not the senior son), “Līloa ordered that his gods (nā akua) be brought in and that ‘Umi(‘s) piko (umbilical cord) be cut. ‘Umi(‘s) piko was then cut. Hākau, Līloa(‘s) older son heard the sounding of the drum and he asked, “Why is the drum being sounded?” The people replied, “It is a pahu ‘oki (a drum sounding the cutting of the umbilical cord ritual) for the piko of Līloa(‘s) new son.”601 In 1870 Kamakau tells this story slightly differently: “He [Līloa] ordered the kahunas to fetch the pahu and ka‘eke drums at once and to take the boy to be circumcised and dedicated, as was the custom for children of chiefs. The chiefly drum, Halalu’, and the smaller ka‘eke drums were sounded in Paka‘alana [the luakini heiau].”602 This would seem to be a re-enactment ceremony like the birthing rites that occurred at Kūkaniloko – although with a different drum as a symbol of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i and at a luakini.

233 234

The second case was upon the election of Mā‘ilikūkahi as king of O‘ahu, after Haka’s overthrow in the mid-1500s. In 1865, Kamakau noted that Mā‘ilikūkahi had been born at Kūkaniloko, as the son of a high chief of a junior line. When Mā‘ilikūkahi was elected as ruler after Haka’s death, “He was taken to the heiau of Kapukapu-ākea at Pa‘ala‘a-kai in coastal Wai‘alua and consecrated by the kahuna to rule as mō‘ī. At the end of this ceremony, he was taken inside the heiau for the ceremony of the cutting of the navel cord, just as at the birth of a chief. After that another important ceremony, that of circumcision, ‘oki poepoe, was reenacted. This was to cleanse and purify him; ‘Ulonokū was the prayer. When this ceremony was over, he was installed as ruler of the island, ke ali‘i o ka moku. This chiefly ritual pertained to high chiefs from remote times – mai ka pō mai.”603 This indicates that a high chief who became king, but had not gone through the rituals as the heir or a royal child, perhaps had to go through a more sanctified “reenactment”. Also, Kapuakapu-ākea may have been a luakini, and the Kaiaka Bay area in Waialua may also have been a royal center.

The thirdConfidential case involved the senior grandson of the Hawai‘i mō‘ī, Keakealaniwahine – this child being Kalaninui‘I‘amamao, the senior son (hiapo) of the heir of the mō‘ī, Keawe. About 1700-1720, Kalaninui‘I‘amamao, several years after his birth, was taken to the luakini heiau of Ke‘ekū at the royal center of Kahalu‘u in Kona “when his navel string was cut” and “he was dedicated to the gods and the sacred tabus … were conferred upon him” – a ceremony presided over or sponsored by his grandmother the mo‘i.604 This seems likely to have been a ritual re-enactment of the navel cord cutting, for the senior royal child almost certainly would have had this occur at birth. Note, it was at a luakini at a royal center.

All these cases suggest that there were other well-known, if not famed, birthing places at other royal and chiefly centers. Today we strikingly remember only Kūkaniloko and Holoholokū, perhaps because Kamakau bound them so firmly together in his writings.

An Earlier Birthing Place at Halemano?

A number of community members mentioned that at Halemano Stream there was a birthing stone – a large flat stone in the stream.605 Several people said that this stream was called Kua‘ikua.

The birthing pohaku in Halemano Stream straddled over the stream, so the legs would go over the stream so you could bath her. That is when the blood from the placenta would go down the stream and that’s where you get the story it was blessed with the blood of royalty. [Elithe Kahn interview]

Some community members said that this birthplace was also called Kūkaniloko; some called it Kua‘ikua. Several said it was the main birthplace in this area before the present birthing stones called Kūkaniloko were constructed.606 One suggested that this may have

234 235

been the chiefly center. One person interviewed, Arlene Eaton, stated there were also other places nearby for some chiefs to give birth when Kūkaniloko was in use.

Related to these stories, old pre-1870 oral history recorded two chiefs in the Ulu- Hema genealogy born after Kapawa and the founding of Kūkaniloko. They were the next chiefs noted to have been born in this Līhu‘e-Wahiawā-Kalakoa area. These two chiefs were Haho and Lanakawai, both members of the Ulu genealogy and not in the O‘ahu ruling line. Both appear to have lived in the 1300s. Both were born at Kua‘ikua, clearly said to be in Wahiawā. Haho, who later became a chief on Maui and was a founder of the aha ali‘i, was “born by the kawa, the leaping place of Kua‘ikua at the stream of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa.”607 Haho was “born at Kua‘ikua in Wai‘alua, O‘ahu, and lived at Kalakoa and Po‘o-a-moho.”608 Lanakawai was “born at the kawa [leaping place] of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa … There is a flat rock there where his mother, Mahiua, squatted and gave birth to him; he floated on the water and so was given the name of Lana-ka- wai.”609 Again, these chiefs were born after Kūkaniloko had been established, so it appears that anotherConfidential birthing place was present in this area. Are these stories related to the former? We are not sure. These stories, ‘Ī‘ī, and Kamakau when describing in 1865 the use of Kūkaniloko all placed Kua‘ikua very near to Kūkaniloko, some to the west or southwest. This seems inconsistent with a Halemano placement, but as noted earlier many early 1900 accounts state that Kūkaniloko was on the plains of Halemano, newly called Wahiawā. This birthing spot could possibly have pre-dated Kūkaniloko.

Reconsideration of Kūkaniloko in the Birthing Context

Given the above information, it would appear likely that the ceremonies at Kūkaniloko may have followed this format. This hypothesis is based mostly on the older accounts noted above:

1) Kūkaniloko was probably an enclosure at least including the birthing stones, Ho‘olonopahu heiau, and perhaps a separate drum area.

2) As a chiefess approached the time of birth, she was attended by family, retainers and by a kahuna and mid-wife (-wives). She would have been in a house within Kūkaniloko, or nearby.

3) As pains increased and birth approached, she would have been taken to the birthing stone (specifically Kūkaniloko) and been attended by female retainers, the kahuna and mid-wife. A temporary shelter may have been erected to protect her from the weather. One or more small wooden images (with a pointed extension and image at the top – akua kā‘ai) associated with gods assisting with childbirth (like the Haumea and Hulu examples above) would have been placed in the ground. Undoubtedly, prayers and offerings were given before these akua kā‘ai. Medicines would have been given or applied to the mother by the kahuna. In Kūkaniloko’s case, the high chiefs of the kingdom would have attended the birth of extremely important children (first-born children of high chiefs and the ruler, and quite possibly any children of the highest nobility). The exact number undoubtedly varied depending on the rank of the mother/father and whether the child was

235 236

the first-born or not. Commoners gathered nearby outside the enclosure of Kūkaniloko to witness the birth of the royal child, particularly the first born of the king.

4) Actual childbirth seems likely to have been assisted by the kahuna and mid-wife (mid- wives). Since the “chiefess … leaned against Kūkaniloko and rested on the supports to hold up the thighs in observance of the Liloe kapu [the prescribed regulations for birthing]”, a mid-wife would be unlikely to push from the back, so exactly how the kahuna and mid-wife assisted in pushing is not clear. The use of supports (not just leaning against the stone) seems different from the practices Pukui noted for Ka‘ū. [But there are alternate views today on how the chiefess gave birth against or on these stones.]

5) When the child was born, its navel cord was cut (possibly long for males, so it could be recut in the nearby heiau), tied with olona thread, and the child was wrapped in kapa. [One source states the baby was laid on an adjacent stone. Others suggest water placed in one of the poho basins in a nearby stone was used to clean the baby and/or mother.] Confidential 6) The father’s akua kā‘ai image then appears to have been brought with his priest (if not brought earlier). Again, undoubtedly pule and offerings were made before this akua kā‘ai.

7) In the case of male babies, they were then carried to the waihau heiau of Ho‘olonopahu, possibly carried by the father or a close male family member. Akua kā‘ai were placed in the ground here. The kahuna performed prayers; and with the ‘ohe knife, he cut the navel cord shorter and tied it with olona thread and subincised the foreskin, and re-bundled the baby in kapa. The father gave an offering to the gods and a prayer for long life and success of the child. Male high chiefs witnessed this ceremony. Importantly, for junior sons, according to Malo, “the ceremony of cutting the navel string, as well as some other ceremonies, was performed on them. The ceremonies, however, were not of the same grade as in the case of the first-born” – likely to mean fewer offerings and perhaps fewer attending chiefs? [Some hiapo female heirs of the king, like Kalanimanuia, were reported to go through a ceremony at this heiau.]

8) Temple drums were then sounded to announce the birth, the famed drums of the Kingdom of O‘ahu in the case of a royal child – early on at least Opuku, and by Kākuhihewa’s birth (ca. 1620) both Opuku and Hawea.

9) The child was then taken to a wet nurse and kahu.

10) Meanwhile, back at the birthing place, the mother underwent further treatment. The placenta (‘iēwe) was expelled, cleaned and perhaps was looked at by the kahuna or a mid-wife to predict future numbers of children.

11) Birthing fluids and by-products were also properly handled. With poho (basins that are commonly found in areas associated with piko) being carved into the birthing stones at Kūkaniloko, one wonders if some of these were not used at some point to temporarily

236 237

hold the placenta, afterbirth fluids and by-products or the navel cord. [One 1925 source suggests some poho held offerings.]

12) The mother was undoubtedly removed to a nearby house – whether within Kūkaniloko or out at her residence is uncertain. The mother then went through a series of rituals over several days for healing, and then returned home.

13) The placenta, afterbirth and perhaps the clipped-off navel cord were taken away again, to be buried, put in the ocean, or placed in a particular spot -- where is uncertain. Pukui pointed out that one of the stones at the Holoholokū birthing area at Kaua‘i was used for hiding the cords, with small stones holding the cords in the cracks of the stone. She noted a similar practice in Hilo. Perhaps some of this material was similarly kept at Kūkaniloko, under the oversight of priests. Indeed, Kalanikuihonoinamoku’s 1865 statement about Kūkaniloko indicates that some piko may have been left permanently within Kūkaniloko. Confidential 14) One point not mentioned earlier was described by Malo. When a high ranking woman was pregnant, “the haku mele (composers) were sent for to compose the name (song) for this new ali‘i so as to praise the new born ali‘i(s) (Nā ali‘i hou) that were to be born. The mele(s) (chants and songs) composed by the haku mele(s) were completed (holo), then the hula (dancers) were taught (the mele). They studied the gestures of these mele(s) until they were learnt. Then men and women were taught the hula. Men, women and the ali‘i danced the name (mele) of the new born ali‘i. The hula was a customary activity with mele(s) and praises until the time of birth, and then the dancing was over.”610 But the name chant (mele ‘inoa) was quite likely retained, and chanted on special occasions.

There is a chant for Kapawa that was published by Kamakau in 1869. This is the start of the chants that Malo described in general and that Kamakau published, which documented chiefs’ place of birth and death and burial, beginning with Kapawa and ending with Paumakua on the Ulu Hema line.611 Because these chants also include the place of death and burial, they are less likely name chants composed at birth. The beginning part of this Kapawa chant follows:

Kapawa, the chief of Wai‘alua ‘O Kapawa, ‘o ke ali‘i o Wai‘alua, Was born at Kūkaniloko; I hanau i Kūkaniloko; Wahiawā the site; ‘O Wahiawā ke kahua; At Līhu‘e the placenta, ‘O Līhu‘e ke ēwe, At Ka‘ala the navel cord, ‘O Ka‘ala ka piko, At Kapukapuākea [heiau] the caul . ‘O Kapukapuākea ka a‘a

[1869 Kamakau.612 *caul is part of the membrane around the fetus]

Just looking at this chant, one hypothesis could be formed that this chant indicates that parts related to Kapawa’s birth were taken to different places, including the heiau of Kapukapuākea at the shore of Waialua. However, another equally likely hypothesis

237 238 could be that this is simply literary symbolism to emphasize the famous places in the area where Kapawa was born. It is impossible to tell, so many centuries later. However, this chant’s picture is more complicated, because these name chants from Kapawa through Paumakua, as published by Kamakau, are highly similar in style. Each names places in an area associated with the relevant chief: place of birth, places where the placenta, navel cord and caul went, and place of burial, as well as other famed things about the chiefs. As discussed in note 79, six of these chiefs who have such name chants are the mythical Tahaki (Kaha‘i) family of Central Polynesia (‘Aikanaka through Laka); and they could not have been born or died in these Hawaiian places. They were inserted into the Ulu- Hema line at some point, to honor a Hawaiian chief – embedding mythological figures into his or her genealogy. This fact makes it likely that this very similar set of chants for both real Hawaiian chiefs and the mythical Tahaki chiefs was composed much more recently in traditional times – perhaps by one composer or set of composers (given the similar style of the chants) – weaving a story (with places) about each chief on this genealogical line, even the mythical Tahaki family. This would suggest that these chants are literary creationsConfidential with symbolic associations with places, not chants with real historical details for locations of birthing parts.

However, Kalanimanuia – the famed female mō‘ī of about AD 1600-1620, who was born at Kūkaniloko – does have some lines linking her to Kūkaniloko in parts of mele ‘inoa. The following was published by Kamakau in 1865, stating that it was a mele belonging to Kalai-kua-hulu, who Kamehameha I had train chiefs in his court in genealogies.613 What follows is a portion of the mele ‘inoa.

O ka lani, ‘o Pua‘a-a-Kahuoi, Of the chief Pua‘a-a-Kahuoi, ‘O Kamale‘akahiko a Piliwale Kamakale‘akahiko [Kamale‘amaka] and Piliwale, Kamaiki ‘ōlena, kamaikli ‘ōlena; The purified first-born, the purified first-born; Ka haohaolena, ka halolena‘ula; The yellow one, the reddish-yellow one; ‘O ka hālena ‘ula, ‘o Kalanimanuia. The red one was Kalanimanuia. ‘O Ka‘ihikapu-a-Manuia ke ‘li‘i, Ka‘ihikapu-a-Manuia the chief, ‘O ka ‘ilio hulu ‘i‘i ‘ula ia, The dog with red-brown fur, I mahamaha o‘o i ke kapu, Whose temples were thick with kapu, ‘O Ka‘unui-a-Kānehoalani kela, Ka‘ununui-a-Kānehoalani that one, ‘O Ipuwai-a-Hoalani keia. Ipuwai-a-Hoalani this one.

[1865 Kamakau]614

Here is part of another mele ‘inoa published by Kamakau, mentioning Kalanimanuia and places near Kūkaniloko -- Kapu‘ahu‘awa and Līhu‘e:

‘O ke keiki lani a Manuia The chiefly child of Manuia, ‘O Manuia, ka lani o Manuia, the chiefess of Kapu‘ahu‘awa ‘O ka uahi maka weo ‘ia o Līhu‘e. The smoke that reddened the eyes of

238 239

Līhu‘e. ‘O Nā-pū-lānahu-mahiki-a-Ha‘o, Nā-pū-lānahu-mahiki-a-Ha‘o, ‘O Kaea-a-Kalona ka lani Kaea-a-Kalona, were the chiefs Hiki au, ‘o Kuihewa, [From whom] I came, Kuihewa, … …

[1865 Kamakau]615

An honorific mele by Hukilani that was published in 1860 phrases these places associated with Kalanimanuia a bit differently. What follows is the small portion of the larger mele, the portion that deals with Kūkaniloko.

Keaki awa o Kukaniloko Bite awa at Kūkaniloko, Kapu ahuaawa o Manuia The sacred awa straining sedge of Manuia, O ke kapu nui a Ewa The very sacred of ‘Ewa [1860, Hukilani]Confidential616

Kalanimanuia’s husband, Lupe-kapu-ke-aho-makali‘i, had part of a mele ‘inoa published in 1865 by Kamakau that also noted Kalanimanuia and other chiefs mentioned in this report – La‘amaikahiki, Haka, and Lonokawai – although not directly mentioning Kūkaniloko and places nearby.

‘O ka ila ‘i‘o ali‘i ‘o Manuia Manuia, the chiefly flesh-and-blood o O‘ahu birthmark of O‘ahu, Nona ka moku waiho nā lani, Hers was the island left by the chiefs, Waiho nā kapu iō o La‘a, The kapu left by La‘a, … … He pua no ka hānai nole nei ali‘i, A tenderly nutrutred flower was this chiefess. … … He wae kū no ka lalani, The ones slected for the continuation of the line, No ke kahua ‘o Haka ‘ia, Whose foundation was Haka, I kanuhia i Pu‘ukahonua, Planted in Pu‘ukahonua, I ka hāiki wai lo‘i mapuna, At the narrow spring that fed the lo‘i, He hāpuna wai ka lani A spring of water was the chief Na Lonokawai i hānau –ea; Born of Lonokawai; … …

[1865 Kamakau]617

Additional research with mele ‘inoa of famed O‘ahu high chiefs and mō‘ī could well reveal more ties with Kūkaniloko and places on the Central Plateau.

Returning to the above summarized points related to birthing at Kūkaniloko, older information indicates that when a junior son became king or another line of chiefs, the

239 240

new king had to go through a ritual re-enactment of the piko/subincision ceremony at a major heiau and the famed kingdom’s drums were then beaten. This clearly occurred for ‘Umi, when he arrived at Waipi‘o and was recognized by Līloa. This also occurred with Mā‘ilikūkahi, who had been born at Kūkaniloko. When he was chosen as king, he had to go through these rituals – in this case at Kapukapuākea heiau (a luakini) on the shore at Waialua.

The older information further indicates that these piko-cutting/subincision ceremonies also could occur at luakini heiau, and perhaps did in the mid-1600s through the 1700s – Kapukapuākea in Mā‘ilikukahi’s case, perhaps Alala (in Kailua’s royal center) in Kūali‘i’s case, maybe ‘Āpuakēhau in Waikīkī in Kiha-a-Pi’ilani’s case, Paka‘alana in ‘Umi’s case, Pihana in Wailuku in Keōpūolani’s case, and maybe Kaipalaoa in Liholiho’s case. Luakini heiau were at virtually every royal center in the 1600s-1700s.618

Again importantly,Confidential the old information is clear that royal and high chiefly children were born at other royal and chiefly centers – centers no longer famous for their birthing locations. For the Kingdom of O‘ahu, births in Kailua and Waikīkī seem common from the mid-1600s on. Yet Kūkaniloko was clearly a special birthing place. Being born here may have also led to the child being given a special rank designation as a lō ali’i. But by the mid-1600s and through the 1700s, this rank had evidently been eclipsed by the more important ni‘aupi‘o ranks (associated with pi‘o, naha, and ho‘i marriages) and their kapu.619 Children born at these other chiefly centers of the mid- 1600s-1700s are described in their times as akua (gods) and wela (blazes of heat).

KŪKANILOKO AS A PU‘UHONUA & A RELIGIOUS AREA FOR MORE THAN BIRTHING

The Hale o Keawe was called Kaikialealea and was a pu’uhonua, or place of refuge. Similarly, Kaikiholu and Pakaalana on Hawaii; Kakae in Iao, Maui; Kukaniloko in Wahiawa, Oahu; and Holoholoku in Wailua, Kauai, were places to which one who had killed could run swiftly and be saved. [1869 ‘Ī‘ī]620

While Kūkaniloko was clearly an area for birthing of the elite, and included the birthing stones and the waihau heiau Ho‘olonopahu, ‘Ī‘ī also says it was one of O‘ahu’s pu‘uhonua or refuge areas. There were probably more refuge areas than ‘Ī‘ī lists in each of the kingdoms, for these appear to have been critical parts of each ruling center.621 Also, his quote is simply a list with no chronological placement, so we cannot be sure if Kūkaniloko was still a pu’uhonua in the 1700s. But, this is a striking statement, by someone who had lived in traditional times (serving Liholiho when both were boys). Pu‘uhonua in the kingdoms of the islands by the 1700s and European Contact were

240 241

common at royal centers with an associated national heiau, usually within the pu‘uhonua area, and with the ruler’s residence nearby.

This also would suggest that Kūkaniloko would have been a marked-off area, for pu‘uhonua were marked-off areas. They were often enclosed – the most famous being the stone-walled enclosure at Hōnaunau’s royal center.622 This again corresponds with Kalākaua’s logical statements of a sacred enclosure. How large an area would be enclosed for a pu‘uhonua is unclear.

A second point here is that pu‘uhonua at European Contact (or in the 1700s) usually had an associated national heiau of great importance with the ruler’s residence close-by. The most famous cases are from the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, where Paka‘alana was the heiau at the pu‘uhonua in Waipi‘o and ‘Āle‘ale‘a the heiau at Hōnaunau.623 At European Contact, these national heiau were the luakini or heiau po‘okanaka, where prayers were given to the ruler’s and kingdom’s gods for success of the kingdom’s crops, success in war,Confidential long life of the ruler, etc. These national heiau had offerings of pigs and humans – with the human offerings noted particularly in the late 1700s historical records of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i. When large amounts of humans and pigs began to be offered is uncertain.624 This may have occurred at different points in time on the different islands. Archaeological evidence from Maui national heiau – the only island where such heiau are well studied – suggests that such offerings may have only become common in the 1600s on Maui.625 This seems consistent with oral histories from the Kingdom of Hawai‘i (such as ‘Umi offering up Hākau at Honua‘ula heiau in Waipi‘o, about 1600 AD).626 On O‘ahu, Kūhe‘eho‘one‘e and Kūkalani were the primary gods of the ruler and kingdom (and perhaps Kāmeha‘ikana, carved from the breadfruit tree which Haumea or Walinu‘u entered).627 By the 1700s, men were offered to these gods.628 These gods were associated with worship at the national temples, mentioned back to the time of Kalanimanuia (AD 1600-1620) in the records that we reviewed.629 But this does not necessarily mean that human offerings were given back then, or that the heiau were called luakini or po‘o kanaka. Indeed, shortly before – in the mid-1500s – Kalanimanuia’s great-great- grandfather (Mā‘ilikūkahi) was said to have not offered humans up at his heiau, according to Kamakau in 1865. “It is said of Ma‘ili-kukahi that he did not sacrifice men in the heiau and luakini. That was the way of Kukaniloko chiefs. There were no sacrifical heiau, po‘o kanaka, then.”630 Still a very important national heiau would be expected at Kūkaniloko, if it followed typical pu‘uhonua patterns of royal centers. Perhaps if the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā royal center predated the rise of luakini or po‘o kanaka heiau, then a heiau like Ho‘olonopahu might have been such a national heiau, with other uses of importance to the kingdom beyond birthing. [This very speculative view fits the story-telling of Hale‘ole in the 1860s (who has La‘ieikawai’s sister taken secretly to the sacred heiau at Kūkaniloko to be raised) and of Kalākaua in the 1880s (who has Kaulula‘au taken to the heiau at the sacred enclosure of Kūkaniloko). Both were knowledgeable historians of their times who had talked to many elderly kūpuna. Perhaps they were offering a similar plausible hypothesis based on their general cultural and historical knowledge.]

241 242

Related to these issues is the question, “Who would have officiated at both the elite birthing rites and at pu‘uhonua matters?” The logical hypothesis would be the kingdom’s high priest. Malo’s and K. Kamakau’s descriptions of the general piko/subincision ceremonies for the elite might imply this, although not clearly. One can see why Hale‘ole (in La‘ieikawai), Kalākaua (in several stories), and even Nakuina (in her Oahu nui story) have the high priest resident at Kūkaniloko. When the king was using the center, the high priest would also logically be present. When the king was elsewhere, the high priest was probably elsewhere, but with a kahu priest likely present (at least when this chiefly center was actively being used).

KŪKANILOKO AS A PLACE TO TRACK THE SEASONS

I believe that I have discovered an ancient Hawaiian observatory … [1982, Kurth]631 Confidential Another use of Kūkaniloko that has been proposed is that one of the stones (stone 103, the one with the petroglyphs of concentric circles) was used to track the seasons – with observers at this stone noting the setting points of the sun against landmarks on the Wai‘anae ridgeline as the sun moved north and back again to the south during the course of the year and observing the rise of the star constellation Makali‘i (Pleiades) in November to mark the start of the makahiki season. This proposal is based on modern observations at Kūkaniloko, not on descriptions from old Native Hawaiian records. This idea seems to have been first suggested by Harry Kurth (a retired army major) in 1982. He then worked with Rubellite Kawena Johnson, who followed up on evaluating this idea along with Will Kyselka, Doug Fernandez, and others.632 Today, passage of the solstice or equinox is often observed by ceremonies at Kūkaniloko.

Kurth was at Kūkaniloko at the winter solstice in 1982 and was strikingly impressed by the sun setting through Kolekole Pass.634 He noticed the diamond-shaped stone (#103) with the concentric circle petroglyph, which reminded him of Gilbertese stone-boat compasses that were used as a star compass to train navigators. Based on his readings of Hawaiian history, he noted that 2-way voyages occurred to Hawai‘i from the AD 1200s-1500s and that the birthing stones were in place in the early 1200s for Kapawa, “whose father [Nana-kaōko] was the first to arrive from one of the Southern groups.”635 So, he seems to have considered the Gilbert Islands to have been a probable southern source for Hawaiian settlers, bringing their diamond-shaped star compass. Kurth concluded that the diamond-shaped stone at Kūkaniloko – which he called the “Kāne-Lono rock” -- had its longest point oriented north-south.636 The stone has bumps and “worn separations” along its edge, which he seems to have felt were man-made (“shaped stone”) to mark compass degrees.637 Kurth spent considerable time considering alignments from this stone to landmarks where the sun set at the two solstices and equinoxes and also the quick passage of shadows from the bumps across the petroglyph (“shadow-daggers”) at these times.638

242 243

Kurth passed away in 1987 with a rough manuscript written up, which Rubellite Johnson promised to finish-up, presenting his views.639 She went back at several solstices and equinoxes over the 1988-89 period. On two occasions she noted that at sunset a “shadow-dagger” or “shadow mark” cast by the sun against one of the bumps or ridges on stone 103 (these ridges called “niho”) passed quickly through the center of the petroglyph with concentric circles. At the spring equinox of 1989, she observed the sun setting at the southern edge of the top of Ka‘ala mountain. This made her suggest that perhaps Ka‘ala earlier was called “ka‘a ka lā” (the mountain of the sun) rather than Ka‘ala (the fragrance). She noted that, to her, this “makes more sense, since the whole ridge is called ‘back of the sun’ (Kua-o-ka-Lā).”640 She also observed a summer solstice with the sun setting towards Mokulē‘ia. Johnson ends her 1989 manuscript with the following comment:

… passages of sun and stars and moon against the prominent peaks of the mountain ranges east and west of KukanilokoConfidential would have given the priests ample calendrical and spiritual interpolation to prophecy on behalf of each infant chief.641

Also in the early 1990s Kyselka made observations and stated that at the winter solstice (December 22) the sun sets behind the peak south of Kolekole, and at the summer solstice (June 22) it sets over Mokulē‘ia and a line of old sea cliffs.642

Doug Fernandez, a student of Rubellite Johnson, has been studying seasonal patterns at Kūkaniloko since 1998, and we interviewed him several times. He used to go almost every day before sunset. “He faces north and watches the sun set to the west behind the Wai‘anae Mountain Range.” He has probably done more observations than anyone to date, and he can tell what month it is “by observing the shadow that is cast from the sun off of this pohaku.” He too noted that at the winter solstice the sun sets in the Kolekole Pass area, at the equinox it sets over Ka‘ala, and at the summer solstice out towards Mokulē‘ia.

Another current cultural astronomer who has studied Kūkaniloko is Martha Noyes. She too noted in our interview with her that the equinox sun sets over Ka‘ala, the winter solstice sets in the Kolekole Pass area. Given these patterns, she also suggested a different pronunciation and spelling for Ka‘ala – “Ka‘alā, rolling (Ka‘a) sun (lā) and as the (ka) path (ala).” She also noted that “Kolekole now means raw and red, as a wound or red earth, a meaning attributed to carnage of a battle that took place in the Pass. But it is possible that kolekole is Proto-eastern Polynesian … meaning nothing, negative, perhaps the nadir as the negative of the zenith.”

243 244

Confidential

Figure 6-31. Stone 103. One set of concentric circles is notably visible.

244 245

Confidential

Figure 6-32. Locations where the sun sets at the winter and summer solstices and at the fall and spring equinoxes, as viewed from Kūkaniloko. Blow-up of part of State Parks interpretive sign once present at the park.

Stone 103 plays a role in these ideas about tracking the seasons. Kurth called it the “Kane-Lono rock”. Fernandez calls it the “Diamond-Shaped” rock, but also referred to it as “the piko stone” in our interviews. Tom Lenchanko called it “Piko Stone.” Paul Coleman, another student of Rubellite Johnson, has labeled this stone the “Compass Rock” with the dot or pit in the center of the concentric circles the “piko”. Kamoa Quitevis said “the ridges in this pohaku are said to represent peaks on the Wai‘anae Mountain range and the Ko‘olau mountain range,” and this was also stated by Rubellite Johnson and Doug Fernandez. Figure 6-31 shows this stone.

One could question whether the “niho” or ridges of this pohaku were man-made, and Johnson noted that this was not clear. Some suggest that the notches “were chiseled away.” Some have suggested that this stone’s knobs (niho) and notches are natural, made from erosion over the millennia. Our senior scholar recently asked this question of the Stasacks, who are familiar with petroglyphs and rock art. It turns out that they had spent some time thinking about this question. The stone was extremely unusual, so they had shown a geologist several photographs, and the geologist felt that the stone had been

245 246

subject to water erosion. They also noted that other stones at Kūkaniloko show fluting with knobs and notches, and that this would appear natural. They also stated that only some of the ridges on stone 103 cast shadows over the concentric circle’s poho around the winter solstice. With the remaining ridges having “no apparent similar function,” they found it “hard to believe the other flutes would have been worth the effort of sculpting to then be mere decorations.” They also stated that “the fluting along the edges look natural and without visible alterations by human hand.” But they remained uncertain about the whether the “niho” or ridgetops had been abraded, and suggested a geologist should make an on-site study. The author of this chapter also looked closely at this stone, having years of archaeological experience. He observed that the notches correspond with natural erosional fluting extending down the stone from each notch (Fig. 6-33). This would tend to support the notches being natural. He has seen similar fluting on stones in Wai‘anae valley and Nānākuli that was clearly natural erosion. He also observed that despite stone 103’s unusual shape, it appears to be in general a natural stone, and other stones at Kūkaniloko had such fluting. He looked closely at the “notches” and “knobs” to see if evidenceConfidential of man-made grinding was visible. This was less clear, and like the Stasacks, he would prefer to see a closer analysis of the stone surface. His inclination, apparently like the Stasacks’, is that the stone’s notches and ridges may be the result of natural erosion. But, whether the ridges or “niho” are man-made is not really critical for the idea of tracking seasons. The sun setting clearly casts shadows of these ridges across the stone (Figs. 6-34, -35). Also, the ridges could have symbolized the Wai‘anae mountains’ peaks in past perspectives.

A related concern is whether the two major concentric circle petroglyphs with internal dots or pits were actually made to track the seasons. Were they cut onto this stone for that purpose? A reasonable argument can be made that they were.

But such concentric circle petroglyphs are common in the islands. Two interpretations of such petroglyphs by older Native Hawaiians have been documented and noted in petroglyph studies. One was by Ellis in 1823 on the southern part of Hawai‘i Island, stating “we frequently saw a number of straight lines, semi circles, or concentric rings … On inquiry, we found that they had been made by former travelers, … When there were a number of concentric circles with a dot or mark in the centre, the dot signified a man, and the number of rings denoted the number in the party who had circumabulatd the island.”643 Our senior scholar was told the same story by two elderly, well-respected north Kohala kūpuna at the Waikōloa petroglyph field in the early 1990s; and whether they had read the Ellis book or not is uncertain. Another interpretation was collected from two elderly kūpuna in 1915 by Marth Beckwith on Hawai‘i Island. They agreed that “(a) the hole for a child and (b) the hole for a first-born. … (c) a first-born of an ali‘i [was a dot and concentric circles].”644 Neither interpretation is linked to tracking the seasons, but such petroglyphs could certainly have been used for many purposes that were not recorded or exist in as yet unfound older records. In the case of stone 103, at

246 247

Confidential

Figure 6-33. Stone 103 showing natural flutings extending down the sides of the stone.

247 248

Confidential

Figure 6-34. Summer solstice 1989 or 1990. Note 3 shadow daggers in the vicinity of the northern set of concentric circles, one across the central dot or pit. (Kurth & Johnson 1989)

248 249

Confidential

Figure 6-35. Picture taken April 19, 2010 showing 3 shadow daggers near the northern concentric circle, with one near the pit. (Stasack and Stasack 2010:Figure 16)

the 1989 or 1990 summer solstice, Johnson noted that the setting sun cast a shadow across one of the ridges, and this shadow as “a shadow dagger” passed through the glyph and struck the central pit (Fig. 6-34).645 However, others have noted that shadow daggers cross the rock all the time, frequently intersecting the circles. Observations year-round of exactly what shadow-dagger patterns are cast in relation to the circles seemingly would better evaluate this concern. It may well be that the cultural astronomers, particularly Fernandez, has this information. It was a question that arose long after our interview and just as this report was being prepared. If shadow daggers do strike the central pit specifically at the solstices and equinox (and at no other time), then this would be a strong argument for the petroglyphs having been used for tracking the seasons.

But regardless whether stone 103 and its petroglyphs were used to track the seasons, the key point remains that modern cultural astronomers have confirmed that if one stands within Kūkaniloko, one can observe the setting sun against the Wai‘anae mountains and can track the path of the sun (and the seasons) to the north and south. The question follows, “Was Kūkaniloko actually used for this purpose in the distant past, in traditional times?”

249 250

We reviewed older literature on tracking of the seasons to try to better understand this suggestion of Kūkaniloko being used for that purpose. Hawaiians in traditional times clearly knew a vast array of individual stars or clusters of stars. These had names of heroes, deities, places (some in Kahiki), and they were embedded in chants and mele.646 Seers (kilo or kilokilo) used the skies (day and night phenomena) for omens, which included prophecies on the birth of chiefs. Navigators used the skies in other ways. According to high chief Hoapili in the 1830s or 1840s who was trained in navigation, there were traveling stars (5 planets) and fixed stars, and he said that fixed stars were used for navigation and that the relative positions of the traveling stars to the fixed stars were used for omens.647 Such prophecies were important on the birth of chiefs (as Johnson notes above), both for predictions of the life of that chief and sometimes for naming the child. Viewing of the heavens for omens is not followed up further here in relation to Kūkaniloko, other than to state that as a birthing site, these observations and prophecies would be expected to have occurred during the birth of a high ranking child. Use of star patterns for navigation training at Kūkaniloko is discussed in the next section. Here the focus isConfidential on tracking the seasons.

The seasons were definitely tracked in traditional times for planting needs and associated rituals. The Hawaiian year had two seasons – Makali‘i or Kau (dry) and Ho‘oilo (rainy).648 The transition was marked by tracking the passage of the sun north and south. “Welehu (March-April) is the month when the sun, standing on the alanui polihiwa a Kane [the equator649], turns [and goes] to the north until the month of Kaulua (June-July), when it stands at its northernmost limit.” Then the sun turned and moved south back to the alanui in Welo (August-September), the fall equinox. This season (the passage of the sun north and its return south) was recognized as the Makali‘i season when “the days are long and the nights are short, food plants grow and the weather is warm”. The sun continued south in Iki‘iki (September-October) and its southern limit was in “the last days of Hanaia‘ele‘ele (November-December)”. Then it turned north in Hilina (December-January) until the end of ‘Ikuwa (February-March). This southerly transit of the sun was the Ho‘oilo season with “the days … short, the nights long”. “When the sun moved south from Pu‘uokapolei – and during the season of the sun in the south – for the coming of coolness and for the sprouting of new buds on growing things – the season was called Ho‘oilo.” The southern limit of the sun was called ke alanui polohiwa a Kanaloa.650 [Note: Most older information labels the northern extent of the sun as ke alanui polihiwa a Kāne. See note 649.]

The first rising of Makali‘i (the Pleiades) in the east after sunset was also a key astronomical event in the ritual and seasonal calendar, for it marked the imminent start of the makahiki season and the wet season. In the last month of the dry season, the king had a kapa flag placed before the luakini, indicating the old year was coming to an end and that the sacrifices to the gods in the heiau would end. Then when the rise of Makali‘i was anticipated, the king and priests awaited its rise at the kuahu altar in the luakini. The kuapola rite then followed, lasting through the rising of the stars Polapola and Melemele a few hours later. The end of this ritual closed the altar in the luakini. 29 days later a second rite for all the remainder of the people followed. Importantly, Makali‘i (Pleiades) gradually rose, or was higher, in the sky after sunset, and then it started to set over the

250 251

several months of the makahiki. Its final setting “approximately mark the end of the makahiki” followed by a transition set of rituals that rededicated the use of the luakini roughly by the end of February.651

Note that the rise of Makali‘i was tracked by priests. Importantly, priests were key individuals who retained the details of this knowledge of tracking the seasons. “The ancient experts of Oahu and Kauai were Luahaukapawa, Maihea, Na‘ula, Nu‘akea, and Mo‘i. Their knowledge was expertly kept by Ka‘opulupulu, Kanewahine, and Kaleopu‘upu‘u, and also by Kaneakaho‘owaha ma and some others.”652 Ka‘opulupulu and his brother Kaleopu‘upu‘u were both high priests of the O‘ahu Kingdom in the mid- 1700s – the former serving Kumuhana and Kahahana in the 1780s and the latter serving Pelei‘ōhōlani and then leaving O‘ahu to serve Kahikli in the 1780s.

The only reference that we found in our review of old records for a spot where the seasons were tracked on O’ahu was Pu‘uokapolei. In the 1700s on O‘ahu, priests who tracked the passageConfidential of the sun “called the season Kau [dry season] for the setting of the sun from Pu‘uokapolei, a hill in Honouliuli, ‘Ewa, to the opening of Mahinaona [this spot no longer recalled] … When the sun moved south from Pu‘uokapolei – … the season was called Ho‘oilo.”653 Pu‘uokapolei is a high point on the low ‘Ewa plain with a vast panorama of the horizon, which would be ideal for viewing sun rising/setting and star rising/setting. It is not clear whether the priests were on Pu‘uokapolei or if they were somewhere not too far away and viewing the setting of the sun in relation to Pu‘uokapolei. Nevertheless, this is a more seaward sighting point than Kūkaniloko. Again, this is the only record that we found on such a sighting point for O‘ahu for the 1700s. It is very specific, and Kamakau was raised by a kupuna who was an O‘ahu priest,654 and one would expect him to have probably mentioned other tracking points if others were being used then. Still, it is possible other records will reveal other places.655

However, earlier in the history of O‘ahu – say in the 1300s when three countries existed – each would have had to track the seasons from within their own territory. Also before the 1200s, there would have been many smaller countries, and one assumes that they would have tracked the seasons in some fashion, again from within their own lands. Given Pu‘uokapolei’s wide panorama, one would expect other locations with broad panoramas to be tracking spots. Kūkaniloko has such a broad panorama and was a prominent point in the center of the island at a royal or chiefly center at least dating back to the 1300s. Possibly it was the key sighting spot within a 1100s-1200s small country, and in the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Wai‘alua country that formed in the 1300s with its ruling center at Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā.

But, other spots on the Central Plateau or in ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae and Wai‘alua could equally have been the key tracking spot for viewing the passage of the sun north and south. This is an important point to understand. Ideally, with archaeoastronomy proposals based on modern observations at a place, one needs some clear linkage of such use of the place with old times – such as orientation of a structure (observatory), or an old written record (either indigenous writing as in the case of the Maya, or oral history recorded soon after European contact). As yet we do not have these for Kūkaniloko. The

251 252

surviving stones appear to be mostly natural formations, not human placed. Maybe Ho‘olonopahu heiau had its walls oriented for tracking seasons, but this structure is gone. As yet no older oral histories have identified Kūkaniloko as a sighting place. One can argue that place names like Ka‘ala and Kolekole had older pronunciations and meanings, but all we have is pronunciations that have survived and been recorded from kūpuna. So the idea of Kūkaniloko being a place where seasons were tracked is plausible, but not yet fully supported, at least in the view of the author of this chapter. This is not to slight the researchers who have proposed this idea. It is plausible, and they have made important observations, often in great detail. The author would only point out that full support of the hypothesis awaits some additional independent evidence.

KŪKANILOKO AS A PLACE FOR CHIEFLY INSTRUCTION

Today, it is often stated that Kūkaniloko was like a university, that this was a place where chiefsConfidential were trained or where navigation was taught. Both ideas seem to have arisen fairly recently, since the 1980s. The hypothesis that Kūkaniloko was used to teach navigation is addressed here first, and then the more general chiefly instruction.

------

I believe that I have discovered an ancient Hawaiian … multi-purpose side-real star navigation compass (“stone canoe”) and training site ... for navigation purposes. [1982, Kurth]656

As best as we can determine, the current view that Kūkaniloko was used for navigation training seem to have originated with Kurth in 1982.657 He suggested that the diamond-shaped stone with the concentric circles (stone 103) was like a Gilbertese “stone boat” that was used to train navigators in the Gilberts (today’s Kiribati). He argued that the Kūkaniloko diamond-shaped stone had man-made bumps and depressions on its perimeter that marked “star paths, wave patterns, etc.” Kurth claimed that two-way voyaging was going on in the AD 1200s-1500s period and the birthstones were in place in early 1200 for Kapawa, “whose father [Nana-kaoko] was the first to arrive from one of the southern groups.” He seems to be making the link of southern groups to the Gilberts, bringing the diamond-shaped “stone boat” as a navigation teaching device.

There are several problems with the hypothesis that stone 103 was like a Gilbertese “stone boat” used to teach navigation. This needs a short preface on navigation approaches. Hawaiian settlers certainly brought with them an Austronesian navigation system. Hawaiians were part of the historic expansion of part of the Austronesian language family into Oceania. This Austronesian navigation system spread out of Central-Eastern Melanesia (the Reefs/Santa Cruz/New Hebrides area) with Austronesian settlers moving into Micronesia, Polynesia and Southeast Melanesia about 1,000-500 BC. We have only bits and pieces of information on the navigation systems as they existed in the Austronesian world at European Contact, 2,000 + years later – the

252 253

most complete information coming out of Micronesia, most notably out of the Central Carolines from Puluwat and Satawal.658 At this time, the systems still retained shared navigation approaches, focusing on rising/setting patterns of stars, major wave patterns, and localized topography (submerged reefs, wave deflections by islands, knowledge of island locations as safety nets). The Hawaiian system at European Contact contained these elements. When sailing between the islands in the Hawaiian archipelago, certain stars were sighted on.659 Also, Kamakau in 1865 emphasized that navigators were taught major wave patterns and local topography for sailing within the Hawaiian Islands: “You will also study the regulations of the ocean, the movement of the tides, floods, ebbs and eddies.”660 It is important to note that over the centuries of separation, the Austronesian cultures also developed distinct localized differences in their navigation systems. The Central Carolines had perhaps the most complex star compass. The Marshallese heavily relied on major wave patterns and their reflections among their many atolls, as did the Gilbertese. Patterns in Polynesia are less well recorded. Also, by European Contact in the 1700s and early 1800s, many islands no longer focused on long-distance two-way sailing outsideConfidential their islands – notably high, resource-rich, basaltic islands (Chuuk, Pohnpei and Kosrae in Micronesia; the Marquesas, Hawai‘i, Aotearoa in Polynesia) -- so these islands may have had a more reduced system.

Hawaiians’ distant ancestors (based on current evidence) moved out of the Samoa area perhaps AD 0-600, and eventually the Hawaiian Islands were settled by the AD 800s-1000s or earlier from the Marquesas. East Micronesia was settled between BC 1,000-AD 0, and there is little evidence of substantive contact of Polynesians with their Austronesian cousins in Kiribati (the Gilberts) until Kiribati oral traditions identify the arrival of people from Samoa (read the Samoa area) perhaps near the AD 1200s-1500s.661 The maneaba – a huge, secular meeting house with sitting spots – dates to this period and has similarities with the Samoan meeting house. The Samoa area, thus, seems the likely area for sharing of Gilbertese navigation approaches with Polynesians prior to European Contact, and it is uncertain how much Gilbertese knowledge would have been adopted by the west Polynesians (Tongans, Samoans, and Fijians) who had their own unique developments to the Austronesian navigation system in place, and were also long- distance sailors. This was long after the Hawaiians’ ancestors had left West Polynesia. Some argue that a second long-distance sailing period between the Hawaiian Islands and Central Eastern Polynesia occurred in the late 1200s-1300s. However, unless one is proposing significant Gilbertese or Samoan contact with the Hawaiian Islands in the 1300s (which no archaeologist or historian has done for years), problems start to arise with making a Gilbertese navigation link to the Hawaiian Islands, and particularly to stone 103 at Kūkaniloko.586

One could simply suggest that when Hawai‘i was first settled or when later two- way voyaging occurred, wherever the source of settlers, the Austronesian navigation system that was brought to Hawai‘i used a diamond-shaped plan with star rising/setting locations on its perimeter. Currently, we just do not know how navigation was taught then. By European Contact in Austronesian Oceania in areas where we have information, a diamond-shaped plan for teaching was not used. The Marshallese used elaborate networks of sticks and shells to teach local waves, wave reflections, and island locations

253 254

(their famous stick charts). The Central Carolineans (like Mau’s Satawalese) used a circular shape to teach the rising/setting star patterns.662 Limited information from Hawai‘i describes teaching of navigation using a more circular shaped teaching device with marked star positions (a calabash – the “Hawaiian gourd compass” – with knots on a cord tied just below the rim to mark rising/setting positions of main stars).663 Vitally, it turns out that the Gilbertese teaching technique of a “stone canoe” was used by only one of the remaining navigators when Lewis documented Gilbertese navigation techniques in the early 1970s – the youngest navigator (Rewi).664 Rewi knew of only 4 such “boats,” all built between the late 1800s–1970, and Lewis was “not aware of any elsewhere, nor of earlier date,” so this may not be an ancient teaching technique in the Gilberts. Also, this “stone canoe” was not diamond-shaped. It was an outline of a canoe, and apprentice navigators sat within the stone canoe and were taught. The canoe was not oriented north- south (like stone 103), rather it was oriented with the canoe bow facing major swells. Also, the canoe did not have stone sighting points along the side indicating rising/setting points. Based on this evidence, a diamond-shaped teaching device like stone 103 at Kūkaniloko didConfidential not exist in the Gilberts, so a Gilbertese link to the hypothesis of teaching navigation at Kūkaniloko using stone 103 is probably best dropped.

Instead, perhaps one could suggest that Hawaiian navigation 1,000 years ago used a teaching device of some kind of shape with points on its perimeter marking key local star rising/setting. This seems quite reasonable. One could argue that the diamond- shaped stone at Kūkaniloko was such a teaching device, with the man-made bumps and depressions on its perimeter marking “star paths, wave patterns, etc.”, as Kurth suggested. However, as seen above (pages 237-238), it is uncertain if these bumps and depressions are man-made. It is possible that some alteration of the bumps and depressions could have occurred to create “shadow daggers” for tracking the seasons, but the naturally eroded flutings that extend from each of the depressions down the side of stone 103 indicate that that only minimal alteration of the location of the bumps could have been done. It would seem highly unlikely that all the bumps and depressions (even if altered minimally) would correspond to exact star rising/setting patterns. A more accurate teaching approach would likely have been a portable design with markers on its perimeters where stars actually rose and set – like the circular gourd that Kamakau described in 1865.665

Use of a portable gourd to teach star rising and setting at Kūkaniloko could certainly be hypothesized. Kūkaniloko certainly had the panorama to track star rising/setting patterns – particularly wide open corridors to the north and south as noted by Johnson.666 Also, members of the community have suggested that some of the natural or man-made basins in the stones at Kūkaniloko were filled with water and used to teach navigation based on the reflection of stars. Thus, one could suggest that teaching star rising/setting patterns and navigation at Kūkaniloko was possible.

This leads to another key question, “Would navigation be taught within sacred, major religious grounds at a chiefly center that was used for birthing and refuge. In Micronesia, navigation was taught near the shore – often near canoe houses.667 In Hawai‘i there is a 1860s era oral account that the heiau Kū‘īlioloa at Kāne‘īlioloa Point at

254 255

Pokai Bay was used for navigation training, as well as being a fishing heiau.668 This is a heiau of small interconnected platforms. We are aware of a more recent 1990s local account for another small heiau being used to teach navigation. This heiau is a small platform with upright stones, located on a hill at the shore near Mahukona in Kohala.669 While being at religious places (unlike in Micronesia), these are not major religious grounds, rather smaller heiau. Thus, the answer to this question is uncertain; we just do not know much about the teaching of navigation in Hawai‘i, and the old Hawaiian oral accounts that we reviewed are silent about navigational training occurring within Kūkaniloko, the birthing place. It remains a possible hypothesis that needs more research.

------

Kūkaniloko is not just a birthing place of the ali‘i, it is an was the university of our moku it was the school of the kilo hoku, lua, lā‘au lapa‘au, lā‘au kāhea, school of ancient thought, etc. [AnonymousConfidential interview]

A number of people in today’s Native Hawaiian community have noted that Kūkaniloko was a place for general teaching (like at a university).670 Some interviewed specified that this training was for “the young ali‘i to become managers of the people and the land.”671 Using comparisons from other chiefly and royal centers, the chiefs were indeed trained in politics, government, war and the like – often young chiefs being taught or observing meetings of older chiefs and the ruler. However, based on the older Hawaiian accounts that we are aware of, such training generally did not occur in the most sacred areas of these chiefly or royal centers (the areas of the luakini, pu‘uhonua, etc.). Rather they occurred in places within the ruler’s or high chief’s houseyards, such as a hale o Lono heiau (small house heiau) or in other domestic houses.672 Meetings might occur at the ruler’s houseyard – in open air settings or in the mua – or similarly at a high chief’s houseyard. War training took place in open grounds among the houseyards.673 Craftsmen and craftswomen appear likely to have trained their “apprentices” at their place of work. Huge double canoes were begun in the forest and finished in halau amidst residential areas near the shore.674 Bowl makers, and general carvers are likely to have worked near their houseyards. Kapa makers worked in their houseyards and occasionally at larger structures or open areas led by a higher ranking woman.675 Some lua masters taught individual students at their more remote houseyards away from the dense chiefly center’s houseyards.676 This is quite possible for any skilled master, that they taught students wherever their houseyard or work area was – either in the chiefly center or in the more rural areas of the surrounding cultural landscape. Perhaps image makers worked within the sacred heiau, but this also seems unlikely for the finished image was taken into the heiau.677 Somewhat comparable information from Tahiti describes an image maker who prepared the image, and then it was given to the priests to make it sacred and place in the temple.678

However, kilo (readers of omen) were usually priests, and where they were trained is not clear. Also, there are some older references that could suggest some types of instruction could occur in the most sacred areas of the chiefly or royal centers. On

255 256

certain days of the month the king and highest chiefs retired to the luakini for key rituals and prayers. But in the interludes between prayers, some accounts mention these chiefs relaxing and talking story.679 Perhaps chiefly instruction went on at this time. Also at least high chiefly children, as part of their rearing, were given religious instruction by priests of different orders. Descriptions clearly suggest that this occurred for senior sons, and are less clear as to junior sons and to daughters.

When the boy had grown to be of good size a priest was appointed to be his tutor, to see to his education and to instruct him in matters religious; … Such was the education and bringing up of a king’s son. [Malo680, presumably Emerson’s translation]

A hiki i ka wa e nui loa ai, ua [a]lii la, alaila hoono[ho] iho ia i kahuna pule nana, a hoomakaukau ia, oia ma na mea naauao,Confidential a me na mea e pono ai ka haipule ana, … Pela e hana ia [a]i ka na [a]lii mau keiki kane … [Malo’s Hawaiian in Chun681]

When the ali‘i was mature, he went to live with a kahuna pule (expert in prayers) who could prepare him in wise and skilled things that could benefit his religious practices. … That was how the ali‘i(‘s) sons were raised. [Chun’s translation of Malo682]

Certain high chiefs, such as Hoapili, were noted for having religious training. Where this religious training occurred, however, is not clearly specified.

So, while it is certainly likely that navigation and many other skills were taught at the royal and chiefly center of Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā, it seems more likely this would be in the secular areas of the center – within the houseyards and at open grounds – and at houseyards and work areas of masters in the larger Central Plateau away from the chiefly center. Some religious training could have occurred within different heiau and even within the most sacred religious places of ruling centers (such as the birthing and waihau heiau areas of Kūkaniloko). More research in the older records and with modern practitioners on this subject would be useful. This perspective of a wider setting of training in the many skills of the past (under masters) puts Kūkaniloko once again into a wider setting of the Central Plateau and its chiefly center. This is not too different from a comment by Kamoa Quitevas in his interview:

Each heiau around this area had a different purpose. Like at Hale‘au‘au, one might learn astronomy or other things. And at another heiau in the area, people might learn other skills.

256 257

This could also be the training or learning context that many in the community were referring to, for when speaking of Kūkaniloko, many feel it refers to the wider Central Plateau. In the sense of specialized learning by masters (“university learning”), we agree that this is likely to have occurred at many places within the Central Plateau – within the chiefly center, at places more remote, and even perhaps within the sacred birthing area of Kūkaniloko.

KŪKANILOKO AND ALIGNMENTS TO OTHER HEIAU

A number of people interviewed from today’s Native Hawaiian community and several cultural astronomers (D. Fernandez and M. Noyes) have suggested that Kūkaniloko is aligned with other heiau and sacred places on O‘ahu and at least to Holoholokū on Kaua‘i. Or more correctly, as Doug Fernandez indicated in his interview, “all heiau on O‘ahu are aligned with Kūkaniloko” through the moon, sun and stars. As examples, it is noted that Kū‘īlioloa heiau at Pōka‘ī Bay in Wai‘anae kai is aligned with Kūkaniloko andConfidential the setting sun at the winter solstice. Also, we were told that Holoholokū is in alignment with Kūkaniloko and the setting sun at the summer solstice. Doug suggested that “Hawaiians would light kukui nut torches to help them align structures. … A bunch of people would hike in the mountains to set alignments with other heiau.” Both Doug and Martha Noyes have spent considerable time documenting these alignments.

Heiau were planned out by special architect kahuna, and aligning of new heiau with pre-existing heiau or sacred places is certainly possible. This was a topic that we had no time to follow up on, so we did not review the pre-1880 older records on this topic. This would be a topic for future research. We did not come across any references to such intentional alignments in the archival research done for this project, which included a keyword search in Hawaiian newspapers focused on Kukaniloko. But research through records focusing on construction approaches for heiau might well provide more information on this subject.

KŪKANILOKO IN THE MID-1600s TO KAMEHAMEHA’S TIME – A CENTER NOT IN USE

Importantly, if high chiefly and royal birthing ended at Kūkaniloko in the early 1600s, it needs to be considered how Kūkaniloko was impacted by disuse for 150+ years. In the 1790s, Kamehameha tried to have Keōpūolani give birth to Liholiho here, but Fornander notes that this was “when the ancient structure and surroundings had fallen in decay.”683 Just what is meant by “fallen in decay” is unclear. If Kamakau was correct about some stones being upright and in lines, were some of these stones still present? Was there a wall around the area that had collapsed or had its stones removed to build other structures? Archaeology is unlikely to yield answers on these questions, for pineapple cultivation likely eliminated remains of the structures and walls. Again, we suspect that descriptions exist of Kukaniloko from the 1800s by visitors, Native Hawaiian or foreigner, and they should document what survived then. We did not find any such descriptions, but future work needs to continue to look through the vast archival material.

257 258

WHY WAS KŪKANILOKO LOCATED WHERE IT IS?

Older Hawaiian accounts are silent on why Kūkaniloko, as a birthing place, was where it is. But modern hypotheses exist on this subject.

Some have suggested that this was a place of intense thunderstorms that were associated with the gods and birthing drums. Beckwith684 perhaps was the first in modern times to suggest in print that Kūkaniloko was chosen as a birthing place because of thunderstorms associated with gods. “The site chosen is one frequently visited by thunderstorms, whose manifestations were regarded as the voice of ancestral gods of the heavens welcoming an offspring of divine rank. The drums perhaps simulated the voice of the deity.” Kame‘eleihiwa685 also notes this point on thunderstorms: “the birthing heiau, or temple, Kūkaniloko, situated on the plains of Wahiawā where the island’s most violent thunderstorms brought the mana of the heavens down to chiefly children born below.” Thunder was indeed associated with deities, notably Kānehekili, whether with Confidential686 birthing gods is less clear. But along with rain and lightning, thunder was also a sign of chiefly events – including birth.

These signs such as the clappings of thunder, the flashings of lightning, and the rain and wind on the ocean were all signs of royalty and portained either to a dying chief, a traveling chief, or the birth of a chief.

O kea mau hoailona alii, ua like no ia me ke kui ana o ka hekili, a me ke olapa ana o ka uwila, a me ke kualau ma ka moana, he mau hoailona alii lakau a pau, ina he alii make, alii hele paha i ka huakai, a i ole, he alii hanau paha. [Hale‘ole 1862]687

The Wahiawā area (to anyone who has lived or worked in the Wahiawā to ‘Ewa area) does have impressive thunderstorms that drift down towards Pu‘uloa. These storms were certainly observed by Hawaiians in traditional times. In 1870 Kamakau published names of the months and associated things, undoubtedly from his perspective of being born and raised on O‘ahu (and more specifically in Waialua).

‘Ikuwa, the sixth month of Ho‘oilo, was named for the crash – ‘ikuwa – of heavy thunder, with much rain and lightning. … This last month was called … Pilika‘aiea (close to exhaustion), because of the thunder and the gasping for breath (pili o ka hanu); and Hinamahuie because of the thunder and lightning. … Sometimes the thunder and lightning were so strong as to break down huge forest trees and knock down houses and kill people. At such times it was customary among some Oahu people to appeal to the thunder to go and “eat” (‘ai) of the forest

258 259

groves at Wahiawa and of the fishes in Uko‘a pond at Waialua. [1870 Kamakau]688

This quote seems to make a link with thunder and Wahiawā. Such observations would be expected back to the earliest times of settlement on O‘ahu. If Wahiawā’s thunderstorms are distinctively unique on O‘ahu, then an important connection between the gods and the place would seem a plausible hypothesis. But again, we have not found any pre-1880 records that document thunderstorms in the Wahiawā area as the reason for Kūkaniloko becoming a birthing place. So, there is no way that we can be certain if the connection between thunderstorms, gods, and their presence at the Kūkaniloko birthing stones were made when Nana-kaōko and his wife Kahihiokalani established the birthing place.

There might also be another hypothesis for the reason for the location of these birthing stones. There are the well known chant lines referring to the sound of the surf of the shore of WaialuaConfidential booming into the uplands of Wahiawā and Līhu‘e. In referencing this chant, Mary Kawena Pukui suggested perhaps this was kaona for the drums at Kūkaniloko “signaling the birth of a royal chief” – and possibly she was referring to an association of the loud noise, the gods, and the drums in the midst of Wahiawā and Līhu‘e.689 Again, this could be plausible. But again the old Hawaiian records are silent on why the Kūkaniloko birthing place was at the location of these stones.

Many in today’s Hawaiian community, when asked why Kūkaniloko was where it was, mentioned the presence of the wahine hāpai silhouette on the Wai‘anae mountains as at least part of the reason. From the Kūkaniloko area, a pregnant woman can indeed be seen – the pregnant belly is Ka‘ala, the breast Kalena, and the head Kūmakali‘i. Some suggested Kamaoha, on the ridge spur beyond Ka‘ala was part of a chiefly child emerging from the woman.690 Charles Kenn in a popular magazine article of 1937, with a picture. noted that “Merely coincidental may be, but look at the reclining Waianae Mountain Range in the picture. You see a beautiful pregnant woman there.”691. Interestingly, there were no older references to a wahine hāpai that we found in our research. However, this could be older community knowledge. Members of today’s community often said the visibility of the wahine hāpai was the reason, or one reason, that Kūkaniloko was built where it is. For example, “The reason why Kūkaniloko is located there is because of Hāpai Wahine, she watches over all of the births that occurred there.”692

Another hypothesis for Kūkaniloko’s location that many in the community mentioned is that this place is “the piko of O‘ahu”.693 One community member noted that “O‘ahu used to be two islands, one consisting of the Wai‘anae Mountain range, the wahine (woman), and the other the Ko‘olau Mountain range, the kāne (man). When the two land mases became spiritually united, they connected at the center, the piko, Kūkaniloko.”

Last, one could point to the meaning of Wahiawā within which Kūkaniloko lies. As seen, Wahiawā seems to have been an older name for a land unit area in this part of

259 260

O‘ahu. Handy, perhaps from the 1930s, translated it as wahi (place), a (belonging to), wa (noise).695 In 1951, Elbert in translating a Fornander Collection story, provided the following: Wahi-a-Wā, Place -- Son of – Noise.696 Pukui, Elbert and Mookini in Place Names of Hawaii translate Wahiawā literally as a “place of noise”.697 The name’s tie with noise could refer to thunder, the breaking waves of the North Shore, or the drums of Kūkaniloko – or a combination. Was the linkage of the noise in the name Wahiawā to frequent and distinctive natural noise – thunder or waves – and would this noise then be associated with the presence of the gods and mana, suggesting a reason for making this a place of chiefly childbirth? Or, was perhaps the name associated with the drums of Kūkaniloko, a symbolic recognition of the birth of high ranking chiefs. Perhaps they are all linked together.

THE SIZE OF KŪKANILOKO

Based on available depictions, Kūkaniloko was clearly a much larger complex than the concentration of stones. Confidential698 [1994, National Register Form]

As seen, the old Hawaiian accounts of the 1860s describe the birthing stones and the waihau heiau within a place called Kūkaniloko, and perhaps a separate drum area. ‘Ī‘ī’s 1870 publication noted that Kūkaniloko was a pu‘uhonua or refuge area. These sources, along with Kalākaua in 1888, imply a marked-off (even likely an enclosed) area. Using Kamakau’s account, Kūkaniloko extended 1,000 feet south of the birthing area to the heiau (likely approaching the North Fork of Kaukonahua) and extended west 1,300 feet towards a drum area (probably nearing the joined Kaukonahua Stream). The records are silent on the boundaries to the north and east.

Again, it appears that the houseyards of the ruler and high chiefs and other residents of the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā chiefly center would have surrounded Kūkaniloko – at least to the west and south. Given royal centers where detailed land records survive from the Māhele and land parcel names can be identified, these houseyards are likely to each have had their own names.699 It, thus, is unlikely that they were called Kūkaniloko. There is no reference in the old, pre-1880 oral literature that the chiefly center in this area was called Kūkaniloko. The most common reference was to Līhu‘e as the chiefly center, but mo‘olelo often also link both Līhu‘e and Wahiawā to this center; and as seen, the residential areas seem actually to have been focused in Līhu‘e, Wahiawā and Kalakoa. Although seemingly unlikely to have been called Kūkaniloko, this chiefly center was the most immediate cultural landscape with which Kūkaniloko was associated. Kūkaniloko was the birthing center and a religious place within this specific chiefly center. They were historically and culturally linked.

Tom Lenchanko has argued that Kūkaniloko was 36,000-40,000 acres in size.700 Daniel Au, a member of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, has similarly noted that there was a bigger Kūkaniloko – extending to Waikakalaua, Līhu‘e, Kalena and north to Halemano.701 Members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā say that ka‘ānani‘au (one or several piles of stone, ahu) mark these boundaries.702 In fact, the larger acreage

260 261

of the Central Plateau lands that surrounded and supported this chiefly center does approach 40,000 acres and the borders noted by Au. Wai‘anae uka is 14,700 acres, Wahiawā is 5,500 (not including lands rising up the Ko‘olau slopes), Paupauwela encompasses 2,000 acres, upper Līhu‘e of Honouliuli is perhaps 4,000 acreas, Pouhala uka was 800 acres, Waikakalaua was 1,300 or so, and Pa‘ala‘a uka (with Halemano) was not measured. While not called Kūkaniloko in the older pre-1880 mo‘olelo and literature, this supporting landscape was integrally linked to the chiefly center and Kūkaniloko – linked historically, economically, and in story, song, poetry and chant. It is the vital cultural landscape associated with Kūkaniloko. If it once was a major land unit (e.g., a kalana), or one of the small countries before the 1300s, its borders would have been marked. Ka‘ānani‘au is the O‘ahu term that was used for the stone platforms or cairns that marked ahupua’a and moku borders in the 1700s, as opposed to the ahupua‘a platform altar of Hawai‘i Island.703 In 1903, Curtis Lyons wrote about the Kingdom’s Government Survey office, its history, and land terms, having been in charge of the office from 1879-1896. In talking about the ahupua’a as the ahu or kuahu along the main trail (ala loa) in the islands, he noted that “The more common name of the altar on the Island Confidential704 of Oahu was kaananiau.”

KŪKANILOKO’S NAME – ITS MEANING

Last, a question frequently asked is what does Kūkaniloko as a name mean? A word of caution here ... A literal translation of a place name may or may not be a meaning associated with it. Also, some places were named after people, gods, natural phenomena, and events – but sometimes after people, gods, events and other places far removed from their area. For example, the U.S. state of Washington is clearly named after the first President, who as a historical and national symbol was important – but who never was anywhere near the state.

With that caution, the old Hawaiian sources of the 1860s-1870s and the more modern 1880-1920 sources are silent as to the meaning of Kūkaniloko, based on our research to date. However, there are translations offered from more modern times.

In 1951, Samuel Elbert (the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa linguistic professor, who worked closely with Mary Kawena Pukui on the Hawaiian dictionary) gave a literal translation in the context of a paper on “Hawaiian Literary Style and Culture.” Specifically, he was discussing names in a translation of a Fornander Collection story. His literal translation of Kū-Kani-Loko was “Upright-Singing-Within.”705 [Pukui, Elbert and Mookini in the 1970s Place Names of Hawaii have an entry for Kūkaniloko, but no literal translation.706] In recent years with an interest in the place by members of the Wahiawa Hawaiian Civic Club, several similar meanings have been offered.

KU, to stand firmly; KANI, to sound or cry out; LOKO, from within. [1994, Lurlene Lee]707

Loko – na’au, internal organ, the womb Kani – to cry out, labor pains

261 262

Ku – to anchor … Kukaniloko To Anchor the Cry From Within [1994, Somerset Makanaole]708

Kukaniloko – to anchor the cry from within Ku – to anchor Kani – to cry out Loko – the na’au of the womb where the baby was (within) [2011, Anonymous member of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā]709

Doug Fernandez, the cultural astronomer, in one of his interviews, said that he interprets the name to mean “the ancient voices from heaven within”.

Interestingly, in 1937 Charles Kenn stated that “Kukaniloko means an inland area Confidential710 from which great events are heralded”. This meaning was repeated in 2009 in the GANDA firm’s study (“an inland area from which great events are heralded”).711 This translation seems to be less literal and more descriptive.

While one would prefer to see a much earlier 1800s native Hawaiian statement on the meaning of Kūkaniloko, the above translations certainly seem plausible interpretations. More research might yield older translations.

262 263

CHAPTER 7

KŪKANILOKO FROM 1820 TO THE END OF THE MONARCHY

Ross Cordy Dominique Cordy

The ancient structure and surroundings had fallen in decay [By Kamehameha I’s time – Fornander 1880]1

a manao iho la ka Moi e hoi ma uka o Kukaniloko i ka makaikai … TheConfidential king then wanted to take a sightseeing trip upland to Kūkaniloko … [1820-21 trip around O‘ahu of Kamehameha II – Kamakau 1868]2

… places much visited, such as Kukaniloko … [1866-1870 ‘Ī‘ī]3

Kukaniloko, the remains of which are still pointed out … [1870s Fornander]4

INTRODUCTION

This chapter looks at Kūkaniloko from near the end of Kamehameha’s reign until the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893. As before, we look at the general history of O‘ahu as it relates to the Central Plateau, at the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau in these years, and then specifically at Kūkaniloko.

O‘AHU IN THE 1800s

Kau-i-ke-aouli’s favorites were gone to the mountains of Wahiawa, Hale‘au‘au, and Lihu‘e to cut sandalwood. [1829 – Kamakau 1868]5

a pampas alive with cattle and horses [1875 – Whitney]6

One of the initial changes of the 1800s relative to the Central Plateau was the rise of the sandalwood trade. The value of sandalwood was recognized by the Hawaiian elite in 1810.7 However, this trade became important after the British-American War of 1812 (1812-1814) when American trading houses from Boston (Bryant & Sturgis) and New 264

York (Astor) increased their involvement in the Northwest Coast-Hawai‘i-China trade.8 This was after Kamehameha I had returned permanently to Hawai‘i Island. About 1812 Kamehameha had “all the commoners of Kona [going] … to the mountains for sandalwood.”9 Kamakau10 amplifies on this a bit more: “he ordered men into the mountains of Kona and Ka-‘u to cut sandalwood, paying them in cloth and in tapa material, food, and fish. Other men carried the wood to the landings of Kona and Ka-‘u as well as of Kohala and Hamakaua. The chiefs also were ordered to send out their men to cut sandalwood. This rush of labor to the mountains brought about a scarcity of cultivated food throughout the whole group. The people were forced to eat herbs and tree ferns …”. When it was apparent that collection took a toll on commoner farming and health, Kamehameha “immediately declared all sandalwood to be the property of the government and ordered the people to devote only part of their time to its cutting and to return to the cultivation of the land.”11 Another view of this is that realizing the value of sandalwood, “Kamehameha declared it a restricted item. The chiefs were prohibited from selling sandalwood. (Kamehameha alone had sales rights to it.)”12 But as Sahlins points out,13 it wasConfidential not quite a monopoly.

For O‘ahu, active sandalwood collecting increased dramatically in 1816-1817. In 1816, Scheffer of the Russian American Company arrived on Kaua‘i and promised Kaumuali‘i protection against Kamehameha. He returned to O‘ahu and built a blockhouse. Kamehameha viewed this as a threat of revolt not only from the Kaua‘i king, but also became concerned that Russia itself had ambitions on Hawai‘i. He sent Kalanimoku, Ulumaheihei (Hoapili), Naihe, Ke‘eaumoku Cox and warriors to O‘ahu, who ordered the Russians out of Honolulu.14 John Young and Kalanimoku were then placed in charge of building Kamehameha a fort in Honolulu. With thousands of laborers, this fort was built within one year. A number of high chiefs – on O‘ahu without Kamehameha – chose to gather sandalwood on a large scale from their O‘ahu lands in 1816-17. “Then Kalanimoku and the chiefs hewed down sandalwood on O‘ahu and they bought fabrics for themselves and they had considerable wealth on O‘ahu.”15 Kamakau indicates where some of the major collection occurred, with the Central Plateau appearing prominently in the list: “Kalanimoku and all the chiefs went to work cutting sandalwood at Wahiawa, Halemano, Pu‘ukapu, Kanewai, and the two Ko‘olaus. The largest trees were at Wahiawa, and it was hard work dragging them to the beach.”16 Some of this collection was for Kamehameha, as he purchased a ship in 1817 and Kaumuali‘i, and the high chiefs controlling Wai‘anae and Waimea on O‘ahu gathered wood for this purchase.17 But, the high chiefs were actively collecting on their own behalf. Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku (Ke‘eaumoku Cox) controlled all of Waialua and was gathering from his lands.18 Boki was the Governor of O‘ahu at this time and at least controlled directly the Wai‘anae side of the island. Also, Kalanimoku could call out people on behalf of Kamehameha and himself. Thus, the high chiefs on O‘ahu – away from Kamehameha – sent their people into the mountain forests to collect sandalwood. At least one reference says that as a result of this activity, this is when Kamehameha restricted sandalwood selling as a royal monopoloy.19 265

Confidential

Figure 7-1. Kamehameha I. Kamehameha controlled most of the sandalwood trade up to his death in 1819. However, he was on Hawai‘i Island from 1812-1819, and the high chiefs began harvesting sandalwood in large amounts on O‘ahu, beginning in 1817. The Central Plateau was an important sandalwood gathering area at this time. (Black tapa portrait by L. Choris, Bishop Museum original)

Figure 7-2. Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku (Ke‘eaumoku Cox), son of high chief Ke‘eaumoku, Governor of Maui and haku ‘āina of Waialua moku (including Kūkaniloko) until his death in 1824. He had thousands of piculs of sandalwood removed from the forests of Waialua, with Wahiawā a noted collection area. (Drawing by A. Pellion, engraving by A. Migneret. From Freycinet 1978, original publication 1824.) 266

Confidential

Figure 7-3. 1824, High Chief Boki and his wife, High Chiefess Liliha. Boki was Governor of O‘ahu from the latter part of Kamehameha I’s reign up to his departure to the New Hebrides to search for sandalwood in 1829. At that point, Liliha became the Governor until 1831, when she was removed after a near revolt against Ka‘ahumanu. Both were the guardians for Kamehameha III. They were the overlord chief (haku ‘āina) of Wai‘anae moku and Wai‘anae uka in those years, representing the king’s interests as Governor. (By John Hayter, London 1824, Honolulu Academy of Arts Collection.)

267

Confidential

Figure 7-4. Lihiliho, Kamehameha II. He ruled from 1819-1824, and although many of his powers were reduced, as king he also had overlord rights over Wai‘anae and Waialua. (Unknown artist, Rose 1980:34.) 268

Confidential

Figure 7-5. Ka‘ahumanu, widow of Kamehameha I, kuhina nui, and virtual ruler of the kingdom from 1819 to her death in 1832. She inherited Waialua moku at the death of her brother, Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku in 1824. At her death, control of the moku passed to Kīna‘u, daughter of her sister Kaheiheimalie and Kamehameha I. (1816 pen, ink wash and watercolor by L. Choris, Honolulu Academy of Arts Collection, in Forbes 1992:56).

Figure 7-6. Kuakini, younger brother of Ka‘ahumanu and Governor of Hawai‘i during the reigns of Kamehameha II and Kamehameha III. When Liliha was removed in 1831 as Governor of O‘ahu and overlord chief over Wai‘anae representing the king, Kuakini assumed those posts until 1834. (Illustration in Rev. William Ellis’ 1823 journal’s publication, Ellis 1963.) 269

After Kamehameha’s death, Liholiho became Kamehameha II and ruled from 1819-1824. Ka‘ahumanu, Kamehameha’s powerful widow, however, was the virtual ruler in this time.20 Many powers were taken from Liholiho on or soon after his succession. For example, the high chiefs retained their lands without a new allocation by the king (kalai‘āina).21 Importantly, the high chiefs ended the royal monopoly on sandalwood collection.22 They again actively began to collect sandalwood on their own lands, enriching themselves and gaining vast new status items from abroad. (And Lihiliho gathered wood on his lands.23). The historical records (journals, letters, newspaper accounts) contain frequent references to such and such a high chief being off at his lands collecting sandalwood – often with his small European style ship going to the nearest harbor to collect sandalwood.24 1819 saw the rise of promissory notes (IOUs), which ultimately led to issues over the king’s and chiefs’ debts with foreign traders. 1821-22 was a particularly active period in the 1820s.

With this surge in high chiefly collection, a merchant presence on-shore began in the 1820s in HonoluluConfidential – with merchant company stores, warehouses, agents and ships (such as those of Bryant & Sturgis, Marshall & Wildes, William French and others), and associated hotels/boarding houses and grog shops (often owned by traders).25 12-14 merchants had warehouses in 1823, and there were at least 4 retail stores.26 In the same year Honolulu had grown to 6,000-7,000 people with 100+ foreigners.27 By the end of the sandalwood period in 1831-32, Honolulu had grown to 13,300.28

Sandalwood collection entailed finding the trees, cutting them, hauling them down in pieces to the shore where they were stockpiled for collection either by their overlord chief or by a foreign merchant ship. One of the primary areas for cutting sandalwood on O‘ahu was the Central Plateau. Wahiawā specifically is frequently noted. Since the central flats and western slopes of the Central Plateau had been under cultivation for centuries, it is likely that the sandalwood came from the lower primary forest in the Ko‘olau slopes to the east of the central flats, from the Wai‘anae ridgeline and some from gulch sides. In 1829, Kamehameha III and his followers were “gone to the mountains of Wahiawa, Hale‘au‘au, and Lihu‘e to cut sandalwood”29 – with the Hale‘au‘au and Līhu‘e locations suggesting the forests up against the Wai‘anae ridgeline and the spur ridge out to Mā‘ili above much of Hale‘au‘au Stream. Again, Kamakau noted that “The largest trees were at Wahiawa.”30 Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku (Ke‘eaumoku Cox) was the overlord chief of the moku of Waialua (including Wahiawā). One of his main residences was on the shore in Kamananui ahupua’a at Kaiaka Bay.31 Here wood was brought down from the uplands to be weighed and loaded. An example of the scale of Ke‘eaumoku Cox’s focus on sandalwood is seen in the following: “Cox had given orders to some hundreds of his people to repair to the woods … to cut sandal-wood.”32 In 1822, he “delivered at least thirteen hundred piculs [173,290 pounds] of sandalwood to J. Jones” of Marshall & Wildes.33 Ke‘eaumoku Cox died in 1824 and his Waialua moku lands passed to his older sister, Ka‘ahumanu, the regent or co-ruler of the kingdom, and she placed her sister Pi‘ia (Lydia Namahana Kekuaipi‘a or Kuaipi‘ia) and her husband La‘anui in charge of the moku.34 Another lengthy period of sandalwood collection occurred in the district in 1827.35 Pi‘ia died in 1829, as the sandalwood trade was coming to an end.36 Sandalwood collection in Wai‘anae uka is less clear, but Wai‘anae moku 270

was controlled by Boki as its overlord chief,37 and Boki (as Governor) also represented the king. He is mentioned arriving on the shore in Wai‘anae valley to collect wood, and some stated he had his “people in the mountains for months;”38 so the sandalwood from Wai‘anae uka may have been brought down Kolekole Pass to the shore.

With the death of Kamehameha II in England and the return of his body in 1825, his younger brother (Kauikeaouli) became Kamehameha III at age 11. But he too was dominated by Ka‘ahumanu and her supporters (the Ka‘ahumanu ma), and Ka’ahumanu continued essentially as the ruler.39 When Pi‘ia died, control of the moku of Waialua reverted back to Ka‘ahumanu. Boki left the islands in 1829 to search for sandalwood in the New Hebrides and never returned. His wife, Liliha served as Governor of O‘ahu and overlord chief over Wai‘anae moku. But after she led a near revolt in 1831 against Ka‘ahumanu, she was removed, and Kuakini (Ka‘ahumanu’s brother) was brought from Hawai‘i to serve as Governor which he did for two years.40 The king’s land in Liliha’s care was taken away; and although not clear, it appears as if Wai‘anae moku passed back to the king withConfidential Governor Kuakini as his agent.41 In 1832 Ka‘ahumanu died, and her position of kuhina nui passed to her heir Kīna‘u (daughter of Kamehameha and Ka‘ahumanu’s sister Kaheiheimālie, and essentially also a child of Ka‘ahumanu). Her husband, Kekūanāo‘a, became Governor over O‘ahu in 1834. Kamehameha III, now 18, despite a brief attempt to gain full power, ended up co-ruling with his sister, Kīna‘u, until her death in 1839. Kīna‘u was Ka‘ahumanu’s heir, and she inherited the moku of Waialua.42 It appears that Wai‘anae moku as the king’s land might have been placed under the care of Governor Kekūanāo‘a, but the king clearly took it fully back by the late 1840s in the Mahele.43 Thus, the Central Plateau’s key lands of Līhu‘e/Kalakoa in Wai‘anae uka would have been under the king and Wahiawā in Waialua under Kīna‘u.

In the 1820s, as sandalwood faded as a trade item, the American whaling fleet began to arrive – needing food, firewood, and water. By the 1830s, the overlord chiefs shifted their peoples’ labor to agricultural corvee (work days), 3 days/month for the haku ‘āina and 3 days per month for the king/government.44 For Waialua people, these 6 days all occurred for Kīna‘u, as she represented the kingdom and was the overlord chief; and after her death in 1839, her husband Kekūanāo‘a controlled these days, representing the kingdom as the Governor of O‘ahu and representing their daughter Kamamalu (who was Kīna‘u’s heir and the overlord chief over Waialua).45 For Wai‘anae uka, the 6 days would all go to the king, as both the government representative and the overlord chief. Not only was this labor done on farm lands to provide the chiefs with food to supply the whalers, but work requirements were also placed on the people for collection of fire wood for the whalers. Sahlins46 notes that 1,000 fathoms of wood was required from Waialua as tax in 1835 and 700-800 fathoms in 1837. Additionally, the chiefs were allowed to pay their accounts with the merchant houses in firewood and local goods.47 The 1830s were thus still a boom time for the high chiefs, with many new foreign goods still being acquired. The emerging market economy was still focused in the port towns/royal centers (Honolulu, Lahaina), while on the rest of O‘ahu there were few (if any) retail stores, and only a few peddlers.48 Cash and foreign goods were still quite limited in the rural areas until the 1840s.49

271

Confidential

Figure 7-7. Kīna‘u. Kīna‘u, daughter of Kamehameha I and Kaheiheimalie and heir of Ka‘ahumanu (Kaheiheimalie’s older sister), was the kuhina nui (essentially co-ruler) after Ka‘ahumanu, from 1834-1839. As administrator of the kingdom, she controlled Wai‘anae for the king. As heir to Ka‘ahumanu, she directly controlled Waialua moku. Thus, the Central Plateau was controlled by Kīna‘u for about 5 years. (1836 Veragne)

Figure 7-8. Kekūanāo‘a. A lower chief who was husband to Kīna‘u, and father of Kamehameha IV and V. He became Governor of O‘ahu under his wife’s co-rule in 1834 and administrator of Wai‘anae for the king. With his wife’s death in 1839 and the inheritance of her land by their young daughter, Victoria Kamamalu, he administered the Waialua lands held by his daughter. In the 1840s, he leased out portions of these Waialua lands to J. Robinson & Company for ranch use. In the Māhele, Kamamalu (likely Kekūanāo‘a on her behalf) returned Kamananui ahupua‘a (and Wahiawā and Kūkaniloko within it) as part of the commutation fee for her vast land awards. (Feher 1969:240) 272

Confidential

Figure 7-9. Kamehameha III. Younger son of Kamehameha I and Keōpūolani, he became king at a young age and was placed under the guardianship of Boki and then Liliha from the mid-1820s until 1831. At 18, he was forced to co-rule with his half-sister Kīna‘u, who was kuhina nui. Kīna‘u and then her husband, Kekūanāo‘a, were overlords of Wai‘anae moku on his behalf at this time. In 1847 (leading up to the Māhele), Kamehameha III reasserted his claim, taking the moku as his lands. This led to the Wai‘anae uka lands of the Central Plateau becoming Crown Lands. (Ca. 1850 photograph, Feher 1969:182) 273

These first four decades of the 1800s also saw huge population drops across the islands and on O‘ahu, as a result of epidemics increasing fatalities and particularly venereal diseases causing much lower birth rates.50 The conservative estimate for all the islands at European contact is about 300,000.51 In 1831-32 the total was 130,313 and in 1835-36 108,57952 – the latter being 36% of the Contact total. O‘ahu may have had 43,000 people at Contact.53 By 1831-32, there were 29,755 and 27,809 in 1835-3654 – a smaller decline than on Hawai‘i and Maui islands due to the rapidly increasing size of Honolulu, but still 65% of the Contact total, a sizable drop. On a closer look, other striking changes were beginning to appear on O‘ahu. While Honolulu stayed at about 13,000 in the early 1830s, rural O‘ahu, however, was starting to drop -- from 16,431 in 1831-32 (which actually would be larger since rural Kona moku was included in the Honolulu count) to 14,815 in 1835-36.55 The Ewa Station Reports56 show a drop of over 500 people in the moku of ‘Ewa from 1832 to 1835 (from 4,015 to 3,423). Honouliuli ahupua’a had the largest population in 1831-32 (1,026), and by 1835 it had dropped 15% to 870.57 Rural lands’ populations undoubtedly continued to drop in the remainder of the 1830s, but unfortunatelyConfidential we have no further good population data until the 1850s.58

Archaeological surveys also show this dramatic drop, perhaps more strikingly; and these studies also indicate within rural ahupua‘a how this was affecting settlement. It appears Euro-Asian objects (bottles, ceramic plates and bowls, etc.) began to become available to commoners in rural O‘ahu in the 1840s. Sahlins notes that in Waialua in 1846 peddlers became common (selling wares out of Honolulu), and in 1849 the first retail store opened (selling cloth, clothing, plates, knives, etc.).59 (Perhaps Euro-Asian objects may have become common in the 1830s, but it does not appear that this occurred much earlier.60) Thus, commoner house sites still occupied at this time should contain such objects in their archaeological ruins. Archaeology surveys of many rural valleys show that numerous house sites were present in upper valleys, but very, very few included Euro-Asian objects. In other words, most houses were abandoned in upper valleys by the time Euro-Asian objects were becoming available, by the 1830s-1840s. This pattern can be seen in well-studied valleys – for example, Wai‘anae and Nānākuli in Wai‘anae moku and Hālawa in ‘Ewa moku.61 In Wai‘anae, 48 house sites have been identified in the upper valley; only 6 had Euro-Asian objects indicating continued occupation into the 1830s-1840s.62 Māhele land records of the late 1840s (claims, testimonies, and awards) also dramatically show that most upland farms and houses were abandoned by the 1840s. Many areas of the Islands that have been studied have also had this pattern of almost no commoner land claims in the upper valleys in the 1840s.63 Essentially, the increasingly smaller population that remained in rural lands in the 1830s was strikingly contracting towards the shore. For the Central Plateau from 1816-1839, it seems that a diminishing resident population would have been likely, with fewer fields being farmed.

In the 1840s, the chiefs continued to place labor demands on their commoners to supply the dramatically increasing arrivals of the American whaling fleet. This and a major new economic change on O‘ahu continued to impact the Central Plateau. The new economic element of the 1840s was the rise of cattle ranching. The constant presence of whalers created a demand for beef, and this led to the development of “domestic herds”.64 Some 274

high chiefs had small herds on O‘ahu. In Waialua notably La‘anui had 100 head at his death in 1849, and in 1847 La‘anui was pasturing cattle for Kekūanāo‘a on upland pili grasslands that were kapu for this purpose.65 Some missionaries had cattle. The Waialua mission had 250 head at the end of the 1840s.66 Artemas Bishop brought a few head when he was moved to the ‘Ewa station at Waiawa in 1836, and these became the first cattle “that had ever run on the Ewa uplands”, mostly near Waiawa and Manana.67 Before many years passed, they became a herd. But much of the livestock raising was done by foreign-born residents, running cattle on leased grazing lands. The early cattle were often imported from California, coming in on ships beginning as early as 1824.68 Francisco de Paula Marin (a Spaniard, who had served Kamehameha I as a translator and aide and who had married high ranking women and was noted as among the wealthiest on O‘ahu by 183069) acquired cattle through his contacts and had a sizable herd by 1830. By 1831, one visitor70 estimated that O‘ahu had 2,000+ head of long horn cattle, 1,000 belonging to Marin and apparently in the Pauoa valley area where he held land under the kings. Marin died in 1837, but his Hawaiian sons, Paul and Frank Manini, ran cattle by the 1850s on the Wai‘anaeConfidential side of the island.71 John Meek, an American born trading ship captain who continuously visited the islands beginning by 1812, was married to one of Marin’s daughter, and had close business ties with Marin and his oldest son George. Meek developed a huge ranch by the 1840s in the grasslands of mid- to upper Honouliuli and the Līhu‘e area of the Central Plateau – under a lease.72 (All of ‘Ewa was estimated to have 3,000 cattle in 1846, with the numbers doubling every two years.73) On the Waialua side, James Robinson & Company (Robinson, Robert Lawrence and Robert Holt, who had made a fortune in ship building and repair in Honolulu) had cattle on the grasslands of Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a in the uplands, including Halemano – under a lease from Kekūanāo‘a dating back to 1842.74 Robinson & Company had 2,000+ head of cattle, and Rev. J. Emerson of Waialua reported that these cattle were roaming far beyond the Central Plateau, down into cultivated valleys and towards the shore.75 These cattle operations were not fenced-in, controlled herds. The cattle ran wild, and were occasionally caught. And they truly ran wild. There were huge complaints about Robinson’s cattle roaming down into the shore areas and damaging dryland fields. “Potatoe fields are destroyed, kalo grounds are trodden up.”76 Stone walls around field areas and around coastal villages were constructed to keep the cattle out, a pattern that we found specifically noted in Waialua, Honouliuli, and Waikele.77 Even Rev. Artemas Bishop’s herd had increased enough to cause the Waiawa-Manana coastal residents to fence off their fields and house areas to keep his cattle away.78 Most of these big ranchers had country ranch-houses, but they also had primary homes in Honolulu, for they were part of the emerging elite of the Kingdom.

Cattle ranching seems to have developed in the 1840s in relationship to the rural population drops of O‘ahu. As fields and house sites on upland kula were abandoned – either due to no heirs or to families moving to vacant land nearer the shore or to the bright lights of Honolulu – the kula went back to grass- and shrub-lands.

275

Confidential

Figure 7-10. John Meek, who was a trading captain in the 1812-1826 period, resided full- time in the islands from 1826 until his death in 1875. He married a daughter of Don Francisco de Paula Marin and one of his ranking Hawaiian wives. Marin had served Kamehameha I and had become extremely wealthy and involved in the rising ranching industry, as did several of his sons. By the 1840s Meek was leasing 15,000+ acres on the Central Plateau -- the Līhu‘e areas of the Central Plateau and possibly adjacent lands such as Pouhala uka and parts of Waikakalaua, and parts of upper Honouliuli by 1870. His family held this lease up until 1879. This was Lihue Ranch. Meek became wealthy and part of the Kingdom’s elite from the 1840s, and his children also were part of the elite society of the 1860s-1870s. (Harvard University Library; Image courtesy of Gail Hercher.) 276

Many and very extensive fields through which we have just wandered and which are presently being used as pasture land were formerly covered with sweet potatoes. [1831 Meyen – describing areas near Honolulu, being used by Marin as ranchlands]79

Often the land reverted back to the konohiki and the overlord chief.80 These grasslands must have been sizable enough for the big ranches of Wai‘anae, upper Honouliuli, the Central Plateau, and Pa‘ala‘a (Waialua) to form and for Kekūanāo‘a and others to realize the benefit of leasing the lands.

However, the rise of these ranches in turn added to the depopulation of these areas. The overlord chiefs and their konohiki began to prohibit commoner access to the kula for grazing their own horses and other uses, although sometimes a fee could be paid. Also, with the Confidentialcattle running wild, they were entering dryland fields being farmed by families that still remained on the land, or fallow areas used by these families. This must have created huge problems for these families to harvest crops and survive. To a degree, the complaints that Rev. Emerson of Waialua noted for cattle problems must have been true throughout upper Honouliuli and the Central Plateau.81 One would expect more commoner families to have departed the Central Plateau and upper Honouliuli during these years as a result of the roaming cattle, as well as chiefly demands for labor on fields and to harvest firewood. In turn, their “abandoned land” would have been taken back by the konohiki for the overlord, and could have been leased out to the ranches. As a result of all these factors, in now famous petitions to the king of the 1840s, commoners began to complain about their chiefs’ loss of aloha for them and began to leave the lands of their birth and emigrate to the port towns (Honolulu on O‘ahu).

