Traditional Hawaiian History.
I have read with a great deal of interest the efforts made by various writers in the Hawaiian journals to restore and to publish the traditions, histories, songs and sagas, pertaining to the Hawaiian people. They have a value and being far greater than many would at first conceive of, whether historically, ethnologically or philologically considered; and their preservation and critical collation and analysis are objects well worthy of the time and trouble of men of leisure and ability. I have every reason to believe that what has so far been published is but a small part of the material that may yet be collected, if proper inquiries were made. It would be as absurd and incorrect to date Hawaiian history from the time of Captain Cook, as it would be to date English history from the time of the Norman Conquest, while the previous national life of the Hawaiian people is laid bare to the critical observer in numerous meles, kaaos, and moolelos, preserved and handed down from generation to generation, not by foreign dilettante or men of no standing, but by the most jealous care of chiefs, priests, and bards, independent in their source and preservation, crossing, clashing or confirming each other. Though the historical thread which underruns these traditions is often overlaid with fables, superstitions and exaggerations, yet I contend that from the very nature of their independent sources they are a most valuable material from which to rehabilitate Hawaiian history for centuries anterior to Capt. Cook. The critical canon which refuses to build up history from tradition, and receives nothing but contemporary writers or monumental records as evidences of fact, seems to me more nice than wise under certain circumstances. When Niebuhr ran his pen through Roman history previous to the sack of the city by the Gauls, it was not on account of the worthlessness of the Roman traditions, for he never had them in their pure and simple archaic form, nor yet a trust-worthy translation of them in either Greek or later Latin, but only such as the prejudice, credulity, ignorance and uncritical manipulation of Troy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and others, had made them. And I am fain to believe that had either Niebuhr or Sir Cornwall Lewis stood face to face with the Roman, Etruscan and Sabinian traditions in their original, unadulterated form, while yet presenting a living impress of their respective peoples, so far from rejecting, they would have turned them to the best account in elucidating the times of which they treated.
Now as regards Hawaiian traditions, we have, or may have—if proper and speedy means are taken before the present generation of quinquagenarians becomes extinct,—a number and various series of traditions, genealogies, songs, histories, tales, prayers, rites of worship, land divisions, social and economical rules, agricultural and maritime instructions, all of them in the original language, bearing intrinsic and unmistakable proofs not only of their genuineness and great age, but also of different epochs of composition; and all of them issuing from and attached not to one grand overshadowing dynasty of chiefs to whose vanity, ambition and pretensions they might have been made subservient,—but to three, four, sometimes five or more equally independent rival dynasties, scanning each [[240]]other’s claims and pretensions with jealous care and asserting their own with the fullest freedom.
Of the almost incredible tenacity and faithfulness with which these traditions were preserved and handed down, abundant proofs exist in the uncorrupted exactness with which they are repeated even at this late day, when collected and written down as delivered by the old people in various parts of the islands. I have two independent sets of the prayer and chant of “Kapaahulani” (“He Elele kii na Maui”), recounting the genealogy and exploits of Kualii, a famous King of Oahu,—one collected on Hawaii, the other on Oahu—and yet—though it is perhaps the longest poem in the Hawaiian language, having six hundred and eighteen lines—the two versions do not differ to a word; so tenacious was the memory, so faithful the preservation of the original composition. I have also a double version of the remarkable chant or prophecy of Kaulumoku (“O Haui ka lani etc.”) regarding Kamehameha I, composed years before the conquest of the islands by the latter, and containing five hundred and twenty-seven lines; one version collected on Maui, the other on Hawaii, and the only difference between the two is the omission of one line in the Hawaii version. Though parts of the first poem are evidently of older date than the others, yet the poem as a whole can not well, from merely genealogical consideration, be less than two hundred years old. The latter poem was evidently composed before the year 1786, the approximate date of the author’s death, while Kamehameha I was still ruling over only one third of Hawaii and struggling with no marked success against the combined forces of Keawemauhili and Keoua. And thus with many other meles and chants of much older date, bearing record of contemporary events and of the past reminiscences of this people.
It is historically on record that a Spanish vessel under Capt. Gaetano, sailing from Acapulco to Manila, did about the year 1542 discover certain islands in the North Pacific, corresponding in latitude to the position of the Hawaiian Islands, though over ten degrees too far east in longitude; and that one of them, thought to be Hawaii, was called La Mesa by the Spaniards. But that record, and no subsequent or preceding record yet known in the Spanish archives, make any mention that these islands were ever visited by the Spanish navigators.[1] Here the native tradition comes to our aid; and that tradition is clear and positive and was well known before the arrival of Captain Cook, and is in substance this, that, in the time of Keliiokaloa, the son of Umi-a-Liloa, a vessel was cast away on the southwestern coast of Hawaii and three persons were saved from the wreck, viz: two men and one woman, who were kindly received and remained the balance of their lives in the country, marrying and having children with the aborigines. The first question which arises is, when did Keliiokaloa live? We know from numerous native genealogies, original on different islands, attached to different dynasties and families, crossing and confirming each other, that Keliiokaloa was the eighth generation previous to the birth of Kamehameha I. Now Kamehameha I died in May, 1819, and was at his death about eighty years old, making the time of birth approximate to the year 1740, perhaps one or two years earlier. Deducting the generation of which Keliiokaloa [[241]]was one, seven generations are left between the time of the shipwreck (and landing of the foreigners), mentioned in the tradition, and the birth of Kamehameha I.[2]
Whether that arrival of foreigners of European extraction was the only one which occurred during the time that the Spaniards monopolized the navigation in the North Pacific, I have found nothing positive in the native traditions, to either affirm or deny; though I have inferential reasons to believe that others besides those alluded to above did touch at some of these islands. In the well-known pule or chant of Kapaahulani, the King of Oahu, Kualii,—who during some portion of his life at least was contemporary with Keawe, the great grandfather of Kamehameha—is made to say of himself that he knew Tahiti. I quote the verse as it has been handed down:
Ua ike hoi wau ia Tahiti,
He moku leo pahaohao wale Tahiti.
No Tahiti kanaka i pii a luna
A ka iwikuamoo o ka lani
A luna keehi iho,
Nana iho ia lalo.
Aole o Tahiti kanaka;
Hookahi o Tahiti kanaka, he haole.
Me ia la he Akua,
Me oe la he kanaka
He kanaka no.[3]
At the time when Kualii lived and ruled, (say 1675 as the central epoch of his exploits,) the visits and excursions of the Hawaiians in their own canoes to foreign lands had been discontinued for many generations, and, while the memories of former journeys were kept green in numerous families, yet since the days of … no song nor saga records such journeys by the boldest and bravest of Hawaiian heroes, until this avowal of Kualii stands forth in its solitary grandeur, awakening discussion on the following points:—1. Which was the Tahiti that Kualii visited? 2. Did he visit it in his own vessel, canoe or peleleu, or was he, like Kaiana in after years, taken away by a foreign vessel and returned by the same?
1. To the Hawaiian people, in their own language, Tahiti means generally a foreign country,—a country outside of and beyond their own group. When reference is made in the Hawaiian songs and sagas to any of the Tahitis with which they had frequent and intimate intercourse up to a certain period, the particular Tahiti is generally specified with some special epithet affixed, as Tahiti-ku, Tahiti-moe, Holani-ku, Nuumealani, Holani-moe, Lulokapu, etc., but these and others, representing islands to the south and southwest of this group, are nowhere spoken of as with a leo pahaohao—an entirely different language—not different in dialect, but different in kind. When therefore Kualii about the middle or latter part of the seventeenth century speaks of the Tahiti which he visited as being a country with a leo pahaohao, he did not and could not [[242]]mean any of the Central or South Polynesian Islands. Moreover, when he says that he there saw the “haole”—the white-skinned man—the inference is plain that it was not a Tahiti inhabited by kindreds of his own race; for the South Pacific Tahitis had not then been taken possession of, or settled upon by Europeans. The probability therefore is strong that the Tahiti he refers to was either the western coast of Mexico or Manila where the Spaniards were settled and held possession.
I have no doubt that the ancient Hawaiians had a knowledge of the mainland of America—at present Mexico or California—and that they designated it under the rather indefinite appellation of Kukulu o Tahiti—the farthest ends of foreign lands;—but that knowledge was acquired before that coast was occupied by the Spaniard, for the meles and legends which refer to it make no mention of the “haole” up to the time of Kualii.
2. How did Kualii get to Tahiti? The intercourse between this group and other groups of Polynesia or the American mainland of which the older meles speak so frequently, had ceased many generations before Kualii’s time, and Hawaiian navigation was then limited to the seas and islands comprising the group. Even the Kauai rovers, noted as the most daring and skilful throughout the group, had lost the knowledge or the means of going to Tahiti. I have shown that Kualii lived within the period when the Spanish-Manila trade from the Mexican coast was at its height. It is historically on record that the Spanish discovered this group about 1542; it is traditionally on record that Spaniards (for no other foreigners or “haoles” then navigated the North Pacific) were cast away on Hawaii within a range of twenty years, above or below that period; and there are reasons for believing that more than one galleon, during the time of the Spanish monopoly of the Manila trade, either visited the islands directly, or went so near to them as to be able to pick off any natives who might have been at sea in their canoes at the time of the passing of the galleon.
Though Hawaiian tradition is silent as to the manner in which Kualii visited Tahiti the land of the “haole,” it is positive as to the fact; and the only reasonable explanation I can offer is that a Spanish galleon in passing these islands picked up Kualii, at sea or ashore, voluntarily or as a hostage, and returned him on its next trip. And what was thus done in one instance, and of which tradition has been retained because the object of it was one of the highest chiefs in the country, whose renown in after times filled the land from one end to the other, may have occurred in other instances before or since with men of lesser note of whom tradition is silent or has been lost.
