Volume 94 1985 > Volume 94, No. 4 > Early nineteenth century Polynesian millennial cults and the case of Hawai'i, by C. Ralston, p 307-332
                                                                                             Previous | Next   

- 307
EARLY NINETEENTH CENTURY POLYNESIAN MILLENNIAL CULTS AND THE CASE OF HAWAI'I

Over the past 30 years, three significant religious cults in precolonial Polynesia have been individually described and delineated by Pacific specialists: the Mamaia in the Society Islands by W. Mühlmann (1955) and Niel Gunson (1962), Sio Vili in Samoa by D. Freeman (1959) and Papahurihia in the north of the North Island of New Zealand by O. Wilson (1965) and J. Binney (1966). Both Gunson and Binney recognised that the specific cult each was examining was related to the other two in this trio, but to date no general comparison of all three movements has been attempted, although individually and separately these cults have featured in larger comparative analyses. In his world-wide survey of prophet and millennial cults, Guariglia (1959) included a number of Polynesian examples from precolonial and colonial periods. Both the Mamaia and Sio Vili are surveyed (Guariglia 1959:73-6), but the Papahurihia is not mentioned. Burridge's comparative analysis (1969) of millenarian activities in many different societies includes Polynesian examples, but he discusses only the Sio Vili cult for the precolonial period. The Mamaia is mentioned in passing while Papahurihia is not identified at all. By including Polynesian cults, however, both Guariglia and Burridge are clearly stating that there are basic similarities between them and millennial cults elsewhere. Siikala (1982), in his study of traditional religions, Christianity and nativistic movements in tropical Polynesia, recognised all three cults, but analysed in depth only the Mamaia and Sio Vili. 1

In addition to these three cults, Gunson (1962:209), Binney (1966:321) and Siikala (1982:56) have suggested that there was a similar cult or cults in Hawai'i in the early 1830s, identified as the Hulumanu or Hapu cult. In this article I shall outline briefly certain characteristics that the Mamaia, Sio Vili and Papahurihia cults had in common and then compare them with the quite separate phenomena of, firstly, the Hulumanu, and secondly the Hapu cult, in Hawai'i. The nature and activities of the Hulumanu, while they had certain elements in common with the Polynesian cults, have in fact been misidentified. The Hapu cult, which was an entirely distinct occurrence, appears from the scant material so far discovered about it to have been at least an embryonic cult of a similar nature to those in southern Polynesia, a fact Guariglia (1959:72-3) established.

- 308

Freeman, Gunson and Binney, while recognising similarities between the early 19th century Polynesian cults, used a variety of terms, individually or in combination, to describe them — “cargo”, “millennial”, “heretical”, “visionary”, “adjustment cults”. I propose to use the term “millennial” to emphasise the similarities between these cults and other millennial cults, not only in the Pacific but also beyond. Burridge and Guariglia unquestioningly accepted the Polynesian cults as instances of a world-wide millennial phenomenon. “Visionary” is certainly a term applicable to these three movements, but it has little explicatory power, while “heretical” is a word loaded with Eurocentric and Christian implications which reveal much about missionary concerns, but little about the cults' positive characteristics.

In the past there has been a tendency to use the term “cargo” for Melanesian cult activity and “adjustment” for the Polynesian phenomenon, although I have not found it explicitly argued that these cults were fundamentally different from each other. In the 1950s and 1960s, when the Polynesian cults were first examined and written up, millennial cult activity in Melanesia was already known, and the importance of cargo (in the form of Western goods) had been widely demonstrated, if not over-emphasised. “Cargo” did not seem an appropriate element to be highlighting in the Polynesian movements, with the possible but problematic exception of the Sio Vili, which I shall examine later; thus, the term “adjustment” has been more frequently used, to suggest, I believe, that these cults were not as intense, inclusive and cargo-oriented as the later Melanesian examples. Guariglia (1959:132) argued that in neither Polynesia nor Micronesia was “cargo” thinking a predominant or crucial element of cult movements. However, it is important to point out that, since the 1960s, analysts of Melanesian cult movements have themselves been increasingly critical of the “cargo” description, and wish to de-emphasise the material aspects of many but by no means all Melanesian cults (Hempenstall 1981:1). The term “millennial” can incorporate theories of adjustment and cargo beliefs, while it also includes a range of characteristics found in cults across the world.

Of course a decision to label the Polynesian movements “millennial” does not solve definitional and explicatory problems. Definitions of the world-wide phenomenon of millennial cults, checklists of their essential characteristics and analyses of necessary and sufficient casual factors have been many and not surprisingly varied (see, for example, Thrupp 1962, Hempenstall 1981). Rather than review this voluminous literature, I shall use Cohn's five-point definition of a millennial cult as:

any religious movement inspired by the phantasy of a salvation which is to be

- 309
  • (a) collective, in the sense that it is to be enjoyed by the faithful as a group;
  • (b) terrestrial, in the sense that it is to be realised on this earth and not in some otherworldly heaven;
  • (c) imminent, in the sense that it is to come both soon and suddenly;
  • (d) total, in the sense that it is utterly to transform life on earth, so that the new dispensation will be no mere improvement on the present but perfection itself.
  • (e) accomplished by agencies which are consciously regarded as supernatural. (Cohn 1962:31)

Despite the patchy and partial evidence available concerning the Mamaia, Sio Vili and Papahurihia cults, it seems possible to identify these five characteristics in each cult, although not always unequivocally or with the same degree of intensity. The beliefs and expectations of the Papahurihia, as depicted by Wilson and Binney, are the least clearly articulated in terms of the imminence, totality and terrestrial nature of salvation, but Binney suggests that prophecies of a coming millennium emanated from the appearance of a comet (1966:324). The authors of the studies under consideration have not analysed the cults in terms of Cohn's specific categories, so direct comparison or identification is not always possible, but on the most minimal level these five characteristics are inferred in each cult.

Problems of Evidence

The fundamental problem confronting any analysis of the precolonial Polynesian movements derives from the intrinsic nature of the primary data available. The most substantial source of information for these cults originates from missionaries, who were directly threatened by much cult activity, and who were unlikely to investigate impartially or comprehensively what they saw as heresy and irrationality. Other outsiders' views of the cults are sometimes available from itinerant traders, official explorers or foreign residents in the islands, but their accounts almost uniformly are insubstantial, one-off and likely to emphasise the seemingly bizarre, nonrational (as Westerners saw it) elements of the activity. No contemporary disinterested observer, of a scholarly disposition or otherwise, chronicled or analysed these events. Finally and most significantly, there are no firsthand accounts from cult participants, leaders or followers, for any of these movements. There is no primary source material available revealing the participants' beliefs, hopes and values, or their reasons for joining such movements. One of the most telling instances of this void is the fact that for the Tahitian cult we have only the missionaries' derisive label “Mamaia”, meaning unripe fruit. It seems highly unlikely that this group of people thought of themselves by such a term. Similarly, with the Papahurihia and Sio Vili, we - 310 do not know whether the names of the leaders of these cults were used by their respective followers to identify themselves.

