Volume 65 1956 > Volume 65, No. 1 > Genealogies as a basis for Maori chronology, by J. B. W. Roberton, p 4554
                                                                                             Previous | Next   

- 45

Based on a paper read before the Anthropological Section Seventh Science Congress, Christchurch, May, 1951.

IT SEEMS to be accepted as an undisputed fact by some social anthropologists that oral tribal traditions are unreliable and unworthy of serious consideration as history. Professor Piddington 1 states: “In such an area as Polynesia, the amount of significant history which can be reconstructed is negligible . . . Native tradition is unreliable.” And further on he says: “Again, Maori traditions are of questionable value as historical documents . . . They should be compared, not with historical records which they are not, but with, for example, the Arthurian legends.”

If Professor Piddington's reference was intended to apply to the traditions of the cosmos, the first chapter of Genesis would be a better parallel. If he refers to the era of Pacific voyages, the example may be apt; bearing in mind, however, that the Polynesians were evolving a systematised method of keeping records, which the successors of the Arthurian people lost, it might be fair to suggest that the traditions of the Polynesian voyages are more closely related to actual happenings than the Arthurian legends. If, finally, he had in mind the recent period of the centuries following the Hawaiki migration to New Zealand, a detailed study of the tribal history of the New Zealand Maoris does not support his conclusion. Surely traditions become myths or legends only when the system of recording breaks down, or is too primitive to keep a consistent record, and through changes in the telling, facts become subservient to drama. There is a formidable array of evidence against Professor Piddington on the issue of the reliability of tribal tradition.

The early investigators of tribal history such as Gudgeon, Judge Wilson, Percy Smith and Elsdon Best treated the subject seriously as history; such doubts as they had concerned the authenticity of certain traditions. Probably it was his experience of the reliability of tribal tradition that led Percy Smith so far back into the past. 2 From very early times the Native Land Court recognised oral traditions as history and was satisfied to base judgments on them. The few who are studying tribal history at the present time quite obviously find no reason to doubt the reality of the tradition, but a common difficulty is a suitable chronological basis for study.

This paper is based on material which formed an essential part of - 46 the investigation of the tribal history of the Te Awamutu district. 3 As well as presenting a new technique in the study of tribal history, it will serve to demonstrate that an entirely reliable chronology extending back several centuries can be based on authentic Tainui genealogies, and from the nature of the demonstration, the genealogies concerned are shown to be a true record. There is no reason to suppose that other authentic Maori genealogies are different.

Without going further into the Maori system of recording, it may be emphasised that the records were kept in the heads of men specially selected and specially trained for the work, and that the essence of the system was word perfect repetition. It follows, therefore, that the most reliable records are those which do not lend themselves to variation in the wording, particularly during the time when the trained tohunga have been disappearing and the records have necessarily passed through untrained people. These are the genealogies and the waiata. One finds that what might be termed narrative traditions will more often than not conform to conditions imposed by analysis of genealogies, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell what narratives are genuinely authentic. It is an unfortunate fact that some early recordings have been published with errors which have gone back into circulation as accepted Maori tradition. The technique to be described provides a means to detect and correct much of this spurious tradition.


One of the first to use genealogies for the purpose of fixing dates in Polynesian history was Fornander, who adopted the European standard of an average of 30 years to a generation. Percy Smith gave as the concensus of opinion of several Polynesian scholars who knew the race well that 25 years is nearer the truth. 4 Percy Smith also stressed the need for proper statistical precautions in using this method. Concerning the date 1350, now universally accepted as the approximate time of arrival of the great migration from Hawaiki, he says: “This date is arrived at by taking the mean number contained in over 50 genealogical tables, all of which will agree within 4 or 5 generations.” 5 Without attempting to make a statistical analysis by modern standards, it is probably safe to assume that with these precautions the calculated date is sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes. It is possible, though questionable, that reasonable accuracy might be obtained from one or two lines of very great length, such as those going back to the demigods and gods. Unfortunately this method has been enthusiastically taken up by students who entirely omit statistical precautions, and it is not uncommon to see dates estimated by allowing 25 years to a generation in one short line of from 3 or 4 up to 20 generations, a procedure capable of producing the most fantastic errors. For the purpose of tribal history there is probably no true place for the statistical method, as the material is too limited for close enough approximation.

