Notes for Nana'ulu
Fornander gives “the Hawaiian genealogy from Nanaulu and Ulu down, as I consider it ought to be rendered, when the sources have been critically examined and properly collated.” This line from Nanaulu to Keaunui is just as stated in Fornander’s Nanaulu line, page 249. 204

“ . . . two brothers Nanaulu and Ulu, from whom the northern and southern Polynesians respectively claimed their descent, and in whose time the probable separation of the two branches took place; the Nanaulu branch proceeding northward and settling on the Hawaiian group with a possible sejour or rest on the Marquesas groups, though nothing in the legends remain to indicate such a fact; and the Ulu branch remaining on the islands of the South Pacific, keeping up a not unfrequent intercourse between them, forgetting or ignoring their northern brethren for a period that may be roughly stated to have extended over ten to twelve generations.” 204

“But Hawaiian legends claim this same Tii or Kii - who was the last of the thirteen from Wakea that lived elsewhere than on the Hawaiian group - as the father of Nanaulu, with whom Hawaiian aristocracy on Hawaiian soil commences; while his brother Ulu remained at the south, and became the ancestor of that enterprising race of chiefs who six hundred years later overran the Pacific, from the Tonga group to the Hawaiian, who who gave rise to an era of commotion and unrest among the Polynesian tribes, the memory whereof is vividly retained in the Hawaiian folklore.” 204

“Among the various Hawaiian genealogies I consider the Nanaulu line as the most reliable and least affected by the interpolations and confusion introduced by the southern element so often referred to. It was extensively, almost exclusively, patronised by the Kauai and Oahu chiefs, and seldom referred to by the Maui, - hardly ever by the Hawaii chiefs. . . there exist two versions of the earlier portion of this gnealogy, from Wakea to Kii, one descending from Wakea’s son Haloa, the other from his daughter Hoohokukalani. The former was the most generally current of later times, but the latter appears to me to be the most archaic as well as the most trustworthy . . and as the number of generations is the same on both, though the arrangement is somewhat different, I prefer to follow the latter in this earlier portion down to Nana-ulu.” 204

“The first thirteen names on the Haloa line, to Nanaulu, are now allowed to have been shared, partially if not wholly, with the Marquesan and Tahitian branches of the Polynesian family, possibly also by the Samoan, though I have not now the means of ascertaining. These, then, must have existed elsewhere, and been introduced by the pre-Maweke occupants of the Hawaiian goub, which would leave sicteen generations, or about five hundred years, in which to discover and people this group previous to the era of Maweke and his contemporaries . . By which of thse sixteen generations, from Nanaulu down to Maweke, these islands were settled upon, there is nothing positively to show. The historical presumption, however, would indicate Nanaulu, the first of these sixteen, as the epoch of such settlements; and there still exists a Hawaiian tradition concerning his grandson Pehekeula, who was a chief on Oahu. The first thirteen generations just referred to, from Wakea to Nanaulu, would thus represent the period of arrival and sejour on the Fiji group, and subsequent dispersion over the Pacific.” 204
Last Modified 20 Apr 2004Created 24 Dec 2013 using Reunion for Macintosh