Given this limited information base, it is possible to sift out certain similarities between the cults that are fortuituously revealed, but it would be most dangerous to place any particular emphasis or importance on discrete factors. To illustrate this point, take Freeman's description of the Sio Vili cult, in which it appears that the Sio Vilians were more vitally concerned about Western goods than followers of other precolonial Polynesian cults. For evidence of the Samoans' attitudes towards European technology and the early activities of Sio Vili and his followers, Freeman is heavily dependent on the journals of the London Missionary Society (LMS) missionary-explorer John Williams, who visited Samoa in 1830 and 1832. Freeman cites the following statement from a Samoan chief as evidence of the impact of Western goods:

Only look at the English people, they have strong, beautiful clothes of various colours while we have only leaves, they have noble ships while we have only canoes, they have sharp knives while we have only bamboo to cut with, they have iron axes while we have only stones, they have scissors while we use the shark's teeth, what beautiful beads they have, looking glasses and all that is valuable. I therefore think that the God who gave them all these things must be good, and that his religion must be superior to ours. If we receive this God and worship Him, He will in time give us these things as well as them. (Freeman 1959:186-7)

This speech is located in the final section of Williams' 1832 manuscript journal where he reviews the geography and present state of the Samoan Islands with an eye to future evangelism and English commercialism. It is difficult to discover where, when and by whom the remarks were originally made from the daily entries in the first section of the journal, but it would appear to refer to a statement made by the Samoan chief Fauea, a convert to Christianity, who accompanied Williams to Samoa on his first (1830) visit. Williams' more direct record of that speech in 1830 was much less fulsome:

Ships visited them [Polynesians who had converted] without fear and achored [sic] in their harbours and brought them an abundance of Property. And you can see he observed that their God is superior to ours. They are clothed from their head down to their feet and we are naked. They have got large ships and we have only got these little canoes. On hearing Faaueas [sic] speech they all exclaimed It would be good to lotu too. (Moyle 1984:68)

Both Fauea's 1830 speech and the speech as recorded in the remarks following the 1832 visit are further expanded and elaborated in Williams' pub- - 311 lished account of these journeys (Williams 1838:282). Given Williams' deeply held commitment to the simultaneous and inseparable advance of Christianity and English commerce (Daws 1980:59-60), and his penchant for exaggerating and elaborating evidence that confirmed and strengthened his arguments, it would be unwise to rely very heavily on the emphasis he placed on the Samoans' extraordinary desire for Western goods. This is not to deny that the Samoans, or Polynesians anywhere, appreciated certain Western goods, nor for the Samoans that their limited access to them before the mid-1830s may have further whetted their appetite. I do not believe, however, that there is sufficient credible evidence to suggest that the Sio Vilians' desire for certain Western goods was overwhelming or obsessional, or that they sought supernatural means of acquiring them.

It is clear that the followers of all three cults took an interest in foreign goods. The Papahurihians believed that in heaven there would be plenty of flour, sugar, guns, ships, murder and sensual pleasure (Servant quoted in Wilson 1965:479), while the Mamaia followers on the small isolated island of Maupiti hoped that a shipload of cloth, wine and cows would come from the skies and swarms of fish appear on the strand (Gunson 1962:226). Binney (1966:324) used this single Maupiti example as evidence to claim that cargo wants were a “central ingredient” in Mamaia belief, but in fact no other data to illustrate a desire for Western goods, or a demand for greater sharing of goods between Islanders and foreigners, are offered by Gunson or Binney. In Samoa two or three Sio Vilian songs revealed an interest in knives, weaponry, blue beads and necklaces, but the millennium foreseen by a female Sio Vilian prophet in the mid-1830s included the arrival of Jesus Christ with an abundance of food sent down from heaven (this justified the cult followers destroying crops and killing pigs before the event) but made no mention of the arrival of Western goods in any shape or number (Freeman 1959:194-5). From the extant evidence a moderate interest in a limited range of foreign items can be established, but in none of the cults was a desire for such goods a predominant element. Freeman's emphasis on the importance of cargo among Sio Vilians cannot be sustained.

Significant Factors in Cult Formation

Rather than test Cohn's definition of “millennial” point by point against the evidence available for the three cults in question, I want to compare a number of contingent historical and sociological factors of significance in the cults. They are Islander resistance and protest against a range of foreign activities and assertions, and their search for power and autonomy in the face of new conditions. The internal ramifications of membership of one of these movements will also be studied. These factors, it should be emphasised, are not unique to precolonial Polynesian cults but - 312 they provide a useful framework against which to examine the Hawaiian material.

Given the increasing presence of Europeans in Polynesia from the 1790s, with their commercial and evangelical ambitions and assumptions of religious, technological, social and racial superiority, it is not surprising that Islanders were compelled to assert their equally firmly held beliefs of their own cultural and racial worth and their pre-eminent skills in creating and adapting viable, complex cultural systems. The timing of the appearance of the first postcontact cults in Tahiti, Samoa and New Zealand was not directly related to the intensity or success of alien religious or commercial activities. The Mamaia was first recorded by resident missionaries in 1826, a decade after widespread conversion had occurred, while the rise of Sio Vili was contemporaneous with the arrival of the first white Christian missionaries in Samoa. But a strong element of resistance to the foreigners' attempts to monopolise religious leadership and interpretation and judgments of cultural worth is evident in all three cults. These movements were, at least in part, a manifestation of some Islanders' insistence on their rights to interpret the theological ideas, indigenous and introduced, available at the time, and to create their own paths to salvation. Many elements of Christian belief and practice were incorporated into the cults, but this acceptance coincided with pronounced anti-missionary sentiments among the Mamaians and the Papahurihians (Gunson 1962:212, 215, 223-4; Binney 1966:323, 330), and similar feelings clearly developed rapidly among the Sio Vilians once they were confronted with the outraged reactions of newly arrived LMS missionaries to their activities (Freeman 1959:191). Polynesian cult leaders and prophets, male and female, claimed direct communication with God, Jehovah or Jesus Christ, and a separate unique existence for their beliefs in which missionary mediation or interference was inadmissible.

As is pointed out above, an element of economic protest, a sense of unfulfilled expectations, is apparent in these three cults, most particularly among the Mamaia. By 1826, among Christian converts in Tahiti, there was marked dissatisfaction against the contributions to the church the LMS missionaries were demanding. The “good life”, both spiritual and material, which the advent of the foreigners with their new goods and religious ideas seemed to have promised, had not eventuated through a greater knowledge of or adherence to conventional Christianity. On the contrary, the mission was demanding goods from the Tahitians rather than the reverse (Gunson 1962:223-4). A sense of deprivation and protest presumably contributed to several Tahitians' attraction to the Mamaia. For all cult followers an interest in greater access to the newly introduced wealth is discernible, but its significance was subordinate, I would argue, to Islanders' demands for equality with missionaries and other Europeans, - 313 and their search for power, initiative and control. The leaders of these cults, Teao and Hue in Tahiti, Papahurihia and Sio Vili were all asserting Islanders' “natural right” to create and lead their own religious movements. On theological and cultural levels they were denying white supremacy.

All four prophet-leaders — Teao, Hue, Papahurihia and Sio Vili — had experienced close associations with the foreigners' world. At an early date after the arrival of missionaries in their respective areas, Teao, Hue and Papahurihia revealed an interest in mission teaching and doctrine in which they became well versed. Sio Vili had no formal missionary training, but he had travelled and worked on board foreign vessels, and in Tahiti had presumably been in contact with Mamaia followers. None of these men was blindly or absolutely rejecting Western ideas or activities. Neither Teao, Hue nor Papahurihia advocated a simple return to a lost golden past of traditional belief and practice, while obviously Sio Vili looked forward to a new religion of his own creation as the avenue to a new life. Certain traditional religious beliefs and practices were valued and emphasised by all cult leaders, but these were integrated with Christian doctrine to form new syncretic religious forms.

