32 



Dij^edor' s Annual Report. 



taiued therein until used. This advantage of a supply on hand 

 might well have suggested the enlargement and alteration of the 

 shape of fish traps for use as fish ponds, the present simple walled 

 structure constituting the latter, being the natural result of economy 

 of labor. However, this explanation drawn from local conditions 

 can hardly be taken as a guide to priority of age of the fish traps 

 now remaining at Pearl Harbor in comparison with the fish ponds 

 of these islands, as both are well developed forms fully adapted for 



Fig. 9. OUTER WALL OF PAKILE, LOOKING SOUTH. 



their respective uses, and existed in full operation at the same 

 time side by side. It is not improbable that they owe their origin 

 to a time prior to the advent of the Polynesians to these islands, and 

 it would be interesting to observe what advances in these directions 

 the southern Polynesians had made. The similarity of type of the 

 fish traps at Pearl Harbor seems to indicate a familarity with some 

 previously known form, though they may also have been copied 

 from one original in Pearl Harbor, in which case that on Bishop 

 Point was probably the first, followed in order of time by those at 

 Puleou, Keauapuaa and Hammer Point, judging from the marine 



growth and condition of the walls. 



[208] 



