Forum

Traditional Cultural Sources
In addition to archival and interview research, other sources of cultural knowledge were accessed
and reviewed to ascertain information about Hawaiian monk seals. These sources included mele
(songs), oli (chants), mo‘olelo (oral traditions), and other traditional knowledge forms. One such
source is the Kumulipo, a detailed chant that chronicles the creation story, genealogy and
mythology of ancient Hawai‘i (Beckwith, 1951). Previously it was not believed that any
references to the monk seal were found in the Kumulipo, but the term “ioleholoikauaua” in one
section may reference the Hawaiian monk seal (Appendix). The description of the
ioleholoikauaua as “a rat running beside the wave,” is reminiscent of monk seals and the
description of the monk seal in this section of the Kumulipo is also consistent with other
descriptions and perceptions of monk seal behavior found in Hawaiian language sources.
The monk seal is also mentioned in the mo‘olelo (oral tradition) about the Legend of Hawaii-loa.
In this story, the monk seal is described as ‘īlioholoikauaua-a-Lono, and is associated with the
Hawaiian god Lono:
After Light had been created or brought forth from the Po (the darkness or chaos) the
gods looked upon the empty space (ka lewa) and there was no place to dwell in. They
then created the heavens for themselves. Three heavens did they create or call into
existence by their word of command. The uppermost heaven was called “Lani-Makua,”
the one next below was called “he Lani o Ku,” and the lowest was called “he Lani o
Lono.”
* * *
The first man, generally called Kumu Honua, had a number of names – already
mentioned; he was a tall, handsome, majestic looking person, and so was his wife. He
was along upon the land for about one century (kipaelui or kihipea) before his wife Lalo
Honua was created.
Among the animals enumerated in the legend as dwelling in peace and comfort with
Kumu Honua in Kalani i Hauola were:
Ka puaa nui Hihimanu a Kane (the large Hihimanu hog of Kane); ka ilio nui niho oi a
Kane (the large sharp-toothed dog of Kane); ka ilio holo i ka uaua a Lono (the dog
running at the voice of Lono); ka puaa maoli (the common hog); ka ilio alii a Kane (the
royal dog of Kane); na moo (lizards)… (Fornander, 1916-1920), emphasis added).
This reference is the only known description of the linkage between the god Lono and the monk
seal and the only known account of the term “ka-ilio-holo-i-ka-uaua-a-Lono.” The association
with Lono is also interesting because dogs are typically associated with the god Kane and many
other ocean animals are associated with the god Kanaloa. 15
Another reference to the monk seal may exist in the mo‘olelo (oral tradition) about the god
Hi‘iakaikapoliopele (Hi‘iaka), whose travels through the archipelago are recorded in a lengthy
and detailed chant. In a translated version of the chant, Hi‘iaka describes an area on the island of
O‘ahu (Ka‘ō‘io Point): “there is a plain on the inland side and dangerous waters seaward, a place
renowned in the saying, ‘Lie calmly in the sea of your chief.’ As we go along we will reach
Makaua, land of the Ma‘akua rain. That is where the ‘īlio hā of Kāne dwells, named
Kauhike‘īmakaokalani, an uncle of ours” (Nogelmeier, 2006), emphasis added). In the story that
follows, Hi‘iaka describes, “ ‘īlio hā is like saying ‘īlio kāhā, an oversized, hulking dog, the same
way a pig can be oversized. It means it is huge, heavy, plump, and fleshy. But this dog-uncle of
ours you see there has the body of a massive dog, and the largest expanse of his fur is on his head
and neck…” (Nogelmeier, 2006).
Though it is unknown if this description explicitly refers to monk seals, the description of the
‘īlio hā as “huge, heavy, plump, and fleshy” and as an “oversized” dog is reminiscent of the
physical appearance of monk seals. Unlike the previous mo‘olelo, in this story the seal-like
animal is associated with the Hawaiian god Kane, who is traditionally associated with dogs.
Hawaiian Place Names
Hawaiian place names serve a variety of functions but commonly convey cultural information
and associations with geographical features (Pūkui et al., 1974). Place names are often
understood, interpreted, and perpetuated within traditional mo‘olelo (oral traditions) that
developed in a place-based manner. We performed a search through cartographic and archival
sources to identify places in the Hawaiian Islands that potentially reference monk seals. We also
undertook several site visits at places believed to be named for monk seals, and captured
additional information about these place-names in interviews with local residents and through
personal observations.
Several sites in the Hawaiian archipelago were found to possess names that likely reference the
Hawaiian monk seal and many other sites were found with names warranting more investigation.
