Hawaii III

To account for a range of polity sizes.10,432- the entire Big Island“By the late seventeenth century, four main polities had emerged, focused on the main islands of Kaua’i, O’ahu, Maui, and Hawai’i, with the fought-over smaller islands being incorporated into one or another of the main units. However, the political dynamism of Hawai’i [the archipelago] in late prehistoric and early historic times emanated primarily from the two largest and youngest islands, Maui and Hawai’i….The Maui and Hawai’i chiefs coveted the generously endowed production systems based on irrigation that these western islands offered. Not long before Cook’s fateful visit in 1778-79, the Maui paramount Kahekili expanded his polity to encompass all of the islands to the west and was engaged in a fierce succession of wars with his arch-rival Kalani’ōpu’u of Hawai’i. After the fateful encounter with the West, Kalani’ōpu’u’s successor—the famous Kamehameha I—made shrewd use of Western arms to incorporate the entire archipelago under his hegemony.” ^[1]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 300.

Estimate calculated using a range of [150,000-800,000] inhabitants for the whole archipelago divided into 4 polities.The 150,000-200,000 figure is implausible considering that all men, women, and children in the entire archipelago may only have numbered 250,000-300,000 at this time ^[1] . However, if higher estimates of the archipelago’s population (400,000, possibly more than 800,000 ^[2] ) are correct, perhaps the 1794 fleet really did contain 150,000-200,000 men.<br\“By the late seventeenth century, four main polities had emerged, focused on the main islands of Kaua’i, O’ahu, Maui, and Hawai’i, with the fought-over smaller islands being incorporated into one or another of the main units. However, the political dynamism of Hawai’i [the archipelago] in late prehistoric and early historic times emanated primarily from the two largest and youngest islands, Maui and Hawai’i….The Maui and Hawai’i chiefs coveted the generously endowed production systems based on irrigation that these western islands offered. Not long before Cook’s fateful visit in 1778-79, the Maui paramount Kahekili expanded his polity to encompass all of the islands to the west and was engaged in a fierce succession of wars with his arch-rival Kalani’ōpu’u of Hawai’i. After the fateful encounter with the West, Kalani’ōpu’u’s successor—the famous Kamehameha I—made shrewd use of Western arms to incorporate the entire archipelago under his hegemony.” ^[3]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 129.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 129-30.

[3]: Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 300.

1. Royal/chiefly centre
2. Dispersed households
"Hawai’i lacked anything approaching urban centers, and although there were substantial differences in population density corresponding to an uneven topographic distribution of soil and hydrologic resources (see discussion that follows), the general trend was of dispersed households, each occupying and farming its own adjacent plots. Moreover, while the commoners were sedentary on their lands, the ali’i were known to move about in relation to available food stocks. This peripatetic pattern of chiefly movement is well described, and underlies the metaphor of the chief as a “shark who travels on the land” (He manōholo ̒āina ke ali’i; Pukui 1983:87: Proverb 799). Nonetheless, there were distinct chiefly and royal centers, marked by concentrations of larger residences adjacent to temples of the main state cults of Kū and Lono. [...] Surrounding the king’s own extensive household compound were the residential courts of several principal ali’i and advisors, the houses of warriors, and the main Hale o Lono or temple to the god in whose name the annual tribute was collected. While this settlement plan has certain innovations reflecting Western contact (notably the gun drilling (p.51) field and the shipyard), in most respects it was probably typical of royal courtly centers in the late precontact era." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 50-51)

Though there were many different types of ritual specialists in pre-contact Hawaii ^[1] , only one kind, the kahuna pule, was involved with state affairs. Other types include healing experts, sorcerers, and prophets ^[1] .
1. Kahuna nuiThe kahuna nui was the most important of the kahuna pule (see below), as he "carried the responsibilities for the king’s religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." ^[1]
2. Kahuna pule"The priests who officiated at temples controlled by the king and major chiefs were the kahuna pule. These were subdivided into a number of specific orders or cults, especially those pertaining to Kū and Lono (mo’o Kū and mo’o Lono). These priests were drawn from high-ranking elite families, typically of papa rank (in which the person’s mother comes from one of the three highest ranks)." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 57)