Probably the best informed Hawaiian archaeologist of the present day is S. M. Kamakau, but even he is often very credulous, inconsistent and uncritical. He has published, through the various newspapers, several genealogies of the ancient chiefs, but beyond the time of Umi-a-Liloa of Hawaii, Piilani of Maui and Kaihikapu-a-Manuia and Kakuhihewa of Oahu, his love of antiquity often lead him into irreconcilable difficulties. For instance, when Lauli-a-laa, the son of Laamaikahiki, who is forty-sixth from Haloa on the Ulu and Puna-imua line of descent, is represented as having married Maelo (w), daughter of Kuolono, and who is thirty-fourth on the Nanaulu straight line from Haloa, there is evidently either a large gap in the Nanaulu line or a corresponding increase by the insertion of collateral branches in the Puna-imua line. When Kelea, the wife of Kalamakua, the thirty-ninth on the Nanaulu straight line, is represented as the sister of Kawaokaohele, [[243]]the fifty-sixth on the Hema and Hanalaaiki line, the same discrepancy appears. The Kauai genealogies, which I have received from Hon. D. Kalakaua, make only forty-five generations from Wakea, through the Nanaulu-Muliele-alii-Kumuhonua-Elepuukahonua line, to Kamakahelei and to Kumahana who were contemporaries of Kamehameha I, the sixty-fourth, if not the sixty-fifth from Wakea through the Ulu-Hema-Hanalaanui line. The Kauai genealogy makes Kualii the forty-third from Haloa, whereas the Oahu genealogy, through Moikeha, the brother of Kumuhonua, makes Kualii the forty-ninth from Haloa; the discrepancy lying between the thirty-first and thirty-eighth of the Kauai-Elepuukahonua line.[4]
From comparing the various genealogies, sagas and meles it becomes evident that the time of Maweke’s sons and grandsons, on the Nanaulu straight line, was a time of great and general convulsion. It was the Homeric period of Hawaiian history. This was the period of grand enterprises; of voyages to and from Tahiti. This period is the principal starting point of most of the Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, and some of the Maui and Hawaii genealogies; and Maweke is the only line which keeps the correlation of its branches in any way consistent and conformable, not only to their natural relation, but also to traditional evidence and to historical requirements.[5]
It is well known to tradition and recorded in songs and sagas that before the time of Pili-Kaaiea there was a vacuum in the Hawaii-Hanalaanui-Hema line of aliis, and from the antiquarian lore of S. M. Kamakau, throwing light on the ante-“Pili” period, I am forced to conclude that at least seventeen generations, as quoted in the Hema genealogy of the Hawaii chiefs, must be thrown out in order to make subsequent well-known generations fall into their places as indicated by the Oahu, Kauai or Molokai lines of descent from Maweke and his sons. Thus when all the traditions and meles make Kaaipahu the forty-ninth on the recognized Hawaii-Hanalaanui-Hema line, the husband of Hualani, the great-great-granddaughter of Keaunui-a-Maweke and thirty-third on the Nanaulu line, then inferentially but effectively confirm the statement of Kamakau of the displacement of the seventeen generations interpolated on the Hawaii line, either immediately preceding Pili, or between Ulu and Aikanaka. At any rate it makes Pili,—who, it is well known, arrived from Tahiti with Paa and became the founder of the new and later line of Hawaii aliis—contemporary with the grand period of migrations recorded in the meles and sagas of the sons and successors of Maweke.
The Maui-Hanalaa-iki line must suffer a similar curtailment in order to bring its prominent historical figures in consonance with Oahu and Kauai genealogies. Thus when all accounts agree in making Kelea, the sister of Kawaokaohele of Maui and aunt of Piilani, the wife of Lo Lale—brother of Piliwale of Oahu—there can be no doubt of their contemporaneity. But the Oahu-Nanaulu line makes Lo Lale the thirty-ninth or forty-first from Wakea, and the Maui-Hanalaa-iki line makes Kelea the fifty-sixth from Wakea, thus showing the same irreconcilable difference of from fifteen to seventeen generations as we encountered in the Hawaii-Hanalaa-nui line. [[244]]
I am further more inclined to consider the Oahu-Nanaulu straight line of descent as the most correct and reliable, inasmuch as I find it corroborated by an examination of nearly all the correlative branches originating from the children and grandchildren of Maweke, the twenty-eighth on the Nanaulu line from Wakea. Thus the line of Kalehenui-a-Maweke, culminating in Kaakaualani, the wife of Kakuhihewa, corresponds exactly with the line of Mulielialii-a-Maweke ending in Kakuhihewa. Thus the line of Keaunui-a-Maweke, through Nuakea, Kalahumoku, Moku-a-Hualeiakea, to the children and grandchildren of Umi-a-Liloa in Hawaii, the uncontested contemporaries of Kakuhihewa, is equally full and correct. I am therefore inclined to consider the Nanaulu line, including its branches, not only as the most correct, but as the main trunk of Hawaiian genealogy. And that it was so considered by the ancient Hawaiians themselves, I infer from the evident and repeated desires of the Hawaii and Maui chiefs to connect themselves with the Kauai and Oahu branches of this line, and by the fact that Kauai was looked upon by them as the cradle of knowledge, skill, laws and religion.
Between the different genealogies, as I have received them, the following discrepancies appear, which in my opinion, indicate either gaps in one line, or additions in another. There are certain luminous points of coincidence or contemporaneity, well established by the uniform tradition accompanying all the lines of descent, which in a measure will help to correct some of the lines of descent. The discrepancies are these:
1. From Wakea to Kakuhihewa, on the straight Nanaulu line, through Mulielealii and Maelo (w), there are forty-five generations, Kakuhihewa included.
2. From Wakea to Kakuhihewa, on the Ulu-Puna-imua line, through Laulialaa—Maelo’s husband—there are fifty generations, the difference lying between Ulu and Laulialaa.
3. From Wakea to Kahoukapu, on the Ulu-Hema-Hanalaanui line, there are fifty-one generations; but from Wakea to Laakapu (w) (the wife of Kahoukapu and sister of Laulialaa) there are only forty generations on the Ulu-Puna-imua line. The difference lying probably between Hema and Pili-Kaaiea, whom all the traditions correspond in asserting as having come from Tahiti with Paao the Kahuna about the time of the great migration which characterized the age of Moikeha, Olopana, etc., children of Mulielealii and their contemporaries.
4. The traditions all agree that Kanipahu of Hawaii married Hualani (w) of Molokai. But Kanipahu stands forty-sixth on the Ulu-Hema and Hanalaanui line, whereas Hualani stands thirty-fourth on the Nanaulu straight line through Keaunui-a-Maweke and his daughter Nuakea. Kaakaualani (w) the wife of Kakuhihewa, stands forty-sixth on the Nanaulu straight line, through Kalehenui-a-Maweke; but her mother, Kauhiiliula-a-Piilani, stands fifty-eighth on the Ulu-Hema and Hanalaa-iki line; thus showing that notwithstanding the era of commotion, displacement and migration, above referred to, the Nanaulu straight line, through Maweke, his children and grandchildren, not only maintain a wonderful correspondence and regularity between themselves, but each and all of them unite in pointing out the discrepancies and probable interpolation on the Hema-Hanalaa lines of descent. The first mentioned contemporaneity is those of Auanini on the Ulu-Puna-imua line, and of Mua and her husband Kaomealani on the Maweke-Kalehenui line from Nanaulu. Auanini stands thirty-first on his line from [[245]]Wakea, and Mua stands thirty-second on the other line. Tradition is circumstantial that in their time the first foreigners (haole) came to this group—to Oahu, off Mokapu.
5. The second recognized contemporaneity, that I have been able to find in the meles and kaaos in my possession—saving and excepting always what may hereafter come to light—is that of Kanipahu and his wife Hualani. According to the genealogy published by D. Malo, Kanipahu was the forty-ninth from Wakea, and according to the Nanaulu-Keaunui-a-Maweke line Hualani was the thirty-fourth from Wakea.
6. The next recognized contemporaneity is that of Kalaunuiohua, according to D. Malo the fifty-second from Wakea on the Hema-Hanalaanui line, and Kukona of Kauai with whom he made war, and who is the forty-third on the Ulu-Puna-imua line.
7. The next is that of Luakoa of Maui, forty-eighth or forty-ninth on the Hema-Hanalaa-iki line, who made war on Mailikukahi who stands thirty-ninth on the Nanaulu straight line through Mulielealii and Moikeha.
8. The next is that of Kahoukapu of Hawaii, standing fifty-fourth on the Hema-Hanalaa-nui line, who married Laakapu, daughter of Laamaikahiki, and who consequently stands fortieth on the Ulu-Puna-imua line.
9. The next is what may be considered as the historical, though medieval, period of Hawaiian national life, viz: that of Piilani of Maui, Umi of Hawaii, and Kalaimanuia of Oahu. The second stands fifty-eighth from Wakea, according to D. Malo; the first is fifty-seventh on the Hema-Hanalaa-iki line, and the third is forty-third on the Nanaulu straight line.
From this time the different lines run with great regularity and correspondence, and were proper authorities available, I think every apparent discrepancy could be satisfactorily explained.
I regret that I have only two genealogies of the Kauai chiefs: one furnished me by the Hon. D. Kalakaua, the other published by S. M. Kamakau. The first gives only forty-four generations from Wakea to Kualii of Oahu and Kauai; the second gives sixty generations during the same period. The first counts through Mulielealii, Kumuhonua and Elepuukahonua; the latter through Ulu and Puna-imua, and Ahukini-a-laa. The first falls five generations short of the Nanaulu line through Moikeha to Kualii. The latter over-runs six generations, counting from Laulialaa and Ahukini-a-laa who were brothers, besides the discrepancy of five generations already noticed between the Nanaulu and Puna-imua lines, previous to Laulialaa.
