Heiau | Page 4 | Images of Old Hawaiʻi

July 2, 2019 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Ulupō Heiau

About 6,000 years ago and before the arrival of the Hawaiians, Kawainui (the large [flow of] fresh water) and Ka‘elepulu (the moist blackness) were bays connected to the ocean and extended a mile inland of the present coastline. This saltwater environment is indicated by inland deposits of sand and coral.

A sand bar began forming across Kawainui Bay around 2,500 years ago creating Kawainui Lagoon filled with coral, fish and shellfish. The Hawaiians probably first settled along the fringes of this lagoon.

Gradually, erosion of the hillsides surrounding Kawainui began to fill in the lagoon with sediments.

About 500 years ago, early Hawaiians maintained the freshwater fishpond in Kawainui; the fishpond was surrounded on all sides by a system of canals (‘auwai) bringing water from Maunawili Stream and springs to walled taro lo‘i.

In 1750, Kailua was the political seat of power for the district of Ko‘olaupoko and a favored place of the O‘ahu chiefs for its abundance of fish and good canoe landings.

The houses of the Aliʻi (chiefs), their families, and their attendants surrounded Kailua Bay. Behind the sand beach was the large, fertile expanse of Kawainui which has been converted to a fishpond surrounded by an agricultural field system.

Kawainui was a large, 400 acre fishpond with an abundance of mullet, awa, and o’opu. Ka’elepulu and Nuʻupia fishponds are nearby. The makaʻāinana (commoners) provided support for this chiefly residence.

Farmers grow kalo (taro) in the irrigated lo’i (fields) along the streams from Maunawili and along the edges of the fishponds. Crops of dryland kalo, banana, sweet potato, and sugarcane mark the fringes of the marsh. The fishermen harvest fish from the fishponds and the sea.

The kahuna (priests) oversee the religious ceremonies and rites at several heiau around Kawainui. There is Ulupō Heiau on the east with Pahukini Heiau and Holomakani Heiau on the west side.

Ulupō Heiau measures 140 by 180 feet with walls up to 30 feet in height. The construction of this massive terraced platform required a large work force under the direction of a powerful ali’i.

Several O’ahu chiefs lived at Kailua and probably participated in ceremonies at Ulupō Heiau, including Kākuhihewa and Kualiʻi.

Kualiʻi fought many battles and he may have rededicated Ulupō Heiau as a heiau luakini.

Maui chief Kahekili came to O’ahu in the 1780s and lived in Kailua after defeating O’ahu high chief Kahahana for control of the island.

Kamehameha I worked at Kawainui fishpond and is said to have eaten the edible mud (lepo ai ia) of Kawainui when there was a shortage of kalo. But by 1795, when Kamehameha I conquered O’ahu, it is believed that Ulupō Heiau was already abandoned.

Farmers grew kalo (taro) in the irrigated lo‘i (fields) along the streams from Maunawili and along the edges of the fishponds. Crops of dryland kalo, banana, sweet potato and sugarcane mark the fringes of the marsh. Fishermen harvest fish from the fishponds and the sea.

In the 1880s, Chinese farmers converted the taro fields of Kawainui to rice, but abandoned their farms by 1920. Cattle grazed throughout much of Kawainui.

Ulupō Heiau was transferred from the Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry to Territorial Parks in 1954.

In the early 1960s, through a joint effort of State Parks and Kaneohe Ranch, the stone walkway was placed atop the heiau and the stone paving was laid around the springs. The bronze plaque was installed in 1962 by the Commission on Historical Sites.

Ulupo Heiau is listed on the National and Hawaii Registers of Historic Places. At Ulupo Heiau, State Parks seeks to promote preservation of the heiau and heighten public awareness about the cultural history of Kawai Nui.

The Kailua Hawaiian Civic Club and ‘Ahahui Malama I ka Lōkahi are the co-curators at this State Park heiau complex.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Kailua-(Kawainui)-Aerial-USGS-UH_Manoa-(2519)-1959-noting_Ulupo_Heiau

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

June 22, 2019 by Peter T Young 1 Comment

Hiki‘au Heiau

After sailing around the island and exploring its northern and eastern sides, Captain Cook landed at Kealakekua Bay early in 1779.