- 47

If it can be assumed that authentic genealogies are in fact accurate, it should be possible to set them out in chronological form, assigning a date of birth to each individual, which will be compatible with the date of birth of every other individual in the same and every other genealogy. It should also follow that the accuracy of the dates assigned must increase in proportion to the number of genealogies and the inter-connections between them. At first sight this procedure would appear to be one of great magnitude and extreme difficulty, and if the genealogies, or the great majority of them, are not accurate, it can be ruled out as quite hopeless. In practice it has proved quite possible and not unduly difficult, using a large number of Tainui genealogies. It was found that once a key structure had been established, additional genealogies fitted in with increasing ease, like the last pieces in a jigsaw puzzle. It may become necessary at times to shift whole sections up or down to make a new “piece” fit, but the general structure remains intact. A perfect pattern should never be expected as all the “pieces” will never be available; nevertheless a very close approximation can readily be obtained. When a genealogy cannot be made to fit without entirely upsetting many others, it is generally found on close analysis to be condemned by internal evidence. Very few widely accepted genealogies have in fact proved incompatible.


It is obviously necessary to formulate a few simple working rules and limits. The primary object is comparative chronology rather than absolute dates, but it is convenient for reference to use dates on the European system. No attempt has therefore been made to arrive at scientific averages, but rather, round figures have been taken for convenience of handling. Dates are brought to the nearest decade.

  • (1) In round figures 20 years is considered to be the shortest average interval likely between generations which are closely spaced, and it is adopted as the minimum interval. If this minimum were reduced to 18 years, the difference would be 10 per cent, or a matter of 50 years in the whole history from the great migration to the arrival of the pakeha.
  • (2) There is no definite upper limit to the age at which a man can become a father, and it was a frequent custom for an old man to take a young wife. The interval between father and child may therefore be anything from 20 to 70 or occasionally 80 years. Tradition often provides a guide.
  • (3) The physiological limit for a woman to bear children is 50 years. This limit cannot have been reached often, and 40 years is considered a much more reasonable limit.
  • (4) The average interval between members of a large family is likely to be 1½ years, and this is taken as a minimum. On the basis of (1) and (3) the longest interval between children of the same mother is 20 years.
  • (5) Where tradition is available it must be taken into account.
- 48

Dates are derived primarily from known dates in recent times. Starting from these, numerous points can be fixed fairly closely in earlier times by application of the limits formulated. For example:—

  • (1) A single long line sets a minimum limit to the period covered by the line, i.e. not less than 20 years for each generation.
  • (2) A single short line with obvious long intervals between some of the generations sets a maximum limit.
  • (3) When two lines connect two individuals, one line being much shorter than the other, the possible length of the period is confined between definite limits.
  • (4) By making use of interconnections between genealogies, long and short lines can frequently be chosen at will for the purpose of defining limits.
  • (5) The limits are progressively reduced as different “pieces” are put in juxtaposition.
  • (6) On occasion it is justifiable to use known contemporaries for defining limits.

With the large number of genealogies available, many individuals can be assigned dates within very close limits as far back as about 1400.


Consider the following table of descendants of Rereahu:—

Family tree. ◯Rangianewa=(1) △Rereahu (2)=◯Hineaupounamu, △Te Ihingarangi, △Maniapoto (1)=◯Hinemania, △Uehaeroa, △Te Kawairirangi, △Waerenga, =(1) ◯Hinewhatihua (2)=(2) △Maniapoto, ◯Paparauwhare=(3) △Maniapoto, △Rora, △Tutakamoana

There are two lines from Rereahu to Rora, one through Te Ihingarangi and one through Maniapoto. In the first there are six intervals; therefore the period from the birth of Rereahu to the birth of Rora must be at least 120 years. In the second there are two intervals, and in both intervals the parent is a male; therefore the maximum for the period is 160 years (extreme), with 140 years a more likely limit.


Simplicity in recording is an important consideration, and a family tree may be set out in the normal way with minor modifications. In using a typewriter normal single spacing, or two notches on the platen, represents a decade, and twenty notches a century. Where parents necessarily fall on different lines, a simple modification should be readily adapted for setting type for printing and should present no more diffi- - 49 culty than setting up the normal genealogical table, except that accuracy in the spacing is essential. The above table is set out in chronological form thus:—

Family tree. =△Rereahu=(1460), ◯Rangianewa=, △Te Ihingarangi, =◯Hineaupounamu, △Uehaeroa, △Maniapoto (3)=, △Waerenga, =(2) △Maniapoto (1)=◯Hinemania, △Te Kawairirangi, =(1) ◯Hinewhatihua (2)=, =◯Paparauwhare, △Tutakamoana, △Rora (1590)

It will be understood that the exact positions here of the individuals have been dictated by reference to numerous others not in this table.

Enough has been said to demonstrate the principles and the method, and also to give some idea of the degree of approximation attainable. A timetable for Waikato and Maniapoto has been drawn up in a number of charts containing a large number of genealogies, many of which may be found in Kelly's book. 6 Throughout the charts each date of birth is compatible with every other.


