FORUM

LETTERS

CLASSIFIEDS

FEATURES

PEOPLE

AUCTIONS

CALENDAR

BOOKS

ABOUT TRIBAL ARTS

MAGAZINE INDEX

GALLERIES

Current Features | Previous Features VII:4/ Winter 2002 by Christina Hellmich (click on small images for full images with captions)

Hawaiian figurative carvings of the 18th and 19th centuries are some of the most visually compelling yet mysterious works created in Polynesia. Often, knowledge about their original creators, owners, and use is lost, and many exist today as singular examples. An unattributed figurative pendant (Figs. 1, 2, & 9) on a necklace in the collection of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Massachusetts, appears to be a good example of this situation. What began as an attempt to briefly resolve the provenance of the necklace for inventory purposes grew into a substantial research project. As I examined the pendant and studied comparative examples in an attempt to confirm its proper attribution, I became intrigued by its possible history. Fig. 1 The necklace entered the Museum’s collection in 1946. It came to the Museum with other American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions’ collections previously exhibited and housed at the Andover Newton Theological School in Newton Center, Massachusetts. Its country of origin was indicated as “unknown” when the Peabody Essex received the necklace from the school along with other Pacific, African, and Native American objects. The first Protestant missionaries from the Foreign Board arrived in Hawaii in 1820, and remained active until the gradual withdrawal of the Board’s support beginning in 1845 and ending in 1863 (Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society, p. 3). Existing records, including a small catalog card from Andover Newton Theological School that reads, “A necklace from the Sandwich Islands,” suggest that the piece was collected during this period, but no specific evidence survives linking the pendant necklace and the card.  Fig. 2 The necklace consists of 166 beads (165 white glass beads and 1 blue glass bead), 83 strung on either side of an ivory figural pendant two inches in height, 3/4 inches in width and almost one inch deep. The figure is leaning forward in a squatting position. The head appears to lead the body, extending forward beyond the bent knees. The arms, one of which is lost, are raised above the head. The fingers of the extant hand are individually articulated as triangular points. The palm faces front. A carved mouth and nose, though simple shapes, define the facial features. The eyes are inlaid wood. A fiber tie passes through a horizontal hole in the figure just below the arms. There is another hole bored behind the head that exits between the legs in the pelvic area. Microscopic examination confirmed that the pendant material is sperm whale ivory. The wood used for the inlaid eyes was identified as tropical or sub-tropical.