Finally, the political implications of these movements cannot be ignored. In all three Island groups, adherence to particular cults was influenced by traditional political divisions and loyalties and by contemporary alliances and ambitions. Mamaia belief and activity were unequivocally opposed to the mission-inspired government of the Society Islands, which during Pomare II's lifetime was closely associated with the newly established Pomare elite. In the 1820s, the chiefs who had gained positions of authority under Pomare II's new dispensation augmented their power to the detriment of Pomare III and IV. For a period, Pomare IV rejected missionary pressure to mould her behaviour to that which they deemed appropriate for a Christian monarch, and on a number of occasions she was clearly attracted to and in favour of certain Mamaia activities (Gunson 1962:228-36). But by the early 1830s their challenge to established authority and their association with anti-government factions forced Pomare IV to recognise that her best interests, politically at least, lay with the missionaries and those chiefs upholding “mission” legislation. Not surprisingly, the Mamaia gained their greatest number of supporters in areas which had been traditionally hostile to Pomare ambitions and later hegemony, and in the early 1830s the Mamaia became the focal point for many antagonists to Pomare IV and the chiefs of her government (Gunson 1962:233-6).

In New Zealand the followers of Papahurihia came from tribes traditionally hostile to those who had become converts of the Church Missionary Society (CMS) mission, and in the late 1830s Papahurihians were closely identified with tribes resisting the growing British political pressure - 314 and finally the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi (Gager n.d.). In Samoa, where descent groups had traditionally vied for political power and nominal supremacy, and internecine war to gain such power was frequent, it was not fortuitous that supporters of Sio Vili, in particular the leading chief Mata'afa, in whose district the Sio Vilians were most strongly established, were traditional rivals of the Malietoa faction, who were closely associated with the LMS (Freeman 1959:197-8).

In all three areas, structural cultural patterns and practices, in combination with contingent historical factors, influenced the formation and development of these precolonial Polynesian cults. White assumptions of leadership and superiority, unfulfilled Island expectations of a better life, materially and spiritually, the prophet-leaders' close association with missionary training, or at least Western life styles (Sio Vili), and traditional indigenous political rivalries, all affected the creation and nature of the cults and their attraction to particular followers. In Hawai'i in the 1820s and 1830s, many of these cultural and historical factors were clearly in evidence and yet no cult of any significant proportions developed. To this problem I shall now turn.

Hawai'i in the 1820s and 1830s

Political unification of the Hawaiian archipelago was achieved by Kamehameha I through a combination of a number of successful military campaigns culminating in a final major battle on Oahu in 1795, which brought all the islands except Kauai under his control, and diplomatic negotiations in 1810 with the ruling chief of Kauai, who was forced to recognise Kamehameha's paramount position (Kuykendall 1938:47, 50-1). Between 1796 and his death in 1819, Kamehameha created and developed a stable, unified system of government, which effectively held in check the political ambitions of chiefs disadvantaged by the rise of the Kamehameha family. After 1819 the political rivalries within the chiefly elite, particularly between Kamehameha's collateral kin and his affinal Maui relations, headed by his favourite wife, Kaahumanu, became increasingly apparent. Together, late in 1819, a combination of Kamehameha's collateral and affinal kin vanquished Kekuaokalani, the high chief who had been left in charge of the war god Kukailimoku, and who had attempted to resist the attack on the kapu system led by Kaahumanu and Keopuolani, a Maui affine and Kamehameha's sacred wife. But Liholiho, son of Keopuolani and Kamehameha I, now proclaimed Kamehameha II, and his followers soon recognised that the Kaahumanu ma ‘group, following’ occupied the key positions in the new administrative-bureaucratic system, and de facto held the reins of government, including financial power. In 1823, virtually powerless and almost penniless, Liholiho with his retinue, including the - 315 high chief Boki, sailed for England in a vain bid to seek patronage and support from alien kings.

On the announcement of Liholiho's death in 1825, Kauikeaouli, a younger son of Kamehameha I and Keopuolani, was proclaimed Kamehameha III, but, as he was a young boy, real power devolved on Kaahumanu, who rapidly consolidated her position and that of her Maui kinfolk. Later the same year, Kaahumanu, with the active support of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM) missionaries, promulgated the new Christian religion, which gave her an increasingly effective means of political and social control. Tensions and potential conflict remained within the ruling elite, which was still divided between the Kaahumanu ma backed by the Mission and the Kamehameha faction, which included Boki, the young Kamehameha III and his sister Nahi'ena'ena. But in the late 1820s Kaahumanu's political acumen, her mutually advantageous relationship with the ABCFM missionaries, and her ambition quite outmatched the aimless, contradictory and frequently drunken activities of Boki and the young king (Daws 1966:71-80, Kuykendall 1938:117-32). At lower levels of the chiefly hierarchy, political ambitions and opportunities for minor chiefs to join together, or to raise an army of followers among the ordinary people against the ruling elite, had been assiduously denied and removed by Kamehameha I (Ralston 1984:29), and not even the unstable years of 1819-1825 had changed those conditions. The death of Kalanimoku, the prime minister, in 1827, the arrival of French Roman Catholic priests in the same year, and Boki's rumoured attempt at a coup in 1829, created periods of political uncertainty for Kaahumanu, but in any serious military or political sense she remained unchallenged, virtually unassailable, until her death in 1832.

The religious hegemony the American missionaries briefly enjoyed between 1825, when Kaahumanu enjoined all Hawaiians to abandon their old religious ways and become Christians, and 1827 was undermined in that year by the arrival of two Roman Catholic priests with a few associates. The Roman Catholics' presence was never publicly acknowledged or permitted by Kaahumanu and during their first four years of settlement, before they were involuntarily removed by the Government in 1831, they remained virtually house-bound in Honolulu, a restricted, marginal group. But even in these circumscribed conditions the political threat they posed to Kaahumanu's authority and the Protestant mission's dominion soon became apparent. The Hawaiians who revealed the earliest interest in the Roman Catholics included Kamehameha III, Boki, a long-term rival of Kaahumanu and a person on whom Protestant doctrine and demands sat most uneasily, and a number of lesser chiefs who had never been reconciled to the Kamehameha-Kaahumanu ascendancy (Yzendoorn 1927:38, 56-8). - 316 Another group of Hawaiians who became proselytes to Roman Catholicism were those who had been excommunicated from the Protestant church or denied membership there (Judd 1928:64). The Roman Catholic presence in Hawai'i remained intermittent and tenuous until 1839, when Kamehameha III was forced, under the threat of naval bombardment, to admit them under similar conditions to those enjoyed by the Protestants. But from 1827 some Hawaiians, at least, were presented with a rival Christian sect and recognised that an alternative religious and political focus existed.

Large quantities of Western goods, from cannon to fishhooks, had flowed into Hawai'i from the early explorers, the American Northwest Coast fur traders, the sandalwood merchants and, after 1819, the whaling industry. Their distribution, however, had been decidedly uneven. In areas remote from port towns and regular shipping routes, ordinary Hawaiians' access to Western goods was very limited, while everywhere whatever goods did arrive were likely to siphon upwards into high-chiefly hands (Ralston 1984:27). At the height of the sandalwood boom in the early 1820s, Hawaiian chiefs acquired crystal chandeliers, Chinese brocades and American pleasure yachts, while the ordinary Hawaiians owned very little of even simple iron or cotton goods. Feelings of deprivation among these people were likely to have been strong by the 1820s.

