Volume 75 1966 > Volume 75, No. 2 > The early tradition of the Whakatane District, by J. B. W. Roberton, p 189 - 209
THE EARLY TRADITION OF THE WHAKATANE DISTRICT
Historical tradition can be placed in either of two categories, factual or conceptual. Factual tradition consists of concrete statements such as narrative and genealogical successions, which can be analysed and compared, so that prima facie validity can be established or impossibility exposed. Conceptual tradition consists of more abstract ideas and beliefs. For example, Te Whatahoro gave an account of the adventures of Toi which finally led to his settlement in New Zealand. This is factual. On the other hand, Best records that most of his informants thought that Toi was born in New Zealand, but others thought that he came to New Zealand from Hawaiki. This is conceptual. Neither factual nor conceptual tradition is necessarily correct or incorrect. Factual tradition can be evaluated by analysis and comparison; conceptual tradition can be evaluated only by its relationship to factual tradition.
Theories advanced in the early days of the study of tradition took no cognizance of this difference. Concepts were accepted at face value, and analysis of factual statements was very cursory. Both the unscientific theories and the unscientific methods have persisted, and to a large extent the theories have become sacrosanct as part of the tradition, and have themselves given rise to concepts. It should make an interesting exercise to explore the deviations between factual and conceptual tradition, and to distinguish between tendencies arising in Maori and Pakeha minds. There is little doubt that both Maori and Pakeha have created concepts on false premises.
Prehistory is concerned with elucidating facts, and concepts have no place except in directing search for facts. The object of this article is to present factual evidence found in the Whakatane tradition, which, after due evaluation, could help to give a picture of the early history of the district. Analysis of the tradition shows that there are two phases, and that the division between them is quite sharp. There is a later stage covered by abundant narrative and genealogies which together give a story which is consistent and continuous, and shows clear historical sequence, and which begins approximately in the 16th century. Earlier than this narrative is very limited and is isolated in context, and genealogies are - 190 fewer and less consistent, making analysis very difficult; and in the earliest part narrative is virtually absent, and the few genealogies are supported only by vague concept.
Available space does not permit adequate discussion of the relevant chronology in this article. Suffice it to say that if a chronology is to serve any useful purpose, it must be consistent with all known prima facie traditional evidence. That is to say that a date of birth given to any individual must be consistent with the dates of birth of all other known individuals, and also with all genuine narrative tradition. It follows, therefore, that no particular chronological situation can be isolated from the general overall chronological pattern. A method of achieving this has been described, 1 and charts produced covering the chronology of the Tainui tradition. Using arbitrary standards the date of arrival of Tainui Canoe is given as 1290. Similar charts have since been produced 2 for the Whakatane tradition, the East Coast, and the Ngati-Kahungunu traditions. Throughout all these charts all dates are compatible so far as the facts are known. The purpose was comparative chronology, and no claim is made to any accuracy of dates as absolute dates. Chart I has been compiled from the above-mentioned charts to illustrate the contemporary position of Toroa. Of the two persons named at the foot of the chart Tutakangahau was born about 1830, and the name Miriama denotes missionary contact. Chart II is based on Chart I, but since the material available is limited, the earlier dates must be regarded as somewhat tentative. They can, however, be regarded as late limits. Chart III shows the positions of Tamapahore and Kaiahi in the Tainui tradition. All three charts demonstrate the interdependence of all traditions, which fact must be taken into account in assessing both chronology and historical sequence. History is indivisible, and no one part can be isolated from the impact of events occurring in other parts. It happens that tribal tradition has been recorded as though such isolation were possible, and this is the cause of much confusion in concept.
DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION IN THE WHAKATANE DISTRICT
The description of the population of the Whakatane district given by Best 3 refers to the time, a few generations after the time of Toroa, when tradition was beginning to assume historical sequence. Through reliance on concept and failure to make reasonable checks on factual evidence, it has always been assumed that this description applied to the time of the “fleet”. If the time of the “fleet” is the time when Tainui and Te Arawa Canoes arrived—and the descendants from the crews of these two canoes are the only ones who can show continuity and sequence in their history from the time of their arrival in New Zealand—it is very easily shown that the Whakatane Toroa lived a number of generations after the time of the “fleet”, and that the description applies to approximately the beginning of the 16th century. As this description is entirely consistent with the later phase of the Whakatane tradition which has both con-- i
Family Tree. TOROA, Rangitihi, Kahungunu, Rua-ihonga, Wairaka, Rangi-whakaeke-au, Tuhourangi, Rongomai-papa, Kahukuranui, Tahinga-o-te-ra, Tamatea-ki-te-huatahi, 1500, Awanui-a-rangi, Tuhoe-potiki, Uenuku-rauiri, Rakai-hikuroa, Tute-i-honga, 1500, Uenuku-kopako, Rangi-te-aorere, Rongo-tangiawa, Mura-kareke, Whakaue, Rakai-paka, Hine-manuhiri, Apatakikawa, Tupurupuru, Taraia, Ira-peke, Tutanekai, Mura-kehu, Rangi-hurupapa, Te Rangi-tu-ehu, Kaukohea, Tama-te-rangi, Awa-tope, Whatu-mai-rangi, Te Rangitaumaha, 1600, Ariari-te-rangi, Tutekanao, 1600, Tawhaki, Uru-poko, Hineiao, Rakai-hakeke, Te Anuanu, Pupuru, Roro-o-te-rangi, Tureia, Te Huhuti, Te Okuratawhiti, Te Tiwha, Tutonga, Te Umu-tiri-rau, Rangi-kawatea, Hikawera, Te Huki, Tapuae, Maramarama, Huruhuru, Te Rangitohumare, Tama-kere, Koro-kai-whenua, Hine-a-tu, 1700, Hine-waho, Purua-aute, Matakainga, 1700, Te Tihi-o-te-rangi, Hine-wai, Te Pana-i-waho, Te Matahi, Te Pana-i-waho, Te Kahu-o-te-rangi, Kanohirorangi, Te Puku, Hou-ka-mau, Hau-ki-waho, Te Uhi-a-tai, Parepupuhi, Tapui-hina, 1800, Te Akau, 1800, Hine-wai, Tutaka-ngahau, Miriama, Tutaka-ngahau, TUHOE, TE ARAWA, NGATI-KAHUNGUNU
