Two Hawaiian Feather Garments, Ahuula

Two beautiful and remarkably well preserved examples of the gorgeous feather garments formerly worn by chiefs in the Hawaiian Islands have lately been acquired by the University Museum. Both garments, a mantle (Plate I) and a cape (Plate II), were for many years in the possession of the family of Zouche of Haryngworth. Robert Curzon, fourteenth Baron Zouche (1810-1873) formed a notable collection of armour, and, appropriately enough, seems to have added to it these fine specimens of the accoutrement of Hawaiian warriors of rank, who were accustomed to wear such robes as these into battle. Neither the cape nor the cloak is included in Dr. W. T. Brigham’s revised list of extant examples of Hawaiian featherwork, which enumerates 117 cloaks and capes¹ and which was compiled as the result of much painstaking inquiry. These two garments, then, must be added to that list.

The use of feathers for decorative purposes was almost universal in Oceania. In Melanesia, the western islands, it consisted chiefly in the attachment of single feathers, of composite plumes, or of bird skins to objects intended for personal adornment such as combs or hair pins, or of feathers, treated in the same way, to such objects as canoes, spears, dance ornaments, or sacred images. But in Melanesia, where birds abound, the technique of feather work never reached such a high development as it did in Polynesia, with smaller islands harbouring comparatively few varieties of birds. Nevertheless the method of covering surfaces with feathers fastened in a netted or woven ground, so as to resemble the natural covering of birds, which was practised with such remarkable skill and effect at the outermost limits of the Polynesian wanderings, in Hawaii and New Zealand, is known also in Melanesia; and it would not be easy to decide whether this peculiar craft is an independent invention of Polynesians and Melanesians, a legacy of the Polynesians to the western islanders through whose waters they passed in seeking their present homes, or a new accomplishment added to the Polynesian repertory during that passage.

The dearth in western Polynesia of feathers of a striking colour, apart from the red tail plumes of the tropic bird (Phaëton rubricauda), led to a trade in red feathers from the west. In western Polynesia the Tongans were the middlemen in the exchange of fine Samoan mats for the feathers of a parrot, the Lorius solitarius of Fiji, or for the birds themselves, from which, as they were kept alive in captivity, successive crops of feathers could be taken. The Samoans decorated their fine clothing mats with these red feathers, and also made the feathers into headdresses for their chiefs. An important source of the strong Polynesian strain in the population of Fiji is indicated by the nature of the consideration in the trade between Fiji and Tonga. The Tongans paid the Fijians for the birds and feathers with Samoan mats, with wooden bowls of their own manufacture, and by the loan of their women.²

These red feathers were highly valued by the Tongans themselves, who employed them in the making of offerings to the gods and as royal insignia. The Tongans were the most skilful navigators of western Polynesia, and, besides their trading voyages to Samoa and Fiji, sailed eastward also, so that the red feathers of Fiji had probably reached eastern Polynesia in trade before Cook found them useful in securing provisions in Tahiti in the year 1777.³

In Tongatabu, the principal island of the Tongan archipelago, the king on great occasions wore a girdle made of bark cloth or tapa covered with red and yellow feathers. This recalls the so-called feather money of the Melanesian Islands of Santa Cruz and that of Niue or Savage Island, which is inhabited by Polynesians; it is made in a similar way.⁴

Imitations of the sleek feathered bird skin, which is itself used decoratively in New Guinea, are carried out in other parts of Melanesia either by the simple expedient of gumming feathers to a slightly modified natural foundation, as in the example just referred to and in the Fijian chiefs’ and priests’ frontlets of red feathers fixed on a strip of palm leaf, or by the more complicated method of tying the feathers into an artificial foundation, as in New Caledonia, where netting is made for this purpose. In western Polynesia the bird skin has apparently suggested the decoration of the dress mats of Samoa and of the Savage Island feather money. In Polynesia this form of imitative decoration passes east, southeast, and northeast, in its earlier stages following in the track of the Tongan traders with their red feathers from Melanesian Fiji. It is exemplified in certain feather covered objects of the Hervey and Austral Islanders and the gorgets of the Tahitians. Its most perfect development is reached in the feather mantles of the distant Polynesian outposts of New Zealand and Hawaii.⁵