When Cook arrived at Kealakekua, “they called Captain Cook Lono (after the god Lono who had gone away promising to return).” (Kamakau)

When Cook went ashore, he was taken to Hiki‘au Heiau and was seated above the altar and covered with a cloak of red tapa like that about the images.

Both chiefs and commoners said to each other, “This is indeed Lono, and this is his heiau come across the Sea from Moa-ʻula-nui-akea (land in Raʻiatea in the Society Islands) across Mano-wai-nui-kai-oʻo!” (Kamakau)

There are a number of reasons why the people may have thought Cook was the god Lono:

He arrived during the Makahiki festival, a time when the god Lono symbolically returned from his travels
Like Lono, Cook had come to the Hawaiian people from the sea
The shapes of the English ships were reminiscent of the kapa cloth and upright standards used in the Makahiki parades
Cook’s ships had sailed around Hawai’i clockwise, the same direction followed by Lono’s processions
Kealakekua, where Cook’s ships anchored, was the site of the important Hiki‘au Heiau dedicated to Lono

When Kalani‘ōpu‘u (Ali‘i ʻAimoku (High Chief or King) of the Island of Hawai‘i) met with Cook, he treated him with hospitality, giving him hogs, taro, potatoes, bananas and other provisions.

In addition, he gave feather capes, helmets, kahili, feather lei, wooden bowls, tapa cloths and finely woven mats. Cook gave Kalani’ōpu’u gifts in return.

When Captain Vancouver visited the islands in the 1790s, he provided the following description of Hiki‘au:“Adjoining one side of the Square was the great Morai (heiau,) where there stood a kind of steeple (‘anu‘u) that ran up to the height of 60 or 70 feet, …”

“… it was in square form, narrowing gradually towards the top where it was square and flat; it is built of very slight twigs & laths, placed horizontally and closely, and each lath hung with narrow pieces of white Cloth.”

“… next to this was a House occupied by the Priests, where they performed their religious ceremonies and the whole was enclosed by a high railing on which in many parts were stuck skulls of those people, who had fallen victims to the Wrath of their Deity.. . . In the center of the Morai stood a preposterous figure carved out of wood larger than life representing the . . . supreme deity. . ..”

John Papa I‘i wrote that in ca. 1812-1813, shortly after Kamehameha’s return to Hawai‘i, the king celebrated the Makahiki and in the course of doing so he rededicated Hiki‘au, “the most important heiau in the district of Kona”.

In 1819, Louis de Freycinet also visited Hiki‘au Heiau and stated: “The one [temple] of Riorio (Liholiho) in Kayakakoua (Kealakekua) was surrounded by a simple square palisade in the center of which were twelve hideous idols of gigantic proportions. …”

“Next to them rose the light wooden obelisk-like structure that we mentioned earlier and then a small terrace surrounding a wooden platform, which was supported by two stakes driven into the ground. This platform is where they sacrifice men and animals to these terrible deities.”

“… A rather large number of rocks, piled here and there without any seeming order, covered the ground. … In the center, as well as to the extreme right of the enclosure, stood wooden huts covered with palm leaves. One of these was reserved for the king during certain ceremonies and others for the priests.”

As a side note, you recall that Henry ʻŌpūkahaʻia left Hawai‘i in 1809 and sailed to the continent where he eventually inspired the first missionaries to volunteer to carry the message of Christianity to the islands.

ʻŌpūkahaʻia had wanted to join them in spreading the word of Christianity back home in Hawaiʻi, but died in 1818 of typhus fever before the first company of missionaries sailed to Hawaiʻi in 1819, landing at Kailua-Kona on April 4, 1820.

It is interesting to note that ʻŌpūkahaʻia (prior to leaving the islands) had been under the direction of his uncle, a kahuna (priest) at the Hiki‘au Heiau. It had been the hope of his uncle that Opukahaʻia would take his place as the kahuna at Hiki‘au Heiau.

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Arago_–_Iles_Sandwich_-_Vue_du_Morai_du_Roi_a_Kayakakoua-ceremonial reception of French Naval Officers in Hawaii, 1817 to 1820.