The chiefs seem to have left off caring for the people. Their attention has been turned more to themselves and their own aggrandizement and they do not seek the welfare of the people as a nation, and therefore they [the people] are more oppressed at the present time than ever they were in ancient times. … On account of this want of care on the part of chiefs for the people, some of the people are losing their attachment to the land of their birth; they forsake their places of residence, their kindred and live here and there where they can find a place. [Malo 1839]82

This relationship between ranches and abandonment of upland kula continued into the 1850s. Privatization of the lands in the Māhele led to dramatic changes after 1850. Essentially, the old ahupua‘a system ended. Ahupua‘a were divided among the chiefs and the king, and Government lands were formed from the king’s land and lands the chiefs paid as commutation fees to obtain their land titles. Then commoners (some commoners) received title to their house and farm plots. But their old ahupua‘a rights 277

began to be restricted (rights to access to the forest), following up on the reduction of rights to the kula grasslands.83 Petitions from commoners were submitted to the government, complaining.84 Artemas Bishop, the missionary long in Ewa wrote the following in a letter to Armstrong in 1850: “The word has gone forth from the chiefs to all their konohikis to forbid all such makaainanas who got their land titles, the privileges they formerly enjoyed from the kula of the landlord & from the mountain. They are not to pull grass for their beasts, nor go to the mountain for any ki leaf or ki root or timber of any kind. … They say the chiefs have no aloha for them.”85

The ahupua‘a as land units also began to alter. Some ahupua‘a or ‘ili belonging to chiefs were returned to the Government as a commutation fee, to gain title to their remaining lands. In some cases, they split up ahupua‘a, keeping part and giving part to the Government. These lands were added to the Government lands that the king had created by splitting his land into his own lands (Crown lands) and Government lands. Government ahupua‘a were then leased or sold – often as a unit of several ahupua‘a, or sometimes splittingConfidential up one ahupua‘a. The chiefs could do the same with the lands that they gained title to. The king claimed complete ahupua‘a and portions of others as his own lands (Crown lands), and then these Crown lands could be leased out – with several ahupua‘a leased as a unit or sometimes just part of one. (An 1855 law prevented sale of Crown lands.) In the Central Plateau, the king retained Līhu‘e and Kalakoa as Crown lands, now definitely collectively called Wai‘anae uka.86 The king also kept as Crown lands the west half of Waikakalaua ‘ili and the upper part of Pouhala ‘ili (Pouhala uka) within Waikele. (The eastern half of Waikakalaua, however, had been sold to John Gilman in the 1840s, and most of the remainder of Pouhala ‘ili became the property of Luluhiwalani.87) Paupauwela and Līhu‘e in Honouliuli became part of the privately owned lands of Kekau‘onohi, as heir of Kalanimoku.88 Upper Paupauwela and Wai‘anae uka’s Līhu‘e, upper Pouhala and western Waikakalaua, and Wai‘anae uka all seem to have been leased to John Meek for his ranch after the Māhele – largely a continuation of his 1840s ranch.89 Land issues on the Waialua side of the Central Plateau were tied to Victoria Kamamalu (heiress of Ka‘ahumanu and of Kīna‘u), who received most of Waialua moku in the Māhele. She gave as her 1/3 commutation payment to the king all the lands from Kamananui to Ka‘ena, and the king made these Government lands.90 In 1845 Wahiawā (with Kūkaniloko) was separated out from Kamananui as Government land.91 She kept Pa‘ala‘a and Kawailoa. In 1852 James Robinson & Company bought 12,256.58 acres in upland Pa‘ala‘a, which the company had held under a lease since the 1840s.92 This was sold by Governor Kekūanāo‘a on behalf of his daughter, Victoria Kamamalu. Robinson and his partners also bought part of Wahiawā in 1852, 1,943 acres – the Whitmore Village side of the kula across from Kūkaniloko.93 Essentially, the Meek and Robinson ranches through their leases and purchases had solidified the Central Plateau as a separate administrative and land use unit again. Meek and the Robinson partners were clearly the administrators – “Captain Meek, “The Lord of Lihue Ranch”; and the Robinsons and Holts of Halemano.”94 All these changes effectively ended the old ahupua‘a system by 1860.95

Interestingly, the rest of the government land of Wahiawā went through a less clear land change at this time. In 1851 three grants were sold by the Kingdom, from 278

roughly the Kūkaniloko area down to the new border with Kamananui ahupua‘a (to the upper border of Kemo‘o ‘ili within Kamananui). Grant 604 (568 acres nearest Kemo‘o) was sold to Artemas Bishop, Grant 605 of 542 acres to William Rice, and Grant 606 (515 acres including Kūkaniloko) to A.S. Cooke.96 Two years later, in 1853, Bishop acquired the parcels of Cooke and Rice, resulting in his land covering 1,625 acres. While 1876 and later monarchy maps show these parcels’ southern border along the north fork of Kaukonahua Stream, this land may have actually extended across the north fork of Kaukonahua to the south fork, for the land records all refer to the southern boundary being Kalakoa Stream, and all other records have Kalakoa as the south fork. Bishop held this land through the 1860s, but it is not clear what it was being used for. Also the rest of Wahiawā, south of the north fork of Kaukonahua – where Wahiawā town is located today – was set aside as School Lands.97 It is not clear how these lands were used. The school lands were leased. The general impression from the literature is that all this area was used for cattle ranching. But the details of who, or which ranch, used these specific parcels was not clarified in our research.98 Confidential By the 1850s, the Hawaiian population was still dropping. The total population of the kingdom was about 84,165 in 1850 (28% of the Contact era 300,000). O‘ahu was down to 21,275 in 1860 (49% of the Contact total). Honolulu was still stable, about 14,300, but the rural population had dropped from 14,815 in 1835-36 to 6,965 in 1860, 48% of what it had been just 25 years before.99 The Māhele awards show very few commoner claims in upper valleys, continuing the abandonment of the interior. This was exacerbated by the huge smallpox epidemic of 1853-54. Half of the population of ‘Ewa died, and others emigrated to Honolulu.100 By 1860, Bishop noted that “The people of the district are rapidly diminishing, and whole neighborhoods where in former years were numerous families and cultivated lands, there are now no inhabitants, and the land is left to run to waste.”101 Apparently many of the remaining small clusters of houses along the eastern base of the Wai‘anae mountains in Līhu‘e ‘ili of Honouliuli were abandoned at this time (settlements in Kaloi gulch).102 However, interestingly, the Central Plateau still seems to have retained a small population. In the 1855 tax assessment, there were 55 adult males in Wai‘anae uka and 2 in Waikakalaua.103 These seem to represent heads of households. If one uses an estimate of 5 per household, then there may have been 285 people still living in this area.

With the death of Kamehameha III in 1854, he was succeeded by his sister’s (Kīna‘u’s) two sons, Kamehameha IV (1855-1863) and Kamehameha V (1863-1872), and then by Lunalilo (1873-74) (son of Kekāuluohi and Kana‘ina, the former the daughter of Kaheiheimalie and Kala‘imamahu and step-daughter of Hoapili) and Kalākaua (1874-1891). These rulers were well educated and well traveled. Their courts began to reflect more Western patterns. There were dinners, and dances for the elite – at the court and homes of the elite – “official receptions, dinners, and soirees.”104 As documented in several histories,105 these rulers had to play the political game of holding off the world’s super-powers (France, the United Kingdom, and the United States) from taking over the islands. Unfortunately, in Kalākaua’s time with the reciprocity treaty ending the U.S. tax on Hawaiian sugar, sugar plantations boomed, enriching a few non- Hawaiian, often foreign born citizens and leading to immense immigration of foreign 279

Confidential

Figure 7-11. Portion of 1876 Kingdom Map, showing the locations of Grants 604-606 that were purchased in 1851 from the Kingdom. Grant 604 was sold to Artemas Bishop, Grant 605 to William Rice, and Grant 606 to A. Cooke. Kūkaniloko was in Grant 606. In 1853, Bishop purchased Grants 605 and 606 and held all these grant lands until 1870, when he sold them to William Hillebrand. Hillebrand then held these lands and others nearby in Kemo‘o within Kamananui. In 1882, George Galbraith purchased all of Hillebrand’s land in Wahiawā and Kemo‘o. Note the old Waialua Trail (later road) crosses the map from the lower right up to Kokoloea (at the edge of the south fork of Kaukonahua Stream) and then crosses Kaukonahua Stream into Grant 604 and heads off to the upper left (down towards the shore in Waialua). The trail coming from the left in the middle of the map is the Kolekole Trail. (Kingdom Map 1876). 280

plantation labor in the late 1870s on. With this rise of the sugar plantations and the economic tie of sugar to the U.S. market, annexation schemes increased and led to the overthrow.

From the 1850s up until the late 1870s, this still seems to have been the era of largely free-ranging cattle. John Meek and James Dowsett (an extremely wealthy merchant and rancher in his own right, and apparently a new partner of Meek’s) rented upper Honouliuli from Kalanimoku’s heirs in 1871 for cattle106 – continuing the Meek ranch of this area and the Central Plateau. Meek’s holdings by his death in 1875 at age 80 included leases for much of upper Honouliuli and for the Central Plateau’s Līhu‘e, and

Confidential

Figure 7-12. Lunalilo, king from 1873-1874. By this time, John Meek was quite old. Yet his family still retained Lihue Ranch. His daughter, Eliza, was Lunalilo’s mistress, and his youngest daughter, Elizabeth, was married to Horace Crabbe, Chamberlain of Lunalilo. The Holt family still held their ranch which extended from the Whitmore Village area down through Pa‘ala‘a toward the shore, often associated with Helemano. (Feher 1969:277)

Figure 7-13. Kalākaua, king from 1874-1891. The Meek ranch was sold to Dowsett in 1879, and then in 1882 Kalākaua purchased the ranch from Dowsett. He renamed the ranch Leilehua Ranch and retained control until 1889, when it was sold back to Dowsett. The Holt family still ran their ranch on the Waialua side of the Central Plateau. George Galbraith purchased 2,000 acres in Wahiawā from around Kūkaniloko down to Kemo‘o in 1882 and ran his ranch in that area. Kalākaua built a ranchhouse along the Kolekole Trail at Malamanui. Not surprisingly many of his 1888 stories are set in the Central Plateau. 281

perhaps the Wahiawā area (and probably the Crown lands of Pouhala uka and the west part of Waikakalaua). Several sources, including his son Eli, called the ranch Lihue Ranch.107 He had 5,000+ head of cattle roaming these lands. References to his renowned thoroughbred horses and his equally famous wild riding daughters are in his obituary.108 His eldest daughter, Eliza, was the mistress of Lunalilo in 1873-74, and rumored to be one of the women who might potentially become his wife.109 His youngest daughter, Elizabeth (Becky, Betty or Beke), was married to Horace Crabbe, when he was Chamberlain to Kamehameha V and Lunalilo; and Beke is mentioned with Horace Crabbe as a constant attendant to Lunalilo in his seriously ill years of 1873-1874.110 His son, Eli, may have managed the Līhu‘e ranch as Meek approached death, for Meek’s will gave Eli the fee-simple portion of Kalena and “my interest in the land at Waianae” along with a special gift of named horses and 600 head of cattle.111 But more research on Meek’s ranch is needed.112 By the early 1870s, the general Central Plateau area was described as “a pampas [grassland] alive with cattle and horses.”113 In 1875 a new 10 year lease for theConfidential Crown lands of Wai‘anae uka and Waikakalaua and Pouhala uka was given to Meek’s heirs and James Dowsett (and possibly with George Galbraith as Dowsett’s partner, for both operated the Mikilua Ranch in Lualualei at this time).114 Four years later in 1879, the Meeks transferred their interest in the lease to Dowsett (and possibly his partner Galbraith) – ending the Meek family ranch of the Central Plateau. Kalākaua’s group (H. Whitney, C.H. Judd and himself) bought out the Dowsett (and possibly Galbraith) ranch interest between 1879-1882. 115

On the Waialua side of the Central Plateau, Meek and Dowsett may have leased some of the Wahiawā lands as part of their ranch – although which, if any, are far from clear. Bishop had leased his lands (including the parcel with Kūkaniloko) to H. Hillebrand in 1866 and then sold them to Hillebrand’s heir, William Hillebrand, in 1870. H. Hillebrand had also acquired adjacent and nearby lands in Kemo‘o in 1868, so he owned close to 2,000 acres in this seaward part of Wahiawā and Kemo‘o.116 It is unclear whether he leased these to one of the big ranches, ran cattle himself, or even used the land. But immediately adjacent, in the Wahiawā lands around today’s Whitmore Village and in more seaward Pa‘ala‘a, James Robinson & Company (Robinson, Robert Lawrence, and Robert Holt) continued their ranching operations in the 1850s. They also are noted in some sources as leasing the Wahiawa School Lands, where Wahiawā town is located today.117 [However, by 1876 these School Lands were leased to W.C. Jones, and an 1876 monarchy map shows a house labeled with his name in this area just north of the south fork of Kaukonahua near Paka.118 So the School Lands might not have been used by Robinson & Co.] Robinson & Company was dissolved in 1860, and Holt’s share included the Mākaha ranch and the Waialua ranch on the edge of the Central Plateau. Members of the Holt family continued to run the Waialua Ranch through the 1870s.119

At the end of the 1870s, ranching on O‘ahu changed – became more sophisticated and intensive. The ranch boundaries became fenced, and undoubtedly internal parts of the ranches. More attention was paid to breeding different strains of cattle, and new grasses began to be brought in. In 1877, Honouliuli was sold to Campbell. He removed thousands of head of cattle belonging to Dowsett, Meek and Robinson – the former from 282

their Central Plateau ranch and the latter from his ranch in Hō‘ae‘ae. Then he built a fence to exclude the cattle of these nearby ranchers, and in 1878 he started his own ranch, the Honouliuli Ranch.120 This would have removed Paupauwela and Honouliuli’s upper Līhu‘e from the land use of the Central Plateau. Up on the Central Plateau proper, Kalākaua (and his partners C. H. Judd and H. Whitney) obtained the former Meek/Dowsett/possibly Galbraith ranch lease of 15,000 acres of Wai‘anae uka, Pouhala uka, and west Waikakalaua in 1882.121 Whitney’s third was passed to Alexander Cartwright and George Galbraith along with the Meek herd of 2,000 head. Kalākaua’s ranch became known as Leilehua Ranch. This was in part a gentleman’s ranch, for he hunted pheasants here on occasion; but he did have 3,000 head of cattle branded with a crown by 1889.122 After 5 years of ranching, in 1887 Kalākaua transferred his lease to the trustees of his estate (Judd, Damon, Iaukea and Cartwright), and in 1889 the Leilehua Ranch lease was sold back to James Dowsett. Dowsett’s son Alexander Cartwright Dowsett (Alex, Alika) was the manager of the ranch over the last few years.123

Interestingly,Confidential when Kalākaua took over the Meek/Dowsett/possibly Galbraith ranch in 1882, as noted above Galbraith and Alexander Cartwright obtained Whitney’s third of the Kalākaua interests, which included Meek’s herd of 2,000 cattle. It is not clear if part of the old ranch then remained in Galbraith’s hands, and more research is needed on that. However, in January of 1882, Galbraith purchased all of Hillebrand’s land in Wahiawā (including Kūkaniloko) and Kemo‘o – effectively establishing at least 2,000 or so acres for his independent ranch.124 In 1887, he and the Board of Education exchanged lands in the Wahiawa area.125 Galbraith received a parcel on the north side of the north fork of Kaukonahua Stream adjacent to the parcel with Kūkaniloko on the Whitmore Village side. A 1899 map shows a house labeled Galbraith in this area (east of today’s Highway 80, North Kamehameha Highway).126 Ida Von Holt (then Knudsen) describes rides in the 1880s to Waialua from Honolulu, where they stopped “at the Galbraith’s ranch for the night”.127 The School Lands acquired the western tip of the kula land in today’s Wahiawā town (between the north and south forks). Who and how the School Lands were used at this time needs more research. On the Whitmore Village area kula of Wahiawā and in Pala‘ala‘a, the Holt family continued to operate their ranch at this time. These ranches remained in place through the fall of the Kingdom.

Thus, by the end of the Kingdom in 1893, the Central Plateau had two huge fenced ranches, the Dowsett ranch and the Holt ranch, and a smaller ranch held by Galbraith. How the School Lands parcel was used is again unclear. The resident Hawaiian population was extremely low.

It is worth emphasizing that the holders of these large ranches on the Central Plateau – Meek, Dowsett, Galbraith, Robinson and Holt – were part of the elite of the Kingdom’s society. Like the Parker family on Hawai‘i Island, they controlled the less well known today, dominant ranches of O‘ahu – and were equally part of elite Hawaiian 283

Confidential

Figure 7-14. George Galbraith’s ranchhouse is shown north center (rectangle with small square labeled Galbraith), just above the north fork of Kaukonahua. His 2,000+ acre ranch extended to the left, including Grants 604-606 within Wahiawā (including Kūkaniloko) and lands adjacent within Kemo‘o ‘ili of Kamananui ahupua‘a of Waialua. The lower part of the map is Wahiawā town today (Lots 1B, 3, 4, 5A, 5B). (Territory 1899 map). 284

society. While we obtained little information about Galbraith (an area needing more research), Meek, Dowsett, Robinson and Holt had impressive houses in Honolulu and country houses on their ranches. They were wealthy, and most were married into high ranking and wealthy Hawaiian or part-Hawaiian families. The history of these ranches and their families is largely a story still needing research and waiting to be told.

… then rode to Lihue, the ladies in a carriage, the gentlemen on horseback, arrived at dark. Next day. The distance from the beach is not far from 8 miles. From Capt. [John] Meek, the proprietor of Lihue we received a most hospitable entertainment. [1857, Gregg – accompanying the party of King Kamehameha IV and Queen Emma]128

This recalls days when Captain Meek controlled Lihue and WahiawaConfidential on Oahu under lease from the government. He raised thorough-bred horses and his daughters rode the finest in the land. … His oldest daughter Eliza was often seen riding the horse through the streets of Honolulu garbed in a wonderful pa-u, with a dozen or more followers riding behind her wearing the same color of garment. Eli Meek, his son, was a magnificent horseman and the beau of the day. His youngest daughter, Becky, married Horatio Crabbe, Chamberlain of Kalakaua and Lunalilo. [1922 Taylor]129

Meek again had been married to one of Marin’s half-Hawaiian daughters, and his brothers-in-law (Paul and Frank Manini) were well-known wealthy ranchers on the Wai‘anae side. Meek’s main house was in Honolulu, not far from Bethel Church.130

James Isaac Dowsett (Kimo Pelekane) was married to married Annie Green Ragsdale, the daughter of chiefess Kahawelu and Alexander Ragsdale.131 Dowsett was an immensely wealthy merchant and also headed the huge Mikilua Ranch in Leilehua with George Galbraith as his partner.

J.I. Dowsett was one of the princes of hospitality, at his country place at Puuloa, near the present naval station [probably at what became known as Hoaeae Ranch], and also at Leilehua … after he purchased the ranch from King Kalakaua, and at his old home at “Hauhaukoi,” Palama, where there were garden parties, balls, receptions and poi suppers and luaus and dances afterwards.” [1922 Taylor]132

285

“The beaux of that early day were “Jimmy” Dowsett, Henry Whitney, “Jack” Dowsett, … Col. Sam Parker” [1922 Taylor]133

Confidential

Figure 7-15. James Dowsett (Kimo Pelekane), 1890s. Dowsett, a wealthy merchant and rancher, had interests in three large ranches – Mikilua Ranch in Lualualei with George Galbraith as his partner, Hoaeae Ranch which his son eventually ran, and the Leilehua Ranch of the Central Plateau. He was a partner in Meek’s last years at Lihue Ranch, 1875- 1879 (possibly with Galbraith also a partner), owner in 1879-1882, and then reacquired the ranch in 1889. His family held the ranch through the overthrow until the ranch was taken away as military land for Schofield Barracks. (Bishop Museum SP 102798).

Figure 7-16. Annie Ragsdale Dowsett in 1887, wife of James Dowsett. She was daughter of high chiefess Kahawelu and Alexander Ragsdale. She, her husband and their children were part of the Kingdom’s society elite in the 1870s-1890s. They had a huge home in town, and homes in at least two ranches including Leilehua Ranch. (Bishop Museum SP 115506). 286

Confidential

Figure 7-17. Alexander Cartwright (Alika) Dowsett in 1890s, son of James and Annie. Alika was the manager of Leilehua Ranch and Mikilua Ranch in the 1890s. Perhaps this picture was taken at or near the main ranchhouse at Leilehua, for Alika Dowsett is fairly young in this picture, and he was first manager at Leilehua Ranch. (Bishop Museum SP 112743).

James Robinson was married to a close relative of Kalanimoku. He too was immensely wealthy, and he also controlled other ranches (one in Hō‘ae‘ae ahupua‘a, extending up from near Pu‘uloa). Robert Holt arrived in the islands and married Robinson’s daughter Tauwati (Wati). When Robinson & Company was dissolved, Robert Holt retained the Mākaha and Waialua ranches. His son, Owen, after successfully managing the Waialua ranch, took over the Mākaha ranch in 1876. The Mākaha ranch is perhaps better known.134 There Owen Holt and his wife Hanakaulani had a 2-story house with guest and servant cottages to accommodate 100 weekend guests. Their Mākaha country house became famous for entertainment. In 1884, Owen’s son James Robinson Holt II (Kimo Holo) took over the Mākaha estate, and he and his wife maintained the renown of this elite country ranch home through the end of the Kingdom. The Waialua side ranch was equally well known in its time as a “country home of the Holts” – first under Owen Holt and then apparently William Holt.135

287

Interestingly, less information is easily available in the literature on George Galbraith. Again, his background and that of his immediate family in these years is a research project waiting to be done.

THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE CENTRAL PLATEAU

It seems likely that the traditional settlement of the Central Plateau of the Contact era – farms and houses – continued up to the 1840s, when Meek’s and Robinson’s ranching operations began.

The 3 major trails over the Central Plateau do not seem to have altered greatly until the late 1840s. “There was then no road save a foot path across the generally smooth uplands. We forded the streams.”136 No bridges over streams were present until after 1840.137

The forestConfidential appears likely to have been dramatically reduced, first for sandalwood and then for firewood collection for whaling ships. In 1818, Hunnewell crossed Kolekole Pass into Wai‘anae and noted “The mountains on each side are thickly wooded and full of singing birds”.138 If indeed fully wooded, this may have been just before sandalwood was to have a huge impact. Sereno Bishop, who grew up in ‘Ewa as the son of missionary Artemas Bishop, mentions patterns of burning the forest for the odor of sandalwood – probably a last harvesting resort of the 1830s.139 Such burning would seem likely to have occurred in the drier Wai‘anae forests. Indeed in 1829, Kamehameha III and his men were gathering sandalwood in “the mountains of … Hale‘au‘au and Lihu‘e”.140 St. John spent time in the 1930s documenting remnant forest to try and identify the original elevations, and he felt the Wai‘anae-side forests were lower prior to sandalwood collection.141 However, Kamakau also noted that Wahiawā was one of the major places for sandalwood collection, and this was the only higher elevation Central Plateau land that Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku (Ke‘eaumoku Cox) controlled – although slightly lower Halemano and Kānewai in Pa‘ala‘a are mentioned as cutting areas too.142 So, it appears that considerable collection out of the lower elevation Ko‘olau forests in Wahiawā probably also took place. One result of this clearing would have been the rise of more extensive grass- and shrub-lands on the Central Plateau – on the margins of the cultivated landscape.

Population would also have been dramatically dropping up to the 1840s. In 1818, Hunnewell in traveling from the populated shore around Pearl Harbor overland to Waialua, described the land after leaving Waiawa and probably ascending the Pu‘uloa- Waialua Trail: “We then came into an uncultivated country, and in the course of the day saw but a few huts; …”.143 We don’t have population figures for the Central Plateau, but overall figures for O‘ahu suggest a decline by 1835-36 to 65% of the Contact Era population. One result would be the abandonment of dryland fields on the kula of the Central Plateau by families who either had no heirs or who left. Again, this would have created more grass- and shrub-lands. Sereno Bishop noted that in the 1830s – before cattle – the Central Plateau above Kīpapa Gulch was grasslands “dotted with occasional groves of Koa trees”, and at higher elevations “the ti plant abounded often so high as to 288

intercept the view”.144 He attributed this pattern to sandalwood extraction and to the production of okole hau (liquor made from ti plants, widely consumed in the early 1820s). It also probably reflected abandoned farm plots.145

We have no descriptions from the area to indicate how housing and farm distribution was changing in this period. One might hypothesize that as farm land became vacant in the larger gulch bottoms of the central flat area – along Kaukonahua Stream and where side streams joined it – people moved down from the steeper slopes of Līhu‘e into this area. Similarly, one might suggest that houses were abandoned on steeper slopes of Līhu‘e, and people moved to houselots available on or near the central flat kula, quite possibly along the Pu‘uloa to Waialua Trail.146 But these are total speculations. Kamakau lists “large villages with teachers and schoolhouses” in the area, apparently in the 1820s-1840s – these being (south to north) “Kalakoa, Wahiawa, Halemano, and Kanewai” and (north to south along the west side of the Plateau) “Lihu’e, Kalena, Maunauna”.147 Large is probably not very large, and this list is only land names, but it suggests Confidentialthe pattern of houses was still similar to traditional times (although again probably in much fewer numbers).

Nonetheless, in the 1840s cattle were moved into the emerging grass- and shrub- lands of the Central Plateau with the initial ranching operations of Meek on the Līhu‘e, Kalakoa and upper Honouliuli lands and James Robinson & Company on the Whitmore Village and Pala‘ala‘a northern lands – with one of these ranches in today’s Wahiawā town area (possibly Meek’s at this time). At this time the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau started to change rapidly into a Hawaiian-style ranch cultural landscape. These lands seem to have been leased to these two ranches, so the ranch owners would have become the overlord chiefs of the lands, under the king or high chiefs who held the lands. Then in the 1850s, when the land was privatized, the Robinson & Company operation gained ownership of their lands, and they become the true overlords of their ranchlands.

It is likely that commoners were resident within these leased lands, but the free- roaming cattle would have played havoc with rainfall dependent sweet potato and kalo fields on the kula. We do not know if fields were walled (with permission of the ranches), or if the ranches prevented access to kula grasslands. But free-roaming cattle would have been a problem until the end of the 1870s.

The records indicate that the old main trails through the Central Plateau were markedly improved by the end of the 1840s, becoming roads with bridges.148 But generally, the same routes were followed. The Kolekole Trail was converted to a horse trail in 1837.149 The “round-the-island road” went from Honolulu to ‘Ewa, up across the Central Plateau to Waialua, on to Kahuku and around to connect to the Pali road – the precursor of Kamehameha Highway, and the Pu‘uloa to Waialua section being the traditional era Waialua Road.150 In 1851, the Waialua Road was also being called the Alanui Aupuni (Government Road).151 The first oxen carts and wagons to go from ‘Ewa to Waialua are noted between the late 1840s and 1852.152 In the mid-1850s, the first horse carriages traveled from Honolulu to Kahuku, and by the 1860s this was a common 289

route.153 So it seems that the roads were modified in the late 1840s to allow transport of goods and supplies to the Central Plateau (and its ranches), and to Waialua and the Wai‘anae sides. Based on Hawai‘i Island and Maui Island patterns, modifications undoubtedly included straightening, widening, infilling of dips, and possibly curbstone edging. (This development of the paths/roads is yet another study waiting to occur.) But the same routes seem to have been maintained.

From the 1850s-1870s, we do know that overall population was continuing to decline on the Central Plateau. Tax records for Wai‘anae uka alone indicate 52-55 households (taxed males) in 1855, 41 in 1860, 33 in 1865 and 21 in 1870.154 If 5 people are allotted per household as an average (perhaps too high), the population may have been in the order of 275 in 1855 and 105 in 1870.

One of the questions that arises is where were these people working and residing. No Land Commission Awards were given to commoners on the Central Plateau. A set of 7 small grants Confidentialwere created and sold in 1851-1853 on the lower Hale‘au‘au Stream, below Mā‘ili peak near the join with Kaukonahua. Analysis of these grants has not revealed much information, other than the holders of these parcels had Hawaiian surnames155 – perhaps suggesting that these were former commoners. Other than these families, any remaining commoner families would have to have been living on one of the ranches. Resident families might be indicated, for the 1851 sale of Grants 604-606 (including Kūkaniloko in 606) to Bishop, Rice and Cooke, respectively, all contained the wording “reserving the rights of native tenants” (“Koe Ke Kaulana o ma Kanaka noho nei”)156 – although this may have been standard Royal Patent wording of that era that was automatically included whether tenants were present or not. It would be expected that the steeper Līhu‘e lands would have been abandoned – with smaller gulch bottoms for kalo and kula lands exposed to cattle. In the Māhele, the ‘ili of Kalena was awarded to Pahoa, and half was commuted back to the Government and was purchased by Meek. Pahoa died in 1848, and his half was purchased by Artemas Bishop in 1851 (Grant 527), when he recorded 4-5 families living there; but he sold his part to Meek in 1851.157 Would these residents then have moved out? We do not know. Perhaps the ranches let commoners stay and farm. Perhaps the residents went to work for the ranches. None of this is very clear.158 There is a 1876 monarchy map that shows about 3 houses in the Maunauna-Paupauwela area just along the road leading up from Pu‘uloa to the Kolekole Trail and just south of the Wai‘eli Stream gulch.159 These are almost the only houses in the Central Plateau on this map, and they are not very revealing about who the houses belonged to, or their use.

By the end of the 1870s, ranches began to enclose their property with fences, and probably had internal fenced areas. It has been suggested that this led to further clearing of the remaining forests.160 Whether the trees had largely been cleared during the 1820s- 1860s during sandalwood and whaling times, or whether the ranches removed substantial remaining forest is not very clear. The 1875 lease of the Crown lands of Waikakalaua, Pouhala and Waianae uka to the Meek heirs and Dowsett excluded access to timber trees, and the same was true of the 1852 sale of the Whitmore Village part of Wahiawā to James Robinson and Company (Royal Patent 973).161 This suggests further clearing of 290 the forest might have been limited. Nonetheless, photos from the 1880s show very few trees remaining – essentially the Central Plateau from the flat central areas up towards the Wai‘anae ridge is devoid of trees, except for those possibly hidden away in gulches.

Confidential

Figure 7-18. 1882-1889, Kalākaua’s Leilehua Ranch. 1886 photo of C.H. Judd, partner of Kalākaua and ranch manager (center) with cowboys. It is difficult to see any of the cowboys’ faces, given the quality of the photo; but it is quite likely many were local Hawaiians whose families resided on the Central Plateau. (Bishop Museum SP 205520).

Figure 7-19. Kalākaua’s Leilehua Ranch. 1886 photo of C.H. Judd and cowboys. Note the fences and treeless landscape. (Bishop Museum SP 205517).

291

Confidential

Figure 7-20. 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch. Note treeless landscape and fencing (Bishop Museum SP 96149).

Figure 7-21. 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch. Note treeless landscape and fencing. (Bishop Museum SP 205522).

292

Confidential

Figure 7-22. 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch. Titled “Ready for round-up at the Dowsett Ranch,” this picture shows one of the ranch buildings – quite possibly at the main ranch. Several of the cowboys are clearly Hawaiian, again likely from some of the local Hawaiian families who resided on the Central Plateau. (Bishop Museum SP 117519).

Figure 7-23. 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch. The photograph’s title is “Round up on Dowsett Ranch at Leilehua,” and it is similar to Figure 7-18 and may have been taken about the same time. (Bishop Museum SP 205521).

293

Confidential

Figure 7-24. 1889-1890s, Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch. 1891 photo of a Mr. and Mrs. Mitchell at the ranch. We did not research who the couple was, likely guests. Note the surrounding grass vegetation, probably typical of most of the flat kula lands of the ranch. Also, in the background is the wahine hāpai formation across the Wai‘anae mouontains. (Bishop Museum SP 205519). 294

Confidential

Figure 7-25. Map showing ranches 295

The ranches present at the end of the 1870s included the large Meek/Dowsett/possibly Galbraith ranch and the large Holt ranch. Hillebrand held about 2,000 acres in Wahiawā north of the north fork of Kaukonahua (including Kūkaniloko) – with this land stretching from the edge of the upper parts of the Holt Ranch (in the Whitmore Village area) down into Kemo‘o within Kamananui. Again, it is unclear if this was used for a ranch, and whether it was used by Hillebrand or leased. The School Lands in much of today’s Wahiawā Town area was leased to W.C. Jones in 1876. Again, the use is uncertain. But given general descriptions of all this Central Plateau area being ranchland, it seems likely that Hillebrand and Jones were ranching, or leasing to ranchers.

In the 1880s-1890s, these two big ranches still were present. The former Meek/Dowsett/Galbraith ranch on the Crown lands of Wai‘anae uka, western Waikakalaua, and Pouhala uka changed hands, first to Kalākaua (Leilehua Ranch) from 1882-1889 and then back to Dowsett (Leilehua Ranch). Holt’s Ranch was still present – extending up from Pa‘ala‘a to the Whitmore Village area of Wahiawā. Hillebrand’s lands had beenConfidential purchased by George Galbraith 1882, who thus had 2,000 or so acres in seaward Wahiawā (including Kūkaniloko) and Kemo‘o. The School Lands were still present until the overthrow of the Kingdom, but who leased them and what was taking place there is unclear.

Each of these ranches would have maintained ranch houses – country homes. The Holt and Meek-Dowsett ranch homes seem to have been quite elaborate. Their main houses were in Honolulu. Monarchy era maps of the 1870s-1880s and descriptions of this time locate the Meek’s ranch headquarters (labeled on a 1876 map as Crabbe’s house, Meek’s son-in-law’s house) and later Dowsett’s along the Waialua Road right near the abrupt north bend of the south fork of Kaukonahua Stream (near Kokoloea).162 This would seem to be Dowsett’s “country place … at Leilehua”, where he entertained guests – and Meek before him.163 Note, this was along the main public road through this area. Kalākaua’s ranch, less extravagant and often referred to as a hunting lodge, was at Malamanui, along the Kolekole Road, near the intersection with a branch road coming up from Pu‘uloa.164 The Holt’s Waialua ranch house was not researched for this project. An 1876 map165 shows W.C. Jones house in the School Lands, just north of the south fork of Kaukonahua – quite possibly a less elaborate ranch house. Later maps166 show George Galbraith’s house, north of the north fork of Kaukonahua and east of today’s Highway 80 (North Kamehameha Highway).

The 1878 census identifies 19 families in Wai‘anae uka (a total of 93 people)167 – a minimal decline (if any) from the 1870 tax record estimates (21 families, 105 people). Under Kamananui in Waialua, the census lists what appears to be 8-10 families in Wahiawā (a total of 20), and it also lists 6 families (17 people) in Mā‘ili.168 This is a total of about 35 families, or 130 people. Nearly all were identified as Hawaiian or part- Hawaiian, except a British head of household (William Pary or Perry), whose wife was half-Hawaiian and who had 2 Chinese attached to his household and a British “George of Mikilua” (noted by other researchers as George Galbraith) in the household of Mahoe.169 So Hawaiian residents were present – apparently on the ranches. Monarchy era maps of 296

the 1870s-1880s and descriptions of this time do not locate any of the houses of this populace. The Meek’s ranch house and later Dowsett’s “country place … at Leilehua” were along the main Waialua Road right near the abrupt north bend of the south fork of Kaukonahua Stream. As this was the main public road through this area, one wonders if perhaps most of the Wai‘anae uka and Wahiawā residents were not fairly close to this road and these country houses – perhaps permitted by the ranch owners of the time. An 1886 photograph does show a solitary house reputedly on the Wai‘eli Stream (Fig.7-26), which would be either in Honouliuli or Wai‘anae uka near the Kolekole Pass road.170 Perhaps a few houses were along this road. Kalākaua’s ranch headquarters (aka hunting lodge) was at Malamanui along this road. It is possible that the ranches allowed a few families to reside farther out within the ranchlands. But housing may have been along the roads, with the densest stretch near the Meek/Dowsett buildings.

Confidential

Figure 7-26. 1886 photograph of house and irrigated kalo plots, apparently along Wai‘eli Stream. Kolekole Pass is in the background and the Kolekole Trail would have descended on the kula just above and to the right of this gulch. (Bishop Museum P86220).

297

What these residents did for a living needs much more research. The 1878 census has limited occupation information only for Wai‘anae uka (and not Wahiawā) families. Most adult males are identified as being “agriculturalists” and “free-holders”, suggesting that they were farmers on their own land.171 But, except for the Mā‘ili grants, “free- holding” or ownership of farm lands seems unlikely. But these terms are not totally clear. Did working for a ranch count as being an “agriculturalist”? A comparison might be the Holt’s ranch in Mākaha in the early 1880s, which had 5 maids, 15 Hawaiian cowboys, 6 Portuguese dairy hands, and 12 Chinese kalo workers.172 If similar jobs were present on the Leilehua Ranch and these were all held by Hawaiians, they might account for over 20 families. A 1901 article on the Dowsett ranches, with several photos – shows and notes that the “ranchmen [workers/cowboys] are chiefly Hawaiians.”173

All-in-all, the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau had clearly become a ranch landscape after 1840. This landscape was a very Hawaiian ranch landscape – dominated by ranches owned by Hawaiian-haole families, each initially headed by resident foreign-bornConfidential citizens of the Kingdom. It is expected numerous local Hawaiian families worked on these ranches, as paniolos and in other capacities. But the local Hawaiian populace had dramatically diminished in size by 1893.

Last, comments are needed about the literature of the 1800s that apply to this cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. In fact, nearly all of what was described in the previous chapter is truly the literature of the 1800s, for it was published or recorded in the 1800s. Some of the oli and mo‘olelo were older traditional era stories that were being recorded from older Hawaiians – the oli of Kūali‘i and his battles and the mo‘olelo and oli of Hi‘iaka, to name just a few. As seen, this literature identified places, fragrances of ferns, and cold winds. They kept the old knowledge of these places and their history renowned in the 1860s-1870s. But new compositions also began to appear as popular elements of Hawaiian newspapers – honorific oli and kanikau (dirges) composed in Hawaiian for honored chiefs or for deceased spouses.175 Some of these noted the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau.176 A few examples follow:

O ewa uli ka lani ewa laakona The wandering and dark chief of ‘Ewa, La‘akona O kike nui a ewa kena, That is the great knocking of ‘Ewa O ke kuihewa makua kuihewa The parent as an excessive string of flowers He mau alii kapu no ka pali Lihue Some sacred chiefs of the cliff of Līhu‘e He poe hanu honi palai no Halemano A people breathing, inhaling the native fern of Halemano

[1861, “He Inoa no Kauikeaouli” – Ka Hoku a Ka Pakipika. A chant still clearly linking the history of old chiefs to Līhu‘e.]177

Me kuu ipo pua kaunoa i ke kula, My sweet flower, like the kaunoa in the field. Ina la i ke kula i ke kaha o Kanehili, If in the field that borders Kanehili, Me kuu kane hauwai opu o Kalena, My husband the clumping watery dew of 298

Kalena, Kau kea no ihi ka nahele o Malama, Placed in reverence the forest of Malama, I ka mapumapu aala o ke kupukupu, In the windblown fragrance of the fern, Aala ka uka o Maunauna, … Fragrant the upland of Maunauna, …

[1861, “He Mele no Sale Kaniaulono” – Ka Nupepa Kuakoa. A chant perhaps from a family who still lived in the Central Plateau.]178

Kuu kane i ke one kui lima o Ewa-e o Ewa aina ka uhane i hele ai, Hele aku kuu kane i ke kula o Keahumoe auau ka uhane i ka wai o Kumio, Nanea aku la ka hele ana a ka uhane i ke kula e Kanehoa, E hoohoa aku ana i ka lae o Maunauna mauna ia iho la e ka manu, Ka pua koliliu i ka la i ke kula o Kanoenoe, NoeConfidential aloha ka hiki ana o ka uhane o kuu kane i hele aku la, I ke kula Omalamanui luana ka uhane a kuu kane, I Kaukonahua ninau ka uhane malihini i ka uka aku i Kukaniloko, He ihona na ka uhane i ke kula Opiikalauae kaha ka uhane i Kauamoa, Noho kuu kane i Kamooloa au ka uhane i ka wai Opaukauila, He aena na ka uhane Oanahulu keehi aku la kuu kane i ke, One Omaeaea ku ka uhane nana i ke kai Opuaena, Ena maka ehu kai aku la ka uhane i ke kula o Kealia, Auau ka uhane i ka wai o Laniwahine i wahine ia i kane o Kahananui,

My man of the sands of ‘Ewa, where arms were linked, ‘Ewa the land where the spirits go to, My man went to the plain of Keahumoa, his spirit bathed in the water of Kumio, The spirit travels easily along the plain of Kānehoa, Making friends at the point of Maunauna mistreated by the birds, The dim flower in the sunshine on the plain of Kanoenoe, Misting love, the spirit of my man that travels arrived, On the plain of Malamanui the spirit of my man is at comfort and ease, At Kaukonahua the visiting spirit inquires about the uplands of Kūkaniloko, At Pi‘ikalauae the spirit descends down to Kauamoa, My man sits at Kamooloa, the spirit swims in the water of Paukauila, The spirit continues on to Anahulu, and treads on to the Sand of Maeaea, the spirit stands and looks at the sea of 299

Puaena, The eyes glow red in the sea spray and the spirit travels on to Kealia, The spirit swims in the water of Laniwahine, it is a woman, for a man Kahananui.

[1867, Miliama Kekahuna, “Kanikau aloha no Kahananui”. Keahuamoa is the kula just below Pōhākea Pass. Kanoenoe is a kula in Waipi’o ahupua’a, seaward of Kīpapa Gulch. The places from Pi‘ikalaue to beyond Anahula are towards the shore within Waialua.]179

Aloha au o ka luna o Kaala hehene au-e I love the top of Ka‘ala Aala paoa ka nahele o Malamanui, The strong fragrance of the hehene au-e,Confidential forest of Malamanui Puia okoa no ke kula o Kanoenoe Completely filling the plain hehene au-e, of Kanoenoe with a sweet Fragrance Noe aloha ia‘u ke kula o Haleauau The mist of Hale‘au‘au loves me, hehene au-e, E au mai oe e ke aloha a loaa au ia nei Come to me my love and I will hehene au-e, be gotten here, Ia nei no au me kuu aloha hehene au-e, I am here with my love, Aloha ke kino i ka lupea e ka manao The body loves the pleasing hehene au-e, thoughts, E kaohi ana au ia Halemano hehene au-e, I am trying to restrain Halemano, I lawehala na‘u o Kukaniloko A delinquent for me is/of hehene au-e, Kūkaniloko, I hoa pana no ka uka o Wahiawa A companion who shoots arrows hehene au-e, in the uplands of Wahiawā, … … [1862, Mrs. K. Keamoku, “He Inoa no Kawailahaole”]180

A Lihue a, At Līhu‘e, I ke kupukupu a, In the kupukupu ferns, E owa-owali a, E owa-owali a, Ihu waliwali a, Ihu waliwali a, O ka mokihana a, The mokihana, Ko Kaala a, Of Ka‘ala, E owa-owali a, E owa-owali a, Ihu waliwali a, Ihu waliwali a, Kai-i ana a, The ii fern, O malamanui a, Of Malamanui, E owa-owali a, E owa-owali a, Ihu waliwali a, Ihu waliwali a, 300

E huhuki ana a, Pulling out, Ka naenae a, The naenae bush, E owa-owali a, E owa-owali, a Ihu waliwali a, Ihu waliwali a, Kukaniloko a, Kūkaniloko, I ke one Kapu a, The sacred sands, E owa-owali a, E owa-owali a, Ihu waliwali a, Ihu waliwali a, Ka piko ia a, The center, I laha mai ai a, That is widespread, Na kupuna a, By the ancestors, … … [1864, Anonymous, “He Kanikau no Ka Moi … Kamehameha IV”]181 [The paired refrain lines of “E owa-owali a, Ihu waliwali a” throughout this kanikau do not translate easily and reflect the complexityConfidential of the meaning in this composition. ‘Ōwa/oā refers to a deeply felt bereavement. ‘Ōwali/‘ōali is a type of fern, which links to the multiple references to different types of ferns and plants throughout this kanikau. “Ihu waliwali e” is an emphasis for a very close relationship.]

Kuu kane hoi – e-ue no au – e, My man, I am mourning, Kuu kane mai ka lai o Waialua My man, from the calm of Waialua, Mai ke aheahe maka la i Malamanui, From the gentle blowing of the breeze in Malamanui, A nui ko aloha eue p*u – e, Your exciting love is great, Aloha ia wahi a kau * hele ai – a, Beloved are the places we went to, Aloha ke kane – ka hoa ohumu o Love for my man, my snoring ka po – a. companion of the night. … …

Kuu kane mai ka la wela o Kukaniloko, My man from the hot days at Kūkaniloko, Mai ka malu pali o Kalena, From the shadowy cliffs of Kalena, Mai ka ohu kolo mai la i Kanoenoe, From the creeping mist at Kanoenoe, Aloha ke kane – ka hoa ohumu o ka po. Love for my many, my snoring companion of the night. [1865, Abigaila Nailielua, “He Kanikau no Paulo Kanakaolei’]182

Then in the 1880s-1890s, new retellings and reworkings of the older mo‘olelo occurred – notably in Hawaiian newspapers, but also in English language sources such as Thrum’s Annual and Kalākaua’s 1888 book of short stories. Also there was Fornander’s 1880 English language history, based on historical mo‘olelo, often briefly summarized. These kept the old knowledge of this landscape alive – the mountains, place names, kupukupu aromas, and the cold winds. But as seen in the last chapter, this old knowledge was also modified, with new narratives and fictional insertions associated with the 1880s- 1890s view, which make these compositions more difficult to use as history. Examples 301 of this from the last chapter were Kalākaua’s stories and Moses Manu’s 1884-1885 Keaomelemele serial that gave his characters names from the landscape’s places. Kalākaua and Nakuina were changing the old Halemano cannibal stories.183 Many lesser known stories similarly were retold. For example, there was the 1899 Ka Loea Kalaiaina newspaper serial called “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa.” It briefly linked places in ‘Ewa to stories, following an older tradition of story-telling (e.g., Kamakau in 1865, recording stories from Nu‘uanu). One story in the 1899 “Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa” serial was about how the mullet migrated from Pu‘uloa around the east end of O‘ahu to Lā‘ie. Not often realized, it involves the Central Plateau.

… he went up the plain passed the stream of Kaukonahua, passed the plain of Mahie, and turned to look at the clouds gathering on the summit of Kaala. He, the traveler, chanted these lines that the writer is setting down here:

Confidential Beautiful is Kaala, a vessel for the sparkling dew, The mist at the top of Maunauna glides by, The gathering clouds thickly cover the precipices, Hiding from view the beautiful sights. I smell the fragrance of the kupukupu ferns, Sweetness and fragrance are my companions. My companions – dearly beloved, Beloved is the mountain where fragrance dwells.

[Laniloa’s chant on coming up the Wai‘alua Trail from the Wai‘alua side of the island.] [Oct. 7, 1899, Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa]184

3. What is Kukaniloko doing? That green upland so cold, Bedecked by swaying fern leaves, And beautiful scarlet lehua.

[Another chant by Laniloa farther down the trail, when he stopped at a resting pool in Waipi’o just south of the Central Plateau.] [Oct. 21, 1899, Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa]185

Au ana ka lae o Maunauna Point Maunauna swims in i ka ino. the storm. [A part of the same story. Laniloa’s sister returned home to ‘Ewa from Lā‘ie. She stopped at Maunauna and spent the night there at “the village”.] [Nov. 11, 1899, Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa]186

302

Some of this quoted section of this story may remind the reader of older stories – perhaps the Hi‘iaka oli to Ka‘ala. Undoubtedly, older publications of the 1860s-1870s were drawn on for ideas and material.

Most strikingly, yet another new element enters the literature of the Central Plateau in the 1800s – modifications linked to the ranch landscape. An example is the following from the same 1899 “Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa” serial.

Lihue, Haleauau and Kalena are all place names in an old poem that went like this:

The icy wind of Lihue plied its spurs, Pulling up the bridle of Haleauau, Speeding headlong over Kalena And running over the plain of Kanoenoe. [1889Confidential Na Wahi Pana o Ewa]187 [Kanoenoe is a kula in Waipi’o ahupua’a, seaward of Kipapa Gulch.]

The “old poem” may be an older oli, but the older version clearly did not contain the ranching era elements of spurs, bridles, and speeding like horses.

The presence of this literature of the 1860s-1890s means that many of the place names of the Central Plateau were known to readers of the Hawaiian newspapers, and to those who carefully read Fornander’s 1880 English history and Kalākaua’s 1888 English book of short stories. It was not just the place names that were known, but also the dominance of Ka‘ala, the dew from the mountain, the fragrance of the kupukupu, the cold Waikōloa and Wai‘ōpua winds. Then too the visits of Hi‘iaka and Keaomelemele’s family would have be recalled, as well as the chiefs of Līhu‘e and the importance of Kūkaniloko (to be covered below). How many people actually visited and knew well this Central Plateau landscape is another question. Many may not have known where the places were in any detail. This may even have been true of writers in the newspapers and other places, for it could explain the confusion of the placement of Līhu‘e and Wahiawā in ‘Ewa, Wai‘anae or Waialua – or the misordering of places when characters pass through the landscape. Still, people who read the Hawaiian papers were aware of the place names and characteristics of this landscape.

KŪKANILOKO

O Kukaniloko kahi i makemake nui ia e na'lii o Oahu nei, he wahi hoi ia e hoi ai na 'lii e hanau i ka wa kahiko, (pela ka olelo ia e ka poe kahiko o keia aina) …a he wahi no hoi e makaikai nui ia 'i e ka poe makaikai huakai-hele, (kaapuni) pela mau mai kahiko a hiki wale mai i keia wa.

303

Kukaniloko is the place the chiefs of Oahu greatly desired. It is a place that chiefs went to give birth a long time ago (that is what the old people of this place say). … it is a place that is traveled to by sightseers from long ago and continues on today. [1865, Kalanikuihonoinamoku]188

Kukaniloko, the remains of which are still pointed out … [1870s – Fornander]189

… the plot was frequently fenced in [late 1880s-1890s – William Galbraith 1927]190

Clearly, at the beginning of the 1800s, the birthing stones at Kūkaniloko were in disuse.191 Kamehameha had hoped to have Keōpūolani give birth to Liholiho here, but she became ill Confidentialand did not travel to O‘ahu; and he was born in Hilo in 1797.192 When again pregnant, apparently “she went there, [but] the child did not come, and she went back” – giving birth at Wailupe (O‘ahu) in the early 1800s, a premature child.193 After Kamehameha I’s death, in the first year of Liholiho’s reign (about 1820), Liholiho and the chiefs decided to move to O‘ahu.194 Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku and his wife Ke-kua-iaea came early. He controlled all of Waialua moku. She “was taken to Kukaniloko to have her child, but it was finally born at Halemowai in Wai‘alua” on the coast.195 In that same year or early in the next year, Liholiho traveled around O‘ahu. He stopped at Waialua, and “The king wanted to see Kukaniloko, but, prevented by a pest of army worms” his party went on to Wai‘anae.196 Nothing is said of the appearance of Kūkaniloko at this time, nor how far it was from residences and fields of this time. It sat within Kamananui ahupua‘a of Waialua moku – a moku controlled by Ke‘eaumoku and then after his death in 1804 by his son Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku. Did the stones and remnants of the heiau and other structures lie within a crumbling, stone-walled enclosure, perhaps with the interior overgrown in grass and shrubs? It was “abandoned” and “disused,” yet was still a famous place historically associated with birth of the elite, and a few Kingdom of Hawai‘i chiefs considered having children born there up to about 1820. For the ali‘i, it remained a spot to see and visit – a cultural place of importance.

This still seems true in mid-century (1850s-1870s), given Kalanikuihonoinamoku’s quote above from 1865. Also, ‘Ī‘ī, in his 1870 Hawaiian language newspaper description of the trail from Waialua over the Central Plateau down to Pu‘uloa gives an aside noting a side trail to famous places. “A trail ran from this main trail to Kalakoa, Oahunui, and other places much visited, such as Kukaniloko”.197 His manuscript actually mentions two trails leading off the main road, one to Kūkaniloko and the other farther south to Kalakoa and O‘ahunui.198 With the Waialua Road now a wagon and carriage road, it was used as the main route from Honolulu and Pu‘uloa to the North Shore; and there are references to a common trip for visitors being the loop up Nu‘uanu pali, down to Kāne‘ohe and then up the east coast to Kahuku and then to the North Shore and across the center of the island on the Waialua Road to Pu‘uloa and back to Honolulu. How many of these travelers would have gone off on the side branch to Kūkaniloko is 304

unclear.199 But Kamakau’s stories of Kūkaniloko appeared in the Hawaiian newspapers of 1865-1869 reminding readers of the importance of the birthing area. Also, Hale‘ole’s novel, Laieikawai (published in 1863) had Laieikawai’s sister hidden away at Kūkaniloko, further embedding the history of the place into the popular literature and history of the mid-1800s.200 Thus, one would expect ali‘i who knew these stories and other well-read Hawaiian readers to have had the interest to visit this wahi pana. However, we could find no specifics as to who visited Kūkaniloko in these years or how often, and we could find no visitors’ descriptions of its appearance.

Other literary compositions of the mid-1800s still perpetuated the symbolism of Kūkaniloko and its chiefs. A few examples follow. The first is a section of an honorific chant (mele koihonua) for Kuakini, a Hawai‘i Island high chief who was born in 1791 and died in 1843.

21. Ka leo o ka pahu kaeke loi, 21. The sound of the ka‘eke drum, Elua ka Confidentialleo iloko o ka hau, There are two drums’ voices in the hau, I ka hau i ke anu o Kukaniloko, In the chill of the hau of Kūkaniloko, Kani Hawea ilaila me Opuku, The Hawea and Opuku drums sound there, Mo ka piko, ke ewe, ka aa o na‘lii The umbilical cord, the afterbirth, and the womb of the chiefs are cut, I na pohaku hainaka [Cut] by the hainaka stones, [1868, Kekupuohi and others, “He mele koihonua no Kalua i Konahale Kuakini”]201

The second is part of an honorific chant for Ahukai Kauukualii, grandchild of Kahekili through Manono, born in 1792, who passed away in 1855.

22. Hanau kewe hanau ka piko, 22. Born was the navel string, born was the navel, I hanau i Kukaniloko, Birthed at Kūkaniloko … …

23. Hoolono ka Lo aikanaka, 23. Heard by the Lō aikanaka chiefs, I ke kani a kaekeeke, Was the sound of the kā‘eke‘eke drums, I kani a Hoolonopahu, And the sound of Ho‘olonopahu, Ke kani la i Kukaniloko, Sounding off in Kūkaniloko, I ka pahuawakoo o Kaleimanuia, The awakoo drum of Kaleimanuia, Pahu mawae kanaka o Kakuihewa, A drum that separates the people of Kākuhihewa,

24. Ka pahu kapu o Hoolonopahu, 24. The sacred drum of Ho‘olonopahu, Ka pahu i moku ai ka piko o Kuihewa The drum that speaks about the cutting of the umbilical cord of Kuihewa, … [1868, Kahekili-wahine and Kailinaoa, “He mele koihonua no Ahukai Kauukualii”.]202 305

The following are sections of an honorific chant composed by Kamakau.

1. O Kukalanihehu oe o kanaka You are Kukalaniehu, the man of o ka pali, … the cliff, …

3. He alii no uka o Wahiawa, A chief from the uplands of Wahiawā, No Kukaniloko no Luaia, From Kūkaniloko, from Luaia, No ka haiki pilikia o na‘lii nui, From a small inconvenience of the great chiefs, Ka pu ahuawa o Manuia ke‘lii The ahuawa bunch of the chief Manuia, He‘lii no uka o Lolokulani, The chief of Lolokulani, O Mailikukahi a Kalonaiki, Mā‘ilikūkahi the child of Kalonaiki, Nana hoi o Piliwale, From which came Piliwale, Na’lii mailokoConfidential mai Lonopilikahonua, The chiefs from inside Lonopilikahonua, He mau ‘lii kupu no ka pali Lihue, The sacred chiefs of the cliffs of Lihue, He mau ‘lii honihoni palai no Kahui, The chiefs with the scent of ferns of Kahui, He mau kini poouahi lalakoa, The multitudes of grey haired warriors, [1868 Kamakau, “He mau mele koihonua a me na mele no Kauilanuimakehaikalani Kamaialii”]203

The last comes from Moses Manu’s 1884-1885 Keaomelemele publication in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa. This quote comes during the portion of the story when Paliuli was visiting the Central Plateau. It emphasizes Kūkaniloko at the end.

… ka mea helluhelu ke puana ae i keia … the reader may murmur these lines mau lalani mele e pili ana Kalena: about Kalena:

Nihi mai ka Waikoloa, The cold north wind edges along, Alo i ke kula o Kalena, Passing over the plains of Kalena, Ke hui nei o Kalena, Kalena grows chill, He pana Kukaniloko. And famed Kūkaniloko throbs.

[1884-1885 Manu]204

In 1851 Kūkaniloko was within a land grant purchased by A. Cooke (Grant 606). In 1853, Artemas Bishop, who owned nearby Grant 604, acquired Cooke’s parcel and a nearby parcel owned by William Rice (Grant 605). Thus, Bishop owned over 1,000 acres of westernmost Wahiawā, the kula seaward of the Holt Ranch’s land around Whitmore Village. Bishop’s acreage included Kūkaniloko and ran down to the border with Kamananui. He held this land until 1866. Then he leased it to H. Hillebrand and then in 1870 sold it to Hillebrand’s heir, William Hillebrand – the Hillebrands’ also owning more 306 adjacent and nearby lands in Kemo‘o and retaining all these lands through the 1870s. We have no idea what they used the land for in these years – although free-roaming ranching seems likely from general descriptions of the Central Plateau. Thus, the branch trail to Kūkaniloko that ‘Ī‘ī mentions probably led off the Waialua Road through Bishop’s and then Hillebrand’s lands from the 1850s-1870s. With free-roaming ranching, there would be no cattle fences, so it is quite likely that visitors could go right up to and into Kūkaniloko. But, again, we found no descriptions of Kūkaniloko’s appearance from the 1850s-1870s. However, Fornander in his 1880 publication, written in the 1870s, in speaking about Kūkaniloko says “the remains of which are still pointed out about three- fourths of a mile inland from the bridge now crossing the Kaukonahua stream.”205

Although we have no descriptions of Kūkaniloko at this time, the stones remaining today have some petroglyph writing in the style of the mid-1800s. KINI is inscribed on stone 61 and KOA and AN KOA on stone 103.206 One would suspect that these words might have been written by visitors. Confidential

Figure 7-26. Stone 61, drawing of its petroglyphs, with the word KINI in mid-1800s lettering (Stasack and Stasack 2010). 307

Confidential

Figure 7-27. Stone 103, drawing of petroglyphs, showing the words AN KOA (perhaps NA KOA) in mid-1800s lettering. The “ING STONE” is no longer visible. (Stasack and Stasack 2010).

308

In 1882 George Galbraith purchased the Hillebrand lands, both in Wahiawā and Kemo‘o, and ran a ranch in this area through the 1890s.207 We found no descriptions of this ranch. However, as seen in Chapter 6, the 1880s are the years when the Keanini stone was found in the nearby Kaukonahua Gulch where the Waialua Road crossed the gulch (very nearby or within Galbraith’s lands), and Galbraith had this stone moved to the birthstone area of Kūkaniloko. The stone stood immediately adjacent to the birthstones. William Galbraith, the great-nephew of George, stated in a 1927 newspaper article that “the last words spoken by his great-uncle, George Galbraith [who died in 1904], were a warning never to move the stone and never to touch or plow the land around it.”208 William Galbraith thought that the birthing stones were in a burial plot area associated with an old Hawaiian king, but it is likely that his great-uncle knew better. George Galbraith seems to have protected the immediate area around the birthing stones – probably because of both the Keanini stone and the birthing stones. Also, William Galbraith remembered that “the plot was frequently fenced in, but was broken down several times by wild steers.”`209 This information suggests that the stones at Kūkaniloko in the late 1880s-1890sConfidential were in the same location and distribution as today, albeit in a treeless ranch landscape with grasses. It seems that Galbraith was protecting the area near the stones within his ranchlands (not plowing it), with a fence present (although periodically broken down by cattle). It was likely overgrown, although this is not clear. Whether any of the other features of the traditional era Kūkaniloko were still present – remnants of the heiau, an enclosing wall, etc. – and whether these were being protected is impossible to tell from the limited available information.

Also, in the 1880s-1890s, most ranches in the Central Plateau area seem to have had their boundaries fenced (as well as internal areas). Thus, Galbraith’s ranch was probably fenced off. So how accessible Kūkaniloko was to the public is less clear at this time. It seems likely that that Kūkaniloko would still have remained famous to Hawaiian nobility and others who knew the old mo‘olelo well because of the histories and literature being published in the Hawaiian language newspapers, recorded in widely known manuscripts (such as Malo’s 1840s manuscript), and being mentioned in the widely read 1880 English history by Fornander and Kalākaua’s 1888 book of English short stories. How often it was visited is unclear, and whether one looked from a distance from the side road through the ranch or was able to easily enter is unknown. One of the individuals who clearly knew about Kūkaniloko was Kalākaua, who mentioned Kūkaniloko in several of the English short stories that he published. One would assume that he visited the birthing site, for he traveled to royal places of fame frequently in his reign and his ranch was next door.

Although we found no descriptions of Kūkaniloko at all in the 1800s, we believe that it is very likely that some descriptions exist. More research needs to be done, going through the vast numbers of journals and letters of residents and visitors. Surely, some of these contain a description. But this is a huge task, for there are indeed vast numbers of these documents. But this attempt needs to be continued. For, a description may be found that describes a stone-walled enclosure with multiple structures within it – besides the birthstones. Such a description would be invaluable for our understanding of 309

Kūkaniloko because we have so little information about this wahi pana’s appearance as it was used in traditional times.

There is one more very important perspective of Kūkaniloko from the 1800s. Those Hawaiians living in the Wai‘anae uka/Wahiawā area seem to have had a very different view of Kūkaniloko. McAllister in his 1930 survey of historic sites on O‘ahu, noted for Kūkaniloko that the “The old Hawaiians of today remember in their childhood they were never allowed by their parents to approach even near the sacred birthplace”.210 His informants included Oscar Cox and John Holani Hao and Daniel Hookala, the latter two elderly in the late 1920s-1930s.211 If they were in their 70s, this would suggest that Hawaiian residents of the Līhu‘e/Wahiawā area were telling this to their children in the 1860s-1870s. This perspective of Kūkaniloko would appear to be one of resident kama‘āina commoners, who knew the importance of the place and considered it kapu to non-ali‘i.

Confidential 310

CHAPTER 8

KŪKANILOKO FROM THE OVERTHROW OF THE MONARCHY TO THE PRESENT

This concentration of stones is the only tangible remains of what was a much larger complex called Kukaniloko. [1994, National Register Form]1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter looks at Kūkaniloko from 1893 (when the monarchy ended) to the present. In this chapter, we are not looking at the general history of O‘ahu, or of the Territory and StateConfidential of Hawai‘i, as this greatly departs from previous Hawaiian times. We do look briefly at changes in the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau in these years, essentially away from a ranching landscape to a modern urban, intensive agricultural, and military landscape. The primary focus of this chapter is how Kūkaniloko was protected during these years. (We also do not look at contemporary native Hawaiian uses of the site here, for that is the focus of the next chapter.)

THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE CENTRAL PLATEAU

The End of the Ranching Landscape

As seen in Chapter 7, at the overthrow of the monarchy, the Central Plateau was a ranching cultural landscape – with a very Hawaiian flavor, with both elite part-Hawaiian owners and with resident commoners probably working on the ranches. The Dowsett’s held Leilehua Ranch on the Crown lands of Wai‘anae uka, Pouhala uka, and the western half of Waikakalaua. The lands of the Wahiawā kula where Whitmore Village is located and the adjacent Pa‘ala‘a uka (Halemano) lands were privately held land – belonging to the Holt ranch. The land around Kūkaniloko down to and into Kemo‘o in Kamananui was held as ranchland by George Galbraith. The School Lands of Wahiawa were Kingdom Government lands, and these were leased, exactly to whom we are not sure without further research – some say to Dowsett, some say to the Holt family, and some records suggest perhaps to a W.C. Jones.2

With the overthrow of the monarchy, Government and Crown lands passed to the Provisional Government and eventually to the Territory of Hawaii at annexation in 1898. This led to dramatic changes in the Central Plateau.

James Dowsett died in 1898, but the Dowsett Company held Leilehua Ranch on the Central Plateau’s Crown lands until after annexation, with Dowsett’s son, Alika Dowsett continuing as ranch manager. In 1899 these now Public lands were taken by U.S. Presidential Executive Order for military use. This essentially ended the Dowsett’s Leilehua Ranch of Wai‘anae uka. However, the ranch still seems to have been allowed to 311

operate for a few years until the military was ready to take over, for the ranch was still present in 1902.3

On the Wahiawā side, as lands were private and not government/crown lands, the same owners continued. Galbraith continued to hold his ranch lands from Kūkaniloko down into Kemo‘o, and the Holts held their ranch at the turn of the century.

Strikingly, this ranching landscape had probably minimally altered the basic terrain of the Central Plateau – other than erecting fence lines and making access trails or roads. Much of the natural features and archaeological remnants of the old Central Plateau’s traditional era landscape were likely still present. The gulches and gulch bottoms would be still there, and the stones on the landscape. The remnants of irrigated fields in the gulch bottoms and some stone features of rainfall fields on the kula likely survived. House platforms and associated burials probably still dotted the landscape. At the old chiefly center, the ruins of houseyards not altered by the main ranch houses and kama‘āina workers’Confidential houses probably still stood – including perhaps Ho‘olonopahu heiau’s architectural remains and possibly a wall around Kūkaniloko. Recognition and knowledge of these ruins probably had largely faded, as in much of the islands. For example, old cowboys working the back of Nānākuli noted occasionally stone features “marking the sites of ancient Hawaiian habitations”.4 Except for some old house and lo‘i areas that had been home sites and fields of local Hawaiians’ fairly recent ancestors (or were still used by these families) and some heiau locations, Kūkaniloko, itself, may have been the only man-made feature on the landscape that was widely known.

The Start of a Dramatically New Cultural Landscape

The School Lands of Wahiawa (Wahiawā town) reverted to the post-Kingdom governments. In an 1895 land act, these lands were designated to become homesteads. The lands were taken out of lease. Byron Clarke (who in 1897 had been the Republic’s Commissioner of Agriculture) organized families (mostly from California) to join him and settle the Wahiawa Tract, which became known as the Wahiawa Colony Tract.5 The parcels were given as homesteads apparently to non-Hawaiian settlers in 1898-1899. Each settler received a 5 acre parcel in the town site with a house and farm land nearby. An 1899 map of the area shows homesteads laid out in the lower area of Wahiawa town (Fig. 8-1). Soon after a bridge was built over the South Fork of Kaukonahua and a store and post office were built within Wahiawā.6 This was the start of today’s Wahiawā town. Nedbalek7 describes the settlement as “a park-like stretch of some 1,400 acres of third- class pasture land, dotted with shacks of 13 hopeful homesteaders.”

The farms in and around Wahiawā quickly became focused on pineapple production.8 In 1900 Clark and Eames planted pineapple slips on a small scale. Eames formed the Hawaiian Islands Packing Company and built a cannery in Wahiawa Heights in 1902. This was the precursor of Del Monte. Wil Thomas, another homesteader planted pineapple and formed the Thomas Pineapple Company, which after his death eventually became Libby, McNeill and Libby. In 1900 James Dole bought 61 acres nearby and built his cannery next to his fields, and his first harvest was canned in 1903. His company, the 312

Confidential

Figure 8-1. Portion of 1899 map showing Wahiawa Tract parcels, visible below Kaukonahua (North Fork) and labeled 2, 3, 1B, 4, and 5. Grants 604-606 are shown north of the stream with today’s Kukaniloko the red rectangle. These grants and lands to the left of this map and seaward in Kemo’o were part of the Galbraith ranch. (Territory Map 1899).

Hawaiian Pineapple Company became Dole. Associated with this emerging pineapple industry was the need for shipping, and Dole (and undoubtedly others) convinced the OR & L railroad to build a line to Wahaiwā in 1906.

Meanwhile, Castle & Cooke had financed the Waialua Agricultural Company’s formation in 1898, with William Goodale being its manager from 1898-1923.9 The company’s focus was initially on sugar cane, and its lands closer to the sea were in sugar, and its main mill was in today’s Waialua town. Sugar cane required lots of water. Considerable effort was made from 1900-1906 to build an irrigation system out of the streams of the uplands.10 In 1902 with a concern for water to farm with, the Wahiawa Water Company was formed by agreement between Waialua Agricultural and the Wahiawā colonists, to create a system of flumes, ditches and tunnels, and to plan for the dam across Kaukonahua Stream.11 In 1904-1906, a major dam was built at Wahiawā, just 313

north of the joining of the North and South forks of Kaukonahua – forming the Wahiawa Reservoir, today’s Lake Wilson.12

The Waialua Agricultural Company spread its holdings up through Pa‘ala‘a uka (and Halemano) and the Wahiawā kula holding today’s Whitmore Village and Kūkaniloko. George Galbraith leased his lands around Kūkaniloko in 1900 to J.B. Atherton (son-in-law of the original Cooke and President of both Castle & Cooke Ltd and of Waialua Agricultural Co.), who “assigned the Kukaniloko portion of his lease to the Waialua Agricultural Co.”13 In 1905, Waialua Agricultural Company purchased the Helemano lands from the Holts – leaving the company with 3 land units within the plantation: Waialua, Helemano, and Kawailoa.14 In 1904 with the death of George Galbraith, his lands remained leased to the Waialua Agricultural Company. Waialua Agricultural Company quickly realized that pineapple did better at upper elevations, requiring far less water. By 1908, the company had “leased 1100 acres of upper Helemano and Wahiawa to pineapple plantations.”15 In 1909 2,873 acres of the company’s upper lands were leased to pineapple planters, in 1910 3,549 acres, and in Confidential16 1913 6,000+ acres. They proceeded to lease out nearly all their upper lands to pineapple plantations emerging from the Wahiawā settlement. By 1904, Wahiawā had become known as “The City of Pineapple.”17 By 1910, there were considerable amounts of pineapple planted on the kula north of the town (where Whitmore Village and Kūkaniloko are) and south of the town and east of the Waialua Road. In 1914, 32,000 tons of pineapples were shipped out by rail.18 By 1919, the entire kula on the Whitmore Village/Kūkaniloko part of Wahiawā was in pineapple.19 Small plantations camps were scattered around – one being Kaukonahua Camp along the south side of Poamoho Stream.

Additionally, for water conservation concerns, the Waialua Agricultural Company began massive reforestation projects in the early 1900s – lining boundaries, in gulches, etc. – largely with non-native trees. By 1921, the company’s annual reported noted marked progress from the “comparatively treeless condition of twenty years ago.”20

In 1899 a U.S. Presidential order set aside Wai‘anae uka, Pouhala uka and western Waikakalaua lands as a U.S. military reservation.21 An adequacy report done in 1908, noted that the eastern half of the military reserve (east of the Waialua Road), was planted in pineapples. In 1909 Schofield Barracks was under construction.22 This led to the diverting of the western trail up from Honouliuli in its upper third at a more acute angle (roughly today’s Kunia Road). In 1922 land clearing and construction at Wheeler field began.23 This led to the rerouting of Kamehameha Highway around Wheeler’s perimeter.

Thus, within the first ten years of the 20th Century, the Hawaiian ranching landscape of the Central Plateau disappeared. The cultural landscape now consisted of a new, essentially non-Hawaiian town (Wahiawā), intensive pineapple fields, and military bases and training areas. This change would have been a striking one to older Hawaiians, as can be seen from the following quote in 1899 applying to the more seaward parts of ‘Ewa where sugarcane plantations had developed. 314

Old timers and visitors that go to Ewa will see how strange the land looks for sugar cane is growing on it. [1899, Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa]24

The Central Plateau was now something different – a landscape dominated by pineapple fields. These changes would have started to dramatically alter the archaeological remnants of the old traditional era cultural landscape. The Wahiawā dam flooded the terraces of irrigated kalo fields and adjacent houses in the bottomlands of the north and south forks of Kaukonahua. Pineapple cultivation would have moved – if not removed – stones from the pineapple fields. Based on evidence from plantation areas elsewhere in the islands, this would have led to dismantling of house platforms and terraces, walls, etc.25 Rarely some places were left as enclaves – some burial plots were found set aside among Hāmākua sugarcane fields on Hawai‘i Island, and famous major heiau (e.g., Mo‘okini heiau at the northernmost point of Hawai‘i) and other places occasionally were left be.26 But inConfidential general plantations saw the removal of stones – often initially by hand, with stones sometimes placed on top of wooden sleds dragged by draft animals. Removal was often to mounds nearby (stockpiles). This would be expected in the pineapple field areas of the Central Plateau – the Wahiawā kula and the kula of Kalakoa east of the Waialua Road (Kamehameha Highway).

As the plantations became increasingly mechanized in the pre-World War II era and after, massive earth-moving and tilling occurred. This would have further destroyed archaeological remnants on the landscape. Also, it began to alter the landscape itself. Already the north and south forks of the Kaukonahua were underwater, a huge change to the landscape. But with mechanization, shallow gulches often had their sides graded down and gulch bottoms filled. This is dramatically apparent in the Honouliuli lands along Kunia Road. Here, the gulches are still intact nearer the mountains, but they were massively graded and altered as they shallowed out on flatter land approaching Kunia Road.27 In the southern Līhu‘e slopes of Wai‘anae uka, this also occurred – with the shallower gulches graded and modified as they reached the flats south of Schofield’s housing. This land alteration again damaged, if not destroyed, much of the archaeological remains in these areas, but not those in the steeper gulches as the mountains were approached.28 And, it changed the natural landscape, the ‘āina, itself.

As the plantations developed, Wahiawā became a plantation type town, with its ethnicity reflecting the plantations and reflecting the nearby military bases. World War II led to personnel increases at Schofield and Wheeler on the military lands, and spurred growth of Wahiawā. After the war, the Hawaiian Pineapple Company (Dole), consolidated its outlying camps and designed and built Whitmore Village.29 Urbanization gradually increased.

Also, on the military lands, World War II led to increasing facilities for fighting and training. Live fire zones behind Schofield were developed. [As seen in Chapter 6, very surprisingly, recent archaeological surveys done for the Army have found that many archaeological sites still survive in largely unused stream gulches, and even fragments of 315

sites survive in live fire zones.] Wheeler Airfield was expanded, fenced and its landscape vastly modified. [Little of the archaeological landscape apparently survived Wheeler’s development, given archaeological work to date.30] In 1941, the Navy built the Naval Computer and Telecommunications Center Area Master Station (NCTAMS) on land behind Whitmore Village.31

Essentially, this new cultural landscape’s general patterns remained unchanged through most of the 20th Century. The Korean War, the Vietnam War and the associated “Cold War” led to intensive changes and personnel increases on the military lands. This still occurs today with the Stryker Battalion among the recent changes. Wahiawā town has grown today to 16,000-17,000 (depending on the census and source) with a majority of its make-up reflecting the original settlers, former plantation workers and military.32 Whitmore Village has grown to 4,000+.33 And since the late 1960s, Mililani has been an urban boom town on the kula on the southern fringes of the Central Plateau just below Waikakalaua Gulch – totaling about 30,000 residents in 2007, a middle class bedroom community for ConfidentialHonolulu.34

Pineapple finally closed down in the Wahiawā kula lands around Kūkaniloko about 1992-1995. The fields are abandoned and heavily overgrown in the areas nearest to Whitmore Village and Kūkaniloko. With the end of pineapple, the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau is now solely a military and a modern residential landscape – with the two bases of Wheeler and Schofield and the less well known Naval Computer and Telecommunications Center Area Master Station (NCTAMS) and the urban fringe of Honolulu on the southern edges of the Central Plateau (Mililani and Mililani Mauka) and the slightly less urban older towns of Wahiawā and Whitmore Village.

KŪKANILOKO

Mr. Goodale … always kept it from being encroached upon by the plantation … fields. [Honolulu Advertiser 1925]35

The plantation manager had fenced off the entire area several years earlier and planted eucalyptus trees within the enclosure, but wild vegetation had eventually overrun it. [1922, Daughters of Hawaii]36

Amid a group of three or four of the more prominent of these stones is one standing, tongue-shaped, measuring a little over five feet in height … [1911, Thrum – describing the Keanini stone at Kūkaniloko]37

As seen in Chapter 7, at the end of the monarchy era, Kūkaniloko sat abandoned within ranchlands owned by George Galbraith. With no description yet found, we are 316

unclear what it looked like. We know that at least today’s “birthstones” with the addition of the Keanini stone, were present – and that it had been fenced by Galbraith, being periodically repaired after “wild steers” broke in.38 (Galbraith’s great-nephew, as a youth, in passing the fenced area “thought [it] to be the burial ground for an old Hawaiian ruler”39 – clearly not knowing the older stories.) It seems possible that the foundation stones of Ho‘olonopahu heaiu may have been present nearby, as well as any other structure formerly within Kūkaniloko. Also, if Kapanokalani was correct, other stones were present ¼ mile to the north. And perhaps a larger enclosing wall was present. But with no description, again this picture is impossible to confirm. We know at least today’s “birthstones” were present. Also, at least part of Kūkaniloko had been fenced by Galbraith – at least the part around the “birthstones” and the newly associated Keanini stone. Additionally, Kūkaniloko was a recalled, important memory of the past for when one read about Hawaiian history, one read Malo in manuscript form, Kamakau from the Hawaiian newspapers, and Fornander’s 1880 history, and at the end of the 1800s Kalākaua and Nakuina – although we do not know how many still visited Kūkaniloko by the end of the 1890s.Confidential

With the dramatic changes of the early 1900s, suddenly Kūkaniloko was in the midst of active pineapple fields. It was on Galbraith lands, but these lands were now controlled by Waialua Agricultural Company and in pineapple. A plantation dirt road appears to have run right along the south border of the site crossing from near today’s Whitmore Village intersection in a straight line west to Kaukonahua Stream.40

Galbraith, who died in 1904, had been adamant -- apparently even on his deathbed – that the area around today’s birthstones and the Keanini stone, which he had placed there in the 1880s, be preserved. His great-nephew stated the following in a 1927 newspaper article.

Galbraith said that the last words spoken by his great-uncle, George Galbraith, were a warning never to move the stone [Keanini] and never to touch or plow the land around it. [1927 Honolulu Star-Bulletin]41

This concern may have been because he had dreamed about the spirit of the Keanini stone speaking to him so many years before, and he had taken this to heart. But, it probably equally was because he knew the history of Kūkaniloko as a birthing area. Clearly, his wish seems to have been met. William Goodale, the manager of the plantation from 1898 to 1923 and born in the islands, was aware of the importance of the site – he “knew the story of Kukaniloko.”42 One wonders whether this was because of conversations with Galbraith before he passed away. At least by 1909 or so, Goodale had continued to fence off the area with a wire fence, and he planted the eucalyptus trees (as indicated in the introductory quote).43 But while the “birthing stones” were protected from the pineapple field land alterations, they did often become overgrown, so there appears to have been no regular maintenance. One wonders if this reflected relatively few visitors in these years.

317

In 1911 Thomas Thrum published an English language article on Kūkaniloko (“Kukaniloko: Famed Birthplace of Aliis”) in his Hawaiian Almanac and Annual.44 This included a translation of Kamakau’s 1865 description and quotes from Fornander 1880s history. He apparently visited Kūkaniloko, describing that it had been fenced in by Goodale of the Waialua Agricultural Company. His article adds no descriptive information to the place. He noted that the Kūkaniloko stone could not be identified, but he did mention the Keanini stone being present and described some of the story about Galbraith bringing it up from the stream bed. The Hawaiian Almanac was widely read by both Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians, so this article would likely have brought information on Kūkaniloko back to the forefront.

In May of 1918, Goodale wrote the Daughters of Hawaii, who had formed in 1903 as a group of women whose members could trace their ancestry to anyone who had lived in the islands before 1880.45 In 1915, the Daughters had acquired and were preserving the Queen Emma Summer Palace (Hānaiakamālama),46 and were becoming known as a groupConfidential who were interested in promoting Hawaiian history and protecting important places. In Goodale’s letter he noted that Kūkaniloko “had been neglected for many years, and [he] … inquired whether the Daughters might be interested in restoring the site.”47 This letter was read by Regent Julie Judd Swanzy at the 15th Annual meeting of the Daughters in 1918.48 The Daughters were interested, but they did not take action nor assume care of the site immediately. In 1922, several members visited the birthing stones site when returning from a Mokuleia and found it “overrun with guava trees and tall grass.”49 The Daughters then agreed to become the caretakers of the site.

Before the Daughters formally became the caretakers of Kūkaniloko, several steps were involved. They had to negotiate with Waialua Agriculture regarding their lease and with the Trustees of the Galbraith Estate, Hawaiian Trust Company Ltd, to acquire rights to the land. Also, they had to learn something about Kūkaniloko. A Kukaniloko Committee was formed by the Daughters to address these matters. The land tasks were apparently largely handled by Regent Swanzy. Historical research with archival material was begun by Lahilahi Webb, a Historian in the Daughters, who worked at the Bishop Museum (often as a translator) and who also was an attendant and close friend of Liliu‘okalani.50 Interestingly, Webb and the Daughters took two approaches to learning about Kūkaniloko – researching older records and talking with kūpuna from the area. Swanzy asked Goodale to clear the area around the stones within the fence, and he rapidly had this done.51 Then the Kukaniloko Committee of the Daughters met with “several Hawaiian elders from the area” at the birthing site on February 2, 1925 – Annie Keahipaka, Susan Keahinui, John Holani Hao, Daniel Hookala, and Hookala’s nephew Oscar Cox.52 They pointed out that the tall Keanini stone and its companion “had no relevance to Kukaniloko,”53 and Cox, Hao and Hookala showed the Daughters the Kūkaniloko stone.54 Webb briefly summarized a history of the Keaniniulaokalani legend for the kūpuna.55 In August, Webb recorded information from Kapanokalani of Waikele.56 Evidently his family had been the kahu of Kūkaniloko. He said that he “was told by his grand-father Wahinealii that the proper site of the Kukaniloko” was in fact ¼ mile north and had been destroyed by pineapple, and that the current stones commemorated the presence of a chiefess (Kahamaluihi) and her retinue passing through 318

during the birth of a high chief and having to stay “until all the ceremonies to the child were finished.” He showed the Committee, or at least Webb, at some point the stone associated with Kahamaluihi. Webb also consulted older written sources (Kamakau and Fornander) and her mother (H. Rogers, “an authority on ancient Hawaii”). She then recorded the informant information and wrote several short manuscript papers on the site (essentially summaries of Kamakau, Fornander and Thrum).57 She did note that based on the research and apparently the Daughters’ site visits that “nothing remains of the heiau”.

Also in 1925, Swanzy’s negotiations with the Waialua Agricultural Company and Hawaiian Trust Company (Trustee for the Galbraith Estate) resulted in Waialua Agriculture giving up their lease to the fenced 0.5 acres of land around the birthing stones, and the Trustees deeding this fenced area to the Daughters in fee simple for $150 – “with the condition that should the Daughters ever abandon or fail to properly care for the Site, it would revert to Hawaiian Trust Co.”58 The formal deed seems to have been dated May 18, 1925.59 Confidential On February 18, 1925, the Waialua Agricultural Company further cleared the stones in preparation for the formal dedication. “We found Mr. Paul Jarrett of the Waialua Agricultural Company there with a number of Japanese men. They had cleared the place of weeds and shrubs and the position of the stones was clearly visible.”60

A large dedication ceremony was held on February 25th – “well publicized and attended” – notably by the Daughters, local Hawaiian kupuna, and Waialua Agricultural representatives.61 Access was from a “fine road” from Kamehameha Highway at the top of Kaukonahua Gulch.62 A speech was given by Regent Swanzy on the status of the land agreements and on the significance of Kūkaniloko. Another speech was given by Secretary Spitz itemizing the visits of the Kūkaniloko Committee and the reports. Chants were given as part of this dedication.63 One of these chants seems to have been newly composed by John Holani Hao, and will be mentioned shortly. A quote from the newspaper of the next day, February 26th, gives a feel for this dedication.

About seventy members of the Daughters of Hawaii accompanied the regent to Kukaniloko yesterday afternoon, arriving about 3 p.m. Several Hawaiians were present from the Waialua district. They told the story of its sacred service to womanhood in meles. The accouchment stone was decorated with leis and in the little pockets were many little gifts -- a fish, a lei, a piece of this root and that. Mrs. Swanzy addressed the assemblage … Following the exercises picnic lunches were spread in various parts of the enclosure and there was more chanting of meles by D. Hookala and J. H. Hao, old Hawaiians of the district. [Honolulu Advertiser Feb. 26, 1925]64 [accouchment = delivery, or birthing] 319

The several newspaper articles about this dedication also included summaries of Kūkaniloko’s history derived from Kamakau and Fornander – sometimes quoted, and apparently taken from Thrum’s 1911 article or from Webb’s manuscript (perhaps supplied to the papers).65

1923 -- A Smaller Stone Arrives at Kūkaniloko Next to the Keanini Stone – Prior to the Formal Assuming of Care by the Daughters

In 1923 a smaller stone was found and moved next to the Keanini stone. It was called the “female stone” by some and the “boot of the guard” by others.66 The two stones have been considered a pair from this point to the present.

The Nature of Care at Kūkaniloko

Initial clearingConfidential of Kūkaniloko was done between 1922-1925 by the Waialua Agricultural Company, and then again in 1925 before the dedication – the latter done by Japanese workers under the direction of luna Paul Jarrett.67 From then up to 1930, it seems that the Daughters had the help of the Wahiawa Water Company in caring for the site – “Mr. A.A. Wilson of the Wahiawa Water Company, who kindly supervises the care of Kukaniloko” (1927)68 “The trees are growing and it is well cared for by the Wahiawa Water Co.” (1930).69

In 1933, at least one Daughters meeting was held at the site “with a program.”70

One point of interest that comes from the early visits of the Daughters in 1925 was that the Daughters left ho‘okupu. For the February 2, 1925 visit, Regent Swanzy was given an unspecified ho‘okupu by Emma Ahuena Taylor of the Daughters, and Swanzy placed it on the Kūkaniloko stone.71 On February 18, 1925, Regent Swanzy and Taylor visited Kūkaniloko, and Swanzy “placed the traditional offering, a Kumu Fish, upon the stone known as Kukaniloko.” A bowl-like cavity in the side of the Kūkanilko stone was observed by Taylor, and her mother (Mary Montana) told her later that these cavities were for “the Hookupu or offering.”72 In August of 1925, when the Regent, Webb, Mr. and Mrs. Kapanokalo, Annie Kuhia and others visited Kūkaniloko, Webb left crown flower leis on Kūkaniloko and also on the Kahamaluihi stone.73

The Healing Stone – The First Preservation Controversy of Behavior at the Site

Although the stone has a traditional significance, no legend of healing nor of worship has ever been connected with it, and it is only since Kukaniloko was cleared and newly fenced that it has become prominent. [1927 Swanzy, Daughters of Hawaii]74

Soon after the 1925 dedication ceremony, the Daughters encountered their first preservation issues from Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian ethnic groups. “The origin of the 320

present healing cult is a matter of surmise but it is supposed to have been started by the Filipinos of the near-by pineapple fields who remarked the improved conditions of the locality and leaped to the conclusion that it must be a place of worship.”75 “Soon workers in the surrounding pineapple fields began to visit the spot and reported miraculous cures, especially from the larger of the two stones [Keanini stones]. Crowds flocked in as the stories spread … people came to pray leaving offerings of food and money, fires were burned in front of the tall stone, now known as the Healing Stone. The Site was trampled, rats came to get the food, and a general sense of disarray set in.”76

In August or September of 1925, the Daughters had the stones moved off to the side by W.W. Wilson of the Wahiawa Water Company, moved “makai of the gate in a straight row of eucalyptus trees.”77 A crude shack was built over them. A stronger fence was installed around the Site, but this was torn down in places, and the chaos and destruction continued. In January of 1926 “one of the large [birthing] stones was broken and part of it taken away.”78 Kapu signs were put up, and then no trespassing signs. “Regardless of Confidentialthe fortified fencing and notices, visits to the stone continued and the attendant nuisance, with debris of decaying fruit and flowers and half-melted masses of candles causing permanent damage to Keanini, and other stones, became intolerable. Thus it was decided by the society to remove Keanini to another spot.”79 “It was felt by the Daughters of Hawaii that this worship was entirely inconsistent with the history and tradition of Kukaniloko and that … it became absolutely necessary to remove the stone.”80 No longer able to handle or control the visitors to the Site, the Daughters had the stones moved to the Wahiawā Cemetery in May of 1926. Even that move had problems, for the “Keanininulaokalani Stone fell to pieces when it was moved. It was cemented back and moved.”81 “According to one story, the workmen began to move the tall stone but it crumbled into pieces. Some thought it a sign that the stone did not want to be moved to an out-of-the-way place. After being put together with cement, it was moved next to the Wahiawā Cemetery.”82 This breaking of the stone is described by several kupuna that we interviewed. Elithe Kahn had heard this story from a 90-year old woman who as a “little girl saw the carriage taking the stone out … the stone rolled off and broke into several pieces”.83 Alice Greenwood said that the 90 year old woman was Korean, and that she had seen the “stone jump off the truck.”84

At their new spot in Wahiawā, the stones’ “popularity continued unabated there and actually proved to be more popular than before, …”85 In 1929, the following was written:

There are Chinese who drive inland from Honolulu, the women in gorgeous silk trousers; Hawaiians with hibiscus flowers behind their ears; Filipino boys with wreaths of fresh roses ‘round their hats, tiny Japanese ladies in Komona of rich colours .. The ‘eery’ exciting smell of incense is heavy in the air. Some kneel, at a distance from the enclosure, mumbling prayers aloud. Some caress the tall god, bless jars of water .. Nearby stalls are erected for 321

the sale of lei(s), bottles of water, incense, fruit and candies.86

Wahiawā town members, upset with the visitors to the cemetery, complained in writing to the Board of Health, the Mayor and others – including the Daughters. The Daughters “received letters accusing them of fostering fetishism, worship of idols” etc. Hawaiian Trust threatened to revoke their land agreement for Kūkaniloko, claiming that Galbraith’s will had wished “the stones stay at the Kukaniloko Site forever”. The attorneys advised the stones be returned in November 16, 1927. “The Daughters refused, pointing out that this was not in the contract, and that these stones did not belong at the Kukaniloko Site as they had no historical significance to the birthing stones.” “The idea of the Daughters of Hawaii in purchasing Kukaniloko was to preserve it as a historic landmark and the so- called healing stone has nothing whatever to do with its traditions.”87 The legal wrangling seemed to end at this point, and the stones remained in Wahiawā away from Kūkaniloko.

