Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros21Milieux naturels et ethnoécologieAncient Hawaiian house lots and t...

Milieux naturels et ethnoécologie

Ancient Hawaiian house lots and their flora: a review of Great Māhele plant claims with a special focus on Pritchardia (loulu) palms

Les anciennes parcelles à usage d'habitation hawaïennes et leur flore : une analyse des revendications du Grand Māhele, axée spécifiquement sur les palmiers Pritchardia (loulu)
Brien A. Meilleur

Résumés

Une analyse des archives du registre autochtone du Grand Māhele – un programme de redistribution des terres hawaïennes mis en place au milieu du xixe siècle – nous mène à une meilleure compréhension de la flore entourant les anciennes parcelles à usage d'habitation de l’archipel. Si l’on en sait beaucoup sur la gestion et l’utilisation des plantes indigènes, endémiques et introduites par les Polynésiens, ainsi que sur leur répartition dans les paysages hawaïens sauvages et domestiqués, la composition floristique des plantes cultivées aux abords des habitations n’est que peu documentée. Ceci est vrai de la période qui suit immédiatement le contact avec l’occident (1778) mais aussi des décennies suivant l’arrivée des missionnaires américains et européens dans les années 1820 et 1830, et du xixe siècle en général. Les résultats de cette analyse sont présentés ici, notamment les plantes revendiquées dans le registre autochtone et celles qui sont explicitement revendiquées près des habitations identifiées et décrites. Le résultat le plus remarquable est sans doute l’importance des palmiers Pritchardia (loulu) endémiques cultivés au milieu du xixe siècle autour des résidences hawaïennes, non seulement par rapport au nombre de revendications établies pour loulu (63) mais aussi par rapport au nombre effectif des loulu revendiqués individuellement (272), ainsi que par leur répartition sur l’archipel hawaïen. L’intérêt d’utiliser ces archives pour les recherches ethnobiologiques anciennes y est souligné.

Haut de page

Dédicace

In memory of Jacques Barrau

Texte intégral

Introduction

1Much is known today about traditional Hawaiian subsistence … about horticulture and arboriculture, about fishing and pisciculture, and about gathering of wild plants and animals—especially birds, but next to nothing is known about what Hawaiians planted near their homes. Drawing data from mid-19th century Great Māhele records where Hawaiian commoners (makaʽāinana) submitted claims for land and other assets, the objectives of this paper are to inventory the plants claimed, identify those claimed around residences, and then to suggest why these plants were placed there. The discussion will ultimately move to one group of species that dominated house lot plantings—loulu palms in the genus Pritchardia—and an attempt will be made to explain their unexpected presence there. A major surprise of this research was not only the discovery of the key position of Pritchardia species in mid-19th century Hawaiian house lots, but the dominance of one species—P. maideniana Becc.—occurring in over 96% of the loulu claims, the vast majority of which were located near residences on the leeward side of the archipelago’s largest island of Hawaiʽi.

2A near-consensus exists today that the Hawaiian Islands were colonized by ocean-going Polynesians around 1000-1100 AD (Athens et al. 2014), probably setting out from one of the Central-Eastern Polynesian island groups, possibly the Marquesas (Allen 2014). In the seven or eight hundred years between then and 1778 when Hawaiʽi was “discovered” by the English explorer James Cook, the few original Hawaiians—perhaps augmented by return-trip voyages—grew into a major, chiefly-religious, hierarchically-organized Polynesian society. Subsistence and material essentials were drawn mostly from wet and dry root-crop horticulture, arboriculture and pisciculture and from a range of wild marine and terrestrial resources (Meilleur 2019 : 307 for refs.). In the decades immediately following the arrival of non-Polynesians, the influence of whalers, fur traders and European and American merchants was strongly drawing Hawaiian culture into the Western world. During the 1820s and 1830s and thereafter, with the influx of American and English missionaries and an ever-increasing number of merchant capitalists, the disruptive effects of the Euro-American incursion dramatically accelerated societal change and ancient subsistence strategies (Sahlins 1992 : 2-4). As we will see below, by the late 1840s, the plants considered to be important enough to be claimed in the Great Māhele comprised not only a majority of ancient cultigens and other useful plants, including loulu palms and other trees, but a good number of introduced species.

3The first detailed accounts of ancient Hawaiian society and culture appeared in the mid- to late 19th century in the works of Hawaiian intellectuals like David Malo, John Papa ʽIʽi and Samuel Kamakau, followed by studies produced by early Bishop Museum anthropologists (Kirch 1996 : 7). This trajectory developed rapidly from the 1950s on via ever-more-sophisticated research initiatives undertaken by historians, ethnologists and archaeologists studying the traditional Hawaiian way-of-life. More features of ancient Hawaiian social structure, religious belief and practice, economic behavior and environmental management were revealed over the subsequent decades, tracing Hawaiian population growth and cultural development from first colonization into the historical period. As a result, much is now known about the plants and animals and the sea- and land-use strategies that constituted the core of traditional Hawaiian subsistence (see below). Much is understood about the staple crops upon which Hawaiian socio-economic growth was based and upon the land modifications and management decisions that Hawaiians deployed for approximately 800 years as they built and sustained a native population of perhaps three hundred thousand people (Schmitt 1968 : 10). The present paper aims to contribute to this research trajectory by narrowly focusing on one of the poorest known components of the ancient Hawaiian economy and way-of-life, the plants that were grown in residential house lots.

Methodology

4Because the ancient Hawaiian life-way is now so drastically altered, consulting with Native Hawaiians today on ancient house lot plantings was, unfortunately, not a realistic option. I am not Hawaiian and, moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic prevented me from travelling to Hawaiʽi to undertake field research of any kind. In order to investigate what had been planted traditionally near former Hawaiian residences, I oriented my effort toward the consultation of archival documents, an approach advocated already by Kirch nearly forty years ago (1985 : 310). While engaged in earlier research on Hawaiian plant use (Meilleur et al. 1997, 2004) and environmental conceptualization (Meilleur 2019), I became acquainted with the Native Register (NR) of claims found within what’s now called the Great Māhele, a land division program created by the Hawaiian kingdom in 1846. The intentions of this initiative were to shift control (now called “ownership”) of a substantial part of land and other property from the mōʽī (the Hawaiian king), his high chiefly deputies (the aliʽi) and their land stewards (the konohiki) into fee simple private property. A compilation of over 14,500 written records called the Native Register (NR) documented the land and related claims made by Hawaiians mostly between 1848 and 1854. That part of the NR written in Hawaiian is called Native Testimony (NT) and the part translated then into English is called Foreign Testimony (FT). Most claims were made by Hawaiian commoners (makaʽāinana) for the supposed purpose of transferring control of some part of the land and other resources into their hands (Chinen 1958; Kameʽeleihiwa 1992 : 295+). Despite seemingly good intentions, the Māhele ultimately captured only a fraction of the claims that could have been made by the 85,000-95,000 Hawaiians of that time (Schmitt 1968 : 70). This may have been due mostly to poor comprehension of the concept of private property and of a process driven mostly by foreigners (Kameʽeleihiwa 1992 : 295+; but see Linnekin 1987:27-28). In the end, commoners received fewer than 30,000 acres, or less than one percent of the land on the eight main islands (see Figure 1), out of a total of over 4 million acres (Chinen 1958 : 31; Kameʽeleihiwa 1992 : 343; Sahlins 1992 : 9). Women received few awards (Linnekin 1987 : 21; Sahlins 1992 : 188).

