Hawaii3

From Seshat Data Browser
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Phase I Variables (polity-based)

General variables

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥ EC contributed general description.

♠ Original name ♣ Hawaii III ♥

♠ Alternative names ♣ Big Island of Hawai’i, Hawai’i Island, Island of Hawai’i, Big Island, Owyhee, Owhyhee ♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ ♥


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 1580-1778 CE ♥ Justification for end date: Cook's first arrival in the archipelago (1778 at Kauai - he did not visit the Big Island until 1779).

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ unitary state: 1580-1630 CE; quasi-polity: 1631-1690 CE; loose: 1691-1710CE; unitary state: 1711-1752CE; quasi-polity: 1753-1755 CE; unitary state: 1756-1778 CE ♥ Overall, this period was characterized by an initial period of political integration, followed by a split into two polities, then a general move towards 'islandwide integration' again in the time leading up to Cook's arrival.[1] By about 1580 'Umi had ascended as ruler of the entire island.[2][3] In Kirch's reckoning, 'Umi was the first true king of the Big Island, as opposed to the mere chiefs who had governed the island until then. 'Umi did not fill a merely ceremonial role, as the previous chiefs had, but controlled the use of land, instituted a system of territorial administration and ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, specialized labour, and elaborated the religious system.[4] I think we can consider this a unitary state. 'According to Kamakau, 'Umi divided his kingdom' between two of his sons, Keli'iokaloa-a-'Umi and Keawenui-a-'Umi, thus splitting the island, but Keli'iokaloa defeated his brother in battle and 'became the king of a once again unified island'.[5] After the death of King Lonoikamakahiki c. 1630 'follows [a] phase of political fragmentation, when the leeward and windward regions came under the control of the Mahi and 'Ī lineages of Kohala and Hilo, respectively'.[6] Nominally, Keakealanikane became king of the island, but 'his reign was either ineffectual or simply not recognized by the district chiefs'.[7] After the death of Keakealaniwahine around 1690, her son Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku 'established some degree of unity over the island, even though the district chiefs retained considerable power':[8] this sounds like 'loose' control. After Keawe-'ikekahi-ali'i-o-ka-moku's death, 'A strong and powerful kingship reasserted itself again ... with Alapa'inui' c. 1710.[9] Around 1752 CE, a warrior chief with a claim to the throne, Kalani'ōpu'u, rose up against Alapa'inui and 'gained control of his natal districts of Ka'ū and Puna, while Alapa'inui ruled the rest of the island', so the Big Island became a quasi-polity once again.[10] After Alapa'inui's death, Kalani'ōpu'u managed to defeat Alapa'inui's son Keawe'ōpala and gain control of the whole island - this must have happened around 1755 as Kirch tells us that Keawe'ōpala's reign began c. 1754 but 'was short'.[11] Kalani'ōpu'u 'devoted considerable attention to administration' and held onto power long enough to greet Captain James Cook off the windward coast of Maui in 1778.[12] (Dates are approximate here due to the oral-historical nature of the sources. I have used Table 3.1 in Kirch's How Chiefs Became Kings as a guide).[13]

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ ♥

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Hawaii II ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period ♥ Kamehameha's Kingdom.
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥

♠ Capital ♣ Kona District: 1580-1590 CE ♥ 'Umi-a-Līlōa (reigned c. 1580-1590) 'moved the royal seat from its traditional base in Waipi'o Valley to Kona District on the leeward side'.[14]

♠ Language ♣ Hawaiian ♥

General Description

Hawai'i, also known as the Big Island, is the largest island of the Hawaiian archipelago. Our 'Hawaii 3' refers to the period from 1580 to 1778 CE. 1580 is the approximate date of the formation of the first island-wide unitary kingdom, while 1778 is the date of first European contact ‒ the arrival of Captain Cook.[15][16]

Population and political organization

By about 1580, 'Umi had become the first true 'king' (ali'i nui) of the entire Big Island.[17] In contrast with the chiefs who came before him, he is said to have exerted greater control over land tenure, instituted a system of territorial administration based on ahupua'a land parcels, intensified food production, and elaborated the religious system.[18]
After 'Umi, the island alternated several times between being split into two or more smaller polities, and being united under one ruler.[19] In times of greater integration, the kingdom was divided into districts (moku) which were each under the control of a major chief called an ali'i-'ai-moku.[20] Within districts were territories called ahupua'a, ruled by chiefs called ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a. The more powerful of these ali'i held more than one ahupua'a.[21] Below the ahupua'a chiefs, konohiki land managers (often their junior relatives) oversaw the collection of tribute from the commoner farmers, known as maka'āinana.[22]
Overall, this period was characterized by a high-density but stable population settled in all ecological zones, a secondary intensification of the dryland field systems, and endemic conquest warfare.[23] The population of the entire Hawaiian archipelago by Cook's arrival was certainly very large, but there is a long-standing debate regarding exact numbers. Estimates range between 250,000 and 800,000.[24]