With World War II “interest in the stones waned”. Once moved from Kūkaniloko Confidential88 in 1927, the situation at Kūkaniloko vastly improved.

The End of the Daughters Care

After World War II “interest … waned – and, so too, did that of the Daughters. Perhaps weary of the strife and feeling the need to devote their efforts toward the Queen Emma Summer Palace and Hulihe‘e Palace that they now maintained, the Daughters wrote the Waialua Civic Club, who had been tending the Site, in May of 1950, requesting them to take over the lease ... The Civic Club was interested and asked the Daughters for all paper work – both historic and business to make it legal.”89 Part of the issue also seems to have been cost. In July 9, 1948 the daughters “received a bill for clean up at the stones in the amount of $98. The board felt that some other society should take care of the site.”90 In September of 1949 “a motion was made that the Kukaniloko site be taken over by another agency.”91 In October 1949, the Daughters wrote the Waialua Civic Club, and the Civic Club wrote back happy to accept and wanting to be sure that they were legally taking over.92 In 1950 the Daughters gave their deed back to Hawaiian Trust Co. for $1. The Civic Club had taken over care.

KŪKANILOKO AND THE CENTRAL PLATEAU IN HAWAIIAN LITERATURE AND HISTORY FROM 1900 TO THE 1950s

At the start of the 1900s, those familiar with Hawaiian literature and history were still aware of Kūkaniloko and the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau. Fornander’s 1880 English history (again using oral histories) was widely read, and it talked about Kūkaniloko and the chiefly center of Līhu‘e in the context of O‘ahu’s and the islands’ history. And Fornander referred to Kamakau’s Hawaiian newspaper articles that still seem to have been recalled and been available. Kalākaua’s short stories – a combination of old oral histories and literature and Kalākaua’s own alterations, creations and historical hypotheses – had just come out, and they included stories that mentioned the sacred enclosure and heiau at Kūkaniloko. Nakuina’s story of the Halemano cannibals and 322

Oahu nui had just appeared in English. Mose Manu’s Keaomelemele had appeared in serial form in 1884-1885 in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, and it too mentioned places in the Central Plateau. Also the old story of Hi‘iaka was still popular, with her chants about the places, cold winds and fragrances of kupukupu. All served to keep the memory of Kūkaniloko, its chiefly center of Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā and the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau in the mind of the well-read Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian reader. Kūkaniloko was still visited, but how often in the later years of the 1890s is unclear.

With the overthrow of the monarchy, literature and perspectives on Hawaiian history changed – and this is a topic needing future research. We offer here only some general impressions and speculations relevant to Kūkaniloko. Territorial government officials and non-Hawaiian business leaders likely had a very different perspective of what was important in history and literature. But an interest in things Hawaiian was still maintained in the Hawaiian communities and among the Hawaiian elite, and even among some in the non-Hawaiian community. From 1900 through the 1920s and into the early 1930s, the dwindlingConfidential Hawaiian newspapers still presented historical and legendary accounts, often with the urgency to not lose the knowledge, and new compositions occurred. These accounts were now also frequently appearing in English publications – albeit often dramatically changing from pre-1880 forms – for example in Thrum’s Annual, Westervelt’s short stories, A.P. Taylor’s history, and Rice’s stories.93 Academic publications on Hawaiian history were likely less widely read – such as Stokes’ discussions of genealogies and dating in the 1930s.

Within this framework, Kūkaniloko had one last blossoming of attention. Thrum’s 1911 English article drew attention back to its history as recorded by Kamakau and Fornander. The Daughters’ initial protection of Kūkaniloko led to Webb’s manuscripts and to 1925 newspaper articles. Also John Holani Hao apparently composed his mele for the 1925 dedication. It was published in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa on May 25, 1925.94 This mele is as follows:

HE MELE NO KUKANILOKO

No Kukaniloko ko‘u aloha, For Ku-kani-loko is my love, Ke kupa noho kula a o Kalakoa, The native born that dwells on the plain of Ka-la-koa Kahi hanau hoi o na alii, Birth place indeed of the chiefs Wohi hoi a o Hawai‘i nei; Highest chiefs indeed of Hawai‘i here Walea i ke kui lei Ahihi, Accustomed to stringing wreaths of ahihi Lei hookipa no ka malihini; Wreath of entertainment for the stranger Paa mai uka i ka uhiwai; Finished from upland in the heavy mist O ke kehau anu ko ke kuahiwi; The cold dew of the mountain Halihali mai ana i ke ala, Bearing the fragrance Ke ala o maile Nohoanu; The fragrance of mana that dwells in the cold Auau aku i ka wai o Kuaikua Bathe in the water of Kua-i-kua Wai hooheno a na ‘lii; Cherished water of the chiefs Na mamo hoi a Kakuhihewa, The descendants indeed of Ka-kuhihewa 323

A na pua a ka Na‘i Aupuni; The offspring of the Conqueror of the Realm Nana i rula mai a pololei, Who ruled wisely Me ka ihe laumeki i ka lima; With the barbed spear in the hand A he puuwai koa me ka wiwoole; And the brave heart with fearlessness Imi maluhia no ka lahui; Seeking peace for the race. Hui pau ia mai no ailana, All united are the islands Mai Hawaii a Niihau From Hawai‘i to Nii-hau Noho hoomalu ia me ke kaulike Swelling in peace with justice Mamalahoa kanawai; Mamala Hoa is the law Hainaia mai ana ka puana, Told is the refrain No kukaniloko ko‘u aloha. For Ku-kani-loko is my love

But then strikingly, after the end of the 1920s and the early 1930s, Kūkaniloko fades away, as does overview information on pre-Kamehameha history and literature in general. Relatively few professional historians seem to have published overview material on traditional timesConfidential after the early 1930s. Academic historians largely began to focus on the times from Kamehameha I on (e.g., Kuykendall’s publications), as did the public school system. Archaeological work was largely focused at the Bishop Museum. In the 1930s the Museum’s work was on briefly listing sites on each island (e.g., McAllister’s 1933 Archaeology of Oahu), and then after the war years, work focused on excavation of individual sites in the islands to find objects and dates to identify where Hawaiians came from. Publications on general Hawaiian cultural practices continued, usually out of the Museum – farming (Handy), birthing (Pukui)95 – and Museum staff (Handy, Emory, Pukui, Beckwith, etc.) were aware of traditional era history, but overview histories of traditional era times seem generally not to have been widely published. These publications seem not to have spread widely among the larger public.96 Similarly, Hawaiian literature underwent changes. With the forceful suppression of the speaking of Hawaiian language in Hawai’i’s school system, native language speakers dramatically dropped starting in the 1920s. Hawaiian language newspapers largely came to an end,97 and to a degree Hawaiian literature (poetry, mythology, etc.) changed to an English language format and became less frequent. With the passing of generations into largely English-speaking communities, wide knowledge of the extent of older Hawaiian newspapers and their literature began to pass – although the Museum (notably through Pukui and her colleagues) continued translation work. Also hula and song compositions certainly continued in Hawaiian, although in a reduced and different format. Hawaiian communities clearly retained local stories and knowledge of some of their important places, but even this was changing in the retellings. Again, studies on the changes of this era need considerable research. But our impression is that broad knowledge on older traditional history – particularly that of O‘ahu and Kūkaniloko’s role in O‘ahu’s history – was fading into the background. But, this needs considerable work, for clearly Pukui, Elbert, Emory, Korn, Kenn, Kelsey, Kekahuna and others were looking at older material.

Pukui’s ‘Ōlelo No‘eau, which she collected from 1910 through the 1950s and which came from many sources, reflect some of the retained knowledge of the Central Plateau’s cultural landscape among those who knew the older records and information well. 324

He lā‘au ku ho‘okāhi, he lehua no Ka‘ala. A lone tree, a lehua of Ka‘ala. [An expression of admiration for an outstanding person, unequaled in beauty, wisdom, or skill.]98

Ka ua Kolowao o Ka‘ala. The Mountain-creeper rain of Ka‘ala. [This rain is accompanied by a mist that seems to creep among the trees.]99

Ka wahine hele lā o Kaiona, alualu wai li‘ulā o ke kaha pua ‘ōhai. The woman, Kaiona, who travels in the sunshine pursuing the mirage of the place where the ‘ōhai blossoms grow. [KaionaConfidential was a goddess of Ka‘ala and the Wai‘anae Mountains. She was a kind person who helped anyone who lost his way in the mountains by sending a bird, an ‘iwa, to guide the lost one out of the forest. In modern times Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop was compared to Kaiona in songs.]100

Nani Ka‘ala, he ki‘owai na ke kēhau. Beautiful Ka‘ala, a pool that holds the dew. [Praise of Mt. Ka‘ala, on O‘ahu, a depository for the dew.]101

Ke Kaha ‘ōhai o Kaiona. Kaiona’s place where the ‘ōhai grows. [Kaiona is a benevolent goddess whose home is Mt. Ka‘ala and vicinity. The ‘ōhai grew in profusion there. Because of her graciousness, Princess Bernice Pauahi Bishop was compared to this goddess in songs.]102

Līhu‘e hō‘ā wahie lālā koa. Līhu‘e lights fires with koa branches. [Līhu‘e, O‘ahu, once had a grove of koa trees whose branches were used for firewood.]103

Hao na kēpā o Līhu‘e i ke anu. The spurs of Līhu‘e dig in with cold. [Līhu‘e, O‘ahu, often gets very cold.]104

Halemano honi palai o uka. Halemano smells the ferns of the upland. [At Halemano, O‘ahu, the breezes bring the fragrance of ferns from the upland.]105 325

‘Ohu‘ohu Halemano i ka lau lehua. Bedecked is Halemano with lehua leaves. [An expression of admiration for a good-looking person.]106

A nui mai ke kai o Waialua, moe pupu‘u o Kalena i Hale‘au‘au. When the sea is rough at Waialua, Kalena curls up to sleep in Hale‘au‘au. [Applied to a person who prefers to sleep instead of doing chores. A play on lena (lazy), in Kalena, who was a fisherman, and hale (house) in Hale‘au‘au.]107

Ki‘ililī ka pua hau o Kalena. The hau blossoms of Kalena squat. [SaidConfidential of pretty young women who squat and do nothing - they are good lookers but not good workers. A play on lena (lazy) in Kalena.]108

But again, in this setting of the late 1930s to the 1950s, it appears that Kūkaniloko and O‘ahu’s traditional era history with the importance of the chiefly center of the Central Plateau faded. This was striking enough that Charles Kenn’s magazine article of 1937 on Kūkaniloko stated the following:

Kukaniloko – ancient birthplace and cradle of Oahu aliis of the highest rank. … Riding along the Kamehameha Highway you will see a Warrior Sign of the Hawaii Tourist Bureau pointing towards the ancient area. On the sign are three words – Hawaiian Birth Stones. You follow the direction along a seldom used road some quarter of a mile or more. You come to a green island of eucalyptus trees surrounded by pineapple plants. Enclosed by a rail and wire fence you see a scattered collection of large stones of various sizes, all in reclining positions. … You do not enter for the gate is locked but another sign you read. It tells you that “Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law – Daughters of Hawaii.”109

And his contemporary poem brings this point home.110

I Birthplace of Oahu’s sacred clans Temple within whose sanctuary only the elect may tread To safeguard the purity of royal descendants And assure the people of a sacred chief. 326

II Mothers of the highest lineage Come hither to bear their royal offspring In keeping with ancient traditions and rites To give the new-born child a pedigree.

III From here great events are heralded forth Such as the birth of a future sovereign And messengers are sent throughout the land To announce the birth of the sacred child.

IV “Go forth and seek a royal and fitting flower ConfidentialTo be strung to the child’s genealogy; Do not return until you succeed,” Is the command to the heralds of yore.

V This assures the perpetuation of sacred chiefs, And retains the mana – the omnipotent power Within the highest ranking clans That they may continue into the future.

VI Today, this once sacred domain Is left abandoned, without care. A weathered sign NO TRESPASSING greets the visitor To this former birthplace of sacred clans.

VII This is sacrilegious and filled with tragedy Someone should preserve this traditional landmark Amidst pineapple fields on Oahu’s bosom, This one-time birthplace of chiefly clans.

This concern with the receding of Kūkaniloko’s fame is also shown in one of Pukui’s ‘ōlelo no‘eau, which although published in 1983, were from her 1910-1950s collections of sayings, parts of chants, etc. that were taken from Hawaiian newspapers, family knowledge and conversations with older Hawaiians. It is not clear where she obtained this saying, but she viewed it as important from her perspective of the first half of the 1900s. The Hawaiian, her translation, and her clarification of the saying are as follows:

327

Papani ka uka o Kapela; pua‘i hānono wai ‘ole o Kūkaniloko; paki hunahuna ‘ole o Holoholokū; ‘a‘ohe mea nana e ‘a‘e paepae kapu o Līloa.

Close the upland of Kapela; no red water gushes from Kūkaniloko; not a particle issues from Holoholokū; there is none to step over the sacred platform of Līloa.

The old chiefs and their sacredness are gone; the descendants are no longer laid to rest at Ka-pela-kapu-o- Kaka‘e at ‘Īao; the descendants no longer point to Kūkaniloko on O‘ahu and Holoholokū on Kaua‘i as the sacred birthplaces; there is no one to tread on the sacred places in Waipi`o, Hawai‘i where Līloa once dwelt. [Pukui 1983]111 Confidential CARE BY THE WAIALUA HAWAIIAN CIVIC CLUB – 1950-1960

We are indeed happy .. to … do our bit to keep Kukaniloko presentable at all times for the sake of preserving this historical piece of Hawaii Nei. [1949 Henry Hughes, Jr., President Waialua Hawaiian Civic Club]112

Hawaiian Civic Clubs have played a unique and influential role in helping to shape the cultural traditions, landscape, and history of the Islands. Prince Jonah Kuhi‘o Kalaniana‘ole formed the first Hawaiian Civic Club in 1918 to promote Hawaiian culture and to encourage social consciousness, civic mindedness, and education within the Hawaiian community. Usually formed by a group of interested and civic-minded Native Hawaiians, these civic clubs generally have at their core a mission to improve the welfare of Hawaiians and to perpetuate and preserve various Hawaiian practices and traditions including Hawaiian history, language, art, crafts, dance, song, and music. Another mission has been to safeguard and protect sacred sites of historical, religious and cultural significance. Interestingly, and quite aptly, these Hawaiian civic clubs have been described as some of the oldest community-based grass roots organizations in the Islands.

We have very little information on the Waialua Hawaiian Civic Club’s activities at Kūkaniloko. Apparently some clearing took place periodically. Also, the Civic Club realized was that there were no markers for Kūkaniloko – “there is no Tourist Bureau marker.”113 They may have taken action on this point.

CARE BY THE HAWAIIAN CIVIC CLUB OF WAHIAWĀ – 1960 to 1992

The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā (HCCW) was established on November 10, 1960 by Cardinal Kuhio Thomas Sr. and Mary Kapai Keli‘ikipi Thomas -- branching off from the Hawaiian Civic Club of Waialua. In its 50 year history, the Hawaiian Civic 328

Club of Wahiawā has included over 300 members who have worked to meet the civic club’s mission – to inspire, educate, and encourage all things Hawaiian, seen and unseen and “to protect the privileges of Kūkaniloko because we love them for all time …” According to the Civic Club records, second, third, and even fourth generation descendents of some of the original founding and charter members continue to support the work of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā. Protection of the ‘āina, iwikūpuna, kupunama, and nā ‘ōpio remain foremost in the Civic Club’s mission.

For the purposes of this study, the work of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā has special importance and significance. According to the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā’s Constitution and By-laws, the stated purpose of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā is “to preserve and perpetuate the language, customs, traditions, foods and sites of our Hawaiian culture, past and present; and to maintain and guard the privileges of the Piko, Kūkaniloko.” In other words, the members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā view as one of their chartered tasks the protection and care of Kūkaniloko. Confidential

Club members explain that, according to historians, Kūkaniloko was established A.D. 1060 by O‘ahu Ali‘i Nanakaoko and his wife, Kahihiokalani, for the birth of their son Kapawa. This sacred birth rite continued for more than twenty generations until the birth of Kakuhihewa. The 180 or so rounded stones, many worn smooth by weather and time, remain distinguished and identifying. Here in the lands of the Lo Ali‘i, the purity of royal lineages was maintained giving ali‘i their godly status and their right to be leaders. The child born in the presence of chiefs was called an ali‘i, an akua, and a wela – a chief, a god, and a blaze of heat (Kamakau 1991:38).

329

Confidential

Figure 8-2. Jo-Lin Kalimapau (2nd from left) stands with some of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā’s founding members: (left to right) Gulstan Poepoe, Lurline Lee, Rose Poepoe, Barbara Pua'a, Leialoha Haleamao. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā)

In the early 1960s, the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā assumed the duties set forth by their associates of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Waialua and has cared for the site. According to Jo-Lin Kalimapau (Historian of the HCCW since 2008), in 1960 the founders of the HCCW were together one evening and decided to go to Kūkaniloko. When they got there, they felt the spirit of the kūpuna mā telling them to mālama this sacred place. So they left that evening compelled to take care of Kūkaniloko, and that’s how they began.

A Honolulu Star-Bulletin article explains that on August 25, 1962 the Civic Club undertook their first organized and scheduled cleanup of the Kūkaniloko site. Efforts included the “clearing and maintenance of the heiau at Kūkaniloko. At the present time the area is completely overgrown with tall weeds and Hilo grass, hiding from view rock formations and location of the sacred birthstone.” 114

330

Figure 8-3. Pictures of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā 's first clean up of Kūkaniloko in 1962. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā)

The Hawaiian CivicConfidential Club of Wahiawā secretary’s report documents the following:

“The fine spirit of cooperation, willingness, and enthusiasm displayed by our civic minded members Saturday, August 25th at the Kūkaniloko area, was genuinely gratifying. The group … reported for work in the early morning. After the prayer, the group was divided into small work parties … By 12 noon, the entire area which earlier was littered with all kinds of debri (sp), was restroed (sp) to what it might have resembled years ago. Though slightly scorched, what remains now are the historical stones, tall eucalyptus trees, and the club’s adopted Christmas tree … A dinner of laulau, poi, lomi salmon, chicken and long rice, cake, drinks were enjoyed by everyone at the home of Thomas Lopez.” 115

When sharing this article with us at her house, Jo-Lin marveled at this valuable account that documents all the details of what happened that day. “My friend Solomon, a second generation member, was one of the kids that were there that day. My other classmates, Cynthia and Pua, Aunty Momi’s daughter, were also there that day. Soon after they finished cleaning, they started playing the ukulele and singing. After they finished up there, they went to Uncle Tommy’s house and had dinner.” Jo-Lin also noted that the HCCW would frequently visit and have gatherings at Kaiaka Bay in Waialua makai to connect Kūkaniloko to the shore.

While interviewing some of the civic club members for our study, two very important members were repeatedly acknowledged for their commitment to the Club and for their dedication to caring for Kūkaniloko. These two members were Hiram Diamond, a founding member of the club, and Lurline Hinano (Thomas) Lee, the president of the HCCW for over 25 years. Hiram Diamond was acknowledged for working effortlessly to establish the “Historic Monument” status for Kūkaniloko. Lurline Hinano Thomas Lee was a charter member of the HCCW for over 48 years. Her parents, Cardinal Kuhio 331

Thomas and Mary Thomas were the founders of the HCCW, so it was only natural for Lurline and her sisters to join the club from the very onset. According to the club’s historian, Jo-Lin Kalimapau, Aunty Lurline was known for her life-long dedication to education, serving as a source of knowledge not only to her students at Leilehua High School and Mililani Waena Elementary, but to all of the HCCW club members. Aunty Lurline’s contributions will always be remembered by the HCCW. A resolution passed in 2009 by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs titled, “Remembering and Honoring with Fondest Aloha Kupuna Lurline Hinano (Thomas) Lee”, will help keep her legacy alive. The Lurline Hinano Lee Scholarship was established by HCCW in 2011.

Confidential

Figure 8-4. Hiram Diamond with his hula makana to Kūkaniloko. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā)

Throughout the 1960’s the Civic Club continued to take the lead in organizing cleanups and gatherings at Kūkaniloko. The club also attempted to start planting native plants at this time, but due to the lack of water on site, they could not carry out the cultural landscaping they envisioned.

In sharing the history of the HCCW with us, Jo-Lin Kalimapau described two of the Club’s resolutions that the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs adopted that relate to Kūkaniloko. The first resolution, “Urging the Department of Interior of the United States to Create a National Park of Kūkaniloko and its Surrounding Area in Wahiawā” was adopted by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs in 1993.116 This resolution, and other efforts by numerous individuals in the Club, including Hiram Diamond, pushed for federal protection of the site. He also helped place this historical site on both the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places in 1972 and the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. The second resolution, “Urging the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to Assist the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā to Provide Education to Protect The Traditional Kapu Privileges Of Kūkaniloko Because We Love Them For All Time” was adopted by the 332

Association in 2007. 117 This resolution, 07-19, was the first in the history of the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs to be submitted in ‘ōlelo Hawai‘i and accepted as presented (with an attached translation).

Since Kūkaniloko became a State Park in 1992, the Civic Club has continued to play an important role in caring for Kūkaniloko. This is primarily discussed in the next section of this chapter.

THE STATE MONUMENT: CARE BY STATE PARKS AND THE HAWAIIAN CIVIC CLUB OF WAHIAWĀ – 1992 – THE PRESENT

In the early 1990s with the petitions and encouragement by the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, the State of Hawai‘i took action to condemn the 0.5 acre birthstones area that had been protected since the early 1900s (even since Galbraith’s times) and 4.5 acres of land immediately around the birthstones – to protect the historic property under the public domain.Confidential Initially referred to as Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument, the site name was changed to Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Historic Site in 2003. (The final order of condemnation was on January 15, 1992. The land was purchased for $249,500.)118 A perpetual non-exclusive easement was given across Galbraith lands from North Kamehameha Highway (Whitmore intersection) to the site. The Division of State Parks in the Department of Land & Natural Resources was given jurisdiction for management and maintenance, and still has this jurisdiction today. Rarely realized today, the 4.5 acres that were around the original fenced site were still planted in pineapple in 1992, and had been for many years.119

Also in 1992, State Parks, DLNR was awarded $20,000 in Capital Improvement Project (CIP) planning funds for the Kūkaniloko site. The funding was to conduct historical and archaeological research and to develop a conceptual plan for the site including interpretation, facilities, visitation, resource management, and landscaping. In 1992 the State Parks’ archaeologists did a complete inventory of all the stones (preparing a transit map) with each stone numbered and documented through photographs.120 This is an invaluable management tool for Kūkaniloko – the first detailed recording of its stones. The conceptual plan was not done at this time, but it was the intent to develop this plan with public input and participation through a community advisory committee.

1993 Site Improvements121

In December 1993, with the assistance of heavy equipment, machinery, and operators from the Department of Public Works (City and County of Honolulu) under the direction of Tom Lenchanko (also with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawa), steps were taken to improve the new park.

Soon after the State acquired Kūkaniloko, there were several incidents of vandalism including littering, graffiti and scratching on the stones, moving the stones, breaking/chipping the stones, and scratching and defacing the trees. Much of the vandalism occurred because vehicles had easy access to the site. The plantation road 333

Confidential

Figure 8-5. 1993 era site improvements at Kūkaniloko (State Parks map).

circled the site, and the area was used for parking, drinking, and littering. In 1993, both ends of the dirt road running along the southern side of the site were barricaded to prevent vehicle traffic around and through the site. Dole Plantation agreed to block this roadway as alternate routes were available for plantation operations. It was agreed that a 334 berm of dirt and vegetation would be placed where the roadway intersected the park boundaries. Grading in December of 1993 covered the roadway, and it was no longer visible. This ended most of the vandalism at Kūkaniloko.

After the 1992 harvest, pineapple was no longer planted within the 5-acre Kūkaniloko park. So a primary aim of the December 1993 work at Kūkaniloko was to clear and grade the 4.5-acre buffer area. The furrows from the prior cultivation were leveled, and grass was planted. The larger property’s corners were marked with boulders. The aim of planting grass was that as it would be cut on a regular basis, it would create an open green space around the site and it provided clear visibility from Kamehameha Highway to discourage vandalism and illegal activities at the site.

The dirt roadway from the Whitmore intersection was to be used as access. And the December 1993 work created a small parking area, measuring approximately 100 feet on a side, created at the southeastern corner of the park. The parking area was lined with large boulders Confidentialto control traffic and keep cars out of the grassy park area. However, a service entrance with a chain was built to allow for maintenance of the grassy area and birthstones.

During these 1993 site improvements, Tom Lenchanko had the alignment of several boulders placed within the 5-acre parcel to symbolize the traditions associated with Kūkaniloko. Two alignments of 18 stones each run from the parking lot toward the site. These stones represented the 36 chiefs that Kamakau’s 1865 article described as witnessing the birth of a child. Two large boulders were placed at the start of this V- shaped arrangement of the 36 stones. Another 48 boulders were placed along the western property line. These boulders represented the 48 high-ranking chiefs that Kamakau said witnessed the cutting of the piko in Ho‘olonapahu heiau. In addition, he had large boulders mark three of the property corners to represent wahine, kāne, and keiki. At this time in December of 1993, using the excess dirt from the leveling of the furrows, a dirt platform was also built at the Whitmore Village end of the parcel with the aim of becoming a possible overview and being used for cultural activities. This has become the pā hula for the site.

According to Martha Yent of the State Parks, these actions were not legally approved by the State. In an e-mail, Martha Yent stated:

The plan in 1993 was only to level the furrows after the final harvest. The “extra” soil from this leveling became the dirt mounds. Boulders were initially intended to block off a parking area and prevent vehicle access into the site area. The mounds were created and the additional boulders placed without any approved plan from State Parks and therefore, there was no Chapter 6E-8 process followed. It may be more correct to say that State Parks allowed the stones to remain after being placed there but it was not something we approved.

335

1994 Actions at Kūkaniloko

In August 1994, two interim interpretive signs were put up.122 One sign was placed at the end of the parking lot, just where visitors walked into the grassy area towards the “birthstones”. The other sign was placed not far from the boulder cluster to the east. These signs provided a brief overview of the cultural significance of the site, encouraged that respect and preservation of the site, and informed visitors of Chapter 6E and the penalties for damaging the site (as a means of facilitating prosecution of any vandalism). The exact interpretive text was:

This site is sacred to the Hawaiian people. As many as 800 years ago, chiefs and chiefesses came here for the birth of their children. A child born at Kūkaniloko was assured high ranking status. Please respect this sacred area. Do not damage the stones by marking them or leaving cones. Preserve Hawaii’s past for the future. It is unlawful to take, excavate, destroy, orConfidential alter any historic site on sate land. Any person who violates this law is subject to a fine of $10,000. (HRS, Chapter 6E, 11). Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of State Parks.

Also in 1994, the State’s Historic Preservation Division revised the National Register form and description of Kūkaniloko to include the new 4.5 acres acquired by State Parks. This form included more information from older sources, and undoubtedly helped move this older information on Kūkaniloko back to the forefront. It is quite likely that State Parks requested this revised description. It was strongly supported by the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, with several members sending letters to the Hawai‘i Review Board of Historic Places prior to their meeting on this matter (.e.g., Cardinal Kuhio Thomas for Lurlene Lee, President of the Civic Club).123 The Historic Preservation Division’s History and Culture Branch was the lead on preparing this form, with Holly McEldowney (now with State Parks) significantly contributing to this effort.

1995 Actions at Kūkaniloko124

In January 1995, the legal easement to Kūkaniloko Birthstones from the Whitmore Village intersection at Kamehameha Highway was surveyed. This legal easement was then graded after the last harvest of pineapple from the surrounding land. This grading improved the access to the site, since the roadway had become steep and rutted.

The Hawai‘i Visitors Bureau (HVB) provided a warrior sign with the site name for Kūkaniloko in 1995. (The sign was stolen from the parking lot in 1996, and in 1997 a new sign was installed along North Kamehameha Highway near the entry road to the site.)

In July 1995, a large name sign -- KUKANILOKO BIRTHSTONES STATE MONUMENT -- was placed along the edge of the parking area, just next to the grassy area. 336

1992-1995 Maintenance125

In these years, State Parks had no staff assigned to maintain the park. The park caretaker from the Wahiawā Freshwater State Recreation Area and the State Parks roving crew mowed the grassy area and emptied the parking lot trash cans. Community volunteers –notably the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and Friends of Kūkaniloko – also helped in basic clean-up activities around the “birthstones” themselves.

One maintenance problem has been the large number of “offerings” being left at the site, particularly on the boulders. Some of the offerings have been traditional Hawaiian offerings such as lei, pu‘olu, and pa‘akai; others were non-traditional (e.g. coins, candles, and incense). To encourage visitors to be mindful about offerings, the State Park erected signs that asked the public to respect the sacred site, and not to leave coins because it damaged the boulders. Confidential

Figure 8-6. Early site improvements at Kūkaniloko. Hawai‘i Visitors Bureau sign on the left. On the right are the two large stones and 36 stones in two alignments leading to the birthstones that were added to the site in 1993.

State Representative Marcus Oshiro (District 40), whose House of Representatives district includes Wahiawā, has been a long-time advocate for and supporter of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones site. In February 1995, Rep. Oshiro, on behalf of constituent concerns, contacted Michael Wilson, then Chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, regarding the status of the Kūkaniloko site.126 In response to Rep. Oshiro’s inquiry, an official status report was prepared by State Parks.127 The report summarized the 1992-1995 activities conducted at Kūkaniloko. This report also mentioned that CIP planning funds were available to develop a conceptual plan for the site including historical and archaeological research, interpretation, resource management, visitation, and site improvements (facilities). State Parks planned to 337

establish a community advisory committee to assist with this planning. Also, State Parks noted that they were considering establishing a curatorship agreement with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, so the Club could formally be allowed a greater role in caring for the park in line with their long history of caring for Kūkaniloko. This statewide curator program was established in 1987 by the Historic Sites Section within the Division of State Parks, before it split off as the State Historic Preservation Division in 1990. When it split, State Parks began their own separate curatorship program, that required review the by Historic Preservation before the agreements could be finalized (as a Chapter 6E action).

The 1997 Curatorship Agreement

In 1997, the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko officially entered into curatorship agreement with the State Parks – to help care for the site.128 This agreement with State Parks would have also been reviewed by the Historic Preservation DivisionConfidential (as it is required under the State’s historic preservation law, Chapter 6E). The aim of these curatorship agreements is to obtain the assistance of community groups in maintaining important historic properties. The first of these agreements was for the South Point National Historic Landmark in Ka‘ū – the curator group being Ka ‘Ohana o Ka Lae and the landowner being the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Not long after, an agreement was established for care of Ulupō Heiau, a State Park in Kailua. The aim is that for Native Hawaiian cultural sites, curator groups should be Native Hawaiian organizations. These agreements allow the curator groups to do certain specified tasks, tasks that will not adversely impact the site. The curator groups are not allowed to do certain things, and are specifically not allowed to undertake any additional tasks beyond those approved – without amending the agreement – to ensure that accidental damage to the historic properties does not occur. Usually these agreements have a term of 5 years, and often can be renewed.

The 1997-2002 agreement for the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument allowed the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko to serve as the curator for Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Historic Site. The agreement was renewed for another 5-year term in 2003. The agreement stipulates that the staff of State Parks shall oversee the operations and activities of the curator for compliance with the agreement. This task was assigned to the archaeological staff of State Parks. More specifically, the curatorship responsibilities in the 2003 curatorship agreement include:

1. Maintain the grounds in a way that prevents ground disturbance and damage to the structural integrity of the site. 2. Designate volunteer supervisors who may sponsor volunteer projects and educational tours. The State Parks must be notified of these projects if they involve more than 25 individuals. 3. Assist in coordinating volunteer efforts with other organizations. 4. Discourage littering at the site, and all cut and gathered vegetation should be taken to designated areas. 338

5. Assist with maintenance of the interpretive signs, site name signs, and plant name plaques. 6. Periodically check the site to prevent vandalism and damage, and if damage is observed to notify State Parks. 7. The option of undertaking landscaping, watering, and planting with the approval of specific plans by the State Parks. 8. The option of retaining the services of professional archaeologists in order to excavate portions of the site to obtain data which will contribute to the interpretation of the site. However, excavation work is contingent upon the prior approval of specific plans for the archaeological work by the State Park and the Historic Preservation Division. 9. The option of restoration work at the site, contingent upon approval of specific plans by the State Parks. 10. Assist with cultural protocols and consulted about proposed activities at the site. 11. Submit an annual report of its activities at Kūkaniloko Confidential As a result of this agreement, the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko have done monthly clean-ups at the park, have had members available to do educational work with visitors, have coordinated visits and ceremonies by Hawaiian groups, and other activities.

The curatorship agreement between the State Parks and the HCCW expired in 2008 and has not yet been renewed. However, Jo-Lin Kalimapau assured us that she has been in discussions with Martha Yent at the State Parks office and they were working on renewing the curatorship agreement. Additionally, Martha Yent shared that she prepared all the necessary documents for a curatorship agreement renewal and sent them to HCCW in March 2011, but has not received anything back from them as of our last e-mail communication with her in June 2011. Martha also noted that she informed the Historic Preservation Division and OHA of the State Parks plans to renew the agreement.

1999-2000 Interpretive Planning

During the 20th Legislative Session (1999), the State House of Representatives adopted House Resolution No. 188, “URGING THE DIVISION OF STATE PARKS TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY TO IMPROVE THE POTENTIAL OF KUKANILOKO BIRTHSTONES AS A POTENTIAL CULTURAL TOURISM SITE”.129

House Resolution No. 188 urged the Division of State Parks to conduct a feasibility study to consider the kinds of improvements that could be made to the Kūkaniloko site. The resolution recognized the cultural and historical importance of the Kūkaniloko site but noted that visitation is hampered by the condition of the access road off Kamehameha Highway. It was felt that by correcting the impediments with various site improvements, the site could become an asset for tourism. The following specific concerns were identified in the resolution:

1. Improving the easement to the site; 339

2. Working in collaboration with the trustees of the Galbraith Estate to develop the potential cultural tourism enhancement of Kūkaniloko Birthstones; 3. Developing other inducements to enhance safe, informative, visits to the site by school children and tourists; and 4. Other objectives which will encourage visitors to respect the sanctity of the historic site to preserve it for posterity;

The Division of State Parks was requested to report findings and recommendations to the Legislature before the convening of the regular legislative session of 2000. In response to House Resolution No. 188, the Department of Land and Natural Resources prepared and submitted to the Legislature in December 1999 a report titled: “Feasibility Study of Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument – Wahiawā, O‘ahu.” 130

BecauseConfidential of the limited time available to conduct the feasibility study, efforts focused on assessing the existing situation, obtaining an update of plans that might affect the site, and soliciting community input regarding the future of the site. A community “advisory committee,” consisting of representatives from various community associations/clubs and neighborhood groups was formed and played a crucial role in the feasibility study. (This committee included members of the Civic Club.) Additionally, several governmental and political representatives were invited to participate in the study. Relevant documents and notes are available that specifically identify all of the groups and individuals participating in the feasibility study. Additionally, detailed advisory committee meeting notes are available for review.

The advisory committee was asked to address three goals: (1) develop “mission” and “significance” statements to identify what is appropriate for Kūkaniloko Birthstones as a foundation for site planning; (2) develop a short-term (1-5 years) conceptual plan for the site; and (3) develop a long-range (5-10 years) vision for the site. The advisory committee was able to develop both a mission statement and a significance statement.131

The Mission Statement was as follows:

“To protect, preserve, and interpret Kūkaniloko Birthstones, one of the most significant cultural and historical sites on O‘ahu, for future generations and to facilitate visitation for the appreciation and understanding of the site and its cultural traditions.”

This is the Significance Statement:

“Kūkaniloko Birthstones is one of O‘ahu’s most significant cultural sites for it was here that the purity of the royal lineages of Hawai‘i was preserved and recited. Status and rank were the foundation for Hawai‘i’s complex social, political, religious, and economic system and birth at Kūkaniloko assured high-ranking ali‘i status for a child. Kūkaniloko remains significant today as a site for the education and perpetuation of the Hawaiian cultural traditions and values in a natural, outdoor setting.” 340

The study noted that the feasibility of improving the Kūkaniloko site as a cultural tourism site were explored in terms of both a short-term (1-5 years) plan and long-range (5-10 years) vision. It was cautioned that the feasibility study should be viewed as a preliminary step in planning for the site. The study provided a valuable venue for consultation with the community about Kūkaniloko and helped identify some of the possible future improvements for the site.

Of critical importance was the finding in the feasibility study that the combined community (both the Hawaiian and Wahiawā communities) displayed a unified and deeply-felt concern regarding respect for the sacred nature of Kūkaniloko and its importance to the Hawaiian people (past, present, and future). The report noted:

“Kūkaniloko is considered by some to be the most significant and sacred cultural site on O‘ahu, which raises a concern about the Confidentialappropriateness of Kūkaniloko as a cultural tourism site. If there are any developments or site improvements done to promote cultural tourism at Kūkaniloko, they must be done with a sensitivity to the cultural values and traditions of the Site. Inviting visitors to a cultural site also means that resource management measures must be in place to manage, protect, and preserve the cultural resource from damage, vandalism, and misuse. Rather than viewing Kūkaniloko Birthstones as a cultural tourism site, many believe that the value of the Site is in the role it can play as an outdoor classroom to educate and perpetuate Hawaiian cultural traditions.”132

Interpretive Plan – The Placement of Interpretive Signs

While the above planning work was ongoing, in May 1999, an Interpretive Plan was prepared by the Division of State Parks for the Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument.133 The plan was prepared in conjunction with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and Friends of Kūkaniloko, curators of the Kūkaniloko Birthstones. The plan provided background information on Kūkaniloko and outlined a proposal for three interpretive signs on the Kūkaniloko site. The interpretive signs, developed through funding assistance from Wahiawā Hospital and the Wahiawā Community and Business Association, were designed to promote visitor appreciation and cultural understanding of the historical site. According to Marth Yent, State Parks worked intimately with the community advisory group which included Kalama Makaneole, Tom Lenchanko, and Daniel Au, among others, to design and create the signs. It was a long and tedious process, but it was Martha’s understanding that everyone was satisfied with the final outcome. The plan and signage text were reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation Division in June 1999 with some slight suggestions for wording changes.134

The interpretive project at the Kūkaniloko site represented a successful working partnership between the Division of State Parks, the site curators (Hawaiian Civic Club of 341

Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko), and the Wahiawā community. In conjunction with the Centennial of Wahiawā, the curators invited community leaders and government officials to visit Kūkaniloko. These visits and discussions led to community interest in and support for interpretive signs at the Kūkaniloko site.

The three signs are shown in the accompanying figures. They were placed just off the parking area at the entry into the grassy area.

Confidential

Figure 8-7. Sign #1, KŪKANILOKO: Birthplace of Ali'i

342

Confidential

Figure 8-8. Sign #2, WAHIAWĀ: The Sacred Uplands

Figure 8-9. Sign #3, MARKING TIME AND PLACE 343

The signs were erected in 2000 and a large dedication ceremony was held to celebrate this achievement. According to Representative Marcus Oshiro, the day of the interpretive sign blessing ceremony was a time of great excitement, enthusiasm and hope for the future of Kūkaniloko. The community along with representatives from the State Parks, the Wahiawā Association Board, the Wahiawā Hospital Association, and the Wahiawā Community and Business Association were all in attendance. Representative Oshiro described the event as a, “Joyous occasion and a high point where we all felt so proud. We were going to have these interpretive signs, first class, in color, bullet proof almost, for all of the world to see that explain the significance of Kūkaniloko as an archaeological site, place of worship, place of astronomy, and learning center. I was so pleased at how it all came together, with everyone coming together to work on it. It was a big day, and it took years for it to come together because it took along time to build up the trust with the community.”

A brochureConfidential was also developed to accompany the signs, but there is no means of distributing this brochure on-site. However, it has been shared during programs and group visits.

Figure 8-10. Signs located at entrance to the grassy area of Kūkaniloko. (Photo courtesy of State Parks)

Other Actions Taken as Part of the Interpretive Plan

Another facet of the plan was to review resource management concerns and propose recommendations that would promote the long-term protection and preservation of the Kūkaniloko complex. The major resource management issues that were identified 344

in 1999 as part of the Interpretive Plan are included below. At the time of this study, some of the issues have been addressed while others have still not been dealt with.

 Impact of the trees: The eucalyptus trees were planted in the 1940s and the coconut trees about 1970. It was identified that the coconut trees have the greater potential to damage the stones because of falling nuts, and some trees were removed to protect the stones. The eucalyptus trees were also a concern because of the impact that trees have on the view corridor to the Wai‘anae range. As of this date, the eucalyptus trees have not been cut down.

 Vandalism: A history of vandalism has been documented at the site from scratching on the stones to fires that have fractured the stones. Steps to reduce vandalism were initiated with vehicle barriers such as the large boulder and chains at the entrance of the park, the “site protection” signs, andConfidential the presence and work of the curators who continue to educate site visitors today.

 Offerings: Some offerings such as coins, candles, and incense were identified as seriously damaging to the stones. As with the vandalism problems, steps have been taken to discourage offerings through signs and visitor education.

 Preservation of the cultural and historical setting of the site: This was initiated in 1993 with the establishment of an open space buffer – the grassy area around the stones, but ideas for additional buffers around the site were discussed as part of this plan.

 View corridors: Maintaining the culturally significant view corridors from the site, especially those along the Wai‘anae range, remained of paramount importance, and State Parks have taken measure to keep the view plane unobstructed through the 5 acre grassy area that was set up in 1993.

2005-Present Management and Actions at the Park

The last five to six years have seen disagreements arise between the State Parks and representatives of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and Friends of Kūkaniloko, and this has lead to a strained relationship between the two entities.

Unfortunately, the interpretive signs were vandalized around 2005 and were removed in 2006 to allow for improvements in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plan had been to reinstall the signs within an accessible concrete slab in the same general location and adjacent to an accessible parking stall.135 At present the signs are being stored at the Wahiawā Fresh Water Park. We were not able to get a clear picture of why these interpretive signs were not put back up in the park, but 345

according to State Parks, replacement signs could be reordered and put back up at Kūkaniloko if the community wants this. However, apparently money issues exist for putting them back up. Clearly issues exist, and unfortunately the signs – that everyone once seemed pleased with – are not up at Kūkaniloko. Indeed, there are no substantive interpretive signs at Kūkaniloko today.

In 2006, State Parks had to address American Disabilities Act issues, because Kūkaniloko is a public site. Thus, they planned to build one parking stall for the disabled as part of the requirements of the American Disabilities Act. In 2006, the state began excavating the parking area, but halted their construction almost immediately because of protests from members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā. According to Martha Yent of State Parks, the State proposed to put the parking stall in the southeast corner near the entry to the grassy area, and then re-erect the interpretive signs nearby, so neither would visually impact the park. “We were only going to put in one ADA parking stall. So the idea was to have the stall by the front entrance so elderly and handicapped people could get to theConfidential signs and view the site from that location.” Martha explained that they had the initial okay from representatives of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, but when they started the excavation, members objected and stopped the process. Concerns were that the excavation seemed more extensive than they thought, and because foreign material was being brought in to construct the stall. State Parks met with members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā to discuss this issue, and the outcome was that State Parks decided not to build this parking stall and requested a waiver from the State Historic Preservation Division based on the cultural and historical concerns.

346

Figure 8-11. Vandalism of Interpretive Sign in 2006. (Photo courtesy of State Parks)

Confidential

Figure 8-12. Initial excavations for ADA parking stall. (Photo courtesy of State Parks)

Not long after a member of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā blocked off the access road near the Whitmore Village intersection with boulders and a chain. According to State Parks, this individual’s reasoning was that it would prevent people from coming in at night and keep squatters away. However, State Parks did not approve this action, and after it was done, they were concerned that in essence it prevented use of the access road and safe and accessible parking. School buses could no longer come in, so when school groups asked about visiting, Martha Yent indicated that “I just have to tell them that they have to disembark the students at the highway and then the bus may have to go somewhere else and turn around.”

Other issues have arisen that State Parks has expressed concerns about – the building of platforms within the grassy area without getting prior approval of State Parks being one. Others are described in the chapter on current preservation problems.

However, these disputes are definitely not just about State Parks’ concerns. The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā has some issues with State Parks. They are concerned about the name of the park, which was changed unilaterally by State Parks. Originally, when placed on the register in 1972 and 1973, it was identified as "Kukaniloko Birthstones State Monument." In 2003, State Parks began referring to Kūkaniloko as a "State Historic Site" and changed some of the brochures, documents, and signs to reflect this new nomenclature. When members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā found out about this change, they were very upset. Jo-Lin Kalimapau shared her thoughts with us: 347

The original signs and brochures read “State Monument”, but now they have been changed to “State Historic Site.” We as the families will not address Kūkaniloko as a “State Historic Site” because the State changed the name without consultation or notification to anyone. Kūkaniloko complies with their definition of monument, because the state named it as a monument. State Parks re-printed books and brochures that now say “State Historic Site.” That’s why we stopped passing out the brochures because it was hypocritical to do so if we continue to acknowledge Kūkaniloko as a “State Monument.” All of the brochures say “State Historic Site.” It doesn’t make sense because the actual signs themselves say “State Monument.” The State’s newly printed documents with renderings of the signs are captioned “State Historic Site.” So that’s a lie! This is really important to us, and the State doesn’t think it’s important. It’s an ominous issue and by what authorization does the State have the right to change the monument status without consulting the living descendants of those who are buried in our ‘āina? SoConfidential this is really the important of the TCP: a living testimony and verification of the truth.

When asked what the difference is between the “State Monument” designation of Kūkaniloko versus the “Historic Site” designation, Martha Yent of State Parks explained:

I reviewed the nomenclature of all the State parks to try and determine when the term “Monument” was used. In some cases, it refers to a National Natural Landmark, such as ‘Iao Valley and Diamond Head State Monuments. In the 1970s, monument was applied to all of the heiau, including Ulupō Heiau and Pu‘u o Manuka Heiau. I didn’t feel comfortable that people really understood why a historic site was a monument. I felt “Historic Site” would create a better understanding of what it is, and why it’s being protected. A monument is often perceived as a built structure that recognizes an event or a person.

I would say that State Parks just reassessed the nomenclature and in our mind “Monument” didn’t give it any greater status, except where designated in State law, such as is the case with ‘Iolani Palace and Diamond Head. We also looked at the National Parks Service’s nomenclature, and they use “Monument”, but it’s more for natural areas. So we tried to develop a uniform nomenclature, and have a basis for why we used a given name for a given park. And we use “State Historical Park” where it’s a large complex with numerous sites and features, and in my mind Kūkaniloko is a single site as opposed to a complex of sites. Lapakahi is an example of a “State Historical Park”, Ulupō Heiau was changed to a “State Historical Park” because it’s not just a heiau, but a complex of sites associated with the heiau.

However State Parks seemed willing to discuss this matter further. Marth Yent shared, “I’m not saying that we can’t change the name of a park or a site, and we have 348

changed some names of parks. For instance it used to be called Kamoa Point State Historical Park, and we changed it to Keolanahihi after Holly McEldowney’s research and working with the advisory group. So we are free to change a park name, we just go to the board and document why and how we’re doing it. So if the Civic Club has really strong feelings about this they can share them with me, and we can talk about it.”

The above are a few incidences that have led to the strained relationship between State Parks and representatives of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and Friends of Kūkaniloko. The curatorship agreement expired in 2008, and has not been reinstated at this point. However, Jo-Lin Kalimapau (President of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā) shared that she is in discussions with Marta Yent at this time, and it is her hope that they can work together to reinstate the curatorship agreement because the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko have been and will continue to care for Kūkaniloko for time immemorial. State Parks also acknowledged that the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko have been committed to caring for KūkanilokoConfidential for decades, and that their consistent presence has kept people from desecrating the site. All still care for Kūkaniloko. But management issues do exist today.

KŪKANILOKO AND THE CENTRAL PLATEAU IN HAWAIIAN LITERATURE AND HISTORY FROM THE 1960s TO THE PRESENT

Interestingly, in 1960 knowledge about Kūkaniloko, the chiefly center of Līhu‘e and the Central Plateau largely was recalled by few groups. The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā still knew about Kūkaniloko. Some hula halau undoubtedly performed Hi‘iaka’s chants about the Central Plateau. Some historians and knowledgeable community members knew about Kūkaniloko (such as Kenn, Emory, Pukui and others). But this information was not widely perceived by the academic community or the general public. Again, the changes in public understanding of Hawaiian history, literature, and issues since 1960 is a study waiting to take place. It is complex, and we offer only a few general impressions and ideas here.

The Bishop Museum translators published translations of parts of John Papa ‘Ī‘ī’s and Samuel Kamakau’s Hawaiian language newspaper articles in 1959, 1961 and 1964 – as Fragments of Hawaiian History, Ruling Chiefs of Hawai‘i, and Ka Po‘e Kahiko: The People of Old. In some ways, this was a precursor of a wider reawakening of knowledge about early Hawaiian history. But Ruling Chiefs included little about O‘ahu’s early history and none of Kamakau’s articles about Kūkaniloko.

With the 1970s, things dramatically began changing – in a wide array of arenas. Archaeologists were still primarily looking at archaeological site patterns, but not blending in the oral histories. The federal and state historic preservation laws were created at the end of the 1960s – as some of the social and environmental laws of this period – and they began to be implemented in the early 1970s, leading to the creation of the Hawaii Historic Preservation Office. This office’s initial focus was on listing important historic places and putting them on the State and National Registers of Historic 349

Places. These lists were not widely known by the public, but this is what led to Kūkaniloko being put on the National Register in 1973. These laws increasingly led to archaeological work being required in conjunction with development, and professional reports were written on findings. While the quality of reports varied greatly in the 1970s- 1980s, older traditional era oral histories began to resurface, initially out of Bishop Museum reports which included separate history sections by Dorothy Barrere and then by Marion Kelly. However, these were often chapters in a report, and the larger emphasis was on archaeology, and the archaeological interpretations often overlooked the traditional era oral histories. These reports were also linked to development projects, so larger overviews of history were less common, and archaeological work on O‘ahu was fairly limited to areas with development (Ko Olina, Waikīkī, etc.). But in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some overviews started to be written that did look at traditional era oral histories (e.g., Hommon and Cordy)136 and some were emphasizing this need (e.g., Dye).137

Since 1990,Confidential oral histories are more commonly being linked with archaeological interpretation, although not as much as we would like to see (as we noted in the Introduction to this report). But the 1994 revised National Register Form did address Kūkaniloko, and its place in O‘ahu’s history – although the general public rarely is aware of the National Register. An overview of O‘ahu’s history was published in 1996, and again in 2002, that blended oral histories and archaeology and early historical records; and it did mention Kūkaniloko, Līhu‘e as its chiefly center, and O‘ahu’s history – and this study was more widely available to the public. Also in the 1990s and increasingly today, these archaeological studies are including interviews with the local Hawaiian community, and more information is now coming back out of the community. Clearly, the very recent GANDA research for the Army at Schofield Barracks is now also using this community information and traditional era historical information – providing more information on Kūkaniloko, the chiefly center and the Central Plateau.

In the 1970s, professional historians (e.g., Daws) were still largely interested in the 1800s – the monarchy era beginning with Kamehameha. This began to change with anthropological historical work in the early 1970s by Sahlins (with the aid of Barrere), which used Kingdom land and archival records. By the end of the 1970s, Sahlins was doing a large-scale project on Wai‘alua, blending archival records and old oral histories into a history of Wai‘alua – published in 1992.138 As spin off from this work, historians and anthropological historians began to do more work with traditional era oral histories and archival records – notably Kame‘eleihiwa’s work.139

Also, in the 1970s, Hawaiian Studies programs and language programs began to blossom. In the 1970s-1980s, more translations of Hawaiian newspaper literature began to appear, from these emerging Hawaiian studies programs, from Hawaiian language programs (such as those where Rubellite Johnson taught), from Charlot’s Religion classes, and from the Bishop Museum translation publication program. As these programs became more active, more teaching of Hawaiian history began that expanded history back beyond Kamehameha – teaching students oral histories and genealogies and how to access archival records. And over the last 10 years these programs have fostered 350

the push back to wider archival records – the full range of Hawaiian newspapers for example. And importantly, new literature compositions have begun (notably early on the poetry of Haunani-Kay Trask) and new interests in older literature. The new literature remains tied to Hawaiian metaphors – the lands and well known places, the winds, the gods, famous chiefs.

For almost two decades now, many academics have now come back to using traditional era oral histories and literature. These researchers are spread in different disciplines – Political Science, English, Religion, Hawaiian Studies, Hawaiian-Pacific Studies, Hawaiian Language, History, Anthropology – but they are all advocating for a more holistic view of Hawaiian history and literature. Kūkaniloko and O‘ahu history have come out as a result of this.

With the Hawaiian renaissance, issues on land and community activism have also arisen. The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and its offshoots have entered this arena, notably in the Confidential1990s, because of their concern about Kūkaniloko. They have brought back knowledge of older literature (John Holani Hao’s mele for Kūkaniloko) and new ideas, as well as caring for the site. One mele that they have brought back to the forefront is John Holani Hao’s mele: He Mele no Kūkaniloko (Song of Kūkaniloko) – now with spellings with ‘okina and kahako:140

No Kūkaniloko ko‘u aloha, For Kūkaniloko is my love, Ke kupa noho kula a o Kalakoa, The native born that dwells on the plain of Kalakoa Kahi hanau hoi o na alii, Birth place indeed of the chiefs Wohi hoi a o Hawai‘i nei; Highest chiefs indeed of Hawai‘i here Walea i ke kui lei Ahihi, Accustomed to stringing wreaths of ahihi Lei hookipa no ka malihini, Wreath of entertainment for the stranger Paa mai uka i ka uhiwai; Finished from upland in the heavy mist O ke kehau anu ko ke kuahiwi; The cold dew of the mountain Halihali mai ana i ke ala, Bearing the fragrance Ke ala o maile Nohoanu; The fragrance of mana that dwells in the cold Auau aku i ka wai o Kuaikua Bathe in the water of Kuaikua Wai ho‘oheno a na alii; Cherished water of the chiefs Na mamo hoi a Kakuhihewa, The descendants indeed of Kakuhihewa A na pua a ka Na‘i Aupuni; The offspring of the Conqueror of the Realm Nana i rula mai a pololei, Who ruled wisely Me ka ihe laumeki i ka lima; With the barbed spear in the hand A he pu‘uwai koa me ka wiwo‘ole And the brave heart with fearlessness Imi maluhia no ka lahui; Seeking peace for the race. Hui pau ia mai no ailana, All united are the islands Mai Hawaii a Ni‘ihau From Hawai‘i to Ni‘ihau Noho ho‘omalu ia me ke kaulike Swelling in peace with justice Mamalahoa kanawai; Mamala Hoa is the law Hainaia mai ana ka puana, Told is the refrain No Kūkaniloko ko‘u aloha. For Kūkaniloko is my love 351

[2009, Desilets et al – Mele and translation provided by the historian of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, August 2009. Spelling and punctuation from Desilets et al.]

And not to forget the huge proliferation and popularity of hula since the 1970s. Kumu hula are clearly spreading knowledge on old stories and histories. They have come themselves or brought their halau to Kūkaniloko. Compositions linked to Kūkaniloko and its surrounding cultural landscape are often being performed there, including recent compositions (e.g., Keali‘i Reichel’s “Maika‘i ka ‘Oiwi o Ka‘ala”) (to be mentioned in the next chapter).

So the old is being brought to the forefront, being recombined and retold. We expect to see new compositions (in Hawaiian and English) and new histories that touch on Kūkaniloko,Confidential its chiefly center at Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā, and the Central Plateau as a result of all this rising interest in academia, among kumu hula, and among the public.

THE RETURN OF KEANINI

We cannot leave the current history of Kūkaniloko without mentioning the apparent return of the Keanini stone to the Kūkaniloko area. As described earlier in this report, this stone with a Hawaiian history associated with Keanini’ulaokalani was removed from a road construction area by Galbraith to the Kūkaniloko birthing stone area in the late 1880s, with his commitment for keeping it there. In 1923 another smaller boot-shaped stone was found and moved next to the Keanini stone, and became linked with it (considered by some a companion stone). When the Daughters of Hawai‘i took over care of Kūkaniloko and the area became cleared off, largely non-Hawaiian plantation workers came to believe that this stone had healing powers. The burning of candles, offering of non-traditional objects, and littering of the birthing stone area became a huge preservation issue for the Daughters. Eventually they had the Keanini stone and its companion moved into Wahiawā town in 1926 (near the Wahiawā cemetery on California Street), where they remained largely non-Hawaiian worshipped objects. However, some Hawaiians did visit it for healing purposes. For example, Ginger Hala stated that her grandmother, Alice Greenwood, had back pain and was healed by the pohaku.141 Greenwood learned from Steamboat Pauahi that “his sister was supposed to have died as a baby but because of the healing powers of the stones she lived”.142

There are very different views of the stories of these stones in the community today, than existed in the 1920s and back to the 1880s. Alice Greenwood gave us this story on how the stones became known for healing:

George Galbraith was cleaning the area [at Kaukonahua] and that night he went to sleep and in a dream the stone was talking to him. The next day he gathered his foremen (some Hawaiian) and said take him to the stone. He and his 352

men took the stones to Kūkaniloko and in the wake of everything some of the men were almost killed by being rolled over by the stone but they didn't. So through them is how it all spread that the stone had healing powers.143

Many people in the community mention the story of the Daughters of Hawai‘i attempting to remove the stones and their reappearing back at Kūkaniloko (Gilbert Flores among these). Elithe Kahn gave the following story:

Mr. Galbraith gave the stone to a lady Mrs. Swan. She was in the Daughters of Hawaii. Then each time they moved the stone it appeared back at Kūkaniloko. The third time this 90 year old woman said, she as a little girl saw a carriage taking the stone back to its present location and during that time she saw the stone roll off and break into several pieces.Confidential Those pieces were part of the bigger stone, so they cemented the broken parts together. So there were three pieces of the stone. So the piko stone is the one on the left and the piko is in it. Then the heart of the stone is the tall one.144

Alice Greenwood shared a similar story.

The Daughters of Hawai‘i said that the healing stones do not belong there. They got a big truck and took them to California Avenue to a graveyard (no longer a graveyard only a church). Three times they did it. It came back each time. A 90 year old Korean lady told me that when she was a little girl, that stone jumped off that truck. She also said that it did not fall off the truck; it jumped and broke into three parts: man, women and child. She said she was looking for them; she said these stones help us (the community). I asked if anyone knew where they were from, and they told me if you release the stones at Kūkaniloko, they will go into the place where they belong. This is why the stones are cemented over there because the next day they go back to Kūkaniloko.145

The older 1920s accounts do not mention the repeated return of the Keanini stone, but they do mention that it broke into several pieces when it was to be moved, and then it was cemented together and moved.

Our interviews showed a rising concern among some members of the Hawaiian community over the treatment of Keanini and its companion. Alice Greenwood noted that “The Hindus treat the stones with oil, and buttermilk and drape sap, this is part of their rituals.” In 2005 Lani Keisel of Wahiawā, became aware of the Hindus taking care 353

of the healing pōhaku. Keisel felt these pohaku were being smothered and not cared for in the right way. Keisel asked her cousin Elithe Kahn for her help. The two of them, along with Alice Greenwood, met with the Hindus and asked them to stop the greasing of the pōhaku, and they agreed. Keisel obtained the lease from the landowner Mr. Shin. Kahn took over the lease after Keisel’s death. She has been paying the property tax of $100 over the past five years, with OHA’s help.

Kahn shared her feelings about the stones:

I went to the pōhaku and felt the pain of the pōhaku. The pōhaku drained itself using us as its conduit. It felt like a steady stream of flowing electricity passing through our bodies. Only when it was completely drained would it release our hold. You can place your hand and feel the heart of the pōhaku resonate. We used only natural objects toConfidential clean the stone. We scrubbed the pōhaku with awa to remove the built up rancid Hindu guee butter.

The awa also feeds the stone at the same time. Once a splinter group of Hindu carved chevrons into the rock with blue chalk. Lani was frustrated, not knowing how to clean the stone. As always, when in doubt we “Go ask Aunty” (pule our ancestors) and were told to ask Ziggy (Lani’s dog). Lani thought this was stupid, but for the heck of it, did. Ziggy immediately ran out of the house and sat under the clothesline and started barking at a shammy cloth. Lani used it and successfully removed the marks on the stone.146

There have been discussions, sometimes controversial, within the past few years about whether the healing pōhaku should be moved back to Kūkaniloko. In our interviews, one community member was asked if the worshiping of other cultures will be a problem if the stones are at Kūkaniloko. He noted that the people that worship the pōhaku are peaceful groups, and they don’t harm the stones. He has no problems with them coming to Kūkaniloko to visit the stones. Some of the members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā have already talked to them about acting appropriately with the stones, and they have come to an agreement with the Hindus and others who worship the stone. One member stated “Their group wants these healing pōhaku back at Kūkaniloko.” Ginger Hala believes the healing pōhaku should be brought back to Kūkaniloko. She feels the pōhaku will have more mana once they are returned. When asked if she is worried about too many people coming to Kūkaniloko to worship the pōhaku, Ginger stated that “she’s not worried about that. She feels people might be scared of the healing powers of the pōhaku.” When she visits Kūkaniloko, she always feels like something is missing, and that feeling comes from the fact that the healing pōhaku are not there. Kahn stated “I do not want the stone to end up in foreign hands again like it did ten years ago”. Her main mission has been to get the stones home to Kūkaniloko. Kahn explained the meaning of the name of the healing pōhaku: 354

Keaniani-leihua-okalani. Keaniani means shining and the leihua indicates the district. So the shining of this leihua o ka lani of royalty, so this pōhaku is the shining royalty of Leihua.

Confidential

Figure 8-13. On the left, the Keanini stone (right) and its companion in Wahiawā. On the right, this June 14, 2010, photograph shows that both had been removed.

In June 2010, there was some talk in the community that the healing pōhaku were going to be moved back to Kūkaniloko. In June the healing pohaku were indeed removed from their place on California Avenue. We are not sure if they were moved back to Kūkaniloko, but there are people who have stated that they are once again at Kūkaniloko. One community participant, who often visits Kūkaniloko, expressed an experience they had at Kūkaniloko in June 2010:

When I went to visit Kūkaniloko, it just so happened that that was the day they brought the stone from the marble palace back to Kūkaniloko. They had already piled up a whole bunch of rocks around it, so you couldn’t really tell which one it was. So I talked to one of the ladies that was there that day and she said they wanted to put it there out in the open, but not where you could tell which one it was. That day I got there around 12 to 2 pm, and the lady told me that they had went early that morning, taken the stone 355

out with a jack hammer, took the 2 pieces and brought it to Kūkaniloko. So by the time I got there, stones were piled up around the healing pōhaku, but they were still bringing in more stones with the big machines. The women said that as soon as they brought the stone there, it was so happy because it got to feel the sun, the wind, and the rain.

… They were using bulldozers and trucks to bring in the pōhaku. That day, one of the ladies were saying that it was so nice because the pōhaku had been enclosed in that marble tomb for so long, and they finally brought it out and it could feel the sun and the rain.

This community member noted that members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā were involved with this work. Confidential

Figure 8-14. Possible current location of the healing stone. This L-shaped piled mound is located about 15 meters to the south of the birthing stones at Kūkaniloko.

The Honolulu Star Advertiser stated in a June 19, 2010 article (“Storied Stone Taken Away”) that a Hawaiian nationalist, who removed it, intended to return it to a site that he says is more fitting. The article gives this quote: “it is our duty to mālama the things that are sacred and put them where they belong. Our kūpuna told us it was time to take them home, and we did. And if we take care our kūpuna, our kūpuna will take care of us”.

State Park’s archaeologist Martha Yent stated at a site visit that she was concerned about the popularity the “healing” stones have taken on with the Hindus. She 356

was concerned that if they were to be moved back to Kūkaniloko, it could bring increased visitation. State Parks is aware that the healing pohaku were moved from the church site on California Avenue. They have not received any notification from the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā that the healing pōhaku have been returned to Kūkaniloko. This too is a point of tension between State Parks and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā. And for better or worse, it would be a violation of the state historic preservation law, which requires such proposed impacts on significant historic properties be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for review (a review that also requires the opportunity for the larger Hawaiian community to comment on the proposal). [This does not mean that the proposal would not have been approved; it simply provides an open review process.]

SUMMARY

This brings us up to the present in our review of the history of Kūkaniloko. Just prior to 1900 George Galbraith was protecting a portion of Kūkaniloko within his ranch – a 0.5 acre fencedConfidential area around the birthing stones, with the Keanini stone (which he had moved there in the 1880s). About 1900, Galbraith leased his lands to Atherton, who assigned his lease to the Waialua Agricultural Company. The company under its manager, William Goodale, continued to protect the 0.5 acre area in the midst of the new cultural landscape of the Central Plateau, a landscape of pineapple fields, military bases, and Wahiawā town’s formation and growth. The pineapple fields, however, likely destroyed surrounding features of Kūkaniloko and its chiefly center.

The Daughters of Hawai‘i took on the preservation of this important wahi pana from 1925-1950. The Keanini stone and its new “companion” (discovered in 1923 and moved to Kūkaniloko) sat within this 0.5 Kūkaniloko acreage, but were not the focus of the Daughters care. The Keanini Stone and its companion suddenly became a largely non-Hawaiian religious healing stone in 1925, and they were moved away to Wahiawā in 1926 to prevent further damage to Kūkaniloko.

From 1950-1992, first the Waialua Hawaiian Civic Club and then the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā became the caretakers of Kūkaniloko. Then in 1992, it became State land and a State Monument, along with 4.5 acres around it. From then to the present, State Parks and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā have cared for Kūkaniloko, sometimes in an uneasy relationship. Changes have taken place to Kūkaniloko since 1992. The larger area nearby was graded flat and grassed, and an access road was graded. A V-shaped line of 36 stones was built across the grassy area, approaching very close to the birthing stones. The hula pā was built, and other platforms and alterations have occurred. Interpretive signs were designed and erected in 2000, and then came down in 2005. And apparently, in 2010, the Keanini stone and its companion returned.

Within this same frame of the 20th Century and the decade since, the knowledge of Kūkaniloko, its chiefly center, the cultural landscape of the Central Plateau, and even the traditional era history of O‘ahu and the Islands has seen changes. Up through the 1920s-1930s, the well-read public was aware of Kūkaniloko and old O‘ahu history, for 357

native Hawaiian newspapers still published stories and histories, Fornander’s 1880 history was well known, and there was a rising English literature (Kalākaua’s and Nakuina’s stories). For Kūkaniloko, there was one last moment of attention with Thrum’s 1911 Hawaiian Almanac article, 1925 newspapers articles about the Daughters of Hawai‘i assuming care of Kūkaniloko, and the mele that John Holani Hao composed at the 1925 dedication ceremony. But in the late 1920s-1930s with the decline of Hawaiian language speakers and the dominance of new immigrants, the accounts, literature and interest in the traditional era of Hawaiian history faded into the background.

Indeed, Hawaiian history as taught in the schools of Hawai‘i began with Kamehameha I. Academic historians also were interested in post-Kamehameha I times, and archaeologists directed their focus away from using the old oral histories. Certainly, individuals did retain an interest in traditional times and knowledge (as noted above), and Kūkaniloko and the old history was remembered by them. And clearly Kūkaniloko was recalled by the Hawaiian Civic Clubs of Waialua and notably that of Wahiawā. But this knowledge wasConfidential fading in the wider community – as seen by the comments of Kenn and Pukui above.

This all started to change again in the 1970s. By the 1990s, historians, anthropological historians, archaeologists, political scientists and others were re- emphasizing the need to know the centuries of traditional times. Old oral historical accounts are once again being linked to past history – including O‘ahu’s history and Kūkaniloko. And Kūkaniloko is now a protected State Monument, albeit only of 5 acres. The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā is still active in its protection and promoting information about Kūkaniloko. Kumu hula have begun to actively pull in Kūkaniloko, as have immersion schools and Hawaiian Studies programs in the universities. The wider Hawaiian community has started to become aware again of Kūkaniloko and its importance. But it is interesting how many Hawaiians are still unaware of the State Monument with the remnants of Kūkaniloko. The next chapter, however, looks at contemporary Native Hawaiian uses of Kūkaniloko, showing this rise of knowledge and concern about this wahi pana.

358

CHAPTER 9

CONTEMPORARY HAWAIIAN CULTURAL PRACTICES AT KŪKANILOKO

Kelley Uyeoka Kēhaulani Souza

Kūkaniloko is significant not only for its rich history, but also for its role as a traditional cultural place where Hawaiian cultural practices still occur today. In one way or another, all of the community participants we spoke with learned more about their culture, history, spirituality and ultimately their identity from visiting, utilizing, and/or caring for Kūkaniloko.Confidential This chapter looks at current Hawaiian cultural practices that occur at Kūkaniloko. An important element of all traditional cultural places under the historic preservation laws is that contemporary cultural practices continue, linked to the history and cultural practices of the place. Thus, contemporary Hawaiian cultural practices are an important part of the significance (importance) of traditional cultural properties. It is vital that these contemporary practices also be documented.

CULTURAL PROTOCOLS

The majority of Native Hawaiians that we spoke with shared that when they go to Kūkaniloko they conduct cultural protocols. Individual protocols range from reciting one’s mo‘okū‘auhau, to offering an oli kāhea, or to saying a quiet pule to oneself. While protocols differ from one person to the next, everyone acknowledged that Kūkaniloko is a sacred place that should be entered with respect and serenity.

Arline Eaton was fortunate enough to have been taken to Kūkaniloko by her Tutu Papa, when she was a little girl no older than 5 years old – in the 1930s. Her Tutu Papa, Keone Kealoha, who only spoke Hawaiian, used to live in Pu‘uloa where they would get on a wa‘a, paddle to Waimomi (Pearl Harbor), and then he would put her on his shoulders and walk all the way up to Kūkaniloko. Aunty Arline shares her memories of the times she would visit Kūkaniloko with her Tutu Papa and what types of protocols they abided by:

Before we went to Kūkaniloko, we would all have to wash off our feet in a pan of water before we went inside there, because we couldn’t just walk over there. That is the way we were told, to wash our feet. We weren’t allowed to step anywhere with shoes.

We would kāhea before we went in. We would go to all of the pōhaku, go to each one to tell them what we were there for. We were not there to niele, we were there because our ‘ohana, and to show our ho‘aloha about this place. 359

Tutu Keone Kealoha would go and he would chant the entire time he was there, he wouldn’t talk.

When I was little I was also told, “You no eat nothing you just go!” So that’s what we would do. When we went to Kūkaniloko, they would talk about the different ali‘i that give birth there. Just like Kamehameha’s wife who wanted to go there but it was too late. That’s what my Tutuman told me, because it was not meant for her to go there, and she knew that.

We knew that when we went to Kūkaniloko we never went over there and hana inu. Even though my Tutu Mama she never went with us, Tutu Papa would always take me. I used to use bloomers, then when I got older I used the kīkepa, and Tutu would always make sure I had it with me. I still have the bag with it all in there.

As time wentConfidential on, it got different after Tutu Papa died. I never saw people doing ceremonies there anymore. Even Lurline Lee said she didn’t really know the ceremonies of Kūkaniloko, she said she would just take care of the place. I told here, at least someone takes care of the place!

CEREMONIES

The cultural ceremonies that occur at Kūkaniloko today are usually kept private and are conducted at times when the site is less populated.

Ceremonies Conducted by the Friends of Kūkaniloko and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā

Ceremonies that are conducted by the Friends of Kūkaniloko and the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā (HCCW) include the summer and winter solstice and equinox ceremonies, kahu ceremonies, and individual ‘ohana ceremonies.

Summer & Winter Solstice & Equinox Ceremonies

Since the 1990s some Native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians have been coming to Kūkaniloko at the summer/winter solstices and the fall/spring equinox to witness various natural phenomena associated with tracking the seasons and commemorate the idea that such observations had been made at Kūkaniloko. During these ceremonies, observers carefully watch the sun’s shadows or “shadow daggers” that are cast on stone 103. Observers also watch where the sun sets from a fixed point located by pōhaku 103, identifying where it sets along the peaks of the Wai‘anae mountain range. Walt Keale mentions the spiritual aspect. He stated “the significance of this practice was the path of the sun from its farthest point up north to Tropic of Cancer and its lowest point down south to the Tropic of Capricorn. It is very important the time of no shadow, which is during the time the sun is at the two tropics. During the time when there is no shadow, it 360

is a time of mana, the time when your shadow is completely within you and you are solely aligned with the universe and your creator”.

Kahu Ceremonies

Walt Keale, a member of ‘Aha Kūkaniloko was initiated as a kahu of Kūkaniloko by members of the ‘Aha Kūkaniloko including Tom Lenchanco and Alika Silva, in a ceremony that was conducted on site that included offering and chants. (‘Aha Kūkaniloko is a group started up by Tom Lenchanko that takes more of a political role in its efforts to malama Kūkaniloko and other cultural sites in the moku of Wai‘anae. ‘Aha Kūkaniloko has taken part in political protests against the Stryker Brigade and the desecration of iwi kūpuna at Schofield Barracks, and the development of lands surrounding Kūkaniloko, and have advocated for self-determination, sovereignty and independence.) Walt Keale shared the following information about the ceremony he partook in:

We met onConfidential Fall equinox in 2007 at sunrise time, and that is supposed to be the sacred time. Very few people know about the Kāne traditions. In Kāne traditions, when you read the sky, you start from the north, then you go east, south and west. But in traditional ceremonies the directions are east, north, west, south, which is how the ‘Aha Kūkaniloko guys did it. So we started in the east corner of the site, and there was a kahu in each corner or directions. So the reason why my ho‘ola was in the east was because my place is in the north, … So my kuleana is the north.

Ceremonies Conducted by Other Individuals, Families and Groups

Other small scale and private gatherings and ceremonies also frequently take place at Kūkaniloko. For instance, many of the community members shared that they visit Kūkaniloko to give offerings to their kūpuna, to the place, and to the ali‘i that were born there. Ceremonies ranged from offering ho‘okupu, to offering a mele, oli or hula, to offering pule. Many of these gatherings are personal and details of these ceremonies are kept private by the individuals and families.

BURYING OF THE PIKO OF THE FAMILY

Another form of ceremony that takes place at Kūkaniloko is the burying of the piko. One interview participant, who shall remain anonymous because of the sacred nature of this practice, shared his ‘ike about his family’s cultural practice. His family has genealogical connections to Kūkaniloko.

All my children’s piko are there, I don’t know if the piko were buried there in the past, but I felt that there was a connection to the birthstones, so I take the piko’s back. For each piko buried there, there was a ceremony of chanting and then we buried them there. It is noontime that is specific because the shadow goes into the body and that is a sacred time. And we buried it with some mamo feathers for the ‘ohana. My son and all my 361

grandchildren are all up there. All my grandchildren know where their piko’s are, their genealogy proves that direct connection.

For our ceremony, we would address the family in the chants, then chants of recognition of who you are and what you are there for. Then we do a komo from the family that is made up on the spot. It’s not related to hula, hula is in the entrance chant but you don’t apply those for that. It’s like when we go to someone’s house, and we have to say, “We are here tutu”. You know in the old days you don’t go to some ones pa and not announce yourself or your genealogy, because if you don’t give your genealogy you are an enemy, and it’s time to fight. But if you know the secrets of the family, you praise them and share that we are here and we are of this line.

The navel, the piko is very sacred. It separates you from others. If we don’t practice that or don’t let you know about this we are going to be cut off in the AmericanConfidential culture. To me it is cultural preservation and culture sustaining. When my last granddaughter was born in the mainland I said, “Send that piko home to me”. So when my granddaughter came home she felt she had continuity with the ‘āina. It’s a spiritual connection, and a statement of who you are, who your people are, and where they came from. I tell my kids that a lot of their ancestors built this place up before the white man. In turn they have to take that mana‘o and build themselves up so they can be good to others. It’s a continuum, where you take what the ancestors did, then you build up on it and you become like them by giving of yourself for the good. I think the only thing you can leave behind is your good works. Not so much your money, but it’s what you do! You leave a good name and by doing this your ancestors live through you.

HULA – HALAU VISITS IN HONOR OF KUKANILOKO AND ITS SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE

Kūkaniloko has long been honored in hula from traditional times to the present. Many hula hālau chant about and dance to songs that acknowledge and pay tribute to Kūkaniloko, such as He Mele no Kūkaniloko and He Inoa no Kākuhihewa. To better understand the mele that refer to Kūkaniloko and its surrounding landscape and that landscape’s place, smells and winds, many hālau come to this wahi pana to experience its energy, feel the wind, smell the air, and touch the lepo. According to a member of the Friends of Kūkaniloko, hula hālau from all over the world, including Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Mexico, and other countries come to visit Kūkaniloko to experience this special place. He also explained that hula hālau have even partaken in ‘ūniki ceremonies at the site. Snowbird Bento, kumu hula of hālau Ka Pā Hula O Ka Lei Lehua, also shared that she brings her dancers to Kūkaniloko to honor the wahi pana, and to also learn from it. The photo below is from a 2010 visit to Kūkaniloko, where the hālau met with Jo-Lin Kalimapau, Tom Lenchanko, and Aloha Kekipi from the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, to learn more about the Kūkaniloko from its caretakers. In 2009 visitors from the Ka ‘Aha Hula ‘O Halauaola Kumu Hula Conference participated in a 362 cleansing ceremony at Kūkaniloko. The ceremony began at 3am and concluded with an interpretive tour of Kūkaniloko by member of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.

Confidential

Figure 9-1. Kumu Hula Snowbird Bento and Ka Pā Hula o Ka Lei Lehua Hālau at Kūkaniloko in 2010. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.)

The pā hula that is located in the southeastern portion of the 5-acre site was built up in 1994 by Tom Lenchanko and workers of the Department of Public Works as part of the overall State Parks site improvements at Kūkaniloko. Later on, native plants were planted around the platform by members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā. Today, the hula pā is used by kūpuna, hula hālau, and visitors as a place to offer hula or as a vantage point to view Kūkaniloko and the surrounding areas.

Figure 9-2. Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā kūpuna dancing on the pā hula at Kūkaniloko. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.)

363

Aunty Vicky Holt-Takamine, kumu hula of Pua Ali‘i ‘Ilima hālau, frequently brings her hālau to Kūkaniloko. When asked how often they go to Kūkaniloko and what they do there, Aunty Vicky shared:

We go all the time. Waialua was one of the moku that I made the hālau do research on. So in 2002 it was our 25th anniversary for the hālau and I had the wahine make an imu because a lot of them had never made an imu before! Along with that, they also had to look up all the place names from Wahiawā out to Mokulē‘ia where we did our huaka‘i. So for our huaka‘i we started at Kūkaniloko. The girls did their own research, and they went to go look for mele, they read Kamakau, they looked for ‘ōlelo no‘eau, and we researched as far as Haleiwa. The girls always say we have to go back…and we do.

Our whole approach was to share the mele and hula that was composed for that location. We looked at ‘O Kapawa o Keali‘i o Waialua i Hānau i KūkanilokoConfidential and Maika‘i Ka ‘Ōiwi o Ka‘ala. All those place names, and to write down why is it. Cause in Kapawa you know where the piko for Kapawa is. Why do we do hānau, birth chants…because it ties you to that location, but it also make you responsible for the ‘āina. So if your piko is at Ka‘ala, we can remember those place names, it’s not just Hale‘iwa Beach Park. So those are the things that are important that come out of those mele.

Then talk about the birthing of the ali‘i. Who was born there? Who could be born there? And why is it that location? Why is it when we look up there we see Kawaihapai? You only see it from that side, you go to the other side of the mountain, on Wai‘anae, and you don’t see her. That is important for me to have a wahine out there, our next generations.

Aunty Vicky shared about the mele and hula she teaches her hālau:

We dance to the mele Maika‘i Ka ‘Ōiwi o Ka‘ala and Aia i Honolulu Ku‘u Pōhaku, and it actually mentions Kūkaniloko in the mele. Maika‘i Ka ‘Oiwi o Ka‘ala is by Keali‘i Riechel, and it doesn’t mention Kūkaniloko in it, but it’s all about the place names on Kawaihapai from Līhu‘e all the way down to the coast. The first time it was recorded, it was actually a Merrie Monarch competition number, and the chant is about 100 lines long, and all that was recorded was really 10 lines of the actual complete chant. And that mele starts there and takes you all the way around Ko‘olauloa and Ko‘olaupoko, and I’m not sure where it ends. You should talk to Daniel Au about that. Uncle Henry Pa taught this chant, Kakuhihewa, but I think the first lines of the chant is, Aia i Honolulu Ku‘u Pōhaku…

Here are the mele that she mentions.

364

MAIKA‘I KA ‘OIWI O KA‘ALA [Composed by Keali‘i Reichel, Lei Hali‘a, 1995]

Maika‘i ka ‘oiwi o Ka‘ala The form of Mt. Ka‘ala is fine and attractive Molale i ka malie Clear there in the calm Malo na kipo‘ohiwi Straight and firm are the squared shoulders O Kamaoha i ka nani of Kamaoha in its beauty

Papu i ke anu Clearly visible in the cold I ka uka o Kalena Of the uplands of Kalena Ka umauma henahena Is the exposed heart O ke kupukupu Of the kupukupu fern

Nanahe Confidentialka poli Soft is the bosom O Kānehoa i ka nani Of Kānehoa hill in the beauty Pahe‘e ke alo Smooth are the flanks Pakika i ka Waikōloa Slippery in the Waikōloa wind

Waliwali ka iwi ‘ao‘ao Softly shaped is the rib O Malamanui Of Malamanui Nopa ke ho‘ohuli mai ia Kanoenoe Sedate when turning its attention to Kanoenoe

Oki kalaina Extraordinary is the carving A ke Kiuwailehua Of the shafts of the Kiuwailehua wind Kau mea ‘upalu, wali, unahe That which you find gentle, soft, and sweet ‘O ka pua i ka la Is the flower in the sun

Ke ‘alawa iho ‘oe When you glance down Ia Waialua e Toward Waialua Pekelakela Mokule‘ia Mokule‘ia excels all others Na ka maika‘i Because of its beauty

[Lyrics from TheLyricArchive.com The mele continues, mentioning places of Wai‘alua outside the Central Plateau.]

AIA I HONOLULU [There in Honolulu - A Chant for Kākuhihewa]

Aia i Honolulu ku‘u pōhaku There in Honolulu is my stone 365

No Kākuhihewa ko‘u haku ia For Kākuhihewa is my lord Malia o loa‘a pono aku oe You probably may be discovered Ma ka lihilihi a‘o pua Komela Among the petals of Camellia blossoms

Ohu‘ohu Halemano i ka lau lehua Bedecked is Halemano with lehua leaves Ua kanu na pua Kūkaniloko With flowers grown at Kūkaniloko Maloko mai ‘oe me Li‘a wahine Do come in with Li‘a wahine Ike kui ‘ōhelo ‘ai a ka manu To string ‘ōhelo berries will-liked by the birds

I luna no wau me lei lehua I was up yonder with lehua leis Kamaile lau li‘i a‘o Ka‘ala And small leaf maile of Ka‘ala He ala ka maile lau li‘i li‘i Fragrant indeed, the small leaf maile Ka maile lau li‘i a‘o Ko‘iahi The small leaf maile of Ko‘iahi

Ua ahi ua wela mai ne loko There is a heat of desire that rises within Ka hanoConfidential ho‘oheno a‘o Kuwili To hear the appealing notes of Kuwili’s flute He aku mākou o mai ‘oe I call to you, o answer me No Kākuhihewa ko‘u haku i O Kākuhihewa, my chief

Kāhea: He Inoa No Kākuhihewa Call: The name of Kākuhihewa

[Huapala.org -- We have added in kahako to names. This chant appears no older than the later 1800s, given the references to camellias, an introduced flowering plant. Ko‘iahi is within Mākua valley.]

‘O KAPAWA O KEALI‘I O WAIALUA I HĀNAU I KŪKANILOKO

‘O Kapawa, ‘o ke ali‘i o Waialua Kapawa, the chief of Waialua, I hanau i Kūkaniloko Was born at Kūkaniloko; ‘O Wahiawā ke kahua Wahiawā the site; ‘O Lihu‘e ke ewe At Lihu‘e the placenta, ‘O Ka‘ala ka piko At Ka‘ala the navel cord, ‘O Kapukapuākea ka a‘a At Kapukapuākea (Heiau) the caul, ‘O Kaiaka i Maeaea (Heiau) of Kaiaka at Maeaea; Ha‘ulei i Nukea i Wainakia He died at Nukea at Wainakia I ‘A‘aka i Haleu Through (the surf of) ‘A‘aka at Haleu, I ka la‘i malino o Hauola Through the calm stillness of Hauola, Ke li‘i ‘o Kapawa ho‘i no The chief Kapawa was taken, Ho‘i no i uka ka waihona Taken upland (in Iao) for laying away, Ho‘i no i ka pali kapu o nā li‘i Taken to the sacred pali of the chiefs, He kia‘i Kalahiki no Kaka‘e Kalahiki is the “Watchman” of Kaka‘e, ‘O Heleipawa ke keiki a Kapawa Heleipawa was the son of Kapawa, He keiki ali‘i no Waialua i O‘ahu A chiefly child of Waialua, O‘ahu

366

EVENTS RELATED TO HAWAIIAN POLITICAL ISSUES

Aunty Vicky was also one of the primary organizers for the Kū i Ka Pono march in 2005. This purpose of this gathering and rally was to oppose military expansion in Hawai‘i, in particular the Stryker Brigade, and to call for stronger protections of Hawai‘i’s cultural and natural resources. Participants drove from Honolulu and marched from Kaiaka Park in Hale‘iwa to Kūkaniloko for a cultural gathering of pule, oli, mele, hula, and speech to honor the site. Kūkaniloko was chosen as the gathering place for this event because it is considered the piko of O‘ahu and it signified the rebirth of a movement and of the Hawaiian Nation. The Kū i Ka Pono gathering was a celebration of Hawaiian sacred sites as well as a protest against the militaries destruction of Hawaii’s natural and cultural resources.

Confidential

Figure 9‐3. Kumu Hula at the Kū i Ka Pono Gathering in 2005. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.)

COMPOSING MELE TO HONOR KUKANILOKO & ITS SURROUNDING LANDSCAPE

Mele that honor Kūkaniloko and/or its surrounding cultural landscape of the Central Plateau have been composed since traditional times. So it was exciting to discover that this ancient tradition of honoring Kūkaniloko through mele is still being practiced today. Uluwehi Hopkins, Ka‘āhiki Solis, and Lufi Luteru wrote a mele about Kūkaniloko for a Hawaiian Studies class they were in at UH Manoa in 2007. Each wahine wrote a section of the mele, and together they composed the opening and closing verses. Uluwehi and Ka‘ahiki were kind enough to share this mele with us while we were at Kūkaniloko one afternoon. 367

Confidential

Figure 9‐4. Uluwehi Hopkins and Ka‘āhiki Solis share the mele they composed about Kūkaniloko

Below Uluwehi and Ka‘ahiki walk us through the mele, and explains the kaona or underlying meanings of the words they chose:

E nā akua o ke ao Mai ka lā hiki a ka lā kau ‘O nā ‘aumakua kini a ka lau Nā ali‘i ēwe, ke kūpuna ola mau

Eia ka pulapula a ‘oukou Ha‘aha‘a i ke ‘alo Humble in your presence Ho‘olohe i ka ‘ike Open to your guidance Ho‘omana e ka lama Empowered by your wisdom

Uluwehi: The opening is pretty explanatory, calling all the gods. Then na ali‘i ēwe, we wanted to make sure to make the connection to this place right in the beginning. Then humble in your presence, open to your guidance, empowered by your wisdom. Then Ka‘āhiki’s portion is first…

Lei ana Kaua‘i i ka mokihana 368

Kū kilakila Ka‘ala Majestic Ka‘ala Kahiki i ka maka a‘o ka ‘ōpua Adorned in the mist of clouds Pū‘ili ko aloha ma ku‘u poli Love is held in my bosom Kaulana no ka ‘āina hānau Famous is the native land Onaona wale ho‘i i uka Alluring also are the uplands Aloha ‘ia no a‘o Līhu‘e Beloved is Līhu‘e I ka pa‘a mai ‘ia e ka noe Continually one with the mist rain A he waiwai nui na‘u ko aloha Great riches is your love to me

Uluwehi: We had Ka‘āhiki write her portion first because her family is from Kaua‘i and we wanted to make that connection in the beginning. Then Puali‘i, who is from Kaua‘i, her portion was last. Lei ana Kaua‘i ka mokihana, that was the first line to bring that from Kaua‘i to here. Then it went, majestic Ka‘ala, adorned in the mist of clouds. Love is held in my bosom. Famous is the native land. Alluring also are the uplands. Beloved is Līhu‘e. Continually one with the mist rain. ConfidentialGreat riches is your love to me.

Ka‘āhiki: Because I was raised here, I feel strongly about this place, and it keeps calling me back. Going up into the mountains and renewing that relationship from the other side too, the Ka‘ala side. Then it’s Lufi’s portion…

Nahenahe mai ka makani Puakaiāulu. Gently blowing is the Puakaiāulu breeze. Ulu a‘e ke aloha palena ‘ole nō. Inspired by love unsurpassed. Nā wahine i ka lewa nu‘u a ka lewa lani. Women of lewa nu‘u to lewa lani. Na ‘oukou i ho‘āmana mai. It is you that empower me. No‘u ke kuleana kaumaha mai ke au kūnewa. The responsibility/privilege is mine from the past. Pale ka pilikia a holo i mua nei ē. Protected from trouble and moving forward. Kīpū maila ka ‘ike kūhohonu ē. Hold steadfast to insight. Pi‘i ka mana a ka ho‘omanawanui ē. Mana and great patience comes forth. Hū a‘e ka maluhia i ka‘ana like ai ē. Peace is surging forth to share.