Figure 1 : The main Hawaiian Islands

Figure 1 : The main Hawaiian Islands

5In earlier work using the FT I had found that most claims filed by commoners were made for cultivated lands, their associated cultigens, and for residences. When returning my attention to these records, I learned that the agricultural lands most often claimed were cited in Hawaiian as māla, kīhāpai and loʽi—usually translated as gardens, fields or patches … loʽi being flooded parcels—while the residences claimed were most often cited in Hawaiian as pāhale, kauhale or kahua hale, with these latter terms usually translated in the FT as house lots (see also Pukui & Elbert 1986). Collectively, the accounts citing cultivated land, their crops and house lots constituted the vast majority of claims made by commoners. However, examination of over one thousand records also revealed scores of claims for non-staple plants and, especially, for trees. It’s not clear why some Hawaiians claimed non-staples along with land and residences while others didn’t. Perhaps the most likely reason for this is that commoners “were required to prove that they actually cultivated those lands” (Chinen 1958 : 30), and it’s possible that some people believed that by stating they had planted trees and other vegetation near their dwellings they felt that this might increase the likelihood that their claims would be accepted. Other possible explanations are that the instructions given to claimants varied by island and/or district (Linnekin 1987 : 16, 22) or simply because some people were motivated to claim what they felt to be valuable. It’s also possible that some missionaries or other foreigners encouraged makaʽāinana to claim non-staple plants and possibly trees, though Sahlins (1992 : 215) states … that “the people … were instructed not to enter every tree or hole in the rock … in their land claims, as it would unduly burden the commission.” Further research may eventually shed more light on this question.

6Regardless, in reviewing the Māhele NR claims, I was often struck by their detail and by their potential for revealing information about ancient plant use and in particular house lot plantings. Drawings made by Webber during Cook’s interactions with Hawaiians in 1778 and 1779, and then several decades later by Heddington, Ellis and others, often show vegetation surrounding residences, but their associated written descriptions—other than sometimes mentioning coconuts (Cocos nucifera L.)—generally fail to identify the observed plants (see e.g., Cordy 2000 : 301-308; Kirch 1985 : 3). I was thus motivated to see what patterns might emerge from an inspection of the NR claims, and I was especially keen to document which plants had been claimed and where within the ancient Hawaiian land-use system.

Plants claimed in the Māhele Native Register (NR)

7The “data mining” operation of the Māhele NR focused on Foreign Testimony (FT) records, using plant name searches in Hawaiian and in English. While matching the Hawaiian and/or English plant names with their Latin equivalents was usually straightforward, it was occasionally unclear which species was being claimed (Table 1, fn1). Presented in Table 1, alphabetically in Hawaiian, are 40 of the 66 plants for which at least five claims were made in the NR. In many records the location of claimed plants was not given, but when house lot locations were cited, these are highlighted in bold in the “Native Register claim numbers” column of this table. When plant locations were signaled for one or another of the Hawaiian cultivation zones, this information is included in the “Brief notes on plants as claimed” column. Table 2 immediately below Table 1, ranks the twenty-one most frequently claimed plants.

Table 1 : Forty of the 66 species of plants claimed in the Māhele Native Register (NR) between approximately 1846 and 18541, for which at least five claims were made. The Hawaiian names, claim numbers and unattributed citations in the Brief Notes column are from FT transcriptions located in the Waihona Aina “Māhele Records” database, resulting from key word searches. Claim numbers in bold signify plant claims in house lots, that is, in pāhale, kauhale or kahua hale. Thirty-seven plants were claimed in house lots at least once, representing about 56% of the 66 plants claimed. Brief notes provide summaries on location and/or on ecotope2, that is, where the claimed plants were cultivated or sited when this information is given, along with additional information to help interpret more-difficult-to-decipher claims3. Some plants mentioned infrequently as boundaries are not included (e.g., hibiscus … 158; naio … 2532; aki … 4927). This table presents a sizeable but non-comprehensive list of the plants claimed in the NR. Under “Status” I = Indigenous plant, E = Endemic plant, PI = Polynesian introduction, P-CI = Post-Cookian introduction.

Indigenous, endemic or Hawaiian-introduced plants

Indigenous, endemic or Hawaiian-introduced plants

Post-Cookian introductions6

Post-Cookian introductions6

1 The Māhele Native Register (NR) contains over 14,500 records in Hawaiian (NT) and in English (FT). As a space-saving measure, of the 66 plants claimed only the 40 with more than five claims are shown here (Tables 3 and 4 show the plants not cited here). The search for plant claims was complicated by duplicate and/or by difficult-to-interpret claims. Most claims citing plants in Hawaiian didn’t use modern spelling. For example, the okina (glottal stop) was usually absent and the shorter Hawaiian names like /sugarcane or niu/coconut, among others, would return hundreds of records where the plant name was “buried” in a personal or place name. It was unrealistic to try to visualize all these claims. In contrast, searches using one plant name often revealed other plants, and many claims possibly overlooked were discovered this way. English translations for many Hawaiian plants were also found in the FT and their use in word searches resulted in other discoveries. There may be claimed plants that were missed, probably because the key words used did not capture them. Because searches for kalo (taro) and ʽuala (sweet potato), recognized as the Hawaiian staples of the mid-19th century, would have returned many hundreds of claims, these terms were not specifically searched. The same is true for ʽuala kahiki (Irish potato), a post-Cookian introduction. Since only a fraction of makaʽāinana made claims and not all of the NR records were searched, the numbers presented here and in the other tables must be underestimates. It was also sometimes not clear that a plant was actually claimed in a house lot (see the “Brief notes” column), thus several determinations relied on best judgement and are subject to interpretation. As a consequence, further research involving the NR plant claims may modify somewhat the rankings presented here and in Tables 2-6.
2 Several Hawaiian ecotopes (Meilleur 2019) are cited in plant claims in the FT. The most commonly encountered are kula (“lowland plain”), māla, kāhapai and loʽi (“garden or cultivated patch”), and pali (“cliff or steep place”).
3 This effort focused on the claims of Hawaiian commoners (makaʽāinana). When identifiable, claims made by haole (non-Hawaiian), aliʽi (chief) and konohiki (land steward) were excluded, as it’s less likely that members at least of the first two groups were much involved in subsistence activities in the mid-19th century. A cursory examination of claims made by haole and aliʽi found that they claimed few plants … rather they focused on metes and bounds and on the possession histories of their claimed properties. Some konohiki worked the land during this period and some plants are mentioned in their claims (e.g., 3189). Nearly all the plant claims cited here are identified to island, district, ahupuaʽa and ʽili—often to moʽo and occasionally to paukū—the latter three being the smallest of the Hawaiian politico-economic units cited. Hawaiian land divisions were administered through a hierarchy of chiefs (aliʽi). In descending order of size and consequence these are moku or mokupuni (island), moku or mokuʽāina (district), ʽokana or kalana (sub-district), ahupuaʽa, ʽili, moʽo and paukū. Their dimensions, form, importance and, at the lower levels even their presence, varied among the islands and districts. The ahupuaʽa and their ʽili and moʽo subdivisions, cited in almost all the retained plant claims, were administered by konohiki, with the makaʽāinana responsible for the great majority of agricultural labor. It was at the ʽili and moʽo levels where most of the land types, house lots, and plant claims were situated in the NR records. More exact geo-location data on the plant claims than that presented here could be obtained from an analysis of the ahupuaʽa and especially the ʽili and the moʽo cited, but this was beyond the scope of this study.
4 Hawaiian names in this column are as found in the FT but with the spelling updated according to the Hawaiian Dictionary of Pukui and Elbert (1986 … also cited here as P&E). Translations into English in the adjacent column were in most cases given in the mid-19th century records, though sometimes only the English name was found (e.g., “corn”).
5 Latin epithets were assigned to the claimed plants using best judgement. In some cases, as noted, the scientific identification of the plant claimed is questionable.
6 For an excellent summary of post-Cookian plant introductions, see Nagata 1985. According to this author, “At least 111 plants are known to have been introduced during the six decades following Cook’s arrival … Sixty-five are fruits, vegetables, or other economic plants, 15 may have been brought for their ornamental value.”

