Anahulu: The AnthropologyofHistory in the Kingdom ofHawaii ......the beauty ofher body). In fact,...
Transcript of Anahulu: The AnthropologyofHistory in the Kingdom ofHawaii ......the beauty ofher body). In fact,...
#£I.@.'
Anahulu: The Anthropology ofHistory in the Kingdom ofHawaii, volume I:
Historical Ethnography, by Marshall Sahlins. ISBN 0-226-73363-7, ix + 243 pp,tables figures, appendixes, notes, bibliography, index; volume 2: The Archaeology ofHistory, by Patrick V. Kirch. ISBN 0-226-73364-5, xiv + 201 pp, tables,figures, appendixes, glossary, notes, bibliography, index. University of ChicagoPress, 1992. US$45 each.
Let me preface my contribution to thisreview forum by saying that I do notagree with the notion of a reviewforum. A forum, yes. In a forum allcontributors are equally responsible fora constructive contribution to a giventheme. A review forum, no. Threecontributors are in a privileged position in relation to the authors. They donot have to context their opinions.They can reduce a hundred-thousandword book to a few slogans; they arenot obliged to answer any questionsthey ask. They force the authors intodefensive poses. They approach thestudy from the moment of its dreamingstage-what it might be-rather thanfrom what it is once any options havebeen taken. I would rather not participate in review forums, but have agreedto do so and have my say about them.
That being said, I am quite preparedto celebrate the brilliant contributionsof Marshall Sahlins and Patrick Kirchto Pacific studies. I doubt if there isanywhere in the world where scholarsof such international repute in suchdifferent, even competing, disciplineshave completed such an integratedstudy. Their separate volumes arestate-of-the-art scholarship in theirseparate disciplines. Their combinedstudy, done from universities and statesthousands of miles apart, is what amyriad centers and area studies programs say they are born to do but neverdo. Sahlins and Kirch pay us the com-
212
pliment of never talking down and ofnever retreating to the high position ofa personal synthesis of their ownexpertise. They exhaust all the sources;they explore every disciplinary methodology and technique; they providethe means of their own critique; theymake a reference point by which allscholars who follow them in Pacificstudies must measure themselves. I amvery happy to celebrate that achievement enthusiastically and to thankthem for it.
Let me savor only two of the manysplendid qualities of these volumes.The first is that they are true "historyfrom below," probably the first wehave experienced in the Pacific. Theother is their creative narrative form.
"History from below" is not aphrase Sahlins likes. It smacks toomuch of a trendy and crude Marxisthistoricism. So I won't labor him withit. "Total History," "Rounded History,""Two-sided History" might be better,but they, too, are phrases skewed byparticular approaches. One of the seminal books in historical studies of ourtime surely has been E. P. Thompson'sThe Making of the English WorkingClass. Thompson showed how class isa self-constructing relational processgiving identity to self and others at thesame time in infinitely complex ways.Sahlins and Kirch are just as seminal.They take an interlocking momentbetween prehistory and history, when
BOOK REVIEWS
archaeology loses its usual anonymityof place and artifact, and history byreason of state systems creates a particularist archive. The whole landscapebecomes individualized. Instead of an"ethnographic present" where history islost in superimposed generalizations,the enlarging characteristics of cultureare uncovered where they actuallyhappen. Sahlins and Kirch do not lookat the interlocking moment, like mostscholars have, for its generalized ethnography. They have made a wholenew Hawaiian past. They have discovered a whole new historical past forHawaiian history. It is history from"below," but because of their relationalconcepts-kama'aina/ali'i, landscape/event, island/world systems-it is nota crude oppositional class history. Noone, but no one-from the lowliestundergraduate essayist to the PhDstudent to those who make academicstudies "relevant"-can now ignore thefact that a whole new population isavailable for those who want to writehistory as it actually happened. In onestep Sahlins and Kirch have takenHawaiian history out of the antiquarianism that has largely dominated itinto state-of-the-art historiography.Those who do not know this new history are doomed to repeat the old.
Given the sad connotations of theword, Sahlins and Kirch might not feelcomplimented when I say that I thinkone of the graces of their book is itsnarrative form. They tell a story insuch a way that the reader knows thatevery particular detail is larger thanitself, and that history is never just"one damn thing after another," buthas a dramatic form. At the heart ofevery cultural act in Sahlins and Kirch's
213
history is what Aristotle called catharthis 'enlightenment'.
