The myths of Foa Petroglyphs

Shoddy scientific research is "intellectual dishonesty" - Sione A. Mokofisi
The author lamented, “If archaeologists won’t study our oral traditions and myths seriously…openness to all related ‘sources of fact’…they will continue in proposing ‘vague opinions’ regarding our remote past…”

I will have to disagree with his assessment that scientific researchers are proposing’vague opinions’ on our ancient history, and they are not serious about studying it. Actually, the process of scientific research does not allow opinions, first of all. Theories are presented, critiqued, supported, defended, and are finally reviewed rigorously by academic peers in each field.

Secondly, the collection of information does not consider oral traditions, myths, and legends as “sources of fact.” Instead, whether they are strands of legends, myths, oral history, the Foa petroglyphs, ancient tools such as adzes or fishhooks, they are all data.

Some data are considered useful, and some are discarded during the scientific analysis of a theory. Supporting germinal theories must be cited with verifiable references. If one cannot support and defend his theory scientifically, based on the data he collected and analyzed, his theory is considered flawed. It must then be rejected.

To pass on unverifiable theories as facts is “intellectual dishonesty.” People feel emotionally about our heritage; they must not be led to believe that any fictional theory can be considered factual history.

The modern “Moana People” model is an exciting theory for all of us Polynesians. The legends of Maui and Tangaloa are found in all Polynesian islands; the legend of Lo’au is also a classic political model. However, when they are tested under the microscopic eye of scientific critical thinking, there are too many versions to verify the existence of these beings: were they gods, demigods, humans, or super-human warriors, or super natural beings?

Modern Archaeologists and anthropologists have cast our ancestors as the “Lapita People.” I do agree with Mr. Tofua…‘ipangai in this regard: In their academic arrogance, archaeologists and anthropologists are imposing on us a meaningless foreign word on something we feel very emotional about. Polynesians would reject the theory out right because the name Lapita has no meaning in any Polynesian language.

But back to the business of scientificating our oral traditions, myths, and legends. We cannot sit back and wait for other people to do the research, analysis, and writing the academic literatures. More Polynesian scholars are needed to muster the rigor of doing field studies and the scholarly writing.

We might want to follow Maori pioneer anthropologist, Dr. Sir Peter Buck (Te Rangi Hiroa: 1877-1951). His scientific research and academic writings are considered classic works in the academic community. He was successful in weaving Polynesian oral traditions into his scientific field studies as director of Bishop’s Museum (Hawai’i), an anthropologist professor at Yale University, and a prolific scholarly writer.

The academic community has standardized formats one must follow before reviewers could even want to see a theory submitted. Even giants in the field of science, such as Albert Einstein (General Relativity), some of his first submissions were rejected by his university “peer review” boards. - Sione A Mokofisi

The ta, va, ‘u of Foa petroglyphs - Siosiua Laftitani-Tofua‘ipangai
My request is to please read again my discussion of ‘vague opinions’ with conjunction to the scientific research of most Moanan archaeologists. I’ve taken it in explanations as a non- and un-scientific phrase in the light of its logically propositional form, ‘x is not y’, ‘fact is not vague opinion’. Regardless of this, the proposition occurs in spatio-temporality of the mind anyway.

Scientific methodology of archaeologists in fact must be logically and philosophically sounded, likewise in any discipline, otherwise it will end up in the cave of shoddy approach with its ‘intellectual dishonesty’, which brings into the fore Plato’s ‘Allegory of the Cave’ and its shadows beyond the horizon

of reality.

When we’re specialized in a particular scientific discipline and we tend to treat it as the ‘only way of inquiry’ for truth and validity of facts in theory, we’re straightaway invited ourselves into a ditch of specialization with its emphasis in contents (uho) per se, but with little sense of universality and

cosmopolitanism in form (fuo) on macro-level, throughout space (va), time (ta) and the categories (‘u tefito’iangama’u). All scientific disciplines are concerned with ‘contents (uho)’, while logic deals with the ‘structures of facts’ and philosophy with ‘form of facts’.

Within this process of specialization, if other related disciplines outside archaeology, such as linguistics and anthropology, are ignored, monistic, rationalistic and relativistic tendencies of segregation with ‘problem of separatism’ will show its face immediately. Don’t get me wrong, specialization is a necessary and sufficient condition for the expansion of our knowledge, and science, logic and philosophy at large, but with the exception of this problem of separatism.