Table 2 : The 21 plants most commonly claimed in the Māhele NR, ordered by frequency of claims

Table 2 : The 21 plants most commonly claimed in the Māhele NR, ordered by frequency of claims

While probably quite accurate, the rankings found in Tables 2-6 present only what might then have been true, as they are based solely on data from Table 1 (see fn1).

8Of the 66 plants claimed in the NR, 38 or about 58% were “pre-Cookian” (indigenous, endemic or Polynesian introductions)—that is, they are plants associated with the ancient Hawaiian way-of-life before the arrival of Europeans. Table 3 below ranks these 38 plants by the frequency of their NR claims.

Table 3 : The 38 indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced plants claimed in the FT, ranked by frequency of claims. Kalo (taro) and ʽuala (sweet potato) claims, in the hundreds, were not counted. See the “Brief notes” column in Table 1 for comments on more-difficult-to-interpret species. The “Ethnobotanical and cultural notes” in Table 6 below provide information on those plants most commonly claimed in house lots in relation to all claims for the same species. The equivalent English names are as found in Tables 1 and 2

Table 3 : The 38 indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced plants claimed in the FT, ranked by frequency of claims. Kalo (taro) and ʽuala (sweet potato) claims, in the hundreds, were not counted. See the “Brief notes” column in Table 1 for comments on more-difficult-to-interpret species. The “Ethnobotanical and cultural notes” in Table 6 below provide information on those plants most commonly claimed in house lots in relation to all claims for the same species. The equivalent English names are as found in Tables 1 and 2

9Of the 66 plant species claimed in the NR (Table 1), 27 or 41% were “post-Cookian” introductions—that is, plants that had been brought to Hawaiʽi from elsewhere after Cook’s arrival and which had been, to a greater or lesser extent, naturalized or adopted into Hawaiian landscapes. This list of plants and the frequency at which they were claimed are presented in rank order in Table 4 below.

Table 4 : The 27 post-Cookian plants claimed in the NR, ordered by frequency of claims. See the “Brief notes” column in Table 1 for comments on more-difficult-to-interpret species and the Table 6 “Ethnobotanical and cultural notes” column for sketches on the more commonly claimed post-Cookian introductions

Table 4 : The 27 post-Cookian plants claimed in the NR, ordered by frequency of claims. See the “Brief notes” column in Table 1 for comments on more-difficult-to-interpret species and the Table 6 “Ethnobotanical and cultural notes” column for sketches on the more commonly claimed post-Cookian introductions

10Apart from ranking the 21 most frequently claimed plants in the NR along with similar breakdowns for the indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced species and the post-Cookian introductions, Tables 2, 3 and 4 provide a measure of the importance of these species to mid-19th century Hawaiians … that is, if we accept that a correlation exists between the number of plants claimed in the NR and their societal value at that time. Until now, such statements for both domesticated and wild plants in ancient Hawaiʽi resulted from qualitative appraisals (Abbott 1992, Krauss 1993, Neal 1948); the quantitative rankings of the claimed species as shown here thus provide a more solid footing from which such declarations can be made. However, it must be noted that the Māhele records furnish data on relative plant importance to Hawaiians some 70 years after Western incursion into the islands and the introduction by then of over one hundred plants from elsewhere in the world (Nagata 1985). These exotic species were accompanied by countless other changes to Hawaiian culture (Kameʽeleihiwa 1992 : 83+; Kirch & Sahlins 1992; Sahlins 1987 : 140-141). As Kirch pointed out (1985 : 247), we cannot assume that contact-era patterns are wholly reflective of the ancient Hawaiian life-way. Indeed, as these tables show, many reorientations in plant use had occurred by the mid-19th century. While the traditionally-known Hawaiian flora still dominated the NR claims, in fewer than 70 years substantial inroads had been made into Hawaiian ethnobotany by introduced plants. In fact, six species, ʽuala kahiki (Irish potato), ʽalani (orange tree), kope (coffee), ipu haole (watermelon), pata (tobacco) and pāpipi (prickly pear cactus), ranked in the top group of all plants claimed, with orange, coffee, and prickly pear also ranking in the top ten of plants claimed in house lots as a percentage of all claims for those same species (Tables 5 and 6 below). Nevertheless, Hawaiians were discerning in the post-Cookian plants that they grew and claimed, seemingly showing considerable cultural resistance toward what was a growing onslaught of introduced species. Indeed, fewer than half of the 80 or so fruits, vegetables and other economic plants introduced by then (Nagata 1985) were claimed, demonstrating that Hawaiians of that period still placed more cultural value on their traditional flora.

11Table 2 thus reveals a sustained mid-19th century Hawaiian interest in many of the most important ancient Hawaiian economic plants, in fact, seven of the top ten claimed plants fit this profile. While claims for the traditional Hawaiian staples taro and sweet potato—probably in the many hundreds—were not counted for practical reasons, these and the high number of claims for screwpine (hala), paper mulberry (wauke), banana (maiʽa), bottlegourd (ipu) and coconut (niu) accord well with what are widely believed to be among the most prominent of the ancient Hawaiian economic plants. The biggest surprises from these tables, in my view, are the 63 claims for loulu (Table 1), their eleventh position among all plants claimed (Table 2), their eighth position among the claimed indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced plants (Table 3), their top position among the plants claimed in house lots (Table 5 below) and their second position among the claimed house lot plants calculated as a percentage of all claims for the same species or group of species (Table 6 below). If we exclude taro and sweet potato, largely dominating all plant claims, these compilations demonstrate that the frequency of loulu claims is comparable to or even greater than that for many of the generally-accepted high-value Hawaiian ethnobotanical plants. For example, sugarcane (), Indian mulberry (noni), kava (ʽawa), breadfruit (ʽulu) and bamboo (ʽohe) were less often claimed than loulu, while yam (uhi), arrowroot (pia) and ti () had even fewer claims. Only beach cordia (kou) surpasses loulu as a percentage of house lot claims in relation to all claims for the same species or group of species. What was it about the loulu palms that made them seemingly so important, and why were most of them, when claimed, as we will see below, planted in house lots? The discussion that follows will focus primarily on Pritchardia palms and their unexpected prominence in mid-19th century Hawaiian culture, emphasizing their presence near Hawaiian dwellings. I will also offer suggestions to explain the placement of the other plants commonly grown near Hawaiian residences.

Hawaiian house lots

12While there is some floristic overlap with contemporary Polynesian home garden composition in Tonga and the Marquesas, where breadfruit, coconut, banana, sugarcane and sea hibiscus are still commonly grown along with traditional though non-Hawaiian root crops and trees, the vast majority of modern home gardens in those islands now also contain many introduced fruit and ornamental trees and fragrant shrubs (Clarke & Thaman 1993). In mid-19th century Hawaiʽi, this was not yet the case (see Table 5 below). The top five plants claimed in house lots had ancient Hawaiian economic or societal value, signifying then that Hawaiians still preferred a suite of older culturally-important plantings near their homes, though, as also seen, inroads were being made by introduced species (see also Kirch 1992 : 23).

