PRIMITIVE MAN IN POLYNESIA.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1747, 30 August 1905, Page 63

PRIMITIVE MAN IN POLYNESIA.

tEECE ANTIQUITY OF MAN IN POLYNESIA AS SEEN IN ms TRADITIONS AND HELIOS. No. XIX. (BY PROFESSOR J. MACMILLAN * BROWN.) TTTF, maiayo-folynesian FALLACY FIXED THE .GENESIS OF HUMAN OCCUPATION OF POLYNESIA IN THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY. It used to be the universal opinion of Maori scholars that the first appearance of man in New Zealand was the arrival of the six canoes, the only epoch recognised in native tradition. And the genealogies seem to fix this ■in the fourteenth century. Rut there cropped up sundry stories and legends of canoes that had arrived long before this “Norman Conquest” of the Maoris, and others pf peoples that had lived in the country even before trie arrival otf these earlier migrations. These aboriginals came to be identified with the Morioris, who migrated to the Chatham Islands from New Zealand come time before the fourteenth century.'-' v - But this still left the antiquity of man in the tropical islands untouched. Wallace, in his “Malay Archipelago,’ brought out the dlose relationships of the Polynesian dialects and those of Indonesia, and came to the rash conclusion that the peoples who spoke them were of the same race, -which he named the Malayo-Pclynesian. . And his great scientific reputation has kept the fallacy alive for half a century. The most recent authoritative books on the Pacific still, assume it to be a correct and scientific term. Now the Malays" did not spread as an . emp.re of navigators till about the thirteenth century. And the name Malayo-Poly-nesian implied that it was the Malays that, sailing forth, from the Straits of Malacca, mastered Indonesia and then peopled Polynesia- It was thus tacitly assumed that this last region, was not peopled till the thirteenth century. .Even the early voyagers of th© eighteenth century felt that the races were utterly different, and report from Polynesia tall forms, handsome faces, and often fair European-like , complexions, with occasional negroid traces like the flattened nostrils ; whilst . a few like Orozet in speaking of the New Zealanders report three types, .one dark and negriod. another yellowish,. and a third as European in features as their own sailors. A hesitancy arose about the identity of the Malays and Polynesians from like observations that showed distinct mixture of race. It was then assumed that a negroid population had held Polynesia before the arrival of the Malays., And the fair element was left unexplained. THE EVIDENCE OF THE GENEALOGIES .TAXES THE. GENESIS OF MAN IN THE REGION BACiK TO THE BEGINNING OF eu ERA,

. Then came a- -fuller knowledge of Polynesian 'traditions and genealogies, concentrated and interpreted by Mr Percy Smith in bis. ‘Tlawaiki.” By the aid of some . ancient genealogies froan New Zealand and from the Cook Islands he takes the history of Polynesia back to the beginning of our era, holding that in the second or third century of it the ancestors of the Polynesians moved, on from Indonesia into the Pacific. But even this date leaves seafft time for the peopling of the various groups away to the East; for the Easter Islanders have a genealogy of their kings right from Hotu Matua, the leader of the Polynesian colony into their island, down to Maurata, who was carried away by the Peruvians in 1864. In this there are 57 names or generations; and if we assume, as Mr Smith reasonably does, twenty-five years as the average length of the generation, it works out 1425 years, a period that lands us in the middle of the fifth century of our era. And two centuries, is too little to allow for the spread of the immigrants to the Eastern groups, and such over-population of them as would lead to new expeditions into unknown regions.

An even more striking discrepancy arises from the use of this genealogical method of chronology, when we take the generations of their ancestry, given by the Marquesans, as reported by the Surveyor-General of Hawaii; there are 145 given, and this calculated on the usual basis takes us back 3625 years. And an old Moriori priest and chief in the Chatham Islands capped this; he traced his own ancestry to Rangi and Papa, through 182 generations, and at the 157th this note interrupts the genealogy, “At this time came the three -canoes from Hawaiki.” That takes us back 4550 years, the Polynesian immigration being placed a little over six centuries ago. Surely this is a heraldry long enough to satisfy the aristocratic birth-hunger of any family on earth. It is to he placed be*