But, if we cannot reconcile the line of Hema-Hanalaa-nui with that of Nanaulu in descending the two streams from Wakea, let us ascend the streams of two such well-known contemporaries as Kualii of Oahu (Nanaulu) and Keawe of Hawaii (Hema-Hanalaa-nui). If we thus ascend sixteen generations on each line, we shall meet again with Hualani (w) on the Nanaulu-Keaunui-a-Maweke line, and with her husband Kanipahu on the so-called Hema-Hanalaa-nui. Thus showing that from Kanipahu, perhaps even from Kaniuhi, there has been no break or discrepancy in the latter line. Sixteen or seventeen generations upward from Kualii, however, bring us to the grandchildren of that boisterous period in Hawaiian history when Moikeha, Kumuhonua and Olopana, the children of Mulielealii-a-Maweke, filled Hawaiian tradition with their exploits and adventures abroad [[246]]and at home; when voyages to and from Tahiti were of common occurrence; and when many changes and additions to the customs and worship of the people were introduced.
That Pili-Kaaiea was not the son of Laau-a-Lanakawai, that he was not even a Hawaiian at all, but a Tahitian chief of high birth and great wealth, all the traditions and the meles referring to the subject unmistakeably prove. That he established himself on Hawaii, obtained a quasi supremacy there, founded a dynasty and a family by intermarriage with Hawaiian chief-families, descendants of Nanaulu or of Ulu, is equally clear.[6]
Are we then to conclude that the so-called Hanalaanui line of Hawaiian chiefs does not go any further back on Hawaii than the time of Pili? I think not. The traditions tell us fully and circumstantially that both Olopana and Kumuhonua, the sons of Mulielealii were established and living on Hawaii, that Moikeha’s son Kila, their nephew, settled there. They tell us that Hikapoloa (k) and his wife Mailelaulii were noted chiefs in Kohala before this time; that their granddaughter Luukia was the wife of Olopana, and that their grandson Kaumailiula married Olopana’s daughter, Kaupea. Although, therefore, it is impossible at this time to say with which of the Ulu or Nanaulu branches Kanipahu or Kaniuhi were related; yet that they were so related and that directly, is a certainty beyond doubt, to those who are acquainted with the tabu systems and the social institutions and customs which, however modified at different times, never abated an iota of their rigour as affecting the laws of descent.
From the fact that Ouanini, the grandson of Puna-imua, was contemporary with Mua, on the Nanaulu-Kalehenui line,—their standing respectively thirty-first and thirty-second from Wakea on their different lines—inclines me strongly to look for the difference or discrepancy between these two lines among the names that follow Paumakua until Ahukai, the father of Laamaikahiki.
Although there certainly are not a few persons on these, the principal, lines of descent from Wakea, to whom tradition has affixed a local habitation and a name; yet I think it in vain to look for genealogical precision or historical data before the period of Maweke and his affiliations on the Nanaulu line, or his probable contemporary Paumakua and his near predecessors on the Ulu line.
That the social and religious condition of the Hawaiian people underwent at about that time several great and important changes,—caused no doubt by the influx of foreign material and the intercourse with foreign lands[7]—may safely be concluded from express statements and more or less plain allusions in the traditions now extant. Thus the custom of circumcising is plainly traceable up to the time of Paumakua, while it is nowhere spoken of or alluded to as forming a religious necessity or a social custom among chiefs or common people before that time, unless in the Moolelo of Kumuhonua.
I have seen no mention of human sacrifices, before this period, either of captives in war or on other solemn occasions. To this period is to be referred the powerful priestly [[247]]family of Paao, who came with Pili from Tahiti; and Kaekae, Maliu and Malela, who were brought by Paumakua from abroad and are said to have been white people and kahunas. The “Aha Kapu o na ’lii” is not of older date than the time of Paumakua—the “Kapu moe o na ’lii” is of much later origin.
Taking then thirty years as the measure of a generation, and the Nanaulu straight line, as the least inflated and most reliable, we have twenty-six generations from the time of Maweke to the present time, which places Maweke at the commencement of the twelfth century, say A.D. 1100. And during that century those great migrations to and fro with their resultant influx of new men and new ideas occurred. It was an era of intense restlessness and great activity and daring. Up to this time Hawaiian history is merely a register of names with only here and there a passing allusion to some event, barely sufficient to give a locus standi to some prominent name, such as the building and inauguration of Kukaniloko as a royal birth-place by Nanakaoko and his wife Kahihiokalani. This however must have happened close upon the twelfth century, for their son and grandson—Kapawa and Heleipawa—were no doubt contemporaries with Maweke or with Pili-Kaaiea. After the time of Maweke of the Nanaulu line, and after Paumakua of the Ulu line, however, Hawaiian history commences to flow with a fuller tide, and most of the principal names on either line have some account or mele connected with them; the traditions and songs become more numerous and circumstantial in their details, and, by crossing or confirming each other, enable the critical student to arrive at a considerable degree of precision in eliminating facts from myths and placing names and events in a proper succession and in an approximately correct time.
What the gradually growing or abruptly determining causes of this national restlessness of these series of migrations may have been, either here or in central and western Polynesia—perhaps also to and from the North American coasts—Hawaiian traditions and meles throw no light upon, so far as I have been able to ascertain; and with the history and traditions of those other countries I am not sufficiently acquainted to offer an adequate or precise answer. The only corresponding movement in Central and Southern Polynesia that I can now refer to is—I believe, but have not the authority by me—the settlement of New Zealand by its present Polynesian race. Their traditions and genealogies bring that event the fifteenth century of our era, and they came from Savaii, one of the Navigator’s Islands. Our own traditions refer the advent here of Paao and Pili from Wawau and Upolo, to an earlier period. Both were probably cases of expulsion caused by civil wars.
It is a somewhat remarkable circumstance that the first appearance of white men in this Archipelago refers to this same period of migrations. The traditions state that in the time of Auanini, the grandson of Puuaimua, and a chief living at Kapalawai in Kailua, Oahu, and while Mua-o-Kalani and her husband Kaomealani were chiefs at Kaopulolia in Kaneohe, Oahu, a vessel arrived off Mokapu; that the name of the vessel was “Ulupana;” the name of the captain was Molo-Lana, and of his wife, Malaea; that the names of the people on board were Olomana, Aniani and Holokaniakani; that these however were not their proper names, but names given them by those chiefs on whose territories they landed; the tradition however does not say whether these people went away again or whether they remained and settled in the country. [[248]]
The next account of white people arriving here is found in the tradition and mele of Paumakua, grandson of Auanini aforesaid, and an Oahu chief, who is said to have visited numerous foreign lands (“Kaapuni ia Kahiki”), and who brought back with him two white men, Auakahinu and Auakaaiea, who afterwards were called Kaekae and Maliu and were said to have been kahunas (priests). Paumakua also brought back with him another stranger called Malela who was a kaula (prophet), but as to whether this latter was also a white man the tradition is not so explicit. The two former however are described in the tradition as “Ka haole nui, maka alohilohi, ke aholehole maka aa, ka puaa keokeo nui maka ulaula.” These, it would appear, remained and settled in the country, as in later times we find several priestly families claiming and proving their descent from the two former.
I have taken the above notices of the first arrivals of white foreigners in this country from S. M. Kamakau’s summary of the traditions and meles referring to that subject. To what branches of the Caucasian race, if to that race at all, these “white people—with bright eyes and white cheeks,” belonged, who in the twelfth century were found on the borders or among the islands of the Pacific, may be a rare question for archaeologists and ethnologists to settle. That they were looked upon by the natives here as people of another and a lighter colored race than their own is evident. Whether they were Japanese or some other Mongol variety, extended along the western shores of the Pacific, or Toltecs, from the eastern rim of the Pacific and the Mexican coast, conquered and expelled by the Aztecs towards the close of the twelfth century,—the fact however stands forth in archaic simplicity, and becomes of historical importance, that, during this period—genealogically computed to have fallen within the twelfth century—the Hawaiians received large infusions not only of Polynesian blood, from the island to the south and southwest, but also of alien races, from one or both continents bordering on the Pacific, and leaving their traces in the physique as well as in the customs and worship of the people.[8]
This period of great migrations, of national activity and restlessness and of grand enterprises, having passed, comparative quiet seems to have succeeded for several generations; and the meles and legends become silent upon the subject of foreign voyages or foreign arrivals until the time of Kakaalaneo, King of Maui and brother to the great-grandfather of Piilani—about fourteen generations from the present—at the close of the fifteenth or the commencement of the sixteenth century. The traditions as written down by S. M. Kamakau runs thus: “In the time of Kakaalaneo several foreigners (haole) arrived at Waihee in Maui, two of whom only were or became remarkable, viz.: Kukanaloa and Pele, who was Peleie, and the name of the vessel was Konaliloha. They landed at Kiwe in the night and when discovered in the morning by the natives, they were taken to the village and fed and brought to the king and the chiefs who treated them kindly and made friends of them (hoopunahele) and admitted them to all the privileges of the kapu. They settled in the country, married some of the chief-women and became progenitors of both chiefs and commoners, and some of their descendants [[249]]survive to this day.” “They were called Kanikawi and Kanikawa after the beautiful flowers of Haumea.”—“Their speech sounded like a bird’s, like the lale of the mountain, a chattering, vociferous bird.”—“They said they came from Kahiki, from the very interior.” “Their land was a fertile land with plenty of fruits and large animals.”—“Their parents dwelt far inland (uka) on the side of the mountain, away up in the forest (ukaliloloa, i ka waonahele).”—“They were acquainted with the banana, the breadfruit, the ohia-apples, and the kukui nuts.”
