Polynesian Migrations and Culture

Spirited Defence of Dr. Buck's Book

Letter to the Editor

SOME of us at the Bishop Museum, and a few of our friends here who read the “Pacific Islands Monthly,” were amazed at the excerpts from a letter to you which you printed in the May, 1942, issue (page 20).

Dr. Peter Buck’s “Vikings of the Sun rise” has been hailed in the best-informed quarters as the most comprehensive and constructive effort yet made to put the solution of Polynesian cultural origins on a sound basis. But the letter which you quote ridicules it as being in its greater part based on the “speculations of a lot of young cubs who have taken a course in anthropology but know noth ing of Polynesian languages and less about native mentality and ancient custom.”

Your writer further charges these “cubs” with vandalism, arrogance, and deception: “They ransack a few burial caves, measure a few platforms and marae and then ponderously pronounce some pontifical theory to justify the time and expense of their expedition.” Who he means by “cubs” is indicated by his closing comment that the book “gives a clear outline of the results of the inves tigations by scientists of the Bishop Museum.”

These aje pretty serious charges. How much truth is in them? Dr. Buck has carried out investigations in nearly every important group in Polynesia, and his book is based largely on his own re searches. He also uses facts uncovered by other members of the scientific per sonnel of the Bishop Museum. He knows these men and would not accept their data or concur in their conclusions if their lack of knowledge of the Poly nesian language, mentality, or ancient customs would put the evidence in doubt.

Of these matters, who is beter qualified to judge than Dr. Buck, who more versed in Polynesian languages (one of them his mother tongue), in Polynesian psychol ogy, and ancient Polynesian culture?

If there is one thing for which Dr.

Buck is noted above all else, it is his skill in detecting the false, the foreign, and the untrustworthy in accounts pur porting to reveal the original Polynesian culture. So when he uses the research of an ethnologist, it is assurance enough of competence. The scientific training of the young men entrusted by Bishop Museum with expeditions has inculcated in them a deep sense of responsibility towards the truth, caution in coming to conclusions, respect for the ideas and feelings of the natives whom they study, and fairness toward the work of their fellow researchers. And they were, or rapidly became, well grounded in a know ledge of ancient Polynesian culture.

After many months of most intensive work with native informants they were far removed from being in entire ignor ance of the Polynesian language and mentality.

Why, then, does the writer of your letter so unjustly characterise them? It would appear that he seeks to belittle them because their knowledge, discov eries, and observations are upsetting to his views. You can understand how this would be true if the statements on which he bases his claims are as misleading as those in his letter to you.

Kenneth P. Emory,

Ethnologist.

Bishop Museum.

Honolulu, 17/9/1942.

(The essential part of the letter, to which reference is made by Mr. Emory, is as follows • “I have read Dr. Buck’s ‘Vikings of the Sunrise’ and I find it disappointing as a work on Polynesian migrations.

“What Dr. Buck writes from his own know ledge and study is authentic. But the greater part of his book is derived from the specu lations of a lot of young cubs who have taken a course in anthropology but know nothing of Polynesian languages and less about native mentality and ancient custom. They ransack a few burial caves, measure a few platforms and marae and then ponderously pronounce some pontifical theory to justify the time and ex pense of their expedition.

“As far as I have been able to discover, there is not a scrap of evidence or reference in the chants and legends of Central Polynesia, to justify the theory of any migration into ’ this area via Micronesia—ln the manner stated in the book.

“Dr. Buck quotes that woolly-brained pro fessor, McMillan-Brown—who was a laughing stock for all serious students when he came this way—and ignores William Churchill, whose work (published by the Carnegie Foundation) is the most able and scholarly study of the Poly nesian problem I have ever seen.

“I think there is much to support the theory of a migration, via Rotuma, inasmuch as the legends of Ra’i’atea have been the foundation on which that theory has been built.

“It would require a book to record the refer ences, quotations and detailed reasons for the Rotuma theory.

“My friend, Mr. Charles B. Nordhoff, of Tahiti, who has read Dr. Buck’s book, is of the same opinion as to its value as a document on Polynesian migrations. He tells me that Dr.

Buck is the leading authority on certain aspects of old Polynesian society, but has to take the w °rd of others in many major departments of the study of the ancient people and Islands lore.

“Dr. Buck’s book is, of course, delightful reading and gives a clear outline of the results of the investigations by scientists of the Bishop Museum.”)