THE EVOLUTION OF HAWAIIAN AQUACULTURE
byWilliam K. Kikuchi
Society for American Archaeology
Kauai Community College
Forty-Third Annual Meeting
Hawaiian
aquaculture was a prehistoric native innovation. Its roots were to be found in
the development of irrigated agricultural pondfields. Architectonic aquacultural
sites, whether found as inland pondfields or along coastal areas, were simply
considered to be extensions of agricultural technology. The evolution of
pondfields and fishponds had a significant ecological and cultural impact on the
native society. Ecologically, pondfields and fishponds became artificial
estuaries enriching the natural riverine and marine environments. Culturally,
their evolution paralleled the development of the elite class and, increasingly,
became one of the symbols and manifestations of religious, political and
economic power.
For those archaeologists and historians whose area of specialization is the
Hawaiian Islands, questions concerning the origin and functions of Hawaiian
aquaculture are vital for an understanding of the development of the highly
integrated, stratified, structurally complex chiefdoms of prehistoric Hawaii (Sahlins
1958; Goldman 1970). Aquaculture and its associated architectonic features were
innovations in Hawaii for which no precedents are known throughout the rest of
Oceania.
The process of fish culture is of respectable antiquity. In and around the
centers of domestication of plants and animals in the Middle East, China and
South East Asia were found emphases toward fish culture. The earliest documented
aquacultural ventures can be traced to Egypt at around 2500 B.C. (Maar,
Mortimer, and Van Der Lingen 1966:7). China had carp (CyTinus carpio) culture
dating 2000 B.C. (Ibid. Pinchot 1970:15), and the adjoining areas of Japan,
Taiwan, India, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia also witfidisdd
extensive aquacultural undertakings (Smith 1925; Tang and Chen 1957; Pillay;
10670,10dach 196R, Iversen 1968; Pinchot 1970). A large gap occurs between the
aforementioned areas and the rest of the Pacific Ocean, where no aquacultural
ventures are to be found with the exception of Hawaii.
BACK TO TOP
Oceania is composed of three large geographical areas roughly based on cultural
boundaries: Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. All are part of a common
geological, geographical, geological and cultural continuum.
Isolated in the northernmost tip of Polynesia are the islands of Hawaii. Over a
period of some 1,300 years since their initial settlement, a sophisticated,
highly integrated, incipient state-like society evolved in the Hawaiian Islands.
Within this short time-span, aquaculture also evolved; became integrated into
the political-economic and religious system; and thrived well into modern times.
Where did the concept of fish culture in Hawaii come from, in view of the fact
that it is lacking in all the culturally related areas of Oceania?
Looking at a map, we see that Oceania is rimmed with societies that were
technologically and economically advanced: South East Asia; the Americas; and
Japan, China and Korea. Already by A.D. 500 many societies in these areas had
maritime cultures. Was fish culture, perhaps, introduced, from any of these
areas via trans-Pacific migrations? By all probability, only the latter two
general areas could have had any possible direct trans-Pacific influence on
Hawaiian tautology. South East Asia obviously can be disregarded because of its
prevailing current patterns, which also holds true for Central and South
America. Drift voyages of Oriental boats had a good chance of reaching the
Hawaiian Islands. However, if the Asiatics did introduce the concept of
aquaculture to Hawaii, why was it not found also along the coast of North
America where the majority of drift voyages most likely would have ended? For
the time being, we rule out both the Asiatic and the American sources of
influence.
The author believes the seeds of Hawaiian aquaculture are to be found in the
general cultural base of Oceania itself. There are three artifacts which are
directly related to the earliest forms of fish culture in Oceania. These are
fishtraps, holding ponds, agricultural pondfields.
The ubiquitous fishtrap or weir, was found on all types of islands: high
volcanic and continental islands, and all the types of calcareous atolls (Wiens
1960:16-17). They appeayed.in all shapes and sizes; were constructed of both
organic and inorganic materials; and were found in and along rivers, streams,
lakes and ponds, and along the fringes of the sea.
The many forms of traps and weirs seem to have been a function of the local
philosophy of trapping-fish. These structures were, in essence, fish lanes or
fish guides which, because of their function, had to have one end that was open
to the sea to catch fish either at the ebb or the flow- of the tide. Each form
and part had a native descriptive name, and ownership was with families or
village groups.