There does not seem to have been a separate military hierarchy, so this estimate is based on a modified version of the administrative hierarchy, in which the kalaimoku is given greater weight because of his role as adviser in times of war.
1. Ali’i nui"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali’i nui or ’great ali’i,’ [...]. The al’i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." ^[1]
2. Kalaimoku"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses ’in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods’ (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al’i to royal audiences." ^[2]
3. Ali’i-’ai-moku"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali’i-’ai-moku. The operative term ’ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both ’food’ and ’eat’ but with metaphoric extensions connoting to ’consume,’ ’grasp,’ or ’hold onto’ (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of ’ai includes ’to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.’ The term ali’i-’ai-moku might thus be simply translated ’ruler of the moku,’ but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, ’hidden meanings’, folded in. He is as well the chief who ’eats’ the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally ’eats from’ its productions." ^[1]
3. Ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a"[T]he more numerous ahupua’a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua’a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali’i frequently held more than one ahupua’a." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 48)

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 50)

This number equal to the levels in the provincial administration, plus the ali’i nui.
1. Ali’i nui"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali’i nui or ’great ali’i,’ [...]. The al’i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." ^[1]
__Central administration__
2. Kalaimoku"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses ’in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods’ (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al’i to royal audiences." ^[2]
2. Kahuna nuiThe kahuna nui "carried the responsibilities for the king’s religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." ^[3]
__Provincial administration__
2. Ali’i-’ai-moku"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali’i-’ai-moku. The operative term ’ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both ’food’ and ’eat’ but with metaphoric extensions connoting to ’consume,’ ’grasp,’ or ’hold onto’ (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of ’ai includes ’to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.’ The term ali’i-’ai-moku might thus be simply translated ’ruler of the moku,’ but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, ’hidden meanings’, folded in. He is as well the chief who ’eats’ the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally ’eats from’ its productions." ^[1]
3. Ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a"[T]he more numerous ahupua’a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua’a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali’i frequently held more than one ahupua’a." ^[1]
4. Konohiki"The three tiered hierarchy of land rulers, beginning with the ali’i nui who had the power to reallocate lands to the ali’i-’ai-moku and ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a under him, did not extend down below the level of the largely self-sufficient ahupua’a territories. Rather, the administration of the ahupua’a, including its various ̒ili subdivisions, was put into the hands of a konohiki, a resident “land manager” who acted on behalf of the ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a. Konohiki were, in fact, often lower-ranked members of the al’i class (such as kaukau ali’i), frequently junior collaterals of the ahupua’a chiefs themselves." ^[4]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 48)

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 50)

[3]: (Kirch 2010, 57)

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 49)

There were full-time elite warriors ^[1] . Kalani’ōpu’u of the Big Island had a large standing army ^[2]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 71.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 75.

There were full-time priests ^{[1] [2]}

[1]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 14.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 57.

Chiefs and stewards were the military officers ^[1] , so there does not appear to have been any specifically *military* officers.

[1]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 19.

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

Konohiki formed a “primitive bureaucracy” according to Sahlins ^[1] . There was also an “incipent bureaucracy” ^[2] composed of specialists in memorizing genealogies, traditions, and other information.

[1]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 16.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 75.

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

There were no specialized judges - konohiki and ali’i adjudicated disputes such as conflicts over water rights ^[1] .

[1]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 19.

