Talk:Ancient Hawaii

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Honga2 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 808desiree808.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I do not have a great deal of knowledge about this topic, but it seems to me that Polynesian triangle deserves an article in its own right, rather than just being a redirect to ancient Hawaii. At the very least, it could repeat the material here, which would be of interest to, say, somebody who came to it from New Zealand. - DavidWBrooks 18:14, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Per your request, I created a separate Polynesian Triangle article. Feel free to add to it from your perspective as a New Zelander. Gerald Farinas 20:11, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Re the settling of Hawaii

Archaeological studies (Kirch) have pushed back the estimated settlement of Hawaii to no later than 400 A.D., and perhaps earlier. Pronounciations of common Maori words indicate that the early settlers originated in the southern islands of the Marquesas and that later settlers came from either Tahiti or the northern group of the Marquesas, but most likely from both. Voyaging between Polynesian islands was quite common until about the 13th century.

In the 9th to the 15th century, The Majapahit Empire of India under its Emperor-Maharaja Pamarwasa established its sattelite Empire called the Sri Vigaya. Inclusive of the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and perhaps Indonesia; Hawaii, Carolines Islands and Guam became part of the Sri Vigaya Sattelite Empire of the Majapahit towards the end of 12th century. After the death of Maharaja Pamarwasa. From the 13th to 14th century, Rulers of the territorial Kingdoms who were in consanguinity related thru marriages with the said Emperor's daughters and some nieces, such as the daughter Sri Eskander married to a Vigaya.Arab Ruler in Seri-Brunei and as of another daughter married to Prince Lakan Acuna Ulrijal Bolkiah Tagean of Manila-Philippines, these said rulers established themselves into strings of Sultanates known as Maharlika, Muslim National Archipelago. King Kamehameha of Havvaii or Hawaii was then referred to as the "Careful King" which denote the name Kamehameha. The latter being kinships with the Sulu Ruler. In-fact, all the territorial Kingdoms of Mahrlika, its Rulers were all in consanguinity-Kinship related either by blood or by affinity. During the Spanish colonization of the Philippines, King Luisong Tagean (or Tallano as referred to by Italian merchant traders) consorted with the Queen os Spain of the naming of Maharlika as Philipinas under King Philip-II of Spain. The King asked the help of the British, wherein the latter defeated the Spanish Government in Manila; and out of respect to the Kings proprietary Rights of the Kingdom, Britain issued the Royal Protocol Decree 01-4 as Original Certificate of Title for the Kingdom. In 1898, during the Treaty of Paris whereby Spain sold the Phlippines to America for 20 million dollars in gold coins, Spain issued a "Titulo De Compra" of OCT 01-4 in favor of Prince Lakan Acuna Ulrijal Bolkiah Tagean, wherein the latter's uncle-Don Benito Tagean Tallano handed the said amount in gold coins to Spain. Dring the American occupation, the latter enacted U.S. ACT no. 496 on October 3, 1904 under the Torrens System, the OCT 01-4 for the said Prince and Princes/heirs of interest to their forefathers. And in 193, enacted U.S. ACT no.2258 affirming ownership of the Philippines to said Heirs of interest. Under the Philippine republic, litigation ensued at several court hearings till i January 19, 1976 , a Final and Executory Court decision was in favor of the said Princes/ heirs of interest. The decision was appealed by the Government and Resolution is still pending. One Prince Heir of interest to His Highness forefathers, lives in Ohau, Hawaii who is a descendant of Prince Lakan Acuna Ulrijal Bolkiah Tagean with kinship to the 15th century Brunei Sultan Hasan Bolkiah. This heir is of Philippine born with Polynesian-Chinese and Arab-Malay ancestry, HRH. Yang Di-Pertuan Paduka Ahmad Carpenter Yu Arpa-V, a Tribal Plenipotentiary Sovereign Minister for all Tribes in the former Maharlika Kingdo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.210.35.6 (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Herb Kane reference

I just looked at the Herb Kane reference and it is not academic quality. I was thinking I would just delete it, as misleading readers, and then wondered if it might not have a certain value as evidencing "current Hawaiian beliefs about ancient Hawaiian history". Do other editors think it would be a good idea to add a para on "contemporary attitudes towards ancient Hawaiian history"? Or a separate article? I am sure that this would be a combustible topic, fertile in flame wars, but it might be a good idea to put it front and center instead of just tidying away the evidence. Zora 05:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Does academic quality mean non-commercial? Herb Kane has some pretty good credentials to go along with his assertions - his stuff checks out with Kirch's latest Road of the Winds book too (much more academic, but nothing available online for it).

