Parallels between a Greek myth and a Maori myth
Andrew Gyles
(See a more easily read version at: http://www.geocities.com/acgyles )
Parallels in broad plot and fine detail between a Greek myth and a
Maori myth
Summary
Orpheus descends to the underworld
In Greek myth Orpheus descended to the underworld to take his
wife Eurydike, whose name means 'Wide-custom', back to the upperworld.
He was given permission by the king of the underworld to take her
provided that he did not look behind him until she was safely back
under the light of the sun.
But when he reached sunlight at the exit from the underworld he did
look back to see whether 'Wide-custom' were still with him, and so lost
her forever (Graves 28.c).
Mataora descends to the underworld
In Maori myth Mataora descended to the underworld to take his wife back
to the upperworld; he was given permission by her chiefly father,
Uetonga, to take her.
He was also given by her father a garment made by her called Haupapa-
nui, 'Wide-custom-great', but they were compelled by Te Ku-watawata,
the guardian of the exit from the underworld, to leave 'Wide-custom-
great' at the guard-house of the exit from the underworld (Smith 182-
193).
Maori Kuwatawata means 'Light seen through chinks': an almost perfect
equivalent of 'the sunlight' at the exit of the underworld that caused
Greek Orpheus to look back to see whether Eurydike were still behind
him, and so lose her forever.
In both the Greek and the Maori story it was 'the light of day at the
exit from the underworld' that caused the main characters to lose 'Wide-
custom'.
First parallels examined in detail
The Greek myth; meanings of some names
It will be well known to readers with a European background that
Eurydike, whom some called Agriope, 'Fierce-face', 'Savage-face'
or 'Wild-face', was the wife of Orpheus, that the two settled among the
savage Cicones of Thrace, that she fled from the unwelcome advances of
Aristaeus, trod on a serpent and died of its bite, and that Orpheus
descended to the underworld to bring her back.
There is little doubt that Eurydike means 'Wide-custom'. Greek eurys
means 'wide, broad... far-reaching, far-spread'. Greek dike
means 'custom, usage...'.
The Polynesian myth; meanings of some names
Maori hau can mean 'Project, overhang... Exceed, be in excess',
and 'Famous, illustrious... resound, be published abroad,
reported... '.
Tahitian hau can mean 'more, or beyond, in comparing adjectives,
greater, larger, longer, etc'.
Tuamotuan hau can mean 'to exceed, surpass, be superior to'.
The garment haupapa (sometimes called Rangi-haupapa) 'became the
original pattern for the work of our women, such as can be seen today'
(Smith 190). It was therefore, in my opinion, a pattern of 'custom,
usage'.
Tuamotuan papa can mean 'to recite genealogy', and haka-papa means 'to
recite, teach, ancient lore, genealogy, lineage; to expound'; (haka is
the causative prefix that makes a noun a verb).
(Tuamotuan papa can also mean, in mythology, 'The basic rock-foundation
that is supposed to hold up the land', and 'The name of the earth-
mother, in distinction to the sky-father'.)
The correspondence between the Greek and the Maori could hardly be
closer. (I should point out that the Maori, Tahitian and Tuamotuan
languages are remarkably similar. The Tuamotuan Archipelago is near
Tahiti, and the Maoris came to New Zealand from Tahiti.)
More parallels
Tautoru and Niwareka
Perhaps fewer readers will know that in Maori myth Mataora married a
woman named Niwareka who had come up to this world from the underworld;
he became jealous of his elder brother Tautoru, because he saw that he
ardently desired Niwareka, and thrashed his wife.
She fled to the home of her ancestors and parents in the underworld;
then Mataora lamented his losing her.
He descended to the underworld, met his wife's chiefly father, Ue-
tonga, was tattooed by him and then was led by his wife's younger
sister, Ue-kuru, to their village of Taranaki, where Niwareka had been
weaving the garment Te Haupapa-nui for her father (the printed word in
the reference is Te Raupapa-nui; this is certainly a misprint; the
correct spelling is shown several times elsewhere).
