USKameh

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 ♣ Kingdom of Hawaii - Kamehameha Period ♥ Kingdom of Hawai’i

♠ Alternative names ♣ Kamehameha's Kingdom; Owyhee; Owhyhee; Sandwich Islands Kingdom ♥

♠ Peak Date ♣ 1810 CE ♥ By this time the polity included the entire archipelago; Kamehameha’s conquest was complete. Perhaps it peaked later, though, as Kamehameha consolidated his rule and increased his wealth.


Temporal bounds

♠ Duration ♣ 1778-1819 CE ♥ Justification for start date: Cook’s first arrival in the archipelago (1778 at Kauai - he did not visit the Big Island until 1779). Justification for end date: Kamehameha I dies, kapu system is abolished.

♠ Degree of centralization ♣ unitary state ♥ When Kamehameha I took power, “the government continued to be essentially a feudal autocracy. The king’s will was the supreme authority”[1] Taxes were transmitted to the center[2]

♠ Supra-polity relations ♣ none: 1778-1809 CE; nominal allegiance: 1810-1819 CE ♥ Kamehameha I “ceded” the islands to Britain in 1810, and later wrote a letter in which he declared himself subject to the British king. [3]

Supra-cultural relations

♠ preceding (quasi)polity ♣ Hawaii III ♥
♠ relationship to preceding (quasi)polity ♣ ♥
♠ succeeding (quasi)polity ♣ ♥
♠ Supracultural entity ♣ Kingdom of Hawaii - Post-Kamehameha Period ♥
♠ scale of supra-cultural interaction ♣ ♥ km squared.

♠ Capital ♣ none ♥ Until 1820, the king did not live in any particular place; he had several principal residences [4]

♠ Language ♣ Hawaiian ♥

General Description

Hawai'i, also known as the Big Island, is the largest island of the Hawaiian archipelago. Here, we consider the period of its history from 1778 to 1819. 1778 is the date of first European contact ‒ the arrival of Captain Cook ‒ while 1819 is the year of King Kamehameha I's death.[5][6] Kamehameha was a war chief and keeper of the war god Kūka'ilimoku who, in 1782, rose against King Kīwala'ō and managed to seize power over the Kohala and Kona districts of the Big Island.[7] Over the next three decades, Kamehameha waged several military campaigns, eventually unifying the entire archipelago (minus Kaua'i and Ni'ihau) in 1804.[8]

Population and political organization

In this period, Kamehameha I sat at the top of the political hierarchy. He was advised on secular affairs, including war, by the kālaimoku, who also oversaw the royal storehouses, while the kahuna nui was in charge of the king's sacred duties and oversaw his temples and main gods.[9] Kamehameha did not introduce many changes to the traditional hierarchies, but he did appoint a number of governors to be his representatives on the other islands.[10] Each island was divided into districts under the control of high-ranking chiefs, the ali'i 'ai moku. These districts were in turn subdivided into territories ruled by lesser chiefs, the ali'i 'ai ahupua'a. Below this level, there were the konohiki, who were in charge of the small and largely self-sufficient ahupua'a territories.[11]
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.[12] The 'reasonably accurate' first census of 1832 puts the archipelago's population at around 130,000 people. However, we cannot project this figure backwards in time because the kanaka maoli (indigenous Hawaiian) population fell drastically after Europeans introduced diseases, such as smallpox, syphilis and measles, to which they had no immunity.[13][14]

Social Complexity variables

♠ RA ♣ ♥

Social Scale

♠ Polity territory ♣ [15,000-16,600]: 1800 CE ♥ in squared kilometers. 10,832: 1778 ce; 4,173: 1782 ce; 6,259: 1790 ce; 10,432: 1791 ce; 14,988: 1795 ce; 16,624:1810-1819ce. In 1778, Kalani’ōpu’u controlled all of Hawai’i Island, plus the Hana district of Maui (it is unclear exactly how much land the Hana district occupies, so I have estimated 400 square km [about a fifth of the island of Mau’i] and added that to the area of Hawai’i Island). In 1782, Kamehameha held Kona, Kohala, and some of Hamakua - I have estimated these holdings as 40% of the area of the island. He added Puna in 1790, making his holdings 60% of the island (my estimate). He added the rest of Hawai’i Island in 1791; Mau’i, Moloka’i, O’ahu, Lana’I, and Kaho’olawe in 1795; and Kaua’i and Ni’ihau in 1810, thus controlling the entire archipelago (excepting of course the very small, distant, uninhabited islands to the northwest which are technically part of the “Hawaiian Islands”).

