Skip navigation

Petroglyphs at South Point; An Academic Debate Exists on the Age and Origin of the Carvings: Photo by Donald MacGowan


Petroglyphs at South Point; An Academic Debate Exists on the Age and Origin of the Carvings: Photo by Donald MacGowan


  1. These petroglyphs are NOT kytes. They are the marks of the three canoes that landed here. “kaimana” shape representing the Wa’a And the “lines” representing the water &which way they came from. No “kytes” here. The origin is only so obvious.. Read up on the finding of Hawaii. 3 canoes who landed here. These markings are much older than most and you dont have to be a scientist to see that. So old that they are NOW covered by water. There was no water or “Tide pool” when the ancients put it there. Petroglyphy were like autographs & you don’t put your autograph in a place like a “Tide pool”. I am no scientist but I am Hawaiian &us Kanaka Maoli Know our history. Soon these will be gone and the evidence will be lost. It is good that more people know of it because that is what they were intended for. To Show.

    • Thank you for your excellent comments…I was told these were kite by a Hawaiian I know whose family has lived around South Point for generations, so naturally, I just believed what I was told…I should have known better and dug deeper. I have found elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands (and I have lived here for a long, long time) that written histories are frequently not only at odds with each other, but also with local family’s oral traditions (which I tend to trust more) as well. You explanation not only makes better sense, but “feels” right. Although Polynesians were great kite makers and uses (fishing, primarily), these wonderful petroglyphs do not in any way resemble the kites of the Pacific Islanders.

      As to the subsidence of the shoreline…this is an interesting subject to me as a geologist. I understand that the petroglyhs at Keauhou which are now tidal were on dry land when carved, but the geologic evidence for subsidence at South Point is equivocal at best (some argue it is actually emergent as beam-flex from the greater subsidence of Mauna Loa)…your point may actually be construed as pretty convincing evidence FOR subsidence…

      I would be VERY interested in any further information you about them…as well as anything else you may have to =say regarding Hawaiian heritage and unrecorded (or mis-recorded) history.

      I agree with you…people should know, people should see…

      Thank you again…I will, of course, immediately amend the picture caption and article–your explanation makes WAY more sense than Auntie Sheila’s.

      Thank again…


  2. Kalamai for causing any kind of argument against others beliefs. It is just that I was taught this by my tutus and they said, when you find something like this (petroglyphs, remnents, etc..) they were ment for you to see, if you were not ment to see than you would never have found or came across them. They show us things and teach us of it so that we can pass the information on so that the storys of hawaii will not be forgotten, so soon… MAHALO!!!

  3. p.s. I LOVE to learn more stories and others teachings of what things were/are. I would love if I could hear more about the things on this site!!!! Aloha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s