Eventually Mataora got permission from Ue-tonga to take his wife back
to the upperworld (Smith 182-189).
Aristaeus and Eurydike
Greek Aristaeus, 'the best', tried to force Eurydike (Graves 28.c).
Meanings of more Maori and Greek names
Tautoru and Aristaeus
Maori Tautoru, who ardently desired the wife of Mataora, is the
equivalent of Aristaeus. Tuamotuan tau can mean 'To be attractive,
comely; of fine appearance. Comeliness, fine appearance, gracefulness',
and 'To be insistent, persistent, unflagging...'.
Maori Tautoru means 'Orion's belt; part of the constellation'.
Tuamotuan Tautoru means 'Orion's belt; a star cluster...'. In Greek
mythology Orion, whose image was set among the stars, was 'the
handsomest man alive' (Graves 41.a); that is to say, he was the 'best
looking'. And so there is a fairly close connection in meaning between
Maori Tautoru and Greek Aristaeus through the constellation Orion.
Niwhareka and Agriope
Maori Niwha means 'Resolute, bold, fierce, truculent'. This corresponds
with Greek Agriope, 'Fierce-face', 'Savage-face' or 'Wild-face'. Niwha
is similar in sound to Niwa.
Tuamotuan reka can mean 'Excellent. Delight; deliciousness. (= Hawaiian
lea 'joy, gladness'.) Tuamotuan rekareka can mean 'Agreeable; to make
agreeable; Voluptuous, sweet; Pleasant' (Tregear, Paumotuan dictionary).
Mataora and Kalliope
Maori Mata can mean 'Face'. Maori ora can mean 'Well, in health'.
Tahitian ora can mean 'life, salvation, health; a Saviour, deliverer'.
If Mataora meant 'Healthy-face' it would correspond fairly well, though
not perfectly, with the name of Greek Kalliope 'Fair-face', who was the
mother of Orpheus. It is perhaps not surprising that there has been a
little drifting of names from persons in the course of thousands of
years.
More parallels
Orpheus designed dances
Orpheus was a poet and musician, and in Thrace are some oaks still
standing in the pattern of one of his dances, just as he left them
(Graves 28.a): that is to say, he was a choreographer. We might
therefore expect, if we accept that Orpheus = Mataora, that the latter
too knew how to dance. And so we find it.
Mataora was a dancer
In the upperworld, when Mataora first met Niwareka, 'When the feast was
over, he [Mataora] took his maipi [or halbert] and commenced dancing
before the Turehus; after which he sat down'.
Niwareka and her company were dancers
'And then the company of Turehus stood up to perform a haka [or posture-
dance] before Mataora. As they danced, one of the Turehu women came in
front of the others and danced backwards and forwards in graceful
attitudes, singing,
"Thus goes Niwareka, Niwareka,"
in which all the other Turehu joined. Their kind of haka was by holding
one another's hands and dancing with high stepping, whilst others
passed in and out under the arms of the rest, at the same time
singing, "Niwareka! Niwareka!" And then the haka of the people ended'.
(Smith 183).
A parting in the November of the Summer
Many generations of readers have sympathised with Orpheus as he reached
the sunlight again, turned to see whether Eurydike were still with
him, 'and so lost her forever'. In the Maori version of the
tale Mataora and Niwareka, in the November of the Summer, went to the
ascent from the Underworld, accompanied by the owl, the bat and the
land rail.
Mataora lost 'Wide-custom', but not Niwareka
When they reached the guard-house of the Underworld Mataora and
Niwareka were asked by Te Ku-watawata, the guardian, what properties
they had beneath them, and gave a true reply.
Then the guardian asked Niwareka what she was carrying on her back; she
replied that it was only their old garments. The guardian replied, 'Te
Rangi-haupapa is with you! Why did you conceal it?' She gave him that
garment, and he said, 'It shall remain permanently here [in the
guardhouse], Te Rangi-haupapa will never be returned to Rarohenga, let
it remain as a pattern for the "enduring world"'. (Rarohenga is the
Underworld.)