I guess maybe I'm not understanding how it come across as misleading. I'm open to removal if that can be illustrated clearly. --JereKrischel 08:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The two-migration theory, and belief in the actual historicity of Pa'ao, are woo-woo by current archaeo standards. Kirch would agree. Speculations re the menehune are woo-woo as well. I agree that the Kaua'i irrigation ditch is an anomaly (I looked at it the last time I was there) but I don't think we have to postulate a lost race to explain it. Zora 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Kirch's latest book, "On The Road of the Winds"? He seems to give credence to migrations from both the Marquesas and Tahiti, and he specifically notes two separate waves.

p245, On The Road Of The Winds, Kirch: "It was presumably from this Proto Marquesic sphere that Hawai'i was first settled (although Tahitic loan words in Hawaiian support the notion of a secondary population intrusion from the "Tahitic" sphere.)"

Truth be told, just about all of our archaeological knowledge regarding pre-contact Hawaii are speculations. I know Kirch was skeptical of some of the PVS's conclusions in the 80's and it was reflected in his other books, but as all good academics, he has taken in new data and modified his analysis and theories (On the Road of the Winds was published in 2000). Perhaps he's not willing to make bold statments like Kane, and doesn't 100% support the theories of two-migration, but it's clear that academically there is some support for those theories.

I agree that the assertion that Pa'ao was an actual historic figure may be stretching things a bit, since oral traditions are never passed on with 100% accuracy, but the latest archaeological evidence seems to support the possibility of a Pa'ao type figure, or figures amalgamated into one legend.

In any case, I suppose I may support putting a big fat disclaimer on the page, "WARNING: THE ARCHEAOLOGICAL EVIDENCE REGARDING ANCIENT HAWAII IS NOT COMPLETE AND THEORIES OF ORIGINS AND MIGRATIONS HAVE WAXED AND WANED AS NEW EVIDENCE IS DISCOVERED", since we really are talking about a period of history that was not well documented, no matter what theory you ascribe to personally. Or perhaps we should edit the article to reference some of the varying points of view? I'd probably put Kirch's latest work up at the top of the list for theories, with perhaps some Finney to contrast (although they've gotten closer in conclusion as more evidence has been discovered).

I'm open to suggestions on how to balance the presentation of various theories, rather than merely asserting only one. --JereKrischel 11:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to look at the book to weigh the evidence of the "Tahitian loan words". Since there's still no evidence from material culture, I'm not at all sure that linguistic evidence is enough to prove a link. Since the Tahitians were one of the first groups contacted by the Europeans, they were taken on board ships as translators for other Polynesian groups. Also, the Tahitians were the first to convert to Christianity and there's some evidence that Tahitian lay preachers were actually responsible for conversions in other Polynesian groups, including Hawai'i. Since all we have is Hawaiian recorded AFTER European arrival and the Tahitians arrived at the same time, I dunno how you'd rule out the possibility of late instead of early loans.

Thanks for letting me know of the book. I'll see if I can find it at the library. Zora 11:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think your skepticism is well founded Zora, but I hope this at least puts some of the theories of two-migration in the category of academia, not tin-foil hats. What's really amazing is how much further things have come over the past 15 years - much of Kirch's early criticism of Finney's theories of regular voyaging and contact were based on an absence of evidence, which over the years has actually become available. I think it's important to note there are conflicting theories still being proposed, so I'll see if I can work in some language into the article to make it clear we're talking about a living area of science that is not settled one way or another. Aloha for your discussion here, it is greatly appreciated and I think the article will improve from it. --JereKrischel 22:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

As for the alleged "solid evidence" for the menehune - did anyone check Luomala (1951): "The Menehune of Polynesia and Other Mythical Little People of Oceania", Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 203? The Alekoko fishpond can probably not be considered evidence, given the mundane explanation for "overnight construction" recorded by Nordhoff (1874) "Northern California, Oregon and the Sandwich Islands", ch.V, p.80. Then, the 1820 Kaua'i census that supposedly turned up 65 genuine menehune? It all does not fit.

At any rate, I have not heard of indications of breaks or shifts in ancient Hawai'ian material culture. The archeological and paleontological evidence is rather complete, methinks - we can even go as far as to reconstruct the original ecosystem with a large degree of confidence (not that it would be that hard, it basically having been birds feeding on plants, creepycrawlies and other birds). Am I simply not up to date or is there really no such cultural break? I'm talking radiometric dating-grade evidence here. The fact that early Polynesian voyaging has been shown to have been MUCH more "professional" than believed, say, 20 years ago, and the recent theories about Rapa Nui (the "short-ears" as European/South American pirates, whalers and slavers, which fits archeological evidence much better) have made me wary. IMHO, the most likely explanation is a Polynesian expansion over essentially the entire Pacific which culminated in the second half of the 1st millennium AD, followed by a desertion of "unsustainable" outposts like Henderson and an isolation of sustainable ones like the Hawai'ian islands. Under such a scenario, there would be enough leeway for the occasional transoceanic invasion (with decidedly local impact, hence no indications in material culture, but possibly in oral tradition). Over time, the contact would have "trickled out" and the islands remained more or less isolated (apart from the occasional stay Japanese trading vessel - if we're talking mythology, let's not forget the Sword of Kaluiki ;-)).

