to place in layers Williams 1975259functions as a genealogical ta - PDF document

1 Òto place in layersÓ [Williams 1975,259]
Òto place in layersÓ [Williams 1975,259]functions as a genealogical table or family pedigree in which the lineagesof a family).at least in the published literature. To understand the meaning of plantnames but also their accompanying narratives. Typically, these take anare explicated. In its totality, ates a Òmetaphysical gestaltÓ or whole, integrated pattern, for the oral1996and animals, and, in particular, of transgenic modiÞcations involving the 1 The Contemporary PaciÞc,Volume 20042004 Whakapapa as a Mere Roberts, Brad Haami, Richard Benton, Terre SatterÞeld, 2the contemporary pacific even kingdoms, to create a genetically modiÞed organism (iÞed organisms are regarded by many as Òunnatural.Ó In New Zealand,led to the establishment in of a royal commission to enquire intogenetic modiÞcation and its place in New Zealand society. Major concerns as identiÞed by the commission were of a cultural as well as apolitical nature, the latter pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi, an agree-ment signed in between the British Crown and that pro

2 vides,in theory if not in practice, the
vides,in theory if not in practice, the basis for a partnership between signato-rcgm2001ues and beliefs that, in the view of many , are antithetical to geneticmetaphysical concepts of tapuÑan intrinsic spiritual integrity and poten-tiality for power of a thing, and mauriÑthe elemental energy or materiallife force that constitutes the essential self or essence of a thing (Shirres1997that humansÕ mixing of genes between different species constituted an1996) contains two sections that require scientists engaging in part II, section [d] of the act) seeks to give expression to the principlesof the Treaty of Waitangi (section Becausewhakapapaisakeyfocus of manyically modiÞed organisms, the purpose of this paper is to seek an under-standing of the underlying principles that inform this mental construct.(sweet potato) as a case study, we attempt to clarify theintention is to further inform public discussion surrounding genetically roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering3 cultural concept that is central to thisCosmogonical Whaka

3 papaCosmogonical whakapapa, often recite
papaCosmogonical whakapapa, often recited in the form of chants, describethe origins of the universe from an ultimate cause. A Hawaiian creationintense darkness devoid of matter. This is followed by the emergence ofand human-like creatures. The second half of the Kumulipo recounts the1972in oceangoing canoes from an Eastern Polynesian homeland, thought byanthropologists to be located in the Society, Austral, and Cook Islandgroups. (It is also said by some tribes that they were always here, or came1991,29Ð30.1997,36). However, while details differ,they all share the basic form of a genealogical account rooted ultimatelyfor a generic overview, composed fromnatural being called Io (Jones 1960). Others simply cite an origin in Te1997,until the emergence of Rangi-nui (Sky) and (Earth).Theseprimal parents then produce many children, deiÞed as atua or gods, whoTangaroa = god of marine and freshwater Þshes, reptiles, and other 4the contemporary pacific Tawhirimatea = god of winds, rain, and cloudsmatauenga = god of warfare, and in some whak

4 apapa, progenitor 

  
hu
apapa, progenitor 

  
human settlement in this country (about a canoe ancestor and thence to the ultimate source. This ability reinforcesit within a whakapapa (Roberts and Wills 1998Two important points emerge from this conceptualization of an all-rather than the oppositional ones that exist between more modern juxta-nonliving,Ó and the ÒnatureÐcultureÓ divide. Second, conceiving of impor-. In these accounts,humans are the teina (junior) members of the family. Thus it can be arguedthat, rather than a relationship of unrestrained exploitation of oneÕs tua-1995ClassiÞcationThroughout history, various criteria have been used as a basis for classi-including Aristotle (384Ð322 bc Figure 1.Adapted and much abbreviated from Best 1982; 1995. 6the contemporary pacific complemented by anatomy and embryology. An important contributioncreated a system whereby each organism is given two names, the Þrstis the binomial of the ka hierarchy, from the smallest or lowest level (the species) through genus,family, order, class, and phylu