Let us console ourselves
And so Mataora did not lose his beautiful Niwareka. I think we
may tentatively assume that Greek Orpheus kept his Agriope, and that
she had to leave in the guard-house of Hades a garment that was the
pattern for others, the Eurydike.
It is worth noting that Niwareka had carried Te Rangi-haupapa 'on her
back'; that is to say, 'behind her'. Greek Orpheus lost Eurydike when
he 'looked behind him'. The parallel is not perfect, but it is
remarkably close after thousands of years of storytelling in places
separated by a couple of oceans.
More parallels
The Greek women tattooed
Orpheus was torn limb from limb by Maenads at Deium in Macedonia
(Graves 28.d). The Maenads, 'raging ones' or 'raving ones', were mad
women who were part of the wild army of Dionysus (Graves 27.b). The
Maenads who had murdered Orpheus also murdered their husbands; but the
Thracian men who had survived the massacre 'decided to tattoo their
wives as a warning against the murder of priests; and the custom
survives to this day' (Graves 28.f).
Niwareka tattooed; men and women truly tattooed in the Upperworld
If we accept that Orpheus = Mataora we might expect that Mataora too
was connected with tattooing. And so we find it: he had been tattooed
on the face by the father of Niwareka in the underworld (Smith 187);
when he returned to the upperworld he tattooed a man, and other men
were later tattooed.
And, 'The tattooing of Niwareka was, two [crosses] on the forehead, two
on the cheeks; there was neither chin nor lip-tattooing at that time on
the women. In the times of Ti-whana-a-rangi, Ruhiruhi was tattooed on
the lips for the first time. The chin pattern of the women originated
here in this island [New Zealand], and was copied from a similar
pattern cut on the neck of the calabashes; it was first tattooed on Ira-
nui by Kahu-hura-kotare.
'Here ends my description of the origin of the moko [face-tattooing]'
(Smith 192, 193).
We find convincing correspondence here. Mataora brought true tattooing
up from the underworld; before his visit there, 'All tattooing was [in
reality only] painting in blue clay and red clay [oxide of iron]; the
very dark skinned people were painted with white and red clay' (Smith
184). After his visit both men and women were truly tattooed in the
upperworld'.
Conclusion
I conclude that these two myths, one Greek and the other Maori, had a
common origin.
There are too many points of precise resemblance between them, in broad
plot, in fine detail and in the meanings of names of corresponding
characters, to be explained by a theory of chance and coincidence.
(That is, the explosion in a printing works that accidentally produces
the complete works of Shakespeare.)
Nor can they be explained by a notion that human minds work in the same
way all over the world, and so are likely to produce the same stories.
A person who can believe that will believe anything.
References
GRAVES, R. 1960. The Greek Myths, second edition. (The references in
the above text are to Graves's own chapters and verses.) Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
LIDDELL, H.G., and SCOTT. 1889. Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon,
founded upon the seventh edition of Liddell and Scott's Greek-English
Lexicon. London: Oxford University Press.
SMITH, S.P. 1913. The Lore of the Whare-wananga; or Teachings of the
Maori College. Part I: Te Kauwae-runga. Memoirs of the Polynesian
Society, volume III. New Plymouth: The Polynesian Society.
STIMSON, J.F. with the collaboration of MARSHALL, D.S. 1964. A
Dictionary of Some Tuamotuan Dialects of the Polynesian Language.
Massachusetts: The Peabody Museum and the Royal Institute of
Linguistics and Anthropology, The Hague.
TREGEAR, EDWARD. 1895. A Paumotuan Dictionary with Polynesian
Comparatives. Wellington: Whitcombe and Tombs. [Paumotuan = Tuamotuan.]
WILLIAMS, H.W. 1957. A Dictionary of the Maori Language. Sixth edition,
revised and augmented under the auspices of the Polynesian Society.
Wellington: Government Printer.
