Hawaiian Traditions | Page 65 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

June 27, 2018 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Nāpō‘opo‘o

“The Towns of the Natives are built along the Sea side. At Cari’ca’coo’ah [Kealakekua] Bay there were three, one [Kealakekua-Nāpō‘opo‘o] on the SE-tern side of the Bay which was very large extending near two miles along the shore, another [Kaawaloa] upon the NWtern side which was not so large, and a small Village [Palemano] in the cod or bottom of the Bay.”

“At the back of the villages upon the Brow of the Hill are their plantations of Plantains, Potatoes, Tarrow, Sugar Canes &c, each mans particular property is fenced in with a stone wall …”

“… they have a method of making the Sugar Cane grow about the walls so that the stones are not conspicuous at any distance, but the whole has the appearance of fine green fences. These Plantations in many places they carry six or seven miles up the side of the hill”. (Cook’s Journal, Clerke, March 1779)

At the time of Cook’s arrival in 1779, high chief Kalani‘ōpu‘u had his chiefly residence at Ka‘awaloa while the priests associated with this chiefly complex had their residences across the bay at Kekua (Nāpō‘opo‘o). Kamehameha I was also residing at Nāpō‘opo‘o in 1779.

Nāpō‘opo‘o and Ka‘awaloa represent the two major settlements along the northern and southern sides of Kealakekua Bay with continuity in occupation from the pre-contact period, around 1600 and earlier, into the 20th Century.

Ka‘awaloa and Nāpō‘opo‘o are situated on gently sloping land around the base of the cliff called Pali Kapu o Keōua. Beyond the pali, the land slopes upward in a moderately steep fashion toward the summit of Mauna Loa, about 20 miles due east of Kealakekua Bay.

The pali is a steep, 600-foot-high sea cliff, approximately 1.5 miles long, and the most imposing geological feature in Kealakekua Bay. Above the bay, the vertical cliff edge of the northern portion of the pali above Ka‘awaloa is marked by numerous lava tubes. As the pali turns inland at the south end, it is less steep and is referred to as Pali o Manuahi.

Nāpō‘opo‘o Beach is covered entirely with basalt boulders and coral cobbles during most tide conditions. Up to and during much of the twentieth century, the beach was sand-covered. The transformation of the beach may have been due to multiple factors, including subsidence, tsunami, and earthquake events.

The priestly compound at Nāpō‘opo‘o consists of Hikiau Heiau, Helehelekalani Heiau, the Great Wall, the brackish pond to the north of Hikiau Heiau, and the housesites of the priests, including Hewahewa, high priest to Kamehameha I.

Hikiau Heiau was the state-level religious center for this chiefly complex at Kealakekua Bay. The Great Wall marks the mauka (eastern) boundary of this priestly compound. The annual tour of the island associated with the Makahiki season began and ended at Hikiau Heiau. (DLNR)

Vancouver arrived at Kealakekua in 1793 and also noted the priest’s settlement around Hikiau Heiau and the pond. He recorded 200 houses along the ½-mile of beach at Nāpō‘opo‘o, as well as, the residence of Kamehameha I located behind the pond.

The missionaries arrived at Kealakekua Bay in 1824 and established a mission at Ka‘awaloa Flat. Because of the heat, the missionaries moved the mission upslope to Kuapehu in 1827. (DLNR)

“Besides my schools and all the concerns – you see I have but little time to make tours with out neglecting important work… The consequence is I seldom get as far as Honaunau, which I might visit and return the same day …”

“… nor do I get so much among the people at Napopo & Kei [Napoopoo and Keei] as I wish. I suppose there are, something like 2000 inhabitants on that side of the bay in the villages of Kealakekua, Napopo–Keii [Napoopoo & Keei].” Forbes; Maly, 1835)

Many of the Hawaiians continued to live along the coast and Rev. Forbes decided to move the mission station to Nāpō‘opo‘o in 1838 and constructed the first Kahikolu Church in 1840. (DLNR)

In 1852 the Rev. John Paris, who had been at Waiohinu for ten years, was assigned to the Kealakekua district. He wrote that the name Ka‘awaloa was used, by the Hawaiians, more often than Kealakekua. Ka‘awaloa means the long landing place, and this bay does afford more landing space than others on the Kona coast.