A brief survey of the state of Hawai'i in the 1820s reveals that, while the political unification of the archipelago achieved by Kamehameha I remained intact, there were deep-seated rivalries within the ruling elite and a number of lesser chiefs whose allegiance to the Kaahumanu ma was nominal at best. The penetration of foreign goods was widespread, but unevenly experienced, and despite a late arrival vis-à-vis secular foreign agents, the Protestant missionaries had rapidly become the predominant religious force, with profound political influence as well. An alternative Christian sect appeared in 1827, but it remained weak legally, economically and numerically. Several parallels can be drawn between the experiences of the Hawaiians in the 1820s and 1830s and those of Tahitians, Samoans and Maoris in similar periods, in terms of internal political rivalries, foreigners' assumptions of religious and cultural superiority and the spread of Western goods. But in Hawai'i no organised resistance either of a secular, political or of a religious, salvationist nature developed. It could be argued, however, that the Hulumanu acted in part as a political opposition to the ruling elite and the Protestant mission, while the Hapu cult appears to have been an embryonic millennial cult. But neither phenomenon posed a serious or long-term threat to the political, religious or economic status quo.

The Hulumanu, 1826-1840

The group of young men, favourites and close personal attendants of - 317 Kamehameha III, who gathered round the newly proclaimed 12-year-old king, gained their collective name “Hulumanu” in 1826 in the following way.

While he [Kamehameha III] was staying in upland Waoala, Waialua, Oahu the men contracted sores, and were like the sandalwood trees' white ooze, so the men of the King were called “Hulumanu” [bird feathers], and because they squandered their pay on women, “ua wekaweka” [foul rain]. Therefore, the noun and adjective were joined, and they were called “hulumanu-wekaweka” (birds with foul feathers) (Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a, May 23, 1868). 2

The adjective wekaweka lapsed and Kamehameha's attendants were known henceforth as the Hulumanu (lit. ‘bird feathers’), a band of pleasure-seeking youth extravagantly dressed in feather capes, who were little interested in the sober, plain life advocated by the missionaries and Kaahumanu. Before the formation of this group, the favourites and close attendants of Kamehameha I and II and other high chiefs were known as punahele (Barrère 1979). In the Hawaiian dictionary of Pukui and Elbert (1971), punahele is glossed as ‘a favorite; to treat as a favorite’, clearly identifying children. There is no mention of court favourites. Hulu manu is glossed as ‘1. Bird feather, 2. Name for court favorites of Kamehameha III’.

In contemporary accounts from 1826 through to the 1840s, the term Hulumanu is always used to identify these young men. Take for example the following two quotations:

The King has bought 18 suits of the Boston Cadet Company's cloathing — brought here by Domminis. The Hulumanus are formed into a Body Guard with the above dresses — they are paraded almost every day (Pierce 1833).
He [Haaliliamanu] grew to be high in the King's favor and became a “Hulumanu” or member of the King's personal staff (Bishop 1916:43-4).

The term is never used with reference to a cult or to a body of religious ideas. Initially the formation and activities of the Hulumanu reflected accepted traditional Hawaiian practices of surrounding a chief with a retinue of companions and attendants, but as Kamehameha's political ambitions developed and were thwarted, his activities and those of his followers took on, at least temporarily, a determinedly oppositional character. In the early 1830s the Hulumanu, in association with Kamehameha III, Nahi'ena'ena, his sister, and Liliha, a high chiefess and ex-wife of the late Boki, can be seen as the nucleus of the party of the Hawaiians in opposition to the - 318 Kaahumanu ma, the converts to Christianity and de facto rulers of Hawai'i.

In 1827 after the death of Kalanimoku, who had been a staunch supporter of Kaahumanu and the new missionary-inspired regime, the first little “rebellion” occurred. Many Hawaiians who had shown an interest in missionary teaching and doctrines absented themselves from the schools and churches, and returned to traditional pastimes. This desertion, which occurred at what would have been the end of the makahiki season, traditionally a time of festivities and licence, was not long-lived, but it clearly revealed that ancient patterns of thought, belief and activity had not been erased. In 1829 Boki, whose life since his return from England in 1825 had involved a tormented oscillation of interest and loyalty between the Protestant missionaries, the newly arrived Roman Catholic priests after 1827 and traditional Hawaiian ways, attempted to confront Kaahumanu and wrest power from her (Kamakau 1961:290-1; Daws 1966:76-7). The challenge, like later ones from Kamehameha III, dissolved into thin air. Boki retired to his compound in Honolulu and immersed himself in traditional medical practices (diagnosis and body massage), in which he was accomplished. A number of high-status men joined him, including the ex-priest Hewahewa and other traditional medical practitioners (kahuna) (Kamakau 1961:291). But what might have been the beginnings of an opposition movement or cult apparently disintegrated when Boki left Honolulu in late December 1829 on what was to become for him a fatal sandalwood expedition to the South Pacific.

A period of political tension and jockeying for power between the two rival elites came to an end early in 1831 with the removal of Liliha from the governorship of Oahu, which she had assumed after her husband's departure. The high chief, Kuakini, brother and close supporter of Kaahumanu, took her place, and Nahi'ena'ena and several high chiefs opposed to Kaahumanu were stripped of many of the lands belonging to them (Richards 1831). Kaahumanu emerged triumphant and politically more secure than ever before. At the same time, perhaps as a sop to Kamehameha III, the Ewa and Koolauloa districts of Oahu were given to the King's Hulumanu (Kamakau 1961:303). In December 1831 the two Roman Catholic priests were removed, further strengthening Kaahumanu's position.

Only death could break Kaahumanu's political hegemony, and that occurred in June 1832. The political and moral rebellion expected by the missionaries and many foreign residents did not break out immediately. Kinau, a daughter of Kamehameha I and one of Liholiho's widows, assumed Kaahumanu's role as kuhina nui or regent (Ii 1959:159) and for several tense months, during much of which Kamehameha III and the Hulumanu were absent from Honolulu, the arrangement appeared to work. But late in - 319 December 1832 Kamehameha III defied Kinau and the missionaries, and held hula festivals and traditional games accompanied by drinking and revelling. The flash-point for this second rebellion, again occurring at what would have been the end of the makahiki season, was Kinau's refusal to provide the necessary money for an American vessel Kamehameha III was determined to buy (Kuykendall 1938:134). Thwarted and humiliated, Kamehameha III, now a young adult of 18 years, made a bid for independence, to claim his political rights as king. Rumours abounded that Kinau would be replaced by Liliha and that the Maui chiefs would be removed from all political offices. But at the final public showdown in March 1833, at which both parties were present, while Kamehameha III claimed all political power for himself and declared that only three laws still remained in force prohibiting murder, theft and adultery, he then, to the surprise of many, confirmed Kinau as kuhina nui (Kuykendall 1938:135). De jure, the political situation was ambiguous: who was to exercise power and control the Government, the King or Kinau? De facto, Kamehameha III was not a steady, hard-working autocrat. Alcohol, amorous liaisons, the hula and other traditional pursuits filled his days throughout 1833 and 1834, while slowly Kinau took up the reins of government and reestablished “mission” rule. By 1835 all but the last vestiges of rebellion had been extinguished.

For its duration, however, the example of the King and the Hulumanu proved most attractive from Oahu to Hawai'i Island (Emerson 1833, Thurston and Bishop 1833). 3 Schools and churches were abandoned for traditional games and activities, but throughout the contemporary literature only a few fleeting references are made to the revival of traditional religious practices (Smith 1835). Idols wrapped in kapa and small cairns of stones are mentioned, but there is no suggestion that religious ceremonies, traditional or syncretic in origin, were held. As the ABCFM accountant Chamberlain (1833) claimed: “[N]o public and authorised effort has been made to establish idolatry.” It is important to recognise that school attendance had already begun to wane in many areas before 1833. Certain missionaries realised that the novelty of literacy and school attendance had worn off, and the hurriedly trained Hawaiian teachers had soon exhausted their scant store of knowledge (Thurston and Bishop 1829).