Table 5 : The top ten plants most often claimed in Hawaiian house lots

Table 5 : The top ten plants most often claimed in Hawaiian house lots

1 Claims for kuku, of uncertain identification (Table 1), were added to pāpipi claims to reach this total

13Another way to gauge the relative importance of plants claimed near mid-19th century Hawaiian dwellings is to calculate the number of times plants were claimed there as a percentage of the number of times they were claimed overall in the NR. Table 6 below ranks the ten plants with the highest percentage of house lot claims in relation to all claims for the same species.

Table 6. The ten plants most commonly claimed in house lots in mid-19th century Hawaiʽi, ranked as a percentage of all claims for the same species. Only plants with 20 or more overall claims are included. Cultural and ethnobotanical notes are added to assist interpretation

Table 6. The ten plants most commonly claimed in house lots in mid-19th century Hawaiʽi, ranked as a percentage of all claims for the same species. Only plants with 20 or more overall claims are included. Cultural and ethnobotanical notes are added to assist interpretation

1 The ethnobotanical summaries of “traditional” Hawaiian plant use were compiled for the indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced species mostly from Abbott (1992), Krauss (1993) and Neal (1948). Information on the three post-Cookian introductions (pāpipi, ʽalani and kope) comes from the NR (Table 1) and from Nagata (1985)

14As Tables 5 and 6 show, loulu palms were not the only plants regularly claimed in mid-19th century Hawaiian house lots. Accordingly, before discussing possible explanations for the palm’s prominence there, a look first at the other plants often claimed near Hawaiian residences is in order. There are no straightforward answers for why these other plants were grown around dwellings. The position of kou, also ranked highly among all plants claimed in the NR (Table 2), is perhaps best explained by its value as a shade tree. The same may be true for hau (Hillebrand 1888 : 149; `I`i 1959 : 61) and niu, particularly if these species had been planted in clusters, and there are indeed multiple claims for their being planted in “groves.” Coconut not only produced many favored food products, but was extremely valuable in other domestic uses, and hau was a key source of bast. Hala, on the other hand, furnished the principal material for floor coverings and sleeping mats, both subject to daily wear and tear. Logic tells us that screwpine’s proximity to living and sleeping quarters would be convenient, thus providing a possible explanation for its presence near dwellings (see also Kirch 1992 : 63). Larger hala clumps also produce shade, and it was a key medicinal plant (Meilleur et al. 1997 : 11-12). Pāpipi or prickly pear cactus, though a post-Cookian introduction, appears to have become a fairly common fencing material by the mid-19th century. With the advent of free-roaming introduced animals like cattle and horses, the low rock walls that bounded some house lots may not have served so well in discouraging passage of these animals. Several NR claims (e.g., 6183) refer to this problem (see also Linnekin 1983 : 176). Spiny pāpipi, much taller and essentially impenetrable when fully grown, seems to have been viewed then by some Hawaiians as a better deterrent (see the Wailua Church painting in Sahlins 1992 : 159). ʽUlu, like niu, would have supplied Hawaiians a fairly steady supply of readily-available food, though nearby trees were perhaps as important in providing feed for domesticated Hawaiian dogs, pigs and chickens, while also furnishing a measure of shade (Meilleur et al. 2004). Considering kukui, placing these trees with their oil-producing nuts near at hand would have been practical in supplying the lighting essentials constantly needing replenishment. Shade, again, may have been another positive for their placement near residences. Orange trees and pineapple would supply ready-to-eat fruits rich in vitamins and minerals and may have been a novelty for “in-hand” consumption, thereby also diversifying the traditional Hawaiian dietary pattern. Coffee, on the other hand, could have provided a ready source of cash in a growing money economy if enough trees were planted, and the many claims for coffee grown outside house lots, in māla and kīhāpai (Table 1), seem to support this possibility. The pleasant fragrance of coffee flowers—like for the male hala (Meilleur et al. 1997 : 151) and orange tree flowers—may also have been a value-added factor in the placement of these plants near residences. Each of these regularly-claimed house lot plants thus appears to have made a valuable contribution to mid-19th century Hawaiian domestic needs close to home and, though hypothetical, this may help explain their regular occurrence near dwellings. The same is not obvious for the plants most often claimed in Hawaiian house lots: the loulu or Pritchardia palms.

Pritchardia (loulu) palms in ancient Hawaiʽi

15The widespread natural distribution of loulu palm species in the Hawaiian Islands prior to Polynesian settlement has been demonstrated by pollen core analyses (Athens 1997; Athens & Ward 1993 : 211), fossil presence (Burney et al. 2001) and tree mold evidence (Woodcock and Kalodimos 2005). Early botanical treatments recognized two species in Hawaiʽi (Hillebrand 1888 : 450)—P. gaudichaudii, called loulu lelo (but see Kamakau 1976 : 152), and P. martii, called loulu hiwa—though neither of these Hawaiian epithets returned records in the NR FT. Hillebrand suggested then that more species warranted recognition. Indeed, more species were subsequently described as taxonomic specialists and interest in the genus grew in Hawaiʽi (see Hodel 2012 : 2-5 for a history of the genus Pritchardia). Today 24 endemic Hawaiian species are accepted, of the 28 species known to occur worldwide (Hodel 2012). Three other Polynesian species, P. mitiaroana from the Cook Islands and the Tuamotus and P. thurstonii from eastern Fiji, are known along with P. pacifica, probably originally from Fiji but now widely planted throughout the Pacific. A fourth species, P. tahuatana, endemic to the Marquesas and recently described (Butaud & Hodel 2017), brings the Polynesian species total to 28. In Hawaiʽi, the loulu palms are sometimes single island endemics, though seven species occur on Kauaʽi and five each on Hawaiʽi Island, Maui and Oʽahu (Hodel 2012 : 17). Their extensive geographical distribution in pre-settlement lowland and mid-elevation wet and dry forests, perhaps especially on Oʽahu where they were found to be floristic dominants (Athens & Ward 1993 : 211; 1997:45), progressively diminished via land-clearing by ancient Hawaiians transforming natural landscapes into horticultural gardens for subsistence crop cultivation (Athens & Ward 1997 : 37). Prehistoric clearing, followed by Western contact and some 250 years of unrelenting development with associated land use changes, resulted in dramatic reductions in loulu numbers and natural distributions. Ten loulu are now federally-listed as endangered species (Chapin et al. 2004), while 12 are considered to be critically endangered or endangered by the IUCN (Hodel 2012). P. maideniana, listed critically endangered by the IUCN and endangered by the USFWS and, as discussed below, was probably the loulu palm most often planted in mid-19th century Hawaiian house lots. Hodel (2012 : 115) states that individuals of this species can grow to 70 feet (see also Beccari & Rock 1921 : 19 and photo 1). In 2012 its numbers were estimated to be around 50 wild individuals in seven small populations (Hodel 2012: 48), but by 2018 only nine mature wild plants were known (PEPP 2019).

