 Sid Campbell is a tenth-degree black belt and teaches in the school of Shorin-Ryu Karate-do in the United States. He is also the author of Warrior Arts and Weapons of Ancient Hawaii, and here he offers Martial Edge a detailed, comprehensive analysis of the ancient arsenal of the original Hawaiian warriors.
In this third and conclusive article we learn more about other weapons in the fierce Hawai’ian lua warrior’s arsenal. In addition, we will briefly describe the types of strategies and tactics that the Hawai’ian lua and koa warriors used when engaging the enemy on the battlefield.
Notably, the tactics and strategies undoubtedly used by most of the seasoned warriors of yore will be very similar to the types and methodologies that are employed today by weapon-wielding combatants.
Long-Bladed Daggers
The Hawaiian warriors referred to these types of wooden daggers as “pahooah“and these designs were among the longest bladed-daggers in the Koa’s fighting arsenal.
The implements ranged in length from one to two feet, with a wrist-cord usually passed through the butt end handle, so that when the dagger was wielded the warrior could be assured that it would not be accidentally lost during skirmishes when slashing or thrusting.
The pahooah was designed with a double-edged blade ending in a sharp point. The butt end is shaped into a handle that is narrower than the blade and meets it on each side in a sloping shoulder. The woods that were used for these specimens were quite hard and dense to insure that the blades and point did not snap or lose its edge or point in combat. What is interesting is that heavy black woods like ebony were used for construction but more modern models use many of the typical woods that from naturally in the Hawaiian Islands.
Tactically, the pahooah long-bladed dagger was used purely as a dagger and the butt end of handle was not used as it was in the bludgeon daggers. From the era before the Europeans arrived in Hawai’i, some specimens housed in museums and personal collections had handles that resembled those of miniature spears with usually enough room along the handle-shaft for a double-hand grip and a bit of room to change the ranges of the dagger during a skirmish.
Curved-Bladed Daggers
Within the realm of Hawaiian weapon lore, the curved-bladed daggers are unique in several ways. Moreover, by the obvious appearance, the distinct curvatures in the blade and handles, combined with the sharpness of the edges and extrusions made virtually part of this weapon lethal in one way or another. Featured were very pointed tips, smooth concaved lines, sharply tapered blades, hefty weight, barbed gaffs and styled for deep penetration.
This types of daggers could sever, rip, tear, slash, stab, etc. of both forward lunging and retraction motions. With gaff-like extrusions, in some instances, shaped much like sharks teeth, these extremely dense hardwood weapons could lacerate or saw through tissue with relative ease. There were a few disadvantages to these weapons however. The barb-like protrusions, when used for stabbing and thrusting, could impale the victim but it could be somewhat difficult to withdraw the dagger after the enemy had been wounded. This could pose a tactical problem when there was a clash between warring tribes. In essence, while rival fighters, or two tribes were in combat and the enemy was swarming everywhere the time spent retracting a weapon from an impaled enemy’s torso, he could be struck and killed in the process.
Shark Tooth Weapons
In Hawai’i’s ancient times the shark tooth was used for a myriad of purposes and not exclusively for the construction or creation of fighting weapons for the warrior. Clearly, with such characteristics sharpness; as in the points and in the edges; as utilized for cutting or lacerating, household and utilitarian purposes were considered paramount in ways that the shark’s incisors could obviously be adapted.
Therefore, it is difficult, in the purely scientific sense, of differentiating between shark-toothed utilitarian implements and ones used exclusively for weapon fighting. Though, undoubtedly some could serve both functions rather easily.