In 1833, the leader of the King's revels, the chief Hulumanu, sometimes known as joint king, was Kaomi, born in Hawai'i of a Tahitian father and a Hawaiian mother (Bingham 1848:447). In 1824, Kaomi was in charge of a school teaching reading, writing and Christian principles in Kaahumanu's household (Barrère and Sahlins 1979:22); in 1825 he was one of a number of young men who had established prayer-meeting groups (Bingham 1848:251); in 1826 Kaomi was listed as one of the native teachers employed - 320 by the mission to conduct conferences and prayer meetings (Proceedings of the 1826 General Meeting). But he was never accepted for baptism, and some time between 1826 and 1829 he fell from mission grace into drinking and adultery. His name first appeared in conjunction with those of Boki and Kamehameha III in 1829, when he was one of Boki's medical fraternity (Kamakau 1961:335). Kaomi's elevation to chief adviser and reveller coincided with Kamehameha III's open resistance to Kinau and the mission in late 1832. John Papa Ii, appointed by Kaahumanu as Kauikeaouli's guardian and preacher, reported that from 1833 when Kaomi was recognised as chief adviser, the King refused to take Ii's advice, at which Ii withdrew from Kamehameha's household and joined Kinau (Ii 1959:147-8). In later years it was claimed (Ka Hae Hawaii, September 11, 1861) that Kaomi had taunted Kauikeaouli about his lack of real power, saying he was a king on paper only.

Kaomi was clearly not the initiator of the Hulumanu group, and his period of influence over Kamehameha III did not extend beyond 1834. His name appeared on a list of “desparate debts” ($230.00) owed to the mercantile company Pierce and Hunnewell in January 1834 — other Hawaiians listed owed between $18.25 and $165.00 (Pierce 1834) — and in March 1834 he still owned a distillery on Oahu (Judd 1834). But he died and was buried without any special ceremony or distinction sometime in 1835 or 1836, after a sojourn at Lahaina, where he had lived in a hovel and was accorded no respect or privileges (Dibble 1834:288).

Despite the enthusiasm and fervour of Kauikeaouli's revelries throughout 1833 and much of 1834, he was never directly rude to the missionaries. He mocked Christian practice, however, when he buried a pet baboon in a coffin with prayers and Christian ceremony (Dawn 1968:92). In April 1833, at the height of his rebellion, he still attended (albeit infrequently) church services, and asked for New Testaments for his Hulumanu school (Chamberlain 1833). At a foreign residents' dinner, Kamehameha III claimed he had told Bingham, the leader of the mission, that there was lots of land on the American north-west coast (Fayerweather 1833). While schools and church services were deserted, the number of communicant members of the church did not decline (Bingham 1848:450), and at no time did the missionaries face a real physical threat either of violence to their persons or of exile. Similarly, after the first stormy months of 1833, Kinau was able to re-establish and strengthen her position as kuhina nui, and she faced no further resistance from Kauikeaouli during her lifetime. The “rebellion” had loosened the puritanical controls imposed by Kaahumanu and Kuakini in 1831 and 1832, and thousands of Hawaiians as well as the Hulumanu had joyfully returned to ancient sports and pastimes. But Kamehameha III's bid for absolute political control was never more than half-heartedly pursued.

- 321

In July 1834, Kamehameha III slept publicly with his sister Nahi'ena'ena in one final desperate attempt to claim his right to such a union and to rule as high chiefs had done of old (Reynolds Journal, 1834, Richards 1834, Sinclair 1976:142). Boki, and after him other members of the Hawaiian party, had advocated such a union, which in traditional times would have been acclaimed, bringing together as it did two chiefs of very high genealogical rank, whose offspring would have enjoyed unchallenged status and mana. For obvious political reasons, Kaahumanu, and later Kinau, rejected the idea of such a marriage and joined the mission in their strident, dogmatic condemnation of incest. The deep and abiding love between Kauikeaouli and Nahi'ena'ena was never consecrated by Christian marriage. In January 1835, Nahi'ena'ena returned to the missionary fold in Lahaina, and later the same year she was married to a lesser chief. A son, who lived only a few hours, was born to her in September 1836, and she died in December of the same year (Sinclair 1976:146, 152, 156-9). This signalled the end of Kamehameha III's acts of rebellion. He never became a church member, but after Nahi'ena'ena's death his conduct became more circumspect, and in the 1840s, once Kinau was dead and the mission's influence was beginning to wane a little, he exercised more direct control over the Hawaiian Government. The Hulumanu are mentioned occasionally in the contemporary literature until the 1840s, growing sugar on Oahu (Pierce 1839) and having a deleterious effect on the morals of the people on Molokai (Hitchcock 1840 and 1841), where they had been given land at the time of Nahi'ena'ena's funeral (Kamakau 1961:342). By Kamehameha's death in 1854, the Hulumanu had ceased to exist as an organised group attendant upon the King.

A Political and Cultural Protest, not a Cult

Formed around Kamehameha III in the mid-1820s, the Hulumanu became willing associates in his bids to wrest political power from the Maui chiefs and the missionaries, who together had established an unprecedented ascendancy in government, law, education and religion. The attempted rebellions of 1827, 1829 and 1833 embodied both political and cultural protest and ambition. Kamehameha III and his faction were questioning not only the Maui chiefs' right to power but also the denial and outlawing of so many ancient Hawaiian cultural practices. The revival of the hula and many other traditional games and pastimes, forbidden by the missionaries and Kaahumanu after 1825, was not just to pander to the hedonistic pleasures of the Hulumanu. It was an insistence that Hawai'i's cultural heritage could not be denigrated and erased by Christian laws and intransigence. The revival of many ancient pastimes and the rejection of missionary teaching and instructions, in which the Hulumanu enthusiastically participated, paralleled cult activities in other parts of the Pacific and - 322 beyond, and led to a misinterpretation of the group's behaviour as a cult (Gunson 1962:209; repeated by Binney 1966:321). But while the Hulumanu were unquestionably a part of a political and cultural protest, no prophet-leader appeared (Kaomi did not fill such a role), and there was no redemptive vision, new prayers or religious ceremonies.

Explanations for the nonoccurrence of a mass political movement or cult can only be tentatively suggested. During the crucial decade, 1825-1835, no individual appeared among the Hawaiian party with a religious or political vision and the determination to carry it through. Disaffected with the Kaahumanu-missionary regime, Kauikeaouli and Boki, supported by the Hulumanu, attempted to gain political power, but both vacillated and capitulated to the Maui chiefs in any public confrontation. Neither was prepared to mount an unrelenting resistance against the combined power of church and state as personified in the Maui chiefs and the Protestant mission. Similarly, Kaomi may have goaded Kamehameha III over his lack of power, but he had no long-term plans to transform Hawaiian government or religion. His days were spent in revelry, in the pleasures of ancient Hawai'i and the new stimulants, especially alcohol, introduced from the West.