In addition to providing a background for tribal history, the analytical method should find a very useful field in checking the reliability of genealogies and traditions, not only by reference to charts, but by applying the analysis to individual genealogies. Before rejecting a genealogy out of hand, physiological limits should be stretched to the extent of possibility, bearing in mind that the necessity for extreme limits more than once in the same problem must be considered as straining probability. At least one widely accepted Waikato genealogy of great importance can be shown by analysis to be quite impossible, while it can also be shown that a lesser known version could easily be the correct one. On the whole the analytical process strongly vindicates the genuine Tainui traditions, and it is a reasonable assumption that the few versions proved spurious have generally become accepted only in recent times after the demise of the tohunga, and probably very largely as a result of the impact of the pakeha. It would appear that Native Land Court proceedings have frequently been the occasion of establishing mutilated genealogies.

As a result of the isolation of most of the Tainui country following the Waikato war, it is likely, as Princess Te Puea suggests in her foreword to Kelly 7, that the Tainui traditions, still virtually a closed book, are preserved in a purer form than some others. If this is so, it follows - 50 that there may be greater difficulty encountered than has been the case with Tainui when an attempt is made to chart the chronology of the longer known and more widely known traditions of some other parts of the country. Another difficulty has been encountered by Mr. Batley in a similar study of the tribal history of the inland Patea district. 8 Whereas the Tainui genealogies all commence from Hoturoa, captain of Tainui canoe, spread out and constantly converge again, those of Mr. Batley are tributaries from widely different sources, merging into a main stream only in comparatively recent times. The only solution would appear to be detailed research over a very wide area. There would be a very interesting study in the comparison of charts produced independently in different districts, as connections are to be found between all.

It must be stressed that no charts can ever be considered final, because there will always be some unconsidered genealogies. Nevertheless there can be no doubt that a sufficient approximation can be obtained to satisfy most problems that may arise in tribal history.

Finally it is interesting to note that the date of the great migration, arrived at many years ago by a careful statistical method, is 1350, while the date found by this analytical method is 1290, a difference of only 60 years in 550, and one which could be almost exactly eliminated by abandoning the convenient round figures and reducing the minimum interval to the very reasonable figure of 18 years. For the sake of uniformity it is an easy matter to apply a correction to the figures in the charts. It should be added, however, that the date, 1290, can only be given as a late limit. A greater number of genealogies dealing with the earlier days might well make the date earlier. This reservation applies with equal force to the statistical date, 1350, as it surely would be found that the genealogies used all derived from the few individuals of whom there are records on the canoes.


Below is a widely accepted Waikato genealogy which has proved incompatible.

Family tree. △Hekemaru, △Maramatutahi=◯Paretahuri, △Mahuta=◯Kiringaua, △Tuteiwi, ◯Waiharapepe=△Matakore, △Takupu, ◯Ngamuriwai, ◯Waikauhoe, ◯Parewaru, △Ngutu, ◯Umuroa, ◯Kiringaua=△Mahuta, ◯Mahuripounamu=△Horotakere, ◯Hikamoeawa=◯Tamatatai
- 51

Various wives have been attributed to Tuteiwi:—

  • T. T. Wetere gave Mataterangi;
  • L. G. Kelly, Tainui, Table 63—Parehuka;
  • Raureti Te Huia—Pahoro;
  • Davis, Maatapuna, Nov.-Dec., 1953—Parepahoro.

Let it be noted that Raureti Te Huia and Davis belong to the Maniapoto country and might be expected to be more interested in the antecedents of Waiharapepe than those of Tuteiwi. It is likely that Kelly's Parehuka may be a miscopy of Parepahoro or Pahoro.

An extension of the above genealogy appears thus:—

Family tree. Paratai, Mahanga, Wharewaiata, Tukotuku, Wairere, Paretahuri, Maramatutahi, Tuteiwi, Waiharapepe, Takupu, Ngamuriwai, Waikauhoe, Kiringaua, Mahuta, Huapiri, Te Tikiorereata, Atutahi, Puakirangi