In the mid-1860s, Mr. Logan purchased the ahupua‘a and developed a sugar plantation while the makai lands and 5 coconut trees were leased by S. Kekumano, the jailer. Pineapple and sugarcane were planted and cultivated by the prisoners. The prison was used until around 1875. (Restarick)

By 1875, the ahupua‘a had been bought and sold a number of times. JD Paris, Jr was the owner of the ahupua‘a, leasing the flat around the bay, the pali, and coconut trees to H. Haili, grandson of konohiki Nunole. Jailer Kekumano still held the pond lease, even though the prison was seldom used by this time.

While Ka‘awaloa remained a fishing community with a small wharf for loading cattle, Nāpō‘opo‘o was part of the larger market economy because of the more substantial landing/wharf built at Nāpō‘opo‘o in 1912. (DLNR)

“(It) is a regular steamer landing, and the village is quite a large and important one, with the largest store in South Kona. At the north end of the village is one of the very finest sand bathing beaches on the island.”

“Hackfeld & Co. branch moved into the largest and finest business block in Hilo …Hackfeld & Co., Ltd., also have branch stores at Kailua and Nāpō‘opo‘o, in the Kona district.” (Kinney, 1913)

Ships arrived here regularly to both load and unload goods. Coffee and ranching were integral to this economy in the early-1900s with coffee beans and cattle being shipped out from the Nāpō‘opo‘o landing. Unloaded at Nāpō‘opo‘o were lumber, gasoline, mail, and other goods for the Kealakekua area.

There were 3 coffee mills in the Nāpō‘opo‘o area. One was the Hackfeld/Amfac Coffee Mill operated by John Gaspar. This mill was along the lower portion of the Nāpō‘opo‘o (Government) Road and the foundation is still present within Kealakekua Bay.

The Hawaii Coffee Mill was built along the Nāpō‘opo‘o Beach Road to the south of the landing. The Captain Cook Coffee Mill is located mauka on the Nāpō‘opo‘o Road. This mill is said to have started as a pineapple cannery. The Captain Cook Coffee Mill is still operating with a museum and visitor’s center.

There were at least 3 stores in the area. One store was located on the southeast corner at the intersection of the Nāpō‘opo‘o (Government) Road and the Nāpō‘opo‘o Beach Access Road.

This store was first owned and run by a Japanese family named Arima. The store was later bought by Machado. Another store was in the vicinity of the former County park. This store was converted to a bar owned by a Korean man in the 1950s. The third store was owned by Hackfeld and located at the landing. These latter 2 stores were destroyed by the 1960 tsunami.

There were also 2 churches in the town, one Catholic and one Protestant. The Catholic church and cemetery, called St. Joseph’s, were located to the east (mauka) of the Amfac Coffee Mill.

This church was torn down sometime after 1970. The Protestant church is Kahikolu, which was first built in 1840 and built again in 1854 by Reverend Paris when the original structure was destroyed by an earthquake.

The Nāpō‘opo‘o schoolhouse is located just makai of Kahikolu Church. This one-room stone masonry structure still remains but was replaced by Konawaena School in Kealakekua town in the early 1900s. (DLNR)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kealakekua Bay-Henry Roberts with Cook expedition-1779-portion

Cattle Pens-Napoopoo-early 1900s-DLNR

Loading Cattle-Napoopoo-early 1900s-DLNR

Lumber floated ashore at Napoopoo-1920s-DLNR

Aerial view of Napoopoo-PP-30-5-027-1935

Ukulele player on the beach at Napoopoo-PP-30-5-028-1935

Napoopoo-PP-30-5-010-1931

Napoopoo-PP-29-11-021

Aerial view of Napoopoo-PP-30-5-021-Jan 24, 1925

Gaspar Coffee Mill-1930-DLNR

Lauhala weavers, Napoopoo, Hawaii-PP-33-6-003-1935

Napoopoo-Stoke’s Map-early-1900s-DLNR

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

Piilanihale_Heiau_in_Kahanu_Garden

aerial-view-of-piilanihale-heiau

21-Hāpaiali‘i_Heiau_and_Ke‘ekū_Heiau

22-Mākole‘ā_Heiau

Hikiau Heiau

Oahu-Kailua-Ulupoheiau-gardenview

Mailekini_Heiau-Puukohola_Heiau-(USGS)

Kahanu-Garden-Aerial

Hikiau-Heaiu

Heiau, probably Kukuionapeha, at the top of Koko Head Avenue, between Crater Road and what is now the Kaimuki Fire Station-(HSA)-PPWD-11-7-020

Ahuena_Heiau-Wikimedia_Commons

An illustration by William Ellis of the Morai (heiau) at Kealakekua-1782

Ahuena_heiau_1816

Periods of Heiau Construction-Kolb

June 16, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Reciprocal Responsibility

Hawaiian traditions establish a reciprocal relationship between people and living systems. Hawaiian culture evolved in the embrace of native ecosystems, land and sea.