- ii Page is blank- iii
Family Tree. Turanga-pikitoi, Nukutere, Te Koata, Kirikini, RANGIMATORU, 1400 Tairongo, 1400, NUKUTERE, HOROUTA, Maru-uhu-nui, Hape, MARU-IWI (TUHOE p. 64), Pakau-moana, Kahungunu, Pawa, Tamarau, Whironui, Pare-tara-roa, Kahukuranui, Hine-akau, 1300, (Tama-mutu), Huturangi, Paikea, 1300, 1500 Tupouriao, Tute-i-honga, 1500, Haua, (Te Iki-o-te-rangi), Ruamakino, Pouheni, Kearoa, Hine-manuhiri, Aniu-ki-taha-rangi, Turanga-pikitoi, Te Pipi, Turauwha, Niwaniwa, Te Rangituehu, Te Ngore, Rakai-te-kura, Nukutere, Te Koata, Porourangi, 1600, 1600, Ue-roa, Te Uruti, Ue-roa, Tahu-ngahe-nui, 1400, Te Tahi-o-te-rangi, Tokerau, 1400, Rua-te-pupuke, TAMA-KI-HIKURANGI, Te Whaka-ahu, Ira-kewa, Wekanui, RONGOATAU, Te Onoono, TAMATEA, Iwi-te-rerewa, Ruapani, Maru, Tarawhata, Kapo-wai, TOROA, POURANGAHUA, KANIORO, HOAKI, Whaene, Kahungunu, Ruarauranga, Te Ripoi, Te Rangi-ki-tua, Wairaka, Rua-ihonga, Mahanga-i-te-rangi, Taka, Rongo-whakaata, Hine-te-ariki, Paewhiti, Tamatea-ki-te-huatabi, Tahinga-o-te-ra, Hourangi, Tamatea-kota, Rongo-kauae, 1500, Tapa, Ue-imua, Uenuku-rauiri, Awanui-a-rangi, Uira-roa, Ue-tupuke, Tane-moe-ahi, 1500, Rangi-te-aorere, Rongo-popoia, Rongo-tangiawa, Kahuki, Ira-peke, Rongo-karae, Rongomai-noho-rangi, Awa-tope, (Tamapahore), 1600, (Kaiahi), (Te Rangi-hou-hiri) 4, 1600
- iv Page is blank- v
Family Tree. TE ARAWA, TAINUI, Houmaitawhiti, Hoturoa, Hotuope, Tamatekapua, Hotumatapu, Kahumatamomoe, Motai, Arrival of Tainui Canoe, 1300, 1300, Ue, Rakamaomao, Tawakemoetahanga, Kakati, Tawhao, Uenukumairarotonga, 1400, 1400, Whatihua, Ruaputahanga, Tongatea, Manu, Uenukuterangihoka, Uenukuwhangai, Pehanui, KAIAHI, Rangitihi, Rongomai, Hotunui, Kotare, Manutongatea, Tuhourangi, TAMAPAHORE, Kokako, Tukorehe, Te Rangihouhiri, 1500, Paaka, Tamainupo, 1500, Uenukukopako, Ngaparetaihinu, Whakaue, Te Kahureremoa, Ihuwera, (3), Wairere (1), Tutanekai, Tutehe, Tuparahaki (2), Rauti, Iranui, Whatumairangi, Kumaramaoa, Te Urutira, Koroki, Tumataura, Takikawehi, Te Urutira, 1600, Ariariterangi, Haua, 1600, Rorooterangi, Kaimatai, Tamangarangi
- vi Page is Blank- 191
sistency and historical sequence, it makes a good base for exploring back into the less consistent earlier tradition.
According to Best the coast was held from Whakatane to Matata by a section of Ngati-Awa. Note that, about this time, Ngati-Awa was also an important element both in North Auckland and in Taranaki. All these sections of Ngati-Awa claim descent from Awa-nui-a-Rangi, son or grandson of Toi, but the Whakatane tradition does not give any clear idea of the line. The only line from Awa-nui-a-rangi found in Best is as follows:
(Best 1925b, Table I)
Unfortunately Uira-roa happens to be the wife of Awanui-a-rangi, great-grandson of Toroa, who was centuries later than Awanui-a-rangi, son of Toi, and in Table 8 of the same book Best shows Huepu as the child of Nukutere and Te Koata, which is much more likely to be correct. For what it is worth Gudgeon 5 gives the following:
This also is not very convincing since according to Best, Ira-kewa was father of Toroa, and Awa-morehurehu was father of Ira-kewa. Tutaka states 6 “that Ira-kewa was a son of Awa-morehurehu, alias Awa-tumu-ki-te-rangi.” Pari-nui-te-ra is the name of the place whence Mata-atua Canoe is said to have sailed with the first kumara to come to New Zealand. The only lines which Ngati-Awa of Whakatane seem to know are those from Toroa, the male line from whom belongs to Ngati-Awa. Some claim that the tribal name is taken from Awanui-a-rangi, great-grandson of Toroa. Table A expresses all that is known of the antecedents of Ngati-Awa of Whakatane.
TABLE A: NGATI-AWA- 192
Family Tree. Awa-morehurehu, Ira-kewa, Wekanui (f), Toroa, Muriwai (f), Repanga, Rua-i-honga, Wairaka (f), Te Rangi-ki-tua, Tahinga-o-te-ra, Tuhoe-potiki, Tua-mutu, Awanui-a-rangi, Uira-roa (f), Rongo-tangiawa, Ira-peke, Rongo-karae, NGATI-AWA, NGATI-RONGO, TUHOE, TE WHAKATOHEA
DESCENDANTS OF HAPE: TE HAPU-ONEONE AND NGAI-TURANGA
Extending inland from Ohiwa to Ruatoki were descendants of Hape. At Ohiwa and Waimana were Te Hapu-oneone, descended at least in part from Hape, and next to them at Ruatoki were Ngai-Turanga, derived from the union of Te Koata, a descendant of Hape, and Nukutere, son of Turanga-pikitoi, a descendant of Toi. 7 Genealogies from Hape show a clear pattern consistent with the distribution of his descendants, and merge smoothly into a number of lines belonging to the later consistent phase of tradition. They are, in fact, the nearest approach found in the early Whakatane tradition to the standard of early recording found in the Tainui and Te Arawa traditions. They indicate that Hape probably belonged to about the same time as Hoturoa of Tainui Canoe (Chart II). Wairaka, daughter of Toroa, married Te Rangi-ki-tua of Ngai-Turanga, and her grandsons, Tuhoe-potiki and his brothers, owned land at Opouriao near Ruatoki.
TABLE B: TE HAPU-ONEONE (Best 1925b, Tables 1, 5, 8, 14)
Family Tree. Hape, Rawaho, Te Apiapi, Tamarau, Te Herenga, (Tama-mutu), Hapai-akiki, Te Wetekenga, (Te Iki-o-te-rangi), Ngariki, Rongomai, Te Pipi, Ariki-kore, Rongo-ka-hiwahiwa, Te Koata (f), Nukutere, Mata-roa (f), Te Rangi-pu-kakahi, Kiri-kino, Tirama-roa, Wairore, Tairongo, Te Whaka-tangata, Tai-o-ruamano, Maru-uhu-nui, Tama-a-mutu, Ani-i-waho (f), Maru-iwi, Whetu-roa, Te Kapo-o-te-rangi, Te Hoka-o-te-rangi, Tahatu-o-te-ao, Te Umu-ki-marau, Rangaia, Tama-tuhi-rae, Tawhiwhi (f), Rongo-karae, Rangi-mahanga (f), Te Iki-o-te-rangi, NGATI-RONGO, NGAI-TE-KAPO, NGATI-TAMA-TUHI-RAE
Te Tini o Kawerau. West of Ngai-Turanga were Te Tini o Kawerau at Te Teko and Kawerau. 8 They are said to be descended from Toi, but the only genealogy given is very doubtful, and does not connect with any known lines. Te Kawerau had connections with the Waitaha-turauta of Matata. Tuwharetoa, who was a member of Te Kawerau, claimed descent from Ngatoroirangi of Te Arawa.
