Tapuand the invention of the “death taboo”: An analysis of the transformation of a Polynesian cultural concept

Abstract

Is death “taboo” or “tapu”? Why do these two versions of the same word evoke such different cultural responses to issues of death and the dead? In this paper, we explore Western anthropological interpretations of the “death taboo”, its relationship to Māori understanding of tapu, and how the transformation of tapu into “taboo” influences engagement with human remains. We maintain that such an anthropological approach—incorporating historical, archaeological and biological anthropological perspectives—can further contribute to a number of cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary debates. We further argue that this will expand and elucidate cross-cultural understandings of responses to death by siting them within specific historical-cultural contexts and locations.

Awesome Forces and Warning Signs: Charting the Semantic History of *tabu Words in Vanuatu

“…While a great body of literature has been dedicated to tapu in Polynesian languages (see references above, and also Sachdev 1989;Fletcher 2007;Gilmore et al 2013), few authors acknowledge that this root is also attested in Oceanic languages outside Polynesian. Indeed, the etymon reconstructs to Proto-Oceanic (POc) as *tabu [taᵐbu] (Blust & Trussel 2021); it has even been proposed at the level of PCEMP (Proto Central Eastern Malayo-Polynesian), as a form *tambu (ibid.…”

Biological Anthropology in the Indo-Pacific Region: New Approaches to Age-Old Questions

“…Biological anthropology in the Pacific region today involves taking into account the unique sets of beliefs surrounding human remains, death and the spirits of the ancestors (Gilmore et al, 2013;Ruckstuhl et al, 2016). Modern biological anthropologists must both acknowledge this history, and work to build new relationships with local communities.…”

Anthropological Archaeology in 2013: The Search for Truth(s)

“…For the most part, Weberian‐like economic models permeate current archaeological studies and attempt to explain forms of premodern social complexity, like “religion” through processes of rationalization, secularization, and “disenchantment,” decisively eradicating certain subjects, like animism, shamanism, and magical enchantment. In recent years, scholars have begun re‐examining these century‐old terms and, in some cases, have reclaimed the terminology in their work (Gilmore et al ; Howey ; Pauketat ; Robinson ; Rountree et al ; Wallis ). For instance, Meghan Howey () re‐evaluates Lewis Henry Morgan's 1851 definition of tribe in native North America, which for over a century has been associated with racist notions of the “savage” society in anthropological work.…”