Fig. 3 Hawaii was not the starting point of my research, since Tongan and Fijian small-scale figures and figural personal adornment items carved of sperm whale ivory are well known, though less than a few dozen from the 18th and 19th centuries survive. Also, until recent confirmation that the material was sperm whale ivory rather than walrus ivory, time was spent exploring a possible Northwest Coast provenance, particularly since blue trade beads are found on Northwest Coast and Inuit tools. Though Roger Rose has indicated that “necklaces with trade beads were prized by early 19th century chiefly Hawaiian women who had the means to buy them” (Rose, 1980, p. 197), red beads rather than white or blue appear to be more common on published examples of beaded Hawaiian leis and bracelets of this period. After some study, it became clear that elements of the pendant’s appearance and manufacture were so strongly and distinctively Hawaiian that I turned my attention to this area of research, despite the fact that it lacks some of the characteristic features of Hawaiian sculpture that J. Halley Cox, William Davenport, and Adrienne Kaeppler have described. These include elaboration of the head, dislocation of the eyes, protrusion of the jaw-mouth-tongue, faceted surfaces, and the “wrestler’s,” or “low style,” dance pose. However, the posture of the figure and its features do show similarities to small-scale Hawaiian carved wood figures and figurative elements of staffs and drums as well as other Hawaiian ivory and bone objects. Fig. 4 Small-scale Hawaiian figurative wood carvings were included on secular and ceremonial objects such as bowls, supports for spear and pole racks, drums, and staffs (Figs. 3 & 4). Never purely decorative, these figures played a functional role and also conveyed meaning. As suggested by Kaeppler, body positions or facial expressions of the figures might indicate disrespect for the persons represented or express genealogical relationships. These symbolic concepts would have been quite evident to the users (Kaeppler, 1982, p. 94). All of the examples that compare stylistically to the Peabody Essex pendant have arms extended and arched forward above their heads. The buttocks, thighs, and calves have muscular mass and definition that is not found on the upper body, though the chest is defined by a distinctive horizontal ridgeline. Legs are slightly apart with knees flexed or bent. Fig. 5 As a pendant, the figure can be compared to the small sperm whale pendants in hook form, lei niho palaoa, collected by Cook in the late 18th century (Fig. 5). David Malo recorded that the lei niho palaoa were not common in ancient times and were worn only by high chiefs who could lay claim to sperm whales cast ashore by the sea (Malo, 1951, p. 47 & 77). The smaller hooks, generally less than a few inches in length, pre-date the more numerous larger forms made of walrus ivory during the first half of the 19th century. Interestingly, in her research on hooks of this period, Kaeppler states that “Cook and other early European visitors to Hawaii felt these ‘amulets’ had supernatural significance and in early museums, though they are not figurative, they are called ‘idols.’ . . . it is not clear, however, whether this idea derived from the hook form, or referred to the whale tooth material (niho palaoa) from which some of them were made” (Kaeppler, 1978, p.91). Davenport states that supporting evidence indicates that as early as 1825, Hawaiians carved curios, among which were “idols” for sale to crews of European ships. Fig. 6 The Metropolitan Museum of Art holds the only known example of a bone pendant in the shape of a human figure attributed to Hawaii (Fig. 6). In 1961, Nelson Rockefeller purchased the piece from a private dealer. Earlier that year, it had been sold at Sotheby’s. No provenance was recorded and today the piece remains undocumented. The designation of the pendant in the Sotheby’s catalog was as follows: “The attribution of this highly unusual figure to Hawaii is based on comparisons of the shape of the head to the large feather-covered images of the War God ... the proportion of the limbs and acrobatic position is similar to caryatid figures supporting food bowls... the sharply ridged chest is a common characteristic of female statues . . . compare a wooden figure of a household Goddess (Aumakua)” (Sotheby & Co., 1961, p. 26). When catalogued by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it was also noted that the type was otherwise “known only from description by members of Cook’s third voyage” and carved on the model of well-known, hook-shaped whale tooth pendants (Metropolitan Museum of Art, catalog records). The Met and the Peabody Essex pendants are similar in size. Both figures have raised, arched arms with defined fingers. The shape of the feet is the same. However, the Met figure has defined toes; the Peabody figure does not. With legs bent as if anticipating motion, the Peabody piece stands, firmly grounded on its feet. The body of the Met figure arcs completely with its feet extending forward along with its arms giving it an appearance of suspended motion. The heads of the figures are quite different in shape and form. The Met figure has gouged eyes as compared to the inlaid eyes of the Peabody figure. Finally, the Met figure is bone rather than ivory. Fig. 7 Numerous Hawaiian turtles carved of sperm whale ivory with inlaid eyes are known in museum collections (Kaeppler, 1978, p. 97). Several accounts from Cook’s visits to Hawaii attest to their use as beads, similar to the oval bone beads found in many collections. Turtle-shaped ivory ornaments were described by Captain James King on the Cook voyage as follows: “At Atooi [Kauai], some of the women wore little figures of the turtle, neatly formed of wood or ivory, tied to their fingers in the manner we wear rings. Why this animal is thus particularly distinguished, I leave to the conjectures of the curious” (Cook, 1783, vol. 3, pl. 139). David Samwell recorded that “They wear little Images of turtle made of bone on their Fingers like we do Seals, and some wear them on their wrists”  (Beaglehole, 1967, p. 1180). It is difficult, from these brief accounts, to understand who and how many women “some” are, in order to better understand the use of these objects as articles of personal adornment. Three such turtles in the Australian Museum in Sydney (Fig. 7) have been linked to Cook by Kaeppler based on their inclusion in the Colonial and Indian Exhibition, which took place in London in 1886. Australian Museum records indicate that they were collected by Cook in 1779 and acquired by the Museum in 1894 (Australian Museum, 1988, p. 20). Based on a visual inspection, James Specht of the Australian Museum suggests that the eyes of the turtles are inlaid tortoise shell. Though the carving of the pendant’s head is more refined and the quality of the inlays superior, the Peabody Essex figure bears a strong resemblance to the heads of these three turtles with their notched features and inlaid eyes. Fig. 8 Bracelets made of thin plates of turtle shell, bone, and dog’s teeth were also collected by members of the Cook voyage. Two examples in the Bishop Museum in Honolulu—one thought to have been collected on Kauai like the turtles (Buck, 1857, p. 548)—include the rare use of the human face as a decorative element (Fig. 8). Four bone plates, each with human heads protruding at the top and bottom, are evenly spaced between plates of turtle shell. The heads, with inlaid eyes, face outward. They are strikingly similar to the head on the Peabody pendant and provide a compelling comparison. The Peabody Essex pendant’s vertical hole was bored from the top and bottom points, meeting in the middle of the figure. Peter Buck attributes funnel-shaped holes in lei niho palaoa to the pre-European period (Buck, 1957, p. 534). The existence of the two separate holes through different parts of the figure reveals the possibility that this figure was not always a pendant attached to a necklace of trade beads. When placed on a flat surface it is free standing. Upon viewing the figure during a recent visit to the Peabody Essex Museum, Hawaiian tattooist and cultural expert Keone Nunes suggested that the figure might be similar to one originally located in the doorway of the feather-covered spiritual house (Hale Waiea) in the Hofmuseum in Vienna. The Vienna figure was illustrated in situ by Sarah Stone in Art and Artifacts of the 18th Century: Objects in the Leverian Museum as painted by Sarah Stone but is no longer attached to the house (Force and Force, 1968, p. 29). The stance and position of the arms of the Vienna figure are quite different when compared to the Peabody Essex piece. Fig. 9 Whether the Peabody Essex figure might have served in a Hale Waiea or had some other purpose, the preponderance of comparendae, combined with the circumstantial support of early collection records, leaves little doubt as to its origin. After perhaps more than a century of obscurity, this figure can again take its place in the relatively small corpus of existing Hawaiian figurative sculpture.   Many thanks to: Stuart Frank, James Speck, Kevin Montgomery, Adrienne Kaeppler, Mike Gunn, Keone Nunes, Jerome Feldman, Wendy Arbeit, and Kara Gnewick for their generous assistance with this research project.