Uluwehi: We had Lufi go second because she’s from Wai‘anae, and the progression was Kaua‘i, Wai‘anae, and then I’m from Pearl City so it kind of circled around here, and then it ended with the last person being from Kaua‘i, so it circled back through here to Kūkaniloko. Then my portion is…

Uluwehiwehi ka ‘ilima mamo The ‘ilima mamo is lush and beautiful I ka uka o Wai‘anae In the uplands of Wai‘anae Ho‘olei ‘ana ka ‘āina hānau Crowning the land of birth Ka pāhu‘a hāweo o ‘Ewa The glowing oasis of ‘Ewa Kūlana i ka pawa Standing prominent in the dark just before dawn Mahana ā ka pukana lā Awaiting the warmth of the sun Hu‘e ka lī e ka lele wai The chill is removed by cleansing waters A pō ā mohola mai ka hale mano And darkness is freed from the many houses Ola nā ‘ilima wai ‘ole i ke ao ‘ōpua Healed are the ‘ilima of waterless places by the raincloud

369

Uluwehi: I like to play on place names. I wanted to put me into it, and you know you hear Uluwehiwehi in so many things, so I really have the perfect name for that! So Uluwehiwehi ka ‘ilima mamo, the ‘ilima mamo is lush and beautiful. And I did that because when you read basic pana O‘ahu stuff, it says that there used to be a lot of ‘ilima up here. I ka uka o Wai‘anae Ho‘olei ‘ana ka ‘āina hānau, crowning the land of birth. Here’s where I got kind of creative, Ka pāhu‘a hāweo o ‘Ewa, pahu‘a is actually oasis, so I translated it, the glowing oasis of ‘Ewa, and that of course was a reference to the pahu Hāwea that was said to be used here to announce the birth of a new ali‘i. Kūlana i ka pawa: this part refers to Kapawa, the first chief to be born here, and I broke it up into i-ka- pawa, which translates into standing prominent in the darkness before dawn. Then, Mahana ā ka pukana lā, awaiting the warmth of the sun, and there’s a place name around here that is similar to Mahana, but I don’t remember where I got that from. I remember deliberating over this word. Then Hu‘e ka lī e ka lele wai, the chill is removed by cleansing waters, and of course that is Līhu‘e. The cleansingConfidential waters in this line refer to Hale‘au‘au, a heiau that is supposed to be in this area. A pō ā mohola mai ka hale mano, so that’s Poamoho and Halemano, and darkness is freed from the many houses. Then Ola nā ‘ilima wai ‘ole i ke ao ‘ōpua, healed are the ‘ilima of waterless places by the raincloud, and that’s actually an ‘olelo no‘eau, but to me it referenced the fact that this place is still here, and it’s like a pu‘uhonua. And even though we feel like we’re waterless because we’ve been pushed down in our own homeland, you come here and you feel rejuvenated. So that was my thing.

Then the ending is pretty self explanatory. I like to refer to it as Kū-ke-kani-i- loko, because that brings it home to me.

Ho‘iho‘i mākou i ka piko o Hawai‘i nei We return to the piko of Hawai‘i I Kūkaniloko, hānau nā ali‘i ē To Kūkaniloko, where ali‘i are born Maka‘ala o Ka‘ala, ka wahine piha ē Clear is Ka‘ala, the pregnant woman Kūpa‘a nei ‘o ia, e ola ka ‘ōiwi ē She stands firm, and our people live on

Ho‘iho‘i mai ka mana o Hawai‘i nei The mana of Hawai‘i returns I Kūkaniloko, hānau ka lāhui ē To Kūkaniloko, where a nation is born Papā ka leo kahiko o Papahānaumoku ē The voice of Papahānaumoku is heard Kū ke kani i loko, e ho‘omau ka ‘ōiwi ē The sound is anchored within, and our people continue on

Ho‘iho‘i mai ka pono o Hawai‘i nei The pono of Hawai‘i returns I Kūkaniloko, hānau ka mālama ē To Kūkaniloko, where enlightenment is born ‘Ā i ka na‘auao, ka hua o ke kanaka ē It burns brightly within, the seed of our people Ho‘oku‘i ka ‘aha, a holopapa ka ‘ōiwi ē Connecting us all, and we are as one

370

CULTURAL EDUCATION

The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā & Their Cultural Education Work

The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā (HCCW) has helped with maintenance, management, and site interpretation of Kūkaniloko since 1997 when the Club, officially recognized kuka‘awe, began to steward this wahi pana - a sacred place, forever, of our ancestors. The Club’s forms of cultural education range from speaking to groups of students ‘ohana reunions, and community members; as well as educating kama‘āina, visitors and tourists through site interpretation at Kūkaniloko. Educational displays are presented at schools, at community events, fairs, and as requested by interested parties.

Jo-Lin Kalimapau, the Historian for the HCCW, has been applying her years of experience as a display artist, to create beautiful poster boards, booklets, and picture book albums that showcase the past and current involvement of the HCCW efforts to care for Kūkaniloko. Jo-LinConfidential was kind enough to share her poster boards with Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike and explain to us that through these visual tools, the Club has been able to teach people about the history, culture, environment, and importance of Kūkaniloko. Jo-Lin explained that the HCCW takes their interpretive poster boards with them to schools, gatherings, and community fares. More specifically, Jo-Lin and the other members of the club teach others about the Lo Ali‘i that were born at Kūkaniloko and their kapus, the astronomical significance of Kūkaniloko for navigational education, and how Kūkaniloko is connected to many other places in the islands, and other sites that are part of the 36,000 acres of the Kūkaniloko complex such as O‘ahunui, Heiau Ho‘olonopahu, and Heiau Hale‘au‘au.

Tom Lenchanko is the most recognized cultural educator at Kūkaniloko. With more than 35 years there, he is often referred to as kahu of Kūkaniloko. On any given day, you can find Tom at Kūkaniloko speaking to a group of local school children, a tour group of Japanese tourists, or a hula hālau. Tom has generously given his time and energy to sharing the mo‘olelo and significance of Kūkaniloko with anyone who is interested. Tom is adamant that the truth of Kūkaniloko be passed on to the next generation, so they can stand firmly on the shoulders of their kūpuna. He believes that if children and adults know where they come from, that they will have the understanding and confidence to learn the ‘ike passed on by kūpuna mā (those we choose to follow).

‘o wai ‘oe na wai ‘oe. Who are you? Whose child are you?

Some of the groups that Tom, Jo-Lin and the other members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā have talked to include University of Hawai‘i students, Hawai‘i Pacific University students, community college students, Kamehameha Schools students, nā hula hālau such as Ka Pa Hulo o Ka Lei Lehua hālau, Waialua Pūpūkea Seniors, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs Kupuna Advisory, Disney’s Aulani Hotel and Ko‘olina Associates, the Women of Kawaiaha‘o, and many others, numerous ‘ohana reunions, and persons from many different states in America, as well as other countries and continents of the world. Fifty years of educating Kūkaniloko visitors!.

371

Confidential

Figure 9-5. HCCW educational materials and displays. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.) 372

Confidential

Figure 9-6 and 9-7. Tom Lenchanko sharing his 'ike with Nā Pua No'eau haumāna.

373

Confidential

Figure 9‐8. Groups that the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā educates at Kūkaniloko. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.)

374

Schools that have Cultural Education Programs involving Kūkaniloko

Some educators that frequently bring their students to Kūkaniloko include Snowbird Bento (Kamehameha Schools Kapālama Campus), teachers at ‘Ānuenue Hawaiian Immersion School, Lynette Cruz (Hawai‘i Pacific University), Paul Coleman (UH Mānoa), Kawika Eskran (BYU – Hawai‘i) and Ross Cordy (UH – West O‘ahu).

3rd Grade, Kamehameha Schools Kapālama Campus

Snowbird Bento, a third grade teacher at Kamehameha Schools Kapālama Campus, teaches her haumāna about the importance and sacredness of Kūkaniloko.

‘Ānuenue Hawaiian Immersion School

One school that consistently brings their haumāna to Kūkaniloko to teach them about the significanceConfidential of this place is ‘Ānuenue Hawaiian Immersion School. ‘Ānuenue has been bringing their haumāna and some of the students’ parents out to Kūkaniloko to mālama and learn about this wahi pana for years. Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike spoke with a kumu at ‘Ānuenue, on one of their fieldtrips to Kūkaniloko. When asked why they bring their haumāna to this place, the kumu shared that she and the other kumu at ‘Ānuenue have always felt that Kūkaniloko is a special place, and that it’s important to teach their haumāna about the wahi pana of O‘ahu first, before they learn about the wahi pana of other moku. When asked if ‘Ānuenue is affiliated with any organization, Kehau noted that they aren’t, and that they come out to Kūkaniloko to just mālama the wahi pana. The school has never been out with any representatives of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, but they would like to collaborate with them and any other knowledgeable individuals to learn more about the area.

The kumu further explained that when the haumāna and their mākua spend the day at Kūkaniloko, they usually participate in different activities that they rotate through. One activity is cleaning the site. This includes raking the leaves around the stones, picking up trash, and clearing the fallen leaves off the pōhaku, and weed whacking which the volunteer parents do. Another activity they do at Kūkaniloko is teaching the haumāna the mo‘olelo of the area in ‘ōlelo Hawai‘i and then have the haumāna write about the ali‘i genealogy of Kūkaniloko. A third activity the students partake in is an art activity where the haumāna draw the Wai‘anae Mountain ridge line and label the names of the pu‘u that they were taught by their kumu. The last activity the students participate in is playing Hawaiian games such as kōnane.

375

Figure 9-9. ‘Ānuenue haumāna playing Hawaiian games and cleaning Kūkaniloko

Windward CommunityConfidential College

Nancy Ali, former Imaginarium manager and Astronomy lecturer, taught classes in 2009 and 2010 titled Astronomy 130 Introduction to Archaeoastronomy. She brought her class to Kūkaniloko to view the astronomical alignments and explain how science and culture are interrelated. In her class she teaches how astronomical motions are used for timekeeping and how different cultures have addressed those problems. She also conducted a summer school class at ‘Iolani Middle School in 2009 titled Cultural Astronomy. Ali also took these students as well as students from Hālau Lokahi to Kūkaniloko to explain the astronomical significance of the place.

Ian Masterson teaches a class at WCC called Polynesian Surf Culture where he introduces the importance of Hawaiian culture to his students. He is very passionate about the Hawaiian culture and takes his students to Kūkaniloko, where he explains that it is the piko of the island. Masterson wants to give his students a good foundation of O‘ahu, a sense of place, so when they’re at Kūkaniloko, he explains the importance of Haumea, Papa and Wākea. The importance of the birth of the islands and the significance of this birthplace for Hawaiian ali‘i. He also talks about Hawaiian cosmology in relation to Kūkaniloko and the windward side of the Island. After their visit to Kūkaniloko, he takes his class to a few other heiau in Waialua. He takes them to where he believes Kapukapuakea Heiau was located, because of its connection to Kūkaniloko. This semester he is teaching a class called Wahi Pana and will also take his students to Kūkaniloko as well as other sites around the island.

Hawai‘i Pacific University

Lynette Cruz, a Professor of Anthropology at Hawai‘i Pacific University, brings her Anthropology classes to Kūkaniloko on a regular basis. When her students visit Kūkaniloko, they usually meet with members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, particulalry Tom Lenchanko, and go on an interpretive tour of the site, where they learn 376

about the establishment of Kūkaniloko, who was born there, and why Kūkaniloko is still significant today.

Brigham Young University – Hawai‘i

Kawika Eskran, a Hawaiian Studies kumu at Brigham Young University teaches his students about Kūkaniloko in his Hawaiian Studies class. After teaching his students in the classroom, he takes them to visit Kūkaniloko, so they can “experience the place first hand, not just through lectures.” When asked where he attained his knowledge of Kūkaniloko from, Kawika shared that his mom was raised in Brody Camp and that his grandmother was also from Wahiawā, so mostly everything he knows about Kūkaniloko is from his family.

Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike also spoke to one of Kumu Kawika’s students at Kūkaniloko, and she explained that the first time she visited Kūkaniloko was in Kumu Kawika’s class. Since then, she Confidentialvisited Kūkaniloko to offer pule, oli, and ho‘okupu before she went away to college on the continent. Now she is back home in Hawai‘i, and she still visits Kūkaniloko at least once a month because she views Kūkaniloko as a pu‘uhonua, or place of sanctuary and refuge. She comes to Kūkaniloko to “unwind, listen to the natural elements like the wind, and to connect to the ‘āina. I just try to drown out the traffic and not worry about the safety of my car when I’m here.” She also expressed that even though her ‘ohana is not genealogically connected to Kūkaniloko, she still maintains a strong cultural connection to this place.

University of Hawai‘i – Mānoa

Paul Coleman, an instructor at the Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, takes about ten astronomy students from around the world to Kūkaniloko every summer. He shares the importance and significance of Kūkaniloko with his students and also speaks about the astronomical importance of Kūkaniloko and its pōhaku.

Uluwehi Hopkins learned a wealth of information about Kūkaniloko during the Mo‘olelo ‘Oiwi Hawaiian Studies class that she enrolled in as an undergrad at UH Mānoa. She expanded her ‘ike on Kūkaniloko when she took the Hawaiian Studies class, Pana O‘ahu with Kanalu Young while in graduate school at UH Mānoa.

I took the Mo‘olelo ‘Oiwi class before I taught the Pana O‘ahu class. I think we established its significance in the Mo‘olelo ‘Oiwi class, but I’ve always known that Kūkaniloko was significant ever since the first time I went there. Then one day when I was doing my graduate degree, the same semester I was in the Pana O‘ahu class, my friends and I were sitting around talking story in Mililani, and the subject came up about Kūkaniloko, and Lufi had never been there before, so we decided we had to go. So we went, we sat there and drank ‘awa and offered some to Kūkaniloko. It was near sunset so it was a really nice time of day, and we saw a pu‘eo. And that’s when we decided to do our 377

project on Kūkaniloko for our class. Then that’s when we contacted Tom, and we meet him at Kūkaniloko and he told us a lot of really awesome stuff.

Uluwehi has continued to learn more at Kūkaniloko over the years, and has also turned around and shared her knowledge of this wahi pana with others. For instance she has taught students participating in Kamehameha Schools Ho‘olauna summer program in Wai‘anae. She also taught the Pana O‘ahu Hawaiian Studies class with Kanalu Young in 2009, and she shared a little bit about her experiences teaching this class with us:

Keali‘i Gora taught my Pana O‘ahu class the oli to offer at Kūkaniloko, and they learned it. They also prepared ho‘okupu and made kīhei for their visit. We went to Kūkaniloko early in the morning, and I got there a little bit earlier than them. When the class got there, they offered their oli kāhea, and I did an oli komo. Then we walked around and I pointed out the different pōhaku, and told them what I knew about the history of Kūkaniloko. Then from there we carried onConfidential and did a tour of Wai‘anae. So that was our opening, and Kūkaniloko was our starting point. It’s the piko, the most important place, so we couldn’t do anything until we paid tribute there first.

University of Hawai‘i – West O‘ahu

University of Hawai‘i – West O‘ahu’s Hawaiian-Pacific Studies Program has been sending students to visit Kūkaniloko for almost 10 years now, as part of a class assignment for their 300-level introductory class, Hawaiian-Pacific Traditions (HPST 304). This class has also been a Humanities requirement until just recently. The class averages 30-40 students, with a wide range of students. The class is an overview of Oceania from settlement to contemporary times, covering history, art, literature, and political issues. Besides lectures, students are required to do 12 short exposure projects, one of which is visiting Kūkaniloko. Students must read a background on Kūkaniloko (Kamakau’s 1865 article), then visit Kūkaniloko, and write a short description.

The results of these visits are striking for Native Hawaiian students. Many have never been to Kūkaniloko, even if growing up in the area. Many never even knew about Kūkaniloko. Nearly all come away impressed with a feel for the place. Some feel a sense of calm (as noted above for the BYUH student). Some feel chicken skin. Some have heard drums. Some did not know if the hula pā or the 36 v-aligned stones were part of the historic place or not. Many felt signs were needed. All came away impressed, knowing what Kūkaniloko is. A few recent examples give a feel for reactions. (These are reactions of Native Hawaiian students.)

“This was a chicken skin experience for me. Maybe because there’s still spirits there or maybe because I read about it before hand and the thoughts racing through my head gave me chicken skin, regardless, it is a sacred place for the Hawaiian culture. … makes me believe that the 378

mana is still there and that this place should be respected and preserved for future generations.”

“I don’t know what it was but we both could feel something eerie and supernatural in that area. Even as the sun shined down on us, my cousin said “I think we’re in the middle of a cold spot,” he then showed me his arm; he had chicken skin while I was sweating from the heat.”

“I felt a calming sensation wash over me as I walked inward. … I don’t know the protocol but as I did at the other heiau I visited, I walked around and not through the pohaku.”

“As I gazed upon Kūkaniloko, the sacred feeling has not left,Confidential you can feel it as you drive into the grounds, and when you walk up to the stones. I usually wait outside of the “barrier,” announce who I am, who my children are and why we came to visit Kūkaniloko. The feeling I get after I do al of this is a very warm comfortable feeling and then I proceed to go “into” Kūkaniloko. I try to imagine what was described a long time ago. … I always have a peaceful and calming feeling when I go to Kūkaniloko and I just love being there. I have gone to Kūkaniloko just to meditate, when things are not going so well at home. Kūkaniloko has always provided healing for me.”

“I have studied here once when I was doing a dance with my Hālau about the way of birth and sexual desires. This spiritual place of birthing is one of many that gave me chicken skin by just jumping out of the truck. I gathered by my studies that this sacred place is not something you want to fool around with. It is someplace that you will go to learn and give back to those that have gave birth there. These rocks are amazing and are definitely something I will take my other dancers to see and give respect to.”

“When I arrived there I was pleasantly surprised that there weren’t any tourists there since I visited last year and it was crowded. As we walked in I started to feel a little apprehensive as I always do when I visit an ancient site but as soon as I got to the big rock at the entrance I felt at peace. The mana that surrounds this place is irrefutable and I was just enjoying the awe of it. … I was just enjoying sitting there … and just thinking about my ancestors that were there in the past and it was wonderful.” 379

“This trip over to Kūkaniloko really put me in the mood of being respectful, my grandmother had a few flowers and I decided to place them up on the rocks because I knew that this was where our ali’i were born. As I put the flowers down, I actually felt as if there was a presence there, watching me place the flowers on the stones. This was my first time to Kūkaniloko and I will probably go there many more times because it has so much mana there, you can just feel it …”

“As I approach the area where the stones are, there is a feeling of amazement because of the fact that I am in the presence of an area where royal people gave birth to high ranking native Hawaiians … I guess it is a bit intimidating toConfidential know all this information of such a place and I get to actually be able to experience it. … I lived in Hawaii for almost all my life and I have never gone to the Kūkaniloko birthing stones. This is definitely something new for me and I really enjoyed experiencing this wonder place of royal history.”

“This is the first time I visited the area and was surprised that there was only one little DLNR sign that asked for visitors to be respectful of sacred places. There was no plaque, no informational sign about the history, and nobody was around. … My mom came with me to the area because she hadn’t been there since she was in middle school. We only felt it proper to oli before entering, …”

Selected Comments by Kama‘āina of Wahiawā

Andrew Ota, explained her take on cultural education of Kūkaniloko. “You learn about Kūkaniloko and get to know Kūkaniloko from intuition, not formal education. You can read all you can about it in books, but the only way to truly get to know the place is to be there and feel it in you na‘au. Most people that visit Kūkaniloko feel the history, sacredness and power of the place in their intuition, not through what they read about the place.”

Linda Boogan shared that she has always enjoyed taking her friends and family to Kūkaniloko to share with them what she knows about the history, culture, and environment of this place. Interestingly, she notes “There are keepers of this site who are not high profile.” She shared an essay she wrote about her connection and understanding of Kukaniloko, and parts of this are shown in the traditional era chapter. Here is an excerpt.

380

Now, this is what I say when I take visitors….

This is what I understand of this sacred site. Some of this may be true, some good ideas. There are keepers of this site who are not high profile. I believe they are the Au and the Lenchanko families. I believe this land is “owned” and protected by the State of Hawai‘i laws and people are permitted to look at this former Kapu site. This is a sacred site to me and I always pray for permission and acceptance to visit this site. This is an archeoastronomical site. It is the university and higher learning that has sustained the Hawaiian people through many generations. … This area holding these rocks is ultimately for the birthing of royalty.

CULTURAL EXCHANGES

Aunty VickyConfidential Holt-Takamine also descries a unique cultural exchange that she was part of at Kūkaniloko with a Native American tribe:

A few years ago I also brought in some Native Americans that were working on social justice issues. And one of them was a young Native American boy who does ceremonies for his tribe. He wanted to go somewhere to have a pipe ceremony, so we went to Kūkaniloko. When I started telling him about Kūkaniloko he was just blown away because their traditions and their akua is female, and she brought the corn to his tribe. So he really felt that Kūkaniloko was the right place for them to come. So they conducted their pipe ceremony, and there was one wahine who was there who had her ma‘i so she had to sit outside the circle. We also sat outside the circle. So that was really significant for them to touch our ‘āina and listen to our stories.

MĀLAMA ‘ĀINA

The two primary caretakers of Kūkaniloko are the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā (HCCW) and the Friends of Kūkaniloko. Since 1961, when the founding members of the HCCW organized the very first volunteer work day at Kūkaniloko, they have upheld the kuleana of caring for the land that makes up the 5 acre historic monument. Today, members of both organizations go to Kūkaniloko every third Saturday of the month to weed whack the grass, dig up weeds, care for the native plantings and mow the California grass along the side of the entrance road. According to members of the HCCW, the State is supposed to pay for and organize the maintenance of the site, but they don’t come as frequently as required, so the volunteers take it upon themselves to mālama Kūkaniloko.

Native Plant Cultivation

Native plant cultivation is another way the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko mālama Kūkaniloko. They have designated planting areas and 381

grow a variety of native plants including kī, wauke, kukui, kupukupu, hala, and ‘uki‘uki. While the native plant gardens have been an important cultural practice to the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, Jo-Lin Kalimapau notes that it’s been hard for the plants to grow because there is no water on site. So to water the plants, all water needs to be brought in. Aloha Kekipi also shared that, “for our native plant gardens we rely on mother nature to water the plants. And when there’s a dry spell, our members come in with gallons of water and water the plants by hand. That’s the kind of commitment our members have…our members are awesome!” Vandals have also been a problem throughout the years. As Jo-Lin explains, they often damage, cut down and destroy the native plants.

Confidential

Figure 9-10. Some of the native plants being grown at Kūkaniloko

One of the most significant plants grown on the property is ‘uki‘uki. According to Pila Short, ‘uki‘uki used to grow in abundance in the uplands of Wahiawā, but the impacts of ranching and plantations wiped ‘uki‘uki out of area. The Civic Club feels that ‘uki‘uki is especially significant to the traditions of Kūkaniloko, indicating that it was

Figure 9-11. ‘Uki‘uki (right) and wauke (left) being grown by the Civic Club at Kūkaniloko 382

used to used to dye kapa purple, and this purple kapa was then used to wrap the newborn babies that were born at Kūkaniloko. Accordingly, from the teachings of Kūkaniloko, Tom Lenchanko and Jo-Lin Kalimapau continue to perpetuate the ancient saying, “Born in the purple” referring to the purple kapa that was used to embrace the newborn child as it was ushered off to ceremony at waihau heiau Ho‘olonopahu.

LUA PRACTITIONERS

Lua is a system of martial arts that was developed here in Hawai‘i. There are ancient mo‘olelo describing lua masters of different schools training specific warriors, sometimes individually. The traditional and customary practices pertaining to lua went “underground” in the 1800s and were practiced in secrecy. One informant stated “The traditional and customary practices pertaining to lua were diverted underground and practiced in secrecyConfidential following the abolishment of the kapu system in 1819 by Keopuolani. Later smaller groups and ‘ohana began to emerge with knowledge of the arts due to the cultural resurgence by Kalākaua, who himself was a practitioner of lua.” Charles Kenn helped to reestablish the social acceptance of lua which allowed it to become a publicly accepted art form since the Hale Nauā. Therefore, lua has been re- established as part of the Hawaiian cultural renaissance. Kumu Kaha‘i Topolinski was a student of Charles Kenn, who educated him in the connections of lua and hula. He mentioned the lua masters would go around to the different hula halau to personally pick out the best suited for the intense training of lua.

Figure 9-12. Hale Mua kāne at Kūkaniloko during the 2005 Kū I Ka Pono gathering. (Photo courtesy of Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā)

383

Nā Koa Organizations at Kūkaniloko

As noted in Chapter 6, our interviews with a few lua practitioners during the course of our study indicated that lua training did occur in the uplands of Hale‘au‘au. It was shared with us that lua continues to be practiced in the surrounding upland mountains of Hale‘au‘au. One participant does not believe that lua was practiced any where near the edges of Kūkaniloko because the different lua deities all had to do with death. When life is coming into this world, that spiritual essence needs to remain pure and you don’t want any of that energy near the new born keiki.

A number of people interviewed stated that they have witnessed different nā koa groups that come to Kūkaniloko dressed in their traditional garments to conduct protocols. One of the most referred to ceremonies was the 2005 Kū I Ka Pono gathering at Kūkaniloko, where the kāne of the Hale Mua conducted protocols and ‘awa ceremony for the opening of this event. Confidential Shad Kane mentioned different nā koa organizations visit Kūkaniloko at different times throughout the year. For instance, he said that every year before his group, Nā Koa ‘O Palehua, goes to Pu‘ukoholā on Hawai‘i Island, they visit Kūkaniloko to help them physically, mentally, and spiritually prepare for their huaka‘i to Pu‘ukoholā. When asked at what time of the day does his group visit Kūkaniloko, Shad explained, “We go at different times, we’ve went at noon on one or two occasions, but there’s so much distractions at that time, because there’s so many people around at that time. So we like to keep it very solemn, quiet, and a revered occasion for us, so for the last few years we’ve been going out in the late afternoon. The whole thing is just to get everyone prepared for living a weekend of different kapu’s. Many of the guys are young, so we try to get them to take it seriously. So Kūkaniloko is an important part of the things that we do. We are all struggling to be Hawaiians, and places such as Kūkaniloko give us a place to be Hawaiian, and if a place does that for you, then it’s important.”

RESEARCH ON CULTURAL ASTRONOMY

Hawaiian chants, myths, and legends incorporate the sky and the objects in it, personify them, make husbands, wives, lovers, and mischief makers of them, tell the months and seasons by them, make records of events using them, entwine them with seasonal appearances of plants and animals. [2010, Noyes]!

Active cultural astronomy studies have taken place at Kūkaniloko since about 1980. Cultural astronomy is a modern scientific discipline that studies astronomical patterns (sun rising/setting locations, star rising/setting locations, etc.) and attempts to understand cultural patterns of the past. It includes academic researchers and members of the public interested in this topic. In many cases, besides doing modern astronomical observations, these researchers around the world also do archival research or interviews to learn about traditional era approaches to tracking seasons, teaching navigation, or 384

aligning architectural structures to other structures or to astronomical phenomena. This research reflects modern scholars’ recognition that cultures throughout the world monitored astronomical patterns and events to track seasons, make predictions on the future, navigate, align architectural structures, name chiefs or nobles, etc. And this was certainly true in the traditional era in the Hawaiian Islands.

In Kūkaniloko’s case, cultural astronomy studies have focused on how seasons would have been tracked at Kūkaniloko (by following the sun’s path and Makali‘i), the possibility of teaching navigation (the rising/setting of stars), and possible planned alignments between Kūkaniloko and other structures (such as heiau) in the islands. The stone with the concentric circle petroglyphs (stone 103) in the midst of the birthing stones has been a focal point of studies on tracking the seasons and on teaching navigation. Chapter 6 focuses on the ideas obtained from this cultural astronomy work at Kūkaniloko applicable to traditional times. Here we briefly describe the researchers, and the kinds of observations that they make. Confidential These hypotheses were started by Harry Kurth (a retired army officer) in 1982, and he made many observations from Kūkaniloko over a number of years until his death in 1987. He had interested Rubellite Kawena’ula Johnson in his work, and she conducted more observations in the late 1980s, and co-wrote a paper that combined Kurth’s work and her findings.2 Doug Fernandez and Paul Coleman (the latter at the Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii – Mānoa) became interested in these studies at Kūkaniloko, and they became students of Johnson’s. Fernandez began his observations in 1999, and continues his research today – perhaps being the individual who has most intensively made astronomical observations from Kūkaniloko. Martha Noyes is also involved in this research, and is currently in the postgraduate program in Cultural Astronomy at the University of Wales in England. Her work is quite detailed and sophisticated, including setting patterns of the sun against the Wai‘anae mountains, and also including alignment measurements of Kūkaniloko to other places. We were able to interview Fernandez, Coleman, and Noyes – as well as Tom Lenchanko and others that have done their own studies or are aware of these studies.

These cultural astronomers – some Native Hawaiian, some not – generally conduct their research observations at Kūkaniloko by themselves or with but a few people. Periodically, these individuals visit Kūkaniloko to make their observations of sun rising and setting patterns, alignments, and star rising/setting patterns. Fernandez has been recently tracking the sun’s path during the course of the year. He explains “I come out on the same day every month at the same time and take a picture of the sun to show its path. Then I take all the pictures and put it all on a map to show the path.” We spent numerous days at Kūkaniloko with Doug Fernandez trying to understand the complexity of his archaeoastronomy research. He notes that they only way to really learn is by going to places on the ‘āina and doing hours of observations over the course of years. “This discipline cannot be taught just through books, it is a very practical, hands-on type of knowledge.”

385

Tracking the Season Observations

Rubellite Kawena‘ula Jonhson is the oldest of these cultural astronomers today. Again, she worked with Kurth and finished up the joint paper of their observations after his death. This 1989 paper, “The Birthstones of Kūkaniloko Heiau: Are They Oriented to Sky Phenomena?,” is an important resource to begin understanding the cultural astronomy work at Kūkaniloko. Again, many of these studies focus on shadows (“shadow daggers”) from the knobs on stone 103, cast by the setting sun setting across stone 103. The cultural astronomers document the shadows that are cast on stone 103 at different times of the year. They also document where the sun sets behind the peaks on the Wai‘anae ridgeline. For example, at the summer solstice in 2010, we visited Kūkaniloko with Rubellite Kawena Johnson and her student Doug Fernandez to view the sunset shadows (“shadow daggers”, “niho shadows”) on stone 103 and understand how they made observations. (As seen in Chapter 6, stone 103 is referred to by a number of Confidential

Figure 9-13. Rubellite Kawena Johnson and Doug Fernandez taking measurements at the “Piko Pōhaku” (stone 103) during the summer solstice in 2010. These measure- ments are related to where the high points of the stone cast their shadow across the concentric circle petroglyphs on the stone (located within the triangle on the right).

different names by Rubellite Kawena Johnson, and her former students, Doug Fernandez and Paul Coleman. Some of these names include, “Compass Rock”, “Kāne-Lono Pōhaku”, “Niho Pōhaku”, “Piko Stone” or the “Diamond Rock”.) When we met with Aunty Rubellite at Kūkaniloko on this day, she told us that paying attention to the orientation of the shadows within Kūkaniloko at noontime is also important.

When Doug conducts his observations at Kūkaniloko he faces north and watches the sun set to the west behind the Wai‘anae mountain range. He observes the shadows that are cast from the sun on the diamond pōhaku to tell what month and time it is. The sun’s shadow takes one and a half hours to move from the west end to the east end of the concentric circles, and it takes 11.5 minutes for the shadow to move in between the four 386

circles. So when the shadow is cast on the line petroglyphs, one can determine what month it is. Kurth, Johnson, Fernandez and Noyes have all observed where the sun sets at the soltices and two equinox. Also, they have noted that a line through the center depressions of the two concentric circles on stone 103 aligns north-south. Additionally, tracking the time of year by the setting sun and shadows has also been pointed out. Again, Chapter 6 includes the information relevant to traditional era uses.

Martha Noyes, another cultural astronomer who has spent many years conducting cultural astronomy research, began research at Kūkaniloko in 2008. She graciously spent hours with us at her home in Pacific Heights and at Kūkaniloko sharing her work. Martha has written and prepared several reports on her research.2 Noyes explained her complex methods and interpretations of the cultural landscape surrounding Kūkaniloko including the path of the sun, moon, stars, and planets and their relationship to the landscape. She, like many other cultural astronomers, use a baseline date of the sky in the past – that portrays the slightly different sun and star rising/setting patterns of that time. Confidential

I chose the year AD 1300 as the base year for this study, as Kūkaniloko would have been complete and functioning by this date. I then looked at named landscape features visible from Kūkaniloko and determined the azimuth of each.

The following is one of her conclusions about Kūkaniloko, which gives an idea of the complexity of her observations:

At Kūkaniloko the sun’s stations (both solstices, both nadirs, and both zeniths) were noted in the site’s stone alignments, and the sun’s settings at landscape features were a reference for the rise of month stars. It also suggests that the calendar figured importantly at Kūkaniloko.

Walt Keale also spent time with us at Kūkaniloko where he expressed his mana‘o and interpretations of the place. He also commented on the important time when there is no shadow, which he explained, is during the time the sun is at the two tropics. “During this time, when there is no shadow, it is a time of mana, when your shadow is completely within you and you are solely aligned with the universe and your creator.”

Navigation Training Observations

In recent years, Tom Lenchanko has been the individual most interested in the teaching of navigation at Kūkaniloko. He has indicated that stone 132 is a “Navigators Seat.” This stone is at the south end of the site. He explained that by sitting at this pōhaku, it provided a navigator in training a similar view to being in a wa‘a where one could study the rising and the setting of stars from this point. Thus, ideas on teaching navigation today can be done from this spot. Uluwehi Hopkins also mentioned the “Navigators Seat” pōhaku, as Tom shared this information with her. She stated that “The navigators stone [stone 132]

387

Confidential

Figure 9‐14. Uluwehi Hopkins sitting on the "Navigators Seat " (stone or Pōhaku #132

lines up with another rock [stone 69] to the northwest, which represents the front of the manu of the wa‘a. I’ve never brought a compass to measure the degrees, but if you line up that rock it points right towards the valley where Holoholokū is on Kaua‘i in Wailua Valley.” Uluwehi eventually took measurements of the alignment between the “Navigators Seat” pōhaku and the “Manu” pōhaku, and determined that the angle was 303 degrees, northwest.

A number of community members also indicated that stone 93 was used like the gourd navigation training device (one used at European contact in Hawai‘i). Kamoa Quitevas elaborated on stone 93, which he refers to as the pōhaku with a poho (depression). “It is now turned on its side, but the poho used to be filled with wai and used as a star gazing pōhaku - such as the ipu ho‘okele wa‘a instrument.” Walt Keale also referred to stone 93 as the “Stone Bowl” and the “Pōhaku Kilo Hōkū,” where water was placed in the bowl or depression that is located on the top of the pōhaku, and then used as a mirror to reflect the stars above. Martha Yent of the State Parks also spent time at Kūkaniloko with Keale and commented, “I’ve only recently come to better understand 388

through [Walt] Keale at Nā Pōhaku o Hauwahine, the whole navigational use of the depressions with water.”

Considering Alignments

Paul Coleman, an Astrophysics Professor at UH Mānoa, shared how one might use the cosmos to build heiau:

Build your heiau in conformance with nature. You start at night and you start at a point and line up the rocks towards the north star and that automatically gives you a north - south direction.

During his years of studying this wahi pana, Doug Fernandez has made observations suggesting that “many heiau align from Kūkaniloko during the summer and winter solstices, spring and fall equinoxes, and the rising and setting of the moon, starts, and constellations.”Confidential Doug maintains that cultural astronomy “is very important for us to know today because studying the alignments of heiau will give us information on time and dates including the day, month, and year when the structure was built.” Some of his findings were discussed in Chapter 6.

Figure 9-15. Doug Fernandez setting up his equipment to take alignment measurements of Pōhaku #103. 389

Confidential

Figure 9‐16. Martha Noyes sharing the map she created about the alignments of Kūkaniloko

Summary

These cultural astronomers’ observations are again part of more complex ideas about the traditional era use of Kūkaniloko to track seasons, teach navigation, and set up heiau alignments. Chapter 6 discusses these hypotheses in more detail, for they are part of attempts to understand how Kūkaniloko was used in traditional times. Cultural astronomical observations continue at Kūkaniloko. In many cases, besides doing modern astronomical observations, these researchers do archival research and interview knowledgeable kupuna to gain insight into traditional era approaches to tracking seasons, teaching navigation, or aligning architectural structures to other structures or to astronomical phenomena. This research reflects modern scholars’ recognition that cultures throughout the world monitored astronomical patterns and events to track seasons, make predictions on the future, navigate, align architectural structures, name chiefs or nobles, etc. – as was the case in the traditional era in the Hawaiian Islands.

Also, as the general public became more aware of these observations and the cultural astronomers’ interpretations in the 1990s, members of the community began to attend gatherings at Kūkaniloko at the solstices and equinox to commemorate these ideas and carry on new cultural traditions. (These gatherings are mentioned above under Rituals.)

390

Confidential

Figure 9‐17. Winter Solstice 2010 looking west at sunset. The sun is setting just south of Kolekole Pass. Stone 103 is in the foreground.

CLOSING

The community’s mana‘o and ‘ike about the cultural practices that take place at Kūkaniloko today portray the continued importance of this wahi pana to the identity and well being of Native Hawaiians. Through the interviews, it was clearly evident that many people still value and use Kūkaniloko today to perpetuate cultural practices of the past and the present. The Hawaiian culture is dynamic and alive, and Kūkaniloko serves as an important place where Hawaiian cultural practices can flourish and be passed on through the generations.

391

CHAPTER 10

BOUNDARIES OF KŪKANILOKO

Ross Cordy Kelley Uyeoka Kehau Souza

The cultural landscape of Kūkaniloko does not end at the boundaries of the Galbraith property, but it goes way beyond that … [Shad Kane 2010]

LConfidentialīhu‘e sites are all interconnected. They are a huge complex of sites and the piko of the entire complex is Kūkaniloko. Kūkaniloko is the piko … [Kamoa Quitevis 2009]

Kūkaniloko is the piko of O‘ahu … [Jo-Lin Kalimapau 2010]

INTRODUCTION

The federal and state historic preservation laws require that historic properties have defined boundaries. This is a vital step in moving to preserve and protect historic properties. It must be done if one wants to utilize these laws to protect Kūkaniloko, and these are currently the key laws for preserving historic properties.

However, establishing boundaries to a historic or cultural property is often a difficult task, for individual historic places are hardly ever isolated. They are parts of a larger cultural landscape that gives that place its meaning – its meaning culturally and historically. Indigenous peoples and cultural practitioners often see historic places that are important to them in this larger perspective, and have rarely thought about assigning boundaries to parts of the landscape. Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) studies have an advantage in their interviewing process to identify these concerns of members of the community and to look at different levels of boundaries. Of the more than 50 people we consulted with for this project, only two individuals provided us with details of what the most suitable boundaries for Kūkaniloko should be. It was clear that this issue of determining specific boundaries for Kūkaniloko remained difficult and complex to most of the community members we interviewed because of the belief that the cultural landscape cannot be artificially divided into small pieces or disjointed fragments. But, all of the community participants did agree that the boundaries should be expanded beyond the current 5-acre parcel. Also, the interviews clearly identified different ideas about the cultural landscape that was associated with Kūkaniloko, actually identifying different 392

levels of cultural landscapes with general ideas about boundaries. Importantly, the archival research shows similar levels of boundaries. This chapter presents this information.

Last, the historic preservation process, while bureaucratic and full of legal jargon, actually can be more flexible than most might think. There is no reason not to suggest several levels of boundaries for Kūkaniloko, or for the cultural landscapes associated with Kūkaniloko. Also, boundaries can always be adjusted and changed.

KŪKANILOKO: THE BIRTH SPOT AND THE PU‘UHONUA

The older archival documents (mo‘olelo, oli, mele) seem to identify a bounded sacred area, which included the birthstones, the heiau Ho‘olonopahu, and probably other structures and open areas. The archaeological study by the Stasacks clearly links the basins on the stones with poho, also associated with birthing activities. The 1920s information fromConfidential Kapanokalani suggests that other stones associated with the birthing were ¼ of a mile to the north. Modern hypotheses (post-1980) suggest that this Kūkaniloko was also used for tracking the seasons and navigational training, although no older mo‘olelo or archival records have been found that support these ideas. But, even when just considering Kūkaniloko as the extremely sacred birthing place and pu‘uhonua, it is clear that it was a complex of features likely within a bounded, named area (an area quite possibly enclosed by a stone wall).

Most of the people that we interviewed understood this point of a larger complex of features. For example, Aunty Vicky Holt-Takamine illustrated Kūkaniloko as an entire complex consisting of “places for the newborn ali‘i to stay until the piko fell out. It was not some place where you just gave birth and left. It was a whole complex where the women would stay there until they were ready to hānau, then stay there until the ‘iewe was buried and the piko fell off and was buried. It was a complex.”

Unfortunately, we have as yet found no first-hand descriptions of this Kūkaniloko, the birthing place and pu‘uhonua. If there was an enclosing wall, it was destroyed by pineapple cultivation. If there were stones to the north, they too were destroyed by pineapple cultivation. We are not even sure exactly where Ho‘olonopahu was, because its ruins too seem to have been destroyed by pineapple cultivation. You could take Kamakau’s 1865 description of the heiau being 1½ furlongs (990 ft) to the south and the drum area 2 furlongs (1,320 ft) to the west, but it is hard to evaluate the accuracy of Kamakau’s description. So until a pre-pineapple first-hand description of Kūkaniloko is found, how do we suggest this level of Kūkaniloko’s boundaries be defined?

Nearly all interviewed agreed that the current 5 acres does not adequately include all the former places within Kūkaniloko the birthing place. Although many of the cultural structures that were part of Kūkaniloko have been destroyed (e.g., Ho‘olonopahu heiau), according to community members, these places still contain mana. Thus, a larger area needs to be considered for Kūkaniloko, the birthing place. 393

Many also pointed to view plane concerns. Some of the study participants that we spoke to considered the 360-degree view plane surrounding Kūkaniloko to be an important element of Kūkaniloko. Individuals recited the names and descriptions of the pu‘u that make up the Wai‘anae range to highlight the connection to Kūkaniloko as part of its cultural landscape. Kamoa Quitevas noted that wahine hapai is the silhouette in the Wai‘anae Mountain range that looks like a woman giving birth. Ka‘ala is her hapai belly, Kalena is her bosom, Kūmakali‘i is her lips and chin, and Kamoali‘i is the elbow of the newborn chief. Uluwehi Hopkins explained, “I believe that one of the reasons why Kūkaniloko is where it is because of the mauna, and wahine hapai, which is clearly visible from here.” Audrey Howard also strongly believes that Kūkaniloko is located at that exact spot because of hapai wahine’s presence. Thus, the open view to look upon wahine hapai is a very important boundary feature for a number of community members.

These comments interestingly correspond with archival research. The earliest identification ofConfidential the wahine hapai that we could find was that in Charles Kenn’s 1937 article. However, the names of some of the mountains appear in many of the old mo‘olelo, mele and oli: Ka‘ala, Kamaoha, Maunauna, Kānehoa, Hāpapa. These are visible landmarks of the cultural landscape in which Kūkaniloko sat. One could also easily note that presence of the winds that came down from these mountains, the streams that flow down from them, and streams that flow by Kūkaniloko itself. Then there are the named places on the kula, also linked to the landscape, the mountains and Kūkaniloko. Also, during the birth of a high chief, signs would be looked for in the skies, so cloud, star and other astronomical signs were important. (Further, if one supports the hypotheses that Kūkaniloko was used to track the seasons, then the view plane is vital.) So all sources of information – today’s community information and older archival information – indicate that the view plane is an important part of Kūkaniloko.

The view plane is actually an important part of determining a historic property’s boundaries from the perspective of the state and federal historic preservation laws. Our senior researcher was the Branch Chief of the Archaeology Branch in the State Historic Preservation Office for many years, and he emphasizes that site borders were extended out based on considerations like view planes. You do not want a high rise apartment to be looming over a significant historic property. A related aspect of determining a historic property’s boundaries is what is going to be close by, even if low rise. A golf course fairway might be low rise, but will it be a visual impact on a significant historic property?

Representative Marcus Oshiro was one of the only participants that presented us with an exact number of acres the boundary of Kūkaniloko should be, stating that 2,200 acres is an appropriate boundary for the site. He shared, “All you have right now is 5 acres, but the appropriate boundary is the entire parcel that’s for sale.” In his opinion, all of the 2,200 acres that were being sold by the Galbraith Estate should have been acquired by the State, the Trust for Public Lands, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, and the Army to be set aside for preservation. Unfortunately, some of the land has already been sold, so Representative Oshiro explained that now it remains even more critical to purchase the remaining 1,500 acres to protect the land and view planes surrounding Kūkaniloko. 394

Representative Oshiro’s points are clearly relevant. We suggest a combination of factors in recommending a boundary at this level. We realize that this Kūkaniloko – the sacred birthing site and pu‘uhonua – was a larger complex than the current stones and that the view plane is critical in its significance. Thus, we recommend something similar to what Representative Oshiro stated, focusing on the Galbraith lands.

We suggest this boundary should encompass all the Galbraith open land on the Whitmore Village side of North Kamehameha Highway up to Poamoho Stream, then down Poamoho Stream to the border of Wahiawā (between Kemo‘o and Halahape – the Grant 604 west border), across this border to Kaukonahua Stream, and then along Kaukonahua Stream and its north fork back to North Kamehameha Highway.

Confidential

Figure 10-1. The hatched area is what we are suggesting as the boundary for the historic property of Kūkaniloko, the sacred birthing place, pu‘uhonua, and possible tracking place of the seasons. The gap in the top against Poamoho Stream is not part of the Galbraith piece and has modern development on it. The white rectangle is the current Kūkaniloko state monument.

This acreage does not include the Kemo‘o lands of the Galbraith Estate, as these seem historically to have been separate. It is essentially the Grants 604-606 area. It includes approximately 1,477 acres – the last remaining open land of Wahiawā that surround 395

Kūkaniloko the sacred birthing site and pu‘uhonua. See Figure 10-1. This vast acreage as one boundary should protect the view plane of Kūkaniloko, as well as the places once part of the birthing area that, although perhaps no longer having stone remains, still contain their mana and sacredness to members of the Hawaiian community.

THE CHIEFLY CENTER OF LĪHU‘E-KALAKOA-WAHIAWĀ

The archival research and to a degree the input of the community also identifies this landscape as the next level up with which Kūkaniloko was vitally linked.

The old mo‘olelo, oli and mele sometimes seem to call this center Līhu‘e, sometimes Wahiawā, sometimes both – and some link Halemano (although as seen in Chapter 6 we think that the latter is unlikely). Fifteen years ago our senior researcher published an article on the traditional era history of O‘ahu (later published as a small book in 2002, The Rise and Fall of the O‘ahu Kingdom). In that publication, he pointed out that the oldConfidential mo‘olelo and oli identified Kūkaniloko and Līhu‘e as vital places in the rise of the O‘ahu Kingdom in the 1400s, and actually back to the rise of smaller kingdoms a century earlier. At that time academic anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians had seemed to have forgotten how important these places were (probably due to a focus of archaeologists only on archaeological information and the focus of historians on the 1800s Monarchy era). He emphasized that Līhu‘e was an early royal center in the 1300s and the royal center from the 1400s to the time of Mā‘ilikukahi in the mid-1500s. Many have cited that article. In the research done for this paper, he still believes that these are two vital places. But he now believes that the chiefly center sat across three lands: Līhu‘e (to the west of the old Waialua Trail), Wahiawā (to the east of the trail, including the kula around Kūkaniloko, the north fork of Kaukonahua and half the kula where today’s Wahiawā town sits), and Kalakoa (to the east of the trail in what was known as Wai’anae uka in the mid-1800s, including the south half of the kula where Wahaiwā town sits, the south fork of Kaukonahua and the kula to the south to the border of Waikakalaua). It is not so clear (at least in his view) what this chiefly center was called. Līhu‘e may today be the commonly accepted term. Or one could call it the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā chiefly center (more awkward, but including all three lands). There may have been other early chiefly centers in the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua country of the 1300s and in that part of the Kingdom of O‘ahu, but the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā chiefly center and Kūkaniloko were extremely important.

The boundaries of this chiefly center are not clear. As shown in Chapter 6, it seems to have been roughly circular. See Figure 10-2 here. It would have included houseyards of the ruler, the high chiefs, their attendants and retinue, and of local commoners. The houseyards of the high chiefs and ruler would have included small hale-sized heiau and larger mua (men’s houses). The ruler’s houseyard would likely have been quite close to the main heiau in the chiefly center – we assume close to Kūkaniloko. This chiefly center would have included open grounds for gaming (e.g., maika grounds) and hula, and for training of warriors. It was located on the flat kula along the Waialua Trail and along branch trails out to Kūkaniloko and out to Kalakoa. How far out the circle extended from the flat lands focused around Kūkaniloko is impossible to tell at 396

present. As seen in Chapter 6, this center as a chiefly and birthing center seems to have been abandoned in the early 1600s. So its population would have dramatically dropped by the 1700s. Still one would expect that in the 1800s, some of these houseyards would have been in use and others would be archaeological ruins. The construction of Wahiawā, pineapple fields, and Schofield and Wheeler likely destroyed these remnants. If first-hand descriptions from the 1800s can be found, then the boundary of this chiefly center might be able to be better determined. Also, if plantation workers are interviewed, it might be possible to identify fields where dense finds of artifacts occurred; and this might give clues as to the size of the chiefly center. But at present, we can only estimate very roughly the size of this center.

Confidential

Figure 10-2. Map of the Chiefly Center, very approximately on its outer edges.

Again, this chiefly center was importantly linked to Kūkaniloko – indeed, Kūkaniloko was part of this center. The chiefs that used Kūkaniloko lived here. High ranking women before giving birth would likely have resided in these houseyards until the time of birth approached, at which point they would have been moved to Kūkaniloko as community members have also noted. Further, these women would likely have remained at Kūkaniloko for a period of time after giving birth – for immediate post-birth health care and possibly for several days of care and purification rituals. 397

So at this level, one can identify a very rough boundary that corresponded with the Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā chiefly center. We would note that part of that center lies within the boundaries noted above for Kūkaniloko – not all the land out within the visual buffer was Kūkaniloko the sacred place; some of the land would have held other parts of the chiefly center.

THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF THE CENTRAL PLATEAU

Many of our community participants pointed to a much larger cultural landscape of which Kūkaniloko was a part. One participant specifically stated that Kūkaniloko encompasses the lands between Mililani and Mokuleia and between the Ko‘olau and Wai‘anae Mountain Ranges. According to Tom Lenchanko, the cultural landscape of Kūkaniloko encompasses ka‘ānani‘au [rock pilings aligned in a circular fashion] that include the regions of Līhu‘e, Halemano, and Wahiawā and make up an area totaling 36,000 acres.3 ThisConfidential individual identified some of these ka‘ānani‘au as Halemano, O‘ahu nui, Paupalai, Halawa, ‘Ō‘io, Hāwea, Kou, Halahape, Maunauna, Ku‘ua, Kānewai, and Kulihemo. Kamoa Quitevis also views the expanse of the Līhu‘e region as the proper cultural landscape of Kūkaniloko. “Līhu‘e sites are all interconnected. They are a huge complex of sites and the piko of the entire complex is Kūkaniloko. Kūkaniloko is the piko and the other heiau and wahi pana of the area, such as O‘ahunui, Hale‘au‘au, Kūmakali‘i, Kalena, and Maunauna are all connected. Kūkaniloko was also the center of a larger learning complex made up of different halau. All of these halau were important aspects of raising an ali‘i child, and Kūkaniloko could not function without this complex. These are the reasons why people say Kūkaniloko encompasses 36,000 acres, and that the boundaries of Kūkaniloko should include this entire complex of sites and ancient learning areas.” When asked what she thought would be appropriate boundaries for Kūkaniloko, Maria Orr explained, “If you go by the mo‘olelo, the boundaries are very extensive because as part of the whole process, you not only have the birthing place, but you have the place where the drums were, and the place where the umbilical cord was cut, and the kaiaka area. So there’s a whole lot involved in the big picture. Plus all of the ka‘ānani‘au which were also part of Līhu‘e.” Mike Desilets described the boundaries of Līhu‘e as the central plateau lands that are west of Wahiawā and east of the Wai‘anae Mountain range. He noted that Līhu‘e can also refer to the entire central plateau that is made up of Helemano and Wahiawā. According to Jo-Lin Kalimapau, “everyone knows that Kūkaniloko is 36,000 acres.”

As noted in Chapter 6, the older mo‘olelo, oli, and mele and archaeological information also point to a larger region – similar in size to what the community is pointing out. We have called this region in this paper the Central Plateau. We found no Hawaiian term for this entire region. Names of its lands are constantly referred to (Līhu‘e, Wahiawā, Halemano, Paupauwela, Kalakoa, Waikakalaua, etc.), but no general term was found. This region has an old history, and it may have even been one of the hypothesized many small, independent countries that were on O‘ahu prior to the AD 1300s.

398

We described the boundaries of the Central Plateau in Chapter 4. The boundaries are as follows:

It runs along the Wai‘anae ridgeline from Kānehoa to Ka‘ala, then east along the spur ridge from Ka‘ala to Mā‘ili, then up along Kaukonahua Stream to the border between Kemo‘o and Wahiawā (marked by Kahauhau gulch), then along this border to Poamoho Stream, then arbitrarily we extended it north to the next stream running down the kula of Pa‘ala‘a (Halemano Stream), then up that stream to the Ko‘olau’s (including Halemano ‘ili of Pa‘ala‘a), then along the Ko‘olau ridgeline to Waiakalaua Stream, then west down Waikakalaua Stream to its joining with Wai‘eli Stream (the joined streams called Waikele Stream), then arbitrarily in a straight line across the kula lands of Pouhala ‘ili of Waikele and of Līhu‘e ‘ili of Honouliuli to the tip of Maunauna, then up the spur ridge from Maunauna to Kānehoa. Confidential

Figure 10-3. The Central Plateau of O‘ahu, the vital cultural landscape associated with Kūkaniloko and the Līhu‘e (Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā) chiefly center. The acreage enclosed on this map is 36,841 acres.

These borders of the Central Plateau encompass an area of 36,841 acres. Note that this includes arbitrary boundaries on the north and south fringes of the Central Plateau. Those could be clarified and modified with more research. For example, does Līhu‘e ‘ili in 399

Honouliuli have more cultural and historical ties with the Central Plateau or with ‘Ewa? Our research suggests some of both, but that more work is needed. How much of Pa‘ala‘a uka had its ties to this area? Again more research is needed. However, this boundary is defined by natural features to a large degree, matching the concepts of the mo‘olelo. No old mo‘olelo, oli or mele refer to marker stones at the limits of the Central Plateau that we know of. More interview and archival research may clarify those points.

One might quibble about the boundaries of this region on its northern and southern fringes and about the exact acreage included in the region, but most definitely this is the larger, immediate cultural landscape that Kūkaniloko and the chiefly center of Līhu‘e-Kalakoa-Wahiawā sat within. This cultural landscape and Kūkaniloko are entwined culturally and historically – even into modern times.

THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF ALL O‘AHU

AccordingConfidential to one community member, the cultural landscape of Kūkaniloko encompasses the entire island of O‘ahu. This individual shared the story of how O‘ahu used to be two islands that spiritually united at the piko, Kūkaniloko. This union between the Wai‘anae Mountain range, the wahine, and the Ko‘olau Mountain range, the kāne, exemplifies how all of O‘ahu is intimately connected to Kūkaniloko. Furthermore this individual believes that all of these connections, places, and mo‘olelo should be considered in determining the most appropriate boundaries for Kūkaniloko, the most sacred site on O‘ahu. Other community members pointed out that other important places on O‘ahu were aligned with Kūkaniloko: Kū‘īlioloa heiau in Wai‘anae, Pu‘u o Kapolei and Pu‘u Kaua in seaward ‘Ewa, places in Kualoa in Ko‘olaupoko, and Kapukapuakea heiau in seaward Waialua. Jo-Lin Kalimapau eloquently stated that O‘ahu is the temple and Kūkaniloko is the piko of the temple. Uluwehi Hopkins noted, “Also, there’s no denying that it’s pretty much the center of the island.” This concept of Kūkaniloko as the piko of O‘ahu and its linkage to all O‘ahu is noted by many.

The archival information (the old mo‘olelo, oli, and mele) also point to the linkages of Kūkaniloko to all O‘ahu. They do not mention the piko concept. But the mo‘olelo clearly have Kūkaniloko and the chiefly center as vital places in the traditional era history of the rise of the O‘ahu Kingdom. Kapawa was born here and is said to have been “the first chief to be set up as a ruling chief. This was at Waialua, Oahu; and from then on, the group of Hawaiian Islands became established as chief-ruled kingdoms” [Kamakau].1 Kapawa seems likely to have lived in the late 1200s or early 1300s. The Hāloa-Nana‘ulu-Māweke line of chiefs became established here by the end of the 1300s. When O‘ahu became unified as one kingdom in the 1400s, its mō‘ī still used this chiefly center and birthing area. Famous mō‘ī lived at this royal center and were born here through the 1500s and into the early 1600s, including Mā‘ilikukahi and Kalanimanuia, with Kākuhihewa the last known ali‘i to be born here (perhaps about 1620). Shad Kane noted in his interview that personal histories and places associated with these mō‘ī also link to Kūkaniloko, specifically pointing to Kalanimanuia. Even after Kūkaniloko was no longer used for high ranking births and the mō‘ī ruled elsewhere, Kūkaniloko and its chiefly center remained a famed place (a wahi kaulana or wahi pana) – remained so into 400

the time of Kamehameha I (who tried to have Keōpūolani give birth here), into the late 1870s-1880s (seen by the stories of Kalākaua and the history of Fornander), and into the 1890s (with the stories of Nakuina). Also, Kūkaniloko remained famous – although much less well known – through the 20th Century in the care of Galbraith, Goodale and the Waialua Agricultural Company, the Daughters of Hawai‘i, the Waialua Hawaiian Civic Club, the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and State Parks.

So definitely, at one level, Kūkaniloko is indeed tied to the cultural landscape and the history of O‘ahu.

THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF ALL THE ISLANDS

One can also make the argument that Kūkaniloko is part of the cultural landscape of all the islands. Many of our interview participants stated Kūkaniloko is clearly connected to Holoholokū, the birthing site at the royal center of Wailua on Kaua‘i. The association of theseConfidential two places goes back at least to 1865 when Kamakau wrote, “There were two places set aside for the birth of chiefs as signs to make clear that they were high chiefs, ali‘i nui, or chiefs, ali‘i. These were Kūkaniloko in Wai‘alua, O‘ahu, and Holoholokū at Wailua, Kaua‘i.”2 Kamakau’s words have been restated ever since, by Fornander, Thrum, Webb, and others. Our review of the older mo‘olelo indicates that there were birthing places at almost every royal center. Whether these included stones or not is uncertain. But high ranking chiefs were born at other important spots, usually at ruling centers, in the Kingdoms of Hawai‘i and Maui, and even at other spots in the Kingdom of O‘ahu (in Kailua and Waikīkī). Also, similar rituals (generally) seem to have accompanied the birth. Thus, all these high ranking birth places of the kingdoms are important in the history of the islands. But, Kūkaniloko particularly seems to have been famed!

So Kūkaniloko does have its place in the cultural landscape and history of all the islands.

EVEN LARGER LANDSCAPES

Some have suggested broader ties. Jo-Lin Kalimapau noted “Kūkaniloko is the piko of O‘ahu, the center of the Hawaiian Islands, the center of the Pacific. The piko radiates out to all shores.” Shad Kane shared a mo‘olelo with us about Hawai‘i’s connections to Tahiti and Samoa to further portray that the cultural landscape does not end at the shore of the Hawaiian Islands, but continues on to other areas in the Pacific. While Hawaiians were Polynesians arriving from Central Polynesia many centuries ago and thus there are historical and cultural connections among all Polynesians, we hesitate to make any claim connecting Kūkaniloko to this larger landscape – although we certainly recognize the enthusiasm of community members over Kūkaniloko’s importance.

401

CONCLUSIONS ON KŪKANILOKO’S BOUNDARIES

The above discussion shows that Kūkaniloko is embedded in several ascending levels of cultural and historical landscapes. Kūkaniloko – the birthing place and pu‘uhonua – was a bounded sacred area within the chiefly center of Līhu‘e-Kalakoa- Wahiawā (called Līhu‘e by many today). In turn, this chiefly center and Kūkaniloko within it were part of the larger cultural landscape of the Central Plateau, and had been so for centuries. And, the chiefly center and Kūkaniloko and the Central Plateau played key roles in the early history of O‘ahu and in the rise of the Kingdom of O‘ahu. Finally, Kūkaniloko was a famed place for high ranking birthing throughout the Hawaiian Islands – and remained famous long after its abandonment in the early 1600s. It, thus, has a place in the cultural and historical landscape of all of the Hawaiian Islands.

Note, only the sacred place – the birthing place and pu‘uhonua (likely bounded) – was called Kūkaniloko in the older mo‘olelo, oli and mele. The chiefly center would have had anotherConfidential name, perhaps just Līhu‘e, perhaps referencing any one of the three lands it lay in (Līhu‘e, Kalakoa, Wahiawā), or perhaps a term now lost. The Central Plateau was not called Kūkaniloko in the older mo‘olelo, oli and mele. We would encourage that these place name references of the older mo‘olelo be retained, to maintain a tie to the past. In this light, the larger region of the Central Plateau probably should not be called Kūkaniloko, for Kamakau, Hale‘ole, Kalākaua, and other Hawaiian authors of the 1860s-1870s did not use this reference, and we would not presume to know more than them as they were much closer to older times. However, even with Kūkaniloko just being the sacred place, it is still vitally linked to the chiefly center, to the Central Plateau, to O‘ahu and to all the Islands.

As noted above we do not know the exact borders of the sacred place called Kūkaniloko. But we can be fairly safe in assuming that it lies within the borders marked by the Whitmore Village edge of the Galbraith lands to the east of North Kamehameha Highway, up to Poamoho Stream, over to the Kemo‘o/Wahiawā (Halahape) border, down to Kaukonahua Stream, and along Kaukonahua Stream and along its north fork back to North Kamehameha Highway – as presented earlier in this chapter. This is consistent with Kamakau’s 1865 description, and with all the other bits and pieces of past information. These borders likely are larger than the sacred place of Kūkaniloko, but they are vital to ensure its view plane is preserved. These borders are also likely to include part of the chiefly center that was around Kūkaniloko in this part of Wahiawā. Thus, this is what we suggest be proposed as the border of the historic property to be called Kūkaniloko.

Again, the chiefly center is a larger area on the flat lands of Wahiawā, Līhu‘e (through parts of Schofield’s housing and Wheeler), and Kalakoa. We also do not know the borders of this chiefly center. Much of the chiefly center is likely destroyed today, due to pineapple, urbanization, and military installations. But it can be identified as a historic property – a district or landscape – and it can be described, and can have its significance evaluated. It can be placed on the Hawai‘i State Inventory of Historic Places, and it can be nominated to the State and National Registers. 402

Similarly, the Central Plateau can be considered a historic property – a district or cultural landscape consisting of multiple contributing properties. These contributing properties consist of archaeological sites on the Schofield Barracks lands, Kūkaniloko itself, peaks and passes of the Wai‘anae mountains, kula and streams, etc. This historic property – a district or landscape – can also be described, and can have its significance evaluated. It too can be placed on the Hawai‘i State Inventory of Historic places, and it can be nominated to the State and National Registers. The recent GANDA study of the Līhu‘e area on Schofield Barracks provides some of the groundwork, as does this study.

The State site inventory documentation and the Register nominations for the chiefly center and the Central Plateau landscapes/districts can be lengthy processes, as neither landscape/district is currently in the Hawai‘i State Inventory or on the State and National Registers. The steps needed are briefly as follows:

1) Placement onConfidential the Hawai‘i State Inventory of Historic Places. a) This simply requires interaction with the State Historic Preservation Division. b) It will require submittal of: I) a boundary for the chiefly center district and for the Central Plateau district, II) itemization of the historic properties within each district (archaeological properties, natural features associated with famed places, places of current traditional cultural significance), and III) a narrative that links these properties together into a district. [All the above information can be pulled from this report.] c) The State Historic Preservation Division typically will then place each district in the State Inventory of Historic Places. d) Eventually, or concurrently, significance evaluations of each district could be submitted to the Division for review and approval. Arguments in support of each significance criterion need to be included, including traditional cultural significance.

2) Placement on the Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places. a) This step requires submittal of a filled out Register nomination form to the State Historic Preservation Division with the above information: boundary, itemization of historic properties within each district, a narrative that links these properties together into a district, and significance evaluations. b) The historic Preservation Division reviews the form, and if acceptably filled out, the nomination gets put on the agenda for the Hawai‘i State Review Board of Historic Places, where the nomination is reviewed and a decision is made. I) This step requires notification of the landowners within the district. Landowners may come forward in support or opposition to the nomination. Thus, when approaching this step, it would be desirable to first attempt to consult with the landowners and get their support. This will increase support and reduce opposition. They will often have questions such as, “How will this restrict my use of the land?” With lots of landowners in these two districts, such consultation may require a fair amount of work. In preparing for 403

questions, the proposer of the nomination should sit down with Historic Preservation Division staff to fully understand the impacts of putting districts on the Register. It might involve identification of severely impacted areas within the districts (impacted by pineapple or certain types of urbanization) and agreeing certain kinds of uses are not a problem. II) The Review Board meeting is often preceded by a site visit, so the Board members can fully understand the nature of the historic district being nominated. III) If the Review Board approves the nomination, the districts will be placed on The Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places.

3) Placement on the National Register of Historic Places. a) When the Hawai‘i State Review Board approves the placement of a historic property on The Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places, if desired, usually the nomination forms are passed on to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places forConfidential consideration of placement on the National Register. b) The Keeper reviews the forms for completeness. Once complete, then the Keeper makes a decision for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. (If the Hawai‘i State Review Board approved the placement of a historic property on The Hawai‘i State Register of Historic Places, the Keeper usually places the property on the National Register (once the form is complete). However, much more complicated supportive evidence is required in support of traditional cultural significance at the federal level, so it is good to include this at the State level, so it can be passed up to the National level. Also, the federal approach for traditional cultural significance is to embed it within criterion A, while the state has a separate criterion (criterion E); so this would have to be clarified in the submittal up to the federal level.

Getting the cultural landscapes/districts of the chiefly center and of the Central Plateau in the State Inventory of Historic Places is the easiest of the above steps, and perhaps the most important. It will draw attention of the State Historic Preservation Division and planners to developments planned within the district borders. The districts will be importantly viewed as traditional cultural properties. There may be minimal concerns about low rise developments in severely impacted areas of the districts (areas impacted already by modern development), but discussions will have to occur on impacts. Placing these landscapes/districts on the Registers may be more complicated, because landowners must be notified and can object. Thus, consultation(s) would be beneficial with landowners ahead of nominations to the Registers, to try to resolve concerns about impacts of being on the Registers. But traditional cultural significance can be easily supported for each district; and if landowners’ concerns about uses can be addressed (for example, certain low-rise uses being acceptable), placement on the Registers might be speedier. We believe these two historic districts/landscapes can be recognized officially with placement on the State and National Registers, if this result is desired.

404

However, the most pressing current boundary problem in our view is to ensure that the official historic property boundary of Kūkaniloko (the birthing place) be increased, so it will include the original sacred area and protect its view plane. To achieve these aims, we suggest that the boundary of Kūkaniloko as a historic property be the one proposed here in this chapter. Since Kukaniloko has already officially been determined to be significant and is on the State and National Registers, only a boundary alteration is needed. The easiest approach towards resolving this concern is to consult with the landowners involved. Currently, these landowners are only State Parks and the Galbraith Estate. If the landowners agree, then a letter can be submitted to the Historic Preservation Division, requesting that a letter be issued by the Division that expands the historic property boundary on the State Inventory of Historic Places. This will ensure that future actions have to consider impacts within that boundary. A boundary revision of the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places site form and the National Register form can then follow. This will require revision of the existing form to include the new boundary. This form can also be revised to further clarify the significance of the property, emphasizing the traditional culturalConfidential significance – a step described in the next chapter. Or the form could simply first just have its boundary revised. This revision can be done by the Division’s staff or be expedited by outside individuals. The revised boundary then goes to the Hawai‘i State Review Board for approval. Once approved, it goes on to the National Register. We cannot emphasize enough how important this boundary revision is. It will officially greatly increase the historic property boundary of Kūkaniloko, helping to ensure better protection of this very important wahi pana. 405

CHAPTER 11

THE SIGNIFICANCE (IMPORTANCE) OF KŪKANILOKO

As noted in the Introduction and Chapter 2 on Traditional Cultural Properties, the state and federal historic preservation laws require that, before historic properties undergo “treatment” (like preservation planning), their importance under specific legal criteria (traits) must be determined. This importance is termed significance in the laws. So we have included this chapter, so management concerns are clearly met under the laws and to emphasize to the wider public that Kūkaniloko as a historic place – as a wahi pana – is a significant historic property under all the legal criteria of the state and federal laws. Confidential THE STATE AND FEDERAL SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The State of Hawai‘i criteria are briefly summarized as follows:

Criterion A. Significant for broad patterns of history. Criterion B. Significant for association with famous persons in Hawaiian history and for specific traditional Hawaiian deities. Criterion C. Excellent example of a type. Criterion D. Significant for information content. Criterion E. Traditional cultural significance.

The federal criteria under the National Historic Preservation Act are similar, with traditional cultural significance placed under Criterion A. These criteria (quoted) are as follows:

Criterion A: (Event) Association with events that have made significant contributions to the broad patterns of American history. Criterion B: (Person) Association with the lives of persons significant to our past. Criterion C: (Design/Construction) Embody the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguished entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Criterion D: (Information Potential) Yield, or likely to yield, information of relevance to prehistory and history.

406

KŪKANILOKO HAS ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED SIGNIFICANT: THE 1994 NATIONAL REGISTER SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION & CLARIFICATIONS

Kūkaniloko, as a birthing site for ali‘i nui and mō‘ī and as a pu‘uhonua, has already been determined significant under all the above criteria. The National Register nomination form prepared by the Historic Sites Division in 1972 led to Kūkaniloko being determined significant and being placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1973. In 1994, the National Register listing was revised to include the 4.5 acres that the State had acquired around the “birthstones” and to further clarify Kūkaniloko’s history. The state Historic Preservation Division prepared a revised National Register form in 1994, and these revisions to the National Register were accepted in February of 1995 (National Register form).

The 1994 National Register form touches upon Kūkaniloko meeting the federal significance criteria,Confidential but sometimes not specifically. The 1994 form clarified that Kūkaniloko was “of exceptional significance for its contribution to the social, religious and political patterns of Hawaiian history” because:

Along with Holoholoku on Kauai, Kukaniloko is one of only two places known to have been specifically designated for the birth of high ranking children … Kukaniloko is particularly celebrated in recorded traditions as it is repeatedly called upon in commemorating the life-histories of important paramounts in the chiefly lines of Oahu. In ancient Hawai‘i, genealogical descent from the gods gave chiefs their lofty status and, hence, established their right to be leaders of society. Birth within the ritual setting of Kukaniloko served to legitimize this genealogical descent and their godly status was further enhanced if the rituals and prohibitions performed at birth were completed successfully. The Oahu and Kauai chiefly lineages were traditionally known for their antiquity and purity and chiefs from Hawai‘i and Maui were said to have sought greater prestige for their off-spring by marrying those who had strong ancestral ties to exalted lineages. Some have speculated that Kukaniloko on Oahu and Holoholoku on Kauai helped maintain the coveted purity of these genealogical lines and, as such, the significance of Kukaniloko and events that took place there reach far beyond the island of Oahu.

The form also described its possible use as a pu‘uhonua and heiau. Our report clarifies most of this information in detail. But, however one might squabble over the details, Kūkaniloko is clearly significant for its association with broad patterns of Hawaiian 407

history – on O’ahu and across the entire island chain – Criterion A of both the State and National Registers.

The 1994 form noted that Kūkaniloko was the birthplace of important mō‘ī or kings of O‘ahu (“paramounts of the chiefly lines of O‘ahu”) and important ali‘i nui or high chiefs – Criterion B of both registers. The form lists the known ali‘i nui that were born here: Kapawa, La‘amaikahiki, Mā‘ilikūkahi, Kalanimanuia and Kākuhihewa – based on Kamakau and as described in our report in Chapter 6. Our study and others (such as Desilets et al.’s 2009 study done for the Schofield Barracks area) suggest that other ali‘i nui were probably born here also from the 1300s through about 1620 – quite possibly lō ali‘i and Kumuhonua/Kūkaniloko chiefs. Even with only the five known chiefly births, Kūkaniloko is clearly associated with important people in Hawai‘i’s past for all five of these ali‘i were famed for different things. Although the form does not mention it, important deities also were clearly associated with Kūkaniloko, although they are not specified in the older oral histories. However, general birthing practices were associated withConfidential Haumea as documented in Chapter 6. Also, as noted in Chapter 6, general birth practices for the elite involved images of the gods of the father of the child being brought to the birthing spot and other gods being invoked in the heiau where the piko was cut. So multiple gods are likely to have been involved in the birthing process at Kūkaniloko. Clearly, Kūkaniloko meets Criterion B.

The 1994 form does not address Criterion C – significance as an excellent example of a type (of place), or in technical terms embodying “the distinct characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction”. But again, Kūkaniloko is obviously an excellent type of a high ranking birthing place. Indeed as the form notes and almost all records – and most of the community interviewed for this project – Kūkaniloko is one of only two honored birthing places for ali‘i nui with birthing stones that were famous for centuries, right up to the present day – the other being Holoholokū at Wailua on Kaua‘i. While not fully intact today, Kūkaniloko still retains the “birthstones” portions of the its original place – one of the key elements of the original birthing place. So, Kūkaniloko is significant for Criterion C.

The form does mention Criterion D – significance for its information content (or potential to yield information) on history. The place itself was importantly recorded by State Parks in 1992, documenting the surviving stones in detail. The Stasacks’ study of the petroglyphs for this project adds information on Kūkaniloko. It also points out the presence of the many poho (natural and man-made basins) often associated with birthing – the poho needing more detailed study in the future. The National Register form notes that Kūkaniloko could contain subsurface archaeological deposits associated with the stones, which could provide datable material (like charcoal) to help better date the site and which could yield other items that could clarify how the site was used and specifically where. The form also notes that some have proposed hypotheses on the stones being an area to track the seasons, and that further study can occur on these hypotheses. The extent of information recorded to date linked with the oral historical information and other evidence and hypotheses on traditional era use clearly meets this 408

significance criterion – Kūkaniloko is important for its information content on Hawaiian history (Criterion D).

Last the form actually mentions traditional cultural significance, although not specifically pointing this out or noting an associated legal criterion. It states “The continuity of these traditions and the degree to which Kūkaniloko is still valued by the Hawaiian community is demonstrated by the number of traditions and beliefs that could still be recounted in the early part of this century and the continued placement of offerings at the site.” To this we could add that many of these traditions and beliefs are still recounted by the Native Hawaiian community – both in the Wahiawā area and throughout the Islands. As shown in Chapter 9, there is a wide range of contemporary traditional cultural practices continuing at Kūkaniloko that emphasize its continued cultural significance. Kūkaniloko is still honored and revered by the Hawaiian community with continuing cultural practices.

TRADITIONALConfidential CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE: THE VOICE OF THE HAWAIIAN COMMUNITY

In our research in old records for this project and in all our interviews with members of the Hawaiian community, it was obvious that Hawaiians have and do consider Kūkaniloko to be of traditional cultural significance. This meets every sense of the intent of the federal and state laws. But to bring this point vividly home, we prefer to give the voice of the community below in quotes:

During the interview process numerous people mentioned the cultural significance of Kūkaniloko, both in its traditional and contemporary importance. While everyone we spoke with admitted that Kūkaniloko is extremely significant, the reasons why people view Kūkaniloko as significant vary from one person to the next. Jo-Lin Kalimapau summed up this idea very nicely when she stated that, “Each generation and each group of people have different connections to Kūkaniloko, but it is always a sacred connection. That is the one thing that has been consistent since time immemorial, time eternal. Our kupuna say that while every place is special, not every place is sacred. But when you talk about Kūkaniloko, that is sacred. We each have our special places that we mālama, but Kūkaniloko is sacred to all of us. As perpetuated in our chants, Kūkaniloko is the piko of O‘ahu, the center of the Hawaiian Archipelago, and the center of Oceania. O‘ahu is the heiau. Kūkaniloko is the foundation, the physical and spiritual piko of our Nation, ko Hawai‘i Pae ‘āina. Kūkaniloko is sacred because of where it is and what it continues to give us, forever. Kanaka mauli center at and connect to the piko, Kūkaniloko. Therefore, we guard the sacred kapu of Kūkaniloko because we love them for all time... eō e kūka‘awe i nā kapu o kūkaniloko no ka mea aloha nō ho‘i kākou ia lākou i nā kau a kau.”

Others also maintain the same mana‘o as Jo-Lin, that Kūkaniloko is the piko, which all other sites in Hawai‘i are connected to. One participant also believes that Kūkaniloko is the most sacred site on O‘ahu, and for this person, there are multiple reasons why Kūkaniloko is so sacred. One reason is because of ‘āina itself, which this 409

individual views as a heiau, and the primary factor for why Kūkaniloko was chosen to be on O‘ahu. Another reason is the historical significance of the Kūkaniloko complex. Interpretive tours at Kūkaniloko share with groups the names of the ali‘i born at Kūkaniloko, how the kapu ceremonies were run, and what places and sites were utilized as part of the birthing rituals. To some community members, the fact that 36 ali‘i came to Kūkaniloko to witness the birth of a newborn chief portrays how important Kūkaniloko was in ancient society. One participant also emphasizes that Kūkaniloko is significant today because, “it’s a place that gives identity. We come here to communicate with our ancestors, and it’s not just for us kanaka, but it is for everybody to come and experience. O‘ahu is the temple, Kūkaniloko its mana, and we are all connected to it. It is important that as ‘ohana we reconnect to the piko, and then from there we can understand who we are, and whose child we are.”

Maria Orr also believes in the mana of the ‘āina, and shared, “I think they [the stones] were alreadyConfidential there and they took advantage of creating and shaping the pohaku. My feeling is that the place is sacred before the use is determined, so people are drawn to the energy of the place, places that emanate power, and then they create the use and the function of the place. So this is why they would build heiau in certain places because the mana was already there. Same thing with the birthing stones, people would go there because of the mana.”

Similarly, Uluwehi Hopkins views Kūkaniloko as significant, associated with the whole landscape of Līhu‘e as a capital of the island:

I wanted to do my thesis is on Līhu‘e, because it was once the capital of the island. Even though when you look at it today, it’s so dry and desolate, so I don’t think a lot of people can see it being the capital. But to me the most significant thing about that whole area is Kūkaniloko. So my overall idea is to compare the former capitals of O‘ahu. Līhu‘e being the oldest, Kailua being the second oldest and Waikīkī being the most recent, and then kind of do a survey, gather the traditional mo‘olelo and then survey the geography of the place, water resources, etc. And then piece together and compare Līhu‘e and Kailua and Waikīkī and try to argue why Līhu‘e was the capital.

And Kamehameha still wanted his son to be born there, so even at that time, even though Līhu‘e had fallen out of disrepair, it was still considered significant at that time. Then to bring it full circle today, even though this place is in the middle of nowhere and not a lot of people know the significance of it, I think a lot of people will still agree that it is still a significant site.

My guiding question has always been why was Līhu‘e the capital, and I wanted to reconstruct that. But I think the main point of this question is, 410

that’s where Kūkaniloko is. And if anything, that could be the only answer.

Kumu Hula Vicky Takamine feels Kūkaniloko is very significant and makes it a point to take her hālau to this sacred place in the center of O‘ahu. She educates them on the birthing of the ali‘i, who was born there, and who could be born there, and why is it in that location? She asks her haumāna why do you see the hapai wahine? She stated “You only see it from that side, you go to the other side of the mountain, on Wai‘anae, and you don’t see her. That is important for me to have a wahine out there, our next generations.”

Lucy Say also believes that Kūkaniloko is significant today because of its importance in the perpetuation of Hawaiian culture and history. She shared that Kūkaniloko is a place that is significant to her as a Hawaiian because “it’s a historical place that holds many important cultural stories and traditions that need to be passed on to the future generations of Hawaiians.” Confidential One community member is deeply connected to Kūkaniloko and gave his mana‘o very passionately. He stated that “it is not just a birthing place of the ali‘i, it is and was the university of our moku it was the school of the kilo hoku, lua, la‘au lapa‘au, la‘au kahea school of ancient thought.” Others have stated similar ideas such as Audrey Howard, who feels this area is important for teaching and learning similar to a university:

You learn about Kūkaniloko and get to know Kūkaniloko from intuition, not formal education. You can read all you can about it in books, but the only way to truly get to know the place is to be there and feel it in you na‘au. Most people that visit Kūkaniloko feel the history, sacredness and power of the place in their intuition, not through what they read about the place.

Kamoa Quitevas expressed the same feeling from spending long hours at Kūkaniloko:

Kūkaniloko is still a place of learning such as hula, navigation, observing weather patterns. The observation of weather patterns also occurs from Kūkaniloko. There are many different types of weather phenomenon that occur in the Līhu‘e plains, and Kūkaniloko is an ideal location to watch how the weather moves from the Ko‘olau mountains over the plain to the Wai‘anae mountains. Good place for weather, astronomy, and other types of observations of the natural environment.

Kumu Hula Snowbird Bento acknowledged that the area is extremely important to the Hawaiian community both historically and culturally, and that the mention of specific place names in many different mo‘olelo validates the significance of the Kūkaniloko area. She stressed that “Kūkaniloko is not just the piko of O‘ahu, but it includes the 411

entire pae ‘āina from the south all the way to Nihoa. The importance of the place itself is not just the physical attributes, but it’s that the place itself will always be sacred no matter what happens to it’s physical geography.” Other people in the community have similar feelings. According to Uluwehi Hopkins, she believes one of the most significant aspects of Kūkaniloko is its location:

I believe that one of the reasons why Kūkaniloko is where it is is because of the mauna, and wahine hapai….it’s clearly visible from here. Also, there’s also no denying that it’s pretty much the center of the island. And I wonder if that’s why there’s the belief, saying that only chiefs could be born here at Kūkaniloko whereas at Holoholokū, a commoner can be born there and then become a chief. I wonder if that’s why, because Holoholokū is not the piko of Kauai, there’s no wahine hapai that you could view from there. So I wonder if that’s why Kūkaniloko was more significant in that way. Confidential A number of community members felt part of Kūkaniloko’s significance was its connections to other sacred places and heiau on O‘ahu and on other islands (such as Holoholokū on Kaua‘i). Audrey Howard comments relate to this point.

Kūkaniloko is the primary site on O‘ahu that so many other heiau are connected too. For instance, the wahine heiau in Kualoa that’s all the way across the island, but is still connected.

Kūkaniloko was frequently referred to as a “pu‘uhonua” by many individuals that feel it is a place of refuge, sanctuary, peace and safety. Today Kūkaniloko is considered a pu‘uhonua because it serves as a cultural learning center where traditional cultural and spiritual customs, beliefs, and practices of the Hawaiian people can flourish and be freely practiced. While at Kūkaniloko, people can reconnect to the ‘āina and rejuvenate their minds, bodies, and spirits.

On our visits to Kūkaniloko we would ask people who were visiting, locals and tourists the reason they were there. Many stated Kūkaniloko gave them a sense of peace, and the place itself is healing; others enjoy the energy, and come to meditate. Some of the local ‘ohana were there to bring other family members visiting who have never been there, or who have been away from home a long time. Three BYUH students came out to Kūkaniloko to offer pule, oli, and ho‘okupu. One of the wahine who was at the site lived close by and visits Kūkaniloko at least once or twice a month; she views the place as a pu‘uhonua. Although her ‘ohana is not genealogically connected to Kūkaniloko, she still maintains a strong cultural connection to the place. She used to visit Kūkaniloko before she went away to college on the continent, and now that she transferred back home, she is able to come out to Kūkaniloko more often

Although the cultural practices of the ali‘i are no longer present at this place, their spirit and mana survives and emanates. The ali‘i are now in the spirit world and 412

Kūkaniloko today is still a place of inspiration, growth and new life. Many kama‘āina have expressed they are drawn to Kūkaniloko once they make that connection. They often visit before they leave the island, visit other wahi pana, make big decisions or make any new changes in their life. We met Aunty Sharleen Kema and her ‘ohana, and they were there for this very purpose. She had family visiting from the continent and felt it was appropriate to bring them there to connect them to the island of O‘ahu and to honor Kūkaniloko before they visited any other wahi pana of the island.

Mehana Hind feels a great sense of connection to Kūkaniloko, feeling it connects her to her ancestors and keeps her moving forward to perpetuate her culture to the next generations. She brings her son to pass on the mo‘olelo to him and share the importance of Kūkaniloko. Kūkaniloko regenerates her and keeps her grounded and culturally rooted in her journey. Kūkaniloko gives her kuahu (foundation) life:

Kūkaniloko is a sanctuary for me, no matter the tourist come, I can blank them out.Confidential They are insignificant for what I am here for. Also the people in my life that are special to me, I bring them here. This is the place I bring them, I usually take them one kai place and them bring them here.

I will come to Kūkaniloko if I have been away for a while on a trip. It is Important to just be among them.

Kuahu can come with us, I am the Kuahu but this place is important to feed the Kuahu and the Kuahu is about life, about symbols of thriving society. This place more so then the other places …...the birthing and the life, this is where my Kuahu gets fed and especially cause of Ka‘ala right there that feeds, not only the west side and central O‘ahu. It is a place to reenergize, spiritually important for us to maintain these ancestral spaces, without that it makes it hard here on O‘ahu to keep going at this pace and level. We need to bring balance. Politically it teaches us lessons; it’s like a training ground for us to practice our advocacy our skills…...so much Hawaiians tied to this space more so then other people. If I was to papamakawalu this, the mana would go on not just for the antiquity of it but because of its relevance now.

Kamoa Quitevas also embraces the mana of this sacred place and visits Kūkaniloko in times of big decisions, big events, or when he needs spiritual guidance, strength. He mentioned that members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and the Friends of Kūkaniloko hold meetings with other kia‘i there and that they make important decisions and commitments about their kuleana to mālama Kūkaniloko and other wahi pana in Līhu‘e.

LAST COMMENTS ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF KŪKANILOKO

The above clarifications on significance indicate that Kūkaniloko is clearly significant under all the criteria of the state and federal historic preservation laws. This 413

includes traditional cultural significance. Ideally, this should be clarified on the State’s Inventory of Historic Places, the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places, and the National Register of Historic Places.

This involves two issues – (1) the larger historic property boundary as discussed in the prior chapter and (2) clarifying the significance criteria that apply to Kūkaniloko.

The simplest step as an interim measure is that the above significance clarifications for Kūkaniloko at its present boundaries be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division by OHA with a request that the State Historic Preservation Division write a letter that is clearly identified as a consensus determination of significance. (They might want to see the prior chapters of this report as supportive evidence, but this may not prove necessary given the current National Register form.) That Historic Preservation Division letter needs to acknowledge that Kūkaniloko is significant for criterion A-E of the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places (including traditional culturalConfidential significance) and that this significance evaluation will be placed in the State Inventory of Historic Places – in theory a listing of all the historic properties in the State, including their significance evaluations (if done). This process is the effective significance evaluation process that exists. It puts it on record.

Another step, although more time consuming, is to revise the listing on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places form to make it clear that Kūkaniloko is significant under all criterion of the State Register (A-E). The Hawai‘i Register form is the same as the National Register form at this point, as it was approved by the Hawai‘i Review Board of Historic Places prior to being passed up to the National Register. A simple revision of the significance section of that form could be done and submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for action by the Hawai‘i Review Board of Historic Places. The Hawai‘i historic preservation laws do not have a complex process for evaluating traditional cultural significance (Criterion E). If it is clearly supported, it can be accepted. Thus, the listing for Kūkaniloko on the Hawai‘i Register of Historic Places could easily be revised to make it clear that Kūkaniloko is significant for all criteria. This task could be one undertaken by the State Historic Preservation Division as a simple revision of the significance section of that form. Or, the task could be done by anyone else and then submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for processing.

Revising the listing on the National Register is a bit more complicated, for it must be clearly documented with supportive evidence that a property has traditional cultural significance. The National Register form would have to be revised – again only the significance section – to make it very clear that Kūkaniloko is significant for Criterion A- D, and also for traditional cultural significance under Criterion A. Then supplemental supportive documents would be needed to argue for traditional cultural significance – such as this chapter and a letter from OHA. The form then has to be processed through the State Historic Preservation Division, through the Hawai‘i Review Board of Historic Places, and on to the National Register. But if the previous step of revising the State Register is done, this would simply be a continuation.

414

But, clarifying the significance of Kūkaniloko (although ultimately important) is not a pressing issue, for Kūkaniloko is already on the National Register of Historic Places with an emphasis that it is significant for multiple criteria of the National Register and with a very strong statement of its great importance as a historic place in Hawaiian history. One can proceed to preservation planning without changing the Registers.

One step that is needed for proceeding on into successful preservation of Kūkaniloko is working out a revised boundary – a larger boundary – for Kūkaniloko. Whether through an agreement with the current landowner, purchase, etc., this is a key step in successful preservation. This boundary change would have to be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division, to go into their Inventory records – with a letter acknowledging the boundary change. Eventually, the State and National Register listings would need revision to include a larger boundary. Confidential 416

CHAPTER 12

PROBLEMS WITH THE CURRENT PRESERVATION OF KŪKANILOKO

Kelley Uyeoka

Kūkaniloko is a historic property that is significant under all the significance criteria of both the State and National Registers of Historic Places. It clearly merits preservation, and a portion of Kūkaniloko is being preserved today as a State Monument. During the course of this study, members of Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike were informed by the community and State Parks staff about numerous preservation and management problems that currently occur at Kūkaniloko, and we personally witnessed a number of these problems. This chapter identifies and discusses these concerns. In the next chapter (Chapter 13), we will present recommendations and potential solutions to these problems, as well as makingConfidential other recommendations (based on community input) for better preservation of this wahi pana of Kūkaniloko in the future.

The preservation problems that are discussed below are as follows:

 Security and Safety  Limited State Management and Maintenance  Inadequate Access Road and Parking Lot  Lack of Interpretive Signs  Tourism, Incorrect Information on Kūkaniloko  Inappropriate and Illegal Destructive Behavior  Inappropriate Offerings  Modern Alterations and Construction  Accidental Damage to Stones During Cleaning Activities  Impacts from the Eucalyptus Trees  The Preserved Kūkaniloko Historic Property Area is Too Small & Site Buffer Concerns Need More Attention

Security and Safety

Many interviewees were concerned about security and safety at Kūkaniloko. It can be a disconcerting and worrisome experience for visitors. While the site is very unique and sacred, visitors often worry about their vehicles and possible vandalism and break-ins. The parking lot is located a distance from the site, and much of it is out of sight when one is at the birthing stones. Some visitors stated that their cars had been broken into while they were visiting. One of the kumu who brings her students to Kūkaniloko said that she is extremely concerned about the security of her car. She explained that her car had been broken into on a previous visit. Evidently, someone smashed her car window, stole her purse, and then used her credit card at a nearby gas station. She has also seen other cars with broken windows, even in the middle of the day.