5 m to the highest, most all-encompassing1
m to the highest, most all-encompassing1809Ð1882class or group, from common parentsÓ (1899,379history or phylogeny (from the Greek phylon [meaning tribe] + genesis),isms from a common ancestor. Evidence for determining lines of descentphology, anatomy, embryology, and paleontology (fossil evidence), istoday increasingly informed by molecular biology, especially genetics. Aeach other, and hence reproductively isolated from all other species. Rela-number of shared amino acid sequences in their proteins, or both of thesethan inferred relationships, which in turn allows the construction of accu-gies; and will then truly give what may be called the plan of creationÓ1899,401 roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering7 1993Òfolk taxonomies,Ó form the subject of a branch of systematics (the sci-ence of classiÞcation) called ethnobiology. Of interest to ethnobiologists istaxonomy, including its underlying framework or rationale. Researchers in19921993of similarities and differences. In BerlinÕs words, Òwhen human beingsfunction as e

6 thnobiologists . . . they do not constru
thnobiologists . . . they do not construct order, they discern1992,8Ð9). Concomitant with the capacity to recognize morpholog-or more groups of organisms. Thus Ògaps are perceptually recognised dis-continuities . . . the smaller the gap between two groups (ie, the greaterthe similarity) the closer they will be placed in a system of classiÞcationÓ1992,83). But cultural relativists argue that nature is a continuum1992,11). According to this theory, species are productsSome support for the cultural relativistsÕ perspective is provided by theare of primary importance in the selection of what is included in a par-1982,8351970stand the rationale for aparticular folktaxonomy,particularly with regardunderlying rationale, including the degree to which it might serve as aÒfolk taxonomy,Ó it is appropriate to mention several constraints on thisresearch. These include the fact that in the published literature only frag-  experts have a detailed understanding of this particular form of mranga of natural resources, including plant and ani

7 mal life cycles, seasonalbiology, habita
mal life cycles, seasonalbiology, habitat, ecosystem, and astronomical relationships. Our choice 8the contemporary pacific ably well recorded in the literature, and considerable knowledge about it,including its cultural symbolism and importance, remains extant amongCase Study: Whakapapa of the Kuømarain Eastern Polynesia from South America (Yen 19741991number of accounts as to its origins, handed down in the form of narra-tive and whakapapa. While accounts vary, all name Rongo as the origin1905). Of these, aka is the most inclusivespp). Phue is applied to a more restricted group of vine-Calystegia spp,the bindweed or convolvulus; lenbeckia complexa; Passißora tetrandra spp (Williams 1975,287). All but some Cforsteri 1991RileyÕs to the1997,333,367). Clematis is an impor-spp)up rivers to spawn.A second tribal whakapapa comes from the Ngati Maru people ofThames/Coromandel (Þgure  
 
and Tahua = other kinds of bindweedCalystegia sepium Clematis forsteri roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering9 Henry WilliamsÕs 19

8 75ent translations for some of these wor
75ent translations for some of these words, but this should not imply that1907Otaota = vegetation, weeds, litter= to fastenTahua = heap, or sandhillParsonsia heterophylla might indicate the inclusion of not only the k Figure 2.1905 Figure 3.1907 10the contemporary pacific or bindweed). Also included are three different kinds of vines1992,21Ð24knew at least eighty-two named varieties, ofwhich only three survive today. Similarly, there were at least twenty dif-1976 [1925]spp), which arrived with the kmara and taro in the foundingcanoes. Yams are thought to have marginally survived only in the warmer1984might indicate that they were never grown in the tribal areas from whichover time were lost from memory and from the whakapapa.The second kind, the vines, appears to consist of two subgroups: Òaka,Óthe more inclusive word used for roots, vine-like plants, and climbers(lianes); andÒphue,Óa name restricted toCalystegia spp possiblybecauseof their close resemblance to the kbythenarrativeof Marama,referredtolater). Akaandphue,likekand taro,