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ PRG; Enrico Cioni ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ [7,000-12,000] ♥ To account for a range of polity sizes. 10,432- the entire Big Island “By the late seventeenth century, four main polities had emerged, focused on the main islands of Kaua’i, O’ahu, Maui, and Hawai’i, with the fought-over smaller islands being incorporated into one or another of the main units. However, the political dynamism of Hawai’i [the archipelago] in late prehistoric and early historic times emanated primarily from the two largest and youngest islands, Maui and Hawai’i….The Maui and Hawai’i chiefs coveted the generously endowed production systems based on irrigation that these western islands offered. Not long before Cook’s fateful visit in 1778-79, the Maui paramount Kahekili expanded his polity to encompass all of the islands to the west and was engaged in a fierce succession of wars with his arch-rival Kalani’ōpu’u of Hawai’i. After the fateful encounter with the West, Kalani’ōpu’u’s successor—the famous Kamehameha I—made shrewd use of Western arms to incorporate the entire archipelago under his hegemony.”[25]

♠ Polity Population ♣ [37,500-200,000] ♥ Estimate calculated using a range of [150,000-800,000] inhabitants for the whole archipelago divided into 4 polities. The 150,000-200,000 figure is implausible considering that all men, women, and children in the entire archipelago may only have numbered 250,000-300,000 at this time [26]. However, if higher estimates of the archipelago’s population (400,000, possibly more than 800,000 [27]) are correct, perhaps the 1794 fleet really did contain 150,000-200,000 men.<br\ “By the late seventeenth century, four main polities had emerged, focused on the main islands of Kaua’i, O’ahu, Maui, and Hawai’i, with the fought-over smaller islands being incorporated into one or another of the main units. However, the political dynamism of Hawai’i [the archipelago] in late prehistoric and early historic times emanated primarily from the two largest and youngest islands, Maui and Hawai’i….The Maui and Hawai’i chiefs coveted the generously endowed production systems based on irrigation that these western islands offered. Not long before Cook’s fateful visit in 1778-79, the Maui paramount Kahekili expanded his polity to encompass all of the islands to the west and was engaged in a fierce succession of wars with his arch-rival Kalani’ōpu’u of Hawai’i. After the fateful encounter with the West, Kalani’ōpu’u’s successor—the famous Kamehameha I—made shrewd use of Western arms to incorporate the entire archipelago under his hegemony.”[28]

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ ♥

Hierarchical Complexity

♠ Settlement hierarchy ♣ 2 ♥
1. Royal/chiefly centre
2. Dispersed households
"Hawai'i lacked anything approaching urban centers, and although there were substantial differences in population density corresponding to an uneven topographic distribution of soil and hydrologic resources (see discussion that follows), the general trend was of dispersed households, each occupying and farming its own adjacent plots. Moreover, while the commoners were sedentary on their lands, the ali'i were known to move about in relation to available food stocks. This peripatetic pattern of chiefly movement is well described, and underlies the metaphor of the chief as a “shark who travels on the land” (He manōholo ̒āina ke ali'i; Pukui 1983:87: Proverb 799). Nonetheless, there were distinct chiefly and royal centers, marked by concentrations of larger residences adjacent to temples of the main state cults of Kū and Lono. [...] Surrounding the king's own extensive household compound were the residential courts of several principal ali'i and advisors, the houses of warriors, and the main Hale o Lono or temple to the god in whose name the annual tribute was collected. While this settlement plan has certain innovations reflecting Western contact (notably the gun drilling (p.51) field and the shipyard), in most respects it was probably typical of royal courtly centers in the late precontact era." [29]
♠ Administrative levels ♣ 4 ♥ This number equal to the levels in the provincial administration, plus the ali'i nui.
1. Ali'i nui
"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali'i nui or 'great ali'i,' [...]. The al'i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." [30]

