Ali’i / Chiefs / Governance | Page 79

July 14, 2018 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

John Young and Mission

John Young, a boatswain on the British fur trading vessel, Eleanora, was stranded on the Island of Hawai‘i in 1790. Kamehameha brought Young to Kawaihae, where he was building the massive Pu’ukoholā Heiau.

For the next several years, John Young, and another British sailor, Isaac Davis, went on to assist Kamehameha in his unification of the Hawaiian Islands.

When Captain George Vancouver visited Hawai‘i Island in 1793, he observed that both Young and Davis “are in his [Kamehameha’s] most perfect confidence, attend him in all his excursions of business or pleasure, or expeditions of war or enterprise; and are in the habit of daily experiencing from him the greatest respect, and the highest degree of esteem and regard.”

Because of his knowledge of European warfare, Young is said to have trained Kamehameha and his men in the use of muskets and cannons. In addition, both Young and Davis fought alongside Kamehameha in his many battles.

With these powerful new weapons and associated war strategy, Kamehameha eventually brought all of the Hawaiian Islands under his rule.

Kamehameha appointed John Young as Governor of Kamehameha’s home island, Hawai‘i Island, and gave him a seat next to himself in the ruling council of chiefs.

He was married twice. His descendants were also prominent in Hawaiian history. The most prominent of his descendants was his granddaughter, Queen Emma.

In 1819, Young was one of the few present at the death of Kamehameha I. He then actively assisted Kamehameha II (Liholiho) in retaining his authority over the various factions that arose at his succession to the throne.

Young was also present for the ending of the kapu system in 1819 and, a few months later, advised the new king to allow the first Protestant missionaries to settle in the Islands

Of the missionaries, on November 27, 1826, he stated, “Whereas, it has been represented by many persons, that the labours of the missionaries in these Islands are attended with evil and disadvantage to the people, I hereby most cheerfully give my testimony to the contrary.”

“I am fully convinced that the good which is accomplishing, and already effected, is not little. The great and radical change already made for the better, in the manners and customs of this people, has far surpassed my most sanguine expectations.”

“During the forty years that I have resided here, I have known thousands of defenceless human beings cruelly massacred in their exterminating wars. I have seen multitudes of my fellow beings offered in sacrifice to their idol gods.”

“I have seen this large island, once filled with inhabitants, dwindle down to its present numbers through wars and disease, and I am persuaded that nothing but Christianity can preserve them from total extinction.”

“I rejoice that true religion is taking the place of superstition and idolatry, that good morals are superseding the reign of crime, and that a code of Christian laws is about to take the place of tyranny and oppression.”

“These things are what I have long wished for, but have never seen till now. I thank God, that in my old age I see them; and humbly trust I feel them too.” (John Young; Ellis)

Both Davis and Young lived out their lives in the Islands. When Davis died in 1810, Young adopted the Davis children. Although Young had died by the time of the Great Māhele land division, his property was awarded to his wife and children, including the children of Isaac Davis.

Finally, in 1835, at the age of 93, John Young, statesman, high chief, friend and advisor to Kamehameha the Great, died at his daughter’s home on O‘ahu.

His service to Kamehameha was considered to be so great that Young’s heirs did not have to pay commutation for their māhele awards.

John Young and his granddaughter Emma are buried at Mauna ‘Ala (the Royal Mausoleum on O‘ahu,) the final resting place of the high chiefs and royalty of the Kamehameha and Kalākaua dynasties.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Colored_version_of_John_Young_-Hawaii-1819

July 9, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

‘Landsman’ In the Navy

According to Stauder, “The documented facts concerning (Humehume’s) service in the American Navy – this service which should merit ‘a very peculiar claim upon the charity of Americans.’ – tell a far different story from that given in (various) accounts (including his letter home).”

Humehume, son of Kauai’s King Kaumuali‘i, was about six or seven years old when an American ship, the Hazard, under the command of Captain James Rowan, anchored at Waimea, Kauai.

Kaumuali‘i had early in his reign established friendly relationships with British and American sea captains. He was a genial and helpful ruler when ships called at Kauai for supplies.