The tradition which refers to the wrecking and landing of the foreigners (haole)—two men and one woman, at Keei, South Kona, Hawaii, in the time of Keliiokaloa, the son of Umi-a-Liloa, before the middle of the sixteenth century,—is well known and has long been recorded. There is some obscurity however thrown over both this and the foregoing tradition, inasmuch as the names of the vessel (“Konaliloha”) and of the principal personage (Kukanaloa) are the same in both traditions, and also some of the attending circumstances. But whether it was only one and the same event, adopted—mutalis mutandis—on both islands, or two separate occurrences, the fact of the arrival, and the retention of that fact in the Hawaiian memory, are none the less established.
How these voyages were accomplished will not now excite any surprise when we know, not only from the traditions, but from the ocular testimony of the grandparents of the present generation, that the canoes of those times were of an enormous size compared with the canoes of the present day. Double canoes carrying eighty men were not uncommon; and it is reported by eye-witnesses that, as late as the year 1740, the favorite war canoe, or admiral’s ship, “Kaneaaiai,” of Peleioholani of Oahu carried on board from one hundred and twenty to one hundred and forty men, besides their provisions, water, etc. And it is further reported that this canoe, and possibly others of similar dimensions, was made of pieces of wood or planks fastened together, somewhat after the manner of Malay proas or Western Polynesian canoes at the present day. Though the Hawaiians had not the compass or any substitute for it, yet they were fully and correctly acquainted with the bearing and rising and setting of a large number of stars, by which they steered during the night. It is reported as of no uncommon occurrence, for instance, that the Kauai sea-rovers would make their descent on the Hawaii or Maui shores, plunder or slay or capture whatever or whomsoever they could lay their hands on and then, in order to elude pursuit, stand off, straight out of sight of land on the open ocean, for two or three days, and return to their own homes by some circuitous route, either to the windward or the leeward of the islands. There is now, or was not long ago, the wreck of a large canoe lying on the shore near the southern point of Hawaii, which measured one hundred and eight feet in length, and was said to have been one of a double-canoe belonging to Kamehameha I.
The Hawaiians being thus possessed of vessels capable of performing long voyages in open sea, possessed of sufficient astronomical and practical knowledge to navigate them, and of daring and enterprise to match with the boldest, it is but natural that their traditions, sagas and songs, should be replete with their adventures and exploits in foreign lands. In that they are overloaded with marvels, fables and exaggerations, they only resemble the early and medieval periods of other countries. But [[250]]when all these are stripped, there still remains an undisputable residium of facts to show that from the eleventh and during the twelfth century, and subsequently, not only were these islands visited by people of kindred and alien races whether arriving here by accident or design, but also that the Hawaiians, themselves, performed frequent though desultory voyages to the countries and islands lying south and west from their own group; that from this period dates the establishment, or at least the prominence of the principal dynasties and chief-families in the islands; and that from this time the genealogical succession on Hawaiian soil may be pretty accurately ascertained.
I know that Papa and Wakea, the reputed progenitors of the Hawaiian race of chiefs, were also considered as gods, demi-gods, heroes and progenitors in nearly every other Polynesian group of islands. I have seen it assumed that the twelfth or thirteenth first names of the Haloa line were common to the Marquesan pedigrees and considered as their ancestors. I know that Maui-a-kalana, who is said to have collected the sun’s rays, to have discovered the fire, and to have nearly succeeded in joining these islands together into one large continent, and whose name stands twenty-second on the Ulu line,—I know that he is the hero of the same legends in the Samoan, Society, Marquesan and New Zealand islands. While therefore I have no means of disputing the correctness of the succession of names borne on Hawaiian pedigrees from Wakea to nearly the period of Maweke, I am yet strongly of the opinion that those names, their legends and meles, were introduced into this group about the time of Maweke and his contemporaries and compeers, and during some of the next following generations. I am inclined to that opinion from the fact that, while almost every Hawaiian chief-family that at some time or other obtained prominence or influence in the country traced their pedigree up to Maweke, his contemporaries or successors, and claim their descent from Wakea through some one or other of the numerous branches springing from Maweke, Kapawa, Paumakua or later offshoots from these, not one family, that I am aware of, pretends to connect with either the Nanaulu or the Ulu lines beyond this period; thus proving to me that these heroes were the first and actual progenitors of the Hawaiian families of chiefs on Hawaiian soil, and that they brought with them from Kahiki their own pedigrees up to their own time.
Whoever knew this people some forty or fifty years ago, and more so if further back, could not fail to observe the remarkable difference of appearance between the chiefs and the makaainana (commoners) and the Kauwa-makauuli (slaves) indicating the former as, if not of a different race, at least of a different and superior class to the common multitude. And the feeling, solicitude and pride, with which that difference was kept up, show that they looked upon themselves not only as a different class politically, but also as of different birth socially. It was an heirloom from their ancestors and came with them from Tahiti. No poverty, misery or misconduct could efface it. Though there are many instances where chiefs were slain by their subjects in revolt, or were deposed from supremacy by their peers or subordinate chiefs, yet there never was a Bill of Attainder in those days, nor is there an instance of a chief who ever forfeited his own rank as a chief (of the “Papa Alii”) or that of his children. Those chiefs, those ancestors of the Hawaiian aristocracy, did not however, as I have endeavored to show, appear on Hawaiian soil much earlier than the period of those great migrations, [[251]]that national or intertribal displacement of the Polynesian race which occurred during the eleventh and twelfth centuries of our era. It may have commenced a generation or two before Maweke,—it certainly continued several generations after him—but I use his name as a kind of central figure, seeing that the line upon which he stands (the Nanaulu straight line) is probably the most correct of existing genealogies.
What preceded this time will ever be a blank in Hawaiian history. There are traditions, no doubt, which refer to a period previous to this, but they all seem to bear the impress of Tahitian origin: There are no legends more common or more generally known throughout these islands than those of Kamapuaa and of Pele; and Koolauloa on Oahu, and Hilo, Puna, and Kau on Hawaii, abound in places and names connected with these stories. Yet Kamapuaa’s grandparents came from Kuaihelani (wherever that island may have been), and he himself visited Kahiki and married there; and Pele also came from Kahiki and, after traversing this group, finally settled on Hawaii. A better acquaintance than I possess, with Samoan, Tahitian, Marquesan or New Zealand legends, would enable the critical student to decide whether these and other legends of the pre-historic times were original and exclusive to the Hawaiian group, or whether they had their root, prototype or correspondent in those other groups and were only adapted to Hawaiian locality in the course of time and the process of naturalization, thus illustrating the Latin poet’s remark that “qui trans mare currunt, coelum non animam mutant.” It is noticeable, moreover, that all the heroes and heroines of these pre-historic legends stand out in bold relief from the genealogical tree of Haloa, singly and disconnected, and that none of the numerous chief-families of after-ages ever claimed their descent from Wakea through these personages. Not having had the opportunity of more fully comparing these legends with those of other Polynesian groups, I have compared them with each other and with legends of a later date, which no doubt belong to the oft-referred-to period of migrations, however much enveloped in myths and fable, and I have found, as I think, internal evidence that if these prehistoric legends were of Hawaiian origin at all, and not merely Tahitian legends adapted to Hawaiian localities,—then their origin can not be older than this period of influx of the Tahitian element. Thus, for instance, a number of chief-families, on the different islands of this group, trace their pedigrees with great accuracy and evenness up to Maweke through his grand-daughter Nuakea, daughter of Keaunui-a-Maweke and sister of Laakona of Ewa. These genealogies concur in representing Keoloewa-a-Kamauaua of Molokai as the husband of Nuakea. They also indicate Kaupeepee-nui-kauila as brother of Keoloewa and of the man who abducted Hina, the wife of Hakalanileo. Hina’s sons, Kana and Niheu-kalohe, afterwards rescued their mother and slew Kaupeepee, demolishing his fortress at Haupu on Molokai. Thus Niheu-kalohe becomes contemporary with the grand-children of Maweke, and, moreover, his grandmother Uli was a Tahitian woman. There are probably few legends of older or of fuller details than this of Kana and Niheu-kalohe, yet it is ostensibly and really, both as regards the persons and the time, of post-Maweke origin. If we now turn to the equally well-known and equally circumstantial legend of Pele’s sister, Hiiakaikapoliopele, we find that, when she was resting at the house of Malaehaakoa in Haena, Kauai, previous to ascending the Pali of Kalalau in search of [[252]]Lohiau, Malaehaakoa offered up a prayer or chant,[9] than which few Hawaiian meles bear stronger evidences of a comparatively genuine antiquity: and yet this mele, prayer or chant, makes special reference to Niheu-kalohe and to Nuakea—an anachronism showing fairly that the mele as well as the legend originated after the time of Maweke’s grandchildren.
I would not be understood as asserting that there were neither chiefs nor people on the island of this group before this period of migrations. The meles and legends are full to the contrary. This very family of Kamauaua and its kindred on Molokai; those of Pueonui and Kealiiloa on Kauai; those of Hikapoloa on Hawaii and Kaikipaananea and Puna on Kauai, and others, whose names and whose pedigrees have never been transferred or connected with the lives of Haloa, attest the presence, and previous occupation of the islands by both chiefs and people. But these chiefs were gradually displaced, and disappeared before the new element, the Tahitian influx, with its new gods, its new tabus, and its greater vigour and moral and intellectual power. Whatever the causes that brought these latter ones here, yet, to judge from the case of Pili and Paao, they were not low-born adventurers, but men of mark in their own country, alii kapu, with whom alliances were sought, to whom the vacant chief-seats and the ahuula naturally fell in the lapse of time, and who kept bards to sing their own names and those of their ancestors, and heralds to proclaim their unbroken descent from Wakea and from Haloa.