Pivotal in this question of leadership, particularly for the creation of a religious cult, was the part played by the ex-high priest Hewahewa, who had apparently acquiesced in the abolition of the kapu in 1819 (Davenport 1969:15-17) and welcomed the arrival of the Protestant missionaries in 1820 (Hunnewell n.d., Emerson 1926:511-12). Resident on Oahu throughout the 1820s and 1830s. Hewahewa was associated with Kamehameha III and Boki, indulging with them frequently in alcoholic sprees, but he always received the missionaries politely when they visited him (Sandwich Island Mission Journal 1822, 1823; Ellis 1979:104). In 1829 Hewahewa was one of Boki's medical confreres (Kamakau 1961:291). Early in the vital year of 1833, as Chamberlain (1833) reported:

The ancient high priest of the islands was sent for by the king from his residence on another part of the island, to join his party, and it was not without reason believed that it was with a view to the revival of the old system of idolatry. But we learn that the old man told the king he was on the side of pono (the side or [sic] right). We do not know, however, how much the old man's integrity is to be relied on, and whether he would be able to withstand very long the temptations of strong drink, to which he was formerly addicted.

While his name is not mentioned, the evidence to prove this was indeed Hewahewa is substantial. Hewahewa was still alive in 1833 (he died early in 1837: Sandwich Island Gazette, March 4, 1837), he lived outside Honolulu - 323 on Oahu, he had shown an interest in and sympathy for Christianity since 1820 and he had been addicted to alcohol. Further, the missionaries frequently used the term “ancient high priest” in connection with Hewahewa (Ellis 1979:80, 87; Chamberlain 1828:36), and apparently knew no other Hawaiian with a claim to such a title. On May 21, 1833, the ABCFM missionary Emerson at Waialua, Oahu, reported (Emerson 1928:74-6) that Hewahewa had called that day and, in the course of conversation, had praised Christianity and spoken of the follies of the Hawaiians, their ignorance and degradation. Clearly Hewahewa was not drawn to re-establish past religious practices or create a new religious movement of any description in competition with the Protestant missionaries. No one had the political determination or prophetic urgency to confront the Maui chiefs or the mission in what would have been a prolonged and bitter struggle.

Several less tangible factors should be considered. Could it be argued that the traditional Hawaiian religion had experienced a more concerted and sustained assault from both external and internal forces than other traditional Polynesian religions in a similar period? The abolition of the kapu in 1819, initiated by certain members of the ruling elite, had been widely and readily accepted by most Hawaiian people throughout the archipelago (Kamakau 1961:225; Conrad 1973:234). Only Kekuaokalani and his small following, and a group in Hamakua, Hawai'i Island, were prepared to fight to preserve the old religion in its public forms (Kamakau 1961:225-8; Davenport 1969:16). For the ordinary people (maka'ainana) vital religious belief and practice were localised and less structured, centring on the worship of ancestral spirits (aumakua). These religious forms continued until 1825, when Kaahumanu decreed a wholesale conversion to Christianity which officially erased all grass-roots traditional religious practice. The change may have been bitterly resented and only superficially acceded to, but the maka'ainana, who were denied the right to keep their genealogies, and whose immediate rulers (konohiki) had been imposed upon them from above for generations, were leaderless among themselves, and large-scale resistance of a political or religious nature was virtually impossible (Ralston 1984). When opportunities arose, for example during the political upheavals of 1827, 1829 and 1833, many Hawaiians from all ranks of society returned to the hula, traditional games and activities, 'awa-drinking and tattooing, but by the late 1820s traditional religion or even certain aspects of it apparently offered no vision for the future, no alternative path to salvation. Presumably other explicatory factors could be explored. In terms of the newly introduced religion it would be significant to know whether the doctrines preached by the ABCFM missionaries were less millennial in content and emphasis than those offered by the LMS in Tahiti and Samoa or the CMS in New Zealand.

- 324
The Hapu Cult

While the Hulumanu cannot be identified as a cult group, it is important to recognise that from the mid-1820s a number of prophets, male and female, and faith healers, most of them women, did appear throughout the archipelago, and for differing but fleeting periods of time aroused popular interest and support. Of these occurrences, none of which is well documented, only the Hapu movement lasted for a number of years and appears to have been at least an incipient millennial cult. A brief account of the Hapu cult and a small selection of other prophetic or faith healing appearances reveals that the hegemony of the Maui clique and the Protestant mission was not wholeheartedly accepted, and offers glimpses of popular discontent and malaise and attempted solutions.

In late 1831 and early 1832 a group appeared in Puna, Hawai'i Island, an isolated area well removed from regular shipping routes and Western trading activities. The focus of this group was a young prophetess called Kahapuu (Yzendoorn 1927:83) or Hapu (Dibble 1843:281), who had been born in Puna in 1815. In the late 1820s she had learned to read and write at a district school established by the Protestant missionaries. Hapu experienced dreams and trances, and her fame for curing diseases spread through the neighbouring districts of Kona and Ka'u. The Protestant missionaries punished Hapu for practising “heathen” customs, condemning her to work on the roads. Before her death in early 1832 she told her followers to wait for men in long robes.

After her death a group of her male followers, according to the missionary Dibble, created a new syncretic religion. It is impossible to know now whether this new religion was created by Hapu herself or later by her male followers. Perhaps Dibble found it impossible to imagine that a woman might have created a new religion? Hapu's followers claimed that there were three gods, Jehovah, Jesus and Hapu herself. Hapu's bones were dug up and, adorned with kapa, feathers, and flowers, were deposited in a specially marked area which the devotees called a place of refuge. Such an institution was reminiscent of the places of refuge maintained in ancient times to which refugees from war, and kapu breakers could flee, and gain sanctuary and pardon. Hapu's followers urged the Hawaiians they met to go to the refuge because, they predicted, heaven and earth were about to meet, and all people not in the refuge would be destroyed. Many heeded the summons, going to the sanctuary and worshipping there day and night. The predicted destruction failed to eventuate and by the time Dibble had been alerted about these activities and arrived in Puna to deal with them, the people had deserted the refuge and, according to him, renounced their folly (Dibble 1843:281). No later manifestations of the cult were recorded and nothing more is known about it, but when the first Roman Catholic priest dressed in flowing robes arrived in Puna in 1841, Hapu's followers - 325 recognised him as the fulfilment of her prophecy and became converts to Roman Catholicism (Yzendoorn 1927:85).

Little concrete can be deduced from these fragments, either about Hapu or about the religious ideas associated with her name. The only firsthand account of the group available was written by the missionary Dibble, the person most directly threatened by their beliefs and activities. Not surprisingly he viewed Hapu and her followers as heretical, foolish and superstitious, and emphasised how quickly the cult collapsed when they realised the error of their ways. He clearly associated the appearance and brief history of the cult with the disorders and return to traditional pastimes encouraged by Kamehameha III in 1833. But the 20th-century Roman Catholic historian Yzendoorn, working from material collected by Father Walsh in the 1840s, establishes that Hapu had created her following, largely through her ability to cure diseases, and had died before Kamehameha III's outbreak occurred (Yzendoorn 1927:83-5). The prophecy of destruction may have struck responsive chords among people aware of Kamehameha III's activities, but the cult's autonomous beginnings owed nothing to Kamehameha or the Hulumanu. The Hapu group clearly rejected the Protestant hegemony and reaffirmed the value in certain traditional Hawaiian institutions, particularly the place of refuge and the veneration of bones, but there is no extant evidence that other traditional religious practices were revived. Not all Christian ideas, however, were rejected — witness the prophecy of men in long robes, which appears to be evidence that Hapu had knowledge of the presence of the Roman Catholic priests in Honolulu.

The influence of Hapu and her followers was transitory and localised, restricted to the southern districts of Hawai'i Island. The scant evidence about the group reveals similarities with millennial cults elsewhere — imminent world-wide destruction and salvation only for the believers gathered together at a nominated place — and suggests that it may have been a millennial cult in the making. But after the death of the prophetess and the failure of the first prophecy, the people involved retreated underground, only to become converts to Roman Catholicism a decade later. Faced with determined opposition from the Protestant missionaries to all forms of “heathenish” practice, and apparently with no chiefly support, Hapu and later her followers were unable to maintain an alternative religious sect.

