No description available.

Early contact period studies of first intercultural interactions are important for understanding both traditional pre-contact society and the changes brought about by culture contact. Using documentary records kept by early Euroamerican visitors, the sociolinguistic technique of interactional analysis was employed to identify and analyze specific Euroamerican descriptions of intercultural exchange interactions during early contact period Hawai'i (1778-1819). Statistical analyses revealed clear and consistent differences in the reported exchange experiences of high and low status individuals from both cultures. In the majority of the seven hundred and one (701) events, high status individuals from both cultures interacted together or low status individuals from both cultures interacted together. Interactions with mixed high and low status interactants rarely were reported. High status interactions were described in more detail than were low status interactions, and high status interactants were associated much more frequently with the rarer or less common aspects of exchange than were low status interactants. This was true for type of exchange, nature of exchange (whether mediated or direct), complexity of event description, and both Euroamerican and Hawaiian exchange goods. Narrator and voyage characteristics exhibited similarly distinct status associations. The early historic period was not a homogeneous or monolithic period. All major aspects of exchange events demonstrated simple diachronic change, and many were significant under more powerful statistical analysis as well. Some temporal variations were due to changes in narrator characteristics, particularly purpose of voyage. Other changes reflected shifting methods of control by both Euroamerican and Hawaiian high status individuals as well as the consolidation of power by high status Hawaiian ali'i. Mediated events were especially good indicators of these developments. A complementary analysis of thefts revealed clear status distinctions between low status Hawaiian thieves, low status Euroamerican victims, and high status Hawaiian agents of return. These descriptions indicated that thefts were neither numerous nor particularly important. Thus, interactional analysis provided an alternative to anecdotal ethnohistoric analysis. At the same time, it demonstrated the importance of analyzing collections of ethnohistoric documents in order to assess the variation (and the meaning of that variation) both within and between the individual documents.