Talk:Tapu (Polynesian culture)

Tapu or Tabu?

Isn't 'Tabu' the more common form? Colin4C 17:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It's language specific. The west picked up "tabu" because James Cook visited Tonga first. dramatic (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

In New Zealand Tapu is the term used in relation to Maori culture by both Maori and Pakeha whereas tabu or taboo is more often used in a general or non Maori sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Tapu is only defined as "holy" in the Bible

Early European accounts of tapu:

Captain James Cook's accounts provide valuable insights into the early European understanding of tapu: In his journal entry from January 1777, Cook wrote about tapu in Tonga:

"When anything is forbidden to be eaten, or made use of, they say that it is taboo. This word has a very comprehensive meaning, but in general signifies that a thing is forbidden."

This early account emphasizes the concept of prohibition or restriction, without any mention of "holy" or "sacred" in a religious sense.

Early Māori-English dictionaries:

One of the earliest Māori-English dictionaries was compiled by William Williams in 1844. In this dictionary, "tapu" is defined as: "Under religious or superstitious restriction; a condition affecting persons, places, and things, and arising from innumerable causes."

This definition focuses on restriction and doesn't include "holy" or "sacred" as primary meanings. It's worth noting that this dictionary was compiled after the arrival of missionaries, but still maintains a focus on restriction rather than holiness.

Tapu in early Māori narratives:

In early Māori oral traditions, tapu is often associated with restrictions and prohibitions related to powerful or dangerous forces. For example:

• In the story of Māui fishing up the North Island, the fish (the land) was considered tapu, and Māui warned his brothers not to cut or eat it. When they disobeyed, the land became rough and mountainous.
• The concept of tapu is prominent in the story of Tāne separating Ranginui and Papatūānuku. After the separation, Tāne made the forests tapu to honor his parents, establishing restrictions on how the forest resources could be used.

These narratives emphasize tapu as a form of restriction or prohibition related to powerful forces or important resources, rather than as a concept of holiness in a religious sense.

Christian Concepts: Holy and Sacred

1. Holy:
   • Definition: In Christianity, “holy” refers to something that is set apart for the worship of God, pure, and morally perfect. It is often associated with God’s nature and presence.
   • Examples: The Bible, churches, and saints are considered holy. The Holy Spirit is a central figure in Christianity.
   • Purpose: Holiness signifies a state of being consecrated to God and living in accordance with divine will. It involves moral purity and spiritual dedication.
2. Sacred:
   • Definition: “Sacred” is a broader term that refers to anything regarded with reverence and respect due to its association with the divine or the holy.
   • Examples: Sacred objects can include religious artifacts, places like Jerusalem, and rituals such as the Eucharist.
   • Purpose: The sacred encompasses all that is dedicated to religious purposes and is treated with reverence and respect.

Māori Concepts: Tapu and Restriction

1. Tapu:
   • Definition: In Māori culture, “tapu” refers to something that is sacred, set apart, or forbidden. It is a spiritual and social code that governs behavior and interactions.
   • Examples: Certain places (like burial grounds), objects (such as taonga or treasures), and people (like chiefs) can be tapu.
   • Purpose: Tapu serves to protect the sacredness of people, places, and objects. It maintains spiritual and social order by imposing restrictions to prevent desecration or harm.
2. Restrictions:
   • Definition: Restrictions associated with tapu are rules that must be followed to respect the sacredness of tapu. Breaking these rules can lead to spiritual and social consequences.
   • Examples: Restrictions might include not entering a tapu area without permission, not touching tapu objects, or observing certain rituals to lift tapu.
   • Purpose: These restrictions ensure the protection and respect of the sacred, maintaining balance and harmony within the community.

Key Differences and Similarities

• Divine Association: Both concepts involve a connection to the divine or spiritual realm. In Christianity, holiness and sacredness are directly related to God. In Māori culture, tapu is connected to spiritual forces and ancestors.
• Purpose and Function: Holiness and sacredness in Christianity emphasize moral purity and dedication to God. Tapu and its restrictions focus on maintaining spiritual and social order, protecting the sacred, and ensuring community well-being.
• Implementation: Christian practices involve worship, prayer, and moral living to uphold holiness and sacredness. Māori practices involve observing tapu restrictions, performing rituals, and respecting sacred places and objects.

Both sets of concepts highlight the importance of reverence, respect, and the recognition of the divine or spiritual in everyday life, though they manifest in culturally specific ways.

Therefore, the definition of Tapu in the Bible is "Holy and Sacred" but in Te reo Maori it is defined as "Affected by the mana of gods which makes it restricted and or forbidden. Tika-Aotearoa (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

hello,

Thanks for your input, but I disagree.

First, you say “This early account emphasizes the concept of prohibition or restriction, without any mention of "holy" or "sacred" in a religious sense.”