♠ Polity Population ♣ [60,000-180,000]: 1800 CE ♥ By the time of Capt. Cook’s arrival there in 1779, Kalani’ōpu’u’s kingdom (the entire Big Island plus the Hana district of Maui) had at least 60,000 people, and possibly as many as 150,000 people[15]. Kirch (2010: 33) gives as a high figure 150,000 (based on estimates by Lt. King on Cook’s voyage), and a low of 120,000 based on Emory, in Schmitt (1968, Table 6) (This included the kingdom’s foothold in eastern Maui.) In 1778, the population of entire archipelago was 250,000 or more[16], so the population of the entire archipelago at the time of Kamehameha’s unification in 1810 was probably somewhat less than this, given outbreaks of disease as well as a considerable number killed in the wars. Given a fairly credible estimate of 142,050 people in the entire archipelago in 1823[17], 180,000 is a reasonable estimate for 1810.

♠ Population of the largest settlement ♣ ♥ Honolulu grew in size due to its natural harbor favored by Westerners[18]. In 1810 there were “several hundred houses” there[19].

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." [20]

♠ Administrative levels ♣ 5 ♥ "We observe first that this great chieftain did not invent a new system of government. He simply utilized the system already existing, with only such modifications as were required by new conditions or suggested by his own experience. The government continued to be essentially a feudal autocracy." [21] "Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions." [22]

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." [23]

__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." [24]
2. Kahuna nui
The kahuna nui "carried the responsibilities for the king's religious duties and looked after his temples and main gods." [25]

__Provincial administration__

2. Governor
"Kamehameha introduced one important new feature, made necessary by the uniting of all the islands into one kingdom. The king could be on only one island at a time; hence he appointed governors to be his special representatives on the other islands (except Kauai). They were in fact viceroys. It is probable that the governorship was at first only a temporary expedient and that it became a permanent institution because of the obvious necessity for such an office under the new conditions." [26]
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." [27]
4. 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." [28]
5. 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." [29]

♠ Religious levels ♣ 2 ♥ Though there were many different types of ritual specialists in pre-contact Hawaii [30], only one kind, the kahuna pule, was involved with state affairs. Other types include healing experts, sorcerers, and prophets [31].

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." [32]
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)." [33]

♠ 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." [34]
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." [35]
3. Governors inferred ???
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." [36]
4. 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." [37]

Professions

♠ Professional military officers ♣ absent ♥ Chiefs and stewards were the military officers[38], so there does not appear to have been any specifically *military* officers.

♠ Professional soldiers ♣ present ♥ There were full-time elite warriors[39]. Kalani’ōpu’u of the Big Island had a large standing army[40]

♠ Professional priesthood ♣ present ♥ There were full-time priests[41][42]

Bureaucracy characteristics

♠ Full-time bureaucrats ♣ [absent; present] ♥ This is ambiguous. Stewards (konohiki) formed a “primitive bureaucracy” according to Sahlins[43]. There was also an “incipent bureaucracy”[44] composed of specialists in memorizing genealogies, traditions, and other information. This does not seem to be a fully fledged bureaucracy, but expert input is needed.

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

♠ Merit promotion ♣ present ♥ "The governors doubtless owed their appointment to their executive ability and their tested loyalty to the king rather than to chiefly rank." [45]

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

Law

♠ Formal legal code ♣ absent ♥ There was a body of customary law governing rights to water, fishing, and land[46]. But there were no written records, so this legal code probably cannot be called ‘formal’.

♠ Judges ♣ inferred absent ♥ There were no specialized judges - stewards and chiefs adjudicated disputes such as conflicts over water rights[47].