The first formal legal code dates to 1827: "These three laws were: first, against murder, ’the one who commits murder here shall die, by being hung’; second, against theft, ’the one who steals shall be put in irons’; third, against adultery, for which the penalty was imprisonment in irons. Three other proposed laws, against rum selling, prostitution, and gambling, were drawn up, to be explained and taught to the people before they should be adopted. It was agreed that the chiefs should meet six months later to continue their consultation upon the subject. The three laws adopted and the three proposed were printed together on one sheet, which bears the date December 8, 1827. On December 14, the people were assembled in a coconut grove near the fort; the three enacted laws were formally proclaimed, and the king, Kaahumanu, and Boki exhorted the people, both native and foreign, to obey the three laws which had been adopted and to give attention to the three which were not yet enacted." ^[1]

[1]: (Kuykendall 1938, 126)

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

Irrigation infrastructure was extensive, including water-diversion walls for dryland agriculture ^[1] and pondfields for taro ^[2] . Irrigation was utilized in Kohala and Hāmākua valleys on the Big Island ^[3] . These irrigation systems were certainly “public” as only a chief commanded the labor necessary to construct such large works.

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 171-5.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 218.

[3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 220.

High status individuals (chiefs, etc.) had houses for the storage of provisions as part of their household clusters ^[1] . Food storage sheds were called hale papa’a. All scholars agree that these provisions were intended for redistribution, but it is unclear to whom. Sahlins ^[2] implies that the food was redistributed to the people, including commoners. But Kirch ^[3] states that the food was redistributed almost entirely to other chiefs, lesser chiefs, retainers, etc., with only token amounts, at most, going to commoners. He also states that food storage was difficult given the climate and kinds of crops that Hawaiians cultivated, so chiefs had to physically travel to different areas of their chiefdoms in order to exact tribute, rather than being able to store all of the tribute in a central location ^[4] . Meanwhile, Valeri states that none of the tribute was redistributed to the commoners ^[5] . Sahlins and Kirch seem to agree that chiefs would sometimes, or at least were expected to, provide food to commoners in the event of famine ^{[6] [3]} .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 251.

[2]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pp. 17-8.

[3]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 260

[4]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 261.

[5]: Valeri, Valerio 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. (Translated by Paula Wissing.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pg. 204.

[6]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 18.

High status individuals (chiefs, etc.) had houses for the storage of provisions as part of their household clusters ^[1] . Food storage sheds were called hale papa’a. All scholars agree that these provisions were intended for redistribution, but it is unclear to whom. Sahlins ^[2] implies that the food was redistributed to the people, including commoners. But Kirch ^[3] states that the food was redistributed almost entirely to other chiefs, lesser chiefs, retainers, etc., with only token amounts, at most, going to commoners. He also states that food storage was difficult given the climate and kinds of crops that Hawaiians cultivated, so chiefs had to physically travel to different areas of their chiefdoms in order to exact tribute, rather than being able to store all of the tribute in a central location ^[4] . Meanwhile, Valeri states that none of the tribute was redistributed to the commoners ^[5] . Sahlins and Kirch seem to agree that chiefs would sometimes, or at least were expected to, provide food to commoners in the event of famine ^{[6] [3]} .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 251.

[2]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pp. 17-8.

[3]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 260

[4]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 261.

[5]: Valeri, Valerio 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. (Translated by Paula Wissing.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pg. 204.

[6]: Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 18.

There were trails, and these could possibly be called “roads” because sections of them were made of stone for easier travel (e.g. over sharp igneous rock) ^[1] .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 266.

There were a few canoe-mooring holes in the South Point of the Big Island ^[1] , but it is unclear who built them, and these probably do not constitute ports in any case.

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 273.

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"What the Hawaiian kings and their incipient bureaucracy did have was a highly elaborated oral-aural culture, with specialists whose job it was to memorize genealogies, traditions, and important information of all kinds." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

"The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai’i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." ^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 75)

Significant "wealth economy" in the form of precious feathered garments (cloaks, capes, helmets, lei) which was very important to the ruling elite (the ali’i). ^[1] This may be true of more recent periods, can it be extended backwards? Check with Patrick Kirch. AD

[1]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication)

^[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication)

’Needless to say, there was no money (in Diamond’s words, no "abstract, intrinsically valueless medium for appropriating surplus, storing value, and deferring payment or delaying exchange") in precontact Hawai’i’. ^[1]

[1]: (Trask 1983, 99) Haunani-Kay Trask. 1983. ’Cultures in Collision: Hawai’i and England, 1778’. Pacific Studies 7 (1): 91-117.