The first chapter of Sahlins's volume, Landscapes of Tradition, must bethe most satisfying piece of historicalethnography in all of Pacific studies.Some of Sahlins's earlier writing onHawaiian historical ethnography wasbedeviled by his own genius. He wastoo good for the rest of us, who became impatient with his vocabularyand were "conned" into thinking thathis procedures were easy. His criticsthought that all they had to do wasread the superficial historical sourceseveryone knew about, invent their ownvocabulary, negate Sahlins, and become instant historical ethnographers.None of his critics that I have read hascome near to Sahlins's dedication toexhaust every historical source. All ofthem, even the loudest, even the mostprestigious, have been butterflies to hismole. In Landscapes of Tradition,Sahlins is patient enough to spell out allhis deepest insights and to give historical substance and image to his theoretical understandings. In all the greatanthologies of anthropology in all itsdimensions, when did you last find onewithout a contribution from Sahlins?As historical ethnography moves intoanother gear because of Anahulu, youwill find Landscapes of Tradition theprime example of how it should bedone.
Mostly such ethnographic descriptions are set apart. They make a sort ofdisembodied "ethnographic present"beside which the main story is told.This is not true of Landscapes of Tradition. It permeates the whole ofSahlins's narrative. Look at the titles ofthe parts of the first volume: "I Con-
214 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC. SPRING 1994
Patrick Kirch and Marshall Sahlins'stwo-volume study of the Anahulu rivervalley will no doubt be hailed by someas a great work, but probably not byNative Hawaiians. Following in a long
quests, to 1812," "II The SandalwoodEra, 1812-183°," "III The WhalingPeriod, 183°-186o," "IV KawailoaSociety in the Mid-Nineteenth Century." You will think you are about toread another Kuykendall. But no, youare not. It is only that Sahlins has abandoned for a time his penchant for creative, mesmerizing titles (it is the onlycriticism of the book I have). This is noKuykendall. This is sensitive narrativeof the interplay of a cultural landscapewith periodized-that is, dramatizedhistorical events. This is context as itshould be written.
Over the years, it has been my experience that the pleasure of history making is more in the writing of it than inhaving written it. The author does diein the production of a book, but readers are also born. I am sure Sahlins andKirch will have sadness mixed withpleasure on completing such a majortask with the assistance of such greatHawaiian scholars as Dorothy Barrereand Marion Kelly. I am sure they arealready feeling the distance that allauthors feel from their creations. Ithink, however, that they should knowthat Hawaiian history will never be thesame after their book, because theywill have created so many thousands ofreaders down the years who make itdifferent.
* .-
GREG DENING
Melbourne
*
line of foreign denigrators of Hawaiiansociety-people like Hiram Bingham,Sheldon Dibble, Lorrin Thurston, andWilliam D. Alexander-the Sahlinsanalysis of Hawaiian history (happilyaccepted by Kirch), will be used by thecolonial powers, and their academicsupporters, to attack the Hawaiiansovereignty movement.
The main thrust of Sahlins's argument is that Hawaiian chiefs were"venal" and "draconian" and were toblame for the loss of Hawaiian sovereignty (118), implying that the chiefswere hated by the commoners, whomthey terribly oppressed. Those whooppose Hawaiian self-determinationand Hawaiians regaining political control of our country have already begun(in the local press) to cite the Anahulustudy and Sahlins's historical analysisto excuse the American takeover ofHawai'i. IfHawaiian chiefs were sobad, weren't commoner Hawaiiansfortunate to have been conquered bydemocracy-loving Americans? Thishistory will be loved by those who loveto hate Hawaiians.
Of course, in many ways the Anahulu study can be called a great work.A team of noted scholars participatedin the research-including MatthewSpriggs, Marshall Weisler, andDorothy Barrere-as well as Kirch andSahlins. The stated project objectivesare long overdue: the excavation of asite established in historical times inconjunction with a concurrent examination of pertinent land records.Although one wonders why an anthropologist, rather than a historian, waschosen, the research and findings willprove valuable to many scholars. Ifound Spriggs's chapter on irriga-
BOOK REVIEWS
tion systems most enlightening, andas usual Sahlins presents a meticulous array of quotes from primarysources not often cited. Had the authors confined their analysis to Anahulu, the work would have been excellent.