The strongest proof, however, as I think, of the absence of Hawaiian genealogies and of the utter darkness which enveloped Hawaiian history proper before that period, is to be found—as I have already stated—in the fact that all the prominent Hawaiian chief-families connect with the line of Wakea through Ulu or Nanaulu about this time, and that, in order to establish that connection, they counted through females as well as through males, and dropped the latter whenever they did not lead up to the main trunk of Wakea or someone of that Tahitian element which made its appearance about the eleventh, twelfth, or thirteenth centuries of our era, and who are invariably called “na kupuna alii”—founders of dynasties,—on this or that island.
That the people of this group, whether chiefs or commoners, previous to this period, were of Polynesian—or as they themselves call it—Tahitian origin, there is no good ground for doubting, and every reason to believe. But the time of their arrival and settlement, the mode of their arrival, their point of departure, and their political, religious and social condition, will probably always remain insoluble problems. That they arrived here long ages before these later Tahitians,—before their kapu-system, heiau-building, religious ceremonial, etc., had developed into that complex, fanciful and stern rule of life, which it had already become when we first are made acquainted with them,—I think may generally be conceded. From the traditions and meles of these Tahiti-Hawaiians I gather that they found the previous inhabitants of this group living in a primitive manner, without any political organization beyond the patriarchal, and without kapus—at least of any stringent nature—and without heiaus;[10] and, with a [[253]]feeling of pride in their superior powers and attainments, although they acknowledged Hawaii as a “Kama na Tahiti” (a child of Kahiki), yet they looked upon it as a natural appanage of themselves, to be taken possession of and reconstructed by them and their posterity. They established political supremacy and the kapus, they built heiaus, introduced circumcision, the pahu, the ohe and the hula. Tattooing commenced with them. The division of the people into aliis, kahunas, makaainanas and Kauwa-makawela, if not original with them, received a distinctness and permanency from them that hardened almost into castes. In short, whatever the condition in which they found the country, they moulded, reorganized and arranged everything on their own pattern and, while they with most elaborate care have left us numerous mementoes of their own time and work, they have left us nearly none of the predecessors.
While the Hawaiian cosmogonies abundantly betray their Tahitian origin, they also develop some interesting facts which will throw some light on the subject of the Tahitians’ (I mean in the Hawaiian sense of the word) settling here at the period to which I have referred. Thus, though the traditions and meles differ as to the actual origin of these islands, some stating them to have been born of Papa and Wakea—a kind of mythical setting back their creation to the oldest known period of time, and others assuming them to be fished up from the sea by Kapuhauanui, a fisherman from Kapaahu in Tahiti, and others again that they sprung forth from the night, yet several concur in representing them as forming only a group in a chain of groups of islands extending from Nuumealani on one side to Holani, Nuuhiwa and Polapola on the other; and the Mele of Kamahualele, the kahuna of Moikeha, who accompanied him from Kahiki, distinctly states that long before his time Nuuhiwa and Polapola were severed from this chain. Thus the existence and bearings of these islands were known to the Tahitians before their last settlement here; and they knew of the existence of other islands contiguous to this group, or intermediate between this and the eastern and central Polynesian groups, of which neither the names nor the location can now be traced. Another circumstance connected with these lost islands is, that while the meles and traditions referring to times and persons anterior to the last Tahitian settlement here are full of notices of Nuumea-lani and Holani and Kuaihelani, as within easy reach of, and having had frequent intercourse with this group, yet none of the meles and traditions that I possess makes any mention of them as existing at the time of, or subsequent to, that last Tahitian emigration. Thus the Mele of Kamahualele and the traditions of Moikeha, Olopana, Kila, and Laamaikahiki, make no mention of them as having been visited by these worthies or seen by them in their voyages to and from Tahiti. The traditions of Hema, Paumakua and Kahai also ignore them as existing at that time. The tradition of Paao does not refer to them in his voyage with Pili from Tahiti (Moaulanuiakea) to Hawaii.
In comparing the New Zealand legends as published by Sir George Grey, I find that the New Zealanders count fifteen generations from the time of their ancestors leaving the land of Hawaiki, in the Samoan or Navigator’s group and settling in New Zealand, which was called by them “Aotearoa.” Fifteen generations or four hundred and fifty years bring the approximate period of that settlement to about 1400 our era, or from two hundred and fifty to three hundred years later than the last Tahitian settlement in this group, the Hawaiian. In the legends, however, which they carried with [[254]]them to New Zealand, occurs not only the well-known story of Maui-a-Kalana (Maui-o-Taranga) and his exploits by sea and land, and of his grandmother, who pulled out her nails to furnish him with fire and who is called Mahu-ika—in the Hawaiian genealogy she is called Hina-Mahu-ia; but there also occurs four prominent and comparatively late names in the Hawaiian Ulu and Hema line of descent, viz: Hema, Tawhaki (Kahai), Wahieroa (Wahieloa) and Raka (Laka). In the New Zealand legends they figure as chiefs and arikis of Hawaiki, following one another in the same succession as in the Hawaiian genealogy.
Thus, on New Zealand testimony, Hema, Kahai, Wahieloa and Laka were chiefs of Hawaiki or Sawaii in the Samoan group, and not of Hawaii in this group. These names and their pedigrees must then have been carried from Hawaiki to Tahiti and from Tahiti to this group, unless we assume a direct settlement from Hawaiki to Hawaii.
It is true, certainly, that the Hawaiian legends ascribe a local habitation as well as a name to each of these four chiefs, either on Maui, Oahu or Kauai, and places and monuments connected with their names are existing to this day; yet, as there is no reasonable probability that the New Zealanders took their departure from this group instead of the Samoan, and as their evidence is positive as to the residence of these chiefs in the Hawaiki which they knew and from which they departed for New Zealand,—I am forced to conclude that the connecting of their names with places in this group was merely adaptation in after ages, an appropriation to Hawaiian soil, when the memory of the mother-country had become indistinct and when little if anything was known of them except the one main fact that they stood on the genealogical list of the Hawaiian chiefs, a fact, which was never allowed to be forgotten under the old system, however much local associations may be forgotten or altered.
It is hardly historically possible that there could have been two series of chiefs in Hawaiki (Samoa) and Hawaii with identical names and in the same succession; and, with one transposition only, the identity holds good also in the names of their wives—e.g.:
| New Zealand | Hawaii | ||
| Hema. | Uru-tonga. | Hema. | Ulu-mahehoa. |
| Tawhaki. | Hine-piripiri. | Kahai. | Hina-uluohia. |
| Wahieroa. | Kura. | Wahieloa. | Koolaukahili. |
| Raka. | Tonga Sautaw-hiri. | Laka. | Hikawaelena. |
I am justified therefore in concluding that the Ulu-Hema line of chiefs was not indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands until after the time of Laka. But Laka was the third from Hema who, by all the Hawaiian traditions, was the brother of Puna-imua, and consequently the contemporary of Paumakua on the Ulu-Puna line, and probably of Maweke or his father on the Nanaulu straight line.
Whether the scions of these three lines, descending from Wakea and Papa, arrived here about the same time, or whether the Puna and Maweke lines arrived at a long interval from each other, or who had the precedence in the country, it is now impossible to determine.[11] That they came from the Samoan group, through the Tahitian [[255]]and Marquesas groups, after a longer or shorter stoppage in each or both, I think can be shown from philological grounds and the gradual transformation of the Hawaiian dialect, conforming more to those of the two latter than to that of the former.
I am thus led back to the proposition which I have already enunciated, that, whichever was the branch of the great Polynesian family, that in ages long past first settled upon these islands and here remained and increased, yet about twenty-eight generations ago, and for several generations succeeding, there arrived here an influx of new-comers from the same Polynesian family, who through their superior intellectual and physical prowess obtained the supremacy,—politically, morally and socially,—brought with them their genealogies, their religion, and their customs; and with whom, and from whom only, Hawaiian history can be traced downward through its heroic, medieval and modern pagan development. It will be observed by the different pedigrees that all the chief-families, which connect with the Nanaulu line, do so immediately through someone of the children or grandchildren of Maweke, who is either the twenty-fourth, twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth ancestor of these families, as the case may be. Whereas, on the other hand, no family that connects with the Ulu-Puna line, does so above Laamaikahiki’s children who stand seventh from Paumakua, thus making him the twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth ancestor; and several families, connecting with both lines, make both Maweke and Paumakua either twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth in the line. With the Ulu-Hema-Hanalaa-nui line, however, no family that I am aware of connects as one of the children of Kanipahu, who stands sixth from Pili-Kaaiea, which makes the latter the twenty-fourth ancestor. Kanipahu’s son Kalahumoku is sixth from Maweke through his mother Hualani. Kanipahu’s son Kalapana is also sixth (?) from Pili, and I consequently infer that Pili and Maweke were contemporaries.
Pili’s arrival from Tahiti—some traditions specify the island of Wawau—is one of the most noted events of this period. Of the arrivals of Maweke and Paumakua, or their immediate ancestors, the traditions are silent, but their immediate descendants were famous for their voyages to and from Tahiti. The traditions are conflicting in regard to Maweke’s grandchildren, from Mulielealii, some representing them as born in this country and properly belonging here, while others represent them as settlers arriving from Tahiti. However that may be, they named numerous places, mountains, rivers and headlands either after persons accompanying them, or after similar places in the land from which they came. Yet strange to say, although the island of Hawaii was evidently so called after the Samoan “Hawaiki” or Tongan “Hapai” and that island was known to the Tongans, New Zealanders, Tahitians and Marquesans, yet none of the Hawaiian legends, meles or genealogies, that I have seen, refer to it by that name, though Upolo, Wawau, and probably other islands of that and neighboring groups, are referred to by their special names.