One site is located on the remote Kalaupapa peninsula on the rugged north coast of Moloka‘i,
which has functioned since historical times as an isolated colony for persons with Hansen’s
disease. A small cape and bay in the area, named ‘Īlio-pi‘i, is translated literally as “climbing
dog” (Pūkui et al., 1974). The historical name seems appropriate, as monk seals commonly pup
on beaches in this area in modern times. Another site, Lae o Ka ‘Īlio, is located in the Hā‘ena
community on the rural north shore of Kaua‘i island. Andrade (2008) writes that Lae o Ka ‘Īlio
translates to “the headland of the dog,” and “refers to the endangered Hawaiian monk seal known
to Hawaiians as ‘īlio hele i ka uaua (dog running in the rough seas). Residents saw seals there
even in the days before the federally established laws now protecting them caused a dramatic
increase in their numbers in the main Hawaiian islands” (Andrade, 2008). Finally, the modern
name Holoikauaua has been given to Pearl and Hermes Atoll in the NWHI (Kōmike Huaʻōlelo,
2003). The name “celebrates the Hawaiian monk seals that haul out and rest” at the atoll
(USFWS et al., 2008). Each of these place names possesses significant ecological importance
for the monk seals in current context, and at least two, ‘Īlio-pi‘i on Moloka‘i and Lae o Ka ‘Īlio
on Kaua‘i, are historical names that likely reference places where monk seals were common in
historical times. 16
Numerous additional sites throughout the archipelago may warrant more research, including:
Kane‘īlio, Kū‘īlioloa, and Pu‘uanahulu. Pūkui notes that Pu‘uanahulu was “perhaps named for a
supernatural dog of that name; see Ka-lae-o-ka-‘īlio” (Pūkui et al., 1974). The reference to Kalae-o-ka-‘īlio reads: “points at Kona, Hawai‘i; Kau-pō, Maui; northwest Molokai (also called
‘Īlio and Ka-‘īlio). Lit., the cape of the dog. (At the Kona point in a sea pool is the body of
Anahulu, a supernatural dog that was changed to stone by Pele. See Pu‘u-anahulu)” (Pūkui et
al., 1974). Lae o Ka ‘Īlio point on the northwest tip of Moloka‘i, also known as ‘Īlio point, bears
similarity in name to the site in Kaua‘i. The Hawai‘i Department of Land and Natural Resources
has linked the ‘Īlio Point, or Kalaeokailio, to an ancient legend of a red dog, rather than a monk
seal (DLNR, 2009 [citing Ne et al., 1992]), but monk seals are found in the area (Duvall II,
2009). Another place name is Kīpahulu in the Hāna district of Maui, but interviewees indicated
this site was used by seabirds and did not know of any association with the monk seal. Finally, a
heiau (ritual site) in the Wai‘anae district of O‘ahu island is named Kūʻilioloa (“The long dog
form of Kū”), and mo‘olelo about this site reference a dog that would bark at the ocean when
enemies were coming. Respondents that identified this site said that although the name has ʻilio
(dog) in it, it does not necessarily mean it was named after the monk seal.
Interviews in Native Hawaiian Communities
We interviewed a representative cross-section of individuals with different knowledge sets,
resource use patterns, perspectives and expertise to uncover cultural information about the
Hawaiian monk seal. We also reviewed existing interviews that focused on monk seals, marine
environments and similar topics for context. All interviewees indicated that monk seals were
relatively new to ocean users in the MHI, with the first personal observations dating to the 1940s
and most respondents not indicating experiences with the monk seal until the 1960s or after.
These observations were consistent with previously published ethnographic research among local
fishermen and community elders (kūpuna) in the Hawaiian Islands suggesting perceived rarity
among tenured ocean users until the past few decades (Maly and Maly, 2003a–d, 2004). Many
respondents noted that their encounters with monk seals have increased in the past few decades,
and these perceptions were similar to those expressed by some community members at public
meetings about the monk seal (ERM – West Inc., 2011). A separate survey effort indicated that
more than 80% of respondents had personally encountered monk seals in the MHI, but their
knowledge of the species was relatively limited (SRGII, 2011).
Respondents exhibited a plurality of views regarding the monk seal, ranging from hostility or
ambivalence to strong feelings of conservation and stewardship. This suggests lack of a
consensus in the Native Hawaiian community regarding the monk seal and heterogeneity in
perceptions and socio-cultural values associated with the species.
Among interviewees who expressed positive views about the monk seal, a small subset of
indicated a strong socio-cultural association with the species. Some interviewees described
families on Hawai‘i and O‘ahu islands that consider the species to be ʻaumakua, the “family or
personal gods, deified ancestors who might assume the shape of…[various animals]” (Pūkui and
Elbert, 1986). ʻAumakua are traditionally protected by their associated families and various
cultural protocols are followed to steward the relationships between the family and their spiritual 17
guardian. Notably, the monk seal is not named as a common ʻaumakua (Pūkui and Elbert,
1986), but this does not necessarily mean that the families have recently adopted this cultural
association. ʻAumakua can be associated with families for many generations, reaching far back
into history, or can be recent additions based on events that carry special cultural meaning and
significance. Additionally, some communities have conducted spiritual ceremonies for monk
seals during which the monk seal is recognized as part of the ‘ohana, or family. Respondents
have said that the details of such activities are deliberately kept hūnā, or secret.