Feathers were chiefly used in the Hawaiian Islands in the making of the lei, or feather garlands, worn not only about the head, but also about the neck, and including also wristlets; of the kahili, in origin a fly whisk, a badge of rank; of the mahiole, or crested helmets of the chiefs; of the ahuula, or feather cloaks and capes, which were also parts of a chief’s costume; and of certain other objects of less importance, which will be briefly described.

Concerning the use to which the various forms of Hawaiian feather covered objects were put, we have a fair amount of information from the early visitors to the Hawaiian Islands. We learn from Cook⁶ that the men “frequently wear on the head, a kind of ornament of a finger’s thickness or more, covered with red and yellow feathers, curiously varied, and tied behind.” From this passage it does not appear that there was any ceremonial significance in the wearing of the lei. But they were probably put on to do honour to the man whom we know to have been regarded by the natives as a god; and from other accounts it seems that some occasions at least on which they were worn had a ceremonial character. Thus Lieutenant King, to whom we owe the official account of the last scenes in Cook’s life and of the remainder of the third voyage after the leader’s tragic death, tells us that, at a chief’s funeral on the island of Hawaii, the necks and hands of the women mourners were decorated with “feathered ruffs “;⁷ and, according to Bastian,⁸ the lei were part of the costume of a herald. On the other hand, Captain Dixon,⁹ like Cook, speaks of them merely as customary ornaments, though he assigns them as such to the women, not to the men. Probably they were a part of the ceremonious rather than ceremonial costume, like a silk hat or a décolleté gown.

Part of a dancer’s equipment was a feather covered rattle which consisted “of what may be called a conic cap inverted, but scarcely hollowed at the base, above a foot high, made of a coarse sedge-like plant; the upper part of which, and the edges, are ornamented with beautiful red feathers; and to the point, or lower part, is fixed a gourd-shell, larger than the first. Into this is put something to rattle; which is done by holding the instrument by the small part, and shaking, or rather moving it, from place to place briskly, either to different sides, or backward and forward just before the face, striking the breast with the other hand at the same time.”¹⁰ The rattle is pictured by Webber in the Atlas to Cook’s Third Voyage, Plates 62 and 67.

The immense kahili, or plumes mounted on long poles, which were carried in procession at the funerals of members of the dynasty founded in the late eighteenth century by Kamehameha I, who united all the islands under his rule, appear to have been developed from the fly whisks which in the narratives of the earlier visitors to the islands are described as carried by the attendants of chiefs and of their female relations. Thus King:¹¹ “I was interrupted in making further inquiries [concerning the disposal of the body of a chief who had just died] by the approach of three women of rank, who, whilst their attendants stood near them with their fly-flaps, sat down by us, and, entering into conversation, soon made me comprehend, that our presence was a hindrance to the performance of some necessary rites.” And Ellis,¹² in an account of a dance performed before the native governor of Hawaii, speaks of one of the retinue of the latter who stood behind the chief’s chair holding “a highly polished spittoon, made of the beautifully brown wood of the cordia in one hand, and in the other a handsome kahiri (kahili), an elastic rod, three or four feet long, having the shining feathers of the tropic bird tastefully fastened round the upper end, with which he fanned away the flies from the person of his master.” Dixon¹³ tells us that the “elastic rod,” the handle of the fly whisk, was “decorated with alternate pieces of wood and bone, which, at a distance, has the appearance of finiered (veneered) work.” Some handles were in fact not decorated with, but built up of, alternating discs of human bone and tortoise shell on a core of wood. The bone used was that of fallen enemies. The kahili of the pompous funeral processions under the Kamehamehas were monstrous affairs. Captain Sir Edward Belcher in his Narrative of a Voyage round the World,¹⁴ describing the funeral at Honolulu, in June, 1839, of the aunt of Kamehameha III, says: “The kahili, or feathered plume was carried on this occasion. It is constructed of the dark tail-feathers of the cock, very similar to the Chinese fly-dusters . . . It is, however, of great size, measuring as follows: length of pole and plume, eighteen feet six inches; length of plume, four feet, and twenty-eight inches in diameter.” Others were larger than this. From Cooke¹⁵ we learn that the red feathers figured again in the decoration of the handles of the kahili, and that, besides feathers of the tropic bird, the domestic cock, and the man of war bird,¹⁶ the plume was sometimes “the skin of a white dog’s tail . . . sewed over a stick, with its tuft at the end.” Cook saw these implements in the island of Atui (now Maui). The earlier writers do not mention the large kahili.