Quite apart from the fact that Mahuta is made to marry the great-granddaughter of his sister, Paretahuri,—this is quite possible as a general principle—it will be seen that there are nine generations from Mahanga to Puakirangi through Tukotuku and two generations through Atutahi. If 16 years per generation is conceded as a possible average over nine generations—and this is straining probability very considerably—the period from Mahanga to Puakirangi cannot be less than 144 years. This means that Mahanga and Atutahi must have reached an average of 72 when Atutahi and Puakirangi respectively were born. Men did become fathers at 72, but it is a remarkable coincidence in two successive generations in conjunction with the other line covering exactly the same period with exceptionally short average interval. This, however, puts the problem in the most favourable light. Tradition says that Ruateatea, younger brother of Tukotuku, was a grandfather before Tukotuku married Tamainupo (T. T. Wetere). This adds a further 16 years to the period, making 160 years. Then Maramatutahi was the oldest child of Wairere's third consecutive wife, and was actually Wairere's sixth child. At a most conservative estimate another six years must be added, making 166 years, or an average of 83 for Mahanga and Atutahi. If this is still considered within the bounds of - 52 possibility, there are further considerations. Waiharapepe married Matakore, brother of Maniapoto. If this version is correct, she is much too young to be the ancestress of Ngati-Matakore lines. Similarly Ngamuriwai and Waikauhoe married the sons of Pikirangi, and by this version they would be too young to be ancestresses of Ngati-Apakura lines.

Following discussion of this problem, T. T. Wetere wrote: 9 “As a result of critical examination of the whakapapa I am now fully persuaded that the whole of the Waikato tribes' whakapapa would persist in error unless a thorough research is undertaken, and the error, if possible, righted. At the same time I was conscious of the fact that any further information I am able to supply you would always be coloured by the discrepancies alluded to.

“Considering that Ngamuriwai married Tuihu, and Waikauhoe married Tutengangana, the two brothers of the Apakura line, it dawned on me that there were either two Takupus or two Tuteiwis, which could account for the confusion. Determined to solve the question I immediately got into touch with persons who possess sufficient knowledge of, or who possess books of whakapapa. My enquiry has elicited a version which, I am sure, if corroborated will be the right one. I am bound to say, however, that I was very much struck with the number of versions consulted which agree in giving the whakapapa that I have given above (i.e. as shown above here).

“Be that as it may, I am now definite that a mistake has crept in thereabouts, either unwittingly or perhaps by someone's design. I use the word design deliberately, as, after the demise of the tohunga, or priests of the whare-kura, the common people acquired the whakapapa, and played havoc with them from their propensity to claim seniority of descent, and manipulating the genealogical lines to prove such seniority, however fictitious they may be. In the above case you will note that Paretahuri, Hekemaru's eldest, married Maramatutahi, Wairere's eldest son, and had Tuteiwi as their first-born. Tuteiwi had Takupu-o-te-rangi, to give him his full name, who had Kiringaua, wife of Mahuta. This would give the Waikato tribes an undisputed seniority over the tribes who claim descent from the junior members of the respective families mentioned. The new whakapapa I have collected is as follows:—

- 53
Family tree. △Raka, △Houmea, △Whatihua=◯Apakura, △Matuaaiwi, △Marumahanga, △Rakamahanga, △Tokohei, △Pikirangi, △Raka (II), △Raeroa, △Tuihu=◯Ngamuriwai, △Tutengangana=◯Waikauhoe, ◯Pahoro, △Takupu, ◯Ngamuriwai, ◯Waikauhoe, ◯Parewaru, ◯Kiringaua=△Mahuta

Raka, of course, is the sixth from Hoturoa, and father of both Houmea and Kakati.”

On the evidence it must be concluded that the accepted version is condemned. If the husband of Pahoro is assumed to be a different and earlier man, and the families are separated, all the difficulties disappear. It seems extremely likely that the genealogy should be shown as follows. One would assume that the earlier Tuteiwi was an important tangata whenua Waikato chief whose antecedents are not recorded.