Photo 1. P. maideniana. Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaiʽi Island (D. Hodel photo)

Photo 1. P. maideniana. Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaiʽi Island (D. Hodel photo)

Ethnobotany of the Hawaiian loulu

16Utilitarian applications for loulu, seemingly also called hāwane or wāhane, were mentioned by Malo, writing in the 1830s (1951 : xvii-xviii). He briefly describes “hawane, or loulu … used for battle spears” … also saying that the “nuts were eaten and its leaves are now used in making hats” (p. 21). Hillebrand (1888 : 450) similarly says that Hawaiians ate the “kernel or the fruit before it is ripe” and that leaves were employed in making fans and hats. Because of this, he concluded that “the trees are often found with only one or two leaves at the top of the bare trunk” … referring to plants he encountered in West Hawaiʽi. MacCaughey (1918 : 326) confirms that loulu kernels were “considered a great delicacy,” and Rock (1913 : 100) states that “excellent hats are made from the young fronds.” Fornander and Thrum (1919 : 656) also described loulu leaves for thatching, suggesting that tree trunks were employed as house timbers or posts (but see McCaughey 1918 : 322). Rock (in Beccari & Rock 1921 : 20) claimed the trunks were used in fencing. The principal authors treating Hawaiian ethnobotany (Abbott 1992; Krauss 1993; Neal 1948) generally repeat this information, though Neal (p. 98) also discussed loulu in the Hawaiian legend of Kaulu (see comparable references in Fornander &Thrum 1916-17, 1919). McDonald (1978 : 98) noted the role of seeds in lei-making, and Chun (1986 : 54) claimed that loulu ashes mixed with water were applied to skin rashes. Conversations I’ve had with Hawaiian artisan Kanaʽe Keawe (pers. comm.), who as a boy spent time in Miloliʽi on Hawaiʽi Island, indicated that when young he was given fresh loulu kernels by his grandmother “as a snack.” He also mentioned that immature leaf spikes were used by “old ladies” in weaving. Most recent work on the loulu species has focused on archaeological, phylogenetic, taxonomic and conservation issues.

Loulu in Hawaiian ritual

17Makaʽāinana traditionally provided their chiefs a portion of their food crops, other products and labor in exchange for permission to cultivate and live on the land controlled by those same chiefs (Linnekin 1983 : 171). In return, the chiefs were expected to ensure the fertility of the land and sea and commoner security through their ritual intercessions with appropriate Hawaiian deities (Malo 1951 : 61). In this regard, in 2008 I asked noted Hawaiian historian, Dorothy Barrère, about loulu. Her response (pers. comm.), based on her life’s work with ancient Hawaiian texts, was that it was reserved primarily for chiefs and that commoners growing loulu near their homes before the overthrow of the kapu (tabu) system probably did so on their behalf. This conclusion is substantiated by Malo who said that loulu leaves were used for thatching and wall filler in heiau temples, especially luakini, the principal religious and sacrificial structures reserved for Hawaiian kings, high chiefs and priests (pp. 157fn33, 159). Kamakau (1976), writing in the 1860s, and Wilkes (1845[4] : 506) amplify Malo’s statements on the ritual significance of loulu in the construction of sacred structures (see also ʽIʽi 1959 : 33-35). Fornander and Thrum (1919-1920 : 152) describe a “palm (loulu) temple service called Hulahula … of solemnity and severity,” performed at sacred luakini heiau where human sacrifice might occur … and in “which only the chiefs participated … whereby the king might learn … the favorable or ill auspices of coming events.” Valeri (1985 : 180) says that heiau loulu and the kapu loulu ritual undertaken there were intended to “bring peace for the duration of the reign of the king,” and that on at least one occasion it was also “performed … to remedy a malady that struck King Kamehameha and his principal queen.” Abbott (1992 : 15) believed that Pritchardia leaves were also “used to construct heiau loulu,” small religious shrines intended to ensure fishing success.

18It’s informative to compare the recent ethnobotanical treatment of the endemic Marquesan species P. tahuatana (Butaud & Hodel 2017 : 145-146)—called vahake or vahane (see also Hillebrand 1888 : 451)—with the economic uses and ritual applications of loulu in Hawaiʽi. Indeed, their ethnobotanical portrayal of P. tahuatana is similar to that presented above. In both instances, Pritchardia palms were grown in association with residences and as we will see below for Hawaiʽi, their practical uses were alike, and notches were cut in mature tree trunks enabling people to reach the fruits and leaves (MacCaughey 1918 : 323; see photo 2). Also very similar are the roles that P. tahuatana occupied in traditional Marquesan religion and its association with the chiefly class. When discussing uses for leaves, Butaud and Hodel state … “the most significant might have been for rituals performed by … [and] reserved for chiefs or priests.” Such applications included “wrapping chief’s food, adorning ritual structures [and] sacred artefacts” … inducing these authors to claim that “the leaves were mostly reserved for use by the aristocratic class.”

Photo 2. Notches in a mature P. maideniana trunk, Hōlualoa, North Kona, Hawaiʽi Island (D. Hodel photo)

Photo 2. Notches in a mature P. maideniana trunk, Hōlualoa, North Kona, Hawaiʽi Island (D. Hodel photo)

Loulu palm plantings in ancient Hawaiʽi

19While it’s unclear which species were involved, Hillebrand (1888 : 450) found that “It is not infrequently met with cultivated near native dwellings” in Hawaiʽi, referring to loulu “groves” he saw between Kailua and Kealakekua on Hawaiʽi Island, probably in the 1850s (see also MacCaughey 1918 : 327; Beccari & Rock 1921 : 7,19). Other early investigators also noted that loulu palms were planted in ancient Hawaiʽi, though they say little about locations. The loulu NR claims provide more detail in this regard.

20Confirming the observations of Hillebrand and others, consultation of the “Brief notes” in Table 1 shows that in the mid-19th century loulu were often “planted,” and several citations state that they had been “planted by the ancients” or “by people of olden times” (e.g., 6193 and 7806). Additionally, the Table 1 claim numbers in bold, reproduced in more detail in Table 7 below, indicate that loulu were regularly planted in house lots. The associated “Brief notes” also reveal that loulu were claimed elsewhere—at the seashore, in a māla, in kaluʽulu, in salt land—though in such citations cultivation is not always stated. On occasion claimants said that their occupation of claimed land dated from the time of Kamehameha I, the paramount chief who unified the islands in 1810. While the maximum age of Pritchardia species is not well understood, it may be from 70 to 100 years or more, with longevity possibly differing among species (Hodel pers. comm.). MacCaughey (1918 : 321) believed that some Pritchardia might live to be 150 years old. Several of the loulu cited in the mid-19th century claims could thus possibly have been planted well before the arrival of James Cook in 1778. A review of loulu citations from Table 1 shows that this practice occurred at least during the reign of Kamehameha I and for several decades thereafter. So where precisely were Hawaiians planting loulu palms? Table 7 summarizes geographical information on the 63 claims citing loulu in the Māhele records, on the 272 individual loulu plants claimed in those records, and on the probable Pritchardia species involved.