__Central administration__

2. Kalaimoku
"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses 'in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods' (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al'i to royal audiences." [31]
2. Kahuna nui
The kahuna nui "carried the responsibilities for the king's religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." [32]

__Provincial administration__

2. Ali'i-'ai-moku
"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali'i-'ai-moku. The operative term 'ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both 'food' and 'eat' but with metaphoric extensions connoting to 'consume,' 'grasp,' or 'hold onto' (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of 'ai includes 'to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.' The term ali'i-'ai-moku might thus be simply translated 'ruler of the moku,' but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, 'hidden meanings', folded in. He is as well the chief who 'eats' the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally 'eats from' its productions." [33]
3. Ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a
"[T]he more numerous ahupua'a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua'a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali'i frequently held more than one ahupua'a." [34]
4. Konohiki
"The three tiered hierarchy of land rulers, beginning with the ali'i nui who had the power to reallocate lands to the ali'i-'ai-moku and ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a under him, did not extend down below the level of the largely self-sufficient ahupua'a territories. Rather, the administration of the ahupua'a, including its various ̒ili subdivisions, was put into the hands of a konohiki, a resident “land manager” who acted on behalf of the ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a. Konohiki were, in fact, often lower-ranked members of the al'i class (such as kaukau ali'i), frequently junior collaterals of the ahupua'a chiefs themselves." [35]
♠ Religious levels ♣ 2 ♥ Though there were many different types of ritual specialists in pre-contact Hawaii [36], only one kind, the kahuna pule, was involved with state affairs. Other types include healing experts, sorcerers, and prophets [37].
1. Kahuna nui
The kahuna nui was the most important of the kahuna pule (see below), as he "carried the responsibilities for the king's religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." [38]
2. Kahuna pule
"The priests who officiated at temples controlled by the king and major chiefs were the kahuna pule. These were subdivided into a number of specific orders or cults, especially those pertaining to Kū and Lono (mo'o Kū and mo'o Lono). These priests were drawn from high-ranking elite families, typically of papa rank (in which the person's mother comes from one of the three highest ranks)." [39]

♠ Military levels ♣ [3-4] ♥ There does not seem to have been a separate military hierarchy, so this estimate is based on a modified version of the administrative hierarchy, in which the kalaimoku is given greater weight because of his role as adviser in times of war.

1. Ali'i nui
"At the apex of the polity sat the king, the ali'i nui or 'great ali'i,' [...]. The al'i nui ruled over the entire mokupuni [island], assisted by various administrative aides." [40]
2. Kalaimoku
"The kālaimoku was charged with advising the king on all secular affairs, including war. Among his chief duties was to oversee the royal storehouses 'in which to collect food, fish, tapa [barkcloth], malo [loincloths], pa-u [female skirts], and all sorts of goods' (Malo 1951:195). Only the kālaimoku had the regular privilege of holding secret meetings with the king, and he controlled the access of other al'i to royal audiences." [41]
3. Ali'i-'ai-moku
"The districts (moku) into which the kingdom was divided were each under the control of a major chief of high rank, called the ali'i-'ai-moku. The operative term 'ai in this compound term has the core meaning of both 'food' and 'eat' but with metaphoric extensions connoting to 'consume,' 'grasp,' or 'hold onto' (Pukui and Elbert 1986:9). Thus the figurative extension of 'ai includes 'to rule, reign, or enjoy the privileges and exercise the responsibilities of rule.' The term ali'i-'ai-moku might thus be simply translated 'ruler of the moku,' but as in many Hawaiian expressions there are layers of kaona, 'hidden meanings', folded in. He is as well the chief who 'eats' the district (recall the metaphor of the chief as land shark), and literally 'eats from' its productions." [42]
3. Ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a
"[T]he more numerous ahupua'a territories were apportioned to chiefs who were called the ali'i-'ai-ahupua'a, the chiefs who “ate” the ahupua'a. Low-ranked chiefs might hold just a single, marginal land unit, but more powerful and higher-ranked ali'i frequently held more than one ahupua'a." [43]

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ absent ♥ Chiefs and stewards were the military officers[44], so there does not appear to have been any specifically *military* officers.

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ present ♥ There were full-time elite warriors[45]. Kalani’ōpu’u of the Big Island had a large standing army[46]

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ present ♥ There were full-time priests[47][48]

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ absent ♥ Konohiki formed a “primitive bureaucracy” according to Sahlins[49]. There was also an “incipent bureaucracy”[50] composed of specialists in memorizing genealogies, traditions, and other information.