Bibliography Andover Newton Theological School. Unpublished manuscript material. Australian Museum Trust. “Pieces of Paradise.” Australian Natural History, Supplement No.1, Sydney: 1988. Beaglehole, J.C. The Journals of Captain James Cook on His Voyages of Discovery: The Voyage of the Resolution and Discovery 1776-1780. Cambridge: University Press, 1967. Buck, Peter H. (Te Rangi Hiroa). Arts and Crafts of Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 45, Honolulu, 1957. Cook, James. A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean Undertaken by the Command of His Majesty for Making Discoveries in the Northern Hemisphere... London, 1783. Cox, J. Halley, and William Davenport. Hawaiian Sculpture. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1974. Dubin, Lois Sherr. The History of Beads from 30,000 B.C. to the Present. New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1987. Dodd, Edward. The Ring of Fire, Vol. I. A Pictorial Peregrination Through the Shapely and Harmonious Often Enigmatical Sometimes Shocking Realms of Polynesian Art. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1967. Force, Maryanne, and Roland W. Force. Art and Artifacts of the 18th Century: Objects in the Leverian Museum as painted by Sarah Stone. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1968. Gathercole, Peter, Adrienne L. Kaeppler, and Douglas Newton. The Art of the Pacific Islands. Washington: National Gallery of Art, 1979. Hawaiian Mission Children’s Society. Missionary Album: Portraits and Biographical Sketches of the American Protestant Missionaries to the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, 1937. Hooper, Anthony, and Judith Huntsman. “Transformations of Polynesian Culture.” In The Polnesian Society, Memoir No. 45, 1985 Kaeppler, Adrienne L. “Artificial Curiosities”: Being an Exposition of Native Manufactures Collected on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain James Cook, R.R. Bishop Museum Special Publication 65. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1978. ———. Eleven Gods Assembled: An Exhibition of Hawaiian Wooden Images. Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum. April 6-June 10, 1979. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1979. ———.  “Genealogy and disrespect: A study of symbolism in Hawaiian images.” Res 3, Spring 1982. Kaeppler, Adrienne L., Christian Kaufmann, and Douglas Newton. Oceanic Art. New York: Harry Abrams, 1997. Leenhardt, Maurice. Arts de L’Oceanie. Paris: Les Editions de Chene, 1947. Malo, David. Hawaiian Antiquities (Moolelo Hawaii). Honolulu: Bernice P. Bishop Museum. Special Publication 2, 2nd edition, 1951. Metropolitan Museum of Art, catalog records. Ray, Dorothy Jean. Aleut and Eskimo Art: Tradition and Innovation in South Alaska. Seattle: University of Washington. Rose, Roger. The Royal Isles. Bishop Museum Special Publication 67, Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press, 1980. Sotheby & Co. London. February 6, 1961. Lot 129. Thrum, Thos. G. Hawaiian Folk Tales. Chicago: A.C. McClurg & Co., 1907.

TOP Current Features | Previous Features