Table 7 : Claim numbers, in numerical order, for loulu (Pritchardia spp.) from Māhele NR records (Table 1), followed by claimant name, island, district, ahupuaʽa, and number of plants claimed1. Claim numbers in bold and underlined highlight the 37 loulu claims in house lots. Claim totals are summarized by island and district below the table along with the most likely Pritchardia species planted at those locations

Table 7 : Claim numbers, in numerical order, for loulu (Pritchardia spp.) from Māhele NR records (Table 1), followed by claimant name, island, district, ahupuaʽa, and number of plants claimed1. Claim numbers in bold and underlined highlight the 37 loulu claims in house lots. Claim totals are summarized by island and district below the table along with the most likely Pritchardia species planted at those locations

211 This table presents claims made by makaʽāinana resulting from key word searches for “loulu” and “palm.” Sixty-three valid claims were returned (records where “loulu” occurred in a personal or a place name were eliminated), for a total of 272 plants. In cases where “palm” alone was cited, Pritchardia species were always signified, while the terms “coconut palm” or “coconut” always meant Cocos nucifera. No valid records were returned using the key words hāwane and wāhane, cited by Pukui and Elbert (1986 : 62,212) as secondary terms designating Pritchardia nuts and perhaps the trees themselves. Nor were any valid records found for the term noulu, also cited by P&E271 as a lexical variant for loulu, or for lauli`i, equated with Pritchardia in the ʽIʽi glossary (1959 : 181). When phrases like “some loulu” or “a few palms” occurred in claims, three loulu were counted. In record 9893 where “1 [“mala” … garden or patch] of loulu palms” was claimed, three plants were again counted. The actual number of loulu plants implicated in such claims could easily have been more than three. It’s also worth noting that in many loulu claims, even when citing them as planted, the land type or ecotope is not given, and it’s reasonable to assume that many of the claimed loulu were planted in house lots. When added to the fact that a majority of commoners didn’t file claims, these points make it likely that the 272 individual loulu plants claimed in the NR represent only a fraction of the Pritchardia palms cultivated archipelago-wide in the mid-19th century, most of which, as we’ve seen, were grown near residences. Moreover, Sahlins (1992 : 192), in his discussion of makaʽānana attitudes toward the Māhele, concluded that “Hawaiians were noticeably nonchalant about claiming house sites,” and this stance, if common, must have had some effect on the overall number of loulu and other plants claimed near dwellings. The Pritchardia species identified as planted by island and district correspond to the species that occur naturally most closely to the cited areas, following Hodel (2012).

Loulu claims on Hawaiʽi Island (see Figure 2)

22Table 7 shows that the great majority of loulu claims archipelago-wide were made on Hawaiʽi Island: 59/63 or 94%. Of these 59 claims, 42 were made in North Kona and 12 in South Kona with 1 Kona claim unspecified, for a total of 55 or 93% of the Hawai`i Island claims. Of these, 34 or 62% were cited as occurring in house lots in the two Kona districts, with 28 or 82% of these claims occurring in North Kona. An even higher percentage of individual plants was claimed on the same island: 263/272 or nearly 97%, with 173 or 66% of these plants claimed near West Hawaiʽi residences. The vast majority of these, 165 loulu palms or 97%, were claimed in North Kona house lots.

Figure 2 : Hawaiʽi Island districts

Figure 2 : Hawaiʽi Island districts

Loulu palms in Hawaiian house lots, especially in North Kona

23The mid-19th century NR records show loulu palms to be the plants most claimed in Hawaiian house lots (Table 5), with the majority of these plantings occurring in West Hawaiʽi, and especially in North Kona (Table 7). Today we know that these palms were likely individuals of P. maideniana (photo 1 above), the Kona or Maiden’s loulu, the species now recognized for West Hawaiʽi and once seemingly distributed there naturally in strand areas and in low to mid-elevation mesic forests (Woodcock & Kalodimos 2005 : 495), and reputed for its ease of cultivation in a range of habitats (Hodel 2012 : 111-116).

24Though the immature kernels were a minor food source and the species had weaving and medicinal applications, and the leaves were employed in making hats, fans and rain gear—with these latter uses possibly increasing after Western contact and the elimination of the kapu system—such descriptions and uses still seem inadequate to account for the cultivation of so many loulu near commoner dwellings. In contrast, when considering Pritchardia applications in ancient Hawaiian religious ceremonies and as chiefly prerogatives, and that these plants were seemingly grown by commoners on behalf of those chiefs for ritual use, along with similar sacred roles and chiefly privilege associated with P. tahuatana in the Marquesas, while hypothetical, this seems to be a much more plausible explanation for why so many loulu were cultivated near Hawaiian residences in North Kona. In this regard, it bears noting that in the 18th century Kona was developing into the political and ceremonial center of Hawai’i Island, eventually becoming a major power archipelago-wide toward the end of that century (Cordy 2000 : 259+). Indeed, the pre-eminent chiefly Kamehameha line arose in West Hawaiʽi and the heiau located there ultimately became among the most important in the islands. Hawaiʽi was easily the most populated of the main islands at Western contact and for many decades afterwards (Schmitt 1968 : 42), with West Hawaiʽi eventually gaining economic, military, religious and political supremacy over the archipelago. This was where Kamehameha often resided in the late 18th century (Cordy 2000 : 346), and where he established his permanent residence in 1813. As makaʽāinana were known to cluster their residences around royal and ritual centers, certainly so after Western contact (Cordy 2000 : 262-362), it seems reasonable to believe that these people were growing loulu there, near their dwellings, for chiefly use. The loulu palm planted and claimed in North Kona house lots—P. maideniana—may thus have played a substantial ritual role in these important historical developments.

Summary and Conclusions

25After introducing the research problematic and the data-gathering methodology, 40 of the 66 plants claimed by Hawaiian commoners in the Māhele Native Register were presented in Table 1 along with their claim numbers. Those plants that had been identified in house lots were highlighted in bold. Notes intended to assist the interpretation of claims were added for each species. These plants were then ranked by frequency of claims (Table 2), the indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced species were distinguished from the post-Cookian exotics, and both groups were ranked separately by frequency of claims (Tables 3 and 4). The plants cited in house lots were then ranked using two measures of significance (Tables 5 and 6), with the Pritchardia or loulu palms found there to be of primary importance. The other plants commonly grown near residences were also identified and explanations for their presence there were proposed, showing them to have made substantial contributions in satisfying the domestic needs of Hawaiian commoners. The discussion then shifted to the loulu palms, to the number claimed archipelago-wide, and to a breakdown of where they were physically located by island, district and ahupuaʽa (Table 7). The Pritchardia species most likely to have been planted at each site were identified. Table 7 also revealed that loulu were overwhelmingly claimed near residences in Hawaiʽi Island’s North Kona district, and evidence further indicated the West Hawaiʽi endemic P. maideniana as the species most likely to have been planted there. A brief analysis attempted to determine why this species was so often cultivated and claimed in North Kona, and especially near makaʽāinana dwellings. Though hypothetical, the ritual demands placed on the Hawaiian high chiefs, the economic relationship that existed between them and commoners, and the natural presence and reputed ease of cultivation of the Kona loulu, combined with the emerging 18th century West Hawaiʽi chiefly-religious power base with its large commoner population—when considered with similar patterns found in the Marquesas—were evoked to account for the importance of loulu cultivation in Kona house lots. This conclusion, when joined to the fact that loulu were claimed more often in the Native Register than many other plants generally believed to be higher-value Hawaiian economic plants, suggests that their overall cultural status in ancient Hawaiʽi may need reevaluation. These results, coupled with what is now known about the Marquesan P. tahuatana, are reminders of the shared cultural heritage linking ancient central and eastern Polynesian societies. Such striking similarities in Pritchardia naming, use, ritual significance and placement when planted, appear to be particularly relevant to the ongoing debate on the original Polynesian departure point of the Hawaiian people.