9 might also qualify as Òfolk generics.Ó
might also qualify as Òfolk generics.Ó This categorization pre-egory or taxon, by virtue of its particular and unique conÞguration,egory or taxon, by virtue of its particular and unique conÞguration,1993,5,6]). Inclusion ofthe strong morphological similarity between the extended vine-likebly also the fact that white ßowers are prevalent among them all. information from several tribal areas on the East Coast of the NorthIsland including Whanau a Apanui (Delamare, pers comm, 1999Awa and T1977 [1925]taken from David MillarÕs 1971 Figure 4.1908; 1977; 1971; and Delamare pers comm 1999 12the contemporary pacific siceraria),1991,52), may be represented in this whakapapa. Ifhuehue, which translates as Òfat,Ó refers to the gourd, Hine-te-k   (literally,Òframeworkof sticksÓ) might then refer to the structure on which the vines and fruits(gourds) were grown (Williams 1975,424). Some support for this sugges-tion is provided by comparative linguistics. In Western Polynesia, reßexesof the (reconstructed) Proto-Polynesian word Ò*fueÓ (from w

10 hich thevolvulusand other families, but
hich thevolvulusand other families, but in Eastern Polynesia (from HawaiÔi tological similarities to k(= Rongo [Handy and Handy 1991,16-te-hue [Best 1976,2451985,116); and an explanation of how the different1997,93Ð97The Role of NarrativeIn all societies, particularly those with a strong oral tradition, narrativenarrative as providing the ÒßeshÓ (meaning) to theÒbonesÓ of a particular discourse (pers comm, 1996mara narrative presented here with reference to Þgure importance to this story is (the star Vega), who is the elder
 
mother of the Þve brothers, who were Þshermen. (One of these, the roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering13 lence in failing to procure food supplies, he set off to obtain the celestialfor the precious food, descended out of sight, then crept back and stole who carried the tubers in his scrotum,then impregnated his wife Pani and told her to go to the Wai o Mona-Ariki(the waters or stream of Mona-Ariki) and give birth to their offspring, theearthly form of the Òre-enactedÓ

11 in the practice of placing stored tuber
in the practice of placing stored tubers in water to stimulatethe sprouting of shoots prior to planting.) PaniÕs childrenÑNehutai,  

  
 
  
are all different varieties of then told Pani to cook this food in order to remove thePani how she had obtained it. Pani was silent, so informed his brothers they were being fed on the impurities of Pani. Thistroubled them and caused them to migrate to far-off lands. Some came toNew Zealand to settle.became the ancestor of the kiore (small, nocturnal creatures still follow the ways of their ancestor ground storage pits during the winter. tubers and was angry, because they were intended as food of the atua. Hetherefore sent for Nuhe, the sky, and asked them for help in punishing Rongo for his theft of the), and moka descended from the heavensto attack the leaves of the damp nights (Best 1908,238,241,256; 1971,11Ð13). These cater-(Agrius convolvuli),which feed on the leaves of the 14the contemporary pacific summer nights, were a well-known scourge to ferent nam

12 es for each state of the life cycles (Mi
es for each state of the life cycles (Miller 1971,11Ð13    ful cultivation of the Despite his anger at the theft of his celestial tubers, look after the earthly descendents. His rising in the morning above the,itspredator thekiore,andthe insect pests anuhe,and moka,would appear to provide the rationale for the inclusion of oth-tionships. The ecosystem relationship between the kiore and the is depicted in the whakapapa through lineages linking them by descentfrom Pani. It is then explained metaphorically in the narrative by PaniÕsmata-iti (Hine of the small face) gives birth to Kiore. This particular nameof Hine, an apparent reference to the physical features of the kiore, is also(which is sometimes difÞcult to see).teina relationship as described in the narrative (Delamare, pers comm,1999eaten by kiore. In folk taxonomic terms this particular line of descent andgrouping might be described as Òthe plants that are devoured by rats.Ó Itand consume leaves rather than tubers, by providing them with a lineagehad detailed knowled

