Hawaii | Page 456 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

October 5, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Molokans

“Two hundred years ago in central Russia a group of farmers defied the Russian Orthodox Church by drinking milk whenever they pleased, even on holy days. Despised and persecuted, they were called Molokans – milk drinkers.” (Southeast Missourian, November 11, 1964)

“The Molokans have been compared to Protestants for rejecting the parent church’s orthodoxy, and also have been likened to Presbyterians for having lay ministers and a loose council of dominant elders.”

“In about 1905, thousands of Molokans left Russia to escape religious intolerance and the threat of the military draft, which violates their religious principles. Church prophets instructed the Molokans to migrate to ‘the promised land.’”

“But the prophecy was not clear on an exact location, so some members ended up settling in Baja California where they established a small community known as Valle de Guadalupe. Others migrated to Northern and Central California. The majority, however, settled in East Los Angeles.” (LA Times)

“Their only occupation is agriculture and horse, stock and sheep-raising in connection with it. They live in communities of different sizes, the villages comprising from forty to 500 families. The land is owned in common, and redivided at certain intervals according to changes of working forces in families.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, November 26, 1905)

James Bicknell Castle became interested in members of the Molokans, “and immediately began efforts to induce some of them to come to Hawaii, and to that end invited Captain Demens (formerly a Russian nobleman and liberal leader, who has been a resident and citizen of the United States for the past thirty years) to come and examine conditions here to see if he could recommend them to his fellow countrymen.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, November 26, 1905)

“Captain Demens came, was pleased with soil, climate and conditions and agreed to recommend his people to come to Hawaii, upon the condition however, that they could secure land at reasonable prices on which they could locate and make a living.”

“Negotiations were immediately opened with the government for land under the homestead settlement law, and with the Makee Sugar Company which holds a lease with eighteen months yet to expire, on the government land of Kapa‘a …”

“… with a view to secure a cancellation of the lease, the homesteading of the same by the proposed settlers and favorable terms for grinding cane raised by them.”

“The day when 600 god-fearing, moral, industrious, educated people, of western civilization, become established on their own land, and doing their own work, will be a red-letter day for Hawaii.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, November 26, 1905)

“The first detachment Molokan settlers for these Islands arrived yesterday afternoon the China from San Francisco. Exactly 110-men, women and children composed the party, representing about 30 families. They came in charge George Thellen representing James B Castle.” (Hawaiian Star, February 20, 1906)

“It will be remembered that agents for them visited Honolulu some months ago, to spy out the land. They were looking, they said, for some kind of ‘Land of Promise,’ which their religion taught them would be given them …”

“… where they would be free from governmental tyranny, where the soil and climate would be good, and where they could live their own lives in their own way, at peace with their neighbors and infringing no man’s rights. The agents of the Molokans expressed themselves, at that time, as highly pleased with the Territory.”

“The (Los Angeles) Times said that there would be sixteen thousand of these people to follow the first movement to Los Angeles, and commented very favorably upon the gain that their coming would be to the State.” (Pacific Commercial Advertiser, January 25, 1906)

“Hawaii has cut in ahead of Los Angeles and if the Molokan experiment here is a success, there is little doubt that these sixteen thousand people will find their future home in the Territory.”

Eventually the project failed … “The Kapaa section, once flourishing with green sugar cane, is now a barren looking place. It is government land and is being set apart for homesteaders and until it is fully settled it will be bleak and barren.”

“It is said that the Molokans were disagreeably surprised when first they entered the canefields to cut the juicy stalks. They failed to fasten the bottoms of their trousers legs, as advised, and soon they were hopping about with centipedes clinging to their calves, the Japanese laughing at the predicament of their field rivals.” (Hawaiian Gazette, September 10, 1909)

George H Fairchild, the Makee plantation manager, “gave up on the Russians, declaring them too individualistic to accept supervision and too unreliable as laborers.” (Alcantara)

The ‘Molokan Experiment’ ended about as fast as it started … “(it) seems now pretty well at an end, although twelve families still remain on Kauai.”

