Myths and Legends of the Polynesians

by Johannes C. Andersen

This authoritative work, based on extensive field study and research, combines a wealth of Polynesian myths and legends with a lively commentary on the lives and culture of the Polynesians. The territory covered is the vast Pacific triangle formed by the Hawaiian Islands to the north, New Zealand to the south, and Easter Island to the east. Included are Tahiti, Samoa, Tonga, the Cook Islands, the Marquesas, and many other island groups.
From these varying Polynesian cultures, ethnologist Johannes C. Andersen collected ancient stories of the gods and creation, of nature and the supernatural, of love and war, of adultery, revenge, cannibalism, human sacrifice, and more. As he recounts the tales, he compares and contrasts not only the legends but also the people of one island group with another, interweaving fascinating information about Polynesian history and customs.
The author’s descriptions of the Polynesians and their ways are as interesting as the stories themselves. Noting that there are great variations of general characteristics among Polynesian peoples, he observes that “the finest physique was found among the Marquesans; the most estimable people were found among the Samoans; the most poetical and gentle among the Tahitians; the most religious and romantic among the Hawaiians; the most intellectual, and the most formidable warriors and military strategists among the Maori.”
Over 75 illustrations — effigies of the war god Kukailimoku, the great stone status of Easter Island, a Maori boy and girl, Polynesian canoes, a Samoan round house, and many more — add superb visual interest to these fascinating stories of Uenuku the Maori chief, Pele the Fire Goddess, Eleio and the feather cloak of Hawaii, and a host of others. An extensive 42-page index and glossary of Polynesian-related terms will be of great help to those making a study of Polynesian culture.

Genres: Mythology

576 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1928

Reviews

[Eric · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’m not sure who translated the tales themselves, but they are well told. The information is compiled very usefully. I enjoyed reading Andersen’s commentaries, though I imagine people who know more than I might have criticism of them. Still, I imagine the most important trait of an ethnologist is curiosity, and of this there is plenty that’s contagious.

[Paul Cornelius · Rating 3 out of 5]

Andersen's work is considered a classic. And it's true that he does a substantial job in documenting the origin myths, religions, deities, and legends of Polynesia. His glaring weakness is he insists on referring every other Polynesian society back to his experiences with New Zealand's Maoris. When discussing, for example, Hawaiian or Tahitian gods and goddesses he continually interjects Maori spellings. He does this virtually everywhere. It is astoundingly irritating. If you need to document equivalencies, do it in an appendix. Don't clutter the text with, "in New Zealand" all the time. What makes it particularly into a nagging sore is that the Maori's were the last of the Polynesians to colonize territory and establish themselves. Andersen often intimates that it is due to Maoris that the rest of Polynesia can be understood. No matter that the Tahitians and Hawaiians established themselves hundreds of years earlier. One other thing doesn't sit well either. When I personally imagine Polynesia, I think of the tropics, the Society islands, the Marquesas, Bora Bora, Tuvalu, Samoa, and Hawaii. Maoris don't pop into my mind other than as on the fringe of Polynesia in a climate that is an exception to all the rest. But Andersen thinks them central. And more. He states that they are the physical, mental, intellectual, and cultural superiors of all Polynesia.

Another point of irritation is Andersen's habit of suddenly comparing Polynesian myths to those of the Greeks, Romans, and Norse. Just out of nowhere. An interesting argument about the commonality of world cultures is available. James Frazer's The Golden Bough is something I would have expected Andersen to mention in this regard. But he doesn't, although he lists a separate work by Frazer in his list of sources, which is never mentioned in the text itself.

In short, there is much of value here. But it's partially hidden under a clutter of disorganized thoughts and half-baked comparisons.