♠ Examination system ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

♠ Merit promotion ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

♠ Specialized government buildings ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent ♥ The first formal legal code dates to 1827: "These three laws were: first, against murder, 'the one who commits murder here shall die, by being hung'; second, against theft, 'the one who steals shall be put in irons'; third, against adultery, for which the penalty was imprisonment in irons. Three other proposed laws, against rum selling, prostitution, and gambling, were drawn up, to be explained and taught to the people before they should be adopted. It was agreed that the chiefs should meet six months later to continue their consultation upon the subject. The three laws adopted and the three proposed were printed together on one sheet, which bears the date December 8, 1827. On December 14, the people were assembled in a coconut grove near the fort; the three enacted laws were formally proclaimed, and the king, Kaahumanu, and Boki exhorted the people, both native and foreign, to obey the three laws which had been adopted and to give attention to the three which were not yet enacted." [51]

♠ Judges ♣ absent ♥ There were no specialized judges - konohiki and ali'i adjudicated disputes such as conflicts over water rights[52].

♠ Courts ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

♠ Professional Lawyers ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

Specialized Buildings: polity owned

♠ irrigation systems ♣ present ♥ Irrigation infrastructure was extensive, including water-diversion walls for dryland agriculture[53] and pondfields for taro[54]. Irrigation was utilized in Kohala and Hāmākua valleys on the Big Island[55]. These irrigation systems were certainly “public” as only a chief commanded the labor necessary to construct such large works.
♠ drinking water supply systems ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ markets ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ food storage sites ♣ {absent; present} ♥ High status individuals (chiefs, etc.) had houses for the storage of provisions as part of their household clusters[56]. Food storage sheds were called hale papa’a. All scholars agree that these provisions were intended for redistribution, but it is unclear to whom. Sahlins[57] implies that the food was redistributed to the people, including commoners. But Kirch[58] states that the food was redistributed almost entirely to other chiefs, lesser chiefs, retainers, etc., with only token amounts, at most, going to commoners. He also states that food storage was difficult given the climate and kinds of crops that Hawaiians cultivated, so chiefs had to physically travel to different areas of their chiefdoms in order to exact tribute, rather than being able to store all of the tribute in a central location[59]. Meanwhile, Valeri states that none of the tribute was redistributed to the commoners[60]. Sahlins and Kirch seem to agree that chiefs would sometimes, or at least were expected to, provide food to commoners in the event of famine[61][62].

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ present ♥ There were trails, and these could possibly be called “roads” because sections of them were made of stone for easier travel (e.g. over sharp igneous rock) [63].
♠ Bridges ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Canals ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Ports ♣ inferred absent ♥ There were a few canoe-mooring holes in the South Point of the Big Island[64], but it is unclear who built them, and these probably do not constitute ports in any case.

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ present ♥ "What the Hawaiian kings and their incipient bureaucracy did have was a highly elaborated oral-aural culture, with specialists whose job it was to memorize genealogies, traditions, and important information of all kinds." [65]
♠ Written records ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [66]
♠ Script ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [67]
♠ Non-phonetic writing ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [68]
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [69]

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [70]
♠ Calendar ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [71]
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [72]
♠ Religious literature ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [73]
♠ Practical literature ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [74]
♠ History ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [75]
♠ Philosophy ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [76]
♠ Scientific literature ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [77]
♠ Fiction ♣ absent ♥ "The lack of a writing system is also noteworthy, although Hawai'i is not the only archaic state with this deficiency; the Inka similarly lacked written texts." [78]


Money

♠ Articles ♣ ♥
♠ Tokens ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Significant "wealth economy" in the form of precious feathered garments (cloaks, capes, helmets, lei) which was very important to the ruling elite (the ali'i). [79] This may be true of more recent periods, can it be extended backwards? Check with Patrick Kirch. AD
♠ Precious metals ♣ absent ♥ [80]
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent ♥ 'Needless to say, there was no money (in Diamond's words, no "abstract, intrinsically valueless medium for appropriating surplus, storing value, and deferring payment or delaying exchange") in precontact Hawai'i'.[81]
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent ♥ 'Needless to say, there was no money (in Diamond's words, no "abstract, intrinsically valueless medium for appropriating surplus, storing value, and deferring payment or delaying exchange") in precontact Hawai'i'.[82]
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent ♥ 'Needless to say, there was no money (in Diamond's words, no "abstract, intrinsically valueless medium for appropriating surplus, storing value, and deferring payment or delaying exchange") in precontact Hawai'i'.[83]