“Thirty-four of the colonists, of which such high hopes were entertained when they were brought here, arrived in Honolulu this morning definitely announcing their purpose to leave the islands. Perhaps the trouble was that too generous terms were offered them.” (Hawaiian Star, June 9, 1906)

Castle met the expense of shipping the Molokans back to California, but the cane lands that he caused to be planted by this colony afterward became the nucleus of the plantation operated by the Makee Sugar Co. (Nellist)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Kealia Mill-KHS, Cultural Surveys

October 4, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

DOJ Opinion of October 4, 1988

“There is no provision in the Constitution by which the national government is specifically authorized to acquire territory; and only by a great effort of the imagination can the substantive power to do so be found in the terms of any or all of the enumerated powers.” (George Sutherland, Constitutional Power and World Affairs (1919))

“The United States has acquired territory through cession, purchase, conquest, annexation, treaty, and discovery and occupation. These methods are permissible under international law and have been approved by the Supreme Court.”

“The executive and the legislature have performed different roles in the acquisition of territory by each of these means. Unfortunately, the historical practice does not supply a precise explanation of where the Constitution places the power to acquire territory for the United States.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

“Territory is acquired by discovery and occupation where no other recognized nation asserts sovereignty over such territory. In contrast, when territory is acquired by treaty, purchase, cession, or conquest, it is acquired from another nation.” (Footnote, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Some suggest that Hawai‘i was never annexed to the United States and, as proof, refer to the October 4, 1988 Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice Opinion and a subsequent (March 12, 2000) Op-Ed by Steven Newcomb in the Advertiser to support their conclusion.

Some even go as far as adding a quote – “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion notes same. (That was the heading on Newcomb’s Op-Ed and apparently his opinion, not the Department of Justice’s.)

In fact, the Office of Legal Counsel Opinion makes the definitive statement, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898. Joint Res. 55, 30 Stat. 750 (1898). Again, the Senate had already rejected an annexation treaty, this one negotiated by President McKinley with Hawaii.”

“And again, Congress then considered a measure to annex the land by joint resolution. Indeed, Congress acted in explicit reliance on the procedure followed for the acquisition of Texas.”

Before we get far ahead of ourselves, we should first look at the noted Office of Legal Counsel Opinion and its purpose. While some would have you believe it was an opinion addressing Hawai‘i annexation, in fact, that Opinion was prepared to address “Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea”.

The Opinion clearly notes on its first page, under Introduction and Summary, that “This responds to the requests, made by your Office (State Department) and an inter-agency working group, for analysis of the constitutional and statutory questions raised by a proposed presidential proclamation to extend the territorial sea of the United States from its present breadth of three miles to twelve miles.”

The Opinion was not about Hawai‘i, nor its annexation – in fact, of the 26-pages of the Opinion (not counting appendices,) only 2-pages referenced the process of annexation of Hawai‘i. And Hawai‘i and its annexation to the US are not even mentioned in the Opinion’s Conclusion.

It does note, however, “(t)he constitutionality of the annexation of Hawai‘i, by a simple legislative act, was strenuously contested at the time both in Congress and by the press. The right to annex by treaty was not denied, but it was denied that this might be done by a simple legislative act.”

“Notwithstanding these constitutional objections, Congress approved the joint resolution and President McKinley signed the measure in 1898. Nevertheless, whether this action demonstrates the constitutional power of Congress to acquire territory is certainly questionable.”

“The stated justification for the joint resolution – the previous acquisition of Texas – simply ignores the reliance the 1845 Congress placed on its power to admit new states. It is therefore unclear which constitutional power Congress exercised when it acquired Hawaii by joint resolution.”

