title: Memento Mori : Memento Maori – moko and memory

authors: Te Awekotuku, Ngahuia

subjects: tangi

abstract: Moko patterns, mau moko, “wearing ink” is often explained as an act of remembrance, a symbol of honour or success, of grieving or loss. Memento mori, remembering the dead and remembrance of death, pervades the Maori world, and is profoundly expressed in customary practice – haehae, upoko tuhi, and ta moko. These embodied and visceral experiences are described in waiata tangi, in whai korero, in moteatea, in the traditional context, and graphically recorded on the living flesh in our contemporary world. Mau moko celebrates identity, so modern memorial ornamentation mourns and reflects on this in ‘memento mori’; and also reinforces and engages reality in the correspondent notion of ‘memento Maori’; an assertion that claims dominion and understanding across generations, across time, across space.

text: Memento Mori : Memento Maori – moko and memory Moko patterns, mau moko, “wearing ink” is often explained as an act of remembrance, a symbol of honour or success, of grieving or loss. Memento mori, remembering the dead and remembrance of death, pervades the Maori world, and is profoundly expressed in customary practice – haehae, upoko tuhi, and ta moko. These embodied and visceral experiences are described in waiata tangi, in whai korero, in moteatea, in the traditional context, and graphically recorded on the living flesh in our contemporary world. Mau moko celebrates identity, so modern memorial ornamentation mourns and reflects on this in ‘memento mori’; and also reinforces and engages reality in the correspondent notion of ‘memento Maori’; an assertion that claims dominion and understanding across generations, across time, across space.

year: 2009-11

title: Who owns native nature? Discourses of rights to land, culture, and knowledge in New Zealand

authors: Goldsmith, Michael

subjects: indigenous cultures

abstract: Michael Brown famously asked ‘Who owns native culture?’ This paper revisits that question by analyzing what happens to culture when the culturally defined boundary between it and nature becomes salient in the context of disputes between indigenous and settler populations. My case study is the dispute between the New Zealand government and Maori tribal groupings concerning ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Having been granted the right to test their claims in court in 2003, Maori groups were enraged when the government legislated the right out of existence in 2004. Though the reasons for doing so were clearly political, contrasting cultural assumptions appeared to set Maori and Pakeha (New Zealanders of European origin) at odds. While couching ownership of part of nature as an IPR issue may seem counter-intuitive, I argue that as soon as a property claim destabilizes the nature/culture boundary, IPR discourse becomes pertinent.

text: Who owns native nature? Discourses of rights to land, culture, and knowledge in New Zealand Michael Brown famously asked ‘Who owns native culture?’ This paper revisits that question by analyzing what happens to culture when the culturally defined boundary between it and nature becomes salient in the context of disputes between indigenous and settler populations. My case study is the dispute between the New Zealand government and Maori tribal groupings concerning ownership of the foreshore and seabed. Having been granted the right to test their claims in court in 2003, Maori groups were enraged when the government legislated the right out of existence in 2004. Though the reasons for doing so were clearly political, contrasting cultural assumptions appeared to set Maori and Pakeha (New Zealanders of European origin) at odds. While couching ownership of part of nature as an IPR issue may seem counter-intuitive, I argue that as soon as a property claim destabilizes the nature/culture boundary, IPR discourse becomes pertinent.

year: 2009

title: Development of proteinous bioplastics using bloodmeal

authors: Vebeek, Casparus J.R.

subjects: protein

abstract: The aim of this work was to investigate the use of bloodmeal as a thermoplastic biopolymer. Processing required water and chemical additives to perform three main functions: breaking covalent cross-links using sodium sulfite (SS), sodium dodecyl sulfate and urea as processing aids, and evaporating some processing water to allow formation of new interactions to stabilize the final structure. Extrusion was only possible in the presence of SS and strongly influenced by water and urea content. It was found that once water had been removed, mechanical properties increased significantly, indicating the formation of new intermolecular forces. SDS was required for processing and consolidation, but, it may restrict formation of new intermolecular forces, if used in excessive quantities. Materials based on optimal additive levels had a tensile strength of 8 MPa, Young’s modulus of 320 MPa and toughness 1.6 MPa m½.

text: Development of proteinous bioplastics using bloodmeal The aim of this work was to investigate the use of bloodmeal as a thermoplastic biopolymer. Processing required water and chemical additives to perform three main functions: breaking covalent cross-links using sodium sulfite (SS), sodium dodecyl sulfate and urea as processing aids, and evaporating some processing water to allow formation of new interactions to stabilize the final structure. Extrusion was only possible in the presence of SS and strongly influenced by water and urea content. It was found that once water had been removed, mechanical properties increased significantly, indicating the formation of new intermolecular forces. SDS was required for processing and consolidation, but, it may restrict formation of new intermolecular forces, if used in excessive quantities. Materials based on optimal additive levels had a tensile strength of 8 MPa, Young’s modulus of 320 MPa and toughness 1.6 MPa m½.

year: 2011