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.