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ absent ♥ Chiefs had retainers who would carry messages quickly through the chiefdom[84], but they do not appear to have been full-time.
♠ Postal stations ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods
♠ General postal service ♣ inferred absent ♥ inferred from discussion of sources of development/introduction in later periods

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Peter-Rudiak Gould; Robert Ross ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ absent ♥ [85]
♠ Bronze ♣ absent ♥ [86]
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ [87]
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥ [88]

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ present ♥ Thrown spears were used in warfare[89].
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥
♠ Slings ♣ present ♥ Slings were used in warfare[90] [91].
♠ Self bow ♣ absent ♥ Bows and arrows were used only for sport, not for war[92].
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ Bows and arrows were used only for sport, not for war[93].
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent ♥ Inferred[94].
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent ♥ Inferred[95]
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ absent ♥
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ absent ♥
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ absent ♥

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ present ♥ Stone clubs. pg 515.[96]
♠ Battle axes ♣ inferred absent ♥ There are some almost axe-like weapons, but they should probably be treated as clubs.
♠ Daggers ♣ present ♥ Wooden daggers. [97]
♠ Swords ♣ inferred absent ♥ Lists of weapons don't mention swords. [98]
♠ Spears ♣ present ♥ Wooden thrusting and throwing spears. [99]
♠ Polearms ♣ inferred absent ♥ Lists of weapons don't mention swords. [100]

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ inferred absent ♥ Hawaiians had dogs, but I have found no references to their use in war.
♠ Donkeys ♣ absent ♥ No donkeys in Hawaii at this time.
♠ Horses ♣ absent ♥ No horses in Hawaii at this time.
♠ Camels ♣ absent ♥ No camels in Hawaii at this time.
♠ Elephants ♣ absent ♥ No elephants in Hawaii at this time.

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ absent ♥ No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. [101]
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ absent ♥ No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare at contact. [102]
♠ Shields ♣ absent ♥ No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. [103]
♠ Helmets ♣ absent ♥ No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. [104]
♠ Breastplates ♣ absent ♥ No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. [105]
♠ Limb protection ♣ absent ♥ No mention of any armor in a "weapons and armor" section on Hawaiian warfare. [106]
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent ♥ No metals at this time.
♠ Scaled armor ♣ absent ♥ No metals at this time.
♠ Laminar armor ♣ absent ♥ No metals at this time.
♠ Plate armor ♣ absent ♥ No metals at this time.

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ present ♥ A 1795 war fleet had four divisions of 300 canoes each. pg 517 [107]
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ absent ♥
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ absent ♥ There were specialized war canoes[108]. However, these are too small to qualify.

Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ present ♥ "defenders more commonly established a fortress site known as a pali (cliff) or pā kauau (war enclosure), a “natural or artificial fortress, where they leave their wives and children, and to which they fled if vanquished in the field.” One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches".[109]
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ inferred present ♥ "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu'uhonua." Pg 4. [110] "A wooden palisade was the case at Kamehameha I's compound at Pakaka".[111]
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ absent ♥ "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu'uhonua." Pg 4. [112]
♠ Ditch ♣ present ♥ "One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches"[113]
♠ Moat ♣ absent ♥ "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu'uhonua." Pg 4. [114]
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ inferred absent ♥ "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu'uhonua." Pg 4. [115]. Nevertheless, there does appear to evidence for some stone walls, but I'm not sure if they are used in warfare. The “Great Wall” at Hōnaunau, built around 1600 CE, was over 300m long, 3m high and 5m wide[116][117]. Lapakahi also had a “Great Wall”, which was built between about 1450 and 1500 CE[118].
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ absent ♥
♠ Fortified camps ♣ absent ♥ "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu'uhonua." Pg 4. [119]
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ absent ♥ "The Hawaiians generally did not build fortifications, but non-combatants could find sacred sanctuary in places of refuge known as pu'uhonua." Pg 4. [120]
♠ Long walls ♣ 0 ♥ KM. See “Stone walls” above: the “Great Wall” of Hōnaunau was not nearly large enough to defend an entire territory, so it does not count as a “long wall”. Moreover, if there had been such a “long wall”, it is difficult to imagine that it would not have left any trace in the archaeological, historical, or oral-history record.
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥ [121]

Phase II Variables (polity-based)