Family ree. △Mahanga=◯Paratai, —?—△Mahanga=◯Wharewaiata, ◯Tukotuku, △Tuteiwi=◯Pahoro, △Wairere, △Hekemaru, △Takupu, △Maramatutahi=◯Paretahuri, △Mahuta=◯Kiringaua, △Tuteiwi, ◯Huapiri, ◯Te Tikiorereata=△Atutahi, ◯Puakirangi
  • BATLEY, R. A. L., 1950. “Inland Patea Genealogies.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 59:63-75.
  • — — 1954. Personal communication.
  • KELLY, L. G., 1949. Tainui. Wellington, Polynesian Society Memoir No. 25.
  • PIDDINGTON, Ralph, 1951. “Synchronic and Diachronic Dimensions in the Study of Polynesian Cultures.” Journal of the Polynesian Society, 60:108-121.
  • ROBERTON, J. B. W., 1954. A History of the Maori People of the Te Awamutu District. Te Awamutu Historical Society.
  • SMITH, Percy, 1904. Hawaiki. Christchurch, Whitcombe & Tombs.
  • WETERE, Tita Taui, 1948. One time chairman of King Koroki's Council. Personal communication.
- 54
- i
△HOTUROA, △Hotuope, △Hotumatapu, △Hotuawhio, △Motai, ◯Hinetemoa, △Ue, △Rakamaomao, =△Kakati=, =△Tawhao=, ◯Punuiatekore=, =◯Marutehiakina, △Turongo, △Whatihua=◯Apakura, △Raukawa, △Marumahanga, △Rereahu, ◯Kurawari, △Pikirangi, △Maniapoto, ◯Kinohaku, △Tutengangana, △Te Kawairirangi, △Tuawhio, △Rungaterangi, ◯Rangipare, △Tuheretaniwha, △Uruhina, ◯Rangatahi, =△Tamatatai=, △Taikiterangi, △Whakatau, △Te Kawa, =◯Urunumia, ◯Tumarouru, ◯Tumarouru=△Tamatea, △Te Kanawa, △Hikairo, △Paeahi=, ◯Parengaope, =◯Kuiatu, ◯Rangimahora=△Te Wawahanga, ◯Te Kaahurangi=△Tuata, △Tuhianga, △Poutama, △Haumia, △Whataakai, △Wharerere=◯Kurawari, =△Whaita=, △Huiao, △Tuirirangi, △Ngutu, △Ritaumatangi, △Tamaihuhonginoa, △Koroki, ◯Mahuripounamu, =◯Hikamoeawa, ◯Paretaheke, △Puhaanga, △Putetere=◯Hinetemoa, △Uetihi, △Uenoho, △Ueraki, △Uetapu, △Taipu, ◯Punuiatekore ◯Marutehiakina, △Tamapoto, △Tuheitia, △Mahanga, △Ruateatea, △Wahangaterangi, △Te Tauorangiriri, ◯Puruhi, △Taakiao, ◯Parewhakahau, ◯Ruru=△Korako, △Waenganui, △Mataumoeawa, △Hotumauea, =Pakaruwakanui, ◯Pareteuaki=, ◯Paretewa=△Tokohihi, △Te Rauangaanga=◯Parengaope, △POTATAU TE WHEROWHERO

Chronological table showing some of the origins of Potatau Te Wherowhero, the first Maori king. According to a tradition obtained from Rore Erueti, Hotuawhio and Motai were born in Hawaiki and their mother was pregnant with Puhaanga during the voyage. This effectively fixes the time of the migration, and at the same time indicates that four generations were present on the canoe.

- ii Page is blank

- iii
Family tree. =△Tawhao=, ◯Punuiatekore=, =◯Marutehiakina, △Turongo, △Whatihua=◯Ruaputahanga, =△Uenukutuwhatu=, ◯Te Kura=△Uenukuterangihoka=, △Uetapu, △Raukawa, ◯Rangitairi=, △Tamaaio, △Rereahu, △Tuatangiroa=◯Pakurarangi, ◯Pakurarangi, ◯Rangianewa, △Hotunui, ◯Waitawake=△Tutarawa, ◯Hineaupounamu, ◯Mapau=△Huiao=◯Waengarangi, △Maniapoto, △Tuirirangi, △Paiariki, △Te Ariari, △Uetarangore

In the accepted version Mapau and Waengarangi have the same mother as Tuatangiroa. In Chart I it can be seen that Huiao could not be earlier than 1500, and Rangitairi could not be much later than shown unless several discrepancies in ages are made elsewhere. To make Rangitairi mother of Mapau and Waengarangi puts her at the extreme limit of child bearing or beyond.

Uenukutapu (Uetapu) is more generally known as Uenukuwhangai. Pei Jones maintains that Uenukuterangihoka was Uenukuwhangai, but the above version was vouched for by Rore Eruti and all the Kawhia authorities.

L. G. Kelly shows Hotunui as a son of Uenukutuwhatu, but the above is supported by a well known tradition.

Family tree. =(1) △Rereahu (2)=, ◯Rangianewa=, =(1) △Te Ihingarangi (2)=, =◯Hineaupounamu, △Uehaeroa, =(3) △Maniapoto, =(2) △Maniapoto, △Kurii, △Maniapoto, △Waerenga, △Ueterangore=, ◯Hinemapuhia, =(1) ◯Hinewhatihua (2)=, ◯Rauti, =◯Paparauwhare, △Tutakamoana, △Koroki, △Rora