From a tactical or strategic point of view, each category of shark-toothed weapons has its advantages and disadvantages in the brutal art of close-range armed combat. The varieties with open elliptical frame with straight handles have a symmetry and functionality comparable to standard sword or saber weaponry. One of the primary functional reasons for the open elliptical frame is to minimize the weight of the weapon so it can be wielded swiftly and prevent the warrior from becoming fatigued during sustained battlefield fighting. The open elliptical frame specimens designed with ring handle and/or curved bar with straight connecting handle is comparable with standard weapons known as “fistloads”. In cultures where metal was prevalent at that time, these were commonly referred to around the world as knuckledusters (and brass knuckles), knobkerries, ferules, clavi, cudgels, bastinados and cosh. As a tool of close-range armed combat, these ingeniously cleaver weapons affixed with shark’s teeth brought a level of lethality to them that many of the ones constructed of metal did not inherently possess.
Tripping Weapons
This peculiar Hawaiian weapon called a pikoi consisting of a wooden or stone weight with or without a handle. Though there is not a lot of information on it regarding warfare on the battlefield (playing field) but by making comparative analysis of those found in the Philippine Islands or South America, it is logical to assume that these particular “pikoi” , to which a long cord was attached; were used in much the same way.
According to museum information that is available but scant, the weighted rope was thrown or twirled at an opponent's legs to trip or entangle him while engaged in a skirmish. It may be assumed that a successful throw was speedily followed up with some other weapon to complete the job. This weapon appears to have been peculiar to Hawaii, as there is no record of it from any other part of Polynesia.
Many ancient civilizations and cultures have used weapons of this sort during skirmishes. Some countries such as the Philippines have used what we know today as the “ yoyo ” was an actual hunting weapon. Unlike the way in which the western world perceives this seemingly innocent “toy”, in fact, a retrievable weighted object when artfully and accurately hurled, twirled, or trajected to strike “game” at a distance. Regardless, of whether it struck its mark or missed completely, it could be readily retrieved and thus, insuring that the projectile was never lost in hunting or warfare. Since some of the versions indigenous to the Hawaiian Islands have handles and others do not, it is plausible however to conclude that these “pikoi” could be used as clubs. But it is worth noting that with the attached long cord instead of a wrist-loop is evidence that it had a different function than a club when it was initially created by a weapon-maker.
For the “ pikoi” versions that lacked handles but had perforated holes for attaching long cords it is difficult to imagine it being used for any other purpose in warfare. Unless the weighted head was thrown at the enemy as a koa warrior would hurl a massive stone; then retrieve it the way a Filipino native did when they fought and enemy or was hunting for game.
Sling Weapons
In Hawai’i, stone propelling slings were known as “ma'a” and were used throughout the Islands as well as in other parts of Polynesia. It has been chronicled that in Hawai’i that slings differed little from in other South Pacific cultures that were visited during the time of Captain James Cook. He documented that the ma’a’s primary difference being that it used woven cord-fiber matted weaving as compared to leather from versions that he was familiar with from European countries. Yet, this is considered from the technical difference as opposed to a design difference.
Technically, in the Hawaiian and other Polynesian versions, the stone was lodged in matting indicates that the pouch of the sling was plaited. Polynesians in various island groups made their sling pouches by plaiting some fiber elements in the form of a narrow band of the desired width and then narrowing each end by bringing the longitudinal strips together in pairs. The strips were finally plaited in a three-ply braid at each end to form the strings to the pouch. In the Cook Islands and the Marquesas, the slings were made of cord fiber.
Though there is none of these authentic Hawaiian slings in museums, we can only speculate what they looked like from the descriptive accounts found in old ships logs and chronicles documenting the era in earlier times. What is illustrated above is a rather modern replication that possible looks like ones that the early koa warriors may have used in warfare on the battlefield (playing field) in the past.
Sling Stones
Given the size of some of the stones used in these slings it is logical to assume that in the hands of a skillful “slingshot expert” this seeming ineffective weapon could be semi-lethal if trajected accurately. Meaning that there could be enough power and impact force produced to strike a man an enemy in the head and fell him into a state of unconsciousness or, at worse, stun him sufficiently to force him to lose control of his weapon while a dagger or club was used to administer the coup ‘de grace. If true accuracy was assured, this weapon “system” could be used at considerable range beyond an enemy wielding a long spear. In numbers, naturally the “sling” could lay down a sufficient amount of “stone-power” to disorient, confuse and potentially disable the front like of an enemy assault.
