Volume 76 1967 > Volume 76, No. 1 > The Ngatimamoe: The Western Polynesian-Melanesoid sub-culture in New Zealand, by I. W. Keyes, p 47-75
                                                                                             Previous | Next   

- 47

In the following pages is presented an account of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand prehistory. On previous occasions reference has been made to the existence of the Ngati-Mamoe as an important element in early New Zealand culture 1 but until now a full discussion of the evidence 2 has not been presented.

Modern opinion on New Zealand prehistory considers that the sequence of human occupation must be envisaged in the light of one of two concepts: 3 (a) that of an initial “basic stock” out of which all later peoples evolved, with the likelihood that any new arrivals had only minor impact on the course of overall culture evolution; 4 and (b) (which the writer supports) that the span of New Zealand prehistory saw the arrival at separated intervals of various groups from several parts of the Pacific. Following the latter category it is envisaged that each group introduced new ideas and New Zealand prehistory ultimately became an amalgamation of group descendents and their trait introductions that became either thoroughly or only partially welded (according to tribe and district encountered) rather than a uniform country-wide evolution towards - 48 “Maori culture” of the late 1700's. In other words it is believed that change was stimulated by intrusive addition from outside rather than through internal design. Into this idea of outside influences fits the Ngatimamoe sub-culture, one of five major groups 5 introducing three variant forms of Polynesian culture into New Zealand.

The significance of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture, it is postulated, is its introduction of certain Melanesian traits into New Zealand culture. Because these alien features were not predominant within the basic Polynesian culture in New Zealand, their identity and importance has been largely hidden. However, once these elements are identified and examined, they constitute a body of evidence supporting the existence of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture. This suggestion that there existed in New Zealand a people with Melanesian affinities (in the form of the Ngati-Mamoe) cannot be claimed as new, but it should be made clear at this point that the need to establish and accept that a Melanesian influence was present is not an attempt to re-establish the old mistaken theory of a purely Melanesian migration. Rather, the aim is to provide a rational meaning to a group of hitherto anomalous features of New Zealand culture linked with the Ngati-Mamoe that demonstrate that the settlement pattern of the country was not a simple affair with population derived from the central and eastern Pacific only, but a complex pattern involving influx from other parts of Oceania as well.


Early explorers 6 and writers who recorded the ethnology of the native people of New Zealand 7 frequently described physical characteristics (broad bridgeless noses with wide nostrils, everted lips and curled hair) that suggested that a distinct Melanesian element was present amongst the indigenous population. Best, during his observations in the Urewera 8 added further to this record by noting that strong Melanesoid traits were present amongst the Tuhoe people. From these observations came the theory that these Melanesoid features must have been inherited from a mixture of the later-coming Polynesians with Melanesian people of a prior migration to New Zealand. The results of early craniological studies were believed to support this theory 9 as longheadedness (dolichocephaly) amongst the New Zealand Maori was considered to be a factor showing relationship to the Fijian Melanesian type. 10

With the publication by Percy Smith 11 of the traditions dictated by the Wairarapa tohunga, Te Matorohanga, the question of the Melanesian - 49 element seemed to be partially settled. This information told of three canoes arriving in Taranaki, possessing crews of dark-skinned people who, with time, spread in the North Island (later to reach the Chatham Islands) forming one of the tangata-whenua tribes that were encountered by the later Fleet Maori arrivals. To Percy Smith, these traditions indicated the likelihood that the earliest inhabitants had come from Western Polynesia 12 but to Best and others 13 they gave support for the theory of a prior pure Melanesian (or mixed) immigration to New Zealand stemming from Fiji or the New Hebrides. These people Best culturally designated as the Maruiwi, 14 a term which he used for tribes of a pre-Toi ancestry, and which was synonymous with the use of tangata-whenua and Percy Smith's Mouriori. 15 The verbatim acceptance of the Te Matorohanga tradition first began to be challenged by H. D. Skinner through his work on the Chatham Islands Moriori material culture, 16 which according to all early ideas should have shown marked Melanesian affinities. These affinities were not forthcoming and along with material remains investigated in the South Island, both Skinner and Teviotdale proved that early New Zealand culture was wholly Eastern Polynesian in its relation. Moreover, a careful analysis of the Te Matorohanga traditions by Williams 17 cast doubt on their reliability. The physical characteristics described by this tradition and accepted by Best as being Melanesian, failed to mention the presence of woolly hair, one of the most diagnostic of Melanesian physical traits. In fact, the account described the hair as straight. This basic factor challenged the acceptance of the descriptions as implying a Melanesoid people and further suggested that the range of physical features was in fact “invented” to create a false non-Polynesian racial “distinctiveness” for the tangata-whenua of the country. 18 Best later reconsidered the evidence for a pure Melanesian immigration and agreed that the Maruiwi people showed more Polynesian than Melanesian cultural traits. 19

With the examination and rejection of the Te Matorohanga traditions, the archaeological testing and disproving of the Melanesian theory and the greater understanding of Polynesian culture and physical type, the old concept of a Melanesoid migration has been dismissed. Archaeological work over recent years in New Zealand has firmly established that cultural derivation was from Eastern and Central Polynesia. 20 In spite of the certainty of the origin of New Zealand culture, however, there does exist a certain group of features that remain enigmatic in that they are not directly traceable to Eastern or Central Polynesia but rather point to the non-Polynesian western area of the Pacific. 21 Best 22 outlined many - 50 elements that appeared to be non-Polynesian in origin assuming that the presence of the Maruiwi people provided satisfactory explanation. However, in spite of the dropping of the “Maruiwi myth”, observable evidence of scattered Melanesian physical traits amongst the Maori (as mentioned in early records) remained, but was left unexplained. 23 Melanesoid traces amongst the Maori have been considered to be part of a heritage shared throughout most of Polynesia. 24 However, the frequency of these occurrences in certain regions of New Zealand along with important items of material evidence 25 leads, in the writer's opinion, to the more satisfactory explanation that within New Zealand prehistoric culture lay a subtle intrusive Melanesoid element, but of far greater proportion than could have been derived from Eastern or Central Polynesia.


As there are no grounds whatsoever for justifying a Melanesian migration as an explanation for items of material culture showing Melanesian affinities, an alternative, that a mixed group of people introduced these elements, must be considered. To trace where this mixed group fits in New Zealand prehistory and what segment or tribe they formed amongst the population depends on being able to trace a surviving tribal unit that appears to have possessed in their material culture a greater number of items referable to a Melanesian source than any other group. For this requirement the Ngati-Mamoe are chosen as being the group that perpetuated these elements. 26 Indeed from a knowledge of all groups that migrated to New Zealand they are the only people whose origin has never been certain. Their tribal name, “Ngatimamoe” is adopted 27 to designate this introduced sub-cultural influence that they perpetuated in New Zealand prehistory. Thus the Ngatimamoe sub-culture can be formally defined as being derived from a group of Western Polynesians with a Melanesoid admixture who originated in a marginal Polynesian-Melanesian area of the West Pacific. Their culture was substantially Polynesian, but because of the included Melanesoid element (the means by which they can be recognised) it is treated from a New Zealand view point as a sub-cultural variant of the basic Polynesian culture that has been present throughout the prehistory of the country.


The Ngati-Mamoe originally belonged to the tangata-whenua complex of tribes that occupied the North Island before the arrival of the Fleet Maori, and traditionally were the people Toi and Whatonga encountered about 1150 A.D. They were not part of the original inhabitants as they were preceded by earlier arrivals from Eastern Polynesia, but at a later - 51 date they co-existed with the descendants of this earlier migration. The original Ngati-Mamoe group (termed “proto” by the writer) of which there is record were known as Te Tini-o-Mamoe, adopting a tribal name from their chief Whatu-Mamoe, 28 but with the arrival of the Fleet Maori, the prefix “Ngati” came into use. From the median position they occupy on the cultural time scale 29 between the arrival of the first Polynesian migrants and the traditional advent of the great heke about 1350 A.D., a date for the proto Ngati-Mamoe arrival is placed as being about 1200 A.D. It is further thought that their arrival was made in the Eastern Bay of Plenty.

