312
18 Dating the Last Migration to New Zealand
internal to New Zealand. First we need to consider Simmons’ claim that the “pakeha
myth” of the Heke was built on inauthentic traditions.
Polynesian oral traditions in New Zealand and the Pacific were transcribed
mainly by Europeans at a time when many of the indigenous populations had virtually been wiped out by climate-driven depopulation before contact and then through
infectious diseases following contact with Europeans. Such was the assault on oral
transmission through these catastrophes that it prompted Smith and other Europeans
to do everything in their power to save the endangered oral traditions and the rich
culture dependent on them from extinction [16]. Although Smith has been accused
of selecting “only what he thought were authentic traditions” [17], in fact he took
great pains to eliminate the possibility of outside influences distorting traditions.
There was a wealth of very detailed stories of the Heke in Tahiti and Rarotonga
together with local genealogies that fitted closely with New Zealand genealogies
from the epoch of the Heke and further back [18]. (We note that Simmons has given
little consideration to Rarotongan and Tahitian traditions.) Smith commented that
at first he believed that these Eastern Polynesian traditions might have been learnt
from some New Zealand Maori visitor to the region subsequent to European contact. However, he then spoke with Tamarua-Orometua, an old man of Nga-tangiia
in Rarotonga who was born prior to European settlement there. Tamarua narrated to
Smith detailed Heke traditions which mesh with those of New Zealand Maori though
500 years had passed since the canoes of the Heke left Eastern Polynesia. Tamarua
told Smith that these traditions had been taught to him by his father and grandfather. They in turn had learnt these traditions from their forebears. The retention in
Rarotonga and Tahiti of traditional histories detailing the circumstances provoking
or motivating the Heke is not surprising because they focus on a major ancestor,
Uenuku. These stories were, of course, taken to New Zealand by the Heke immigrants who were caught up in the narrated events. But the independent persistence
of these traditions in Rarotonga over the 500 years from the Heke to 1900 makes
no sense if the Heke was not an external migration from Tahiti via Rarotonga to
New Zealand but merely, as Simmons argues, a succession of non-contemporaneous
internal migrations within New Zealand.
That at least the Te Arawa, Tainui and Aotea canoes were contemporaneous
is obvious from the fact that all three migrating peoples came into conflict with
the powerful Tahitian chief Uenuku. With conflict escalating and Uenuku determined not just on revenge but on extermination, the peoples of Te Arawa, Tainui
and Aotea saw migration as their only hope for survival. With the same powerful chief threatening the survival of all three groups, it can hardly be claimed that
the migrations were not contemporaneous. It is equally unreasonable to claim that
the migrations were internal to New Zealand when tradition locates the events provoking migration to Ra’iatea. The trees felled to make the canoes, for example,
are sourced to Maungaroa on Taha’a island (which is enclosed within the same
coral reef as Ra’iatea). And the migrants, having reached New Zealand, proceeded
to name places there after places in their homeland. Leslie Kelly [6], for example, mentions the migrants using the old name for Ra’iatea (Havai’i) for a place at
Kawhia, giving the name Motutapu (the peninsula at the north end of Ra’iatea) to
18 Dating the Last Migration to New Zealand
internal to New Zealand. First we need to consider Simmons’ claim that the “pakeha
myth” of the Heke was built on inauthentic traditions.
Polynesian oral traditions in New Zealand and the Pacific were transcribed
mainly by Europeans at a time when many of the indigenous populations had virtually been wiped out by climate-driven depopulation before contact and then through
infectious diseases following contact with Europeans. Such was the assault on oral
transmission through these catastrophes that it prompted Smith and other Europeans
to do everything in their power to save the endangered oral traditions and the rich
culture dependent on them from extinction [16]. Although Smith has been accused
of selecting “only what he thought were authentic traditions” [17], in fact he took
great pains to eliminate the possibility of outside influences distorting traditions.
There was a wealth of very detailed stories of the Heke in Tahiti and Rarotonga
together with local genealogies that fitted closely with New Zealand genealogies
from the epoch of the Heke and further back [18]. (We note that Simmons has given
little consideration to Rarotongan and Tahitian traditions.) Smith commented that
at first he believed that these Eastern Polynesian traditions might have been learnt
from some New Zealand Maori visitor to the region subsequent to European contact. However, he then spoke with Tamarua-Orometua, an old man of Nga-tangiia
in Rarotonga who was born prior to European settlement there. Tamarua narrated to
Smith detailed Heke traditions which mesh with those of New Zealand Maori though
500 years had passed since the canoes of the Heke left Eastern Polynesia. Tamarua
told Smith that these traditions had been taught to him by his father and grandfather. They in turn had learnt these traditions from their forebears. The retention in
Rarotonga and Tahiti of traditional histories detailing the circumstances provoking
or motivating the Heke is not surprising because they focus on a major ancestor,
Uenuku. These stories were, of course, taken to New Zealand by the Heke immigrants who were caught up in the narrated events. But the independent persistence
of these traditions in Rarotonga over the 500 years from the Heke to 1900 makes
no sense if the Heke was not an external migration from Tahiti via Rarotonga to
New Zealand but merely, as Simmons argues, a succession of non-contemporaneous
internal migrations within New Zealand.
That at least the Te Arawa, Tainui and Aotea canoes were contemporaneous
is obvious from the fact that all three migrating peoples came into conflict with
the powerful Tahitian chief Uenuku. With conflict escalating and Uenuku determined not just on revenge but on extermination, the peoples of Te Arawa, Tainui
and Aotea saw migration as their only hope for survival. With the same powerful chief threatening the survival of all three groups, it can hardly be claimed that
the migrations were not contemporaneous. It is equally unreasonable to claim that
the migrations were internal to New Zealand when tradition locates the events provoking migration to Ra’iatea. The trees felled to make the canoes, for example,
are sourced to Maungaroa on Taha’a island (which is enclosed within the same
coral reef as Ra’iatea). And the migrants, having reached New Zealand, proceeded
to name places there after places in their homeland. Leslie Kelly [6], for example, mentions the migrants using the old name for Ra’iatea (Havai’i) for a place at
Kawhia, giving the name Motutapu (the peninsula at the north end of Ra’iatea) to