417

Other respondents expressed concern about their personal safety while visiting Kūkaniloko. Homeless people and other suspicious individuals are known to congregate in the tall grass and other areas adjacent to the site. Others also shared that people are known to go to Kūkaniloko at night and drink. Doug Fernandez, a cultural astronomer who frequently visits Kūkaniloko at night and in early mornings to observe the stars, has witnessed groups of teenagers drinking in the park, as well as men who come into the park, and then disappear into the tall grass.

According to Representative Marcus Oshiro, a big problem is the absence of on- site personnel. He stated that, “people partake in inappropriate behavior at Kūkaniloko because no one is out there.”

Limited State Management and Maintenance

After interviewing State Parks personnel, it was noted that key resource staff rarely visit KūkanilokoConfidential to monitor and oversee maintenance and other activities at the site. State personnel readily acknowledge that in the past few years there has been only minimal staff involvement or presence at Kūkaniloko. When asked how often they go out to check on the site, Martha Yent admitted that site visits are usually conducted only once a year. She further explained that the State Parks manages so many parks around the state that the State must rely on caretakers and curators to help manage these places.

State Parks has no maintenance staff assigned full-time to the park, and from our observations, the maintenance of the park is very inconsistent. Some days we would arrive at Kūkaniloko, and the grass would be cleanly cut, but most times, the grass would be overgrown, sometimes reaching almost two feet high. Lucy Say shared that over the years she has witnessed the increased overgrowth in the area surrounding Kūkaniloko. This overgrowth has resulted in a number of homeless people squatting and settling in the surrounding grassy area.

When we asked members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā who maintains the site, they said that State Parks is supposed to, but that the State’s maintenance personal come out infrequently, and their visits are few and far between. The lack of regular maintenance at the site has prompted community groups and individuals such as the Civic Club to help mālama Kūkaniloko and the surrounding area. However, these community groups do not receive any compensation for their time or costs; and although they do it for the love of the place, this can be a heavy burden on community groups and volunteers.

418

Confidential

Figure 12-1. Overgrown grass at Kūkaniloko, making the stones barely visible

Figure 12-2. Dirt, stones, and construction debris piles located to the northeast of the Kūkaniloko pohaku. Management concern. 419

Confidential

Figure 12-3. Cut trees, rock pilings, and fruit offerings located at Kūkaniloko.

Figure 12-4. Rubbish and dirt mounds located at the current parking area -- maintenance issues.

420

A number of the University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu students have described the area as being overgrown and littered with trash and other discarded items. These students were disappointed by the poor maintenance of the site and the limited presence of staff.

There is no avoiding the fact that it is listed as a state park and undoubtedly a “tourist attraction,” there should be someone there to care for the site and explain its significance to those visiting Kūkaniloko. … On the day that my family and I visited, there was trash scattered about.

I felt very sad to see the area in poor condition especially since Kūkaniloko Royal Birth Stones is a state monument. The State needs to take better care of this area.

IConfidential was disappointed that it wasn’t better maintained.

Inadequate Access Road and Parking Lot

Access to Kūkaniloko has been an issue since the State purchased the 5-acre parcel in 1994. Currently, the access road to Kūkaniloko from Kamehameha Highway remains an easement, and the State does not own it. To several community members, this was a concern.

Also, this access road is blocked off, and people must park near the highway. UH West O‘ahu undergraduate students in Hawaiian-Pacific Studies classes expressed concern about the parking lot being a good distance from the grassy area. Because car break-ins have been reported, students and others are often reluctant to leave their cars at the lot. The parking lot, as presently situated and designed, also prevents disabled Native Hawaiians from readily accessing the Kūkaniloko site. This was quite different when the access road was not blocked, and visitors could drive up the road and park near the grassy area (which was still blocked off with stones and a chain fence). From that point, they could see their cars, and also see the stones.

As a kid growing up in Wahiawā, I was told by my grandmother that Kūkaniloko was a very sacred and powerful place. … It was a long time since I last visited Kūkaniloko and sadly they put a chain that blocked entrance to it. It should remain accessible for people to learn of our culture ….

421

I got as close as I possibly could in my uncles vehicle. Because of the terrain and my ability to be mobile in my wheelchair, I was not able to make it … to see the birthing stones for myself … I really wish I would’ve been able to go out and get as close to the birthing stones as I can because of all the stories I’ve heard about it …

Confidential

Figure 12-5. Current parking area, far from the stones. Previously, they could drive down the access road that the people are walking on and get much closer to the birthing stones.

Lack of Interpretive Signs

A common community complaint heard throughout the study was the absence of educational signage at Kūkaniloko. People still remember the beautiful and informative signs previously located at the entrance of the 5-acre site. (See Chapter 8 for information on these signs and why they are no longer present.) Many hope these signs will be re- installed. Linda Boogan used the sign explaining the archaeoastronomical significance of Kūkaniloko to help educate her family and friends about Kūkaniloko. While this information can still be provided, it was expressed that the signs were instrumental in perpetuating the historical and cultural significance of the site.

Undergraduate students visiting Kūkaniloko for a UH West O‘ahu’s Hawaiian- Pacific Studies classes have remarked that it is unclear what is historically significant at 422

Kūkaniloko. Some think the hula pā is an ancient platform. Others think the platforms in the corners are ancient. A few believe the two large stones with the V-shaped alignment of 36 stones are historic. Most, including many Native Hawaiian students, have complained about the absence of interpretation at the site.

There was no plaque, no information sign about the history…

I came across two large stones that served as a sort of entrance to the site. Beyond the stones is a large cleared area, flanked by smaller stones on either side. I imagine this served as a ceremonial ground … the birthing stones themselves to the right.

There was another formation of stones that looked like a v- shapedConfidential just outside the grounds of the Birthing Stones which also caught my attention. Perhaps the other formation was placed there to serve a purpose?

Tourism – Incorrect Information on Kūkaniloko

The swell of tourists that visit Kūkaniloko has resulted in several major preservation issues. One apparent problem is the misinformation about Kūkaniloko that is being passed on to tourists and tour operators. We spoke to a number of the Japanese tour companies that bring groups of tourists to Kūkaniloko, and they all “sell” Kūkaniloko as a sacred Hawaiian destination.

Another common problem has been the increased vehicular and foot traffic at the park. Representative Marcus Oshiro is concerned with the growing exposure and “popularity” of Kūkaniloko. This has unfortunately resulted, he believes, in an increased degradation and desecration of the site similar to Stonehenge and Machu Picchu where hundreds of tourists visit these sites daily, leading to disastrous preservation impacts.

Martha Yent of the State Parks explained that tourist books and information brochures on Kūkaniloko are developed independently; State Parks is rarely consulted or asked to review the information. Martha also noted that if tourist groups consist of more than 25 people, technically the group would need to apply to State Parks for a permit. “We’ve thought about how we can deal with the commercial activities and the possibility of generating revenue from the site. We have the authority to charge for permits for commercial activities, though we’ve never pursued it for these cultural sites with relatively low levels of visitation.”

423

Confidential

Figure 12-6. Asian tourists experiencing Kūkaniloko.

During the numerous times we were at Kūkaniloko, a wide range of tour companies visited the site. On April 15, 2010, for example, we recorded over 60 Asian visitors at Kūkaniloko within a two-hour time period. One group of Japanese tourists performed a variety of rituals at the site including bowing and jumping though the two large stones at the entrance of the park; sitting down and hugging different stones within the main concentration; and gathering in a circle, talking and crying. We approached the tour operator and asked him what he knew about Kūkaniloko and why he brings people to the site. According to the operator, the group members were Buddhists interested in learning about healing and meditation. He heard about the healing powers of the stones from the Hawai‘i Tourism Bureau and now brings tourists to experience the power and special spirit of the site. However, as seen in prior chapters, the healing powers of stones at Kūkaniloko were associated with the Keanini stone and its companion, which were brought to this location ca. 1880, were removed in the 1920s, and are no longer visibly present at the site. The tour operators do not seem to be aware of the significance of Kūkaniloko as a birthing area, or an area associated with tracking the seasons.

424

Confidential

Figure 12-7. Tourists performing a ritual at the 2 large boulders at the entrance of the park, evidently not realizing these are not old parts of the park.

Figure 12-8. Tourists lying on the pohaku. This is stone 69. 425

Another tour company, Marine Express, was observed at Kūkaniloko the following day (April 16, 2010). The tour company specializes in Japanese tourists and transports them to visit Kūkaniloko as well as a number of other heiau around O‘ahu such as Ulupō and Pahua. The Marine Express tour guide explained that he obtains his information about Kūkaniloko and the other wahi pana from tourist books and magazines. He said there are many books that showcase Kūkaniloko as a place to visit, again because of its healing powers. We talked with some of the Japanese tourists that day and asked them why they gravitate towards certain pōhaku. They shared that they could feel a hot energy emitting from different pōhaku. Most of them were attracted to the stone 69 (Fig. 12-8), touching, hugging, and even trying to lie on it. In total there were fifteen groups of visitors this day, totaling about 100 individuals.

From our observations, it is apparent that most of the Japanese visitors at the site are unaware of its sacredness and significance. They often receive erroneous information about Kūkaniloko,Confidential and receive no guidance on how to behave appropriately at the site. The misguided and mistaken information passed on to the tourists often stems from the tour operators’ lack of knowledge and information. This situation is exacerbated by the absence of educational and interpretive materials at the park.

Inappropriate and Illegal Destructive Behavior

There remains a strong concern regarding inappropriate and illegal destructive behavior occurring at Kūkaniloko. One concern is the impact of littering. Dumping of trash has been a major problem at Kūkaniloko. According to Martha Yent, “When the road came all the way up to the site, we used to find a lot of broken bottles and a lot of trash because the kids were coming in here and hanging out. And cars were even driving through on the grass.” Linda Boogan remembers the condition of Kūkaniloko during her childhood, “I was born in Wahiawā in 1955. I remember visiting Kūkaniloko when I was young and thought, how can sacred land be neglected like this? Broken wine and beer bottles were scattered everywhere, California grass abraded shoulders and weeds hid large cane spiders. It was unkempt. The smell of urine was strong. Among all of this, were little bundles of ti-leaves wrapping rock, hair and offerings.”

Vandalism that has damaged stones, native plants, and State signs has been a problem since the site became a state park. This problem persists today. In 1994, a fire was set between three of the pōhaku and the heat from the fire fractured three of the pōhaku (stones 72, 73, and 74). Damage to these stones worsened over time, so Kalama Makaneole, a member of the Friends of Kūkaniloko, repaired them as best he could by using basalt concrete mixed with the surrounding red soil to secure the fractured pieces (Fig. 12-9).

426

Confidential

Figure 12-9. Pōhaku damaged from a fire and repaired.

Other pōhaku have been damaged by graffiti including modern petroglyphs. Also, the interpretive and protection signs have been vandalized. According to member of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, one of the interpretive signs was whacked by a machete. As seen in Chapter 8, these signs were eventually removed because they were being continuously vandalized.

427

Confidential

Figure 12-10. Vandalism of the interpretive signs at Kūkaniloko.

Another major concern at Kūkaniloko includes inappropriate religious practices being conducted at the site. One member of the Friends of Kūkaniloko, has witnessed Japanese tourists lying prone on the stones because of their belief that this action this will impregnate them. He sees mostly young couples in there twenties doing this. These 428

individuals rub the stones and then rub their stomachs falsely believing this will result in pregnancy. According to this community participant, these tourists learn about Kūkaniloko in Japan and once here, they make a special point of participating in a site tour. While some of this behavior is inappropriate, he admits that ultimately the actions do not result in any physical harm or damage to the site. Another community participant also shared that he has also observed Korean tourists at Kūkaniloko performing their own rituals. However, he’s not overly concerned with this behavior as long as these actions do not desecrate the site. One of the teachers at ‘Anuenue School has witnessed a variety of worshipers at the pōhaku, many exhibiting different rituals and practices.

Confidential

Figure 12-11. Tourists sitting and praying on the pōhaku.

Another inappropriate religious activity witnessed by Lucy Say at Kūkaniloko involved a local woman conducting a ceremony that included spreading human ashes over the stones. When Lucy Say questioned this lady about this practice, the woman explained that she was conducting a “Hawaiian ceremony” and was “helping” people. Interestingly, Lucy later heard that this woman was charging people from the Mainland money to conduct these ceremonies. Members of Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike also noticed ash splatters on some of the pōhaku while visiting Kūkaniloko on April 15, 2010. Kulani Jones thought the splatter looked like ash from bones; Diane Stasack also believed it might be ash from a cremated body.

429

Confidential

Figure 12-12. Ash splatter located on the pōhaku.

Another community participant stated, “Outsiders need to stop defiling the Kūkaniloko site. It is not a place for ashes or for foreign people to be buried and it is not a place for people to use as a tourist site.”

Students of UH West O‘ahu’s Hawaiian-Pacific Studies classes also wrote about some of the inappropriate behavior witnessed at Kūkaniloko.

I also witnessed a little haole child jumping from rock to rock. I felt my skin crawl. I also noticed a couple rocks that had some graffiti on it. I am at a loss for words.

… and a couple of young women who were sitting on stones making wishes …

After an hour, we started hearing voices coming and noticed a big tour van unloading about 20 passengers and it was our cue to go. When I left, I was a bit disgusted that the State made this a … park and it had become just another stop on the way to the North Shore.

… some other tourists came along and were interested in the stones as well. They obviously weren’t from here because one of them sat on the stones. When I saw that, I told them that it was sacred and that they shouldn’t touch or sit on the stones at all. The tourists got off when I told 430

them that, but as I was leaving, I turned around and saw them sitting on them again.

When the Stasacks worked at the site, they noted that “visitors and children roam throughout the stones and are not instructed to stay off the stones.”

Inappropriate Offerings

In addition to concerns regarding inappropriate and destructive behavior at Kūkaniloko, community members remain distressed about inappropriate offerings left at the site. Martha Yent of the State Parks has seen offerings such as flowers, vegetables, fish, coins, candles, potted plants and coral. The State put up protection signs requesting that visitors respect the sacred area and not damage the stones by marking them or leaving coins. However, this sign is located at the very beginning of the entrance road, and is in such bad condition that the message on the sign is barely visible, thus inappropriate offeringsConfidential continue to be found there almost daily.

Figure 12-13. Damaged sign telling visitors not to do certain things, located at the easement road entrance.

431

Confidential

Figure 12-14. Corn offering left at the large boulders located at the entrance to the park.

During this study, members of Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike have witnessed unusual offerings such as bread, corn, plastic flowers, and coins, among other things. The impact of these unwanted offerings is obvious. One impact is the visual degradation of the site. When flowers and coins are draped over the stones, it takes away from the serene and natural setting of the site. Another concern is that offerings such as coins and candles physical impact the pōhaku; the scratching and chemical reaction of these items damage the stone surface.

432

Confidential

Figure 12-15. Different inappropriate offerings found at Kūkaniloko (coins, potted plants, bread). 433

In an attempt to resolve this problem statewide in parks, State Parks staff has been meeting with curator groups and others to identify possible actions to address these concerns. Martha Yent shared, “In one of our curator workshops we were trying to understand more about how to manage ho‘okupu. Because the curators often are the ones that are the caretakers, they take responsibility for cleaning and removing ho‘okupu. So how long is it appropriate to leave it? What kind of disposal is appropriate for something that isn’t biodegradable? Is it appropriate to just put it in the trashcan? I remember Hokulani Padilla-Holt addressing this question for us, and she said basically once it is placed, what ever is associated with it kind of moves to the site and releases the offering. So she said technically you can move it right away, but I think a lot of people feel comfortable leaving it a couple of days.” As yet, however, no resolution to this problem at Kūkaniloko has occurred.

Modern AlterationsConfidential and Construction

Many people interviewed question some of the modern structures that have been built at the park. Some questions that were posed included: “Who moved the pōhaku to the site?”, “Why were they allowed to move them to where they stand today?”, “Where were the stones brought from?”, and “What is the meaning/purpose behind these pōhaku that were brought here?” There was much uncertainty behind the modern alterations at

Figure 12-15. Pohaku that was brought to Kūkaniloko recently, possibly from Wai‘anae Kai.

434 the site, and very different ideas of where the “new” stones came from and what they are supposed to represent. One person stated, “We need to keep the authenticity of the site, and the modern pōhaku take away form the original setting.”

State Parks also expressed concern over newly built structures at Kūkaniloko that had not been approved by the State. In 1993, State Parks allowed the 36 rocks leading towards the birthing stones from the entrance of the park, the large dirt mound (hula pā)

Confidential

Figure 12-17. Dirt and debris piles in the northeast part of the park.

435

:

Confidential

Figure 12-18. Post-1993 stone platforms located at the entrance and corners of the park.

436

Confidential

Figure 12-19. Plant gardens.

437

Confidential

Figure 12-20. L-shaped rock pile recently built just south of the birthing stones.

at the eastern portion, and the 48 rocks at the west boundary to remain in place after they were set there by Tom Lenchanko. However, new structures and alterations since that time have not been approved by the State. Some were identified by State Parks staff during a site visit on October 21, 2010, seen in the following photographs.

The V-shaped stone alignment representing the 36 witnessing chiefs described by Kamakau in 1865, while well-intentioned, has also generated some controversy. Some note that it visually detracts from the birthstones. It is a 20th Century overlay very close to an extremely significant historic feature.

One concern with all these modern alterations and constructions is that they were actions that occurred within an important (significant) historic property in a State Park. Under the State historic preservation law, State Parks is required to submit such proposed alterations and construction to the State Historic Preservation Division for approval before the actions occur. Then the State Historic Preservation Division has to give Native Hawaiians the opportunity to provide them comments before they write formal comments. This did not occur in these cases, often because State Parks was unaware of the additions. But, technically these are violations of Chapter 6E (the state’s historic preservation law). A number of 1993 and more recent alterations to Kūkaniloko seem to fall into this category. This process is important in the protection of significant properties, particularly in obtaining comments from the larger Native Hawaiian community. Some proposals may be reasonable and well designed, receive the full support of the 438

community and be approved. But other proposals (although well intended) might prove to have adverse impacts to this wahi pana that the proposer was unaware of. The Chapter 6E process allows proposals to be studied and open for review by the wider Native Hawaiian community. It, thus, greatly reduces the potential for inadvertent damage or impacts to the wahi pana.

Accidental Damage to Stones During Cleaning Activities

In the Stasacks’ petroglyph study completed for this project, it was noted that cleaning activities resulted in accidental damage to the stones. The study documented several examples of scarring to the stones.

When the recorders commenced their project, a group of young students from a school were at the site helping with the grass cutting and site maintenance. At first, this seemed toConfidential be an excellent project and, in theory, is commendable for teaching cultural resource appreciation and stewardship. The youngsters’ activities, however, should be restricted to those areas outside the periphery of the stones. Some of the youngsters were raking debris off the stones, an activity which causes scars. In addition, there appears to be regular weed whacking to manicure the grass that grows between the stones. This activity, too, causes scars and it should be replaced with an alternate method of grass and weed control around the stones. [2010, Stasack and Stasack]1

This clearly is damage that no one anticipated, and this problem needs to be addressed.

Impacts from the Eucalyptus Trees

The Stasacks study also noted that the eucalyptus trees were having a negative impact on some of the boulders, causing increased lichen growth on the stones.

Back in the 1980s there were more coconut trees … and the eucalyptus trees (exotic) were not as tall as they are now. The eucalyptushave grown so tall that they now cause a significant afternoon shadow across most of the western stones, resulting in noticeable lichen growth since 1991. There are a number of types of lichen … causing visible damage to the stone matrix. [2010, Stasack and Stasack]2

439

Confidential

Figure 12-21. Scratches on the stones from weed whacking.

Figure 12-22. Lichen growing on the stones (stone 69 in center), possibly from the shadows and moisture from the eucalyptus trees 440

Confidential

Figure 12-23. Eucalyptus trees blocking the view of the setting sun on winter solstice, December 21, 2009

The Stasacks suggest that experts should evaluate this situation, and “if the trees are contributing to the lichen growth and density, then their removal should be considered.”3 Another option might be to thin the trees (remove a few). But clearly it needs professional attention.

Other individuals we spoke with, including Doug Fernandez, complained that the eucalyptus trees block cultural astronomical sightings at Kūkaniloko -- during the sunset hours when trying to take observations of the sunset lines and during the night when tracking the moon and stars. Doug feels that the eucalyptus trees were recently planted and have no traditional significance to Kūkaniloko. Similarly, Maria Orr agreed with this concern about the traditional significance of the eucalyptus trees.

441

The Preserved Kūkaniloko Historic Property Area is Too Small & Site Buffer Concerns Need More Attention

Last, it is our opinion that the area protected around Kūkaniloko is much too small, limited, and restrictive even for the “birthing stones.” This was also a view of many community members. This is a wahi pani, a cultural site of great significance to the history and tradition of the Hawaiian people on O‘ahu and to Hawaiian people generally. As seen in Chapter 6, Kūkaniloko was a larger area that once held at least Ho‘olonopahu heiau, and this larger area could well have been enclosed. Beyond Kūkaniloko would have been the residential house yards of the chiefly center, probably with the ruler’s house yard close by. Kūkaniloko is on a scale of importance similar to that of that of a national park. As such, Kūkaniloko should be protected within a significantly larger parcel of land. Additionally, and also quite importantly, the site warrants a large and sizable buffer area to ensure that view lines are protected. It is important that inappropriate and obtrusive structures and other developments be restricted, to theConfidential extent possible, from the area. This sacred site needs to be appropriately set apart from modern intrusions and distractions.

442

CHAPTER 13

MOVING TOWARDS BETTER PRESERVATION OF KŪKANILOKO

INTRODUCTION

One of our group’s key tasks in this project is to offer recommendations to OHA’s Land and Property Management Program about how to address the preservation of Kūkaniloko – both in regard to the Land and Property Management Program’s mission and the existing historic preservation laws. This chapter provides those recommendations, based on the informationConfidential from this project’s archival research and from our interviews with the Native Hawaiian community. The overwhelmingly key piece of information consistently has been that Kūkaniloko is one of the most important traditional era wahi pana on the island of O‘ahu. This place is likely where many of the early rulers of the ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae-Waialua kingdom of the 1300s were born and important early mō‘ī of the Kingdom of O‘ahu up to about 1620 – mō‘ī famed in mo‘olelo and mele (Mā‘ilikukahi, Kalanimanuia and Kākuhihewa). It was a place that connected nature, the gods and the highest ali‘i. Kamehameha understood this in trying to have Liholiho born here. Many Native Hawaiians today still feel this mana when visiting Kūkaniloko. As such an important place, this wahi pana is equivalent (in our view) to the status of an American national park or national historic park. It merits that level of protection and preservation. Everyone needs to realize this point, no matter what one’s personal agendas or ideas.

OHA’s Real Estate Mission Strategy (from our understanding) notes that OHA needs to advocate for land use matters with the perspective of understanding Hawaiian sacred properties (wahi pana). With the approach of a Traditional Cultural Property study, OHA wanted to get the mana‘o of the Native Hawaiian community on how to best care for these wahi pana, before planning action. So, this part of the report suggests our ideas for preservation, based on the community interviews.

A last vital point in this introduction refers to the historic preservation laws. Most actions that will better protect Kūkaniloko will be state level actions – requiring compliance with the state’s historic preservation laws. There seems to be a misconception that the state historic preservation laws are focused on individual sites and are not attuned to identifying and protecting cultural landscapes, value only academic information and not that of indigenous communities, do not identify places with traditional cultural significance, and rarely protect cultural places; while the federal laws have these capabilities. This view is not accurate. Both state and federal historic preservation laws enable all these actions and have done so. If anything, the federal laws are more bureaucratic and difficult to operate within, and the state laws and their implementation are more in tune with Native Hawaiian cultural issues. In our chapter on 443

TCP studies (Chapter 2), we tried to clarify some of these points, and if the above points are concerns to some individuals, we encourage them to read that chapter again carefully.

Briefly, state law does enable the identification and protection of cultural landscapes – and has done so for decades. Through most of the 1990s, landscapes with a number of individual places and their natural setting were set aside, reflecting a concern for these places’ cultural setting. The State Historic Preservation Office also was intentionally preserving and protecting individual sites and smaller landscapes within an even larger picture of moku and former kingdom landscapes – to set aside connected parts of those landscapes. But identifying and protecting districts (landscapes) go back to the very start of the Historic Preservation Office in Hawai‘i, with districts identified like the Kealakekua Bay historical district and the Kahalu‘u-Keauhou historical district, to name just a few.

Also, the State Historic Preservation Office has used a separate significance criteria for traditionalConfidential cultural significance since the end of the 1980s, recognizing that the importance of traditional cultural significance to the Native Hawaiian community merits a separate criterion. The federal rules combine traditional cultural significance with another criterion. Further, the state has a much easier means of getting sites declared to be significant under traditional cultural significance, based on early 1990s consultations with OHA’s historic preservation commission and on the comments of individual Native Hawaiians and Native Hawaiian groups. Because of this, burials, religious places, and major trails automatically get identified as having traditional cultural significance. One does not have to go through a lengthy and costly process with the community to prove this. For individual sites and landscapes, input from individuals to the State Historic Preservation Office can easily result in such a significance determination. For example, on Kaua‘i, one lapa‘au practitioner was concerned about protecting a native medicinal plant gathering area. His input was accepted as verifying that this place had traditional cultural significance. This is also one example of valuing information from indigenous communities.

The State Historic Preservation Office has valued oral historical information (that recorded in the 1800s and modern information) almost from its inception. Staff used to be, and are supposed to be, trained in considering older 1800s oral history information prior to making decisions and in trying to get modern information from the communities. Getting this modern information has not ideally yet been achieved, for it relies on interviewing; and to be done well, this can be a very costly and time consuming process (and often unpredictable for cost and time – witness our project). But this is not a flaw in the law or a failure to value this information; it reflects a difficulty in how to fully implement interviewing in a predictable time framework required by the historic preservation process. One of the problems today in the State Historic Preservation Office, which many in the Hawaiian community realize to a degree, is that for a decade the office has been understaffed, had limited training, and has had great difficulties in administering the law – despite the good intent of many existing staff. But, this is not a reflection of the usefulness of the state laws in protecting traditional cultural properties. The state’s historic preservation laws actually are very useful for handling concerns 444

related to the better preservation of places such as Kūkaniloko. Thus, our recommendations in this chapter will focus on how to navigate through these laws to reach far better preservation of Kūkaniloko, and to meet the concerns of OHA’s Land and Property Management Program.

A LARGER KŪKANILOKO PARK

One point that was clear to the community, knowledgeable researchers, and to OHA’s Land and Property Management Program staff before this project began was that the preserved area around the “birth stones” was much too small – particularly for a national historic park level property.

Chapter 10 addressed the boundaries of Kūkaniloko and what should be considered for a reasonable boundary for the historic property (in the legal sense) of Kūkaniloko. Figure 13-1 here shows what Chapter 10 concluded, based on our professional opinionsConfidential and that of members of the community. This recommended 1,477 acres includes all the open Galbraith Estate lands in old Wahiawā (but not those farther seaward in Kemo‘o). The Estate has been exploring selling off these lands for over a decade. Action needs to quickly be taken to ensure that a larger area around Kūkaniloko be set aside in preservation linked with the current park area. Negotiations need to occur with the Galbraith Estate on this issue. But they may well be amenable, for recall George Galbraith, himself, was a subject of the Kingdom, held his land under the Kingdom, and on his own set aside and fenced the “birth stones” with the Keanini stone. . The ideal situation that we recommend is that all the lands within the above proposed boundary be acquired and set aside as a historic and cultural park – being combined with the small, existing State Monument. If this would occur, then the boundary for Kūkaniloko, as a historic property could be amended by submitting a letter to the State Historic Preservation Office, proposing this new boundary alteration to the existing Kūkaniloko historic property and supporting this proposal with a copy of this report (drawing attention to Chapter 10, where the boundary alteration is proposed) or with a brief summary document supporting this proposal. The State Historic Preservation Office can then approve this alteration and place this altered boundary in their Statewide Inventory of Historic Places records.

If total acquisition of the 1,477 acres is not possible for park purposes, then we recommend that that negotiations occur with the Galbraith Estate to acquire lands no smaller than 500 acres around the current park, to be set aside as a historic and cultural park – being combined with the small, existing State Monument. This minimum 500 acres can also be seen in Figure 13-1, a roughly triangular parcel with the base along Kaukonahua Stream and the North Fork of Kaukonahua, one side being Kamehameha Highway and the other side being Kamananui Road. A Kūkaniloko park parcel at this smallest size still allows for the park development actions proposed in this chapter.

445

Confidential

Figure 13-1. The small white rectangle is the current State Monument. The hatched areas include 1,477 acres proposed in Chapter 10 to be located within the historic property called Kūkaniloko. These are all the open Galbraith lands within what was traditionally Wahiawā, extending from Poamoho Stream in the north to Kaukonahua Stream in the south. It is suggested that these lands ensure protection of the view lines from Kūkaniloko. Ideally, we suggest that all 1,477 acres be acquired to make a larger historical and cultural Kūkaniloko park. Minimally, acquisition of 500 acres immediately around Kūkaniloko could also achieve many park aims proposed in this chapter. This 500 acres is within the triangular area bounded by Kaukonahua Stream and its North Fork (south of Kūkaniloko), by Kamehameha Highway on the right, and by Kamananui Road on the left. In this minimal 500 acre park scenario, negotiations should attempt to reach agreement on low rise development in the surrounding portions of the Galbraith lands.

If only the minimal 500 acres is acquired for park purposes, we also recommend negotiations occur with the Galbraith Estate or future landowners of the surrounding portions of the Galbraith Wahiawā lands for them to support the larger 1,477 acre boundary of the Kūkaniloko historic property. This support should include recognition that conditions on land use for low rise use must occur, to protect the view planes from Kūkaniloko. For example, this would include no high trees to be grown as windscreens (at least on high points on the land) and no high rise buildings. (These conditions ideally could even go into the land deeds.) If they would support this view, again a letter could be submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office proposing the boundary change for 446

Kūkaniloko historic property to the larger 1,477 acres and including letters of landowner support. Again, the State Historic Preservation Office can then approve this alteration and place this altered boundary in their Statewide Inventory of Historic Places records.

In either scenario, assuming the larger boundary of the Kūkaniloko historic property is supported by landowners and the State Historic Preservation Office, several follow-up steps to ensure widespread knowledge of this larger boundary should be done.

(1) Land use agencies – the State Land Use Commission and the City and County planning department – should be notified of this boundary change and preservation commitment.

(2) The State Register of Historic Places record for Kūkaniloko and the National Register of Historic Places record need revision to include these larger boundaries. Both have existing forms, and the boundary portionsConfidential need to be revised, approved by landowners and the State Historic Preservation Division. Then the revisions need to be placed on the agenda for the State Review Board of Historic Places, an action that the State Historic Preservation Division will do. Then at a public meeting of the Board, the proposal will be reviewed. Community members and others can write letters of support and/or attend the meeting. With the landowners, OHA, and the State Historic Preservation Division supporting the revision, approval would be virtually guaranteed. Once approved, then the State Review Board will request that the revision be passed on to the Keeper of the National Register for review and approval – a process that we believe is virtually guaranteed, assuming full support at the state level.

Minimally we hope that a much larger Kūkaniloko monument or historic park can be created with acquisition of at least 500 acres of land immediately around the existing State Monument. This would be a vast improvement over the current situation. Also, we believe that a Native Hawaiian agency – such as OHA – should become the owner of this acreage surround the current Kūkaniloko monument, given the vast significance of Kūkaniloko to the Native Hawaiian people. This park land should be held in trust for the Native Hawaiian people until a sovereign nation is established.

WHO SHOULD MANAGE A LARGER KŪKANILOKO HISTORIC PARK?

As seen in Chapter 12, State Parks has difficulties managing Kūkaniloko. Finances have prevented hiring staff to be present and handle interpretive and proper behavior issues, and apparently even trash removal and mowing of the lawn has been a problem at times. They have had to rely on the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā to assist them in caring for this place. But, the Civic Club as a volunteer organization does not have the time and money to fully maintain the site. Given the status of Kūkaniloko 447

(again equivalent to a national historic park), the ideal situation is to have maintenance and interpretive staff at the park during the day. Assuming this would become a much larger historic park – minimally 500 acres or so – staff and maintenance needs would dramatically increase.

Several management options exist. State Parks could continue to maintain the 5 acre State Monument, and the Native Hawaiian entity owning the surround 500+ acres could manage its land. The Native Hawaiian entity could pass management of its 500+ acres to State Parks. Or, negotiations could occur for State Parks to pass the State Monument and its management responsibilities over to the Native Hawaiian entity. If OHA is not that Native Hawaiian land owner, another option could be for both State Parks and that entity to pass historic park management to OHA.

If State Parks continues its management but has no funds to hire staff, provide maintenance, or develop the park, then it will need financial assistance to manage the park successfullyConfidential – to eliminate past problems and move forward to better preservation. It is unlikely in the current financial situation of the State, that State Parks could acquire adequate funding for management of Kūkaniloko. OHA could assist State Parks and provide funds. If this were done, OHA should insist that it be able to review and approve the job descriptions and that the staff members be Native Hawaiian. OHA should insist that it be a key partner in planning and developing the park.

However, all this intermediary management could be avoided if OHA becomes the agency that acquires and manages Kūkaniloko as a historic park. It would lead to more efficient planning and management. This would put OHA in a park management role. But to a degree this has begun with Waimea on O‘ahu. We believe that OHA should consider this as a role to assume in trust for the Hawaiian people, with the park to be passed to a sovereign entity when one arises. We are aware of discontent with OHA in some Hawaiian communities over the years. We are also aware of current controversy involving several community members about the legal ownership of Kūkaniloko and the surrounding Galbraith lands. But regardless of past and current controversy, action needs to be taken to get a larger Kūkaniloko historic and cultural park in place and well managed. Since this is an extremely significant wahi pana of the Hawaiian people, we believe that the best situation is to have Kūkaniloko’s management in Hawaiian hands.

This view of OHA managing Kukaniloko actually does not conflict with some thoughts of State Parks’ staff. Martha Yent, an Archaeologist in State Parks who is the lead manager for Kūkaniloko, also believes that Kūkaniloko should eventually transfer over to a Hawaiian entity. “I’ve always felt were just care taking until some other proper entity comes along to be the better manager from a cultural perspective, be it OHA or some other entity. Whether OHA or some other Hawaiian entity would be a better fit, I think we would be open to those discussions. I’ve always felt like we are just the caretakers until sovereignty or some other entity comes along.”

Members of the community also expressed similar views on management issues related to Kūkaniloko. One individual stated:1 448

… finding that one organization might be hard. I would say OHA might be the right organization but I know people might not agree with that. I would be very cautious to select any one Hawaiian organization, and one that can truly represent all Hawaiians. And today, even though OHAs got problems and everyone understands that they’re an animal of the state of Hawai‘i, but I really can’t think if any other organization that tries to represent all Native Hawaiians, so I would give them the benefit of the doubt. So if you’re asking me, I would say yes, and if you’re asking me who, I would tell you OHA should be there.

Thus, we recommend that OHA become the agency that manages Kūkaniloko, in trust for all Native Hawaiians.

[A managementConfidential option not noted above, but that someone might raise is why not have the U.S. National Park Service manage the park. We strongly recommend against this idea. While the National Park Service has a long record of management of national level parks (and could be brought in to offer aid on planning and development), the park service is very bureaucratic and inflexible in many respects, has had issues in managing historic parks that are Hawaiian wahi pana on other islands (managing in tune with Hawaiian cultural values), and has inconsistently promoted Native Hawaiian management at the top levels of park and resource management. With a wahi pana like Kūkaniloko, we believe that management by a Hawaiian organization is the best approach and would be the best approach for developing future management roles for Native Hawaiians.]

AN ADVISORY BOARD TO ASSIST MANAGEMENT OF KŪKANILOKO

We suggest that an advisory board be created to assist in the management of Kūkaniloko – to address short-term and long-term planning and ongoing development and educational activities. If OHA would be the ultimate manager of the park and the employer of staff, this Board should probably have a majority of OHA members – for example, the manager of the park, perhaps a cultural resource staff member of the park, etc. However, we strongly support the Land and Property Management Program’s desire to reach out and listen to the community – to obtain the community’s voice. Thus, we would recommend several board members represent the community.

One of these community board members should be appointed from the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā. Many people have been involved in the preservation of Kūkaniloko, as it survives today. This includes George Galbraith, William Goodale and the Waialua Agricultural Company, the Daughters of Hawai‘i, the Hawaiian Civic Club of Waialua, State Parks, but most importantly over the last decades the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā. When almost no one else was caring for Kūkaniloko, from the 1960s – 1992, the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā periodically cleaned it and helped to keep its story alive for visitors and the community. They have continued since 1992 to vitally 449 support State Parks’ management of Kūkaniloko. No matter how one reacts to certain actions of the Civic Club at or involving Kūkaniloko in recent years, they have done a great service in helping protect this important wahi pana. Most of those interviewed in the community also had this viewpoint. It is our recommendation that whoever has management control of Kūkaniloko, whether State Parks now, or OHA or another Native Hawaiian entity eventually, this special relationship should always be acknowledged. The Civic Club should always be turned to for mana‘o on Kūkaniloko’s care and be allowed to help in approved ways for the care of Kūkaniloko – as long as they wish to do so. One vital means of Civic Club involvement would be to provide a member to the Advisory Board.

Several other outside Board members could be appointed. Hula halau are still practitioners using Kūkaniloko, so perhaps a kumu hula with knowledge and interest in Kūkaniloko could be a member. Lua and Na Koa groups are active in the larger cultural landscape. Also, a member that has historic preservation background might be useful. A member that isConfidential an academic professor from Hawaiian Studies programs or related programs that are knowledgeable of Kūkaniloko might be useful. There are also families that have ties to the place. These are just ideas.

Adding such members to a Board would help ensure that the Native Hawaiian managing entity have a link to the wider Native Hawaiian community in planning and development activities for Kūkaniloko. The Advisory Board should either be all Native Hawaiians or have a vast majority of Native Hawaiians, for this is an advisory cultural board for a sacred Native Hawaiian wahi pana.

This board would not be the managing group for Kūkaniloko, for the Native Hawaiian managing entity and its staff would manage the park and its maintenance and development on a daily basis. However, this board would be the oversight board and would assist in developing long-range planning goals. The Board should periodically and frequently hold meetings in the Wahiawā area to continue to maintain the linkage with the community that has had the longest investment in protecting this wahi pana.

SHORT-RANGE CONCERNS NEEDING IMMEDIATE ATTENTION

A variety of immediate short-range management actions are needed to dramatically improve the protection of Kūkaniloko, as a historical and cultural park.

Staffing Needs

Full-time staff need to be hired, with their job to be at Kūkaniloko during visiting hours. When we asked different community participants how they feel about having someone at Kūkaniloko, they had similar views. The following are quotes from different individuals:

450

In the ideal world I think it would be great to have an onsite kahu, within the times that the public is there and available for special events as well.

They should have a docent that should be hired and they can take the tours out so they can ensure that the tour operators know how to behave there and what they can and cannot do. It has to be prearranged.

I can’t think of anything better than having a curator on site. It’s an important visitors site, it’s a place where a lot of people stop, so it makes a lot of sense to me that a state agency should have the responsibility of having someone there all the time to take care of the place as a grounds keeper and also serve as a docent when people come. Confidential We would recommend immediate hiring of two staff members dedicated to the Kūkaniloko cultural and historical park. Likely primary duties of these staff are noted below. Hiring of these staff would resolve maintenance concerns, security issues, inappropriate behavior by visitors, and worries about better education of visitors. These staff members become kahu of this place in many respects.

 Maintenance position. This individual should:

1) be at the park every day, 2) unlock the chain to the access road in the morning and lock it up at a fixed hour in the evening. 3) be responsible for mowing the grassy area and general maintenance activities (removing rubbish and trash), 4) be responsible for limited security matters (being present during the day, so the individual could report illegal activities to the proper authorities – quite possibly the Wahiawā office of the HPD).

This person could be hired from the Wahiawā area to support links with the local community.

 Interpretive position. We believe that this should be a permanent position, not a volunteer docent. This person should:

1) be at the park every day. 2) provide interpretive information to visitors, 3) help ensure that inappropriate behavior by visitors does not occur, 4) report illegal activities to the proper authorities (in coordination with the maintenance position).

451

This individual could also be hired from the Wahiawā area to support links with the local community. Training of this staff member should occur to ensure that they know the accurate history of Kūkaniloko and its larger cultural landscape. This could be done by the Native Hawaiian management entity’s staff using this report, by the Advisory Board, and with the help of other knowledgeable sources.

Both these staff positions would require salary and benefits.

Since these staff members would be on-site during working hours, some kind of basic shelter from the weather and rest-room facility is needed. Initially, this shelter could almost be a partial-sided roofed structure. The rest-room facility could be a porta- potty facility. These could be placed along the access-road and be designed to not be visible from the birthing stones, but it would require planning in coordination with the community, and approval of plans by the State Historic Preservation Division – to ensure “no adverse effect”Confidential to the park. (See below for more discussion.)

Also, the maintenance staff would need maintenance equipment and supplies – and a storage place. The storage place could be shared with another existing nearby facility in the short-run. In the long-run a storage facility within the park will be needed, but this would require planning in coordination with the community, and approval of plans by the State Historic Preservation Office – to ensure “no adverse effect” to the park.]

Cultural Protocol

As one community member stated, “There needs to be certain protocols for that place.” We would suggest a protocol be designed for the opening and closing of the park, with the advice of the Advisory Board through the community.

Protocols regarding offerings at the park are needed. The managing agency, either OHA or another Native Hawaiian entity, with the advice of the Advisory Board through the community needs to decide how to handle offerings. These could be placed at an offering stand at a designated place in the park, somewhat similar to a successful offering stand several years back at Pu‘u o Mahuka heiau in Pūpūkea. A decision will be need to be made for how often to remove offerings – presumably to be done by the maintenance staff. Some offerings that are decided to be inappropriate should be clearly stated at entry signs and by staff on-site. If these occur, then a policy for how to remove these offerings should be developed.

Improving Safe Access & Parking

According to community responses, there were a lot of different opinions on how to manage the access road and parking areas at Kūkaniloko. As noted earlier in the report, one could once drive down the access road and park near the open grassy area. However, this access road was blocked off, and people now have to park far from the grassy area, 452 out near the highway. As mentioned in the previous chapter, many Native Hawaiian individuals and members of the general public have concerns about their cars being broken into and the safety of the current parking area, because it is now so far away. Some were concerned that infirm kūpuna could not easily walk to the stones, and individuals in wheelchairs also cannot see the stones. School buses bringing students to learn about Kūkaniloko also no longer have a place to park. Something needs to be done immediately to resolve these concerns.

Some community members recommended that the access road be reopened, to allow parking nearer to the grassy area around the birthstones. They suggested a chain at the entry to the road could be locked every night, to prevent unauthorized access. However, many also felt that it was fitting to not see any cars while visiting the pōhaku. Also, many interviewed did not want see a vast increase in tourist vans or busses that might occur with a re-opened access road.

We wouldConfidential suggest the following as a possible solution to these concerns.

 Reopen the access road during the day, but chain it at night at the highway end (to prevent unauthorized access).  Do not allow parking in the last 100 or 200 feet of the access road nearest to the grassy area, so cars would not be visible to those at the stones. [Possibly a vegetation screen will need to be planted across part of the access road.]  Allow cars to drop off older kūpuna or people with disabilities a bit closer to the grassy area, but have these cars return and park back with the other cars.  Do not allow tourist buses.  Allow tourist vans (as they come anyway), but have them park farther away from the grassy area.  Allow one parking stall for school buses somewhere along the access road.

We believe that these actions could serve as interim measures that could be immediately implemented – offering a safer visit to Kūkaniloko.

Reopening the dirt access road will mean that periodic grading of the road may be needed. But this would be necessary, even if the access road and parking were far away.

There are larger range concerns related to access (such as whether to pave the access road, preventing a commercialized tourist attraction from developing with vast numbers of buses and vans, ensuring that the place be kept serene). These issues will be discussed below under long-range plans.

Reducing Trash at the Site

It needs to be ensured that several trash cans are at the park in the parking area, so visitors can dispose of trash. The maintenance staff would see to the periodic emptying 453

of these cans, replacement of new trash bags, and removal of the trash from the park (perhaps at the end of the day) to an appropriate facility. These cans would have to be fastened down, to prevent vandalism. Also, approval of their color, size and location needs to be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office, to ensure “no adverse effect” to Kūkaniloko.

Installing Interpretive Signs & Signs on Appropriate Behavior by Visitors

Almost all of the community participants we interviewed stated that there needs to be signs erected at the park to educate visitors about the significance of the site, and to deter visitors from inappropriate behavior. Two of the community’s comments are included below:

Signs must be placed at the site to encourage respect for the sacredness of the area. The signs and cultural tour guide would informConfidential people about what they’re looking at so they are more likely to understand and respect the site.

Historical/cultural signage is very important because it speaks to the sacredness of the site.

Interpretive signs desperately have to be erected now at Kūkaniloko. Too many people visit Kūkaniloko and do not know the history or significance of this wahi pana, or what to look at. In the short term, the existing State Parks signs (in storage) could be re- erected right at the start of the grassy area as they were before. These signs tell some of Kūkaniloko’s story. (If these signs are too damaged, State Parks indicated that new ones could be made.)

Small signs also need to be put next to recent additions to Kūkaniloko: the two large stones near the parking lot and the V-shaped line of 36 stones, and the hula pā, to let visitors know that these are not historic features. They can say for example, “Hula pā (built in 1993)”, or “This alignment (built in 1993) represents the 36 witnessing chiefs described in an 1865 Hawaiian newspaper article.” Too many visitors (including Hawaiian visitors) believe that these are ancient features.

A very visible sign also should be near the parking area (but not visible from the grassy area and stones) that tells visitors to respect this wahi pana and to avoid inappropriate behavior (e.g., sitting or walking on the stones, leaving certain types of offerings). The text of this sign could be devised (for the short-term) by OHA staff in consultation with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā.

These interpretive signs and proper behavior signs also would be enhanced by the presence of the interpretive staff member.

454

CONTINUING COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES, RESEARCH & EVENTS AT KŪKANILOKO

Volunteer Maintenance Activities

We assume that groups such as the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā, and possibly hula halau and school groups, would want to continue volunteering their services to help care for Kūkaniloko. As these actions are ongoing, there should be no problem with them continuing. They could be coordinated with the Native Hawaiian managing agency’s staff and the maintenance staff member.

However, to ensure that such actions have “no adverse effect” to Kūkaniloko, actions such as pulling up grass and bushes by the roots should be avoided (as this could pull up archaeological deposits). Also, the Stasacks in their petroglyph study documented several examples of scarring to the stones from raking and weed whacking. This problem Confidentialprobably has existed since the Waialua Agricultural Company began clearing the stones in the 1920s, with everyone unaware of this problem. To prevent this damage, we recommend that those cleaning the grassy area and the stones be told not to rake or use weed-eaters near the stones. Careful use of grass-clippers (or something similar) is probably the most appropriate tool to be used near the stones.

Special Cultural Events, Cultural Group Visits, or Cultural Research

As seen in prior chapters, there are special visits to Kūkaniloko. Hula hālau come. The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā comes for different events. Cultural astronomers come to make observations. All of these activities are continuing examples of Native Hawaiian culture use of Kūkaniloko. All seem to have merit. Thus, short-term plans need to include how to accommodate these groups. As one community member noted,

We need more control of the site, but at the same time we don’t want to cut off access to people who want go there in the evenings and view the stars and the moon. Who gets the key? That’s some of the hard issues. Who controls the place and the access? What organization, what person? How can we protect the place but allow access?

Through its Advisory Board, the managing agency (OHA or another Native Hawaiian group) will have to work with the community to devise protocols for such visits. For evening visits, prior contact with management staff would ensure that gates are unlocked and relocked. For day visits needing more privacy, prior contact could perhaps lead to the interpretive and maintenance staff ensuring that other visitors do not intrude on these special events.

Any research at the site should undergo review and approval by the Native Hawaiian managing agency. If land-altering research, then it would also need historic 455

preservation review through the State Historic Preservation Office. Cultural astronomy research is likely to have no impact to Kūkaniloko, assuming no marking of the stones occurs and the like. Archaeological research might be proposed, even excavation, and it would be up to the managing entity (via its Advisory Board with input from the community) to decide what is allowable. Some archaeological research might not impact the ground – ground penetrating radar, simple transit mapping, 3-D GIS mapping. But all need to be submitted to the managing agency for review and approval, and perhaps to the State Historic Preservation Office. We would recommend that a requirement of such research would be that the proposing researcher(s) commit to providing that Native Hawaiian management entity and OHA (if OHA is not that entity) with reports – a preliminary report of a few pages within a year or so, and more final reports as they are approved. This way OHA can maintain records on knowledge about Kūkaniloko, for its beneficiaries benefit.

LONG-RANGEConfidential CONCERNS

Longer range concerns need to be developed to including planning and development of the larger park that we hope will at least be 500 acres around Kūkaniloko. This is likely to be a many year undertaking. But we urge that some actions be taken soon. Some initial ideas are offered here.

Creating Long-Range Management Plans

The long-range plans for Kūkaniloko need to be developed in coordination with the larger community’s interested members, perhaps in community meetings with the Advisory Board. Suggestions could be offered, initial ideas developed, then incremental plans could be proposed, get approved by the State Historic Preservation Office (to comply with the State’s historic preservation laws, to ensure no inadvertent damage to Kūkaniloko), and then be carried out. All of the concerned parties need to be included in the planning process because they all have connections and kuleana to Kūkaniloko. This will help ensure that a broader community base is continuously involved in planning – that a collective community voice will be incorporated into the long term stewardship of Kūkaniloko.

People interviewed often suggested this in a variety of ways. (Each of the following are quotes from different individuals.)

There needs to be a community planning meeting that invites the stakeholders. And the stakeholders should be hālau, Tom and the Wahiawā Hawaiian Civic Club, and lineal descendants. So all of these stakeholders can come in and go through a community planning process because it would be very difficult for OHA to say that they’re just going to turn it over to Tom and the Wahiawā Hawaiian Civic Club.

456

The other recommendation is to bring in stakeholders to form a hui that are going to manage and mālama Kūkaniloko. It may include existing groups, but it should have a broader community base then the current existing model.

Include as many of Hawaiians as possible in the stewardship of Kūkaniloko. Include people from the community.

Leave it open to all Hawaiian schools. Keep it open to all kanaka.

Wahine should be the kahu of Kūkaniloko, because it is a birthing place. The Ka‘ahumanu Society or Daughters of Hawai‘i might be suitable caretakers. We just need to find some strong women to take this kuleana on again.

OHAConfidential should work together with the community and Tom [Lenchanko] to steward the area. But OHA should try and work with everyone, not just on their own. OHA could organize cultural events, which gets everyone together and gets the dialogue going.

If there was an OHA program that was able to provide assistance or guidance. It should be conservative, stuff that happens on sacred areas should be conservative, that way at least you can take care of something, but take care of it in a way that is preserved for the future.

We need to think about who is the right organization in the community to take on this, because sometimes it can’t just be OHA.

Again, we recommend that OHA manage Kūkaniloko with the aid of a cultural Advisory Board (that includes members from the community), and working with the community in meetings to generate ideas for long-range uses. While some of the above comments differ, we believe that this management proposal fits the above comments in many respects.

A key point to remember is that much more land will be part of this cultural and historical park. What follows are some ideas on how this larger park might develop.

The Concept of a Cultural Learning/Heritage Center

During the extent of this study, the most frequent recommendation by the community was to establish a cultural learning center near the grounds of Kūkaniloko. We spoke with Jo-Lin Kalimapau and Aloha Kekipi of the Hawaiian Civic Club of 457

Wahiawā and they have been advocating and planning their version of such a vision for years now. Aloha Kekipi shared,

We have a dream…and the dream is to have a Cultural Learning Center at Kūkaniloko, and have enough land to do that and to keep the integrity of the place. Where we’re not squished between anybody else. And you know what, the water is right there underground! Now the land is in agricultural zoning, but down the line it would be a shame for it to be condominiums or residential zoning. So our vision is that the kūpuna and the children of the future will have a place that they can come to that is authentic, as much as we can make it authentic. So right now we are working on our plan. We know that there needs to be a plan, so Eric Enos gave us the plan they used for Nānākuli Ahupua‘a, and we are sharing those thoughts and concepts to format the ancient ka‘anani‘auConfidential depiction for the care, education and management attributed to our land, its resources and our people who are connected to and centered by the piko, Kūkaniloko.

Jo-Lin Kalimapau explained, “The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā has had a plan drawn up since early 1999, for an education and cultural learning center at the piko, Kūkaniloko. For twelve years we have waited to put this plan into action and make it a reality. We will continue to wait until it is time to bring together persons, places and things that will fund and construct the Kūkaniloko Educational Learning Center as we seek to inspire, educate, and encourage all things Hawaiian, seen and unseen.” Jo-Lin also mentioned that

It was always my dream to have a bus and pick up all the kūpuna at their houses, they bring their lunch with them, we go to Kūkaniloko and then they sit down and talk story with each other. Then after school, the kids would come to Kūkaniloko and talk to the kūpuna and learn from them.

Other community participants also discussed their ideas about the education, teachings, and cultural practices that could occur at a cultural learning center located at Kūkaniloko (again with each of the following quotes from different individuals):

I always thought that Schofield would make an excellent learning place, you know like a Hawaiian University over there. And then include all the connected lands too, because it goes all the way from the Wai‘anae’s to the Ko‘olau’s…there’s just so much out there that the possibilities are unbelievable.

It should be a university, a higher school of learning sciences the Hawaiian way, open to all walks of life who are interested. Have some classes in mid-wifery, the Hawaiian way. There are so many 458

things to consider. A lot of teachers could teach, like Nainoa Thompson, to share their knowledge.

I get involved in cultural sites, such as Kūkaniloko because I think it’s important to educate and help to share these things with future generations of children. I really feel that our whole purpose is to help others and future generations, not ourselves. We learn as much as we can today, but we also remember that it not for us, but for us to pass on….to me I believe that, I really believe that. So what I try to do is try to create venues for learning.

Kūkaniloko would be a good place to get away from the city lights, build a simple hale and do star gazing, astronomy, voyaging stuff and tie it into the Hokule‘a. Lua training too.

WeConfidential need to exercise our traditional cultural practices out there. We have to get out there and have somebody teaching navigation, teaching about all of that, and that will advocate for the protection of that place. There needs to be community gatherings and events. I also mentioned to Haunani that people have to start conducting cultural practices everyday, like the Makahiki. Where’s the Makahiki for that area? Where can you see the raising of the Pleiades and at the closing of the Pleiades, where’s the best spot to catch that….and it’s Kūkaniloko. So that should be the center for O‘ahu, catching the Pleiades coming up in the evening time, and creating that evening celebration, or the early morning setting in February and the raising in November. So having something around those two ancient events. Then we end up advocating for our cultural practices, because we do it all the time on a regular basis. It doesn’t have to be a huge public event, but somebody has to start doing it. I think this would be a great place to start training people about the rising of the Pleiades and to mark that event, which is such a huge transition from the closing of Ku, to the opening of Lono.

We would point out that the larger park at Kūkaniloko, as a national level park for Native Hawaiians, should in its entirety be considered a cultural learning center. It should be viewed as a cultural and historical park of vast educational value that can include any of the above ideas and more. The park need not be called a cultural learning center. The term cultural park, historic park, or even historic monument includes that concept.

Access and Parking

One concern of many community members was that they did not want to see parking right next to the birthing stones area. Quite bluntly, they did not want to see 459

increased tourism, with buses pulling up to the birthing stones area. A larger park provides the opportunity to address these points.

With a larger park, the entry road into the park could be relocated to enter farther away from the birthing stones, and the likely nearby former Ho‘olonopahu Heiau area. A road could travel along the perimeter of the park with small branches to small parking lots and possible infrastructure additions (ideas to be noted below). As befitting a national park, these roads and parking lots should be paved. Paths could then lead from one or more parking areas to the birthing stone area. Also, one of these parking lots could be for vans and school buses, being well away from the birthing stones. Some consideration of a paved path for access by kūpuna and disabled visitors should also be given.

Again, as now, there should be gates at the entry (entries) that are closed and locked in the evening for security reasons. Confidential A more immediate plan could be to pave a portion of the current entry road, with the view that this paving might be removed in the future. As one person interviewed noted, “The road needs to be paved because it’s slippery when it rains.” Safe visitation is vital.

Bathrooms

Building new infrastructure and adding amenities to the park was a topic that generated varied opinions from the community. Some community members would like the convenience of a bathroom at the park, but most agreed that they did not necessarily need a bathroom because they don’t stay at Kūkaniloko for a lengthy period of time. Some suggested if bathrooms were to be built; that they should be far away from the Kūkaniloko pōhaku and that they should not visually impact the viewscape. We asked State Parks if they ever considered building restrooms at the Park, and Martha Yent shared, “Because we only have these five acres, there was some hesitancy on putting in restrooms here. When we have groups that come in for a few hours, we just ask them that they bring in a portable toilet and deal with it that way instead of putting in a permanent structure. I also think that people don’t want to see a rest room too close to the site. So I think we just figured that most people’s visits were short, and if they were going to stay longer, to bring in their own toilet.”

Other community members shared their opinions on adding infrastructure at Kūkaniloko:

Don’t build a park with a parking lot and bathrooms because it will bring more people to the site for the wrong reasons. Building a more open park will change people’s intentions and motivations for visiting the site. A park will modernize the area, and will provide more accommodations than necessary. Putting in a 460

parking lot will threaten the area with more visitors, tourists, and inappropriate behaviors.

No there shouldn’t be any infrastructure built around the actual boundaries of the birth site, but maybe somewhere off site. Because if there is more land acquired, they could try to do that. Also try to do something about the eucalyptus trees, and try to reconstruct the traditional environment. It would take a lot of work to do but I think it could be done. Like on Maui, Lei‘ohu Ryder found an old heiau on the northeast side of Maui, and they take really good care of that place and its accessible with a parking area and signage. There’s also Hale o Pi‘ilani Heiau where access is limited, but it’s controlled by someone who’s at the gate, and it’s very well taken care of. So there’s a whole range of possibilities, and you don’t have to do it all at once, you can do it inConfidential steps.

Try to keep it as original as possible. Try not to commercialize it.

Most of the above comments apply to the small park area currently around the birthing stones. But with a much larger park, bathrooms could be built well away from the birthing stone area and not be an adverse visual impact.

Landscaping

With a much larger park, landscaping concerns need to be addressed. Currently, most of the surrounding 500 acres are abandoned pineapple fields with non-native shrubs, grasses and trees now starting to overgrow the landscape. Because this is the case, in the small park, homeless people gather nearby sometimes – as well as young partiers. With landscaping, one can start to control use of the park.

There were many suggestions from the community on landscaping for the park. Most recommended that the invasive species and grass be taken out, and that replanting of native trees and plants be done in an area away from the stones. We agree that native plantings should dominate any landscaping plan. The area immediately nearby to Kūkaniloko should always have native species planted if any new landscaping is considered.

In the immediate area of the birthing stones, some community members also stated that the eucalyptus tress should be removed for various reasons (e.g. blocking the view, they’re non-native, they could be cause damage to the pōhaku). This idea of removing these trees should be addressed further in the management plan and discussed with the community and the cultural advisory group. Here are some comments from people that were interviewed.

All those eucalyptus trees that are there today, we know that they couldn’t have come in before the 1930s because that’s when the 461 civilian conservation camps came in and started planting those trees. So what was there before those trees?

I would say I think the best way is to keep Kūkaniloko open. To retain the view plane cause other wise people coming there that don’t know the history will have a different kind of view of the place. If you do want to delineate the area, then maybe a low shrubbery of native plants is the best way. Then maybe someone can do some good artist renderings of the place, wiping out all of the exotic trees. So the question is, what would be good to someday replace the eucalyptus because they’re not endemic to the area.

There’s not supposed to be eucalyptus trees there, and we want to get rid of them. The eucalyptus trees were planted back in the plantationConfidential days as windbreakers for the sugar cane. There are still lots of eucalyptus all around Wahiawā, there are 40-50 trees behind my house and a bunch along Kaukonahua Gulch. There’s supposed to be coconut trees there because they signify healing.

Grow native forests there so the native birds can come back. Grow taro because this is prime land to grow it. Grow plants that we can eat. Heal the land.

Cut down the eucalyptus trees.

Reforest the area to provide cover and shade. Reforest Kūkaniloko with native plants and trees to what it would have looked like in the past, so people can appreciate what it used to be like.

I recommend building a place for the kūpuna to sit while they visit Kūkaniloko. Somewhere nice with shade.

My humble suggestion would be to consider planting some native Hawaiian trees around the site, as was achieved in the ‘Ulupo Heiau and Kawainui Marsh sites under the guidance of the great community leader Chuck Burrows.

We need to bring back a more native landscape, because obviously the eucalyptus trees are not native or culturally appropriate. Even the coconut trees are probably not part of the traditional landscape.

Well it might be difficult to propose cutting down these trees because it is such a significant landmark. If people got word that 462

the State was cutting down a hundred year old trees, there would be some concern from some people.

The Stasacks also reported increased lichen growth on the stones, which they believe could have even possibly impacted some of the petroglyphs on the stones.

The eucalyptus have grown so tall that they now case a significant afternoon shadow across most of the western stones, resulting in noticeable lichen growth since 1991. There are a number of types of lichen … causing visible damage to the stone matrix.2

The Stasacks suggested that experts should evaluate this situation, and “if the trees are contributing to the lichen growth and density, then their removal should be considered”. We realize that this might be a sensitive issue to members of the community, but the trees were planted beginning about 1910-1920 and they are not part of the traditional era history of Kūkaniloko.Confidential The stones ultimately need protection, not the trees. But we realize the trees are part of Kūkaniloko’s visual appearance of everyone that has visited the place and is alive today. Perhaps the trees could be trimmed, or only a few removed. But this needs attention.

One thing to remember is that this park is focused on Kūkaniloko as a high ranking birthing area within a chiefly center. The landscape of the 1300s-early 1600s in the 500+ acres immediately around the birthing stones was probably not forest, nor fields. It was most likely the Kūkaniloko sacred area, surrounded by houseyards of residents of the chiefly center – high ranking to low ranking. This cultural landscape cannot easily be recreated across the new, larger park. Although, one possible infrastructure idea to be considered could be a small area re-creating part of the chiefly center (covered below).

Several types of landscaping can be considered. Larger grassy areas might be focused about future infrastructure to be added – such as a cultural center, community center, small museum, etc. The grassy area around Kūkaniloko also needs to be maintained. These “lawns” are likely to be non-native species. But plantings of native trees (small groves) well back from the view planes from Kūkaniloko might be desirable. Plantings of native shrubbery could occur. Or areas that include certain types of plants could be developed – hula plants, lapa‘au medicinal plants (particularly those that might have been used in childbirth). In a big acreage, small fields of dryland kalo, uala, wauke, etc. could be grown. These types of different planting areas could be educational tools for the surrounding schools, and for the community – as well as having practical uses.

One concern that many interviewed expressed was that the birthing stones should be kept sheltered – not open and highly visible. Native plantings could be used to screen off the birthing area – keeping it sheltered. Some people suggested planting buffers around the stones. One such quote follows:

There should be as many buffers as possible and they should be constructed in the form on indigenous plant farming in the 463

surrounding areas. I’m concerned about protecting Kūkaniloko and the surrounding area to make sure that no one desecrates this sacred place.

Some landscaping could also consist of stone walls. Such walls could set off new infrastructure areas. They should be low. Native Hawaiian stone masons could be employed for such projects – even as a teaching tool for community students or future stone masons.

There was some discussion of walling off the birthing stones to keep them sheltered – or creating physical barriers. However, although we think it is quite possible that the sacred area of Kūkaniloko may have once been walled off (probably with low walls), at present there is no way to determine where the boundaries of that sacred area were. Building a wall could bound a smaller area, and leave places that were once part of the sacred area of Kūkaniloko outside. This probably should be avoided, as detrimental to the mana ofConfidential the sacred area. Thus, we would not recommend a wall around the birthing stones area. Vegetation, however, can be used to screen off the area – without blocking view planes.

Note also that grassy areas and native plantings will probably require some irrigation infrastructure – drip lines and water tanks (or water sources) (as used in Nānākuli by Ka‘ala Farms) and sprinkler systems perhaps for lawns (although rainfall and dew might be adequate enough for grass to survive).

Staff for Maintenance and Security

A larger park area and the likelihood of expanded grassy areas and native plants in small groves or areas will require more maintenance staff. How many more we would not want to predict. Some of the care to native planting areas could possibly be given to volunteer groups in the Hawaiian community and schools.

Also, a larger park area open to the public during the day will require some security planning. This might be arrangements with the local police to patrol occasionally or for park staff to contact them as needed. It might require some enforcement staff, as occurs in US National Parks.

If some of the infrastructure facilities noted below are developed, then other staff might be needed; but they are mentioned under possible facilities.

With a larger park, a maintenance structure will be needed to store equipment and supplies. This must be storm proof. It might serve as a small office area for park staff too.

464

Possible Infrastructure Facilities

These are solely ideas. In some cases, facilities could be combined. Again, they could be along the perimeter access road well away from the birthing stones and be accessed by small parking lots.

(1) A Community Center

A small building for community gatherings, school talks, etc. might be desired.

(2) A Small Museum or Visitor’s Center

The possibility of creating a small museum as part of the larger park was also recommended. This could also fall into the visitor’s center concept. This should be a small, well-built, storm proof building. Confidential We would note that there is no museum for the history of O‘ahu itself. The Bishop Museum, which has larger charges, could assist in developing such a museum. Such a small museum particularly could address the larger cultural landscape of the Central Plateau, in which Kūkaniloko the sacred birthing place and its chiefly center sat. With such a larger interpretive approach, perhaps major land holders in the area (such as the Army at Schofield Barracks, the Air Force at Wheeler AFB, etc.) would be willing to help fund the small museum. One community participant stressed that OHA and the State should work on obtaining all of the artifacts that were gathered by the army at Schofield. This person suggested that these invaluable artifacts should be appropriately displayed and interpreted at the park and used to educate the community. We believe that this suggestion is a good one.

A small museum would involve several staff positions. Interpretive staff at the park could be based here. For example, if interpretive staff expanded to two people, one could be at the birthing stones area and one could be at the museum/visitor’s center. This provides job opportunities to members of the Hawaiian community in this area of museum work. Volunteer docents could also be considered for both museum and outside interpretive roles too. This would be a way of getting kūpuna involved in the park.

Maintenance issues also are involved in such a building.

Such a small museum could easily attract local schools too, enabling them to learn more about Kūkaniloko and its larger cultural landscapes. It has considerable educational advantages. Also, it can be used for training of future Native Hawaiian museum operators, perhaps a program linked to graduate students in Hawaiian Studies at UH Mānoa. 465

(3) Re-created Hale

Either of the above facilities or another area of the park could use re-created hale, as important educational tools. Local schools or Hawaiian studies programs could hold classes in such hale or near them. There is no reason not to teach language, English (using Hawaiian oral histories and oral literature as examples), history, etc. in such a setting. Students often pay more attention. Also, kūpuna can aid in instruction.

Re-created hale can also be used as teaching tools for craftsmen who aspire to building traditional style hale. There is a small, emerging market for traditional type hale for parks, learning centers, and schools. Teaching of hale construction, thatching and lashing all could be done with such hale.

It could also be considered to re-create several houseyards with hale to serve as an educational toolConfidential for what the chiefly center that surrounded Kūkaniloko looked like. This could include food, medicine, and tool trees that might have stood in such yards. In some ways, this would be an outside continuation of the small museum/visitor’s center. It might need an interpretive staff or docent. Nothing like this exists at any of the current cultural historic parks associated with Hawaiian culture – such as Hōnaunau, Kaloko- Honokōhau, or Pu‘ukohala on Hawai‘i Island (except perhaps the Hale o Keawe reconstruction).

(4) A Place for the Keanini Stone and Its Companion – The Healing Stones

As seen in prior chapters, in traditional times the Keanini stone was a stone in Kaukonahua Gulch where the Waialua Trail crossed, and in traditional times it had stories associated with it. When it was moved during road construction in the 1880s, George Galbraith and Hawaiians on the construction crew talked about the stone, and Galbraith may have had a dream. Galbraith had the stone moved to the birthing stones area, protected it and the birthing stones there during the remainder of his life, and desired that it be kept there and protected. Another stone (the boot, or guardian) was found in 1923 and moved next to the Keanini stone. Then when the Daughters of Hawai‘i took over care of Kūkaniloko and kept the birthing stones area clean, the large Keanini stone became highly visible and was viewed by non-Hawaiian plantation workers as a healing stone. The traffic in the birthing stones area to worship and give offerings to the “healing stone” eventually led the Daughters to have the stone and its companion removed, and they were taken into Wahiawā, where they were eventually cared for many years by Hindu groups. Recently, arrangements were made by local Hawaiians to remove the stones from Wahiawā and return them to Kūkaniloko. They likely sit under one of the platforms built more recently at the State Monument. Issues exist about whether they should have come back, and where they should go. Some think that they will again detract from the birthing history of Kūkaniloko.

It should only be moved back to Kūkaniloko when everything is in place and is managed properly. 466

I support bringing the healing pōhaku back to Kūkaniloko. When they were taken away, it took away their essence, and energy of the site was lost.

With a bigger park around Kūkaniloko, perhaps an area away from the birthing stones can be set aside for the erection of these two stones – their protection and the telling of their history. This is a long-range issue that the Native Hawaiian managing entity and its Advisory Board for the park will need to take up.

(5) A House for a Live-in Staff Member

In the past, on some of the islands, State and County parks had live-in staff members. This is also true at many National Parks. This is true still at the Royal Mausoleum. There is an advantage in having a staff member present full-time. It will likely reduce vandalism,Confidential partying, evening trespassing and other activities that might damage the park. It promotes a true kahu status. This would have to be in a more remote part of the park.

Architectural Design of New Modern Facilities

Any of the above-noted modern facilities (community center, small museum, house for staff member, even bathrooms) also provide a unique opportunity for architectural design. These buildings could be designed by Native Hawaiian architects blending old and new building concepts – such as the buildings at UH Mānoa’s Hawai‘inuiākea, School of Hawaiian Knowledge. This has economic, educational, and artistic advantages to OHA’s beneficiaries.

Signage

We have already mentioned vital signs that need to go up immediately. These could be replaced as the Advisory Board sees fit.

Some of the above facilities will also need basic identifying signage.

The entrance to the park will need a much more visible sign. As one person interviewed noted, “They should put up a larger sign on Kamehameha Highway so people who are looking for Kūkaniloko don’t miss the turn-off.” This sign should be national park level quality, such as those in U.S. national parks.

Creating Educational and Interpretive Material

Longer-range interpretive elements could also be developed for Kūkaniloko and its surrounding cultural landscapes (the chiefly center of Līhu‘e, the Central Plateau, and its place in the history of O‘ahu).

467

Brochures are good, because visitors can take away information about what they have seen. This is also true of small, 10-20 page booklets. As the park will be getting larger, the brochure should also include a map locating park facilities (the birthing stones, the perimeter road, parking lots, buildings, paths, rest rooms). The interpretive information about the park’s history needs to be as historically accurate as possible. This might not be an easy task, as one community participant stated, “We can’t set any specific narratives of stories about this place because there are a lot of stories associated with Kūkaniloko. There are so many interpretations of this site, so how can you have just one interpretation that is perpetuated?” But, still, we believe that this report will show that there are basic elements of Kūkaniloko and its surrounding landscape that all can agree upon. The Native Hawaiian managing entity’s staff could prepare such a brochure, with drafts run by the cultural Advisory Board and the community. Ideally, it would be good to get a small brochure done as soon as possible, so visitors can take this away and be better informed. (State Parks had such a brochure, and it could be looked at as an example.) Confidential Additionally, the Native Hawaiian managing entity could reach out to the local schools (with the help of its Advisory Board and the community, and working with the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā which does school presentations) and perhaps prepare small school curriculum, enabling students who reside and attend school in the area to develop a deeper understanding of and appreciation for their very own special sense of place with their cultural landscapes. In the long run, this could play an important role for Native Hawaiian school children education in this area.

Promoting Responsible Tourism

As seen in the prior chapter, tourists do visit Kūkaniloko – in greater numbers that one might think. They often are clueless as to the history of the place. Also, they often behave inappropriately. A larger park potentially would increase visitors – particularly when one considers this is equivalent to a national park in importance. The Native Hawaiian community is concerned about the current problems, and does not want Kūkaniloko to turn into a commercialized tourist attraction. “I have concerns about how many buses would go there. It comes down to the exposure issue again.”

It is clear to the State Parks, the community, and our group that the number of tourists visiting Kūkaniloko has grown over the years. From our experiences at the site, we would typically witness at least 50-100 tourists visiting Kūkaniloko daily. Many of the Asian tourists come with tour companies in vans, and are not properly aware of the history and significance of Kūkaniloko, or of how to appropriately behave at the site.

We noted above some immediate short-term measures to bring some of these problems under control – interpretive signage and signage at the parking lot about proper behavior and an interpretive staff member present at the site. Brochures might also help, as tour companies may read these and become better aware. One community member shared their thoughts on how to educate tourists on behaving respectfully at the site:

468

I don’t think it’s entirely a bad thing when people have different beliefs, views, and perspectives, different religious views. I don’t consider it a bad thing for them to go to Kūkaniloko and pray in their own way. I don’t see anything wrong with Catholic’s, Hindus or Shinto’s, Buddhists to go to a catholic church and praying, the only thing is that they need to have an understanding of that church, and having an understanding of their views. And before you do things in that church, ask questions so you do things appropriately. So I think the things we need to work out in TCPs are how can we do these things, how can we want to exclude people from going there and praying, how do we communicate and structure the importance of the place, so they can be educated and make it simple enough where they can just go there and learn and not have to go into a school. And that’s why I’m very disappointed for them moving that board [interpretiveConfidential sign], cause how else can you educate people when you’re not there? In my way of thinking, it’s simply having some kind of signs asking people to be respectful of it, and this is what this place is, saying that.

The Hawaiian Civic Cub of Wahiwā has tried to address the problem of misinformation being shared about Kūkaniloko by meeting with some of the Japanese tour operators and educating them on the history of the site and how to appropriately behave during their visits. Jo-lin Kalimapau also explained that “they are working on creating an interpretive video about Kūkaniloko in the Japanese language to educate the Japanese tourists before they visit the site (possibly on the bus, at the tour offices, or even on the airplane before they arrive in Hawai‘i). We also plan an interpretive video about Kūkaniloko in ‘ōlelo Hawai‘i for our charter schools and those who perpetuate the first language of our Nation. More videos in English are also anticipated.”

We’ve had a few meetings with Japanese tour groups. One company wanted us to meet their tour groups at Kūkaniloko and be tour guides for them, but we don’t have the man power to do that; we all have day jobs. We would rather educate all the tour guides, so they can all share the same information, truth and mana‘o about Kūkaniloko. Individual and group donations are accepted by the HCC of Wahiawā when we do these interpretive tours. These donations support what we do; it affords us the resources to put together our educational material and make it available to all interested parties here in all the islands and with today's technology, globally.

Other community members also offered suggestions on how to promote more responsible tourism, and how to discourage inappropriate behavior at Kūkaniloko:

469

Number one, it’s being promoted as a tourist destination. Number two, the state is not managing it adequately. Number three, we should collect money from the tour operators and we should manage it ourselves. If they’re going to use Kūkaniloko as a tourist destination, then we should collect money from them, and we need to provide a docent that the tour operators have to fund. We should provide them with a cultural monitor and an interpreter, and they have to pay for that person as part of their fees. So how do we then ensure that this happens? Well, the State will have to support the management of that place. And not just OHA, OHA’s not selling it. So it also has to be clear that OHA is not promoting Kūkaniloko as a tourist destination, it’s the State, Hawai‘i Business Bureau, Hawai‘i Tourism Authority, they are the ones promoting it as a tourist destination so they should pay for the maintenance, support, and interpretation of Kūkaniloko withConfidential a cultural monitor that is going to be paid to take people on the tours of Kūkaniloko. Number one - they need to ensure the protection of the site, number two – they need to interpret properly, and number three – they need to make sure no inappropriate activities happen there. The tourist industry and the state should have to pay this money to OHA and then OHA hires and trains the cultural monitors for Kūkaniloko.

For OHA, this is going to be another cultural purchase that they’re going to have to dish out money to maintain, like Waimea and Wao Kele O Puna. These places aren’t income producing and they were never intended to be incoming producing, and they cannot look at them as being income producing. So, they have to generate their income by other investments because these are significantly and culturally important sites that need to be protected. And part of that protection should come from SHPD and the state. The reason I think the State needs to pay for some of the protection measure is because the State markets these sites. Take a picture of the King Kamehameha statue out in the front of Kūkaniloko, because that marks it as a visitor destination. So to me, they’re using it to promote that sacred site. Other people are using it to promote tours to these sacred sites. So if you type in tourism sacred sites, tons of them come up. So Kūkaniloko is being marketed as a venue for visiting sacred sites. Those tour operators don’t pay anything to visit there. So now we have to say, wait a minute, we should put a tollbooth out front like they have at Volcano National Park. If they’re going to sell this as a tourist destination then they need to great permission, and they should have to apply for a permit.

470

There are some good points in the above quotes. If OHA or another Native Hawaiian group assumes control of management, then it needs to develop strategies to reach the tour companies – either through the Hawaii Visitors agency or directly to the tour companies – to provide them with information on Kūkaniloko’s history, on proper behavior, and on where to park. Perhaps the Hawaii Visitors agency could provide some funding assistance. The managing entity could also develop approaches (with its advisory Board and the community) on controlling tourist access. Perhaps permits could be required – a fee, with conditions. Permits might be based on transport only in certain sized vans – to prevent large buses from arriving. Again, tour companies could be required to park in certain parking lots, perhaps more screened. If conditions are not followed after reasonable warnings, then the permit could be withdrawn. Also, perhaps the managing agency’s staff could be given some authority to have visitors leave if behaving inappropriately, or even issue citations.

Another point to consider is whether a national level park might actually be profitable by generatingConfidential some revenue. Entry fees could be assessed. Certain fees per tour vehicle, another type of fee for local cars, motorcycles, and the like. Or, a dollar a person. One would not want to charge unreasonable fees to local residents. But national level parks typically charge fees. We realize that this might be very controversial, but it might be considered.

Yet another point that needs consideration tracking the numbers of visitors – and perhaps more information than that (from where, transported by what tour company) and even local Hawaiian visitors (from where in the Islands). Other information could also be collected. As Jo-lin Kalimapau suggests,

We need to get up-to-date information of visitors that come to Kūkaniloko. Even though there was some data in the 1999 Interpretive Plan, the Civic Club wanted to do another study and spend about a month gathering data. They want to gather information on how many visitors come, and why they visit.

Compliance with the State and Federal Historic Preservation Laws

The State historic preservation law (Chapter 6E) and the federal historic preservation law (National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106) were in part created to ensure that county and state (or federal) permits, funding of actions, or direct actions that might impact significant historic properties undergo historic preservation review – to attempt to ensure that impacts will not be adverse or damaging impacts. Such actions could include road construction, bathroom construction, small museum construction, native plantings – indeed almost any land-altering actions. It could include actions that would visually impact the historic property. It can also include funding of brochures – if the brochures contain wildly inaccurate information about the historic property.

471

The intent of these historic preservation laws is not to stop actions at a place like Kūkaniloko that could have positive impacts. But their aim is to require these proposed actions first undergo review by the State Historic Preservation Office. By law, that office is the state level watchdog for protection of significant historic properties. In federal actions, appeals can be made to the U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, but generally (given workloads) they prefer these reviews to be handled at the state level first. Also, State Historic Preservation Office review requires a period of time for the general public and specifically for Native Hawaiian groups and individuals to be able to review the proposals and the Division’s comments. The purpose of this review is to ensure that damage to significant historic properties will not occur. This is intended as a safety check to make sure proposing agencies (who often have no clue on proper preservation) do not propose actions that could damage important places.

As mentioned in the previous chapter, there has been concern over the modern alterations and construction at Kūkaniloko. We also learned that State Parks did not officially approveConfidential some of these activities. Nor did compliance occur with the State historic preservation laws for some actions – compliance being review and approval by the State Historic Preservation Division of proposals. Despite good intentions, some of the modern construction probably would not have been approved – some structures are much too close to the birthing stones and could be considered visually intrusive. If prior review had occurred and comments by the wider Hawaiian community, these flaws would likely have been identified and corrected. That is the entire purpose of the historic preservation laws – to try to end up with the best plan possible that will not adversely impact the significant historic property.

One community member was upset at the State and at the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā for not going through the appropriate review procedures when members of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā added new structures to the historic site.

You need to ask State Parks who gave Wahiawā Hawaiian Civic Club permission to build structures at Kūkaniloko. You have to ask these questions to the State because it’s happening under their jurisdiction and they created the curatorship agreement. If the state has an Memorandum of Agreement or Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] with Wahiawā Hawaiian Civic Club, and if certain violations have been done under their MOU, then what are they doing about it? If the State is not going to monitor that, then they need to yank the MOU, and take that kuleana away from them. The thing is, you have to hold the State responsible for it. They’re the ones that gave out the MOU, and they have a reason to yank the MOU now. They State needs to handle that kuleana before the land is transferred over to OHA.

While the Civic Club has played a great role in the protection of Kūkaniloko and has well-intended plans, this statement (although said perhaps bluntly) has merit. Proposed actions need to go through historic preservation review before they are done. 472

This wahi pana is a national park level historic property. Everyone recognizes that. Thus, actions need careful planning. One group’s ideas might actually have flaws. Unilateral action is not good. If OHA assumes control, we assume that an Advisory Panel will receive ideas from the community and propose initial plans back to the community. Such actions are likely to catch any unforeseen problems. Then submitting the plans for historic preservation review (with the opportunity for the State Historic Preservation Office’s more fully trained staff and for the wider Hawaiian community to comment) serves as one more safety check. Some of the actions done before might well have to be altered or removed. All new plans that could impact Kūkaniloko definitely need to undergo historic preservation review – to ensure that this wahi pana is fully protected.

Almost all of the above proposed actions will need historic preservation review. Roads, parking lots, bathrooms and modern buildings are obvious. No other historic sites have yet been found to survive beyond the birthing stones in this area. However, such places could beConfidential present. Proposals need to address this possibility. Also, proposals need to ensure that adverse visual effects to Kūkaniloko will not occur – nor probably adverse noise effects. A visual effect can be building height, but it could be color. Noise could be too many people and cars nearby. Many of these impacts are easy to plan for, if the plans are done carefully and inclusively. Some actions that could have impacts are trails -- color of the paving (if paved), highly visible from the birthing stones. Also trash cans might have impacts – avoid bright highly visible colors, and screen the cans with vegetation or other means. Even signage can have adverse impacts. Signs close to the birthing stones could be too big, or a color that clashes visually with the surrounding landscape. Sign text needs to be reviewed for accuracy (as accurate as possible given current knowledge – archival, archaeological, local community and other knowledge). One does not want wildly inaccurate interpretive signage. Controversial topics could be avoided in signs, but be expanded on in brochures or museum exhibits. Another action that could adversely impact Kūkaniloko is visitor behavior. This has to be planned for – the above-noted signs, the interpretive staff member, prior contact with companies. It would have to consider how to handle inappropriate behavior that would still occur – permits and their cancellation, fines. Visitor traffic is another concern. All these impacts and planned actions could impact Kukaniloko. So careful planning is needed. And, historic preservation review is needed (1) as a final safety check and (2) because it is legally required.

Most of the above – when considered – should seem reasonable as potential impacts. However, even staffing could be reviewed. If a proposal exists to open up the park with insufficient staffing and this is recognized as a problem, then potentially this would be an adverse effect. In our senior author’s tenure as Branch Chief for Archaeology at the State Historic Preservation Division, such a case never arose – although it might have had Kealekekua Bay State Historic Park proceeded forward. But this should be considered in planning. Ideally, one does not want to plan to open a larger park and find that insufficient staffing exists, for as a result adverse effects could occur to the park.

473

Of course, sometimes the best of plans prove to have problems after implementation, so planning should also anticipate that happening. These problems might be identified by Native Hawaiian managing entity, by OHA (if not that entity), by the community, or by the State Historic Preservation Office. A simple process probably needs to be built into the planning for the park on how to handle such problems when they arise.

The above refers to state actions. If federal involvement occurs (even funding), the historic preservation review at the federal level needs to occur. In this situation, the federal agency (or its designate) submits the proposal to the State Historic Preservation Office for review. If approved to have “no effect” or “no adverse effect”, then the project can proceed with proper paperwork (which the Historic Preservation staff can guide the Native Hawaiian managing entity through).

There are actually several ways to handle short- and long-range plans for Kūkaniloko. ConfidentialPlans could be developed and then submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office one-by-one. For example, one plan for additional signs and staff and a shelter for staff, and a porta-potty. Then one for a perimeter road. Then one for each parking lot and trails. Or what is called a programmatic agreement could be developed. This would frame the range of actions under an agreement item and how planning will occur for each action. This often leads to fewer visits back to Historic Preservation. But either approach is fine. Assuming all is beneficial and consultation with the Native Hawaiian community has occurred, they should be able to quickly approve such plans.

A last thought on historic preservation review. When a Native Hawaiian sovereign entity comes into being, assuming it is under U.S. jurisdiction, then that entity can have its own Historic Preservation Office. Most Native American tribes have their own Historic Preservation Offices that handle impacts to significant historic properties on their lands. So in the future, this process could change a bit.

Keeping the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā Involved

The Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā has played an extremely vital role in protecting Kūkaniloko over the past 50 years. When almost no one else was caring for Kūkaniloko, from the 1960s – 1992, the Civic Club periodically cleaned it and kept its story alive to visitors and the community. Again, no matter how one reacts to certain actions of the Civic Club at or involving Kūkaniloko in recent years, they have done a great service in helping protect Kūkaniloko. So again, it is our recommendation that whoever has management control of Kūkaniloko, whether State Parks now or OHA eventually, this special relationship should always be acknowledged. The Civic Club should always be turned to for mana‘o on Kūkaniloko’s care and be allowed to help in approved ways for the care of Kūkaniloko – as long as they wish to do so.

Many people that were interviewed for this study acknowledged the years of stewardship that the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā and Tom Lenchanko have provided. For instance, on person shared, “I think that Tom [Lenchanko] them have done 474

a good job of keeping things safe there. As far as who the stewards should be…all I can say that for the past forty years the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā have been taking care of this place. So I think it should remain with them, but I would hope that someone younger would take over who would commit to the place. When we came and talked to Tom [Lenchanko] in 2006, he wanted people that had a connection to the place to come and commit to caring for it.”

While most people agreed that the Civic Club should remain involved with the management and stewardship of Kūkaniloko, many of them did recommend that other individuals and community groups should be brought to the table as well. Again, to meet this concern, we recommend that a cultural Advisory Board that includes a member of the Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā (as well as other cultural practitioners and lineal/cultural descendants) be created to help manage this wahi pana.

BACK TO THE BIGGER PICTURE Confidential The wahi pana of Kūkaniloko definitely is equivalent to a U.S. national historic or cultural park. It is a place sacred and extremely important to the Native Hawaiian people. As such, we again urge OHA to try to acquire at least 500 acres around the existing State Monument, and we strongly urge that OHA assume the role of manager of a larger cultural/historical park of Kūkaniloko, in trust for the Native Hawaiian people. The small State Monument currently is not being preserved in an ideal fashion. Thus, we would urge immediate action on short-term measures. We would urge as quick action as possible on creating initial facilities for the larger cultural park. The community overwhelmingly supports the idea of educational-learning center like activities, but set away from the birthing stones. All of this is possible to do. It can be done at a very high quality level. It can provide jobs to local Native Hawaiians. It can educate the local and larger Native Hawaiian public. Every Hawaiian should be able to visit this wahi pana and better understand its role in history. This is a place of immense sacredness, and properly preserved can be a place of great cultural pride. But additionally, associated facilities (small museum, community center, planting areas, etc.) can all have great educational roles – and training roles for future careers. OHA has a huge opportunity here to do great good for its beneficiaries. It should embrace this opportunity.

Last, wahi pana like Kūkaniloko are equivalent to national historic or cultural parks, with great importance to the Hawaiian people. We believe that a system of Hawaiian national historic-cultural parks is one that should be planned for should a sovereign entity emerge. We suggest that it could even be started before then. There is no reason to wait. There are a large number of wahi pana of importance to all Nataive Hawaiians throughout the islands. Royal centers would be eligible as such parks, such as Waipi‘o, Hōlualoa (aka Kamoa Point), Kealakekua, Hōnaunau, and Kawaihae on Hawai‘i Island. On O‘ahu, although the famed royal centers are now largely gone, fragments survive that could be managed together. For example, in Kailua on O‘ahu, Ulupō heiau, Pahukini heiau, ruins of kalo fields in Kawainui marsh and back up Maunawili stream (and nearby house sites), the vast ponds of Kawainui and Ka‘elepulu, Olomana mountain, and other natural and cultural features survive. Few are well-preserved, and none are 475

linked together as a wahi pana landscape. There are other landscapes with broad expanses of natural terrain, man-made features (heiau, trails, houses, burials, fishponds, fisheries, etc.) that are identified in the islands – to name just a few, Lapakahi and Kaloko-Honokōhau on Hawai‘i and Waimea and upper Wai‘anae valley on O‘ahu. There are many other places – single structures of great importance (Mo‘okini heiau) and landscapes. Some of these are now in the National Park system and State Park system. Even in these existing parks, serious maintenance and interpretive issues often exist, and Native Hawaiian employees are often not raised into upper levels of administration. These are Hawaiian places that need Hawaiian-management to properly care for them. There truly is a need for a Hawaiian managed park system. Such a park system can allow for very flexible uses. It can also provide jobs of all skill levels, promote cultural pride, have great educational benefits, ensure proper behavior and protocol, and can bring in income. While taking a step into historic-cultural park administration may be a massive step, we urge OHA to consider this. It can always be done in increments. OHA has taken some of these steps already with the acquisition of Waimea on this island. While proper preservation ofConfidential Kūkaniloko is the focus of this project, it can help serve as a model towards a future Hawaiian national park system that protects and preserves the most important wahi pana of the Islands.