side that Welsh genealogy, which Douglas Jerroid reports as having at its midpoint the note, “Here occurred the flood.” It is on the whole safer to trust for our chronology to the less definite indications of the records otf the earth than to this heraldic embroidery of the past, which is so apt to be guided by the vanity of family or race. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ART OF WAR IN NEW ZEALAND PROVES A LARGE PRE-POLY-NESIAN POPULATION. Rut there are first some a priori arguments for a greater antiquity for New Zealand man than the fourteenth century that should alone he sufficient to shake the faith of those select few still loyal to the six canoes as the human genesis of our country. One of these has been already indicated in the article on the military' art; it is the extraordinary development of the science and art of war, and especially otf military engineering, the art otf fortification and s.ege. The few hundreds that came in the six canues left Polynesia in order to escape feuds, and clearly intended to devote themselves to agriculture. When they arrived they found plenty of elbow-room for centuries. Is it likely that they began at once in such wide and empty spaces a regular Donnyb ook Fair? Yet this is what must have occurred, if we are to explain the Maori passion for war and development of the art of war. To have developed the new art of fortification in their new and wider land against* no enemy but their own scanty numbers does not seem explicable on the ordinary principles of human nature. Reason tells us that such an evolution of self-de"ence implies a forlmdab’e and unscrupulous foe. The genius of a whole people, especially in primitive times, is not bent in one direction unless there is sheer neoes,sioy forcing it- .nd every tissue and tnought of the Maori was turned to war..

THE RAPID GROWTH OF POPULATION PROVES THE SAME.

And in spite of the internecine warfare that prevailed we are asked to believe that these few hundred immigrants in the fourteenth century had so grown in numbers by the middle of the seventeenth century that Tasman found Cook’s Straits swarming with population in command of great fleets of double and single canoes. Even in a peaceful, primitive people the growth of numbers is very slow. It is only in industrial eras and centres that it becomes rapid. With the scanty focd supplies of New Zealand it is difficult to believe in so great an increase in about a dozen generations. THE LAND HUNGER OF THE MAORIS IMPLIES A LARGE POPULATION TO DISPUTE THEIR POSSESSION OF IH. COUNTRY.

Another argument against the six canoes finding an em-pLy country to land in is the extraordinary persistency of the Maori passion for land. Land hunger never appears unless there is too little of it to go round the population. It is seldom or never a feature of primitive culture. It was natural for the immigrants from crowded Polynesia by the six canoes to claim, each for his family or dan, as far as he could see inland, as tradition tells. But that the passion should continue after they found that they had vast areas quite empty for every tribe is not in accordance with common sense- Nothing hut a hard and long struggle with aborigines for its possession can explain the extraordinary importance always attached by the Maoris to land and its inheritance.

SLAVERY AND THE MAORI HORROR OF IT PROVE A LARGE AihahUar, L POPULATION.

A fourth argument for the existence of a large aboriginal population in New Zealand before the Polynesians arrived is the place that slavery takes amongst the Maoris. The sacrifice of a slave was thought no more of than the kiihng of a pigeon. Hence the horror ofc slavery amongst the warrior or aristocratic class. Now such a development of the institution the Maori did not bring with him from Polynesia; the aborigines must have been absorbed in the islands at an early stage, and later they were too crowded to admit of slavery. It seems inconceivable that this horror of it could have sprung up in New Zealand, had the Polynesian had from the first none but his own kin to operate upon. And the fear of enslavement emained intense, in spite of the later mitigation of its conditions. -

LEGj vND TELLS THE SAME STORY. Over and above these marks of the subjugation of a large 'aboriginal population by the immigrants from Polynesia, there are clear traces of it in Maori legend, which turns the primitive tribes encountered into ogres and wizards or into fairies, according as they were formidable or feeble enemies. North Island legend names a dozen or more of such aboriginal peoples, more or less supernaturalised by twilightfancy. Colenso, in his account of the Maoris written in 1868, points to a large pre-Polynesian population, as well as a wider spread of the Maoris. The forest and mountain folks were feared

by the Maoris .long after they had been absorbed, or had died out. Even yet Natives are said to fear “wild men” in the interior.

THE LEGENDS OF IMMIGRATION INTO THE SOUTH ISLAND TAKE US RACK GENERATIONS BEFORE OUR ERA.

