Re: ocean sailing rafts (Re: Lapita??

From: benlizross (benlizro_at_ihug.co.nz)
Date: 09/03/04 

Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2004 20:08:12 +1200

Qiwi wrote:
>
> jgibson000@comcast.net (Jeffrey B. Gibson) wrote in message news:<3089a2a3.0409020828.41c6c34e@posting.google.com>...
> > benlizross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:<41366AFB.6D71@ihug.co.nz>...>
> >
> > > By the way, just in case anyone should be deceived by Yuri's attempt to
> > > present my opinion about Brailsford as some sort of petty personal
> > > spite, I note that in his book _The Quest for Origins: Who First
> > > Discovered and Settled New Zealand and the Pacific Islands?_ (Penguin,
> > > 2003), the historian K.R.Howe treats Brailsford's Waitaha stories under
> > > the heading of "New Age" Prehistory, along with Martin Doutre's "Ancient
> > > Celtic New Zealand" and the lost-civilization epics of David Hatcher
> > > Childress.
> >
> > Yes, but despite the Howe's excellent advanced academic qualifications
> > (vs. Yuri's B.A. in history), Howe's appointments to various teaching
> > posts (vs. Yuri's never having been viewed by anyone as qualified for
> > any teaching post and his never having taught at even the secondary
> > level), Howe's track record of publications in peer reviewed journals
> > (vs. Yuri's non publication of anything in these venues) and by
> > academic presses (vs, Yuri's self publication of his "work" in an
> > obscure vanity press), Howe's memberships in professional academic
> > societies and his chairing of various panels within them (vs. Yuri's
> > non membership/acceptance by/participation in any professional body),
> > and Howe's appointment to an endowed chair at an accredited University
> > in the very field of study in which BB was engaged (vs. Yuri's never
> > having been called to any academic office in the areas of study in
> > which he claims expertise, let alone the one in which he actually
> > holds a degree), Howe still doesn't have an MBE. So I guess he's not
> > qualified to make any judgements, let alone the one's he does, on BB's
> > work.
> >
> > But then again, by the very criteria that Yuri uses to determine this,
> > neither is Yuri himself, since, so far as I know, Yuri has never been
> > awarded the MBE, and Yuri has made the possession of an MBE the sine
> > qua non for determining whether claims about a given person's
> > historical and archaeological views should be accepted as valid or
> > rejected as nothing more than "mud slinging".
> >
> > Jeffrey Gibson
> And despite all that I would take Yuri's word over Professor Kerry
> Howe any day of the week.

My point in introducing Howe's book was simply to counter Yuri's attempt
to pretend that my poor opinion of Brailsford was a matter of personal
animus, or envy of his MBE, or something.

> Howe in my opinion is third rate...His work is predictable and 'The
> Quest for Origins' adds nothing to the genuine search for the true
> homeland of the Polynesians.
> On the back cover the heading is; "From space, from Egypt, from the
> Americas?....these are but some of today's more fanciful claims about
> the first settlers of New Zealand and the islands of the Pacific...."
> What a condescending piece of trash..
> The classic thing is Howe, who is so scathing of anything that falls
> outside of his narrow interpretation of the orthodox theory, appears
> to subscribe to some of the most ludicrous theories that have ever
> seen the light of day...
> e.g "Whether Hawaiki is internally located (for example, it might be
> in Northland), or somewhere in eastern Polynesia, or is purely some
> symbolic or mythological place, Maori did commonly understand that
> they were recently arrived in New Zealand from the north."...." p.90
> This idea put forward by Simmons is nonsense...
> Unbelievably the above quote is one of only two references to
> 'Hawaiki' in Howe's entire book...!!??
> The other one from page 159 is a repeat, "Maori oral tradition
> suggested that the Maori homeland was 'Hawaiki', which was variously
> interpreted by Europeans as Samoa's Savai'i, Hawai'i or elsewhere
> ineastern Polynesia. 'Hawaiki' is in fact the claimed immediate
> homeland of many people of eastern Polynesia, not just Maori. Whether
> it is mythical or has a specific location/s, including within New
> Zealand itself is still debated."
> Who on earth would be debating whether 'Hawaiki', the 'ancient
> homeland' of the Polynesians is situated in Northland, New Zealand...
> LOL
> Kerry Howe and........????

I always hate to interrupt the mirth, Qiwi -- obviously, laughing at
what you see as other people's stupidity brightens up your life a great
deal. But you appear to be locked in your own narrow interpretation
here. Because you are sure there must be one true actual place "Hawaiki"
(and you are sure you know where it was) you find it impossible to
understand alternative views.

> Since Hawaiki occurs throughout Polynesia as the name for an ancient
> homeland

Well, actually, only in the east.

 is Howe claiming now that Aotearoa was settled before the far
> eastern islands???

No, and this is part of your problem. First, Howe's book is primarily a
history of ideas. He is not proposing his own answer to the question of
Polynesian origins, but reviewing ideas and theories that have been held
by all kinds of people over a couple of centuries. Second, the "Hawaiki"
narratives do not actually use expressions like "homeland of the
Polynesians". They tell of how various ancestors came from a place
called Hawaiki to wherever the narrator is. One suggestion that has been
made in connection with some of the Maori stories is that the voyages in
question sound more like journeys from one part of Aotearoa to another.
(I believe there is at least one place in NZ called Hawaiki. It's on the
Aotea Harbour. But that's not essential to this interpretation.) Now
obviously one could believe that without believing that all Polynesians
came from NZ. Again, I feel like a spoilsport, but probably people are
not quite as dumb as you enjoy thinking. Another view, put forward by
Margaret Orbell at least, is that Hawaiki is a mythological place. Of
course the tales of voyaging reflect the reality of the Polynesian past,
but to try and locate a unique actual Hawaiki is as pointless as to look
for the exact location of the Garden of Eden. I've tried explaining this
on this newsgroup in the past, but of course sci.arch always attracts a
certain number of people who think it's a great idea to look for Eden or
Noah's Ark, so I think the idea may not have been very well received.

Ross Clark

Relevant Pages

  • Re: ocean sailing rafts (Re: Lapita??
    ... Howe any day of the week. ... homeland of the Polynesians. ... in Northland), or somewhere in eastern Polynesia, or is purely some ... 'Hawaiki' in Howe's entire book...!!?? ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: ocean sailing rafts (Re: Lapita??
    ... Howe any day of the week. ... homeland of the Polynesians. ... in Northland), or somewhere in eastern Polynesia, or is purely some ... 'Hawaiki' in Howe's entire book...!!?? ...
    (sci.anthropology)
  • Re: ocean sailing rafts (Re: Lapita??
    ... Howe still doesn't have an MBE. ... > homeland of the Polynesians. ... 'Hawaiki' is in fact the claimed immediate ... > homeland' of the Polynesians is situated in Northland, ...
    (sci.anthropology)