However, much of volume r is notabout Anahulu land awards, which isnot surprising since Anahulu never hasbeen terribly central or important atany time in Hawaiian history. Instead,Sahlins uses the historically inconsequential place, Anahulu, as a vehicle topresent an allegedly novel view ofHawaiian history, although the analysis is not so new. He argues for a familiar litany of evil, oppressive chiefs,lazy, disgruntled commoners, lowcontact population, constant warfare,and selfish Hawaiian women abortingor murdering their children to keeptheir bodies beautiful (although if awoman bears a child and then kills it,the damage has already been done tothe beauty of her body). In fact, Sahlinshas not one good word to say aboutHawaiian chiefly society, which is amarked departure from his previouswork, Islands ofHistory, wherein headmired and celebrated Hawaiianchiefly culture.
As a native Hawaiian, I was disappointed in Sahlins, because I had mistakenly supposed him to be one of thefew foreign academics who had alohafor us, but his unremitting attack onHawaiian society and its chiefs wasdepressing for me to read. No society isever that bad, and if Hawaiians wereso awful, one wonders why he bothersto study us at all.
I would never argue that Hawaiianchiefs were perfect; few political lead-
215
ers attain that state, and Hawaiianscertainly made their share of mistakes-allowing any foreigners to live in ourcountry was perhaps the foremost ofthese. But, considering the overwhelming array of disasters that befell Hawaiians-including foreign epidemics,precipitous depopulation, maraudingwarships enforcing the demands ofrapacious capitalists, and worst of all,self-serving Calvinists who proclaimedtheir love for the natives while plottingwith the American military to takeHawai'i for themselves-one mightexpect a few mistakes. Despite all this,Hawaiian chiefs managed to retain thesovereignty of the Hawaiian kingdomlonger than any other Pacific nation,save Tonga.
I disagree with so many aspects ofSahlins's history that it is difficult to beas brief as this review requires. Hiswhole analysis imputes foreign motivesfor native actions by both chiefs andcommoners, creating a set of metaphors and models foreign to HawaiIans.
I most object to his contention thatcommoners resented their chiefs (r14),which is a ludicrous assertion. In fact,commoners have always loved theirali'i, and continued to do so until afterthe overthrow. In all accounts of theali'i nui processions through theislands, Hawaiians delighted in bringing forth ho'okupu 'gifts' to honor andcherish their leaders. This custom continued after the r848 Mahele, duringthe reigns of Kamehameha IV and V,Lunalilo, Kalakaua and Lili'uokalani,when commoners, holding privatetitles to land, had no need to fear eviction by their "draconian" chiefs. At thetime of the r893 overthrow, when by
Ji;;WWi1e¥MMIMq;WHl&llflM P¥U'MMM6I
216
= ................
THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC· SPRING I994
Sahlins's reasoning commoners shouldhave resented the long oppression oftheir chiefs most keenly, thousands ofcommoners gathered to support theirAli'i Lili'uokalani, saying, "There ismuch love in the heart, much love inthe breast, for our Queen Lili'uokalani,the Queen foremost in our aloha,standing firm and preserving thepeace" (Ka Leo 0 ka Lahui, 17 January1893-my translation).
After the Queen was arrested, acommoner wrote a Mele Ko'ihonua noLili'u 'Political Chant for Lili'u':
Oh Lili'uokalani,sacred Queen of Hawai'i,The beloved of the Native people,the precious leader of the Pacific,Consecrated by the Heavens,by the all-powerful sacred Lord,To work on behalf of the Kingdom,to lead the Native people,For you are the heavens,for you are foundations of the earth,For you is the sea,for you is the land,[your mana is everywhere],I ask for life for my Hawaiian land,life for my Hawaiian people,Life for Lili'uokalani,until you sit upon your royal throne
again.(Buke Mele Lahui, ed Anton Rosa, 1895)
Sahlins misunderstands Hawaiianculture. The ali'i were like our parents,and while we may dislike the tasks theyhave given us, we love and cherishthem nonetheless.