(Note: This article is based on a more extensive 9000-word article I
wrote in 1989, which was itself based on my long-standing notes. The
correspondence between some Indo-European and Austronesion myths is a
subject in which I have taken a close interest for several
decades. Andrew Gyles.)
Tracing Human Wanderings -
Mythology, Migrations and DNA
http://www.geocities.com/acgyles
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Lloyd Bogart
in this. How 'bout some assistance?
In article <91a252$am5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
Bob4AB5
Maybe it's not archaeology, but only a trail (to me anyway) of creditability.
Because archaeologists (and Geologists) have failed to recognize the difference
between natural stones, and those that were made by man (or woman); the
archaeology (until now) has been flawed. There is likely more truth so far, in
Andrews' sayings and comparables. Trailmarker
Prof. K.
creation of hypotheses about the movements of people across the planet.
Such evidence is helpful in suggesting vectors of possible migration and
contact. It helps to interpret physical findings (such as house types, or
boat types, etc).
"Lloyd Bogart" <bog...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
news:bogart-1412...@ppp343.wi.centurytel.net...
INGER E. JOHANSSON
Prof. K. <pili...@gte.net> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:xm9_5.975$lH4.2...@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net...
> Archaeologists use linguistic and folkloric evidence to guide in the
> creation of hypotheses about the movements of people across the planet.
> Such evidence is helpful in suggesting vectors of possible migration and
> contact. It helps to interpret physical findings (such as house types, or
> boat types, etc).
You are absolutly correct. One example: A Gaelic Scholar in this group told
me once that there was a traditional saying in his family that the Scots had
been over in today's Sweden before Historic Age. As i told him during the
last days the other side, in Tanum, have the same story that the Scots came
and fought outside today's Grebbestad during the Migration Age. The story
about that still are told among those living in the Islands outside
Sannäsfjorden and Grebbestad - Havstensund. Since both sides have the same
history and there is a graveyard from the correct period which also is told
men to men that it's from that period - the folkloric evidence looks more
than plausible to be close to the truth.
inger E
Just one example
Andrew Gyles
bog...@centurytel.net (Lloyd Bogart) wrote:
> Hey Andrew, I wasn't able to spot the archaeology
> in this. How 'bout some assistance?
>
> In article <91a252$am5$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
> <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > (See a more easily read version at:
http://www.geocities.com/acgyles )
> >
> >
> > Parallels in broad plot and fine detail between a Greek myth and a
> > Maori myth
<snip>
Lloyd,
I would echo what Prof. K. and the others have said: the parallels
indicate a common origin, or contact a long time ago.
The evidence of the spade is not the only evidence that can throw light
on archaeological questions about homelands and migrations.
Andrew Gyles
Lloyd Bogart
myths an "archaeological" matter? In this instance the question
originates entirely outside of archaeology, and there is (so far)
*nothing* linking it to that discipline. To argue that archaeology
*might someday* provide a partial answer to what is clearly (at
this time) a mythology or (only perhaps) an anthropology question
is hardly sufficient.
In article <91btn1$s97$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Andrew Gyles
<acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
Prof. K
> But IS this an archaeological question? How is a similarity between
> myths an "archaeological" matter? In this instance the question
> originates entirely outside of archaeology, and there is (so far)
> *nothing* linking it to that discipline. To argue that archaeology
> *might someday* provide a partial answer to what is clearly (at
> this time) a mythology or (only perhaps) an anthropology question
> is hardly sufficient.
Archaeology is a subdiscipline of anthropology. Anthropology has four main
subdisciplines: biological (physical) anthropology, archaeology, cultural
and linguistics. All share certain methods and techniques, and then there
are methods and techniques specific to each subfield.
Scientists (archaeologists are scientists) work from hypotheses. Most
hypothesis-generation does not come from within archaeology. Can you
imagine what would happen if archaeologists simply started at their own
front doors and wandered the planet with shovels and picks? Instead,
archaeologists study history, prehistory, geology, mythology, genetics and
other fields to generate hypotheses about where to look. The discovery of
Troy, for example, would not have happened, if Schleimann had not read Homer
and other sources. Dig?
