280
16 The Context of Oral Traditions
fired clay for purposes other than the preparation of paint, at least until the early 1700’s
(Prickett 1992) according to dating obtained by Furey.
Urlich adds
That Maori should retain knowledge associated with clay while not possessing a ceramic
tradition, coupled with the clay concepts inherent in the word kokowai, gives a tantalising
hint that clay may have been part of important ritual in the far distant past, long before
Maori reached New Zealand. The Creation Myth may be one example of the way in which
original Lapita clay concepts were passed to succeeding generations of Lapita descendants.
Maori Mythic structure has a genealogy that includes clay, a deity of clay, symbolic actions
associated with clay, words for clay and clay usage. Coupled with what we now know to
have been at least a sporadic use of fired clay, this might quite possibly be ancient remnants
of knowledge connected back to ancient Lapita clay traditions (p. 390).
16.13 Indirect and Consilient Evidence
Although there may be no artefactual evidence supporting accounts of Maui the
Navigator’s visit to New Zealand, there is a considerable body of indirect and consilient evidence corroborating these accounts. Following the East Australian Current
as our paradigm predicts would draw a canoe to a landing on the west coast of
the South Island, where tradition tells us Maui landed. There, not unexpectedly, in
the foothills beyond the bay, Maui saw the fires of people he assumed to be “wild
men of the woods”, descendants of first-wave colonists who, by our reckoning, had
arrived in New Zealand nearly 1,500 years before. Maui’s unexpected discovery of
the North Island can be read as evidence of a very long isolation in New Zealand
for the descendants of the first-wave colonists since no word of the existence of
the North Island had reached Maui’s homeland. The linguistic and technological
divergence recorded in these traditional accounts supports this interpretation, which
in turn accords with the global climate patterns responsible for this long isolation.
Maui’s encountering a matrilineal society in New Zealand accords with evidence
for early matrilineal and matrilocal social structures in the Pacific and with the persistence in New Zealand till long after the Heke of the transference of land rights
through matrilineal descent. Maui’s perception of the people of Orokoroko as moho
or primitive suggests the obvious difference between the horticulturally based societies of the Spice Islands and tropical Polynesia and the settled hunter/gatherer mode
of life that for the first 2,600 years after first settlement was the only one possible in
New Zealand. In the light of the historical implications of these traditional accounts
of Maui’s visit to New Zealand, the one piece of archaeological evidence we do
have – the discovery of a Lapita rat haplotype in Palliser Bay – can no longer be
deemed anomalous.
The assumption that the absence of archaeological evidence for very early settlement in New Zealand is proof that no early indigenous history existed is, of course, a
reworking of the old confusion that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
It relies too on the limiting assumption that only archaeological evidence can be
considered valid.
16 The Context of Oral Traditions
fired clay for purposes other than the preparation of paint, at least until the early 1700’s
(Prickett 1992) according to dating obtained by Furey.
Urlich adds
That Maori should retain knowledge associated with clay while not possessing a ceramic
tradition, coupled with the clay concepts inherent in the word kokowai, gives a tantalising
hint that clay may have been part of important ritual in the far distant past, long before
Maori reached New Zealand. The Creation Myth may be one example of the way in which
original Lapita clay concepts were passed to succeeding generations of Lapita descendants.
Maori Mythic structure has a genealogy that includes clay, a deity of clay, symbolic actions
associated with clay, words for clay and clay usage. Coupled with what we now know to
have been at least a sporadic use of fired clay, this might quite possibly be ancient remnants
of knowledge connected back to ancient Lapita clay traditions (p. 390).
16.13 Indirect and Consilient Evidence
Although there may be no artefactual evidence supporting accounts of Maui the
Navigator’s visit to New Zealand, there is a considerable body of indirect and consilient evidence corroborating these accounts. Following the East Australian Current
as our paradigm predicts would draw a canoe to a landing on the west coast of
the South Island, where tradition tells us Maui landed. There, not unexpectedly, in
the foothills beyond the bay, Maui saw the fires of people he assumed to be “wild
men of the woods”, descendants of first-wave colonists who, by our reckoning, had
arrived in New Zealand nearly 1,500 years before. Maui’s unexpected discovery of
the North Island can be read as evidence of a very long isolation in New Zealand
for the descendants of the first-wave colonists since no word of the existence of
the North Island had reached Maui’s homeland. The linguistic and technological
divergence recorded in these traditional accounts supports this interpretation, which
in turn accords with the global climate patterns responsible for this long isolation.
Maui’s encountering a matrilineal society in New Zealand accords with evidence
for early matrilineal and matrilocal social structures in the Pacific and with the persistence in New Zealand till long after the Heke of the transference of land rights
through matrilineal descent. Maui’s perception of the people of Orokoroko as moho
or primitive suggests the obvious difference between the horticulturally based societies of the Spice Islands and tropical Polynesia and the settled hunter/gatherer mode
of life that for the first 2,600 years after first settlement was the only one possible in
New Zealand. In the light of the historical implications of these traditional accounts
of Maui’s visit to New Zealand, the one piece of archaeological evidence we do
have – the discovery of a Lapita rat haplotype in Palliser Bay – can no longer be
deemed anomalous.
The assumption that the absence of archaeological evidence for very early settlement in New Zealand is proof that no early indigenous history existed is, of course, a
reworking of the old confusion that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
It relies too on the limiting assumption that only archaeological evidence can be
considered valid.