476

NOTES

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 1

None

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 2

1. Parker 1993:4. 2. Kanahele 1991. 3. King 2003:90. 4. King 2003:114. 5. King and Parker 1990:1. 6. King 2003:100-104. 7. King and ParkerConfidential 1990:11-14. 8. King 2003:167. 9. King 2003:167. 10. SHPD 1989. 11. OEQC 2004 12. Magnuson et al. 2004. 13. McGerty and Spear 2004. 14. Prasad 2003. 15. Prasad 2005a. 16. Prasad 2005b 17. Tuggle and Tomonari-Tuggle 2004. 18. Desilets et al. 2009. 19. Monahan and Silva 2007. 20. Monahan 2008.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 3

1. Kamakau 1961:355. 2. For example, Thrum 1911; Webb 1925 manuscript (Webb n.d.-b, n.d.-c); 1994 National Register 1994; Wai‘anae uka chapter in Cordy’s (1996 and 2002a) overview of O‘ahu. 3. Orr 2001. 4. Desilets et al. 2009. 5. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994. 6. Dibble 1838 (Ka Mooolelo Hawaii), 1843 (history), Jarvis 1844a, b; Pogue 1858; Reynolds in King (ed) 1989; Gregg in King (ed) 1982. 7. Kalākaua 1888; Jensen and Jensen 2005. 8. Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899. 9. Korn 1976. 10. Thrum 1911; Webb n.d.-b, n.d.-c; National Register 1994; Kame‘eleihiwa 1992, 1999; Cachola-Abad 2000; Desilets et al. 2009. 477

11. Desilets et al. 2009. 12. McKenzie 1983, 1986. 13. Valeri 1985. 14. Johnson and Mahelona 1975; Lewis 1972; Gladwin 1970. 15. Sterling and Summers 1978. 16. Lyons 1875, Fornander 1880, Fornander Collection 1917,4(2). 17. Emerson (1915) is well known English source for the Pele and Hi‘iaka story, but it has been shown recently that much of his book is his translation of the 1861 publication by Kapihenui in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika (Silva 2003). The early 1900 publication of the Hi‘iaka story by Ho‘oulumāhieie (2006) with Hawaiian and English volumes, translated by Nogelmeier and his associates. 18. Cordy 2000, 2002a, b; Cachola-Abad 2000. 19. Sahlins (1992) and Kame‘eleihiwa (1992). 20. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994. 21. Desilets et al. 2009:36 (archaeology in Halemano), 67 (archaeology in Līhu‘e and Wahiawā). Confidential 22. Parker 1993. 23. See Appendix 1 for initial scoping approaches. This includes examples of standard e-mails and letters and figures to inform individuals of the project, contacting individuals by telephone, or meeting with people in person to discuss the project 24. Bernard 2006:92. 25. Bernard 2006:210. 26. See complete list of interview questions in Appendix 2. 27. See Appendix 3 for the questionnaire that was distributed to those individuals who attended the July 2010 Kūkaniloko community meeting in Wahiawā 28. Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini 1974: Frontpiece. 29. See Silva (2003; 2004:76) for Kanepuu’s comments; Korn (1976) for Emma’s noting that Kanepuu was a well known Molokai authority on Hawaiian history. 30. Kame‘eleihiwa 1992. 31. Barrere 1980:38. 32. For criticisms of Kamakau, see Stokes (1930:98; 1933:30-31), Nogelmeier 2010:109- 118; Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):242. 33. For Kamakau’s wide acceptance, see Stokes (1930:98), Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):242. He was defended by Hale‘ole in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa 6/1/1865 and Ke Au Okoa in 5/29/1865 (Chun 1993:20). ‘Ī‘ī in 1868 noted that Kamakau was very accurate (Helekunihi 1893 letter to Oliver Emerson). See Advertiser March 31, 1866. See S.K. Ka‘ai’s 1876 Legislative resolution lauding Kamakau after his death (Chun 1993:24). 34. Chun 1993:19; Nogelmeier 2010:110-116. 35. Hale‘ole 1865c. 36. 1874 Kuihelani letter quotes sent by Pete Kaeo to Queen Emma in Alfons Korn (ed) 1976: 255-256. 37. Stokes 1906 (August 15, 22 1906 letter to W. Brigham, Director of the Museum) in McEldowney (1986). 38. Korn 1976:117. 39. See Stokes (1933:23) critiquing Fornander for blindly following Kamakau’s dates. 478

Nogelmeier (2010:18, 39) pointed out that stories in the Fornander Collections are in uniform style, suggesting that Fornander rewrote them. Interestingly, there was a lot of sharing of ideas among Kamakau, Kepelino, Kalākaua and Fornander. Kepelino and Kamakau came up with the Kumuhonua genealogy and Hawaii loa, and Fornander accepted this and published it – an error involving all three (Barrere 1969a). Kalākaua shared Kaua‘i genealogies with Fornander (Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):243) and considered Fornander conscientious and learned (Kalākaua 1888). Indeed much of the basic historical information in Kalākaua’s 1888 book heavily leaned on Fornander’s work. Hale‘ole also collected for Fornander and worked with Kamakau.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 4

1. Kamakau 1991:6. 2. Kamakau 1991:136. 3. Kamakau inConfidential McKenzie 1986:53; in Chun 1993:17. 4. McIntosh, Denham, and Cleghorn 1995:3. 5. Ka‘ala is clearly an old name. It is located on the 1838 Lahainaluna map of the islands by Kalama (A Map of the Hawaiian Islands) (Fitzpatrick 1986:110-111). It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 6. Kamaoha as a kaona form for Ka‘ala (Kepihenui in Emerson 1915:231; Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:Chant 153 – p. 256 Eng, 275 Haw, and Chant 157 – p. 266 Eng, 384-5 Haw). Sometimes called the “highlands of Kamaoha” (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006). Goddess reference by Ho‘okala in 1930 (McAllister 1933:133). Not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 7. Luakini pond reference by Ho‘okala in 1930 (McAllister 1933:133). Not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 8. Kolekole is clearly an old name. It appears in al the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 9. Labeled Kalena and Kumakalii on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom of Hawai‘i Maps of O‘ahu. On more modern maps they are labeled Pu‘u Kalena and Pu‘u Kumakalii, usually without the ‘okina and kahako (USGS Schofield Barracks quad 1983). Kalena is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 10. Hāpapa and Kānehoa are clearly old names. They appear in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Both are on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps: Hapapa, Kanehoa. These are labeled Puu Hapapa and Puu Kanehoa on more modern USGS maps, again without the ‘okina and kahako (USGS Schofield Barracks quad 1983). The elevations used here come off the 1881 Kingdom Map (Lyons 1881). 11. Hāpapa seems to be referred to as Kapapa in the 1860s era Chants of Kūali‘i (Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):384, Line 384). 12. Pu‘u Kaua and Pōhākea are clearly old names. They appear in the early mo‘olelo and 479

oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Both are on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps: Puu Kaua, Pohakea. 13. Maunauna is clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 14. Kamaohanui, Pu’u Pane and Mā‘ili appear on the 1876 (Alexander) Kingdom Map: Kamaohanui, Puu Pane and Maili. Kamaohanui and Pu‘u Pane are not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 15. Waikele Stream is clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1876 (Alexander ) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 16. Waikakalaua is clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Map. 17. Paupauwela Stream:ka wai Paupauwela. This stream is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini PlaceConfidential Names of Hawaii (1974). 18. Wai‘eli Stream clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps: Waieli. Kawai’eli (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:266 Eng, 284-5 Haw). It is spelled Waiele in all SCS and GANDA reports. Wai‘eli is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 19. Waikakalaua Stream has several short gulches that feed into it just before it joins with Wai‘eli Stream. Some may be named on Grant 6 for the eastern half of Waikakalaua, but we did not look at this closely. 20. Poliwai Gulch appears on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 21. Kīpapa Gulch is clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom map: Kipapa. 22. All three gulches are on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps. Manawaielu is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). It is labeled Manawaiahu on the USGS Schofield Barracks quad (1983) and in the tax maps (TMK 9-4-04). 23. Kaukonahua Stream is on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. It is also in the 1851 metes and bounds descriptions of Grant 604 (Grant 604 1851). 24. A 1870s Kingdom map (Anonymous) labels this Kalikoa and adjacent lands the ‘ili of Kalikoa. This seems to be a spelling error of Kalakoa, given consistent spellings as Kalakoa on 1875 (Monsarrat) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps, 1851 metes and bounds descriptions of Grants 605-606 (Grants 605-606 1851), and other 1860s era mo‘olelo. Interestingly, 3 streams come together just east of the ‘ili of Waikakalaua (at the base of the steeper Ko‘olau slopes) and form this south fork. We found no record of their names, but community informants indicate that one of these gulches was called Launani (the one nearest to the O‘ahu nui stone (Quitevas, Kalimapau 2010 interviews). Kalakoa is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 25. Paka gulch is named in ‘Ī‘ī ‘s 1866-1870 newspaper articles (1959:99), appears on 480

1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps, and is part of the metes and bounds Boundary Commission 1876 description for the boundary between the School Lands of Wahiawa and the Crown lands of Wai‘anae uka. Paka is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 26. Both Kamakau in 1865 (Kamakau 1991:38) and ‘Ī‘ī in 1866-1870 (1959:98-99) seem to place Kua‘ikua Stream in this area just west of Kūkaniloko, near Kaukonahua where the Wai‘alua Trail crossed the stream. And in 1866 Kamakau refers to birthplaces of Haho and Lanakawai being by “the kawa, the leaping place, of Kua‘ikua at the stream of Kua‘ikua in Wahiawa” (Kamakau 1991:101). Also, local Hawaiian informants in 1930 placed Kua‘ikua near Kūkaniloko and Wahiawā town (Handy 1940:81). Some early 1900s newspapers and current interviewees identify this as a spring in Halemano. Kua‘ikua is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 27. It is called Wahiawa River on the 1875 (Monsarrat) Kingdom map, and it is labeled Wahiawa Gulch in the 1876 Boundary Commission Testimony (in Robins & Spear 2002b:App.Confidential A), and Wahiawa Stream in the 1930s in Handy (1940:82) 28. Waikōloa Stream is clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also on 1876 (Alexander) Kingdom map: Waikoloa Gulch. It appears as Kawaikoloa in the 1905- 1906 version of the Hi‘iaka mo‘olelo (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:162, n. 102). 29. Spelled Moohiokea on 1851 Bishop map of ‘ili Kalena (Bishop 1851). It is Mohiakea on the 1876 (Alexander) Kingdom map. Handy (1940:86) spells this stream alternatively as Kioea and Mookioea. 30. Kūmakali‘i seems to be identified as a stream on Bishop’s 1851 map of ‘ili Kalena (Bishop 1851), and it appears on the 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Map. It is also called the other upper branch of Mohiākea Stream (Robins & Spear 1997:213), possibly Pukaloa Gulch in 1901 and 1933 (Bryan 1901; McAllister 1933:133), the present day Kumakalii Gulch – Robins & Spear 2002a:43-44), and upper Mohiākea (Robins et al 2005:73). Kalena gulch clearly appears on the 1851 map of Kalena ‘ili. 31. Hale‘au‘au Stream is clearly an old name. It appears in the early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. 32. Halapo or Kalapo Stream is mentioned in the Ka Inoa o Kūali‘i oli (Lyons 1875; Fornander 1880:Appendix V; Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):384), but we have not seen it on any maps or other records. However, no side streams of Hale’au’au appear to be given on any maps. It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 33. Kahauhau appears in the metes and bounds for Grant 604 purchased in 1851 (Grant 604 1851). It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 34. In 1866-1870, ‘Ī‘ī (1959:98) calls this stream “Poo a Moho”, as did Kamakau in 1869 (Kamakau 1991:151 -- Po‘o-a-moho; but other maps of the 1870s label it Poamoho (1870s (Anonymous), 1875 (Monsarrat) and 1876 (Alexander) Kingdom Maps). 35. Elithe Kahn in our interviews stated that Wahiawā should actually be Wai‘ihiawa (Kahn 2010 interview). 36. Halahape as a named kula appears in the Anae story (Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899: 481

Nov. 18). The place Halahape where houses stood (thus likely a kula) is named by Kamakau in 1865 (1991:54). It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 37. Again, both Kamakau in 1865 (Kamakau 1991:38) and ‘Ī‘ī in 1866-1870 (1959:98- 99) seem to place Kua‘ikua Stream as a land area just west of Kūkaniloko, near Kaukonahua where the Wai‘alua Trail crossed the stream. Kua‘ikua, Kunaka and Kukui-o-Lono were names that Hawaiian informants gave to Handy in the 1930s (Handy 1940:81), stating these were places near Kūkaniloko where kalo was grown, with Kukui-o-Lono specifically located above and west of the north fork of Kaukonahua (Handy and Handy 1972:465) that suggests a kula area. 38. The kula of Kalakoa is clearly an old name, for it is mentioned in 1860s mo‘olelo, and a 1875 (Monsarrat) Kingdom map locates it. It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 39. Waikakalaua was an ‘ili on a kula area contiguous and just south of Kalakoa. It appears in the Māhele, on 1875 (Monsarrat), 1876 (Alexander), and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps.Confidential It also is named in old mo‘olelo recorded in the 1860s. 40. Līhu‘e as a general kula and land area is clearly an old name, for it is mentioned in 1860s mo‘olelo, and in the 1851 Kalena ‘ili records (Bishop 1851). 41. The kula of Hale‘au‘au and Kalena are clearly old names, for they are mentioned in 1860s mo‘olelo and oli, and Kalena is shown and described in the 1851 Kalena ‘ili records (Bishop 1851) and on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps. 42. Malamanui is referred to as a battle area in the oli Ka Inoa o Kūali‘i (Lyons 1875; Fornander 1880:Appendix V; Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):384, 386), suggesting it was an open kula area. It is described as a kula (“ke kula omalamanui”) in a 1867 kanikau (Kekahuna 1867). It is also mentioned as Malama or Malamanui forest in a 1862 mele ‘inoa for Kawailahaole (Keamoku 1862), in the 1899 “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” serial in the story of the ‘anae (Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899), and in the early 1900s Pele and Hi‘iaka story (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:Chant 210 on p. 236 (English), 252 (Hawaiian)). Kalākaua’s ranchhouse was named Malamanui and was located on the kula in this area. It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 43. The kula of Mahie is mentioned in a 1899 Hawaiian newspaper article on the ‘anae fish story associated with Lā‘ie (Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899: Oct. 7 and Nov. 18). It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 44. Kokoloea appears as a triangulation station for Kingdom maps going back to 1870s (Anonymous), 1875 (Monsarrat), 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons), as a kukui tree in the same location on Kingdom maps back to 1870s (Anonymous) and 1875 (Monsarrat). It was also clearly a place for it is also described in 1876 Boundary Commission testimony (“an ancient kahua maika, at a place called Kokoloea -- in Robins & Spear 2002b:App A). It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). 45. 1840s-1860s records consistently identify this ‘ili as Halemano (1842 BM/KB lease May 29 in Sahlins 1992:149; 1865 Kamakau, 1991:40, “The chiefs of Lihu‘e, Wahiawa and Halemano”; 1869 Kamakau, 1961:424, Halemano, one of list of “large villages with teachers and schoolhouses”. Later it becomes Halemanu (e.g., 482

Kalākaua 1888:376) and Helemano (Nakuina 1897; Westervelt 1904). The Wailua Agricultural Company after acquiring the Holt Pa‘ala‘a uka lands calls all of it generically their Helemano lands. Interestingly, the ‘ili of Halemano on the old Kingdom maps (Lyons 1881) was in the steeper Ko‘olau slopes, which is consistent with the Halemano cannibal stories dating back to the 1860s. However, one copy of the 1876 (Alexander) Kingdom map has a later handwritten location of Halemano school lot on the broader flat kula of Pa‘ala‘a uka just above the apex of Grants 605 and 606. More modern sources talk about Kūkaniloko being on the plains of Helemano, some suggesting it was the old name for this part of Wahiawā (e.g., Honolulu Advertiser March 1, 1925; Kenn 1937; Daughers of Hawai‘i nd:1). Desilets et al (2009:20) suggest this evidence may indicate Halemano once had a wider area associated with it. We would suggest that at most Halemano could have referred to the steeper kula matching the maps and cannibal stories and perhaps the Halemano school lot area a bit farther out on the flat kula; but this needs more research. The references to Kūkaniloko being on the plains (kula) of Helemano seem to be a modernConfidential version of place names. 46. Kānewai is mentioned in several places as a kula and settlement just downslope from Halemano (1866, Kamakau 1961:324). This may be an ‘ili of Pa‘ala‘a, and it needs more research – most quickly with land records and older maps. 47. Paupauwela is the older spelling in 1860s era mo’olelo and oli. The 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps spells it Popouwela. It is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). Līhu‘e is a set of kula and gulches within a broad ‘ili within Honouliuli. It is an older name appearing in 1860s mo‘olelo and on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps. This Līhu‘e is not in the Pukui, Elbert and Mo‘okini Place Names of Hawaii (1974). Pouhala is an ‘ili consisting of the several kula running up the western edge of Waikele Stream all the way to Wai‘eli Stream. It appears in the 1840s Māhele documents and is visible on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 48. These moku are all old names. They appear in the early foreign written records, in missionary records of the 1820s, in the Māhele land records, in early mo‘olelo and oli that began to be published in the 1860s in Hawaiian newspapers. Also they appear on all the Kingdom Maps of O‘ahu. 49. Kamananui ahupua‘a is in the 1840s Māhele land records. 50. Kemo‘o ‘ili is in the 1840s Māhele land records. 51. See note 33 above. 52. See note 32 above. 53. Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a is in the 1840s Māhele land records. 54. Halemano ‘ili is in the 1840s Māhele land records and is located on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps. But Halemano the place has been located in different areas (see note 45). 55. See note 42 above. Again, we did not conduct research on the ‘ili of Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a. 56. Wai‘anae uka appears as a tax and census unit after 1855, and it appears labeled on the 1870s (Anonymous), 1875 (Monsarrat), 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom maps: Waianae uka. However, it is not clear how old this designation is, or whether in post-1850 times if Wai‘anae uka was part of the ahupua‘a of Wai‘anae 483

(including the valley and Lualualei), was an ahupua‘a itself, or what. See Chapter 6 for discussion on the age of Wai‘anae uka. More work is needed on what type of land it was in post-1850 times. 57. This larger area west of the Wai‘alua Trail had long been called Līhu‘e. It is an old designation (see Chapter 6). What kind of land unit Līhu‘e was in the 1800s is unclear. It was bigger than an ‘ili, for the metes and bounds and map of the ‘ili of Kalena within this area states that Kalena was within the “District of Lihue”. What that means is unclear, for other maps of the 1870s and 1880s clearly have Līhu‘e as part of Wai‘anae uka (Kingdom Maps of 1875, 1881). 58. Kalena ‘ili is listed in the 1840s Māhele land records, and Bishop’s 1851 metes and bounds and map of Kalena ‘ili shows Pulee ‘ili immediately to the north. An 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom map also shows Pulee to the north. (The 1876 Kingdom Map does not.) The older Kūali‘i oli talks about Pulei near Kalena (Lyons 1875; Fornander 1880:Appendix V; Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):384). 59. See note 38 above. 60. See note 39Confidential above. 61. See note 40 above. 62. Kalakoa is labeled as an ‘ili of Wai‘anae uka on an early 1870s (Anonymous) Kingdom map. This makes sense as it covered kula areas, see note 21 above. 63. Honouliuli ahupua‘a is in the 1840s land records. Paupauwela ‘ili appears as an ‘ili of Honouliuli in those records and is located on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps as Popouwela. 64. This Līhu‘e is located in the 1840s Māhele land records, is on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps, is in the 1878 census (1878 Census of ‘Ewa), and is mentioned in 1860s era mo‘olelo. 65. Waikele ahupua‘a is in the 1840s land records. The ‘ili of Pouhala is also in those records and is located on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 66. Hō‘ae‘ae ahupua‘a is in the 1840s land records and on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 67. The ‘ili of Waikakalaua is in the 1840s Māhele land records, in Grant 6 land records (1846), and on the 1876 (Alexander) and 1881 (Lyons) Kingdom Maps. 68. 1846 Land Grant 6 to Gilman of eastern ½ Waikakalaua shows the Oahunui stone on the northeast corner (metes and bounds and map in Robins and Spear 2002a:29). 69. Kepelino quote. 70. Pukui, Elbert and Mookini 1974:235-280. 71. Pukui 1942. 72. A final note related to this chapter … We searched for early maps to identify place names, but it does not appear that places in the Central Plateau started to appear on maps until the time of the Kingdom’s Government Survey Office. We thought that the 1833 missionary map of O‘ahu (cited to Ursula Emerson, probably a copy of J. Denison’s base map) might have information, but the moku are labeled along the shore, and nothing is labeled in the interior of O‘ahu (Fitzpatrick 1986:108). Kaukonahua Stream is shown, but not labeled. An 1838 Lahainaluna map (A Map of the Hawaiian Islands) by Kalama labels the moku and Mt. Kaala, but the interior of O‘ahu is otherwise blank (Fitzpatrick 1986:110-111). A 1839 Lahainaluna atlas map (Na Mokupuni o Hawaii) is the same – moku labeled with nothing in the center of 484

O‘ahu. The same is true of the 1844 James Dana map from the U.S. Exploring Expedition (Fitzpatrick 1986:101). In 1851 Artemas Bishop prepared a small sketch map to go with the description of the half of Kalena that he had purchased, and this is the first map to provide a few place names for the Central Plateau (Bishop 1851). In 1868-1870, when there became a demand for more grants of land, the Kingdom had no maps of many areas. This led to the Government Survey Office being formed in 1870, first headed by W.D. Alexander. One of the early maps compiled was the 1876 map of Central Oahu. An early map of grant lands in Wahiawā was also prepared about this time (Kingdom Maps 1870s, 1875). From this point on, maps of O‘ahu showed places located on the Central Plateau, leading to many of the identifications of places in this chapter.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 5

1. Yent 1995. 2. Yent 1995. Confidential 3. Hibbard 1999. 4. Yent 1995. 5. Yent 1995. 6. Yent 1995. 7. National Register 1972:2. 8. National Register 1994.5. 9. Yent 1995; Stasack and Stasack 2010. 10. Stasack and Stasack 2010:10, 21. 11. Stasack and Stasack 2010:11, 20-21. 12. Interestingly, stone 69 in 1980 had 25 clear petroglyphs, but none are visible today. These petroglyphs included human figures, a canoe and other objects; but none of these were traditional in design. The fact that none were traditional in design or lay- out and that they have faded so rapidly has led the Stasacks to conclude that stone 69’s petroglyphs are modern – probably having been made in the 1960s or 1970s (Stasack and Stasack 2010:2-3, 9-10). 13. Stasack and Stasack 2010:2, 8-9, 22, Map 4. Similar poho have been documented at Waikōloa and Pu‘uloa petrogllyph fields on Hawai‘i Island (Stasack and Stasack 2005; Lee and Stasack 1999). 14. Stasack and Stasack 2010:22. 15. Scott 1974; Stasack and Stasack 2010. 16. Yent 1995; Stasack and Stasack 2010. 17. Stasack and Stasack 2010. 18. Stasack and Stasack 2010:9. 19. Yent 1995; Stasack and Stasack 2010:9. 20. Stasack and Stasack 2010:9.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 6

1. Kamakau 1991:53. 2. Kamakau 1991:38. 485

3. Kamakau 1991:136. 4. See Kame‘eleihiwa (1992) for a similar general view of traditional times.

SECTION ON SOURCE MATERIALS 5. Kame‘elehiwa 1992:19, 22. 6. Fornander (1919,6(2)::312) says the phrase “i ke au o” (“in the time of”) was often used to link a story to the time of a certain ruler or chief. 7. There can be fictional elements in these historical forms of literature. For example, honorific chants can embellish one’s lord’s feats. Such a chant for Kamehameha III describes his successes in battle (1836 recording by Barrot, cited in Barrere 1980:38), when he never fought in a battle -- “his battle axe bristles with the teeth of warriors who have fallen under his blows.” 8. The Hawaiian language newspaper articles of Samuel Kamakau are in English translation today (Kamakau 1961, 1964, 1976, 1992; Chun 1988) and republished in Hawaiian (Kamakau 1996, 2001). ‘Ī‘ī is in English translation (‘Ī‘ī 1959). Early books withConfidential oral historical information in Hawaiian include a collection of Lahainaluna students’ stories that were edited and published by Dibble (1838; translation with Hawaiian in Kahananui 1984) and Pogue (1858, translation in Kenn 1978). Pogue’s book is a revision of Dibble’s said to include additions from Malo’s manuscript book of the 1840s. Malo’s manuscript book of the 1840s was published in English translation as Hawaiian Antiquities (Malo 1903) and is available again in Hawaiian (and English)(Chun 2006). Kepelino’s manuscript book of 1868 was translated into English by Beckwith with the help of Pukui, Lahilahi Webb, John Wise, and Wiggin (Kepelino 1932:3). Malo had a late 1820s-early 1830s manuscript of many genealogies that has recently been published in English and Hawaiian (Chun 2006). The stories collected by Fornander and his Hawaiian collectors (among these Naihe, Hale‘ole, and quite possibly Kamakau) in the 1860s were translated into English (with Hawaiian also in most cases) in 1916-1920 as the Fornander Collection. This collection also includes chants and stories that had been collected by L. Andrews and a manuscript by K. Kamakau from W.D. Alexander’s collection. Kaoo, a noted genealogist, of the early 1800s kept genealogy books that are in the Bishop Museum Archives. 9. Dibble 1843; Jarves 1843, 1844. 10. Fornander 1880. 11 Fornander 1880. Kalākaua, who had frequent discussions with Fornander, used a more varied method – sometimes using 25 years, sometimes 30, and sometimes less (1888:31). This provides a less reliable dating approach. Kamakau was possibly the first to assign a Western calendrical year to events, but these were often specific years, such as AD 1100 for Kalanimanuia (1991:57). His dates are not accurate, some suggesting they were guesses (although probably they were based on some assumptions that seemed reasonable to Kamakau) – points long made by others (Stokes 1933; Barrere 1991:note12 on p. 83). Kepelino also used a few dates – 1530 for Umi for example (Kepelino 1932:20, 21). 12. Stokes 1933; see also Cartwright 1930 and Yzendoorn, 1927:7, who suggest 15 years. Stokes allowed for heirs being later children in his estimate of 20 years, 1933:59-62). 486

13. Hommon 1976, 1986, 1996; Cordy 1994, 1996, 2000, 2002a. 20-years is now being used more frequently; for example see Kirch 2010. 14. This conclusion was reached by researchers who have analyzed the genealogies and oral histories (Fornander 1878, 1880; Stokes 1933, 1934; Cordy 1996, 2000; Cachola-Abad 2000:for example p. 46). 15. Fornander 1878:165; see also Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):243, 253. 16. ‘Ī‘ī 1959. 17. These examples include Poepoe (1891, 1905-1906), Peleioholani (had a manuscript on Kamehameha that Desha used), Desha (1920-1924), W.D. Alexander (1891c), Thrum (e.g., Information on heiau in his Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1907, 1908, 1909), A.P. Taylor (1922). 18. Hibbard, McEldowney, & Napoka, 1998 (in Desha 2000:xv). 19. Sahlins (1981, 1985, 1992), Valeri (1985), Kame’elehiwa (e.g., 1992), Cachola- Abad (1993, 2000), Kirch (1985, 2010), Hommon (1976, 1986, 1996), Cordy (1978, 1994, 2000, 2002a), Kolb (1991, 1994, 1999). 20. Hibbard, McEldowneyConfidential and Napoka 1998:xvi-xvii; Nogelmeier 2002:vii; Kame’eleihiwa 1996:Introduction; Charlot 1987:5 on changes of times. 21. Kalākaua 1888. 22. One excellent example of such an analysis of changing knowledge in the local community is McEldowney’s (1986) study done for the State’s proposed historic park at Kamoa Point in Holualoa, North Kona. 23. Elbert and Mahoe 1970:10-26.

SECTION 1: THE HISTORY OF O‘AHU TO 1819 24. E.g., Kirch 1985. 25. For example, Cordy 1978, 1994, 2002a, 2002b; Cachola-Abad 2000; Kirch 2010. 26. See Cordy (2000:104-109) for a discussion. Recently, Tuggle and Masse 1998; Kirch and McCoy 2007; and several others have advocated that the islands may have been settled in the AD 700s-900s. Most recently, Kirch (2010) suggests 800- 1000. 27. Cordy 2000, 2002a, 2004; Dixon 2000b:306. 28. Cordy 2000, 2002a. Most recently, Kirch (2010:128) suggests this early settlement was “in a few ecologically favorable locations,” which implies windward areas with streams and access to the shore and perhaps a few rare, watered leeward areas. 29. Johnson (2001:347, 350) suggests that the Wahiawā area was settled by Nana‘ulu and that Nana‘ulu can be dated to the AD 300s using genealogical dating. This does not match current archaeological ideas for the initial settlement of the islands, or for settlement of leeward sides of the major islands. It also assumes that chiefs in this line prior to Māweke were historical chiefs and in successive generations. Again, many researchers note that the stories and genealogies prior to Māweke have many mythological elements in them or just a lack of information, preventing using this information and the earlier parts of this line of chiefs as accurate history today. 30. Cordy 2002a. See Dixon(2000b:306) for Maui; Cordy (2000) for Hawai‘i. 31. Cordy 2002b for general moku patterns; Cordy et al. n.d. for Nānākuli; Green 1980 for Mākaha; Dixon, Gosser and Williams 2003 for Lualualei. 487

32. Kirch 1992; Dega & Kirch 2002. 33. Bishop Museum 1997. 34. See Cordy (2000) for Waimea and Kolb, Conte & Cordy (1997) for upland Kula on Maui. Much of Kahikinui moku on Maui also had most permanent habitations inland among fields, but the distance inland to the rainfall line associated with these fields was shorter, about 2-3 miles from the shore (Dixon et al 2000; Kirch 1997, 2010). Settlement here appears to be a bit later, AD 1200s-1300s (Dixon 2000b:315, 2000a:326). In leeward Kohala on Hawai‘i Island, the fields were also 2-3 miles inland from initial settlement in the 1200s, but this apparently was walkable because nearly all permanent habitations were on the shore (e.g., Cordy and Kaschko 1980; also UC Berkeley current work). 35. Robins & Spear 1997:7; Carsons & Yeomans 2000; Robins & Spear 2002a:243, Appendix C-2). The early dated sites are from what the Army at Schofield Barracks calls South Range. There are 4 early reported radiocarbon dates that extend back into the 1200s, one into the 1100s: (1) site 5392, an irrigated kalo set, AD 1290- 1470 for theConfidential basal irrigated layer; (2) site 5394, another irrigated kalo set, AD 1280- 1420 for the basal layer; and AD 1040-1090 (3% probability, thus unlikely), AD 1120-1430 (97% probability) for a feature in the lowest irrigated kalo layer (Robins & Spear 2002a: Appendix C-2); and (3) site 5439, permanent habitation AD 1290- 1450 (Robins & Spear 2002b). Note that radiocarbon dates are given as a range; their real date is somewhere within the range. For example, for AD 1290-1470, the real date of the charcoal could be 1290 or it could be 1470, or anywhere inbetween. Thus, to report these dates as AD 1100s-1200s is pushing the optimistic early end. Some reports use AD 1170 as the early possible date to (Carsons & Yeonmans 2000:79-80; Buffum and Peterson 2005:14). Desilets et al (2009:69) suggest settlement could have been as early as AD 1100, given the radiocarbon dates back to AD 1170. Others have hypothesized AD 1200s (Robins & Spear 1997cResDes:7; 2002a:252). Others suggest AD 1250-1350 (Hammerle & Desilets 2006:4-5). Most recently, Desilets et al. (2009:69) suggest that “initial occupation of the Central Plateau may have occurred as early as AD 900”, given the radiocarbon dates at present, Kirch’s 1985 model, and mo‘olelo. However, this 900s date seems unlikely at this time, for the radiocarbon dates go no earlier than AD 1120 at present, Kirch’s model for expansion begins ca. AD 1100, and mo‘olelo do not go back before AD 1300 or the very late 1200s as reliable history. The absolute earliest date for permanent leeward settlement in general on O‘ahu at present (based on archaeological dating) seems to be the AD 1000s, but currently there are no dates in support of this for the Central Plateau. Carsons & Yeomans (2000) and Robins & Spear (2002a) noted the early agricultural dates back to the late AD 1100s – 1200s (at the earliest), but they do not seem to have accepted the early date for permanent habitation. They hypothesized that habitation was only temporary until AD 1450. However, this seems unlikely, for when irrigated fields were present, almost always permanent houses were present nearby to care for the fields. So with the irrigated fields present in the 1100s-1200s, permanent habitations can be assumed to have been present with a high probability. This conclusion was also reached by Desilets et al (2009:69). 488

36. Also a point concluded by Desilets et al. 2009:69. 37. Gomes (1911) reported sites at the join of Mohiakea and Kaukonahua (Robins & Spears 2002a), and more recently archaeological survey has found site 5503 (an irrigated kalo site) in this area (Robins and Spear 2002b:110). Note: The gulch bottoms of the North and South forks of Kaukonahua are under Lake Wilson today, but Handy (1940; Handy & Handy 1972) spoke with local Hawaiians in the 1930s who told him that irrigated kalo terraces were also present in these gulch bottoms. 38. Robins & Spear 2002a:45 (derived from Haun 1985); Handy & Handy (1972). Handy & Handy (1972:465) use the linkage of the names Wai‘anae uka and Wai‘anae kai to hypothesize a very old association. But it should be noted that we have no idea when the terms kai and uka were applied to these lands. The earliest solid documentation is in the mid-1800s land and tax records. Robins & Spear (2002a:45) suggest that Wai‘anae uka “probably provided a needed surplus of agricultural goods to the predominantly arid lands of Wai‘anae Kai.” However, Wai‘anae kai was quite fertile with Kaupuni Stream flowing to the sea and irrigating Confidentialfields along its length, and with the spring-fed taro marshes of Kamaile. Also, the upper valley of Wai‘anae kai is quite fertile with flowing streams. These upper valley taro lands were still being expanded at European contact. Thus, Wai‘anae valley itself could feed its population. There was no need to go far inland to establish taro fields to feed the Wai‘anae kai population. [It needs to be noted that Robins & Spear (2002a) present this linked Wai‘anae kai and Wai‘anae uka land unit in the context of Wai‘anae uka being settled in the 1400s, and Wai‘anae kai earlier. But this would then place founding of the Central Plateau settlements and the origin of Kūkaniloko into the 1400s, which seems much too late given the archaeological and oral historical evidence. Alternatively, if one argues settlement of the Central Plateau (within what was called Wai‘anae uka at Contact) in the AD 1100s-1200s and links that settlement as the inland part of the land of Wai‘anae kai, then one must deal with the question noted in the text – “Why was not the upper valley of Wai‘anae kai with its year-round streams occupied and its taro fields developed first, before moving up to the Central Plateau?”] 39. See Cordy (2002b) for a summary of Wai‘anae settlement information. Mākaha saw no settlement in the mid- to upper valleys until the AD 1500s (Green 1980), Nānākuli until the 1300s-1400s (Cordy et al. in preparation), and Lualualei until the 1400s (Dixon, Gosser, and Williams 2003b:274). 40. Dega and Kirch 2002; Kirch 1992. 41. See Bishop Museum (1997) for dates from Hālawa’s upper valley. 42. See Cordy (2002a:17-18) for summary of the early Hālawa and Honouliuli permanent settlement dates. The primary sources for these dates for Hālawa are Denham et al. (1993) on the shore and Bishop Museum (1997) for the interior, and for Honouliuli are Dicks et al (1987) and Wolforth et al. (1998). 43. Other hypotheses could be generated. For example, maybe ‘Ewa occupied all the Central Plateau at this time, or Waialua. One could note occasional oral stories that locate Līhu‘e in ‘Ewa or Waialua. But care should be taken because these locations may be general locational references of the mid-1800s, without any intent to state that this was the case in earlier times. Again, we would argue that all these hypotheses would be unlikely with ‘Ewa, Waialua and Wai‘anae settlements having 489

a coastal focus. However, an independent settlement of the Central Plateau with its own older ahupua‘a like lands (Līhu‘e, Wahiawā, etc.) would possibly explain why the lands in this area seem to exist “independently of the system of traditional administrative boundaries” (moku, ahupua‘a) that were present in the 1700s-1800s – a point noted by Desilets et al. (2009:1,2, 39, 43). 44. It should be cautioned that we do not know when the community land unit in the Hawaiian Islands began to be called ahupua‘a, or ka‘ānani‘au on O’ahu (or its subdivisions the ‘ili). (See Pukui and Elbert, 1971:101, and Lyons 1903, Appendix 4:24, on the term ka‘ānani‘au being used on O’ahu. Here ahupua’a is used as the better known general term.) The founding population undoubtedly established community lands that commonly extended from the near-shore waters through the fields and houses and into nearby forest that eventually became inland-heading in orientation, as this is the common community land pattern on high islands throughout the Austronesian Oceanic world, whether in Micronesia or Polynesia. But when these lands began to be called ahupua‘a is unclear, as is when the ahupua‘a Confidentialshrine on the coastal trail with the slab carving of a pig became common. So one has to be careful not to call early community lands ahupua‘a. 45. It is even not clear in the mid-1800s whether Wai‘anae uka was considered part of Wai‘anae ahupua‘a or a separate ahupua‘a within Wai‘anae moku. There are references that cite either view. This needs more research. 46. A. Bishop (1851) Grant 527 description and map. 47. Desilets et al. (2009:39-43) also recognize that Līhu‘e may have been an older broader land. 48. Perhaps all the Central Plateau in the AD 1000s-1200s was like a kalana or okana. Kame‘eleihiwa (1992:27) touches on the point that O‘ahu’s districts may have once been kalana, so this may be an older land concept on O‘ahu. 49. Tom Lenchanko interview in Orr (2001:77), Jo-Lin Kalimapau our interviews. 50. 1876 and 1881 Kingdom of Hawai‘i maps identify Līhu‘e ‘ili in Honouliuli. One set of recent researchers suggest that the naming of this ‘ili on the 1881 Kingdom of Hawai‘i map was perhaps a mapping error (Desilets et al. 2009:43). This is highly unlikely, for Kingdom maps rarely have such major errors. Additionally, at least one story recorded in the 1860s clearly places this Līhu‘e in this area of Honouliuli (The Namakaokapaoo story in the Fornander Collection,1918,5:274); and the 1878 census has a listing for Līhu‘e within Honouliuli (Census 1878. 1878 Census for Ewa and Waianae), and this is not the Lihu’e of the Central Plateau, which is listed separately under Wai’anae uka. This information indicates that a Līhu‘e ‘ili was present within Honouliuli as shown on the Kingdom maps. 51. Kamakau 1991:54-55; Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:26-27. 52. Desilets et al. 2009:43. 53. Kamakau 1991:55. 54. In 1620-1640, Ha‘o (the third son of the ruler Kalanimanuia) was described as the chief who controlled most of ‘Ewa and all Wai‘anae under his brother, the ruler, Ka‘ihikapu (Kamakau 1991:60, 64). Their sister, Kekela, was said to control Waialua and Ko‘olauloa. Waialua was one unit (like a moku), but Wai‘anae and ‘Ewa were evidently still together as a single unit (like a moku). When Ka‘ihikapu killed Ha‘o (in the famous “you are bitten by the shark” story, Kamakau 1991:65- 490

66), Ha‘o’s son (Nā-pū-lānahu-mahiki) fled to Wai‘anae. Ka‘ihikapu was unable to defeat Nāpūlānahu, and Nāpūlānahu and his wife (Kekela, his aunt) controlled a kingdom that encompassed half the island (Kamakau 1991:67). Two separate kingdoms existed on O‘ahu (Ka‘ihikapu’s and Nāpūlānahu’s) until Nāpūlānahu’s daughter married Ka‘ihikapu’s son (Kākuhihewa), and the island was reunified. Nāpūlānahu’s direct control of Wai‘anae many have marked the splitting off of Wai‘anae from ‘Ewa as a major land unit (like a moku). Perhaps the lands that became known as Wai‘anae uka were included with Wai‘anae at this time to provide a transportation link through Kolekole Pass to his wife’s Waialua lands. Chiefs over Wai‘anae moku are listed in the oral histories in the early 1700s. Nā‘ili was chief of Wai‘anae and a major advisor to the O‘ahu rulers Kapi‘iohookalani and Pelei‘ōhōlani ca. 1740-1760 (Kamakau 1961:71). His father Kū-a-Nu‘uanu is said to have preceded Nā‘ili as chief of Wai‘anae (1720-1740, if not earlier) (Fornander 1880:135). So in the early 1700s Wai‘anae moku was a separate administrative land, and perhaps this began with Nāpūlānahu in the mid-1600s. 55. Cordy 2000,Confidential 2002a, 2004. Cachola-Abad, another scholar who has worked in depth with the oral histories in recent years, independently reached this same conclusion. She noted that before the formation of these larger countries noted in the oral histories, countries were likely to have consisted of “one or more smaller districts that later would come to be known as ahupua’a” (Cachola-Abad 2000:283). 55a. Hommon (1976, 1986, 1992) has suggested early countries were district-sized, albeit small in population and with minimal ranking differences. Again, Cordy and Cachola-Abad, separately, have disagreed and proposed much smaller country territories, and pointed out that the oral histories describe larger, district-sized countries forming in the 1300s. 56. See Cordy (1985, 1986) for an overview of the population sizes of small countries in Polynesia and Micronesia. The population estimates, chiefly power, and country temple size hypotheses are all based on patterns of comparatively sized countries at European Contact in Polynesia and Micronesia, both of similar Oceanic Austronesian ancestry. Such countries were present in the Tuamotus, Easter Island, the Marquesas and New Zealand in Polynesia and in the southern Gilberts, Chuuk, and the small Caroline Islands in Micronesia. See also Kirch (2000:63-64, 68) for a nice statement on what proto-Polynesian chiefly powers would have been in similar small societies of that era. Small temples have been dated to this time on Maui (Kolb 1991; 1994) and at ‘Āle‘ale‘a on Hawai‘i (Ladd 1969, 1987:77). 57. Fornander (1878:197). The Nana‘ulu line is reliable historically in that there has generally been no disagreement that the individuals back to Māweke are historical figures and in the correct sequence. This is in contrast to the Ulu line, as will be seen later in this chapter. [Fornander and Kamakau agreed on the Nana‘ulu line with the exception that Fornander added one generation between Mā‘ilikūkahi and Pua‘a-a-Kahuoi (a point made by Barrere, 1991;86, note 27, and others).] 58. Cordy 2000, 2002a; Cachola-Abad 2000:283; Dixon 2000b:306. Hommon also believes that countries were district sized at this time, and quite recently Kirch (2010) also notes this. All hypotheses seem consistent on this point. They differ in when district-sized countries began; Hommon arguing that countries were that sized early on. 491

59. Fornander 1880:48. Cordy (1996, 2000) and Cachola-Abad (2000) have emphasized that history for the 1300s has to be reconstructed from bits and pieces of information in the surviving oral histories of that era. These reconstructions are hypotheses that will vary among researchers. For example, Cachola-Abad suggests that these may have been quasi-independent countries (2000:193). She suggests Māweke nominally was over all O‘ahu, with Paumakua and his line early on controlling Ko‘olau, seemingly following Kalākaua (1888)(althouth Stokes, 1934:46, also concluded that if his sons controlled parts of O’ahu, Maweke must have controlled all O’ahu). Cordy is more reluctant to use Kalākaua’s interpretations of this early era and presents a slightly different hypothesis, for in his reading of the pre-1880 oral histories, nominal control is not suggested until the time of Kumuhonua (Māweke’s grandson), and even then he is not willing to conclude what a “nominal ruler” may mean. 60. Fornander 1880:48. 61. If one uses 25 years per generation, his time would be about AD 1185- 1210. 30 Confidentialyears per generation places him at AD 1030 (Fornander 1878,I:165). The archaeological appearance of notably larger temples and large fishponds begins in the 1300s, perhaps into the very late 1200s. This evidence is consistent with the rise of larger countries, which would have larger labor forces that a chief could call on and a demand for larger national temples. Again, oral history dates based on 20 years per generation place larger country formation in the 1300s, which seems consistent with archaeological evidence. Oral histories of the 1300s also document the rise of institutions and larger temples associated with larger countries and initial stratification. All these points have led to more confidence in the 20 years per generation estimate. 62. Cordy 2000, 2002a. 63. Cordy 1985, 1986, 2004. 64. See Oliver (1974) for the Societies, Kramer (1994) for Samoa, Roberts (1953), Lambert (1954, 1966) and Maude (1963) for the northern Gilberts, and Kramer (1919), Holden (1836), and Useem (1946) for Belau. Note: the Northern Gilberts with small land areas (atolls) had a bit lower range in population of 1,016-2,521 (mean = 1,691). 65. Cordy 2000:142. 66. For the kō‘ele system (Fornander 1917,4(1):136-137). For the hale naua/‘aha ali‘i rituals on succession of a new ruler to establish who were chiefs (Kamakau 1991:42, 156; Fornander 1880:28-30, 63). 67. Fornander 1917,4(1):134,142; Cordy 2000:142. 68. Kolb 1991, 1994, 1999. 69. See Cordy 2002a:28; Kirch 2010:155. 70. Fornander 1880:47. Kalākaua (1888:118), who relied heavily on Fornander’s historical model, concluded that Māweke was “the alii-nui or nominal sovereign of the island of Oahu.” Stokes (1934:46) also suggested this, noting that he must have divided O’ahu among his sons. Cachola-Abad (2000) also notes that Māweke might have controlled the island, citing Kalākaua, but she goes on to emphasize that after Māweke the island consited of 3 different countries – as did Kalākaua. 71. Fornander 1880:49. 492

73. Fornander 1880:88. 74. As will be seen, Kapawa was born here likely in the late 1200s or early 1300s, as apparently a ruler or high chief. Māweke’s senior line was governing the ‘Ewa- Wai‘anae-Waialua country by the end of the 1300s, and they were definitely using Līhu‘e and Kūkaniloko by the early 1500s. Continued use between the time of Kapawa and Haka in the early 1500s seems likely. Cordy (1996, 2002a,b) suggested Līhu‘e was the sole royal center of this country, but a renewed and closer reading of the oral accounts for this project suggest there might have been other royal centers on the shore along Pu‘uloa and perhaps at Kaiaka Bay in Waialua. 75. Kamakau 1991:136 provides the names. 76. Kamakau (1991:136); also Fornander Collection (1919,6:247). Kamakau’s full quote says that they “lived at Wahiawā and Lihū‘e in Waialua”. However, the moku affiliation does not seem to mean much, for the oral histories recorded in the mid-1800s often place Līhu‘e and/or Wahiawā in Waialua or ‘Ewa – seemingly just general reference points. 77. If one usesConfidential 25 years per generation, Nanamaoa is about AD 630-655 and Kapawa AD 730-755 – much too early for settlement on the Central Plateau, and earlier than many archaeologists are now suggesting when the islands were first occupied. 78. Luomala 1955:139-158; 1975:6-7. For example, Kaitangata, Hema (and his brother Punga), Tawhaki, Vaieroa, and Rata in Maori literature. [Alexander suggests that Luanu‘u was part of this family also – Alexander 1903:250, which is note 5 of Chapter 62, Section 8.] 79. Interestingly, Malo’s analysis of the traditions led him to conclude that nothing historical was known of the times from Hinalo to Kapawa, but he pointed out that “tradition informs us with certainty of the place of birth and death of the kings from Kapawa to Paumakua” on the Ulu genealogy (Malo 1951:246). He is identifying Kapawa through Paumakua as an accurate historical generational list of Hawaiian chiefs. The traditions that he seems to be referring to are chants which list the birth place of a chief, list where his placenta, navel cord and caul were placed, note where he died, and often include other historical information. In 1869 Kamakau published versions of these chants – starting from Kapawa (Kamakau 1991:136- 151). However, these chants include ‘Aikanaka, Hema, Kaha‘i, Wahieloa, and Laka, who were clearly not Hawaiian chiefs born or buried in the places noted in the chants nor with their placentas, navel cords, and cauls deposited in certain Hawaiian places. Malo and Kamakau may not have been aware of the fact that these were chiefs of mythological stature in the rest of Eastern Polynesia. In hindsight, we know this. This clearly changes the perspective that these chants reflect actual historical chiefs and events – at least for the Tahaki (Kaha‘i) family. These chants may have been created much more recently in traditional times as literary compositions surrounding the names on the genealogy. They all have a very uniform style centered around birth place, burial place and places where the placentas, navel cords and cauls went. This might suggest all were composed at one point in time. (See Stokes, 1934:43, for a similar conclusion.) One must be very careful, thus, in accepting the place associations for the other chiefs in these chants (besides the Kaha‘i family). Perhaps birth and death locations are accurate, but the chants again seem to be literary compositions. 493

80. At 25 years per generation, this would estimate Kapawa about AD 755-780, again seemingly much too early for settlement on the Central Plateau. 81. Fornander 1878:198; 1919,6(2):247; Stokes 1933:48; Cachola-Abad 2000. 82. Fornander 1880:31. 83. Fornander 1880:21. See Fornander 1878:196-209, for detailed analysis of match of Ulu to Nana‘ulu lines. He also places Paumakua and Haho about the time of Māweke. 84. Kamakau 1991:102-103. Beckwith (1940:377) presented stories and noted that the “three Nana names of chiefs who are said like the Maui brothers to have ruled over the western end of Oahu in Waialua, Wahiawa and Ewa districts.” However, the stories that we found in our review only state that the Nana-Kapawa line lived in Līhu‘e/Wahiawā, and no larger country borders were specifically noted. 85. Using 25 years per generation, Nanakulei would be AD 1235-1260, Nana-kaōko AD 1260-1285, and Kapawa AD 1285-1310. 86. Kamakau 1991:137. 87. Kamakau Confidential1991:137; Fornander 1878:200-201; 1880:21-22. 88. Kamakau 1964:3. 89. Hikapoloa dates into late 1200s. Kolb (1999) for early Pi‘ilanihale dates. 90. Kamakau 1991:105. Some genealogies have Ahukai the grandfather, La‘a the father, and La‘amaikahiki the son (Kamakau 1991:52; Fornander 1878,I:194). 91. Kamakau 1991:77. 92. Kamakau 1991:77. 93. Kamakau 1991:105-106. Malo (1951:7; Chun 2006:Eng. 7) seems to imply that Mō‘īkeha and La‘amaikahiki are from Kahiki. Only Kila is mentioned as a Kaua‘i born son of Mō‘īkeha. Dibble’s 1840 era history also seems to suggest they are from Kahiki. He has Mō‘īkeha’s canoe landing in Puna and traveling north to Kaua‘i, marrying the king’s daughter, having 3 children, but sending them back to bring La‘amaikahiki, “his oldest son” (1909:9, note). 94. Kamakau 1991:106-108. 95. Kamakau 1991:108-109. 96. Kamakau 1991:109-110. 97. E.g., Cordy 2000:154-156. Besides the versions noted in the text, interestingly the Fornander Collection contains a very long and still somewhat different story of Mō‘īkeha, two of Kila, and one on ‘Olopana (Fornander Collection 1916- 1917,4(1):112-173). This story has Mō‘īkeha as a Kahiki chief, with his oldest son being La‘amaikahiki through his wife Kapo. ‘Olopana and Lu‘ukia are Hawaiian chiefs who arrive in Kahiki. Mō‘īkeha leaves Kahiki, arrives on Kaua‘i and marries the two daughters of the Kaua‘i ruler – becoming the Kaua‘i ruler on his father-in- law’s death. Mō‘īkeha has 5 sons by his two wives, one being Kila, but the others having different names from the other stories. Kila, however, is the key voyager to Kahiki to bring La‘a back. But the account includes a lengthy later story on Kila’s life in Waipi‘o on Hawai‘i – with Kila eventually departing to Kahiki with La‘a at the end of La‘a’s second voyage to Hawai‘i. This version says that the genealogy of ‘Olopana is unknown (Fornander Collection 1916-1917,4(1):154). 98. Lu‘ukia (clearly a woman from Hawai‘i Island) is the wife of ‘Olopana in nearly all 494

these stories. Again, these chiefs seem to be Hawaiian chiefs with links to O‘ahu, with Mō‘īkeha later governing Kaua‘i, and ‘Olopana present in Waipi‘o and Hāmākua; and with La‘amaikahiki, and Mō‘īkeha’s son having ties to places on O‘ahu (Kalākaua 1888:128). But, there are questions of how much of these Kahiki stories are heroic, fictionalized accounts – suitable for deeds of founding members of the dynasties – and how much document historical events (e.g., Cordy 2000:Chapter 6). Luomala (1979:14-15, 18) – an expert in Polynesian mythology, who made some not-widely-known, insightful analyses of Hawaiian stories of this era – emphasizes that the ‘Olopana ma stories are “marvelous and entertaining accounts,” but that “we must, in my opinion, have an extraordinary amount of archaeological and documentary evidence to support them before we can accept them as valid. … At present I consider the traditions symbolically and metaphorically more valuable than as literal history.” This is not a rejection of these stories, rather a concern about how to interpret them. 99. Fornander 1880:88. There are differing versions about exactly when O‘ahu was unified, reflectingConfidential the difficulty of interpreting bits and pieces of oral historical information from the 1300s to early 1400s. See note 101 below. 100. Malo 1951:251-2; Fornander 1880:67-69; Kalākaua 1888:175-205. Kalākaua dates these raids of Kalaunuiohua at about AD 1260. 20-years per generation places him and Huapouleilei in 1460-1480, and 25 years puts him 1385-1410 – again dates much more consistent with the concept of larger countries having large fishponds and heiau. 101. Beckwith (1940:382) interprets him to be the ruler solely over ‘Ewa-Wai‘anae- Waialua – with the Ko‘olau area and Kona being independent countries apparently. Cachola-Abad (2000:191-207) in an excellent analysis of the 3 kingdoms of the 1300s also suggests that the 3 kingdoms may have remained quasi-independent or independent up to Huaipouleilei’s time, assigning him to just ‘Ewa-Wai’anae- Waialua. I have suggested that he was ruler of all O‘ahu, and the island had been unified at least since his grandfather’s time (Cordy 1996). Both Cachola-Abad and I have primarily used information from Fornander in our hypotheses, and she has also used Kalākaua. Kalākaua (1888:177) describes Huapouleilei as “the alii-nui of Oahu, his possessions embracing the districts of Ewa, Waianae and Waialua.” Fornander says that “It is doubtful if Oahu had any recognized Moi or titular sovereign at the time,” suggesting the Moku-a-Loe ruled over the Ko‘olau area and Kahuoi over Kona (1880:68), but this conflicts with another statement he made suggesting that Huapouleilei’s grandfather was Mō‘ī of O‘ahu (88). An even earlier source, Malo, suggests that Huaipouleilei ruled O‘ahu, for consistant with the capture of the kings of Maui and Molokai, Kalaunuiohua “made that king governor of Oahu” (Malo 1951:253) (“hoonoho ia o Huaikapouleilei i Kiaaina no Oahu” -- Chun 2006:143 Hawaiian). I would suggest that Malo’s and Kalākaua’s information indicate that Huaipouleilei ruled all O‘ahu and directly controlled as his personal lands the ‘Ewa-Wai’anae-Waialua area, while other high chiefs held other lands under the king. This conclustion matches Fornander’s comment about Haka being “Moi of Oahu, chief of Ewa, and residing at Lihue” (Fornander 1880:89). But as Cachola-Abad (2000) and I (1996, 2000) have pointed out, it is difficult to reconstruct hypotheses with bits and pieces of information in the 1300s and early 495

1400s. While we are in agreement that O‘ahu was unified in the 1400s, the reader needs to realize that there are some disagreements about the early 1400s. These are not really critical to this overview, however. 102. Kalākaua alters this story, focusing it on a steel sword (knife) from a ship-wrecked warrior that was obtained in a battle by Kaulu. He has this Kaulu being the ward of the kaula Wa‘ahia, who is involved in the older stories of Kalaunuiohua. Kaulu goes with Kalaunuiohua on his raids and captures Huapouleilei in battle at Wai‘anae. Wa‘ahia, the kaula, travels to Kaua‘i to rescue Kalaunuiohia and Kaulu (this trip not occurring in the older recorded stories). On her way, Kalākaua has her stop at Kūkaniloko: “she saw for the first time the hallowed enclosure of Kukaniloko, the creation of Nanakaoko … Chiefs born there were endowed with especial prerogatives and distinctions, and the beating of a sacred drum called Hawea gave notice without of the birth of a tabu chief” (1888:200). Kalākaua, again, in his unique fashion blends in several different stories – linking oral stories of foreign shipwrecks and Kūkaniloko (possibly from Kamakau), expanding Wa‘ahia’sConfidential role into the well known story of Kalaunuiohia’s raids, and also adding a new character to link the stories (Kaulu) and creating narrative between characters. 103. Fornander 1880:88. Date is 20-year per generation estimate. 104. Fornander 1880:68. Again, age estimate 20-year per generation. 105. Fornander 1880:49. 106. Fornander 1880:89. 107. Kamakau 1991:53-54. These are typical metaphors of improper high chiefly and kingly behavior in the oral histories that foreshadow the fall of a chief – used as moral lessons of improper behavior. 108. Kamakau 1991:54. 109. Kamakau (1961; 1991); Fornander 1880. 110. Kamakau 1991:57-69. Kalanimanuia was said to have “lived mauka of Wahiawā” as a child, for when she was grown she “was taken to Kalauao,” where she resided near the shore (Kamakau 1991:57). Kalauao was her main royal cener. Exactly where mauka of Wahiawā was is unclear. Kākuhihewa was raised in coastal ‘Ewa and as ruler resided in coastal ‘Ewa, Waikīkī and Kailua (Kamakau 1991:68-69). 111. E.g., Fornander 1880:90. 112. Kamakau 1991:51. 113. Fornander 1880:91; Kamakau 1991:57. Handy and Handy (1972:465) state that the ruler Kūkaniloko built the irrigated kalo fields of Kukui-o-Lono – apparently information from local Hawaiians in the 1930s. If so, this would suggest that the mō‘ī was in residence, at least for a while. 114. Fornander 1880:83-86; Kamakau 1991:45-49; Kalākaua 1888: Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):309 – “Lo Lale, lord of Lihue and adjoining lands in Ewa and Waialua.” 115. Kamakau 1991:50-51; Fornander 1880:91. 116. E.g., Fornander 1880:136-142, 217-227, 269-291; Kamakau 1991:57-71; 115-116; Kamakau 1961:70-74, 128-141). 117. Kalanamanuia resided primarily in Kalauao (today’s Pearlridge area). Kū and Ka‘ihikapu, her sons who were successively rulers, resided out of Waikīkī, and Kākuhihewa was noted for living in Waikīkī and Kailua. 496

118. Kamakau 1991:65-67; Fornander 1880:270. 119. Kamakau 1961:71; Fornander 1880:135, 139). Again, (note 54), Wai‘anae may have become a separate moku (kalana) in Nāpūlānahu’s time (1620-1650), with its overlord chief residing near the shore. 120. Fornander 1880:279-289. 122. His grandmother was a daughter of a Kaua‘i ruler (Fornander 1880:293, n. 1; Wichman 2003:73, 89). When Kawelo-lei-makua returned to defeat his cousin Kawelo-‘ai-kanaka and take over the rule of Kaua‘i, he had made an arrangement with his O‘ahu supporters that if he died, Kaua‘i would pass to the O‘ahu kings as there apparently were no other direct line Kaua‘i heirs (Wichman 2003:86; Fornander 1880:282-283). The famed chant of Kūali‘i also states that he gained Kaua‘i by inheritance: “Kauai, Great Kauai inherited from ancestors” (Fornander Collection 1917,4(2): 372, 374 -- Lines 107-8.] 123. The Chant of Kūali‘i refers to the Wai‘anae and Waialua chiefs and their armies traveling up into the Central Plateau to fight Kūali‘i. 124. FornanderConfidential 1880:289-290; Kamakau 1961:70-75. 125. Kamakau 1961:128-129; Fornander 1880:290-291. 126. Kamakau 1961:128-141; Fornander 1880:217-227. 127. Kahekili was residing in Waikīkī in 1786-1787 (Portlock 1789:73, 164; Dixon 1789:97-101; 252, 255), in July of 1788 (Colnett ms.:148-9), January-February of 1789 (Douglas in Meares 1967:347-8, 352), in October of 1791 (Ingraham 1971:169) and in 1793-1794 when he returned ill from Maui and died not long after (Kamakau 1961:166). 128. In Waialua in 1785, Hu‘eu was at Kawailoa (Kamakau 1961:138); along Pu‘uloa in 1785, Kekuamanaoha in Waikele and Kahekili’s sons Kalanikupule and Koalaukane unspecified elsewhere (Fornander 1880:228); in Kāne‘ohe within Ko‘olaupoko in 1785, Manono (Kamakau 1961:138-139); in Nu‘uanu in Kona moku in 1785, Kamohomoho (Kamakau 1961:139); and at the royal centers of Waikīkī and Kailua (Kalanikupule as administrator in 1792-93 while Kahekili was off island – Kamakau 1961:162, 165). 129. Kamakau 1991:38. Kamakau says only one Maui chief (Ka‘ulahea, a male), even entered Kūkaniloko. 130. Sahlins 1992; Kamakau 1961`:316-17. 131. Kalanimoku was given Honouliuli as punalā‘au lands (Kāme‘elehiwa 1992:58, 112). He gave control of Honouliuli to his sister Wahinepi‘o (O’Hare, Shideler, Hammatt 2006:10). It was inherited by Kalanimoku’s heir and niece Kekau‘ōnohi, who received it in the Māhele (Kāme‘elehiwa 1992:99). 132. Barrere 1994: 426-7. Keōua’s son, Luluhiwalani, received half of Pouhala in the Māhele (MA 4), and the king kept the other half. [As a further aside, a lele of Pouhala was along the main stream below the Waipahu sugar mill, including taro lands – called Līhu‘e, “a lele of Pouhala” (Kingdom Map 1889) or “ili of Lihue (Māhele Native Testimony 9:250, Māhele Award Books 5:15, 17). We hazard no historical analysis of this Līhu‘e’s relationship to the Central Plateau.] 133. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:70. 134. Bingham 1847:296. 135. Sahlins 1992:167-169. 497

136. The following note a few ki‘i obtained by Kamehameha in his conquests. He gained control of the famed image of Kāmeha‘ikana (“a goddess famed from Hawai‘i to Kaua‘i for mana and for seizing governments. … one of the goddesses of the chiefs of O‘ahu”)(Kamakau 1991:13 – 1865). See Kamakau (1964:54-55, 85, 131) regarding Kihawahine and Kalamainu‘u and Kalaipāhoa. 137. Kamakau 1991:38, 220; 1961:223-224; Fornander 1880:21. 138. Desilets et al (2009:84, 165) claim that lō ali‘i were high chiefs born at Kūkaniloko, and we agree. But they suggest that lō ali‘i continued to come from the Central Plateau right up into post-Contact times. This does not seem supported by the oral histories that we reviewed. No birth or resident chiefs are noted, as seen here. We discuss the lō ali‘i further in the last section of this chapter on Kūkaniloko itself.

SECTION 2: THE CENTRAL PLATEAU – THE CULTURAL LANDSCAPE 139. Kamakau 1961:310. 140. Fornander Collection 1919,5(2):228-263. 141. FornanderConfidential Collection 1919,6(2):lines 107-108, page 294. 142. Kamakau 1991:47. 143. A. Bishop (1851) Grant 527 description and map. 144. Handy 1940:81. 145. Fornander 1880:49. 146. Kamakau 1991:55. 147. Kamakau 1991:58. 148. See for example, Kingdom of Hawai‘i Maps 1876 and 1881, ‘Ī‘ī 1959:97-99. 149. Cordy (1995) on ala loa of Hawaii Island. Robins and Spear (2002a:47) suggest that the Kolekole trail may earlier have been an internal trail within the ahupua‘a of Wai‘anae, following the hypothesis that the Wai‘anae uka area was settled early out of Wai‘anae kai. Again, the Wai‘anae settlements were near the coast until the 1300s, as apparently were those of Waialua and ‘Ewa, so we suggest that the Central Plateau was a separate settlement that was independent of Wai‘anae coastal settlements prior to the 1300s. Under this view, the Kolekole trail would not be considered an earlier internal trail within Wai‘anae. The age of all three of these trails is unclear at present. But, they would definitely appear likely to date back to the 1300s as transportation links within the country that controlled all of Wai‘anae, ‘Ewa and Waialua; and they could well be earlier in age. 150. The Waialua Trail appears on the 1876 Government Survey map as the “Road to Waialua” (Kingdom Map 1876). Its route is described in depth by ‘Ī‘ī (1959:98-99) and in passing by others from the 1830s on (e.g., S. Bishop 1916). 151. This trail eventually became the old Kamehameha Highway. Later when Wheeler was built, Kamehameha Highway was rerouted through Wahiawā and up to Haleiwa and is called South Kamehameha Highway today through Wahiawā. The old route became Wilikina Drive along the edge of Schofield and then Kaukonahua Road up to Waialua Town. 152. Here, this trail passed diagonally right across what became Wheeler. 153. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:98 described the trail in this area: “Just below the main trail was the descent to the stream of Kuaikua, where there was a diving place and a place for travelers to rest.” This seems to either be at this join or the adjacent North Fork. 498

154. This trail appears on the 1876 map (Kingdom Map 1876) simply labeled as “Road”. It is labeled the “Waianae Road” on the 1881 map (Kingdom Map 1881). 155. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:97. 156. The 1876 Kingdom Map shows the easternmost branch of this trail splitting again as Wai‘eli Stream was reached and leading northeast towards the Kolekole Trail. So three branches of this main trail formed as the Central Plateau was reached, all merging with the Kolekole Trail (Kingdom Map 1878). 157. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:97. This trail is spelled Eleu in the different versions of the old Kūali‘i chant and stories (Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):386, 414; Fornander 1880:281, 1880:Appendix V; Lyons 1875:233). 158. McAllister 1933:133-134; Handy 1940; Handy and Handy 1972.. 159. Robins & Spear 1996, 1997a,b,c, 2002a,b; Buffum & Peterson 2005a,b; Carsons & Yeomans 2000; Robins et al 2005. See also Desilets et al (2009) for details on work. 160. Desilets et al 2009. 161. A. BishopConfidential (1851) Grant 527 description and map. 162. Handy 1940:156-7. 163. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):386. From the famed Kūali‘i chant. 164. Cordy 2001:143, 146. Since the 2001 report, other agricultural shrines have been found in Wai‘anae valley – nearly all small rectangular or square platforms with one or more upright stones along the edges of irrigated kalo fields. 165. A. Bishop, 1851 Grant 527 description and map (Bishop 1851). 166. Kamakau [1869] 1961:424. 167. Kingdom Map 1876. 168. Bryan’s 1901 journal, in Buffum and Peterson 2005:41. 169. A. Bishop, 1851 Grant 527 description and map (Bishop 1851). 170. Cordy 1981, Cordy et al. 1991; Kolb, Conte & Cordy 1997; Cordy 2001a:21-23. These sources review historical descriptions of permanent housing and how to identify them archaeologically – and also distinctions between commoner and high chief/ruler housing. 171. Cordy 1981; 2001a:142-143. Since the 2001a report additional household shrines have been found at Wai‘anae valley permanent house sites, including small, square platforms with branch coral, oval alignments with upright stones, alignments and small platforms with uprights. 172. Cordy 1981, 2001a:23-24; Weisler and Kirch 1985. 173. Campbell 1967:131; ‘Ī‘ī 1959; Cordy 1976. 174. Cordy 1976, 1981, 2001:24; Kolb Conte and Cordy 1997:104. See also Dixon, Gosser and Williams (2003b) for a discussion of men’s houses related to finds in Lualualei in Wai‘anae moku. 175. Gomes (1911) along Kaukonahua. Robins & Spear 2002b Site 6695 contains a burial. 176. Ellis (1963:134-136) for a description of maika grounds in Ka‘ū between Waiohinu and the shore, and in general. Shapiro and Rosendahl (1988) found a reference to a maika ground among house sites in Māhele documents in the middle valley of Wai’anae. 177. Ellis 1963:58; Menzies 1920:169. 499

178. Ellis (1963:134) for a description of a kahua pahe‘e in Ka‘ū between Waiohinu and the shore. 179. Desilets et al. 2009:73. 180. Buffum & Peterson 2005a:25, 72; 2005b:48. A more detailed written argument would be useful for this specific maika ground. Ulumaika stones appear widely scattered on the map that locates them, so it would help to discuss the specific nature of the terrain and to explain the ulumaika disk distribution around what is thought to have been the maika ground. 181. Kamoa Quitevas (interview) suggested each of these heiau “had a different purpose. Like at Hale‘au‘au one might learn astronomy or other things. And at another heiau in the area, people might learn other things.” 182. Thrum’s quote in McAllister 1933:134. The information on Kalākaua having seen this heiau is also from McAllister. It would be interesting to see if Kalākaua kept a journal that might describe this heiau. 183. Based on McAllister’s (1933:134-135) size information. 184. Buffum &Confidential Peterson (2005:27-31) suggest that this heiau was increased to luakini size in the time of the ruler Kūali‘i after his defeat of the ‘Ewa and Wai‘anae chiefs in this area (early 1700s), arguing that it was earlier an agricultural Hale o Lono heiau. However, until this heiau’s building phases (and their sizes) are identified and these phases are dated, this hypothesis of when a larger heiau began cannot be evaluated. It could have reached a large size any time between AD 1400- 1819, given building times of large heiau throughout the islands. 185. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2)::p. 384, lines 378-387. 186. ‘Ili were portrayed in the literature of the 1950s-1960s as long lineal slices within ahupua‘a, running from near shore waters up to the forest – to a degree derived from Handy & Pukui’s (1958) study of Ka‘ū. However, our senior author’s years of work with Māhele documents (including those of South Point in Ka‘ū) indicates that ‘ili could be highly variable in nature – blocks of lands with no forest and no shoreline, pieces scattered about, etc. But they always minimally contain houseyards and fields, not surprising given Sahlins’ (1992) point that taxes were often assessed at the ‘ili level. All residents of an ahupua‘a (in theory) had access to forest and near-shore reef, so not having ‘ili borders extend into these areas is not unusual. 187. All three of these ‘ili are identified in Central O‘ahu on the 1876 and 1881 maps (Kingdom Map 1876, 1881). Kalena ‘ili was awarded in the Māhele to Pahoa (LCA 16), and he sold his interest to Artemas Bishop in 1851. Bishop in 1851 prepared a sketch map and description that located the adjacent ‘ili of Pulei on Kalena’s northern border (“ili o Pulei”)(Bishop 1851). Buffum and Peterson (2005b) propose an ‘ili Kūmakali‘i south of Kalena, based on Bishiop’s 1851 map. Again, this map does identify “ili o Pulei” to the north, but the labels on the south are “Kamakalii” and “Moohiakea” – not the “ili o …”. Moohiakea is a stream here, and Kūmakali‘i is one of its tributaries (along with Kalena). So this is not a definitive ‘ili identification. In fact, we suggest that this might be Malamanui ‘ili. 188. Malamanui is described as a battlefield where warriors fought in the chant of Kūali‘i, suggesting it was an open kula area (Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):386; Fornander 1880:Appendix V; Lyons 1875:233). It is described as a kula (“ke kula 500

omalamanui”) in a 1867 kanikau (Kekahuna 1867). It is also mentioned as Malama or Malamanui forest in a 1862 mele ‘inoa for Kawailahaole (Keamoku 1862), in the 1899 “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” serial in the story of the ‘anae (Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899), and in the early 1900s Pele and Hi‘iaka story (Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:Chant 210 on p. 236 (English), 252 (Hawaiian)). Kalākaua’s ranchhouse in this kula area was noted to be in Malamanui. 189. The “plain” (kula) of Mahie is mentioned in the 1899 Hawaiian newspaper serial, “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa,” within the story of the ‘anae traveling from ‘Ewa to the Lā‘ie area (Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899:Oct. 7 and Nov. 18). A triangle (survey station) on the 1878 Government Map here is labeled Mahie (Kingdom Map 1878). There also seems to have been a Mā‘ili ‘ili in the 1870s that ran from Hale‘au‘au Stream near its join with Kaukonahua Stream, over the ridge tip between Pu‘u Pane and the seaward high point called Mā‘ili, and on down the northern side of the ridge. The Kingdom Map of 1876 appears to place this ‘ili and all its small Grants within Kamananui ahupua‘a, like the adjacent Kemo‘o ‘ili (Kingdom Map 1876). It is not clearConfidential if this is an old land pattern. 190. Gomes (1911, in Robins & Spear, 2002b:110) documented 4 houses, 1 grave site, and irrigated kalo fields in Kaukonahua gulch’s bottom from near the join of the north and south forks down to where Hale‘au‘au Stream merges with Kaukonahua. Archaeological survey of the gulch bottom at the joining of Mohiakea Stream with Kaukonahua documented some irrigated kalo fields within site 5503, which was part of Gomes’ area (Robins & Spear 2002b:110). This is a rare modern archaeological documentation in this central flat area of the Central Plateau’s landscape. Handy (1940:85) recorded information about the presence of irrigated kalo fields in this area too. 191. Haile 1976:10. 192. Handy (1940:81-82); Handy & Handy (1972:465). 193. Handy 1940:156-7. 194. Kamakau 1961:135-6. 195. Kamakau 1961:139. 196. Robins & Spear 2002b:57. 197. Cordy (2000) contains a number of descriptions of royal centers in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, describing houses near religious structures and other features. 198. Kamakau (1869) 1961:424. 199. Kamakau (1865) 1991:26. 200. Kingdom Maps 1876 and 1881. Meek had died in 1875. As seen in the next chapter, Meek’s ranchhouse is placed in Līhu‘e, and records suggest Crabbe might have occupied that ranchhouse. The Dowsett ranchhouse was definitely in the same approximate location as Crabbe’s house. 201. ‘Ī‘ī (1959:99): “Beyond was Paka Stream and the maika field of Kapalauauai, which lay beyond the pond belonging to the village. This trail met with the one from Kolekole and continued on to the stream of Waikakalaua.” 202. Boundary Commission 1876, Wai‘anae Uka and School Land of Wahiawa on maika ground. The metes-and-bounds state “to an ancient kahua maika at a place called Kokoloea” (Robins & Spears 2002b:Appendix A). 203. Kingdom Maps 1870s, 1876 and 1881 show Kokoloea, and Kingdom Map 1870s 501

shows Kalakoa ‘ili. 204. Others include O‘ahu nui around the O‘ahu nui stone as a chiefly settlement, based on the O‘ahu nui cannibal story written by E. Nakuina in 1897, which describes the king of O‘ahu living on the kula and when slain his body tumbled into the gulch and turned into the O‘ahu nui stone. This story seems to be a recent (1890s) composition that pulls information out of the cannibal stories of Halemano, the general cultural context for the Central Plateau as a chiefly residence and birthing spot, and the renown of the O‘ahu nui stone and creates a similar cannibal story around a fictive king called O‘ahu nui. We do not consider it accurate as history, and certainly not reliable for claiming that dense housing was near the O‘ahu nui stone. The O‘ahu nui stone is recorded in the 1846 Grant 6 map (the east half of Waikakalaua to Gilman), and is at its northeast border, near where three upper tributaries of the South Fork of Kaukonahua Stream descend and bend along Grant 6 (and Waikakalaua’s) eastern border and then join not far downstream from the stone. No named ‘ili land is recorded on this map on the northern border, but this would be ConfidentialKalakoa ‘ili based on the 1870s maps. The metes-and-bounds description for Grant 6 also mentions the O‘ahu nui stone across Kalakoa. O‘ahu nui was a tax area in the mid-1850s, but Kalakoa was not. Given all this, it would appear that the stone was O‘ahu nui, but the kula which the stone was on the edge of (or in the gulch just below the edge) was that shared by Kalakoa and Waikakalaua. The tax records likely refer to Kalakoa. So we believe that it is best not to refer to O‘ahu nui as a chiefly settlement – implying dense housing all the way over to the stone. This would be part of Kalakoa, and how far over the dense housing went is unclear. Halemano is also included by these researchers as a chiefly settlement. However, other than the Halemano cannibal stories focusing on a foreign chief and his followers, Halemano is not directly linked to the chiefly center on the Central Plateau. It and the rest of Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a’s upland kula form a northernmost fringe of the Central Plateau. Scattered houses and rainfall fields would be expected on the kula and irrigated kalo in the gulch bottoms, but we are not confident in considering the dense housing of the chiefly center of Wahiawā (Kūkaniloko), Līhu‘e and Kalakoa as extending over to Halemano. Thus, we would suggest that, given present evidence, the dense chiefly housing of the Central Plateau was focused on the kula of Wahiawā, Līhu‘e and Kalakoa along the lower parts of the North and South forks of Kaukonahua and the conjoined Kaukonahua. Some of the confusion over Halemano as within the chiefly center may come from association of Halemano as the old place name for Wahiawā, and specifically for the Wahiawā kula where Kūkaniloko sits. For example, Kenn (1937) says Kūkaniloko was “at Helemano in Waialua, better known now as Wahiawa”. DelPiano (2005:69) also says that Helemano is where Kūkaniloko is located. Even the 1925 newspapers about the Daughters of Hawaii dedication of the newly protected Kūkaniloko say “Kukaniloko at Wahiawa” and “Kukaniloko at Halemano” (Feb. 26, 1925) and Kūkaniloko “at Helemanu, in the Waialua district of Oahu, better known now as Wahiawa” and Kūkaniloko “on the plains of Helemanu” (Feb. 26, 1925). Clearly, the kula around Kūkaniloko was part of this chiefly settlement. 205. Kamakau 1991:55. 502

206. Although the archaeological landscape of the flat kula where the chiefs would have lived is largely destroyed, several research approaches might gather some archaeological information out of this area. Dense housing is likely to have left dense patterns of domestic artifacts (adzes, ulumaika stones, food pounders, etc.), food remains, and features (earth ovens, etc.). In the pineapple fields, much of the depth of the archaeological deposits would have been disturbed (as till zone), although deep features (burials, earth ovens, etc) could survive. Often certain plantation fields yielded many archaeological artifacts, and workers collected objects. Plantation records could mention fields that had such finds, or interviews with plantation workers could identify these areas (if not locate objects retained by workers, which could be photographed and documented). [However, such interviews need to occur soon, before workers all pass away.] Also, before abandoned fields are totally altered by development, archaeological surface survey of cleared (or burned areas) could possibly identify dense artifact areas. Such studies could potentially define the dense habitation limits. In urban areas (WahiawāConfidential, Schofield), it is always possible that deep fragments of the archaeological deposits could survive. Documentation of these finds could be useful, again in attempting to define the limits of dense housing. So, although considerable damage to the old landscape has occurred, it may be possible to recover some archaeological information. Also, Eric Komori indicated in our interview with him, that people were farming in the 1960s upstream from Wahaiwā in the North Fork of Kaukonahua (beyond Lake Wilson), and he suggested that perhaps some remnants of the gulch bottom terraces might still be visible in that area. 207. This is from a manuscript by ‘Ī‘ī in the Bishop Museum (Sterling and Summers 1978:89), and it is a little different from ‘Ī‘ī ‘s published newspaper article, which implies one branch trail. The manuscript suggests two branch trails. Alternatively (and likely) the trails may have connected. 208. Kingdom Map 1870s. Kalakoa is spelled as Kalikoa on this map, but a number of other typos exist on the map. All other sources, including early grants from 1851 spell the ‘ili and stream Kalakoa. 209. Grant 6 map and metes-and-bounds (in Robins and Spear 2002a:29). 210. When I wrote my summary books of O‘ahu and Wai‘anae, I was not sure of the extent of Līhu‘e, suggesting that it might have been much of the Central Plateau (Cordy 2002a, b). After doing this Kūkaniloko research, it seems that Līhu‘e was just west of the Waialua Trail. 211. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” 1899. Mahie is mentioned twice within the story of how the ‘anae traveled from ‘Ewa to Lā‘ie. Once, Laniloa of Lā‘ie travels across to ‘Ewa – “he went up the plain, passed the stream of Kaukonahua, passed the plain of Mahie, and turned to look at the clouds gathering on the summit of Kaala” (Oct. 7, 1899). Later, his sister and Piliamoo (a god from Waialua) travel towards ‘Ewa, cross Kaukonahua “and on the plain of Mahie, they looked out at the sea of Ewa … They [then traveled on and] passed the water of Waikakalaua” (Nov. 18, 1899). For the triangulation station labeled Mahie, see Kingdom Map 1876. 212. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” (Nov 18, 1899) describes traveling up the Waialua Trail to 503

the plain of Kemo‘o and then “going on and passed the plain of Halahape, they crossed and passed the water of Kaukonahua”. In an 1865 newspaper article, Kamakau also places Halahape in this general northwest area (Kamakau 1991:55). 213. Kamakau [1865] 1991:57. 214. Kamakau [1865] 1991:58. 215. Kamakau [1867] 1991:105. Kalākaua also notes this place, calling La‘a the “chief of Kapa‘ahu and Lord of Nualaka” (Kalākaua 1888:120). 216. “Kapu ahuaawa” also appears in a 1860 mele (honorific chant) in Ka Hae Hawaii in relation to Kalanimanuia (Manuia): “E ka ihu o Luaia, Keaki awa o Kukaniloko, Kapu ahuaawa o Manuia, O ke kapu nui a Ewa” (Hukilani 1860). Our translator translated this as: “The nose of Luaia, Bite awa at Kukaniloko, The sacred awa straining sedge of Manuia, The very sacred of Ewa.” ‘ahu’awa is translated as a sedge plant by Pukui and Elbert 1971:8). This mele might suggest this plant or sedge used for straining awa related to important awa drinking, rather than a place name. However, Kamakau’s references seem specific to a place, and this could also be referringConfidential to a place. An 1868 publication of Kamakau has a slightly different variation: “No Kukaniloko no Luaia, No ka haiki pilikia o na’lii nui, Ka pu ahuawa o Manuia ke’lii” (Kamakau 1868). 217. Na Ami 1860, July 25, 1860. This honorific chant for Kalanikauikeaoli has multiple verses referring to different famous chiefs and places. One verse has these few lines referring to Kūkaniloko. 218. Kamakau 1991:151. 219. Kamakau [1866/1867] 1991:101. 220. Kamakau [1866/1867] 1991:101. 221. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:98-99. 222. Kamakau (1991:38). These mid- to late-1800s sources place Kua‘ikua next to Kūkaniloko or in Wahiawā, not over in Halemano (the ‘ili of Pa‘ala‘a ahupua‘a that is in the steeper Ko’olau slopes on the 1876 and 1881 maps). However, 20th Century sources start to refer to Kua‘ikua being in Helemano. For example, in 1910 an article in Ke Au Hou (July 13, 1910) says Kua‘ikua is “… up in Halemano. It has a sacred spring and only those related to the supernatural ones who made and hid it, are allowed to bath in it.” (Sterling & Summers 1978:138; Desilets et al. 2009:27). Nathaniel Emerson in 1907 as part of the Kalelealuaka story notes that “Kaleleluaka was transported to Kuaikua, in Helemano. There he plunged into the water and bathed all over; this done, he called on his ancestral shades (Aumakua), who came and performed on him the rite of circumcision while lightning flashed, thunder sounded, and the earth quaked.” (Emerson in Thrum 1907:92; in Desilets et al. 2009:27). Pukui, Elbert and Mookini (1978:138) also locate this as a spring in Helemano. Several of our interviewees identified Kua‘ikua as an earlier birthing place in Halemano. It is not clear where exactly these sources are placing Kua‘ikua. Again, there is some confusion on the area called Halemano. In the 1920s up to the present, one sees references for the kula on which Kūkaniloko sat being called the plains of Helemano (see note 204). This issue of Kua’ikua’s location needs more research, including having members of today’s community pointing out its location as they know it. 223. Handy (1940:81) Cox was the nephew of Hookala, a key elderly informant for both 504

the Daughters of Hawaii in the 1920s and McAllister in 1930 (Sterling and Summers 1978:105). 224. Handy & Handy 1972:465. 225. Kamakau 1961:424. 226. Cordy July 2010 field observations, during tour led by Cultural Surveys Hawaii staff of Huliwai and ‘Ēkahanui.gulch areas. 227. Grant 6 to John Gilman, Archives of Hawai’i. Testimony of Kuene. Interestingly, in 1846 Waikakalaua had seaward lands in Waikele ahupua‘a – a fishery (Pahau), a fishpond (Honohono), and 3 coastal floodplain taro lands (Waiahualele, Waikele, and Nio/Onio)(Grant 6 testimony), so by then its orientation was seaward to the Pu‘uloa area. 228. Boundary Commission Books Vol. 1:243. 229. Kamakau 1961:424. 230. The Halemano School Lot is traced on the Kingdom Map of 1876. 231. Kamakau 1991:55. 232. ExamplesConfidential are 1865 Kamakau: “The chiefs of Līhu‘e, Wahiawā, and Halemano on O‘ahu were called lō ali‘i. Because the chiefs at these places lived there …” (Kamakau 1991:40). 1865 Kamakau: “”the Lō chief of Līhu‘e, Lō Lale” (p. 46), 1869 Kamakau “Nana-maoa, … lived at Wahiawā and Līhu‘e in Wai‘alua” (136), 1870 Kamakau: “The chiefs of Lihue, Wahiawa, and Halemano on Oahu were called Lo chiefs” (Kamakau 1964:5). Also, see note 204 above, which mentions that in the 20th Century, some were saying that the old name for the Kūkaniloko/Whitmore Village kula was Halemano. 233. Kamakau 1961:293. 234. Kamakau 1961:136-7. 235. Robins & Spear 2002b:57. 236. Robins & Spear 2002b:57. 237. Kamakau 1961:293. 238. Fornander Collection 1917, 4(2), The Chant of Kūali‘i; Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006 [241]:Chant 157 on p. 266 (English), 284-285 (Hawaiian); Wilkes 1845, 4:75; Bennet 1832 in St. John (cited in Frierson 1973:5); Sims in Desilets et al. 2009:105- 112. Archaeological identification of plant species from wood charcoal from site 5953 (irrigated kalo) identified ‘ōhi‘a, ‘ōhi‘a ‘ai, kopiko, and hō‘awa trees and aheahea, aweoweo, and ‘akia shrubs (Murakami 1997). Desilets in our interview also mentioned other species that have since been identified from archaeological charcoal: a‘ali‘i, naio, kukui, hau, iliahi, and ala‘a. 239. St. John in Frierson 1973:5-6. 240. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” 1899:July 29 (17). Also in Sterling & Summers 1978::6. 241. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” 1899. Also in Sterling & Summers 1978:6. 242. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” 1899 (July 14 and 22). In Sterling & Summers 1978:22. 243. Grant 6 map and metes and bounds (in Robins and Spear 2002a:29). 244. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:99; ms in Sterling and Summers 1978:89. 245. McAllister 1933:132 (site 204); also quoted in Sterling and Summers 1978:137. 246. E. Nakuina 1897. Compatible with Nakuina’s story, one community member described two large stones in this area called O‘ahu nui and O‘ahu iki, “brother and sister who once ruled in common.” 505

247. Jo-Lin Kalimapau and anonymous interview. 248. W. Galbraith 1927 in Star-Bulletin (Sterling and Summers 1978:141). 249. Spitz 1925. In Sterling and Summers 1978:140. 250. Gooddale October 11, 1922 – handwritten addition to the base of the letter. 251. Gooddale October 11, 1922. 252. W. Galbraith Dec. 6, 1927 in Honolulu Star-Bulletin (Sterling and Summers 1978:141). 253. Gooddale October 11, 1922. A January 7, 1926 letter from Wilson of the Wahiawa Water Company to Mrs. Swanzy of the Daughters of Hawaii (Wilson 1926) also said that this “rock resembling a human foot which the Hawaiians of the District say is one of the Guards shoes.” 254. Spitz 1925. 255. Webb 1925c. 256. Fornander Collection cited in Beckwith (1940:506-512); Kamakau 1991:103-104. 257. Beckwith 1940:510. 258. National RegisterConfidential 1994. 259. Beckwith 1940:513. 260. National Register 1994:13. 261. Gutmanis 1986. Source of story not given. 262. Del Piano 2005. 263. Alice Greenwood, July 9, 2010 interview. 264. Elithe Kahn, February 5, 2010 interview. 265. McAllister 1933:134. 266. McAllister 1933:134. 267. McAllister 1933:134. 268. Buffum & Peterson 2005:24. 269. Kamakau 1961:310. 270. Emerson 1915:100 – chant to Ka‘ala. 271. 1930 information from elderly local resident Daniel Hookala in McAllister (1933:133). 272. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[241]:Chant 157 on p. 266 (English), 284-285 (Hawaiian). 273. Pukui 1983:85, 177, 185; Pukui 1953 in Sterling & Summers 1978:133. 274. Kamakau 1991:47. 275. Manu Apr. 25, 1885 in Sterling & Summers 1978:37; Manu 2002:75 (Hawaiian), 161 (English). 276. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[ 241]:Chant 157 on p. 266 (English), 284-285 (Hawaiian). 277. Kamoa Quitevas interview on the wahine hāpai. Also mentioned by Doug Fernandez, Uluwehi Hopkins, and others. 278. Kenn 1937. 279 Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):lines 107-117, pages 294-295. 280. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:270 (English). 281. Kamakau 1991:47. 282. Keamoku 1862. 283. Fornander Collection 1919,5(2):252-253. 506

284. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006: Chant 227 on p. 256 (English), 275 (Hawaiian). 285. M. Nakuina (1902), translated by Mookini & Nakoa 1990:43-44. 286. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[375] Chant 273 on p. 417 (English), 447 (Hawaiian). 286a. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:Chant 210 on p. 236 (English), 252 (Hawaiian). This chant occurs before Hi‘iaka returns from Kaua‘i, introduced by “the author recalls this stanza of King Lunalilo’s song.” 287. Kamakau 1991:56. 288. Fornander 1880:90. 289. Kamakau 1991:56. 290. Kingdom Map 1878b locates the ‘ili of Po‘o Hilo in the upper part of its floodplain. This ‘ili included taro wetlands and adjacent slopes with houselots and kula plantings. The author of this chapter analyzed a number of the Māhele commoner awards in this ‘ili. For example, LCA 1571 to Kekua 1 – “He mooaina me ke kula hale ma Aihonu, Poohilo” and “Elua loi Kuaiopela ma Poohilo.” (Māhele Award Book 6:137). Also, LCA 832 to Opipio – “He Mookalo Ako, ilo o Poohilo (Māhele Award BookConfidential 2:219). 291. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):414 – Chapter V. The Battles of Kualii and the Battle Grounds. 292. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):414. 293. Fornander 1880:281. 294. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):414 – Chapter V. The Battles of Kualii and the Battle Grounds. 295. Fornander 1880:281. 296. Fornander 1880:284-288. 297. Fornander 1880:note 1 on p. 279. 298. Fornander 1880:note 1 on p. 280. Fornander (1880:284) notes that this chant was composed by two priests, Kapahulani and his brother Kamakaulani, who were seeking to attach themselves to Kūali‘i’s court (a classic imi haku action). One encourages the chief of Ko‘olauloa to revolt and fight at Keahumoa kula below Pōhākea pass. The plan is for the two armies to reach the field of battle and have the other brother stand up and perform this honorific chant. One of Fornander’s accounts (Fornander Collection 1917,4(2)) records this chant within the prose context of this imi haku. But, a footnote in the publication of this account (note 15 on page 384) says that at Maunauna “Kuiaia, the chief of Waianae, came with his forces to meet Kualii on the battle ground here mentioned. His kahu, forewarned, told him when in coming to battle he should find a knotted ti leaf in the road he would know he was in danger and surrounded by an ambush which would cut off his whole force. On finding this knotted ti leaf, he began to chant this mele from beginning to end, to the honor of Ku. All on both sides laid down in reverence. Ku gave the signal of reconciliation, and the slaughter was averted.” This note appears in Lyons’ 1875 account (note for line 352 on pp. 232-233), and it apparently was added ca. 1917 by the editorial/translation team doing the translation at the Bishop Museum (W.D. Alexander, Thomas Thrum, and Hawaiians John Wise and Lahilahi Webb). Lyons’ 1875 publication’s preliminary note, however, says that this chant was composed by Kumahukia and He‘ea “in honor of the king” (1875:193). Whoever the 507

composer and whatever the actual event of the creation of this chant, it is clearly a renowned honorific chant. 299. Lyons 1875. Lyons and Andrews both visited Kamakau frequently, and talked about the meaning and translation of this chant (Lyons 1875). There is a note by Barrere that says this was a 1868 manuscript held by Andrews that had been dictated by Kamakau, who explained each line (Barrere in Kamakau 1991:84, note 16). 300. Fornander 1880: Appendix V. 301. Fornander Collection 1917, 4(2). 302. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):Lines 378-396, page 384. In Chapter II of The History of Kualii. 303. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2):Lines 403-412, page 386. Maihiewa comment in note 4 of page 386. 304. Fornander 1880:Appendix V. The first quote covers Lines 379-397, the second quote consists of Lines 404-413. 305. Lyons 1875.Confidential The first quote is Lines 340-357, the second quote, Lines 362-373. 306. Lyons 1875:233. 307. Lyons 1875:p. 233; * = note for line 365; ** = note for line 366. 308. Fornander Collection 1917,4(2): 430. 309. Fornander Collection 1918,5(2):498. 310. Kamakau 1961:139-140. 311. For a discussion of kanikau – Johnson and Iwasa 1998. 312. For a discussion of literature of the 1880s-1890s and into the early 1900s, see Hibbard, McEldowney and Napoka 1998:xvi-xvii; Nogelmeier 2002:vii; Kame’eleihiwa 1996:Introduction; Charlot 1987:5. 313. Kalākaua 1888. 314. E. Nakuina 1897. 315. Manu 2002. 316. Fornander 1878:191. 317. Kamakau 1991:149. 318. Kamakau 1964:119. 319. Fornander Collection 1917, 4(2): 436. 320. Fornander Collection 1917, 4(2):444. 321. For example, Fornander Collection 1917, 4(2):4:436-439; Forbes 1882 (also in Thrum 1907); Kalākaua 1888. 322. Fornander Collection 1917, 4(2):4:436, 444. 323. Forbes 1882. 324. Kalākaua 1888:78-84; N. Emerson in Malo 1903:note on 227-229. 325. N. Emerson in Malo 1903:note on 228. 326. Beckwith 1940:467, 469-474. 327. Kamakau 1991:53-56; Fornander 1880:89-90. 328. Kalākaua 1888:208-225. 329. Kalākaua 1888:219. 330. Kalākaua 1888:219. 331. Kalākaua 1888:221. 332. Kalākaua 1888:222. 508

333. Kamakau1991:45-49. 334. Kamakau 1991:47. 335. Kamakau 1991:48. 336. Fornander 1880:83-86. 337. Fornander 1880:85. 338. Fornander 1880:85-86. 339. Kalākaua 1888:227-246. 340. Kamakau 1991:50-51. 341. Kamakau’s Kahahana story in 1867 in Ka Nupepa Ku‘oko‘a (Kamakau 1961:128- 140). 342. Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):292-306. 343. Kamakau 1961:136-7. 344. Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):first quote = lines 63-64 on pae 293; second quote = lines 1331-34 on page 295. 345. Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):lines 107-117, pages 294-295. 346. Ka HookumuConfidential ana o na Paemoku 1911, translation in Sterling & Summers 1978:6-7. 347. Emerson 1915. Recent study by Silva (2003) identifies the Hawaiian in Emerson as Kapihenui’s 1861 story published in Ka Hoku o ka Pakipika. 348. Emerson 1915:99 – chant about seas of Waialua being heard in the uplands. 349. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:Chant 76 on p. 161 (English). 350. Feb. 9-16, 1924 in Maly in Henry et al 1992. 351. Kamakau 1961:423. 352. Pukui and Korn 1973:32. 353. Emerson 1915:100 – chant to Ka‘ala. Note that Kamahoa was the mo‘o goddess associated with the top of Ka’ala. 354. Emerson 1915:163. 355. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:98. 356. Nogelmeier 2006:431; Ho‘omanawanui 2007. 357. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006. 358. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[227] Chant 148 on p. 256 (English), 275 (Hawaiian). 359. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006 [234] Chant 153 on p. 262 (English), 280 (Hawaiian) 360. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006 [241]:Chant 157 on p. 266 (English), 284-285 (Hawaiian). 361. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:270 (English). 362. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[253] Chant 169 on p. 271 (English), 290-291 (Hawaiian). 363. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[368] Chant 266 on p. 412 (English), 442 (Hawaiian). 364. Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006:[375] Chant 273 on p. 417 (English), 447 (Hawaiian). 365. Maly (1992:4) translation of 1924 portion from Ka Hoku o Hawaii. 366. Fornander Collection 1919,5(2):228-263; see also Beckwith 1970:523-524. 367. Again, Halemano, Līhu‘e, and Wahiawā are sometimes placed in Wai‘anae, ‘Ewa or Waialua in the oral literature and histories of the 1800s. Some of these placements seem inaccurate, but they probably were intended as very general locations for the reader. 368. Fornander Collection 1919,5(2):250-251. These sentences seem to be very similar to older, long famous phraseology particularly out of the Hi‘iaka story. Indeed, one can notice similar types of references throughout the literature of the 1800s to 509

Kalena and Hale‘au‘au, the cold thickets of Wahiawā, the fog and dew of Ka‘ala, and the kupukupu of Līhu‘e. 369. Fornander Collection 1919,5(2):252-253. 370. Hale‘ole 1863. Translation by Beckwith 1918. 371. For a brief biography of Hale‘ole see Chun 1993. 372. Beckwith 1970:526. Hale‘ole (1862): “lawe ae la o Kapukaihaoa ia Laieikawai i uka o Wahiawa ma kahi i oleloia o Kukaniloko” (“Kapuakaihaoa took Laieikawai to the uplands of Wahiawa, to the place that is called Kukaniloko”). 373. Kalākaua 1888:453-480. 374. Kalākaua 1888:457. 375. Fornander Collection 1918, 5(1):142. 376. Fornander Collection 1918, 5(1): 142. 377. Fornander Collection 1918,5:274; 1919-1920,6:360. 378. Fornander Collection 1918,5:274. 379. Fornander Collection 1916-17,4:548-553; also Beckwith 1970:479-480 . Quotes fromConfidential Beckwith, 1970:480. 380. Manu 2002. 381. Manu Dec. 13, 1884 in Sterling & Summers 1978:21. 382. Manu 2002:156-164. 383. Manu Apr. 25, 1885 in Sterling & Summers 1978:37. 384. Desilets et al 2009:49. 385. Kalākaua 1888 and Westervelt 1904 state these stories to be fact. E. Nakuina and much more recently Deselits et al (2009) link the cannibal chief to the lō ali‘i. 386. Dibble 1909(1843)::113-114. 387. Jarves 1844:72-73. Jarves had arrived in the islands in 1837, and around 1840 had served as the editor of The Polynesian. He also wrote a history, which is silent on this story (1843). Some sources say Jarves visited Halemano in 1837 and 1842. 388. Mathison 1825 in McAllister (1933:138-140). 389. Dibble 1909:114-115. 390. Fornander 1880:23, note 1 on page 23, and 293-294. 391. Anonymous 1861. 392. Kalākaua 1888:369-380. 393. Westervelt 1904 reprinted in Westervelt’s 1915 book. 394. Westervelt 1915. 395. E. Nakuina 1897; Nakuina in Thrum 1907:140-146. 396. Kamakau 1976:6-7. 397. The birthing of O‘ahu by Papa is linked with the infidelity of Wākea and her ensuing anger and return from Kahiki. In Kaleikuahulu’s chant (surviving only in English – Fornander Collection 1919-1920,6(3):360) to quote the lines: “Papa returned from Kahiki, She stood with jealous rage against the second wife (punalua), Full of rage towards her husband Wakea. She lived (moe) with Lua her new husband. {From them} Oahualua was born, Oahualua the island child.” Kaleikuahulu was supposedly the grandson of Keawe, ruler of Hawai‘i in the the early1700s, so this is an old chant. In this case, the island is O‘ahu-a-Lua, named after Papa’s husband – not a man in the Wahiawā area. Kamakau also told this 510

story (Sterling and Summers 1978:xi), noting Oahu-a-Lua was a “good chief and the people prospered.” 398. A.P. Taylor (1925) article in the Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 22, 1925, p. 8. 399. Sterling and Summers 1978:134. Mrs. A.P. Taylor was Emma Ahuena Taylor, a historian of the Daughters of Hawaii. [See Emory, 1942, on some of E.A. Taylor’s stories, comments which include polite statements by other Hawaiian experts of the time.] 400. Smithe n.d. 401. Nedbalek 1984:9-10. 402. Nedbalek 1984:10. 403. There also may be a consideration of connecting the modern Schofiled Barracks training to an old Hawaiian training. 404. A.P. Taylor 1925; Emma Ahuena Taylor in Stokes’ site notes (likely 1920s-early 1930s) quoted in Sterling and Summer 1978:134. Also, noted by Desilets et al. 2009:59 405. Kamakau Confidential1991:50. 406. For example, at Kealakekua in 1793 (Vancouver 1798,2:151-154; Menzies 1920:91). 407. See Sterling and Summers (1978:107) for the Valley of the Spears stories.