“Accordingly, it is doubtful that the acquisition of Hawai‘i can serve as an appropriate precedent for a congressional assertion of sovereignty over an extended territorial sea.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Annexation of Hawai‘i to the US was not a hostile takeover, it was something the Republic of Hawai‘i sought. “There was no ‘conquest’ by force in the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands nor ‘holding as conquered territory;’ they (Republic of Hawai‘i) came to the United States in the same way that Florida did, to wit, by voluntary cession”. (Territorial Supreme Court; Albany Law Journal)

“Whether the Republic is a government de facto or dejure it is entitled to American sympathy, and when it has been recognized, successively, by the United States and all other powers, first, as a government de facto and then as a rightful government, republican in form, and is in a successful career of constitutional authority, our national obligations and all our better sentiments compel us to admit its full power and authority to dispose of any question that concerns its sovereign will and the welfare of its people.”

“If it is true, as some rashly venture to assert, that the United States minister at Hawai‘i and the commander of the warship Boston, in violation of our international duty, assisted a band of revolutionists to depose the queen and to usurp the government of the islands …”

“… it is also true that President Harrison recognized that de facto and provisional government as having the rightful sovereignty in Hawaii, in so far that it could conclude a treaty of annexation with the United States, and such a treaty was duly signed and sent to the Senate.”

“Then President Cleveland, when he came into power, sent Mr Blount as his special commissioner and accredited him to President Dole as the representative of the sovereignty of Hawaii. If he, or those in the Senate who still suffer from the pangs and compunctions of conscience which he is supposed to have felt when he recognized President Dole had then renounced the actions of Minister Stevens and Captain Wiltse …”

“… and if Mr Cleveland had sent a minister to Lili‘uokalani as the rightful sovereign, they would have fully established the sincerity of their objections and would have shown ‘the courage of their convictions.’”

“But, instead of observing that logical course, they sent Mr Willis as minister to Hawai‘i and accredited him to President Dole as the chief executive of Hawai‘i.”

“Then the provisional government grew into the constitutional Republic of Hawai‘i, and we have fully recognized that as the rightful and permanent government of Hawai‘i, and have kept our minister and consul-general at Honolulu and our war ships in that bay to protect them and the Republic….” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Now, after the lapse of five years, it is urged that the Republic is a usurping government; that it is a fraud contrived for the personal advantage of its promoters, and that Lili‘uokalani is still the rightful queen of Hawai‘i….”

“No nation in the world has refused recognition of the Republic of Hawai‘i as the rightful Government, and none of them question its soverign [sic] right to deal with any question that concerns the people of Hawai‘i.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“This act also establishes the fact that a treaty with a foreign State which declares the consent of such State to be annexed to the United States, although it is rejected by the Senate of the United States, is a sufficient expression and authentication of the consent of such foreign State to authorize Congress to enact a law providing for annexation …”

“… which, when complied with, is effectual without further legislation to merge the sovereignty of such independent State into a new and different relation to the United States and toward its own people.” (Fifty-Fifth Congress, Second Session, Committee on Foreign Relations, March 16, 1898)

“Recognized by the powers of the earth, sending and receiving envoys, enforcing respect for the law, and maintaining peace within its island borders, Hawaii sends to the United States, not a commission representing a successful revolution, but the accredited plenipotentiary of a constituted and firmly established sovereign State.”

“… the Republic of Hawai‘i approaches the United States as an equal, and points for its authority to that provision of article 32 of the constitution promulgated July 24, 1894, whereby …”

“The President (of the Republic of Hawai‘i,) with the approval of the cabinet, is hereby expressly authorized and empowered to make a treaty of political or commercial union between the Republic of Hawai‘i and the United States of America, subject to the ratification of the Senate.” (The Hawaiian resolution for ratification of the annexation treaty was unanimously adopted by the Senate of the Republic of Hawai‘i on September 9, 1897.) (US Secretary of State Sherman, June 15, 1897)

And, as noted in the purported document that is inferred to suggest “US never legally annexed Hawai‘i” – inferring that the Opinion notes same – it does not; that document states, “The United States also annexed Hawai‘i by joint resolution in 1898.” (Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation To Extend the Territorial Sea, October 4, 1988)

Click Here to read the DOJ Opinion for yourself.