Early records state that the Ngati-Mamoe were the tangata-whenua group who occupied territory around Hawke Bay, but they were probably more widespread than this at an earlier period for the tradition of Toi and Whatonga claims intermarriage with tangata-whenua women in the Bay of Plenty 30 (probably largely Ngati-Mamoe) to derive the Tini-o-Toi population which became a dominant group in the North Island prior to the Fleet Maori advent. A group is also known to have penetrated to the Horowhenua coast where they resided until later dispersed by a mixed section which became the Muaupoko. 31 The independent section that was present in Hawke Bay represented the members that were not assimilated into the Tini-o-Toi and who were able to maintain their tribal unity. The Tuhoe of the Urewera are the tribe that have exhibited the most marked Melanesoid features and this indicates that as well as claiming descent from the early Nga-Potiki tribe with later Fleet Maori addition from the Mataatua canoe, 32 much Ngati-Mamoe stock was also included in the formation of their tribe. With pressure from the Tini-o-Toi, 33 the Ngati-Mamoe were compelled to move from Hawke Bay, possibly in two groups; 34 firstly via Wellington to the Marlborough Sounds and later, the main body, via the Wairarapa to the Wairau about 1500 A.D. 35

The movement of the Ngati-Mamoe into the South Island introduced material cultural concepts different from those the earlier Eastern Polynesian occupants followed, and marked the beginning of their gradual cultural change. 36 According to traditional information, the arrival of immigrant Ngati-Mamoe in Marlborough forced the Waitaha into a gradual southwards retreat. 37 About 1550 A.D. saw Ngati-Mamoe influence dominating territories south of Waipapa 38 to Stewart Island, but warfare with the stronger of the new arrivals, the Ngai-Tahu, kept the - 52 Ngati-Mamoe moving further southwards 39 where they finally amalgamated with the Waitaha 40 and later with the Ngai-Tahu 41 in Murihiku to form one group. Assimilation continued until the 19th Century, so that it was only in the Urewera and Murihiku that remnants of Ngati-Mamoe stock remained. 42


The Tongan archipelago is considered to meet the requirements for providing a Polynesian population that has undergone “Melanesianization”, 43 for (along with Samoa), contact over past centuries with Fiji, across the Polynesian racial border, has produced complex mixing and racial interplay that has created considerable cultural hybridisation in both areas. 44 The extent to which this region of the Pacific has contributed to the original settlement of Polynesia 45 can be judged by the archaeological discoveries at Nuku Hiva in the Marquesas, where it appears that the original settlers of 120 B.C. introduced a culture whose content was archaeologically more Melanesian than Polynesian. 46 These migrants possessed an ancestral or “proto-Polynesian” 47 culture (artifactually reminiscent more of Fiji) 48 which appears to have been an underlying stratum present in the western Pacific before the fixed ethnic boundaries of Melanesia and Polynesia existed. 49 The proto-Polynesian arrival in the Marquesas appears to have been from a well-stocked purposeful colonizing expedition 50 which landed at least 200 immigrants. 51 From this evidence it could be suggested that the Ngati-Mamoe may have been part of the early proto-Polynesian stock from either Fiji, Tonga or Samoa, 52 or other such western group. A relict group of proto-Polynesians migrating from an isolated area to New Zealand has also been suggested 53 as a possibility for proto Ngati-Mamoe origin. However, the proto Ngati-Mamoe cannot plausibly be derived from proto-Polynesian stock for their material culture introductions are not significantly early elements in New Zealand prehistory. The few Melanesoid traces that are present among the artifactual remains of New Zealand's early Eastern Polynesian culture are not evidence of early Ngati-Mamoe arrival but are ascribed to a surviving minority of proto-Polynesian traits 54 that were retained by the Eastern - 53 Polynesians 55 after the majority of proto-Polynesian features became modified or discarded. 56 The proto Ngati-Mamoe origin lies later in time than the era of these early Pacific migrations, for the dominant Melanesian cultural elements that the Ngati-Mamoe show suggest adoption at a date when Melanesia had developed its strong racial and cultural distinctiveness. This occurred when the proto-Polynesian culture in the western Pacific became influenced and finally dominated by later Melanesian invasions—probably about 1000 A.D. (in Fiji). 57

The direct influence the proximity of Melanesia (Fiji) had on Western Polynesia (Tonga and Samoa) was perpetuated by the Polynesians themselves, who continuously maintained trans-oceanic contact. The Tongans are considered to have been the most adept and daring voyagers amongst the Polynesians 58 and the crossing of Tongan canoes over the 220 miles oceanic gap to Fiji was the routine of generations. 59 The importance of continued Tongan contact with the Fiji Group was that being “high” volcanic islands these provided a source of the many essential commodities that the low coral islands of the Tongan archipelago were unable to provide. Large timber from the Fijian forests for ocean-going double and single canoe hulls and masts, 60 canoe sails, sandalwood and sandalwood oil 61 and red ornamental parrot feathers 62 were demands that expeditions sought to satisfy by raids as well as trade. Besides expeditions for commerce, Fiji attracted (because of frequent large scale warfare) expeditions of Tongan mercenaries 63 who gave their services in return for large (initially superior) Fijian canoes and women. 64 Because of the military organisation possessed by the Fijians 65 through constant intertribal warfare, “Fiji became the war college of Tonga”. 66

From this contact with Fiji, the Tongans assimilated Melanesian ideas and people which became part of the Tongan Polynesian culture. Canoes, at first Fijian, but later of copied Fijian design and construction, 67 including the outrigger, 68 ideas of warfare including fortified defences as well as weapons 69 like spears, clubs, bow and arrow (adopted for sport), 70 cannibalism, 71 burial vault construction, 72 musical instruments and - 54 signaling devices, 73 coiled basketry, 74 pottery, 75 stone-work, 76 a complex kinship system 77 and social practices, 78 hair liming, 79 language borrowings, 80 food plants 81 and numerous other features entered the Tongan culture. The Tongans also introduced Melanesian physical traits through raiding expeditions returning with captive women. These would join the chiefs' households 82 introducing Melanesian blood and ideas into the Tongan aristocracy. Oceanic expeditions of the Tongans also spread beyond Fiji to cover most island groups of the south-west Pacific. 83 During the 13th Century they raided and occupied Samoa where they implanted their own and the borrowed Melanesian aspects of the culture. 84 Later they also voyaged to Tikopia, the Loyalty Group, New Caledonia, the New Hebrides and the Ellice Group 85 where they often conquered sections of the local inhabitants and obtained their land. 86

As outlined, Tongan contact with Melanesia was initially focused on Fiji and resulted in the partial adoption of Melanesian culture. Through these contacts, permanent mixed Polynesian colonies developed in the Windward Islands, 87 the Lau Islands 88 and on the eastern coast of Viti Levu. 89 The proto Ngati-Mamoe immigrants to New Zealand are envisaged as a group of these mixed “Melanesized” Tongans (i.e. Tongans with a background of Fijian cultural traits and including Melanesian members) who followed a course into southern waters. It is believed that this expedition did not originate as a lost fishing canoe, but consisted of a prepared canoe, or canoes, which migrated from the Tongan area on a colonizing expedition. With large canoes and the Tongan ability of seamanship, the 1,000 miles voyage to New Zealand would not have been of excessive length and the route could well have been laid to follow the path of the migrant long-tailed cuckoo (Eudynamis taitensis). 90 Another possibility that could be considered is that this venture began as a return expedition from Fiji to Tonga with captive women on board, but was diverted off course by a storm, finally arriving off the New Zealand coast. The likelihood of any Fijian voyages is not considered, for unless under the guidance of Tongans, they were restricted to coastal movements only. 91

- 55

As the Ngati-Mamoe are defined by the writer as being a group of “Melanesianized” Tongans, perhaps with Fijian wives, their presence can be identified through the continuity of subtle Melanesoid physical and material traits interwoven in the fabric of New Zealand Polynesian culture. From an anthropological view it cannot be conceded that any group arriving in a new country could manage to preserve its members and subtle culture traits in permanent isolation. This dictum is upheld by the Ngati-Mamoe, as their history has been one of tribal dissemination. Probable partial mixture on arrival with the already present Polynesian tribes, mixture with the Toi-Whatonga group to form the Tini-o-Toi tribes, warfare with these at a later stage to form the Muaupoko in Horowhenua, the mixing of a large group with Nga-Potiki to create the Tuhoe and movement of one group to the South Island, all point to the dispersal of members. By the time the main body left the Wairarapa for the South Island, they did so to a large extent in name only, for their subtle internal structure had altered through the generations by tribal contacts so that from any modern archaeological viewpoint their material culture would show little difference from that of the late Polynesian Fleet Maori. 92 To account for the scattering (mostly in the North Island) of Melanesoid-Ngatimamoe sub-cultural material, it is necessary to accept the wide distribution of the Ngati-Mamoe as a tribe and later dispersion by intermarriage into other tribes, that their history shows. Some important features of Ngati-Mamoe culture, such as the building of defensive fortifications (see below) that would have been considered beneficial by other tribes would have rapidly become widely adopted at an early date and thereby ensure even fuller development, but the maintenance and spread of Ngati-Mamoe physical features and material culture would depend largely on the continuance of the female line. Ngati-Mamoe women (unlike the men) would survive warfare 93 and be transferred as captives from tribe to tribe, and with them would be carried the seeds of Ngati-Mamoe culture. Thus several adopted members of a tribe by virtue of their Ngati-Mamoe ancestry, or through their Ngati-Mamoe mothers in the tribe, could carry genetically and portray in any artifact productions definite Ngati-Mamoe (Melanesoid) traits. They could thus implant and maintain a Ngati-Mamoe cultural substratum in the midst of a tribe otherwise culturally Polynesian, which would then be handed down to their immediate descendants. This belief in atavistic survival of Ngati-Mamoe traits over generations is important in order to explain any minor occurrence of apparently anomalous but definite Melanesoid-type artifacts in conjunction with objects unquestionably late in the New Zealand Polynesian time sequence.