26Underscoring what has been exposed here about the valued plants of mid-19th century Hawaiʽi, about the floristic composition of ancient Hawaiian house lots, and especially about the position there of loulu palms, is a reinforced appreciation of the usefulness of the Māhale Native Register as a key resource for examining Hawaiian culture during this tumultuous time in the archipelago’s history.

I am especially grateful to Waihona ʽAina and to Victoria Creed for allowing me long-distance access to the Māhele Native Register database. None of what has been exposed above would otherwise have been possible. I also express my sincere thanks to Don Hodel who encouraged me throughout this research, constantly offering stimulating conversation, helpful suggestions and the use of photos. David Lorence and Clyde Imada furnished appreciated bibliographic assistance, as did Melinda Allen who also provided valuable comments and suggestions. Amanda Cade and Nicolas Meilleur supplied helpful editorial support with the tables. To Michele Stephen-Hassard, thank you so much for discussing loulu with your mother, Dorothy Barrère, during her later years. Dorothy was an inspiration to me, not only as an incredibly knowledgeable and careful scholar of Hawaiian culture, but as a truly kind person always willing to share her time and erudition with me.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abbott I. 1992 – Lāʽau Hawaiʽi: Traditional Hawaiian uses of plants. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 193 p.

Allen M. 2014 – Marquesan colonisation chronologies and post-colonisation interaction: implications for Hawaiian origins and the ‘Marquesan Homeland’ hypothesis. Journal of Pacific Archaeology 5 (2) :1-17.

Athens S. 1997 – Hawaiian native lowland vegetation in prehistory. In : Kirch P. & Hunt T. (Ed.) Historical Ecology in the Pacific Islands: Prehistoric environmental and landscape change. New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press : 248-270.

Athens S. & Ward J. 1993 – Environmental change and prehistoric Polynesian settlement in Hawaiʽi. Asian Perspectives 32 (2) :205-223.

Athens S. & Ward J. 1997 – The Maunawili core: Prehistoric inland expansion of settlement and agriculture, Oʽahu, Hawaiʽi. Hawaiian Archaeology 6 : 37-51.

Athens S., Reith T. & Dye T. 2014 – A paleoenvironmental and archaeological model-based age estimate for the colonization of Hawaiʽi. American Antiquity 79 (1) :144-155.

Barrère D. 2008 – Personal communication.

Beccari O. & Rock J. 1921 – A monographic study of the genus Pritchardia. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum 8 :1-77.

Burney D. et al. 2001 – Fossil evidence for a diverse biota from Kauaʽi and its transformation since human arrival. Ecological Monographs 71 (4) : 615-641.

Butaud J.-F. & Hodel D. 2017 – A new species of Pritchardia from the Marquesas Islands with notes on the genus in French Polynesia. Palms 61 (3) : 139-154.

Chapin M., Wood K., Perlman S. & Maunder M. 2004 – A review of the conservation status of the endemic Pritchardia palms of Hawaii. Oryx 38 (3) : 273-281.

Chinen J. 1958 – The Great Mahele: Hawaii’s Land Division of 1848. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 34 p.

Clarke W. & Thaman R. 1993 – Agroforestry in the Pacific Islands: Systems for sustainability. [Chapter 5. Agroforestry in Polynesia, Chapter 7. Pacific Island Urban Agroforestry]. Tokyo, New York, Paris, United Nations University Press, 297 p. https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80824e/80824E00.htm

Chun M. 1986 – Hawaiian Medicine Book: He Buke Laau Lapaau. Honolulu, The Bess Press, 72 p.

Cordy R. 2000 – Exalted Sits the Chief: The ancient history of Hawaiʽi Island. Honolulu, Mutual Publishing, 464 p.

Fornander A. & Thrum Th. 1916-17, 1918-1919, 1919-1920 – The Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore, vols. 4, 5 and 6. Honolulu, Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum.

Hillebrand W. 1888 – Flora of the Hawaiian Islands. London, William & Norgate, 673 p.

Hodel D. 2012 – Loulu: The Hawaiian palm. Honolulu. University of Hawaiʽi Press, 190 p.

ʽIʽi J. 1959 – Fragments of Hawaiian History. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 183 p.

Kamakau S. 1976 – The Works of the People of Old: Na Hana a ka Poʽe Kahiko. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 170 p.

Kameʽeheihiwa L. 1992 – Native Land and Foreign Desires. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 424 p.

Keawe K. – Personal communication

Kirch P. 1985 – Feathered Gods and Fishhooks. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 349 p.

Kirch P. 1992 – The Archaeology of History. In : Kirch P. & Sahlins M. (Ed.), Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 201 p.

Kirch P. 1996 – Legacy of the Landscape. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 130 p.

Krauss B. 1993 – Plants in Hawaiian Culture. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 345 p.

Lebot V., Meilleur B. & Manshardt R. 1994 – Genetic diversity in Eastern Polynesian Eumusa bananas. Pacific Science 48 (1) : 16-31.

Linnekin J. 1983 – The hui lands of Keanae: Hawaiian land tenure and the Great Mahele. Journal of the Polynesian Society 92 (2) :169-188.

Linnekin J. 1987 – Statistical analysis of the Great Māhele. Journal of Pacific History 22 (1) : 15-33.

MacCaughey V. 1918 – The endemic palms of Hawaii: Pritchardia. The Plant World 21 (12) : 317-328.

Malo D. 1951 – Hawaiian Antiquities. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 278 p.

McDonald R. 1978 – Ka Lei. Honolulu, Topgallant Pub. Co., 178 p.

Meilleur B. 2019 – Hawaiian seascapes and landscapes: reconstructing elements of a Polynesian ecological knowledge system. Journal of the Polynesian Society 128 (3) : 304-336.

Meilleur B., Maigret M. & Manshardt R. 1997 – Hala and wauke in Hawaiʽi. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 7, 55 p.

Meilleur B., Jones R., Titchenal C.A. & Huang A. 2004 – Hawaiian Breadfruit: Ethnobotany, nutrition, and human ecology. Honolulu, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaiʽi at Manoa, 61 p.

Nagata K. 1985 – Early plant introductions in Hawaiʽi. The Hawaiian Journal of History 19 : 35-61.

Neal M. 1948 – In Gardens of Hawaii. Honolulu, The Museum, 805 p.

PEPP (Plant Extinction Prevention Program) 2019 – http://www.pepphi.org/ Consulted on-line.

Pukui M. & Elbert S. 1986 – Hawaiian Dictionary. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 572 p.

Rock J. 1913 – The Indigenous Trees of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, T.H. (Hawaiian Gazette), 518 p.

Sahlins M. 1987 – Islands of History. Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 180 p.

Sahlins M. 1992 – Historical Ethnography. In : Kirch P. & Sahlins M. (Ed.), Anahulu: The Anthropology of History in the Kingdom of Hawaii. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 243 p.

Schmitt R. 1968 – Demographic statistics of Hawaii: 1778-1965. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press, 271 p.

Staples G. & Herbst D. 2005 – A Tropical Garden Flora. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press, 908 p.

Valeri V. 1985 – Kingship and Sacrifice: Ritual and society in ancient Hawaii. Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 446 p.

Wagner W., Herbst D. & Sohmer S. 1990 – Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaiʽi. Honolulu, University of Hawaiʽi Press and Bishop Museum Press, 2 v.

Wilkes Ch. 1845 – Narrative of the United States Expedition, v. 4. Philadelphia, Lea and Blanchard.