Scientific research in any discipline with its culture of observation in controlled experimentalism, and its modern sense of ‘facts are there to test our theory’ or contents (uho), in both inductive-deductive association, is in opposition to the old Phythagorean and Middle Ages’ theory of ‘facts are there to give us theories’. At the same time, the logical principles of the propositional form of x is y, Foa petroglyphs (x) are Hawaiian in appearance (y) for instance, and the philosophical apparatus of concerning with its form (fuo), in terms of their distinctiveness and interrelatedness, must be all treated in an equal manner …– law of coherence.

All scientific disciplines, be they material or non-material, are subjected to the law of coherence, which implies, their facts can be compared and contrasted with facts from other scientific disciplines, and there should be ‘no taboos’ to

obstruct the actuality of their interrelatedness, with or without their being known.

In our modern Era, such a law has led on to the birth of chaos physics, modern computer, molecular biology, socio-biology, etc., which reflect the ‘interdisciplinary’ (universal) and the interrelatedness of any event whatsoever, as seen in situations of social interaction, social environment, social elements, social disintegration, fission, fusion, spin, binding energy, decay,

disintegration, radiation, etc.

Facts on the proposition, Foa petroglyphs (x) are Hawaiian in appearance (y), can be compared and contrasted with propositions from anthropology, history and prehistory such as, ‘Tufunga lalava, art of lashing, was the recording medium

for ancient Tongans”, “There was no petroglyphs in our ancient tufunga ta maka/art of stone carvings”, “Tongans settled Hawaii/Havaiki/Vaihi in around 8th century”, “Lo’au Lineage came from the New World “, “Vaihi people settled Aoteroa in around 10th century”, etc.

Thus science, logic and philosophy are in unity regardless of their individual methods in approaching towards the attainment of the question of ‘what is the case’/’ ‘is it so’/truth - be it archaeological, anthropological, historical, sociological, or whatnot, in character. If archaeologists argue that proposition, Foa petroglyphs (x) are Hawaiian in appearance (y), is logically

true and valid by implication, it must have to be scientific and philosophic as well, otherwise they will fall into monistic, relativistic and rationalistic fallacies.

To be philosophic in other words is to be interdisciplinary, and inclusive from within the social spectrum of one scientific discipline to another and others together with some clear-cut implications. Although the ‘subject-matter’ of archaeologists in searching for recovery, documentation, analysis, and

interpretation of material remains and environmental data, is distinct from anthropology, history and so forth, they’re also unified in their methods of approaching to acquire the truth of Foa petroglyphs (x) is Hawaiian in appearance (y), as well as its form.

Now we’re therefore in the ‘field of causes’ with its pluralistic and complex ways. Without considering such a field of causes in archaeology, they will fall into a kind of unilateral treatment of cause-effect relationship in the formulae of A causes B and B causes C and C causes D, with little consideration of other complex and pluralistic intervene variables, and other opposite causes from social, moral, political, economic, artistic, mythical and religious factors in space, time and the categories.

Mokofisi’s assertion on the scientific and publication authority on matter of peer-review by his fellow archaeologists and Western scientists brings into memory Helu’s comment when asked in a conference “why he thinks like a Westerner’, to the contrary he replied, “I think like a thinker”. Western

archaeologists and scientists are not the only thinkers who study Tonga in all areas of research, and they’re not the only people with authority and power to ‘approve’ and ‘accept’ any hypothesis and theory emerging from within Moana scholarship.

We have our own Moanan-Tongan scientists, philosophers, logicians, economists, writers, anthropologists, social theorists, psychologists, geologists, pure mathematics, etc. whose academic works on issues in Tonga mustn’t have to be

first approved by Western archaeologists before publishing under the authority

of the peer-review and its Western scientists and publishers.

Also all of these Moanan-Tongan scholars have rights to bring into consideration their oral traditions and myths, not because of emotional ties and personal reasons, but some of them can be selected as facts ready to test the proposition of Foa

petroglyphs (x) are Hawaiian in appearance (y) in va, ta and ‘u tefito’iangama’u. -Siosiua F.P.Lafitani-Tofua’ipangai