18.2 The Historicity of the Heke
307
Maori tribal histories are not located in some timeless past but are invariably diachronic
narratives linked precisely to detailed genealogical lattices defining a chronology that is
internally consistent and in conformity with biological constraints. Marriages are between
people of overlapping lifespans and offspring are born within the possible fertility spans.
All of this consistency, besides covering several centuries, is shared by different tribes and
subtribes (in this case of the Tainui canoe) that have often fought against each other and,
one would think, have had good functional reasons for ending up with differing traditional
stories if invention were an option.
But this is not the case. From subtribe to subtribe the emphases differ, but the events and
personages involved remain the same for several centuries of genealogical time. If this was
all invented, when did it happen? It could not have been ten generations ago because events
pertaining to seven generations ago are included. If the events are seen as continuous up to
say, five generations ago, a further question arises. Why would tribal historians sit round
inventing an update of recent history when its events, ever on their lips and burned into their
minds by the cultural imperatives of kinship and revenge, were known to all?
My own anthropological training disposed me to traditional skepticism. . .Recent years of
intense involvement, however, have convinced me, as they have convinced others who have
had similar experience, that the great interconnecting body of Maori tradition and genealogy
makes an overwhelming, if largely circumstantial case for treating it as historical.
The argument of Pei Te Hurinui Jones and Bruce Biggs is a powerful counter
to Simmons’ deconstructionist approach. The authenticity of Maori genealogies is
tied not just to lines of transmission and to modes of transmission as Simmons
argues, but to their primary role in establishing claims to land, status, prestige and
inter-tribal bonds. It is not the fact of descent but the “how” of descent that gives
traditional genealogies their importance. The “how” of descent records the transmission of mana down through the ages. Chiefly status, warrior status, tohunga
status, primogeniture and the merging of mana through intermarriage with other
mana-laden lines of descent are obvious factors determining the selectivity of traditional genealogies. The more remarkable an individual’s genealogy in terms of the
accretion and transmission of mana from powerful ancestors and from significant
marriage alliances, the more certainly it will be remembered and transmitted, for the
individual’s political power and status in the tribe depend on it. Uniqueness, selectivity and authenticity go hand in hand. With powerfully motivated remembrance
empowering genealogies, it is hardly surprising that they integrate and underpin
other forms of orally transmitted history and tradition. Their authenticity validates their use as a valuable historical resource and empowers the likelihood of
establishing a tightly bounded chronology from them.
In this chapter we seek both to demonstrate the fundamental integrity of oral
traditions as historical sources and to counter Simmons’ deconstructionist claims:
first by using statistical methods to establish that there is no significant evidence for
Simmons’ claim that the canoes of the Heke were not contemporaneous and then
by using traditional evidence to establish the historicity of the Heke itself as the last
migration fleet to reach New Zealand from Eastern Polynesia before the Little Ice
Age. Finally, using science to illuminate prehistory, in conjunction with El Niño
proxy data, we use a solar eclipse recorded in Rarotongan and Maori tradition to
actually date the Heke.
307
Maori tribal histories are not located in some timeless past but are invariably diachronic
narratives linked precisely to detailed genealogical lattices defining a chronology that is
internally consistent and in conformity with biological constraints. Marriages are between
people of overlapping lifespans and offspring are born within the possible fertility spans.
All of this consistency, besides covering several centuries, is shared by different tribes and
subtribes (in this case of the Tainui canoe) that have often fought against each other and,
one would think, have had good functional reasons for ending up with differing traditional
stories if invention were an option.
But this is not the case. From subtribe to subtribe the emphases differ, but the events and
personages involved remain the same for several centuries of genealogical time. If this was
all invented, when did it happen? It could not have been ten generations ago because events
pertaining to seven generations ago are included. If the events are seen as continuous up to
say, five generations ago, a further question arises. Why would tribal historians sit round
inventing an update of recent history when its events, ever on their lips and burned into their
minds by the cultural imperatives of kinship and revenge, were known to all?
My own anthropological training disposed me to traditional skepticism. . .Recent years of
intense involvement, however, have convinced me, as they have convinced others who have
had similar experience, that the great interconnecting body of Maori tradition and genealogy
makes an overwhelming, if largely circumstantial case for treating it as historical.
The argument of Pei Te Hurinui Jones and Bruce Biggs is a powerful counter
to Simmons’ deconstructionist approach. The authenticity of Maori genealogies is
tied not just to lines of transmission and to modes of transmission as Simmons
argues, but to their primary role in establishing claims to land, status, prestige and
inter-tribal bonds. It is not the fact of descent but the “how” of descent that gives
traditional genealogies their importance. The “how” of descent records the transmission of mana down through the ages. Chiefly status, warrior status, tohunga
status, primogeniture and the merging of mana through intermarriage with other
mana-laden lines of descent are obvious factors determining the selectivity of traditional genealogies. The more remarkable an individual’s genealogy in terms of the
accretion and transmission of mana from powerful ancestors and from significant
marriage alliances, the more certainly it will be remembered and transmitted, for the
individual’s political power and status in the tribe depend on it. Uniqueness, selectivity and authenticity go hand in hand. With powerfully motivated remembrance
empowering genealogies, it is hardly surprising that they integrate and underpin
other forms of orally transmitted history and tradition. Their authenticity validates their use as a valuable historical resource and empowers the likelihood of
establishing a tightly bounded chronology from them.
In this chapter we seek both to demonstrate the fundamental integrity of oral
traditions as historical sources and to counter Simmons’ deconstructionist claims:
first by using statistical methods to establish that there is no significant evidence for
Simmons’ claim that the canoes of the Heke were not contemporaneous and then
by using traditional evidence to establish the historicity of the Heke itself as the last
migration fleet to reach New Zealand from Eastern Polynesia before the Little Ice
Age. Finally, using science to illuminate prehistory, in conjunction with El Niño
proxy data, we use a solar eclipse recorded in Rarotongan and Maori tradition to
actually date the Heke.