TABLE D: TE TINI O KAWERAU (Best 1925b, Table 18)- 193
Family Tree. Ti, Mokotea, Whaitiri-papa, Te Marangaranga, Taunga, Kawerau, Te Pane-nehu
TABLE C: NGAI-TURANGA (Best 1925b, Tables 5, 8, 16)- 194
Family Tree. Toi, Rauru, Tai-peha, Tai-wananga, Kahu-kura, Te Whare-patahi, Ruru-kino, Turanga-pikitoi, Nukutere, Te Koata (f), Te Rangi-pu-kakahi, Huepu, Te Uruti, Kiri-kino, Te Urukimai, Wairore, Te Tahi-o-te-rangi, Te Puta-anga, Tai-o-ruamano, Whaka-ahu, Tairongo, Tauke, Raukohe, Poupa, Kapo-wai, Ranga-tapu, Ngai-mu, Rongo-nui, Raka, Pikitua, Te Rangi-ki-tua, Wairaka (f), Tamatea-tu-tahi, Paewhiti (f), Tamatea-ki-te-huatahi, Pane-kaha, Ruapururu, Takiri-o-rongo, Tama-awa, Tomi-rangi (f), Tuhoe-potiki, Tane-moe-ahi, Tane-hiwa-rau (f), Awa-roa, Awa-paraoa, Maru-whakaene (f), Rongo-popoia, Rangi-paroro (f), Tama-rua-rangi, Hine-umu, Hako-purako, Kahuki, Te Rangi-tu-mai, Takiri, Mutu-rangi, Taia-roa, Ha-ketekete, Hine, Raumoa, Whai, Tutaua (from Tai-o-ruamano, Te Hoki-mate, Maru-waitio, Koura-kino, TUHOE, NGATI-RAUMOA, NGATI KOURA
Te Marangaranga were in the upper valley of the Rangitaiki River. They are said to be descended from Toi, but, as with Te Kawerau, the genealogy is very doubtful. Outside this ring were groups along the coast and in the upper river valleys, separated by the watersheds, as follows:
Te Wakanui, later known as Te Pane-Nehu, were along the coast towards Opotiki, 9 and Te Whakatane were in the upper valley of the Tauranga (Waimana) River. 10 Both these tribes claimed descent from Nukutere Canoe, through one Tamatea-nukuroa. Te Whakatane do not produce any genealogies to show their descent. Very little tradition has been recorded from the Opotiki district, and Te Wakanui lines, if they exist, are not available. The descendants of Muriwai, sister of Toroa, are found with these tribes. Tamatea-matangi, her husband, is said to have come from Taranaki, 11 but his son, Haeora, by his other wife, Koko-uri, was an important ancestor of Te Whakatane. Repanga, son of Muriwai, and his son, Tua-mutu, apparently lived at Ohiwa, but their descendants are with Te Whakatohea, who are partly derived from Te Pane-nehu.
Nga-Potiki were in the upper valley of the Whakatane River. The origin of Potiki is quite unknown, but all the genealogies given by Best stem from the union of Te Rangi-tiriao, a descendant of Potiki, and Rakei-ora, son of Tama-ki-hikurangi, a descendant of Toi. It is generally claimed that Tuhoe-potiki had a line from Nga-Potiki through his mother, Paewhiti, but this line 12 is quite absurd, and will not stand analysis.
TABLE E: NGA POTIKI (Best 1925b, Tables 1, 3, 7)
Family Tree. Toi, Rauru, Taha-uri, Taha-titi, Potiki, Ruatapu, Tu-houhi, Rakei-ora I, Tane-te-kohu-rangi, Tama-ki-te-ra, (Uaua), Tama-ki-hikurangi, Te Rangi-tiriao (f), Rakei-ora, Maru, Tarawhata, Toroa, Te Ripoi, Wairaka (f), Hine-te-ariki, Paewhiti (f), Tamatea-ki-te-huatahi, Tapa (f), Ue-imua, Tuhoe-potiki, Uenuku-rauiri (f), Rangi-te-aorere, NGA-POTIKI, NGATI-AWA, TUHOE, TE ARAWA
The Canoes of the Whakatane District
A number of canoes are reported in tradition as having arrived at or near Whakatane in early days, but in all cases the accounts are very vague: Ara-Tauwhaiti was the canoe of Tiwakawaka, said to have been the first man to come to New Zealand. Nothing else is known about him. 13- 195
Tu-whenua was the canoe of Tamatea-mai-tawhiti. It has also been suggested that this should be Tamatea-nukuroa. There is also a North Auckland canoe, Te Waka-tu-whenua. 14
Otu-rereao landed at Ohiwa. The captain was Tairongo, and descendants are known as the Tairongo clan. It is not clear whether this Tairongo is supposed to be the same man as the grandson of Nukutere and Te Koata.
Nukutere came to land at Wai-aua (Opotiki). It is claimed as the canoe of Te Wakanui and Te Whakatane, the ancestor in the canoe being Tamatea-nukuroa. Whironui, an ancestor of the East Coast, is also said to have come on Nukutere Canoe. Paikea, who married Huturangi, daughter of Whironui, could not, by his genealogy, have been born later than the beginning of the 14th century (Chart II), which suggests that Nukutere Canoe probably belonged to approximately the time of Tainui and Te Arawa Canoes.
Horouta is said to have landed at Great Mercury Island, and then was wrecked on coming to Whakatane. After repair it went down the East Coast. Pawa, said to have come on Horouta, seems from his genealogy to have belonged to the time of Hoturoa of Tainui Canoe (Chart II) .
Te Paepae-ki-rarotonga landed at Matata, and is claimed as the canoe of the Waitaha-turauta.
Rangi-matoru landed at Ohiwa. It was the canoe of Hape, the ancestor of Te Hapu-oneone and Ngai-Turanga, who appears to have lived in the time of Hoturoa of Tainui canoe (Chart II).
Ara-tawhao and Mataatua. There is a wide-spread concept that Mataatua Canoe belonged to the “fleet”. It is bracketed here with Ara-tawhao Canoe because of the close association of these two canoes in the Whakatane tradition. Ara-tawhao was built at Whakatane in the time of Tama-ki-hikurangi, and voyaged to Hawaiki for kumara. It did not come back, but members of the crew returned on Mataatua Canoe. The voyage for kumara resulted from the appearance at Whakatane from Hawaiki of Taukata and Hoaki, who came in search of their sister. Kanioro, who had married Pou-rangahua of Turanganui (Gisborne). Connections of Tama-ki-hikurangi with later consistent genealogies indicate that he lived in the 15th century. He was descended from Toi through Rauru. It may be noted that although he is the same number of generations after Toi as Turanga-pikitoi, he is considerably later than Turanga-pikitoi by connections to the later tradition (Chart II). Pourangahua and Kahungunu were involved in the same fight on the East Coast while Kahungunu was living at Mahia, and the date of Kahungunu's birth can be fixed at about 1450. 15 Toroa is also fixed by his connections as being born about the middle of the 15th century. 16 All the people concerned in the story are therefore confirmed as being contemporaries, but it is also very clear that they lived some generations later than the arrival of Tainui and Te Arawa Canoes. If this were the true story of the arrival of a Hawaiki element at Whakatane, this element - 196 arrived, not at the same time as Tainui and Te Arawa, but more than a century later. It is clear that other people with at least as good a claim to Hawaiki origin (i.e. the descendants of Hape) had already been in the district for many years, and the kumara was almost certainly known. The story indicates quite a heavy two-way traffic between New Zealand and Hawaiki: Kanioro, Pou-rangahua, Taukata and Hoaki, Ara-tawhao, Mataatua, were all separate trips. Some say that members of the crew of Ara-tawhao returned on Horouta Canoe, others that they returned on Rangi-matoru Canoe. Genealogies show that either of these versions would be impossible. The story has a counterpart on the East Coast involving Horouta Canoe.