Sahlins argues that capitalist pressures engendered by the sandalwoodtrade caused the chiefs to oppress thepeople of Waialua and quotes fromforeign observers of the period, whofrequently disliked chiefly powerbecause they could not appropriate it
for themselves. Hawaiians did notagree. Samuel Kamakau, who was ofO'ahu lineage and was born and raisedin Waialua during the very sandalwoodperiod described by Sahlins, said:
The foreign races are quick temperedand hold nothing sacred in their anger,not even kings or chiefs.... TheHawaiian nation loves its kings andchiefs. If a chief expresses a wish, hispeople see to it that his words are notspoken in vain.... The Hawaiianpeople welcome the stranger freely; richand poor; high and low give what theycan. The strangers call this love ignorance and think it good for nothing. (KeAu 'Oko'a, 26 August 1869)
Sahlins implies that the commonerswere oppressed by the "forced labor"corvees for sandalwood, while quotingthe missionary Charles Stewart whosaid Hawaiians worked only four orfive hours a day. However, in 1829,after years of continued cutting andalleged "oppression," at least four hundred fifty people volunteered to gowith the high chief Boki to cut sandalwood in the New Hebrides (Vanuatu),saying,
Very well! There is no harm in doingthat. The king's debt will soon be paid,then we will cut for ourselves and tradefor clothing and money. The chief hasbeen kind to us and fed us well. Howelse can we repay him? Nothing else wasthought of but the expedition aftersandalwood, and more offered to enlistthan the ship could hold. (SamuelKamakau, Ruling Chiefs ofHawai'i,1961,293)
Sahlins tries to impute a false distance between "foreign" chiefs of Mauiand Hawai'i lineage and the "native"commoners of Waialua, O'ahu. Heforgets how closely related the chiefs of
BOOK REVIEWS
different islands were, and that thecommoners traveled from one island toanother, living where they pleased;they too intermingled with people ofdifferent island lineages.
He begins by describing the ancientO'ahu Mo'r Ma'ilikokahi as a legitimate and good king, as opposed to the"foreign" Kahekili and his son Kamehameha who were conqueringchiefs, although both descend fromKakuhihewa, a famous O'ahu Mo'r.He also ignores that the good Ma'ilikukahi had to kill Haka, his predecessorand senior lineage cousin, who was thelegitimate heir. Referring to the chiefsas the ali'i 'ai ahupua'a 'chiefs who"eat" the ahupua'a' in order to showthat chiefs were rapacious, Sahlinsignores that 'ai also means "to rule,"and in Hawaiian 'ai has no connotationof cruelty.
Sahlins describes the rule of Ma'ilikokahi at length, establishing all thebehaviors required of a good chiefjust rule of the land, love of the commoners, attentive religious worshipneglecting to mention that a similardescription was given for the reign ofKamehameha, whom Sahlins refers toas a "brooding sorcerer" (2). Not onlyis this an unfair characterization ofKamehameha, who was a belovedchief, but the negative connotation ofthe term sorcerer, arising out of theChristian context, is entirely inappropriate to Hawaiian metaphor. Onewould think that any well-trainedanthropologist would be more sensitiveto the Hawaiian cultural context. Perhaps Sahlins refers to 'ana'ana, whichare prayers and rituals performed forthe gifts of both life and of death.(When Hi'iaka brings Lohi'au back tolife, she does so with the help of 'ana-
217
'ana.) Many practised 'ana'ana, butdespite all the great accomplishmentsof Kamehameha, he was not renownedfor his 'ana'ana.
Using the continued celebration ofthe makahiki festival as a sign of commoner protest against the chiefs wasanother strange metaphor. Sahlinsconfuses the god Lonoikamakahikiwith the chief of the same name (128).The chief, not the god, was a "victim ofthe usurpers in power." Lonoikamakahiki the chief was named for the god,just as his half-brother was named forKanaloa, god of the ocean; such naming was a common practice among thechiefs. It does not mean that the godtakes on the persona of the chief, justthe opposite. In Aotearoa, the Maori(whose arrival in Aotearoa predatedthe chief Lonoikamakahiki) worshipped Lono as Rongo, and both weregods of fertility and sweet-potatoplanting. When the commoners celebrated makahiki-like festivals after thebreaking of the 'aikapu, it was probably because they liked to celebrate, notbecause they identified with a god whowas supposedly a "victim of usurpers"-and who was not a victim in anyevent.