He knew Captain Rowan from previous port calls and entrusted Humehume to Rowan’s care for the long voyage to America via the Orient. The Hazard sailed from Kauai in January 1804. (Spoehr)

The purpose of sending Humehume to America was either to enable George to receive a formal education, or as some believe, to avoid tensions on Kauai concerning succession to the kingship. King Kaumuali‘i provided Captain Rowan with about seven or eight thousand dollars to cover the cost of his son’s passage and the expenses of his education.

After about four years, Rowan was unable to care for George any longer and turned him over to Captain Samuel Cotting, a school keeper in Worcester. Cotting was Humehume’s preceptor for the next four years. When Cotting moved from Worcester to neighboring Fitchburg, he took Humehume with him. (Spoehr)

“I lived with (Cotting) till he became very poor, and I thought I would seek for my own living rather than to live with him, and I went to Boston”. (Humehume letter to Kaumuali‘i, October 19, 1816) Instead of returning to Hawai‘i, Humehume enlisted in the U.S. Navy and as ‘George Prince’. (Spoehr)

Humehume wrote to his father explaining (or embellishing) his service … “I shipped on board the Brig Enterprise in order to go and fight with the Englishmen. After I went on board I went to sea then, and I was about 30 days from land before we meet the enemis that we wear seeking after. We came to an Action in a few minutes after we hove in sight.”

“We fought with her abought an hour, and in the mean time, I was wounded in my right side with a boarding pike, which it pained me very much. It was the blessing of God that I was keept from Death. I ought to be thankful that I was preserved from Death. I am going to tell you more of my being in other parts of the world. I then was drafted on board of the US Ship Guerrier.”

“I went then to the Streats of Mediterranean. I had a very pleasant voyage up there, but was not there long before we fell in with the barbarous turks of Algiers.”

“But we come to an action in a few minutes, after we spied these people; we fought with them about three hours and took them and brought them up to the city of Algiers and then I came to Tripoly, and then I came to Naples, and from thence I came to Gibraltar and then I came back to America.” (Humehume letter to Kaumuali‘i, October 19, 1816)

However, Stauder notes, “The first battle in which George claimed participation was the engagement between the Enterprise (American) and the Boxer (British). This took place September 5, 1813 off Portland, Maine. The name ‘George Prince’ is not on the muster roll of the vessel, nor is it on the list of ten wounded.”

“(The) description of the action is not confirmed by official reports. George reported being at sea about thirty days from land before the enemy was encountered, engaging in action a few minutes after sighting, and being wounded in his right side with a boarding pike.”

“The surviving senior officer of the Enterprise, Edward R McCall, reported that the vessel left Portsmouth on Sept. 1, 1813, and on the morning of Sept. 5 sighted the Boxer. At three pm, after reconnoitering, the Enterprise ran down with intent to bring to close action. At twenty minutes after 3 pm, when within half pistol shot, the firing commenced from both vessels.”

“It was ‘warmly kept up’ and about 4 pm the Boxer surrendered; she was a wreck. The Enterprise escorted the Boxer into the Portland harbor. The crew of neither ship boarded the other during the battle.”

“The name ‘George Prince’ does appear on the Enterprise muster roll, but not until June 19, 1815, at Boston, almost two years after the battle in which he claimed to have taken part. He was No. 68 on the roll and signed on as a ‘landsman.’”

(A landsman was the lowest rank and given to recruits with no experience at sea. They performed the dirtiest, heaviest, and most menial tasks, and endured the harassment of their more seasoned shipmates. With at least three years’ experience, or upon re–enlisting, a Landsman could be promoted to Ordinary Seaman. (Williams))

“At this time Commander William Bainbridge was fitting out a naval squadron to attack the Algerian pirates in the Mediterranean; the Enterprise was one of the ships in his squadron.”

“It sailed from Boston, July 3, 1815, and arrived in the Mediterranean after Decator’s squadron, with the Guerriere as flagship, had defeated the enemy. Again, George missed the battle.”

“The Enterprise visited a number of Mediterranean ports in a show of strength and returned to America, arriving at Newport, November 15, 1815. The Guerriere had arrived at New York, November 12, 1815. George transferred to the Guerriere in New York December 12, 1815, muster roll No. 944, still a ‘landsman.’”