Click Here to read Newcomb’s Op-Ed.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

annexation_of_hawaii-pp-35-8-002-00001

October 3, 2016 by Peter T Young 3 Comments

Dowsett Tract

Honolulu, by the end of the 19th century, was densely populated. Overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions were of great concern.

In part because of the 1900 plague and the Chinatown fire, residents began moving away from the city and into the surrounding valleys, wanting to escape from the overcrowded city into the quiet and serene rural areas.

With the introduction of the railway, trolley system, and the construction of new roads into the Honolulu area, transportation and accessibility into the city was made easier, thus affording residents with an easier commute.

There was a trolley that traveled from Waikiki into Manoa Valley along Oahu Avenue, and another that traveled along Nu‘uanu Avenue from town into the Nuuanu Valley. The introduction of automobiles, and construction of finished roadways also made travel easier.

Before the construction of the Pali Road, residents living on the windward side of Oahu would travel over the Ko‘olau Mountains by foot, along a treacherous path, to reach Honolulu.

In 1876, improvements were made to the trail to allow horses access to the trail as well. Regardless of these improvements, the trail was still quite dangerous, and took time to travel.

In 1897, plans for the construction of Pali Road were initiated. Engineered by Johnny Wilson and Lou Whitehouse, after its completion, it was considered one of Oahu’s major roadways.

Pali Road, connecting with Nuʻuanu Avenue (the present Pali Highway), officially connected the windward side of the island with downtown Honolulu. The development of this road allowed for greater accessibility into the valley.

In order to support the growing populations in dense areas in Honolulu, reservoirs and sophisticated systems were developed to collect and transport water to these areas.

By 1890, there were already two reservoirs in place in Nuʻuanu Valley, and a third one was under construction. Plans for a fourth reservoir was underway after the 1891 drought, and construction on this reservoir began in 1905.

With the area’s water system development, it supported the lifestyles of those living in the valley area. This area was one of the first on O‘ahu to be developed as a residential subdivision. It was called the Dowsett Tract.

The Dowsett Tract was named after the family that once owned the land. James Isaac Dowsett was born to Samuel James Dowsett (born in Rochester, Kent, England 1794 – lost at sea in 1834) and Mary Bishop Dowsett (Rochester, Kent, England; 1808 – 1860) in Honolulu, December 15, 1829.

Samuel and Mary married in Australia. A ship captain, Samuel did shipping business in Australia and was into whaling. Samuel first arrived in Hawaiʻi in 1822 when he was first officer of the “Mermaid,” accompanying the “Prince Regent,” a gift-ship from King George IV of England to King Kamehameha I, promised to the King by George Vancouver.

Samuel returned with his wife on July 17, 1828, arriving on the brig Wellington; they set up their home in Hawaiʻi at that time. Samuel and Mary had 4 children, James, Samuel Henry, Elizabeth Jane and Deborah Melville. James Isaac Dowsett was the first non-missionary white child to be born in Hawai‘i.

With his father’s disappearance, James Dowsett started working from the young age of twelve, and had a strong work ethic that would help him become a successful businessman.

He was active in the whaling and lumber industry, owned a fleet of boats that operated between the islands, and had extensive ranching investments. In his youth, Dowsett was a playmate of Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V and Lunalilo.

Dowsett married Annie Green Ragsdale of Honolulu, and together they had thirteen children. “He was a quick thinker and an excellent reasoner and while not a talkative man was always willing to supply any information from his great storehouse that might be useful to another or that might interest an inquirer.”

“He knew the town, the people and the country. He never left the Islands but once in his whole life and then four days in San Francisco was enough of life in foreign parts. He was a perfect encyclopedia of history and biography not only of Honolulu and Oahu, but of the entire group.”

