MAORI CARVING.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 18, 16 October 1907, Page 5

MAORI CARVING.

INTERESTING THEORISING. Sir, —In your issue of the 9th inst you publish an explanation ,by Dr. I'omare, of tho j mystory ol : the three-finger carving, system 'as oxhibited in Maori statuary. The' doctor states on Maori evidence, which he believes to bo incontrovertible, that thoy are 'accounted for in this manner: "The first Maori carver had but three fingers—his namo denotes, indeed, 'he who carved with his stumps'—and to ensuro his immortality he gavo- all his figures the samo number." Whether the evidence be incontrovertible or not, the doctor is apparently to bo complimented on the fact of his unearthing such •donee as has eluded the researches of students and scientists during the past half century. He is also entitled to the- thanks of students for having incontrovertible' discovered the actual 'first Maori carver,' whose • identity was probably a mystical 0110 as far ' back as the commencement of the Christian ora. The doctor, it appears, claims to "Jia'v.o found him, and further claims that 'he had but three finger:;.' The doctor leaves U3 in tho dark as to whether he .had merely threo fingers in all, or threo fingors on each hand. As tho carvings under notice show three fingers each hand, we are bound to assume, following tho doctor's! steps,' that this "first carver" had the same. The doctor drives home his discovery with the:'information that certain proof is furnished by this first carver's, name'which, being interpreted, tho doctor claims to literally signify;' "lie who carved with his stumps." "" - ; In this alleged interpretation we find no reference whatever to fingers, and, for aught wo know, it ma}' speak of tree stumps and material much'used by wood-carvers. But, assuming that, the namo docs indicate fingerstumps, tho question at oncc arises, "Can a carver with three fingors on each hand bo properly said to carve with his stumps ?'' And even if this bo so, and if there were such a first carver, are 'we to accept that tho origin of the remarkable' system of three-finger figure carving is entirely due .to tho malformation of tho hands of this first' carver and to its everlasting perpetuation? Candidly I say certainly not, just as" certainly not as that- no such first carver has'had any means of. knowing that this, or' any other such, peculiarity, would cmitinuo to bo handed down along the corridors of timo to his "immortality." The story is, therefore," on' tho face of it, too absurd for serious consideration. -1 ■ According t° the best available"'Maori traditional evidence, UlO system appears'.' to have its origin in a mystic or roligious motivo, and to refer itself to the evcr-tchbe-rdniom-borcd blessing of the discovery'of the process or generating fire by moans of friction (hikaaJii.) It was by-this process that, from time immemorial, the Maori tohnnga or. adopt kindled the sacred and pure firo Which was used in all ceremonials of a niystie'or religious character. In thus generating the sacreu firo both thumbs and little fingors of tho generator were alike invisible to the oriJookqr. bo, too, those carvings. Yet, even this view, embracing as it docs an antiquity, must not oppose itself to further and moro minute enquiry. Tho three-fingered—arid toed—figure is (very persistent indeed; 1 but tho three fingers and a thumb is 'fairly 'fro*.' quont, and finally the four fingers and thumb. It is as if we are confronted, with -pictures representing stages of man's evolution (the Maori is an structural progross from moro primitive forms—first : throefingered, then four, then'last and finally tho apparently perfect equipment of five." "This finds' favour in the. mystic idea--with'which' the peculiarity is undoubtedly associated. It nlso finds support in the very elaborately carved figure heads of the most magnificent canoes. In' theso we . find tho occurronco of iivo fingers and toes. In these, f following our present lino of enquiry, wo may.'recognise Man m his highest form of dexterity and intellectuality—Man, tho , navigator 'of the globo, tho- of widely-separated lands.- All of which is very alluring; but* onough.—l..am; etc., ...; ; 'I HENRY M. STOAVELL. :■ I'etone, October 3, 1907: , .«• " • i

.fair, Mr. .Massey-'s proposal under, rwliioli tho owners under the lease-in-perpetuity.-maT purchase tlio fee simplo is tho 'onlyy-logical arid equitable one by which. they can do so', if it is desired that the tenants should come freeholders. Any proposal >bji-which tho tenant will have to pay tho preaentivaluo;. i-e.j tho originnl value, plus the value of- lii 3 goodwill or tenant, right, simply meann that np business will bo ; done, becauso. no "leaseholder, with 900 odd years to run would'bo foolish enough to . pay tho Government ; for what .is already his' own in tho nhapo of tenant right. I have frequently urged that it is impossible-to provo that the Government intorest can be worth- more than the-capital value .of. the- interest or rent; .'tho length: of lease being too long to give any value'to the equity of. redemption: .. . 1 - The i'remier, is reported to have said; that no private \ individual would accopt' 'such terms,. but I--. maintain • thaf;had' tho :i prirate individual placed himself in the - same-' posw tion, that is let his jand'for*999 years,' he would bo only too glad to obtain tho'capital value of his rental with 1 per cent, added. There may be diversity of. opinions on tho freehold versus leasehold, but there should bo none on the question of the actual monot-ary value to the; Government 'of-theso leaseholds Any actuary could givo it if tho whole terms of, the lease > were laid before him.'"All tho eloquence , -poured forth on tho subject 1 has only served,to cloud the point at issue'.—l am, ctc.,. • • „ , „ , ' :W. J. BIRCH. Marton, October 12, 1907! ' . .