After Cook’s death those of his bones which were not restored on the demand of his successor, Captain Clarke, were preserved by the priests of Rono or Lono, the god for whom Cook was taken, “in a small basket of wicker-work, completely covered over with red feathers; which in those days were considered to be the most valuable articles which the natives possessed.” The basket with the bones was deposited in a heiau or temple dedicated to Rono, on the side of the island remote from that where Cook was struck down.¹⁷ These relics were worshipped as those of the god.

When Cook went ashore in Hawaii, he took part in rites within the heiau which, though he did not know it, were in fact addressed to the god in his person. The ceremonies involved his entering a shrine in which an oracle was localized and receiving offerings of pigs.¹⁸ In the Hofmuseum at Vienna there is a model of this shrine (anuu) which was one of the relics brought back by Cook’s companions of this ill fated voyage. The model was covered with red and yellow feathers.¹⁹

In the inner court of a heiau built by Kamehameha I to celebrate the unification by conquest of all the Hawaiian Islands into a single realm under his own rule, there was arranged, according to Ellis, “the sanctum sanctorum of the temple where the principal idol used to stand, surrounded by a number of images of inferior deities.” This “principal idol” was the image of “Tairi [Kaili] or Kukairimoku [Kukailimoku, unifier of the islands], a large wooden image crowned with a helmet, and covered with red feathers, the favourite war-god of Tamehameha [Kamehameha].”²⁰ In battle “the national war-god was elevated above the ranks, and carried by the priest near the person of the king, or commander-in-chief. . . . Other chiefs of rank had their war-gods carried near them by their priest. . . . A description of Tairi has already been given, and he may be taken as a sample.”²¹ In fact it appears that it was only the head and neck of these gods, formed of basketwork, that were covered with the red feathers.²²

Concerning the “mahiole or helmets designed for protection as well as ornament”²³ we learn from Ellis that “some of the helmets were made of close wicker-work, exactly fitted the head, and were ornamented along the crown. But those worn by the high chiefs only, and called mahiori [mahiole], though not more useful, were peculiarly beautiful. They were made in the form of the Grecian helmet, with towering crest, and were thickly covered with the glossy red and yellow feathers of a small paroquet found in the mountains (with whose feathers the war-cloaks are also ornamented) and though they did not appear adapted to defend the head, any more than the cloaks were to guard the body, they increased the effect of the towering height and martial air of the chiefs, whose stature was generally above that of the common people.”²⁴

The objects just enumerated form, with the cloaks, the principal known varieties of Hawaiian featherwork. All, it will be seen, with the possible exception of the lei, had some relation with ceremonial usages, and three had a direct connection with the gods.

The feather cloaks, besides being the most impressive examples of this peculiar art, have a number of interesting usages connected with them which throw a good deal of light on the nature of the position of nobles in Hawaiian society, their privileges and duties.

In Polynesia generally the position of chiefs or kings and nobles was a highly privileged one, carefully graded in matters of precedence among themselves. In the Hawaiian Islands not less than elsewhere, society was strongly organized on an aristocratic basis, the leaders of society being powerful chiefs or kings regarded as sacred.