The Whakatane account states 17 that Puhi, brother of Toroa, and his son, Rahiri, went north and became ancestors of Nga-Puhi. Hone Mohi Tawhai 18 gave the genealogy in the margin. (Awa-nui is thirteen generations after Toi.) It may be noted that Puhi-moana-ariki is twelve generations before Hone Mohi Tawhai. Note also that neither Ira-kewa nor Wekanui is a parent of Puhi. Toroa, on an average, is about fourteen generations before Best's informants. Smith says, 19 “This was the Puhi, brother of Puhi-kai-ariki, claimed to have come over in the Mataatua Canoe.”
From every point of view the Mataatua story is most unsatisfactory, and it cannot be accepted at face value. It is probably founded on fact, but it would appear likely that the incidents described all took place in New Zealand.
In The Peopling of the North S. Percy Smith gives stories from the North Auckland tradition, but genealogies are so few that it is impossible to define the historical sequence with any accuracy. It is clear that during a fairly early period, certainly long before the time of Puhi-moana-ariki (as given by Ngapuhi genealogies), Ngati-Awa played a prominent part in the north, but were forced to migrate south, probably during the development of the present tribes. It is out of the question that the northern Ngati-Awa could have originated from Whakatane at the time of Toroa. Ngati-Awa are stated by the North Auckland tradition to have occupied large areas of the north for a long time before the simultaneous migrations of Kahu-unuunu by land to Taranaki, and of Kauri and Tamatea by sea to Tauranga. 20 As Chart II indicates, Tamatea would be very closely contemporary with Tama-ki-hikurangi, and a little before Toroa. There is no evidence whatever to be found in the Whakatane tradition that there were any such people as Tini o Awa or Ngati-Awa at Whakatane before the arrival of Toroa. This point will be discussed under the heading of “Toi”.- 197
The foregoing does not necessarily mean that there was no Mataatua canoe, or that it did not belong to the “fleet”; Mataatua Canoe is recognised as one of the “fleet” by other canoe groups. Have these other groups any knowledge of a Mataatua Canoe not possessed by the Whakatane tradition, which obviously has no knowledge of a Mataatua Canoe which belonged to the “fleet”? Did Ngati-Awa get the “fleet” concept from another group, perhaps Te Arawa? Did Ngati-Awa of North Auckland, or some of them, come to New Zealand from Hawaiki on Mataatua Canoe? Smith quotes a Te Rarawa saying, 21 “Mataatua was the canoe, Miru-pokai was the man.” Unfortunately nothing seems to be known of Miru-pokai, and there are no genealogies from him.
It is generally believed that Toi came to New Zealand some generations before the time of the “fleet”. There is a factual story of a canoe race in which Whatonga, grandson of Toi, was blown out to sea and lost. In the course of searching for him, Toi eventually reached New Zealand and settled at Whakatane. What is the authority for this story? It is told in great detail by Te Whatahoro, quoting Te Matorohanga, but, so far as I am aware, there is no other source. Sir Peter Buck 22 gives this story and points out a number of inconsistencies. He also gives the stories by Te Whatahoro about Takitimu Canoe, 23 and about the Chatham Islanders, 24 and in both these stories he also points out inconsistencies. Te Matorohanga might claim some authority in regard to his own canoe except that there is a long gap in the story between the arrival of the canoe and subsequent history of those claiming descent from the canoe. The founders of his school (according to his story) arrived in New Zealand many years after the arrival of Toi, and then settled in a different district, and it is difficult to see how the school could have acquired the detailed information about him. One must be extremely gullible to believe that this school could know anything at first hand about the Chatham Islanders, let alone the copious details in the story. The lore of Te Matorohanga was released after the time when certain Pakeha theories were already being formed, and was hailed as useful confirmation of some of these theories. The only possible conclusion is that Te Matorohanga and or Te Whatahoro were purveyors of second-hand lore and inventions, and that their stories are completely unreliable. Apart from genealogies which show that he was an ancestor, there is no evidence whatever to be found in the Whakatane tradition concerning Toi, unless unsupported beliefs of people who do not know their own history can be considered as evidence. 25
There are many genealogies from Toi, both in New Zealand and in other parts of Polynesia, but owing to discrepancies in inclusion or exclusion of names, transposition of names, and lack of marriage connections between lines, analysis is difficult if not impossible. In any case - 198 genealogies cannot confirm or disprove that Toi came to New Zealand, though knowledge of Toi in other lands refutes the belief that he was born in New Zealand. Apart from Ngati-Awa, all descendants of Toi in the Whakatane district claim their descent through Rauru, as also does Turi of Aotea Canoe, who is said to have come with the “fleet”. Tama-te-kapua and Hoturoa are descended from a wife of Toi.
TABLE F: SOME TOI LINES (Best 1925, Table 7)
Family Tree. Toi, Toi, Toi (Gudgeon, 1895), Ruarangi, Rauru, Rauru, Rauru, Nga-puna-ariki-a-whatonga, Rakau-maui, Po-turi-ao, Rongo-tea, Tai-peha, Taha-uri, Manu-tohi-o-kura, Puru-ora, Tai-wananga, Taha-titi, Tane-ua-rangi, Turi, Kahukura, Ruatapu, Paikea, Te Whare-patahi, Rakei-ora I, Ruru-kino, Tama-ki-te-ra, Turanga-pikitoi, Tama-ki-hikurangi,(Best 1925a, 63 : 908), Toi, Te Kura-i-moana, Puha-o-rangi, Rauru, Awanui-a-rangi, Oho-mai-rangi, Mutu-rangi, Taunga, Tua-matua, Houmai-tawhiti, Tama-te-kapua
The description of the population at the beginning of the 16th century does not give any indication of the Tini (host or myriad) of Toi, nor does it even suggest any preponderance of Toi ancestry over others. There does not appear to have been any area specifically occupied by descendants of Toi, though Toi himself is said to have lived at Kapu-te-rangi Pa, and his descendant, Tama-ki-hikurangi, is stated to have occupied it in his time. Apart from Tama-ki-hikurangi I have not been able to find in the whole tradition any personality who is identified as a Toi man. Other descendants of Toi in the Whakatane district are just names in genealogies, and the only lines which carry any conviction are those to Turanga-pikitoi and Tama-ki-hikurangi. Toi was clearly of the Hawaiki people, and so far as any evidence goes, any of the following could be possible: 1. Toi came to New Zealand. 2. Descendants of Toi came to New Zealand: a. In detail over a number of years prior to the “fleet”; b. In a migration prior to the “fleet”; c. At the time of the “fleet”. Evidence found in the Whakatane tradition cannot be said to refute the concept of a Toi era prior to the “fleet” time, but there is nothing to be found which supports such a concept. There is evidence of descendants of Toi as well as other probable Hawaiki people being in the Whakatane district before the arrival of Toroa.