As far as I know there is no material evidence for an all-out invasion of the islands, and the menehune sites may just as well may be the product of some ali'i gathering his subjects in one place, lining them up and making them dig for a whole day or two...

Points to consider:

• What of the oral traditions and lore is actually based on true events and what is retcon? Impact of events such as like the Kamehameha - Kalanikupule feud on the accuracy - or actual survival of O'ahu legends? Retcon by missionaries, by Kalakaua to what extent? Political significance of traditional legends for kama'āina activism during period of cultural suppression and resulting alterations?

Maluhia, Dysmorodrepanis 05:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fiji reference

I removed the reference to Fiji as a major Polynesian culture. Fiji is not Polynesian - it is Melanesian. Kahuroa 21:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That is debatable because, culturally, Fijians are Polynesian, while they may display a more Proto-Polynesian linguistic classification if not "Proto-West Fijian-Polynesian" classification. -Ano-User (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Two-migration theories

Jere, I think you've got the militant Hawaiian attitude towards the two-migration theory completely wrong. In my online dealings with those folks, they have strongly supported the two-migration theory. They believe that Pa'ao brought everything that was WRONG with Hawaiian culture, everything that the missionaries and Western visitors disliked, such as human sacrifice and authoritarianism. Before Pa'ao, Hawaiian culture was egalitarian, kind, supportive, PERFECT. This is the utopia to which we should return, not the distorted culture imposed by Pa'ao. I even argued with one woman who was sure that Pa'ao was a haole, and that therefore this proved that haoles were responsible for everything that had ever gone wrong in Hawai'i. Comments? Zora 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Zora I have no idea what type of people you have been dealing with but isolating yourself on the net doesn't constitute exposure to these, as in your belief that "militant Hawaiian attitude" (aka any Hawaiian that disputes you or tend to not be passive as you'd want them to be) display negativity towards the 2 migration theory. In fact, my own PERSONAL encounter and interaction with other kanaka 'oiwi shows the opposite. But then again, I'm not from the island where you are at where many of these kanaka don't live the traditional lifestyle. 66.215.18.34 02:52, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't had any interaction like that before, although granted, the particular subset of "militants" I've engaged with hasn't been very broad. I guess maybe the alternative view, that is to say, the two-migration theory is preferred because the real roots ("indigenous" status) can be traced back to the pre-Pa'ao people, and the interlopers post-Pa'ao (I'm assuming this is primarily a critique against the ali'i class) represent those who founded the illegal Kingdom of Hawaii, and gave it away to haoles (either by action or inaction). I suppose around any particular controversey you can have people from both sides on all sides :). Perhaps we can work in both possible POVs? I'd love to hear more takes on why it is politically charged - I certainly get the feeling that much of the scholarship in the area ends up being affected by predispositions, and certain scholars (Vinton Kirch, for example) are alternately praised and despised as they follow the evidence and change their conclusions. --JereKrischel 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's right, criticism of Pa'ao is criticism of the ali'i class, who betrayed their people. It's interesting that a political point (we disagree with what our supposed leaders did in the past) has be be coded into mythological form. Actually, I tend to agree with the Hawaiians who feel that the ali'i messed up. When you actually look at the records from the Great Mahele, you see that the king and the chiefs got 98% of the land (if I'm remembering correctly) and the commoners got the rest. Now the land that the commoners got was in many cases what was then considered the valuable land, irrigable kalo patches, and that the ali'i had huge tracts of uplands and desert. Irrigation schemes and later, artesian wells, destroyed any semblance of fairness to the division. The ali'i then proceeded to sell off their estates to the haole merchants in order to finance lavish Western lifestyles. In John Dominis' biography he describes one sale in which a female ali'i sold off most of Central O'ahu to Castle and Cooke and then moved to England, where she could live as an aristocrat among aristocrats. If I were a Hawaiian commoner, I'd be pissed off too. Zora 02:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I heartily agree with you - which is I guess why I always saw the Hawaiian Revolution as merely a conflict between elites in a land that was still filled with have-nots (of all races). Anyway, not to banter about my personal politics, but if you thought it was useful, I think we might be able to add a section regarding some of the various views on the 1 or 2 migration issue, and how it is percieved politically. I wasn't aware of the perspective you mentioned, but it certainly merits inclusion in any discussion...perhaps though we're getting into the area of original research? I can really never tell where the line is drawn there, but I'll chew on it a bit and see if I can think of something to put in, if anything. Thanks again for the lesson in alternate perspectives! --JereKrischel 05:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're getting into original research, since this is derived from Usenet, personal interactions, etc. We need published stuff -- books, articles, websites -- for verifiability. I'd look for it but I'm swamped. Zora 05:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Anon's edits