Laypersons and even some neophyte weapon historians have confused “sling stones” with those of squid lures used by the fisherman in the Hawaiian Islands and other regions of Polynesia. Given the fact that stones could be shaped so a consistency in size and weight could be attained, it would be natural to assume that “sling stones” could be confused with a squid lure. Of some of the ones found in Hawai’i, New Caledonia and other regions of the South Pacific islands, many were oval-shaped stones that were well polished and somewhat pointed toward each end. Others were spindle-shaped with sharp ends, and the length between the ends is greater than the maximum diameter of the middle, except for a few which are practically round from the blunting of the ends. From the perspective of descriptions for “sling stones”, we can assume from Captain James Cook's own written words, that "whetstone" was interpreted to mean sandstone, but basalt was a common material used to make these projectiles. Not all of these stones were round as one might expect.
The lengths of sling stones could range from over one and three-quarter inches to almost three and one-half inches but an average size was about two and one-quarter inches. The middle diameters could range from about one and one-half inches to two inches, with an average being about one and one-half inches; and the weights range from two and one-half to ten ounces with an average being about four and one-half ounces.
Stangulation Cords
The use of weapons for more that tribal combat were never more obvious than with the use of strangulation cords. Hawaii differed from the rest of Polynesia in having an established public executioner who was termed the niu. One of his duties consisted of executing those who had broken tapu laws, preparing victims for sacrifice, and removing those who were indicated by the ruling chiefs and high chiefs (ali’i).
Under this Hawaiian edict, the common form of execution was by strangling, for which there was a special strangling cord, consisting of a short handle with a cord loop. The one featured above is one of these types. It has a spindle-shaped wooden handle with blunt ends and a cord loop of olona fiber.
Most strangulation cords had handles to insure a firm and controlling grip since the cords were difficult to wield when tight, forceful tension was exerted on the line. The handles were usually made of wood but some were of ivory. Though these insidiously lethal weapons were quite simple in design, it required that the wielder be expertly adept at knowing exactly how to apply the tension with tourniquet-like precision to cut off blood and airflow in the most expedient fashion.
Tactically stealth was needed to get close enough to an enemy to apply the garrote without posing a threat to his own safety against an enemy that was armed with a dagger club. It is logical to assume that the adversary was approached from behind-hopefully without his awareness—when the strangulation cord was put to use. It is logical to assume that the wielder had to be strong enough to control the enemy who would obviously flail and thrash until the victim lost consciousness. In all probability, distraction and possibly double-teaming a foe was used when the strangulation tactics were employed in a skirmish where many enemies may be on the field of battle.
War Clubs
In Hawai’i, clubs are termed laau [la'au] palau and described as follows: "The laau palau was a club of varying length, a yard or a fathom. It of course was intended to remain in the hand." Many of the cataloged versions of shorter lengths were called “newa”, which are less than a yard long. Most are hand-held implements that are easily used and manipulated with extremely quick daftness by a skillful warrior.
The short clubs have expanded heads and short handles cut off square at the butt end. Those, which are perforated for a wrist loop, are pierced transversely through the handle near the butt end. Short clubs, exclusive of bludgeon daggers, may be classified according to the form of the head as: (1) smooth-headed, (2) rough-headed, and (3) stone-headed.
Since pre-historic times clubs have long been a staple of the basic arsenal of weapon-tools used to fend off attackers and even used for hunting. Hawai’i was one such culture, since there were no ferrous metals to be found in the islands that devised many such war clubs as a refinement over the ones used since early civilization. Essentially utilizing dense woods, a variety of shapes and specified purposes, and, in some cases, multiple uses on the battlefield.