On the Ulu line, previous to Puna-i-mua and Hema, occur the names of Kapawa and of his parents Nanakaoko and Kahihiokalani, which stand too conspicuously connected with the traditions of purely Hawaiian origin and with that famous birth-place of Hawaiian chiefs, Kukaniloko, to doubt that they belonged and lived on Hawaii-nei, or to include them among those prehistoric names which figure on the genealogies previous to the Tahitian settlements, tempore Maweke, Paumakua and Pili. In a fragment [[256]]of the legend (or rather synopsis) of Paao, which I have, while speaking of the arrival of Pili, it is expressly stated that, when Pili came to these islands, Hawaii was without chiefs on account of the crimes of Kapawa (“Ua pau na Alii mua o Hawaii-nei i ka hewa o Kapawa, ke alii o Hawaii nei ia manawa”); thus evidently making Kapawa contemporary with the period of the Tahitian migrations.
The New Zealand legends have shown that the four chiefs Hema, Kahai, Wahieloa and Laka were Samoan chiefs and not Hawaiian, and as Kapawa is represented on the Hawaiian genealogy of Ulu as being the great-grandfather of Hema and his brother Puna-imua; and further as he is only third in descent from that mythical demi-god Maui-a-Kalana and only second in ascent from the almost equally mythical Hinahanaiakamalama, the wife of Aikanaka and mother of Hema, who went up to the moon and whose leg was pulled off by her husband while ascending, I therefore think myself justified in concluding that Kapawa and probably his parents are misplaced on the genealogy of Ulu, and that they belong to a much later period—the period of Tahitian migrations.
I have hitherto not referred to the Hanalaa-nui or Hanalaa-iki lines in their earlier portions. It is well-known that before the consolidation of the islands under one government, by Kamehameha I, the Maui bards and genealogists claimed Hanalaa-nui as the ancestor of their race of chiefs, while the Hawaiians proper also set up the same claim. But it would seem that even the Hawaiian bards and genealogists were not agreed on this subject; for I possess an ancient mele, evidently composed in the interest of Kamehameha I and his dynasty, which traces his descent from Paumakua and Hanalaa-nui—not Hanalaa-iki—through Maui-loa and not through Lanakawai, and then through Alo, Waohaakuna, etc., to Kikamanio Laulihewa and Maili-kukahi, and thence down the Oahu-Maweke line to Kalanikauleleiaiwi etc. But this mele makes Laulihewa the seventh from Paumakua in the descent, or the sixteenth from Kamehameha I in the ascent. Now on the uncontested Nanaulu-Maweke line Laulihewa is the seventeenth from Kamehameha, and on the equally uncontested Paumakua-Lauli-a-laa line Laulihewa is also the seventeenth from Kiwalao, Kamehameha’s cousin, this latter line having the double advantage of having been crossed both by the Maui and Oahu lines. Assuming, therefore, that Laulihewa’s position is correct in this mele, or nearly so, Hanalaa-nui’s place on the pedigree will be fifth or sixth from Laulihewa, or a contemporary with Moikeha on the Nanaulu straight line, or with Nana or Kumakaha on the Ulu-Paumakua line. In either case Hanalaa, whether “nui” or “iki,” falls within the period of the Tahitian migrations, and their lines must suffer a proportionate curtailment of the names which now figure on them. That Haho, who in this mele stands next after Paumakua, and second above Hanalaanui, belonged to the new era, inaugurated by the arrivals from Tahiti, I conclude from the fact that with him commences the record of the Aha-alii, a peculiar institution not known before this time, and an indispensable accompaniment of an Alii-kapu (a sacred chief).
Without such excision of names I can see no way of reconciling the Nanaulu straight line and its numerous branches, or the Puna-imua-Paumakua-Laamaikahiki line and its equally numerous branches, with the Hema-Hanalaa lines, so as to bring known contemporaries on a nearly parallel step of descent from those whom they all claim [[257]]as common ancestors. For instance, on her father’s side, H. R. H. Kinau (the present King’s mother) was sixty-eighth from Wakea, counting by the commonly received Hanalaa-nui line; and on her mother’s side she was seventy from Wakea, counting by the Hanalaa-iki line. But by the Nanaulu straight line, connecting at Kalanikauleleaiwi I, Kinau was only fifty-third from Wakea, and even by the Ulu-Puna line and several of its branches she was only fifty-seventh from Wakea. The difference of fifteen and seventeen generations between the Hanalaa lines and the Nanaulu straight line, and even the difference of eleven and thirteen between the Hana and Puna lines, is too great to be accounted for in a natural way, such as the earlier marriages in one line than in another. I am therefore forced to conclude that this excess of names on the Hanalaa-Hema lines was made up of contemporaries or collaterals and engrafted in aftertimes on the original lines. From the present time up to Maweke, Paumakua, and Pili, who stand respectively twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh from Kamehameha I and his contemporaries the genealogical lines cross each other by intermarriages so often, and traditional notices of contemporary chiefs are so frequent, that there is comparatively little difficulty in verifying any given name or finding its proper place. Here then, properly speaking, Hawaiian history commences, and I will now endeavor to show the most prominent names on the different lines, their connection and their exploits. [[258]]
[1] La Perouse is strongly of opinion that the Spaniards had visited the Islands, rested more or less time; and introduced venereal diseases. [↑]
[2] Perhaps thirty years should be allowed for a generation, considering that, as a general practice, the successor to a chief and inheritor of the Kapu-moe was not always the first-born, but more frequently from a later alliance. In that case the seven generations will bring the time of Keliiokaloa’s middle-age or the birth of Kukailani at about 1526. Compare with the account by Galvaom, reported in Burney’s Discoveries in the South Seas. [↑]
[3] For translation see B. P. B. Mus. Mem. IV., p. 374. [↑]
[4] The Marquesans of Nukahiwa have a tradition that Wakea came to their country from Vavao and brought with him and his wife Owa all manner of plants and herbs, which were named after their forty children, all except Po. (See Rienzi, L’Univers Pittoresque.) [↑]
[5] The Nuuhiwans have a tradition that twenty generations ago (counting from 1812) an akua called Haii visited all their islands and brought with him the first hogs and a number of birds. The name of hog in Marquesan is puaka. (Rienzi, L’Univers Pittoresque, Vol. 2, p. 230.) [↑]
[6] For the probable place and descent of Hanalaa—(nui and iki) see comparative table of genealogies. [Fornander, Polynesian Race I, 249.] [↑]
[7] As late as the commencement of this century the Nuuhiwas were every now and then fitting out exploring expeditions in their great canoes in search of a traditional land called Utupu, supposed to be situated to the westward of their archipelago, from which the Akua Tao first introduced the coconut tree. (Univ. Pitt., V. 2, p. 230.) Turnbull relates that when Kaumualii of Kauai was sorely pressed by anticipation of Kamehameha’s invasion and conquest of Kauai, about 1802, he had a vessel built on purpose, in which to embark himself and family and chiefs and seek some foreign land where he would not be subjected to his dreaded rival. [↑]
[8] About 1159 A.D., a grand migratory wave was set in motion from Java and Sumatra, owing to internal convulsions. Some of the princes migrated to and established themselves at Celebes, others went in other directions. [↑]
[9] This mele was probably composed about the time of Kamalalawalu, King of Maui, seven generations before the birth of Kamehameha I. [↑]
[10] That is, heiaus of the rudest construction and most simple service. [↑]
[11] The Maweke line was long antecedent to the Ulu descendants; in fact may be considered as the settlers of this group,—about 1075. [↑]
Hawaiian Origins.
COMPARATIVE TRADITIONS OF VITI, FIJI, NEW ZEALAND, TONGA ISLANDS, MARQUESAS.
VITI[1]
In the Viti group the kings are called tui of the land over which they reign. In Tonga and some other of the Polynesian isles the highest chief is called tui. The Tui-Tonga family descended from the gods.
The Viti gods were in the following gradation: Lan-Hanalu (Polynesian, Kane?); Kalu, god of the kapu, there called “tambu;” the inferior gods were Kalu Niuza, Reizo, Vazugui-Berata, Vazugui-Ton-ha, Komei-Buni-Kura, Balu-Bunti, Leka, Uleguen-Buna, Banu-Be, Tambo-Kana-Lauhi, Buta-Guibalu, Dauzina, Komainen-Tulugubuca; the principal goddesses were Gulia-Zavazo, and Goli-Koro.
These gods inhabited a heaven called Numa-Lauhi. (What relation does that bear to the Nuumealani of the Hawaiians?)
Oudin-Hei, or Oudin-Hi, is the creator of heaven, earth and all the other gods. After death, every soul goes to join Oudin-Hei.
The Viti priests are called ambetti.
The Vitians make no human sacrifices; they worship no images. They have sacred houses called ambure. (Compare Hawaiian, “pule”). At the death of a king or queen they cut off a finger or a toe, but not in times of sickness, like the Tongans. The Vitians use no betel, but drink awa like the other Polynesians.
At the age of fifteen years, the Vitians practice circumcision by slitting the prepuce.
Though they marry at an early age, they do not cohabit with their wives until they are twenty years old, for fear they should die—a religious injunction of the kapu. Wives are not sold by their husbands.
The women do not eat with the men, but afterwards.
The awa plant is called augona.
Coconut trees are climbed by means of a cord between the feet.
Tabuing in Viti is practised as in Hawaii and elsewhere in Polynesia. The tabu-tree is called alauzi.
The Vitians know how to make earthen vessels (pottery), probably derived from the Papuans of New Guinea.
Anthropophagy is common in the Viti group; enemies and others are equally acceptable.
The Viti canoes are fitted with out-riggers.
The hair is tied up with white thin kapa, resembling a turban, like the Papuans of Vegiu. [[259]]
When a chief dies, a number of his wives are killed to keep him company.