As made clear above, the features on which the Ngatimamoe subculture is defined are those that may be regarded as the “extremes” in - 56 their culture and that reveal their Melanesian inheritance. In the past, many non-Polynesian or seemingly inexplicable elements in New Zealand culture were assigned to the Maruiwi people on account of their putatively western Pacific source, supported by the information in the Te Matorohanga tradition. 94 Many of these features are legitimately Western Polynesian-Melanesian in origin and as such owe their introduction to the proto Ngati-Mamoe. Some of these features have been discussed at length previously while others are new. However, to present the full inventory of Ngati-Mamoe introductions it is necessary to review all features in relationship to Ngati-Mamoe history and other related items. Some features of Ngati-Mamoe introduction were identified by Adkin, 95 but without detailed qualification at the time, it was possible to provide these with alternative explanations. 96 In the following section the writer has attempted to define and describe those features he considers to indicate the Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand. The list may be viewed as a selection of Melanesian trait introductions, but this selectivity as Buck points out 97 was what the Tongans themselves showed when they adopted Fijian traits, and in New Zealand, with a dominant Eastern Polynesian population, only a subtle remnant of original proto Ngati-Mamoe introductions would be detectable.


The uniqueness within Polynesia and the hitherto unexplained development of the important New Zealand fighting pa is considered by the writer to owe its foundation to the prototype form introduced into the country by the proto Ngati-Mamoe. Normal warfare in Polynesia traditionally took the form of open combat 98 whereas fortified sites (stockaded with ditch and rampart) were characteristic of Melanesian warfare. 99 Through Tongan contact 100 and involvement in Fijian warfare, the concept of defensive sites along with the adoption of the Fijian weapons associated in attack and defence of these structures, was introduced into the Tongan area. 101 In ancient Fiji, the creation of a fortified hamlet or defensive area for community dwelling was the standard tribal custom 102 and in Viti Levu today hundreds of such sites mark past defensive structures. 103 Within Fiji, two defensive types existed, depending on the topography of the area. 104 The ruggedness of the interior of the main - 57 islands led to the development of ridge defences (modification of a ridge or hill by artificially isolating with ditches a natural commanding position) 105 whereas on the flatter coastal plain circular-plan sites with deep protective ditch and raised banks utilising vertical timber pallisading were constructed. 106 Of these two styles, the Tongans adopted in its entirety the ring-ditch and bank defence design for their flat coral islands, complete with stockading methods and the use of fighting stages. 107 In the neighbouring “high” island of Samoa hill forts are also to be found, 108 but these and the types of warfare they suggest, has been credited to the Tongan invasion of the 13th Century. Whether from Tongan influence or through direct Fijian contact however, 109 they show similar development of the ridge and hill top defence systems of interior Viti Levu.

From this background of defence construction and warfare strategy that the Tongans possessed, it is considered that the proto Ngati-Mamoe were responsible for transplanting this defensive architecture into New Zealand, introducing the prototype of what was to develop into the complex Maori fighting pa of later years. Arriving in the midst of an Eastern Polynesian population already resident in New Zealand, the proto Ngati-Mamoe introduced their defended hamlets into the territory to which they laid claim. With areas of both flat and hilly land in their domain, they established both types of (Fijian) defensive structures 110 to suit topographic demands as well as adaptations and combinations of the two. A series of small dispersed defended sites per tribe, on the Fijian and Tongan principle, seems to have been the first established form of site 111 and this later became widespread in the North Island. Traditional evidence guides the theory of the next stage in the development of the pa, with Ngati-Mamoe intermarriage in the Bay of Plenty, where their dispersal and warfare stimulated fuller use and development of the purely defensive fortified retreats in warfare. 112 However, traditionally, it is not until the arrival of the tribes of the Fleet in the 14th Century that the complex fighting pa of recent times began to emerge. 113 After coming from Central Polynesia where fortification was unknown, the Fleet Maori rapidly became adept at defensive pa warfare. Possibly linked to this development was the possession of the kumara, 114 for the ability to store food provided the strength and resistance of a pa. In the South Island, the fighting pa was late making its appearance, arriving with the Ngati-Mamoe about 1550 A.D. 115 Its lesser degree of utilization here may well have been related to the restricted geographic tolerance of the kumara and the reduced population pressures.

- 58

An alternative suggestion to the thesis of Ngati-Mamoe introduction is that the pa was wholly conceived and developed within New Zealand. 116 This is not accepted by the writer as it is thought that the close analogies between the New Zealand pa and its Tongan-Fijian counterpart in its structure and defensive equipment are too great for it to be entirely a local product. A further possibility is that the defensive site could have been a basic accoutrement of the early Polynesian in the Pacific, for along with Western Polynesia, defensive structures (not including stone walled forts which are known in the areas given as well as in the Society Islands and Mangareva), though not numerous, have been recorded from the Marquesas, 117 the Hawaiian Group, 118 Ra'iatea in the Society Group 119 and Rapa, 120 that show a similarity to New Zealand ridge pas. 121 There seems however no case for these sites to be classed as an original proto-Polynesian introduction to Eastern Polynesia, for all records show them to be later developments and particularly flourishing at the time of European contact. In New Zealand the defensive site was unknown to the first Eastern Polynesian immigrants so it was not a cultural possession of their ancestral Society Island homeland. The date Suggs has given for the appearance in Nuku Hiva of fortified sites is from 1100 A.D. 122 This may be regarded as significant for it is also the period postulated for the arrival of the proto Ngati-Mamoe in New Zealand. It is considered by the writer that these defence concepts so similar to those in New Zealand are likely to have been also introduced across the Pacific from the Tongan area at a time in Pacific history when West Polynesian voyaging was extensive. 123 From the Marquesas as a dispersal area, 124 the concept is likely to have spread to other groups, where if strategically and socially advantageous, it was adopted. In its scattered southward drift through Eastern Polynesia the appearances of the fortification concept became later in time, when finally in isolated Rapa, terraced fortified sites were first being engineered at the time of European contact. 125 As there is no evidence to suggest introduction of the pa from Eastern Polynesia to New Zealand, the connection with the West Polynesian-Fiji region (via the proto Ngati-Mamoe) remains the satisfactory explanation for the appearance of the prototype of this notable feature in New Zealand prehistory.


The pahu gong, an important accessory to fighting pa equipment, is considered by the writer to be a further proto Ngati-Mamoe introduction. In New Zealand this signalling gong followed two designs, either taking - 59 the form of a large flat slab of resonant matai, or a canoe-shaped slit-gong, with narrow opening and hollowed interior. 126 Both types were used in a suspended position. Although Buck 127 suggested that they were of local development, both forms are of Melanesian derivation and spread to West Polynesia from Fiji. 128 In Eastern Polynesia the hollowed wooden drum was widely used but it is not to be connected with the hollowed pahu of Western Polynesia or New Zealand which are both related to those of the Melanesian area. 129 In New Zealand the use of the pahu gong became an integral part of pa defence, it being suspended from two posts on a raised platform in the pa, and sounded regularly by the watchman throughout the night to indicate the alertness of the pa to friend and foe. 130 It is suggested by the writer that the pahu in New Zealand represents a Melanesian trait initially introduced with the Ngatimamoe sub-culture, that became widely adopted because of its strategic value in the developing fighting pa.


Along with the introduction of the fortified hamlet appears a series of specialized spears for both attack and defence of these sites and for general warfare that are attributed by the writer to Ngatimamoe sub-cultural origin.

1. Huata: A spear up to 30 feet in length with a knob at the rear end of the shaft, was a weapon principally used by attackers and defenders for thrusting between pallisading. 131

2. Projectile Spears: A series of spears designed for propulsion over defensive palisading; the kopere or sling projected dart, the whiuwhiu or whip-thrown spear and the kotaha for propelling these missiles, appear to be survivors of early projectile weapons associated with defensive unit attack. 132

3. Combat Spears: The ordinary fighting spear of the Maori inhabitants of New Zealand took the form of a plain, polished pointed hard wooden shaft, the tao, from 4 to 6 feet in length. 133 Apart from this standardized weapon with no (or rare) decoration there exist two special spear groups which have been recorded previously, but for which no attempt has hitherto been made at differentiation and classification.

(a) The first group of spears are the ornately barbed weapons not characteristic of Fleet Maori design but possessing definite Fijian stylistic affinities, and thought by the writer to demonstrate Ngatimamoe sub-cultural relationships. Examples of these weapons (considered by the - 60 Fleet Maori to be the work of their predecessors in New Zealand) 134 are figured by Angas, Hamilton, Oldman and Read 135 showing stepped-barbed, twin-pronged barbed, 136 and decorated quadrangular sectioned spear point types. 137 The stepped or turreted point variety is found in Fiji 138 and the twin pronged or forked form 139 is also found within Melanesia.

(b) The second group is that of the composite spear with attached barbs or point of Melanesian affinity. 140 In this category falls the spears pointed and barbed with the spines of the sting-ray (tete-whai), which appear to have been a favourite war weapon of the Ngati-Mamoe 141 as it was in Fiji and Tonga. Sting-ray barbs were also employed in the huata type of spear as well as in the makiukiu form, 142 where they were arranged in several rows. The Paremata find 143 of 46 notched spines lying in position along the decayed shaft represents one of these latter types. The use of the sting-ray barb in New Zealand is believed to have been a preference of the Ngati-Mamoe and a cultural trait derived from their Tongan homeland where it was widely used 144 as it was in Fiji 145 and other parts of Melanesia. 146


Adkin 147 has figured two unusual forms of patu from Western Wellington that, on a deductive basis, he attributes to the Ngatimamoe (sub) culture. Both specimens depart from the usual style of Polynesian patu forms—the early Waitaha baton of authority and the later thrusting weapons of the Fleet Maori—being heavy massive weapons designed for dealing a lateral slashing blow. These weapons fit the description of the early patu kurutai. 148 Apart from the method in which they were obviously used, as bludgeoning hand-clubs (unique to New Zealand prehistoric warfare), their large outsized hand-grips 149 disclose that they belonged to the hands of men capable of wielding large weapons. This can be treated as diagnostic evidence for suggesting anthropological affinities.