13 ge of the life cycles, behavior, and hab
ge of the life cycles, behavior, and habitat of both the19941971), respectively. roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering15 where it was more important than the 1991,, including predator, pests, and an environmental indicator of itstime of harvest. A ÒgenealogicalÓ framework then acts as a convenientmnemonic for the storage and recollection of this knowledge. Traditionalnarrativesincludeamongtheirseveralfunctionsthatofimpart-ing moral rules or guidance. One analysis of the similarities and differ-ences between indigenous knowledge systems and modern or ÒwesternÓscience notes that while science purports to be value free, indigenousvalue-laden. That is, in addition to providing knowledge about the world,proper conduct toward one another and oneÕs environment (Roberts 1998,66,67and ritenga (the ethical values and the rules for proper conduct). Withinbrothers on Pani (an act which forced them to emigrate). On theother hand, Rongo rightly observed the correct ritual of tapu removal byOther traditional narratives relate a diff

14 erent, earthly origin for thenesia. One
erent, earthly origin for thenesia. One of these stories (brießy mentioned earlier) tells how Marama,junior wife of Hoturoa, the captain of the Tainui canoe, brought with herseveral precious plants from the homeland. Because she engaged in(Calystegia sepium). 16the contemporary pacific the plants, while its roots, inferior in size and bitter in ßavor, have a purga-tive effect when eaten. Similarly, MaramaÕs hue seeds turned into has small spiny fruits. Her aute (paper mulberry, Broussonetia papyrifera,from which tapa cloth was made) grew into the endemic whau tree tapa. In contrast, the , taro, and hue plants brought by HoturoaÕssenior wife,Whakaotirangi, all ßourished because she did not commitby planting them in soil brought from the homeland (Jones and Biggs1995,52; 1985,46Ð47As a case study, the whakapapa of the society, and to ask whether and howthese might inform contemporary debates about genetically modiÞeda cognitive template of great utility in an oral society. To this template areplant and animal names, biology, and ecosy

15 stem relationships with ani-niently situ
stem relationships with ani-niently situated, memorized, recalled, and transmitted. Collectively, thisrequired for a variety of different purposes. In what follows, we Þrst dis-cuss the several functions whakapapa appear to have played in traditionalsociety. Following that, we ask how might the knowledge they contain,Whakapapa as Folk Taxonomykapapain Þgure All other things within this realm, terrestrial and celes-phology, or biology (including habitat and seasonal cycle). This strongly roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering17 Õs survival in a mar-ginalhabitat, well south of its usual, more tropical distribution. Raymond Firth applied the term Òeconomic loreÓ to such pragmaticof oldenedge as applied to the solution of his economic problems . . . [Further,] it iseconomic or practical utility. [While] it is unquestionable that the greater partinconsistent with a certain desire to obtain knowledge for its own sake, toobserve and describe with accuracy, and with the object of better classiÞcation.1973,58Ð60Cordylinewhich ra

16 nges in size from a shrub to a palm-like
nges in size from a shrub to a palm-like tree. One species,(C fructicosa) grew wild, but they werealso semicultivatedÑaruhe by burning off regenerating forest cover atBoth were important year-round sources of starch, particularly in south-ing winter, the traditional time of warfare. Indeed, aruhe was regarded as 

1950,93morphologically distinct from the other plants in this whakapapa, andunlike the cultivated root crops, neither were dependent on vegetative 18the contemporary pacific fare,and thus was incompatible with the children of Rongo. Therefore,2000,5; 1997,249,391from the realm of Rongo and placed instead in the realm of Haumia-as hair. But when the parents were separated, he hid in the bosom of theEarth-mother.However, the hair of Haumia remained visible as frondsof the bracken fern, and it is by this means that aruhe is discovered by1997,389As for the origins of traces an origin (from several children of Rangi-nui and of which occur in the celestial realm. It is here that all the important mor-attributes of the ea