Hikiau_Heiau_illustration-William_Ellis_(Captian_Cook's_Crew)-1782

Karakakoa_Bay,_Owyhee,_Drawn_by_Thomas_Heddington,_Artist_with_Vancouver

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

April 1, 2019 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Pōhaku Kalai a Umi

“The king was over all the people; he was the supreme executive, so long, however, as he did right. His executive duties in the government were to gather the people together in time of war …”

“… to decide all important questions of state, and questions touching the life and death of the common people as well as of the chiefs and his comrades in arms. … It was his duty to consecrate the temples, to oversee the performance of religious rites in the temples (heiau)”. (Malo)

“In the majority of cases Hawaiian heiaus were either walled stone enclosures or open platform structures. They were mostly levelled and stone paved, many being of two to four terraces. All heiaus were without roof covering except as to the several small houses erected within their precincts.”

“In two instances, both of which were on the island of Oahu, at Waialua and at Honolulu, heiaus were described as having been of stick fence construction.”

“And there were also sacred places of more than local fame to which pilgrimages were made and sacrificial offerings placed on outcropping rocks on a level plain”. (Thrum)

“Umi is reported to have been a very religious king, according to the ideas of his time, for he enriched the priests, and is said to have built a number of Heiaus; though in the latter case tradition often assigns the first erection of a Heiau to a chief, when in reality he only rebuilt or repaired an ancient one on the same site.” (Fornander)

ʻUmi-a-Līloa (ʻUmi) from Waipiʻo, son of Līloa, defeated Kona chief Ehunuikaimalino and united the island of Hawai‘i. He then moved his Royal Center from Waipi‘o to Kona.

“Umi-a-Liloa was a devout king, and … (he) had two principal occupations which he undertook to do with his own hands: they are farming and fishing.”

“He built large taro patches in Waipio, and he tilled the soil in all places where he resided, and when in Kona that was his great occupation; he was noted as the husbandman king. … All the chiefs of his government were noted in cultivating the land and in fishing, and other important works which would make them independent.” (Fornander)

“It is presumed that Umi’s life passed tranquilly after his removal from Waipio; at least no wars, convulsions, or stirring events have been recorded.”

“In making his tours around the island, Umi erected several Heiaus, distinguished from the generality of Heiaus by the employment of hewn stones.” (Fornander)

“He employed workmen from all quarters to hew stones which were to serve, some say, to construct a sepulchral vault, or, according to others, a magnificent palace.” (Thrum)

“A number of hewn stones of this period – at least tradition, by calling them the Pōhaku Kalai a Umi (‘the hewn stones of Umi’), does so imply …”

“… were found scattered about the Kona coast of Hawaii, especially in the neighbourhood of Kailua, and, after the arrival of the missionaries (1820), furnished splendid material wherewith to build the first Christian church at Kailua.” (Fornander)

“(T)he stones were admirably cut. In our day the Calvanistic missionaries have employed them in building the great church at Kailua, without there being any necessity for cutting them anew.”

“It is natural to suppose that for cutting these hard and very large stones, they used tools different from those of Hawaiian origin.”

“Iron must have been known in the time of Umi, and its presence would be explained by wrecks of ships which the ocean currents might have drifted ashore.”

“It is certain that it was known long before the arrival of Captain Cook, as is also shown by a passage from an old romance: ‘O luna, o lalo, kai, o uka, o ka hao pae, ko ke lii’ (‘What is above, below the sea, the mountain, and the iron that drifts ashore, belong to the king.’)” (Thrum)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

Umi stones

Bayside_view_of_Hulihee_Palace,_prior_to_1884-portion-Umi stones in corners

Umi stones in corners of Mokuaikaua Church

Umi stones in Mokuaikaua Church

Umi stones

Pa_o_Umi-where_Umi_is_said_to_have_landed_at_Kailua-(the_little_girl_at_left_is_my_mother-next_to_her_my_grandmother)-1928

August 18, 2018 by Peter T Young Leave a Comment

Lana-nu‘u-mamao

Immediately after Captain Cook first landed at Waimea Kauai in January 1778, he and others were taken inland for an ‘excursion of the country’. They had seen ‘pyramids’ or ‘obelisks’ as they passed in their ships. What follows are descriptions of what they saw, as noted in Cook’s Journal.

“As we ranged down the coast from the east, in the ships, we had observed at every village one or more elevated white objects, like pyramids or rather obelisks; and one of these, which I guessed to be at least fifty feet high was very conspicuous from the ship’s anchoring station, and seemed to be at no great distance up this valley.”