The Vitians do not change their names in sign of friendship, like the Polynesians.
On the Isle of Laguemba, the Tongans have settled and intermarried with the Vitians.
FIJI.[2]
The name for north and northeast wind is tokalau. In Hawaiian, koolau is the north and northeast side of an island. In Tahiti, toerau is the west and southwest.
Rev. Thos. Williams considers the Fiji group as the place of contact between the two races which occupy east and west Polynesia, or, “The Asiatic and African, but not Negro,” as he designated them. “The light Mulatto skin and well-developed muscles seen to windward are chiefly the result of long intercourse with the Tongan race.” “The Fijians have never acknowledged any power (foreign), but such as exists among themselves.”
“Rank is hereditary, descending through the female.”
“As in the Malayan, so in the Fijian, there exists an aristocratic dialect, which is particularly observable in the windward districts.”
“Standing in the presence of a chief is not allowed. All who move about the house in which he is, creep, or, if on their feet, advance bent as in an act of obeisance.”
In drinking toasts and wishing, the expression often is for a “puaka loloa,”—a long pig,—meaning a human body, to be eaten.
The Fijians reverence certain stones as shrines of the gods. Offerings of food are sometimes made at these. (They resemble the pohaku a Kane in Hawaii).
In Fiji, “sika” means “to appear” and is used chiefly of supernatural beings. (Does the Hawaiian hika in the name of Kane, “Hika-poloa,” connect or find its explanation in the former?)
Fijian traditions mention mankind springing from two eggs laid by a small hawk and hatched by Ndengei, their principal god. They refer to a flood from which eight people were saved in a canoe. They also mention a big tower built for the purpose of ascertaining if the moon was inhabited, but the foundations gave way and the workmen were scattered all over Fiji. They refer to a woman of Yaro, named Kerukeru, who was very good and whom the gods removed from this world alive on consideration of her high character.
NEW ZEALAND.[3]
The New Zealanders derive themselves from Hawaiki, either the Samoan, Sawaii, or the Tongan, Habai.
One tradition has it that they descend from two brothers: Maui-mua and Maui-potiki; that the elder, Maui-mua, killed his younger brother and ate him, whence the custom of cannibalism among them.
Another tradition says that Maui was driven from his native land, and, embarking [[260]]with his company, and guided by the god of thunder, Tauraki, arrived at, and settled on the banks of the river Churaki.
At the North Cape and at Bay of Islands the tradition refers to a large country situated to the north and northwest of New Zealand, called Ulimaraa or Oudi-mara (English, Ortagi), a land exposed to the heat of the sun and abounding in hogs. Some of the New Zealand ancestors went there at one time in a large canoe, and only a few returned, having been absent about one month. Another tradition mentions that a small vessel came from that country; four of the crew landed at Tatara-nui and were killed by the New Zealanders.
New Zealand is called by the natives “Aotea-roa.” The North Island is called “Ika-na-Maui,” and the South Island, “Kauai-Punamu.”
The Ngatipaoa tribe count fifteen generations since their ancestors left Hawaiki and came to New Zealand.
One of the canoes, in which they came, was called Arawa. It was made from a “Torara tree that was cut down in Rarotonga, which lies on the other side of Hawaiki.” When another of these emigrant canoes, called the Kainui was ready, Rata, one of the builders, slew the son of Manaia and hid his body in the chips and shavings of the canoes. This resembles the Hawaiian legend of Paao and his brother when the former left for Hawaii.
No hogs were in New Zealand in Cook’s time, or for some time afterwards.
As in most of the Polynesian tribes, New Zealand women are admitted to the succession in the government; so also with the Battas in Sumatra.
Among the Battas, the descendants of the rajahs form a class in society, similar to the rangatiras of New Zealand, Tahiti and other Polynesian tribes.
The kampong, or fortified places of the Battas are nearly identical with the pa of the New Zealanders.
The three gods of the Battas, Batara-Guru, Sora-Pada and Maugala-Bulong, correspond in attributes to the New Zealand Maui-Rangi, Tauraki and Maui-Mua. The first is the great god of all, the second has power over the air and all between heaven and earth, and the last rules over the earth.
Cannibalism is common to both nations; also polygamy.
The victor chief in New Zealand eats the eye of his slain enemy. In Tahiti the eye of the human sacrifice was offered by the priest to the officiating chief. In Hawaii that custom probably obtained formerly. The expression eia kuu maka, used as a mark of submission or devotion to another, most likely refers to some such ancient custom, but neither that nor cannibalism were practised in Hawaii, at least no trace of them remains in their traditions.
A New Zealand chief’s wife frequently hung herself on the death of her husband. There was no law or absolute necessity for so doing, but it was a custom whose observance was much applauded as the mark of a true and devoted wife.
In New Zealand the awa root is not used as a beverage, as in the other Polynesian tribes. The piper excelsum, called kawa grows there, but is not used. No salt nor spices is used with victuals.
Pigs and poultry were introduced by Europeans. Dogs and rats were indigenous, [[261]]or came with the Polynesians. The New Zealanders called the condor by the Polynesian name of poultry, moa. They then retained and transferred the name, though they did not succeed in bringing hens with them when they emigrated to New Zealand.
The legends about Maui, his adventures, his fishing up the earth from the water, his getting fire, his fish-hook, Manaiakalani, are many and mostly coincide with the Hawaiian legends. (See Grey’s “Polynesian Mythology.”) Those legends of Maui were recognized and more or less known through all the Polynesian groups, and hence probably arrived with the first settlers. One of the New Zealand traditions has it that the three Mauis concurred in the creation of man and, subsequently, of woman from him. On Hawaii and on the Society group a similar legend, mutatis mutandis, obtained.
There is also a legend of Lono (Rona), who fell in a well, caught in a tree, and was taken up to the moon, where he is still visible. This resembles somewhat the Hawaiian legend of Lonomoku or Hinahanaiakamalama, the wife of Aikanaka and reputed mother of Puna and Hema.
The New Zealanders call foreigners by the name, pakeha. (Any analogy to the Hawaiian, pakea, a kind of white stone?)
The constellation known as Orion’s belt was called by New Zealanders waka, the canoe.
The variation in legends indicate that the north and south islands of New Zealand received their inhabitants at different times.
TONGA ISLANDS.
The Tonga Islands had places of refuge, sacred enclosures, where fugitives were safe. The same in Hawaii.
The Tongans have a tradition that they were descendants from Bolotu, an island somewhere in the northwest, in this wise: Some of the inferior gods of Bolotu, to the number of about two hundred men and women left to visit the new land of Tonga after it had been pulled out of the water by the god Tangaloa. Having arrived, they concluded to stop and took their vessel to pieces. A few days afterwards some of them died, and one, being inspired, told them that having eaten the fruits and breathed the air of Tonga, they had lost their immortality, and that they were destined to people the world, and that all that surrounded them would also be perishable—“mea ma-ma.” They built a canoe to return to Bolotu, but they never succeeded in finding that land and returned sorrowfully to Tonga.
Another tradition reports that Tangaloa was fishing one day in the great ocean, when his leaden hook caught into something and on pulling at it a number of rocks came in sight, getting larger and larger, when the line broke and the Tonga Isles remained as they are. A place at Hounga is still shown where the hook caught in the rocks. That hook was still in the possession of the family of the Tui-Tonga some thirty years before Mariner’s time. The New Zealanders and Hawaiians have a similar tradition, but make Maui the hero of the tale.
Hogs were common in Tonga before its discovery. Dogs were scarce and mostly brought from the Vitis. Poultry abounded. [[262]]
The Tongans believe that heaven, the planets, ocean and the isle Bolotu existed before the earth; and the Tonga isles were fished up from the ocean by Tangaloa.
Mankind came from Bolotu, the principal residence of the gods, placed in the northwest. The souls of the egui or chiefs, after death, go to Bolotu. The souls of the matabule go there too, but to serve the former and the gods. The Tongans were not agreed as to whether the mua had a soul or not; but the tua positively had none, or if they had, it died with the body. The Tui-Tonga and the Veachi descend in direct line from two of the principal gods.
The Tongans reckon about three hundred primitive gods, of which about twenty only are honored with temples and priests. Tali-ai-tubo is the god of war. Tui-fua-Bolotu presided over the divine assembly at Bolotu, but is less in power than the preceding. Hihuleo is a powerful god, worshiped by the Tui-Tonga family. Tubo-Toti, is the god of voyages. Alai Valu is the god consulted in sickness. Alo-Alo is the god of wind, rain, seasons and vegetation. Tangaloa, is the god of arts and inventions. Hala-Api-Api, Togui Uku, Mea and Tubo-Bugo are gods of the sea and voyages.
The universe reposes on the body of the god Maui. He is the giant among the gods, but has no temple nor priests. When he is fatigued lying in one position, he turns, and that is the cause of earthquakes.
The tabu system was much developed in Tonga in its minutiæ and operations. It is essentially the same through the entire Polynesian family; the variations in degree and intensity are local.
Tu-i-Tonga, the highest chief, descended from one of the gods that formerly visited Tonga. The respect shown him arises solely from his religious character. He was a kind of sovereign pontiff, and until modern times nothing of importance was done without consulting him. Veachi, another chief or egui of divine descent; second in rank to the Tu-i. The priests have no social consideration as such, unless they are inspired.
Hu, or the king, is the highest in power, but not in nobility. Egui, nobles, are allied and related to the families of Tu-i, Veachi or Hu. Matabule, the class just below the egui, are counsellors and officers. The title is hereditary, and the son does not enter the class of matabule until the father’s death. Until then he belongs to the class called mua, composed of the sons, brothers and descendants of matabule. The sons and brothers of a mua belong to the last class called tua until the death of the parent. The tua comprise all who do not come under one of the preceding categories of rank. They are the common people.