A group of artifacts that show consistent variation in handle size - 61 (and weight) are the wooden fighting clubs of Samoa, Tonga and especially Fiji. This variable feature can be obviously related to the differing physique of the individual owners and wielders of these weapons. Amongst the war clubs of Fijian origin can be found a gradation of handle diameters ranging from those that would be considered of “comfortable and normal” hand size, to many that could only be wielded by men of extremely large physical proportions. 150 The Fijian Melanesians are the largest known members of the Melanesian race and any intermarriage with the stalwart Tongans (as involved in the formation of the proto Ngati-Mamoe) would certainly not lead to a reduction of large physical characters. These two patu weapons then, as Adkin deduced, can form a distinct stylistic and functional link with the weapons of Fiji and Tonga and are anomalies amongst the lighter and handier thrusting weapons favoured by the later Maori. 151


An important line of evidence that supports the presence of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand is to be found within the Type 2B adze group of Duff, 152 which is the dominant form found in the North Island. This group is defined by ground tangless adzes of “rounded quadrangular section” intermediate between the rectangular Polynesian and the lenticular Melanesian norm. 153 It is the characteristic adze type of the Fleet Maori but is virtually unrepresented in Eastern Polynesia. The general rounded nature of this 2B group could, as Duff realized 154 relate the ultimate origin of this assemblage to an original West Polynesian-Melanesian introduction, but being without a mechanism for introducing this type from Melanesia Duff considered it to be a “spontaneous” development 155 within the North Island. The writer however favours the introduction of this adze type into New Zealand, via the proto Ngati-Mamoe.

The New Zealand 2B adze (in rounder extremes) overlaps with more rectangular Melanesian extremes 156 (i.e. Fijian) and particularly with adze types found in the Lau Islands. 157 The important analogy can therefore be made that the diversity of adze types found in the Lau Group, reflecting the Fijian and West Polynesian cultural origin of the population, 158 and resultant “hybridisation” of adze types, is the identical counterpart of the cultural revolution in New Zealand (inspired by the Ngati-Mamoe) that culminated in the production of rounded adze forms that are now included in the 2B category. The 2B hybrid adze type can - 62 now be expressed alternatively as the rounded modification and standardization of early Eastern and later Central Polynesian adze types (2A) in the North Island of New Zealand through Ngatimamoe sub-cultural influence. In the South Island the 2B adze style is known to have been derived from the North Island and introduced by the migration of the Ngati-Mamoe about 1550 A.D. 159

Proto Ngati-Mamoe Sub-Type: Amongst the range of adzes of “rounded quadrangular section” that constitute the 2B Type are a very significant but rare group of adzes that are believed to warrant sub-type recognition. For obvious cultural reasons it is thought that they should not be included within a broad undifferentiated group as they are of distinctive type and are considered by the writer as survivals of the original proto Ngati-Mamoe Melanesoid adze introductions. The proposed sub-group covers the small range of adzes that exhibit decided Melanesian features—(1) lensoid, oval or round cross-section; (2) absence of lateral surfaces; (3) close approach to axial symmetry; (4) curved to semi-circular cutting edges; (5) lateral tapering to a well-rounded or pointed poll and (6) a generally ovoid or tapering outline. 160 In the past these types have been recognised and singled out as a group exhibiting an alien non-Polynesian “Solomon Island” form, 161 but generally any Melanesian characteristics in adzes have not been stressed through lack of a suitable explanation to account for their presence. From the few examples of these adzes seen by the author and recorded in earlier literature, it is considered that they correspond to Melanesian forms, and as such, can be classified in two groups based on cross-section—circular 162 and oval or lensoid. 163 These cross-section categories denote the outline shape the adze type follows; either cylindrical, tapering to a pointed poll, or lenticular, tapering to a rounded poll. 164 However, as evidenced in the Lau Islands, considerable hybridisation can be seen in these forms transending both Melanesoid types mentioned 165 and borrowing Polynesian aspects. These forms will not directly fit Melanesian cross-section classifications.

By way of illustrating this rare Ngatimamoe adze sub-type and adding further to the documentary record, two specimens are figured.

Specimen A: (Fig. 1). Small adze or adze-form chisel. Found in the Poroutawhao area, Horowhenua, adjacent to the Levin-Foxton Highway. Anterior and posterior surfaces longitudinally and transversely convex; flattened blade-level grades smoothly into curve of posterior surface; no lateral edges, cross-section being a flattened oval. In outline the

- 63
Fig. 1

specimen tapers markedly from a broad semi-circular cutting edge to a pointed poll. All surfaces ground. Weight, 1 1/8 oz.; Material; a dark green-grey indurated (or sub metamorphosed) mudstone.

Specimen B: (Fig. 2). Adze, ploughed up at Pongaroa, Southern Wairarapa. Anterior and posterior surfaces longitudinally and transversely convex; blade-bevel steep grading smoothly into posterior surfaces. Cross-section oval; no lateral edges. In outline specimen tapers from a semi-circular cutting edge to a conical and pointed poll. Surfaces are bruised with the blade-level and anterior surface near cutting edge ground. Weight, 17 oz.; Material; a medium to dark grey-brown coarse grained indurated sandstone (or greywacke).

Chatham Islands. The presence in the Chatham Islands of petaloid shaped (Ngatimamoe sub group) oval-sectioned adzes 166 (and circular-sectioned gouges) in sufficient number to be a dominant feature of local culture, is considered by the writer to indicate a probable Ngati-Mamoe influence. This can be interpreted that a group of Ngati-Mamoe (or related people) from a region of New Zealand where Ngatimamoe sub-cultural features were strongest and were being disseminated, moved to the Chatham Islands and implanted amongst the early Eastern Polynesian culture (Moriori) the elements of their different adze culture. The likely area of New Zealand from which this influence could have been derived was the East Coast of the North Island, a conclusion independently considered by Simmons who found it necessary to conjecture outside contact to explain the artifactual diversity present in Moriori material culture. 167

- 64
Fig. 2

- i Page is blank

- ii
PLATE 1: Necklace from Paremata sandflat, Porirua Harbour, Wellington.
- 65

What must be considered as one of the most unique and significant finds in New Zealand in recent years and one that the writer believes strongly supports the Western Polynesian origin of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture, is the recovery of the “Paremata necklace”. This discovery from the Paremata sand flat at Porirua Harbour, Wellington, in May 1963, is recorded for the first time, through the kindness of the finder, Mr J. K. Nichols, of Wellington. The necklace (Plate 1) as recovered, comprises fourteen units and their arrangement in the plate is believed to approximate the original suspension sequence. The significant units of the necklace are the four finely-shaped, tapering and curved “tooth” or “tusk” forms of sperm whale ivory. These were probably separated by the three shark vertebral disks serving as “spacers” between the units. The next units (2, 3 and 11, 12, 13) are dog teeth. Five were recovered and have been arranged with three on one side of the sequence and two on the other. The final units (1 and 14) are shark teeth. Unit 1 is a tooth from the mako shark (Isuropsis mako) and unit 14 is from the tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier). It cannot now be determined whether these remaining units were strung together or were separated from each other by spacers as are the tusk units.

The stratigraphic position from which the Paremata necklace was recovered is of some importance in confirming the distinctiveness of the find, but on typological grounds this uniqueness cannot be challenged. The necklace units were recovered from the upper surface of “layer 3” of the site and were stained with the black decomposed charcoal which, in the area where they were recovered, constitutes the matrix of the lowest layer (layer 3). This layer is the earliest and has revealed rich material finds related to a moa-hunting occupancy. The necklace was covered by “layer 2”, a predominantly shell-midden horizon of presumed Tini-o-Toi to Fleet Maori age.

The use of sperm whale teeth as breast pendants within Eastern Polynesia is a widespread practice. In New Zealand, vertically hung natural whale ivory pendants, either as single ornaments or as central necklace pendants and in modified form (rei puta) or ornately carved (“stepped” and chevron pendants) forms were employed in all cultural periods. In Melanesia (and introduced into Tonga and Samoa) the natural sperm whale tooth was worn as a horizontally suspended pendant (the tambua), or converted by the axial cutting of the teeth into slender circular curved and tapering “tusk-like” units, which were strung together as a necklace with the tusk points curving away from the wearer's chest. The units in these necklaces were either directly threaded together, or when a lesser number of units were employed, “spacers” between units were used to give even separation around the neck of the wearer. The Paremata necklace, with its four unique tusk-like units, shows a direct relationship to this necklace type produced only in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga. The identical mode of manufacture from split sperm whale teeth, the circular tapered shape and the curvature of the units indicate to the - 66 writer that this exclusive Western Polynesian borderland artistic practice was carried from its homeland and re-established within the New Zealand area. Along with the stingray barbed spear find (that was mentioned earlier), the Paremata necklace can be thought of both typologically and archaeologically as an intrusive Ngati-Mamoe introduction into New Zealand.


Another element of Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand that in the writer's opinion can be related to a West Polynesian-Melanesian source is the discovery of remains of outrigger canoes. In New Zealand, unlike the rest of Polynesia, the incidence of the outrigger canoe has always been considered rare, for apart from the few remains discovered to date, only two reports of sightings by early European explorers 168 have ever verified its past use. This contrasts greatly with the wealth of reports on the use of large single-hulled canoes and double canoes made by early voyagers 169 and the actual hulls preserved today, but it confirms the belief of Buck 170 that the outrigger canoe found virtually little or no place here where the great wealth of timber trees available offered the means of producing large canoes of inherent stability. Apart from the large voyaging canoes which utilised an additional hull or outrigger for greater stability during oceanic crossings, the outrigger float has always been regarded as a necessary modification for the narrow-hulled canoes 171 that most Pacific Island timber consistently produced.

The remains of outrigger canoes from New Zealand are represented by the Monck's Cave outrigger float, 172 the Henley canoe hull, 173 an extremely small thwart from Lake Horowhenua, 174 a narrow carved canoe prow of rare type from Waitara, 175 the Te Horo outrigger float 176 and an unfinished canoe hull, also from Te Horo. 177 Of this material however, it is only the two outrigger floats—from Monck's Cave and Te Horo—that give evidence as to where their original affinities lie. Both floats possess identical patterns of boom attachment holes, each group comprising of four holes arranged as a narrow cross. The two outer vertical holes of each group, along the axis of the timber, form the peg holes, while the inner two oblique holes comprise the V-form suspensory lashing perforations. 178 Although the Te Horo float has five such groups and the Monck's cave float only three, a re-examination of the float - 67 confirms Barrow's suggestion 179 that two of the groups are of much later origin, and that the original design of the Te Horo float was identical with that of the smaller float from Monck's cave. Twin-boom float attachment is the method commonly used in most Polynesian outrigger canoes, 180 but additional attachments are known to have existed in the Marquesas 181 and the New Zealand floats with three booms are a similar anomaly. The island groups where more than two booms are employed (co-existing with the normal form) are Tonga, Samoa, Tokelau and the Ellice Islands, and the presence of this trait amongst them is considered 182 to have been obtained through Melanesian cultural influence stemming from Fiji.

The method adopted for attachment of the float booms to the New Zealand outrigger floats is the “indirect type” using “convergent or very slightly over-crossed connectives” 183 inserted into the float and is one of the simplest methods used in Oceania. This style is the common method employed in Fiji, Samoa and Tonga, and has spread, like the outrigger booms, in a narrow belt across Polynesia to include the Tokelau, Marquesas and inner Tuamotu Groups, 184 without doubt owing its source and spread to Fijian influence.

The presence in New Zealand of outrigger canoe remains that bear direct relationships to Fijian and West Polynesian forms is considered by the writer to be in accordance with the concept of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture. This does not rule out the likelihood that outrigger craft showing strictly Polynesian analogies may turn up in the future, but it indicates that the Ngatimamoe sub-cultural influence was a reality and the identity of its canoe type was maintained in spite of available timber resources and the presence of the strong Eastern Polynesian cultural influence in the country.


The occurrence of Maori curvilinear art amidst the rectilinear style of Polynesia is an enigma that has not been satisfactorily explained. 185 The usual rectilinear style of Polynesian art was definitely present amongst the earlier inhabitants of New Zealand for the “straight-line” geometric tuhi and moko-kuri, and crossed pukauwae tattoo patterns were recorded amongst descendents of the earliest groups, 186 and recovered archaic carvings show the rectilinear design. At the other end of the time scale, the Fleet Maori arrivals of the 14th Century evidently had nothing new - 68 to contribute in Polynesian art forms, 187 but yet by the 18th Century, they had become masters of a complex flourishing curvilinear art style that penetrated into all avenues of their culture. This change in art style within New Zealand must be considered as “rather revolutionary than evolutionary”, 188 for without the presence of some important stimulus in the country, art style would not have departed from the traditional Polynesian norm.

From the Marquesan Islands an art style using curvilinear motifs 189 has also been reported. It is thought that this in no way can be compared with the elaboration and complexity of Maori art style, as it is both primitive in development and infrequent in occurrence. However, as mentioned above, proto-Polynesians or later Tongan voyagers may have had a bearing on its appearance. 190

Skinner and other authors 191 in attempting to trace trans-Pacific connections in Maori curvilinear art have found the stylistic relationships to lie with coastal New Guinea and its off-shore archipelagoes, particularly with Geelvink Bay in the West and the Massim region in the East, and with Espiritu Santo in the New Hebrides. In these areas curvilinear art is predominantly practised, and stylistic design, particularly the unique koru pattern as employed by the Maori in New Zealand 192 for rafter decoration is duplicated. However in view of the dominantly East and Central Polynesian derivation of New Zealand colonists and culture, any suggested relationship or influence that appeared to have spread into the New Zealand prehistoric scene from New Guinea is unacceptable. To overcome this difficulty the explanation for the anomalous appearance of curvilinear art has been thought of as an internal evolutionary development. But, in the writer's opinion with the presentation of the evidence for the Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand, New Guinea-Melanesian relationships can be fully accepted. It is thought that during the early Tongan voyaging, which encountered nearly all the island groups of Melanesia, it is highly probable that some contact with the curvilinear art form was made, either via the outlying archipelagoes of New Guinea, or through contact with migrant exponents of this style. The seeds of this different art concept, it is thought, were then carried by a small group of Tongan voyagers who were to become members of the proto Ngati-Mamoe. This idea was carried with the proto Ngati-Mamoe who, in New Zealand began to experiment with this new art concept. However, although it is postulated that the curvilinear art concept arrived with the proto Ngati-Mamoe, credit must be given to later tribal groups for further developing this new style (largely in the Bay of Plenty) 193 into the complex form that has become unique within Polynesia.

- 69

As well as considering the material aspects of the Ngatimamoe sub-cultural group, certain sociological features can be traced in New Zealand culture that can be regarded as intrusive introductions via this Western Pacific group.

Nose Pressing: The custom of pressing and massaging the noses of infants in order to flatten the nostrils has been recorded on occasions within New Zealand. 194 This non-Polynesian custom is one that pertains to the Tongan area where the broadening of the infant nose in males was considered to be a commemorative tribute to outstanding Fijian warriors, and in females, an approach to the (Fijian) ideal of womanly beauty. 195 This acceptance of Melanesian physical characteristics as desirable personal attributes by the Tongans arose through their contacts with Fiji and the introduction of Fijian women into Tongan tribal aristocracy. 196 From these contacts sprang the desire to develop the broad Melanesian nose in the Tongan population, by the artificial flattening of the noses of infants. 197 That this restricted custom was also introduced into New Zealand, helps to underline the source of the proto Ngati-Mamoe which it is thought emplanted this trait into New Zealand culture. Its survival in New Zealand was due to the continuation of the custom by Ngati-Mamoe women. It was a practice restricted to the Ngati-Mamoe and their scattered assimilated members and descendants, for outside this sphere of influence the reverse tradition held sway and the narrow nose of the Eastern Polynesian was the desired feature of facial beauty. 198

Cannibalism and Sacrifice: The occurrence of cannibalism as an inherent part of later New Zealand Maori culture can be considered as evidence of early extra-Polynesian contact. Cannibalism (and the practice of kai-pirau—exhuming and eating of buried human bodies) is linked to widespread Melanesian custom 199 and through early Tongan contacts with Fiji, this ancient “semi-sacred rite” 200 was brought into Western Polynesia. 201 It is thought by the writer that the initial introduction of this practice to New Zealand was via the proto Ngati-Mamoe. Although the incidence of ritualistic human sacrifice was of wide occurrence throughout Eastern Polynesia, it appears to have been originally absent from Western Polynesian culture 202 and only an infrequent practice in New Zealand. The vestige however of analogous Fijian sacrificial practices (that of the burial of victims at the base of stockade posts) 203 as described by Wilson 204 at Tawhitirahi pa, 205 is thought by the writer to be a result - 70 of the Ngati-Mamoe implanting a traditional sacrificial custom connected with Fijian fort building.

There are likely to be many other sociological features of Maori culture not traceable to a direct Polynesian origin but to Melanesian derivation revealed from time to time. For example lullabies and the haka 206 as well as the piercing of the nasal septum for nose pins by members of the Tuhoe 207 are further enigmatic elements of Maori culture that seem to the writer to point to trait introductions by the Ngati-Mamoe. In the future additional work may expand this body of evidence presented above for Western Pacific influences in New Zealand prehistory, and further elevate the significance of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture as an important element in New Zealand prehistory.


This outline of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture in New Zealand provides an explanation for the presence of subtle Melanesian physical and cultural elements within New Zealand Polynesian culture. Unlike early attempts which endeavoured to explain these anomalies by considering an early migration of people of pure Melanesian strain (“the Maruiwi myth”), the writer's alternative explanation is that a mixed Polynesian group with a decided Melanesian physical and cultural element acquired, as Williams suggested, “before they migrated to New Zealand”. 208 The Ngati-Mamoe in New Zealand are selected as being the tribal group that appears to have carried (and diffused) a large element of Melanesian physical and cultural traits through its history, and for the purpose of cultural terminology, their tribal name is taken to designate this subtle Melanesian element. The origin of this influence is traced into the West Pacific and the Tongan archipelago, through its relationship with Fiji, is postulated as the homeland for the proto Ngati-Mamoe migrants. This is determined by seeking the likely Pacific source for the various Melanesian traits in New Zealand culture. The recognition of the Ngatimamoe sub-culture underlines the need for regarding New Zealand prehistory as a development from a series of separate arrivals and culture introductions, out of which late Maori culture finally stemmed.

In conclusion, appreciation is expressed by the writer to Mr J. K. Nichols for permission to illustrate the Paremata necklace and to Mr S. N. Beatus for his photography of this specimen. Acknowledgement is also made to the late Mr G. L. Adkin for correspondence during 1963–64 regarding his work on the “patu hand-grip theory” and for the exchange of ideas on the place of the Ngati-Mamoe in New Zealand prehistory.

- 71
  • ADKIN, G. L., 1948. Horowhenua. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir No. 26.
  • ——1950. “Supplementary Data Relating to the Ancient Waitaha in the Horowhenua-Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara Area, North Island, New Zealand.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 59: 1–34.
  • ——1957. “A Rare Lunate Pendant from New Zealand.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 66: 192–198.
  • ——1960. “An Adequate Culture Nomenclature for the New Zealand Area.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 69: 228–238.
  • ——1962. “An Ancient Outrigger Float from a Te Horo Swamp, Western Wellington.” Dominion Museum Records in Ethnology, 1 (8): 267–276.
  • ——1963. “A Patu Type Attributable to the Ngatimamoe Culture, from the Horowhenua-Manawatu Area, Western Wellington.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 72: 27–30.
  • ANDERSEN, J. C, 1933. “Maori Music with its Polynesian Background.” Journal of the Polynesian Society Supplement. Installment No. 6: 189–204.
  • ANGAS, G. F., 1847. Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand. Vol. I. London, Smith Elder.
  • ——1847a. The New Zealanders. London.
  • ARCHEY, G., 1936. “The Maori: History and Ethnology.” A.N.Z.A.A.S. Conference Programme (1937): 78–87.
  • ——1956. “Tauihu: the Maori canoe prow.” Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 4: 365–379.
  • BARROW, T. and I. W. KEYES, 1966. “An Outrigger Canoe Hull from Te Horo, Western Wellington.” Dominion Museum Records in Ethnology, 9: 277–84.
  • BEATTIE, H., 1941. The Morioris of the South Island. Dunedin, Otago Daily Times & Witness Newspapers Co. Ltd.
  • DE BEER, D. H., 1924. “A Carved House-Post from Espiritu Santo.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 33: 325–328.
  • BENNETT, W. C, 1931. Archaeology of Kauai. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 80. Honolulu.
  • BEST, E., 1898. “Tuhoe Land: Notes on the Origin, History, Customs, and Traditions of the Tuhoe or Urewera Tribe.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 30: 33–41.
  • ——1912. The Stone Implements of the Maori. Dominion Museum Bulletin No. 4. Wellington.
  • ——1916a. “Maori and Maruiwi: Notes on the Original Inhabitants of New Zealand and their Culture.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 48: 435–447.
  • ——1916b. “Maori Voyagers and their Vessels.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 48: 447–463.
  • ——1923. Polynesian Voyagers. The Maori as a Deep-Sea Navigator, Explorer and Colonizer. Dominion Museum Monograph No. 5. Wellington.
  • ——1925a. Tuhoe. The Children of the Mist. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir No. 6.
  • ——1925b. The Maori Canoe. Dominion Museum Bulletin No. 7. Wellington.
  • ——1925c. Games and Pastimes of the Maori. Dominion Museum Bulletin No. 8. Wellington.
  • ——1927. The Pa Maori. Dominion Museum Bulletin No. 6. Wellington.
- 72
  • ——1928. “The Maruiwi Folk of the Bay of Plenty District.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 37: 194–225.
  • ——1941. The Maori. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir Vol. 5. 2 Vols.
  • ——1952. The Maori As He Was. Wellington, Govt. Printer.
  • BROWN, REV. G., 1910. Melanesians and Polynesians, Their Life Histories Described and Compared. London, Macmillan.
  • BROWN, J. MACMILLAN, 1907. Maori and Polynesian; Their Origin, History and Culture. London, Hutchinson & Co.
  • ——1927. Peoples and Problems of the Pacific. London, T. Fisher Unwin. 2 Vols.
  • BUCK, P. H. (Te Rangi Hiroa), 1927. The Material Culture of the Cook Islands. Memoir of Board of Ethnological Research, Vol. 1. New Plymouth, Thos. Avery.
  • ——1929. The Coming of the Maori. Cawthron Lecture, Cawthron Institute, Nelson. New Plymouth, Thos. Avery.
  • ——1949. The Coming of the Maori. Wellington, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • ——1959. Vikings of the Pacific. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
  • BUIST, A. G., 1964. Archaeology in North Taranaki, New Zealand. N.Z. Archaeological Association Monograph No. 3.
  • BURROWS, E. G., 1938. “Western Polynesia. A Study in Cultural Differentiation.” Etnologiska Studier, 7: 1–192.
  • COLENSO, REV. W., 1875. “On the Maori Races of New Zealand.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 1: 339–424 (2nd ed.).
  • COWAN, J., 1910. The Maoris of New Zealand. Wellington, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • ——1930. The Maoris of New Zealand, Yesterday and Today. Wellington, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • CRANSTONE, B. A. L., 1961. Melanesia, A Short Ethnography. London, Trustees of the British Museum.
  • DERRICK, R. A., 1942. “Fijian Warfare.” Transactions and Proceedings of the Fiji Society of Science and Industry, 2: 137–146.
  • DIEFFENBACH, E., 1843. Travels in New Zealand, Vol. 2. London. John Murray.
  • DUFF, R., 1950. The Moa-Hunter Period of Maori Culture. Wellington, Department of Internal Affairs.
  • ——1959. “Neolithic Adzes of Eastern Polynesia.” in Freeman and Geddes (eds.) Anthropology in the South Seas. New Plymouth, Thomas Avery & Sons, pp. 121–48.
  • ——1961a. “Excavation of House-Pits at Pari Whakatau Pa, Claverley, Marlborough.” Records of the Canterbury Museum, 7: 269-302.
  • ——1961b. Chairman's Address, Section O, 9th New Zealand Science Congress. Proceedings of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 89: 159–161.
  • ——1963. “Aspects of the Cultural Succession in Canterbury-Marlborough, with Wider Reference to the New Zealand Area.” Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, General, 1 (4): 27–37.
  • EMORY, K. P., 1924. The Archaeology of Lanai, Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 12. Honolulu.
  • ——1933. Stone Remains in the Society Islands. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 116. Honolulu.
  • EMORY, K. P., and SINOTO, Y. H., 1964. “Eastern Polynesian Burials at Maupiti.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 73: 143–160.
  • ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 1953. London. Vols. 9 and 22.
  • GIFFORD, E. W., 1929. Tongan Society. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 60. Honolulu.
- 73
  • ——1951. “Archaeological Excavations in Fiji.” University of California Anthropological Records, 13: 189–258.
  • GOLSON, J., 1957a. “Field Archaeology in New Zealand.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 66: 64–109.
  • ——1957b. Report to Tri-Institutional Pacific Program on Archaeological Fieldwork in Tonga and Samoa. Mimeographed. Dept. of Anthropology, University of Auckland, Auckland.
  • ——1960. “Archaeology, Tradition, and Myth in New Zealand Prehistory.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 69: 380–402.
  • ——1961. “Investigations at Kauri Point, Katikati, Western Bay of Plenty.” N.Z. Archaeological Association Newsletter, 4: 13–41.
  • GOLSON, J., and GATHERCOLE, P. W., 1962. “The Last Decade in New Zealand Archaeology.” Antiquity, 36: 271–278.
  • GRAHAM, G., 1925. “History of the Kawerau Tribe of Waitakere.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 34: 19–23.
  • GREEN, R. C, 1963a. A Review of the Prehistoric Sequence in the Auckland Province. N.Z. Archaeological Association Memoir No. 2.
  • ——1963b. “A Suggested Revision of the Fijian Sequence.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 72: 235–253.
  • ——1964. “Archaeology in Western Samoa.” N.Z. Archaeological Association Newsletter, 7: 45–50.
  • HADDON, A. C., and HORNELL, J., 1938. Canoes of Oceania. Vol. 3. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 29. Honolulu.
  • HAMILTON, A., 1898. Maori Art. Part 3. New Zealand Institute, Wellington.
  • HANDY, E. S. C., 1923. The Native Culture in the Marquesas. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 9. Honolulu.
  • HOCART, A. M., 1929. Lau Islands, Fiji. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 62. Honolulu.
  • HUTTON, CAPTAIN, 1898. “On Maori Stone Implements.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 30: 130–134.
  • KEYES, I. W., 1962. “The Ngati-Mamoe Occupation of the Marlborough Sounds and D'Urville Island.” Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, General, 1 (1): 1–12.
  • KIRK, T. W., 1890. “On some Maori Implements of Uncommon Design.” Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 22: 539–540.
  • LINTON, R., 1925. Archaeology of the Marquesas Islands. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 23. Honolulu.
  • MCKERN, W. C, 1929. Archaeology of Tonga. Bishop Museum Bulletin No. 60. Honolulu.
  • MARTIN, J., 1817. An Account of the Natives of the Tonga Islands in the South Pacific Ocean. London, Constable.
  • NGATA, A., 1958. “The Origin of Maori Carving.” Te Ao Hou, 22: 30–34; 23: 30–37.
  • OLDMAN, W. O., 1946. Skilled Handwork of the Maori: Being the Oldman Collection of Maori Artifacts. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir Vol. 14. 2nd Ed.
  • PALMER, J. B., 1965. “Archaeology in Fiji.” N.Z. Archaeological Association Newsletter, 8: 3–5.
  • PHILLIPPS, W. J., 1928. “Unusual Form of Stone Adze from Pahiatua.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 37: 241.
  • ——1955. “Notes with Illustrations of Maori Material Culture.” Dominion Museum Records in Ethnology, 1 (4): 123–182.
- 74
  • DE QUATREFAGES, A., 1892. “The Moas and the Moa-Hunters.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 25: 17–49.
  • READ, C. H., 1910. British Museum Handbook to the Ethnographical Collections. London, Trustees of the British Museum.
  • REICHARD, G. A., 1933. Melanesian Design: a study of style in wood and tortoise-shell carving. New York, Columbia University Press. Vol. 1.
  • SCHMITZ, C. A., 1961a. “Das Problem der austro-melaniden Kultur.” Acta Tropica, 18: 97–141.
  • ——1961b. Correspondence on G. L. Adkin's “An Adequate Culture Nomenclature for the New Zealand Area.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 70: 127–129.
  • SCOTT, J. H., 1893. “Contribution to the Osteology of the Aborigines of New Zealand and the Chatham Islands.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 26: 1–64.
  • SHAPIRO, H. L., 1941. The Physical Anthropology of the Maori-Moriori. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir No. 17: 1–15.
  • SHARP, A., 1956. Ancient Voyagers in the Pacific. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir No. 32.
  • SHORTLAND, E., 1851. The Southern Districts of New Zealand. London.
  • ——1875. “A Short Sketch of the Maori Race.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 1: 329–338 (2nd ed.).
  • SIMMONS, D. R., 1962. “The Moriori of the Chatham Islands.” N.Z. Archaeological Association Newsletter, 5: 238–244.
  • SKINNER, H. D., 1921. “Culture Areas in New Zealand.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 30: 71–78.
  • ——1922. “Nose-pin Among the Maoris.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 31: 205.
  • ——1923. The Morioris of Chatham Islands. Bishop Museum Memoir Vol. 9, No. 1. Honolulu.
  • ——1924a. “Archaeology of Canterbury; II, Monck's Cave.” Records of Canterbury Museum, 2: 151–162.
  • ——1924b. “Origin and Relationships of Maori Material Culture and Decorative Art.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 33: 229–243.
  • SKINNER, H. D. and BAUCKE, W., 1928. The Morioris. Bishop Museum Memoir, Vol. 9, No. 5. Honolulu.
  • SMITH, S. Percy, 1910. History and Traditions of the Maoris of the West Coast North Island of New Zealand Prior to 1840. Polynesian Society Memoir No. 1.
  • ——1915. The Lore of the Whare-Wananga. Part II—Te Kauwae-raro or things terrestrial. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir No. 4.
  • ——1921. Hawaiki: The Original Home of the Maori. Wellington, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • SPRING-RICE, W., 1962. “Great Barrier Island.” N.Z. Archaeological Association Newsletter, 5: 92–95.
  • STACK, REV. J. W., 1878. “Sketch of the Traditional History of the South Island Maoris.” Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 10: 57–92.
  • SUGGS, R. C., 1960. The Island Civilizations of Polynesia. New York, Mentor Books.
  • ——1961a. The Archaeology of Nuku-Hiva, Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia. American Museum of Natural History, Anthropological Papers, Vol. 49. New York.
  • ——1961b. “The Derivation of Marquesan Culture.” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 91: 1–10.
- 75
  • TAYLOR, Rev. Richard, 1870. Te Ika-a-Maui; or New Zealand and its Inhabitants. London. 2nd edit.
  • TAYLOR, W. A., 1950. Lore and History of the South Island Maori. Christchurch, Bascands.
  • THOMPSON, L., 1938. “Adzes from the Lau Islands, Fiji.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 47:97–108.
  • THOMSON, B. C, 1902. Savage Island; An Account of a Sojourn in Niue and Tonga. London.
  • TREGEAR, E., 1926. The Maori Race. Whanganui, A. D. Willis.
  • WATTERS, R. F., 1958. “Culture and Environment in Old Samoa.” in Western Pacific: Studies of man and environment in the Western Pacific. Dept. of Geography, Victoria University of Wellington, pp. 41–70.
  • WILLIAMS, H. W., 1937. “The Maruiwi Myth.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 46: 105–122.
  • WILLIAMS, T. and CALVERT, J., 1858. Fiji and the Fijians. London, Alexander Heylin. 2 Vols.
  • WILSON, J. A., 1907. The Story of Te Waharoa. Christchurch, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • YATE, REV. W., 1835. An Account of New Zealand; and of the Formation and Progress of the Church Missionary Society's Mission in the Northern Island. London, Seeley and Burnside. 2nd ed.
1   Adkin 1957: 196-197; 1960:233–234; 1963:28; Keyes 1962: 4–8.
2   Adkin 1960: 233-234; Keyes 1962: 4–5. Golson (1960: 389–396) challenged the validity of the concept on the limited data presented.
3   Green 1963a: 22, 26.
4   Golson and Gathercole 1962: 272.
5   Adkin 1960: 233-236.
6   e.g. Crozet (Cowan 1910: 37), Dieffenbach 1843: 9–10.
7   Taylor 1870: 13; Colenso 1875: 341; Shortland 1875: 338.
8   Best 1916a: 436; 1925a: 14; 1941: 1–5; 1952: 1, 6.
9   de Quatrefages 1892: 36; Scott 1894: 62.
10   On this basis Melanesian types were therefore believed to have preceded Polynesian in most areas of the Pacific (Smith 1921: 152). However, at this stage Polynesian physical types had not been studied and comparisons were all made with (dolichocephalic) Melanesian material. Buck 1949: 70; 1959: 18; Shapiro 1941: 3.
11   Smith 1915.
12   Smith 1910: 35, 37; 1921: 220.
13   Best 1916: 435; 1916b: 455; 1927: 320; Cowan 1930: 37.
14   Name adopted from one of the canoe commanders (Best 1916: 435).
15   Adapted from ‘Moriori’ on account of the assumed relationship with the native Chatham Islanders.
16   Skinner 1923.
17   Williams 1937.
18   Buck 1949: 10-11, 65.
19   Best 1925b: 275.
20   Duff 1963: 30-33.
21   Buck 1929: 38.
22   Best 1916: 439–446.
23   Skinner 1921: 72; 1924b: 232.
24   Archey 1936: 80; Shapiro 1941: 13–14.
25   As suggested by Best (1916: 439-446), Adkin (1960: 233–234; 1963: 27–30).
26   Adkin 1960: 233; Taylor (1870: 17) attributes a predominance of dark skins to this group.
27   Adkin 1950: 8, Fn.
28   Beattie 1941: 69.
29   Adkin 1960: 233.
30   Best 1928: 208-209, 215.
31   Adkin 1948: 122–125.
32   Best 1898: 35.
33   Buck 1929: 22.
34   Keyes 1962: 4–5, 8–9.
35   Stack 1878: 60 (with modification).
36   Duff 1950: 247.
37   Keyes 1962: 9–11.
38   Shortland 1851: 98. Waipapa is 20 miles south of Cape Campbell.
39   Stack 1878: 78-90.
40   Stack 1878: 65.
41   Shortland 1851: 102.
42   Beattie 1941: 5.
43   MacMillan Brown, 1: 45, 78.
44   Burrows 1938: 7; Encyclopaedia Britannica 22: 278.
45   Suggs 1960: 87–88.
46   Suggs 1961b: 1-10.
47   Green 1963b: 246.
48   Green 1963b: 245-246.
49   Suggs 1961b: 9.
50   Suggs 1961a: 179.
51   Suggs 1961b: 6.
52   Emory and Sinoto 1964: 159; Schmitz 1961a: 140-141.
53   Schmitz 1961b:27–129.
54   Duff 1963: 31.
55   Green 1963a: 21.
56   See Suggs (1961a: 157) on the “Development Period” in Nuku Hiva, regarding e.g. the discontinuity of pottery.
57   Green 1963b: 243, 246-248.
58   Sharp 1956: 4–6, 68; Best 1941: 30, 40; Smith 1921: 180–181.
59   Suggs 1960: 98.
60   Calvert, Vol. 2 of Williams & Calvert, 1858: 3; MacMillan Brown 1927, 1: 75; Sharp 1956: 158.
61   Buck 1959: 319–320.
62   Buck 1959: 319.
63   Cranstone 1961: 19.
64   McKern 1929: 122.
65   Read 1910: 127.
66   McKern 1929: 122.
67   Best 1925b: 235-240.
68   Burrows 1938: 98-99.
69   Burrows 1938: 94, 115.
70   Derrick 1942: 138.
71   Encyclopaedia Britannica 22: 278; Smith 1921: 200, 211; MacMillan Brown, 1927, 1: 77–78; McKern 1929: 74.
72   McKern 1929: 74.
73   Burrows 1938: 95, 97.
74   Burrows 1938: 93.
75   McKern 1929: 115–119.
76   McKern 1929: 121.
77   Burrows 1938: 156.
78   Buck 1959: 46, 310.
79   MacMillan Brown, 1927, 1: 77.
80   McKern 1929: 122.
81   Buck 1959: 316–317.
82   Smith 1921: 211; MacMillan Brown 1927, 1:51, 64–65, 73–74, 76.
83   Sharp 1956: 68.
84   McKern 1929: 72, 81; Watters 1958: 50–51, 64.
85   Best 1916b: 458; 1923: 13, 49; 1941, 1: 30; Calvert (Williams and Calvert) 1858, 2: 4.
86   Smith 1921: 169.
87   Calvert (Williams and Calvert) 1858, 2: 4.
88   Smith 1921: 211; MacMillan Brown, 1927, 1: 75.
89   Calvert (Williams and Calvert) 1858, 2: 4.
90   Smith 1910: 57.
91   Best 1925b: 252; 1941, 1: 30; Smith 1921: 190; MacMillan Brown 1927, 1: 49.
92   Duff 1961a: 269, 288; 1963: 33.
93   Adkin 1948: 125.
94   Best 1916: 439–446; 1941, 2: 281.
95   Adkin 1960: 233–234.
96   Golson 1960: 395–396.
97   Buck 1959: 319.
98   Best 1916: 439; Linton 1925: 22–23.
99   Best 1941, 2: 351.
100   As well as possible contact with other parts of Melanesia—New Guinea, New Caledonia, Solomons, New Britain (Cranstone 1961: 19; Best 1927: 318; 1941, 2: 352; Linton 1925: 23).
101   Best 1941, 1:7, 327; 2: 352.
102   Best 1927: 319.
103   Palmer 1965: 4.
104   Best 1927: 314-315.
105   Best 1941, 2: 351; Gifford 1951: 245–247.
106   Best 1927: 43, 315; 1941, 1:7; Gifford 1951: 249–250. This type was also established in the Lau Group (Hocart 1929: 141).
107   Best 1927: 309; Gifford 1929: 205; McKern 1929: 80–88; Buck 1959: 288.
108   Golson 1957b: 19–20; Green 1964: 47; Suggs 1960: 86, 95.
109   Best 1923: 13; McKern 1929: 81; Suggs 1960: 99.
110   “Ring-ditch pa” (Best 1941, 2: 327, 351; Golson 1957a: 80; 1961: 13).
111   Buck 1929: 25; Buist 1964: 37–38.
112   Buck 1929: 22, 25–26.
113   Green 1963a: 67.
114   Green (1963: 36–37) says to guard kumara crops.
115   Duff 1961b: 160.
116   Buck 1949: 138.
117   Handy 1923: 142; Linton 1925: 20; Suggs 1961a: 27.
118   Suggs 1960: 163; Best 1927: 313; Bennett 1931: 54; Emory 1924: 75.
119   Emory 1933: 45.
120   Buck 1959: 183–184; Best 1927: 309.
121   Suggs 1960: 202; 1961a: 166.
122   Suggs 1960: 119–120. The ‘Expansion Period’ 1100—1400 A.D.
123   Suggs 1960: 99.
124   Linton 1925: 92; Suggs 1960: 105.
125   Suggs 1960: 141.
126   Buck 1949: 253–255; Best 1925c: 164–170.
127   Buck 1949: 255.
128   Best 1925c: 169; 1941: 166, 169; Burrows 1938: 95.
129   Best 1925c: 168, 170; Andersen 1933: 203.
130   Best 1925c: 165–166; 1927: 32, 78, 80; Buck 1949: 253–254.
131   Best 1916: 441; 1941, 2: 240; Buck 1949: 271; Hamilton 1898, 3: 180.
132   Best 1916: 442; 1941, 2: 281.
133   Best 1941, 2: 242; Tregear 1926: 308.
134   Angas 1847: 336.
135   Angas 1847a; pl. 46, fig. 5. Hamilton 1898, 3: pl. 29, fig. 1 (left); Oldman 1946: pl. 54, fig. 492.; Read 1910: 156, fig. 137 g.
136   Hamilton 1898, 3: pl. 29, fig. 1 (right); Read 1910: 156, fig. 137 f.
137   Hamilton 1898, 3: pl. 28, fig. 1 (lowest item).
138   cf. N.Z. forms with those illustrated by Read (1910: 121, fig. 99a).
139   The reti of the Tuhoe being a simple version.
140   Buck 1949: 271.
141   As used by the Ngati-Mamoe in the battle at Te Whai or battle of the ray-barbed spears. (Stack 1878: 73–74).
142   Tregear 1926: 309; Best 1941, 2: 241.
143   Hamilton 1898, 3: 181.
144   Martin 1817: 333; Gifford 1929: 207.
145   Derrick 1942: 138; Williams 1858: 57; Read 1910: 121; Cranstone 1961: 66, fig. 21k, 1, p. 68.
146   Read 1910: 127; Cranstone 1961: 66, fig. 21j, p. 68.
147   Adkin 1963: 27-30.
148   Buck 1929: 27.
149   Adkin 1963: 27, 30.
150   This line of “hand grip” research being followed up by the late G. L. Adkin, was communicated to the writer during 1964.
151   Best 1952: 169.
152   Duff 1950: 140; 1959: 133, 143.
153   Duff 1950: 165.
154   Duff 1950: 140, 165, 167.
155   Duff 1950: 167.
156   cf. Best 1912, pl. 7, figs. 48, 53.
157   Thompson 1938: 106, fig. 5.
158   Thompson 1938: 101-102, ref. pl. A. and figs.
159   Duff 1959: 133.
160   Excluded from this group are the large heavy oval adzes from Murihiku which are a local development.
161   Hutton 1898: 133; Best 1912: 204; 1916: 444-445.
162   Phillipps 1928: 241; Best 1912: 267 (Turnbull specimen).
163   Kirk 1890: 539–540; Best 1912: pl. 9, fig. 54. pl. 10, fig. 46, 84; pl. 25, fig. 103A; pl. 51, fig. 85; Spring-Rice 1962: 95, fig. 2.
164   cf. Gifford 1951: figs. 2 and 3, ovoid cross-section with petaloid form and fig. 4, round cross-section forming a pointed poll.
165   cf. Best 1912: 7 and pl. 51, fig. E62.
166   Best 1912: 267, pl. 10, fig. 83; Skinner 1923, Type 4, pl. 21, figs, a-d; Skinner and Baucke 1929: pl. 55, fig. D.
167   Simmons 1962: 244; Duff 1950: 20, 167; 1959: 133.
168   Best 1925b: 15. Both observations by Parkinson and Forster at Mahia and Queen Charlotte Sound were made during Cook's Voyages.
169   Best 1925b: 8–12.
170   Buck 1927: 273.
171   Best 1925b: 205.
172   Skinner 1924a, pl. 25.
173   Best 1925b: 19–22, figs. 7–8 (incl. Chapman's remarks p. 21–22); Adkin 1962: 269.
174   Phillipps 1955: 173–174, fig. 60.
175   Phillipps 1955: 175, fig. 61; Archey 1956: 366–367, fig. 4.
176   Adkin 1962: 267–276.
177   Barrow and Keyes, 1966.
178   Adkin 1962: 272–274.
179   quoted in Adkin 1962: 276.
180   Haddon and Hornell 1938: 21.
181   Haddon & Hornell 1938: 22. Three or four booms is the characteristic Melanesian attachment method.
182   Haddon and Hornell 1938: 22.
183   Haddon and Hornell 1938: 28.
184   Haddon and Hornell 1938: 28–29, 84.
185   Best 1941, 1: 46; 1952: 248–249.
186   Cowan 1910: 193; Graham 1925: 20; Beattie 1941: 43; Tregear 1926: 262; Buck 1949: 322.
187   Buck (1959: 286–287) notes only the “human figure with flexed legs and hands clasped on the abdomen”.
188   MacMillan Brown 1907: 186.
189   Linton 1925: 93.
190   Reichard 1933: 125–126.
191   Skinner 1921: 77; 1924b: 241; De Beer 1924: 325; Reichard 1933: 150.
192   Best 1952: 249–250.
193   Ngata 1958.
194   Yate 1835: 81; Best 1941, 2: 24; 1952: 225; Tregear 1926: 48.
195   Thomson 1902: 203–204; MacMillan Brown 1907: 112.
196   MacMillan Brown 1927, 1: 51–52, 76.
197   MacMillan Brown 1907: 246-247; 1927, 1: 76.
198   Best 1941, 2: 24; Buck 1949: 355.
199   Best 1916: 440; Encyclopaedia Britannica 1953, 9: 231; Cranstone 1961: 29.
200   Brown 1910: 141; Gifford 1951: 208; Suggs 1961a: 172.
201   MacMillan Brown 1927, 1: 77–78; Smith 1921: 211.
202   Buck 1949: 488.
203   Encyclopaedia Britannica 1953, 9: 231.
204   Wilson, 1907: VIII.
205   Best 1916: 440–441; 1927: 107–108; and employed by the Tuhoe, Best 1897: 37.
206   Taylor 1950: 9.
207   Skinner 1922: 205.
208   Williams 1937: 114.