Among the privileges of the nobles was the right to wear the feather cloaks and capes (ahuula). These could hardly have been accessible to poorer men in any case, on account of the great expense involved in the comparative rarity of the feathers employed in making the garments and in the laborious process of manufacture. For the genuine ahuula, feathers of colours taken mainly from four species of birds were employed. These colours were yellow, red, green, and black. Cloaks made of the orange yellow feathers of the mamo (Drepanis pacifica), a Hawaiian bird which is now extinct, were royal garments only. The general colour of the plumage of the mamo was black, the forward margin of the wings, the lower part of the body, the rump, tail coverts, and thighs being yellow. It was the yellow feathers only that were taken for the royal cloaks. “The birds which supplied the feathers, at least the choicer yellow, red and green, were inhabitants of the mountain regions into which, as the abode of evil spirits, the Hawaiian did not like to go . . . Hence a caste arose of hardy venturesome men, the bird hunters . . . who endured cold and privations in their hunt for the precious feathers which were indeed the gold currency in which tribute might be paid or by which coveted goods might be obtained . . . They knew the habits of the birds, their food and other matters that might facilitate their quest. For example, they recognized the curiosity of the birds and planted strange trees in the open places in the forests, and in these new trees placed the sticks smeared with bird-lime which would entangle the prying birds . . . The rarer birds were seldom killed but captured alive and when the few feathers desired were plucked, released to renew their plumage at the next moulting . . . Snares and throwing nets were frequently used. The common sorts were often killed and eaten, and the oo could hardly have survived the loss of nearly its entire plumage.”²⁵

Chiefs of less than royal rank contented themselves with cloaks or capes of feathers of not much less rarity than those of the mamo, and kings did not confine themselves to garments made of mamo feathers. Thus the oo (Acrulocercus nobilis), named in the passage just quoted, furnished the best black and, after the mamo, the most highly valued yellow feathers. Its general colour is a brilliant black with axillary tufts of yellow. “As the bird was a favorite article of food, and as the larder of the hunters in the mountains was poorly stocked, it seldom survived capture, and yet this bird has remained in comparative abundance [1899] while the mamo, whose orange feathers alone were taken, has become extinct.”²⁶

The best red feathers were taken from the iiwi (Vestiaria coccinea). When any of these birds were taken and plucked, the feathers were tied in bunches, and appear to have passed current as a medium of exchange within the Hawaiian group as other feathers did in other parts of Polynesia. Green feathers seem to have been obtained chiefly from the ou (Psittacirostra psittacea).²⁷

The foundation for the feathers in both the helmets and the cloaks or capes is a close netting made of the fibres of oloná (Touchardia latifolia), resembling ramie fibre, but tougher and more durable, according to Brigham.²⁸ The bark of the plant was stripped off, soaked and scraped, and the fibres thus obtained twisted into threads of varying thicknesses by being rolled under the palm of the hand on the thigh. The thread was then ready to be made into nae or netting of a very fine mesh, varying from one twentieth to rather more than one fourth of an inch. The mesh of the garments in the University Museum approaches the larger rather than the smaller of these limits. Bands of nae of from 8 to 12 inches in width were prepared, and these were cut and joined to make up the shape and size required for the garment. In each mesh was tied a small bunch of feathers by much finer thread than that of which the netting was composed. One turn of the thread was taken round the cord of the mesh and the shafts of the feathers, which were then bent over on themselves and bound by another turn of the thread to the same or, in the case of the closer network, the next lower mesh.²⁹ This account of the way in which the feathers were fastened to the netting contains some slight modifications of Dr. Brigham’s account. Examination of the cloaks here showed that single feathers are not tied into the meshes. In the case of the black and red feathers, groups of three or four are fastened to the netting in the way indicated. The yellow feathers, which are larger, are taken singly, but around the quill and the lower barbs of each large yellow feather a small red feather or two are grouped and the bunch tied in as a whole. These small red feathers (iiwi), according to Dr. Brigham, are known as pa’u (waist cloth), and are intended to lend to the surface composed chiefly of oo yellow an orange tinge like that of the royal mamo feathers.