SECTION 3: KŪKANILOKO’S USES 408. Kalanikuihonoinamoku 1865. 409. Kamakau 1991:38 410. Kamakau 1991:53 411. Malo 1951:246. 412. Kamakau 1991:38. 413. Kamakau 1991:68. 414. We also searched on other keywords, and much more can be done with Hawaiian language papers that will probably pick up bits of information. However, Kamakau’s articles were the only detailed accounts that we could find in the newspapers. Other sources could add to this, such as Helekunihi’s manuscript book and manuscript genealogical books at the Bishop Museum. 415. Fornander 1878, 1880. 416. Kalākaua 1888:70-71 for example. 417. Fornander 1878:v; Kalakaua 1888:7. 418. Emerson, notes in Malo (1951, first pubished in 1903). The general reader needs to understand that the notes in Malo are not Malo’s notes, rather Emerson’s and in some cases W.D. Alexander’s (the latter the editor of the Museum’s publication). 419. Webb 1925-a, -c, n.d.-a. 420. Thrum 1911. 421. Pukui 1942. 422. National Register 1994. 423. Jensen and Jensen 2005:67; Desilets et al 2009; interviews with the local Hawaiian community done for this project. 424. Kamakau (1991:38), 425. Malo 1951:5, 187. 511

426. Fornander 1878:200. 427. Fornander 1880:20-21. 428. Fornander 1880:21. 429. Fornander 1919,6(2):247; repeated by Kalākaua (1888:70); Thrum (1911); newspaper articles of February 26, 1925 about the Daughters of Hawai‘i dedication ceremonies at Kūkaniloko (Honolulu Advertiser 1925-a,-b,-c); McAllister (1933:135); Sterling and Summers 1978:139); Nedbalek (1984:7); Kurth and Johnson (1989:1); Henry, Walker and Rosendahl (1992:32); Orr (2001:15); Jensen & Jensen (2005:670); Del Piano (2005:69); Desilets et al. (2009:12, 85). 430. Kamakau 1991:136. 431. Malo 1951:238. 432. Chun 2006:Appendix 210-213, 433. Fornander (1878:190-192) published this 1838 genealogy, noting it was “the Ulu-Hema line as currently adopted in the time of Kamehameha I, first published by David Malo in 1838.” Kamakau’s 1842 genealogy is in McKinzie (1983:xix- xxi). Confidential 434. McKinzie 1983:xiv-xv. 435. Cachola-Abad 1993: 25-26 with discussion of Kūkaniloko; 2000:170-171. 436. Masse 1995; Masse and Tuggle 1998; Johnson 2001; Masse, Johnson and Tuggle in preparation. See also Kronk 1999. 437. Masse 1995. 438. Masse 1995:469. 439. Masse and Tuggle 1998:232. Note, this article does not specifically note Kūkaniloko, but the date for Nana-maoa can be used to date Kapawa and Kūkaniloko. 440. Johnson 2001:239-240, 279, 353. 441. There is also a reference in Johnson’s work (2001:465) that indicates Doug Fernandez (who has worked with Johnson), suggested in a 1998 ms that Kukaniloko was aligned to the skies of AD 560. We have not seen this manuscript, but in one of our interviews with him, he said that he believed that Kukaniloko could have been used possibly by AD 568. He uses a 25-year per generation count, noting Rubellite Johnson now uses 20 years. 442. E.g., Luomala 1955:139-158; 1975:6-7. Fornander was aware that Tahaki’s family was in East Polynesian mythology (1878:203-204), which was one point he saw as a problem with the Ulu genealogy. Masse & Tuggle (1998) recognize these stories come from outside Hawai‘i, but they still count these individuals as real chiefs. But, they are mythical and have been inserted into this genealogy. The Maui stories go back to proto-Polynesian times, for Maui is a proto word, and Maui stories exist in Tonga and Samoa, as well as Eastern Polynesia. The Kaha‘i family stories are restricted to Eastern Polynesia, but they are also widespread. Perhaps Maui and Kaha‘i were once chiefs, but when has been long lost. 443. As noted above under note 79, the rejection of Aikanaka to Laka as historical chiefs in Hawai‘i conflicts with Malo’s conclusion that “tradition informs us with certainty of the place of birth and death of the kings from Kapawa to Paumakua” on the Ulu genealogy (Malo 1951:246). The traditions that he seems to be referring to are chants which list the birth place of a chief, list where his placenta, navel cord 512

and caul were placed, note where he died, and often include other historical information. In 1869 Kamakau published versions of these chants – starting from Kapawa in our Generation 26 and running down to Paumakua in Generation 40 (Kamakau 1991:136-151). However, these chants include ‘Aikanaka, Hema, Kaha‘i, Wahieloa, and Laka, who were clearly not Hawaiian chiefs born or buried in the places noted in the chants and with their placentas, navel cords, and cauls deposited in certain places. Malo and Kamakau may not have been aware of the fact that these were chiefs of mythological stature in the rest of Eastern Polynesia. In hindsight, we know this. This clearly changes the perspective that these chants reflect actual historical events – at least for the Tahaki (Kaha‘i) family. 444. For example, Fornander (1878:198; 1880:26, 28), Stokes (1932:48); Cordy (2000); Cachola- Abad (2000:46) note that factual stories appear to consistently occur on this line only about the time of Haho (or Paumakua, Haho’s father). 445. Kamakau 1991:118. But Fornander notes that this “circumcision” story is actually associated with the Paumakua of the Ulu-Puna line (an O‘ahu-Kaua‘i genealogy),Confidential and even he noted that some legends do not agree with this story (1880:26). 446. Stokes 1933:48 447. Kamakau 1991:136-151. 448. As noted earlier in footnote 71a, Stokes (1934:43) also pointed out the highly similar style of composition for these ‘oli from Kapawa to Paumakua, making them suspect as history, or symbolic of history. Again, as Luomala (1979:6-7) notes older heroic stories of the pre-1300 era and even in the 1300s often may be literary allegories and not history. One has to look for multiple bits of supportive evidence to start to distinguish which is history. 449. Fornander (1880:39) suggested Koa and Ole may have been brothers of Pili, or Koa, Ole and Kukohau may have been Pili’s sons. Cartwright (1933:9-10) suggests that the three names after Pili (Koa, Ole and Ku-Kohau) “were probably contemporaries who accompanied him [Pili] to Hawaii”, arguing that they all had Hina wives, which as foreign names supported this conclusion. More recently, Cordy (2000:186-187) and Cachola-Abad (2000:172-173) have pointed out this item of uncertainty in the Ulu Hema genealogy. Fornander further notes (1880:39) that Kanipahu (Generation 51) was married to Hualani, who was the great grandaughter of Nuakea (granddaughter of Māweke). This would place Kanipahu ca. AD 1400-1420, a generation earlier on the Ulu Hema genealogy – making less room for Koa, Ole or Kukohau. 450. Kalākaua 1888:31. 451. Kamakau (1991:78) has the genealogy going from Pua‘a-a-Kahuoi to his son Mā‘ilikūkahi, while Fornander adds one generation between them, having Pua‘a as the grandfather and Kukahiaililani as the father (1878:189) – a pointed noted by Barrere (Kamakau 1991:note 27 on p. 86). But this is the only debated point that seems to have arisen in the Nana‘ulu genealogy from Māweke to Kalākaua’s time. 452. Fornander 1878:191-201; Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):233, 242-256. Here are some of the inconsistencies in the Ulu-Hema genealogy that Fornander and others identified. Hua is at our table’s Generation 37, and stories of a famine in Hua’s reign place him contemporaneous with the prophet Naula-a-Maihea who came with 513

La‘amaikahiki (Fornander 1880:41-41; Beckwith 1940:380; Kalakaua 1888:137). A Fornander Collection story of the 1860s (1916-1917,4(1):136) also noted that Hua was a contemporary of Kila, the son of Mō‘īkeha and adopted son of Kunaka in Waipi‘o. La‘amaikahiki and Kila as the generation below Māweke’s grandsons (‘Olopana and Mō‘īkeha) date to the mid-1300s. Another case (Fornander 1880:30- 32) … The brother of Paumakua (Generation 40) was Kuheailani, and Hakalanileo was his son. As seen under the Kana story, Hakalanileo’s wife Hina is kidnapped by Kaupe‘epe‘enuikauila on Molokai, and she is rescued by her sons Kana and Niheu in a rather fabulous tale. Beckwith (1940:467-477) argues that the Kana- Niheu stories are derived from similar stories in East Polynesia, so this could further bring uncertainty to the Ulu line. However, the genealogies indicate that Kaupe‘ep‘ee’s brother was Keoloewa (who was the superior chief of Molokai), who was married to Nuakea, a granddaughter of Māweke and daughter of Māweke’s son Keaunui. She would thus date to AD 1340-1360 on the Nana‘ulu genealogy, and this story suggests that Paumakua and his brother should date AD 1320-1360 – instead ofConfidential the AD 1200-1220 indicated on the Ulu Hema genealogy. Yet another case (Fornander 1880:23) … The O‘ahu Paumakua’s uncle, Kahano-a-Newa may have been the kahu of Nana-kaoko’s wife (Kahihi-o-kalani, or Kahihi-ku-o-kalani). This would place Nana-kaoko in the same generation as Paumakua, and with La‘a dating AD 1360-1380, this would put Nana-kaoko into the early 1300s. Fornander noted cases where the number of generations from Hema to Paumakua was 9 in one genealogy and 4 in others (1878:202) and from Paumakua to Pili was 2, 4 or 5 generations depending on the genealogy (1878:203). Fornander, ultimately separated the Nanamaoa-Kapawa line out from the Ulu-Hema list and moved it to the era of the Māweke (1878:App. 9). He also ended up concluding that the Nanamaoa-Kapawa line, the Paumakua-Haho part of the Ulu-Hema line, Pili of the Ulu-Hema line, Paumakua of the Ulu-Puna line and Māweke’s early line were all roughly contemporaneous within a generation or two (1878:App. 9) -- in the AD 1300s, using 20 years per generation. Thus, he concluded that some of the chiefs on the Ulu Hema line were contemporaneous, and not in correct generational order. Others have agreed with these approximate placements – notably Kalākaua (1888). Fornander was also convinced, due to one story he or his collectors gathered in the 1860s, that Kapawa was the corrupt ruler of Hawai‘i Island that led to Pā‘ao returning to Kahiki and bring back Pili, to replace Kapawa (Fornander, 1878:200- 201). With Pili at about AD 1400, Fornander saw this scenario fitting his hypothesis. This has been critiqued by Cachola-Abad (1993:25-26; 2000:170-171), for Kamakau and Malo clearly did not see Kapawa contemporaneous with Pili. She concluded that Fornander’s belief that Pili replaced Kapawa led to his moving Kapawa up in time. But he concluded that Kapawa belonged in the 1300s based on a considerable body of other data. His claim that Pili replaced Kapawa is but a side tangent – one that indeed seems implausible. However, Fornander’s analysis (which is very thorough) led him to conclude that the earlier part of the Ulu genealogy had seen 15-17 fictional insertions (inflating the list), and it does seem correct that numerous chiefs after Kapawa on this genealogy were either mythological insertions or chronologically misplaced – in turn moving Kapawa perhaps into the 1300s. 514

453. Kamakau 1991:102-3. 454. Kamakau 1964:3. 455. Kamakau 1964:4. 456. Malo in Chun (2006:246 Eng); Kamakau 1991:136; Fornander 1880:21-22. 457. Cordy 2000:141; Kolb 1999. 458. National Register 1994:5. 459. Kamakau 1991:38, 68. 460. Kamakau 1991:38. 461. Thrum 1911, Webb (n.d.-b, -c), and McAllister (1933) offer only a general appearance of the stones. The National Register form of 1972 is similar. PHRI in their 1992 survey of Galbraith Estate lands did the first detailed map of the stones, with some photography (Henry, Walker & Rosendahl 1992). Marth Yent and Alan Carpenter, State Parks archaeologists, in late 1992 did a more detailed documentation of the stones – a detailed map, numbering each stone and photographing each stone. 463. Stasack andConfidential Stasack 2010. 464. See Stasack and Stasack 2010, for references on other sites with poho. Also, Pukui (1942) mentions piko placed in holes and cracks at Holoholokū and in Hilo at Coconut Island. 465. Webb 1925a (also in National Register 1994:12). 466. Daughters of Hawaii 1922 in National Register 1994:12. 467. 1878 Census for Wahiawa. 468. Webb 1925a (synopsized in National Register 1994:12.) In 1937, Charles Kenn, citing recollections of William Malahea, said “these boulders represented the aumakua.” One would assume that this was referring to aumakua associated with birthing. 469. Webb nd.-d – Feb. 2, 1925 letter signed by Bernice Spitz, Secretary of the Daughters of Hawaii. 470. Del Piano 2005, quoted in her history of the Daughters of Hawaii. 471. Kūkaniloko across from Keanini stone in 1925 (Webb n.d.-d). 472. Several years ago Tom Lenchanko pointed out this birthing stone to Cordy and the Hawaiian-Pacific Studies Club from UH West O‘ahu when we visited the site. Others today also identified this stone as the birthing stone in our interviews. 473. Alice Greenwood interview July 9, 2010. 474. Mrs. Keaopolohiwa Drew had never been to Kūkaniloko, but she had been told this by her uncle, Waihoikaea-na-iwi-o-Kamahele (Emma Ahuena Taylor 1925). 475. Stasack and Stascak 2010 document the poho locations; detailed descriptions await future work. Emma Ahuena Taylor’s mother, Mrs. Mary Montana, in 1925 said that some of the poho were for ho‘okupu (Taylor 1925). Snowbird Bento (interview) mentions that “the ‘iewe was placed in the base of the pohaku.” Alice Greenwood (interview) mentioned one poho held water to clean the baby and/or mother. In 1915 elderly Hawaiian informants at the petroglyph field in Pu‘uloa in Puna told Beckwith that the many pit- or cup-like depressions there were made for the piko of a new-born child, which was placed in the poho and covered with a stone (Beckwith n.d. in Cox and Stasack 1970:23). The Stasacks and our senior 515

scholar also have heard from elderly Hawaiians that such cup-like poho were used for piko. 476. Stasack and Stasack 2010. 477. Stasack and Stasack 2010:3-5, 16-19. Several fishhooks, circles and a circle with a center poho are traditional images, but “the patination suggest that they, too, were made about the same time as the panel of ali‘i images” that are non-traditional and have also virtually disappeared due to the patination (p. 11). They provide photos of stone 69’s petroglyphs in 1980, 1991, and 2010 as part of their analysis. See appendix at the end of the report. 478. Beckwith n.d. (1915 field notes) in Cox and Stasack 1970:66. 479. Rev. William Ellis 1823 (in Cox and Stasack 1970:31-32), description from the south coast of Hawai‘i. 480. Kamakau 1991:38. Anonymous informants all agreed that Tom Lenchanko has suggested that Ho‘olonopahu was situated “where the monkey pod tree is located today directly off of Kamehameha Highway past the Whitmore Village intersection.”Confidential 481. Kamakau 1991:38. 482. Kamakau 1991:136. 483. Beckwith 1970:377. 484. National Register 1994:5. 485. Na Ami 1860. Our translators indicate that the line “Kahi mai ka pahu no ka piko” probably contains a typo, with “Kani” not “Kahi.” They translated this as if it were “Kani”. But they also note that “the original could also say “Kani ka pahu, mo ka piko” – the drum sounds and the umbilical cord is cut.” 486. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:99. 487. Kamakau 1991:38. 488. Kamakau 1991:38. 489. Kalākaua 1888:200, 222, 457. 490. Kamakau 1991:38. 491. Tom Lenchanko demonstrated the latter several years ago. 492. Wilma Holt (interview) also emphasized that “It was also the responsibility of the council of chiefs to be present during the birthing of the next rulers or that line of rulers. The other stones were for them to sit and observe and to witness the birthing and to observe the signs or the ho‘ailona, whatever would appear.” 493. Kamakau 1991:38, 68. 494. Kamakau 1991:38 [1865], 136 [1869]. 495. Kamakau 1991:68. 496. Kamakau 1991:68. 497. Kamakau 1991:38. Thrum (1911:101) says “a thousand of them (a mano)” were on the east side of the stream. Nebalek (1984:5) refers to a thousand in relation to Kapawa’s birth, but she seems to be providing a romanticized setting for this first birth at Kūkaniloko, and drawing information from Kamakau and Thrum (via Sterling & Summers 1978:139). 498. A key here is what Kua‘ikua is referring to. It might be a land unit, perhaps 516

between Kūkaniloko and the main Kaukonahua Stream. 499. Kalanikuihonoinamoku 1865. 500. Emerson in Malo 1951: 246. 501. Fornander 1878:200. 502. Emerson in Malo (1951: (1951:248, note 1). 503. Kamakau 1991:38. 504. Malo 1951:54-57; Kamakau 1961:233; 1964:4, 10; 1991:25. Cachola-Abad (2000:146) correctly emphasizes that being born at places like Kūkaniloko would “further enhance his or her name” [the name of the child born there]. 505. E. Nakuina 1897. 506. Fornander 1880:55-56; Kamakau 1991:109-110. 507. More recently, Cachola-Abad 2000:146 and Desilets et al 2009. 508. Kamakau 1991:38. Malo (1951:246) also has Kapawa born here. 509. Kamakau 1991:156; Malo 1951, note 7, p. 280. 510. Kamakau [1866/1867] 1991:101. Beckwith (1970:378) and Cachola-Abad (2000:146,Confidential 156) note that Kamakau had Haho later become an important chief on Hawai‘i, but he in fact later became a Maui chief. 511. Kamakau 1991:151. 512. Kamakau 1991[1866/1867]:101. Lanakawai later became a Hawai‘i Island chief. 513. Kamakau 1991:105, 186-7 514. Kamakau 1991: 53. 515. Fornander 1880:89. 516. Kamakau 1991:57. 517. Fornander 1880:269. 518. Kamakau 1991: 68. 519. Kamakau 1991: 68. 520. Fornander 1880:272. 521. Fornander 1880; Kamakau 1991:38. 522. Kamakau 1991:38; Fornander 1878:21. 523. Kamakau 1961:210. 524. Kamakau 1964:5. A short paper titled “A book of the Lineage of Chiefs for the Information of Liliuokalani” from the Kalanianaole ms collection is virtually identical to Kamakau – published as Appendix 8 in Beckwith’s translation of Kepelino’s manuscript (Beckwith 1932). 525. Most recently in academic work, Deselits et al 2009:43-46 have convincingy made this argument that lō ali‘i were probably born at Kūkaniloko. Interestingly, Andrews 1865 dictionary has one definition of “lo” as “The name of some chiefs who lived on the mountain Helemano and ate men” (“he mau alii ai kanaka no uka o Helemano”) (Andrews 2003:344-5). This statement does not seem consistent with any others of pre-1880 times that we have seen, when lō chiefs are linked with Wahiawā and Līhu‘e, and sometimes Halemano (Helemano here) and are considered esteemed chiefs – not eaters of men. Again, it is not until the 1897 story of Nakuina when a claim is made that Aikanaka was a lō ali’i. But this definition is interesting, as Andrews was well-versed in Hawaiian oral history and literature (at least by the 1870s). It clearly differs from what lō ali‘i are considered today. 526. Fornander 1878:189. Kamakau (1991:53, 78) has her as his mother. 517

527. Fornander 1878:189 (Kukahiaililani). 528. Fornander 1878:189 (Kokalola). 529. Fornander 1878:189. 530. Fornander 1880:91. 531. Kamakau 1991:46-51. 532. Kamakau 1991:51, 61, 68. 533. Desilets 2009:84. 534. Kamakau 1964:5. 535. Kamakau 1991:51. 536. Kamakau 1991:51, 61. 537. Kamakau 1991:51, 61. 538. Kamakau 1991:57. 539. Kamakau 1991:62. 540. Kamakau 1991:68; Fornander 1880:271-274. 541. For example, McKinzie (1983:xiii, 26-28) and Davenport (1994:21-30). 542. Malo 1951:54-57.Confidential 543. Kamakau 1961:233; 1964:4, 10; 1991:25. 544. Kamakau 1991:25. 545. Kamakau 1964:4. 546. Kamakau 1964:10. 547. Kamakau 1991:50. 548. Kamakau 1991:61. 549. Kamakau 1991:61. 550. Kamakau 1991:62. 551. Desilets et al. 2009:46. 552. Malo (1951) is the Museum’s 1903 publication with its translation by N. Emerson in the 1890s. Chun (2006) presents his translation and Malo’s original Hawaiian. 553. The original Hawaiian here is in Chun (2006:Hawn 79); the Bishop Museum translation in Malo (1951:136); Chun’s translation in Chun (2006:Eng 105). 554. N. Emerson’s note 3 (Malo 1951:139). 555. See Buck (1957) and Cox & Davenport (1988) for descriptions of surviving akua kā‘ai. 556. English translation is Emerson’s (Malo 1951:136); the Hawaiian is from Chun (2006:Haw 79). 557. English translation is Emerson’s (Malo 1951:137). 558. English translation is Chun (2006:Eng105); the Hawaiian is from Chun (2006:Haw 79). 559. Hawaiian and translation immediately above from Emerson (Malo 1951:137), as is the quote below. 560. Hawaiian is from Chun (2006:Haw 80), the translation is mine (very similar to Chun and Emerson, perhaps a bit more readable). 561. English translation is Emerson’s (Malo 1951:137). 562. First English translation is Emerson’s (Malo 1951:139). In brackets is Chun’s translation (2006:Eng 107) and Hawaiian (Chun 2006:Haw 81). 563. Chun’s translation (2006:Eng 107). 564. This paragraph’s quote and information come from Malo (1951:138). See 518

Chun (2006:Eng. 106; Hawn. 80). 565. K. Kamakau in Fornander Collection (1919-1920,6(1):4-6). 566. Kamakau 1964:98, 101. Some people interviewed also mentioned medicines were given to ease the pain of childbirth (e.g., Kaha‘i Topolinski interview). 567. Kamakau 1964:27. 568. Kamakau 1964:27. 569. Kamakau 1991:188. 570. The operation was actually subincision of the foreskin, not complete circumcision. See Handy & Pukui (1958:94-95). 571. Fornander 1878:166-168; see note 452. 572. Pukui 1942; Handy and Pukui 1958:76-80; Pukui, Haertig and Lee 1972:11-20. Pukui’s information came in part from her grandfather, grandmother, granduncle, uncle and aunt who were kahuna pale keiki (Pukui 1942:357-358). Her grandfather and granduncle were on Kalākaua’s list of noted kahuna (Pukui 1942:357-8). 573. Pukui, Haertig and Lee 1972:11. 574. Pukui, HaertigConfidential and Lee 1972:25, also note 7. Interestingly, in Westervelt’s story of Keaomelemele, he notes that Kahanai-o-ke-akua’s cord was cut twice (Westervelt 1998:120). 575. Pukui, Haertig and Lee 1972:12. [Note 3 mentions the historic birth stones near Wahiawa, 25.] 576. Pukui, Haertig and Lee 1972:14; Pukui 1942:361, 373. 577. Pukui 1942:360-369; Handy and Pukui 1958:47. 578. Pukui, Haertig and Lee 1972:12. 579. The info in this paragraph comes from Pukui, Haertig and Lee 1972 :11, 13-16, 19. 580. Handy & Pukui 1958:78; Pukui 1942:367. 581. Pukui 1942:367. 582. Jensen and Jensen 2005:65-70. 583. Jensen and Jensen 2005:67. 584. Jensen and Jensen 2005:68. 585. Jensen and Jensen 2005:68. 586. Kaeppler 1978:57, 59-60. 587. Jensen and Jensen 2005:67. 588. Tom Lenchanko presentation to UH West O‘ahu Hawaiian-Pacific Club several years ago. Others interviewed learned their information from Tom. For example, Ka‘āhiki Solis mentioned the chiefess being carried to Kukaniloko and attendants lifting the chiefess when she was giving birth. Walt Keale described the attendants’ help during the birth as follows: “They breathe together, they push together, they help her and then the baby comes out. She [the chiefess] does not touch the ground at all, even the the pohaku. She does not touch the pohaku.” 589. Thrum (1911:103) is quoting Fornander, who said “Chiefs that were born there were “born in the purple,” and enjoyed the distinction, privileges, and tabus which that fact conferred” (Fornander 1880:20-21). The phrase “born in the purple” is an old Euro-American saying, which means noble born. It may well refer back to Roman times when purple was the royal color. It does not appear likely that Fornander was referring to purple-colored kapa cloth to hold the baby. 590. Kamakau 1991:38 [1865 article]. 519

591. Pukui 1942:367. 592. Fornander 1880:278. 593. Kamakau 1991:49. Her father was said to be high chief over the Waikīkī area, so this birth may or may not have taken place when the ruler (likely Piliwale) was in residence. 594. Kamakau 1991:50. 595. Kamakau 1991:109-110. 596. Kamakau 1961:67-8. The citation applies to all the information here on Kamehameha’s birth. 597. Kamakau 1961:83-4, 310; Fornander 1880:150. Ka‘ahumanu was the hiapo (eldest child) of Ke‘eaumoku. Kaheiheimalie, another daughter of Ke‘eaumoku and Namahana was born in Hāna in 1778 (Kamakau 1961:385). 598. Kamakau 1961:259. 599. Kamakau 1961:220. 600. Pukui 1942:366. 601. Malo in ChunConfidential (2006:Eng 201-2). 602. Kamakau 1961:7. 603. Kamakau 1991:54 [1865]. 604. Lili‘uokalani 1897:Introduction. [Kalaninui‘Ī‘amamao’s mele ‘inoa was the famed Kumulipo in the form we know it today.] 605. Elithe Kahn and Kamoa Quitevas noted the birthing stone at Halemano Stream. Jo-Lin Kalimapau mentioned the same stone, but called the stream Kuaikua. 606. Jo-Lin Kalimapau, Kamoa Quitevas and an anonymous individual on the Halemano birthing area being earlier. 607. Kamakau 1991:101. 608. Kamakau 1991:151. 609. Kamakau 1991:101. 610. Malo in Chun (2006:Eng 105; Hawn 79) – Chapter 34, Sections 7-9. K. Kamakau (Fornander Collection 1919-1920,6(1):4) also mentions the composition of “name songs in honor of the child.” 611. Malo 1951:246 [Chap 61, Section 20]; Malo in Chun 2006:Eng 187; Hawn 138; Kamakau 1991:136-151 [1869]. 612. Kamakau 1991:136. 613. Kamakau 1991:51 and note 28-29 by Barrere on pages 86-87. 614. Kamakau 1991:52. 615. Kamakau 1991:58. 616. Hukilani 1860. 617. Kamakau 1991:58-59. 618. The Palila hero myth recorded in the 1860s (Fornander Collection 1916-20,5:136- 153; Valeri 1985:276-277) notes that prior to marrying the two daughters of the king of O‘ahu, Palila had to go the the luakini and have his penis incised to become a complete human being acceptable for such a marriage. 619. Kamakau (1961:223-224; 1991:25-26) talks about the origin of strict kapu dating “back not more than three hundred years”. He places his focus on the arrival of the burning kapu on O‘ahu from Kaua‘i in the time of Kūali‘i (early 1700s), obtained 520

from his grandmother (a daughter of the Kaua‘i ruler)(1964:9; also Barrere’s note 7 on page 22). This again points to the rise of different kapu and ranks after 1600, eclipsing earlier ranks (perhaps the lō ali‘i) and their kapu. See also Davenport 1994:15. 620. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:138. 621. Cordy 2000. Kualoa and the heiau at Waolani (a side valley in Nu’uanu) are also identified as pu’uhonua of O’ahu by others (Alexander 1891c:45). 622. Cordy 2000:260-266. 623. Cordy 2000. 624. A popular 20th Century hypothesis – widely repeated in general public literature – is that the Kahiki priest Pā‘ao started human sacrifice. However, the older Pā‘ao literature from the pre-1880 times does not seem to mention him establishing human sacrifice. This becomes firmly stated with Westervelt’s vastly elaborated Pā‘ao story of the early 1900s (Westervelt 1913). Human sacrifice is part of the old anthropological hypothesis that a wave of Society Island chiefs arrived in the Hawaiian ConfidentialIslands bringing large temples, human sacrifice and highly stratified chiefly society – and that this is documented in the Hawaiian Kahiki stories of the AD 1300s. But this is not documented in the Hawaiian Kahiki stories, and the Society Islands only had large temples and highly stratified countries beginning in the mid-1600s – 300 years after they developed in the Hawaiian Islands. (See Cordy, 2000:Chapter 6, for discussion on this old hypothesis.) At this point, it is not clear (to us) when in the Hawaiian oral histories human sacrifice began. It is a topic needing further, detailed analysis. 625. Kolb 1994. 626. Kamakau (1964:12) notes this event too in describing the rise of “men [that] became burnt offerings and were baked in an imu or broiled over a fire until the body grease (hinu) dripped and then were placed on the lele altar” – Hākau was offered as a burnt offering. 627. See Kamakau (1991:6-8) for origin of Kūhe‘eho‘one‘e. Kamakau (1991:134) and Valeri (1985:331) summarize the breadfruit tree story. Kame‘eleihiwa (1992:35) emphasizes that Kāmeha‘ikana was prayed to for war and political control on O‘ahu. 628. Kamakau 1964:12. When Kahekili conquered O‘ahu, he took over the O‘ahu gods, and human sacrifices continued to be offered to them (Kamakau 1961:166): “Here are the names of the gods he worshiped as a means of keeping control of the government: Ku-ke-oloewa, Kuho‘one‘e-nu‘u, Kalai-pahoa, Ololupe, Kameha‘ikana, Kala-mai-nu‘u, and Kiha-wahine, Haumea, and Wali-nu‘u. These gods were deities whose heiaus were tabu and in which human sacrifices were offered.” 629. Kamakau (1961:324-235) describes these images at the king’s altar on O‘ahu luakini, information that came from his grandfather. Kalanimanuia reference to these gods (Kamakau 1991:60 -1865). 630. Kamakau [1865] 1991:56. 631. Kurth 1982. 632. The late 1980s-early 1990s saw the rise of archaeoastronomy and ethnoastronomy 521

in academia and an interest in navigation by the stars within Oceania (Johnson 1986). 634. Kurth & Johnson 1989:1-2. 635. Again, Kurth’s statements were based on his readings about Hawaiian history. He does not cite the source (the actual readings used). 636. This north-south orientation of the stone and of the dots in the centers of the two concentric circles is also noted by Doug Fernandez and Martha Noyes, two current archaeoastronomy researchers who have studied Kūkaniloko (Interviews of both). 637. Kurth & Johnson 1989:8. 638. Kurth & Johnson 1989. 639. Information in this paragraph comes from Kirth & Johnson (1989:2-4, 15, 18). Kyselka (1993:2) in his observations says the sun at the equinox “sets directly behind” Ka‘ala, which does not match Johnson’s observation. But he qualifies the equinox setting on page 7, noting it was 21 degrees off, which matched the south edge of the top of Ka‘ala. 640. Johnson inConfidential Kurth and Johnson 1989:18. Kua-o-ka-Lā is the name for the end of the Wai’anae mountains overlooking Ka‘ena Point (Pukui, Elbert & Mookini 1974:119), behind and extending northwest of Ka‘ala. 641. Johnson in Kurth and Johnson 1989:20. Note that all the alignment focus of Kūkaniloko in this hypothesis is to the setting of sun and stars against the Wai‘anae mountains, for, as Johnson (Kurth and Johnson 1989:4) notes, at sunrise the Ko‘olaus are often in the clouds. 642. Kyselka 1993:7. 643. Ellis in Cox and Stasack 1970:31-32. 644. Beckwith n.d. in Cox and Stasack 1970:68. 645. Kurth and Johnson 1989:15. 646. Johnson and Mahelona 1975. 647. Dibble (1909:89-90) in his A History of the Sandwich Islands describes speaking on this subject with Hoapili, Governor of Maui and high chief and son of Kame‘eiamoku, one of the original supporting “uncles” and advisors of Kamehameha I. Dibble also mentions people who were trained “to watch the nature of the stars” – more emphasizing prophecies. Dibble further said “Those who take the most care in measuring time, measured it by means both of the moon and fixed stars.” 648. The following information and quotes comes from Kamakau (1976:13-14), who used the O‘ahu and Kaua‘i calendar of months. The Hawai‘i – Maui months were named differently, but Malo in his 1840s book also notes that “Hoo-ilo was the season when the sun declined towards the south” and Kau was the season when the sun was directly overhead (see Malo 1951:30). In the 1838 Lahainaluna mo‘olelo, the tracking of the sun is also noted (Kahananui 1983:48, 188): “When the sun stood directly overhead and then moved northward and the days were long, and vegetation grew and war weather set in: that was summer. And when the sun stood directly overhead and moved southward, and the nights were long … and cold weather set in; that was summer” or “Elula nō wā o ka makahiki ho‘okahi, o ke Kau a me ka Ho‘oilo. I ka wā i ku pono ai ka lā, a ne‘e aku ma ke kūkulu‘akau a lō ihi keao, a ulu nō nā lā‘au‘ai, a hikū mai ka mahana, ‘o ia ke Kau. A i ka wā i ku pono 522

ai kea lā, a ne‘e aku ma ke kūkulu hema, a lō‘ihi ka pō … a hiki mai ke anu, ‘o ia no ho‘i ka Ho‘oilo”. Interestingly, R. Johnson (2001:179) shows that the sun noticeably begins to move to its northern position at different times at different places in the islands – May 15 at Kalae (South Point), May 20 at Kawaihae, May 21 at Kualoa and Kukaniloko and June 2 at Niihau and Kauai. It reaches its northernmost “the zenith over the Hawaiian chain between May and July” (2001:223). Dibble (1909:14-15) and Fornander (1878:127; Fornander Collection 1919,6(2):330) also note that the tracking of the sun was used to note the seasons. 649. Equator seems a Western translation here that might not match with Hawaiian concepts. Other sources state that the alanui polihiwa a Kane refered to the the northernmost extent of the sun. For an early example, Fornander (1878:127) states that “The Hawaiians called the northern limit of the sun in the ecliptic ke Ala-nui polohiwa a Kane, “the black shining road of Kane;” and the southern limit was called ke Ala-nui polohiwa a Kanaloa, “the black shining road of Kanaloa”. S. King (1926) also agrees on the northern term, although he uses “kealanui i ka piko o Wakea”Confidential (“the highway to the middle of the earth”) as the southern limit of the sun – which tends to disagree with other older sources. 650. Kamakau 1865, translated by W.D. Alexander in the Hawaiian Annual in 1891. Alexander’s translation and the original Hawaiian are in Johnson and Mahelona (1975:72-73, 142-143). 651. The above information is summarized in Valeri (1985:196-201), and includes information from Malo, Kepelino, ‘Ī‘ī and others. Valeri (1985:202) notes that the rise of Makali‘i at sunset at the end of the 1700s was about November 17. Kyselka (1993:5) also notes that Makali‘i was setting at sunset in February. K.Kamakau mentions that in Ikuwa (Sept.), the king placed a signal in front of the luakini, indicating that “the old year had passed” and the new year was about to begin (Fornander Collection 1919-1920,6(1):34). 652. Kamakau [1870] 1976:14. 653. Kamakau 1976:14. The high priest was often with the ruler at the royal centers after the 1400s, and it is interesting that the sighting was not made from such a center. Pu‘uokapolei was not at or near a chiefly or royal center in the 1700s. Perhaps in the 1700s, the sighting was made by lesser priests at the key location and the word was passed to the high priest, and then he initiated the key rituals recognizing the seasons at the luakini in the royal center. 654. Kamakau received accounts from his kupuna kāne (grandfather or granduncle), who Barrere indicates was “undoubtedly an Oahu or Kauai priest” leading to Kamakau relying often on O‘ahu and Kaua‘i traditions versus Malo with a Hawai‘i focus (Barrere in Kamakau 1976:n. 13 on page 146). 655. One of our team noted that Nakuina said that two O‘ahu heiau were dedicated to the sun (Kuaokala and Kaneloa), and our team member, thus, considers it likely that these were used to track the seasons. The author of this chapter is more hesitant to make this conclusion. 656. Kurth 1982. 657. Kurth 1982:5. 658. See Lewis (1973) for basic information on these navigation systems as recorded 523

from navigators in Satawal and Puluwat in the Central Carolines, from the Gilberts, and in the Reefs/Santa Cruz area of eastern Melanesia. Gladwin (1970) wrote a very detailed analysis of Puluwat navigation within the Central Carolines. 659. See Kupahu’s December 30, 1865 article in Ka Nupepa Ku‘oko‘a that talks about sighting on certain stars when sailing between the Hawaiian Islands (Johnson & Mahelona 1975 include both the Hawaiian and a translation, pp. 158-170). See also David Malo Kupihea’s interviews with T. Kelsey in Johnson & Mahelona 1975:14-148. 660. Kamakau’s 1865 article in in Ka Nupepa Ku‘oko‘a (translated by W.D. Alexander 1891, pp. 142-143; also in Johnson & Mahelona 1975:72-73 with the original Hawaiian on pp. 155-157). 661. Grimble (1989:119-120, 231-237, 284-294) describes the mythical accounts of arrivals from Samoa, collected from Kiribati informants in the 1920s-1930s. See also Maude (1963) and Roberts (1953) for descriptions. 662. Lewis 1973; Gladwin 1970. 663. Kupahu 1865Confidential Kuokoa article in Johnson and Mahelona (1975:158-163 Hawaiian, 164-170 translation); Kamakau 1865 article in Ka Nupepa Kuokoa (translated by W.D. Alexander 1891, and also in Johnson and Mahelona 1975:72-73 with the original Hawaiian on pp. 155-157). Johnson and Mahelona (1975:142-155) also include Theodore Kelsey’s “Navigation Gourd Notes” from about 1950 based on interviews with David Malo Kupihea, who had seen the gourd ca. 1879-1880 and described its form and use.. S. King (1926) also describes this gourd. 664. Lewis (1973:185-188) for information on Gilbertese navigation. 665. Kamakau 1865. See note 663 above. 666. Kurth and Johnson 1989. 667. Gladwin (1970) and Lewis (1973). 668. Fornander Collection 1919,5(2)332. 669. Marie Solomon personal communication to R. Cordy in early 1990s. 670. Two anonymous interviews mentioning that Kūkaniloko was a place for general teaching, like a university. One interviewee suggested Kūkaniloko was the “very first university in Hawai‘i.” However, if Kūkaniloko was created as part of a chiefly center in one of the three countries on O‘ahu in the 1300s or in one of the many smaller countries of pre-1300 times, one would assume that the other countries’ chiefly centers would have also been learning centers. It would be difficult to suggest at this point which chiefly center was first. 671. Anonymous interview. Also noted that “13 kahuna were the caretakers of the knowledge surrounding Kū and in charge of training the young ali‘i”. 672. Liholiho was supposed to have been trained in governmental matters in Kamehameha’s hale o Lono heiau (Ahu’ena) in Kamehameha’s houseyard in Kailua-Kona (‘Ī‘ī 1959:123, 129). Kamehameha also had several of his wives (Kaheiheimalie and Keopuolani) trained in chiefly genealogies by Auwae and others, which would have had to occur outdoors or in common houses. 673. For example, at Kealakekua in 1793 (Vancouver 1798,2:151-154; Menzies 1920:91). 674. Malo 1951:128-129. 675. Kapa making groups in open area (Ellis 1963:67), in houseyards (Malo 1951:28). 524

676. Desha 2000:5-24. 677. Malo (1951:169-170). 678. Ellis 1829,II:204. 679. For example, ‘Ī‘ī 1959:33-38. 680. Malo 1951:138 681. Chun 2006:Hawaiian 80 682. Chun 2006:English 106. 683. Fornander 1878:21. 684. Beckwith 1940 (1970):377. 685. Kāme’eleihiwa 1999:9. 686. Kamakau 1964:69-72. Maly (1992:4) notes that Kanewawahilani was associated with thunder. 687. Hale‘ole 1862 in Fornander Collection 1919-20,6:108. 688. Kamakau [1870] 1976: 16-18. 689. Pukui and Korn 1973:33. 690. Uluwehi Hopkins,Confidential Doug Fernandez (who said Tom Lenchanko told him), Kamoa Quitevas, and Vicky Holt-Takamine all noted the wahine hāpai in our interviews. Kamoa mentioned the child. 691. Kenn 1937. 692. Audrey Howard interview. 693. Jo-Lin Kalimapau interview and others that are anonymous. 695. Handy and Handy 1972:465. Handy did his work in the 1930s, and he did interview local Hawaiians in the Wahiawā area about old farming. Whether he obtained this translation from them or from colleagues at the Bishop Museum (such as his frequent colleague, M. Pukui) is uncertain. 696. Elbert 1951:348. 697. Pukui, Elbert and Mookini 1974:218. 698. National Register 1994:11. 699. See Cordy 2000 for discussions of named houseyards and small parcels in royal centers of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i (including Waipi‘o, Kahalu‘u and Kealakekua). Cordy (unwritten research) also discovered similar patterns for Wailuku on Maui, one of the Kingdom of Maui’s centers. 700. Tom Lenchanko interview in Orr (2001:77); also Jo-Lin Kalimapau interview. 701. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:85, reporting a 1993 interview with Au. 702. Tom Lenchanko interview in Orr 2001:77. 703. Ka‘ānani‘au definition (Pukui and Elbert 1971:101. 704. Lyons 1903, Appendix 4:24. [This appendix originally published in 1874.] 705. Elbert 1951:348. 706. Pukui, Elbert and Mookini 1974: 121. 707. Thomas 1994 to Kiyoshi Ikeda (Chair of Hawaii Historic Places Review Board) in support of the 1994 National Register boundary expansion. 708. Makanaole April 12, 1994 letter to Kiyoshi Ikeda in support of the National Register boundary expansion. 709. Anonymous interview. 525

710. Kenn 1937. 711. Desilets et al. 2009:45.

NOTES TO CHAPTER 7

1. Fornander 1880:21. 2. Kamakau 1868a. (See Kamakau, 1961:252, for an earlier published translation.) 3. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:99. 4. Fornander 1880:20. 5. Kamakau 1961:293. 6. Whitney 1875:31. 7. Dibble 1838 (Kahananui 1984:205); Kamakau 1961:204. There had been some small-scale collection before (Kuykendall 1938:83). 8. Kuykendall 1938:86-7; Bradley 1942:53-4. 9. Dibble 1838 (Kahananui 1984:205). 10. Kamakau1961:204.Confidential 11. Kamakau 1961:204. 12. Dibble 1838 (Kahananui 1984:206). 13. Sahlins1992:58-59. Bradley (1942:55) also indicates that the chiefs could act as agents for Kamehameha, and Kaumuali‘i could gather independently on Kaua‘i. 14. Kuykendall 1938:96-98; Bradley 1942:49-51. 15. Dibble 1838 (Kahananui 1984:205). 16. Kamakau 1961:207. 17. Kuykendall 1938:88. 18. When the fort was being built, only Waialua did not respond to the call to send workers as “The district chief of Waialua, Kahekili Ke‘e-au-moku, was so busy collecting sandalwood” (Kamakau 1961:206). 19. Dibble 1838 (Kahananui 1984:206). 20. Ka‘ahumanu was the eldest of high chief Ke‘eaumoku’s surviving children. Others were Kahekili Ke‘eaumoku (Gov. of Maui, overlord of Waialua), Kuakini (Gov. of Hawai‘i), Kaheiheimalie (also a wife of Kamehameha I and mother of Kīna‘u, later to become kuhina nui and heir to Ka‘ahumanu). All of these children of Ke‘eaumouku were through his wife Namahana, the half-sister and former wife of the Maui mō‘ī Kamehamehanui). (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:130; Kamakau 1961:83- 84; Fornander 1880:214-215). When Kamehameha II left for England in November of 1823, Ka’ahumanu was “de facto Mō‘ī” (Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:150). 21. Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:73-74. 22. Kuykendall 1938:66. 23. Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:145. A point not often mentioned is that not only were the high chiefs attempting to enrich themselves, but the traders also were in competition among themselves to obtain wood and gain wealth (Bradley 1942:57-62). 24. The king and chiefs had 15-16 European vessels, most small inter-island ships (Ellis 1963:298). 25. Hammatt in Wagner-Wright 1999; Meyen 1981:80; Broeze 1988:xxx, xxviii; 526

Kuykendall 1938:95. Boki owned the Blonde Hotel where many merchants gathered. Kamehameha I had banned this on-shore presence of foreign merchants in his time. 26. Ellis 1963:11-12; Kuykendall 1938:94. 27 Ellis 1963:11; Hammatt in Wagner-Wright 1999:xxx. 28 Schmitt 1977. This count included all of Kona moku (Sahlins 1992:106, note under his Table 5.3), so the actual total for Honolulu may have been several thousand lower. 29. Kamakau 1961:293. 30. Kamakau 1961:207. 31. Mathison 1825:392; Sahlins 1992:86. 32. Mathison 1825:451; Sahlins 1992:87. 33. Sahlins 1992:85. 1 picul = 133.3 pounds. 34. Sahlins 1992:93; Bradley 1942:62. 35. Sahlins 1992:93. Kamehameha III and his followers were in upper Mokuleia and above WaimeaConfidential in Waialua cutting sandalwood, showing the ruler still had some over-riding claims on lands’ resources (Kamakau 1961:278-279). 36. La‘anui continued as the konohiki of the entire moku under Ka‘ahumanu and her heirs until his death in 1849 (Sahlins 1992:93). 37. Bingham (1847:296) in his 1826 tour of O‘ahu with Ka‘ahumanu noted “The district was called Boki’s”. Some testimonies in Māhele claims in the late 1840s mention that the claimant received the parcel in the “time of Poki” (e.g., LCA 3126 to Niheu in ili Ka‘api in upper Wai‘anae valley – NT (9:406); LCAs 3018 and 3022 in the lower middle Wai‘anae valley – Table 1 in Shapiro and Rosendahl 1988). Māhele research for Kamaile ‘ili in Wai’anae valley has identified 11 awards given in the time of Liliha, and 2 in Boki’s time (Cordy 2001b:6). The “in the time of” in Māhele records indicates the administering overlord chief. 38. Barrere 1970:3-4. Boki had placed Aua as konohiki under him over the moku of Wai‘anae (Barrere 1970:3-4; ‘Ī‘ī 1959:153). Boki also apparently had a residence in Wai‘anae valley near the shore (Barrere 1970:3-4 citing Bingham 1847:296 and Chamberlain 1956:380). References exist of Boki collecting wood in Wai‘anae (L. Judd 1928:18; Letters of John Jones in Kuykendall 1929:17, 19; also in Day 1955:107) – for example: Boki “spent much time in the mountains directing the people in their work” (Letters of John Jones in Kuykendall 1929, note 4, p. 17). In 1830, Liliha sailed to Pu‘uloa to load sandalwood for the king (as his guardian) and went up to Wahiawā where she stayed overnight (Kamakau 1961:297) – suggesting the wood came from the Central Plateau lands under her/the king’s control. 39. Summaries of the history of this period are in Kuykendall 1938; Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:157-165; Sahlins 1992. 40. S. Bishop (1916:43), Barrere (1970:5) on Liliha being the “proprietary chief” (overlord chief) over the moku of Wai‘anae from 1829-1831. Kamakau (1961:301- 303) describes the planned revolt (known as the Pahikaua). 41. Kamakau (1961:303) notes the lands being removed from Liliha’s care. Exactly who gained control over the Wai‘anae district lands is unclear (Kame‘elehiwa 1992:267), and this needs more research. There are suggestions that Wai‘anae was placed under Kuakini as the new Governor. Kuakini did not fully side with 527

Ka‘ahumanu, but he was an overlord chief in his own right, telling his sister in 1832, “I shall make my laws for my own lands,” which greatly distressed her (Kamakau 1961:308). Thus, Wai‘anae may not have been within Ka‘ahumanu ma control in these years. 42. Sahlins 1992:120. 43. After Ka‘ahumanu’s death in 1832, Kuakini supported Kamehameha III in 1834, when the latter attempted to assert his sole rule over Kīna‘u. But Kuakini returned to Hawai‘i Island in 1834. When Kekūanāo‘a became Governor in 1834, it is likely that he had care of Wai‘anae moku on the king’s behalf – although this is not clear and more research is needed. As the Māhele approached, Kekūanāo‘a did hold the moku, but it was clearly on the king’s list of his lands just prior to the Māhele and was then firmly taken by the king (Judd’s 1847 list of the king’s land in Kame‘eleihiwa 1992:228, 267). A sample of Māhele commoner testimonies from Wai‘anae moku indicate that land was received and/or validated in the time of Kīna‘u (LCA 7451 in Pūhāwai in Lualualei – NT 9:407; LCA 2970 in lower arid Wai‘anae ConfidentialValley – Shapiro and Rosendahl 1988:Table 1), in the time of Kekūanāo‘a (LCAs 7452, 7454, 7456, and 7436 in Pūhāwai – NT 9:424-425), and in the time of Kekauluohi (LCAs 2953, 2961, 2971, 3035, 3070, 3074, 3080, and 7334 – Shapiro and Rosendahl 1988: Table 1). Similar research for Kamaile ‘ili in Wai’anae valley has identified 5 of 30 awards given in the time of Kekūanāo‘a, with others naming earlier overlords (Liliha and Boki) (Cordy 2001b:6). The “in the time of” indicates the administering overlord chief in these cases. Kīna‘u governed as Kuhina nui 1834-1839 and was succeeded by Kekauluohi from 1839- 1845. Kekūanāo‘a became Governor of O‘ahu under his wife, Kīna‘u, and remained so under Kekauluohi. These land records suggest that Kīna‘u and Kekūanāo‘a did take over Wai‘anae moku on behalf of the king from about 1834 until Kamehameha III took it back in the Māhele. 44. Sahlins 1992:111. 45. Sahlins 1992:139. 46. Sahlins 1992:143-144. 47. Sahlins 1992:110-111. One of these local goods was kapa, which was apparently used in resheathing ships, being placed under the copper sheathing. 48. Sahlins 1992:112. 49. Sahlins 1992:166. This was also likely true for more remote Wai‘anae, Ko‘olauloa, and Ko‘olaupoko, as well as Waialua. However, the rural areas of Kona moku and ‘Ewa may have seen more commercial activity a decade or so earlier – as they were nearer to the major port town of Honolulu. 50. Dibble 1838 (Kahananui 1984: 232-233). 51. Schmitt 1971. A conservative total for the islands is often given in the 200,000- 300,000 range.. 52. Schmitt 1973:8. 53. Schmitt 1971:241-2. Schmitt’s estimates for O‘ahu range from a low of 35,000 to a high of 50,000; the average is 43,000. The high may well be more likely given that other high estimates in Schmitt match emerging archaeological estimates (e.g., Cordy 2007) as well as native Hawaiian estimates (e.g., Kaumuali‘i noting in 1804 that his kingdom held 30,000 people –Lisiansky 1814:113). 528

54. Schmitt 1973:8. 55. Schmitt 1977. See also Sahlins (1992:106, Table 5.3). 56. Ewa Station Reports 1836:4. 57. Schmitt 1973:19, 22. 58. There is a 1849 census by ‘ili ‘aina agricultural land for Wai’alua (Sahlins 1992:176). 59. Sahlins 1992:163-164. 60. This issue of when Euro-Asian objects began to enter rural areas, being acquired by commoners, is one that has not received much attention in Hawaiian archaeology (but see Carter 1990; Naboa 2009). A general assumption for years was that they must have started being acquired by 1800 or earlier, as contact increased. But clearly, this is a more complex subject than archaeologists have realized. Many of the objects went to the chiefs in early years. If commoners acquired them, they were likely those who lived in port towns (Kealakekua, Kailua, Kawaihae, Lahaina, Waikīkī, Honolulu, Wailua, Waimea), and a study in Kailua-Kona years back (Allen 1986Confidential did suggest such objects were becoming more common by 1810. But recent work on the Wai‘anae side of the island focusing on abandonment suggests Euro-Asian objects were relatively rare in rural lands in that moku up until the 1830s, or even early 1840s. This seems to be reinforced by Sahlins’ (1992) comments on commoner acquisitions in Wai‘alua moku. With more work, this pattern should be able to be better understood. 61. For Wai‘anae, see Cordy (2001a, 2001b) and Naboa (2009). For Nānākuli, see Cordy et al. (in preparation). For Hālawa valley, the Bishop Museum survey reports for H-3 documents his pattern, notably chapters by Susan Lebo (Bishop Museum 1997). 62. E.g., Cordy 2001a. Ongoing archaeology work done under Cordy’s direction by Wai‘anae High and UH – West O‘ahu students is finding more house sites, still very few with Euro-Asian objects. 63. For the moku of Wai‘anae, this includes Nānākuli (Cordy et al. in preparation), Lualualei (Dixon et al. 2003a), Wai‘anae (Cordy 2001a), Mākaha (Green 1980), and Mākua. For, Kona moku, this includes Moanalua and the lands to the east of Leahi; but even Waikīkī (with Mānoa and Pālolo), Honolulu (with Nu‘uanu), and Kalihi have relatively few upper valley land awards. In ‘Ewa, of the 11 ahupua‘a, very few upland claims occurred (most in upper Waipi‘o ahupua‘a) (Cordy – mid- 1990s research with land records). Anahulu in Waialua may be a striking variant to this pattern, for a good number of inland land claims were made. 64. Sahlins 1992:134. 65. Sahlins 1992:148. 66. Sahlins 1992:148. 67. S. Bishop 1916:42-43. 68. Wagner-Wright 1999:38. In 1822, John Meek brought in a “grey mare” (Judd 1853 in Brennan 1978:36). In Februrary 1825, Meek, sailing the Tamaaahmaah back from San Francisco, brought “four horses several horned cattle young” (Reynolds in King 1989:69). 69. Broeze 1988:61. 70. Meyen 1981:47. Meyen was a naturalist on the Prussian ship Prinzess Louise on 529

its 1830-32 voyage. He did not travel beyond Pu‘uloa, so his evaluation of cattle does not consider upland ‘Ewa, or the Central Plateau. Boelen (Broge 1988:61) on the island at the same time also noted a similar number of cattle owned by Marin. 71 Gast & Conrad 1973:41. Also, Paul’s son Frank K. Manini and ward/nephew Manini Manuel continued to ranch on the Wai’anae side (Gast & Conrad 1973:41). 72. John Meek (b. 1791) first visited the islands in 1809 (Gregg interview 1856 in King 1982:281), and he returned as the captain of American trading ships, from about 1812. Over the next 13+ years, he captained several ships on the New England- Honolulu-Northwest Coast-South America-China trade. In the early 1820s when he was in his early 30s, Meek was the captain of the brig Tamahamaha (traveling to and from New England, the west coast, and Lima via Tahiti, as well as within the islands)(Hammatt 1824-1825 in Wagner-Wright 1999:47, 58, 59; Reynolds in King 1989:69). His older brother, Thomas, similarly was a captain. John Meek received a houselot in Honolulu from Boki in 1817 and built a house there about 1826 (Māhele Foreign Register, 2:66-67; Native Testimony,2:388-390), and from about 1826 untilConfidential his death in 1875, he resided full-time in the islands (Kamakau 1961:251, footnote derived from a February 1, 1875 obituary in The Friend). In the 1820s, Meek was an active, leading foreign resident, periodically racing horses with others, hosting late night card games, piloting in ships, and being involved in merchant activities (Reynolds in King 1989:72, 112, 156, 264). But he mingled with the high chiefs (“knew the Chiefs and enjoyed their confidence” – Gregg 1856 in King 1982:281), unlike many foreign residents, with close associations with Boki and Kamehameha III (Reynolds in King 1989:206). In the 1830s he held another house lot in Honolulu and taro land in Kapalama from his brother, pieces of farm land in Kalihi and Makiki received from Kamehameha III (some received in the 1820s) (Māhele Foreign Register, 2: 66-67). In the 1820s, both he and his brother had close financial relationships with Marin and his family (Gast and Conrad 1973:149; Reynolds in King 1989:153; Kuykendall 1929 on T. Meek-George Marin partnership). About this time, both he and his brother had married daughters of Francisco de Paula Marin – apparently children of a high ranking wife of Marin’s, children born in the late 1700s or early 1800s (Gast and Conrad 1973:139, App. A). (“I married his daughter.” J. Meek in Gast and Conrad 1973:App. B, p. 149.) Elizabeth Kaluapapohana Kamsi (1807-1848) is also listed in some sources as a wife of Meek’s, probably his second wife. Meek had 5 children – John Meek, Jr. (b. 1821, d. 1848?) who married chiefess Kepookalani; Thomas (b. 1826), Richard (1831-1891), Eliza (1832-1888), Eli (1839-1875) who married Kahanuu, and Elizabeth (Becky) (1841-1895) who was married to Horace Crabbe (Chamberlain of Lunalilo). By the 1840s Meek was leasing Lihue on the Central Plateau and 1,300 acres of land in Kalauao ahupua‘a (today’s Pearlridge area) for ranch purposes -- “two leases which I hold of the lands known by the names of Kalauwai and Leihue on this Island” (Māhele Foreign Register, 2: 66-67). The Kalauao land was granted in fee simple to Meek by Kamehameha III about 1850-51 (Meek 1850; Kamehameha III n.d.) By the late 1840s, John Meek was a very wealthy rancher, even leasing a butcher’s shop in Honolulu from the Government to process the beef (Meek 1847). By the 1850s (in his 60s), Meek was well respected by Kamehemaha IV and his brother Lot (Gregg in King 1982:381, 453). He was also respected by the 530

foreign diplomats (e.g., American consul Gregg, who often visited to dine and play more restrained card games, refers to him as Captain Meek)(Gregg in King 1982:280, 295, 354-55, 399, 415, 429,etc.). Clearly, Meek was wealthy and a member of the elite of the Kingdom’s society from the 1840s to his death, and his children were also prominent in that society from the 1850s to 1870s (Taylor 1922:223). 73. Cattle numbers for ‘Ewa from Artemas Bishop in Wyllie (1846:23). 74. Sahlins 1992:149. James Robinson and Robert Lawrence were Englishmen, who survived the wreck of an English whaler in the Northwestern Islands (Day 1955:131). They stayed in the Islands running a ship-building and repair business from 1822-1827, and then in 1827 built a shipyard in Honolulu (Kuykendall 1938:95). Robinson’s first wife was closely related to Kalanimoku, who gave her husband use of land at Pakaka Point (near Aloha Tower) for the shipyard (Holt 1993:265). Robert Holt arrived in the early 1830s, and he bought into the company, as well as married Robinson’s daughter in 1835 (Holt 1993:265). All became extremelyConfidential wealthy. Their main houses were in Honolulu, but country homes were out on the multiple ranches that they controlled. 75. Sahlins 1992:149. 76. Rev. Emerson in Wyllie 1846:69. 77. For Waialua complaints and wall-building, see Sahlins 1992:148-149, 164-165. For Honouliuli, the 1878 Kingdom Map (Kingdom Map 1878b) and Māhele Awards Book records show the walls setting off taro lands and houses from adjacent pastures. For Waikele, the 1889 Kingdom Map (Kingdom Map 1889b) shows the pā ‘āina, and Award Book records identify the pā ‘āina separating kula and taro lands from the inland slopes (e.g., MA 4, Māhele Award Book 3:324). 78. See Waiawa Kingdom Map. 79. Meyen 1981:47. 80. Sahlins 1992:113. 81. A review of court records may well document this problem of roaming cattle. In 1894, Thrum summarized cattle problems of the 1840s-1850s in general: “In some districts agriculture was entirely ruined by the encroachment of herds of cattle chiefly owned by foreigners. These herds were allowed to increase without limit until large tracts of country were completely overstocked, thousands of acres of fertile land laid waste and the rights of the native tenants literally trampled underfoot. The result was that the people in these districts became discouraged and gave up the contest” (Thrum 1894 in Brennan 1978:54). 82. Malo 1839:126-7 83. Sahlins 1992:136. 84. Sahlins 1992; Kame‘eleihiwa 1992. 85. Bishop to Armstrong in Sahlins 1992:136. This is not to say that this was true for all chiefs. 86. Crown Lands are documented in the 1865 Crown Lands Commission records, the Boundary Commission Books of the late 1860s-1870s, 1870s lists of the Crown Lands (e.g., Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:18-19) and maps from the 1870s survey of the Crown Lands of the Central Plateau (Kingdom Map 1870s-b) and later Kingdom maps (Kingdom Maps 1876, 1881). 531

87. The east half of Waikakalaua was given as Grant 6 to John Neddles Gilman. Kalanimoku’s paternal brother Keōua had held the ‘ili of Pouhala (Barrere 1994: 426-7. Keōua’s son, Luluhiwalani, received half of Pouhala in the Māhele (MA 4), while the king kept the other half as Crown lands. The west half of Waikakalaua became Crown Lands. 88. Kame’eleihiwa 1992:112-115. On her death in 1851, it passed to her husband Levi Ha‘alelea. On his death in 1864, his second wife Anadelia Amoa transferred ownership to her sister’s husband John Coney (O’Hare, Shideler & Hammatt 2006:10-14). 89. Crown Land Commission records (Dominis 1875 in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:22); Taylor 1922:223. 90. Sahlins 1992:167. 91. Sahins 1992:169. 92. Sahlins 1992:169. 93. Kingdom Maps 1870s, 1875. 94. Taylor 1922:221.Confidential 95. Sahlins 1992:170. 96. Royal Patent land records for Grants 604-606. 1853 Rice deeding Grant 605 to Bishop (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 5:939-940). 1853 Cooke deeding Grant 606 to Bishop (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 5:940-941). 97. Kingdom Maps 1876 and 1878. 98. Some say that Wahiawā was leased to Meeks (Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:19; A.P. Taylor 1922:223). If true, this would have been prior to 1875 (and probably 1870). It is not clear if this refers to Bishop’s land or the School Lands, or both. More research is needed on this. 99. These post-contact population data are from Schmitt 1977, as reported in Sahlins 1992:106. 100. A. Bishop in Ewa Station Reports 1863. 101. Ewa Station Reports 1860:1. 102. Ida von Holt in Frierson 1973:11. 103. Tax Assessment of 1855 information in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:24. 104. Kuykendahl (1953:83) is source of the quote. Taylor (1922) discusses the court life of these reigns, which rarely receives much attention in modern historical literature. For example, in Kamehameha IV’s time “The balls were brilliant” (1922:219). “There are ladies, native born, who reside in elegant, well-furnished houses, entertain company, give parties, …” (L. Judd 1928:188 – in 1861). See also Korn (1958) for descriptions of dinner parties during the visit of Lady Franklin in1861; Von Holt (1953:30) for comments on court dances during Kamehameha IV’s reign. This pattern continued in the 1880s, with Emma and Kalākaua giving separate parties (Korn 1976:321). 105. See Osorio 2002; Kuykendahl (1953, 1967), Taylor (1922) and others on the history of this era. 106. O’Hare, Shideler and Hammatt 2006:14. James Isaac Dowsett (1829-1898) was born in Honolulu, the son of a English father. Dowsett’s father retired from the Colonial Navy in Australia and immigrated to Honolulu, where he was a ship captain and trader in Honolulu from 1828-1832 (Nellist 1925). Dowsett grew up in 532

Honolulu, knowing the future Kamehameha IV, V and Lunalilo (Nellist 1925). After his father’s death, he worked for the Hudson’s Bay Company. By the 1860s (in his 30s), Dowsett had multiple bushiness interests in the islands – he owned a fleet of whaling ships, owned a lumber business with a fleet of inter-island schooners and steamers, and had vast ranch holdings on the Wai‘anae side of the island (Nellist 1925). He was one of the wealthiest men in the islands by that time. He married Annie Green Ragsdale, the daughter of chiefess Kahawelu and Alexander Ragsdale (Castro internet). Their main house was in Honolulu (in Palama), but they had country homes on their ranches near Pu‘uloa and in the Central Plateau. They put on large parties at these places, and Dowsett’s sons and nephews were well known young men in elite society (Taylor 1922:224, 231). In the 1880s (in his 50s), he was made a noble and member of the House of Nobles under Kalākaua and Lili‘uokalani. Dowsett’s initial major ranch holding was in Lualualei, where in 1869 he obtained William Jarrett’s remaining half-interest in a 17,000 acre ranch on Crown lands (Kelly 1985; Johnson nd). In 1864, George Galbraith Confidentialhad obtained Jarrett’s other half-interest, so he and Dowsett became partners – and they remained so until the end of the Kingdom. This ranch became known as Mikilua Ranch, and in the 1860s had 7,000+ head of cattle (Johnson nd). Dowsett’s nephew John Dowsett managed the ranch in the 1880s, and in 1888 married the daughter of the owner of Wai‘anae Plantation (Hermann Widemann), becoming a major owner with that plantation. Dowsett (and probably Galbraith) became partners in Līhu‘e ranch with Meek’s heirs from 1875-1879; then he acquired full interest (likely with Galbraith) between 1879-1882, then it went to Kalākaua, and then Dowsett alone bought back the Leilehua Ranch from Kalākaua. His son, Alexander Cartwright (Alika) Dowsett eventually managed both ranches in the 1890s. 107. Taylor (1922:221) and Eli Meek (1875) called Meek’s ranch Lihue Ranch. 108. Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1875. Named horses are also mentioned in J. Meek’s 1875 Probate and Eli Meek’s 1875 Probate. 109. Emma’s letters in Korn (1976:95, 105, 110, 112, note 1 on p. 154).. 110. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994: 22; Taylor 1922:223; Emma’s letters in Korn (1976:95, 33, 34, 91, 95). 111. J. Meek 1875:Probate 763; Eli Meek 1875:Probate 751. 112. From J. Meek’s probate and will (1875:Probate 763) and his son Eli’s probate and will (1875:Probate 751), it is apparent that he divided stock and lands fairly equally among all his children, albeit with some special attention to his two younger children (Eli and Elizabeth). All were given equal interests in the Kalauao Ranch (J. Meek 1875), and all held equal interest in branded horses and mules, all other livestock, and in “personal property furniture at Lihue Ranch” (E. Meek 1875). John Meek, Jr (also called John Meek Jr. II, 1849-1879) attempted to claim 1/6 of the estate as a lawful grandchild (J. Meek 1875), but it is not clear if this claim was granted. The specific location of the ranchhouse and its appearance needs research. Our archival research suggests that the ranch was at the location marked Crabbe’s house near Kokoloea along the Waialua Trail. The 1876 Kingdom map shows apparent stone enclosures marked J. Meek in Honouliuli’s ‘ili of Lihu’e not far from Paupauwela along the Pu’uloa-Paupauwela Trail. Research needs to be done 533

to determine what was at this location was – another ranch house, a stock pen, a corral area? The probates of all the Meek children should also be checked. Among other things they provide lists of personal possessions that provide insight on ranching of this period. For example, here are some items of Eli eek’s (E. Meek 1875): 1 waggon, 2 Spanish saddles, 1 English saddle, bridles, lassos, 7 named hores, 20 working horses. 113. Whitney 1875:31. 114. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:22; Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 43:97-100. Again, Dowsett may have been a partner with Meek earlier in the 1870s. George Galbraith also likely was involved as (1) he and Dowsett were ranching partners at the huge Mikilua Ranch in Lualualei, (2) Alika Dowsett (son of James and the manager of Leleihua Ranch in the 1890s and Mikilua Ranch) stated that “King Kalakaua and C.H. Judd … bought out the Dowsett and Galbraith ranch interest” between 1879- 1882 (Bailey 1928 in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:22), and (3) one source was found saying that in 1870 (perhaps 1875-1879) Dowsett and his Irish partner George Galbraith Confidentialwere paying taxes on a Wai’anae uka ranch in Irish potatoes (McGrath et al 1973:32). Meek’s heirs transfered their portion of the lease to Dowsett (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 70:424). 115. Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 70:425. Again, Alika Dowsett stated that “King Kalakaua and C.H. Judd … bought out the Dowsett and Galbraith ranch interest” (Bailey 1928 in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:22). This suggests the two were partners in the former Meek ranch area. 116. 1866 Bishop leases Grants 604-606 to H. Hillebrand (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 21:359-361). 1868 Emerson sold/deeded pieces of Kemo‘o to H. Hillebrand (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 25:249-250). 1870 Bishop’s Grants 604-606 and H. Hillebrand’s Kemo‘o lands were sold/deeded to William Hillebrand, 1498 acres (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 32:11-13). Hillebrand’s heir, William, was a physician of Honolulu (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 74:1), who was the head physician at Queen’s Hospital. He resided where Foster Botanical Garden is today in Honolulu (Feher 1969:245). 117. Suggested by Hammatt and Mann 2003; Nebalek 1984; Tulcher and Hammatt 2006. 118. Lease 870 by Board of Education to W.C. Jones of 1,487 acres (Kingdom Map 1876). W.C. Jones’ house was located north of south fork near place name Paka ca. 1876 (Kingdom Map 1876, 1881). 119. James Robinson and Company controlled several ranch operations in ‘Ewa, the Wai‘anae side, and the Central Plateau – notably land in seaward Honouliuli, Hō‘ae‘ae, Nānākuli, Mākaha, and the Pa‘ala‘a lands in Waialua. He had ranches (country houses) near Hō‘ae‘ae (Alexander 1873) and in Waialua. In 1855 when Abner Paki died, Mākaha was sold to James Robinson & Co to settle the debts of Paki’s estate (Barrere 1969:7). In 1860, when the company dissolved itself between the partners, Holt retained Mākaha and the Waialua Ranch, while Robinson’s son operated the Hoaeae Ranch and its Nānākuli extension (Holt 1993:32-33, 280; Johnson nd). In John Dominis Holt’s (1993) book he refers to the Waialua lands as being acquired from the Princess Victoria Kamamalu estate and including Wahiawā and Oahu Nui (the latter in Waipahu, p. 280) besides Helemano and Waialua lands 534

(1993:280, 32-33, 287). The location of this Oahu Nui is unclear. Holt may be calling Waikele by the name Waipahu, and Waikakalaua was in Waikele and the Oahu Nui stone was its northeast border. But it is clear from all the older records that the Robinson Co. and later Holt ranches never extended down through Kalakoa (Wai‘anae uka) into Waikakalaua. He may be referring to another Oahu Nui that might not have been in the Central Plateau. Also, the ranch never owned all of Wahiawā, only the piece around today’s Whitmore Village. 120. O’Hare, Shideler and Hammatt 2006:14; Tuggle & Tomonari-Tuggle 1997:23-24. 121. Bureau of Conveyances (Liber 70:425, 76:140) in Tomonari-Tuggle (1994:20-24) on Kalākaua’s group acquiring the Crown lands, which he later named Leilehua Ranch. Whitney’s 1/3 interest to Cartwright and Galbraith (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 70:428). 122. Bureau of Conveyances (Liber 112:401) on Kalākaua’s lease transferred to Dowsett. Also Bailey 1928 in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:20. From 1886-1889 Judd was in residence and manager of at least his and Kalākaua’s interest (Nellest 1925 in Tomonari-TuggleConfidential 1994:24). 123. McGrath et al 1973:68; Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:24; Finney 1896:196. 124. 1882 W. Hillebrand sells and deeds to Galbraith his Grants 604-606 and Kemo’o pieces (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 74:1-2). Hillebrand had left the islands by this time and is referred to as being from “the Empire of Germany” and living in San Franciso (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 74:1-2). 125. Galbraith’s 1887 exchange with Board of Education (Bureau of Conveyances, Liber 104:90-92). 126. Galbraith’s house shown on Territory Map 1899. 127. Von Holt 1953:99-100. 128. Gregg December 9, 1857 in King 1982:472. 129. Taylor 1922:223. 130. Kamakau 1961:272. 131. Castro internet. 132. Taylor 1922:224. 133. Taylor 1922:231. A.P. Taylor’s (1922) book is an interesting glimpse into the elite society life of the 1860s-1890s – not so much a good history of old times. He had been a newspaper reporter since 1899 (almost 25 years) and had interviewed and known many of the surviving members of those courts. 134. McGrath et al 1973:46; Holt 1993; Barrere 1969, 1970. 135. Holt 1993:287, 339. 136. S. Bishop 1916:45 137. S. Bishop 1916:45. 138. Hunnewell 1909:12. 139. S. Bishop 1916:45. 140. Kamakau 1961:293. 141. St. John’s study of Wai’anae forests summarized in Frierson 1973:5-6. 142. Kamakau 1961:207. 143. Hunnewell 1909:10. 144. S. Bishop 1916:45. 145. See Cuddihy and Stone (1990:32) for similar comments. 535

146. In 1830, Governor Liliha went to gather up Kamehameha III’s (her ward’s) sandalwood, and she stayed overnight “at Wahiawa at the house of Ka-pi‘i-oho whose wife was Ka-‘iako-ili” (Kamakau 1961:297). It is not stated where this house was, but one might assume that Liliha did not travel too far from the main Waialua Trail. 147. Kamakau 1961:424 – 1869. 148. Improvement of the roads at end of 1840s (Kuykendall 1953:24-25; Thrum 1902:8- 9). 149. Rev. Emerson on Kolekole Trail improved as horse trail in 1836 (in Robins & Spear 2002a:20). 150. Kuykendall 1953::24-5. 151. Land metes and bounds description of Grant 605 to Rice (Bureau of Conveyances) where the road crossed Kaukonahua Stream and headed down towards Wai’alua. 152. Thrum (1902:8-9) notes the first wagon in 1852. 153. Kuykendall 1953:25. 154. Tomonari-TuggleConfidential 1994:24 presents the tax record information for Wai‘anae uka. 155. Robins & Spear 2002a:25-26. 156. Native tenant rights on deeds to 604-606. 157. Māhele award of ‘ili of Kalena to Pahoa, commutation of half and its purchase by Meek (Robins & Spear 1996:18; 2002a:22-23). Bishop’s purchase of the other half from Pahoa’s heirs as Grant 527 (description in Kingdom of Hawaii, Dept. of Interior Doc. 255), and sale to Meek (Robins & Spear 1996:18; 2002a:22-23). 158. Desilets et al (2009:65) suggest that Kalena ‘ili was likely abandoned in 1889 when Dowsett reacquired Leilehua Ranch from Kalākaua. However, it is just as likely that the residents moved under Meek’s or Kalākaua’s tenure over the ranch. We just have no information yet at this point. 159. Kingdom Map 1876, showing Maunauna houses. 160. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:40 on ranches clearing substantial remnant forests. 161. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:19 with wording of Meek-Dowsett lease; Anonymous 1875 map with wording “not including the mountain forest” for the Robinson purchase. 162. Kingdom Maps 1870s, 1875, 1876. 163. Alika Dowsett (manager of the ranch in the 1890s) identified the old Dowsett ranchhouse as the same location as Crabbe’s (unknown nd-a document in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:22). 164. Alika Dowsett (Bailey 1928 in Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:22); Territory of Hawaii 1902 map. 165. Kingdom of Hawaii 1876 map locating Jones’ house. 166. Territory of Hawaii 1899 map showing Galbraith’s house. 167. 1878 Census for Wai‘anae uka within Ewa and Waianae Census (State Archives MFL 65). In Wai‘anae uka each household filed a record, so households can be counted and evaluated. 168. 1878 Census for Kamananui within Waialua Census (State Archives MFL 65). The Waialua records are not individual household filings, rather for Kamananui they are listings of people within former ‘ili. Approximately 38 ‘ili are identified with residents, and two of these ‘ili are Wahiawa and Maili. Maili ‘ili appears on one 536

map (Kingdom Map 1876) and includes grants on the north side of the Ma’ili spur ridge and 7 grants on the south side, several abutting Hale’au’au Stream. The records often clearly indicate married couples (with common last names and the married column marked, some with Mr. and Mrs.). Limited age categories exist – adults and non-adults – so children within families can often be identified. 169. 1878 Census for Wai‘anae uka within Ewa and Waianae Census (State Archives MFL 65). 170. Robins and Spear 2002a:30-31. 171. 1878 Census for Wai‘anae uka within Ewa and Waianae Census (State Archives MFL 65). 172. McGrath et al 1973:46. 173. Anonymous 1901:61. 175. Johnson 1998. 176. See the translations of kanikau in Marion Maiko Ano in Desilets et al (2009). 177. Ano translation in Desilets et al 2009:97, from Oct. 3, 1861, Ka Hoku o Ka Pakipika. Confidential 178. Ano translation in Desilets et al 2009:99, from Nov. 16, 1861 Ka Nupepa Kuokoa. 179. Miliama Kekahuna 1867. 180. Mrs. K. Keamoku 1862. 181. Anonymous 1864. Thanks to Leilani Basham for clarifying the meaning of the refrain lines. She also notes that there is likely even more complex levels of meaning in this kanikau, for many of the names of plants and ferns that are mentioned have meanings that relate to bereavement. 182. Nailielua 1865. 183. Kalākaua 1888:369-380; Nakuina 1892. 184. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” in Oct. 7, 1899 issue of Ka Loea Kalaiaina, translated in HEN notes at Bishop Museum. 185. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” in Oct. 21, 1899 issue of Ka Loea Kalaiaina, translated in HEN notes at Bishop Museum. 186. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” in Nov. 11, 1899 issue of Ka Loea Kalaiaina, translated in HEN notes at Bishop Museum. 187. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” in July 22, 1899 issue of Ka Loea Kalaiaina, translated in HEN notes at Bishop Museum. 184. Kalanikuihonoinamoku 1865. 189. Fornander 1880:20. 190. William Galbraith in Honolulu Star-Bulletin 1927 in Sterling and Summers (1978:141). 191. Fornander 1880:21. 192. Kamakau 1961:220 [1867], 260 [1868]. 193. Kamakau 1991:38; 1961:223-224, 260. 194. Kamakau 1961:250. 195. Kamakau 1961:250. 196. Kamakau 1961:252. 197. ‘Ī‘ī 1959:99. 198. ‘Ī‘ī ms that identifies two branch trails quoted in Sterling and Summers (1978:89). 199. In 1874 or 1875, Whitney (1875:30-32) described this trip by horse or buggy with 537

arrangements for transportation and a guide being made through the Hawaiian Hotel. But his description makes no mention of a side trip to Kūkaniloko, simply of traveling over the Central Plateau on the road through grasslands with vast numbers of cattle and horses. Day (1955:183) mentions that in the 1870s visitors, who arrived on steamers and stayed for a month or so, often took a trip around the island. This may have been from Pu‘uloa up to Waialua and around. 200. Hale‘ole 1862, 1863. Hale‘ole also was a historian, who worked with with Kamakau and Fornander. 201. Kekupuohi and others 1868. 202. Kahekili-wahine and Kailinaoa 1868. The paper seems to have a typo with “moku” in the last line appearing incorrectly as “meku.” 203. Kamakau 1868b. 204. Manu 2002: 41 (Hawn), 130 (Eng). 205. Fornander 1880:20. 206. Stasack and Stasack 2010:10, 11, 21; Appended drawings: pp. 1, 4, 6. 207. “I was a littleConfidential boy on the ranch” (W. Galbraith 1927) (In Sterling and Summers 1978: 141). Von Holt 1953:99-100. 208. W. Galbraith 1927. In Sterling and Summers 1978: 141. 209. W. Galbraith 1927 (in Sterling and Summers 1978: 141.). 210. McAllister 1933:136. 211. Webb 1925; Nov. 1, 1927 Daughters of Hawaii letter to Hawaiian Trust Co. Ltd.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 8 1. National Register Form 1994:p.5. 2. Hammatt and Mann (2002) and Tulcher & Hammatt (2006) state that Wahiawā was leased to James Robinson Co. in the 1890s (citing Nedbalek 1984), perhaps meaning the Holt ranch. Kingdom Map 1876 shows Wahiawa as the Wahiawa School Lands leased to W.C. Jones. 3. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:25 from Donn 1902 map. Finney’s Hawaiian Directories of 1896-1897 indicate Dowsett was present (Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:24). An interesting twist to the Dowsett family’s loss of the Leilehua Ranch to the U.S. Government is a comment by Alika Dowsett’s grandson (Wilmer Morris) about his grandfather Alika: “As long as he lived he refused to salute the American flag. Whenever it came by, he turned his back on it” (McGrath et al. 1973:72) – perhaps a reflection of his support of the kingdom and/or the family being removed from Leilehua Ranch. Alika had moved over to the Wai‘anae side and managed the family’s Mikilua Ranch there. “He was a rascal, not one of the social elite, and therefore very popular with the local people” (McGrath et al. 1973:68). But at the same time, he probably was part of the local elite, for McGrath et al. (1973:91) note that in 4th of July festivities on the Wai‘anae side, Alika Dowsett sat in a prominent chair at Tamura’s General Store, shot off his six-shooter to start races, paid the prize for the winner, shipped in beer and hosted a barbecue in the 1920s. 4. Handy 1940:83. 5. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:25; Hammatt & Mann 2002. 6. Smithe n.d.:1. 7. Nedbalek 1984:26. 538

8. See Orr (2001) on the history of pineapple’s early growth. Orr kindly provided us with a copy of this report. Also see Nebalek 1984. 9. Orr 2001:45. Orr also well documents the early days of the Waialua Agricultural Company. 10. Wilcox 1996:109. 11. Orr 2001:59. 12. Waialua Agricultural Co. 1905 6th Annual report in Orr (2001:48). 13. Orr (2001:45) on Atherton’s positions. Daughters of Hawai‘i (n.d.:1) on the Galbraith property lease. 14. Desilets et al. 2009:32. 15. Waialua Agricultural Co. 1909 10th Annual Report in Orr (2001:49). 16. Waialua Agricultural Co. 1910, 1911, 1914 annual reports in Orr (2001:49-50, 56). 17. Smithe n.d.:2. 18. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:25. 19. Hammatt & Mann 2002:1919 fire control maps. 20. Waialua AgriculturalConfidential Company Annual report of 1921 in Desilets et al. 2009:32. 21. Hammatt & Mann 2002:7. 22. Hammatt & Chiogioji 2000:9. 23. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:27. 24. Na Wahi Pana o ‘Ewa 1899. July 15, 1899 edition of Ka Loea Kalaiaina – translated in HEN notes at Bishop Museum. 25. Archaeological work in the 1990s in and around UH Hilo discovered this pattern. See reports in the State Historic Preservation Division library at Kapolei on this Hilo town area. 26. The senior author while Branch Chief of the Archaeology Branch at the State Historic Preservation Division recalls periodic finds of a few burial plots within the Hāmākua cane fields – finds verified by that office’s Assistant Archaeologist for Hawai‘i Island (Marc Smith). These finds likely can be found in the Burials Program records at the State Historic Preservation Division. See Cordy (2000) for a general description of Mo‘okini heiau being all that is left of the royal center at Pu‘uepa/Kokoiki at Upolu Point. Interestingly, Fowke, a mainland anthropologist, came through prior to the spread of cane through this area near Upolu Point and described wall-to-wall stone houseyards. These were all dismantled and destroyed by cane cultivation (cf. Cordy 2000:284). 27. Personal observations of Cordy 2010 during field visit to Cultural Surveys Hawaii’s survey area in the Ekahanui Gulch area west of Kunia Road (within Honouliuli’s Līhu‘e ‘ili). This area is being converted to farm lots, and the field visit also included OHA’s historic preservation board. 28. Desilets et al. 2009:187-188. 29. Hammatt & Chiogioji 2000:13. 30. Tomonari-Tuggle 1994. 31. Tulcher and Hammatt 2006:14. 32. Wikipedia – Wahiawa. 33. City-Data.com – Whitmore Village. 34. Wikipedia – Mililani. 35. Honolulu Advertiser March 1, 1925. 539

36. Description of 1922 Daughters of Hawaii visit in Del Piano 2005:71. 37. Thrum 1911:102. 38. William Galbraith in Honolulu Star-Bulletin 1927 (in Sterling and Summers 1978:141). 39. William Galbraith in Honolulu Star-Bulletin 1927 (in Sterling and Summers 1978:141). 40. 1943 War Dept map in Tulcher and Hammatt 2006:16. 41. William Galbraith in Honolulu Star-Bulletin 1927 (in Sterling and Summers 1978:141). 42. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a. 43. 1922 Daughters of Hawaii visit described in Del Piano 2005:71. See also Thrum 1911:102; National Register 1994:12. 44. Thrum 1911. 45. Daughters of Hawai‘i website; Del Piano 2005. 46. Daughters of Hawai‘i website. 47. Goodale MayConfidential 1, 1918 letter; Del Piano 2005:70. 48. Del Piano 2005:70. 49. Del Piano 2005:71. 50. Lahilahi Webb (1862-1949) is less well known today, but in the early 1900s, she and John Wise were two notable Hawaiian translators of older Hawaiian manuscripts, working on projects out of the Bishop Museum. They worked on the translations of the Fornander Collections, and on translations of Kamakau’s Hawaiian newspaper articles. Webb was also an informant for many mo‘olelo and mele recorded in Museum and other archives. She was a translator-cultural expert working with scholars of the generation before Mary Kawena Pukui, the latter beginning her translation work at the Museum in the latter part of Webb’s career. 51. Del Piano 2005:71. 52. Spitz 1925 (Feb. 2, 1925 summary of visit to Kūkaniloko by the Kukaniloko Committee); National Register 1994. 53. Spitz 1925 (Feb. 2, 1925 summary of visit to Kūkaniloko by the Kukaniloko Committee); also in Del Piano 2005:71. 54. Spitz 1925. This local knowledge was apparently unknown to Thrum when he wrote his 1911 article, for he said that Kūkaniloko could not be identified. Clearly it could by members of the community 14 years later. 55. Spitz 1925. 56. Webb (1925a) interview with Kapanokalani on “birthstones”, Webb (n.d.-a) interview with Kapanokalani on Keanini. 57. Webb (n.d.-b, -c) summaries of Kūkaniloko. Webb (1925a, c; n.d.-a) informant information. 58. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a. 59 Swanzy 1927 letter to Hawaiian Trust Co.; Daughters of Hawaii 1978 summary of records indicates February 27, 1925 was the signing date for the deed. 60. Taylor Feb 22, 1925; also in Del Piano 2005:72 (briefer). 61. Del Piano 2005:73. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a; 1925d. 62. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a. This seems to be the same dirt road visible on a 1943 540

War Department map (Tulchard and Hammatt 2006:16), and one wonders if this was not an access road from the bridge over Kaukonahua that led through Galbraith’s ranch to his house. 63. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a; Honolulu Advertiser or Star Bulletin, May 26, 1925?? “Story of Kukaniloko, Sacred Birthplace, Chanted in Ceremony.” 64. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a. 65. Honolulu Advertiser 1925a. A.P. Taylor was a writer for the newspaper about this time, and his wife Emma Ahuena Taylor (a member of the Daughters) also wrote for papers and popular magazine articles. Perhaps they were even the authors of these articles. 66. 1925 handwriting on Goodale’s October 11, 1922 letter; Wilson 1926 letter; Daughters of Hawai‘i n.d.:3, 5. 67. Del Piano 2005:71-72; 1925 clearing under Jarrett (Honolulu Advertiser 2/26/1925). 68. Swanzy 1927 (Nov. 1, 1927 Daughters of Hawai‘i letter to Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd.). Confidential 69. Daughters of Hawai‘i 1978. Entry summarizing records for Sept. 17, 1930. 70. Daughters of Hawai‘i 1978. Entry summarizing records for Oct 18, 1933. 71. Spitz 1925 (Feb. 2, 1925 summary of visit to Kūkaniloko by the Kukaniloko Committee). 72. Emma Taylor 1925 (Feb. 22, 1925 summary of a Feb. 18, 1925 visit). 73. Webb 1925b. 74. Swanzy 1927 (Nov. 1, 1927 Daughters of Hawai‘i letter to Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd.) 75. Swanzy 1927. 76. Daughters of Hawai‘i n.d.3 77. Daughters of Hawai‘i 1978. Record summary for entry of September 23, 1925 noting the stone was moved. 78. Daughters of Hawai‘i 1978. Record summary for entry of January 2, 1926. Del Piano 2005:73 (mentioned briefly). 79. Swanzy 1927. 80. Swanzy 1927. 81. Daughters of Hawai‘i 1978. Record summary for entry of May 12, 1926 – “The Keaniniulaokalani Stone fell to pieces when it was moved. It was cemented back and moved.” See Del Piano 2005:72-73, for some additional information. 82. Gutmanis 1986:10. 83. February 5, 2010 interview with Elithe Kahn. 84. July 9, 2010 interview with Alice Greenwood. 85. Daughters of Hawai‘i n.d.3. 86. 1929 article quote in Daughters of Hawai‘i (n.d.3-4) and Gutmanis (1986:10). 87. All the above quoted information is in Swanzy Nov. 1, 1927 Daughters of Hawaii letter to Hawaiian Trust Co., Ltd. 88. Daughters of Hawai‘i 1978. Entry summarizing records for Sept. 17, 1930. 89. Daughters of Hawai‘i n.d.4. 90. Daughters of Hawaii 1978. Entry summarizing records for July 9, 1948. 91. Daughters of Hawaii 1978. Entry summarizing records for September 21, 1949. 541

92. Henry Hughes, Jr 1949. 93. Rice published stories in the 1920s in Bishop Museum publications, one of many early 1900s English language publications of Hawaiian oral literature. 94. Gutmanis n.d.:2-4. Gutmanis notes (p. 5) that the chant “was composed by John Holani Hao and appeared in the Ka Nupepa Kuokoa on May 25, 1925, and was translated by Theodore Kelsey” (translated evidently for her publication). 95. Handy 1940; Pukui 1942. 96. This is a simplification. As Emory noted in 1942, there was a small set of knowledgeable native Hawaiians and non-Hawaiians interested in Hawaiian literature and history in the 1940s, and they were aware of more obscure publications and findings, and often met and discussed them (Emory 1942). 97. Nogelmeier 2010. 98. Pukui 1983:79, saying #714. 99. Pukui 1983:169, saying #1573. 100. Pukui 1983:177, saying #1643. 101. Pukui 1983:248,Confidential saying #2273. 102. Pukui 1983:185, saying #1714. 103. Pukui 1983:215, saying #1991. 104. Pukui 1983:57, saying #479. 105. Pukui 1983:53, saying #433. 106. Pukui 1983:260, saying #2379. 107. Pukui 1983:16, saying #121. 108. Pukui 1983:192, saying #1792. 109. Kenn 1937. 110. Kenn 1937. 111. Pukui 1983:286, ‘ōlelo no‘eau #2602. The preface to ‘Ōlelo No‘eau describes generally the nature and source of Pukui’s recorded sayings, as she was too ill to help with the publication (Williamson et al. 1983:vii). Williamson (1983:xi-xix) in her Introduction gives an excellent overview of Pukui’s life and how and when she collected and translated, Williamson having worked with her for many years. 112. Henry Hughes, Jr., 1949. 113. Henry Hughes, Jr., 1949 114. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, August 25, 1962 115. Hawaiian Civic Club of Wahiawā report, “Kūkaniloko: … to protect the privileges of Kūkaniloko because we love them for all time…” 116. Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs 1993. 117. Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs 2007. Another resolution related to Kukaniloko was made by the Association of Hawaiian Civic Clubs in November of 1995, “Urging the State of Hawai’I Department of Land & Natural Resources to Register and Restore Waihau Heiau Ho’olonopahu, and Its Surrounding Area in Wahiawa.” (Assoc. of Hawaiian Civic Clubs 1995). 118. Yent 1995. 119. Yent 1995. 120. Yent 1995. This map and accompanying photographs of each stone are on file at the State Parks Division office in the Kalanimoku building in Honolulu. 121. Yent 1995. 542

122. Yent 1995; DLNR 1995: 14. 123. Letters in support of National Register Nomination form in 1994 to revise the boundaries of Kūkaniloko in hanging file for 80-04-218 Kukaniloko, State Historic Preservation Division offices, Kapolei. These include letters from Cardinal Kuhio Thomas for Lurlene Lee and from Somerset Makanaole. 124. DLNR 1999. 125. Yent 1999. 126. Wilson 1995. 127. Yent 1995. 128. Curator agreement on file, State Parks Division, Kalanimoku Building. 129. 20th Legislative Session (1999), the State House of Representatives, House Resolution No. 188. 130. DLNR 1999. 131. DLNR 1999:13-14. 132. DLNR 1999:131. 133. Yent 1999.Confidential 134. Hibbard to Nagata June 30, 1999, Log 23724, Doc: 9906RC63. 135. Martha Yent, 2009 interview. 136. Hommon 1976; Cordy 1978. 137. Dye 1989. 138. Sahlins 1992. 139. Kame‘eleihiwa 1992. 140. Desilets et al. 2009:47. 141. Ginger Hala 2010 interview. 142. Alice Greenwood 2010 interview. 143. Alice Greenwood 2010 interview. 144. Elithe Kahn 2010 interview. 145. Alice Greenwood 2010 interview. 146. Elithe Kahn 2010 interview.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 9

1. Noyes 2010. 2. Kurth and Johnson 1989. 3. Noyes 2011a, 2011b.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 10

1. Kamakau [1870] 1964:3. 2. Kamakau 1991:38. 3. Lenchanko interview in Orr 2001:77.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 11

None 543

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 12

1. Stasack and Stasack 2010:14. 2. Stasack and Stasack 2010:5. 3. Stasack and Stasack 2010:14.

NOTES FOR CHAPTER 13

1. As throughout this report, such indented text are quotes. In this chapter the quotes are from our interviews with the community. 2. Stasack and Stasack 2010:5.