“About two months later, he transferred to the Boston Navy Yard, Charlestown, Mass., muster roll No. 367 and is listed as No. 449 on March 14, 1816. George was on board both vessels but not at the time they engaged in battle. His discharge is dated September 27, 1816, still a ‘landsman.’” (Stauder)

George was now about 18 years old. By this time there were several Hawaiian youths in New England who had arrived out of curiosity or a thirst for adventure and knowledge. (Spoehr) On October 23, 1819, he returned to the Islands on the Thaddeus with the Pioneer Company of American Protestant missionaries.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

George_Prince_Kaumualii-Morse-1816

July 8, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

John Dominis Aimoku

“John (Dominis) was, to use a euphemism, rather irregular as a husband – as many husbands in my experience are. He was fond of society, sometimes took more liquor than was good for him, and occasionally (although he never kept a regular mistress) had some love adventures.”

“In this small community they were reported to his wife, and I can vouch to how she suffered by it. She was exceedingly fond and jealous of him. But, like most unfaithful husbands, he would not have for one moment shut his eyes on even any sign of unfaithfulness on the part of his wife.”

“As long as he was alive, any one slandering his wife would have, I assure you, been severely punished.” (Trousseau, Blount Report)

“In November of 1882, Dr. Trousseau had the unpleasant duty of telling Lili‘uokalani that John Owen Dominis was about to have an illegitimate child born to a young half-Hawaiian woman”.

“This young woman was a retainer of Lili‘uokalani’s; a part of her ‘family’; she was also, however, officially married to a young Hawaiian by the name of John Lamiki Aimoku.” (Kelley)

“On January 9, 1883, a child was born in the household of Lili‘uokalani at Waikiki. The mother gave her child in Hawai’ian fashion in hānai to its maternal grandmother, Mary Purdy (Pahau), who was at the time 53 years old.”

“She claimed him as her own, (however) Princess Lili‘uokalani took over his support … (S)he followed the letter of law … that a child born out of wedlock took the legal surname of his mother, Aimoku. … Thus John Dominis Aimoku came into being.”

“In 1910, at the age of 27, young John told Lili‘uokalani that he was in love with Sybil McInerny, the daughter of a prominent Honolulu merchant, and wanted to marry her.”

“Upon hearing that news, Liliu‘okalani decided to officially adopt him and change his name to John Aimoku Dominis. She did so that May, 19 years after her husband’s death.” (Tsutsumi)

In Lili‘uokalani’s will, she left “For John Dominis Aimoku, the premises known as “Washington Place”, with the appurtenances, on Beretania Street, in Honolulu, for his lifetime …”

“… and on his death to the lawfully begotten heirs of his body during their lifetime (or so long after the death of said John Dominis Aimoku as the law will permit, with reversion then to the Trustees).” (Liliuokalani’s Will)

“John Aimoku Dominis, a ward of Queen Liliʻuokalani and one of the trustees of the Liliʻuokalani Trust, died on Saturday afternoon (July 8, 1917) after a long Illness and on Sunday the remains were cremated.”

“Following a long illness which developed into a condition which had been regarded hopeless for several days, Mr. Dominis died shortly before midnight on Saturday night at the McInerny residence at Kahala.”

“Mr. Dominis was 34 years of age. He was adopted by the queen … and for a Jong time was under the immediate care of Mrs Paakaiulaula Bush. He received his education In Iolani College.”

“For nearly five years Mr Dominis was a circuit court clerk, being assistant to Clerk Henry Smith in the main office. After leaving, this position he entered, the insurance business in which he continued until ill health necessitated his giving it up.” (Honolulu Star Bulletin, July 9, 1917)

Later, the Territorial Legislature noted, “those certain premises in the city of Honolulu known as Washington Place have for almost three-quarters of a century been associated and identified with the government of Hawaii”.

“Prince Jonah Kūhio Kalaniana‘ole has indicated his earnest desire that Washington Place should be acquired by the Territory of Hawaii as an executive mansion for its Governor, thus preserving to posterity the said Washington Place as a memorial to the late Queen Liliuokalani”.