“To have a nearer inspection of it, was the principal object of my walk. Our guide perfectly understood that we wished to be conducted to it. But it happened to be so placed that we could not get at it, being separated from us by the pool of water.”

“However, there being another of the same kind within our reach, about half a mile off, upon our side of the valley, we set out to visit that.”

“The moment we got to it, we saw that it stood in a burying ground, or morai (heiau;) the resemblance of which, in many respects, to those we were so well acquainted with at other islands in this ocean … could not but strike us …”

“On each side of the pyramid were long pieces of wickerwork, called hereanee, in the same ruinous condition; with two slender poles, inclining to each other, at one corner, where some plantains were laid upon a board, fixed at the height of five or six feet. This they called herairemy ; and informed us that the fruit was an offering to their god”.

“The island seemed to abound with such places of sacrifice as this which we were now visiting, and which appeared to be one of the most inconsiderable of them; being far less conspicuous than several others which we had seen as we sailed along the coast, and particularly than that on the opposite side of the water in this valley …”

“… the white kenananoo, or pyramid, of which we were now almost sure, derived its colour only from pieces of the consecrated cloth laid over it.”

The ‘pyramids’ or ‘obelisks’ Cook saw at the heiau were Lana-nu‘u-mamao (‘Anu‘u), “a tower-like frame, made of strong timbers, covered with aho, ie poles, but not thatched. It had three floors, or kahuas, of which the lowest was named lana, the next nu‘u, and the highest mamao.”

“The lowest, the lana, was used for the bestowal of offerings. The second, nu‘u, was more sacred; the high priest and his attendants sometimes stood there while conducting religious services.”

“The third, the mamao, was the most sacred place of all. Only the high priest and king were allowed to come to this platform.”

“When worship was being conducted at the lana-nu‘u-mamao all the people prostrated themselves. It seems probable that the lana-nu‘u-mamao was used as a sort of oracle.” (Malo)

“It was usually more than twenty feet tall and contained three platforms. The lowest symbolized the earth, the abode of humans, and was where offerings were placed; the middle was viewed as the space of birds and clouds and was where the high priest and his attendants conducted services …”

“… the highest platform symbolized the heavens — dwelling place of the gods — and could only be ascended by the high priest and the king. This was where the high priest received inspiration and acted as intermediary with the gods.”

“The entire structure was covered with bleached kapa. It was a highly visible component of the temple platform area and contained within a refuse or bone pit where decayed offerings and bones of victims were cast (lua pa‘u).” (NPS)

“The building of this heiau was a great and arduous undertaking. Priests were everywhere about; they selected the site, determined the orientation, the dimensions, and the arrangement of the structure, and at every stage performed the ritualistic ceremonies without which the work could not be acceptable to the gods.” (Kuykendall)
“The usual plan of the luakini dictated that if the front faced the west or east, the oracle tower stood on the north end of the structure.”

“If the heiau fronted on the north or south, the tower would be on the east side, turned toward the west or south. The audience sat in the southern or western part of the structure.” (NPS)

“(F)unctionally specialized heiaus had well identifiable features; luakini temples could not be built just anywhere, but only upon sites formerly built on by the people of old. If so, then the larger heiau should be architecturally stratified, with the platforms and terraces of older heiau buried under later additions and elaborations.”

“An opposite opinion is represented by Stokes: the different types of foundations … seem to have had no connection with the classes of worship to which the heiau belonged.”

“An intermediate solution is proposed by Valeri: the Hawaiians had two heiau classification systems, which have not been clearly distinguished. The first was based on function – fertility, production, or war. The second was based on architectural typology. The functional classification could be combined with the architectural to produce a wide array of subtypes.” (Chase-Dunn & Ermolaeva)

Follow Peter T Young on Facebook

Follow Peter T Young on Google+

Follow Peter T Young on LinkedIn

Follow Peter T Young on Blogger

A Morai in Atooi-Webber-Rumsey

Ahuena-Anuu Oracle Tower

Ahuena_heiau_1816

Ahuena-Oracle Tower

Heiau-oracle tower

Puu o Mahuka

Reconstruction-illustration-Papaenaena_Heiau-(NPS)

Arago_–_Iles_Sandwich_-_Vue_du_Morai_du_Roi_a_Kayakakoua-1819

Piiolanihale-oracle tower

Kane Aki Heiau

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