17 rthly All three whakapapaÑof kmara, aruh
rthly All three whakapapaÑof kmara, aruhe, and Ñdemonstrate thealogies, where, from a solely genetic or biological point of view, groupings 
! "
deity, gives rise to taro (the most highly valued food, reserved for chiefs),sugarcane, bamboo, and then humans. Kanaloa (Tangaroa) produces the1991,15evolutionary history aim Þrst to name and assign all living things to aspecies, regardless of their cultural importance or utility. Second, they sys-tematically group species into more inclusive, higher taxonomic catego-ries, culminating in a kingdom. Third, they attempt to reßect the phylog- roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering19 enyof all organisms so that, ideally, members of a kingdom are geneticallyrelated and can trace descent from a single common ancestor. (Note thatSimilarities and differences between to group these into the most intuitive and basic of all classiÞcationsÑthatis,theÒfolk genusÓof Berlin (1992), or Ògeneric-speciemeÓofAtran (1993Ñis clearly present. Kwha (purple clematis), and of the three caterpil

18 lars anuhe, torongmokaÑalthough science
lars anuhe, torongmokaÑalthough science recognizes only one extant insect species thatAgrius convolvuli 1999;Sphinx convolvuli [Millar 1971]). But a major difference betweenonomiccategories such as family, order, class, phylum, and kingdom areTangaroa, and Hau-mia) and the kingdom taxon must be dismissed on the basis that modernclassiÞcations require all organisms to be descended from only one com-mon ancestor at the kingdom level; in other words, the phylogenetic basisof modern scientiÞc classiÞcations does not provide for multiple mem-of organisms, for example, ÒplantsÓ or Òinsects,Ó can claim membershipin more than one realm, as do the plant, insect, and other animal speciesTangaroa, Rongo, and Haumia. Furthermore, as Þg-Waya Island, in theYasawa Group in Fiji, Andrew Pawley also noted,ÒAbove the genus and species level . . . folk and scientiÞc classiÞcationsbove the genus and species level . . . folk and scientiÞc classiÞcations1994,88With regard to the third aim of scientiÞcally based classiÞcations, obvi- 20the contemporary pac

19 ific ousÑbut analogousÑsimilarities exi
ific ousÑbut analogousÑsimilarities exist between phylogeny and whaka-human whakapapa, as oneÕs personal identity and place in society is tra-ditionally reliant on possession of knowledge of genealogical links to oneÕsGiven the above, it would seem that a more accurate interpretation ofRongo is as an environmental realm representing the ecosystem of impor-entities that have some historical and/or extant association with theing the logic for this whakapapa, we depart from a second claim by Paw-ley, that Òthe higher the level . . . the less natural [in terms of morphol-ogy, behavior or ecological adaptation] the categoriesÓ (1994,88other hand, we Þnd agreement with AtranÕs statement concerning the cri-in human ecology; that is, the life-form divisions seem to be made on thebasis of those habits of life that determine the place of each being in thatlocal environment pertaining to manÕs everyday lifeÓ (1993,37)In sum, there are some intriguing similarities and differences betweenplant/animal and human whakapapa and modern scientiÞc clas

20 siÞcationsbased on the concept of phylog
siÞcationsbased on the concept of phylogeny. All three share a similar concern withnetic classiÞcations in their presumption of relationships based on genet-ically inherited characteristics; thus both can lay claim to being genealo-gies. This presumption of genetic relationships (increasingly conÞrmed bywhat we believe to be the underlying rationale of those plant and animalfore vary from region to region depending on, among other things, climateand biophysical resources.For all of these reasons,few nonhuman roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering21 whakapapa can claim to be genealogies in the sense that all of the thingsthey encompass possess a closely shared genetic inheritance. (Exceptionsor species, such as the tuna [eel].) Debate?are a people who walk backwards into thefuture, a reference to the importance placed on seeking guidance forfuture actions from the wisdom of the past deeds of ancestors and myth-ded in whakapapa and their accompanying narratives in an attempt todraw some conclusions of relevance to contemp