“The common suggestion to one in search of obscure historical data was to go to Mr. Dowsett and he never failed. He could always supply day and date and all required details.” (Hawaiian Gazette, June 17, 1898)

Dowsett took on Chung Kun Ai as his protégé, allowing Ai to use a portion of his warehouse, and Ai started importing cigars, tea, peanut oil, shoe nails and other items. Ai and others later started City Mill, a rice milling and lumber importing business in Chinatown, Honolulu. The City Mill building on Nimitz was dedicated to Dowsett.

“Dowsett saw the grass hut replaced by the stone business block and the taro patch filled up for mansion site. He saw the little paths become fine streets and the broad and barren plains thickly populated districts. He saw the life of a nation change. … Through all this he was a close observer and always on the side of what was right and just.” (Hawaiian Gazette, June 17, 1898)

Dowsett died on June 14, 1898; “news of the death of Mr. Dowsett had been sent all over the Island and the Hawaiians in large numbers joined the throng of haoles calling to pay respects and offer consolation.”

“The older Hawaiians could not restrain themselves at all and gave vent to floods of tears and to strange wailings. They were overpowered and overcome by the thought that no more would they have the friendly greeting, the certain and reliable advice or the material assistance of the one who had been their reliance at all times and upon all occasions for so many years.” (Hawaiian Gazette, June 17, 1898)

After his death in 1899, James Dowsett’s heirs formed The Dowsett Company, Ltd. to help manage his extensive Hawaii property, including Dowsett Tract.

The Dowsett Tract was 273 acres of land in Nuʻuanu Valley. On October 4, 1912, the Dowsett Company subdivided the property into two lots (A and B). In June of 1916 – September 1916, the property was subdivided into 57 lots.

The Niniko ʻauwai runs through the development, providing fresh drinking water for virtually every land parcel contained within the triangular portion of land bounded by Nuʻuanu Avenue, Dowsett Avenue and Alika Avenue. Dowsett Avenue and Ragsdale Place in Dowsett Tract and Highlands in Nuʻuanu are named after James and Annie.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Oahu_Country_Club-from_Alewa-(GaryWild)-1919-Dowsett Tract

Nuuanu_Emmert-No._6-Looking_Mauka-1854

Nuuanu Valley, Honolulu, Hawaii, circa 1900

Nuuanu_Valley_1929

Nuuanu_Valley-Aviation Day formation over Oahu-(hawaii-gov)-December 17, 1934

Nuuanu_Homes-Monsarrat-(portion)-1920

October 2, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

The King’s Cape

“Centuries ago, when the rest of the world went to battle in iron clothing, the great seven-foot warriors of Hawaii donned gay war capes, fashioned of thousands of colorful feathers.”

“The principal colors used were red and yellow. The more yellow, the higher the rank of the wearer. … The first kings maintained a corps of trained ‘birdmen’ who lived in the forests and hunted these creatures.”

“They learned to imitate the call of the male and thus lure the birds close to their hiding place where they previously ‘doctored’ a flower particularly delectable to the bird they wished to catch.”

“Then they waited until the bird thrust his bill into the flower … Then the birdmen carefully removed the desired feathers and released the bird.” (Oakland Tribune, July 21, 1929)

Hawaiian featherwork consists of leis (or strings of feathers worn in the hair or around the neck,) kāhili (plumes of feathers used as royal insignia,) ahuʻula (cloaks or capes,) mahiole (helmets,) images of the god Kūkaʻilimoku (war god of Kamehameha,) or mat-like objects and other temple objects.) (Brigham)

The ‘ahuʻula (cloak or cape) was durable and comparatively small in bulk. Olonā (a fiber) was universally the basis of the Hawaiian feather capes. The Hawaiian had not looms, so a fiber net was formed as the foundation of the cape.