As to your claim about something being "entirely outside of archaeology" and
there is "nothing" linking it to that discipline, it makes me wonder who
gave you the ability to define archaeology? Your name is not familiar to
me. I teach archaeology, and use standard definitions (as in Fagan and
other standard published works). Fagan (UCSB archaeologist) has a small
introductory text, and devotes an entire chapter to folkloric and mythologic
hypothesis generation, and another to regional analysis (which includes
history, economics, geography and so on). I think what makes a question
archaeological is that a professional archaeologist uses it or poses it. I
do not believe that the rejection of a question (by anyone, including a
professional archaeologist) necessarily negates the question as an
"archaeological" one.
I only say this, because the basis of good anthropological training is
posing good questions. Bad questions, bad answers. Being so hung up on
definitions of things can really limit a person's ability to "do"
archaeology.
Prof. Kama'ila
Doug Weller
says...
>
> "Lloyd Bogart" <bog...@centurytel.net> wrote in message
> news:bogart-1412...@ppp492.wi.centurytel.net...
> > But IS this an archaeological question? How is a similarity between
> > myths an "archaeological" matter? In this instance the question
> > originates entirely outside of archaeology, and there is (so far)
> > *nothing* linking it to that discipline. To argue that archaeology
> > *might someday* provide a partial answer to what is clearly (at
> > this time) a mythology or (only perhaps) an anthropology question
> > is hardly sufficient.
>
> Archaeology is a subdiscipline of anthropology.
I presume you know that this is a generalisation that isn't necessarily or even
generally true outside of -- what -- North America? The US?
[SNIP]
> The discovery of
> Troy, for example, would not have happened, if Schleimann had not read Homer
> and other sources. Dig?
I understand your point, but this is not a good example. The location of Troy
had been widely discussed at the time Schliemann decided to look for it, and in
fact his original intention had been to dig elsewhere until George Calvert, who
owned part of the site of Hissarlik where Troy is thought to be and where
Schliemann dug (not everyone even now agrees this is the correct site),
convinced him to dig there instead.
[SNIP]
> history, economics, geography and so on). I think what makes a question
> archaeological is that a professional archaeologist uses it or poses it.
I'm not sure about this. Archaeology is certainly about material culture. I
don't see how a question disassociated entirely with material culture would be
archaeology, even if posed by an archaeologist.
Doug
--
Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Prof. K
"Doug Weller" <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.14a725b91...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Archaeology is a subdiscipline of anthropology.
>
> I presume you know that this is a generalisation that isn't necessarily or
even
> generally true outside of -- what -- North America? The US?
Well, it is certainly true in North America, including Canada and Mexico,
which is where, I must add, a large percentage of professional
archaeologists live and work. And regardless of how academic departments
are structured, I would say it is true in an academic sense. That is to
say, anthropology is the science and study of human beings. Archaeology is
the study of human artifacts. Paleoanthropology is the study of human
bones. Linguistics is the study of human language. And so on. There are
other, auxiliary disciplines (such as geography, geology, paleobotany, etc.)
that while not technically part of archaeology are so clearly intertwined
with it as to make any meaningful discussion of archaeology possible without
speaking of them.
>
> [SNIP]
>
> > The discovery of
> > Troy, for example, would not have happened, if Schleimann had not read
Homer
> > and other sources. Dig?
>
> I understand your point, but this is not a good example.
Give me a break. I'm trying to use an example that would be known to most
people on this newsgroup. Of course the location of Troy had been widely
discussed. But do you think that discussion never referenced Homer? Or
even, other mythological sources?
The location of Troy
> had been widely discussed at the time Schliemann decided to look for it,
and in
> fact his original intention had been to dig elsewhere until George
Calvert, who
> owned part of the site of Hissarlik where Troy is thought to be and where
> Schliemann dug (not everyone even now agrees this is the correct site),
> convinced him to dig there instead.
Again, those discussions referenced many different (non-archaeological)
sources.