The conventional concept of a Toi era had already become accepted before the time when Best made his recordings of the Tuhoe traditions, and Best was evidently at pains to make his facts fit the theory. The - 199 factual evidence collected by him does not, in fact, give any support. He classifies the Tini o Toi in four main lines: 26
1. The descendants of Toi from Whakatane inland to Te Whaiti and Pohokura.
These would presumably be Tini o Awa, Tini o Kawerau and Tini o Marangaranga. The evidence for the descent of Te Kawerau and Te Marangaranga from Toi is, to say the least, extremely dubious. There is no evidence whatever that indicates the existence of such a people as Tini o Awa or Ngati-Awa at Whakatane before the time of Toroa. On the contrary, Hamiora Pio is quoted 27 as saying that the people of Tama-ki-hikurangi at Kapu-te-rangi Pa were Te Hapu-oneone, and Best says, 28 “When they (the Mataatua immigrants) arrived they found Te Hapuoneone, a tribe of the original Polynesian people of these isles, occupying the land from Opotiki to Whakatane, Ngai-Turanga were in possession of Ruatoki and O-Pouriao districts, Nga-Potiki held Ruatahuna and surrounding lands, the Marangaranga tribe occupied the Rangitaiki valley. The Wai-o-hua or Kotore-o-hua tribe lived between Whakatane and Matata, and Te Tini o Kawerau on the upper waters of the Tarawera River, and about Pu-tauaki.” No information is given about the Wai-o-hua. There would seem to be no place left for Tini o Awa. Best does say, however, 29 “The Tini o Awa is said by some to include Te Hapuoneone, but I have not, so far, met with any person who can prove that Hape was a descendant of Toi, although all those people became much mixed by means of intermarriage.” It is certainly true that after the time of Toroa Te Hapu-oneone and Ngati-Awa became much mixed, and the former were probably absorbed by the latter.
2. Te Hapu-oneone at Ohiwa, Te Waimana and Ruatoki.
3. Nga-Potiki from Karioi inland to Parahaki.
Best says on the same page, “It is not clear that Hape and Potiki, the ancestors from whom sprang the Hapu-oneone and Nga-Potiki tribes, were descendants of Toi.”
4. Te Wakanui in the Opotiki district, afterwards known as Te Panenehu.
No evidence is given anywhere showing that Te Pane-nehu were from Toi. They claimed descent from the crew of Nukutere Canoe.
A descendant of Toi, Nukutere, did marry Te Koata, a descendant of Hape, to found Ngai-Turanga, but this was after the “fleet” time, and Rakei-ora, son of Tama-ki-hikurangi, married into Nga-Potiki late in the 15th century. These are the only connections given of Toi with Te Hapuoneone and Nga-Potiki. Best gives an impressive list of tribes and sub-tribes of Tini o Toi. 30 On investigation it is found that two of them, Te Tini o Tuoi and Nga-Maihi are part of Te Marangaranga. 31 There is no evidence of the existence of Tini o Awa, and the remainder in the - 200 list are not again mentioned in the book. It is, of course, not impossible that all of the people in the Whakatane district, and perhaps others, may have called themselves Tini o Toi before their migration to New Zealand.
Archaeologists have shown that there was a population of eastern Polynesian origin in New Zealand at a time earlier than that covered by tradition. Various ancestors are spoken of in Bay of Plenty tradition about whose origins nothing is known, some of them being given superhuman attributes. Some who can be mentioned are Tiwakawaka, Potiki, Ruamano, Maihi. There may be others who are incorrectly spoken of as descendants of Toi. There is no significance in the fact that there are no records of contact with Moa-hunters in tradition, because there are no records of any kind, except perhaps a few genealogies, of the time when such contacts could undoubtedly have taken place. These ancestors of unknown origin might have been from the Moa-hunters, but there is no evidence one way or the other.
The following narratives are found in the early tradition. First in time is an account of miraculous adventures of Hape and his sons. 32 By the genealogies this would be placed about the “fleet” time. Next, a number of generations later, is a legend involving Te Tahi-o-te-rangi, 33 great-grandfather of Te Rangi-ki-tua, and then a short story about Tai-o-ruamano. 34Not long after this is the story of Ara-tawhao and Mataatua Canoes, 35 fixed in time by genealogies, but conventionally taken right out of its time context. Associated with this story is the legend of the bird, Rua-kapana, in a local version applied to Pou-rangahua, 36 who belonged to the time of the Ara-tawhao and Mataatua story. Since Taneatua is reputed to have been a step-brother of Toroa, his legendary wanderings must be placed about the same time. These seem to be the only early stories, and all of them are quite isolated in context. The first narrative which enters into any historical sequence is the account of the attack on Te Kapo-o-te-rangi by Te Hapu 37 early in the 16th century. Gudgeon mentions Te Hapu accompanying Te Rangi-houhiri on the first stage of his march to the west. 38 This attack on Te Kapo was connected with his removal from Ohiwa to Waimana, and later to Ruatoki. In close order there follow a number of other stories which belong to historical sequence: Rongo-popoia and Kahuki, 39 Rangi-te-aorere, 40 the fighting between Ue-imua and his brothers, Tuhoe-potiki and Tane-moe-ahi. 41 The dawn of history in the district as opposed to legend can thus be readily - 201 placed in the 16th century. The first narrative involving Ngati-Awa descendants of Toroa which belongs to historical sequence is the account of Rongo-karae, five generations after Toroa, disposing of his first wife and family by burning them in their whare, and subsequently marrying the two granddaughters of Te Kapo-o-te-rangi and going to live with them at Ruatoki. 42 This would be at the end of the 16th or the beginning of the 17th century.
It is not proposed to include here any new theories. Although in detail the factual evidence in the early Whakatane tradition can only be described as very vague, nevertheless collectively it indicates a fairly definite pattern. People claiming descent from Nukutere Canoe were found at Opotiki, with an off-shoot in the upper valley of the Tauranga River. People claiming descent from Rangi-matoru Canoe, and backing their claim by consistent genealogies from Hape, formed a cohesive group from Ohiwa to Ruatoki. On the coast from Whakatane to Matata were Ngati-Awa, whose origin is obscure. Nothing is known of them before the time of Toroa, who arrived at Whakatane towards the end of the 15th century. Nga-Potiki were in the upper valley of the Whakatane River; nothing is known of their origin. Te Marangaranga and Te Kawerau were in the valleys of the Rangitaiki and Tarawera Rivers; little or nothing is known of their antecedents. Waitaha-turauta were at Matata; there is vague tradition that they arrived on Te Paepae-ki-rarotonga Canoe.
Toi was an ancestor of many people in the district, and was clearly a Hawaiki man, but there is a complete lack of any other evidence about him. There is no evidence to justify the concept of a Toi era before the arrival of the Hawaiki migration, and there is no evidence to justify labelling the descendants of Toi “tangata whenua” except that they and the descendants of Hape were the people of the land when Toroa arrived at Whakatane about the end of the 15th century. There is no evidence of the presence of any Ngati-Awa or Tini o Awa at Whakatane before the arrival of Toroa. A group of Ngati-Awa came to the Bay of Plenty near Tauranga from North Auckland under Tamatea at least a generation before Toroa arrived at Whakatane; tradition does not associate Toroa with Tamatea. There is no evidence that Tama-ki-hikurangi was connected with Ngati-Awa; if his line is correct—and there is no way of checking it—he was descended from Toi through Rauru. He was at Whakatane before the time of Toroa, and was a member of Te Hapu-oneone. The relationship, if any, between Toroa and Tama-ki-hikurangi is not clear.