I reverted some edits by an anon who apparently had strong feelings about the old Hawaiian gods. Among other things, this editor was sure that Ku was the same thing as Kukailimoku. Well, that's arguable ... there were different aspects of Ku. Can one aspect be considered to encompass all of Ku? Or were all the Kus different gods? Issues to be debated, not given a two-second answer as Ku AKA Kukailimoku (which is not encyclopedic language). Zora 09:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Partial rewrite

I visited this article for the first time in a long time and I was struck by the ponderous stodgy prose. Also, some generalizations were wrong or inexact. I rewrote part of the article, which took me close to two hours, and then got too tired to continue. I have a bad habit of trying to do too much, and failing, but I hope to finish rewriting the article soon. More citations and a longer list of references are essential. This article as it stands is just a sloppy sketch of the subject. Sigh. Zora 07:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Great work Zora! Your edits so far are great improvements! --JereKrischel 20:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ancient?

Does the "Ancient" period really last all the way down to 1810, or is this more or less the result of a Eurocentric historiography and the fact that we don't know anything/much about the islands' history prior to Cook's arrival? If it is commonly referred to as the ancient period in scholarship, that's perfectly fine. I just want to be sure. Thanks. LordAmeth 23:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much eurocentric historiography - there is no truly "ancient" history in Hawaii, since it was only populated around 800AD. The moniker "ancient" in this case is pretty much in reference to the technological level of the society when encountered by europeans. As an example, there are references to the "Ancient period" in Europe being from 50,000 BC - 500AD, during which time the islands of Hawaii were uninhabited.

That being said, it is common parlance in the scholarship of Hawaii to consider the unification of the islands by Kamehameha the great in 1810 as the demarcation between "ancient" and "kingdom" periods. --JereKrischel 06:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool. As a historian of Japan, I'm fully aware of the way in which periodization can be drastically different for different societies. Japan's "classical period" extends all the way up to 1185, and though most scholars would label 1600-1615 as the beginning of the "early modern period", there is an older view that would apply terms like "medieval" or "feudal" all the way down to 1868. Anyway, thank you for clearing that up for me. I was just curious. Cheers. LordAmeth 09:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

As a late follow-up, I always thought the demarcation between "ancient" was Cook's visit in 1778 since that is when preserved written history began. That is, a short "unification" period of 32 years or so before the "Kingdom". But of course would need a source before making the change. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: OP's comment, "ancient" is an adjective of "antiquity" which means prehistory. Prehistory is any period of time that is not documented or recorded. It's based on grammar not a technological evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.201.128 (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So no one lived in Hawaii before 800 ad? what did live there? any animals? what sort of plants? are there any fossils? Samiam1611 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well not 800 exactly, that is one guess. Hard to tell exactly what was there since the first visitors did not bring video cameras. :-) Being very isolated islands, mostly plants and insects and birds. See Hawaiian Islands for the geology; the land is very young in geographic terms. The lava flows, tsunamis and tropical climate make fossils rare too but there are some. See Endemism in the Hawaiian Islands. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Menehune Ditch

From the current article, "However, there is one puzzling artifact on the island of Kauaʻi, one that has never been satisfactorily explained. Running alongside the Waimea River is an ancient aqueduct known as the "Menehune ditch." This channel once brought water from the Waimea River to irrigate taro fields. The rocks were shaped into rectangular bricks and carefully fitted together — a method of stonework requiring immense labor, and not typical of Hawaiian rockwork. This ditch is currently believed to have been constructed before Captain Cook's first visit." There is a widely held misconception (alluded to in this article, and perpetuated in numerous publications and internet pages) that the Menehunes (or at least the ancient Hawaiians) built the ditch that currently exists. That is not the case. The ancient irrigation system was almost completely destroyed and rebuilt by sugar plantations in the early 1900's. The often photographed water tunnel was bored during that time, and the fitted stones leading up to it were also built then. Documented in "A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Waimea River Flood Control Study Area, Kauai, Hawaii" by Pauline King Joerger and Charles F. Streck Jr. which records: "The area has been changed considerably since the description of Vancouver. In the 1890s a "horse road" was built "on the bank of the Pee Kauai watercourse at Kiki-a-`Ola . . . " Soon afterwards, a government road replaced the "horse road." Sugar plantation construction also changed the aqueduct. Around the turn of the century Waimea Plantation built an irrigation ditch and used a tunnel through the cliff to carry water from the inland area to the lowlands. No evidence of a wall around the cliff face remained. In 1924, more plantation improvement to ditch and road changed the area and destroyed more of the ancient Hawaiian ditch." "Ditch stones from the ancient site have also been said to have been used in and around Waimea. Menehune Ditch stones are said to have been used in the building of the Protestant Church, called the Foreign church, in the Kekaha Plantation Mill and the Waimea Ice works. Other stones were used by a Waimea stone cutter for tombstones, by one of Waimea's sheriffs for a stone wall in front of his home, and the like. Little of the old watercourse is left now; the water to irrigate the high land on the other side of the cliff from the river now flows through a tunnel bored by a sugar company. Much of the old ditch is covered by a road." To say that the Menehune Ditch has "has never been satisfactorily explained" contributes to the misconception. DitchDigger 16:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Islands

This article doesn't mention the other islands. It mentioned Paao and Pili but not other figures like Paumakua, Laamaikahiki, Maweke, Kamauaua, Puna of Kauai, Kapawa, Moikeha and other chiefs around that time.