Some respondents shared mo‘olelo (oral traditions/stories) about monk seals that indicated a
mythological association with the species. In one account from the island of Moloka‘i, a kupuna
(community elder) told of a monk seal who appeared in the area in 1947 and washed up without
a head. The kupuna indicated it was the work of Kauhuhu, the famed shark god of the area who
patrolled the waters from Moananui to Pelekunu. Another mo‘olelo from Hawai‘i Island tells of
a pair of lovers who suffered the wrath of the jealous shark god Kua. After his affections were
spurned, he curses the woman, turning her into a monk seal and her male companion into a
dragonfly so the two could not be together. The pair was later reunited in their human forms by
the god Kū (Appendix). These mo‘olelo indicate a historical cultural association with the monk
seal, but appear to be limited to a few places where familial traditions have preserved the stories.
For some kūpuna, the specific origins of the animal and its significance in Hawaiian culture are
irrelevant, as the traditional Hawaiian sense of stewardship extends to all species and the
environment. One respondent, for example, expressed, “whether they are ʻhānai’ [adopted] or
ʻhānau’ [born of, as in a son or daughter], monk seals are part of the ocean and we, humans, have
an obligation to protect them.” This perspective has also been shared by other community elders
interviewed about the monk seal (Seldon and Lucas, 2010, Watson, 2010). These views indicate
an modern, evolving socio-cultural significance ascribed to the species by some interviewees,
who draw on traditional conceptions of environmental and resource stewardship in relation to the
species.
While some Native Hawaiian community members hold positive views about the monk seal,
others view the monk seal negatively and do not associate any cultural significance to the species
historically or in modern times. Among these respondents, the seal is viewed as endemic to the
NWHI but not to the MHI. Some respondents view the seal as an invasive species in the MHI
and believe the seal should remain in the NWHI only. Respondents commonly cite the lack of
Hawaiian cultural references to the seal in traditional chants, hula [dance] and other knowledge
forms. Other respondents pointed to the lack of evidence that the monk seal was ever used for
food, tools, weapons, fabrics, medicine, or combustible material. One respondent emphasized
that, “everything in Hawaiʻi had a common use… since there was no [use], then it must not be
native.” Other respondents pointed to the lack of monk seal bones (‘iwi) found in archeological
excavations or petroglyphs (ki‘i pōhaku) depicting monk seals. Respondents on Maui were not
aware of any place names, sacred sites (wahi pani) or fishing shrines (koʻa) named after the
monk seal. They also mentioned that their kūpuna (elders) never mentioned the monk seal, and
that they did not know of any families that regarded the monk seal as their ‘aumakua (spiritual
family guardian).18
The most commonly cited source of human-monk seal conflict is negative interactions with
fishers (primarily men in Hawai‘i). Fishing has a long history in Hawai‘i and is embedded in the
socio-cultural traditions and subsistence lifestyles of Hawaiian communities (Glazier, 2007,
Titcomb, 1972). Monk seals are viewed by Native Hawaiian fishers and their families as direct
competitors, in that they preferentially take fish specifically targeted by fishers. Many
respondents believe that when interactions occur, they inhibit the ability of fishers to provide
food for the household. Other fishers cite the aggressive behavior of monk seals as a major
problem. Common interactions include seals taking fish off of lines or out of fishers’ nets, but
increasingly seals are interacting with boats and fishermen directly – in some cases, fishers have
been bitten by monk seals. These interactions are viewed by some as impacting cultural fishing
practices, and are further compounded by existing regulations that restrict fishing and the
depleted condition of fisheries resources in the MHI.
Among respondents who view the species negatively, the belief that the monk seal is not
endemic is exacerbated by the prohibitions against interacting with the seal. Some respondents
state the perspective that modern cultural knowledge cannot be generated because the monk seal
“cannot be touched and used for anything.” Restrictions on use have precluded indigenous
communities from perpetuating cultural traditions for other protected species such as sea turtles
(Kinan and Dalzell, 2005, Rudrud, 2010). Ancient cultural knowledge is believed to be nonexistent due to the recent arrival of the monk seal in the MHI, but respondents also suggested
that modern knowledge of the seal will accrue with the current generation that is interacting with
the monk seal. A key question among this group is how seals will be integrated into Hawaiian
culture and what will the cultural exchange be with the species in the modern context.
In a few unique places in the archipelago monk seals are regarded as a natural part of the
ecosystem and human-monk seal conflicts appear to be minimal (Figure 2). These areas tend to
be rural and fairly isolated communities that are characterized by a higher degree of selfsufficiency, and where familial traditions and local decision-making processes are preserved. On
Ni‘ihau Island, for example, monk seals became established nearly three decades ago.
Community members discussed the social impacts associated with monk seal colonization (e.g,
increased presence of sharks), and ultimately decided to act as stewards of the animals
(Robinson, 2008). As a result, a sub-population has become established and residents have
developed a stewardship ethic towards the species. A similar situation is occurring in the
isolated Kalaupapa community on Moloka‘i Island, where another sub-population is thriving in
the MHI, and where community residents largely leave seals alone. In these communities,
fishers and other ocean users will move away from areas where seals are visible in order to
minimize interactions.
Figure 2: ‘Īliopi‘i point, Kalaupapa
peninsula, Moloka‘i, a rural
community that has developed a
relatively conflict-free relationship
with monk seals. As a result,
monk seals have flourished in this
area. Photo by Patrick Doyle.