The Quest for Origins. Who first discovered and settled New Zealand and the Pacific Islands?
White, J. Peter
The Quest for Origins. Who first discovered and settled New Zealand and the Pacific Islands? By K. R. Howe. Auckland: Penguin Books (NZ),
2003. Pp. 235. Price: NZ$29.95.
Howe is one of New Zealand's leading historians. He describes
his book as 'a history of ideas and of their contexts' (p.
11), written in the local context of widely publicised claims that
pre-Polynesian civilisations permeate the Pacific. His intent is
wide-ranging, for a public rather than scholarly audience.
Howe starts by discussing how strongly concepts vital to long-term
European prehistory have been derived from observations by early
European explorers of the Pacific. But because of these links, Europeans
have been reluctant to see Pacific Islanders, especially Polynesians, as
local products. Starting with J. R. Forster, nearly all but the most
recent interpretations have brought Polynesians into the Pacific from
China, India, Egypt of more exotic locales. One implication of this
which he doesn't much explore is that while they may have preserved
traces of these 'high' origins, they are by definition
'degenerate'.
Howe then moves on to current explanations of Pacific settlement,
grounding himself firmly in the orthodox view of a decade or so ago that
Austronesiean linguistic history provides the strongest model. This
derives the ancestors of Polynesians from Southeast Asia, specifically
Taiwan, travelling through Melanesia with little contact. His grasp of
Pacific archaeology is also pretty good but, not surprisingly given its
complexity, his take on the genetic evidence is slim. He looks quite
thoroughly at Pacific navigation and sailing, noting that Andrew
Sharp's 'drift' hypotheses were not as extreme as has
often been portrayed and that modern replications of traditional
voyaging vary widely in their adherence to historically and
ethnographically known information.
Chapters 6 and 7 deal with alternative views. The former discusses
Heyerdahl and American origins, Langdon's belief in biologically
and culturally hyper-active Spaniards (16th--18th centuries) and
catastrophic ideas of Polynesians as degenerate survivors of sunken
continents. Chapter 7 overviews some of the 'new'
learning--diffusionism rampant, 'New Age' mysticism and the
'new' geology of catastrophism way back in the past. Howe
argues that all these interpretations are based almost entirely on
imperial and colonial values. He describes them as 'culturally
problematic' and 'dangerous anti-intellectualism'
(p.141). Most Oceania readers will agree.
But is this the point? Howe's overview is one which win
reinforce those who believe in accounts based on historical and
scientific method, but gives them almost no ammunition other than
'authority' to confront widespread and very popular
misconceptions and to deal with specifics. Some versions of the past, I
agree, are so thoroughly grounded in a completely different world-view
that confrontation, of even discussion, is almost impossible. But there
are many 'mysteries' of the past which well-intentioned people
wonder about. As well as some of the more general aspects mentioned
above, in New Zealand these include such things as a Tamil Bell, a
'Spanish' helmet and the Kaimanawa wall, mentioned by Howe
(p.145) but not analysed. Yet I would argue that historical and
archaeological detective exposition of such finds, demonstrating what
they are and are not evidence of, can provide precisely the ammunition
which helps school and dinner table discussions, It's a pity
Howe's analyses didn't get into this stuff.
Howe has written a solid, informative overview. But I have my
doubts about its convincing qualities.
J. Peter White
University of Sydney