It was a common custom to net bands of a width from 8 to 12 inches and this was cut and joined. Regular and irregular pieces were put together to form the cape. (Brigham)

Hawaiian feather capes and cloaks were constructed by tying bundles of small feathers, usually 6-10 per bundle, to a foundation of netting. The ‘ahu‘ula of Kamehameha consists of approximately 450,000 feathers. (Bishop Museum)

To fasten feathers to this net much finer thread, often single fibers, was used and the feather was bound by 2 or 3 turns of the thread on the shaft of the feather. On the reverse, the feather did not show.

As in medieval Europe the vanquished knight was despoiled of his armor by the victor, so the chief who killed or captured his enemy took as spoils his feather cloak, helmet or lei. Generous Hawaiian chiefs often gave ‘ahuʻula as token of their friendship. (Brigham)

During the British warship Calypso’s three-and-a-half-month stay in Hawai‘i beginning on Oct. 2, 1858, its surgeon, WH Sloggett, was presented with a royal feather shoulder cape by King Kamehameha IV in gratitude for medical service he’d rendered the seriously ill King. (Soboleski)

“Sir Arthur Sloggett, surgeon-general of the British Expeditionary Forces during the World War, has presented, through a nephew who resides in the islands, the cape of Kamehameha IV, given to Sloggett’s great grandfather by the monarch.” (Oakland Tribune, July 21, 1929)

On occasion, the ship would carry King Kamehameha IV and his retinue to Hawai‘i Island. Taking advantage of the presence of the surgeon, the King requested an examination by Sloggett.

Sloggett declined to accept a fee. He felt he already was paid by the Navy so he didn’t need to be paid by the King for doing his job. (Faye)

However, as a gift Kamehameha IV delivered to the Calypso on its departure an ‘ahuʻula (red and yellow feather cape.) He hung it at his home in England. The King also gave him a small portrait of Queen Emma. (Faye, KauaiGold)

The Sloggett cape measures 15.5 inches in depth, 33 inches across at its widest width, and is made of the yellow and black feathers of the ‘o‘o (a now extinct black bird with one yellow feather indigenous to Hawai‘i), with yellow used as the background and black as ornamentation.

‘I‘iwi (a scarlet honeycreeper also indigenous to Hawai‘i) feathers also appear as ornamentation, while a network of olona fiber, intricately knotted, forms the foundation. The cape’s outside surface gleams like satin and its texture is as smooth as velvet.

Dr. Sloggett took the cape home to England, where he framed and hung it upon a wall in his house. Then in 1926, his son, Sir Arthur Sloggett, removed it from the drawing-room wall of his home in England and gave it to his nephew, Grove Farm Plantation director Henry Digby Sloggett, who returned it to Hawai‘i.

Henry Digby Sloggett passed the cape on to his son, Richard Henry Sloggett Sr, and for a time it was on loan to Honolulu’s Bishop Museum. The Sloggett cape can now be seen in the Kaua‘i Museum. (Soboleski) (Lots of information here is from Chris Faye and Kauai Museum. The image shows the Kamehameha IV ahuʻula given to Sloggett. (Faye – Kauai Museum))

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

kamehameha-iv-cape-given-to-sloggett-christinefaye-tgi

October 1, 2016 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Kuaiwi

Archeologists divide Pre-European Hawaiian agriculture into wetland, flood irrigated systems that were restricted to stream valleys and coastal plains of each island and dryland, rainfed systems that covered vast areas of relatively fertile soils on the younger islands.

Each agricultural system had its own pattern of social organization, and development of the dryland systems in particular led to consolidation of social control by the ruling chiefs. (Lincoln) Large scale dryland systems have been found in Kona, Kohala, Kaupo and Kalaupapa (and elsewhere.)

The Kona Field System was not brought to Kona as a fully developed system; but rather, it reflects a developmental adaptation to the area likely associated with the evolving sociopolitical structure and increasing population in Kona.