Engaging the Enemy on the Battlefield
It should be noted that an ali’i could not always control the attitude or the motivation of the adversary. Warriors could—given the spatial peripherals—control such elements as an adversary’s distancing, i.e., forward, lateral, or diagonal directional attitudes, and relative positioning to the “point of engagement” (when the adversary has made his intentions known that he is a threat). Weapon and empty-hand fighting strategies always work optimally when one controls the distance and/or the timing of an encounter. The rule of thumb is to keep a safe enough distance that an enemy cannot initiate an attack without having to “rush” his adversary’s position. This would be at least twelve to eighteen inches from the point where an opponent’s weapon could make contact.
Logic would dictate that a wise and experienced ali’i would strive to keep his warriors at a safe enough distance that his rivals could not initiate an attack before his forces were ready to field the intended assault. Once an ali’i and his warriors had effectively determined their distancing, they would try to maintain it until they could put in motion a suitable attack for the terrain and situation.
Swarm Warfare
Until the first warrior was mortally wounded on the battlefield, the regimented strategy and tactics were traditionally well orchestrated (i.e., in regard to engaging the enemy prior to the development of an all-out life-or-death struggle). Once a formation’s tactical or strategic integrity was breached by marauding warriors penetrating the defense through massive assault efforts like outflanking a perimeter, there was typically very little that a stalwart military leader could do to restore his defensive (or even offensive) fortifications on an open battlefield. It was the warriors’ fighting skills and wrangling experience that largely dominated the battlefield scenario and outcome from that point on, unless reinforcements or secondary units were brought into the fray.
The very nature of close-range armed warfare, when hundreds or thousands of warriors would confront each other face-to-face in the heat of battle, led the formational regimentation to fall apart. The melee, chaotic confusion, and horrendous combative interactions of both sides trying to maim or kill their enemies had a predictable way of disrupting or neutralizing the best-laid plans on the battlefield. It is not hard to imagine hordes of rival warriors battling at close range, with spears, daggers, stones, clubs, and tripping weapons being used left and right. The mayhem was surely confusing for everyone, including the ali’i charged with leading the assault.
Imagine the vocal anguish of punishing wounds inflicted by spears and daggers, the din of battle yells—of agony as well as victory—combined with the chatter of weapons parrying. It was essentially a setting that brought together catastrophic uncertainty, zealous determination, and brutally physical koa warriors fighting in the name and honor of their king, their ali’i, and the land that they were obligated to protect.
At this point in a deadly fracas, any and all koa warriors relied on their lua bone-breaking training, specialty weapon fighting techniques, and knowledge of one-on-one battlefield tactics. It is worth noting that happenstance played a considerable role in close-range weapon combat. Impromptu spur-of-the-moment judgments in movement, reaction, evasion, defensive maneuvering, being struck, hitting enemies from behind, or taking advantage of an enemy’s momentary weakness were also major determinants of the battle’s outcome.
This brings us to the topic of the koa warrior’s peripheral vision, and just how important a role it played in tactical and strategic swarm warfare—especially when engaged in close-quarters combat with little or no room to maneuver. Novice koa warriors lacking the vital skill of using their peripheral vision were usually destined to become a victim of another warrior’s astuteness. A warrior who was expertly skilled in empty-hand and weapon-fighting tactics and strategies but did not have the ability to observe and react to the constantly changing conditions on a battlefield was likely to meet his demise. It seems obvious that he could be impaled from behind or blind-sided by a spear hurled from a distance, become a victim of a surprise club attack, or be struck by a sizable stone without being aware of the attacking warrior’s presence. Many Hawai’ian koa warriors lost their lives in this manner.
The Reality of Ancient Warfare
A real battle is clearly a separate reality from ritualized ceremonial practice or mock practice for public display. However, folklore tells us that in ancient times, koa warriors would sometimes become so heated that fights to the death would occur while demonstrating at annual Makahiki festivals. (One would hope that such occurrences were the exception and not necessarily the rule!)
Hoplology is the study of the evolution and development of human combative behavior and performance or, in short, the study of how people fight, why they fight, and how different cultures manifest those behaviors. This chapter chronicles a plethora of strategies and tactics that would certainly have been among the methodologies that the koa warriors used in ancient times.
