THE MOA.

Otago Witness, Issue 3773, 6 July 1926, Page 5

THE MOA.

RELICS OF OLD NEW ZEALAND

By

J. CROSBY SMITH.

in. So far we have been dealing with facts ‘—scientific facts, —bat a large part of what I have now to say is a matter for conjecture, as, for instance: Whence came the moa? How did it develop, and, above all, when did it cease to exist? These are all vexed questions and land us into the uncertain. I have already stated that the moa belongs to a family, or class, of flightless birds called Ratitae, and that the flying birds belong to another class called Carinatae. Did the flightless birds descend from the flying birds, or . vice versa ? Professor Parker many years ago proved conclusively, both from the embryological point of view as well as that of the anotomical—that the flightless descended from those that could fly. Geologists are agreed that there is abundant evidence to prove that the moa existed in New Zealand from Pliocene times, if not even back to Upper Miocene, which probably means 250,000 years or more. Whence came the moa to New Zealand? Mr A. R. Wallace, in his “Island Life,” supposes that they came from the Northern Hemisphere by way of New Guinea and Australia, and then on to New Zealand. But Captain Hutton is altogether opposed to this view, and shows that they could not have reached these shores except by swimming, for it is certain that New Zealand has not been joined to Australia and New Guinea since Cretacious times, when there were no Struthious birds in existence. Mr Wallace supposes they either flew or swam. If they belonged to the Ratitae ancestors, which he says they did, they could not fly If they swam, for which they were entirelv unfitted, why did not a number of placental animals, which were existent at that time and could swim, come with them ? Hutton winds up a long argument on this question by. saying that “we must conclude, therefore, that . the ancestors of the moas originated in New Zealand in the Eocene period, although we have as yet no certain evidence of them before the older Pliocene or Upper Miocene ” But in whatever way the moa originated, there is no doubt of its development. As it wa3 almost the only land animal during these early times, it thrived enormously. Food must have been very'plentiful.

As we have seen, bones of moas have been found in large quantities from the south of Southland to the Bay of Islands in the north. The surprising feature is that individuals of* distinct genera and species were apparently found dwelling together—the difference being almost as great and varied as in the flying birds in New Zealand at the present time. In all the large finds many genera and species were represented in each—looo birds at Glenmark, 400 at Hamilton, a similar number at Enfield and Kapua. It will be remembered that there are six genera and 23 species of moa. This is in great contrast to all the other members of the flightless group. There are but three species of ostrich, the same may be saidLof the rhea, while Australia, New Guinearand other islands have only 11 species of emu and cassowary. How our genera and species originated there is little evidence to show, but if they descended from flying birds, which they must have done, then it is natural •that the smaller birds would precede the greater, and we know i t was the smaller species that were most common in both islands. The largest birds are all found in the South Island. The moas were at their zenith in later Pliocene times. The fenera was distributed much as follows: Juryapteryx had their headquarters in Otago, Meionornis in Canterbury, Mesop teryx in Otago and Canterbury, Anomalopteryx and Palateryx were most common in Nelson and Wellington, Dinornis in Hawke’s Bay, and Cela in Hawke’s Bay and Auckland.

But of all the disputed questions, the one that has been most discussed has been, “When did the moa become extinct?” I will endeavour to give a summary of the substanr of the discussion _ which has been conducted in a most amicable spirit by some of the ablest minds in New Zealand. Such men as Hon. W. Mantell, W. Colenso, Von Haast, Sir James Hector Sir George Grey, Sir Walter Buller, Augustus Hamilton, Professor Parker, Captain Hutton, W. G. Mair. and others have taken part in this discussion, and spent years in investigating the question. The camp has been divided into three—(l) Those who believe that the moa became extinct before the present race of Maoris arrived here. (2) Those who think that it became extinct soon after they arrived. (3) Those who consider the moa did not become extinct till within comparatively recent times, say 100 years. It has for many years been agreed that the moa was hunted, and probably exterminated, by human beings: that point is certainly settled. Dr Haast, in his paper on “Moa and Moa Hunters,” held to the opinion for a long time that the moa had been exterminated by a race of men settled here before the Maoris. His chief reason for this was that the bones of the domestic dog or any greenstone im ; elements had riot been found on any Maori middens. But a few months after this statement Mr Murison, the owner of a sheep station in Central Otago, nounoed that he had found polished stone ' '•dements after the manner of those used by the Maoris in the middens. In 1874 Dr Haast hii elf obtained similar implements with moa hones in a cave at Sumner, on which he relinquished his ground, as to the Maori" not being contemporaries of the moa. The strongest opponents, however, to moa and Maori being contemporaries have been what are known as the “Traditionalists." These have been championed by Dr Colenso and Mr E. Tregear, and Captain Mair, all accomplished Polynesian scholars. They take up the ground that the Maoris are almost entirely without traditions of the moa. The North Island Maoris were well acquainted with the word “moa" is 1838, but none of them had ever seen one. Colenso says, and this, remember, was in 1842: “From Native tradition we gain nothing to aid us in our inquiries after the probable age of the moa, for, although the New Zealand abound* in

