MAORI LORE

Press, Volume LXXII, Issue 21702, 8 February 1936, Page 20

MAORI LORE

TO THE EDITOB 0» TIES PBESS. Sir, —Your commentator, "Atalanta," of "Women the world over," in your issue of Saturday, January 25, is guilty of some rather bold'and fantastic assertions. Under the sub-title of "An Archaeological Find," "Atalanta" writes of an excursion by members of . the Arowhenua Maori Women's Institute to the mouth of the Waitaki river, to view the remains of an old Maori camping ground. The excursion was at the instigation of one, Mr H. S. McCully, whom your writer describes as an "expert in South Canterbury Maori lore." Because a person is earnest, studious, enthusiastic, in searching for old bones,, old fossils, old eggshells, and old Maori women's tales, does it follow that that person becomes an "expert" in South Canterbury Maori lore? If so, would "Atalanta" please explain to a thinking Maori, who possesses an exacting mind, in what way the transformation was brought about? Was it accomplished with the aid of a vivid imagination, plus 'a smooth flow of beautiful rhetoric, from, a glib tongue? Up and down the length and breadth of Canterbury, and in the Mackenzie Country there are far too many, of this type of person, who are misnamed, "Maori experts" or Maori authorities—the type of persons who style themselves "Friend of the Maori," or who take "the poor Maori and his welfare to their hearts," etc. There ere others who would even condescend to give free picnics, spreads, dances, etc., to ingratiate themselves into the good nature of the Maori folk, for the sole purpose of getting facts, data, information, etc. Much of the facts, data, and tales, which are supplied to these "experts" and "authorities," by old Maori women, would make the hair of that genial old liar, Baron von Munchausen—about whom you commented in your editorial some months ago—stand on end.

Would "Atalanta" say what good purpose would the knowledge gained by delving into the past of the Maori race serve the present and future generations of Maoris? Does not the Treaty of Waitangi serve that purpose? Also, would "Atalanta" please say about what, in what way, and where is the lon,*, fierce controversy raging? Amongst the Maoris, and their pariah outcasts, the Morioris, there is no controversy. The Maoris were the original inhabitants of New Zealand—the Treaty of Waitangi recognises this. I have been a more or less constant reader of your journal for the last 10 years or so, and have always admired it for its conservativeness, and veracity of its reports, and I say the time has definitely arrived when contributions, articles, and manuscripts appertaining to the Maori race should be closif.y scrutinised, and the sources of information thoroughly investigated.

—Yours, etc., TEOTI PAWHATI PAIKI. Fairlie, February 4, 1936.

[Commenting on this letter, "Atalanta" says: "'Atalanta' is at a loss to explain the heat displayed in this letter. She used an interesting account of an outing enjoyed by a women's institute, owing to the hospitality of a gentleman who has given much time and energy to native research in Canterbury, and who was admirably willing to share his knowledge with those most concerned. Mr McCully's modesty would doubtless have preferred 'student collector' to 'expert.' which word seems the ground of offence. 'Atalanta' is no expert, but maintains that there has been long and active controversy as to whether the Maori and the moa really lived together. The Fairlie antiquarian has of course, studied the early 'Transactions of the New Zealand Institute,' as well us Inter authors who have taken up the study of his race. Apparently the controversy is settled now, and 'Atalanta' earnestly begs that the Fairlie antiquarian will write again and tell the country all about it."J