- iv Page is blank

- v
Family tree. △Hotumatapu, △Motai, △Puhaanga, △Ue, △Putetere, △Rakamaomao, △Uetihi, =△Kakati=, △Houmea, △Uenoho, △Tawhao, △Matuaaiwi, △Ueraki, △Uetapu, △Tuhianga, △Taipu, ◯Punuiatekore, ◯Marutehiakina, △Poutama=◯Panirau, △Tokohei, △Turongo, △Whatihua, △Haumia, △Tamapoto, ◯Te Kura, △Mango, △Whataakai, △Raukawa, △Kaihamu, △Raka, △Tuheitia, △Wharerere=◯Kurawari, △Rereahu=, ◯Kurawari, △Te Urutira, △Mahanga, △Whaita, △Raeroa, △Rueke, △Huiao, =◯Hineaupounamu, ◯Pahoro=△Tuteiwi, △Maniapoto=◯Hinemania, ◯Waiharapepe=△Matakore, △Maniapoto, △Takupu, ◯Paretahuri, △Mahuta=◯Kiringaua, △Tuteiwi

- vi Page is blank

- vii
Family tree. △Turongo, △Raukawa, △Rereahu (2)=, △Whakatere, ◯Kurawari, =△Takihiku, =◯Hineaupounamu, =(1) ◯Maikukutea (2)=, △Maniapoto, =△Tamatehura, ◯Te Rongorito=, △Wairangi (2)=, △Huitao=◯Hinetore, =△Hae, △Kapu, ◯Parekarewa=, △Taratioa=◯Hinearokura, △Ngarongo (2)=, △Ngatokowaru, ◯Toreheikura=△Huaki △Tukemata=, △Whatumoana, =△Te Momo, =◯Te Weu, ◯Paretekawa=, △Hore

- viii Page is blank

- ix
Family tree. ◯Hineaupounamu, △Maniapoto (1)=, △Matakore=◯Waiharapepe, ◯Kinohaku, =(1), =(2) △Te Kawairirangi (3)=, △Maniatakamaiwaho, ◯Tutanumia, =◯Tumarouru, △Rungaterangi, ◯Marungaehe=△Tuheao, △Tukemata=, ◯Rangipare, △Uruhina, △Manukipuriore, △Maniauruahu=◯Rangatahi, △Te Kawa=, =◯Urunumia, △Ngaere=◯Hekeiterangi, ◯Tumarouru=△Tamatea, ◯Urunumia, ◯Waikohika=△Te Kanawa=, =◯Whaeapare, △Tukemata, △Hikairo, ◯Whaeapare, ◯Parengaope (2)=, △Te Ririorangawhenua, ◯Paretekawa, =△Whati, =(2) ◯Ngunu=, △Te Wawahanga=◯Rangimahora, =(1) △Hore (2)=, ◯Te Kaahurangi, △Akanui, △Te Uaki, △Peehi Tukorehu, △Te Rauangaanga, △Te Wherowhero, △Te Ngohi, △Rewi Maniapoto

- x Page is blank

- xi
Family tree. △Uenukuterangihoka (2)=, =◯Kapuhamea, =, △Hotunui, =, =△Marutuahu=, △Paaka, ◯Paremoehau=, ◯Te Kahureremoa, =△Tamatera=◯Hineurunga=, =◯Tuparahaki=, △Taharua, △Ngako, △Taurukapakapa, ◯Kumaramaoa, ◯Hinekekehu, △Paoa=, △Te Hihi, =◯Tukutuku, ◯Tamirangi, △Te Kahurautao, △Hape, △Haua=◯Tamangarangi, ◯Parekaka, ◯Te Tahuri, △Kiwi=, ◯Kahutoroa, =◯Ngawhakawanga, ◯Mariu=, =△Te Wehi, △Takapuangana, △Tumu, △Puku=, =◯Te Mihinga, △Hikairo

There are versions in Waikato which make Kumaramaoa the first husband of Tuparahaki. As this did not fit, application was made to Rotorua and the following was obtained from Mr. Haki Karawana—(Te Arawa should know best):—

Family tree. △Tutehe=◯Tuparahaki, ◯Kumaramaoa=△Punakiao, ◯Tamangarangi=△Haua, ◯Kaimatai=△Rorooterangi, △Te Ahuwhakatiki of Ngaiterangi Tauranga

