Home Region:  Polynesia (Oceania-Australia)

Hawaii III

EQ 2020  us_hawaii_3 / Hawaii3

Hawai’i, also known as the Big Island, is the largest island of the Hawaiian archipelago. Our ’Hawaii 3’ refers to the period from 1580 to 1778 CE. 1580 is the approximate date of the formation of the first island-wide unitary kingdom, while 1778 is the date of first European contact ‒ the arrival of Captain Cook. [1] [2]
Population and political organization
By about 1580, ’Umi had become the first true ’king’ (ali’i nui) of the entire Big Island. [3] In contrast with the chiefs who came before him, he is said to have exerted greater control over land tenure, instituted a system of territorial administration based on ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, and elaborated the religious system. [4]
After ’Umi, the island alternated several times between being split into two or more smaller polities, and being united under one ruler. [5] In times of greater integration, the kingdom was divided into districts (moku) which were each under the control of a major chief called an ali’i-’ai-moku. [6] Within districts were territories called ahupua’a, ruled by chiefs called ali’i-’ai-ahupua’a. The more powerful of these ali’i held more than one ahupua’a. [7] Below the ahupua’a chiefs, konohiki land managers (often their junior relatives) oversaw the collection of tribute from the commoner farmers, known as maka’āinana. [8]
Overall, this period was characterized by a high-density but stable population settled in all ecological zones, a secondary intensification of the dryland field systems, and endemic conquest warfare. [9] The population of the entire Hawaiian archipelago by Cook’s arrival was certainly very large, but there is a long-standing debate regarding exact numbers. Estimates range between 250,000 and 800,000. [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 174) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2000, 300) Patrick V. Kirch. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105-09) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 48) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 48)

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 49) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 127) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 129-130) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

General Variables
Identity and Location
Utm Zone:
4 Q  
5 Q  
Original Name:
Hawaii III  
Capital:
Kona District  
Alternative Name:
Big Island of Hawai’i  
Hawai’i Island  
Island of Hawai’i  
Big Island  
Owyhee  
Owhyhee  
Temporal Bounds
Duration:
[1,580 CE ➜ 1,778 CE]  
Political and Cultural Relations
Succeeding Entity:
Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period  
Preceding Entity:
Hawaii II  
Degree of Centralization:
unitary state  
quasi-polity  
loose  
unitary state  
quasi-polity  
unitary state  
Language
Linguistic Family:
Austronesian  
Language:
Hawaiian  
Religion
Social Complexity Variables
Social Scale
Polity Territory:
[7,000 to 12,000] km2  
Polity Population:
[37,500 to 200,000] people  
Hierarchical Complexity
Settlement Hierarchy:
2  
Religious Level:
2  
Military Level:
[3 to 4]  
Administrative Level:
4  
Professions
Professional Soldier:
present  
Professional Priesthood:
present  
Professional Military Officer:
absent  
Bureaucracy Characteristics
Specialized Government Building:
inferred absent  
Merit Promotion:
inferred absent  
Full Time Bureaucrat:
absent  
Examination System:
inferred absent  
Law
Professional Lawyer:
inferred absent  
Judge:
absent  
Formal Legal Code:
absent  
Court:
inferred absent  
Specialized Buildings: polity owned
Market:
unknown  
Irrigation System:
present  
Food Storage Site:
present  
absent  
Drinking Water Supply System:
unknown  
Transport Infrastructure
Road:
present  
Port:
inferred absent  
Canal:
unknown  
Bridge:
unknown  
Special-purpose Sites
Mines or Quarry:
unknown  
Information / Writing System
Written Record:
absent  
Script:
absent  
Phonetic Alphabetic Writing:
absent  
Nonwritten Record:
present  
Non Phonetic Writing:
absent  
Information / Kinds of Written Documents
Scientific Literature:
absent  
Sacred Text:
absent  
Religious Literature:
absent  
Practical Literature:
absent  
Philosophy:
absent  
Lists Tables and Classification:
absent  
History:
absent  
Fiction:
absent  
Calendar:
absent  
Information / Money
Token:
unknown  
Precious Metal:
absent  
Paper Currency:
absent  
Indigenous Coin:
absent  
Foreign Coin:
absent  
Information / Postal System
Postal Station:
inferred absent  
General Postal Service:
inferred absent  
Courier:
absent  
Information / Measurement System
Warfare Variables (Military Technologies)
Fortifications
  Wooden Palisade:
inferred present  
  Stone Walls Non Mortared:
inferred absent  
  Stone Walls Mortared:
absent  
  Settlements in a Defensive Position:
present  
  Modern Fortification:
absent  
  Moat:
absent  
  Fortified Camp:
absent  
  Earth Rampart:
absent  
  Ditch:
present  
  Complex Fortification:
absent  
  Long Wall:
absent  
Military use of Metals
  Steel:
absent  
  Iron:
absent  
  Copper:
absent  
  Bronze:
absent  
Projectiles
  Tension Siege Engine:
absent  
  Sling Siege Engine:
absent  
  Sling:
present  
  Self Bow:
absent  
  Javelin:
present  
  Handheld Firearm:
absent  
  Gunpowder Siege Artillery:
absent  
  Crossbow:
absent  
  Composite Bow:
absent  
  Atlatl:
absent  
Handheld weapons
  War Club:
present  
  Sword:
inferred absent  
  Spear:
present  
  Polearm:
inferred absent  
  Dagger:
present  
  Battle Axe:
inferred absent  
Animals used in warfare
  Horse:
absent  
  Elephant:
absent  
  Donkey:
absent  
  Dog:
inferred absent  
  Camel:
absent  
Armor
  Wood Bark Etc:
absent  
  Shield:
absent  
  Scaled Armor:
absent  
  Plate Armor:
absent  
  Limb Protection:
absent  
  Leather Cloth:
absent  
  Laminar Armor:
absent  
  Helmet:
absent  
  Chainmail:
absent  
  Breastplate:
absent  
Naval technology
  Specialized Military Vessel:
absent  
  Small Vessels Canoes Etc:
present  
  Merchant Ships Pressed Into Service:
absent  
Religion Tolerance Nothing coded yet.
Human Sacrifice Nothing coded yet.
Crisis Consequences Nothing coded yet.
Power Transitions Nothing coded yet.