Caste System

Under the "Caste System" article it compares Hawaii to India by the fact both had caste systems. However instead of telling us about the ranks of Hawaii, it tells us of the Indian ones. 71.194.63.161 (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed most of it. It's baseless, unnecessary, and uncited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.201.128 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also Hindu is a religion not a social structure. Whoever wrote that is not clear on the differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.201.128 (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

That section could use a lot of work...and sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Kapu system

The source cited for the text in the Kapu section is a self-identified Christian publication. Given the historic fact of the Christian conversion of the Native Hawaiian religion, is there a more neutral source that can be used to describe the Kapu system? For example, the reference to human sacrifice under Kapu is a serious claim and it seems like an unassailable source would be preferable.

Alohahi (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Malo

David Malo - Hawaiian Antiquities. You can get a free copy of the book from here:

http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pubs-online/pdf/sp2.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.201.128 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

High precision radiocarbon Dating

From the article, moved here for the moment:

But in 2010, a study was published based on radiocarbon dating of more reliable samples and it suggests that the islands were settled much later, within a short timeframe, in ∼1219–1266CE.

There is no mention yet in the article about this. I am also not sure the summary of the publication is done accurately and within Wikipedia guidelines. We need more references for this. The document itself cannot be used to sourced the claim that "A study was done in 2010...". This seems to have been placed into the lede with undue weight. It is legitimate but, how much weight to give it depends on what the publication itself is claiming and what the academic consensus is on the theory.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Revisions to debunked old orthodox

I noticed a lot of citations to Kirch of UC Berkeley who has been doing quite a bit of work in trying to determine the dates or original settlement in these amazing islands. Since 2000 radiocarbon dating has been refined so the earlier samples starting from the 1950's have been retested. Accordingly with the weight of evidence as of 2010 he now states the oldest known human contact was around 1000-1200 AD in Kaua' and O'ahu. Although mentioned by Miller as a "radical theory" its the only one based in reality and not fiction. Further the linguistic theory of Emory mirrors the radiocarbon dates and suggests around 1150 AD. More baffling is that original proposed dates of around 300 to 800 have since been revised by those SAME scientists as their RADIOCARBON dating of their initial results could NOT be repeated (meaning they made a mistake). Its hypocritical to say I only want to pay attention to the radiocarbon dating I agree with, and your radiocarbon dating sources are a radical theory.

Sign your posts. Do not edit war and do not attribute statements to me when they come from the reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

What is your main concern and what is your goal here? Just because someone advances a new theory does not mean everything else has been debunked. The claim that the theory based on high-precision radiocarbon dating as a radical new model is accurate and from the source that was published only 4 years ago in 2012. I see no new academic consensus that demonstrates all old ideas have been debunked. Can this be demonstrated?--Mark Miller (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Goal is accuracy of course. The section currently is NOT accurate. Also be precise in what you're referring too for TALK. For instance there are no cited theories for any of the proposed dates on the page. Example: "Researchers had based their estimates of first settlement by Polynesian long-distance navigators sometime between 300 and 800 CE." [NO CITATION, WHO ARE THESE RESEARCHERS AND WHAT THEORIES, the LONG PAUSE ONE, OR THE SHORT SETTLEMENTS? - I HAD LAID OUT THE DIFFERENT THEORIES AND THEIR NUMBERS BUT THIS MORE ACCURATE INFORMATION IS BEING DELETED BY YOU - WHAT IS YOUR GOAL? ]

"new theory" -- OMG. THE DATES OF 300-800 ARE FROM RADIOCARBON DATING MISTAKE IN 1959 WHICH WAS RETESTED IN 1969 AND THEN REVISED TO 1000-1300; FURTHER YOU DISCOUNT MODERN RADIOCARBON DATING YET ACCEPT THE OLD MISTAKE WHICH THE SAME SCIENTIST REVISED TEN YEARS LATER AS A MISTAKE. Further the only dispute is whether people from Marquesas (aka what was called Menehune) ever landed before 1000 AD. The academic consensus is clear those that Polynesians arrived sometime between 1000 AD - 1200 AD.

EVERYTHING ELSE? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

CONSENSUS? WELL WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER THEORIES? THE BISHOP MUSEUM HAS HAD 3 DIRECTORS WHO HAVE ADVANCED THEIR OWN THEORIES DURING THEIR DIRECTORSHIP.