So far as early tradition has been preserved in the Whakatane district, it is entirely to the credit of the descendants of Hape. It is worth noting that by the time that interest was being taken in the traditional history, of this district the Hauhau and Te Kooti troubles had alienated the people of the Urewera and Opotiki districts from Pakeha contacts, and such traditions as could be collected were available only from Ngati-Awa, who, as is clear, know little or nothing of their history as - 202 late as the middle of the 16th century. S. Percy Smith had already elaborated and gained acceptance of his theories, including those about Toi, long before Best had published his invaluable recordings of the Tuhoe tradition. (Tuhoe was completed about 1907, but not published until 1925.) Nevertheless the importance attached to the Mataatua origin throughout the whole district would not appear to be due to any Pakeha influence. When a meeting of Tuhoe was held at Ruatahuna to discuss helping Waikato in 1864, Te Ahoaho said, “Let Mataatua be sheltered. Leave it, secure from harm, in the shed.” 43
A lesson learned from the Tainui and Te Arawa traditions is that where a section has become separated from the main group in early times, the ability to preserve records has been largely lost. It might be expected that if more knowledge is to be had of Nukutere Canoe, it is more likely to be found among the descendants of Te Pane-nehu at Opotiki than elsewhere. Te Ati-Awa of Taranaki do not know their history earlier than the 17th century. 44 Ngati-Awa of Whakatane do not know their history earlier than the end of the 16th century. Tradition of North Auckland has apparently preserved the record of the departure of Tamatea from the north in the 15th century, as well as the departure of Kahu-unuunu for Taranaki at the same time. 45 If Ngati-Awa of North Auckland were the main Ngati-Awa group in New Zealand, something more might be learned in the north about the origins of Ngati-Awa.
A distinction should be made between traditional history and historical tradition, which latter embraces myth, legend and history. Traditional history is a true record of past events which has consistency, continuity and historical sequence. Legend, while probably originating from historical events, may lack all three. The narrative may be lifted right out of its proper context; events from different contexts may be combined; fiction may be included; and not infrequently an element of the supernatural is introduced. Myth deals almost exclusively with the supernatural, and it is not proposed to discuss it here.
It has been shown that the early limit of traditional history in the Whakatane district can be fixed quite readily. During the period covered by traditional history the narratives are easily arranged in their correct chronological order by reference to the relevant genealogies, and the whole provides consistency, continuity and historical sequence. The consistency and sequence extend to contacts with other traditions. 46 Beyond the early limit one is struck both by the lack of continuity and by the lack of consistency, particularly as between the genealogies and the context of the narrative. It is also notable that the element of the supernatural enters about the same time. Consistency of genealogical connections and consistency between the genealogies and the later distribution of the people concerned extends back much further than consistency in the narrative. Prehistory is essentially deductive, and it would seem legitimate to reconstruct what might be termed traditional prehistory from genealogical evidence supplemented by circumstantial evidence from the legends. It - 203 must be remembered, however, that such a reconstruction can be no more than a theory, and it is always subject to amendment or discard in the light of fresh evidence.
The conclusions given above are likely to raise some violent opposition, but I would stress that the evidence that I have presented is factual, and it is documented; I have deliberately refrained so far from theorising. I have not found it possible to document such popular theories as the advent of Toi to New Zealand, the Toi era preceeding the Hawaiki migration, the existence of the Tini o Toi and the Tini o Awa. It is for those who feel inclined to support these theories to produce their factual evidence and their authority for it. Fallacious theories have been generally accepted only because nobody has bothered to analyse and compare. A proper conception of traditional history obviously depends, firstly on adherence to the prima facie facts as recorded by tradition, and secondly on a correct appreciation of the comparative chronology, which can be gained only by analysis and comparison of traditions covering a wide field. I would stress again that no particular chronological situation can be isolated from the general overall chronological pattern.
A PLAUSIBLE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ORIGIN OF NGATI-AWA OF WHAKATANE
There is no evidence to be found in the Whakatane tradition that there were any Ngati-Awa or Tini o Awa in the Whakatane district before the arrival of Toroa, who is shown by genealogical evidence to have been born approximately in the middle of the 15th century. In fact, according to tradition, the people at Whakatane before Toroa arrived were Te Hapu-oneone. Following are extracts from Hamiora Pio's account of the departure of Ara-tawhao Canoe and the arrival of Mataatua Canoe. 47
“The persons of this island, Aotea-roa, were Maui, after him Tiwakawaka, and later on Toi. On the East Coast was Pou-rangahua. These were the original people of Aotea-roa. The persons of Hawaiki who came to this island, arriving at Whakatane, were Hoaki and Taukata. These were the sons of Rongoatau, the chief of Hawaiki. Their reason for coming hither was to seek their sister Kanioro. That woman had married Pou-rangahua. Their canoe was Tutara-kauika . . . ” 48
“Te Kura-whakaata, daughter of Tama-ki-hikurangi found Hoaki and Taukata warming themselves on the beach. When she took them to Kapu-te-rangi Pa she cried, “Visitors are with me, Oh Te Hapu-oneone, visitors from Hawaiki . . . ”
“Tama-ki-hikurangi tried it (the kumara) and remarked, ‘the best food is indeed at Hawaiki!’ Then it was asked by Tama, by Rongomai, and by Puhi-ariki, ‘Whence comes this food? . . ’.”
“The principal man and director of affairs on the vessel was Tama-ki-hikurangi. Now it was said by Puhi-ariki, ‘Let us abandon Tama-ki-hikurangi. Do not allow him to go, lest disaster strike us.’ (Some of - 204 the crew feared that Tama with his well known powers of magic would bring trouble upon them.) . . .”
“When the Ara-tawhao landed at Hawaiki her arrival was made known to Rongo-atau, the chief of Hawaiki, whose home was at Te Whakao . . .”
“When the people of this island had reached Hawaiki and obtained the sweet potatoes of Parinui-te-ra, it was then that a canoe was hewn out to enable them to return here . . . . Their vessel was Mataatua . . .”
“Mataatua brought food to this land. Her people were returning here to their home, Aotea-roa. After her arrival other people landed on this island, in the eighth month they landed, when the rata was in bloom. That canoe was Te Arawa . . . ”
“Well friend! It is finished. Possibly it is now clear to you. There were two vessels by which the men of the Ara-tawhao returned here to Aotea-roa, they were Mataatua and Takitumu. The people of Aotea-roa went to fetch the kumara from Hawaiki. When they had obtained it they returned here.”
The last two sentences are probably the key to the origin of the story. It is the Ngati-Awa contribution to the controversy about who first brought the kumara to New Zealand. Note that the story is careful to mention that Te Arawa arrived later, although the genealogies make it quite clear that this is ridiculous. Toroa was born not earlier than the middle of the 15th century, and the story is taken right out of its time context. It has no continuity with either earlier or later Ngati-Awa history, nor with the doings of Te Hapu-oneone at Whakatane. On the other hand all the principal characters are shown by genealogies to have been contemporaries in fact. One Puhi-ariki is mentioned as being present at the tasting of the kumara and on Ara-tawhao Canoe. Puhi-kai-ariki is said to have been brother of Toroa, 49 father of Rahiri, 50 and an ancestor of Nga-Puhi. On the average of a number of lines Toroa is about fourteen generations before Best's informants. In the North Auckland tradition, Puhi-moana-ariki, twelve generations before Hone Mohi Tawhai, is said to be eponymous ancestor of Nga-Puhi, and grandfather of Rahiri, who lived at the time of the migration of Titahi to Taranaki in the 17th century. 51
There is a tradition that Ira-kewa came to New Zealand before Mataatua, married Wekanui, and returned to Hawaiki. 52 He is said to have given instructions how to find Whakatane, as well as mentioning the waterfall of Te Wairere and Muriwai's cave. This seems a ridiculous statement considering that the majority of people on the canoe, including the tohunga, Tama-ki-hikurangi, belonged to Whakatane, and might be expected to know the way better than Ira-kewa.