Confidential 544

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. InitialConfidential Scoping Approaches.

Appendix 2. Interview Questions.

Appendix 3. Questionnaire.

Appendix 4. Informed Consent Form

Appendix 5. Stasacks Petroglyph Report (separate).

Appendix 6. Successive landowners of the Kūkaniloko parcel during the Time of the Kingdom

545

APPENDIX 1

ConfidentialINITIAL SCOPING APPROACHES

COMMUNITY CONTACT LETTER & FIGURES SENT OUT

546

Welina mai,

Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike, a group of kama‘āina passionate about documenting, preserving, and perpetuating our cultural sites, practices, and stories, has been contracted by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) to conduct a Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Study of Kūkaniloko.

OHA’s mission of advocating the sacredness of all lands in Hawai‘i and encouraging responsible land stewardship and management provides the motivation for this study. As the contracted researchers, we are looking to the community to share your ‘ike and mana‘o.

Traditional Cultural Property studies encompass a more Hawaiian or holistic approach to cultural perpetuation of our wahi pana. Further, TCP studies are defined by their associations with “…cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community’s history,Confidential and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community” (National Register Bulletin 38). Ultimately, a TCP study determines the eligibility of a property for the National Register of Historic Places.

The study will consist primarily of archival and background research, interviews, and limited archaeological work not including excavations.

We are eager to collaborate with individuals and ‘ohana who have knowledge of Kūkaniloko and the surrounding areas. In particular we hope to gather information that relates to:

 ‘Ohana and individual connections and relationships to the area  Mo‘olelo, place names, mele, oli, hula  Sense of place  Past and present cultural practices and protocols  Knowledge of natural and cultural resources  Traditional and historic land use and ownership  Traditional and historic events and persons  Concerns and suggestions regarding future stewardship of Kūkaniloko  Referrals of kūpuna and kama‘āina who might be willing to share their cultural knowledge of the area

If you have any questions or mana‘o to share please contact Kelley L. Uyeoka at [email protected] / 808-265-3284, or Kehaulani Souza at [email protected] / 808- 372-1300. We look forward to collaborating with you on this endeavor to document the unique cultural significance of Kūkaniloko.

Me ka ha‘aha‘a, Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike 547

Confidential

548

Confidential

Photo of Kūkaniloko from 1973 National Register of Historic Places nomination form

2009 photo of Kūkaniloko

549 APPENDIX 2 KŪKANILOKO TCP STUDY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

______

Mo‘okū‘auhau:  Full Name:  Place of birth:  Where you grew up:  Where you live today:  Who are your parents and where are they from:  Who are your grandparents and where are they from:

‘Ohana and Individual Ties to the land:  Connections and relationship to the area:  Kūkaniloko,Confidential Lihu‘e, Wai‘anae Uka, Wahiawā, Waialua Moku, etc.:  Describe the length of time & frequency of contact with the area:

Mo‘olelo and Traditional Accounts:  Where do you place Kūkaniloko on the landscape? What ahupua‘a and moku is Kūkaniloko in:  Do you know of any mo‘olelo about the area:  Pele, Hi‘iaka, ‘Ai Kanaka  What akua or ‘aumākua are associated with this area:  From your knowledge, when was Kūkaniloko established? How do you know this?  Do you know what ali‘i were born at Kūkaniloko:  Kakuhihewa, Kūkaniloko, Kuali‘i  Do you know of any place names of the area? What are the meanings, significance, stories associated with these inoa?  Have you heard of the place names Kalakoa, Kua‘ikua, and Kapa‘ahu – do you know where they are located? Can you point them out on the map?  Do you know the old names for the South Fork and the North Fork?  Do you know the names for the two small gulches that branch off of Poamoho Gulch to the south and along Whitmore Village? (Show them on map)

Cultural Practices:  Are you or anyone you know currently involved in any cultural practices (religious, subsistence, etc.) in or around Kūkaniloko:  If you are, how did you learn these activities and how long have you been doing them:  Were you ever told about any cultural practices that occurred here in the past:  Do you have any knowledge of past or present cultural protocols observed here:

550 Birthing Practices:  Do you know anything about the past birthing processes, practices and events at Kūkaniloko:

Hula, Mele, Oli  Do you know of any hula, mele, or oli that refers to Kūkaniloko:  What is the kaona or significance of these hula, mele, oli:

Astronomical Alignments  Do you know anything about astronomical significance or use in the area:

Cultural and historic sites  Do you know of any cultural or archaeological sites (wahi kūpuna):  Kūkaniloko pōhaku  Ki‘i pōhaku  Ho‘olonopahu Heiau  KaukonahuaConfidential Gulch and pōhaku  Keanianileihuaokalani Pōhaku (healing pōhaku)  Do you know of any burials in or around the project area:  Do you know of any trails (ancient or contemporary) in the area:  Do you know of any historical (Post-Contact) sites in the area:

Natural Resources:  Do you know of any native plants that grow in the area? What were/are these plants used for:  Water resources, springs, streams:  Winds and rains:  Mountains, pu‘u, caves:

Historical Information:  Past or present land ownership and use:  Land lineage (Māhele to current)  Daughters of Hawai‘i taking ownership in 1918  Historic uses of the area:  Agriculture: pineapple, farming, ranching  Plantations  Historic events  Historic Persons

Knowledge Sources:  Where does your knowledge come from:  Your own direct knowledge  Knowledge reported to you by ‘ohana  Knowledge reported to you by others  Knowledge from sources such as written sources, archival sources, digital

551 Boundaries and Significance:  What boundaries should officially be established around Kūkaniloko:  Please explain why you chose these boundaries:  Is this place significant (important) to you? If yes, why:

Preservation Concerns and Recommendations:  What changes in the landscape, practices and uses of natural and cultural resources have you observed in your lifetime:  Do you have any, or know of any concerns the community might have related to cultural practices in the vicinity Kūkaniloko:  Do you have any recommendations regarding site management or protection, and development in the area:  How do you feel about this TCP being conducted? Do you feel it will benefit the ‘āina and the community:  Should all the cultural information you are sharing be included in the study? Is there any information that you do not want to be public?  Can you referConfidential us to any other individuals or organizations we should talk to?

552

APPENDIX 3 OHA & HUI ‘IMI ‘IKE KŪKANILOKO TCP STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE HANDED-OUT AT JULY 2010 COMMUNITY MEETING Confidential 553 Kūkaniloko Traditional Cultural Property Study Questionnaire 2010

Aloha. Thank you for taking the time to assist the Office of Hawaiian Affairs’ (OHA) and Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike’s efforts in conducting this Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) study. The intent of this questionnaire is to gather general information about you, Kūkaniloko, its relationship to you and your community. Depending on the information provided members of Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike’s team may follow up with a call.

This information will be used for the TCP study and may be made available to the public for educational purposes as part of the final TCP report. Please be advised that OHA is a public agency subject to Uniform Information Practices Act. As such, certain information provided in the survey may be subject to disclosure by OHA if someone requests to view the surveys associated with OHA’s final report. If copies of this questionnaire are released, OHA will redact your personal contact information. IfConfidential you wish all your information be kept confidential, please speak to us and we can find alternative ways to gather your information.

Name ______(first) (initial) (last)

E-mail Address______

Phone Number ______Best time to call? ______

Your mana‘o (thoughtful input) is very important to us so if you need more space and/or have additional advice please use the reverse side of this page. Mahalo.

1. When where you born? Where did you grow up and where do you live today?

2. Is your ‘ohana from Wahiawa? If yes, how far back and are older family members still alive?

3. Do you know of any mo‘olelo, oli or mele about Kūkaniloko or the surrounding area?

4. Do you know of any akua or ‘aumakua associated with the area?

5. Do you know when Kūkaniloko was established? (If yes, when?) 554 6. Do you know anything about the old birthing rites at Kūkaniloko?

7. Do you know which pohaku was the birthing pohaku (Kūkaniloko itself?)

8. Do you know where Ho‘olonopahu Heiau was located?

9. If you answered yes to any of the above questions, did you learn this from information passed down in you ‘ohana, from other kupuna who lived in the Wahiawa area, from books, or from other sources.

10. Do you knowConfidential where Hawaiian families had their homes during the late 1800s (ranching times)?

11. Were you ever told by kupuna how Kūkaniloko looked like in the late 1800s- early 1900s?

12. Can you share about the historic uses (agriculture, farming, ranching and plantations), historic events or historic persons associated with Kūkaniloko?

13. Are you familiar with any other natural resources associated with Kūkaniloko, such as native plants, springs, streams, winds, rains, mountains, pu‘u, caves or others?

14. Are you or anyone you know involved in cultural practices (hula, lua, education, kahu, weather tracking, cultural ceremonies, or other) in or around the Kūkaniloko area? If yes, please describe.

15. What changes in the landscape, practices and uses of natural and cultural resources have you observed in your lifetime?

16. What boundaries should officially be established around Kūkaniloko?

555 17. Please explain why you chose these boundaries:

18. Were you aware of Kūkaniloko prior to this meeting?

19. Is this place significant (important) to you? If yes, why?

20. What do you consider are the major problems in the proper protection and preservation of Kūkaniloko?

21. How would you like to see Kūkaniloko managed? (Feel free to simply list things you feel areConfidential important)

22. Do you have access to any old photos or archival information on Kūkaniloko? If yes, would you be willing to share them?

23. Can you recommend anyone or any organizations who you feel may have further information on Kūkaniloko? Would you be willing to refer us to them?

24. Would you be interested in hearing more about this study and the preservation of Kūkaniloko in the future?

If you can’t finish this form today you may mail your filled questionnaire to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Attn: Kevin K.J. Chang, 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Honolulu, HI. 96813 or e-mail it to Kevin Chang, OHA’s Land Manager at [email protected]. Mahalo for your time and attention. 556 APPENDIX 4 KŪKANILOKO TCP STUDY INFORMED CONSENT FORM

Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike appreciates the generosity of individuals who are willing to share their knowledge of the wahi pana of Kukaniloko and its surrounding areas. This mana‘o will be used in a Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) study for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). The primary purpose of this TCP study is to help fulfill OHA’s mission of advocating the sacredness of all lands in Hawai‘i and encouraging responsible land stewardship and management.

Hui ‘Imi ‘Ike understands our responsibility in respecting the wishes and concerns of the interviewees participating in this study. Here are the procedures we promise to follow:

1. The interview will not be recorded without your knowledge and explicit permission. Confidential 2. You will have the opportunity to review the written transcript and summary of your interview. At that time you may make any additions, deletions or corrections you wish.

3. You will be given a copy of the interview transcript and summary for your records.

4. You will be given a copy of this release form for your records.

5. You will be given a copy of any photographs taken of you during the interview.

For your protection, we need your written confirmation that:

1. You consent to the use of the complete transcript and/or interview quotes for the purposes of this study. Yes No

2. If a photograph is taken during the interview, you consent to the photograph being included in this study. Yes No

I, ______, agree to the procedures outlined above and, by my signature, give my consent and release of this interview and/or photograph to be used as specified.

______(Signature)

______(Date) 557

APPENDIX 5

STASACKS PETROGLYPH REPORT

Edward A. StasackConfidential and Diane S. Stasack 2010. Rock Art (Petroglyph) Report. Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument. 24 pp and maps and drawings.

[separate]

558 APPENDIX 6

SUCCESSIVE LANDOWNERS OF THE KŪKANILOKO PARCEL DURING THE TIME OF THE KINGDOM

Grant 606 is the parcel within which Kukaniloko is located.

All the following documents come from the Bureau of Conveyances, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Kalanimoku Building, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu

1851 Grant 604 Kingdom’s Government Land sold to Artemas Bishop 568 acres Confidential Grant 605 Kingdom’s Government Land sold to W.H. Rice 542 acres

Grant 606 Kingdom’s Government Land sold to A.S. Cooke 388 acres

1853 A. Bishop buys Grant 605 from Rice Liber 5:939-940

A. Bishop buys Grant 606 from Cooke Liber 5:940-941

[Bishop owns Grants 604-606 = 1,498 acres]

1866 A. Bishop leases Grants 604-606 to Hermann Hillebrand Liber 21:359-361.

1868 Hermann Hillebrand buys Royal Patents 682, 849 and 1125 in adjacent Kemo‘o from S.N. Emerson 708.5 ac. Liber 25:249

[H. Hillebrand now effectively holds 2,206 acres, including Gr. 606]

1870 William Hillebrand inherits H. Hillebrand’s Kemo‘o lands William Hillebrand buys A. Bishop’s Grants 604-606 Liber 32:11-13

[William Hillebrand now owns 2,206 acres, including Gr. 606]

1882 George Galbraith buys William Hillebrand’s lands in Kemo‘o and Grants 604-606 Liber 74:1-2

[George Galbraith holds these 2,206 acres through the overthrow of the Kingdom]

559

On the following pages are: p. 560 – Helu 606 or Royal Patent 606 to Amos Cooke (Hawaiian) – 1851 p. 561 – Grant or Royal Patent 606 to Amos Cooke (English) -- 1851 p. 562-564 – 1853, Rice and Cooke to A. Bishop (Liber 5:939-941) p. 565-567 – 1870, H. Hillebrand and A. Bishop to Wm. Hillebrand (Liber 32:11-13). p. 568-569 – 1882,Confidential Wm. Hillebrand to George Galbraith (Liber 74:1-2). 560

Confidential 561

Confidential 562

Confidential 563

Confidential 564

Confidential 565

Confidential 566

Confidential 567

Confidential 568

Confidential 569

Confidential 570

REFERENCES CITED

Alexander, W.D. 1891b. Translation of Kamakau’s “No Ke Ano Hoku.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society. ------1891c. A Brief History of the Hawaiian People. American Book Co. New York. ------1903. Notes labeled WDA in the Bishop Museum’s publication of the translation of Malo’s Mo’olelo Hawai’I n—Hawaiian Antiquities. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Allen, Jane 1986. Phase I Intensive Survey and Phase II Excavations at TMK 7-5- 09:31, Kailua, North Kona, Island of Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Andrews, Lorrin 2003. A Dictionary of the Hawaiian Language. Island Heritage Publishing, Waipahu. [originally published in 1865] Confidential Ano, Marion Maiko 2009. Chapter 6. Hawaiian Language Newspaper Research.” In M. Desilets et al., Draft: Traditional Hawaiian Occupation and Lō Ali‘i Social Organization on O‘ahu’s Central Plateau: An Ethno-Historical Study, pp. 96-102. GANDA manuscript (courtesy of GANDA).

Anonymous 1861. “Some Cannibals on Oahu in Olden Times”. Ka Hae Hawaii, Sept. 25, 1861. [Translated in Sterling and Summers 1978, Sites of Oahu, pp. 110.]

Anonymous 1901. “The Big Dowsett Ranch.” Paradise of the Pacific. December:60- 61.

Anonymous n.d. “Map, Showing the Boundary Between Wahiawa and Waianae Uka.” Kingdom of Hawaii. Reg.Map 1218. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai’i. [Ca. 1870 likely, for Monsarrat’s Reg. Map 80, dating to 1875, is a “Tracing of the Map of Wahiawa, Waialua, Oahu. From Original in Board of Education”. This tracing appears to be the same map, with some labeling differences.]

Barrere, Dorothy 1969a. The Kumuhonua Legends: A Study of Late 19th Century Hawaiian Stories of Creation and Origins. Pacific Anthropological records, 3. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1969b. “Survey of Historical Materials Pertaining to Mākaha Valley.” In R.Green (ed), Mākaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No. 1, pp. 7-8. Pacific Anthropological Records, 4. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1970. “An Historical Sketch of Mākaha Valley.” In R. Green (ed), Mākaha Valley Historical Project Interim Report No. 2, pp. 3-14. Pacific Anthropological Records, 10. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1980. “The Hula in Retrospect.” In D. Barrere, M.K. Pukui and M. Kelley, Hula: Historical Perspectives, pp. 1-67. Pacific Anthropological Records, 30. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

570 571

------1991. End notes to the translation of Kamakau -- Tales and Traditions of the People of Old: Nā Mo‘oleleo a ka Po‘e Kahiko. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. ------1994. The King’s Mahele: The Awardees and Their Lands. Manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Beckwith, Martha n.d. 1915 Field Notes. Hawaiian Sources Collection, pp. 384-397. Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology, Honolulu. ------1918. The Hawaiian Romance of Laieikawai. 33rd Annual Report of Bureau of American Ethnology. Government Print. Office, Washington, D.C. ------1932. Kepelino’s Traditions of Hawaii. [Original Hawaiian and Beckwith’s translation.] Bishop Museum Bulletin, 95. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1940. Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. ------1970. Hawaiian Mythology. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Bernard, Russell 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and QuantitativeConfidential Approaches. 4th edition. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek (CA).

Bingham, Hiram 1847. A Residence of Twenty-one Years in the Sandwich Islands. New York.

Bishop, Artemas 1851. Description and map of half of Kalena ‘ili (Grant 527). Kingdom of Hawaii, Department Interior Document 255. State of Hawaii Archives.

Bishop, Sereno 1916. Reminiscences of Old Hawaii. The Advertiser Historical Series, No. 1. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Honolulu.

Bishop Museum 1997. Draft: Imu, Adzes, and Upland Agriculture: Inventory Survey Archaeology in North Halawa Valley, O’ahu. Leslie Hartzell et al. (eds). Returned for revision by State Historic Preservation Division. [Susan Lebo Chapter 7: Post- Contact Land Use” pp. 185-212.]

Boundary Commission (Boundary Commission Books). 5 volumes, microfilm. State Archives, Honolulu. 1876. Description of the border of Wai‘anae Uka and The School Lands of Wahiawa. (Also in J. Robins and R. Spear 2002b: Appendix A.) n.d. Description of border between Ho‘ae‘ae, Pouhala uka, and Honouliuli. Volme 1:243.

Bradley, Harold 1942. The American Frontier in Hawaii. The Pioneers 1789-1843. Standford University Press, Stanford.

Brennan, Joseph 1978. Paniolo. Ku Pa‘a Publishing Inc., Honolulu.

Broeze, Frank (editor & translator) 1988. A Merchant’s Perspective: Captain Jacobus Boelen’s Narrative of His visit to Hawai‘i in 1828. The Hawaiian Historical Society, Honolulu.

571 572

Bryan, W.A. 1901 Journal, Sinclair Library, University of Hawai‘i Archives. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Buck, Peter (Te Rangi Hiroa) 1957. Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication, 45. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Buffum, Amy and John Peterson 2005a. Intensive Archaeological Survey of McCarthy Flats and Battle Area Complex (BAX) Training Range Construction Projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) US Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawa District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7- 01). Volume II. 2004 Survey Results. GANDA ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2467), Kapolei. ------2005b. Intensive Archaeological Survey of McCarthy Flats and Battle Area Complex (BAX) Training Range Construction Projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat TeamConfidential (SBCT) US Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawa District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7-01). Volume III. 2005 Survey Results. GANDA ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2468), Kapolei.

Bureau of Conveyances. Department of Land & Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i, Kalanimoku Building, Honolulu. [Location of land records.] Grant 6 1846. To John Needles Gilman, eastern half of Waikakalaua. Map with metes and bounds. Grants 604-606 1851. Metes and Bounds descriptions. (Kūkaniloko in Grant 606.) All later transactions for Grants 604-606 (lease and ownership changes). Recorded by Liber (Book) and page.

Cachola-Abad, Carolyn Kēhaulani 1993 “Evaluating the Orthodox Dual Settlement Model for the Hawaiian Islands: An Analysis of Artefact Distribution and Hawaiian Oral Traditions.” In M. Graves and Roger Green (eds), The Evolution and Organisation of Prehistoric Society in Polynesia, pp. 15-32. Auckland, New Zealand Archaeological Association. ----- 2000. The Evolution of Hawaiian Socio-Political Complexity: An Analysis of Hawaiian Oral Traditions. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology. On file, Hawaiian Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Campbell, Archibald 1967. A Voyage Round the World (1806-1812). University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Carson, Mike and S. Yeomans 2000. Phase III of Intensive Archaeological Inventory Survey of Prehistoric Traditional Hawaiian Sites in Schofield Barracks Military Reservation, South Range, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i. Scientific Consultant Services manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

572 573

Carter, Laura (Laura Schuster) 1990. Protohistoric Material Correlates in Hawaiian Archaeology, A. D. 1778-1820. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology. Hawaiian Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu.

Cartwright, Bruce 1930. “Note on Hawaiian Genealogies.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for 1929, pp. 45-47. ------1933. “Some Aliis of the Migratory Period.” Bishop Museum Occasional Publications, 10(7).

Castro, Cari internet. “Dowsett Family from England to Hawaii”. (Website posted by C. Castro). //genforum.genealogy.com/dowsett/messages/14.html

Census 1878. 1878 Census for Ewa and Waianae. Microfilm (MFL) 65. State of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------1878 Census for Waialua. Microfilm (MFL) 65. State of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.Confidential

Chamberlain, Levi 1957. “Tour Around Oahu, 1828.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society, pp. 25-41.

Charlot, John 1987. The Kamapua‘a Literature. The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University Hawai‘i, Lā‘ie.

Chun, Malcolm 1988. I Ka Wa o Kamehameha, In the Time of Kamehameha: Selected Essays. [Translated and edited by Malcolm Chun.] The Folk Press, Kapiolani Community College, Honolulu. ------1993. Na Kukui Pio ‘Ole: The Inextinguishable Torches. The Biographies of Three Early Native Hawaiian Scholars, Davida Malo, S.N. Hale‘ole and S.M. Kamakau. First People’s Productions, Honolulu. ------2006. Ka Mo‘olelo Hawai‘i: Hawaiian Traditions. [Davida Malo’s original Hawaiian Manuscript and an English Translation by Malcolm Chun.] First People’s Productions, Honolulu.

City-Data.com [checked 2011]. www.city-data.com/city/Whitmore-Village-Hawaii.html.

Colnett, James ms. The Journal of Captain James Colnett aboard the Prince of Wales & Princess Royal from 16 Oct. 1786 to 7 Nov. 1788. Copied by Donald Angus from Public Records Office, London, Admiralty, 55 Series II 146. On file, Hawaiian Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Cordy, Ross 1976. “Problems in the Use of Ethnoarchaeological Models: A Hawaiian Case.” Archaeology & Physical Anthropology in Oceania. 11(1):18-31. ------1978. A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. PhD thesis, Department of Anthropology. On file, Hawaiian Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i Mānoa. ------1981. A Study of Prehistoric Social Change: The Development of Complex

573 574

Societies in the Hawaiian Islands. Academic Press, New York. ------1985. "Settlement Patterns of Complex Societies in the Pacific". New Zealand J. Archaeology, 7:159-182. ------1986. "Relationships Between the Extent of Social Stratification & Population in Micronesian Polities at European Contact". American Anthropologist. 88:136-142. ------1994. A Regional Synthesis of Hāmākua District, Island of Hawai‘i. State Historic Preservation Division, Honolulu. ------1995. The Ala Kahakai Trail – or the Ala Loa: An Archaeological & Historic Preservation Perspective. Manuscript (40 pp.). On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------1996. "The Rise and Fall of the O‘ahu Kingdom: A Brief Overview of O‘ahu's History". In J. Davidson, Geoff Irwin, B. Foss Leach, Andrew Pawley, Dorothy Brown (eds), Oceanic Culture History: Essays in Honour of Roger Green, pp. 591-613. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology Special Publication ------2000. ExaltedConfidential Sits the Chief: The Ancient History of Hawai‘i Island. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. ------2001a. Waianae Valley Ranch Archaeological Survey, Wai‘anae Ahupua‘a, Moku o Wai‘anae, O‘ahu (TMK: 8-5-06:1). State Historic Preservation Division manuscript. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------2001b. Life in 1820-1850 in Kamaile ‘Ili, Wai‘anae Ahupua‘a: A Review of the Māhele Records. Manuscript. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------2002a. The Rise and Fall of the O‘ahu Kingdom. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. ------2002b. An Ancient History of Wai‘anae: Ka moku o Wai‘anae: He mo’olelo o ka wa kahiko. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. ------2004. “Considering Archaeological Indicators of the Rise of Appointed Chiefs and the Feudal-land System in the Hawaiian Islands.” Hawaiian Archaeology, 9:1-24.

Cordy, Ross and Michael Kaschko 1980. “Prehistoric Archaeology in the Hawaiian Islands: Land Units Associated with Social Groups.” Journal Field Archaeology, 7:403-416.

Cordy, Ross and Joseph Tainter, Robert Renger, Robert Hitchcock 1992 An Ahupua'a Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupua‘a, North Kona, Hawai‘i. Western Archaeological and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology, 58. National Park Service.

Cordy, Ross and Nathaniel Pak, Carina Johnson, Moana J. Lee, Michael McFadden in preparation. Nānākuli: A Leeward O‘ahu Valley. Draft State Historic Preservation Division manuscript. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Cox, J. Halley and William Davenport 1988. Hawaiian Sculpture: Revised Edition. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

574 575

Cox, J. Halley and Edward Stasack 1970. Hawaiian Petroglyphs. Special Publication 60. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Cuddihy, Linda and Charles Stone 1990. Alteration of Native Hawaiian Vegetation: Effects of Humans, Their Activities and Introductions. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

DLNR (Department of Land & Natural Resources, State of Hawai’i) ------1995. Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument: Damage Report. DLNR ms. ------1999. Feasibility Study., Kukaniloko Birthstones State Monument. State Parks Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai’i.

Daughters of Hawaii 1978. Letter from Helen to Evanita (no last names) providing a chronological summary of events at and regarding Kūkaniloko from the Daughters’ records. DaughtersConfidential of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------n.d. Kukaniloko: Birthing Stones, Healing Stones and the Daughters of Hawai‘i. Manuscript with no author noted. Seems to date to early 1990s, based on text. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Davenport, William 1994. Pi‘o: An Enquiry into the Marriage of Brothers and sisters and Other Close Relatives in Old Hawai‘i. University of Pennsylvania Publications in Anthropology, No. 5. University Press of America, Inc. Lanham (Maryland).

Day, A. Grove 1955. Hawaii and its People. Mutual Publishing (1993 edition), Honolulu.

Dega, Michael and Patrick Kirch 2002. “A Modified Culture History of Anahulu Valley, Hawai‘i and its Significance for Hawaiian Prehistory.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 111(2):107-126.

Del Piano, Barbara 2005. Na Lani Kaumaka: Daughters of Hawaii, A Century of Historic Preservation. Honolulu, Daughters of Hawaii.

Denham, Timothy and Peter Brennan, Jerome Ward, Serge Avery 1993. Draft: Paleoenvironmental Reconstruction Adjacent to the Mouth of Hālawa Stream: Monitoring Report of the Waiau-Makalapa No. 2 138 kV Overhead Lines (Phase II), Hālawa Ahupua‘a, ‘Ewa District, Island of O‘ahu. Manuscript, Archaeological Consultants of Hawaii. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library (O- 808), Kapolei.

Desha, Stephen 1920-1924. “Moolelo o Kekuhaupio”. Ka Hoku o Hawaii. ------2000. Kamehameha and His Warrior Kekūhaupi‘o. Honolulu, Kamehameha Schools Press.

575 576

Desilets, Michael and Maria Orr, Christophe Descantes, Windy McElroy, Amanda Sims, Dana Gaskell and Marion Maiko Ano 2009. Draft: Traditional Hawaiian Occupation and Lō Ali‘i Social Organization on O‘ahu’s Central Plateau: An Ethno-Historical Study. GANDA ms. (use courtesy of GANDA)

Dibble, Sheldon 1838. Ka Mooolelo Hawaii. [see Kahananui 1984] ------1843 (1909). A History of the Sandwich Islands. Honolulu, Thomas Thrum Publisher (of 1909 edition).

Dicks, Merrill and Alan Haun, Paul Rosendahl 1987. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statement, West Loch Estates – Golf Course and Parks. Manuscript, PHRI. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library (O-437), Kapolei.

Dixon, Boyd 2000a. “Chapter 8. Settlement and Social Organization in Kahikinui Mauka.”Confidential In B. Dixon, P. Conte, V. Nagahara, and W.K. Hodgins, Kahikinui Mauka: Archaeological Research in the Lowland Dry Forest of Leeward East Maui., pp. 326-345. State Historic Preservation Division ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------2000b. “Chapter 7. The Chronological Sequence of Kahikinui Mauka.” In B. Dixon, P. Conte, V. Nagahara, and W.K. Hodgins, Kahikinui Mauka: Archaeological Research in the Lowland Dry Forest of Leeward East Maui., pp. 304-325. State Historic Preservation Division ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Dixon, Boyd and Patti Conte, Valerie Nagahara, and W. Koa Hodgins 2000. Kahikinui Mauka: Archaeological Research in the Lowland Dry Forest of Leeward EastMaui., pp. 326-345. State Historic Preservation Division ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Dixon, Boyd, Dennis Gosser, Scott Williams, Jennifer Robins, Constance O’Hare, L. Gilda and Steve. Clark, 2003a. Final Report Cultural Resources Survey of Selected Lands Naval Magazine Pearl Harbor, Lualualei Branch, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. AMEC Earth and Environmental manuscript. On file, Department of the Navy.

Dixon, Boyd and Dennis Gosser, Scott Williams 2003b. “Traditional Hawaiian Men’s Houses and Their Socio-Political Context in Lualualei, Leeward West O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Journal of the Polynesian Society.

Dixon, George 1789. A Voyage Round the World: But More Particularly to the North- West Coast of America. George Goulding, London.

Donn, John 1902. Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Territory of Hawaii Map. Map 264.1. Archives of State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

576 577

Dye, Thomas 1989. “A Tale of Two Cultures: Traditional Historical and Archaeological Interpretations of Hawaiian Prehistory.” Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 29:3-22. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Elbert, Samuel 1951. “Hawaiian Literary Style and Culture.” American Anthropologist, 53(3):345-354.

Elbert, Samuel and Noelani Mahoe 1970. Nā Mele o Hawai‘i Nei, 101 Hawaiian Songs. The University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Ellis, William 1829. Polynesian Researches, During a Residence of Nearly Six Years in the South Sea Islands … Volume II. Fisher, Son and Jackson, London. ------1963. Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Advertiser Publishing, Honolulu.

Emerson, NathanielConfidential 1903. Notes in Malo, Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publicaiton, 2. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. [Emerson’s notes were actually inserted in his 1898 translation, sold to the Museum.] ----- 1915. Pele and Hiiaka: A Myth from Hawaii. New edition (1978), Chas. Tuttle, Tokyo.

Emory, Kenneth 1942. “The Hawaiian God ‘Io.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 51(3):200-207.

Ewa Station Reports 1836, 1860, 1863. On file, Hawaiian Children’s Mission Society Library, Honolulu.

Feher, Joseph 1969. Hawaii: A Pictorial History. B.P. Bishop Museum, Special Publication 58. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Fitzpatrick, Gary 1986. The Early Mapping of Hawai‘i. Vol. I: Palapala‘āina. Editions Limited, Honolulu.

Forbes, A.O. 1882. “The Legend of Kapeepeekauila”, or “The Rocks of Kana”. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual, pp. 36-41. T. Thrum, Honolulu.

Forbes, David 1992. Encounters with Paradise: Views of Hawaii and Its People, 1778- 1941. Honolulu Academy of Arts, Honolulu.

Fornander, Abraham 1878. An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origin and Migrations and the Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Volume I. Trubner, London. ------1880. An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origin and Migrations and the Ancient History of the Hawaiian People to the Times of Kamehameha I. Volume II. Trubner, London.

577 578

Fornander Collection 1916-1920. Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-Lore. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Memoirs, IV-VI. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Freycinet, Louis 1978. Hawaii in 1819: A Narrative Account by Louis Claude de Saulses de Freycinet. [Ella L. Wiswell, translator; Notes and Comments by Marion Kelly.] Pacific Anthropological Records, 26. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. [Chapters 27, 28, and illustrations from 1824 original publication, Voyage Autour du Monde ... : Exécuté sur Les Corvettes de S.M. L'Uranie et la Physicienne, Pendant Les Années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820.]

Frierson, Barbara 1973. A Study of Land Use and Vegetation Change: Honouliuli, 1790- 1925. Library Prize for Pacific Research, Graduate Prize Winner. Hawaiian- Pacific Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i Mānoa. Confidential Gast, Ross and Agnes Conrad 1973. Don Francisco de Paula Marin. [Biography and Journal] The University Press of Hawaii for the Hawaiian Historical Society, Honolulu.

Gladwin, Thomas 1970. East is a Big Bird. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Gomes 1911. “Map of Taro and Watered Lands in the Kaukonahua Guilch Below the Wahiawa Reservoir. State Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i, Kalanimoku Building, Honolulu.

Goodale, William 1922. “Kukaniloko” October 11, 1922 letter (on Waialua Agricultural Co., Ltd. Letterhead). Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Grant 6 1846. To John Needles Gilman, eastern half of Waikakalaua. Map with metes and bounds. Bureau of Conveyances, Department of Land & Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i, Kalanimoku Building, Honolulu. (Also in Robins & Spear 2002a: 29.)

Grants 604-606 1851. Metes and Bounds descriptions. Bureau of Conveyances, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i, Kalanimoku Building, Honolulu.

Green, Roger 1980. Mākaha Before 1880 A.D. Mākaha Valley Historical Project, Summary Report 5. Pacific Anthropological Records, 31. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Grimble, Arthur 1989. Tungaru Traditions: Writings on the Atoll Culture of the Gilbert Islands. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

578 579

Gutmanis, June 1986. Pohaku: Hawaiian Stones. Brigham Young University – Hawaii, Lā‘ie. ------n.d. “The Birth Stones of Hawai‘i. Manuscript, to be published as part of forthcoming book Pohaku: Hawaiian Stones. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Haile, Alemayehu 1976. A Historical Review and Reconstruction of the Water Rights and Water Leasing Situation of Wahiawa Reservoir and its Tributaries. M.A. thesis. Agricultural Economics, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Hale’ole, S.N. 1862. “Moolelo no ko Hawaii Oihana Kahuna i ka Wa Mamua i kapa ia he Hoomanamana: History of the Hawaiian Priesthood in Olden Times, called Hoomanamana.” In Fornander Collection 1919,6(1):66-156. ------1862. “Ka Moolelo-o-Laieikawai” Mokuna I. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, 1(53): November 29, 1862. ------1863. KeConfidential Kaao o Laieikawai. Kuokoa, Honolulu. ------1865c. “He Mau Olelo Mua No Ka Mookuahhau o Kamehameha.” [A forward for the Genealogy of Kamehameha]. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, May 4, 1865. ------1919. “The Hawaiian Romance of Laieikawai.” Bureau of American Ethnology, Thirty-third Annual Report 1911-12:285-666. [Translation and editing by Martha Beckwith from Hawaiian text of Hale‘ole.]

Hammerle, Esme and Michael Desilets 2006. Archaeological and Cultural Monitoring for Construction of Alert Holding Area and Soil Testing at the Proposed Multiple Deployment Facility, Waiele Gulch, Wheeler Army Air Field, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i: TMK (1) 7-7-01:1. GANDA ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2472), Kapolei.

Handy, E.S.C. 1940. The Hawaiian Planter. Vol. I His Plants, Methods and Areas of Cultivation. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 161. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Handy, E.S.C. and Elizabeth Green Handy 1972. Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 233. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Handy, E.S.C. and Mary Kawena Pukui 1958. The Polynesian Family System in Ka-u, Hawai’i. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Haun, Alan 1985. Draft: An Archaeological Survey of the Naval Magazine and Naval Communications Area Transmission Facility, Lualualei, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Hawai‘i State Parks website. Hawaii.stateparks.org/parks/oahu/kukaniloko.cfm. Viewed May 20, 2011.

579 580

Helekunihi, Elia 1893. February 25, 1893 letter to Oliver Emerson. (Translated by Elspeth Sterling.) Bishop Museum Archives, Bishop Museum.

Henry, Jack and Alan Walker, Paul Rosendahl 1992. Archaeological Inventory Survey of Galbraith Trust Lands. PHRI manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Hibbard, Don 1999. Memo to Ralston Nagata (State Parks Administrator) from Don Hibbard (Administrator, State Historic Preservation Division). Review of Interpretive Plan for Kukaniloko Birthstones State Monument. State Historic Preservation Division Log No: 23724; Doc No: 9906RC63. State Historic Preservation Division Correspondence Files, Kapolei.

Hibbard, Don and Holly McEldowney, Nathan Napoka 2000. “Introduction.” In S. Desha, Kamehameha and His Warrior Kekūhaupi‘o, pp. xii-xx. Kamehameha Schools Press,Confidential Honolulu.

Holden, Horace. 1836. A Narrative of the Shipwreck, Captivity and Sufferings of Horace Holden and Benj. H. Nute. Russell, Shattuck, Boston.

Holt, John Dominis 1993. Recollections: Memoirs of John Dominis Holt. Ke Pa’a Publishing Inc., Honolulu.

Honolulu Advertiser 1925a. “Birthplace of Great Chiefs is Set Aside by Impressive Ceremony.” Honolulu Advertiser. February 26, 1925. ------1925b. “Kukaniloko, Birthplace of Aliis, Oahu’s Famed Mecca of Ancient Hawaii.” Honolulu Advertiser. March 1, 1925. ------1925c. “Sacred Area at Wahiawa in Good Shape.” Honolulu Advertiser. March 1, 1925. ------1925d. “Story of Kukaniloko, Sacred Birthplace, Chanted in Ceremony.” Honolulu Advertiser, May 26, 1925.

Honolulu Advertiser 1866. March 31, 1866.

Hommon, Robert 1976. The Formation of Primitive States in Pre-contact Hawaii. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona. ------1986. “Social Evolution in Ancient Hawaii.” In P.V. Kirch (ed), Island Societies: Archaeological Approaches to Evolution and Transformation, pp 55-68. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ------1992. The Butterfly Effect in Ancient Hawaii. Paper presented at 5th Annual Society for Hawaiian Archaeology conference, Symposium 7, Kaua’I Community College.

Honolulu Star Bulletin 1927. “Wahiawa “healing stone” has no healing power.” Honolulu Star Bulletin, December 6, 1927.

580 581

Ho‘omanawanui, Sherilyn Ku‘ualoha 2007. Pele’s Appeal: Mo‘olelo, Kaona, and Hulihia in "Pele and Hi‘iaka" literature (1860-1928). Ph.D. thesis, Department of English. Hawaiian Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006. TheEpic Tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele: Woman of the Sunrise, Lightning-skirted Beauty of Halema‘uma‘u. Translated by M. Puakea Nogelmeier. Awaiaulu, Honolulu.

Ho‘oulumāhiehie 2006. Ka Mo‘olelo o Hi‘iakaikapoliopele: Ka Wahine i Ka Hikina a Ka Lā, Ka U‘i Palekoki Uila o Halema‘uma‘u. Awaiaulu, Honolulu.

Hughes, Henry 1949. November 28, 1949 letter to Mrs. Guy Rothwell (Daughters of Hawaii) from Henry Hughes (President of Waialua Hawaiian Civic Club). Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Hukilani, S.A. Confidential1860. “He Mele.” Ka Hae Hawaii, October 10, 1860.

Hunnewell, James 1909. “Honolulu in 1817 and 1818”. Papers of the Hawaiian Historical Society, 8.

‘Ī‘ī, John Papa ms. “Waialua Trail.” In E. Sterling and C. Summers (eds), Sites of Oahu, p. 89. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. ------1959. Fragments of Hawaiian History. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. [Translation of 1866-1870 Hawaiian newspaper articles.]

Ingraham, Joseph 1971. Joseph Ingraham’s Journal of the Brigantine Hope on a Voyage to the Northwest Coast of North America 1790-92. (Editor Mark Kaplanoff). Imprint Society, Barre (Mass.)

Jarves, James 1843. History of the Hawaiian Islands. Edward Moxon, London. ------1844 Scenes and Scenery in the Sandwich Islands, and a Trip Through Central America: Being Observations from My Note-book During the Years 1837-1842. Edward Moxon, London.

Jensen, Lucia Tarallo and Natalie Mahina Jensen 2005. Nā Kaikamahine ‘o Haumea: Daughters of Haumea, Women of Ancient Hawai‘i. Pueo Press, San Francisco.

Johnson, Carina n.d. “Chapter 3, Section 2. Ahupua’a History: Pre-1900.” In Cordy et al. in preparation, Nānākuli: A Leeward O‘ahu Valley. Draft State Historic Preservation Division manuscript. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Johnson, Rubellite Kawena 1986. Ethnoastronomy: An Overview of Problems and History of Archaeo- and Ethno-Astronomy of Pacific and Hawaiian Sites. Hawaiian Studies 1986 talk. Manuscript. On file, Hawaiian-Pacific Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

581 582

------2001. Essays in Hawaiian Literature Part I: Origin Myths and Migration Traditions. R.K. Johnson, University of Hawai‘i Mānoa.

Johnson, Rubellite Kawena and Henry Iwasa 1998. “The Kanikau as Nineteenth Century Hawaiian Biography.” The Center for Biographical Research Brown Bag November 5, 1998 talk. Manuscript. On file, Hawaiian-Pacific Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Johnson, Rubellite Kawena and John Kaipo Mahelona 1975. Nā Inoa Hōkū: A Catalogue of Hawaiian and Pacific Star Names. Topgallant Publishing Co., Ltd., Honolulu.

Judd, Laura 1928. Honolulu: Sketches of the Life, Social, Political and Religious in the Hawaiian Islands from 1828 to 1861. The Honolulu Star Bulletin, Honolulu.

Kaeppler, AdrienneConfidential 1978. “Artificial Curiosities,” being An Exposition of Native Manufactures Collected on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain James Cook, R.N. at the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum January 18, 1978 – August 31, 1978. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication, 65. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Kahananui, Dorothy (ed and translator) 1984. Ka Mooolelo Hawaii. Committee for the [Translation and original Hawaiian of 1838 Lahainaluna book.] Preservation and Study of Hawaiian Language, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu.

Kahekili-wahine and Kailinaoa 1868. “He mele koihonua no Ahukai Kauukualii.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, June 20, 1868.

Kalākaua, David 1888. The Legends and Myths of Hawaii. [1990 edition. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu.]

Kalanikuihonoinamoku, B.V. 1865. “No na wahi a na’Lii e makemake ai e noho i ka wa kahiko ma ka Mopuni o Oahu nei” [“Concerning the Place the Chiefs Desired to Live on the Island of Oahu in the Time of Old”] Ke Au Okoa, 1(15) July 31.

Kamakau, Kelou 1919-1920. “No Na Oihana Kahuna Kahiko”, “Concerning Ancient Religious Ceremonies”. In Fornander Collection vol.6,2:2-43. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. [At least a 1860s manuscript, in W.D. Alexander’s collection by the end of the 1800s. Passed to Museum for inclusion in the Fornander Collection. In Hawaiian and English translation. Translated by John Wise as part of the Museum’s publication.]

Kamakau, Samuel 1865. “No Ke Ano Hoku.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, July 26, 1865. [Hawaiian and English translation of W.D. Alexander in R. Johnson & J. Mahelona 1975. Nā Inoa Hōkū: A Catalogue of Hawaiian and Pacific Star Names, pp. 72-73 (English), 155-157 (Hawaiian). Topgallant Publishing Co., Ltd., Honolulu.] ------1868a. “Ka Moolelo o na Kamehameha, Helu 58.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, February

582 583

1, 1868. ------1868b. “He Mau Mele Koihonua a me na Mele no Kauilamakehaikalani Kamaialii”. Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, Oct. 3, 1868. ------1961. Ruling Chiefs of Hawai’i. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. [Mary Kawena Pukui final lead translator, Pukui and Martha Beckwith editors.] [Translation of 1867-1870 Hawaiian newspaper articles.] ------1964. Ka Po’e Kahiko: The People of Old. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. [Mary Kawena Pukui lead translator, Dorothy Barrere editor] ------1976. The Works of the People of Old: Na Hana a ka Po‘e Kahiko. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. [Mary Kawena Pukui lead translator, Dorothy Barrere editor] ------1991. Tales and Traditions of the People of Old: Nā Mo‘oleleo a ka Po‘e Kahiko. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. [Mary Kawena Pukui lead translator, Dorothy Barrere editor] [Translation from 1865-1869 Ka Nupepa Kuokoa and Ke Au Okoa] ------1996. Ke Kumu Aupuni : ka mo‘olelo Hawai‘i no Kamehameha Ka Na‘i Aupuni a me kāna aupuniConfidential i ho‘okumu ai. Ahahui Olelo Hawai‘i, Honolulu. [1866-1868 newspaper articles.] ------2001. Ke Aupuni Mō‘ī: Ka Mo‘olelo Hawai‘i no Kauikeaouli keiki ho‘oilina a Kamehameha a me ke aupuna āna i noho mō‘ī ai. Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu. [1868-1869 Kuokoa and 1869 Ke Au Okoa articles. Puakea Nogelmeier head editor.]

Kāme‘eleihiwa, Lilikalā 1992. Native Land and Foreign Desires: How Shall We Live in Harmony? Ko Hawai‘i ‘Āina a me Nā Koi Pu‘umakea ka Po‘e Haole: Pehae lā e Pono ai? Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. ------1996. He Mo‘olelo Ka‘ao o Kamapua‘a. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. ------1999. Nā Wāhine Kapu: Divine Hawaiian Women. Ai Pōhaku Press, Honolulu.

Kamehameha III n.d. Land Matters – No Date: Document No. 315 – Translation. Grant of Kalauao land to John Meek. State Archives, Honolulu.

Kanahele, George 1991. “Foreward.” In Van James, Ancient Sites of O‘ahu: A Guide to Hawaiian Archaeological Places of Interest. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Ke Au Hou 1910. July 13, 1910

Keamoku, (Mrs.) K. 1862. “He inoa no Kawailahaole.” Hoku o Ka Pakipika, Feb. 13, 1862.

Kekahuna, Miliama 1867. “Kanikau aloha no Kahananui.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, January 19, 1867.

Kekupuohi and “some other chiefs” (“kekahi poe alii”) 1868. “He mele koihonua no Kalua i Konahale Kuakini.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, July 11, 1868.

583 584

Kelly, Marion 1985 Notes on the History of Lualualei. In A. Haun, Draft: An Archaeological Survey of the Naval Magazine and Naval Communications Area Transmission Facility, Lualualei, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Bishop Museum ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-1122), Kapolei.

Kenn, Charles 1937. “Kukaniloko – Birthplace of Oahu Aliis.” Paradise Holiday. ------1978 (translator). Moolelo of Ancient Hawaii by John Pogue. Topgallant Publishing Co., Honolulu.

Kepelino [Keplino Keauokalani] 1868. Mooolelo Hawaii. Manuscript book. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1932. Kepelino’s Traditions of Hawaii. [Original Hawaiian and English translation by M. Beckwith.] Bishop Museum Bulletin, 95. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

King, Pauline (ed)Confidential 1982. The Diaries of David Lawrence Gregg: An American Diplomat in Hawaii 1853-1858. Hawaiian Historical Society, Honolulu. ------1989. Journal of Stephen Reynolds. Vol. I: 1823-1829. Honolulu, Ku Pa‘a, Inc and Salem, The Peabody Museum of Salem.

King, Samuel Wilder 1926. “Hawaiians as Navigators and Seamen”. Annual Report of Hawaiian Historical Society for Year 1925, 11-14.

King, Thomas 2003. Places That Count: Traditional Cultural Properties in Cultural Resource Management. Volume 3, Heritage Resources Management Series. Altamira Press, Walnut Creek (California).

King, Thomas and Patricia Parker 1990. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin, 38. National Park Service, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Kingdom Maps (Kingdom of Hawai’I Maps) 1870s. “Map, Showing the Boundary Between Wahiawa and Waianae Uka.” (Anonymous). [Ca. 1870 likely, for Monsarrat’s 1875 traced map (just below) appears to be the same map, with some labeling differences. This may be the Board of Education map.] Reg. Map 1218. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i. 1870s-b. Crown Lands on the Central O’ahu Plateau, showing portion Waianae uka, Pouhala uka, and Waikakalaua. [This maps seems to use the 1876 Central Oahu map as its base map, with new lettering. It is possible that this was drawn recently, perhaps for Tomonari-Tuggle’s report.] In Tomonari-Tuggle 1994:21. 1873 Map of Honouliuli (W.D. Alexander). 1875. “Tracing of the Map of Wahiawa, Waialua, Oahu.” (M.D. Monsarrat). Noted to be “from the original map in the possession of the Board of Education.” (Apparently traced for Hawaiian Government Survey office.)

584 585

Reg. Map 80. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i. 1876. Central Oahu. (W.D. Alexander). Hawaiian Government Survey. Reg. Map 399. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i. 1878b. Monsarrat – Map of Honouliuli Valley. Reg. Map 630. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i. 1881. Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. 1:60,000. (C.J. Lyons) On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i. 1889. Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. (T.D. Beasley). 1889b. Waikele ahupua‘a map. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i.

Kirch, Patrick 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. ------1992. VolumeConfidential Two. In Patrick Kirch & Marshall Sahlins (eds), Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ------(ed) 1997. Na Mea Kahiko o Kahikinui: Studies in the Archaeology of Kahikinui, Maui. Oceanic Archaeology Laboratory, Special Publication 1. Archaeological Research Facility, University of California, Berkeley. ------2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. University of California Press, Berkeley. ------2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai‘i. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Kirch, Patrick and Mark McCoy 2007. “Reconfiguring the Hawaiian Cultural Sequence: Results of Re-Dating the Hālawa Dune Site (MO-A!-3), Moloka‘i Island.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 116(4):385-406.

Kolb, Michael 1991. Social Power, Chiefly Authority, and Ceremonial Architecture in an Island Polity, Maui, Hawaii. Ph.D. thesis, UCLA. ------1994. “Monumentality and the Rise of Religious Authority in Precontact Hawai’i. Current Anthropology, 35:521-548. ------1999. “Monumental Grandeur and Political Florescence in Pre-Contact Hawai‘i: Excavations at Pi‘ilanihale Heiau, Maui.” Archaeology in Oceania, 34(2):73-82.

Kolb, Michael and Patty Conte, Ross Cordy 1997. Kula: The Archaeology of Upcountry Maui in Waiohuli and Kēōkea: An Archaeological and Historical Settlement Survey in the Kingdom of Maui. Manuscript. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Office Library, Kapolei.

Korn, Alfons (ed) 1958. The Victorian Visitors: An Account of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1861-1866, Including the Journal Letters of Sophia Cracroft, Extracts from the Journals of Lady Franklin and Diaries and Letters of Queen Emma of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

585 586

------(ed) 1976. News from Molokai: Letters Between Peter Kaeo and Queen Emma 1873-1876. The University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu..

Kramer, Augustin 1919. Palau. Volume 3(2). Ergebnisse der Sudsee-Expedition 1908- 1910. L. Friederichsen & Co., Hamburg. ------1994. The Samoa Islands. Volume 1. (original publication 1902-1903, translated by Theodore Verhaaren.) University of Hawai’I Press, Honolulu.

Kronk, Gary 1999. Cometography: A Catalog of Comets. Volume I: Ancient - 1799. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kupahu 1865. “”Hoomana Kahiko” (“Ancient Beliefs”), Helu 33. Ka Nupepa Ku‘oko‘a [Hawaiian and English translation in R. Johnson and Mahelona 1975 Nā Inoa Hōkū: A Catalogue of Hawaiian and Pacific Star Names, pp. 158-163 (Hawaiian), 164-170 (English). Topgallant Publishing Co., Ltd., Honolulu.] Confidential Kurth, Harry 1982. A Hawaiian Stonehenge Discovered. Manuscript. Inserted within H. Kurth and R.K. Johnson 1989, The Birthstones of Kukaniloko Heiau: Are They Oriented to Sky Phenomena? Manuscript, Daughter of Hawai‘i Archives.

Kurth, Harry and Rubellite Kawena Johnson 1989. The Birth Stones of Kukaniloko Heiau: Are They Oriented to Sky Phenomena? Manuscript, Daughter of Hawai’i Archives.

Kuykendall, Ralph 1929. “Some Early Commercial Adventurers of Hawaii.” Annual Report of Hawaiian Historical Society for Year 1928, 15-33. ------1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom Vol. 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. ------1953. The Hawaiian Kingdom. Vol. II: 1854-1874 Twenty Critical Years. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Kyselka, Will 1993. Memorandum of February 22, 1993 to Tom Lenchanko, Tom Dye, and others. Attached is a paper, Prelilminary Thoughts on Ku-kani-loko (by W. Kyselka). 15 pp. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Ladd, Edmund 1969. “Alealea Temple Site, Honaunau: Salvage Report.” In R. Pearson (ed.), Archaeology on the Island of Hawaii, pp. 95-132. Asian & Pacific Archaeology series, 3. Social Science Research Institute, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu. ------1987. Excavations at Site A-27. Archaeology at Pu‘uhonua o Honaunau National Historic Park. Western Archeological and Conservation Center Publications in Anthropology, 43. National Park Service.

586 587

Lambert, Bernd 1954. Rank and Ramage in the Northern Gilbert Islands. Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley. ------1966. “Ambilineal Descent Groups in the Northern Gilbert Islands.” American Anthropologist, 68:641-664.

Lewis, David 1972. We, the Navigators. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Lilikalani, E.W. 1932. Appendix 8. Rank Among the Chiefs of Hawaii. In M. Beckwith (ed), Kepelino’s Traditions of Hawaii, pp. 195-198. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 95. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Lili‘uokalani 1897. The Kumulipo: An Hawaiian Creation Myth. Pueo Press, Kentfield (California). [1978 reprint of 1897 original publication]

Lisiansky, Urey 1814. A Voyage Round the World in the Years 1803, 4, 5, & 6 … in the Ship NevaConfidential. Printed for John Booth and Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme & Brown, London.

Luomala, Katherine 1955. Voices on the Wind: Polynesian Myths and Chants. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. ------1961. “A Dynamic in Oceanic Maui Myths: Visual Illustration with Reference to Hawaiian Localization.” Sonderdruck aus Fabula, 4(1-2):137-162. ------1979. “Traditions as Evidence of Hawaiian Cultural Contact with Other Polynesians.” Hawaiian Migration and Settlement Seminar, Moanalua Gardens Foundation. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa typescript. Hawaiian Pacific Collection, Hamilton Library, University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.

Lyons, Curtis .J. 1875. “A Song for Kualii”. The Islander. Vol. I (March 5-Oct 29, 1875). ------1881. Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. Kingdom map, 1:60,000. ------1903. A History of the Hawaiian Government Survey with Notes on Land Matters. Hawaiian Gazette Co., Honolulu. [Appendix 4 – Land Matters in Hawaii, No. 1 was originally published in The Islander in 1874.]

Magnuson, C. M., J. A. Peterson, and M. T. Carson. 2004. Cultural Resource Assessment for the Waikane Valley Impact Area, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i, TMK 4-8-14. Draft manuscript, International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Māhele [Māhele Archival Records] Native Register. ca. 1848-1849. Native Register of Kuleana Claims Recorded by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Manuscript volumes, translated. State of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. Foreign Register. ca. 1847-1849. Foreign Register of Kuleana Claims Recorded by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Manuscript volumes, translated. State of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

587 588

Foreign Testimony. Ca. 1848. Foreign Testimony Recorded by the Board of commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Manuscript volumes, translated. State of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. Native Testimony. ca. 1849. Native Testimony Recorded by the Board of Commissioners to Quiet Land Titles in the Hawaiian Islands. Manuscript volumes, translated. State of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. Award Books. Early 1850s. Awards Books [with maps of each LCA parcel]. Handwritten volumes. Lands Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Kulanimoku Building, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Makanaole, Somerset 1994. April 12, 1994 letter to Kiyoshi Ikeda, Chair of Hawaii Review Board of Historic Places in support of the National Register boundary expansion. On file, Hanging file 80-04-218, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Malo, Davida 1827.Confidential He Buke no ka Oihana Kula. [“A Book for School Teaching”] Manuscript on chiefly genealogies. (In original Hawaiian and translated as appendix in Chun 2006:207-253). ------1839. “On the Decrease of Population on the Hawaiian Islands.” The Hawaiian Spectator, 2(2):121-130. ------1903. Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication, 2. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1951. Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication, 2. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. [2nd edition]

Maly, Kepa 1992. “Historical Documentary Research.” In Henry, Walker & Rosendahl, Archaeological Inventory Survey of Galbraith Trust Lands. PHRI manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Manu, Moses 2002. Keaomelemele: He Moolelo Kaao no Keaomelemele. Hawaiian and English (translated by Mary Kawena Pukui). Edited by Puakea Nogelmeier. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Masse, W. Bruce 1995. “The Celestial Basis of Civilization.” Vistas in Astronomy, 39:463-477.

Masse, W. Bruce and Rubellite Johnson, H. David Tuggle in preparation. Dialog of Earth and Sky. Referenced in Masse and Tuggle 1998.

Masse, W. Bruce and H. David Tuggle 1998. “The Date of Hawaiian Colonization.” In C. Stevenson, G. Lee, and F. Morin (eds), Easter Island in Pacific Context. South Seas Symposium. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Easter Island and East Polynesia, pp. 229-235. Easter Island Foundation, Los Osos.

Mathison, Gilbert 1825. Narrative of a Visit to Brazil, Chile, Peru, and the Sandwich Islands, during the Years 1821 and 1822. Charles Knight, London.

588 589

Maude, H.E. 1963. “The Evolution of the Gilbertese Boti.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 72(1), Memoir 35.

McAllister, J. Gilbert 1933. Archaeology of Oahu. B.P. Bishop Museum Bulletin, 104. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

McEldowney, Holly 1986. A Narrative Summarizing and Analyzing Historical and Archaeological Documetns Gathered on the Kamoa Point State Park. Manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (H-1197), Kapolei.

McGerty, L. and Robert Spear 2004. A Planning-Level Traditional Cultural Places (TCP) Survey of Kahuku Training Area (KTA) and Kawailoa Training Area (KLOA), U.S. Army Garrison, Hawai‘i, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Manuscript, Scientific Consultant Services. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. Confidential McGrath, Edward Jr. and Kenneth Brewer, Bob Krauss 1973. Historic Waianae: A Place of Kings. Island Heritage Ltd., Norfolk Island, Australia.

McIntosh, James and Tim Denham, Paul Cleghorn 1995. Report of Archaeological Inventory Survey with Subsurface testing for Work Area 2 of the Proposed Family Housing Project at Schofield Barracks Millitary Reservation, Wahiawā District, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i (TMK: 7-7-01). Biosystems manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-1309), Kapolei.

McKenzie, Edith 1983. Hawaiian Genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers. Vol. 1. The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University Hawai‘i, Laie. ------1986. Hawaiian Genealogies Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers, Vol. 2. The Institute for Polynesian Studies, Brigham Young University Hawai‘i, Laie.

Meares, John 1967. Voyages Made in the Years 1788 and 1789 from China to the North- West Coast of America. N. Israel, Amsterdam. [Orig. publication 1790, Logographic Press, London]

Meek, Eli 1875. Probate 751, Estate of Eli Meek. 1st Circuit Court Records. Microfilm. State Archives, Honolulu.

Meek, John 1847. July 1, 1847 Lease agreement between Minister of Finance of Kingdom of Hawai‘i and John Meek for “A Butcher’s Shop … situated on the wharf lately built beyond the land called Pulaholaho.” State Archives, Honolulu. ----- ca. 1854 [last number of date unclear]. March 27 Letter to John Young, Minister of Interior for Privy Council. State Archives, Honolulu. ----- 1875. Probate 763, Estate of John Meek. 1st Circuit Court Records. Microfilm. State Archives, Honolulu.

589 590

Menzies, Archibald 1920. Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago: Journal of Archibald Menzies, Kept During His Three Visits to the Sandwich Islands when Acting as Surgeon and Naturalist on Board HMS Discovery. The New Freedom Press, Honolulu.

Meyen, F.J. 1981. A Botanist’s Visit to Oahu in 1831: Being the Journal of Dr. F.J.F. Meyen’s Travels and Observations about the Island of Oahu. [Translated by Astrid Jackson; edited by Mary Anne Pultz.] Press Pacifica, Ltd., Kailua (Hawai‘i).

Monahan, Chris 2008. Na Wahi Pana o Waimea (O‘ahu): A Traditional Cultural Property Study of Waimea. Manuscript. On file, OHA, Honolulu.

Monahan, Chris and Kehaulani Silva 2007. A Traditional Cultural Property Study of Kāne‘ikapualena (Kamaile), Wai‘anae, O‘ahu. Manuscript. On file, OHA, Honolulu. Confidential Mookini, Esther and Sara Nākoa 1990. The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao. [English translation of M. Nakuina 1902 story.] Kalamakū Press, Honolulu.

Monsarrat, M.D. 1875. Tracing of the Map of Wahiawa, Waialua, Oahu. From Original in Board of Education. Kingdom of Hawaii. 20 ch = 1 inch. Reg. Map 80. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawai‘i.

Murakami, Gail 1997. “Charcoal Taxa Identifications in Samples from Central O’ahu.” Robins and Spear 2002b: Appendix D.

Na Ami 1860. “He Mele no ka Haku Hawaii.” Ka Hae Hawaii, July 25, 1860.

Naboa, Deona 2009. Post-contact Abandonment of Traditional House Sites in Upper Wai‘anae Valley, Hawaiian Islands.” M.A. thesis, Dept. Anthropology, Northern Illinois University

Nailielua, Abigaila 1865. “He Kanikau no Paulo Kanakaolei.” Ka Nupepa Kuokoa, January 12, 1865.

Nakuina, Emma 1897. “Legend of Oahunui.” Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1898. pp. 90-95. Honolulu.

Nakuina, Moses 1902. Moolelo Hawaii o Pakaa a me Ku-a-Pakaa, na Kahu Iwikuamoo o Keawenuiaumi, ke Alli o Hawaii, a o na Moopuna hoi a Laamaomoa. ------1990. The Wind Gourd of La‘amaomao. [English translation by E. Mookini and S. Nākoa of M. Nakuina 1902 story.] Kalamakū Press, Honolulu.

590 591

National Register (Nomination Form) 1972. Kukaniloko Birthstones. [Prepared by T. Stell Newman, Archaeologist, State Historic Preservation Office.] (Submitted to National Register of Historic Places January 1973. Entered into the National Register April 1973.) On file, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

National Register (Nomination Form) 1994. Kukaniloko Birth Site (Boundary Increase). Submitted to National Register of Historic Places December 1994. (Entered into National Register February 1995.) On file, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Na Wahi Pana o Ewa 1899. “Na Wahi Pana o Ewa” [“Noted Places of Ewa, Lost and Not Seen Today”]. Serial in Ka Loea Kalaiaina. Translation in HEN (Hawaiian Ethnographic Notes). Bishop Museum Archives, Honolulu.

Nedbalek, Lani 1984. Wahiawa: From Dream to Community. Wonder View Press, Mililani. Confidential

Nellist, George (ed) 1925. “The Story of Hawaii and Its Builders.” Honolulu Star Bulletin.

Nogelmeier, Puakea 2002. “Olelo Mua/Preface.” In Moses Manu, Keaomelemele. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------2006. “Commentary.” In Ho‘oulumāhiehie, The epic tale of Hi‘iakaikapoliopele : woman of the sunrise, lightning-skirted beauty of Halema‘uma‘u, pp. 429-432. ____ 2010. Mai Pa‘a i Ka Leo: Historical Voice in Hawaiian Primary Materials, Looking Forward and Listening Back. Bishop Museum and Awaiaulu Press, Honolulu.

Noyes, Martha 2011a. Some Preliminary Thoughts on Landscape in Hawaiian Cultural Astronomy at Kukaniloko. Paper presented at the Society for Hawaiian Archaeology Annual Conference, Wailuku. ------2011b. Astronomy in the Oral Literature of Hawaii. Poster presentation at the Inspiration of Astronomical Phenomena Conference, Bath Royal Literary and Scientific Institute, United Kingdom. (October 25-29, 2011.)

OEQC (Office of Environmental Quality Control) 2004. “Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts. In OEQC, Guidebook for the Hawai’I state Environmental Review Process. OEQC, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

O’Hare, Constance and David Shideler, Hallett Hammatt 2006a. Archaeological Inventory Survey, Western Slope of Pu‘u Pālailai, Honouliuli Ahupua‘a, ‘Ewa District, O‘ahu. TMK: (1) 9-2-003:005 (por.) and 9-1-015:005 por. Cultural Surveys Hawaii ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2450), Kapolei. ------2006b. An Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Ho‘opili Project, Honouliuli

591 592

Ahupua‘a, ‘Ewa District, Island of O‘ahu. Cultural Surveys Hawaii ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2537), Kapolei.

Oliver, Douglas 1974. Ancient Tahitian Society. 3 volumes. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Orr, Maria 2001. Dole Plantation Cultural Impact Assessment & Limited Ground Survey, TMK: 6-4-003:08, 11 and TMK: 6-4-004:07, Lot 2, 87 Ac; Lot D, 163 Ac, Pa‘ala‘a-uka Ahupua‘a, District of Waialua, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Manuscript. Provided by Maria Orr.

Osorio, Jonathan 2002. Dismembering Lāhui: A History of the Hawaiian Nation to 1887. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Pacific Commercial Advertiser 1875. “The Late Captain John Meek.” Pacific CommercialConfidential Advertiser, March 13, 1875.

Parker, Patricia 1993. “Traditional Cultural Properties: What You Do and How We Think.” Traditional Cultural Properties. CRM 16, Special Issue. National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Poepoe, Joseph 1891. Ka moolelo o ka Moi Kalakaua I. Honolulu. ------1905-1906. “Kamehameha I, Ka Na’I Aupuni o Hawaii, Ka Liona o Ka Moana Pakipika.” Ka Nai Aupuni o Hawaii.

Pogue, John 1858. Ka Mooolelo Hawaii. Honolulu, Hale Paipalapala.

Portlock, Nathaniel 1789. A Voyage Round the World: But More Particularly to the North West Coast of America. For Stockdale, G. Goulding, London.

Prasad, U.K. 2003. Cultural Impacts on Traditional Cultural Properties from Continued Military Use of U.S. Army Makua Military Reservation, Wai‘anae, Oahu Island, Hawai‘i. Social Research Pacific, Inc. ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------2005a. Oral Historic Studies for the Determination of Traditional Cultural Places at the U.S. Army Schofield Barracks Military Reservation, Wahiawa, Oahu Island, Hawaii. Social Research Pacific, Inc. ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------2005b. Planning Level Oral History Survey of Traditional Cultural Properties on U.S. Army Pōhakuloa Training Area, Hawai‘i Island, Hawai‘i. Social Research Pacific, Inc. ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Pukui, Mary Kawena 1942. “Hawaiian Beliefs and Customs During Birth, Infancy and Childhood.” Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 16(17):357-381. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1953. “Kaiona, the Goddess.” As told July 16, 1953. In E. Sterling and C.

592 593

Summers 1978, Sites of Oahu, p. 133. ------1983. ‘Ōlelo No‘eau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Political Sayings. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum Special Publication, 71. Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel Elbert 1971. Hawaiian Dictionary. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel Elbert, Esther Mo‘okini 1974. Place Names of Hawaii. (Revised and Enlarged edition.) University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Pukui, Mary Kawena and E.W. Haertig, Catherine Lee 1972. Nānā i ke Kumu: Look to the Source. Volume II. Hui Hanai, Honolulu.

Pukui, Mary Kawena and Alfons Korn 1973. The Echo of Our Song: Chants and Poems of the Hawaiians. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Confidential Roberts, R.G. 1953. “The Dynasty of Abemama.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 62(3):267-278.

Robins, Jennifer and Robert Spear 1997a. Cultural Resources Inventory Survey & Limited Testing, Phase II, of the U.S. Army Schofield Barracks Training Areas for the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Ecosystem Management Program, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Draft summary report, SCS ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei. ------1997c. Research Design for a Cultural Resources Inventory Survey, Phase II, of the U.S. Army Schofield Barracks Training Areas for the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Ecosystem Management Program, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. SCS ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-1737), Kapolei. ------2002a Cultural Resources Inventory and Limited Testing, Phase I, of the Schofield Barracks Training Areas for the Preparation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan for the U.S. Army Training Ranges and Areas, O‘ahu Island, Hawai‘i (TMK 7- 6-01 and 7-7-01). SCS ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2126), Kapolei. ------2002b Cultural Resources Inventory Survey and Limited Testing, Phase II of the U.S. Army Schofield Barracks Training Areas for the U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Ecosystem Management Program, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. SCS ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2125), Kapolei. [Phase II (April- May 1997)]

Robins, Jennifer and Cassidy DeBaker, Alice Roberts 2005. Intensive Archaeological Survey of McCarthy Flats and BAX Training Range Construction projects for the Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) US Army Hawaii, Schofield Barracks, Wai‘anae Uka Ahupua‘a, Wahiawa District, Island of O‘ahu, Hawai‘i (TMK 7-7- 01). Volume I. 2003 Survey Results. GANDA ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2466), Kapolei.

593 594

Rose, Roger 1980. Hawai‘i: The Royal Isles. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Sahlins, Marshall 1981. Historical Metaphors and Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands Kingdom. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. ------1985. Islands of History. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ------1992. Volume One: Historical Ethnography. In Patrick Kirch & Marshall Sahlins (eds), Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Schmitt, Robert 1973. The Missionary Censuses of Hawaii. Pacific Anthropological Records, no. 20. Department of Anthropology. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. ------1977. Historical Statistics of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu.

Shapiro, William and Paul Rosendahl 1988. Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and Limited SubsurfaceConfidential Testing Waianae Kai Property. PHRI manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

SHPD (State Historic Preservation Division) 1989. Protecting Our Past: The Historic Preservation Development Review Process. Color brochure. (Prepared by Ross Cordy and Don Hibbard). State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei.

Silva, Noenoe 2003. “Talking Back to Law and Empire: Hula in Hawaiian Language Literature in 1861.” In S.E. Merry and D. Brenners (eds), Law and Empire in the Pacific: Fiji and Hawai’i. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe. ------2004. “The Importance of Hawaiian Language Sources for Understanding the Hawaiian Past.” English Studies in Canada, June 2004 (3 pp). (off internet).

Simmons, David 1976. The Great New Zealand Myth: A Study of the Discovery and Origin Traditions of the Maori. A.H. & A.W. Reed, Wellington.

Smithe, Libby n.d. “Brief History – Wahiawa Town.” 2 page manuscript, noted “Data from the files of the Wahiawa Community and Business Association.

Spitz, Bernice Dwight 1925. Summary of February 2, 1925 Visit to Kukaniloko by the Kukaniloko Committee of the Daughters of Hawai‘i, meeting members of the local community. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. [Copy also at Bishop Museum Library, Webb, E. Lahilahi, Kukaniloko, Case 4, K29.]

Stasack, Ed and Diane Stasack 2005. Waikoloa Petroglyph Preserve Rock Art (Petroglyph) Recording Project. Manuscript. On file, Ala Kahakai National Historic trail, National Park Service, Kailua-Kona. ------2010. Rock Art (Petroglyph) Report, Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument. Manuscript. Personal copy.

594 595

State of Hawaii Archives. 1878 Waialua Census. MFL (Microfilm) 65. State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu. ------1878 Ewa and Waianae Census. MFL (Microfilm) 65. State of Hawaii Archives, Honolulu.

Sterling, Elspeth and Catherine Summers 1978. Sites of Oahu. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu.

Stokes, J.F.G. 1906. August 15, 22 1906 Letter to William Brigham, Director of B.P. Bishop Museum. In McEldowney 1986, A Narrative Summarizing and Analyzing Historical and Archaeological Documents Gathered on the Kamoa Point State Park. Manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (H-1197), Kapolei. ------1930. “Origin of the Condemnation of Captain Cook in Hawaii: A Study in Cause and Effect.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society, pp. 68-98. ------1933. “NewConfidential Bases for Hawaiian Chronology.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society, pp. 23-65. ------1934. “Honolulu and Some New Speculative Phases of Hawaiian History.” Annual Report of the Hawaiian Historical Society, pp. 40-102.

Swanzy, Julie Judd 1927. Drafts of November 1, 1927 letter, Swanzy (Regent of Daughters of Hawaii) to Hawaiian Trust Company, Limited. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Tax Map Key Books n.d. On File, State Historic Preservation Division, Kapolei. O‘ahu. Zone 6. Waialua. O‘ahu. Zone 7. Waianae uka and Wahiawa. O‘ahu. Zone 9. ‘Ewa.

Taylor, Albert P. 1922. Under Hawaiian Skies: A Narrative of the Romance, Adventure and History of the Hawaiian Islands. Advertiser Publishing Co., Honolulu. ------1925. Honolulu Advertiser, Nov. 22, 1925

Taylor, Emma Ahuena 1925. “Report of Mrs. Emma Ahuena Taylor” of a February 18, 1925 visit to Kukaniloko. February 22, 1925 summary. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Territory Maps (Territory of Hawaii Maps) 1899 Public Lands Map No. 25, Wahiawa, Waialua, Oahu. (M.D. Monsarrat). Reg. Map 1941. On file, Surveys Division, Department of Accounting and General Services, State of Hawaii, Honolulu (Kalanimoku Building). 1902 Oahu, Hawaiian Islands. (Preparer: John Donn.) Territory of Hawaii Map. Map 264.1. Archives of State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

595 596

Thomas, Cardinal Kuhio 1994. April 1994 letter in support of National Register Nomination of Kukaniloko. {Written for Lurlene Lee, President, Wahiawā Hawaiian Civic Club.] On file, Hanging file 80-04-218, Hawaii Historic Preservation Office, Kapolei.

Thrum, Thomas 1902. Historical review of road improvements. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual. ----- 1907. Hawaiian Folk Tales; A Collection of Native Legends. A.C. McClurg & Co., Chicago. ------1907a. “Heiau and Heiau Sites Throughout the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. pp. 38-47. ------1907b. “Tales from the temples: Part II.” Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1908. pp. 48-78. ------1911. “Kukaniloko: Famed Birthplace of Aliis.” Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1912. pp. 101-105. Honolulu. Confidential Tomonari-Tuggle, Myra 1994 Archaeology and History on the Central O‘ahu Plateau: A Cultural Resources Assessment of Wheeler Army Airfield. IARII ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Tuggle, H. David and Myra Tomonari-Tuggle 1997. A Cultural Resource Inventory of Naval Air Station, Barbers Point, O‘ahu, Hawai‘i. Part I: Phase I Survey and Inventory Summary. IARII ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-1460), Kapolei. ------2004. A Study of Potential Native Hawaiian Traditional Cultural Places, Navy Region Hawaii. With the collaboration of Maria E. Ka‘imipono Orr, Kepā Maly Kumu Pono Associates, and Kalani Flores Mana ‘o‘i‘o. IARII ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library, Kapolei.

Tulcher, Todd and Hallett Hammatt 2006. Archaeological Literature Review and Field Inspection for the Proposed Whitmore Village Development Project, Kamananui Ahupua‘a, Wahiawā District, Island of O‘ahu. Cultural Surveys Hawaii ms. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-2620), Kapolei.

USGS (United States Geological Survey) 1983. Haleiwa Quadrangle. 1:24,000. ------1983. Schofield Barracks Quadrangle. 1:24,000.

Useem, John 1946. Report on Yap and Palau. U.S. Commercial Company, Honolulu.

Valeri, Valerio 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Vancouver, George 1798. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World. For G.G. and j. Robinson and J. Edwards, London.

Von Holt, Ida Knudsen 1953. Stories of Long Ago. Privately Published, Honolulu.

596 597

Wagner-Wright, Sandra (ed) 1999. Ships, Furs, and Sandalwood. A Yankee Trader in Hawai’I, 1823-1825 Charles H. Hammatt. University of Hawai’I Press, Honolulu.

Walker, Ranginui 1990. Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle Without End. Penguin Books, Auckland.

Webb, Lahilahi 1925a. Informant information, from Mr. Kapanokalani – “Where Kukaniloko was”. August 13th or 14th, 1925 summary. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------1925b. “Another trip to Kukaniloko, Aug. 13 or 14th, 1925.” Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------1925c. Informant information, “About Keaniniulaokalani, from Hao and Hookala.” Feb. 2nd, 1925 summary. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------n.d.-a. Informant information, “From Kapanokalani of Waikele, Ewa.” On the KeaniniConfidential stone and its current treatment. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------n.d.-b. Kukaniloko:Famed Birthplace of Aliis, Oahu’s Traditional Mecca of Ancient Times. Manuscript. Webb, E. Lahilahi, Kukaniloko, Case 4, K 29. Bishop Museum Library. ------n.d.-c. Kukaniloko: Famed Birthplace of Aliis, Oahu’s Traditional Mecca of Ancient Times. Manuscript signed Lahilahi Webb, Historian, D of Hawaii. Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu. ------n.d.-d. Kukaniloko (summary of Feb. 2, 1925 meeting at Kukaniloko). Manuscript. Webb, E. Lahilahi, Kukaniloko, Case 4, K 29. Bishop Museum Library.

Weisler, Marshall and Patrick Kirch 1985. “The Structure of Settlement Space in a Polynesian Chiefdom: Kawela, Moloka‘i, Hawaiian Islands.” New Zealand Journal of Archaeology, 7:129-158.

Westervelt, William 1913. Around the Poi Bowl and Legend of Paao. Paradise of the Pacific, Honolulu. ------1915. “Chief Man-Eater.” Hawaiian Legends of Old Honolulu, pp. 189-203. Press of Geo. H. Ellis Co., Boston. ------1998. “Ke-ao-mele-mele: The Maid of the Golden Cloud.” Hawaiian Legends of Ghosts and Ghost Gods, pp. 116-151. Mutual Publishing, Honolulu. [originally published 1915.]

Whitney, Henry 1875. The Hawaiian Guidebook. Published by Henry Whitney, Honolulu.

Wichman, Frederick 2003. Nā Pua Ali‘i o Kaua‘i: Ruling Chiefs of Kaua‘i. University of Hawai‘i Press, Honolulu.

Wilkes, Charles 1845. Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition During the Years 1838-1842. Lea & Blanchard, Philadelphia.

597 598

Wilson, Michael 1995. Letter from Michael Wilson (DLNR Chair) to Representatiave Marcus Oshiro, Subject: Kukaniloko Birthstones State Monument, Wahiawa. Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Wilson, W.W. 1926. June 7, 1926 letter to Mrs. F.M. Swanzy (on Wahiawa Water Company, Limited letterhead). Daughters of Hawai‘i Archives, Honolulu.

Wolforth, Thomas and Warren Wulzen, Susan Goodfellow 1998. Archaeological Data Recovery at West Loch Estates, Residential Increment I, and Golf Course and Shoreline Park, Land of Honouliuli, ‘Ewa District, island of O‘ahu. PHRI manuscript. On file, State Historic Preservation Division Library (O-1317), Kapolei.

Wyllie, R.C. 1846. Answers to Questions – Proposed by His Excellency R.C. Wyllie, His HawaiianConfidential Majesty’s Minister of Foreign Relations and Addressed to All the Missionaries in the Hawaiian Islands, May 1846. Kingdom of Hawai‘i, Honolulu.

Yent, Martha 1995. Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument, Wahiawa, Oahu (State Site No. 50-80-04-218) (TMK: 7-1-01:4). Manuscript, State Parks Division. On file, Hawai‘i Historic Preservation Division Library (O-1443), Kapolei. ------1999. Interpretive Plan. Kūkaniloko Birthstones State Monument. State Parks Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawai‘i, Honolulul.

Yzendoorn, Reginald 1927. A History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu Star-Bulletin, Honolulu.

598