Often associated with fishtraps were totally enclosed structures made of stone
and/or coral. These were the holding ponds, so named because their primary
function was to store the excess catch for a very brief time. Many of these
holding ponds were manmade and very small in size, while the larger ones were
naturally occurring ponds along the coast. Some of the smaller holding ponds may
also have served as fishtraps when at high tide the sea completely inundated
them, trapping fish and crustaceans as the tide ebbed. Normally, all traps,
weirs and holding ponds projected out slightly above the highest tide line.
The embryonic concept of fish culture in Hawaii seems to have evolved out
of the concept of fishtraps and holding ponds, brought by the initial settlers
to the Islands. More directly influential; however, was the agricultural
pondfield, a feature most commonly associated with taro (Colocasia esculenta).
Whereas both dryland and wetland types of taro cultivation were found throughout
Oceania, it was only in Hawaii that fields were extensively and intensively
irrigated. Small, flooded taro plots served is model aquariums in which select
types of fish and crustaceans could be stocked, grown and harvested with a
minimum amount of effort. When irrigated, even minimally, the pondfield became
an enriched biological machine, an agricultural estuary providing nutrients to
life forms both inside and outside the boundaries of the field.
BACK TO TOP
The Hawaiians considered all aspects of aquaculture to be part of agriculture.
Aquaculture was agriculture in that the Hawaiians seeded or stocked their taro
plots with choice fry, weeded or cleaned them of seaweeds and predatory fish,
fertilized it, and harvested the crop.
As the pondfield technology became more sophisticated, the idea of fish
agriculture probably progressed toward the sheltered coastal areas of the
Islands. Almost all naturally occurring bodies of water were utilized for fish
culture, and where none were available, walls were built to create fishponds
where the geography permitted. The similarities between fishponds and pondfields
were:
1) both had walls;
2) the growing medium was water;
3) both had a supply of fresh water, either through irrigation or natural
seepage; and
4) they contained grates or gates to control the flow of water.
Each pond, be it
a pondfield or fishpond, became an artificial estuary in which a complex web of
numerous interrelated food chains occurred. Not only the pond itself, but also
its surrounding environment became increasingly and continuously enriched.
Besides fish, crustaceans and birds were attracted to these sites, extracting
nutrients from them, while at the same time fertilizing them.
Agricultural pondfields and aquacultural fishponds were further similar in that
both were labor intensive in their construction and periodic maintenance. Only a
strong source of group control could effectively undertake the constructioan of
large fishponds or even the redesign and reconstruction of natural lakes and
ponds for aquacultural purposes.
Whereas the raising of fish in irrigated pondfields or even in naturally
occurring fishponds probably was a fairly simple, family oriented activity, such
was not true for the large, manmade fishponds. Because the construction and
maintenance were so highly labor intensive, requiring literally thousands of
people, it can be hypothesized that the advent and evolution of aquaculture in
Hawaii paralleled and reflected the political and economic power of the chiefs.
The
many fishponds provided fresh fish of many types, at any time of the
day or night during all seasons and in any climatic conditions for the
ruling elite. The produce of the ponds were the symbol of the chief's
economic power. Its use showed the power of the chief for the welfare
of his "kingdom" and/or his subjects. Food was power.
Preliminary
archaeological work on fishponds indicate that at least on O'ahu,
fishponds were being constructed by A.D. 1100. On Kaua'i, fishponds may
have been utilized by A.D. 1350. These dates parallel the period of
pondfield development and the increasingly poltico-economic
sophistication of the Hawaiian chiefdom on the major islands. Native
aquaculture was influenced by the socio-political and economic growth
of the chiefs and as it intensified, aquacultural ventures intensified
and spread throughout the Hawaiian Islands.
The model presented here may lend itself to archaeological testing. The author
has proposed a project to explore the possibility of gathering coring samples
from aquacultural sites in order to obtain chronological, polynological and
environmental information. A multidisciplinary approach using geological and
oceanographic techniques will be made. The project will be carried out on the
Island of Kauai.
BACK TO TOP