Institutional Variables

♠ RA ♣ Jenny Reddish ♥

Limits on Power of the Chief Executive

Power distributed

♠ Constraint on executive by government ♣ inferred absent ♥ In a discussion of 'heterarchy' in the traditional Hawaiian state, Hommon notes that the government included a 'council of chiefs', and that the ali'i nui 'often sought the counsel of experienced chiefs ... before making important policy decisions, a wise course considering the fact that chiefs of old and influential district families decided to secede from kingdoms with some frequency'.[122] However, the power exercised by the chiefs here stems from the threat of secession from the polity rather than any legal right to constrain the executive's decisions. I have not come across any suggestion in the sources that members of government had this right.
♠ Constraint on executive by non-government ♣ inferred absent ♥ I have not come across any suggestion in the sources that the general population (commoners) had a legal right to constrain the actions of the ali'i nui, and it seems very unlikely given that the ruler was considered to be a god[123] and that it was obligatory for commoners to lie face down on the ground 'in the presence of the highest-ranking chiefs and king'.[124] Violent commoner rebellions did occur,[125] but this cannot be considered a formal legal right.
♠ Impeachment ♣ inferred absent ♥ I have found no mention of impeachment (whether formal or informal) in the sources. Hommon comments: 'The traditional accounts suggest that chiefly rivalry for active rulership tended to be resolved (often ending a war of succession) in one of two ways: either territory of the polity was partitioned, usually with multidistrict units awarded to each claimant ... or one claimant usurped the power of the other by eliminating him in a coup d'état'.[126]

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ present ♥ Kirch refers to the 'hereditary ali'i (elites) of Hawai'i', who by the time of Captain Cook's arrival at the end of the Hawaii 3 'had become a separate, endogamous class'.[127]

Religion and Normative Ideology

♠ RA ♣ Enrico Cioni ♥

Deification of Rulers

♠ Rulers are legitimated by gods ♣ inferred present ♥ "Polynesians located the ultimate source of power and fecundity in the spirit realm, abode of their ancestors and their gods; mana was the manifestation of that power in the world of humans. As Handy 1927:26) wrote: 'Mana was exhibited in persons, in power, strength, prestige, reputation, skill, dynamic personality, intelligence; in things, in efficacy, in ‘luck’; that is[,] in accomplishment.' Life literally depended on the continual transmission of mana from the gods to humans and earth, for mana was 'always linked to organic generativity and thus to all forces of growth and vitality' (Shore 1989:164).//But mana did not flow equally to all persons; quite the contrary, mana followed the pathways of rank and genealogical descent that also ordered Polynesian societies, and the more hierarchical these became, the more differentiated the distribution of mana across the social order. In all Polynesian societies, mana was concentrated in persons of rank, but in the more highly stratified societies the chiefs came to occupy particular roles as sources or vehicles of mana on which the society at large depended for its well-being. Nowhere was this more so than in late Hawaiian society. The Hawaiian divine kings, as gods on earth, were essential for the reproduction of society; they also held the power of life or death over the common people, most often exercised through the rites of human sacrifice. Death, as the polar opposite of life, is another aspect of mana." [128] NB This descriptive text refers to the period following European contact. The fact that certain elements of the ritual-religious system the Europeans encountered in Hawaii had probably been in place for a few centuries at first seemed sufficient to infer the presence of other elements, such as this one. However, this approach now seems too speculative.

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ suspected unknown ♥ "Clearly, the highest ranks of alii shared a number of attributes with the gods, and indeed were explicitly called alii akua or 'god-kings' (Valeri 1985a:143; Malo 1951:54; Kamakau 1961:4). Valeri (1985a: 142-53) discusses the ethnographic evidence for divine kingship in late Hawai'i, and I will reiterate only a few key points. As the ritual leader of his people, who intercedes with the gods to assure the flow of mana, the king 'instantiates different major gods or groups of their particularizations according to a precise ritual calendar' (1985a:142). Thus when he goes to war, the king offers a human sacrifice at the luakini temple of Ku, but at other times he consecrates temples to the agricultural gods Lono and Kāne. The king shares with these gods the right to the kapu moe, the prostrating kapu. Another sign of their divinity is the capacity of high-ranked alii to practice incestuous marriage, something that the gods provide the model for (as in the creation myth of Wākea and Papa, Beckwith [1940]). Gods and kings share other material insignia as well: the puloulou staff, and the wrapping of their bodies in feathered garments (see below). Holding the power of life or death over ordinary humans, the king is frequently described as the ultimate devourer, a shark (in particular, the tiger shark, Galeocerdo cuvieri). [...] By the time of initial contact with Europeans, Hawaiians had taken the older Polynesian concepts of chiefship and rank, and subjected them to a form of hypertrophy, the logical extension of which was that their rulers, their kings, were now held to be divine." [129] NB This descriptive text refers to the period following European contact. The fact that certain elements of the ritual-religious system the Europeans encountered in Hawaii had probably been in place for a few centuries at first seemed sufficient to infer the presence of other elements, such as this one. However, this approach now seems too speculative.

