@article{oai:minpaku.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004216,
 author = {後藤, 明 and Goto, Akira},
 issue = {1},
 journal = {国立民族学博物館研究報告, Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology},
 month = {Aug},
 note = {When Captain Cook arrived at the Hawaiian Islands in the late 18th
century, he encountered the societies organized with highly developed
politic-economic structures. Although the technological basis was not
different from that of other Polynesian societies, the Hawaiian societies
were characterized by such aspects as : 1. differentiation between chiefs
and commoners, 2. stratification among chiefs, 3. presence of political,
religious, military, and technological specialists, 4. feudal taxation and
land system, and 5. large scale rituals. In addition, the territorial sizes
and populations among the Hawaiian societies at the contact period exceeded
those of other Polynesian societies. All of these suggest that the
Hawaiian societies are situated within the category of "complex chiefdoms"
or "early states."
There are statistics and estimates on territorial sizes and populations
of the Hawaiian societies at the contact period. But literary information
does not offer clear pictures on the distribution of the populations within
islands. The size and structure of residential units among the commoners
has not been explicated, either. In the Hawaiian Islands, trade
wind, volcanic activities, sea currents, presence of high mountains, local
variation of precipitation, etc., produce rather heterogeneous environments.
In accordance with these natural factors, production
systems show a substantial variation in their size and distribution, and
the distribution of the populations must also have been heterogeneous.
One of the themes of this paper is to analyze the distribution of populations
by examining the natural factors and site distribution.
For the above purpose, analyses have been made of topography,
precipitation, soil patterns, division of districts, the distribution of production
systems, and the distribution of archaeological sites (shrine
sites, heiau) in the Island of O`ahu. It has been indicated that the
distribution of the population was closely associated with the soil patterns
and productions systems, and that concentrations of population
are found at the central areas of each district. Since some luakini heiaus
(shrines for human sacrifice and for chieftain rituals) are located around
these areas, the chiefs seem to have resided in the same areas. On the
other hand, some other luakini heiaus were constructed within 2 km
range of district boundaries. It seems that these shrines had specific
social functions, i.e. territorial division, in relation to war rituals performed
by chiefs and chiefly priests. The frequent warfare in Proto-
Historic Period seems to have required this symbolic means to mark
spatial division.
Analyses have also been made of the distribution and ratio of two
types of residential structures, sleeping houses (hale noa) and men's
eating houses (mua) . It has been estimated that residential groups
among the commoners consisted of from 3 to 7 households, and that the
size of these groups ranged from 30 to 40 people. Also the largest communities
in the Hawaiian Islands might comprise from 400 to 500 people,
and this size was not substantially different from those of other Polynesian
societies. Commoners thus continued to practice productive activities
in relatively small residential groups and communities. Chiefs,
on the other hand, had been differentiated from commoners by "longdistance
(e.g. inter island) marriage," and post-war land redistribution.
Since the initial settlement of the Hawaiian Islands, the expansion
of territories and increase of populations were clearly the critical factors
for social changes, but the relevance of these factors to other sociocultural
aspects is still an unsolved question. Social functions of chiefs
(e.g. irrigation managers, redistributors, etc.) have been discounted as a
"
prime-mover" of social stratification. The relevance of the size of territory/
population and the increased necessity of information control
seems to be one of the alternative explanations. The development of
rituals and spatial division seen in the heiau distribution could be
understood in the context of information processing.
In other parts of the world, it has recently been shown that the process
of state formation was not unilinear, that is, there could be a cyclic
"up and down" in territory and population size in the long run. The
Hawaiian case offers another example. Besides the concepts of "chiefdom"
and "state," cross-cultural models on the process of state formation
seem to need serious reconsiderations.},
 pages = {19--60},
 title = {ハワイ諸島の国家形成と人口論的基盤},
 volume = {19},
 year = {1994},
 yomi = {ゴトウ, アキラ}
}