- xii Page is blank

- xiii
Family tree. △Whatihua=◯Ruaputahanga, △Uenukuwhangai=◯Matiti, △Kotare, △Tamapango, △Koperu=◯Moanawaiwai, △Kauwhata, △Tukohere=◯Ngaparetaihinu, △Tamure=◯Tuwaiwai, △Wehiwehi, △Ihuwera=, △Tuwhakarara, ◯Whakamaungarangi=△Kurii, =◯Hinemapuhia, ◯Hinemapuhia, △Tutete=, △Hounuku, =◯Tutanumia, ◯Rauti=△Tamaihuhongonoa, ◯Hinetore=△Huitao, △Tikitiki, △Koroki, △Hae=, ◯Parekarewa, =◯Parekarewa, △Ngako, △Hape, △Haua, =△Taikiterangi, =△Kahoki, △Werewere, △Pukauae=, =△Hikairo, ◯Urumawake=, ◯Parehiawe=, =◯Hourua, △Paoro, △Paeahi, △Te Oro, △Te Ahooterangi, ◯Te Moko, ◯Parepaoro=△Purangataua, ◯Te Mihinga, ◯Rangimahora, △Hikairo, △Tangimoana, △Te Waharoa, △Wiremu Tamihana, △Pukauae=, =◯Hourua, △Te Umukiwhakatane=(1) ◯Parengaope (2)=△Te Ahooterangi, ◯Te Moko=△Tumu, △Puku=, =◯Te Mihinga, △Whakamarurangi, ◯Rangimahora, △Muriwhenua, △Hikairo, △Irohanga, △Te Riunui, △Maungatautari, △Whakamarurangi, △Te Weu

- xiv Page is blank

- xv
Family tree. △Whatihua (2)=◯Apakura, △Marumahanga=◯Tuimete, △Pikirangi===, =△Tuihu, ◯Ngamuriwai=, △Te Aotutahanga, △Rakamona, △Puhiawe, △Huritake, △Taraao, △Kaweipepeke, △Ngaatuangauerua, △Whatitiri, △Ngatuerua, △Tiriwa, ◯Kirianu, △Rakamahanga, ◯Waitawake, △Tutengangana=, =◯Waikauhoe, △Tuawhio, △Tuheretaniwha, =△Tamataitai=, =△Taikiterangi, △Whakatau, ◯Tumarouru=△Tamatea, =◯Hikamoeawa, ◯Urumawake=, △Tukemata, △Hikairo, ◯Whaeapare, ◯Paretaheke=△Paeahi=, ◯Paretaheke, =◯Kuiatu, △Puku=, =◯Te Mihinga, ◯Rangimahora=△Te Wawahanga, △Hikairo, ◯Paretewa, ◯Paretaiko, ◯Te Kaahurangi, △Whakamarurangi, △Te Rauangaanga=◯Parengaope, △Te Kanawa, △Te Weu=◯Kirianu, △Te Wherowhero, △Paeahi=◯Paretaheke, △Pakaruwakanui=, =◯Pareteuaki, ◯Ngunu, △Tokohihi=◯Paretewa, △Te Rauangaanga=◯Parengaope, △Te Paewaka, △Te Wherowhero, △Te Kanawa=, =◯Whaeapare, ◯Paretekawa, =△Whati, =(2)◯Ngunu (1)=, △Hore (2)=, △Te Uaki, △Peehi Tukorehu

- xvi Page is blank

- xvii
Family tree. △Tuhianga, △Poutama=◯Panirau, △Haumia, ◯Te Kura=△Uenukuterangihoka, △Mango, △Kaihamu, △Te Urutira, ◯Raruaioio=△Tupahau=, △Rueke, △Karewa, ◯Karewarewa=△Te Ariari, △Maniapoto=◯Hinemania, △Tahinga=◯Potete, =◯Hineteao, △Korokino, △Rakaupango, △Manukipuriore, △Tuhorotini, ◯Koata=△Pakaue, ◯Mananaki=△Toarangatira=, △Kawharu=, ◯Waikohika=△Te Kanawa, ◯Kahupake, =◯Waikauri, =◯Parehounuku, ◯Rakahuru=△Marangaiparoa, =◯Tirapurua, △Te Maunu, △Kimihia, △Te Haunga=, △Werawera, △Pikauterangi, △Rakaherea=, =◯Waitohi, △Toitoi, △Te Rauparaha, △Rangihaeata, △Te Peehi Kupe

- xviii Page is blank

- xix
Family tree. ◯Paratai=(1) △Mahanga (2)=, △Kieraunui, ◯Tukotuku, ◯Waitawake=△Tutarawa, △Ruateatea, △Wahangaterangi, ◯Parekiteiwi, △Te Tauorangiriri, △Atutahi, △Whenu=◯Hinemotuhia, △Kuku, (◯Tini), △Ngamurikaitaua=◯Puruhi, △Te Keteiwi=, △Koroki, △Taakiao, ◯Parewhakahau, =◯Hinemata, ◯Ruru=△Korako, △Rangapu, ◯Puakirangi, ◯Koata=△Ngaere=◯Hekeiterangi, △Waeganui, ◯Koata=△Pakaue, △Te Manaoterangi=◯Tini, △Kawharu, △Te Wehi, ◯Ngauru=△Uetawhiti

Kuku, son of Parekiteiwi, is supposed to be the same Kuku that married Kahuroro and Tomirikura (Chart XIII). This seems unlikely if not impossible. It will also be noted that Te Manaoterangi married two sisters, Tini and Waipaia, sisters of Kuku, and also generally supposed to be daughters of Parekiteiwi. It is not to be supposed that a man could marry full sisters of his great-grandmother, so there must be a mistake here. Probably Kuku, Tini and Waipaia belong to another family not recorded, and Tini and Waipaia were transferred with Kuku when he was confused with the earlier man of the same name.