21 orary concerns aboutOne conclusionexplic
orary concerns aboutOne conclusionexplicitinthekmara narrativeisthata risk taker. Strict social constraints were imposed on (in this case) in interactions with (in this case members. Yet society, such transgressionsinvite a reciprocal response in order to restore balance, in this case, toHowever, although the subsequent penalty. Similar messages are inherent in the actions of the brother, the celebrated 1885son seeking to outsmart an elder, and that of a trickster/hero who under- 22the contemporary pacific Because the story of MaramaÕs serious transgression of social conduct,outlined earlier, involves the transformation of one species into another,it is of particular interest here. During the ongoingof the atua. In other words, while it is possible for gods to perform suchgenes between species. However, Marama and her plants are located inhistorical time. But it would be unwise to interpret this as evidence in sup-portof transgenic modiÞcation. It seems more likely that this story simplyport the comments made by Gregory Schrempp in

22 his study of cosmogony: ÒThere are a num
his study of cosmogony: ÒThere are a number of stories dealing with the problem ofgetting central cultural and ritual goodsÑsuch as the knowledge, and the gods themselvesÑto the new locale. The particularlyrecurrent patterns in these stories are the tendency of these goods ofthemselves to revert to their original home, and the overcoming of thesetendencies through combinations of theft, the use of certain rituals that1992,103One might therefore conclude from these stories that normally prohib-through deliberately ßouting culturally embedded norms that importantandbeneÞcial changes to societyare brought about.However, in all activ-and adhering to appropriate tikanga and ritengaÑprovides an essentialÒprecautionary principleÓ is often roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering23 would seem important for all who engage in this debate to know moreabout the whakapapa and narratives of plants and animals, and to discusshow this knowledge might inform the genetic modiÞcation of organismsBecause a major aim of this research is to en

23 able all New Zealanders,and in particula
able all New Zealanders,and in particular kapapaand their narratives can make an important contribution to thisdiscussion. We also suggest that use of the same word for both humanimplicationsof transgenic modiÞcation. For example, it is often claimedwhakapapa.When questioned further it is evident that many who advancethis claim assumeÑincorrectlyÑthat nonhuman whakapapa are based onthat they all contain things that are closely related genetically. Yet as thismara demonstrates, one whakapapa can involve many,the different species contained within this one whakapapa? We do notlogically based information and argument. But as mentioned in the intro-mana, and mauri. Because these beliefs are central to concerns about the 24the contemporary pacific erationof the impacts of genetic modiÞcation on whakapapa must takethem into consideration.ested in understanding more about the genetic modiÞcation of plants andrights and wrongs of this technology. Only with such understanding willAn equally important aim motivating this research on whakapapa

24 is toto learn about their rich scientiÞ
is toto learn about their rich scientiÞcworld. Knowing about these whakapapa and narratives is surely sufÞcientThis paper is UOAX0021 Eugene,Oregon, and the KaiserPermanenteCenter forHealthResearch,HawaiÔi.Science, and Technology. The authors wish to thank the tee; Ewen Cameron, Curator of Botany at the Auckland Museum; and WiremuKaa, St Johns Theological College, for their support and helpful comments.1907 


 
Christchurch, : Whitcombe and Tombs.1993
 

  
!
"# 

$%!
   
roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering25 1972"$
&%

#  
 
$ 
With a new foreword by1951.Beever, James1991
'  !

 
( 
  
20.2Auckland Botanical Society. First published as Bulletin 16,1987.1992)$* 
 + 
( % 

  , 

( 1908"  

 #
-  
.
41:231Ð285.1976 
  
Dominion Museum Bulletin . Wellington, R Shearer. Government Printer. First published in Wellington: W

25 hit-combe and Tombs, 1925.1977"$ 
"$
hit-combe and Tombs, 1925.1977"$ 
"$
$ 

$
825Ð833.3Wellington: A1925.1982 
/ 

!$!
. Wellington: P D Hasselberg, Government Printer. 1995 
/ 

!$!
Part I. Wellington: Museum of NewZealand Te Papa Tongarewa. First published as Dominion Museum10,1924.Bulmer, Ralph1970) $  

 
0  
 
1
 
0 
1069Ð1091.1899"$
2

%  
th ed. London: John Murray. 19991966Zoological ClassiÞcation System of a Primitive People. 151:1972)  

$
 #
-  
 
Wellington: A R Shearer, Gov-ernment Printer.Grey, Sir George1885(!  
!$!