As a result, Hawaiians developed an intimate relationship with their natural setting, marked by deep love, knowledge, and respect of these places. Exploring the Hawaiian relationship to the land reveals a service relationship; not land serving people, but people serving the land. (TNC)

If apathy is the enemy of positive action, then generating a caring relationship is the key to maintaining positive stewardship.

Hawaiian cultural elements pertinent to this include the ʻaumakua (ancestral god) relationship, holding that deified ancestors can take the form of native plants and animals, and the related kinolau concept, wherein living plants and animals may be a physical manifestation of a god, and thus held sacred. (TNC)

The foundations for this relationship can be seen in the Kumulipo, the Hawaiian chant of creation, thousands of lines long, in which people appear long after other living things, which themselves precede even the gods.

Hawaiian tradition holds we are the direct kin with the living elements of native ecosystems. Humans are the youngest siblings in the genealogy of creation, and the youngest are charged with care of the family elders. (TNC)

The natural world extends its kinship influence all the way up to the moral and spiritual basis for behavior; what is allowed and what is restricted. (TNC)

Wao Kele o Puna’s post-Contact history includes activities such as gathering of pulu and sandalwood, ranching, sugar plantations, and logging. Today, remnants of these activities such as old railroad tracks and artifacts like historic glass bottles can still be found in Wao Kele o Puna. (Kumupa‘a)

Currently, cultural traditions continue to be practiced and perpetuated within Wao Kele o Puna as illustrated in our ethnographic interview section. Notably, Wao Kele o Puna is still used to gather plants for medicinal and cultural purposes; to hunt pigs for food; and most importantly, to conduct cultural protocols to connect with nā akua, ʻaumākua, and kūpuna. (Kumupa‘a)

Native plant restoration and use is intricately connected to the overall health Hawai‘I’s ecosystems.

Being a practitioner doesn’t only come with gathering but it comes with taking care and kuleana. This part of the process is still missing. If the resources are being used, practitioners need to have some kind of responsibility to give back to the place.

Hawaiians consider native plants and animals as family and have a strong spiritual connection to the mountain landscape and the forest itself. Gathering plants such as ferns, maile, flowers, fruits, and other materials cannot be perpetuated into the future unless the forest remains relatively pristine. (Kumupa‘a)

“For all their proofs of aloha, Hawaiians did not tolerate people who took advantage of the ‘system.’”

“To believe otherwise is to misread the Hawaiian sense of fair play and reciprocity. Whatever some modern Hawaiians may want to think, pure altruism was not the basis of sharing.”

“Honest labor determined how much reward one man received as his share of the harvest. Given the size and intimacy of the micro-economy, in which no person’s actions could go unnoticed, a laggard would not have profited from his laziness.”

“Nonetheless, judging from the number of proverbs warning about the consequences of idleness, improvidence, duplicity, and other related faults, the people of old must have known enough misfits who tried to cheat the system.”

“Still, the stability and vitality of the social economy were established on such values as fair play, reciprocity, and honest effort.”

“All this confirms the impression of a society that was controlled and orderly.”

“While some modern folk might prefer to believe that such a disciplined populace was the product of stern and oppressive overlords, credit for that discipline is better given to a willing and obedient people. In Hawaiian society the willingness to give was all-important.”

“This, in turn, was related to two allied values: generosity and hospitality, because both meant sharing one’s possessions with others. To the Hawaiian mind the leader of a group, particularly a chief, set the standard of generosity.” (Kanahele)

It is expected that all who enter will do their share.

Participate – rather than ignore
Prevent – rather than react
Preserve – rather than degrade

No one constituency, no one community, no one resource management entity has the sole responsibility for and jurisdiction over the resources. Each of us shares the responsibility for the protection and preservation of our natural and cultural resources.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Forest

June 3, 2018 by Peter T Young 2 Comments

Bates’ View of the Tabu

“The will of the high chief was a law from which there was no appeal. He could decide all cases of disputation, levy taxes, and proclaim war, just as best suited his purposes, and none but the royal counselors were permitted to take the least exception.”

“During their life, they were approached with the most absolute veneration; and after death, they were deified and worshiped.”