“Prince Jonah Kūhio Kalaniana‘ole and the Trustees of the Liliuokalani Trust have agreed that the said Washington Place should be conveyed to the Territory of Hawaii for a price not to exceed twenty thousand dollars ($20,000.00), upon the condition that the Territory shall also, at the same time, acquire the life interest or right of occupancy of the heirs of John Dominis Aimoku”.

“The said premises known as Washington Place, when so acquired, shall be and are hereby set apart for use exclusively as an executive mansion for the governor of Hawai‘i.” (Act 229, approved April 39, 1919)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Liliuokalani_and_John_Aimoku_Dominis

Liliuokalani_with_hanai_son_and_group_of_four_women

Liliuokalani_at_Kamehameha_Day_parade,_1914

Liliuokalani_and_hanai_sons_ Joseph Kaiponohea ʻAeʻa (left) and John Aimoku Dominis (right) with_group_(PP-98-13-013)

John_Aimoku_Dominis_and_son,_1913

Liliuokalani_and_her_grandchildren

Liliuokalani_with_her_grandchildren

June 25, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

John Meek

John Meek (Nov. 24, 1791 – Jan. 29, 1875) came to Hawaii from Massachusetts in 1809 along with his brother Captain Thomas Meek, who was engaged in the Northwest trade.

“A few year later he himself became captain, and continued in the same trade for many years. In 1830 or ’31, he became a resident of this port, occasionally making voyages to the Northwest Coast, China and other ports.” (Hawaiian Gazette, February 3, 1875)

“He sailed from this port in cant capacity on a number of voyages to China and the coast of Mexico, but has been a permanent resident of this Island for the past fifty years. The late John J. Astor thought so highly of Captain Meek that he built a ship specially for him.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 30, 1875)

“For more than twenty years he held a commission as pilot of this harbor, and for the past few years was also harbor master.” (Hawaiian Gazette, February 3, 1875)

“‘Vessels approaching Honolulu and desiring a Pilot, will set their national ensign and pilot signal, on which he will go on immediately.’ The great number of ships coming in from Lahaina, and intending to lie off and on, or to come to anchor without employing a pilot, renders attention to the above requirement of the Harbor Laws necessary.”

“The undersigned will give prompt attendance on all vessels that require his services, but he wishes it to be understood that he will not go off without being signalized as required in the above quoted law, a compliance with which will be necessary to justify
any future complaint against him for want of attention to duty.” (John Meek; Polynesian, July 6, 1844)

“He was the firm friend and often advisor of the chiefs and successive Kings of these Islands, from the days of the first Kamehameha to the present time”.

“He was the last surviving pioneer of the Order of Free Masons in the Pacific, having been one of the ten who were instituted as “Lodge le Progres de l’Oceanie,” No. 124, by Captain Le Tellier, in 1843.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 30, 1875)

“He engaged extensively in the grazing business, and took especial pains to introduce improved breeds of cattle and horses into the country. Combined with the plain and bluff manner of the true sailor, Capt. John Meek was noted for his probity of character, and a genial kindness of disposition.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 30, 1875)

“America is the home of the turkey …. In 1815 Queen Ka‘ahumanu went aboard a trading schooner and saw turkeys Capt. John Meek had obtained in Chile.”

“Never had she seen such large birds before. Upon going ashore she told the king. The king went to the vessel and asked for the birds. Upon refusal he seized the turkeys and went ashore.”

“The birds later escaped. On the slopes of the island’s volcanoes and even in the United States national park wild turkeys are fairly numerous, believed to be descendants of those brought to the islands by Captain Meek.” (Smithfield Times, February 25, 1937)

Meek is also credited with bringing the first documented mango into the islands in 1824. He had given some seedlings to Don Francisco de Marín, advisor to Kamehameha I; Marín is most often credited with planting the first mango tree in Hawai‘i soil, near what is now the corner of Vineyard Boulevard and River Street.