- xx Page is blank

- xxi
Family tree. ◯Tukotuku=△Tamainupo, =(2), △Tawhaki, △Whakakahu, △Te Huatahi, △Te Mahihi=◯Parehukinga, =△Te Ahitamau, ◯Te Motungakitewhiti=, =(3) △Wairere, △Maramatutahi, △Hanui, △Tuteiwi=, =◯Mataterangi, △Te Rei=, =◯Parewhakahau, △Korako=◯Ruru, ◯Kahurere=△Koroki=◯Tumataura, △Hape, △Haua, (1)=, △Whenu=◯Hinemotuhia, △Te Keteiwi=, =◯Hinemata, △Ngaere, ◯Mataterangi, △Mamaku, △Te Manaoterangi=◯Tini, △Uetawhiti=◯Ngauru, △Huaki, △Kuraataiwhakaea, ◯Atairangihaahu=△Tawhia, ◯Tukotuku, =(1) △Wairere (3)=, △Whenu, △Maramatutahi=, △Te Keteiwi=, =◯Hinemata, ◯Mataterangi=, -?-, △Tuteiwi=◯Pahoro, △Takupu, =◯Paretahuri, △Mahuta=◯Kiringaua, △Paoa (2)=, =△Tuteiwi, ◯Hinemata

- xxii Page is blank

- xxiii
Family tree. △Tuteiwi=◯Pahoro, △Takupu, ◯Ngamuriwai, ◯Waikauhoe, ◯Umuroa, ◯Kiringaua, ◯Paretahuri, △Mahuta=◯Kiringaua, =△Paoa=, △Horotakere=△Karewa=◯Huapiri=△Uerata=◯Tamirangi, =◯Mahuripounamu, ◯Te Tikiorereata, △Huakatoa, △Rangapu, ◯Puakirangi=, ◯Koura, ◯Hinemata, ◯Hikamoeawa, △Ngaere, ◯Rangihoto, △Wharetipete, ◯Hourua, △Tapaue, ◯Ngauru=△Uetawhiti, ◯Pareuetawhiti=△Te Putu, ◯Huiarangi=△Hikaurua, ◯Huiarangi=△Te Kiriwai, =◯Tirapurua, △Te Haunga=△Tawhia, ◯Kopa, ◯Te Kaahurangi=△Tuata, △Whakamarurangi=◯Te Rarangi, △Te Rauangaanga, △Te Weu, △Te Wherowhero

- xxiv Page is blank

- xxv
Family tree. △Tupahau, △Huiao, △Te Ariari=◯Karewarewa, ◯Potete=△Tahinga, △Tuwhakahautaua, △Whaturoto, △Karewa=◯Huapiri, △Hua, △Huirae, =(1) △Paoa, ◯Te Tikiorereata, △Tarapeka=◯Parekaka, ◯Tauhakari=, ◯Te Tahuri===△Te Ikamaupoho, ◯Koura, △Kiwi Tamaki, ◯Kahutoroa=△Tautini, =(1) △Kuku (2)=(2)◯Tomirikura (1)=△Takapuangana, =◯Kahuroro, △Tumu=, △Te Ahooterangi=, =◯Te Moko, =◯Te Rawhatihoro, △Puku=, =◯Te Mihinga, △Hikairo

- xxvi Page is blank

- xxvii
Family tree. KOURA, RURU., ◯Koura=, △Korako=◯Ruru, =△Waenganui, △Mataumoeawa, ◯Parehiawe, △Putuna=◯Rangihoto, =△Hotumauea=, ◯Ngahia=△Hikaurua, =△Pakaruwakanui, ◯Pareteuaki=, ◯Waitao=△Whanui, △Tukeria=, ◯Paretewa=△Tokohihi, ◯Kahutiari=△Irohanga, =◯Paretaiko, △Maungatautari, ◯Parengaope=△Te Rauangaanga, △Te Kanawa, △Te Wherowhero

- xxviii Page is blank

1   Piddington 1951:117, 119.
2   Smith 1904.
3   Roberton 1954.
4   Smith 1904:22.
5   op. cit.: 23.
6   Kelly 1949.
7   Kelly 1949.
8   Batley 1950:63; 1954.
9   Wetere 1948.