♠ 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[48] and pondfields for taro[49]. Irrigation was utilized in Kohala and Hāmākua valleys on the Big Island[50].
♠ 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[51]. 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[52] implies that the food was redistributed to the people, including commoners. But Kirch[53] 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[54]. Meanwhile, Valeri states that none of the tribute was redistributed to the commoners[55]. 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[56][57].

Transport infrastructure

♠ Roads ♣ inferred absent ♥ 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)[58].
♠ Bridges ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Canals ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Ports ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Special purpose sites

♠ Mines or quarries ♣ ♥

Information

Writing System

♠ Mnemonic devices ♣ ♥
♠ Nonwritten records ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Written records ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [59].
♠ Script ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [60].
♠ Non-phonetic writing ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [61].
♠ Phonetic alphabetic writing ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [62].

Kinds of Written Documents

♠ Lists, tables, and classifications ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [63].
♠ Calendar ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [64].
♠ Sacred Texts ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [65].
♠ Religious literature ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [66].
♠ Practical literature ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [67].
♠ History ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [68].
♠ Philosophy ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [69].
♠ Scientific literature ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [70].
♠ Fiction ♣ absent ♥ Writing was introduced by Christian missionaries starting from the 1820s [71].


Money

♠ Articles ♣ present ♥ "Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [72]
♠ Tokens ♣ inferred present ♥ "Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [73] 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). [74]
♠ Precious metals ♣ inferred absent ♥ "Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [75]
♠ Foreign coins ♣ absent ♥ "Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [76]
♠ Indigenous coins ♣ absent ♥ "Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [77]
♠ Paper currency ♣ absent ♥ "Taxes were not paid in money, but in the produce of the soil and in the various articles manufactured by the people, there being no native coinage and but very little foreign money in circulation." [78]

Postal System

♠ Couriers ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Chiefs had retainers who would carry messages quickly through the chiefdom[79], but they do not appear to be full-time.
♠ Postal stations ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ General postal service ♣ suspected unknown ♥

Warfare variables

♠ RA ♣ Peter-Rudiak Gould; Robert Ross ♥

Military Technologies

Military use of Metals

♠ Copper ♣ absent ♥ [80] However, need to look into what metal military technologies they traded from Europeans.
♠ Bronze ♣ absent ♥ [81] However, need to look into what metal military technologies they traded from Europeans.
♠ Iron ♣ absent ♥ [82] However, need to look into what metal military technologies they traded from Europeans.
♠ Steel ♣ absent ♥ [83] However, need to look into what metal military technologies they traded from Europeans.

Projectiles

♠ Javelins ♣ present ♥ Thrown spears were used in warfare[84].
♠ Atlatl ♣ absent ♥
♠ Slings ♣ present ♥ Slings were used in warfare[85] [86].
♠ Self bow ♣ absent ♥ Bows and arrows were used only for sport, not for war[87].
♠ Composite bow ♣ absent ♥ Bows and arrows were used only for sport, not for war[88].
♠ Crossbow ♣ absent ♥ [89].
♠ Tension siege engines ♣ absent ♥ [90]
♠ Sling siege engines ♣ ♥ absent/present/unknown
♠ Gunpowder siege artillery ♣ present ♥ [For example, cannon, mortars.] Cannons were used in the naval battle of Kepūwaha’ula’ula[91], as well as the defeat of the Maui forces at ‘Iao Valley. By 1802 Kamehameha had a large supply of cannons[92]
♠ Handheld firearms ♣ present ♥ [E.g., muskets, pistols, and rifles] Various chiefs managed to purchase guns and ammunition from visiting Westerners[93]. European arms were in used by the army of Kamehameha[94], who accumulated a large number of muskets ([95]

Handheld weapons

♠ War clubs ♣ ♥
♠ Battle axes ♣ ♥
♠ Daggers ♣ ♥
♠ Swords ♣ ♥
♠ Spears ♣ ♥
♠ Polearms ♣ ♥

Animals used in warfare

♠ Dogs ♣ absent ♥ Hawaiians had dogs, but I have found no references to their use in war.
♠ Donkeys ♣ absent ♥ [96]
♠ Horses ♣ absent ♥ [97]
♠ Camels ♣ absent ♥ [98]
♠ Elephants ♣ absent ♥ [99]