Another peculiar analysis was of the1848 Mahele. Sahlins argues that thechiefs agreed to the private ownershipof land so that they could sell the lands,since they weren't able to squeezeenough money out of the commoners(134). However, the chiefs had arguedagainst private ownership for tenyears, against the constant advice ofthe missionaries.
Sahlins would have us believe that252 chiefs got 63 percent of the land,dispossessing the commoners who gotonly I percent (135). He fails to men-
tion that it was not the chiefs, but theLand Commission, run by the haolemissionary William Richards, whoawarded land to the commoners, andthat while Richards allo~ted 2-3 acresto each commoner, missionaries requested 560 acres each for themselves,knowing that such an amount wasneeded for successful capitalist enterprise. He also ignores that at the timeof the Mahele no survey of chieflylands was done; they were divided bythe number of ahupua'a 'valleys', andno one knew how much land went towhom until the map surveys of 1880.Moreover, each of these chiefs wasrequired to relinquish control of 50 to75 percent of their holdings, and mostof these (218) were mere konohiki 'landstewards' who had only 'iii 'a smallportion within an ahupua'a' awards(see my Native Land and ForeignDesires, 1992,227-229,274-285). Nordoes he mention that commoners wereallowed to claim parts of the chieflylands, and in the areas of 'Ewa,Kane'ohe, and Kailua on O'ahu, suchclaims were extensive.
After all, however, I must agree withSahlins; Hawaiians did make mistakes.We listened respectfully to and accepted advice from foreigners whomwe thought trustworthy and knowledgeable about the western world.Perhaps now Hawaiians should learnfrom the mistakes of our ancestors andreject advice (and attacks) from"knowledgeable" foreigners about oursociety-especially when it comes fromthe brooding sorcerer of Chicago.
LILIKALA KAME'ELEIHIWA
University ofHawai'i at Manoa
..&?MWS'SMj·.
218
"- *
THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC. SPRING 1994
These two volumes describe the ethnohistory and historical archaeology ofthe Anahulu Valley, O'ahu, within thecontexts of Hawaiian and Pacific history. Volume 1 (Sahlins) is a richlydetailed account of Hawaiian protohistory that weaves back and forthbetween events at a local level, especially in the Anahulu Valley, and thebroader historical processes thatprompted them. Volume 2 (Kirch)describes archaeological investigationsin the largely undisturbed upper Anahulu Valley (Kawailoa-uka), with reference to documentary history of landownership and use. Threaded throughboth volumes, but more prominent involume 2, is evidence of the greaterobjective that held this project together: to relate ethnohistory toarchaeological features at the level ofdocumented people, structures, andevents, in order to reveal "how thecultural structures and processes ofHawaiian history have been sedimented in the ground of the AnahuluValley" (2:1)-the ultimate ambition,no less, of processual archaeology. Theauthors insist that their quest was successful, and certainly little scholarlyeffort or ingenuity was spared, butbetween documents and diggings therestill remains, in my view, a tantalizinggap across which is thrown a ricketybridge of tailored argument and speculation.
Chapter 3 of volume 2 providesexamples of some of the problems.Here, the authors first outline for each'iii in Kawailoa-uka how blocks of landwere apportioned by the mid-nineteenth-century Land Commission.Many claimants argued that theirrights stemmed from settlement in the
BOOK REVIEWS
area following the arrival of forcesassociated with Kamehameha I in AD1804. The archaeologists then set outto find evidence of this influx, andother events, by attempting to matchhouse sites and other archaeologicalfeatures with recorded individuals. Buteven in 'IIi Mikiai, regarded as thesimplest of the cases, the results arequestionable. In this block, land wasgranted in 1848 to Mailou and Kawaihaomaui. The authors sought Kawaihaomaui's house site on his land without success and argued that it hadperhaps been a simple garden house orshed whose remains cannot now beseen. In Mailou's case, several indigenous Hawaiian coconut palms observed on his land grant were regardedas the clue to the location of his housesite on an adjacent terrace. Test pitsrevealed stone artifacts of prehistorictype but no historical remains. Theauthors note the inconsistency of thisresult with the historical record-theyexpected iron, beads, glass, and soforth, as on other nineteenth-centuryhouse sites in Anahulu. A radiocarbondate from a posthole fill gave the calibrated result AD 1658-1954 at one standard deviation, with the highest probability at AD 1716-1886. One intercept,at AD 18°4, is picked out as a morethan coincidental correspondence withthe date when Kamehameha's forcesarrived in the district, and so the housesite is attributed to Mailou's father andthe lack of historical remains is explained by the relative paucity of theseamong Hawaiians at that early stage.
All this reads dangerously like special pleading, in which refractoryarchaeological results are interpretedto fit historical evidence, without rigor-
219
ous consideration of alternative explanations. For example, the archaeological remains indicate that the "Mailou"house is prehistoric, and therefore thatMailou built no house, or a house forwhich undiscovered remains, or noremains, exist elsewhere on his land, asis argued for his neighbor, Kawaihaomaui. Further, particular argumentsconstructed for the attribution of"Mailou's house" are ignored elsewherein Kawailoa-uka when they are lessconvenient. In contrast to the absenceof exotic goods in "Mailou's house," abottle manufactured AD 1790-1810 andsome early nineteenth-century beadswere found in "Kainiki's house"nearby. These are used to support anoccupation span also reaching back toAD 1804, and thus made consistentwith historical records of Kainiki. Soneither presence nor absence of chronological markers in the archaeologicalmarkers in the archaeology can alter aconclusion of settlement at AD 18°4,which is desired on documentarygrounds. Then, in the case of "Kalua'shouse," another bottle dated to AD1790-1810 is simply passed over in theargument that the occupation span wasmid- to late-nineteenth century, consistent with historic records of Kalua,who was only born about AD 1800 andcould not have taken up the land untilabout AD 1830.
Among numerous similar inconsistencies of argument may be noted theemphasis on a large household withvariety and abundance of exotic goodsat site D6-51, which is attributed to thebig man Kamakea, while the other bigman in upper Anahulu, Konohiki, isevidently represented by no house onhis land at all, let alone any signs of
220 THE CONTEMPORARY PACIFIC· SPRING 1994
special status. Only several mangotrees possibly mark his former residence. If this is so, then any other historical claimants may be equally elusive in the archaeological remains, andit is possible that just as some featuresare anonymously prehistoric, othersmay be attributed to unknown contemporaries of the documented individuals-the probable boundary stoneinscribed without the unrecorded name"Kewe Kamawai," is a case in point(although it is perhaps a misspelling of"Kanawai" whose father, Kalua,owned the adjacent block).
More crucial to the intention of theproject than argument about structuresand artifacts, however, is the use ofradiocarbon dating, for it is largely onthe radiocarbon assays that the postKamehameha l expansion into upperAnahulu is perceived in the archaeological remains. Archaeology has improved its understanding of radiocarbon dating since the Anahuluinvestigations, so it would be unfair tocriticize the evident shortcomings ofsampling method too stringently-theuse of unidentified wood charcoal, sothat inbuilt ages are unknown, thedating of only one sample per site, andso on-but the use to which the resultsare put is highly dubious. Calibrationcurves for the last three hundred yearsspread probability such that closerinterpretation of most of the Anahuludates is extremely problematical, evenat the level of one standard deviationthat the authors use (two standarddeviations is the standard range). Thelikelihood that any particular peak orintercept represents the calendar age ofthe event in question is exceedingly
slight, and even if it did, the likelihoodof some inbuilt age in the sampleswould mean that the actual date wasyounger again. Consequently, thereexists no radiocarbon dating supportfor the contention that much of thearchaeological evidence of upper Anahulu can be dated to the early nineteenth century, and certainly none toback the naive, but crucial, claim bySahlins (1:52) that the developmentsdocumented by archaeological remainsin the upper Anahulu "can be dated bycarbon 14 almost precisely to 1804." Infact, there are too few radiocarbondates or any other chronological datato rule out the possibility that many ofthe house sites, andrhe irrigation systems, were first occupied or constructed prehistorically by people ofundocumented identity.
None of this is to say that the interpretations preferred by the authors arewrong. My point about this worthwhile and ambitious project is, rather,that for reasons all too frustratinglyfamiliar, it has proven impossible toclose the gap between archive andarchaeology by demonstrating theessential connections that a robust"archaeology of history" must exhibit.Nevertheless, the exemplary expositionof Hawaiian ethnohistory and thearchaeological results, together withscholarly interpretation of the evidencein its own terms, will ensure that theAnahulu volumes are valued andmuch-consulted resources in Pacifichistory.
ATHOLL ANDERSON
University ofOtago
*