Woodcock D. & Kalodimos N. 2005 – Tree mold evidence of loulu palm (Pritcharia sp.) forest on the Kona coast, Hawaiʽi. Pacific Science 59 (4) : 491-498.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1 : The main Hawaiian Islands
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 234k
Titre Indigenous, endemic or Hawaiian-introduced plants
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 369k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 364k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 378k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 362k
Titre Post-Cookian introductions6
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 373k
Légende 1 The Māhele Native Register (NR) contains over 14,500 records in Hawaiian (NT) and in English (FT). As a space-saving measure, of the 66 plants claimed only the 40 with more than five claims are shown here (Tables 3 and 4 show the plants not cited here). The search for plant claims was complicated by duplicate and/or by difficult-to-interpret claims. Most claims citing plants in Hawaiian didn’t use modern spelling. For example, the okina (glottal stop) was usually absent and the shorter Hawaiian names like /sugarcane or niu/coconut, among others, would return hundreds of records where the plant name was “buried” in a personal or place name. It was unrealistic to try to visualize all these claims. In contrast, searches using one plant name often revealed other plants, and many claims possibly overlooked were discovered this way. English translations for many Hawaiian plants were also found in the FT and their use in word searches resulted in other discoveries. There may be claimed plants that were missed, probably because the key words used did not capture them. Because searches for kalo (taro) and ʽuala (sweet potato), recognized as the Hawaiian staples of the mid-19th century, would have returned many hundreds of claims, these terms were not specifically searched. The same is true for ʽuala kahiki (Irish potato), a post-Cookian introduction. Since only a fraction of makaʽāinana made claims and not all of the NR records were searched, the numbers presented here and in the other tables must be underestimates. It was also sometimes not clear that a plant was actually claimed in a house lot (see the “Brief notes” column), thus several determinations relied on best judgement and are subject to interpretation. As a consequence, further research involving the NR plant claims may modify somewhat the rankings presented here and in Tables 2-6.2 Several Hawaiian ecotopes (Meilleur 2019) are cited in plant claims in the FT. The most commonly encountered are kula (“lowland plain”), māla, kāhapai and loʽi (“garden or cultivated patch”), and pali (“cliff or steep place”).3 This effort focused on the claims of Hawaiian commoners (makaʽāinana). When identifiable, claims made by haole (non-Hawaiian), aliʽi (chief) and konohiki (land steward) were excluded, as it’s less likely that members at least of the first two groups were much involved in subsistence activities in the mid-19th century. A cursory examination of claims made by haole and aliʽi found that they claimed few plants … rather they focused on metes and bounds and on the possession histories of their claimed properties. Some konohiki worked the land during this period and some plants are mentioned in their claims (e.g., 3189). Nearly all the plant claims cited here are identified to island, district, ahupuaʽa and ʽili—often to moʽo and occasionally to paukū—the latter three being the smallest of the Hawaiian politico-economic units cited. Hawaiian land divisions were administered through a hierarchy of chiefs (aliʽi). In descending order of size and consequence these are moku or mokupuni (island), moku or mokuʽāina (district), ʽokana or kalana (sub-district), ahupuaʽa, ʽili, moʽo and paukū. Their dimensions, form, importance and, at the lower levels even their presence, varied among the islands and districts. The ahupuaʽa and their ʽili and moʽo subdivisions, cited in almost all the retained plant claims, were administered by konohiki, with the makaʽāinana responsible for the great majority of agricultural labor. It was at the ʽili and moʽo levels where most of the land types, house lots, and plant claims were situated in the NR records. More exact geo-location data on the plant claims than that presented here could be obtained from an analysis of the ahupuaʽa and especially the ʽili and the moʽo cited, but this was beyond the scope of this study.4 Hawaiian names in this column are as found in the FT but with the spelling updated according to the Hawaiian Dictionary of Pukui and Elbert (1986 … also cited here as P&E). Translations into English in the adjacent column were in most cases given in the mid-19th century records, though sometimes only the English name was found (e.g., “corn”).5 Latin epithets were assigned to the claimed plants using best judgement. In some cases, as noted, the scientific identification of the plant claimed is questionable.6 For an excellent summary of post-Cookian plant introductions, see Nagata 1985. According to this author, “At least 111 plants are known to have been introduced during the six decades following Cook’s arrival … Sixty-five are fruits, vegetables, or other economic plants, 15 may have been brought for their ornamental value.”
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 371k
Titre Table 2 : The 21 plants most commonly claimed in the Māhele NR, ordered by frequency of claims
Légende While probably quite accurate, the rankings found in Tables 2-6 present only what might then have been true, as they are based solely on data from Table 1 (see fn1).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 196k
Titre Table 3 : The 38 indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced plants claimed in the FT, ranked by frequency of claims. Kalo (taro) and ʽuala (sweet potato) claims, in the hundreds, were not counted. See the “Brief notes” column in Table 1 for comments on more-difficult-to-interpret species. The “Ethnobotanical and cultural notes” in Table 6 below provide information on those plants most commonly claimed in house lots in relation to all claims for the same species. The equivalent English names are as found in Tables 1 and 2
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-9.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 147k
Titre Table 4 : The 27 post-Cookian plants claimed in the NR, ordered by frequency of claims. See the “Brief notes” column in Table 1 for comments on more-difficult-to-interpret species and the Table 6 “Ethnobotanical and cultural notes” column for sketches on the more commonly claimed post-Cookian introductions
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-10.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Titre Table 5 : The top ten plants most often claimed in Hawaiian house lots
Légende 1 Claims for kuku, of uncertain identification (Table 1), were added to pāpipi claims to reach this total
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-11.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 83k
Titre Table 6. The ten plants most commonly claimed in house lots in mid-19th century Hawaiʽi, ranked as a percentage of all claims for the same species. Only plants with 20 or more overall claims are included. Cultural and ethnobotanical notes are added to assist interpretation
Légende 1 The ethnobotanical summaries of “traditional” Hawaiian plant use were compiled for the indigenous, endemic and Polynesian-introduced species mostly from Abbott (1992), Krauss (1993) and Neal (1948). Information on the three post-Cookian introductions (pāpipi, ʽalani and kope) comes from the NR (Table 1) and from Nagata (1985)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-12.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 375k
Titre Photo 1. P. maideniana. Keauhou, North Kona, Hawaiʽi Island (D. Hodel photo)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-13.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 359k
Titre Photo 2. Notches in a mature P. maideniana trunk, Hōlualoa, North Kona, Hawaiʽi Island (D. Hodel photo)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-14.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 376k
Titre Table 7 : Claim numbers, in numerical order, for loulu (Pritchardia spp.) from Māhele NR records (Table 1), followed by claimant name, island, district, ahupuaʽa, and number of plants claimed1. Claim numbers in bold and underlined highlight the 37 loulu claims in house lots. Claim totals are summarized by island and district below the table along with the most likely Pritchardia species planted at those locations
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-15.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 368k
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-16.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 169k
Titre Figure 2 : Hawaiʽi Island districts
URL http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/docannexe/image/9104/img-17.gif
Fichier image/gif, 30k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Brien A. Meilleur, « Ancient Hawaiian house lots and their flora: a review of Great Māhele plant claims with a special focus on Pritchardia (loulu) palms »Revue d’ethnoécologie [En ligne], 21 | 2022, mis en ligne le 30 juin 2022, consulté le 15 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/ethnoecologie/9104 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/ethnoecologie.9104

Haut de page

Auteur

Brien A. Meilleur

Unité Eco-anthropologie - Musée de l’Homme, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search