Hawai’i, also known as the Big Island, is the largest island of the Hawaiian archipelago. Here, we consider the period of its history from 1778 to 1819. 1778 is the date of first European contact ‒ the arrival of Captain Cook ‒ while 1819 is the year of King Kamehameha I’s death.
[1]
[2]
Kamehameha was a war chief and keeper of the war god Kūka’ilimoku who, in 1782, rose against King Kīwala’ō and managed to seize power over the Kohala and Kona districts of the Big Island.
[3]
Over the next three decades, Kamehameha waged several military campaigns, eventually unifying the entire archipelago (minus Kaua’i and Ni’ihau) in 1804.
[4]
Population and political organization
In this period, Kamehameha I sat at the top of the political hierarchy. He was advised on secular affairs, including war, by the kālaimoku, who also oversaw the royal storehouses, while the kahuna nui was in charge of the king’s sacred duties and oversaw his temples and main gods.
[5]
Kamehameha did not introduce many changes to the traditional hierarchies, but he did appoint a number of governors to be his representatives on the other islands.
[6]
Each island was divided into districts under the control of high-ranking chiefs, the ali’i ’ai moku. These districts were in turn subdivided into territories ruled by lesser chiefs, the ali’i ’ai ahupua’a. Below this level, there were the konohiki, who were in charge of the small and largely self-sufficient ahupua’a territories.
[7]
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.
[8]
The ’reasonably accurate’ first census of 1832 puts the archipelago’s population at around 130,000 people. However, we cannot project this figure backwards in time because the kanaka maoli (indigenous Hawaiian) population fell drastically after Europeans introduced diseases, such as smallpox, syphilis and measles, to which they had no immunity.
[9]
[8]
[1]: (Kirch 2010, 170, 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, 118-19) 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, 116) 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, 50, 57) 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]: (Kuykendall 1938, 51) Ralph S. Kuykendall. 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom, 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i Press.
[7]: (Kirch 2010, 48-49) 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.
[8]: (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.
[9]: (La Croix and Roumasset 1990, 835) Sumner J. La Croix and James Roumasset. 1990. ’The Evolution of Private Property in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii’. The Journal of Economic History 50 (4): 829-52.
| 4 Q | |
| 5 Q |
| Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period |
| None (Absent Capital) |
| Kamehameha's Kingdom | |
| Owyhee | |
| Owhyhee | |
| Sandwich Islands Kingdom |
| nominal allegiance to [---] | |
| none |
| Kingdom of Hawaii - Post-Kamehameha Period |
| Preceding: Hawaii III (us_hawaii_3) [None] |
| unitary state |
| [15,000 to 16,600] km2 | 1800 CE |
| [60,000 to 180,000] people | 1800 CE |
| present |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| absent |
| Year Range | Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period (us_kamehameha_k) was in: |
|---|---|
| (1778 CE 1819 CE) | Big Island Hawaii |
Kingdom of Hawai’i
By this time the polity included the entire archipelago; Kamehameha’s conquest was complete. Perhaps it peaked later, though, as Kamehameha consolidated his rule and increased his wealth.
Justification for start date: Cook’s first arrival in the archipelago (1778 at Kauai - he did not visit the Big Island until 1779). Justification for end date: Kamehameha I dies, kapu system is abolished.
Kamehameha I “ceded” the islands to Britain in 1810, and later wrote a letter in which he declared himself subject to the British king. [1]
[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 54.
When Kamehameha I took power, “the government continued to be essentially a feudal autocracy. The king’s will was the supreme authority” [1] Taxes were transmitted to the center [2]
[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 51.
[2]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 54.
in squared kilometers. 10,832: 1778 ce; 4,173: 1782 ce; 6,259: 1790 ce; 10,432: 1791 ce; 14,988: 1795 ce; 16,624:1810-1819ce. In 1778, Kalani’ōpu’u controlled all of Hawai’i Island, plus the Hana district of Maui (it is unclear exactly how much land the Hana district occupies, so I have estimated 400 square km [about a fifth of the island of Mau’i] and added that to the area of Hawai’i Island). In 1782, Kamehameha held Kona, Kohala, and some of Hamakua - I have estimated these holdings as 40% of the area of the island. He added Puna in 1790, making his holdings 60% of the island (my estimate). He added the rest of Hawai’i Island in 1791; Mau’i, Moloka’i, O’ahu, Lana’I, and Kaho’olawe in 1795; and Kaua’i and Ni’ihau in 1810, thus controlling the entire archipelago (excepting of course the very small, distant, uninhabited islands to the northwest which are technically part of the “Hawaiian Islands”).
By the time of Capt. Cook’s arrival there in 1779, Kalani’ōpu’u’s kingdom (the entire Big Island plus the Hana district of Maui) had at least 60,000 people, and possibly as many as 150,000 people [1] . Kirch (2010: 33) gives as a high figure 150,000 (based on estimates by Lt. King on Cook’s voyage), and a low of 120,000 based on Emory, in Schmitt (1968, Table 6) (This included the kingdom’s foothold in eastern Maui.) In 1778, the population of entire archipelago was 250,000 or more [2] , so the population of the entire archipelago at the time of Kamehameha’s unification in 1810 was probably somewhat less than this, given outbreaks of disease as well as a considerable number killed in the wars. Given a fairly credible estimate of 142,050 people in the entire archipelago in 1823 [3] , 180,000 is a reasonable estimate for 1810.
[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. 248.
[2]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 286.
[3]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 336.
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. Governors inferred ???
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]
4. 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)
"We observe first that this great chieftain did not invent a new system of government. He simply utilized the system already existing, with only such modifications as were required by new conditions or suggested by his own experience. The government continued to be essentially a feudal autocracy."
[1]
"Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions."
[2]
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."
[3]
__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."
[4]
2. Kahuna nuiThe kahuna nui "carried the responsibilities for the king’s religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods."
[5]
__Provincial administration__
2. Governor"Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions."
[1]
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."
[3]
4. 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."
[3]
5. 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."
[6]
[1]: (Kuykendall 1938, 51)
[2]: (Kuykendall 1938, 53)
[3]: (Kirch 2010, 48)
[4]: (Kirch 2010, 50)
[5]: (Kirch 2010, 57)
[6]: (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.
inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods
This is ambiguous. Stewards (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. This does not seem to be a fully fledged bureaucracy, but expert input is needed.
[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.
This is ambiguous. Stewards (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. This does not seem to be a fully fledged bureaucracy, but expert input is needed.
[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 was a body of customary law governing rights to water, fishing, and land [1] . But there were no written records, so this legal code probably cannot be called ‘formal’.
[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 10.
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] .
[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.
"Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [1] 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). [2]
[1]: (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
[2]: (Kirch 2016, personal communication)
Kirch [1] [2] states that Hawaiians had no true fortifications, only refuges where civilians could flee during wartime, and none of the refuges he describes include a substantial stone wall. [3] [4]
[1]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 213
[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. 70.
[3]: Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 167.
[4]: Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 208-9, 215-6.
"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.
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.
[E.g., muskets, pistols, and rifles] Various chiefs managed to purchase guns and ammunition from visiting Westerners [1] . European arms were in used by the army of Kamehameha [2] , who accumulated a large number of muskets ( [3]
[1]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 23.
[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. 119.
[3]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 48.
[For example, cannon, mortars.] Cannons were used in the naval battle of Kepūwaha’ula’ula [1] , as well as the defeat of the Maui forces at ‘Iao Valley. By 1802 Kamehameha had a large supply of cannons [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. 120.
[2]: Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 48.