1. ORAL TRADITION: FORNANDER - HONOLULU, BISHOP MUSEUM DIRECTOR

First systematically compiled large body of empirical data was done by Fornander based on Polynesian oral traditions finished in 1878-1885, REFERENCE He traced lines of Chiefs back to develop a chronology and determined there were only 28 generations of native Hawaiians thus he estimated 800900 years of history, thus in 1865 means ~AD 965-1065.

2. ETHNOGRAPHY: HIROA - HONOLULU, BISHOP MUSEUM DIRECTOR Te Rangi Hiroa, who took over then Museum's research after FORNANDER died in 1919 threw out all the prior data of Fornander and rewrote the history. He says Menehune may have arrived around AD 450 in Kaua'i and were pushed probably to Nihoa by Tahitians came around AD 1275. He wrote a popular book advocating this theory, albeit it was mostly about Vikings Nihoa is very interesting as in 1991 radiocarbon dating, albeit before the 2000 calibration software became available, indicated people were there briefly around AD 867-1037 (this refutes Hiroa's theory that Tahitians pushed Menehune there).

3. LINGUISTICS; EMORY - HONOLULU, BISHOP MUSEUM DIRECTOR HONOLULU

Kenneth Emory "The settlement of Hawai‘i from Tahiti is estimated by Emory to have occurred about AD 1150." Menehune linguistically comes from Tahitian and really means lower class people.

4. EARLY RADIOCARBON DATING AND ARCHAEOLOGY; KENNETH EMORY - BISHOP MUSEUM DIRECTOR IN HONOLULU EMORY, SINOTO and BONK: EARLY DATING ATTEMPTS H1 sample from Pu‘u Ali‘i sand dune site at South Point: AD 124 ± 60. Kuli‘ou‘ou on O‘ahu radiocarbon date of AD 1004 ± 180 However in conjunction with Washington State University radiocarbon laboratory, H1 sand dune RETESTED and was revised to roughly AD 1000 to 1350.

5. REFINED RADIOCARBON DATING 1980'S, even before the 2000 software calibration became available.

ANDERSON AND SINOTO: By 2000 they retested samples - ones which originally gave 300-600 AD, which now returned AD 1100–1200 even on the lowest calibration. Anderson, A. and Y.H. Sinoto. 2002. New radiocarbon ages of colonization sites in East Polynesia. Asian Perspectives 41:242–257. See generally as well the following citations:

ERIC CONTE, ROLETT Again unlikely to be older than AD 900–1000

6. PALEO ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE Athens and Ward 1997 concluded AD 1000–1100. It was clear that by 1200 anthropogenic disturbence was widespread on O'ahu.

As stated above ETHNOGRAPHY theory of Menehune has not been found and as technology has improved so have the testing results as original samples have been retested. All the theories are clear that Polynesians came around 1000-1200 AD. Wolfpack903 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

References

OK...let me try again. What are your goals with the changes you wish to make. Accuracy is not a goal, it is how we work. You have not demonstrated that your changes reflect academic consensus today. The above wall of text is just a general discussion of the topic with references but does not show todays current academic consensus is absolutely clear as to how you interpret it. What you do demonstrate, is that there is no clear consensus. How do you wish to proceed? What change or addition do you most strongly feel should be included as a start?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, please, do not use all caps. Along with your attitude, it comes across as screaming or ranting. You are clearly trying to present the content as you see it to be accurate but I still see it as trying to push your point of view. Perhaps we just need more editor eyes on this.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Caps is the only way to differentiate the text from the quotation. Its not yelling. Again its quite clear that all the theories and then the scientific evidence has a consensus between 1000-1200 AD as the first settlements. You appear to be pushing an unscientific point of view that magically supports a 300-800 AD settlement. Where are the citations? Anderson and Sinoto retested those samples suggesting 300-800 AD and revised the data. Yet you keep reverting to this old information without citation apparently to hide this. Wolfpack903 (talk) 23:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus of academia has not been demonstrated " - Have another editor check this out. You're disregarding the mountain of scientific consensus which was cited and how I explained the early dates were wrong. You clearly don't understand that all the theories and data are in general agreement about the first settlements being around 1000-1200 AD Wolfpack903 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"You are clearly trying to present the content as you see it to be accurate " - OMG this is moronic. You did not read a single thing written or understood any of it. You seem to be just policing this page to prevent any changes, its also written poorly, duplicative and inconsistent with the other page History of Hawaii Wolfpack903 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