It is, however, in the South Island that we find clearest evidence of the succession otf migrations and conquests. Its later season for the harvesting of the edKle bulbs and fruits made it an easy prey to raids from the north. Te Rauparaha swooped down on the Ngaitahu early in the nineteenth century. They themselves had invaded from the north early, in the seventeenth century, and defeated and driven south the Ngatimamoe, who had in their turn exterminated the Waitaha in the sixteenth century. These Waitaha, according to the more reliable tradition, were descended from an immigrant called" Rakaihaitu, who reached New Zealand in his canoe, the Uraao, forty-three generations that is, in the end of the eighth century of our era; and this long period is essential, to explain the description of tradition that “they covered the land like ants.”

According to the usual legend he wiped out his predecessors and began peopling the country afresh. But this is only the stereotyped product of racial vanity, which ignores the aboriginal elements that have been absorbed, And we see from fragments of tradition that the Waitaha had no easy task in subduing and absorbing Te Rapuwai, who held the land before. The three-mile long stone-fortified pa at the Oust, in North Canterbury, was ..not built against a foe easily exterminated. And as the romantic story of Tutewaimate and Moko indicates, the Rob

Roys and Herewards of Te Rapuwai took to the caves and forests and living on the traffic of the newcomers there these remnants of the. defeated, under hold leaders, stood their ground for generations, if not for . centuries. And Te Rapuwai had gone through the same process . with their predecessors. Under Rongoatua they had come over the sea and been hospitably entertained by the Natives. But the old story repeats itself. These dwellers by the sea are driven inland by the newcomers and take to the caves; they know the forests and streams, and can ambush and circumvent the strangers with ease; hence they become cave-dwellers ogres, who can stride over the country with leaguelong steps, and swallow streams; they are Te Kahui Tipua, 'or the hand of ogres.

In the Maui legend we have mention of still earlier waves of prehistoric immigration. That culture hero, when fee fished up New Zealand, gave it to the Kui to colonise: they were exterminated or absorbed by the Tutumaiao, who were in their turn treated likewise by the Turehu or fairies ; this last folk, we have seen, are in all the traditions and annals of the Maoris represented as fair-haired, and. being o-bsoihed by the newcomers, have originated the uruke'hu or red-haired families, or members of families. Of one thing we may be certain, that Polynesian immigrants came in the early centuries of our era, and another seems probable, namely, that- pre-Polynesian aliens occupied the land for hundreds, if not thousands, of years before. THE MOUNDS OF HUMAN REFUSE IN NEW ZEALAND' POINT BACK THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

When we turn to the relics of ancient habitation, we have first of all, as on the coasts of most countries in the world, great shell-mounds, or as tney were called when first studied on the coasts of Denmark, kitchen-mid-dens, the refuse heaps of men who lived on seatrove thousands of years ago. In Hew Zealand they are not only numerous, but some of them extensive and high above the surrounding levels. Many mounds or hills of considerable proportions are reported far inland, covered with trees of many centuries’ growth. Of these some have been laid bare by cattle, whilst others have been sectioned by streams, and rivers that have changed t-he-ir course. But the majority are close to the coast. One of them at Shag Point, in Otago was examined some years ago by Messrs Chapman and Hamilton. And the latter reports that the layer above the bottom sand contained unbroken moa bones and dog bones, along with flints. The next layer that indicated human

occupation had moa bones broken, evidently for their marrow. Above at third layer of sand came the final stratum,: .in which were many moas’ necks, most with the skull attached. In these latter strata the implements encountered were more polished and neolithic. But a piece ot greenstone was found in the lowest or most anelent layer.

There is clear evidence here otf iar tervalied occupation by people of different stages otf eu iture,. though, all otf them subsisting on the hunting of the moa, tire most ancient on . that otf a feral dog likewise. Sir Julius von ituaast, in his examination of an ancient encampment on the north, bank of the River Rakaia, near its moutib, also found bones otf dogs, hut not a trace of gnawing on any of the vast numbers of bones; and this undoubtedly indicates that the dog was not domesticated, but hunted for its flesh. This prehistoric feral dog was powerfully: built, and of size between the dingo and the fox, whilst its skull was shorter than it was broad. Now the edible dog otf the Maori was domesticated, and lefU its traces on every bone about a pa. Grozet describes it as “a sort of domesticated fox, quite black or white, very low on the legs, ' “ioug body, full jaws but more pointed than those of the fox.” Its cry was the same as that of the fox, and not a bark. The distinction between the two types is quite clear. . . . .