Other Prophetic Incidents

No other prophet figure or faith healer in the first half of the 19th century offered a vision as elaborate as Hapu's, but their fleeting appearances and limited popularity are evidence that Hawaiians were attracted to supernatural solutions for ill health and political discontent. In late July 1824, before the news of Kamehameha II's death had reached Hawai'i, the ruling elite was gathered at Lahaina on Maui to discuss matters of state, par- - 326 ticularly the death of the high chief of Kauai and the future governance of that island. Kaahumanu was not yet a publicly proclaimed convert to Christianity, but her interest in what the missionaries had to offer was obvious from the code of laws she had promulgated in June 1824, which prohibited murder, theft, boxing and fighting, and enjoined the Hawaiians not to work or play on Sunday and to go to school when they were established (Kuykendall 1938:117-8). On July 21, 1824, a woman from Hawai'i Island appeared in Lahaina claiming she was the priestess of Pele, the goddess of the volcanoes, who had been deeply offended by the actions of a group of foreign missionaries (Richards 1824). During a mission tour of Hawai'i Island in 1823, several missionaries and other foreigners had visited the volcano area at Kilueau, and there had eaten berries sacred to Pele and thrown rocks into the crater (Ellis 1979:162, 176). The Pele priestess demanded that the ruling chiefs and chiefesses cast out the new learning and send the missionaries away. If they did not comply with Pele's orders, they were threatened that the volcano on Maui, Haleakala, would become active again and burn first the missionaries and all their houses, and then any Hawaiian sympathetic to their cause. She also claimed that Kekuaokalani, who had died fighting to uphold the old religion, was still alive and sent word that the ruling elite must reject the mission and atone for their past crimes by making sacrifices to Pele. The ABCFM missionary Richards (1824) recorded the interchange from information given him from the ruling chiefs and chiefesses, who had assembled to hear the priestess and who ridiculed and shattered her pretensions. Kalakua, a high-ranking chiefess, claimed that there were volcanoes throughout the world, not just in Hawai'i, and all were created by the Christian God. The chiefess compelled the priestess to admit that she was lying. The woman departed totally discredited. Despite a crowd of about 2000, no one, chief or commoner, sided with or spoke for her.

In precontact times, Pele was not recognised as one of the major gods worshipped at the large public ceremonies. Her following came largely from the ordinary people who lived around the volcanic area of Puna and Ka'u. In the altered world of the 1820s, when the major religious practices had already been abandoned, the ruling elite, who were already attracted to the possible strengths and means of control offered through the practice of Christianity, were not going to allow a self-styled priestess of a goddess worshipped largely by commoners to question their activities. Even before the public avowal of the new religion and its establishment by Kaahumanu, it is clear that the ruling chiefs would not countenance disturbances, religiously or politically inspired, by any dissidents. As early as 1824, Hawaiians loyal to the old religious regime were already appearing and questioning the legitimacy of the chiefs' actions and the new religion, but - 327 none was able to gain the adherents or momentum to challenge the ruling elite successfully.

Two decades later, in 1844, a young woman from Hawai'i Island who came to live on Oahu acquired fame throughout the latter island for her ability to cure diseases. Her preaching and practices revealed a combination of Christian and ancient Hawaiian religious tenets (The Polynesian, January 12, 1845). Nothing more was recorded about her.

In 1848, in answer to a barrage of 116 questions sent to all the ABCFM missionaries by the Foreign Relations Minister of the Hawaiian Government, the missionaries revealed little real anxiety about surviving idolators or “heathenish” practices among the Hawaiians, although several mentioned the Hawaiians' persistent interest in persons practising traditional medical techniques. One of the fullest answers came from Emerson at Waialua, Oahu:

There are but very few who would avow idol worship — perhaps none; and yet I am told this very day, that a large number (hundreds) are collecting in Koolau to visit a man, who has power to heal diseases miraculously. They call him (he kanaka akua) a god man, or a man possessed of divine power. There have been several such during the year, who have received attentions from many, amounting to something like idolatry. Two persons (female) have been round, or partly round, this island, collecting monies from those who have performed cures through the divine virtues of the King's sister, Nahienaena — (Answers to Questions, 1848:59).

Given the number of new, virulent diseases introduced into Hawai'i since contact, and the deaths that had occurred, this interest in curing and faith-healing is not surprising. Significantly, faith-healing was important among the Mamaia and the Papahurihia.

In Hawai'i in the 1820s and 1830s, there is clear evidence of religious and political malaise. Individuals attemped to subvert the current regime, but neither prophets, faith-healers nor groups like the Hulumanu had the vision, leadership or organisational abilities to capture the loyalties and imagination of a large number of Hawaiians, and create any sort of alternative government or religion. Ranged against all malcontents, high- or low-ranking, was the combined strength of the Maui chiefs, Kaahumanu, Kinau, Kuakini and many more, and the Protestant mission. Lacking leadership skills and experiences themselves, the maka'ainana dissatisfied with the Maui regime found no permanent guidance or inspiration from - 328 Kamehameha III, Boki, Liliha and the Hulumanu, or from Hapu and the other transient faith-healers and would-be prophets.

Comparative analyses of precolonial Polynesian millennial cults should include at least brief reference to the Hapu cult in southern Hawai'i Island as a movement, however localised and transitory, clearly identifiable with the Mamaia, Sio Vili and Papahurihia. On the other hand, the Hulumanu, the close attendants of Kamehameha III, were not associated with any cult activity and therefore should not be included in any analysis of millennial phenomena.

