The Origin Of

Polynesians

Work Done —And to be Done

Letter to the Editor IT seems strangely inappropriate, at a time when American troops are located in Australia and in the Paci fic Islands, that an Australian paper such as the “Pacific Islands Monthly” (May issue, page 20) should publish statements from an undisclosed writer that reflect on the work of an American institution and the ability of American graduate students in anthropology. (See page 11 of November issue of “PIM”.) The “young cubs” mentioned by your correspondent were graduates of well known American universities, who were selected for their aptitude in the study of the culture of native peoples. What they lacked from the University in know ledge of Polynesian language, mentality, and ancient custom, they were sent out into the field to seek and to record.

Their object was not to discover the origin of the Polynesian people but to make a regional survey and record the physical characters, material culture,

social organisation, and religious concepts of the people of the Polynesian island group to which they were sent. Every body knows that the natives have dis carded and forgotten much of their old culture, but they have also retained the knowledge of much that is of value to science.

These men did as good a job as was possible under changed conditions and the limitations of time imposed by the extent of financial support available.

Their work was published by the Bishop Museum to form a foundation for the comparative study of the Polynesian people.

The work of the one-time “cubs” has been highly regarded in scientific circles and some of them have procured high teaching positions in American universi ties. Among them are E. W. Gifford, at the University of California, and Ralph Linton, at Columbia University. Your correspondent’s statement that the work of these men was based on ransacking a few burial caves and measuring a few platforms and marae is not only untrue, but insulting, both to the men them selves and to the institution which pub lished their work.

I AM not greatly concerned about criti cism of “Vikings of the Sunrise.’’

The .debatable question of whether the Polynesian ancestors came by way of Micronesia or through Melanesia is a sub

ject for continued study. I quoted Mc- Millan-Brown because I wished to dis pose of some of his theories.

I did not quote Churchill because I was not prepared to devote space to a linguistic discussion. Churchill’s theory of the Melanesian route was based on his study of language, and it is best left to some competent linguist trained in up-to-date methods.

I am perfectly well acquainted with the tradition that an ancestor of the Raiatea people is held to have come from Rotuma; but what of it? Does the inter mediate home of one ancestor indicate the route taken by the ancestors of the other branches of the Polynesians? How ever, I agree with you that we must con tinue our inquiries when the war is over.

THE fact remains that we owe it to American institutions and American money that an intensive study of one cultural area in the Pacific has been rendered possible. If we British could do something similar in such areas as Melanesia, Micronesia, or New Guinea, we would make a definite organised con tribution to our knowledge of the Pacific area.

Britain has the credit of initiating scientific field study through the Cam bridge Expedition to the Torres Straits, but her other wide interests doubtless militated against the continuation of organised research over a wider area.

Germany, in her healthy period before the poisonous growth of Nazism, organ ised an expedition for the intensive study of Micronesia.

Australia has done much in New Guinea through its Government anthro pologists: and both in New Guinea and Melanesia, Australian anthropologists of the younger school, whom your corre spondent would doubtless term “young cubs,” have done much.

But all the efforts, valuable as they are, are really reconnaissance trips, taking samples here and there as time and money permitted. We need an organised survey of each cultural area.

We should be thankful, therefore, for the lead that America has given us in Polvnesia; and, though all work invites criticism, criticism should maintain a scientific level and not descend to per sonalities.

I am, etc.,

Peter H. Buck.

Director, Bernice P. Bishop Museum.

Honolulu, 21/9/1942.