General copyright and disclaimer - ResearchSpace@Auckland ...

zusammenbringen und es geselliger machen wird. Auch von Seiten ihrer Religion stehet jener
Hoffnung kein Hinderniß im Wege, denn, so viel wir bemerken konnten, sind sie nicht sonderlich
abergläubisch, und nur unter sehr abergläubischen Völkern hat man auch nach ihrer Cultur, noch
Menschen-Opfer gefunden. (I:407f.)
This last comment is far from the truth, however, especially when one considers the religious
nature of the very act of cannibalism for the Maori. The aim of this custom was to destroy the
‘hau’, or life-force, of one’s enemies and offer it to their own ancestral gods (‘atua’) through the
‘whangai hau’ ceremony in order to exact retribution for a previous insult or injury against their
own tribal ‘mana’ by ritually eating the remains of the fallen adversaries, in doing so destroying
the ‘mana’ of the enemy gods, the victims and all of their descendants through removing their
ancestral protection and ultimately preventing future reprisals beyond the grave. 62 Naturally, it
was not to be expected that Forster would know this as no early European explorer did any
better. 63
As the Europeans never witnessed any religious ceremonies or priests (‘tohunga’) of any
kind, it is not surprising that the Maori would hardly seem superstitious. What Forster fails to
observe is the significance of ‘tapu’ restrictions present at the time in Maori society, namely a
system of social constraints forbidding access to or consecration of specific religious or
prestigious areas and items according to a set of sacred laws laid down by the power of their
ancestor gods. 64 Apart from the previously known claim of Tupaia, the Raiatean high priest and
guide on the Endeavour, that they do in fact acknowledge a Supreme Being, the only conjectures
Forster comes up with here are made in contrast with other South Sea nations, which, however,
lead him to the opinion that they only have distant connections to superstitions at best. The most
promising religious connection is, in his opinion, the somewhat distorted figure of a human being,
62 Ibid., 97. Obeyesekere, in contrast, argues that Maori notions of cannibalism evolved along with their worldview
once Europeans began to arrive (and ultimately be eaten), bringing with them a prominent obsession with ‘cannibal’
savages, which the locals were only too willing to exploit, and resulting in the Maori replacing their traditional
“sacrificial anthropophagy” with the “complex self-fulfilling prophecy” that is “conspicuous anthropophagy”
(Obeyesekere, Cannibal Talk, 52-87, 92-150, 236-43, 255-67).
63 Johann Reinhold Forster, on the other hand, emphasises the education that Maori receive from birth, in which
eating one’s enemies becomes second nature. It starts at an early age for males who are brought up undisciplined in a
society where independence is paramount and greatly protected, which, however, leads to licentiousness and
inhuman excesses. Furthermore, he adds that this act of revenge, which is committed in a state of frenzy, has an end
point in sight due to either the decrease of tribal numbers resulting in their being more careful and eventually doing
away with the custom, or else humiliated enemies will choose to offer terms to the victors and reveal the advantages
of slavery over cannibalism (J. R. Forster, Beobachtungen, 288-95).
64 See, for example, Salmond, Two Worlds, 43; 209, 246, 330, 386f., 395, 423; Between Worlds, 33, 176, 260, 471-
73, 480, 495f., 499f., 502-6; Shore, “Mana and Tapu”, 143-53, 164f.
48