Tena Ko
In response to a question from “Scott” I have to add these comments about the book ‘Manu Moriori’.
Whilst it is an exceptionally beautiful book, and full of wonderful photographs of Hokairo or more appropriately: rakau momori, it seems to me to be yet another example of someone making use of the (cultural) intellectual property rights of an indigenous people, much the same as has happened to Moriori for the past ??? years. I also note that in the acknowledgement section towards the back of the book, no acknowledgment was given to the Hokotehi Moriori Trust, who are the offically recognised, mandated representitivres of Te Imi Moriori. I further add, that reading this book, was the first time that I have ever heard the expression “Manu Moriori” and wonder why Mr Richards would call his new book something that defies the current and historical understanding of the names of the carvings. They are rakau momori, or momori rakau, not manu moriori. That could also be interpreted as saying that historical Moriori saw themselves as ”Bird People”. I have found no reliable source to confirm that supposition.
I also note, that in Micheal King’s book: Moriori: A People Re-discovered, he states that, ” No one knows the exact nature and function of the Moriori dendroglyphs on the Kopi. The groves may have served a ritual purpose similar to that of marae….”
Get it?
No one does know!
I also am surprised by the casualness with which someone with as much (research/scientific/historical)experience as Mr Richards obviously possesses, can make the transition from supposition to fact: (I refer to his presentation that Moriori and the inhabitants of Rapanui (Easter Island) shared similar beliefs, habits and language) I quote from page 48; “The Moriori drew their motifs a bit differently, but their carvings represent exactly the same concept”.
or from page 50; “The parallels are too numerous, and too close, to be dismissed as chance”.
or from page 51: “The functions of all three seem remarkably similar”.
Now, dont get me wrong. I am not saying that there is no connection between the inhabitants of Rapanui and those early inhabitants of Rekohu, and I do agree that there are similarities in the language etc etc, but amongst the many things that spring to mind, the first is this:
A people that possessed the technology to create those giant carvings on Rapanui, and obviously travelled between islands etc, why didnt they continue carving them on Rekohu, as there is certainly plenty of good canvases there? And.. the Moriori certainly had the ability to carve stone, didnt they?
Anyway, that just me nitpicking again..
Scott: To answer your question. I liked the look of the book. I liked the photographs. I did not like the comparisons which eventually gave the impression that it was a done deal; that Moriori and Rapanui-ites shared close relations (perhaps even originating from there less than 600 years ago). I prefer to believe the M. KIng’s version that ” evidence of the final migration was from New Zealand is explicit”.
I also believe that the book should have been at least authorised by Hokotehi Moriori Trust as it would have been nice to have had a foreword in there from them, to lend it cultural credibility. Unless Mr Richards has Moriori hokopapa (lineage) this is just another example of what Micheal King calls, “manipulative, presumptuous and of little value”.
All of the resources cited were recorded after Moriori had been in “contact” (thats very “pc” eh?) with New Zealand Maori for over thirty years, diluting the truth, and infecting the Moriori mythology with their versions. Thats not very scientific is it?
Baucke, for example, who lived on Rekohu, and spoke fluent re, reo and english, initially wrote with respect of Moriori, recording customs and traditions, but later writings, 1922+ were vitriolic and full of nothing but distaste for the “inferior beings” that he saw Moriori as. This may or may not be related to his marital status at that time.
Hunt, in his Diary was recorded as being one of the last to see a Moriori do a tree carving, after the murder of his wife and child by Maori. Hunt didnt arriver on Rekohu (or Rangiauria) until 1841(ish). 6 years after the arrival of Maori.
Jefferson did her book in the 1950’s.
I conclude by re-iterating that these taongas are the intellectual property of the Moriori People. They are not there for the intellectual self-gratification of others. The majority of those that remain, that havent been destroyed by agricultural practices, or firewood gathering, are located in one, of only two National Historic Reserves that New Zealand has. They are important culturally, spiritually, and historically for Moriori. They are also important for the cultural and historical conscience of New Zealand. It is not up to anyone else, apart from Moriori, to tell us what they represent, or to make allusions as to what they might mean, or whom they are related to.
Manu means bird! There are carvings that depict nearly every living animal, insect or fish on Rekohu.
Hey, but these are my views only.
You asked the question.
I hope you got the answer that you wanted.
Me rongo