The plan of the large cloak in the University Museum, as seen when it is spread out flat, is roughly the sector of a circle, the angle of which is not much under 180°. Where the cloak was brought round the neck of the wearer, it is cut in a curve about one eighth the length of that of the lower edge of the garment, and parallel to the latter. From the middle of the curve of the neck to a point halfway along the outer edge, the depth of the cloak is 4 feet 11 inches. A straight line drawn between the extreme points of the width is 8 feet 11 inches. The corresponding dimensions of the small cape are 20 inches and 36 inches respectively. Its outline is of slightly different form, the outer curve exceeding a semicircle. It is said that capes or tippets of this size were worn by inferior chiefs.

The decorative design of these cloaks is simple, usually consisting of rhombs or lozenges, crescents, and triangles of colour—the latter being apparently in origin really portions of crescents—one or more of these elements being repeated or combined in various ways upon an otherwise unbroken field of a contrasting tint. In the large cloak there is a great field of red iiwi feathers with a relatively narrow outer border of yellow feathers of the oo. On the red field two long shallow crescents of yellow extend across almost the whole width of the cloak near the neck, and below them are three rows respectively of five, six, and seven yellow rhombs, the number increasing with the increasing width of the cloak towards the yellow lower border. Along the rectilinear edges of the cloak, which, when it was worn, were brought together in front, the red field is chequered with narrow oblongs of yellow, which are also carried along the curve of the neck.

The yellow (oo) field of the small cape carries a large median crescent of red (iiwi). Along the straight edges there are alternately a black (oo) and a red (iiwi) triangle (demicrescent), so arranged that when these edges are brought together and the stout cords of cloná tied at the throat of the wearer, two half red, half black rhombs, crossed by the yellow line of the cape’s edge, are formed by the juxtaposition of these alternating bits of colour.

These two feather garments are unsurpassed illustrations of an art now extinct and precious mementoes of customs forgotten by the dwindling remnant of a people whose barbaric culture has been submerged by a civilization with which it had nothing in common. It had its splendours and its dignities nevertheless, occasions when these magnificent robes of the warrior fitly panoplied him, not so much for defence as for the due and stately execution of the code which regulated the conduct of the leader in battle, exposing him to greater risks than the common man was expected to incur. For, we are told, “there was one very gallant custom common in their skirmishing conflicts. A chief would take the field, clothed in a long cloak of yellow and red feathers, exquisitely wrought and reaching to the heels, as well as amply folding over the chest ; his head was likewise accoutred with a gorgeous helmet, correspondingly decked with parti-coloured plumage. He bore neither spear nor shield, nor any weapon offensive or defensive, but only a fan in his hand, which he brandished in front of his antagonists (who were drawn up in a line before him), thus challenging them to begin the attack upon himself singly, while his followers were drawn up, in like manner, behind, to support him, if necessary. A number of spears were then thrown at him by the enemy; which, with wonderful dexterity, he contrived to avoid or divert by a stroke of the hand, or by stooping, twisting, and turning aside his body, even when twenty or thirty at a time where falling around him…. Whenever he could, he caught the spears in the air, and hurled them back, with deadly retaliation, upon his foes.”³⁰

Not only a high courage to uphold a high tradition of leadership in the hopeful prospect of success, but also a fine dignity in the acceptance of death as the issue and price of failure characterized the old Hawaiian warriors; to which the valued mantle was again, in this last scene of all, a fit concomitant and property. In 1819, when the old pagan system was in its last struggle, dying hard, one Kekuaokalani, cousin of Liholiho (Kamehameha II), took up arms in its defence against the latter, the champion of the new faith, and was defeated. But before the end Kekuaokalani rallied his men in a forlorn hope, which for a moment seemed to promise success. In this crisis the leader fainted, overcome by his wounds, and victory passed again to the stronger side. Recovering his senses in the moment of final defeat, Kekuaokalani, “though unable to stand, sat on a fragment of lava, and twice loaded and fired his musket on the advancing party. He now received a ball in his left breast, and immediately covering his face with his feather cloak, expired in the midst of his friends.”³¹