As mentioned repeatedly in this multi-part article, the fierce lua combatants of ancient Hawai’i were warriors in every sense of the word. They were not like the ones typically portrayed today in festive luaus and fire dances performed for the enjoyment of visitors to this ancient kingdom. One has to imagine that authentic warriors were truly brutal, unrelenting, and ferocious in every sense of the word. Furthermore, the loyal koa warriors were dedicated to committing their life, spirit, and soul (mana) to their gods, their king, and the ali’i in defense of their sacred lands (not always true of modern combatants). This is because it was their rulers and their sacred land that gave these warriors and their families their basic existence. Modern military nations with all their technological advantages do not usually feature what I call true warriors in the old sense of the word.
By Hawai’ian standards, warriors who fought from afar by using firepower were not real warriors. Could this rationale have been based on the fact that there were no metals or ores on Hawai’i to make such weapons? I tend to believe that the advent of explosive weapons such as guns, cannons, missiles, aircraft, tanks, rockets, bombs, etc., not only changed the course of warfare but altered the definition of “real” warfare and real warriors. Combatants who operate such modern weapon systems are not much more warrior-like than most civilians in contemporary society. By contrast, the lua warrior of ancient Hawai’i had the undaunted courage and conviction to engage an enemy such as himself in a struggle to the death. This should be remembered as you consider the strategies in this chapter, none of which rely on modern military hardware.
There is a common thread throughout Hawai’ian history and folklore that portrays the philosophy of the commoners who trained as warriors. Their whole existence was about serving their gods, honoring their king, and indulging their regional ali’i (chieftain) for the privilege of protecting their island against all outside invaders. For that, they gave willingly with their full devotion and allegiance when it became time to defend their domain with their life’s blood and mana.
About Strategy
Long ago in ancient Hawai’i, a warrior's ability to survive battle was based on his certainty in regard to which empty-hand and weapon fighting techniques were dependably lethal, practical to execute swiftly, and effective. There was no room for theoretical applications that had not been tested or extemporaneous techniques—a warrior could count only on realistic strategies and known methodology. The superior strategist usually prevailed in these life-or-death engagements.
Today when we study ancient forms of self-defense or historical modes of fighting, we can learn the movements and weapon techniques that warriors used in the past. While these self-defense methods are just as effective today as they were in by-gone eras, the tactical significance of many movements or techniques does not come through as clearly or relevantly as when the techniques were used for real. We cannot underestimate the importance of focused strategy born from the need to save one’s life over and over again.
Nor can we forget that however esoteric, seemingly impractical, or difficult a form or technique may be that is taught in a respected school of traditional martial art, they have all been previously tested and proven effective under actual combat conditions. Some aspects of fighting are quite subtle. It ultimately remains for the individual to discover what works for him on the battlefield. Bear in mind that one seemingly simple weapon form, or even a very basic combination of moves, can contain the knowledge, wisdom, tactics, strategy, etc., that it took a great warrior his lifetime to discover through trial and error, artfully mastering one technique under realistic conditions and finding that it could be all that’s needed to defeat his opponent or enemy.
As a final point, the great strategist never uses a complex (fancy, extravagant, aesthetically appealing) technique when a simple one will suffice. Movies, competitions, demonstrations, and other venues for dramatically dynamic maneuvers are a long way from the battlefields of real life.
Tactics of Engaging the Adversary
Historical accounts of Hawai’ian koa warriors’ life-or-death combative encounters on the battlefield are few and limited, but piecing together folklore and reports from other cultures with similar circumstances and levels of technology allows us to theorize about elements of battle in ancient times. It is commonly documented that when the decisive moment of battle engagement was upon these primitive fighters of any culture, it became as much of a mental attitude for the participants as a physical confrontation. It is highly likely that the koa warriors of ancient Hawai’i were no different in that respect.