  
"  
!

$
 #-  
/ 
26the contemporary pacific Gudgeon, W E [Walter Edward]19053 

$
(!  
  !
14:107Ð130.1994The Kiore Rat in Aotearoa: A Maori Perspective. In   

$ ( +
. 
( % 
edited by John Morrison, Paul Geraghty, and3,65Ð75.Handy, E S Craighill, and Elizabeth Green Handy1991 
(  

2
# 
"$ 


26 


) Bernice B. Bisho



) Bernice B. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233.1972.Hiroa, Te Rangi [Sir Peter Buck]1950"$


$
 
nd ed. Wellington: Whitcombe and Tombs.1949.1996Personal communication to Mere Roberts, Auckland. 198284:830Ð847.Jones, Pei Te Hurinui1960&
(  
Wellington: The Polynesian Society. Jones, Pei Te Hurinui, and Bruce Biggs 1995
.#

" 
19841,0004 

5  

 #
-  
Wellington: A H & A WMiller, David1971
. 

 #
-  
Wellington: A H & A W Reed. 1985"$
  
6

$
 
Auckland: Williams Collins. 1991 # 

 #
%% $

 
" 
Paraone, Tiwai1907A Maori Cosmogony. Translated by Hare Hongi. 3 

$
(!  
  !
16:109Ð119.Pawley, Andrew 1994On the ClassiÞcation of Marine Animals in Wayan. In   

$ ( +
. 
( % 
edited by John Morrison, Paul Geraghty, and3,87Ð107.Reedy, Anaru, translator1997
&7 

(
&%
roberts and others whakapapa and genetic engineering27 Riley, Murdoch1997 


*

27 
nd ed. Paraparaumu: Viking Sevenseas

nd ed. Paraparaumu: Viking SevenseasNZ. First published in 1994.1998Indigenous Knowledge and Western Science: Perspectives from the  

" $!
) 

)$ !

  8 #
-  
( %  
edited by Derek Hodson, 59Ð75.Wellington: RoyalRoberts, Mere, Waerete Norman, Nganeko Minhinnick, Del Wihongi, and1995( +
  
9!
Roberts, Mere, and Peter Wills1998)%  
) !

$
($%$!

$%!
Helmut Wautischer, rcgm,Report of the Royal Commission on Genetic ModiÞcation.Appendix3: Outcomes of Consultation: Submissions from the Public,Section 4.Wellington: Department of Internal Affairs. Schrempp, Gregory1992  
#
"$
 
$
5 

$


$
:Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Scott, R[obert] R[oderic], and R[owan] M Emberson, compilers1999 *

 #
-  
. 
  


  +   

. 

 
2 
1997"
"   
"$
 
( 
'    
"$
!

 #-  ; **  " "&7 Williams,

28 Henry W1975
'  !

$
 

Henry W1975
'  !

$
 
   
Reprint of th ed. Wellington:A R Shearer, Government Printer. 1971.Whistler, W Arthur1991. 
( 

(!  41Ð66.Yen, Douglas E1974"$
# 
( 

2  
BernicePBishop Museum Bulletin 236. 28the contemporary pacific reference to human descent lines and relationships, where it functions as a fam-ily tree or genealogy. But it also refers to an epistemological framework in whichkapapa contain information concerning an organismÕs theorized origins fromtaxonomy,Ó in which morphology, utility, and cultural considerations all play aningnarratives, which contain explanations for why things came to be the waycernsraised by who oppose transgenic biotechnology. Informed dialogue on this subject requiresIn this paper we describe and interpret the whakapapa of an important foodlying rationale. We also discuss how the whakapapa and its associated narrativesmight contribute to the current debate on genetically modiÞed organisms in Newkeywords:whakapapa;folk taxonomy;ethnobiology