The penalty of greatness imposed upon the chief by which he was required to receive the first discharge of lances in a battle, was dramatized, though the element of danger was not dramatized away, in the role of the king at the festival of the new year, which was dated by the rising of the Pleiades. “On this occasion his majesty dresses himself in his richest cloak and helmet, and is paddled in a canoe along the shore, followed sometimes by many of his subjects. He embarks early and must finish his excursion at sunrise. The strongest and most expert of the warriors is chosen to receive him on his landing. . . . As soon as the king lands . . . he [the picked spearman] darts his spear at him, from a distance of about thirty paces, and the king must either catch the spear in his hand, or suffer from it: there is no jesting in the business. Having caught it, he carries it under his arm, with the sharp end downwards, into the temple or heavoo [heiau]. . . . Hamamea [Kamehameha] has been frequently advised to abolish this ridiculous ceremony, in which he risks his life every year; but to no effect. His answer always is, that he is as able to catch a spear, as any one on the island [Hawaii] is to throw it at him.”³²

As the king on the occasion of such feasts as this, which was said to be tabu or sacred, wore the costume of a warrior, the feather robe and helmet, so he and the chiefs wore them as robes of state on other great occasions. When they came off to the ships to greet the wandering god Lono on his return to their islands in the person of Cook returning from Alaska, they were robed in mantle and helmet, as they were also when Cook landed and was received and worshipped as the god. On this occasion Cook was himself invested with a feather mantle which the king removed from his own person for the purpose, and with a helmet of feathers, and half a dozen other cloaks were spread at his feet as an offering. The feather garments, then, were an appropriate covering for a god; and it is also significant that those gods who were carried into battle beside the chiefs in their feather robes, were themselves partly decked with the red and yellow feathers and wore the representation of a crested feather helmet on their heads. The chiefs were of the kindred of the gods, and it seems probable that the occasions on which the feather garments were worn were all in some sense sacred, when this kinship was felt most strongly and made evident to all by the assumption of the insignia common to gods and nobles. Feather decked gods were carried in the canoe behind the one in which were Tairiopu of Hawaii and his chiefs when they passed around Cook’s newly anchored ships chanting their ceremonial welcome; the chief who delivered to Captain Clerke what he had been able to recover of Cook’s bones wore a feather cloak, and the bones themselves were wrapped in fine tapa (bark cloth) and covered with a cloak of black and white feathers —black was the colour of the tapa in which bones were usually wrapped for burial.

King was struck by the resemblance of these cloaks in form to Spanish mantles, and by what he considered the resemblance of the feather helmets to those worn by Spaniards of an earlier day, and remarks on the possibility of the Spaniards having touched at the Hawaiian Islands in their crossings from Mexico to the East Indies. If the Spaniards visited these islands before Cook, it is of course possible that they may have given to the islanders the pattern of their mantles. This possibility receives some support from the fact that there is no parallel for a shaped garment of the Hawaiian kind in the South Seas. The New Zealand feather mantle is a simple rectangle, and the poncholike tiputa of the Society Islands offers no very close analogy. Besides, even if the tiputa were to be regarded as the prototype of the ahuula, there is the possibility to be reckoned with that the tiputa itself may have been an American garment imported into the islands of southeastern Polynesia by Spaniards in the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century; so that neither would this second hypothesis result necessarily in the ascription to the ahuula of a purely Polynesian origin.