Armor

♠ Wood, bark, etc ♣ absent ♥ This is possible, but I have found no references to it.
♠ Leather, cloth ♣ absent ♥ [100]
♠ Shields ♣ absent ♥ This is possible, but I have found no references to it.
♠ Helmets ♣ absent ♥ This is possible, but I have found no references to it.
♠ Breastplates ♣ absent ♥ This is possible, but I have found no references to it.
♠ Limb protection ♣ absent ♥ This is possible, but I have found no references to it.
♠ Chainmail ♣ absent ♥ [101]
♠ Scaled armor ♣ absent ♥ [102]
♠ Laminar armor ♣ absent ♥ [103]
♠ Plate armor ♣ absent ♥ [104]

Naval technology

♠ Small vessels (canoes, etc) ♣ present ♥ Native canoes, as well as small schooners bought from Westerners[105]
♠ Merchant ships pressed into service ♣ absent ♥
♠ Specialized military vessels ♣ present ♥ [such as galleys and sailing ships] There were specialized war canoes[106].


Fortifications

♠ Settlements in a defensive position ♣ inferred 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".[107]
♠ Wooden palisades ♣ present ♥ "A wooden palisade was the case at Kamehameha I's compound at Pakaka".[108]
♠ Earth ramparts ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Ditch ♣ inferred present ♥ "One kind of fortress was the point of a narrow, steep-sided ridge that had been made somewhat defensible by digging deep trenches"[109]
♠ Moat ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Stone walls (non-mortared) ♣ suspected unknown ♥
♠ Stone walls (mortared) ♣ suspected unknown ♥ Kirch[110][111] states that Hawaiians had no true fortifications, only refuges where civilians could flee during wartime, and none of the refuges he describes include a substantial stone wall.[112][113]
♠ Fortified camps ♣ absent ♥
♠ Complex fortifications ♣ absent ♥ [When there are more than one concentric ring of walls.]
♠ Long walls ♣ absent ♥ 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. Therefore I code this as “absent” rather than “<absent>”
♠ Modern fortifications ♣ absent ♥ [114] General: Hawaiians do not appear to have adopted any new *defensive* technologies as a result of early European contact[115]

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'.[116] 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[117] and that it was obligatory for commoners to lie face down on the ground 'in the presence of the highest-ranking chiefs and king'.[118] Violent commoner rebellions did occur,[119] 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. In this polity, Kalani'ōpu'u died on the throne;[120] Kīwala'ō was defeated in battle by Kamehameha I;[121] and Kamehameha I died on the throne in 1819, at the end of this polity.[122]

Social Mobility

Status

Elite status

♠ elite status is hereditary ♣ present ♥ Bellah refers to class stratification in the Hawaii of 'historical times' but before the overthrow of the kapu system at the end of this period.[123][124] The chiefly class, ali'i, 'denied any genealogical linkage to the common people'.[125]

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 sprit 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." [126]

♠ Rulers are gods ♣ present ♥ "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." [127]

Normative Ideological Aspects of Equity and Prosociality

♠ Ideological reinforcement of equality ♣ absent ♥ "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." [128]

♠ Ideological thought equates rulers and commoners ♣ absent ♥ "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." [129]
♠ Ideological thought equates elites and commoners ♣ absent ♥ "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." [130] "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]

♠ Ideology reinforces prosociality ♣ suspected unknown ♥ absent/present/unknown. Religious doctrine, philosophical statements, or practice makes claims about engaging in activity for the benefit of a wider community, for instance Christian traditions of alms-giving or Islamic sadaqah

♠ 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.

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. [132] [133] [134]

References

  1. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 51.
  2. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 54.
  3. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 54.
  4. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 73.
  5. (Kirch 2010, 170, 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.
  6. (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.
  7. (Kirch 2010, 118-19) 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.
  8. (Kirch 2010, 116) 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.
  9. (Kirch 2010, 50, 57) 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.
  10. (Kuykendall 1938, 51) Ralph S. Kuykendall. 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom, 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai'i Press.
  11. (Kirch 2010, 48-49) 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.
  12. (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.
  13. (La Croix and Roumasset 1990, 835) Sumner J. La Croix and James Roumasset. 1990. 'The Evolution of Private Property in Nineteenth-Century Hawaii'. The Journal of Economic History 50 (4): 829-52.
  14. (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.
  15. 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. 248.
  16. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 286.
  17. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 336.
  18. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 27.
  19. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 27.
  20. (Kirch 2010, 50-51)
  21. (Kuykendall 1938, 51)
  22. (Kuykendall 1938, 53)
  23. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  24. (Kirch 2010, 50)
  25. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  26. (Kuykendall 1938, 51)
  27. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  28. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  29. (Kirch 2010, 49)
  30. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  31. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  32. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  33. (Kirch 2010, 57)
  34. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  35. (Kirch 2010, 50)
  36. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  37. (Kirch 2010, 48)
  38. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 19.
  39. 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.
  40. 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.
  41. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 14.
  42. 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.
  43. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 16.
  44. 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.
  45. (Kuykendall 1938, 53)
  46. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 10.
  47. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 19.
  48. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pp. 171-5.
  49. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 218.
  50. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 220.
  51. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 251.
  52. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pp. 17-8.
  53. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 260
  54. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 261.
  55. Valeri, Valerio 1985. Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and Society in Ancient Hawaii. (Translated by Paula Wissing.) Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pg. 204.
  56. Sahlins, Marshall 1958. Social Stratification in Polynesia. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. Pg. 18.
  57. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 260.
  58. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 266.
  59. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  60. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  61. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  62. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  63. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  64. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  65. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  66. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  67. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  68. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  69. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  70. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  71. (Kuykendall 1938, 102-118)
  72. (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
  73. (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
  74. (Kirch 2016, personal communication)
  75. (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
  76. (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
  77. (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
  78. (Kuykendall 1938, 54)
  79. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 266.
  80. 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.
  81. 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.
  82. 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.
  83. 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.
  84. 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.
  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. Pg. 70.
  86. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 273.
  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. Pg. 70.
  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. Pg. 70.
  89. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  90. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  91. 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. 120.
  92. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 48.
  93. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 23.
  94. 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. 119.
  95. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 48.
  96. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  97. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  98. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  99. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  100. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  101. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  102. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  103. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  104. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  105. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 95.
  106. 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.
  107. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36.
  108. P Christiaan Klieger. 1998. Moku'Ula: Maui's Sacred Island. Bishop Museum Press.
  109. Hommon, Robert, J. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pg 35-36.
  110. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pg. 213
  111. 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.
  112. Kirch, P. V. 1985. Feathered Gods and Fishhooks: An Introduction to Hawaiian Archaeology and Prehistory. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Pg. 167.
  113. Kirch, P. V. 1984. The Evolution of the Polynesian Chiefdoms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 208-9, 215-6.
  114. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  115. Kuykendall, Ralph S. 1968[1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Volume 1: 1778-1854, Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  116. (Hommon 2013, 7) Robert J. Hommon. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  117. (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.
  118. (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.
  119. (Hommon 2013, 135) Robert J. Hommon. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  120. (Kirch 2010, 117-18) 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.
  121. (Hommon 2013, 3, 266) Robert J. Hommon. 2013. The Ancient Hawaiian State: Origins of a Political Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  122. (Kuykendall 1965 [1938], 61) Ralph S. Kuykendall. 1965 [1938]. The Hawaiian Kingdom, Vol. 1. 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation, 5th ed. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
  123. (Bellah 2011, 198) Robert N. Bellah. 2011. Religion in Human Evolution: From the Palaeolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  124. (Seto Levin 1968, 402) Stephenie Seto Levin. 1968. 'The Overthrow of the Kapu System in Hawaii'. Journal of the Polynesian Society 77 (4): 402-30.
  125. (Bellah 2011, 198) Robert N. Bellah. 2011. Religion in Human Evolution: From the Palaeolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  126. 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.
  127. 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.
  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. 38. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  130. 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.
  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. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-acknowledgements.html
  133. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-narratives.html
  134. http://seshatdatabank.info/databrowser/moralizing-supernatural-punishment-nga_tables.html