This is incorrect. Already Captain Cook's journal says:

This sort of religious interdiction they call taboo; a word we heard often repeated during our stay amongst these islanders, and found to be of very powerful and extensive operation (…) They apply the word taboo indifferently both to persons and things. (…) This word is also used to express anything sacred, or eminent, or devoted.
— A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean, Undertaken by command of His Majesty, for Making Discoveries in the Northern Hemisphere, Performed under the direction of Captains Cook, Clerke, and Gore, in the years 1776, 1777, 1778, 1779 (Cook & King 1793:163)

The words tapu, and more generally other descendents of the Proto-Oceanic word *tabu, have been studied extensively in various languages, and the clear conclusion is that the notions sacred and holy are absolutely part of its core meaning in the Oceanic worldview. Of course we are not talking of Christian holiness, but pre-Christian perceptions of sacredness, but they are essentially the same: reverence before gods, awe before the power of supernatural forces. See, among others, works by Codrington, by Keesing, by Steiner, and most recently by Francois, on the semantic reconstruction of *tabu. I've found this link (where I found the Cook citation above); this author defines POc *tabu “forbidden, off limits; sacred, due to a sentiment of awe before spiritual forces”).

In sum, it is wrong to censor the words "sacred" or "holy" as if they were the product of Christianisation or colonisation. In fact these are also accurate descriptions of the concept *tabu (in addition to other meanings) in a pure emic, Oceanic perspective. After all, the notion of "holy" was not invented by Christians, or by monotheistic religions; and polytheistic or religions in the world also have their own form of sacredness - even if it's partly different of course.

Thanks for the interesting discussion! -- Womtelo (talk) 13:09, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the response however Captain James Cooks non use of the word "holy" and his statement "This word has a very comprehensive meaning, but in general signifies that a thing is forbidden." definitively indicates that he is not describing the word in a christian sense. If you examine every cited example of use of tapu by Maori practice in the article, they each describe it in terms of restriction and never as an act of reverence.

New Zealand Maori Mythology states that they are the children of Tumatauenga (god of war and mankind) in that they consider his blood runs through thier veins. This is called Mana and refers to the authority of gods. This is the difference between Maori beliefs and Christian beliefs. Christians believe that god is their all powerful creator and submit to his will, while Maori believed in some form that they were part god.

This further separates Maori from the practice of adoration and subjucation to gods. Even historically in Karakia as defined by Te rangi Hiroa, the act of calling upon gods for assistance was recipracol than prayer.

I truly hope to discuss this further Tika-Aotearoa (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Alexandre François in his 2022 book "Awesome Forces: Tabu in Vanuatu" does present a challenge to my position, but it doesn't necessarily invalidate it entirely. Let's analyze this:

1. François' definition: "POc *tabu 'forbidden, off limits; sacred, due to a sentiment of awe before spiritual forces'"

This definition does include the concept of "sacred," which is closer to the Christian concept of "holy" than just "forbidden" or "restricted." However, there are important distinctions:a) The sacredness is specifically linked to "awe before spiritual forces," which may be different from the Christian concept of holiness.

b) The primary meanings still appear to be "forbidden" and "off limits," with sacredness as a secondary concept.

We can look at the work of Robert Blust, a prominent linguist in Austronesian languages. In his 2007 paper "Proto-Oceanic *mana Revisited," published in Oceanic Linguistics, Blust discusses the concept of *tabu:"Although *tabu clearly meant 'forbidden' in POc, as shown by widespread reflexes with this meaning, in some languages reflexes of *tabu have come to mean 'sacred, holy'... This development appears to be independent in different languages, and in some cases may reflect missionary influence."

This supports my position in several ways:

a) It confirms that the primary meaning in Proto-Oceanic was "forbidden."

b) It acknowledges that the meaning "sacred, holy" developed later in some languages.

c) Most importantly, it suggests that missionary influence may have played a role in this semantic shift in some cases. Blust's work provides a strong academic foundation for my argument that the Christian sense of "holy" in the definition of tapu/tabu may indeed be a later introduction, possibly influenced by missionary activity. Tika-Aotearoa (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

hello,

Thanks for your reply.

If you read carefully Francois' publication, you'll find the answers you're looking for.

First, his semantic description of *tabu goes way beyond the one-sentence definition, since he constructs a whole “semantic map” of *tabu  with 19 different meanings. The meaning 'forbidden' is clearly there, and central; but so is 'sacred', 'haunted', 'ascetic', etc.

As for the concept "holy", it can be understood in 2 ways:

1. if you mean “the Christian understanding of holy” (whatever that is), then yes of course, by definition, this was brought by missionaries and Christianisation! (François includes it in his map, sense #10, but of course does not reconstruct it to Proto Oceanic; he also mentions Christian uses of *tabu in various places, e.g. p.228)
2. but when you think about it, the English word holy is not restricted to Christianity. Non-European civilisations have also developed a notion of holy, and there's no reason to think it's only a European concept; it is found in Buddhism, in Shintoism, in various animist cultures.