NGA Settlements:

Year Range Hawaii III (us_hawaii_3) was in:
 (1650 CE 1777 CE)   Big Island Hawaii
Home NGA: Big Island Hawaii

General Variables
Identity and Location


Capital:
Kona District

’Umi-a-Līlōa (reigned c. 1580-1590) ’moved the royal seat from its traditional base in Waipi’o Valley to Kona District on the leeward side’. [1]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 103) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.



Temporal Bounds
Duration:
[1,580 CE ➜ 1,778 CE]

Justification for end date: Cook’s first arrival in the archipelago (1778 at Kauai - he did not visit the Big Island until 1779).


Political and Cultural Relations
Succeeding Entity:
Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period

Kamehameha’s Kingdom.



Degree of Centralization:
unitary state

Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards ’islandwide integration’ again in the time leading up to Cook’s arrival. [1] By about 1580 ’Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island. [2] [3] In Kirch’s reckoning, ’Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. ’Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system. [4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. ’According to Kamakau, ’Umi divided his kingdom’ between two of his sons, Keli’iokaloa-a-’Umi and Keawenui-a-’Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli’iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and ’became the king of a once again unified island’. [5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 ’follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and ’Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively’. [5] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but ’his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs’. [5] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku ’established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power’: [6] this sounds like ’loose’ control. After Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku’s death, ’A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa’inui’ c. 1710. [7] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani’ōpu’u, rose up against Alapa’inui and ’gained control of his natal districts of Ka’ū and Puna, while Alapa’inui ruled the rest of the island’, so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again. [8] After Alapa’inui’s death, Kalani’ōpu’u managed to defeat Alapa’inui’s son Keawe’ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe’ōpala’s reign began c. 1754 but ’was short’. [8] Kalani’ōpu’u ’devoted considerable attention to administration’ and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778. [9] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch’s How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide). [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Degree of Centralization:
quasi-polity

Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards ’islandwide integration’ again in the time leading up to Cook’s arrival. [1] By about 1580 ’Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island. [2] [3] In Kirch’s reckoning, ’Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. ’Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system. [4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. ’According to Kamakau, ’Umi divided his kingdom’ between two of his sons, Keli’iokaloa-a-’Umi and Keawenui-a-’Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli’iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and ’became the king of a once again unified island’. [5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 ’follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and ’Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively’. [5] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but ’his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs’. [5] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku ’established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power’: [6] this sounds like ’loose’ control. After Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku’s death, ’A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa’inui’ c. 1710. [7] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani’ōpu’u, rose up against Alapa’inui and ’gained control of his natal districts of Ka’ū and Puna, while Alapa’inui ruled the rest of the island’, so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again. [8] After Alapa’inui’s death, Kalani’ōpu’u managed to defeat Alapa’inui’s son Keawe’ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe’ōpala’s reign began c. 1754 but ’was short’. [8] Kalani’ōpu’u ’devoted considerable attention to administration’ and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778. [9] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch’s How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide). [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Degree of Centralization:
loose

Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards ’islandwide integration’ again in the time leading up to Cook’s arrival. [1] By about 1580 ’Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island. [2] [3] In Kirch’s reckoning, ’Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. ’Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system. [4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. ’According to Kamakau, ’Umi divided his kingdom’ between two of his sons, Keli’iokaloa-a-’Umi and Keawenui-a-’Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli’iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and ’became the king of a once again unified island’. [5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 ’follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and ’Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively’. [5] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but ’his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs’. [5] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku ’established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power’: [6] this sounds like ’loose’ control. After Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku’s death, ’A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa’inui’ c. 1710. [7] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani’ōpu’u, rose up against Alapa’inui and ’gained control of his natal districts of Ka’ū and Puna, while Alapa’inui ruled the rest of the island’, so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again. [8] After Alapa’inui’s death, Kalani’ōpu’u managed to defeat Alapa’inui’s son Keawe’ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe’ōpala’s reign began c. 1754 but ’was short’. [8] Kalani’ōpu’u ’devoted considerable attention to administration’ and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778. [9] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch’s How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide). [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Degree of Centralization:
unitary state

Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards ’islandwide integration’ again in the time leading up to Cook’s arrival. [1] By about 1580 ’Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island. [2] [3] In Kirch’s reckoning, ’Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. ’Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system. [4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. ’According to Kamakau, ’Umi divided his kingdom’ between two of his sons, Keli’iokaloa-a-’Umi and Keawenui-a-’Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli’iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and ’became the king of a once again unified island’. [5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 ’follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and ’Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively’. [5] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but ’his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs’. [5] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku ’established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power’: [6] this sounds like ’loose’ control. After Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku’s death, ’A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa’inui’ c. 1710. [7] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani’ōpu’u, rose up against Alapa’inui and ’gained control of his natal districts of Ka’ū and Puna, while Alapa’inui ruled the rest of the island’, so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again. [8] After Alapa’inui’s death, Kalani’ōpu’u managed to defeat Alapa’inui’s son Keawe’ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe’ōpala’s reign began c. 1754 but ’was short’. [8] Kalani’ōpu’u ’devoted considerable attention to administration’ and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778. [9] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch’s How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide). [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Degree of Centralization:
quasi-polity

Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards ’islandwide integration’ again in the time leading up to Cook’s arrival. [1] By about 1580 ’Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island. [2] [3] In Kirch’s reckoning, ’Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. ’Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system. [4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. ’According to Kamakau, ’Umi divided his kingdom’ between two of his sons, Keli’iokaloa-a-’Umi and Keawenui-a-’Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli’iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and ’became the king of a once again unified island’. [5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 ’follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and ’Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively’. [5] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but ’his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs’. [5] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku ’established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power’: [6] this sounds like ’loose’ control. After Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku’s death, ’A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa’inui’ c. 1710. [7] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani’ōpu’u, rose up against Alapa’inui and ’gained control of his natal districts of Ka’ū and Puna, while Alapa’inui ruled the rest of the island’, so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again. [8] After Alapa’inui’s death, Kalani’ōpu’u managed to defeat Alapa’inui’s son Keawe’ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe’ōpala’s reign began c. 1754 but ’was short’. [8] Kalani’ōpu’u ’devoted considerable attention to administration’ and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778. [9] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch’s How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide). [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Degree of Centralization:
unitary state

Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards ’islandwide integration’ again in the time leading up to Cook’s arrival. [1] By about 1580 ’Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island. [2] [3] In Kirch’s reckoning, ’Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. ’Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua’a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system. [4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. ’According to Kamakau, ’Umi divided his kingdom’ between two of his sons, Keli’iokaloa-a-’Umi and Keawenui-a-’Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli’iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and ’became the king of a once again unified island’. [5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 ’follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and ’Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively’. [5] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but ’his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs’. [5] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku ’established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power’: [6] this sounds like ’loose’ control. After Keawe-’ikekahi-ali’i-o-ka-moku’s death, ’A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa’inui’ c. 1710. [7] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani’ōpu’u, rose up against Alapa’inui and ’gained control of his natal districts of Ka’ū and Puna, while Alapa’inui ruled the rest of the island’, so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again. [8] After Alapa’inui’s death, Kalani’ōpu’u managed to defeat Alapa’inui’s son Keawe’ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe’ōpala’s reign began c. 1754 but ’was short’. [8] Kalani’ōpu’u ’devoted considerable attention to administration’ and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778. [9] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch’s How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide). [10]

[1]: (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[2]: (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[3]: Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.

[4]: (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[5]: (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[6]: (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[7]: (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[8]: (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[9]: (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

[10]: (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.


Religion

Social Complexity Variables
Social Scale
Polity Territory:
[7,000 to 12,000] km2

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.


Polity Population:
[37,500 to 200,000] people

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.


Hierarchical Complexity
Settlement Hierarchy:
2

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)


Religious Level:
2

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)


Military Level:
[3 to 4]

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)


Administrative Level:
4

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)


Professions
Professional Soldier:
present

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.


Professional Priesthood:
present

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.


Professional Military Officer:
absent

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.


Bureaucracy Characteristics
Specialized Government Building:
absent

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


Merit Promotion:
absent

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


Full Time Bureaucrat:
absent

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.


Examination System:
absent

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


Law
Professional Lawyer:
absent

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.


Formal Legal Code:
absent

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


Specialized Buildings: polity owned

Irrigation System:
present

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.


Food Storage Site:
present

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.

Food Storage Site:
absent

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.



Transport Infrastructure

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.




Special-purpose Sites

Information / Writing System
Written Record:
absent

"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)


Phonetic Alphabetic Writing:
absent

"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)


Nonwritten Record:
present

"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)


Non Phonetic Writing:
absent

"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)


Information / Kinds of Written Documents
Scientific Literature:
absent

"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)


Sacred Text:
absent

"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)


Religious Literature:
absent

"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)


Practical Literature:
absent

"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)


Philosophy:
absent

"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)


Lists Tables and Classification:
absent

"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)


History:
absent

"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)


Fiction:
absent

"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)


Calendar:
absent

"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)


Information / Money

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)


Precious Metal:
absent

[1]

[1]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication)


Paper Currency:
absent

’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.


Indigenous Coin:
absent

’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.


Foreign Coin:
absent

’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.


Information / Postal System
Postal Station:
absent

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


General Postal Service:
absent

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


Courier:
absent

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.


Information / Measurement System

Warfare Variables (Military Technologies)
Fortifications
Wooden Palisade:
present

"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.


Stone Walls Non Mortared:
absent

"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.


Stone Walls Mortared:
absent

"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.


Settlements in a Defensive Position:
present

"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.


Modern Fortification:
absent

[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.


Fortified Camp:
absent

"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.


Earth Rampart:
absent

"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.


Complex Fortification:
absent

"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.



Military use of Metals

[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.


Projectiles
Tension Siege Engine:
absent

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.


Self Bow:
absent

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.


Javelin:
present

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.




Crossbow:
absent

Inferred [1] .

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


Composite Bow:
absent

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.



Handheld weapons
War Club:
present

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.


Polearm:
absent

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.


Dagger:
present

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.


Battle Axe:
absent

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


Animals used in warfare

No horses in Hawaii at this time.


Elephant:
absent

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.


Armor
Wood Bark Etc:
absent

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.


Scaled Armor:
absent

No metals at this time.


Plate Armor:
absent

No metals at this time.


Limb Protection:
absent

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.


Leather Cloth:
absent

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.


Laminar Armor:
absent

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.


Chainmail:
absent

No metals at this time.


Breastplate:
absent

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.


Naval technology
Specialized Military Vessel:
absent

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.


Small Vessels Canoes Etc:
present

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.




Human Sacrifice Data
Human Sacrifice is the deliberate and ritualized killing of a person to please or placate supernatural entities (including gods, spirits, and ancestors) or gain other supernatural benefits.
- Nothing coded yet.
- Nothing coded yet.