REFERENCES
  • Abbreviations:
  • ABCFM: American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Archive, Houghton Library, Harvard University.
  • AH: Archives of Hawaii, Honolulu.
  • HMCS: Hawaiian Mission Children's Society Library, Honolulu.
  • Hunnewell MSS: Manuscripts in Baker Library, Harvard University.
  • Answers to Questions, 1848. Honolulu, Mission Press.
  • Barrère, Dorothy, 1979. Personal communication.
  • —— and Marshall Sahlins, 1979. Tahitians in the Early History of Hawaiian Christianity: the Journal of Toketa. Hawaiian Journal of History, 13:19-35.
  • Bingham, Hiram, MS. 1834. Letter, Bingham to Secretary, Honolulu, February 5, 1834. ABCFM:19.1, vol.5 + 29.
  • —— 1848. A Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands. New York, Sherman Converse.
  • Binney, Judith, 1966. Papahurihia: Some Thoughts on Interpretation. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 75:321-31.
  • Bishop, Sereno Edwards, 1916. Reminiscences of Old Hawaii. Honolulu, Hawaiian Gazette Co.
  • Burridge, Kenelm, 1969. New Heaven, New Earth: A Study of Millinerarian Activities. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.
  • Chamberlain, Levi, MS. 1828. A Tour around Oahu. HMCS.
  • —— MS. 1833. Letter, Chamberlain to Anderson, Honolulu, March 26, 1833, and postscript dated April 6, 1833. ABCFM:19.1, vol.6 + 163-4.
  • Cohn, Norman, 1962. Medieval Millenarianism: Its Bearing on the Comparative Study of Millenarian Movements, in Sylvia Thrupp (ed.), Millennial Dreams in Action. The Hague, Mouton.
- 329
  • Conrad, Agnes C. (ed.), 1973. The Letters and Journal of Francisco de Paula Marin. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
  • Davenport, William, 1969. The “Hawaiian Cultural Revolution”: Some Political and Economic Considerations. American Anthropologist, 71:1-20.
  • Daws, Gavan, 1966. The High Chief Boki: a Biographical Study in Early Nineteenth Century Hawaiian History. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 75:65-83.
  • —— 1968. Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, University Press of Hawaii.
  • —— 1980. A Dream of Islands: Voyages of Self-Discovery in the South Seas. Milton (Queensland), Jacaranda Press.
  • Dibble, Sheldon, 1843. A History of the Sandwich Islands. Lahainaluna, Press of the Mission Seminary.
  • Ellis, William, 1979 [1825]. Journal of William Ellis. Narrative of a Tour of Hawaii. Rutland (Vermont), Tuttle.
  • Emerson, John, MS. 1833. Letter. Emerson to Anderson, Waialua, Oahu, November 25, 1833, ABCFM:19.1, vol.6 + 36.
  • Emerson, Joseph S., 1926. Kahunas and Kahunaism. Mid Pacific Magazine, 31:503-12.
  • Emerson, Oliver Pomeroy, 1928. Pioneer Days in Hawaii. Garden City, Doubleday Doran.
  • Fayerweather, A. H., MS. 1833. Letter, Fayerweather to his Father, Honolulu, May 8, 1833, in AH.
  • Freeman, J. D., 1959. The Joe Gimlet or Siovili Cult, in J. D. Freeman and W. R. Geddes (eds), Anthropology in the South Seas. New Plymouth (N.Z.), Thomas Avery.
  • Gager, Owen, MS. n.d. Untitled paper on Papahurihia. Sydney.
  • Guariglia, Guglielmo, 1959. Prophetismus und Heilserwartungs-Bewegungen als völkerkundliches und religionsgeschichtliches Problem. Wien, Wiener Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik, Band 13.
  • Gulick, Peter, MS. 1836. Letter, Gulick to Anderson, Koloa, Kauai, April 25, 1836. ABCFM:19.1, vol.5 + 181.
  • Gunson, Niel, 1962. An Account of the Mamaia or Visionary Heresy of Tahiti, 1826-1841. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 71:209-53.
  • Hempenstall, Peter, 1981. Protest or Experiment? Theories of “Cargo Cults”. La Trobe University, Research Centre for Southwest Pacific Studies, Occasional Paper No.2.
  • Hitchcock, H. R., MS. 1840 and 1841. Station Reports, HMCS.
  • Hunnewell, James, MS., n.d. Document on the arrival of the first missionaries at Hawaii. Hunnewell MSS, Box 58, Folder 5.
  • Ii, John Papa, 1959. Fragments of Hawaiian History. Honolulu, Bishop Museum Press.
  • Judd, G. P. MS, 1834. Notes made by G. P. Judd, M.O., in 1834 on his tour of Oahu. HMCS.
  • Judd, Laura Fish, 1928. Honolulu Sketches of the Life Social, Political and Religious in the Hawaiian Islands from 1828 to 1861. Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin.
  • Ka Hae Hawaii, September 11, 1861.
- 330
  • Ka Nupepa Ku'oko'a, May 23, 1868.
  • Kamakau, Samuel M., 1961. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii. Honolulu, Kamehameha Schools Press.
  • Kuykendall, Ralph S., 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu, University of Hawaii Press.
  • Lanternari, Vittorio, 1965. The Religions of the Oppressed: A Study of Modern Messianic Cults. New York, Mentor.
  • Moyle, Richard M. (ed.), 1984. The Samoan Journals of John Williams, 1830 and 1832. Canberra, Australian National University Press.
  • Mühlmann, Wilhelm Emil, 1955. Arioi und Mamaia: Eine Ethnologische, Religions-soziologische und Historische Studie über Polynesische Kultbünde. Wiesbaden, F. Steiner.
  • Pierce, H. A., MS. 1833. Letter, Pierce to Hunnewell, Honolulu, March 11, 1833. Hunnewell MSS, Box 5, Folder 3B.
  • —— MS. 1834. Letter, Pierce to Hunnewell, At sea en route to Canton, January 26, 1834. Hunnewell MSS., Box 5, Folder 3B.
  • —— MS. 1839. Letter Pierce to Hunnewell, Oahu, November 1839. Hunnewell MSS. Unbound materials in Printing Office, Case 3.
  • The Polynesian, January 12, 1845.
  • Proceedings of the 1826 General Meeting, 1826. ABCFM:19.1, vol.3 + 249.
  • Pukui, Mary Kawena and Samuel H. Elbert, 1971. Hawaiian Dictionary: Hawaiian-English, English-Hawaiian. Honolulu, University Press of Hawaii.
  • Ralston, Caroline, 1984. Hawaii 1778-1854: Some Aspects of Maka'ainana Response to Rapid Cultural Change. Journal of Pacific History, 19:21-40.
  • Reynolds, Stephen, MS. 1834. Journal, July 22, 1834. Microfilm copy in HMCS.
  • Richards, William, MS. 1824. Letter, Richards to Evarts, Lahaina, August 13, 1824. ABCFM:19.1, vol.2 + 127.
  • —— MS. 1831. Letter, Richards et al. to Evarts, Lahaina, November 29, 1831. ABCFM:19.1, vol.4 + 13.
  • —— MS. 1834. Letter, Richards to Anderson, Lahaina, October 15, 1834. ABCFM:19.1, vol.5 + 82.
  • Sandwich Island Gazette, March 4, 1837.
  • Sandwich Island Mission Journal, MS. 1822 and 1823. Journal, May 16, 1822, and May 19, 1823. HMCS.
  • Siikala, Jukka, 1982. Cult and Conflict in Tropical Polynesia: A Study of Traditional Religion, Christianity and Nativistic Movements. Helsinki, Academia Scientiarum Fennica.
  • Sinclair, Marjorie, 1976. Nahi'ena'ena, Sacred Daughter of Hawaii. Honolulu, University Press of Hawaii.
  • Smith, Lowell, MS. 1835. Letter, Smith to Anderson, Ewa, Oahu, July 21, 1835. ABCFM:19.1, vol.6 + 125.
  • Thrupp, Sylvia (ed.), 1962. Millennial Dreams in Action. The Hague, Mouton.
  • Thurston, A. and A. Bishop, MS. 1829. Letter, Thurston and Bishop to Evarts, Kailua, Hawaii Island, October 1, 1829. ABCFM:19.1, vol.3 + 267.
  • —— MS. 1833. Letter, Thurston and Bishop to Anderson, Kailua, Hawaii Island, September 30, 1833. ABCFM:19.1, vol.4 + 45.
  • Williams, John, 1838. A Narrative of Missionary Enterprises in the South Sea
- 331
  • Islands. London, John Snow.
  • Wilson, Ormond, 1965. Papahurihia, First Maori Prophet. Journal of the Polynesian Society, 74:473-83.
  • Yzendoorn, Reginald, 1927. History of the Catholic Mission in the Hawaiian Islands. Honolulu, Honolulu Star Bulletin.

- 332 Page is blank

1   Lanternari (1965) includes the Mamaia and Sio Vili in his study of Messianic cults, but his material is riddled with errors and misinterpretations. His discussion of the Hapu cult is similarly flawed.
2   Translated by Dorothy Barrère, 1979. A variant translation of the same passage is available in Kamakau 1961:279.
3   Kauai was the only island whose school attendances and other missionary activities were unaffected by the 1833 disturbances (Bingham 1834; Gulick 1836).