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ suspected unknown ♥ "Kapu is often glossed as either 'sacred,' or 'prohibited,' and refers tothat state which is necessary for the protection of mana. Its opposite is noa, 'free' from kapu, hence sometimes glossed as 'profane.' Thesesimple glosses mask a tangled set of relationships that bind the three terms into a complex whole. Recall that Kepelino used noa as the term for the class of common people; they were noa in relation to the alii, who were kapu, because the latter were intermediaries between the gods and the society at large, the all-important transmitters of mana." [130] NB This descriptive text refers to the period following European contact. The fact that certain elements of the ritual-religious system the Europeans encountered in Hawaii had probably been in place for a few centuries at first seemed sufficient to infer the presence of other elements, such as this one. However, this approach now seems too speculative.

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ suspected unknown ♥ "Kapu is often glossed as either 'sacred,' or 'prohibited,' and refers tothat state which is necessary for the protection of mana. Its opposite is noa, 'free' from kapu, hence sometimes glossed as 'profane.' Thesesimple glosses mask a tangled set of relationships that bind the three terms into a complex whole. Recall that Kepelino used noa as the term for the class of common people; they were noa in relation to the alii, who were kapu, because the latter were intermediaries between the gods and the society at large, the all-important transmitters of mana." [131] NB This descriptive text refers to the period following European contact. The fact that certain elements of the ritual-religious system the Europeans encountered in Hawaii had probably been in place for a few centuries at first seemed sufficient to infer the presence of other elements, such as this one. However, this approach now seems too speculative.
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ suspected unknown ♥ "In short, late precontact Hawaiian society segmented itself into three lexically marked social classes. These were ranked relative to one another, not only according to a system of hierarchical privileges and access to resources, but in relation to a deeply ingrained ideological system (the kapu system) which underpinned the annual cycle of religious practices." [132] "Kapu is often glossed as either 'sacred,' or 'prohibited,' and refers tothat state which is necessary for the protection of mana. Its opposite is noa, 'free' from kapu, hence sometimes glossed as 'profane.' Thesesimple glosses mask a tangled set of relationships that bind the three terms into a complex whole. Recall that Kepelino used noa as the term for the class of common people; they were noa in relation to the alii, who were kapu, because the latter were intermediaries between the gods and the society at large, the all-important transmitters of mana." [133] NB This descriptive text refers to the period following European contact. The fact that certain elements of the ritual-religious system the Europeans encountered in Hawaii had probably been in place for a few centuries at first seemed sufficient to infer the presence of other elements, such as this one. However, this approach now seems too speculative.

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ suspected unknown ♥

♠ production of public goods ♣ suspected unknown ♥ absent/present/unknown. Public Goods refer to anything that incurs cost to an individual or group of individuals, but that can be used or enjoyed by others who did not incur any of the cost, namely the public at large. They are non-excludable and non-rivalrous goods. Examples are roads, public drinking fountains, public parks or theatres, temples open to the public, etc. NB This descriptive text refers to the period following European contact. The fact that certain elements of the ritual-religious system the Europeans encountered in Hawaii had probably been in place for a few centuries at first seemed sufficient to infer the presence of other elements, such as this one. However, this approach now seems too speculative.

Moralizing Supernatural Powers

♠ Moral concern is primary ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is certain ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing norms are broad ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is targeted ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement of rulers ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by elites ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing religion adopted by commoners ♣ present ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in afterlife ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement in this life ♣ inferred absent ♥
♠ Moralizing enforcement is agentic ♣ inferred absent ♥

These data were reviewed by expert advisors and consultants. For a detailed description of these data, refer to the relevant Analytic Narratives, reference tables, and acknowledgements page. [134] [135] [136]

