306
18 Dating the Last Migration to New Zealand
Smith identified three key events in New Zealand prehistory and proposed dates
for them: discovery by the voyager Kupe from the Society Islands about AD 925,
a colonization by Toi and Whatonga from Rarotonga about 1150 and a major
colonization by the Heke (fleet) of seven canoes – Tainui, Te Arawa, Mataatua,
Kurahaupo, Tokomaru, Aotea and Takitimu – about 1350. The Heke is associated
with many genealogies. Smith determined it as taking place 21–22 generations
before 1900. This figure was an average taken from over 50 genealogical tables
which agreed to within four or five generations.
This framework was challenged in 1976 with the publication of David Simmons’
The Great New Zealand Myth [1]. Simmons contested Smith’s focus on the migrations of Kupe and Toi, claiming confusions surrounding the identities of both
men. There are arguments against Simmons’ conclusions where both Kupe and Toi
are concerned and the chronology we develop independently of both Smith and
Simmons casts some light on the confusions that Simmons highlights. But the main
thrust of his book, and our focus in this chapter, is Simmons’ claim that the Heke
traditions relate to voyages made entirely within New Zealand waters and that these
voyages may not even have been contemporaneous.
Simmons’ attack on the historicity of the Heke was significant because the
Heke had become central not just to European ways of reading Maori prehistory but also to many Maori perceptions of their own tribal histories. The
controversy over the historicity of the Heke generated by Simmons’ book had
a general effect of undermining European and to some extent Maori acceptance
of the authenticity and historical value of Maori oral tradition. Simmons’ deconstructionist approach led to his debunking the “myth” of the Heke as a pakeha
(European) construct. He saw attempts by the 19th century prehistorian Smith
to provide a structure and chronology for Maori prehistory, through correlation of data from genealogies, as inappropriate for a tradition that he claimed
was “timeless”, that is, totally unconcerned with chronology as perceived by
Europeans.
As some measure of the impact of Simmons’ book, the modern deconstructionist
K. Howe [3], following Simmons, seeks to “de-Smith” Maori prehistory. He claims
that genealogies are part of an untidy tangle of oral sources that were selected,
tidied up and made fallaciously coherent by 19th century collectors like Smith.
Consciously or unconsciously these early prehistorians, it is claimed, imposed their
own European constructs on Maori prehistory, the “myth” of the Heke being the
prime example.
A deconstructionist approach to history, as to literature, can offer new insights.
But it can also displace or destroy old insights and inhibit new ones. Pei Te Hurinui
Jones and Bruce Biggs [4] argue cogently against Simmons’ argument that Maori
oral tradition is timeless and that it is therefore inappropriate to relate it to a
European timeframe. They uphold Smith’s belief in the fundamental integrity of
oral traditions as an historical source and negate the deconstructionists’ view of oral
sources as inherently unreliable – tidied up or recreated to suit the “heroic” fantasies of 19th century European historians or invented for their own purposes by
tribal historians:
18 Dating the Last Migration to New Zealand
Smith identified three key events in New Zealand prehistory and proposed dates
for them: discovery by the voyager Kupe from the Society Islands about AD 925,
a colonization by Toi and Whatonga from Rarotonga about 1150 and a major
colonization by the Heke (fleet) of seven canoes – Tainui, Te Arawa, Mataatua,
Kurahaupo, Tokomaru, Aotea and Takitimu – about 1350. The Heke is associated
with many genealogies. Smith determined it as taking place 21–22 generations
before 1900. This figure was an average taken from over 50 genealogical tables
which agreed to within four or five generations.
This framework was challenged in 1976 with the publication of David Simmons’
The Great New Zealand Myth [1]. Simmons contested Smith’s focus on the migrations of Kupe and Toi, claiming confusions surrounding the identities of both
men. There are arguments against Simmons’ conclusions where both Kupe and Toi
are concerned and the chronology we develop independently of both Smith and
Simmons casts some light on the confusions that Simmons highlights. But the main
thrust of his book, and our focus in this chapter, is Simmons’ claim that the Heke
traditions relate to voyages made entirely within New Zealand waters and that these
voyages may not even have been contemporaneous.
Simmons’ attack on the historicity of the Heke was significant because the
Heke had become central not just to European ways of reading Maori prehistory but also to many Maori perceptions of their own tribal histories. The
controversy over the historicity of the Heke generated by Simmons’ book had
a general effect of undermining European and to some extent Maori acceptance
of the authenticity and historical value of Maori oral tradition. Simmons’ deconstructionist approach led to his debunking the “myth” of the Heke as a pakeha
(European) construct. He saw attempts by the 19th century prehistorian Smith
to provide a structure and chronology for Maori prehistory, through correlation of data from genealogies, as inappropriate for a tradition that he claimed
was “timeless”, that is, totally unconcerned with chronology as perceived by
Europeans.
As some measure of the impact of Simmons’ book, the modern deconstructionist
K. Howe [3], following Simmons, seeks to “de-Smith” Maori prehistory. He claims
that genealogies are part of an untidy tangle of oral sources that were selected,
tidied up and made fallaciously coherent by 19th century collectors like Smith.
Consciously or unconsciously these early prehistorians, it is claimed, imposed their
own European constructs on Maori prehistory, the “myth” of the Heke being the
prime example.
A deconstructionist approach to history, as to literature, can offer new insights.
But it can also displace or destroy old insights and inhibit new ones. Pei Te Hurinui
Jones and Bruce Biggs [4] argue cogently against Simmons’ argument that Maori
oral tradition is timeless and that it is therefore inappropriate to relate it to a
European timeframe. They uphold Smith’s belief in the fundamental integrity of
oral traditions as an historical source and negate the deconstructionists’ view of oral
sources as inherently unreliable – tidied up or recreated to suit the “heroic” fantasies of 19th century European historians or invented for their own purposes by
tribal historians: