Benefitting from differences in knowledge, practice and belief: Māori oral traditions and natural hazards science

Abstract

Abstract.This paper builds upon earlier work that argued the information and experience contained within the knowledge-practice-belief complex of Mātauranga Māori [Māori knowledge] is a valuable and neglected area of information and understanding about past catastrophic events in Aotearoa/New Zealand (A/NZ). Here we map Māori oral traditions (pūrākau) that relate experience with extreme environmental disturbance (in particular, tsunamis) around the A/NZ coast, compare the findings with geoarchaeological evidence, and discuss the scientific benefits to be gained by considering pūrākau as legitimate perspectives on history. Not surprisingly, there are both differences and complementarities between traditional Māori narratives and the available geo-archaeological evidence on extreme coastal disturbances. The findings presented here raise new and important questions about accepted geographies of tsunami risk, the causes and sources of their generation, as well as reasons for the relative paucity and abundance of information in some regions. Ways in which Mātauranga Taiao [Māori environmental knowledge] and contemporary science can be combined to produce new narratives about extreme environmental disturbance along the A/NZ coastline will require not only acceptance of other ways of knowing but also open engagement with Māori that respects their rights to tell their own histories. These efforts are encouraged to revitalise and ground-truth the interpretation of traditional stories, corroborate and/or question previous scientific deductions, and improve our collective understanding of the recurring impact of tectonic, geologic and meteorological-based events across A/NZ.Correspondence to: D. N. King (d.king@niwa.co.nz) RāpopotongaHe mea hāngai anō tēnei pepa kiētahi o mua, ki taua tohe anō ko ngā wheako mai i te pūnahatanga o ngā tikanga o te Mātauranga Māori he mea whaimana, he aha koa tē arongia ai, he whai mōhiohio hoki i ngā parekura i pā mai ki Aotearoa. Ko tā mātou he whakaatu i ngā pūrākau i reirā etahi whakapuakitanga o ngā pānga mai o ngā ngaringari nuī a-taiao (he oti rā te pāhoro ngaru moana) i pā mai ki te tākutai moana o Aotearoa, he whakarite ki ngā kitenga mai i ngā taunakitangaā-huakanga whenua, me te whakawhitiwhiti whakaaro i ngā painga mai i te tirotiro i te pūrākau hei tirohanga tika i te hitori. Waihoki, mō ngā ngaringari whakaharahara ki te tākutai, heōritenga, he rerekētanga anō nō waenga o ngā kōrero tuku iho me ngā taunakitangaā-huakanga whenua. Mai i ngā kitenga, he uiui hōu anō ki ngā mātaiwhenua o te wā ki ngā mōrearea pāhoro ngaru moana, ngā mātāpuna me ngā pūtaketanga tae atu ki te nunui, te korekore rānei o ngā kōrero ki ngā takiwā. Mō te hono i te Mātauranga Māori me te pūtaiao o nāianei me te whakaputa kōrero hōu ki ngā ngaringari whakaharahara o te taiao ki te tākutai moana o Aotearoa, he tautoko rā anō i te pūnaha mātauranga rerekē, he mahitahi hoki me te Māori, mai i te aro tūturu ki tāna whakaatu iāna ake kōrero tuku iho. Me mea whakatūturu te whakamāoritanga o ngā pūrākau, mā te ta...

Culture and disaster risk reduction: Lessons and opportunities

“…For example, King and Goff (2010) suggest that indigenous knowledge and oral history (in this case, Māori oral history of tsunami) can be used to guide researchers to locations where new geological studies of past events can be carried out to contribute to our understanding of risk. With respect to preparedness, Carter-Pokras et al (2007) undertook a study of the preparedness of Latin-American immigrants in the USA and found that few people had received information about emergency preparedness and most did not have emergency plans.…”

Physical geographers’ understanding of the real world

“…Research questions in natural hazard studies have changed dramatically since 1958, notably in the following six ways. Few of these, however, have been pursued by physical geographers (Hewitt being a notable Canadian exception): In what ways do underdevelopment and vulnerability influence natural hazard studies (e.g., Sen ; Hewitt ; Cutter )? In what ways do considerations of risk perception and management transform natural hazard studies (e.g., Whyte and Burton ; Slaymaker )? Can the distinction between “natural” and “man‐made” hazards be sustained (e.g., Burton and Hewitt ; Burton et al ; Smith )? What is the role of technological and political conflict in natural hazard studies (e.g., Glickman et al ; Hewitt ; Dauvergne )? What is the role of differences in knowledge, practice, and beliefs in natural hazard analysis (e.g., King and Goff )? Do natural hazards raise questions of unfair, inequitable impacts on society and involve the redressing of injustices (e.g., Sen )? …”

The Capacity Building programmes of GITEWS – visions, goals, lessons learned, and re-iterated needs and demands

“…It is quite often argued that the information and experience contained within the knowledge-practice-belief complex of communities and individuals is a most valuable, but often neglected area of information and understanding about past catastrophic events (King and Goff, 2010). This apparent mismatch is also made obvious by Shah (2006) as he addresses the importance of and issues related to the so-called Last-Mile.…”