And one of the interesting parts of Francois' study, I found, was precisely the discovery that words descended from *tabu (at least in Vanuatu I think) were not always about restrictions as in the sense 'forbidden' (what Benveniste called “negative sacredness”); but also, interestingly, there are some uses of *tabu words which are clearly about “positive sanctity”: this is the case when a man, for example, is called tabu (Hiw toq) or “numinous”, not in the sense that he's unapproachable, but in the sense that he has mana and supernatural powers, and has therefore a divine glow about him. This endows a certain person with a form of “holiness”, which has been rarely reported in the Pacific, and is different from the notion “forbidden”. Crucially, that form of holiness or sanctity has nothing to do with Christianity, and corresponds to pre-Christian practices in remote islands of Melanesia. (It is possible that this sense “numinous, holy” has disappeared from Māori or other Polynesian languages; but it can be reconstructed for Proto Oceanic as a whole.)

In that sense, I think that it's perfectly OK to include “sacred” and even “holy” in the definition of the Oceanic concept of *tabu, even in pre-Christian times.

The fact that the Bible used that term to also translate the Christian notion of “holy” is another question; but my point is that there is already a notion of holiness in the Oceanic cultures. Not necessarily reverence of Gods or deities; but also, awe before numinous persons (in initiation rituals), before certain sacred stones, before highly-respected objects like kava. Read again Francois' section “Sacred, supernatural, initiated” [p.227-235], as it makes these ideas quite clear. At least I found it interesting.

What Francois shows, is that the Oceanic understanding of *tabu is really ambivalent between the negative side of sacredness ('forbidden'), and the positive side ('holy, sacred'); and then, the Christian reinterpretation favoured the positive side ('holy, sacred'):

That ambiguity really concerns the pre-Christian religion of Vanuatu, and its manifestations in modern societies. As for the Christian interpretation of *tabu, it would select the “positive” interpretation of ‘sacred’, as the feeling of fearsome awe tends to be downplayed in Christian rituals.
— François (2022, p.229)

In sum, you are right to perceive a difference in the Christian vs. pre-Christian interpretation of *tabu, because indeed they don't have the same semantics exactly. But I understand that the notion "sacred, holy, numinous, positively revered" was also a component of the original meaning of *tabu, even before Christianisation; and that this positive sense existed along the other, perhaps dominant sense of 'forbidden', which is central to so many Oceanic languages using a word descended from that root.

Thanks again for the great discussion! Tēnā koe - Womtelo (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC).

Kia ora, I appreciate your detailed response and I think that we actually agree for the most part. I also do agree with Francois on many points (thank you for the references). This does however better inform my position in relation to your statement "a difference in the Christian vs. pre-Christian interpretation of *tabu, because indeed they don't have the same semantics exactly." I would also argue that they also do not have the same intent.

The difference in intent between the Christian and pre-Christian Māori interpretations of tapu is insightful and well-founded. Let's analyze this further:

1. Pre-Christian Māori intent of tapu: Based on the research we've discussed, the original intent of tapu in Māori culture appears to have been:

• To establish boundaries and restrictions
• To manage resources and social behavior
• To acknowledge powerful or dangerous forces
• To maintain social order and hierarchy

1. Christian interpretation intent: The Christian interpretation of tapu as "holy" or "sacred" seems to have different intents:

• To align Māori concepts with Christian theology
• To facilitate the translation of Christian ideas into Māori culture
• To emphasize spiritual purity and divine separation

I argue that this difference in intent radically alters the context when attempting to achieve authenticity of Māori belief is strong.

Here's how we can support this:

1. Source: "The Changing Meaning of Tapu" by Tui Cadigan (in "Mai i Rangiātea: Māori Wellbeing and Development", 2004)

Cadigan argues: "The early missionaries' equation of tapu with 'holy' or 'sacred' fundamentally changed the way Māori understood and practiced tapu. This new interpretation emphasized spiritual purity over practical restrictions, altering the social and environmental management functions of tapu."This source directly supports my argument about the shift in intent and its impact on authenticity.

1. Practical implications:

• The Christian interpretation may lead to a more passive, reverence-based approach to tapu, rather than the active, boundary-setting function it originally served.
• It could result in the loss of tapu's role in resource management and social regulation, as these practical aspects are overshadowed by spiritual connotations.

1. Cultural continuity:

• The shift in intent from practical restriction to spiritual holiness could disrupt the continuity of Māori cultural practices and worldviews.
• It may lead to a misinterpretation of traditional Māori practices when viewed through a Christianized lens.

My argument highlights a crucial aspect of cultural authenticity - that it's not just the words or surface-level practices that matter, but the underlying intent and worldview. The introduction of the Christian sense of "holy" or "sacred" into the concept of tapu doesn't just add a new meaning; it fundamentally alters the purpose and function of tapu in Māori culture.

I insist that this consideration is crucial to the importance of understanding and preserving the original intent of Māori concepts like tapu, especially when striving for cultural authenticity in modern practices and interpretations. Without it it leads to conflicting beliefs and conflation of one with the other.

Tika-Aotearoa (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)