“A system of landlordism existed, decreasing in subserviency until it reached the monarch, whom it left an absolute lord. This system was originated and sustained by war.”

“The victors always seized the lands of the vanquished, and then gave them their followers. If a king, or chief, or sub-landlord, when passing through his district, happened to see a fine taro-patch, a hog, a mat, or a calabash, that suited his ideas, he had only to claim it, and it became his own.”

“If they wished to build a house, cultivate a tract of land, turn a water-course, or erect a temple for the gods, they had only to summon the people from a district, the entire island, or a neighboring island, and the work was speedily accomplished.”

“To refuse to obey the summons was to insure instant death. There were no courts of justice, no trials by jury, no fixed law, either oral or written.”

“The property, the services, the life, and almost the souls of the people, were claimed by their rulers.”

“But the broadest and most gloomy page of their past history is that which records their religious condition. It was a unity of Church and State.”

“The two heads of the nation were the king and priest, but the hierarch was paramount. There was a reciprocity of sacerdotal and kingly power: the first promised the favor of the gods, the latter the support of the spears hurled by banded warriors.”

“The paramount claims of the hierarch soon found a solid support in the foundation of the most hellish system … that has ever cursed fallen humanity. This was the tabu system.”

“As the tabu system expanded and strengthened, it imposed restrictions on every act, word, and thought; it covered every article of food, and related to every act of religious worship; it was so framed, that it was absolutely impossible not to violate its bloody requirements; its mandates even entered the sanctuaries families, and imposed a heavy restriction upon the rights of men and women.”

“When a couple entered the marriage state, the man must build an eating-house for himself, another for his god, another for a dormitory, another for his wife to eat in, and another in which to beat kapa: these four the men had to build.”

“In addition to this, he had food to provide; then he heated the oven and baked for his wife; then he heated the oven and baked for himself; then he opened the oven containing his wife’s taro, and pounded it; then he performed the same operation on his own.”

“The husband ate in his house, and the wife ate in hers. They did not eat together, lest they should be slain for violating the tabu.”

“A tabu existed in relation to idols. The gods of the chiefs and common people were of wood. If one made his idol of an apple-tree, the apple-tree was afterward tabu to him. So of all the trees of which idols were made.”

“So, too, of articles of food. If one employed taro as an object of his idolatry, to him the taro became sacred, and might not be eaten by him. Thus it was with every object of which a god was made.”

“Birds were objects of worship. If a hen, the hen was to him sacred. So of all the birds which were deified. Beasts were objects of worship. If a hog, the hog was sacred to him who chose it for his god. So, too, of all quadrupeds of which gods were made.”

“Stones were objects of worship, and tabu, so that one might not sit on them.”

“Fish were idolized. If one adopted the shark as his god, to him the shark was sacred. So, also, of all fish; so of all things in heaven and earth: even the bones of men were transformed into objects of worship.”

“A tabu was imposed on such accidental events as it was impossible for the common people to avoid. Hence, if the shadow of a common man fell on a chief-if he went into a chief’s yard-if he put on a kapa or malo of the chief, or wore the chief’s consecrated mat, or if he went upon the chief’s house, it was death!”

“So, if he stood when the king’s bathing-water, or kapa, or malo were carried along, or when the king’s name were mentioned in song, or if he walked in the shade of a chief’s house with his head besmeared with clay, or with a wreath round it, or wearing a kapa mantle, or with his head wet, it was certain death!”

“There were many other offenses of the people which were made capital by the chiefs and priests. H a woman ate pork, cocoanuts, bananas, a certain kind of fish, or lobster, it was death. To be found in a canoe on a tabu, day was death.”

“If a man committed a crime, he died; if he was irreligious, he died; if he indulged in connubial pleasures on a tabu, day, or if he made the slightest noise while prayers were saying, he had to die.”

“While the common people could commit no crime under penalty of death, the priests did as they pleased.”

“When one deemed it desirable that a temple should be built, he applied to the king, who commanded the natives to construct it; which being done, the king and priest were sacred; and on the day when a log of wood was obtained for a god, a man was sacrificed in order to impart power to the wooden deity.”

“When sacrifices were offered, men were slain and laid upon the altar with swine; if a fish proper for an offering could not be obtained, a man was sacrificed in its stead; and human victims were required on other occasions.”

“The king and the priest were much alike, and they constituted the main burden of the nation.” (All here is from Bates.)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Hikiau_Heiau_illustration-William_Ellis_(Captian_Cook’s_Crew)-1782