Another striking thing about these stratified remains of man. is the absence of human bones, an indication that cannibalism appealed in New Zealand. after the disappearance of the moa and the feral dbg, and cannot be attributed to the aboriginal or prePolynesian. It is in uae period of Te ivapuwai, that is before the eigth century of our era, that legend places the extinction otf the moa, and along with it is bracketed the destruction of the Otago and Canterbury forests by fixe. The two events are -doubtless closely connected, as we can see partly in the vast accumulation of the bones, arid often complete skeletons, of ail the various species of huge' birds in the swamps and caves of Canterbury, arid partly in. the frequent heaps of gizzard pebbies found high up on the hillsides. 'llhe bush ' and its. glades would form safe retreats' for these gigantic birds from their avian and human enemies j when their cover vanished, the great raptorial birds of the heights, the bones of some of which have been found amongst those of their prey at Glenmark, would make short work otf them on the open slopes of the mountains. The effect would be somewhat similar bn their human enemies. Te Rapuwai, having suddenly to change their food and tiheir mode of life, would fall ail easy prey to the new invaders,, the Waitaha.

We may assign the upper strata of the moa-huntlhg kitchen-middens tp this, pioneer of the Polynesians. - It is true that the Whole of these mounds of debris are attributed to Xe Rapuwai j but tliis probably only means that after that people the Waitaha abandoned them, and took to regular house-build-ing and house-dwelling. These mounds thus stratified imply many centuries, if not millenniums, in the formation, especially where they lie far inland; even if their position is not due to change of sea level, the necessity of having to carry miles from the shore the products of the sea that are found in them would mean an enormously, slower rqte of increase of these shellheaps than oil the beabh; and, though the palaeolithic and the neolithic implements are intermingled in all the stages of culture in New Zealand, the advance in their polish, manifest in the mounds, implies long periods?.

THE FINDING OF STONE IMPLEMENTS, DOZENS OF FEET BELOW THE .SURFACE, ALSO points back thousands of YEARS.

A surer sign of great antiquity for the human occupation of New Zealand, and so of Polynesia, is the discovery or cooking ovens and stone implements far below the present level of the soil. On the Manuhei ikia Plains a Maori oven was found some fourteen : feet below the surface. The slow .acoumular tion of alluvium, wind-bUwn soilr Cand humus on such high plateaus forces u? to place the age of this back into thousands of years. But the most careful and. 301001306 descrintion of the find of a stone inar moment, floon in the soil is that advcai

by Stir Julius von Haast of a partially finished chert adze and its sandstone sharpener found by. a party of goldminers in Bruoe Bay, in the south of Westland, a few days before-hp arrived on the spot in the year 1868* ■ were lying on a floor of pebble-studded clay, and more than fourteen feet .ot strata of humus, sand and shingle had to be out through before this was reached. Totara trees four feet m diameter had to be felled before the surface could be broken; there were also huge trunks that had lam prostrate for generations, and moss-grown moulds of others that had decayed centuries before. The place was 500 teet above high-water mark, with the usual three belts of driftwood-sand without vegetation, rush-and-ma nuka-oo vered sand, and low sdruh. It had clearly passed through these three stages, and its foot of humus must have taken many generations, if not centuries, of herbage to form before the forest gaints could root themselves jin it. The various accumulations and the ancient growth of the forest belt take us back undoubtedly several thousand years, and even then we have a neolithic race that polished its weapons and had spread so far west and south towards the long uninhabited sounds. _ Thus traditions, genealogies and relics all point to human occupation long anterior to the arrival of the six canoes, if not to a time thousands of years before the beginning of our era. And New Zealand is the only comer ot Polynesia that has had its surface stirred by active European colonisation. The other groups have had no cuttings for railways or roads, the usual road of the modern sort being only on, the margin of the sea round each* island. Nor has mining of any sort disturbed their quaternary deposits. New Zealand 'therefore is the only part that has supplied us with relics of ancient human occupation as yet.