"OK...let me try again. What are your goals with the changes you wish to make. WHY DO MY GOALSSSSSS MATTER? You're ignoring the information to question WHY I made it? HOW IS THAT NOT PRE-SELECTION AND BIASED "EDITING". "Accuracy is not a goal, it is how we work." [YET YOU TELL OTHERS WHEN YOU MAKE CHANGES IT IS] Wolfpack903 (talk) 23:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You just seem to be focusing the article on radiocarbon dating. Why not create the article Radiocarbon dating in Hawaii? "You clearly don't understand that all the theories and data are in general agreement about the first settlements being around 1000-1200 AD ". Yes. There we agree. My point is, if your post above is supposed to demonstrate anything, you didn't make it convenient so it will take time to check and see if your summaries are correct. If you don't want to give time and input to others and keep making drastic changes it may not be constructive.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Also...let's assume you are basically correct. As someone that keeps reverting what I see as Point of view pushing, wouldn't it benefit you more to let me actually verify the contributions I feel strongly against? Perhaps I will see your point? Maybe not but then a discussion can at least come to compromise.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

To show good faith I have removed all the content that was un-sourced (in this regard) and replaced it with a temporary, sourced introduction of older theories of the earliest settlements. We can work forward from there. I am reviewing the above.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You can verify all my edits here are sourced from the compendium of sources, which I reviewed, from Patrick V. Kirch's 2010 work "When Did the Polynesians Settle Hawai‘i? A Review of 150 Years of Scholarly Inquiry and a Tentative Answer?" published in Hawaiian Archaeology 01/2011. Hence why I deleted the reference to his earlier work as he changed his mind given all the scientific evidence. Also the citations to Athens and Whittaker in the Article are wrong and you can see why Whittaker is wrong to rely on the 1959 sample. When I write articles for publication or court filings I find the original material being relied on, hence why everything is not just referring Kirch's 2010 publication. Wolfpack903 (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't add an article about radiocarbon dating, but I suppose a new article is in order, as the information is about the process of inquiry and evolution of 150 years of research answering the question of first settlements in Hawai'i and does not involve just radiocarbon dating. I would revert to my part about first settlements and leave it at that. People can then judge for themselves the first dates and when the period began.

(edit conflict) This is what I know about Wikipedia's coverage of Hawaiian history, it basically sucks and needs a great deal of work and there are many...many claims and statements that are way off and are very much like this situation, where newer research has made a better understanding of things for anthropologists, archeologists and genealogists. But some things were not helping me understand you better. For instance: "THE DATES OF 300-800 ARE FROM RADIOCARBON DATING MISTAKE IN 1959 [2]" But the reference for that claim is just the publication itself you claim made mistakes, not a reference that states that Kenneth Emory actually made mistakes. If I trust your good faith (and I do) that means I have to research that myself. It just makes it more difficult, but then that was not really a part of your list above. Similarly with the Fornander reference. It may well be that Fornander and this new data match up...but Fornander wrote in 1877 and he also included the data and information from Dibble and Malo who I believe estimated a generation to be something like 25 years...which is odd for a culture that begins childbearing at the time of puberty. That would seem to make the average generation less than twenty years, not more. So, I understand that there may be much that matches up, but it isn't that relative to the situation. I will continue reading.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Everything is in the Kirch 2010 work. -In regards to Emory changing his dates: "By the mid-1960s, Emory and Sinoto (Bonk had dropped out of the team) began to harbor doubts about the single early date from H1 that had anchored their initial Hawaiian fishhook chronology at AD 125.... Washington State University radiocarbon laboratory (Emory and Sinoto 1969) failed to replicate the early age first suggested for the base of site H1... Reviewing the expanded radiocarbon corpus, Emory and Sinoto revised their Hawai‘i fishhook chronology.... The H1 sand dune site... to... roughly AD 1000 to 1350." [Page 11 of Kirch's Work Wolfpack903 (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

References

FYI here is original source for Fornander's 28 generations = 840 years which comes out to about 30 years per generation which is remarkable as it apparently lines up with the modern radiocarbon dating. Wolfpack903 (talk) 00:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Oh thanks. I easily found that when I scanned through the pages. There is actually a more precise passage where Fornander mentions the 28 generations and the 800 to 900 year history in the same sentence I believe on page 233. But I think these are mere mentions from "Fornander collection of Hawaiian antiquities and folk-lore". I think he goes into more detail in "An Account of the Polynesian Race: Its Origins..." when he is discussing the precise mele or chants in question. His main reasoning for his theory is from a Kamehameha genealogy that begins to line up with genealogies from Tahiti at a particular point that establishes his dating.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ancient Hawaii/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 13:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC) Many photographs of paintings representing ancient Hawaii exist, and should be added. —Viriditas | Talk 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726143320/http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=311 to http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=311

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ancient Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412200222/http://www.hawaiihistory.org/ to http://www.hawaiihistory.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Anthropology 151 Culture and Humanity

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2022 and 4 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haylie A. DeCorte (article contribs).

era: Should be BC/AD not CE/BCE in this article

The map used in the article uses AD, so all of the CEs should be changed to AD. I see no reason to have it as CE other than stubbornness and gatekeeping. Hadan descendant (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hadan descendant:

• CE has been present in the article for over a dozen years. Therefore WP:EDITCONSENSUS is very strong reason to keep the current use of CE over AD.
• The AD in the map is almost illegible, even on my 34" monitor. The first version of the map was introduced in 2021, so the use of CE predates the map by nine years.
• I think most people would easily understand & forgive the discrepancy between CE in the article & AD in the map. This is similar to using Kyiv in an article with a map that refers to Kiev.