>
> [SNIP]
> > history, economics, geography and so on). I think what makes a question
> > archaeological is that a professional archaeologist uses it or poses it.
>
> I'm not sure about this. Archaeology is certainly about material culture.
I
> don't see how a question disassociated entirely with material culture
would be
> archaeology, even if posed by an archaeologist.
What then, of calling a place "Troy" when nothing at the site actually uses
inscriptions of any sort calling itself "Troy"? There are literally dozens
of archaeological sites where archaeologists move beyond "material culture"
to use words like "cannibalism" or "temple" or "religion." Cannibalism is a
behavior and no amount of material evidence can "prove" an ancient behavior.
The new evidence from New Mexico is the best we've ever had on cannibalism,
but would you really want to say it is the _only_ evidence of cannibalism
from ancient times?
To make my point further, look at the earliest stone tools (from the Great
Rift Valley). They are said to be "scrapers," "pounders," etc. If one is
to be purely physical, one could provide dimensions, etc., but one could not
talk about the behaviors associated with them.
>
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
Anyway, Doug, if you're going to be as narrow as this about archaeology (and
material culture is at the core of your definition), how would you
analytically work in any interpretations of how objects are used? Or of the
weather conditions at the place they were used? Or of the flora and fauna?
Surely, you're not objecting to broadening archaeological dialogue to
include myriad other "material" processes? But when you use that word
"culture" I think you're already stepping out into a non-material plane, a
plane where the minds, intentions, attitudes, ambitions and purposes of
human beings are referenced.
Out of curiousity, how many professional archaeologists are there in the
U.K. these days? Is it really a separate department at colleges and
universities? How many departments are there, total?
Andrew Gyles
You are splitting hairs. The fact is that if Homer had not told the
tale of Troy archaeologists would not have had a clue about where to
dig for it. And they would not even have thought of looking for it.
The same is true of many archaeological sites.
In my view you and Lloyd Bogart have pigeon-hole minds. You want to
classify ideas and put them into pigeon-holes. But science requires the
insights of generalists as well as specialists. If it was run by people
who want to maintain walls between disciplines it would progress slowly
indeed.
>
> [SNIP]
> > history, economics, geography and so on). I think what makes a
question
> > archaeological is that a professional archaeologist uses it or
poses it.
>
> I'm not sure about this. Archaeology is certainly about material
culture. I
> don't see how a question disassociated entirely with material culture
would be
> archaeology, even if posed by an archaeologist.
How is the close parallel between a Greek myth and a Maori
myth 'disassociated entirely with material culture'? Did the myths just
float apart? I prefer to think that they were carried by human beings
on foot and in ships. The implications of this parallel for
archaeological research would be invisible only to a bureaucratic mind.
>
> Doug
>
> --
> Doug Weller member of moderation panel sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
>
Doug Weller
> >
> > I understand your point, but this is not a good example. The
> location of Troy
> > had been widely discussed at the time Schliemann decided to look for
> it, and in
> > fact his original intention had been to dig elsewhere until George
> Calvert, who
> > owned part of the site of Hissarlik where Troy is thought to be and
> where
> > Schliemann dug (not everyone even now agrees this is the correct
> site),
> > convinced him to dig there instead.
>
> You are splitting hairs. The fact is that if Homer had not told the
> tale of Troy archaeologists would not have had a clue about where to
> dig for it. And they would not even have thought of looking for it.
I was not splitting hairs but attempting to debunk a persistent myth about
Schliemann. And your comment is not fact but pure speculation and also makes the
assumption that there was only one person responsible for the epic tales of Troy
we consider Homer's, which of course is something in considerable dispute.
Even assuming there was only one Homer, there may have been sources for the
story that would have been preserved in another form if Homer had never lived.
And we do not even now know if there was the 'Trojan War' described in Homer.
> The same is true of many archaeological sites.