The fruit it bore became the progenitor of the “Hawaiian” mango – a strain that was dubbed “Manini” for the nickname Hawaiians gave Marín. The Manini is also known as the Common mango because, as its name suggests, it’s seen throughout the Islands. It’s a medium-size, juicy fruit with a large seed and skin that turns from light green to rosy-yellow as it ripens. (Lo; Hana Hou)

Meek was a defendant in one of the first landmark cases dealing with the rights of native tenants. (Oni v. Meek) In 1858, Oni, a tenant of the ahupua’a of Honouliuli, O’ahu, filed suit against John Meek, who had a lease over the entire ahupuaʻa. Oni brought suit when some of his horses, which had been pastured on Meek’s land, were impounded and sold.

Oni claimed that he had a right to pasture his horses on the land division as one of his traditional tenant rights (by custom and by language in the Kuleana Act.)

Oni notes, “We are hoaʻāina. We live on the land and grow our crops, and in return we work for the konohiki a few days a week. We call these labor days. The rest of the week, we have the right to use the lands for certain things, like gathering firewood, fishing, and pasturing animals. It’s our custom, our tradition.”

“I take care of the land on labor days, so I can use the land to pasture my horses. Mr. Meek uses the Chief’s land like we do. We all take care of things together, so we should share the land, just like before.” (Judiciary History Center)

On September 22, 1858 the Police Court of Honolulu rendered a judgment for Oni. Meek was ordered to pay $80.00 for two horses and $4.00 in court costs. At the request of the defendant (Meek,) the case was appealed to the Hawai‘i Supreme Court.

Oni was the first Hawaiʻi Supreme Court case to discuss “the rights common people to go to the mountains, and the seas attached to their own particular land exclusively” in the 1850 Kuleana Act.

The Supreme Court noted, “the claim of a right of pasturage, put forward by the plaintiff, is made to rest upon far broader grounds than that just mentioned, which fact renders this case one of great importance, not only to the large landed proprietors throughout the Kingdom, but to thousands of the common people.”

“It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that he, as a hoaʻāina of Honouliuli, has a right to pasture his animals on the kula land of that ahupua‘a, upon one or both of two grounds; first, by custom; or secondly, by statute law.”

“It appears by the evidence that horses were first introduced on the ahupua‘a of Honouliuli about the year 1833; that within ten years afterwards they had become numerous ; and that the horses belonging to the hoaʻāinas were allowed to pasture upon the kula land, in common with those of the konohiki.”

The Supreme Court was concerned with the right of a private property owner to use the land as he individually wished without having to share its use. The court said “the custom contended for is so unreasonable, so uncertain, and so repugnant to the spirit of the present laws, that it ought not to be sustained by judicial authority.”

The court also said “…it is perfectly clear that, if the plaintiff (Oni) is a hoaʻāina, holding his land by virtue of a fee simple award from the Land Commission, he has no pretense for claiming a right of pasturage by custom.” (Judicial History Center)

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Meek. For over a hundred years, the Oni v Meek case appeared to foreclose claims based on custom. (MacKenzie) The last fifty years of his life he was a resident of Honolulu and died January 29, 1875. (Kamakau)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Captain-John_Meek-WC

Captain_John_Meek-WC

Oni v Meek-Judicial History Center

June 23, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Evolving Heiau Construction

Oral histories of the Hawaiian temple system indicate that several functional types existed, although all that remains today is dry-laid lava rock foundations and the ruins of stone altars, offering pits, and the foundations of thatched houses and wooden images.

Three general functional categories have been identified archaeologically with the excavation of eight Maui temples, (1) small open court ancestral shrines, (2) large platform temples used for major political rituals and feasts that helped glorify successful chiefly lines, and …

(3) smaller enclosed temples used for local rituals and feasts that promoted collective cosmological principles and encouraged consensus among political groups.

These temples ranged in size from family structures (~2,000 sq ft) to medium-sized community shrines ( ~7,000 sq ft) and larger polity temples (upwards of ~21,000 sq ft – about one-half acre).

Analysis of radiocarbon data show progressive changes that occur over three centuries: from open temples ~AD 1400 to large platform temples ~AD 1500 and finally the addition of small enclosed temples ~AD 1600.

However, Kirch and Sharp report dates of near-surface coral dedicatory offerings taken from seven temples from the political district of Kahikinui, Maui, and an additional temple from the neighboring island of Molokai.