Modern research on psychology and performance—as well as most people’s personal experience—confirms that mental attitude plays a significant role in defeating an enemy. Readers familiar with martial arts and/or self-help ideas and practices will not be surprised to read here that experienced and successful battlefield fighters learned to control their mental state, e.g. emotions, braggadocio, swagger and arrogance, etc. They no doubt achieved inner calmness after looking death in the face many times and living to tell about it.
Great warriors of other cultures (such as Japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi, the Mongolian Genghis Khan, Scotsman William “Braveheart” Wallace, Kurdish warrior Saladin, Finnish soldier-farmer Simo Hãyha, Norse warlord Haakon Magnus, etc.) where there is a written legacy have chronicled that when facing the enemy and uncertain of the outcome, they maintained a mental outlook as if they were confronting any other uncertainty in day-to-day life. Undoubtedly such warriors had worked through fear of death as well as other psychological and emotional factors that could cloud their judgment or hinder their performance in battle.
It has also been recorded many times throughout history that great warriors, chieftains, generals, emperors, and the like are usually surprisingly calm during actual combat. It was typically the unseasoned neophyte combatants who had not learned to control their attitude that spontaneously made unwise decisions that sealed their fate.
This is a strategy equal in importance to the methodology of actually wielding a weapon. The strategy of remaining relaxed mentally might even be the most important factor in the overall effectiveness of a warrior engaged in close-range warfare. Part of this strategy is recognizing the effects of mental agitation versus calmness and learning how to control them in oneself and take advantage of them in the opponent.
The following tactics also came into play when engaging an adversary in ancient Hawai’i.
1. Controlling the Range (Distance) of a Combative Engagement;
2. Moving in the Moment;
3. Site and Space Considerations;
4. Using Peripheral Vision;
5. Using Rhythm in Combat;
6. Knowing the Opponent's Weapon;
7. The Strategy of Being Placed on the Defensive;
8. The Strategy of One Encounter, One Chance;
9. Three Timings on the Initial Attack;
10. The Three Wisdoms of Attacking the Enemy;
11. Changing Positions;
12. Artfully Withdrawing Weapon;
13. The Strategy of Footwork;
14. Stances;
15. The Strategy of Gripping a Weapon;
16. Becoming One with the Opponent;
17. The Strategy of Moving in the Shadows;
18. The Strategy of Centered Concentration;
19. The Strategy of Distraction;
20. The Strategy of the Yell;
21. Verbal Intimidation;
22. Giving Away the Spirit;
23. The Strategy of Fakes;
24. The Strategy of Half-Commitments;
25. The Strategy of Full Commitments;
26. The Strategy of Hit and Run;
27. The Strategy of Attacking the Closest Target;
28. The Strategy of Deceptive Closing;
29. Tempo Interruption;
30. The Strategy of Erratic Movement;
31. Ambushing the Enemy;
32. The Strategy of Double-Teaming the Enemy;
33. The Strategy of Diminishment;
34. The Strategy of Variance;
Conclusion
We must conclude that in ancient Hawai’i, long before the introduction of firearms and cannons, the warrior’s knowledge of tactics and his artful use of strategy were essential to winning consistently in combative engagements that were intended to protect his island, honor his king, and fulfill the wishes of his local and regional ali’i. As with great warriors of other cultures who relied on their skill, acumen, courage, and weapons, the koa warrior never left anything to chance,
I hope this historic work brings you—the reader—closer to the true spirit of the ancient warriors who served their kings and ali’i before the arrival of Captain James Cook in 1778. It was my explicit purpose to capture the true spirit of the Hawai’ian warriors, document their weapons, and share the ways in which they approached combat at a time before war was fought with modern technology.
The koa of ancient Hawai’i were truly warriors in the highest sense of the word. Their warrior arts were up-close and personal, and ultimately very brutal affairs, requiring skill and determination to survive. I think that sums up the spirit, courage, conviction that was the warrior of ancient Hawai’i.
|
(0 vote)