traditionary lore, both natural and supernatural, he appears to be totally ignorant of anything concerning che moa. If suoh an animal existed within the times of the present race of New Zealanders, surelv, to a people possssing no quadruped and but very scantily supplied with both animal ana vegetable food, the chase and capture of such a'■ creature would not only be _ a grand achievement, but one also, from its importance, not likely to be ever forgotten; seeing, too, that many things of comparatively minor importance, are handed down by them from father to son in continued succession from the very night of Maori history. Even fishes, birds, and plants (anciently sought for avidity as articles of food, and now, if not altogether, very nearly extinct) although never having been seen by, either the passing or the rising generation of aborigines, are, notwithstanding, both in habit. arid uses, well known to them for descriptive accounts repeatedly rehearsed in their hearing by the old men of the villages. The period of time then in which I venture to con ceive it most probable the moa existed, was certainly either antecedent to or contemporaneous with, the peopling of these islands by the present race of New Zealanders.” •In a further paper, written nearly 40 years afterwards, entitled “What I have learnt since” (the subject is realW on myths and legends and is of great scientific value), he says: “With reference to the very great use of feathers as ornaments for the hair, which were vreatly prized by the chiefs of the olden days, theie is also no mention, no allusion however dis tant, to the feathers rff moa in any of their legends; although there are plenty to the feathers of other birds, sea and land —both as head decorations and as forming cloaks, for which .latter purpose those of the kiwi were commonly used.”

He asks, “How are these omissions to be accounted for if the moa were known?” In support of Colenso I must quote a few remarks by the late Captain W. G. Mair. who, for many years, was chie* of the Native Land Court in the North Island. Speaking of the Maoris’ want of knowledge of the moa he says: “We are told too, how large lizards now extinct on the mainland were kept by Maoris as pets or favourites. Even their names are handed down, and those also of birds and dogs. Then they point out to us the individual trees where their ancestors set their snares for the various kinds of flying birds, the paths on the mountain ridges where they hunted the kakapo or the kiwi, the pitfalls made for the fruit-eating rat, and the sites in the streams of the weirs for eels, lampreys, and smaller fish, and in all these thousands of pages of Maori lore, which I have written from the mouths of witnesses in Waikato, at Rotorua, in the Bay of Plenty, Hawke’s Bay, Manawatu, Wanganui, and Taupo, there is not one word about the moa. I repeat that the argument to which I have alluded that the bird was so common that the Maoris did not take sufficient interest in it to describe how it was caught, or to fight over the possession of it or to tame it as a mokai (pet), or to make a proverb, song, or karakia (incantation) about it, is valueless, for we know that they did all these things about rats, tuis, and Other small fry which existed in far greater numbers than the splendid moa.” The Rev. Stack and Rev. Wohlers, the earliest of South Island missionaries, say the same as Colenso with regard to the Southland Maoris. But there are a number there are plenty traditions of the moa. there are plenty of traditions of the moa. But all the known, ones, I think, have been handled by Colenso and answered completely. In conclusion, I will detail a little of the very large amount of what may be termed observational evidence, especially in relation to the South Island, where the moa is supposed generally to have existed longer than in the North. When the first settlers arrived in Otago, in many f daces bones were lying in exceedingly arge quantities on the surface. These had all disappeared in 15 years—largely weathered away. Then, again, as already stated, quantities of bones have been found with the skin, ligaments, flesh, and feathers still adhering to them. There was the celebrated skeleton from Tiger Hill, Manuherikia, which had the flesh and feathers still adhering to it, pieces of flesh on leg-bones from Knobby Ranges, Central Otago, .'£s6 on Dr Thomson’s specimens from the Clyde district. W. A. Low, writing from Central Otago to Dr Hector, says:—“l have obtained a well-preserved piece of bird’s flesh (of the moa), with portions of down and numerous feather barrels observable on the outer surface. The flesh is not the least fossilised, simply well dried, and can be easily separated into fibres.” James Buchanan, who accompanied the first survey party to Central Otago in 1856, said that the “upland districts, east of the Lammerlaws, were almost covered with bones and appearing almost absolutely fresh.” One would think, from these instances, that the moas had only been dead a few years when the first settlers arrived. But there is undoubtedly something preservative to bones and flesh in Central Otago, else why should flesh adhere to bones like this, even for half a dozen years? It is known, too, in other places, that flesh under certain conditions has remained in the ground hundreds of years, and in no worse condition than the Central Otago specimen. So far as the preserving qualities of the soil in Central Otago are concerned, which is a very arid region compared with the rest of New Zealand, Mr Vincent Pyke, who lived and travelled there for many yqars, and was the father of the Otago Central Railway, gives one or two very pertinent instances. He says: “ On one occasion I was called upon to hold an inquest on the body of a child which was identified as having been the subject of a previous inquest before me some weeks previously. It had been exhumed from the grave, and appeared slightly mummified, but otherwise was as sound as the day it was buried. On another occasion a boy drowned in the Clutha River on January 1 was picked up in the following March on a sandy beach 12ft above the then level of the river, slightly covered with drift sand, but quite fresh and nndecomposed, although it nad for so long a period been lying exposed to the fierce sun of a hot Dunstan summer." I regret that space will not allow me to complete the argument more fully on this matter, but I must close by saying that my opinion is, after reading all the evidence written on the subject, that although there appear* to by a good deal

of force in the “traditional” argument, yet in the South Island the moas must have existed within the last 300 years. The ancestors of the Ngaitahu have lived in the South Island for perhaps 250 years, and they never heard of a living moa. In the North Island it must be fully 500 years ago since they were destroyed, which would be near the time of arrival of the first Maoris in New Zealand.