The following separate voyages across the Pacific are inherent in the story: 1. Kanioro came from Hawaiki; 2. Hoaki and Taukata came from - 205 Hawaiki; 3. Ira-kewa came from Hawaiki; 4. Ira-kewa returned to Hawaiki; 5. Ara-tawhao went to Hawaiki, to Parinui-te-ra; 6. Pourangahua, having missed Ara-tawhao when she sailed, was guided to Hawaiki by a whale, also turning up at Parinui-te-ra, and finding Rongoatau; 7. Pou-rangahua returned on the bird, Rua-kapana, bringing kumara with him; 8. Mataatua came from Hawaiki.
Best regarded all this as evidence of many trips backward and forward between New Zealand and Hawaiki which are not recorded, but the story is full of inconsistencies, and from every point of view must be regarded as legend. The characters were contemporaries in fact, and if the story is not complete invention, it is probably a romantic version of incidents that took place entirely within New Zealand. Halbert has suggested 53 that Mataatua was brought from Parinui-te-ra in Hawaiki to Parinui-te-ra on the East Coast in the time of Rongoatau, and from Parinui-te-ra on the East Coast to Whakatane a generation later in the time of Toroa. Reconstructing from all the evidence available concerning Ngati-Awa, it would seem likely that members of Ngati-Awa coming from the north passed along the Bay of Plenty to the East Coast, and that Toroa, possibly born on the East Coast, came back thence to Whakatane a generation or more later.
NORTH AUCKLAND. Smith's work, The Peopling of the North, is extremely deficient in genealogies, which makes a satisfactory assessment of evidence from it almost impossible. It does seem certain, however, that in the earliest times of which anything is known, Ngati-Awa held sway over a large area of the north. During the evolution of the modern tribes, Ngati-Whatua, Nga-Puhi, Te Rarawa and others, Ngati-Awa were gradually overcome, and groups of them migrated south, those remaining losing their identity as Ngati-Awa. It would also appear that none of the North Auckland tribes can be exclusively identified with any one canoe. Reverting to Hamiora Pio's statement, “There were two vessels by which the men of Ara-Tawhao returned here to Aotea-roa, they were Mataatua and Takitumu”, both these canoes are known in the North Auckland tradition, and Ngati-Whatua claim that their eponymous ancestor, Tua, came on Takitumu Canoe. 54 The following migrations of Ngati-Awa from the north are recorded:
TAMATEA. Tamatea settled at Tauranga. He married sisters, daughters of Ira, who lived on the East Coast, and descended through their mother from Porourangi, whose forebears had been at Whangara for several generations. For this reason it would seem unlikely that Kahungunu was born in North Auckland, as is sometimes said. There is - 206 no evidence in the North Auckland tradition that Tamatea went to the north from the East Coast. He was a member of Ngati-Awa, and according to the North Auckland tradition his mother was Hine-tapu, 58 and his father apparently was Kauri. 59 East Coast versions of the origin of Tamatea are by no means better founded, nor are they even unanimous. The affix, “pokai-whenua”, is probably posthumous and based on legend. Miru-pokai, a North Auckland ancestor said to have come on Mataatua [Canoe], but of whom little is known, is also credited with circumnavigating the North Island. 60 Kahungunu has been shown to have been born about 1450, 61 so that Tamatea is not likely to have arrived at Tauranga later than that. This would be shortly after the time of birth of Rangitihi at Maketu. Tamatea is the only one of his migration recorded as staying at Tauranga. What happened to Kauri and the others?
A Ngati-Kahungunu version according to Mitchell 62 is that Takitimu Canoe made its landfall at Awanui, and that some of the crew settled at Kaitaia. The canoe sailed down the east coast to Tauranga, where Tamatea stayed. Sailing on to the East Coast, Ruawharo settled at Mahia Peninsula, and Tupai in the Wairarapa. Tupai founded the school of learning in the Wairarapa, but so far as can be gathered there is no continuous history from that time. No genealogies are available to fix the time of Ruawharo and Tupai. The legendary nature of the story is indicated by the statement that at Tauranga the canoe was taken over by Tahu, brother of Porourangi, who lived midway between “fleet” time and the time of Tamatea (Chart II). According to Mitchell's version, it was a second Tamatea, the father of Kahungunu, who went north, became involved in the adventures of Ngati-Awa there, and then returned to Tauranga. Presumably the second Tamatea was introduced to account for the fact that Kahungunu was considerably later than the “fleet” time.
TOROA. Toroa can be dated as being born about 1440. 63 Since Wairaka was grown up when Toroa arrived at Whakatane, it is likely that Kahungunu had already gone to the East Coast when Toroa arrived (Chart II) about 1480.
RONGOMAI-NOHO-RANGI. The origin of Te Rangi-houhiri is commonly given as shown in brackets in Chart II, but this is clearly wrong. Gudgeon 64 says that Rongomai-noho-rangi led a party to Hakuranui from Ohiwa, “probably about the time of the great migration of the Tini o Awa tribe to Napier”, and that they lived there for many years. Else-where 65 Gudgeon equates the Maruiwi tribe with Tini o Awa, and it may be the Maruiwi to whom he refers as migrating to Napier. Maruiwi, the founder, was of Ngai Turanga, and was very closely contemporary with Toroa who is seven generations before Rongomai-noho-rangi on Chart II. It was from Hakuranui, near Whangara, that Te Rangi-houhiri, Tamapahore, Marua-haira and Te Hapu started on the first stage of their - 207 heke to the west. Now Te Hapu drove Te Kapo-o-te-rangi from Ohiwa, and long after that Rongo-karae, shown on Chart II two generations before Rongomai-noho-rangi, married the granddaughters of Te Kapo at Ruatoki. Tamapahore went on into the Tainui country when Te Rangihouhiri settled at Tauranga, and Ngaparetaihinu, his daughter by a Tainui wife, married Tukorehe, who, by the Tainui tradition, was born about 1500 (Chart III) which again suggests that the Rongomai-nohorangi on Chart II is too late. Finally, Ngai-Te Rangi, the followers of Te Rangi-houhiri, were already at Tauranga when Rangi-te-aorere, as a young man, went to Rotorua, and in association with Rangi-whakaeke-au and Uenuku-kopako, captured Mokoia Island. 66 It is quite clear, therefore, that if Te Rangi-houhiri was descended from Rongomai-noho-rangi, it was not from the Rongomai-noho-rangi who was the son of Rongotangiawa. Rongomai-noho-rangi must have gone to Hakuranui much about the same time that Toroa came to Whakatane. What was the origin of this Rongomai-noho-rangi? The Rongomai mentioned as being present when the kumara was tasted might well be the same man.
KAIAHI. Kaiahi is another ancestor of the Tainui people who is said to have come from the Bay of Plenty, and to have been a Ngati-Awa man. He is usually given as son of Awa-tope, but this Awa-tope cannot possibly have been the son of Ira-peke as is usually claimed. Chart III shows Kaiahi's position as given in the Tainui tradition. 67 Tongatea, brother of Ruaputahanga, came from Taranaki on his way to his sister's wedding at Kawhia, but stayed at Marokopa, and by Manu, had a daughter, Pehanui. Kaiahi came from the Bay of Plenty to Marokopa, and by Pehanui, had a son, Manu-tongatea, born after his father had returned east. When Manu-tongatea grew up he set off to find his father. At Rotoiti he married Wawara, by whom he had two sons. One of these, Kokako, came back to the Tainui country, where he had a son, Tama-inupo, who is one of the Waikato ancestors. It is clear that Kaiahi belonged to the same time as Tamatea, Toroa and Tama-ki-hikurangi. Manutongatea must have been at Rotoiti much about the time when Toroa went to Whakatane. This would be before the time when the sons of Rangitihi went to Rotoiti (Chart I), and there is no saying to whom Wawara belonged. Kaiahi is regarded as a Ngati-Awa man, and it is significant that his descendants, Kahurere and Tumataura, married Koroki, a descendant of Tamapahore, and when Koroki was in trouble with his own tribe, he had support from Waikato friends, presumably of Ngati-Tama-inu-po.
RECONSTRUCTION. When Tamatea stayed at Tauranga, his companions went on along the Bay of Plenty. Rongomai or his father stayed at Whakatane or Ohiwa. Ira-kewa stayed at Whakatane for a time, and married Wekanui, later moving on to the East Coast. Tane-atua evidently stayed at Whakatane. Rongoatau went on to the East Coast, where his daughter married Pou-rangahua. From the date of birth of Pehanui it would appear that Kaiahi went to Marokopa about the middle of the - 208 15th century, probably soon after arrival in the Bay of Plenty from the north. Kelly speaks of the people at Marokopa at the time as Ngati-Awa. 68 If they were Ngati-Awa, it would appear that Kahu-unuunu may have left the north somewhat before Kauri and Tamatea, unless there had been a still earlier migration of Ngati-Awa to Taranaki. Hoaki and Taukata were at Tauranga with Tamatea, but set off along the coast when they heard of the marriage of their sister. For some reason, obviously nothing to do with getting the first kumara, Tama-ki-hikurangi accompanied Hoaki to the East Coast, possibly to Parinui-te-ra, Te Whakao or Hakuranui, where Hoaki rejoined his father. In connection with the protest by Puhi-ariki against taking Tama-ki-hikurangi, it would not primarily be Tama's expedition. The object would be for Hoaki to rejoin his father, and for other stray members of Ngati-Awa to join up again with their relations and friends on the East Coast. Rongomai was one of these, and he settled at Hakuranui. Maruiwi may also have accompanied them, and then gone on down the coast to Napier. On his return to Whakatane, Tama-ki-hikurangi brought Toroa and his family with him, and possibly also other followers. This would be about 1480. Rua-ihonga probably married Mahanga-i-te-rangi before coming to Whakatane.
No doubt after he had settled down into his new home at Tauranga, Tamatea visited his friends and relations who had gone on to the East Coast. While there he married the daughters of Ira and Tokerau, returning with them to Tauranga. The marriage of Iranui back into the Porourangi family was quite natural, as also was the journey of Kahungunu to the East Coast, starting about 1470. It would be thirty to fifty years after the arrival of Toroa at Whakatane (that is before 1540 when Rangi-te-aorere would reach manhood (Chart II)), that Te Rangihouhiri and his companions made their migration back along the Bay of Plenty. Not long after this, that is after their sons were grown up, 69 the quarrel started between Ue-imua and his brothers, Tuhoe-potiki and Tane-moe-ahi, which was connected with the second marriage of Ue-imua to Tapa, a descendant of Tama-ki-hikurangi, and therefore of Te Hapuoneone. This quarrel would appear to have started between Ngai-Turanga and Te Hapu-oneone, and not Ngati-Awa as is usually said.
It is a common feature in tradition to find a tribal name applied to a period before the emergence of the tribe concerned. The feud against Tuhoe-potiki and Tane-moe-ahi was carried on by the descendants of Ue-imua, supported by the Whakatane people, Te Hapu-oneone. Ngati-Awa descendants of Toroa are not mentioned in any narrative until the time of Rongo-karae and Ira-peke, grandsons of Awanui-a-rangi who was contemporary with Tuhoe-potiki, and it is not until the time of Taiwhakaea, grandson of Ira-peke, that any Ngati-Awa descendant of Toroa is mentioned as playing a leading part. It was probably after the time of Tai-whakaea, or during his time, that the name of his hapu of Te Hapuoneone, Ngati-Awa, was adopted as a general name for Te Hapu-oneone and other allied tribes such as Ngati-Pukeko and Ngati-Raka. As Best frequently points out, the small amount of Ngati-Awa blood introduced by - 209 the family of Toroa was soon so diluted as to be virtually extinguished. Both Ngati-Awa of Whakatane and Tuhoe were essentially people descended from the Rangi-matoru Canoe. Kahuki's pursuit of Tua-mutu, grandson of Muriwai, was in the natuure of fighting between Ngai-Turanga, or more precisely Ngai-Tairongo, a Rangi-matoru family, and an alien group recently derived from Ngati-Awa of North Auckland. Tamatea-matangi, husband of Muriwai, is said to have come from Taranaki. 70 Presumably he would be a Ngati-Awa man from Kahu-unuunu's party who came to the east coast, just as Kaiahi from Tamatea's party went over to the west coast. Their family made their marriage affiliations, not with the Rangi-matoru people, but with Te Pane-nehu of the Nukutere Canoe group, and it was to Opotiki, to Te Pane-nehu, that Tua-mutu went to escape from Kahuki. Their descendants are now Te Whakatohea.
1 Roberton 1956: 45-54.
2 Roberton 1964.
3 Best 1925:15-200.
4 According to Turi te Kani of Ngai-te-Rangi, Te Rangi-hou-hiri was Tamapahore's stepbrother.
5 Gudgeon 1895:177.
6 Best 1925:718.
7 Best 1925:79.
8 Best 1925:76.
9 Best 1925:15.
10 Best 1925:90.
11 Best 1925:729.
12 Best 1925:25; Roberton 1964:12.
13 Best 1925:681.
14 Smith 1897: 12.
15 Roberton 1964: 9, 10.
16 Roberton 1964: 11,12.
17 Best 1925:728.
18 Smith 1897:27.
19 Smith 1897:29.
20 Smith 1897:44, 45.
21 Smith 1897:16.
22 Buck 1949:22.
23 Buck 1949:41, 48.
24 Buck 1949: 16, 17.
25 Best 1925:732.
26 Best 1925:15.
27 Best 1925: 702, 706.
28 Best 1925:720.
29 Best 1925: 63.
30 Best 1925: 16.
31 Best 1925: 116.
32 Best 1925:948.
33 Best 1925:961.
34 Best 1925:314.
35 Best 1925:702-724.
36 Best 1925:918.
37 Best 1925:82.
38 Gudgeon 1893:109.
39 Best 1925:82.
40 Best 1925:856.
41 Best 1925:242.
42 Best 1925:298.
43 Best 1925:566.
44 Roberton 1962:307.
45 Smith 1897:45.
46 Roberton 1964:17.
47 Best 1925:702-706.
48 Tutara-kauika is given in Williams's Dictionary as “right whale”. Best 1925:923. Pourangahua calls on Tutara-kauika for help after missing Ara-tawhao Canoe.
49 Best 1925:725.
50 Best 1925:728.
51 Smith 1897:29.
52 Best 1925:712, 717, 718.
53 Halbert 1961:72.
54 Smith 1897:52.
55 Smith 1897:44.
56 Smith 1897:45.
57 Smith 1897:47.
58 Smith 1897:16.
59 Smith 1897:45.
60 Smith 1897:16.
61 Roberton 1964:9, 10.
62 Mitchell 1944.
63 Roberton 1964:11, 12.
64 Gudgeon 1893:109.
65 Gudgeon 1897:179.
66 Best 1925. 258-265.
67 Kelly 1949:76-82.
68 Kelly 1949:77.
69 Best 1925:243.
70 Best 1925: 728-9.