Hogs in Tonga are called buaka, as in Marquesas; in Hawaii, puaa.
The Tongans were not cannibals, but sometimes in imitation of the Vitians, it became a military point of honor for the young warriors to eat the flesh of an enemy slain in battle.
Among the Tongan dances were the hea, a very ancient and stately dance performed by men, and the ula, also very ancient, practised formerly only by the low classes, but a Tonga chief having seen it performed at Samoa,—where it was said to have been invented,—made it fashionable in Tonga. [[263]]
MARQUESAS.
From the Hiwaoa traditions and meles, collected by Mr. William Lawson, several cosmogonies seem to have existed among the Marquesans. I notice:
1. The Vanana na Tanaoa relates, that in the beginning there was no life, light or sound in the world; that a boundless night, Po (darkness) enveloped everything, over which Tanaoa and Mutuhei (silence) ruled supreme. Atea (light) sprang from Tanaoa, made war on him, drove him away and confined him within limits. Ono (sound) sprang from Atea and broke up Mutuhei. From the struggles between Tanaoa and Atea, Ono and Mutuhei, arose Atanua (shade).
Atea and Ono ruled the universe together as body and spirit (tino and uhane). Atea took Atanua for wife and begat their first-born, Tumea.
2. The legend of the pena-pena, creation, relates that Atea, the husband of Atanua, was the cause, root and begetter of all things. (“Atea te pepenua o te Aui te Fenua.”) From him were evolved or created the host of inferior deities, with particular attributes or occupations. On the orders of Atea, they broke through or picked through earth and sky, fenua and ani, and the land, papa appeared and was planted. The winds blew from Vevau to Hawaii, and back from Hawaii to Vevau, cooling and refreshing.
Pu te metani me Vevau
A-anu te tai o Hawaii
Pu atu te metani me Hawaii
A-anu te ao o Vevau
Nui-ia te papa e moe ana.
Atanua then conceived and bore the Night, Po-nui-o-Atea; after that she bore the Moon, Meama; after that she bore the Day-break (dawning), Ata; after that the Day, A-nui-o-Atea; and last of all was born Sound, Ono-nui-o-Atea. The scene of these series of creations seems to have extended from Vevau to Hawaii, “O Vevau me Hawaii” forming the refrain of each act of creation.
3. The legend of Mauikiiki relates that Mauiki was the older brother and Mau-ii was the younger. The younger one stove a hole in the head of the older one, and thus caused the sacred fire (ahi tapu) to flow all over the land. Through the hole in the skull of Mauiki, the fires and furies (na ii) rose up to the sky, but they were met by Kamaiko, the god of cold, who hurled them back again; and diverting them into the rocks, the soil, etc., put them out. The lord (te fatu) then gave to Mauiki a wife called Hina-te-Ao-ihi, or Hina-te-Ao-Tuakiina. When Mauiki feels wrathy and furious his inwards are soon cooled by strong winged winds, na metani si keheu; Mauiki having thus been quieted and peace restored, Atea proceeds with the work of creation, and all manner of animals, big and small, are created.
4. The legend Taikoko (the flood) states that the sea was rising; a house was built on the ocean for the preservation of life and animals; that the animals were marshalled by one man before and one man behind, the former called Fetu-Amo-Amo, the latter Ia-Fetu-Tini.
The following individuals are mentioned: Hina-touti-Ani, Hina-te-Ao-ihi and [[264]]Hina-te-Ao-Meha, females; Fetu-Moana, Fetu-Mau-Ani, Fetu-Amo-Amo and Ia-Fetu-Tini, males.
A turtle was sacrificed, and then the rain came in a cataclysm. After a while dry land appeared, and the vessel of Tanaoa, teetina o Tanaoa, appeared on the sea of Hawaii, whose mountain ridges began to shoot up out of the water. After that the teetina o Moepo appeared over the sea of Hawaii, land rose up more and more in Hawaii and Matahou and all were safely landed.
5. The Legends of the Take. The Marquesans call themselves the descendants from the Take o Take-hee-hee, their immediate progenitor being Tani, one of the twelve sons of Toho or the original Take. Having had commotions and wars among themselves, they were driven out of Take-hee-hee or Aheetake, as it is called in another legend. There are two accounts of the migrations of the Takes. They run in this wise:
| That of Atea: | That of Tani: | ||
| From Take-hee-hee | From Take-hee-hee | ||
| to Ahee-tai | to Ahee-take | ||
| to,, Ao-nuu | to,, Aonuu | ||
| to,, Papa-nui | to,, Papanui | ||
| to,, Take-hee | to,, Takehee | ||
| to,, Ani-take | to,, Howau | ||
| to,, Hawaii | to,, Ninioe | ||
| to,, Tuu-ma | to,, Ao-ewa | ||
| to,, Meaai | to,, Ani take | ||
| to,, Fiti-nui | to,, Ho vau | ||
| to,, Matahou | to,, Vevau | ||
| to,, Tona-nui | to,, Tuuma | ||
| to,, Mau-eva | to,, Meaai | ||
| to,, Piina | to,, Fitinui | ||
| over the ocean to Ao-maama (Marquesan Islands). | to,, Matahou | ||
| to,, Tona-nui | |||
| to,, Mau ewa | |||
| to,, Piina | |||
| over the ocean to Ao-maama, (Marquesan Islands). | |||
6. The following are the chiefs or founders who led the Take during their migrations:
- Makoiko founded the settlement Ahee-tai.
- Koui (k) and Koutea (w) founded the settlement Ao-nuu.
- Atea and Atanua founded the settlement Papanui.
- Papa-tana-oa and Heihei-tona founded the settlement Take-hee.
- Tani-oa-anu and Taneoa-ani founded the settlement Ani-tai.
- Tonafiti and Mawena founded the settlement Hawaii.
- Moepo and Taunea founded the settlement Tuuma.
- Ono-tapu and Moe-oe-ihea founded the settlement Meaai.
- Manuio and Atoomai founded the settlement Matahou.
Some of the above lands are thus described:
Aheetai was a mountain land, with a settlement at Taiao, another at Meini-takahua, and another near the water (lake or river) of Nuu-taea. [[265]]
Aonuu is called in the mele:
He henua hiwaoa mei Aheetai
He henua hiwahiwa Aomai.
Faaina ruled in Aonuu, and after him Anu-o-Aatuna. Afterwards the chief Atea killed Umai and civil wars drove him and many other Take to seek new homes in other lands.
Papanui is called a high table land, near the sea, vipua me te tai. Among the fugitives from Aonuu was a chief Tiki-Matohe and his wife Hina. They left with their followers and outfit of pigs, fowl and fruits in a double canoe, vaka hupu, and discovered the land of Papanui. The mele of Tani’s landing on Papanui states that the host Atea would, in honor of Tani, bring pigs from Ao-tumi, turtle from Ono-tapu and fowls from below Ii hawa and Nuu-teea.
Take-hee is called: “Tu hivaoa eeke i te hee.”
Anitai or Anitake. Of this it is said: “A kau papaua ia tai naenae.”
Hawaii is called: “Tai mamao uta oa tu te Ii.” In Hawaii the hupe, kohanui, mio and temanu trees were growing. Hawaii appears to have been subject to tremendous hurricanes, followed by famines. The following headlands or capes are mentioned in Hawaii: Fiti-tona-tapu, Pua, Ao, Ao-ena and Ao-oma. The mio tree was said to make good paddles. Two mountains are mentioned in Hawaii; one in the mele of Matahou of Hawaii, called Mouna-Tika-oe; the other in the mele of Tupaa, called Mauna-oa. The latter is said to have been raging (ii) on top and served as a landmark for Tupaa when he left Hawaii with his family and followers.
Tuuma is said to have been near to Hawaii: “Te Tuuma i Hawaii tata ae.”
Meaai: All that is said of this island is: “Mou ae te tupa tata eke na te tai.”
Matahou is the last land mentioned in this mele, and no other description given of it, than that it stood in the sea, “tu i te tai.”
Throughout these migrations the Take are represented as having come from below (mai iao), when coming from Aheetake, and going up (uka) to Matahou.
Throughout the Polynesian groups, within the tropics, when a land is spoken of as iao ilalo, iraro of the speaker’s place, it invariably means to the leeward, before the prevailing trade wind. This wind being from northeast or southeast, these migrations pursued a course from west to east, which suggests a descent from Asia or the Asiatic Archipelago.
The word take, as expressing a nation or a race, is probably an archaism of the Polynesian language; its condensed and modern form being tai, as I find the latter form used interchangeably with the former in some of the meles, as Aai-tai for Ani-take, Ahee-tai for Ahee-take. The word tai occurs with the same meaning in the Tonga Islands, where this expression is common—Kai Fiti, Viti people: Kai Tonga, Tonga people; in Hawaiian, kakai, a family. The older word, take, is found, however, in several places: “Ai-tu-take,” an island of the Hervey group, and “Oni-take,” a place on said island; “Vaetake,” a bay in Uahuka, one of the Marquesas Islands.
In the mele of Te mohoina o Papanui, Tiki is called the first man: “O Tiki to matou Motua, oia te enate mua”: This is Tiki Matoho and his wife Hina, or Tiki Matoho is a namesake of the first Tiki. [[266]]
[1] The traditions of the inhabitants of Viti are those given by G. L. Domeny de Rienzi, L’Univers Pittoresque, Vol. 3, Paris, 1836. [↑]
[2] Material relating to the Fijians is from “Fiji and Fijians,” by Rev. Thos. Williams, New York, 1859. [↑]
[3] Information in regard to New Zealand traditions is obtained largely from L’Univers Pittoresque, by G. L. Domeny de Rienzi, Paris, 1836, and Polynesian Mythology, by George Grey, London, 1855. [↑]