’Needless to say, there was no money (in Diamond’s words, no "abstract, intrinsically valueless medium for appropriating surplus, storing value, and deferring payment or delaying exchange") in precontact Hawai’i’. ^[1]

[1]: (Trask 1983, 99) Haunani-Kay Trask. 1983. ’Cultures in Collision: Hawai’i and England, 1778’. Pacific Studies 7 (1): 91-117.

’Needless to say, there was no money (in Diamond’s words, no "abstract, intrinsically valueless medium for appropriating surplus, storing value, and deferring payment or delaying exchange") in precontact Hawai’i’. ^[1]

[1]: (Trask 1983, 99) Haunani-Kay Trask. 1983. ’Cultures in Collision: Hawai’i and England, 1778’. Pacific Studies 7 (1): 91-117.

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

Chiefs had retainers who would carry messages quickly through the chiefdom ^[1] , but they do not appear to have been full-time.

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 266.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1] "A wooden palisade was the case at Kamehameha I’s compound at Pakaka". ^[2]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[2]: P Christiaan Klieger. 1998. Moku’Ula: Maui’s Sacred Island. Bishop Museum Press.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1] . Nevertheless, there does appear to evidence for some stone walls, but I’m not sure if they are used in warfare. The “Great Wall” at Hōnaunau, built around 1600 CE, was over 300m long, 3m high and 5m wide ^{[2] [3]} . Lapakahi also had a “Great Wall”, which was built between about 1450 and 1500 CE ^[4] .

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 162-4

[3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 164.

[4]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 178.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1] . Nevertheless, there does appear to evidence for some stone walls, but I’m not sure if they are used in warfare. The “Great Wall” at Hōnaunau, built around 1600 CE, was over 300m long, 3m high and 5m wide ^{[2] [3]} . Lapakahi also had a “Great Wall”, which was built between about 1450 and 1500 CE ^[4] .

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 162-4

[3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 164.

[4]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 178.

"defenders more commonly established a fortress site known as a pali (cliff) or pā kauau (war enclosure), a “natural or artificial fortress, where they leave their wives and children, and to which they fled if vanquished in the field.” One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches". ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36.

^[1]

[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

"One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches" ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36.

"The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu’uhonua." Pg 4. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

^[1]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.

^[1]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.

^[1]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.

^[1]

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Inferred ^[1]

[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Slings were used in warfare ^{[1] [2]} .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.

[2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 273.

Bows and arrows were used only for sport, not for war ^[1] .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.

Thrown spears were used in warfare ^[1] .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.

Inferred ^[1] .

[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.

Bows and arrows were used only for sport, not for war ^[1] .

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.

Stone clubs. pg 515. ^[1]

[1]: Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.

Lists of weapons don’t mention swords. ^[1]

[1]: pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.

Wooden thrusting and throwing spears. ^[1]

[1]: pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.

Lists of weapons don’t mention swords. ^[1]

[1]: pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.

Wooden daggers. ^[1]

[1]: pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.

There are some almost axe-like weapons, but they should probably be treated as clubs.

No horses in Hawaii at this time.

No elephants in Hawaii at this time.

No donkeys in Hawaii at this time.

Hawaiians had dogs, but I have found no references to their use in war.

No camels in Hawaii at this time.

No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No metals at this time.

No metals at this time.

No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare at contact. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No metals at this time.

No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

No metals at this time.

No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. ^[1]

[1]: Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

There were specialized war canoes ^[1] . However, these are too small to qualify.
Fortifications

[1]: Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 71.

A 1795 war fleet had four divisions of 300 canoes each. pg 517 ^[1]

[1]: Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai’i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.