Kū, Lono, and the Voices That Contend for Them: Interpreting Identity and Divinity in Hoʻomana Hawaiʻi
By examining the theological puzzle of Kū's multiple manifestations and applying it to the historical debate over Captain Cook's identification as the god Lono, this article argues that Hawaiian divine identity cannot be categorized by Western labels like polytheism or monism until the specific logic of how a stranger could become a god is understood.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the study of human belief, scholars often try to sort ancient religions into neat boxes, asking whether a culture worships one supreme being, a few major deities, or a vast multitude of spirits. This sorting helps us compare different cultures, but it can also obscure how those cultures actually experienced their own gods. In the Hawaiian tradition, known as Hoʻomana, the concept of a god, or akua, is fluid. A god is not just a distant figure in the sky; it is a presence that can appear in many forms, from a shark or an owl to a human chief, and even to a living person of high rank. The question of what makes these different forms count as the same god is central to understanding the tradition. For decades, historians have debated a specific event in 1779, when the British explorer Captain James Cook arrived in Hawaii. Some accounts suggest the Hawaiians greeted him as a returning god named Lono, while others argue he was merely honored as a powerful chief. The debate has long focused on what the Hawaiians actually believed in that moment, but a new analysis shifts the focus from history to meaning. It asks a different question: what would it even mean for a human, especially a foreigner, to be called a god in this system?
This article sets aside the argument over whether Cook was truly mistaken for a deity or simply treated with extreme respect. Instead, it examines the logic of the claim itself by looking at how Hawaiian tradition handles identity. The author begins by looking at the god Kū, a major figure associated with war, who appears in dozens of different forms. Some forms are animals, like a hawk or a dog; others are specific types of warriors or builders. Scholars have struggled to explain how all these different things can be the same god. Is there a hidden human shape underneath them all? Is one form the "real" Kū while the others are just helpers? The analysis finds that no single rule explains this. Sometimes the forms are linked because they all remind people of human activities like fighting or building. Other times, they are linked simply because they share a name and a family resemblance, with no deeper connection. The forms are not a single, fixed thing, but a collection of different ways the god can be present.
The puzzle becomes much more complex when applied to Captain Cook. When Cook arrived, he was a foreigner with no Hawaiian family history, yet he was treated as the god Lono. The author reviews three major theories from outside scholars who have tried to explain this. One theory suggests Cook was physically arranged to look like a statue of Lono, making him a living image. Another argues he was never seen as a god at all, but only as a chief who was honored to gain political support. A third theory suggests that by recognizing him as Lono, the Hawaiians were actually creating that status through their actions. The author finds that each of these outside theories captures only part of the picture and fails to explain the whole event. They treat the situation as if there must be one single answer: either he was the god, or he was not.
The article then turns to the insights of Native Hawaiian scholars, who offer a different way of seeing the problem. They suggest that the answer lies in three separate mechanisms that usually work together but came apart in Cook's case. First, there is the idea of kino lau, or "many bodies," where a god can appear in any form that fits its character. Lono is a god of peace and harvest, and a pale foreigner arriving with new wealth during the harvest season fits that description perfectly, even without being related to the god. Second, there is the question of niʻaupiʻo, a specific type of high-ranking birth that creates true divinity. Cook could not be this kind of god because he had no Hawaiian lineage. Third, there is the power of a name. In Hawaiian tradition, a name is not just a label; it carries power and can shape a person's reality. By calling Cook Lono, the people were engaging in a powerful act that made him Lono in some sense, even if he was not Lono in the sense of birth.
The main finding of the paper is that Cook was a "hard case" not because the Hawaiians were confused, but because his arrival forced three different ways of being a god to separate. Usually, a god fits the right description, is born of the right lineage, and is addressed by the right name all at once. With Cook, he fit the description and was addressed by the name, but he lacked the lineage. The result was that he was a god in one way but not in another, simultaneously. This suggests that the question of whether Hawaiian religion is polytheistic (many gods), henotheistic (one main god), or monistic (one underlying reality) is the wrong question to ask. These categories assume that a god is a single, countable object, like a chair or a person. The article argues that a god in this tradition is more like a set of relationships or achievements that can be true in some ways and false in others at the same time. The identity of a god is not a fixed status to be discovered, but a dynamic combination of how the god fits a role, how the god is born, and how the god is named. Cook's story reveals that these three dimensions are distinct, and understanding them separately helps us see the complexity of the tradition without forcing it into a box it does not fit.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.