As population increased to AD 1650, these systems underwent both expansion (to the limits of suitable soil and rainfall conditions) and intensification (in cropping interval, labor input, construction of permanent field borders and animal husbandry.) (Kirch)

The Kona Field System was a nearly continuous series of agricultural fields stretching from the Kaū ahupua‘a (above what is now Kona Airport) in the north to Hoʻokena in the south. The fields cover approximately 34,350-acres across the slopes of Hualālai and Mauna Loa. (Rechtman)

Planting areas were divided by kuaiwi (one translation of the word kuaiwi is ‘backbone;) these are low stone mounds/walls, which may have also served as trails between cultivated areas.

Between the kuaiwi, other traditional Hawaiian planting features are present such as mounds, terraces, modified outcrops and platforms. (Dye)

Early explorers marveled at the size and fertility of Kona’s upland plantations. Archibald Menzies, a surgeon and naturalist who accompanied Vancouver to Kealakekua Bay in 1793, wrote: “As we advanced beyond the bread-fruit plantations, the country became more and more fertile, being in a high state of cultivation.”

“For several miles round us there was not a spot that would admit of it but what was with great labor and industry cleared of loose stones and planted with esculent (kalo, taro) roots or some useful vegetable or other.”

“In clearing the ground, the stones are heaped up in ridges (kuaiwi) between the little fields and planted on each side, either with a row of sugar cane or the sweet root (ti) of these islands … where they afterwards continue to grow in a wild state …”

“… so that even these stony, uncultivated banks are by this means made useful to proprietors, as well as ornamental to the fields they intersect.” (Menzies, 1793)

The Kona system developed into a highly diverse patchwork characterized by a matrix of agricultural practices overlaid onto a spectrum of lava flows of varying ages. (Lincoln)

The kuaiwi, wider than tall, are a series of closely-spaced parallel structures that are parallel to the mauka-makai slope and are intersected by shorter, perpendicular retaining cross-walls.

Kuaiwi extend for several hundred yards to more than a mile in length, so they were probably not the work of individual gardeners, but the result of broader, organized use.

The kuaiwi system is extensive, but is found only in association with fertile soils. Their age, extrapolated from radiocarbon dates of charcoal retrieved from under the structures, indicate fifteenth-to sixteenth-century construction. (Wozniak)

Agricultural fields are thus discernible by the rectangular pattern created by the kuaiwi and cross-walls. The construction of kuaiwi was likely a by-product of land clearing as rocks were removed to create planting areas. (Dye)

The Kona Field System is generally considered a dryland complex, however, water control features, ʻauwai and modified waterholes, have been documented in areas where intermittent streams were present. (Rechtman)

This system is applicable to planting in a dry setting for several reasons: moisture – the kuaiwi are described as being very effective at catching morning dew; mulch – the kuaiwi were constructed using ‘waste’ rocks ranging in size from a pebble to the size of a fist, probably cleared from surrounding fields. (Gon)

We know that there is a very essential process of mulching in which the Hawaiians transferred leaf material from the kuaiwi to the fields. And it is very possible that the kuaiwi played a very essential role in managing the nutrient cycle within the Kona Field System and allowed the Hawaiians to sustain their agriculture over hundreds of years. (Lincoln)

Within the majority of the Kona Field System, the kuaiwi were planted with tall crops such as sugar cane and ti leaf while the cleared fields between the kuaiwi were growing the staple crops such as taro and sweet potato. (Lincoln)

The Kona Field System is without equal in Hawai‘i, and probably in the nation in terms of the extensiveness of a prehistoric modification of the land.

The system is so extensive that it cannot be seen in its entirety except from extremely high altitudes, but the physical remains are sufficiently well preserved and in such generally good condition that they may still be detected on the ground, although it is difficult to realize what is viewed is part of such a massive system.

The vastness and complexity of the system show excellent practical engineering and environmental knowledge of the ancient Hawaiians, as well as the highly evolved social organization which could coordinate the labors of a multitude of people to create and maintain such a system. (Newman)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger