Volume 76 1967 > Volume 76, No. 4 > Te Hau Pahu Rahi, by Colin Newbury, p 477 - 514
Back to Search Results                                                                                              Previous | Next   

- 477
TE HAU PAHU RAHI 1
POMARE II AND THE CONCEPT OF INTER-ISLAND GOVERNMENT IN EASTERN POLYNESIA

It is well known that traditional society in Tahiti, Moorea and the Leeward group was structured in a variety of ways. Before the end of the eighteenth century the local island population numbering perhaps thirty to forty thousand was differentiated by rank and vertically segmented into territorial lineages and groups of lineages, or clans. In addition to the hierarchy of social groups derived from the relative seniority of kinship units, there existed an even more fundamental distinction between persons who were sacred, or socially “approved”, for participation in clan religious ceremonies, and those who were profane and remained outside the favour of the gods. At the territorial level, too, there were wider aggregated units, acting together in political alliances. 2

- 478

To go deeper than these general features of Eastern Polynesian society into a detailed reconstruction of pre-Christian Tahiti would require discussion of the intrinsic difficulties in the historical evidence. The purpose of this essay is, rather, to focus attention on a central historical problem in the area—namely to explain the rise of the Pomare lineage in terms not borrowed from European conceptions of the state.

Any such explanation must account for the combination of the highest (and most sacred) social rank with a maximum of secular authority in the person of the senior of the clan chiefs (ari'i rahi). Furthermore, for comparison with other examples we need to know if this process of rudimentary centralization in Eastern Polynesia is historically discontinuous, as a result of external factors, or whether it is a variation on traditional modes of behaviour—a change in degree but not in kind. In short, were the Pomares the creatures of European association with a particular district of Tahiti, as they are often held to have been; 3 or was the position won by Pomare II in the early nineteenth century the result of rank legitimately acquired, according to eighteenth century Polynesian norms, and technical prowess under a new deity—a victory for a most sacred chief at the head of an aggregation of clans?

Two of the best commentaries on the pre-Christian period make a useful distinction between the rank of an ari'i fanau (a chief by birth), as entitlement to social respect, and his political position won by personal leadership and the corporate success of his clan. 4 In the matter of rank there were a number of criteria in evidence, often cited by contemporary observers—a place in the clan marae, the right to impose sanctions, the summons of assemblies, the wearing of sacred regalia, generosity and wise management of clan and lineage inheritance. But most of these privileges and duties were the concomitants of rank. Fundamentally they derived from the ari'i's birth and his family connections with other senior members of the aristocratic caste of Tahiti and neighbouring islands. 5 The amount of support commanded by an adult ari'i at times of crisis, from within and outside his own lineage, depended on his putative position in terms of rank and his capacity to organize such support through the correct ceremonial channels. If he was still a royal minor, the corporate leadership of near relatives in his lineage with, perhaps, assistance from more distant kin could be crucial in deciding his subsequent fortunes. Either way, it was in the interest of the senior lineage of any clan to safeguard its inheritance by giving careful thought to the marriages and adoptions of senior members whose rank assisted the political position of the clan as a whole.

The primary testament of rank was the lineage genealogy (aufau feti'i), jealously preserved by family historians as an article of faith in descent

- i
Illustration

- ii Page is blank

- 479

from the gods, and as a guide to the ari'i's social standing in each generation. 6 It could be argued that in an island community of perhaps twenty localized clans there was little chance of any ari'i becoming primus inter pares simply by birth. Apart from the catastrophic disappearance of social rivals through war or migration, it would have been extremely difficult in any generation to arrange marriages of children into all the highest-ranking lineages, without being subsequently out-ranked by other first-born contenders in the next generation. Consequently, the search for an answer to the questions raised above by examination of the genealogical connections among ari'i would be as fruitless today as it was for Polynesians in the eighteenth century. Such dynastic manoeuvres and the counter-claims among finely-differentiated ari'i must account for many of the conflicts and rivalries in island society (remembering that land-controlling rights were at stake as well as titles). No claim based on birth alone could win.

There were, however, at least two other ways of gaining social rank in Tahiti and Moorea. One was by succeeding to clan titles under the patronage of a Polynesian deity who was accepted as protector of a widespread number of clans; and, secondly, a lineage might link itself by the most direct means to a socio-religious source held to be of higher rank and more efficacious than the “divine” ari'i and national deities of the local island population. In other words, external contacts within Polynesia could help to differentiate senior status groups in a number of territorially juxtaposed clans.

It is argued here that while ascribed status by birth was important such outside (non-European) contacts were the primary reasons for the rise of the Pomares in the eighteenth century; that the connection between the senior ari'i lineage of Pare-Arue with the marae and royal lineage at Opoa in Raiatea permitted the concentration of religious and secular authority among the leading devotees of the 'Oro cult in Tahiti; and that subsequent alliances with Leeward Islands royals provided the Pomare lineage with considerable material support in time of crisis.

The coming of the war god 'Oro from Raiatea is well attested in traditional sources, though the date of his arrival in the Taiarapu peninsula and in the western districts of Tahiti is vague—perhaps before the first half of the eighteenth century. 7 For, by then, the 'Arioi society whose patron was also 'Oro in a peaceful guise had taken root in Tahiti, flourishing as a sexually permissive association for senior ranks, compared with the more serious adoption of the war god by aristocratic dynasties for the welfare of their clans. 8 Huahine and Tahaa seem to have remained devoted to Tane and Ta'aroa (as perhaps parts of Tahiti and Moorea), while Borabora championed the new deity. 9

Two other developments call for comment. The spread of the 'Oro cult in its 'Arioi manifestation and in exclusive rites performed at national - 480 marae may have been preceeded in the Leeward group by some kind of religious concourse on an inter-island basis at Opoa. 10 There, the marae of Taputapuatea and the national marae of Farerua in Borabora became centres for a religious-aristocratic fraternity—the hau fa'atau aroha, or “government of the friendly alliances”, according to Teuira Henry. 11 A quarrel at Raiatea broke it up, but it is claimed that rites continued to be performed alternately at the parent marae at Opoa and at Taputapuatea marae in Tautira (Taiarapu). This story is linked in Henry's sources with the foundation of 'Oro's national marae in Tahiti, first on the peninsula, then in Pa'ea (Atehuru) at 'Utu'aimahurau, and at Papetoai in Moorea. 12 Of these, the Tautira and Atehuru sites were the most important centres for 'Oro in Tahiti prior to his reception at Tarahoi marae in the Pomare's district of Pare, and (temporarily) at the great marae of Mahaiatea in Papara.

The second development of enormous significance for ari'i differentiation was the importation of a limited amount of sacred regalia, including the famous feather girdles (red, yellow, black and combinations of these plumes) from Raiatea and Borabora. There is some evidence that they were a symbolic refinement of great antiquity adapted to the cult of 'Oro among royals linked dynastically with the Leeward Islands' aristocracy. The Memoirs of Ari'i Taimai claim that only two families in Tahiti from the Vaiari and Puna'auia ('Oropaa) clans had a right to the maro'ura, prior to the mid-eighteenth century, while the maro tea was exclusive to the chief of Papara. 13 This claim is not substantiated in any other source; nor is the transmission from generation to generation within these clans explained. 14 On the other hand none of the principal chiefs of the Outer Teva on the peninsula seem to have had a claim to either of these girdles at Tautira under 'Oro. The position of the Pomares in this respect is discussed below.

One other feature of this religious and ceremonial interchange with Raiatea and Borabora must be mentioned. According to Henry, some form of political alliance between the Windward and Leeward groups outlasted the cult of 'Oro which had served to foster it:

. . . an alliance was made between the little kingdoms of Tahiti, Huahine, Ra'iatea, and Maupiti for aid in maintaining their independence when invaded by the warlike people of Porapora and other islands. On such occasions they adhered to this agreement. But in time of civil war no such interference occurred, though sometimes help was received from personal relatives and friends among the allies. This alliance was called the Haupahu-nui (Government-of-the-great-drum) and it remained in full force until French rule was permanently established in Tahiti in 1847. Afterwards it gradually slackened, and finally ceased. 15

- 481

This tantalizing piece of information, following as it does a discussion of the religious links between the ari'i seems to have escaped serious attention. Its meaning calls for interpretation in the light of some new evidence and a reconstruction of the career of the Pomares.

ORAL TRADITIONS AND PRE-CHRISTIAN TAHITI

Our knowledge of the ascribed status of chiefs in Eastern Polynesia derives in large measure from traditions recorded in the nineteenth century by the informants listed in footnotes to Henry's Ancient Tahiti and from the edited collection of traditions in Adams and La Farge. Other facts about the ari'i have to be gleaned from European visitors in the eighteenth century. Both kinds of documentation—tradition and eye witness accounts —serve as a check on each other, the one validating the position of particular lineages and clans, the other offering European interpretations, which sometimes verify names and dates and sometimes reveal awkward contradictions. It is interesting to reflect that the collectors of traditions had access to the navigators' accounts and to published mission records. It is possible some of their informants did, too. Nevertheless, it has been shown that careful scrutiny of both types of material can result in the extrapolation of suggestive conclusions concerning title inheritance through female ari'i and the importance of adoption and ritual alliance, thus increasing our understanding of the relative social rank of senior Tahitian families in the eighteenth century. 16

To these sources it is possible to add a smaller body of material which has not so far been used in the writing of Tahitian history. It consists of reports, interviews and letters collected by French and British agents, 1845-1846, when French attempts to include the Leeward Islands in the Tahitian Protectorate were in dispute. 17 At diplomatic levels the debate on the independence of the group turned around the use of the term “sovereignty” and the rights of the Pomare lineage in Raiatea, Huahine and Borabora as a basis for deciding whether Queen Pomare had ceded part of her authority over the Leeward Islands in 1842. The detail of negotiations about the queen's “possessions” do not concern us here. The Anglo-French Convention of 1847 which neutralized the Leeward Islands by guaranteeing the independence of their 6,000 inhabitants was not really inspired by investigations in the field. Nor are all the memoranda and official reports particularly significant for our knowledge of Polynesian society. 18 British agents—Consul Miller, Commander A. S. Hamond and the missionaries, Platt, Barff and Simpson—based their case on changes in Tahitian government after 1815. They looked to the Codes of Laws, coronations, flags, the 1842 treaty and ex parte statements by some of the Leeward Islands' chiefs who feared French occupation, as proof of a separate legal identity from Queen Pomare's “dominions” in - 482 Tahiti and Moorea. The French argument, on the other hand, sought to establish that the disputed “kingdoms” were part of the Pomare's dynastic inheritance and under the jurisdiction of their judges, thus demonstrating “la souveraineté de la Reine Pomaré sur les îles sous le vent, et par suite le droit qu'aurait la France d'étendre son Protectorat sur ces îles”. 19 This much French officers failed to do. The British reports established fairly convincingly that the group could be considered legally “independent” after the death of Pomare II in 1821. Both sides begged the question of what was meant by “sovereignty” in Polynesian terms.

The value of the documents sent home by Governor Bruat and Admiral Hamelin in 1845 lies not in their contribution to a rather sterile debate, but in the oral tradition they recorded. On the whole the informants used by the French—chiefs, judges, ra'atira, and a few Europeans—were concerned with the period before 1821, that is with the position of Pomare II, rather than his daughter. 20 More important, among their number was Mare, historian, queen's counsellor and government orator, who furnished some of the most interesting items. It would be strange, of course, if Tahitians reconciled to the French, as most of the chiefs were by 1845, had testified against the case the French wished to prove. But apart from this reservation, it is possible there was a good deal of truth in French claims, though not in the sense of absolute dominion by one set of chiefs in Tahiti over others in the Leeward Islands. There was enough in the oral evidence to serve Bruat's purpose, though it was not quite the story he wanted to hear. In any case, the documents forwarded in 1845 to Paris are a useful supplement to a later collection made by Governor Lavaud, when Mare again provided the bulk of the material. These were reproduced by Teuira Henry, along with others collected by Orsmond. Therefore, despite some detractors, Mare stands as the most substantial single source for Tahitian traditional history and a corrective to the “Teva bias” of Ari'i Taimai. 21

The obvious objection to Mare's evidence is that it contains a “Pomare bias”. Like clan historians in other societies, he was concerned to validate the position of a particular descent group—a point recognized in a footnote in Henry's edition. 22 Mare, therefore, needs to be subjected to the same controls (where they can be applied) as the Teva historians, by reference to European records. It is also worth noting that some twenty-two other prominent Tahitian, Moorean and Boraboran chiefs (including Tati of Papara) and about thirty lesser dignitaries testified collectively to the validity of the documents which sixteen of them contributed. 23 By no means all of these witnesses were allies of the Pomares; but they did not substantially change the records given to Bruat, except in some details about ceremonials and tribute.

A final point about the texts is that they were translated, sometimes - 483 verbatim, sometimes from a Tahitian script, by Adam Darling (son of the missionary, David Darling) who was also sufficiently fluent in French to check a second translator, L. de Robillard, a French colonial officer. Orsmond, Samuel Pindar Henry, Alexander Salmon—all Tahitian speakers—added their testimony (Samuel's being confirmed reluctantly by his father, William Henry, pioneer missionary of the Duff). 24 So far as is known, the original Tahitian texts have not survived in the Papeete archives; nor were they sent to France with the translations. Consequently, it is not possible to check some important passages against the originals. But in style the texts indicate that fairly literal translations were made, close to the thought and meaning of the originals. They are liberally sprinkled, too, with Tahitian terms and explanatory parentheses by the translators.

One of the more frequent phrases which appears in the French informants' evidence is the hau pahu (or pa'u) rahi, central to the argument of the French case. It was not, however, given the connotation of “extended sovereignty”, or “paramountcy”, but was defined as an hau feti'i, or “family government” among inter-related ari'i. 25 In a translated statement by Ahuriro, a judge of Borabora, the essence of this kinship compact was explained thus:

C'est un gouvernement de famille, les membres de la même famille règnent à Tahiti, à Raiatea, Huahiné, Borabora, et jusqu'à Maurua. Leurs ancêtres sont les mêmes, et c'est à cause de cette relation de parenté que vous voyez encore aujourd'hui Tapoa et Teriitaria réunis à Raiatea avec Tamatoa, auprès de Pomaré. C'est un seul et même gouvernement, établi en hau pau rahi. . . 26

One might argue that the circumstances of the mid-1840's, when Pomare was in refuge at Raiatea (as alluded to by Ahuriro) made the “old alliance” look more solid than it really was. But the bulk of examples produced by the chiefs to denote instances of the hau pahu rahi in practice were taken from the period before the consolidation of the dynasty's fortunes in 1815. It became clear as the enquiry went on that the compact had its origins in the sacred and secular status of the Tahitian ari'i rahi, built up gradually in the course of the eighteenth century. Or as Apoo, former orator (auvaha'a) for the queen, put it:

Cela est vrai, le Hau pau rahi avait été d'abord établi sur Tahiti, tout Tahiti était réuni sous la domination de Pomaré. Tunuiaaite atua [Pomare] avait pris les noms de Teriiréré, de Teriinavaharoa. Il avait aboli ceux de Tetofa, de Vaiatua, et plus tard le Hau pau rahi fut porté aux îles sous le vent. 27

- 484

How accurate were the examples given; how were the Pomares linked with other ari'i families in neighbouring districts and islands; how did they acquire supreme rank?

THE STATUS OF TU II (POMARE II) IN THE HAU FETI'I

The birth of Tu II in about 1782 as second child and first male in his lineage does not wholly account for his later status. True he was the son of the highest-ranking chief of Pare-Arue whom Cook and others took to be paramount over the whole island. But the relative position of the ari'i encountered by the navigators only becomes clear when their association with the cult of 'Oro is taken into account. If the proposition that the patronage of 'Oro was a differentiating factor among the local island aristocracy by the mid-eighteenth century is allowed, then some of the navigators' opinions regarding chieftainship in Tahiti were not simply a result of over-familiarity with the “kings” of Matavai or a willingness to see a “monarch” in Tahitian dress as a source of redress for thefts. Cook, for example, did not even make contact with Tu I on his first voyage in 1769 (though he heard about him); and he was well aware of the number of lesser ari'i in other districts. 28 His nomenclature may often be faulty, but his insight into the position of local dignitaries is fairly consistent with the views of other visitors (notably the Spaniards), and was more accurate than is sometimes supposed, though he did not discover the basic reasons for the hierarchy he described.

In Mare's evidence, given some seventy years after Cook's observations, stress is laid on three principal proofs for the superior rank of the Pomares. First, in a picturesque metaphor the Tahitian historian advanced the argument that Tetupaia, first-born daughter of Tamatoa III of Raiatea and wife of Teu of Pare was “the cord binding Tarahoi [marae] to the summits of Mou'atoru, Tea'etapu, Pa'ia and Urufa'atia”—four mountain peaks in Huahine, Raiatea, Borabora and Maupiti. Even as her son Tu “united the districts and brought them to the places they now occupy, so Tetupaia led all these islands in her train to join them to Tarahoi”. 29 Behind the rhetoric lies the well-known connection between Opoa in Raiatea and the Pomare's marae at Tarahoi in Pare. The role of Tetupaia in thus advancing the social status of Tu I is allowed by Adams and Ari'i Taimai as a legitimate factor in the family's favour. 30

There was more to the marriage than social climbing. With Tetupaia (who was still living in 1789) came a maro ura girdle to Tarahoi; and Tu I was almost certainly consecrated ari'i rahi with this, before Amo and Purea of Papara made their disastrous bid for similar honours for their son Teri'irere in 1768. The details of the fall of Papara do not concern us here. But it is worth noting that in the oral tradition of the break-up of Teri'irere's ceremonials by his father's kin and Vehiatua of Taiarapu, - 485 among other chiefs listed as present was Tu I—“Teri'i maro 'ura tei Tarahoi”—the only chief so described. 31

Moreover, it is admitted that after Papara had been crushed, the sacred regalia for Teri'irere were taken to Pa'ea marae, and there Tu I was installed as ari'i rahi. 32 It is not clear where this Papara maro came from, and none of the Taiarapu chiefs, not even Vehiatua seem to have had a claim to it. 33 Until any fresh evidence is produced we have to conclude that the highest-ranking representative of the Pomare lineage was, at that period, unique in the use of the maro 'ura in Tahiti and Moorea, though it may be allowed that the maro tea (if the two were so clearly distinguished) came to Papara from Vaiari. 34 In either case the young Teri'irere was left subordinate in rank to Tu I, after the events of the 1760's, 35 possibly as the result of the polarization of claims to the highest titles between the Teva and the Porionu'u. This conflict between the main contenders was temporarily settled in favour of the Pare lineage of the Porionu'u clan.

There was one other important development between Cook's first and second voyages. The chief Tutaha, ari'i of Pa'ea and brother of Teu, who features so prominently in the Journal for 1769, 36 when Tu I was absent from the scene, was killed in 1773 in a war with Taiarapu. Tu may have been was invested with a maro ura on the marae of Taputapuatea in Pa'ea —a fact passed over in silence in the Memoirs of Ari'i Taimai. 37

Tu II, then, inherited through his father and Tetupaia a stone of the sacred marae at Opoa, and from his mother 'Itia (Tetuanui) and Ino Metua (wife of his uncle Ari'ipaea) other rights to wear the maro in Pa'ea and Tautira, the two main centres for the cult of 'Oro in Tahiti. 38 One might say, therefore, that religious sanctions made his birthright outstanding in the aristocracy of his society.

The second proof advanced by Mare went back further than Teu's marriage to a Raiatean princess. - 486

. . . c'est là une rattache récente, je regarde du côté de Papara, et j'y vois un lien plus encien. Tamatoa (II) prit pour femme Teaoinia; ils enfantèrent Ariimao, et, plus tard, deux jumeaux Ariirua et Uofai [sic Rofai]. Ariimao prit pour femme Teeva de Papara, et enfanta Maua. Celui-ci établit à Papara son Marae, le Marae de Mahaiatea, qui prit aussi le nom de Mauaroa, et il transporta à Mahaiatea le Maro ura de Taputapuatea. Voilà une chaîne plus ancienne. 39

This valuable insight requires commentary. It is strange that Teva historians should not have recorded such an important direct link between Papara and Raiatea in the late seventeenth or early eighteenth century, as part of the origin of the marae at Mahaiatea. Ari'i Taimai mentions Te'e'eva in passing, as a sister of the highest-ranking chiefs of Papara, noting she left for Raiatea. 40 Her place in the Papara genealogy would leave her son, Mau'a, in the same generation as Amo and Purea, as uncle to Teri'irere. A supporting piece of evidence in Henry (also from Mare) indicates that it was Ari'ima'o of Raiatea who first introduced the maro'ura into Papara. 41 If it is true that either he or his son did bring such important regalia to Tahiti, then his explanation disposes of the problem of the advent of Teri'irere's 'ura girdle and gives substance to Purea's ambitions for her son. It also helps us to understand why Papara and Porionu'u were both considered as the principal “Houses” of Tahiti. 42 It means that the Papara ari'i may have had the better claim to a link with the Raiatean royal lineage, though its arguable that the arrival of Tetupaia was more important for the rank of the Pomares than the departure of Te'e'eva. It also suggests that Mahaiatea marae was a work of considerable duration, as its size might suggest, and the culmination of a diplomatic alliance with the chiefs of Opoa. We are still left with the problem of identifying Mau'a (or Mauaroa). It is possible he was merely a transient visitor, or was killed in the war at Papara in 1768. There is a temptation to equate him with Tobin's “Mahu”, a chief of Raiatea at Tahiti, or with Vancouver's “Mowree”. 43

So far as the chiefs of Pare were concerned any such link between Papara and Raiatea strengthened their own claims to the maro, because of the adoption of Teri'irere as a boy by Teu and by Teri'irere's later compact with Tu II. 44 And to confirm this union between the two senior lineages of the island, Teri'irere was pledged to marry Teri'inavahoroa, sister of Tu I. 45

Thirdly, according to Mare, the Pomare's undoubted connections with - 487 Raiatea and the cult of 'Oro were reinforced in about 1790, when Tu II was still a boy of about eight being prepared for puberty rites and a gradual transfer of his father's titles.

Je pense également à Haamanimane qui vient à Tahiti apportant avec lui le Maro ura, appelé Teraipu tata [le ciel entr'ouvert], le Tau mata ote ata otu [le chapeau qui ombrage Tu], le Tairu nunaa ehau [l'éventail des populations en paix], le marae de Taputapuatea, Oro, la pirogue Hotu [insignes de la royauté], et les prêtres d'Oro. 46

This passage introduces one of the most interesting characters in Tahitian history. Haamanimani, when the missionaries saw him in 1797, was a libidinous old man with a covey of young females, sound in all faculties and with full sacerdotal authority as high priest of 'Oro and chief 'Arioi in Tahiti. 47 Like Purea's exiled Raiatean priest and savant, Tupaia, 48 he was of ari'i status, most probably a brother of Tetupaia, joining her in Pare as counsellor extraordinary and religious expert. He does not appear in Morrison's journal, but is mentioned in Bligh and Tobin's accounts. So we must presume that such a notable personage did not arrive before about 1791. This means he was probably not on the scene at the date of Tu II's first ceremonial investiture with the maro 'ura on Tarahoi, February 13, 1791, when the regalia were brought complete with a “movable Morai” for 'Oro from Pa'ea. 49 Thereafter, it seems Tu had his own regalia (if Mare is accurate) directly from Opoa. Furthermore, in the 1845 evidence Haamanimani was singled out by other informants as bequeathing his Raiatean inheritance to the young Tu whom he adopted. 50 All of this makes more understandable the great importance attached to the old priest by Peter the Swede and the missionaries and goes far to explain his influence in Tahitian politics. 51 A man of wealth, collector of curios (Tobin saw him with a copy of English statutes). 52 builder of the first Tahitian schooner. 53 he is a central figure in R. A. Smirke's famous painting of the “Donation of Matavai” in 1797. At the summit of his career he over-stepped the limits of local conventions by siding too openly with his protégé Tu II against his father and rashly insulting the redoubtable 'Itia. She had him murdered in December 1798.

- 488

Whatever the fate of their priest, the right of the Pomares to a position of the highest rank was undeniable, but not undisputed. Bearing in mind the place of religion in the coming of age ceremonials for Tu II in the 1790's and the special sacred status of his father after the demise of Papara in the 1760's, one can make sense of some puzzling points in the Pomares' career. Tu I did not appear before Cook in 1769, either because of absence in Moorea (which is unlikely), or because after his assumption of the maro both in Pare and Pa'ea he was still so untouchable (ra'a) that his seclusion was thought to be essential. Cook could not properly learn who the ari'i rahi was, except that it was not Tutaha who stood in for Tu as a secular regent. Nor was Tu very forthcoming in 1773, when Cook found him “matou'd”—in fear of contamination from alien contact. 54 This hypothesis, plus his natural disinclination to face dangers, explain Tu I's absence from the earliest records of Wallis, Cook and Banks. A similar reluctance to expose Tu II to contact is evident in the first meetings between Tu II and Bligh. 55 Morrison and the mutineers did not see very much of him either, compared with other chiefs, as his visits necessitated human transport and he could not enter any of the Tahitian or European dwellings.

Another point is that the rank of Tu II and his father was superior to the Vehiatua titleholders of the peninsula, not because of some farfetched relationship with those chiefs through a paternal ancestor, but because of consecration on the Tautira marae of Taputapuatea under 'Oro and adoption and friendship rites between the two ari'i families. 56 The relative position of Tu I and the young Vehiatua, 1774-1775, was clearly noted by the Spanish visitors, when they might have been expected to come to a different conclusion from their close contact with Taiarapu. 57 To this indication may be added the opinion of (Cook?) in 1777 that:

. . . even the people of Tiaraboo allow him the same honours as his right; though at the time, they look upon their own Chief as more powerful; and say, that he would succeed to the government of the whole island, should the present reigning family become extinct. This is the more likely as Waheiadooa not only possesses Tiaraboo, but many districts of Opooreanoo. His territories, therefore, are almost equal, in extent, to those of Otoo. . . 58

This can be used, of course, to support the argument that the Pomares faced a powerful rival in the peninsula; but he was never allowed to make the same claims as Tu I or his son; and the total removal of the Pomares from the scene was the condition of serious aspirations to titles in the northern districts. The relationship between the two families seems to have been friendly, however, in the 1780's. It was cemented by marriage between the Tautira chief and Teano, a younger sister of Tu's mother, 'Itia, though Morrison records that there were doubts cast on Tu's paternity by the people of Outer Teva. 59

- 489

A more complex question is the position of the Pomares in Moorea. In the Memoirs of Ari'i Taimai a strong case is made for considering the high chief Marama as paramount over the island with Mahine and other chiefs as her vassals. 60 But it is not clear just when Marama can be said to have ruled, either from the genealogy given by Ari'i Taimai or from the one supplied in Henry by Mare. With no mention of Marama in the early voyage literature, a doubt must remain whether the authority of this chief was quite so extensive in the mid-eighteenth century. The only ari'i of more than clan-wide importance in Moorea and who came to European attention was Mahine against whom the districts of Pare, Fa'a'a and Atehuru combined unenthusiastically to support his nephew, Teri'itapunui, chief of Vavari. As sister of the latter, 'Itia brought in the Pomares; 61 it has also been suggested that she may have been regarded as Mahine's first-born, by adoption. 62 But nothing was accomplished before 1790, when the Pare clans with the help of the mutineers defeated and killed Mahine in Pa'ea. 63 It is likely that Teri'itapunui was the same person as Metuaaro (Mahau) who died during Vancouver's visit. 64 By then, Tu I was strongly bound to the old chief, through his wife's interests and other family marriages: 65

Tu I=Tetuanui ('Itia), sister of Metuaaro=Terereatua, sister of Tu I

:=Vaieriti sister of Metuaaro:

::

Tu II .. .. (first wife) .. .. Tetua

66

It is likely that Vancouver and Menzies exaggerate Metuaaro's position as “the reigning prince under Otoo, of Morea”; but the alliance provided effective entry into Moorean title structure, as Metuaaro left his lands to Tetua, his daughter, with Tu I as regent. It is not clear how far the Pomares were able to exploit this position: probably not much before 1804. Then, Tu tried to install his mother's second husband, Tenania, ari'i of Huahine, as paramount chief of Moorea and regent for his half sister, Teri'i'aetua who was still an infant. This followed Tu's consecration for the first time at Nu'urua marae, as ari'i rahi in the island. Later still he managed to make the son of Mahine, chief of Huahine, paramount over most of the Moorean clans with the title of Ta'aroari'i. But by then (1810-1811), the basis of Pomare's own authority was in question.

At this point it is necessary to consider the ceremonial surrounding the ari'i rahi—because this, too, was cited by the informants of 1845 as part of their proof that the Pomares were of superior rank. Cook witnessed - 490 important ceremonies at a Pa'ea marae in 1777; 67 Morrison was one of the few Europeans ever to see a royal consecration for Tu II, when a boy in 1791; 68 some of the missionaries were present at a series of rites in a fa'a ari'i ra'a for Tu II and 'Oro in Pa'ea in 1802. 69 Most of the details on these great religious and state occasions come from the oral traditions in Henry which accord fairly well with the recorded examples (which were probably known to the editor). One feature common to most ceremonials was the enormous amount of tribute consumed or distributed, as the prerogative of the ari'i and the god. This economic privilege associated with the highest rank was another line of argument pursued by Mare and others in 1845 to justify the exceptional position of the Pomares. Briefly, the following kinds of tribute were singled out for discussion. 70

  • 1. The tava'u (tivau, tavaru), a meeting of clans for a general presentation of food, cloth and fine mats to the ari'i, as a prelude to political discussions. In detail the ceremonial was similar to the poropae presentations during the tributary “first fruits” ceremonies (parara'a matahiti).
  • 2. The ma'a turu uru presentations from one ari'i lineage to another, including a “first feeding” for the royal visitor (ta'a hopu ra'avai).
  • 3. The humaha pu'a'a, presented in the Leeward group to a newly-consecrated ari'i or tuahau (chief).
  • 4. The ma'a'iai, or first fruits presented to a chief or to 'Oro by a family or individual.
  • 5. The opuroa presentation of food by a clan for redistribution, similar to the uta uta ai presentation from all clans to an ari'i rahi.
  • 6. The ahu oto presentation of cloth to an ari'i or god.

Mare argued that some or most of these ceremonials were exclusively for the ari'i rahi, or were distinguished by special kinds of food offered to persons of different rank. 71 It is not easy to sort out what was exclusive to the Pomares and what was to be expected as a mark of distinction for all chiefs. It is clear at least from Mare and some of the missionary records that the organization of some ceremonials, especially the tava'u, involved the clans as political aggregations, arriving in canoes in six major groups —Porionu'u, 'Oropaa, Pa'ea, the two Teva divisions and Moorea. 72 Thus, in a sense, ceremonial at this level was an expression of the ari'i's secular authority and command of resources, as well as an occasion for religious rites, parley and economic exchanges.

At least in theory. We can also look on Mare's accounts as an idealization of a particular set of relations between Tu II and the chiefs for a short period of time in the history of Tahiti. Reality was otherwise. No one can read the missionaries' accounts of Tahiti, 1797-1815, without being struck - 491 by the difference between aristocratic claims and performance. There was a considerable area between deference to rank and the forced requisition of goods and services in which hospitality was grudging and claims were resisted, when made too frequently by ari'i. There were limits to pretensions in economic terms. Hence the paradox in the position of Tu II in the early nineteenth century: the admission that his rank was superior did not entail blind obedience on the part of the iatoai and ra'atira—the effective leaders of junior lineages and extended families.

There is a good example of this problem of social control for the ari'i rahi in the missionaries' public journal for 1801, on the occasion of a visit to Tu II by Teohu, a disaffected chief of Hitiaa, for a reconciliation ceremony under 'Oro and an ahu oto. 73

It is the custom of the chiefs when they have work to be done such as building a house etc. to divide it among the people of the district, appointing to each division their portion. Part of the roof of the house designed for Teohu was the lot of a division near one-tree-hill (Matavai): on some account or other they were backward in their work, so that it was not ready at the time wanted: at which Pomarre was so much incensed that he made shift without it, and when they brought it, he refused to accept it of them with indignation. The division fearing the consequences of the chief's wrath, this afternoon came preceeded by the rateera of the place and a priest, with a pig and a young fowl and a young plantain tree, and waited upon the chief to atone for their neglect and supplicate his forgiveness. Without this timely mark of submission (as Pomarre was very angry) it is probable the whole division would have been chastised—perhaps plundered of their property, and expelled their land.

Such an atonement (tarae hara) was not always made in time. The accounts of “revolts”, even in the Pomares' own districts are too numerous for any reader to accept unqualified the status they claimed, through the establishment of titles. Shortly before and after the death of Pomare I in 1803, the occasions for ceremonial tribute and services increased, as his son sought to make good the position won by his father in all districts in an atmosphere of continual tension. The main stages in the struggle for paramountcy began with a war against Atehuru and Tautira, ending in a defeat for Pomare II's men in Taiarapu at the battle of iro mirae in 1802. This was followed by an uprising in Moorea and an expedition there with 'Oro in 1804, when Pomare was acknowledged as ari'i rahi and appointed 'Itia's husband as regent. The year 1806 saw a further consolidation of titles, as Pomare II reached the high point of career under 'Oro, after a great tava'u in January, followed by a royal consecration in Tautira at the end of the year. 74 In 1807 a savage attack on Atehuru precipitated further conflict between the Teva and Porionu'u clans, resulting in a victory for the ari'i rahi and a division of the spoils. But the following year Matavai itself turned against Pomare. A rising of the eastern clans in Te Aharoa, under Taute, chief of Mahaena, ensued, and Pomare was defeated at - 492 Orohea in 1809 and forced to retire to Moorea. After a truce in 1810 and more ceremonies, the ari'i rahi was partially restored. The final battle of Fei pi in November 1815, shortly after the last recorded ceremonies for 'Oro in Tautira, broke the Teva and Taiarapu opposition and Pomare was fully reinstated under the patronage of a new god.

Such, in brief outline, were the events produced by the failure to accommodate the claims of rank with social and economic limitations to the provision of men and supplies in Tahiti and Moorea. Up till 1806, the secular extension of the ari'i rahi's authority through the new cult was fairly successful; then authority was undermined by arbitrary acts and a miscalculation about the willingness of clans to pay in sacrifices and tribute.

There are indications that part of this growing resistance was directed against the cult of 'Oro itself, where Tane and Ta'aroa were still revered, thus weakening the basis of Pomare's special position. His failure to take over Mahaiatea marae is perhaps an example of this. 75 There is evidence, too, that as early as the beginning of 1807 the ari'i rahi himself had doubts about the efficacy of the old religious order, and was willing to send 'Oro back to Raiatea in return for European assistance—“property and cloth . . . plenty of muskets and powder . . . paper, ink and pens, in abundance” 76 As a source of religious inspiration 'Oro had some competition from older Polynesian deities; as a provider of the instruments of secular power he was outclassed by the god of the missionaries.

The more immediate difficulty after 1807, was not how to validate rank in religious terms, but to control the mounting opposition from lower social orders. There is much truth in the observation by the missionaries that the origins of the struggle with Atehuru lay in the resentment of ra'atira and manahune at “the tyrannical & oppressive conduct of the chiefs who exercise with a high hand, their authority over those subject to their power”. 77 And again, in 1800, they wrote: “. . . the commonality are much moved against the principal chiefs, and are wanting to root them up altogether, and to restore the ancient form of government to the island: that is every district to be subject to its own chief, without the acknowledgement of a superior over him.” 78

In the face of this reaction, Pomare had recourse to the family compact which had helped to raise his dynasty in the eighteenth century.

THE POMARES AND THE LEEWARD ISLANDS, 1791-1814

There is a disappointing lack of materials for the early history of the Leeward group: Raiatea, as the centre for much of the social and religious - 493 life of Eastern Polynesia, has no serious documentation. 79 It is difficult, therefore, to give more than a rough outline of the position of the ari'i families in the group during the period of intensive contact with Tahiti. The genealogies given in Henry do not always square with the fragmentary information left by the navigators.

The main historical theme in the Leeward Islands from the mid-eighteenth century seems to have been the domination of Raiatea by Borabora, where a warrior aristocracy adopted the 'Oro cult and turned against their high-ranking neighbours. The Tamatoa lineage suffered a series of defeats shortly before 1769 and in the last years of the century. 80 The Boraboran ari'i, Puni (Cook and King's “Opoony”) ruled both Raiatea and Huahine through deputies for a period;then Huahine gained a measure of independence under its young chief, Teri'itaria, who was a boy of about ten years in 1777. 81 But King was surprised to learn that the ari'i of Raiatea, U'uru, was still held in the highest esteem with “all the ensigns which they appropriate to majesty, though he has lost his dominions”. 82

The connections between the principal lineages of the group might be set out as follows:

Family Tree:HUAHINE, RAIATEA, BORABORA, (royal lineage), [Henry and Mare], [Salmon], Teriitumihau, Tamatoa II, Teihotuma, Rereao, Ari'ima'o, Rofai, Puni, Teriitemiro, Mau'a, Tamatoa III, ?, Uru a Tu, Teha'apapa=, Rohianu'u, Mato, Tetupaia, U'uru, Maevarua, Turai ari'i, Teri'itaria, Tenania, Mahine, Tamatoa IV, Tapoa I, Tapoa II=Pomare IV (Aimata), (see Appendix III)

If Cook's reckoning is exact and Raiatea was conquered in 1768, this might explain the death of Rohianu'u, father of the young Teri'itaria, and the flight of U'uru and others of the Tamatoa lineage to Huahine and elsewhere. The biggest problem is to identify “Puni” in Mare's genealogies. In Henry's edition he enters the Tamatoa lineage as wife of - 494 U'uru! 83 This may have been a way of confusing the record by turning over-rule into a marriage alliance; or, more likely, it is the result of a slip in transcription. A possible candidate would be Tapoa I who was a noted warrior; but he was still alive at the end of the century, and Puni is reported to have died by 1791, leaving his government to a daughter. 84 The Spaniards met him (“Tupuni”) at Raiatea in 1775, but give no indication of his age. 85 An intelligent guess might identify him as Uru a Tu, of the same generation as Tamatoa III. This is supported in a piece of evidence given in 1845 by the ari'i of Borabora, Tefa'aora, concerning his descent from Maevarua (Teari'imaevarua I), daughter of Puni. 86 The Salmon genealogy, however, does not make this connection.

Cook and others noted the close degree of affiliation between all the senior families of the Leeward and Windward groups. 87 It was not always an easy relationship, particularly in Huahine, where there was rivalry between the senior and junior lines founded by Teha'apapa, resulting in her downfall some time in 1777, when the ari'i titles passed to Mato's sons Tenania and Mahine. This was a point of importance for Pomare II and his mother 'Itia, when they allied with these princes by marriage and adoption later. 88

Vancouver, too, paid great attention to the Pomares' links with the Leewards' aristocracy, 1791-1792, because he observed many of their chiefs at Tahiti.

Excepting the daughter of Opoone who reigned over Bolabola, and its two neighbouring isles, we now had the presence of all the sovereigns of this group of islands. Opoone had formerly conquered and annexed the islands of Ulietea (Raiatea) and Otaha (Tahaa) to the government of Bolabola; but on his death the sovereignty of these islands had, in right of natural, or original succession, fallen to a chief whose name was Mowree. 89

This “Mowree” [Mau'ri'i?] may have been U'uru, as Vancouver goes on to identify him as a brother of Tetupaia, more or less in exile from Raiatea and without much political influence there at the time:

Otoo, in the right of his grandmother by his father's side (i.e. Tetupaia), on the death of Mowree will claim the sovereignty of Ulietea and Otaha. Mowree, who is brother to Pomurrey's mother, is an Ereeoe of an advanced age. He seemed extremely fond of Otoo, and proud of his succeeding him in the government of those islands; saying, that, at present, there were two sovereigns, that “Maw ta Tarta”, but when he should die there would be but one, meaning Otoo. This expression in its literal signification, means “to eat the man”; the idea, however, which in this sense it is intended to convey, is to point out those, whose rank and authority entitle them to preside at human sacrifices; a power which at present is possessed only by Mowree and Otoo. 90

- 495

Too much weight should not, perhaps, be placed on this testimony by Vancouver, 91 though it tends to confirm the viewpoint, outlined above, that after the events of the 1760's, there was only one maro 'ura titleholder as ari'i rahi in Tahiti and Moorea.

The Pomares continued to follow events in Raiatea closely and to keep the hau pahu rahi in operation through their family links. In this they were further assisted by the arrival of Haamanimani in the early 1790's and by the visit of Tenania, ari'i Huahine, to become 'Itia's second husband at Pare in May 1799. 92 In 1800 came news of war in Raiatea between Tamatoa IV and Tapoa of Borabora which “gave no little anxiety to Pomare who felt that the fall of the present dynasty in that island would seriously affect his own position in Tahiti” 93 A small force of warriors with muskets and a swivel gun were sent, at a time when Tu II could ill-afford to spare them. For the rest of the decade, however, the records are silent as to the outcome of this intermittent struggle in the Leeward group, 94 resulting in the disassociation of rank from effective political power, until the massive expeditions to Tahiti and Moorea in 1810 and 1811.

At first sight its astonishing that nearly a thousand Leeward Islanders could have been mustered to back the cause of a Tahitian ari'i whose position looked desparate, after the retreat to Moorea. It can only be explained by the obligations built up through the hau pahu rahi towards a chief of the very highest rank by kin who commanded extensive manpower. The 1810 expedition, moreover, was not the first of such reinforcements. As Mare put it (in translation):

C'est à cause de cette parenté, à cause de celle aussi qui résulte du marriage de Teu à Tetupaia, que tant de princes de Raiatea sont venus et sont morts à Tahiti. C'est encore à cause de cette parenté que Hihipa, frère aîné de Tamatoa-fao (Tamatoa IV), a combattu avec le Porionuu dans les troupes de Pomaré, et qu'il a trouvé la mort à Taiarabu sur le champ de bataille d'Iromirae. 95

This allusion to the battle of iro mirae in 1802 pinpoints another occasion when an expedition from Raiatea must have come to the assistance of Tu II. Seven years later, a contingent of some 250 warriors from Huahine took part in the battle of Mahaena in October 1809, suffering severe losses. In 1810 more men were sent: 262 with the chiefs Mai and Tefa'aora in July, 288 with Tapoa in September, and an unknown number with the missionary Hayward from Huahine in October. 96

- 496

The informants of 1845 made much of this military aid, claiming that the hau feti'i, however divided it might be, could not stand by and see the humiliation of the ari'i rahi. Some of the details of the expedition are given below (Appendix IV). They are confirmed by other informants. 97 Mare added the significant information that the fleets brought with them from Opoa high priests, the canoe of 'Oro, a feathered image of the god, and a stone from Taputapuatea marae. 98 At Nu'urua national marae in Moorea the fleets and forces were formally presented to Pomare. Then the sacred canoe, te va'a roa i te mata'i, proceeded to Tautira for a pure ari'i ceremony under 'Oro (which Pomare did not attend). 99 Meanwhile, the practical aspects of the hau pahu rahi were complemented by a marriage alliance between the ari'i rahi and the daughter of Tamatoa IV, Teri'ioterai (Teremoemoe) and by a ceremonial donation of the Leeward Islands' governments to Pomare at Tepuatea marae (Taputapuatea) in Papetoai. 100

The informants gave few details on the war itself. Tamatoa, Mai, Tefa'aora and other chiefs had returned to the Leewards before the battle of fei pi in 1815—in some ways an unpremeditated piece of luck after a period of stalemate.

But before the consolidation of Pomare's position under a new god, there was one other little-noticed event, confirming the hau pahu rahi in the Leeward group. In September 1814, Pomare, Charles Wilson, George Bicknell, Samuel Henry and a number of Tahitians and Mooreans were blown out to sea on the schooner Matilda and spent three months at Raiatea, Huahine and off Borabora. The missionaries' public letters pass lightly over this affair; 101 the informants of 1845, however, made much of this unexpected visit by Pomare for the first time to the north-western islands and went into detail on the ceremonies performed. Their evidence is best set out as follows:

POMARE II IN THE LEEWARD ISLANDS, 1814. 102
Informants Dates Given Itinerary Ceremonies Performed
Mare 1815 Tahaa, Raiatea, Huahine Tahaa: ahu oto, tava'u; adoption of Teri'inohorai by Pomare.
      Raiatea: ahu oto, tava'u; cession of islands to Pomare; Borabora pledged to Aimata.
      Huahine: ahu oto, tava'u.
S.P. Henry 1815 Tahaa (three weeks), Raiatea (four weeks), Huahine (two weeks). Tahaa: presents and provisions.
      Raiatea: cession to Pomare; adoption of Teri'inohorai for Aimata.
- 497
Mai, Faaita 1816 Tahaa (two weeks), Raiatea Raiatea: purupura'a, humaha pu'a'a.
Faaita 1816 Tahaa (two weeks), Raiata Tahaa: ahu oto.
      Raiatea: tiva'u; adoption of Teri'inohorai; humaha pu'a'a. Tiva'u and ahu oto sent from Borabora.
Maro 1818 Tahaa Tahaa: ma'a fa'aho pura'avai.
      Raiatea: ma'a fa'aho pura'avai; ahu otota'a'a mua (tiva'u).
      Huahine: tiva'u.
Paraitaiti ? Tahaa (two weeks), Raiatea, Tahaa: ‘feedings’.
      Raiatea: ma'afa'aho pura'avai; ahu oto;fa'a mua rahi; adoption of Teri'inohorai.
    Huahine Huahine: ma'a fa'aho pura'avai; ahu oto; fa'a mua rahi.
Matatore ? Tahaa (two weeks), Raiatea, Tahaa: ‘provisions’.
      Raiatea: tiva'u; adoption of Teri'inohorai.
    Huahine (three weeks) Huahine: provisions; tiva'u;.

All the informants got the date of the voyage wrong, or could not give one. There was general agreement about the islands visited and the amount of time spent there (Matatore and Faaita went into detail about harbours and anchorages). The important sections, however, concerned the ceremonies performed for the royal visitor: and there was a general concensus that there been a formal “donation” of the government of Raiatea, Huahine and Borabora (though the visitors did not actually land on this island). The adoption of the child who was to become Tapoa II and the arrangement of his marriage with Pomare's own daughter was consistent with the policy of renewing kin ties among the highest-ranking lineages and was carried out in 1822.

From the foregoing one might conclude that the hau pahu rahi had grown out of the 'Oro cult and the political alliances formed by the leading family of Tahiti and Moorea in the eighteenth century. The loose confederation of ari'i lineages was tested on several occasions as a means of providing support in crisis and it helped to promote the general changes which came about with Pomare's conversion to Christianity. On two occasions in 1810 and 1814 his position as ari'i rahi over a wide aggregation of clans was formally acknowledged in a unique manner. The 'Oro cult still had its followers among the chiefs in 1810; and it is ironical that the expeditionary force which prepared to assist the “Christian party” in Tahiti was helped on its way by rites performed under a pagan deity at the Tautira marae. But the principal votary, Pomare, was already turning to a new source of inspiration in 1807; and he was seriously discussing baptism in 1811 and 1812. Contact with the missionaries at Moorea undoubtedly encouraged the spread of new doctrines in the Leeward group, too: many of the chiefs who had come to save Pomare under 'Oro returned home to burn their gods.

It is possible, of course, to argue that the ceremonial donations did not imply “over-rule”; and with the important exception of William Henry this was the viewpoint held by the missionaries in 1845. Davies summed up their opinion that the ari'i “were generally on friendly terms, and, by - 498 inter-marriage were mostly related to each other, yet sometimes they had wars and disagreements and one or the other might be worsted in their combats & brought into subjection, but afterwards restored to their original dependency”. 103

Henry, however, thought his son's interpretation of the 1814 “royal progress” essentially correct from his recollection of information received at the time from Wilson and Pomare. 104 On the other hand, Consul Miller and Commander Hamond got a statement from one of the key French witnesses, Matatore, to the effect that the “donations” of 1814 did not mean that Pomare was “sovereign” in the Leeward group. 105 This was true enough, when translated into European concepts. The obligations of the Leewards' ari'i were not those of vassals to a king, but rather those of juniors to the head of the senior lineage of the islands. The “donation” ceremonies may have been symbolic (like the “donation of Matavai”, a confirmation of an alliance). But the military aid was real enough and evidence that something more than mere hospitality between chiefs of equal rank was taking place.

POMARE'S GOVERNMENT, 1815-1821

“The King changed his Gods, but he had no other reason but that of consolidating his Government”, commented Orsmond towards the end of his years of disillusionment as a missionary. 106 There is just enough truth in this remark to obscure other features of the ari'i rahi's remarkable struggle to hold together an island polity torn by a decade of civil war. Pomare's conversion to Christianity was by no means a simple device to keep himself in authority: Tahiti and Moorea were worth more than a Mass—or its local equivalent in scriptures, baptisms, chapels, social reforms and other changes agreed to by the chiefs and the people. Pomare himself was too complex a character for his acceptance of new religious ideas to be explained in terms of power motivation alone.

The evidence of the missionaries and the ari'i's own correspondence indicate, rather, a long struggle to reconcile an intellectual grasp of the principles of Christian doctrine with an emotional expectancy that material changes in the condition of the islanders would flow from conversion to a European style of religious behaviour. To be worth the change the new Atua had to produce the secrets of wealth, as well as support the established hierarchy of chiefs. Part of the secret was education. The fact of his early literacy in Polynesian script from about 1802 - 499 and the importance he attached to written communications illustrated one aspect of Pomare's conception of the techniques of personal salvation and social improvement. This elementary accomplishment did not satisfy him long. There are many scattered references to show that Pomare possessed, in Ellis's terms “a capacious mind, no inconsiderable genius” and was “anxious to improve himself in knowledge”. 107 Drawing, printing, ship construction, geometry and mathematics—all these skills were sampled in the busy years before his death; and he took the keenest interest in the schooling of his children, entrusted to William Crook. He found time, too, to begin writing a dictionary—possibly a draft of the one completed by Davies, Nott and Orsmond. There is a certain humility in his confession to Samuel Marsden that so much remained to be learned:

Do not criticize what I have written, do not smile at my blunders, and what is faulty; I know not how to write as I ought; I resemble an ignorant man; his word misconstrued when we write. My good Friend, I am verily ashamed that I am so poor, having nothing that you may esteem; we are a people of no judgement, to know what to send, nor have we anything that you may esteem acceptable. 108

Orsmond was right about one thing: Pomare was not interested in conversion merely for the sake of his soul, but for the benefit of the body politic which he felt to be lacking in the artifacts which contact with Europeans had taught him to value.

Pomare, then, was under no illusions about the limitations of his government, in European eyes. Until these could be remedied, he built on what he had inherited from the pre-Christian period. The first step taken after the victory of 1815 was to confirm in their titles under the ari'i rahi the clan chiefs of Tahiti and Moorea, reserving to himself the two supreme titles which acknowledged his superior rank in both islands. 109 There is evidence, too, that similar steps were taken in the Leeward group through his representative, or fa'aterehau, Mahine. 110

In some ways this was a return to the situation in 1806, but no longer under 'Oro. Instead, an Auxiliary Society of the L.M.S. was established to ship produce abroad on behalf of overseas missions—a new form of tribute through a new hierarchy of priests and experts. 111 It was impossible, however, to dis-associate ideas of “church” and “state”. Pomare was titular head of the local Society, and the chiefs were appointed “patrons” under him in strict order of rank. Another innovation was the 1819 Code of Laws which aimed at social reform and providing a legal basis for social control. It was accepted by Pomare only after much hesitation; and the idea of ratification of this and other legislation by an annual assembly of chiefs offended his conception of the relative status of the ari'i rahi and was not pursued.

- 500

By taking these steps and by scattering their stations over a number of districts and islands the missionaries followed a slightly contradictory policy of preserving the “monarchy” as a means of furthering the work of the churches, while at the same time encouraging the creation of clan parishes under subordinate chiefs. Lacking a centralized administration or a hierarchy of ministers, they added little to the constitutional structure of the Tahitian “kingdom” in Pomare's lifetime. Nor was the ari'i rahi himself surrounded by court officials. There were a few messengers and orators; representatives in the districts and outer islands. 112 But the central executive of government in Tahiti was weak. Consequently, the task of enforcing the new laws and supplying produce fell to the clan chiefs and district judges—an institution which outlasted the “monarchy”. Moreover, in the Leeward group some of the missionaries—Williams, Threlkeld, Orsmond and Barff—encouraged the formation of separate church communities with separate laws and independent contributions under the local ari'i, actively resisting Pomare's attempts to continue the hau pahu rahi through his kin.

For his part, Pomare seems to have expected the alliance that had been tested in war to further the welfare of the leading lineages in peace. Two examples will illustrate this. In about 1817 a serious dispute arose between ari'i families in Raiatea and Borabora over land rights in the Vaitape district of the former island. Pomare sent an embassy under the high chief of Moorea, Marama Ari'ioehau (grandfather of Ari'i Taimai) to intercede and restore the lands to their “true owners”—the chiefs Fa'anui in Borabora. 113 This seems to have been a fairly straightforward case of using the authority of the ari'i rahi within the hau pahu rahi to avert conflict between kin members. There were parallels later during his daughter's reign in the 1830's.

In 1820, however, Pomare tried to use his authority to establish a market monopoly for certain kinds of produce, independently of the missionaries and the Auxiliary Society. From his point of view there had been few benefits from the quantities of coconut oil and arrowroot shipped to the L.M.S. and the Sydney buyers on Marsden's brig, Active. A misunderstanding about the ownership of the mission schooner, Haweis, promised to Pomare, but effectively controlled by the Sydney merchant, Robert Campbell, lent substance to suspicions that the missionaries were deliberately making commercial activities difficult for the ari'i. As confidence in his advisers ebbed, Pomare turned to their sons, George Bicknell and Samuel Henry, who arranged for the purchase of trade goods and the brig, Governor Macquarie, from Henry Eagar in 1820. 114 Eagar's attempt to corner the local market to recover the cost of the vessel and supplies was assisted by Pomare's rahui on the export of hogs, oil and arrowroot, throughout most of the trading - 501 season. 115 In February 1821 he extended the interdiction to the Leeward Islands. 116 The Macquarie sailed from Tahiti in April 1821 with eighty tons of pork, lard and fruit, but the Leeward chiefs did not comply with the order. It is clear that at Raiatea Threlkeld had swayed Tamatoa against the rahui in order to “reject the despotic and violent measures of Pomare tending to crush liberty and civilization” (as Crook put it somewhat dramatically). “They declare they will not attend to the advice of Pomare to rahui the hogs, oil & arrowroot for him and to sell nothing to the missionaries, they will have nothing to do with Pomare's ship, but will buy a ship of their own”. 117

Pomare was furious with this breach of the hau pahu rahi. It is important to note, too, in the light of the 1845 evidence, that Crook in his journal for 1821 speaks of this episode as a “revolt”.

It is said that Tamatoa, the Queen's father, has assumed the Government (of Raiatea) to himself which he had formerly given up to Aimata his grand daughter by Pomare. As they have rejected the rahui, it is to be asked, Has Aimata no hogs? Hitoti tells me that Tamatoa is to be banished and brought up hither as a (taata ino) bad man. 118

It is hard to make sense of this passage, unless at some time (1814?) the government of Raiatea had been vested in Pomare II's daughter, as part of the hau pahu rahi. This explanation is supported by a later entry describing the visit of Ellis and two minor chiefs from Huahine “to procure some degree of civil & religious liberty” 119 For, as Crook understood the matter, “Pomare Vahine [Ari'ipaea] being the sovereign of the greater part of that island, the Government has been nominally presented to Pomare, who has from time to time sent them such arbitrary commands as are galling to the people and destructive of liberty and civilization” 120

The situation was full of interest for the missionaries who in their less guarded moments reveal a deep resentment of Pomare's behaviour and their dependence for many things on his good will. The brig Hope under Captain Grimes arrived from Sydney at this juncture with orders from Marsden to take off the annual contributions of produce. Pomare held his hand and took no action till the annual meeting of the Auxiliary Society in May 1821, when the delegation from Huahine was present. He relaxed his restriction; and trade was allowed with the missionaries.

Why he did so is not clear. At least one chief, Tati, wanted the rahui to continue until the ari'i rahi's own vessel returned to load up. But general reconciliation was the theme of the meeting, with only one discordant note: “a man deputed by the chiefs of Raiatea in a bold and animated speech demanded the young child Teri'itaria [Pomare II?] that they might - 502 make him king, but this was strenuously opposed by Tati”. 121 Again, there is not enough information to say why the Raiatean chiefs made this request. But it was not inconsistent with the pattern of adoptions among the royal lineages to take the heir presumptive into a regency under ari'i parents; and it would have strengthened the hau pahu rahi in Raiatea to have brought up a son of Pomare under the guidance of Tamatoa IV.

On the whole, however, the missionaries in the Leeward Islands had their way in promoting separatism among the ari'i, though another trading venture of Samuel Henry and Pomare in August 1821 succeeded so well that Tahiti and Moorea were “drained of hogs”. Further supplies were then procured at Huahine; and this brought over another deputation of missionaries under Williams and Ellis to put a stop to Pomare's “interference” in the Leeward group. 122 They may have suspected (with reason) that Pomare had not forgotten the humiliating rebuff earlier in the year and was biding his time, while Henry was at Sydney with the Macquarie to purchase powder and arms to be used against Raiatea. 123 At this point, the L.M.S. Deputation of Tyerman and Bennet arrived and approved the formation of “independent” churches and the local autonomy encouraged by the missionaries. 124 By early December the object of their antipathy, Pomare, had died, and the “monarchy” came more closely under European control.

CONCLUSION

The rise of the Pomare lineage to a position of temporary hegemony of Tahiti and Moorea is not to be explained merely in terms of European contact. On the contrary, the accretion of titles and authority to the ari'i rahi was a historically continuous process, in so far as the highest-ranking chief furthered his cause according to accepted norms of social prestige. Where his position was in doubt was in the provision of tribute and manpower by subordinate clans during a period when population decline and growing disbelief in traditional sanctions weakened social control.

The emergence of a superior lineage was historically discontinuous, however, not because of local “rebellions” (they, too, were a feature of traditional society), but because rituals changed under a new god with a new order or priests. The use to which the religious innovations of Christianity were put—to enhance the political and social position of the ari'i rahi—was, however, in close conformity with previous patterns of “divine kingship”, since the reception of the 'Oro cult in Tahiti. Like the musket, scripture, chapels and the printing press were novel artifacts for following older policies; and these policies of social aggrandisement were familiar enough to the local aristocracy. In a way, the whole process of change in Tahiti in the late eighteenth century was summed up by the - 503 incorporation of the pennant flag donated by Wallis into the maro for Teri'irere, or, conversely, in the ahu oto ceremony performed for the portrait of Captain Cook. 125 Tahitians were eclectic enough to adopt alien symbols and a god-like navigator into their own system of beliefs, in the expectation that the fortunes of chiefs and people would be advanced. They were no less ethnocentric, in so doing, than foreign observers who commented on their attempts at building up the authority of the Pomare lineage in terms of European eighteenth-century state-craft.

The hau pahu rahi, however, was an indigenous concept, consciously evolved in the eighteenth century, as wider aggregations of clans were brought to acknowledge the rank of the Tahitian ari'i rahi. The Pomares did not exercise “sovereignty” in the sense of royal absolutism over feudatories, but, rather, as the senior and most sacred members of a family government—the hau feti'i. This relationship at the highest social level was consistent with obligations based on kin seniority at other levels of Tahitian and Leeward Islands society. It depended a great deal for its acceptance on a common set of religious sanctions: and these seem to have been supplied by the 'Oro cult. So much so that at times the Pomares looked like a royal outpost of Raiatea supported by imported priests and regalia among clans who did not wholly abandon older gods and resisted excessive obligations to the votaries of a new deity.

To some extent this pattern of religious zeal in support of secular authority was repeated in the early decade of the nineteenth century, before a reaction set in against the social discipline of missionary-ari'i government in the 1830's. One of the mainstays of the system—the hau feti'i—was persevered with, as marriages, adoptions and royal visits bound the royal house more closely to Leeward Island lineages. 126 There were other features of the hau pahu rahi which continued too: Tahitian judges were called in to decide Leewards' land cases; Pomare IV made an effort at peace-making in the group in 1831-1832; and she was given a refuge there in 1844 during the war against the French. 127

But after 1821 the hau pahu rahi was not invoked to save the Pomares from European occupation. The separatism encouraged by the missionaries and formally declared in the coronation of Pomare III (crowned “king” of Tahiti and Moorea only) was used to the advantage of chiefs who wished to escape French rule. Their independent position was acknowledged by European diplomatists in 1847 and was not revised until the French administration supplanted the royal house in each of the Leeward Islands in the last decades of the century. In a sense, the hau pahu rahi was restored only when ari'i authority was at an end.

Finally, this case of elementary state-construction in Eastern Polynesia may suggest some parallels for further investigation elsewhere in the Pacific. The most obvious example for comparative treatment would seem - 504 to be the rise of Kamehameha in Hawaii, 1794-1819. Emphasis has been placed on the assistance given to the ali'i in that area of Polynesia by Europeans; but unfortunately the most detailed work on the subject discusses Kamehameha's relations with other chiefs in terms of “feudal autocracy”; 128 and this is unhelpful to anyone trying to analyse the structure of secular authority and kinship. The place of warfare in the formation of the Hawaiian state is clear enough; the overthrow of the traditional religious system, in the immediate rejection of tapu (kapu) avoidances, may be a point of similarity with events at Tahiti under Pomare II. There is, too, an interesting indication of the importance of descent from females in the determination of rank, though it is difficult to know how far (if at all) Kamehameha departed from the norms of the traditional socio-political system in exercising power throughout the group.

Another area for comparison would be Tonga, where there is firmer evidence for a political system as a function of distant high-ranking lineages in a maritime empire. 129 There are some suggestive parallels, too, in Tahitian ari'i kinship and descent to the well-known fahu relationship and the rank primacy of an eldest sister's children in a royal house, though it is difficult to believe this institution was ever so highly formalized in Tahiti. On the other hand, junior chiefs and close relatives were used as envoys and representatives in both areas; there is a similar religious justification for a political aristocracy in terms of those who were “sacred” and those who were not; tribute was important as a means of rewarding a chief's followers; and (less certainly) there was a degree of religious scepticism among the highest-ranking practitioners of inter-island government. But until more work has been done on the early phases of contact with Hawaii, Tonga and other island groups, no typology of “centralized” Polynesian government can be attempted.

REFERENCES
  • ADAMS, Henry, 1964. Mémoires d'Arii Taimai (trans, ed. S. and A. Lebois, M-T. and B. Danielsson). Publications de la Société des Océanistes, No. 12, Paris.
  • BEAGLEHOLE, J. C. (ed.), 1955. The Journals of Captain James Cook on His Voyages of Discovery, Vol. I. Cambridge, Hakluyt Society.
  • —— 1961. Vol. II.
  • —— 1967. Vol. III, Parts one and two.
  • CHESNAU, R. P. Joseph, 1932. Souvenirs de P. Marcantoni, 1879-1931. Papeete.
  • COOK, James, 1784. A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean. 3 vols. Dublin.
  • CORNEY, Bolton Glanville, 1915. The Quest and Occupation of Tahiti by Emissaries of Spain in 1772-76, Vol. II. London, Hakluyt Society, Second Series, Vol. XXXVI.
  • DAVIES, John, 1961. The History of the Tahitian Mission 1799-1830 (ed. C. W. Newbury). Cambridge, Hakluyt Society Publication, Second Series, Vol. 116, Cambridge University Press.
- 505
  • ELLIS, William, 1831. Polynesian Researches During a Residence of Nearly Eight Years in the Society and Sandwich Islands. 4 vols. Second edition. London, Fisher, Son & Jackson.
  • EMORY, Kenneth P., n.d. Traditional History of Maraes in the Society Islands, ms., Sinclair Library.
  • GIFFORD, E. W., 1929. Tongan Society. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 61.
  • GUIART, Jean, 1963. Structure de la chefferie en Mélanésie du sud. Université de Paris. Travaux et memoires de l'Institut d'Ethnologie, lxvi, Paris.
  • GUNSON, Niel, 1964. “Great women and friendship contract rites in pre-Christian Tahiti”, Journal of the Polynesian Society, 73:53-69.
  • HAMOND, n.d. Letter Book of Captain Hamond H.M.S. Salamander, July 1845-May 1846. Mitchell Library.
  • HANDY, E. S. Craighill, 1930. History and Culture in the Society Islands. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 79.
  • HENRY, Teuira, 1928. Ancient Tahiti. Honolulu, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 48.
  • HUGUENIN, Paul, 1902. Raiatea la Sacrée. Neuchatel, Paul Attinger.
  • JEFFERSON, John, n.d. Journal. L.M.S. Journals/1.
  • KUYKENDALL, Ralph S., 1938. The Hawaiian Kingdom 1778-1854: Foundation and Transformation. Honolulu.
  • London Missionary Society archives, South Seas Letters and Journals.
  • MENZIES, Archibald, 1791-1792. Ms. Journal. B. M. Add. Mss. 32641.
  • MONTGOMERY, J. (ed.), 1831. Journal of Voyages and Travels by the Rev. Daniel Tyerman and George Bennet, Esq. . . . between the years 1821 and 1829. 2 vols. London.
  • MORRISON, James, 1935. The Journal of James Morrison . . . (ed. Owen Rutter). London, The Golden Cockerel Press.
  • NEWBURY, Colin, 1967. “Aspects of cultural change in French Polynesia: the decline of the ari'i.” Journal of the Polynesian Society 76:7-26.
  • O'REILLY, Patrick and Raoul TEISSIER, 1962. Tahitiens. Répertoire bio-bibliographique de la Polynésie Française. Publications de la Société des Océanistes 10, Paris.
  • Quarterly Chronicle of Transactions of the London Missionary Society, 1815-1832. 4 vols. London, 1821-1833.
  • Reports of the Missionary Society, from its formation, in the year 1795, to 1814, inclusive. London, n.d.
  • ROUSSIER, Paul, 1928. “Documents Ethnologiques Taïtiens recueillis en 1849 par le Capitaine de vaisseau Lavaud”, Revue d'Ethnographie et des Traditions populaires, 9:188-206.
  • SALMON, Tati, 1904. The History of the Island of Borabora. Papeete.
  • THOMSON, Robert, n.d. History of Tahiti 1767-1815. MSS. 3 vols., London Missionary Society Archives.
  • TOBIN, George. Journal of H.M.S. Providence 1791-93. Mitchell Library.
  • Transactions of the Missionary Society (1795-1817). 4 vols. London, 1804-1818.
  • VANCOUVER, George, 1798. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean, and around the world . . ., 3 vols. London.
  • VANSINA, January 1961. De la Tradition Orale: Essai de Méthode Historique. Tervuren.
  • WILSON, William, 1799. A Missionary Voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean . . ., London. London Missionary Society.
- 506
APPENDIX I
CALENDAR OF DOCUMENTS

The following list includes the items forwarded by Governor Bruat, as enclosures in his despatch of December 14, 1845 (No. 327), Océanie A 34 c 8 (Archives Nationales, Section Outre-Mer). Some of these are duplicates of a smaller set forwarded by Admiral Hamelin, October 3, 1845.

1. Minutes of a meeting, December 5, 1845 (December 6 European style) [the local missionary calendar was one day behind the official time zone, because of an early error].

[A meeting of Bruat, Paraita, the principal Tahitian chiefs and Mai of Borabora, to verify statements submitted in written form. This verification continued over the next two days].

2. Minutes of a meeting, December 7, 1845.

3. Minutes of a General Assembly, December 8, 1845.

4. A bordereau of forty-two documents examined and approved by the Assembly, as follows:

  • 1. Mare's evidence, n.d. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 2. S. P. Henry's evidence, September 16, 1845. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 3. S. P. Henry's evidence, September 20, 1845. [Pomare's rahui, 1820, and commercial operations].
  • 4. Aifenua Vahine's evidence, September 18, 1845. [Reception of Pomare IV at Raiatea].
  • 5, 6 and 7. Statements by Lieut, de Bovis and J. M. Orsmond, withdrawn from the file of enclosures by Bruat. It is probable that de Bovis' material formed the substance of his article, “État de la société tahitienne”, published later in the Annuaire des É.F.O. (1855) and in the Revue Coloniale (1855), pp. 368-408.
  • 8. Mai and Faaita's evidence, September 19, 1845. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 9. William Henry to S. P. Henry, October 15, 1845. [Confirming S. P. Henry's evidence].
  • 10. Mare's evidence, n.d. [Explaining the tavau and other ceremonies: see Appendix II].
  • 11. Faaita's evidence, October 2, 1845. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 12. Mai and Tefaaora's evidence, n.d. [The Pomare's influence in Borabora].
  • 13. Mai, Teuvira, Fareatai, Mateofa's evidence, October 12, 1845. [The tavau and other ceremonies].
  • 14. Mare's evidence, n.d. [The reception of Queen Pomare in the Leeward Islands].
  • 15. Maro's evidence, October 20, 1845. [By a ra'atira. The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 16. Paraita, Taaniu's evidence, October 21, 1845. [Queen Pomare's intervention in the Leeward Islands, 1831-1832].
  • 17. Alexander Salmon's evidence, October 22, 1845. [The “sovereignty” of Queen Pomare].
  • 18. John Johnston, November 3, 1845. [Registry of Raiatean ships at Tahiti].
- 507
  • 19. Paraita iti's evidence, November 1, 1845. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 20. Paaiti's evidence, November 9, 1845. [The Leeward Islands' expeditions to Tahiti and Moorea, 1809-1815].
  • 21. Consul G. R. Chapman to Bruat, November 10, 1845. [Queen Pomare's “sovereignty” in the Leeward Islands].
  • 22. Ahuriro's evidence, November 12, 1845. [Queen Pomare's intervention in the Leeward Islands, 1831-1832].
  • 23. Mare's evidence, n.d. [Jurisdiction by Tahitian judges in the Leeward Islands].
  • 24. Arato's evidence, November 22, 1845. [Jurisdiction by Tahitian judges in the Leeward Islands].
  • 25. Matatore's evidence, November 28, 1845. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands and the expeditionary force, 1809-1815: see Appendix IV].
  • 26. Mare's evidence, n.d. [The Leeward Islands expeditionary force, 1809-1815 and the hau pahu rahi].
  • 27. Anaui's evidence, November 30, 1845. [The Leeward Islands expeditionary force, 1809-1815].
  • 28. Anaui's evidence, December 2, 1845. [The reception of Pomare in the Leeward Islands].
  • 29. S. P. Henry's evidence, December 7, 1845. [Tahitian and Leeward Islands flags].
  • 30. Tefaaora, Mai and eleven chiefs of Borabora, November 21, 1845. [Queen Pomare and the hau pahu rahi].
  • 31. Mai's evidence, November 21, 1845. [Jurisdiction by a Tahitian judge in Borabora].
  • 32. Tepoi, tua'u, November 21, 1845. [Queen Pomare's intervention in the Leeward Islands, 1831-1832].
  • 33. Tuia, to'ohitu, November 21, 1845. [Queen Pomare's voyage to the Leeward Islands, 1840].
  • 34. Tapoa to Mai and Tefaaora, July 20, 1844. [The arrival of Queen Pomare on the Carysfort].
  • 35. Mai's evidence, November 22, 1845. [Leeward Islands expeditionary force, 1809-1815].
  • 36. Seventeen letters to Mai, 1831, from Tamatoa, Tapoa, Teriitaria, Mahine, Ariipaea, Utami. [Hostilities and Queen Pomare's intervention].
  • 37. Pai, Tiunu, Ata's evidence, November 29, 1845. [The Pomares' rights in the Leeward Islands].
  • 38. Teiaha's evidence, November 30, 1845. [Reception of Queen Pomare at Raiatea, 1844].
  • 39. The Coronation of Pomare III, April 21, 1824. [Order of rank in the coronation procession].
  • 40. Tairapa's evidence, December 8, 1845. [The voyage of Pomare II to the Leeward Islands].
  • 41. Vaapau, December 14, 1845. [Registration of vessels].
  • 42. H. Orsmond's evidence, December 15, 1845. [Pomare II's representative in Borabora].
- 508
APPENDIX II
MARE'S EVIDENCE n.d. [1845]

These are the regulations respecting the great Tivau's, 130 to build Canoes, beat cloth and fold them into large bundles, to cover mats, plait the Taumi's 131 made of birds' feathers) and Tâui 132 (made of feathers and sinnet) Pigs, to fetch the Mapura 133 and Uhi parai 134 from the mountains (food growing on the mountains) and take them to the two great places of Tumahotutau and get them ready. Eight of Teporionuu had eight Canoes, eight bundles of Cloth, with the Taumi, and Tâu, bundles of Cloth, and uncooked pork, these were the property taken in those Canoes.

The two mano's of Teoropaa, 135 and Tau mata i te fana i Ahurai. They had three Canoes, three large bundles of Cloth, the Tâu and the Taumi and uncooked pigs were put on board of those Canoes.

The four districts 136 of the Teva i uta, had four Canoes, four bundles, the Taumi and the Tâu, and uncooked pork. The four districts 137 of the Teva i tai, had also four Canoes, four bundles of the Taumi the Tu and uncooked pork.e

And when they were ready, they came to Tarahoi, 138 they had different Canoes for the food, the Mapura, the Uhi parai, the poe, 139 the Taiero, 140 the Meia pè 141 Tupani, 142 poe pia, 143 the pepe, 144 the fe'i 145 (all different kinds of food), they also beat the drums on the Canoes, the Ihara 146 (a species of Upaupa), and the people were dancing upon those Canoes of food. But those Canoes that were brought to be presented to the King, no food were [sic] put upon them, they used to be covered with Cloth, and brought into the presence of the King, mentioning his true name, Tunui e aa i te atua upon Tarahoi. Here are the whole eight of the Porionuu, the two mano's of Teoropaa and Taumata te fana i Ahurai, from Vaituarua to Vaioau. Here are the four districts of Teva i uta, and the four districts of Teva i tai, from Vainiania to Vaioau. Here take your Tivau. Here are the Canoes, the bundles of Cloth, the Taumi, the Tâu, and the Tihi, 147 the pigs, the Mapura and all kinds of food, this is the sign of your Sovereignty.

The eight districts of Moorea had another Tavau, When Tunui e aa i te atua went to Nuurua 148 upon the Tahua of Pahoa, then Moorea presented their - 509 Tivau. Eight districts of Moorea had eight Canoes, eight bundles of Taumi and Tâu the pigs and every kind of food necessary for the Tivau but there, they had no Mapura nor Uhi parai. The food was always on a different Canoe, upon that Canoe was the Pahi & Hara [Ihara?] and the people dancing upon them. But the Canoes intended to be presented, for the Tavau were covered with cloth. The King's name mentioned by Moorea was Bunua terai atua, viz, Bunua-teraiatua upon Nuurua. Here is your Tavau, from the eight districts of Moorea. There, take it, this is a sign of your Sovereignty on Moorea. These Tavau's were never given to inferior persons, or Chiefs, neither was the fruit of the breadfruit trees, but only to the King.

The maa auta'o 149 and paeahi 150 were put into large baskets and given to guests with pigs, and some cloth no poe, no Taiero, no Meia pê, no Tupani, but only breadfruit, plantains and Cocoanuts.

When an Upaupa went round the Country and landed at a district, they were fed, they only had the auta'o, no paeahi, no fruit on the breadfruit trees, but cloth they had.

The Tavau was only for a King, The fruit on the trees, paeahi auta'o, the food of the night, the ia rarâ roa and the ia pehau iha (different fishes) were all for Pomare, in fact every kind of food. This was another custom of the common people. When they planted food, and when ripe, they used to take the first food from the garden to the King, people never planted their food and eat it without taking the first fruits (if they did), they were banished, but when they took the King's first, then the owner would eat his food.

This was also another custom on these Islands a Ma'ia'i (another ceremony presented to the King with food &c.) when they brought the Maiai to the King they always blew the Bu (a shell). That was also a sign of the power of the King. Another also called opuroa, that was also a token of the power of the King. They were only given to Pomare. At the birth of Pomare the 2nd. he was guarded all round, no person allowed to go there (If they did) they were killed. His house was called an Aorai (a palace), his Canoe was called an Anuanua (a rainbow) his lights was called Uira (lightening), his pigs were called papahi (a sacred fish) his dogs were called humi's (a seal) his Ava was called A'ia'i (a sacred name for the Ava). But the Kings nor Chiefs of other Islands never did so. It was only Pomare. When his fence was broken, a man was killed, when it was broken [sic]. The Kings of other Islands did not do so. Pomare never walked upon the ground from his infancy, he always sat on the neck of persons from his infancy. The Kings of other Islands were not carried on persons' shoulders. It was Pomare only Pomare had a Canoe, he used to pull about in, persons now to be killed and put under his Canoe when it was dragged into the sea, or up on land. That was a great sign of his Sovereignty, see a man was used for his Canoe. No other King did so. [sic]

When Pomare lived at Tarahoi, then the Tivau was presented to him, no Tivau was presented to him when he travelled round (the Islands) Tahiti. When he landed at a certain district, the Ahuoto was presented to him, and afterwards presents of food, the paeahi, and the fruit on the breadfruit trees, and after that, a personal food, every family presented their present of food. Every person in the district did so. That was the food called the maa tahe. Then the land would be given to the King, the tuna, 151 the oura, 152 the onana pii mato, the oopu, - 510 (Different kinds of fresh water fish) and the birds. And when he landed at another district, the Ahuoto was the first to be presented to him, and afterwards the food. And after the neck of the land, and the same in every district all round. It was all Pomare's.

The food of the Ma'ia'i was always brought to Tarahoi, blowing the pu (the shell) to the tahua of Vairota (the place of Government). The food of the Opuroa was always brought to Tarahoi. The feast of the vaha pu was also brought to Tarahoi. The name always mentioned was Tunui eaa i te Atua, here is the Ma'ia'i, the Opuroa and the feast called Vaha pu. The Vaha pu was a feast with pigs only, and no other food.

Here is another word which I did not write down, respecting the circumstances when Pomare was drifted down to Raiatea. Tamatoa, Tahitoe, Maihara, Taavea and the son of Tamatoa were all at Atupii (another name for Huahine). When they saw the vessel coming, they ordered Faanuhe to go out to sea, and see the vessel, but he could not catch the vessel, and Faanuhe told them, that she was sailing away. And Tamatoa ordered him to go to Raiatea, perhaps she has gone in there, you must make a signal of fire that we may know. And when Faanuhe arrived there, he saw that it was Pomare, and at night he made a signal of fire to make known to them that he had arrived. And in the morning they all went over to Tahaa and paid their respects to Pomare, to Tau roa arii, Tapuataaroa, to Aroa, (to Mr. Henry) to Kohirohi, Mama'e, Tehuitua, Maurima, Vane iti, they are all dead. Matatore, Hanere, Paraita iti, They are all living.

The vessel sailed from there and anchored at Tipaehapa, and all the kings also. It was Pomare the second that shared the land amongst them, to Tamatoa, to Tahitoe, to Maihara, to Tamatoa son, to Taavea. Pomare said to them, go and clear and weeds, and plant food for yourselves. There were no houses there and the kings of Raiatea made niau houses. And Pomare went and looked all round Raiatea, and returned.

This word is quite finished.

A true translation, Adam J. Darling. Interpreter.

- 511
APPENDIX III
THE POMARE LINEAGE IN THE HAU FETI'I
NOTE:, The list of descendants is not exhaustive in any generation; only the main descent lines are indicated. See Henry 1928: 247-72., —Adoption or “friendship” rites., = Marriage.
- 512
APPENDIX IV MATATORE'S EVIDENCE

Papeete, November 28, 1845.

The wife of Tu, also called Teu, was named Tetupaia i Hauiri, sister of Tamatoa [IV's] grandfather and Hamanemane. She was the eldest of the family, in consequence of which her son Pomare II [sic Pomare I] had a right to the government of the leeward islands.

Some time before the battle of Mahaena, where the people of Atupii [Huahine] was conquered and most of the warriors killed, Pomare sent his messenger Tamati whom I did accompany to the leeward islands, to request the chiefs of the leeward islands to come with their armies to help him. We first went to Huahine. The people of Huahine having already left for Tahiti, we did not stop there, but went on to Raiatea. At our arrival at Raiatea a meeting was held, and Tamati said to Tamatoa and Tapoa who was also there, that Pomare had sent them to request them to send their armies to help him to retake Tahiti. They all consented, and Tapoa told us it was necessary to go down to Borabora, to request Mai and Tefaaora to send also the army of Borabora to join him. While we were still at Raiatea a messenger of Pomare named Turuhemanu, did come down from Tahiti to inform that the army of Huahine had been beaten at Mahaena, that Patii te o more, Ofai, Tiere, Tauavae, &c., &c., had been killed and Pomare had fled to Moorea. Then another meeting was held, where it was decided that the armies should immediately prepare, after which Tapoa left himself with us for Borabora.

At our arrival at Borabora a meeting was held at Tarerua. Tapoa mentioned himself to the chiefs the object of the messenger sent down by Pomare, that they were requested to go to Tahiti with the army to assist Pomare. Mai, Tefaaora, and all the chiefs consented immediately, and a few days afterwards, Tapoa, Mai, and Tefaaora, with their armies and ourselves all left for Raiatea; there, after a meeting, feeding and exercising of the troops, we all left [for] Huahine. While at Huahine some serious difficulty arose between the people of Borabora and Huahine, the cause of which was some ancient grudge between them, but Tamatoa and Tapoa prevented it. Tapoa told the people of Borabora, that they had not to degrade themselves as the people of Huahine were all gone, the women and children only remaining.

From Huahine we left in different parties for Moorea. Tapoa, Teremoemoe, Tamati, myself and other natives left on board Captain Walker's vessel [Endeavour?]. At our arrival in Moorea, Tapoa went to see Pomare, who received him with great demonstrations of friendship, and shortly afterwards, Tapoa taking Teremoemoe upon his shoulders, carried her to the house of Pomare, and put her upon his thighs and requested Pomare to take her as his wife; but Pomare after keeping her some time on his thighs sent her back to her house, and at night Tapoa brought her back again and put her in the bed of Pomare, and from that day Teremoemoe did remain with the King.

When Tamatoa arrived he went directly to salute Pomare his son-in-law, and kissed Pomare on his breast, while Pomare put his hands upon his head as a sign of supremacy. It was also on the same occasion that Hopou, speaker of Tamatoa and Tapoa, went outside, whilst Pomare and the chiefs of the leeward islands were sitting in the house, and addressed Pomare in the name of Tamatoa, Tapoa, and other chiefs of said islands in the following manner: “Tunui ea i te - 513 atua upon Tarahoi. Here are the eight districts of Raiatea; here are the five districts of Tahaa; here are also the six districts of Faanui, and seven of Maurua. There, my sovereign, take these islands in your possession”. And Tuinoo, the speaker of Pomare, stood up and said, “Tamatoa and Tapoa, Mai and Tefaaora, I am quite pleased because you have given up these islands into my possession. It is agreed. I will take those islands”.

Some days afterwards we all left for Teataepua [Varari, Moorea], where a great feast was ordered by Pomare for the reception of the chiefs and people of the leeward islands; a meeting was also held at the same place, at which meeting the speaker of Tapoa, Hoinei, addressing Pomare said, “Tunui e aa i te atua and Ariipaea, this is my desire, give me Tahiti, I will go and fight it” (meaning to go and fight Tahiti, conquer it, and then give it up to Pomare). Tuinoo, the speaker of Pomare answered, “Teariimaevarua, Tamatoa, Mai and Tefaaora, this is the best word. It is agreeable, but do not be in a hurry; let us go and eat the food of Tahiti and drink the water of the Buooro [Pu o 'oro: a legendary pool]”. A few days afterwards, we came over to Papeete, where we lived quietly as if peace was established, but Tamatoa and Tapoa had repeated quarrels between themselves, and some fear existed that hostilities would be occasioned by their disagreement; but Tapoa became seriously sick, and soon after died at Papeete. No hostilities taking place, most of the chiefs and people returned to their own islands, and Pomare returned to Moorea.

About a year or two afterwards [1814], an English brig called the “Mathilda” touched upon the reefs at Moorea. Pomare went on board himself with his people, and succeeded in getting her off; but while he was still on board with some of his people, myself included, the wind during the night increased to such an extent that we in the morning perceived ourselves so far from the island, and no hope of getting in, the King asked the captain to go to Huahine; but at Huahine though some people did come on board, the wind still being so violent, we could not get in, and those who did come off were obliged to remain on board. We bore away for Tahaa, where I myself piloted the vessel into the harbour of Toahotu in Tahaa and ran up and anchored in a deep bay called Mahamene. After we anchored a fisherman of the name of Taototai did come by the side of the vessel, and saw Taototoe, and was informed by Tefaaora that Pomare was on board; he gave all the fish to Pomare. He went and informed the chiefs and people of Tahaa of Pomare's arrival on board the brig; a great number of people soon came to the place and a number of temporary houses [were] erected, and great quantities of food presented to Pomare by the people of Tahaa. Tamatoa and Fenuapeho came and saluted Pomare, and engaged him to go to Raiatea. Two weeks afterwards Pomare went over with the vessel to Raiatea and anchored at Tipaehapa. While Pomare was still at Tahaa he sent a messenger named Opu, to inform Mai and Tefaaora, and the people of Borabora, of his arrival at Raiatea. At Tipaehapa, a great tivau was presented to Pomare by the people of Raiatea and Tahaa, and on the same occasion Raiatea and Tahaa was [sic] given up to Pomare by Tamatoa and Fenuapeho. Borabora was also given to him by the messenger sent in the name of Teariimaevarua, Mai and Tefaaora. At the same time Pomare gave the name of Pomare iti to Teariino-horai, son of Tapoa, who was destined to be married to Aimata, the daughter of Pomare.

From Raiatea Pomare left for Huahine, where he was received by all the chiefs as their superior. Great feasts were given on the occasion of his arrival and the tivau was presented to him in one great feast by all the districts of Huahine. After three weeks stay at Huahine a favourable wind sprung up, and the captain - 514 being anxious to return, Pomare and all the people that accompanied him came back to Tahiti in the same vessel and landed at Bunaauia.

Shortly afterwards a battle took place at Paea called the Fei pi, where the chief Opufara, his greatest opponent, was killed, which rendered Pomare again master of Tahiti. After establishing peace all round the island, Mahine, the chief of Huahine, who was Faaterehau, conductor of the Government of Pomare, was sent to all the leeward islands to establish the hau pahu roa, the superior Government of Pomare in all those islands.

(signed) Matatore

1   Literally, “the government of the great drum”, after the pahu a te ari'i, or chief's ceremonial drum, a symbol of executive authority; or, possibly, a reference to the sacred marae drums, pahu rutu roa, of the royal lineages.
The materials for this article derive, in part, from my doctoral thesis “The Administration of French Oceania, 1842-1906” presented to the Australian National University in 1956, and from more recent researches in the Pacific and European Archives. I would like to acknowledge the generosity of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies and the Beit Fund administrators, Oxford, in making travel funds available for field work in 1965 and 1966.
2   There is still a good deal of confusion in writings on Tahiti about the headship of descent groups and localized resident groups. Until this has been sorted out it is as well to regard the ari'i as chiefs of va'a, or clans, consisting of a number of localized major lineages, mata'eina'a. Minor lineages (also called mata'eina'a) could also be headed by ari'i and to'ofa, and localized extended families by 'iatoai. The ra'atira were not necessarily chiefs in Tahiti, but members of a land-using unit with inherited rights (Henry 1928:69-94; Handy 1930; Ellis 1831:Vol. 2, 98; Morrison 1935:167, 197).
3   Beaglehole 1955:clxxii-cxcii.
4   Morrison 1935:167-168; Adams 1964:9, 15, 24-25.
5   Adams 1964:9.
6   Adams 1964:15; Henry 1928:247-273.
7   Henry 1928:119-131; Thomson n.d.:I, f. 17.
8   Beaglehole 1961:411.
9   Cook 1784:II, 175.
10   Henry 1928:122-126.
11   Henry 1928:103.
12   Henry 1928:127.
13   Adams 1964:11, 13, 37, 48.
14   Gunson 1964:59.
15   Henry 1928:128.
16   Gunson 1964:57-68.
17   Enclosures in Bruat to Ministry of Marine and Colonies, December 14, 1845, Océanie A 34 c 8, Archives Nationales, Section Outre-mer; see below Appendix I.
18   British memoranda and documents are in F.O. 58/38 and Admiralty 1/5561, P.R.O.; Tahiti British Consulate Papers, Vol. 3, 1844-50, Mitchell Library.
19   Draft memorandum, July 20, 1846, Océanie A 34 c 8, Archives des Colonies.
20   Appendix I, documents 4/1, 8, 10, 13, 15, 19, 26, 27.
21   For a biographical note see O'Reilly and Tessier 1962:303, Roussier 1928:188-206.
22   Henry 1928:247 n.; and for valuable comment on this point, Vansina 1961:83-92.
23   Appendix I, documents 1, 2, 3.
24   S. P. Henry (1800-1852), master mariner and trader; he became Pomare's Ari'i tai (sea chief) and was prominent in the early pearl shell and sandalwood trade; with Thomas Ebrill he began a sugar plantation at Ma'iripehe and owned land in Moorea (O'Reilly and Teissier 1962:208).
25   More particularly by the chiefs of Borabora and Mare (Appendix I, documents 4/26, 30).
26   Appendix I, document 3.
27   Appendix I, document 3.
28   Beaglehole 1955:85-107.
29   Appendix I, document 3.
30   Adams 1964:24.
31   Adams 1964:50-51. There are several other curious points about this chant—the mention of Puni of Borabora and the presence of a Leeward Islands' priest to conduct the ahu raa reva ceremonies, for example.
32   Adams 1964:63. He also took the name of the Mahaiatea marae—the i'oa fa'auta in Papara (Henry 1928:140 n.); Emory n.d.: 83-95 (though Maraetaata was not the site for the ceremonies seen by Cook in 1777).
33   Teri'irere's maro claim, it has been suggested, was conveyed to him through Purea, that is from Vaiari marae, dedicated to Ta'aroa. (Gunson 1964:62). For reasons stated below, I think direct transmission from Raiatea more likely.
34   See, for example, Cook's description of the maro in 1777. “It is a girdle about five yards long, and fifteen inches broad. . . . It was ornamented with red and yellow feathers; but mostly with the latter, taken from a dove found upon the island. The one end was bordered with eight pieces, each about the size and shape of a horseshoe, having their edges fringed with black feathers. The other end was forked, and the points were of different lengths. The feathers were in square compartments, ranged in two rows, and, otherwise, so disposed as to produce a pleasing effect. They had been first pasted or fixed upon some of their own country cloth; and then sewed to the upper end of the pendant which Captain Wallis had displayed . . . we could easily trace the remains of an English pendant. . . .” (Cook 1784:II, 37; Beaglehole 1967:203).
35   Beaglehole 1961:201, 213 n.
36   Beaglehole 1955:85, 115.
37   Cook 1784:II, 45; Adams 1964:74; but see Beaglehole 1967:205 and note.
38   Morrison 1935:101; Adams 1964:72; Gunson 1964:62, 64; Tobin: f. 141.
39   Appendix I, document 3.
40   Adams 1964:26. This evidence probably refers to a parent marae (Tetooarai?). It is confirmed in Thomson n.d. I, f. 16.
41   Henry 1928:252 n.
42   Morrison 1935:171.
43   Tobin:f. 140. It is just possible that the missionaries may have seen him in 1797, as a very old man. For mention of “Mowroa” see Wilson 1799:151, 154, 175.
44   Morrison 1935:167. I assume only one son for Purea. So far I have been unable to ascertain the age of the Temari'i (Teri'irere) who died in 1788.
45   Cook judged her age at between 16 and 18 in 1769, and the boy, Teri'irere, at about seven years (Beaglehole 1955:103). She died childless.
46   Appendix I, document 3 (parentheses by Darling and de Robillard). The headpiece, or toque, was called To taupo'o te Ata o Tu; and the fan, To tahiri, Nuna'a e hau (Henry 1928:193).
47   Thomson n.d.:II, f. 29; Wilson 1799:57, 58, 61, 77, 187, 336.
48   Beaglehole 1955:117 n.
49   As witnessed by Morrison (1935:116). He noted that the maro had both red and yellow feathers. Tobin (f. 142) also noted a transportable marae for 'Oro on Tu II's double canoe at Matavai.
50   Appendix I, document 4/8.
51   Wilson 1799:58-59; William Henry “Journal”, L.M.S. Journals/1, entry for March 1797.
52   “. . . on which he placed as much value as some among us do on a brass Otho” (Tobin:f. 162).
53   Possibly on the model of the mutineers' vessel. The schooner at Moorea was about 42 feet in length “but disproportioned in her breadth, by being fuller aft than forward, and the timbers were too small for her size” (Wilson 1799:81, 83).
54   Beaglehole 1961:206:sic. mata'u, “fear”.
55   Bligh, cited in Adams 1964:80.
56   Gunson 1964:66.
57   Corney 1915:xxxiii, 124.
58   Cook 1784:II, 171.
59   Morrison 1935:87, 96.
60   Adams 1964:32, 134; Henry 1928:269-70.
61   Adams 1964:77.
62   Gunson 1964:62.
63   Morrison 1935:172.
64   Vancouver 1798:I, 103.
65   Wilson 1799:64, 321. Samuel Greatheed has Tetua as a daughter of “Wyreede” (Vai'eriti?) whom Vancouver thought (correctly) was the second spouse of Tu I and sister of Metua'aro (Vancouver 1798:103, 110; Morrison 1935:172; Menzies 1791: f. 116).
66   Davies 1961:73; Thomson n.d.: II, f. 65.
67   Cook 1784:II, 34-36. Probably at the marae at Utuaimahurau (Narii?). Pomare II was also “inaugurated” at Maraetaata. Tyerman and Bennet in Transactions of the Missionary Society, 1825: 67-69.
68   Morrison 1935:101.
69   Davies 1961:45; Henry 1928:189.
70   Appendix I, documents 3, 4/10, 13; Henry 1928:177.
71   Appendix II, Mare's evidence.
72   Davies 1961:83, 87; Thomson n.d.:II, ff. 87-8.
73   Jefferson entry for April 1, 1801.
74   Thomson, cited in Davies 1961:86 n.
75   See the curious story in Henry (1928:138), which seems to confuse Pomare's claims with events earlier in the eighteenth century. A good example of “telescoping” in oral tradition.
76   Pomare to L.M.S., January 1, 1807 (Tahitian and English texts), in Reports of the Missionary Society . . . pp. 274-275.
77   Jefferson entry for October 17, 1799.
78   Jefferson entry for May 22, 1800.
79   Huguenin (1902:195-6) includes only a passing reference to relations with Tahiti and the history of the group.
80   Cook 1784:II, 93, 132; Wilson 1799:225.
81   Cook 1784:II, 126. Teri'itaria's position is confirmed by Morrison (1935:118), who thought he was a “brother” (sic. cousin) to Tenania. Despite a note in Henry (1928:252), it does not seem that Cook saw Mahine in 1777.
82   Cook 1784:II, 126; Beaglehole 1967:1389.
83   Henry 1928:251.
84   Vancouver 1798:I, 113.
85   Corney 1915:166.
86   Appendix I, document 4/12.
87   Beaglehole 1961:411.
88   Chesnau 1932:7-15. Also Appendix III below for descent lines.
89   Vancouver 1798:I, 113.
90   Vancouver 1798:I, 141, 142.
91   We badly need a new edition of Vancouver's voyage. On p. 141, for example, where there is a discussion of Tu II's claims to Huahine, it is clear from the text that this passage refers to Moorea. I am tempted to identify “Mowree” with Mau'a from Raiatea (Mau'ari'i). Much of this is derived from Menzies 1791-2: ff. 160-1.
92   Thomson n.d.:II, 33.
93   Jefferson: entry from March 1800; Thomson n.d.:II, f. 136.
94   For brief remarks see Davies 1961:133, 136.
95   Appendix I, document 3.
96   Pomare to William Henry, November 8, 1811 (sic. 1810), trans, in Transactions . . . pp. 435-436.
97   Appendix I, document 4/25.
98   Appendix I, document 4/26.
99   Appendix I, document 4/27.
100   Appendix I, documents 4/20, 25, 26, 35.
101   Missionaries to L.M.S., September 17, 1814 (Wilson “absent”); January 14, 1815 (for a very brief account of the episode of the Matilda), Transactions:144-146 149-151. It does not seem that Wilson, an important witness, recorded his stay in the Leewards.
102   Appendix I.
103   Davies to Hamond, January 5, 1846, in Hamond n.d.
104   William Henry to S. P. Henry, October 15, 1845, Appendix I, document 4/9.
105   Matatore had been taken from Moorea to Papeete, December 7, 1845 and interviewed on December 10 by Bruat, Moerenhout, Henry and Darling. During questioning, he denied that there had been a “surrender of sovereignty” by Leewards' chiefs to Pomare. This retraction was duly recorded by Miller, Barff, Thomson and Commander Hamond at Papeete, January 6, 1846. F.O. 58/38, P.R.O.
106   Cited in Davies 1961:350.
107   William Ellis, cited in Quarterly Chronicle . . . 1817:240.
108   Quarterly Chronicle . . . 1817:227.
109   Appendix I, document 4/26; cited in part in Newbury 1967.
110   Appendix I, document 4/25.
111   Davies 1961:327-36.
112   Appendix I, document 4/42.
113   Appendix I, documents 4/1, 11.
114   Davies 1961:233, 341, 333; Eagar to Bicknell, December 1, 1820; Eagar to Henry, December 2, 1820; Eagar to Pomare December 1, 1820, L.M.S. South Seas 3/2 B; Marsden to L.M.S., July 21, 1821, South Seas 3/6.
115   Crook, “Journal”, 1820-1821, L.M.S. Journals/4, entry for June 17, 1820.
116   Davies 1961:340.
117   Crook, “Journal”, 1820-1821, L.M.S. Journals/4, entry for April 17, 1821.
118   Crook, “Journal”, 1820-1821, entry for April 19, 1821.
119   Crook, “Journal”, 1820-1821, entry for April 21, 1821.
120   Crook, “Journal”, 1820-1821, entry for April 21, 1821.
121   Crook, “Journal”, 1820-1821, entry for May 10, 1821.
122   Crook, “Journal”, June-December 1821, entries for September 1821.
123   Appendix I, document 4/3.
124   Montgomery 1831:Ch. V.
125   Morrison 1935:64-65.
126   Appendix III.
127   Appendix I, documents 4/4, 12, 14, 16, 22, 24, 30, 31, 33, 42.
128   Kuykendall 1938:37, 51-52.
129   Gifford 1929; Guiart 1963:661-79.
130   Or tava'u, a contracted form of tavaru—“a fleet of canoes bringing food for the king or principal chief. The name is from varu eight; a meeting of eight divisions or mataeinaas”. John Davies, A Tahitian and English Dictionary and a Short Grammar of the Tahitian Dialect, Papeete, 1851, p. 262.
131   An ornamented breast-plate.
132   Bundles.
133   A white mountain taro.
134   A species of yam, discorea alata.
135   Te mano tahi and Te mano rua, in Puna'auia and Pa'ea.
136   Papara, Atimaono, Mataiea, Vaiari.
137   Possibly, Tautira, Teahupoo, Pueu and Afaahiti, though there were other localized lineages affiliated to these.
138   In Pare district. The Marae of Taputapuatea.
139   Or poi.
140   Or ta'erol a sauce of coconut, salt water and shrimps.
141   Meia pare mai, young bananas for offerings; pe = pi, ripe.
142   Tupa, a land crab?
143   Baked pia mash.
144   Ripe breadfruit.
145   Plantains.
146   The ihara was a musical instrument—a piece of bamboo struck with sticks. Or a corrupt reading of hura, a dance (upaupahura).
147   Cloth wound round the waist for presentation.
148   The national marae at Varari.
149   Food prepared for a chief's guests.
150   Paetahi? Shares or portions allotted by rank.
151   Fresh water eel.
152   Shrimp.