References

  1. (Kirch 2010, 104) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  2. (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  3. Kirch 2016, personal commmunication.
  4. (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  5. (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  6. (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  7. (Kirch 2010, 105) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  8. (Kirch 2010, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  9. (Kirch 2010, 82, 106) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  10. (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  11. (Kirch 2010, 108) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  12. (Kirch 2010, 108-09) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  13. (Kirch 2010, 83) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  14. (Kirch 2010, 82, 103) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  15. (Kirch 2010, 174) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  16. (Kirch 2000, 300) Patrick V. Kirch. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands before European Contact. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  17. (Kirch 2010, 92, 98) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  18. (Kirch 2010, 102-03) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  19. (Kirch 2010, 105-09) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  20. (Kirch 2010, 48) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  21. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  22. (Kirch 2010, 49) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  23. (Kirch 2010, 127) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  24. (Kirch 2010, 129-130) Patrick V. Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  25. Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 300.
  26. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 129.
  27. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 129-30.
  28. Kirch, P. V. 2000. On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History of the Pacific Islands Before European Contact. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 300.
  29. (Kirch 2010, 50-51)
  30. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  31. (Kirch 2010, 50)
  32. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  33. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  34. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  35. (Kirch 2010, 49)
  36. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  37. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  38. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  39. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  40. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  41. (Kirch 2010, 50)
  42. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  43. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  44. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 19.
  45. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 71.
  46. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 75.
  47. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 14.
  48. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 57.
  49. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 16.
  50. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 75.
  51. (Kuykendall 1938, 126)
  52. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 19.
  53. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 171-5.
  54. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 218.
  55. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 220.
  56. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 251.
  57. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pp. 17-8.
  58. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 260
  59. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 261.
  60. Valeri, Valerio 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. (Translated by Paula Wissing.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pg. 204.
  61. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 18.
  62. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 260.
  63. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 266.
  64. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 273.
  65. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  66. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  67. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  68. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  69. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  70. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  71. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  72. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  73. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  74. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  75. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  76. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  77. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  78. (Kirch 2010, 75)
  79. (Kirch 2016, personal communication)
  80. (Kirch 2016, personal communication)
  81. (Trask 1983, 99) Haunani-Kay Trask. 1983. 'Cultures in Collision: Hawai'i and England, 1778'. Pacific Studies 7 (1): 91-117.
  82. (Trask 1983, 99) Haunani-Kay Trask. 1983. 'Cultures in Collision: Hawai'i and England, 1778'. Pacific Studies 7 (1): 91-117.
  83. (Trask 1983, 99) Haunani-Kay Trask. 1983. 'Cultures in Collision: Hawai'i and England, 1778'. Pacific Studies 7 (1): 91-117.
  84. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 266.
  85. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  86. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  87. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  88. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  89. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.
  90. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.
  91. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 273.
  92. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.
  93. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 70.
  94. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  95. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  96. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai'i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.
  97. pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai'i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.
  98. pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai'i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.
  99. pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai'i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.
  100. pg 517. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai'i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.
  101. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  102. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  103. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  104. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  105. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  106. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  107. Jolb, Michael, J. and Dixon, Boyd 2002. Landscape of war: Rules and conventions of conflict in ancient Hawai'i (and elsewhere). American Antiquity, 67, 514-534.
  108. Kirch, P. V. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai’i. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pg. 71.
  109. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36.
  110. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  111. P Christiaan Klieger. 1998. Moku'Ula: Maui's Sacred Island. Bishop Museum Press.
  112. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  113. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36.
  114. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  115. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  116. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 162-4
  117. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 164.
  118. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 178.
  119. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  120. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  121. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  122. (Hommon 2013, 135) Robert J. Hommon. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  123. (Kirch 2010, 41) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  124. (Kirch 2012, 5) Patrick V. Kirch. 2012. A Shark Going Inland Is My Chief: The Island Civilization of Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  125. (Hommon 2013, 135) Robert J. Hommon. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  126. (Hommon 2013, 248) Robert J. Hommon. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  127. (Kirch 2010, ix) Patrick Vinton Kirch. 2010. How Chiefs Became Kings: Divine Kingship and the Rise of Archaic States in Ancient Hawai'i. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  128. Kirch, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawaii p. 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  129. Kirch, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawaii p. 41. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  130. Kirch, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawaii p. 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  131. Kirch, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawaii p. 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  132. Kirch, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawaii pp. 34-35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  133. Kirch, P.V. 2010. How chiefs became kings: divine kingship and the rise of archaic states in ancient Hawaii p. 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  134. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  135. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  136. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html