18.4 Basic Data
309
2. Te Arawa: 17, 18, 15, 16, 16, 18, 19, 16, 18, 17, 20, 14, 13, 13, 15, 16. The data
was recorded over the period 1843–1856.
3. Tainui: 20, 23, 17, 18, 15 (recorded 1842–1860); 20 (1888), 18 (1883). There is
also a figure of 34, which, following Simmons, we treat as spurious.
4. Aotea: 16 (1853); 19, 23, 19, 21, 18, 22 (recorded from 1894 to the early 20th
century).
5. Tokomaru: 20 (1894), 16 (1892).
6. Kurahaupo: 19, 15. Data recorded in 1892.
The data provided by Simmons for Takitimu is less easily summarized. There are
a number of lines descending from Kahungunu and also some from Paoa, the captain
of Horouta. We need to consider how Kahungunu and Paoa relate to Takitimu.
Simmons cites Mitchell [11] in placing Tamatea-arikinui, the Captain of
Takitimu, three generations before Kahungunu, so the variation in lengths of lines
from Kahungunu is not directly comparable with that of lines from individuals on
Takitimu. This is compounded by some of the Kahungunu lines given by Simmons
having portions in common and so not being independent. These issues preclude the
Kuhungunu lines being given a simple statistical comparison with those relating to
the other canoes.
Simmons (p. 117) also cites Hami Ropiha [12] as stating that Takitimu was
renamed Horouta on account of its speed. However, this renaming is contested
vigorously by Mitchell [13]:
A keen, but unlearned student is apt to be confused nowadays by the modern story that
the TAKITIMU and the HOROUTA canoes were the one and the same. It is alleged that
TAKITIMU was the original name, but that on a trial trip the canoe travelled so fast that
the people exclaimed: “Horouta” meaning “the land swiftly passing”, thus giving the canoe
her second name. This story is a pure invention. The absurdity of it is clearly shown by the
suggestion that a sacred canoe could be renamed merely by a simple observation after it
had already been named and launched. The naming of such an important thing as a canoe or
house was subject to careful selection and a sacred function as follows: After the work had
been completed the tapu of the tools employed in the works had to be taken off by a special
ceremony. Then followed the naming and dedicating of the vessel to Tane, the god of the
forest. After this followed the chanting of invocations for the protection and preservation
of the canoe. Then followed the launching. On reaching the sea, and prior to the final trip,
incantations were again chanted by the priest to render the canoe seaworthy. After that, the
changing of name was unknown.
Mitchell then presents genealogies showing that Horouta preceded Takitimu by
four generations. The confusion noted is perhaps added to by the suggestion that
after remodelling by Ruawharo and his people, Horouta was later renamed Takitimu
(p. 43). In view of the above, we believe it inappropriate to associate Paoa lines with
Takitimu.
We therefore address only the Simmons’ data relating to Mataatua, Te Arawa,
Tainui, Aotea, Tokomaru and Kurahaupo. The genealogies may be broadly considered as falling into two groups, those coming down to about 1850 and those
coming down to around 1900. We subtract two generations from the lengths of the
309
2. Te Arawa: 17, 18, 15, 16, 16, 18, 19, 16, 18, 17, 20, 14, 13, 13, 15, 16. The data
was recorded over the period 1843–1856.
3. Tainui: 20, 23, 17, 18, 15 (recorded 1842–1860); 20 (1888), 18 (1883). There is
also a figure of 34, which, following Simmons, we treat as spurious.
4. Aotea: 16 (1853); 19, 23, 19, 21, 18, 22 (recorded from 1894 to the early 20th
century).
5. Tokomaru: 20 (1894), 16 (1892).
6. Kurahaupo: 19, 15. Data recorded in 1892.
The data provided by Simmons for Takitimu is less easily summarized. There are
a number of lines descending from Kahungunu and also some from Paoa, the captain
of Horouta. We need to consider how Kahungunu and Paoa relate to Takitimu.
Simmons cites Mitchell [11] in placing Tamatea-arikinui, the Captain of
Takitimu, three generations before Kahungunu, so the variation in lengths of lines
from Kahungunu is not directly comparable with that of lines from individuals on
Takitimu. This is compounded by some of the Kahungunu lines given by Simmons
having portions in common and so not being independent. These issues preclude the
Kuhungunu lines being given a simple statistical comparison with those relating to
the other canoes.
Simmons (p. 117) also cites Hami Ropiha [12] as stating that Takitimu was
renamed Horouta on account of its speed. However, this renaming is contested
vigorously by Mitchell [13]:
A keen, but unlearned student is apt to be confused nowadays by the modern story that
the TAKITIMU and the HOROUTA canoes were the one and the same. It is alleged that
TAKITIMU was the original name, but that on a trial trip the canoe travelled so fast that
the people exclaimed: “Horouta” meaning “the land swiftly passing”, thus giving the canoe
her second name. This story is a pure invention. The absurdity of it is clearly shown by the
suggestion that a sacred canoe could be renamed merely by a simple observation after it
had already been named and launched. The naming of such an important thing as a canoe or
house was subject to careful selection and a sacred function as follows: After the work had
been completed the tapu of the tools employed in the works had to be taken off by a special
ceremony. Then followed the naming and dedicating of the vessel to Tane, the god of the
forest. After this followed the chanting of invocations for the protection and preservation
of the canoe. Then followed the launching. On reaching the sea, and prior to the final trip,
incantations were again chanted by the priest to render the canoe seaworthy. After that, the
changing of name was unknown.
Mitchell then presents genealogies showing that Horouta preceded Takitimu by
four generations. The confusion noted is perhaps added to by the suggestion that
after remodelling by Ruawharo and his people, Horouta was later renamed Takitimu
(p. 43). In view of the above, we believe it inappropriate to associate Paoa lines with
Takitimu.
We therefore address only the Simmons’ data relating to Mataatua, Te Arawa,
Tainui, Aotea, Tokomaru and Kurahaupo. The genealogies may be broadly considered as falling into two groups, those coming down to about 1850 and those
coming down to around 1900. We subtract two generations from the lengths of the