The case of the helmets is quite different. The name mahiole was transferred to the helmets from the sagittal crest of hair which adorned a chief’s otherwise shaven or closely cropped head, and there is no reason to suppose that the crested feather helmet originated in any other way than that indicated by this transference of names. Crested headdresses or caps are among the commonest forms of coiffure or of headgear, and there are not a few analogies in the South Seas, from southeastern Polynesia to Fiji and New Ireland. The University Museum possesses several fine examples of mourning masks from the latter (Melanesian) island, in which the remarkable crest of fibres can be traced by means of the much less exaggerated, even quite naturalistic, crest on certain skull masks of the same island, and by native information, to the imitation of a form of hairdressing formerly prevalent there. In the face of similar phenomena, then, which are well established as indigenous in other regions of Oceania, it would be gratuitous to look to the Spaniards for an explanation of the Hawaiian form of a helmet which they did not wear themselves. The bassinet, the armet, or the morion of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had, in some cases, narrow sagittal ridges of the metal of which the headpiece itself was made, but these did not resemble the broad high crest of the Hawaiian ahuula or the New Ireland tatanua.³³

---

1 Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Vol. VII, No. 1. Additional Notes on Hawaiian Featherwork. Honolulu, 1918. Pp. 59-61. ↪
2 T. Williams and J. Calvert, Fiji and the Fijians, New York, 1859, p. 73; A. Kramer, Die Samoa Inseln, Stuttgart, 1903, Vol. II, pp. 287, 297; G. Turner, Samoa, London, 1884, p. 120; Cook, III, i, pp. 374, 375. ↪
3 Cook, III, ii, pp. 9, 10, quoted by O. Finsch in Südseearbeiten, p. 167. Abhandlungen des Hamburgischen Kolonialinstituts, XIV, Hamburg, 1914. ↪
4 Finsch, loc. cit. ↪
5 W. Churchill, Club Types of Nuclear Polynesia, p. 167 ff., Washington, 1917—a study of objects in the University Museum, mainly; Finsch, op. cit., pp. 165 ff.; J. Edge-Partington, Ethnographical Album of the Pacific Islands, pp. 18, 19, 22, 28; Cook, I, ii, Pl. 8; W. Ellis, Polynesian Researches, I, pp. 298, 301, London, 1853; Williams and Calvert, op. cit., pp. 125, 126. ↪
6 III, ii, p. 232. ↪
7 Cook III, iii, p. 166. ↪
8 Inselgruppen in Oceanien, p. 255. ↪
9 A Voyage Round the World . . . in 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788, London, 1789, p. 271. ↪
10 Cook III, ii, p. 236. ↪
11 Cook III, iii, p. 167. ↪
12 Op. cit., IV. p. 106. ↪
13 loc. cit., pp. 272, 273. ↪
14 London, 1843, Vol. I, p. 262. ↪
15 III, ii, p. 232, and Vocabulary, III, iii, p. 549. ↪
16 Dixon, loc. cit. ↪
17 Ellis, op. cit., IV, p. 136. ↪
18 Cook, III, iii, pp. 7, 13, 14. ↪
19 Brigham, Memoirs, I, p. 29. ↪
20 Ellis, op. cit., IV, p. 96 ff.↪
21 Pp. 158-159.↪
22 Op. cit., p. 89; Brigham, op. cit., pp. 31-39.↪
23 Brigham, op. cit., p. 3.↪
24 Op. cit., p. 157.↪
25 Brigham, op. cit., pp. 3 and 4.↪
26 Brigham, op. cit., p. 10.↪
27 Loc. cit.↪
28 Op. cit., p. 50.↪
29 Op. cit., pp. 50, 51; J. F. G. Stokes, Hawaiian Nets and Netting, Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Vol. II, pp. 152, 153.↪
30 Journal of Voyages and Travels, D. Tyerman and G. Bennet, I, pp. 448, 449. London, 1831.↪
31 Ellis, op. cit., IV, p. 123. ↪
32 U. Lisiansky, A Voyage round the World in the Years 1803, 1804, 1805, and 1806 . . . in the Ship Neva, pp. 118, 119. London, 1814.↪
33 Cf. Brigham, op. cit., p. 40.↪