>
> In my view you and Lloyd Bogart have pigeon-hole minds. You want to
> classify ideas and put them into pigeon-holes. But science requires the
> insights of generalists as well as specialists. If it was run by people
> who want to maintain walls between disciplines it would progress slowly
> indeed.
Archaeologists are the last people who would want to maintain walls between
disciplines.
> > [SNIP]
> > > history, economics, geography and so on). I think what makes a
> question
> > > archaeological is that a professional archaeologist uses it or
> poses it.
> >
> > I'm not sure about this. Archaeology is certainly about material
> culture. I
> > don't see how a question disassociated entirely with material culture
> would be
> > archaeology, even if posed by an archaeologist.
>
> How is the close parallel between a Greek myth and a Maori
> myth 'disassociated entirely with material culture'?
Please quote the part of my post where I said this. I don't think you'll find
it. I was commenting on a statement made by the person top whom I was replying,
not to any supposed parallels.
Did the myths just
> float apart? I prefer to think that they were carried by human beings
> on foot and in ships. The implications of this parallel for
> archaeological research would be invisible only to a bureaucratic mind.
>
Love your posting style. Insults are just so convincing, what a good tactic to
use them as much as you can. :-)
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Do you notice how Doug has not dealt with the central issue but has
introduced several side-issues?
Eric Stevens
There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.
Lloyd Bogart
<acg...@my-deja.com> wrote:
[snip]
>
> In my view you and Lloyd Bogart have pigeon-hole minds. You want to
> classify ideas and put them into pigeon-holes. But science requires the
> insights of generalists as well as specialists. If it was run by people
> who want to maintain walls between disciplines it would progress slowly
> indeed.
[snip]
It seems to me that the "central issue" of this discussion
(which is NOT the central issue of the original posting) comes
to this: IS comparative mythology also archaeology? (Yes, I
agree that the sciences, and other disciplines, need generalists
as well as specialists, but this appears to be a relatively clear
instance of over-generalizing.)
It's a common function of the sciences, as well as most
other disciplines, to observe, to recognize patterns, and
to put *different* labels on different patterns. Nobody
denies that archaeology has ties to, and borrows (sometimes
extensively) from, other areas of endeavor. That does not
imply that the other areas *are* archaeology, or that
questions generated within other disciplines automatically
become archaeological questions, merely because they deal
with something historically (or pre-historically) old.
The original posting lay before us a pattern of language content
similarities. Archaeology sometimes draws upon linguistic
information, historical information, genetics, math, etc., etc.,
etc., (and so on)... but surely the mere assertion of a linguistic
similarity (or even a dozen of them) doesn't remove the question
from one discipline and leave it with another? We have only the
assertion of an interesting parallel in word-meanings. There are
similarities in many types of stories around the world -- at what
point would the investigative techniques of archaeology begin to
answer questions about, say, similarities in Santa Clause stories
collected in Sweden and Tahiti? How much *archaeological*
data connects Gilgamesh with the story of Noah?
The ubiquitous process of labeling and defining is not to create walls,
but to direct readers and researchers to the most appropriate solutions
to the questions they raise. (Biology and dentistry are closely aligned,
but if I have a toothache, I'll want someone with the techniques and
training to solve a specific set of problems -- knowing which 'pigeon
hole' contains a dentist, and which one a zoologist, may save a lot of
pain and time.)
Now, if someone wants to suggest *how* standard archaeological
investigations might enlighten us about the matters raised in the
original posting, I'd be thrilled to hear it. But if archaeology cannot
be reasonably expected to shed any light on the content of the original
posting, what difference does it make whether you think of me as a
generalist or as a specialist? ;-)
Lloyd
*****
Doug Weller
says...
[SNIP]
> Do you notice how Doug has not dealt with the central issue but has
> introduced several side-issues?
Do you notice how Eric is trying to control what I can post on?
Why can't I post on some of the side-issues in a thread even if I don't
particularly feel like posting on the main issue? Who is setting these rules
and why?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <i5or3tge5c047irs5...@4ax.com>, este...@ip.co.nz
>says...