Because these dates all fall into a very short interval of 60 years (~AD 1565-1638), they argue that Kahikinui’s temple hierarchy was rapidly built during a time of predatory territorial expansion under the reign of a single Maui chief around the turn of the seventeenth century AD.

New data relevant to this was included in analysis by Kolb, including an extensive radio carbon dating chronology consisting of a corpus of 73 new and 17 published dates.

This new chronology indicates a prolonged period of island-wide temple construction (~ AD 1200-1800) that consisted of four distinct ‘periods’ which correlate with some important social trends noted in the oral-historical literature of Hawai‘i.

Kolb’s analysis notes four distinct modes with notable peaks at – AD 1240-60, 1360-80, 1540-60, and 1800-1820, each of which is statistically distinguishable (95% confidence interval) by cluster analysis.

The first mode peaks at AD 1220-60 – these early dates document the oldest temples in Hawai‘i. On Maui because the data comes from sound architectural contexts of seven different temples, they may also signify the inception of an island-wide temple network.

Oral traditions from the 13th century indicate that this was a period of intensive social change with a widening economic and social gap between chief and commoner, more authoritative chiefly rule and the formation of at least three ruling political districts (Lahaina, Wailuku and Hana).

These early temple building episodes were small, located upon promontories, tied to public activities of ancestor worship and dispersed across most of the island – characteristics of a formative temple network used to mark emerging territorial boundaries.

A second mode peaks at AD 1360-80; these dates mark the clear expansion of the temple network. Temple-building episodes representing this mode were similar in style and location to those of earlier temples but larger in scale.

Oral traditions speak about the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries as a period of political polarization between the genealogically distinct and often antagonistic ruling lines of East and West Maui.

Competition was intense and led to a series of intra-island wars over rank succession and territory. Conflicting genealogies during this time also lend credence to the idea of polarized and shifting rule.

The next mode peaks at AD 1560-80. Oral history of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries indicate, that this time was marked by political strife and the competing territories of East and West Maui eventually merged.

When this merger actually occurred, however, is difficult to say. At least three generations of chiefs are said to have been recognized as rulers by both East and West Maui: Kāka‘e, who ruled jointly with his brother Kaka‘alaneo; Kawaokaohele; and Pi‘ilani.

The final mode peaks at AD 1800-1820 (most Hawaiian temples were abandoned in AD 1819). Taken as a whole, these dates seem to indicate a final island-wide period of temple construction/use during the early nineteenth century.

Ethnohistory from this period sits on very firm ground, consisting pf numerous eyewitness Hawaiian and European accounts.

This was a time of interisland warfare and conquest, when competition between the Maui and Hawai‘i island ruling chiefs grew especially intense. The chiefs Kekaulike and Kahekili II dedicated numerous Maui war temples during the course oi their internecine struggles.

The Maui chiefly line abruptly ended in AD 1795, when Kamehameha I, a conquering chief from Hawai‘i Island, absorbed Maui into his emerging kingdom.

This last mode coincides with a flurry of temple activities that included Kamehameha’s rededication of the Maui temples in AD 1800-18001 to his own war god. It also coincides with other archaeological data documenting the rise of the Hawaiian incipient state, such as settlement intensification, internecine warfare and temple sacrificial activity.

The general trend of temple construction followed four phases between – AD 1200 and 1800, phases that correlate with some general sociopolitical trends distilled from ethnohistory.

These include (1) the formation of district-sized polities and the rise of chiefly prerogatives, (2) the expansion of the chiefly hierarchy and a bifurcation of the island into eastern and western kingdoms, (3) island unification and a shift in land tenure and (4) interisland competition and eventual absorption into a larger incipient state.

An important shift in temple construction and use coincided with island unification and a shift in land tenure and occurred – AD
1452-1625. Overall, the temple system followed a cycle of construction and use characteristic of incipient state development, coinciding with distinct periods of political tension when it was important to encourage and control social allegiances.

This pattern has significance for the development of complex societies throughout the world, where the processes of political formation and ritualized ideology can be interwoven with architectonic and economic questions in discussions of historical or archaeological change. (All here is from Kolb.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger