The move by businessmen—many the children of missionaries, and others foreigners who had taken up residency in the Hawaiian Kingdom—to develop sugar plantations led to the movement toward reciprocity. The sugar growers sought a way to compete with sugar growers in the southern United States, and through the Reciprocity Treaty which took effect on September 9, 1876, the Hawai‘i sugar growers were able to export their sugar and rice crops with relief from taxation on foreign imports.
Native Hawaiian historian Samuel M. Kamakau observed
In 1870, native historian S. M. Kamakau wrote about several practices and beliefs pertaining to manō, sharks, in ancient life. One practice of note in the Pu‘uloa region was the practice of transforming deceased family members into manō as ‘aumakua. These family ‘aumakua would help relatives when in danger on the sea—if a canoe capsized or a man-eating shark was threatening attack.
Care for the dead (kupapa‘u), respect of the graves (ilina), and traditions associated with the spirit after death are subjects of great significance to Hawaiians past and present. In his history of the Hawaiian people, Samuel M. Kamakau shared a collection of traditions and practices pertaining to the dead, and identified some of the places of importance in these practices. These narratives are of particular importance to lands and specific wahi pana of the Honouliuli-Moanalua region.
Here, in “He mele no Kualii, Kalanipipili, Kulanioaka, Kunuiakea &c. i haku ia e Kumahukia a me Kaiwiokaekaha, na kahu ponoi o Kualii, ma ke kaua i Kunia, ma Keahumoa i Lihue,” which translates as the title of this section, Samuel M. Kamakau provides readers with another mele, extolling the heritage of Kuāli‘i, and his association with wahi pana across the islands, including several of those found in the ‘Ewa District.
Another of Samuel M. Kamakau’s submittals to the Hawaiian newspaper Kuokoa provides readers with details on wahi pana in Honouliuli and the larger ‘Ewa District. In this account, Kamakau cites the tradition of Kana and corrects certain details that had been previously reported. Notably, he recorded the names of certain chiefly and priestly ancestors who came from Kahiki, and who were the founders of lineages tied to various ahupua‘a in the ‘Ewa District.
Samuel M. Kamakau, who was one of the esteemed historians tied to the Kamehameha household, wrote on many aspects of Hawaiian history. At times elders in the Hawaiian community—sometimes those whose families descended from lineages and lands which had been subjugated by Kamehameha I—responded to historically biased or incomplete histories which were compiled by Kamakau. In the account that follows, Kamakau responds to critics of his narratives and references noted places and resources of the ‘Ewa District.
One of the great traditions of the Pu‘uloa area is tied to the event of ca. 1782, when Kahekili, king of Maui, tricked his nephew Kahahana, king of O‘ahu, into killing his high priest Ka‘ōpulupulu. Kahekili had raised Kahahana, and he desired to control O‘ahu in addition to his own islands of the Maui group. It was the priest Ka‘ōpulupulu who instructed Kahahana and warned him against certain actions proposed by Kahekili. S. M. Kamakau reported that about eight years into Kahahana’s reign as king of O‘ahu, Kahekili succeeded in tricking Kahahana into killing Ka‘ōpulupulu.1
Native historian Samuel M. Kamakau compiled and published a history of Kamehameha I, which was translated by Mary Kawena Pukui. In doing so, he reviewed various aspects of Hawaiian history leading up to the time of Kamehameha and touched upon the history of a chief by the name of Kuāli‘i who was the king of O‘ahu and later unified all the islands under his rule. Tradition says that Kuāli‘i lived for 175 years, and he was succeeded in rule by his son, Pele-iō-Hōlani in ca. 1730.
‘Aihonu An ‘ili cited in claims of the Māhele.
Ha‘alelenui An ‘ili cited in claims of the Māhele.
Hale‘au‘au An upland region between Pu‘uku‘ua and Kānehoa. Cited in the tradition of Hi‘iaka-i-ka-poli-o-Pele.