>[SNIP]
>
>> Do you notice how Doug has not dealt with the central issue but has
>> introduced several side-issues?
>
>Do you notice how Eric is trying to control what I can post on?
>
>Why can't I post on some of the side-issues in a thread even if I don't
>particularly feel like posting on the main issue? Who is setting these rules
>and why?
I'm interested in the central issue of the relationship between
mythology, history and archaeology and have posted on this subject
several times. Few (if any) have agreed with me but we now have Prof K
who appears to have experience in this field saying much the same as I
have. I know you don't agree with him and I don't want to see this
apparently worthwhile discussion being nipped in the bud by being
dragged off into side issues.
IMHO mythology and archaeology are linked and the existence of the two
apparently similar myths should be relevant to work of archaeologist.
Andrew Gyles
Yes I do. It is what I objected to about his first post on this subject.
Andrew Gyles
johnandjane
news:91td02$d9p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
So, what was the central issue? Or rather, was there a central issue which
one could usefully discuss? You presented a number of purported parallels
between a Maori myth and a Greek myth. You offered no actual hypothesis to
account for these. Yet you opined that only someone extremely stupid could
fail to be persuaded by your evidence. Just who did you expect to respond?
Ross Clark
Eric Stevens
<johna...@actrix.co.nz> wrote:
>"Andrew Gyles" <acg...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:91td02$d9p$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <i5or3tge5c047irs5...@4ax.com>,
>> Eric Stevens <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 06:11:37 GMT, Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.co.uk>
---- snip ----
>> > >And we do not even now know if there was the 'Trojan War' described
>> in Homer.
>> >
>> > Do you notice how Doug has not dealt with the central issue but has
>> > introduced several side-issues?
>>
>> Yes I do. It is what I objected to about his first post on this subject.
>
>So, what was the central issue? Or rather, was there a central issue which
>one could usefully discuss? You presented a number of purported parallels
>between a Maori myth and a Greek myth. You offered no actual hypothesis to
>account for these. Yet you opined that only someone extremely stupid could
>fail to be persuaded by your evidence. Just who did you expect to respond?
>
>Ross Clark
>
I would say that he was hoping for help in resolving the puzzle. I
don't think he was unreasonable in hoping that there may be
archaeological evidence which along with other things might help
explain this extraordinary parallel. This is a cross-disciplinary
question.
I can't see anything in his article to justify your statement "Yet you
opined that only someone extremely stupid could fail to be persuaded
by your evidence." unless you are implying that he has not established
the parallels between the stories. Is that what you meant?
johnandjane
"Eric Stevens" <este...@ip.co.nz> wrote in message
news:kk4a4tc1f34jph32m...@4ax.com...
The passage I was thinking of was:
[Alex:]
>I conclude that these two myths, one Greek and the other Maori, had a
>common origin.
>There are too many points of precise resemblance between them, in broad
>plot, in fine detail and in the meanings of names of corresponding
>characters, to be explained by a theory of chance and coincidence.
>(That is, the explosion in a printing works that accidentally produces
>the complete works of Shakespeare.)
>Nor can they be explained by a notion that human minds work in the same
>way all over the world, and so are likely to produce the same stories.
>A person who can believe that will believe anything.
That is, although he offers no actual hypothesis about what the "common
origin" might mean (historically, geographically), which is where
archaeological evidence might come in, he dismisses those who might suggest
other types of explanation (chance, convergent thinking) as hopelessly
credulous. What sort of "help" do you think he might be looking for?
Somebody who's found a Greek amphora on the beach near Dargaville? Would he
consider it "unhelpful" if I said that his linguistic parallels were rather
strained?
Ross Clark
Eric Stevens
With regard to the last, I would consider it might be helpful if you
could show that the linguistic parallels were rather strained. But to
me, its not the linguistics which matter but the surprising parallels
within the stories. It may be possible to explain them away. It may be
possible to show that similar commonality exists within similar
stories in many other cultures. It may even be possible to identify a
common thread of myth and legend which links the two cultures. Who
knows? I don't.