I do not believe there is a compelling case to change from CE to AD. Perhaps other editors may offer their opinion on this pro or con. Peaceray (talk) 06:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

1) Nothing in that link says anything about something been unedited for 12 years as a reason to not change it. Quite the contrary, it says "the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement.". I, and previous editors, changed it to AD and it got immediately reverted with no discussion. Samples include 18:09, 12 May 2023, 20:52, 16 January 2019, 22:21, 10 November 2018, and there's more I'm not bothering to copy.

Seems to me a small number of people are hostile to the AD/BC system and are just reverting everyone who changes it. So your first point is not valid.

2) The legibility is not an issue, you're not expected to see it without clicking on it. So that is also not a valid reason. Most images/maps on wikipedia are useless unless you click on it to actually see it in detail

3) That is a completely different scenario. The factual name of the city was changed to Kyiv, so Kiev is outright incorrect. BC/AD are not "incorrect", so your last point is also not valid.

My strongest reason for having it as AD is that it seems to me there are a few people that are hostile to AD, and go around reverting everyone who changes CE to AD. I don't like that, and I see no reason not to be consistent with the map.

So I'm firm in my position that it should be AD/BC. I'm not sure how much traffic this talk page gets but I'll wait until tomorrow and revert your change back to AD. Hadan descendant (talk) 07:09, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Nothing in that link says anything about something been unedited for 12 years as a reason to not change it.

Then you didn't read it. Please see MOS:DATEVAR as well, and stop wasting other editors' time and making tendentious edits. Remsense ‥ 论 07:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't appreciate your tone. If this is wasting your time then get off the internet, no one is asking you to be here, and especially not with that kind of attitude.

"If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article", yes, and since the map was added people kept trying to change it to AD. This seems like a valid reason, and since you didn't address any of my points nor add any of your own to refute, I'll change it to AD tomorrow. Hadan descendant (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hadan descendant:

• Noting that you have have less than 20 edits at the time that I write this. For you to tell Remsense, an editor with over 58,000 edits (again at the time that I write this) to get off the internet hardly helps your argument. Please see WP:PA & ad hominem.
• You seem to misunderstand that some people changing CE to AD means that there is a consensus for the change. Please read WP:CONSENSUS & wiktionary:consensus. Among the latter's definitions are A process of decision-making that seeks widespread agreement among group members & General agreement among the members of a given group or community.
• There approximately six editors who changed CE to AD & the same amount of editors who immediately restored CE.
• To be clear, when I wrote that the AD in the map is almost illegible, even on my 34" monitor, I was referring to the map when I had clicked on it. Considering that most users would not click on the map, the argument that the article needs to be consistent with the map is negligible.
• Life in General had a point when writing in the edit summary that The use of AD makes no sense when referring to a non-Christian culture.
• I misstated when the use of CE began in the article. It began in February 2007, when Phoenix79 wrote change of date from AD to CE in the edit summary for this edit.

Peaceray (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright lets see here

1) That's appeal to authority fallacy. I don't care if they have 50k edits or 50 million. All that tells me is this person needs to go outside more and less time at the computer. I don't tolerate rudeness I don't care if you're the CEO of wikipedia, and I certainly don't appreciate gatekeeping or trying to assert that one person is more than another. My arguments and arguments alone are what you should be looking at, not snooping around on my profile to find dirt. They said I was "wasting time" and making "tendentious" edits lol, what even is that word? He's just trying to sound like some kind of authority figure like using fancy words he found in a thesaurus is going to mean he's right.

2) Seems to me all the AD->CE changes mean that the folks doing the CE changes are more hostile and are not discussing it when changing

3) So where is the consensus? Seems like it's 6 v 6 split opinion then?

4) Even if some people click on the map, it's just a matter of principle. Why not have it as AD when it's consistent? CE does nothing to improve the article. AD, no matter how small, does.

5) AD/BC also have no sense when referring to pretty much 90% of the articles on this website. It's just our modern dating system. Changing "year of our lord" to "common era" does nothing to remove the "Christianity" of the dating system since it's still ultimately the Christian Gregorian calendar and birth of Jesus Christ used as a reference point. Muslim articles still use BC/AD.

6) I'm glad you mentioned this and I'm willing to extend some courtesy of assuming good faith, but since you recognize this, doesn't that make it the more reason to have it as AD? Why change it to CE, since the argument of the "it's been like this from the start" no longer applies? Hadan descendant (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)